These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.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.
On 26 October 2011 22:25, Linda Polin <linda.polin@pepperdine.edu> wrote: > why does the discussion of constructivism jump us to programming (Papert, > aside for the moment). > I think we value the material revealed by these jumps. Someone had a thought and shared it. Programming is part of a domain of articulated intentionality, of penetrating reality. The issue with simplified environments is the minimal penetration. One is limited to a scope that was designed for. The spirit of programming goes beyond this to a deeper appreciation of processes. > there are some terrific possibilities in significantly more playful spaces, > e.g., Minecraft and Arduinos: > > Minecraft goes from a sort of virtual Lego buiding experience > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWJqCWetH-c&feature=relmfu > > ... to logic gates and advanced construction of working machines. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB684ym3QY4 > > Arduinos involves very simple programming as well, but it is a more > tangible interface, literally: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xCY2K9kQz4 > > Embedded systems for kids. :) Lego mindstorms is worth a look too. Huw > > Lindax > > ps > anyone going to Minecon in Vegas? > > On Oct 26, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > >> > >> 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 > > __________________________________________ > _____ > 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