Constructivism versus Constructionism

The difference between constructivism and constructionism, from what I see, is more "What is the nature of truth" If you believe that truth is absolute and use context to bring a learner to an understanding... you´re constructivist. If you consider truth as subjective or even in evolution and use context to interpret encouraging reinterpretation ... you´re constructionist. Or is it the other way around? The texts seem to be contradictory as far as terminology. (see below)

Constructivism versus Constructionism? In the end I think the terms themselves are less important than the idea that our reading of the world, what we think of as truth is not "cut and dry". I actually prefer to think that truth IS absolute but beyond what we can conceive and therefore "our truth" seems to change because our reading is never complete. But THAT is not what we are discussing here. Or is it?

The Internet opens up an ever growing immensity of information that is in constant evolution. We will be overwhelmed; we will question, and be questioned as will our students. Dealing with that is an ability that we need to develop. That is multiliteracy.


Excerpts of two texts that seem to me to be contradictory.

Donna E. Alvermann quoting Gavelek and Raphael’s (1996) http://www.coe.uga.edu/lle/faculty/alvermann/multilit.pdf

"...[A social constructionist perspective] has the potential to shift our focus on talk about text away from seeking ‘facts’ or ‘truths’ toward constructing ‘interpretations’ and offering ‘warranted justifications’ for interpretations...."

"...Textual meaning is not ‘out there’ to be acquired: it is something that is constructed by individuals through their interactions with each other and the world. (p. 183)"

Lloyd Rieber
"What is really true? " http://it.coe.uga.edu/%7Elrieber/constructlesson.html

"... a constructivist teacher is more concerned about the meanings that his/her students have about content and seeks to use these meanings as the seeds for greater understanding. A constructivist teacher knows that "teaching" is really a misnomer -- one cannot really teach something to somebody else (a la pouring information into somebody's head). In a sense, individuals teach themselves in a social context. Instead, a teacher's responsibility is to facilitate learning by providing lots of interesting opportunities for meanings to be formed, shared, and discussed."

"...the concept of "viability versus truth," because many ideas are viable in the everyday world and ought to be taught. Another good example is Newton's laws of motion. These are still viable, even though they are no longer considered "true" by physicists, because they have practical uses. ..."