<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 6/16/2020 7:40 AM, Hilaire Fernandes via Cuis-dev wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:90a0ba9d-f95d-095a-1ae8-322db01171a0@drgeo.eu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think that as tech people, we'd focus on building the supporting
software and hardware needed to make Dynabook media possible. Not so
much on how to use them. We are building the new printing press, we
are not educators, and we are not at school with kids.<br>
<br>
Then, instead of just rushing to give it to kids, we'd focus on
working with teachers on educators on understanding the new
possibilities, and how to design contents, activities and learning
processes that take advantage of them.<br>
<br>
Usually projects fail because they only do one of these two things.
Software that ignores teachers will never be adopted, and if it was,
it wouldn't improve learning much. Projects attempting to build, for
example, online teaching materials, have huge difficulties because
of the lack of decent technology to build upon.<br>
<br>
Hilaire, you are the most important kind of people here, as a
teacher that already understands software!<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:90a0ba9d-f95d-095a-1ae8-322db01171a0@drgeo.eu"
type="cite">
<p> </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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://drgeo.eu">http://drgeo.eu</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Juan Vuletich
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.cuis-smalltalk.org">www.cuis-smalltalk.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev">https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/jvuletich">https://github.com/jvuletich</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/juan-vuletich-75611b3">https://www.linkedin.com/in/juan-vuletich-75611b3</a>
@JuanVuletich</pre>
</body>
</html>