Fall, 2001

Papert and Parents The Connected Family:  Bridging the Digital Generation Gap
Gladys Swindler

     Seymour Papert, mathematician and artificial intelligence pioneer, addresses parents’ fears concerning their children’s fascination with computers in his latest book, The Connected Family: Bridging the Digital Generation Gap (1996). As the new millennium unfolds, increased dependence on digitized information as a supplemental learning source mandates that parents understand how the computer becomes an integral part of a child’s learning process and necessitates the integration of this “knowledge machine” into a family learning culture (1996, p. 80).  

     Papert’s writing style in The Connected Family (1996) is easily understood by parents regardless of their educational background. In his conversation with parents, he simplifies his constructionist approach to learning (pp. 45-47), explains bricolage (p.86), exposes the powerful social forces of change facing School (pp. 163-167), and discusses his three-stage model of learning (p. 193).  

     Constructionism In Piaget’s constructivism, derived from the teachings of Vygotsky, “knowledge is not transmitted, it is constructed” (Papert, 1990, p.8). Construction takes place in the mind of the learner and, from this construction, one learns, or creates, new knowledge. The new knowledge is intangible – created within one’s head. Therefore, it is not personally meaningful. Papert extends Piaget’s teachings to theorize that learning occurs only when the new knowledge is tangible – created outside of one’s head. In this way, new knowledge becomes personally meaningful (p.8).  

     In traditional theories of learning, the teacher transmits knowledge to a student. Note that the teacher is the active participant in the process while the student remains in a passive state. However, people learn by actively constructing new knowledge rather than passively receiving facts that are funneled to them via traditional, Instructionist teaching methods. Papert’s constructionism further expands the psychological tenets of Piaget and Vygotsky by theorizing that learning occurs when the building of new knowledge becomes tangible and personally meaningful (Papert, 1990, p.8).  

     Since School traditionally subscribes to Instructionist theory; “to get better education, we must improve instruction. And if we’re going to use computers, we’ll make the computers do the instruction” (Papert, No Date, p.1). Unfortunately, that is why most computers in School are used for nothing more than computer-aided instruction-- drill and practice. The power of the computer to engage children in the meaningful construction of knowledge is foregone in favor of electronic flashcards.  

     Bricolage Discovery is paramount in constructionism. Papert and Turkle (Papert, 1993, p. 131) coined the term bricolage (tinkering) as “a style of organizing work that can be described as negotiational rather than planned in advance” (p. 200). Bricolage is inherent in Papert’s constructionism and violates the hierarchical sequence of obtaining knowledge that characterizes traditional theories of learning. However, bricolage is the key to discovery.  

     Papert delights in using anecdotes to relay his theory of learning and his work is permeated with “stories” about children constructing knowledge. Anyone is in the company of very young children has witnessed bricolage although may not have recognized its occurrence. Consider the following experience:  

     Trevin, a vivacious, energetic two-year-old spent the day at Grandma’s house. Mommy failed to remember to bring Trevin’s entourage of toys and Grandma found herself in a dilemma while trying to entertain Trevin. She found a box of old, wooden spools and encouraged her inquisitive grandson to play with them. Trevin regularly plays with building blocks and LEGOS; but he had never seen, or played with, cast-off wooden spools. After discovering that spools spilled all over the floor when dumped, he curiously picked the spools up – one at a time – and found that they lined up neatly in a single row right in the center of the floor. Trevin also found that the spools rolled after accidentally knocking several over. So, why not line the spools up on their sides and make a rolling train of spools? At this point, an excited, “See Grandma! A choo-choo!” came from the floor. The newness wore off quickly and Trevin discovered that he could stack spools on top of each other. Two, three, four, or even five spools were stacked neatly next to each other. He had created a geometric shape that he thought looked like a mountain. By now, the intrigue of the mysterious spools wore thin and his last discovery revealed that a swift kick with his little foot brought his entire “mountain” down all over the floor.  

     Trevin experienced discovery and constructed new knowledge by creating something tangible through the process of bricolage in his “learning experience”. Through trial and error, or tinkering, he was able to create tangible knowledge about what one can do with empty spools. This elementary example of Papert’s principle illustrates what children can and will do when left alone to discover. Many times, parents fail to realize that supposedly idle hours at a computer may be times when their children are engaged in meaningful learning experiences.  

     School and the Forces of Change In The Connected Family, Papert notes that “computer” suggests “fast”, yet the imminent revolution in education has failed to transform School (1996, p. 153). He cites microchanges such as using word processing and on-line searches that have assimilated into School cultures, but calls for megachange in the vision of what School should strive for in a digital world (p. 156). Medicine, telecommunications, entertainment, and transportation have undergone megachange as a result of digitization. However, School has resisted change (p.156). Megachange will come to School when the educational bureaucracy grasps the idea that digital technology allows students to engage in more challenging, complex, sophisticated projects spanning weeks, months or years – instead of semesters. This transformation allows children to access knowledge “when they need it instead of when a curriculum says they should get it” (p.160). Hence, children progress at their rate of discovery of knowledge without being subject to School’s grade levels and pre-packaged curriculums.  

     Social forces of change are apparent and challenging School by exerting pressure for documented reform. In The Connected Family, Papert identifies the forces for change as follows: Powerful Industry Corporate pressure exerted by powerful, technologically advanced companies will exert pressure on School to change its modus operandi in preparing students to compete, work and survive in an Information Economy. Big business will not hesitate to inject large financial resources into School if skilled knowledge workers are the end product (1996, p. 163). Learning Revolution Papert envisions this revolution as a shift in how people think about learning. Using a metaphor of School as a corporation, it is easy to understand that a massive re-engineering is mandated to change the “corporate” structure. However cultures, like people, resist change and attempt to cling to known behaviors. “Learning is the key to hange” (1996, p.166). School must accept the learning process as ongoing. It does not stop upon graduation in an information society. Instead, children must prepare to be lifelong learners if they wish to succeed in a digital world. “The only competitive skill over the long haul is skill at learning” (1996, p.167). Child Power By allowing children to experience new ways to learn, such as using computers at home, parents support their children as “agents for change in School” (1996, p.167). Strong family learning cultures offer new opportunities to learn and grow-- to experience bricolage. Children are allowed to rediscover their innate curiosity, to ask questions, and to challenge teachers who have refused to adapt their philosophies of teaching and learning (1996, p. 167).  

     Three-Stage Learning Model By nature, children are inquisitive and questioning. Why is the sky blue? Why does it get dark at night? How do the stars stay in the sky? Pre-school children have an inexhaustible arsenal of questions—questions about all the unexplored areas of their simple domains. Knowing adults provide the answers.  

     When does curiosity start to wane? Does School quash the thirst for knowledge that is inherent in the young child? Does School, as we know it, constrain and define parameters of accepted behavior that stifles the natural curiosity of children? Do the “rules” of formal education forbid children to ask “Why?” and discourage further exploration? Are seven or eight class periods a day sufficient to spew forth all the “knowledge” children must learn to survive in a digital world? When should they explore and discover?  

     “Children love to learn until they are taught otherwise” (Papert, 1996, p.51). The rules, regulations, and standards imposed by formal education do not allow children to color “outside the lines” and dabble in the world of discovery. Perhaps coloring “inside the lines” creates a safety zone for teachers who choose not to continue learning and accepting new ways of teaching and imparting knowledge. If so, School, in its present rigidity, assures that children do not encroach the safety zone.  

     In The Connected Family, Papert advocates examining our society’s commitment to the “three R’s” and the present system of equating grade levels and other assessment values of knowledge. He does not dispute the value of children being able to read and write. Rather, he disputes whether “the priority we give to the R’s will continue to make sense as other media for access to knowledge become available” (1996, p.192). Instead, he advocates a three-stage model of relationships with knowledge that relate to a digitized learning culture. He focuses on control of the learning in each stage and explains how parents can help, hinder, and understand their child’s learning process while incorporating supportive measures, within the home, that condone a learning culture.  

     The first stage of Papert’s model focuses on nonverbal, home-style learning that takes place in the first three years of a child’s life. This is the exploratory stage, the questioning stage, and the inquisitive stage. Learning experiences are experiential in nature. Control of knowledge is in the learner’s (child’s) hands and is not constrained by the confines of formal education and the rules of School (1996, p.193).  

     In stage two, learning gradually becomes more formalized in nature and School enters the child’s domain. School takes over by instilling the knowledge of formal education. The willingness of adults to teach, or explain, shifts the control of knowledge from the child to the authority figure (teacher) in this largely verbal stage. Also, it is in stage two where the reading and writing skills of the learner become the key for success. Why? The teacher cannot deliver all knowledge through lecture (verbal). Therefore, students are forced to learn a portion of the information on their own and it is critical that the skills of reading and writing be learned and reinforced (1996, p.193).  

     Understand that the knowledge that is learned in stage two is not discouraged because it is the very knowledge that allows children to transit into stage three of Papert’s learning model. The reading and writing skills gleaned from stage two sets the criteria for progression to the next stage of learning—a stage where, once more, knowledge is under the learner’s control. Knowing how to read ignites the exploratory, questioning stage experienced as a toddler, once again. The child seeks to be in control of new knowledge and actively creates discoveries that are personally meaningful (1996, p.193). Computers, multimedia, and new sources of information allow this stage to continue throughout the life of the learner.  

     Implications Throughout his book, Papert addresses the multitude of fears that parents have about their children’s love affair with computers and encourages parents to discover with their children by creating a family learning culture that embraces bricolage and self-discovery. He supports family learning cultures with timely tips, advice, and demonstrations at The Connected Family website and provides parents with sources to obtain further information and assurance about the learning opportunities afforded by the Knowledge Machine. Reading The Connected Family is time well-spent.  

     Papert, S. (1990, September). A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future [Online]. Available: http://www.papert.com/articles/ACritiqueofTechnocentrism.html  [Downloaded April 30, 2000].

     Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer.New York: Basic Books.

     Papert, S. (1996).  The connected family: Bridging the digital generation gap.  Atlanta, GA: Longstreet Press.  

     Papert, S.  (No date).  Constructionism vs. instructionism.   [Online].  Available: http://www.papert.com/articles/const_inst/const_inst1.html   [Downloaded April 30, 2000].