These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.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.
> > I would be very interested to hear about various people's encounters with > Scratch. Its a terrifically interesting enterprise that xmca o philes > should > a variety of equally interesting > opinions about. > > mike > > Scratch uses smalltalk. I found this page interesting: http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/Squeak_Tutorial I've had a quick look at Scratch. It looks like a GUI language for animating 'sprites'. Looks fun. I'm familiar with Alan Kay's Squeakland. I think the entry time (entry level) is more significant with Squeakland -- the interface is more abstract. Though this also gives much more depth of expression and creation. The Squeakland depth seems like a good intermediary between Scratch and vanilla smalltalk. I suspect kids would struggle to get beyond the immediate limits of Scratch. Is there a meta-scratch too for adding their own functions? Though perhaps the idea is that when they know what a function they expand into other programming languages? Huw > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Bill Kerr <billkerr@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The constructionist use of computers in schools as developed by Seymour > > Papert and allies is still a fruitful one. The modern incarnation of the > > software is scratch from MIT http://scratch.mit.edu/ but it remains true > > that to understand its educational philosophy fully you need to read some > > books. One idea is "hard play". Another is "low entry, high ceiling". > This > > was modified a little in scratch to "low floor, wide walls". > > > > Moreover, the one laptop per child (OLPC) as developed by Negroponte and > > allies remains a worthwhile experiment to kick start learning for third > > world children. > > > > Peter, all the link shows is that mediocre use of computers leads to > > mediocre results. > > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2011/10/26/schools-without-computers-by-choice-and-conviction-that-they-dont-help-kids/?cxntfid=blogs_get_schooled_blog > > > __________________________________________ > > > _____ > > > 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 > __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca