Ivan Krstić wrote: > [Sorry for the missing References headers; I was not previously > subscribed to edu-sig.] >
I am thankful of your response. Because it is a response, a communication. If we decide that the technology provides a new infrastructure for communication that can be harnessed, and then deem to communicate only with the like-minded, similarly experienced, and the onboard, i.e. "peers" - seems to me we are missing most of the point. An eResponse ;) seems to me a demonstration of the courage of your convictions. And it gives me hope that you will be precise in your use of words when discussing the educational ideas that interest you and that you are working for and toward. I had been fearing an "eLearning" feel-good session, and its a long trip from NY for that. If I disagree - and I well might I would at least like to have a precise idea of what I am disagreeing with, and why. How does OLPC avoid communicating that it is OK to *not* understand - in any meaningful sense - the tools one uses, to children who can't be expected to understand the working of these tools in any meaningful sense? ..is an attempt to express in a sentence where my concern lies. FWIW. Art _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
