These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Huw Lloyd: > Seymour Papert drew attention to these systemic issues in "The Children's > Machine": the isolation of computing in schools as a means to prevent the > curriculum's remediation. The book is a mature revision of his original > efforts. > I recently reread Ch 8: Computerists. It says: In Artificial Intelligence (AI), my work with Marvin Minsky struggle against "logic" as the basis of reasoning and against all forms of "particulate" and "propositional" representation of knowledge (165) I thought this struggle against was too strongly put. It's not really dialectical, there needs to be some sort of interpenetration b/w logic and relationship. Note also the heading to chapter 7: Instructionism versus Constructionism. Why versus? It is better to look at the interplay b/w instructionism and constructionism. I then went back to Minsky's book Society of Mind and reread his Ch 18: Reasoning. He makes the case there that common sense is more robust than logic. But I didn't get the same sense of either / or that creeps into Papert's book. My own experience in teaching disadvantaged students was that it was better for the teacher to walk the whole continuum - all the way down to behaviourism and all the way up to constructionism. Papert is a beautiful writer but not all of his arguments are valid IMO, although many of them are. On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>wrote: > On 10 May 2012 10:02, Bill Kerr <billkerr@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com > > >wrote: > > > > > As I understand it view points research (Papert, Kay and others) are or > > > were involved in ways to scale teaching approaches (presumably > > > constructionist teaching approaches). > > > > > > Yes and that has continued with the one laptop per child project (OLPC) > > as > > well. But Alan Kay has pointed out > > (a) most teachers don't understand the ideas behind logo (or etoys) > deeply > > enough > > > > *Q: What have you found to be the greatest obstacle in your work?* > > A: I think the most difficult part is helping the helpers. Logo was a > great > > idea and it failed. It didn't fail because computers couldn't do Logo, > and > > it didn't fail because Logo software was bad. It failed because the > second > > and third waves of teachers were not interested in it as a new thing, and > > virtually none of them understood anything about mathematics or science. > > It's very hard to teach Logo well if you don't know math. ... > > http://www.squeakland.org/resources/articles/article.jsp?id=1004 > > > > > In the history of attempted pedagogic ideas I think it had a good many > successes. If it was a real failure we wouldn't know about it. There are > plenty of ecological circumstances to explore too with respect to the > survival or regeneration of these projects, such as Mike's ruminations in > Cultural Psychology. > > > Seymour Papert drew attention to these systemic issues in "The Children's > Machine": the isolation of computing in schools as a means to prevent the > curriculum's remediation. The book is a mature revision of his original > efforts. > > > > > > (b) no one has yet developed a computer user interface that could teach > > children to read in their native language > > > > It's an interesting thought experiment, but why is it necessary? > > In terms of a constructionist frame, reading would be something that one > does as part of a personally desired activity. Reading about how, what, or > why for instance. Having an online computer facilitates that. > > [...] > > It is considerations such as these that has caused me to look beyond the > > OLPC to a method that would work with the most disadvantaged group in > > Australia. > > > > Personally I wouldn't go anywhere near uptake without addressing question 1 > below. Q2 is more of an aside. > > 1. What kinds of communication and development can take place? What else > is being communicated? Is it really to their advantage? > > 2. How much of DI is an effort to realise a particular temperamental > (semiotically derived) preference (and therefore blindness)? The > wishfulness of "direct" seems quite strong and there are plenty of traps > that Zig looked like he was flirting with in the video I watched. > > Thanks for the good posts, Bill. I hope this is an additive. > Huw > > __________________________________________ > > _____ > > xmca mailing list > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca > > > __________________________________________ > _____ > xmca mailing list > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca > __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca