Abstract not found

By presenting two approaches to a well-known Piagetian experiment, the water-level task, I emphasize the importance of two complementary views of knowledge acquisition. The first is Piaget's developmental approach, often referred to as “stage theory, ” and the second, I call the “differential” approach. Stage theory captures what is common in people's ways of thinking at different levels of their cognitive development, while the differential approach captures what is different between individuals with similar cognitive abilities. Stage theory stresses the progressive de-contextualization of knowledge during ontogeny, while the differential approach provides a more situated perspective on knowledge construction. Finally, stage theory emphasizes the role of cognitive invariants in the structuring of local contexts, while the differential approach stresses the importance of local context in the construction of cognitive invariants. I suggest that integrating both perspectives helps illuminate the processes by which individual children make sense of their experience, gradually optimizing their interactions with the world.

The first part of this paper examines the differences between Piaget’s constructivism, what Papert refers to as“constructionism, ” and the socio-constructivist approach as portrayed by Vygotsky. All these views are developmental, and they share the notion that people actively contribute to the construction of their knowledge, by transforming their world. Yet the views also differ, each highlighting on some aspects of how children learn and grow, while leaving other questions unanswered. Attempts at integrating these views [learning through experience, through media, and through others] helps shed light on how people of different ages and venues come to make sense of their experience, and find their place—and voice—in the world. Tools, media, and cutural artifacts are the tangible forms, or mediational means, through which we make sense of our world and negociate meaning with others. In the second part of this paper, I speak to the articulations between make-believe activities and creative symbol-use as a guiding connection to rethink the aims of representations. Simulacrum and simulation, I show, play a key role besides language in helping children ground and mediate their experience in new ways. From computer-based microworlds for