My recent post about attending the CMK event in Reggio Emilia focused on the RE approach.
I want to now share the theme of ‘computational thinking’ and approaches to constructionism, as we heard, discussed and practiced while at CMK with and from Gary Stager and the CMK team.
What is computational thinking?
In simple terms, computational thinking is taking a step-by-step approach to a problem. One key proponent is Seymour Papert, pioneer for the constructionist movement and LOGO programming language, who shared how computational thinking can make one a better problem solver and that computational processes can lead to becoming a better thinker.
Learning.com provide a free information book to download about computational thinking that explores the four stages: Decomposition, Pattern recognition, Abstraction, and Algorithmic thinking.
In his new book, The Learner’s Apprentice: AI and the Amplification of Human Creativity, Ken Kahn refers to computational thinking in relation to Papert, and provides context for the use of AI, with a focus on chatbot creation.
In the words of Kahn…..
If students co-create apps without learning a programming language, have they lost the opportunity to acquire the associated powerful ideas or computational thinking skills? Perhaps. But for students who want to learn a programming language (or are assigned to do so), chatbots can be a great partner.
and…
Applying computational ideas when learning “concepts in psychology, linguistics, biology, and the foundations of logic and mathematics” can lead to a deeper under- standing of both the science and the computational ideas. I suspect that one can do this more broadly and thoroughly using chatbots than without them
What is Constructionism?
Constructionism is a learning theory that builds on Piaget’s Constructivism philosophy of education. It advocates for discovery learning and project-based learning approaches, participation and making connections between different ideas and areas of knowledge.
Kahn describes constructionism as, “… a pedagogical theory that views learning as an active, student-driven, project-based, exploratory, reflective, collaborative, and creative endeavor”, and treats it as the pedagogical grounding for using GenAI.
Fundamental aspects of constructionism were shared and ‘enacted’ at CMK. This involved a range of ‘technologies’ including, but not centred around AI. Another quote from Kahn,
Since the introduction of the Logo programming language in the mid-1960s, computer programming has supported constructionist learning, and chatbot conversations can now do the same. When executed well, both can support children’s creative projects. Software and other digital artifacts are infinitely malleable, while most other things that children create are difficult to fix when problems emerge, or to iteratively improve.
The following is a summary of notes taken during a session with Gary Stager at CMK.
The Language of Computation: Key Ideas
Gary’s talk focuses on computational thinking as a fundamental language that should be taught in schools, placing it alongside traditional literacy and numeracy. The core philosophy is that schools should introduce children to things they don’t yet know they love, with projects being the smallest unit of teaching concern rather than isolated skills or facts.
Educational Philosophy
Gary draws inspiration from several influential educational thinkers:
- Jean Piaget: Known for cognitive development theory and constructivism
- Seymour Papert: MIT mathematician who developed Logo programming language for children
- Loris Malaguzzi: Founder of Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education
- David Hawkins: Philosopher of science education
The central thesis is that “knowledge is a consequence of experience” – specifically authentic and rich experiences. This aligns with constructivist learning theories where children build understanding through active engagement rather than passive reception.
Computational Thinking as a New Language
Gary proposes computational thinking as a vital new language for children to learn. He points to the gap between academic mathematics and school mathematics, suggesting computation can bridge this divide.
He references Papert’s concept of “Mathland” – creating immersive environments where mathematical thinking becomes natural, similar to how children learn French by living in France. This approach aims to democratize mathematics through computation.
An important distinction is made between “digital” and “computational” – digital being merely the container, while computational represents deeper thinking processes. Programming is positioned as a “new liberal art” that gives children agency in an increasingly complex world.
Key Concepts in Teaching Computation
The “Stager standard” sets ambitious goals: 10% of student work should do something interesting, while 5% should create something never seen before.
Debugging is framed not as finding what’s “wrong” but asking “is it fixable?” – shifting from binary right/wrong thinking to problem-solving.
Gary questions how we can create K-12 computing curriculum when we don’t know children’s capabilities, arguing that “children are capable of surprising us” when given proper tools and freedom.
The presentation references Logo programming language (developed by Papert) as an early example of child-appropriate computational tools.
Beyond Traditional Education
Gary critiques traditional education, referencing Papert’s distinction between “literacy” (meaningful engagement with ideas) versus “letteracy” (superficial familiarity with symbols).
He argues that schools often infantilize children rather than engaging their natural “child-like” qualities – the same qualities found in creative mathematicians.
The “tipping point” in computational learning occurs when the computer begins working for the child rather than the child working for the computer (referencing Papert’s 1968 question: “does the computer program the child or the child program the computer?”).
Also mentioned is “beauty and whimsy in projects” as important elements, suggesting computation should engage aesthetic and creative dimensions alongside technical ones.
What did we do that was constructive, creative and empowering at CMK?
For a start I want to shout out to Richard Millwood from the UK who was an active co-constructor in a few of the groups I was in. He has written a reflective blog post about the week that you MUST READ. Here now is my overview of the many experiences we had. Remember, this was not an event/conference where we sat and listened to 15-30 minute sessions of colleagues sharing their research or practice! This was a breath of fresh air….we were challenged, and we had fun.
We made our Tagliatelle dinner on the first night!
This was at the Reggio Children centre, led by one of the chefs, and approached as an exploration, problem-solving activity.
We explored ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ with light
In a group of 5 we were assigned to a particular area or learning environment especially created by one of the ‘Atelierista’s’. Initially we were asked to research the affordances of the artefacts available (a camera, screens, torches, and many other bits and pieces) and provide key words for what we might do. The Atelierista’s reviewed our ideas determined our challenge to explore and demonstrate both fast and slow light.
We created a ‘book’ in the Remida Centre
The Remida Centre houses recycled materials of all sorts that members can take or use on the premises for projects. We explored the idea of a ‘book’ and as a group came up with something unique…of course. Images to the right show the FIVE artefacts we were asked to choose, then how we started to work on them, then the finished ‘book’ (also below).
We created a a robotic rooster!
Using the Hummingbird robotics kit, and the provocation that ‘the Easter bunny is sick, you have to deliver the eggs’ we worked as a new group to create…..a rooster and a basket (see right). The wing on the rooster flipped eggs into the basket – (sometimes!) – I made the rooster!
0 Comments