Papert’s Four Ingredients for Interactive Design
Our Chef: Seymour Papert
Seymour Papert, who died last year at age 88, served as the voice of constructivism throughout the 1980’s and ’90s when it came to thinking about how children use technology to learn.
After collaborating with Marvin Minsky and Jean Piaget in the 1950s and ’60s, the computer scientist/mathematician became interested in exploring the use of technologies to help children build knowledge in a more involved, meaningful way.
His work led to such achievements as the Logo programming language and helped inspire the OLPC (One Laptop Per Child) project that supplied computers to underprivileged children. In 1980, he wrote the book “Mindstorms” dealing with how technology could benefit educational settings, and the Lego robotics system of the same name.
Constructionism
One of his key ideas was an idea he called “constructionism.”
In contrast to “instructionism” — the then-conventional method of telling students the ideas that one wants them to understand and leaving it at that — Papert wanted educators to give their students a way to put knowledge to practical use, to learn by making.
To hear him tell it at a video conference in the 1980s,
“I think part of the trouble with learning mathematics at school is that it’s not like mathematics in the real world. In the real world, there are engineers…there are scientists…there are bankers…But children, what can they make with mathematics? Not much. They sit in class and they write numbers on pieces of paper. That’s not making anything very exciting. So we’ve tried to find ways that children can use mathematics to make something — something interesting, so that the children’s relationship to mathematics is more like the engineer’s, or the scientist’s, or the banker’s, or all the important people who use mathematics constructively to construct something.” (Papert.org, “Constructionism vs. Instructionism Part 1: Teaching vs. Learning”)
All of his previously stated achievements let students immerse themselves in science, mathematics, computing and other important subjects in a way they could lay out for themselves, and in a way through which they could understand why the material mattered in the real world.
Researchers and students at MIT’s Media Lab, an institution that Papert founded, have long tried to keep in mind the specific principles that he engineered into his work in order to foster a constructionist atmosphere: Projects, Passion, Peers, and Play (outlined frequently by Mitchell Resnick) He knew it was important for learning to happen…
- By applying knowledge to some greater purpose and/or meaningful context.
- By connecting themselves with the things they loved to make and do;
- Together with friends and colleagues that had different strengths and quirks; and,
- In a manner that allowed them to experiment curiously and take risks.
If one looks carefully at the most successful media today, it makes sense that MIT came to such a conclusion — the games and applications that draw people in and leave a lasting impression are careful to incorporate these four philosophies.
Examples
Here are some examples — besides Scratch and Logo, where the the four Ps have been applied.
Let’s start with Minecraft (Mojang, 2011). Its Papert-like (and Lego-like) nature can especially be seen in “creative” mode, in which players have unlimited access to any kind of square block and can build to their heart’s content. Yet even in its more structured “survival” mode, the online sensation is constructionist. A player must go about broad tasks such as collecting resources, building tools, and making shelter in order to get by in a harsh environment, but they can do so by carrying out whatever projects they personally want to. Does the player want to make a brick house in the desert or carve an andesite room into a mountain? Do they want to make armor out of diamond or gold? Do they like to be sneaky and cast invisibility spells, or do they prefer to charge at monsters with brute force and drink strength potions to boot?
Each task requires specific “recipes” to be crafted, different materials to be harvested from different places in different ways, which leads players to complete countless kinds of projects, but which path they take is up to them and their curiosity. The adventure takes a lot of effort, but it’s in and of itself a reward — exactly the kind of “hard fun” Papert always referred to. Players also have access to a huge wealth of information built up by their peers, some more knowledgeable on certain subjects than others. If someone needs to know how to farm chicken eggs, kill a creeper, or make an automatic door with a redstone circuit, they can either ask someone directly or consult one of many guides. There’s an entire wiki page and forum dedicated to recipes, strategies and building techniques for Minecraft, and it’s full of like-minded peers helping each other to play.
While it capitalizes less than Minecraft on the potential of sandbox-style gaming, there’s also a lot to be said for Disney Infinity (Disney/Avalanche Software, 2013–2015). Not only does its Toy Box mode feature a colorful and varied array of “toys” with which players can build their own game levels and worlds, it features a simple-yet-intricate logic system that allows them to think carefully about which game mechanics they want to experience…and then apply them with a few swipes of what the game calls its “magic wand”. Toys can be hooked up to other toys to create logic chains and cause-and-effect systems, as childhood icons like Mickey Mouse and Princess Leia subtly yet brilliantly teach coding to children.
Link a switch to three color-changing blocks and you can make a traffic light. Link a speaker to a gate, and a horn will play when you win a race. If this, then that. It all depends on what sort of project you want to undertake.
The game’s multiplayer function admittedly never reached Papertian levels of collaboration during its manufacturing run, restricting online play to pre-made worlds when it finally rolled out after two years and only ever allowing two players locally. Infinity players could only experience a sense of community amongst their peers outside the actual game world, unlike Minecraft, in which any number of colleagues could adventure and build together. Also problematic from the start was a toys-to-life, pay-for-each-piece gimmick that left many consumers claiming Disney was more motivated by greed than a desire to enrich. Nevertheless, Infinity still helps players of all ages to build and learn their own way.
Granted, not every game that touts such a thing is so masterful at it. For example, Create (Electronic Arts, 2010) billed itself as the next Little Big Planet when it arrived in stores during the holiday season, complete with a trailer that promised endless customization options and numerous challenges to complete. The problem, as players quickly noted, was that none of it really affected the way they played. The set of quests to complete was rigidly structured, and the worlds in which they took place could only be changed on the surface with different textures. IGN said “You don’t get to build or edit anything — you’re merely decorating an existing space or building a solution from a preselected set of tools.” (Jongewaard)
It tried to appear constructionist as best it could when marketing itself to players, only to fail at delivering on that promise once they loaded the game. In Create, there is no possibility for players to determine their own project, to experiment with new ideas that fundamentally change the direction of their play, or even to collaborate with peers (there is no multiplayer function). It’s no wonder that no one seems to remember it now.
Nevertheless, there’s yet more hope in Bloxels (Pixel Press, 2016). The game-making system links the physical and the digital in an incredibly innovative way, consisting of a grid in which the player places colored blocks that represent different game mechanics. Once scanned with a mobile app, the layout that’s been constructed comes alive as a fully functional game room. The grid and app, together, also allow players to create their own characters, animations, and other touches that affect the kind of game the player makes. If they have a specific vision in mind for their game, they are given the freedom to work to bring it to life. They can easily do so with friends, too, since you don’t need a second $60 controller to be able to pick up blocks. Not only would Papert have loved to see this, I think Maria Montessori would have too — it gives a lot more to the hand than it gives to the mind.
Many smart interactive cooks have realized the power and potential when projects are infusing with the Papertian flavor of constructionism over the last several years, and although not everyone has gotten it right, it’s still resulted in some groundbreaking experiences.
Everyone is more engaged when they’re allowed to carve out their own way, and today’s technology has given them more potential to do so within the gaming space than ever before.
I think the experiences shown here would make Seymour proud — they illustrate that we’ve come a heck of a long way since Logo.
WORKS CITED
