<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><font size="+1">Hi Hernan,</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">Regarding doubts on the learning approaches I
wrote another note[1], it is more an abstract and there is no
much detail but it echos to the concerns you relate on your
message.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">I think you write it right. <br>
</font></p>
<blockquote><i><font size="+1">The "solution" must include both, the
children and the teachers... Maybe focusing more on the
teachers will help the childrens?</font></i></blockquote>
<p><font size="+1">I will add: observe the children and the
teachers, and deduce what is needed for them, not what we want.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">The Appolo program was engineered by scientists
educated with a traditional way, before the advent of
socio-constructivism. The big difference between then and now is
the proportion of educated children in the general population is
much more important and culturally more diverse. An effective
dynabook for education should address this diversity to be
compatible with as much learning model/way of teaching as
possible. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">We can say for sure, that since Alan Kay in the
'70, no dedicated hw+sw was designed for education. It looks
very odd if you think about it.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">Please, let's continue these exchanges.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">Hilaire<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">[1]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://blog.drgeo.eu/2018/07/the-dynabook-and-its-learning-models.html">https://blog.drgeo.eu/2018/07/the-dynabook-and-its-learning-models.html</a></font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 15/06/2020 à 23:51, Hernan Wilkinson
via Cuis-dev a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJAbP8iKw5AdxCUqFW+j+0NmVQp+j7ZpucgggAD193LvqMPzAw@mail.gmail.com">Hi
Hilaire,
<div> what you say in your post, that constructivism focuses on
the children and not the teacher, is a criticism I read a few
months ago about Logo and Papert's ideas, and I think they are
about right. (paper: Hackers, Computers, and Cooperation:</div>
A Critical History of Logo and Constructionist Learning)
<div><b> The "solution" must include both, the children and the
teachers... Maybe focusing more on the teachers will help the
childrens?</b></div>
<div> Also, not all children share the same interest about
science, art, reading and so on, so it is difficult to think of
a solution for all... for example, I'm not sure that teaching
programming to all kids is a good idea, it looks nice in theory
but I remember when we had programming classes at high school,
99% of the students did not care about it, did not understand
it, did not like it at all... the same with math for some group
of kids or biology for another group and so on.</div>
<div> I think sometimes we think a solution for all and that may
not exist, and sometimes I also think we are a little bit naive
about what teachers and students want...</div>
<div> Just a few words to add confusion to the matter :-)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
GNU Dr. Geo
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://drgeo.eu">http://drgeo.eu</a></pre>
</body>
</html>