On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Bill Kerr <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Walter Bender <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Bill Kerr <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > however, I do think the roll back of enlightenment principles is not >> > well >> > understood (http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/nonUniversals) and >> > that a >> > better understanding might persuade more people of the need to keep >> > searching and struggling for different ways to go against some of the >> > tide >> > of local culture - there is a recent interesting comment thread on mark >> > guzdial's blog which is worth reading from this point of view >> > http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3F4TMBURELZZK >> > >> >> Regarding Guzdial's blog, I am optimistic. While I had always feared >> that "phone culture" would turn us into a society of consumers of >> services that Ma Bell chose for us; but the iPhone and the Android are >> programmable and, while Apple is the iPhone gatekeeper, the meme that >> phones can be programmed is spreading. This is a huge step forward. > > I'd also point out that there are some other great themes in the mark > guzdial comments thread, eg. the difficult question of the need to transcend > a marketing approach (dialogue b/w mark guzdial and alan kay) > > I've recently had some striking experiences from a couple of people - both > huge mac fans - who I thought perversely avoided anything to do with > programming, including visual drag and drop using scratch or even raw HTML > markup > > The Guzdial blog helped me make the connection - that the mac way does in > fact brainwash people to the mentality that everything is perfect, beautiful > and shiny as it comes packaged to you, that there is an app for everything. > > Although I find that most students will accept "simple" challenges such as > scratch programming and become absorbed in them this minority(?) trend does > worry me - Guzdial's blog is pretty much devoted to the theme of how induce > more students into programming in view of the trend to falling enrolments in > programming courses (in Australia too, as well as the USA) > > I then thought of some notes I made a couple of years ago after reading John > Maxwell's history of the dynabook > (http://thinkubator.ccsp.sfu.ca/Dynabook/dissertation): > http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/alanKay+talk > > What sort of user interface is suitable for learning? > > We have become very used to a certain style of user interface, one which is > “user friendly” and which gives us access to the function of the computer. > The user friendly user interface has been designed by experts to not demand > too much of the end user. Some systems take this a step further and actively > discourage the user from becoming curious about how things work under the > hood. > > It is not just a matter of “user friendly”, in itself that is not serious > grounds for complaint. It is the idea of users as users of clearly defined > applications that have been developed by “experts”. In large part this state > of things has arisen through commercialisation. A marketable commodity > requires a clear definition. So proprietary applications are developed as a > black box as an expression of “efficient software engineering”. In this > commercial vision the “personal computer” is not really personal because > most of its interfaces have been standardised which transforms the actors > into docile agents who respond in predictable ways to stimuli. > > “my life belongs to the engineers ... we hesitate to exist” (Latour) > “The self evident state of the art blinds people to other possibilities” > (Andy diSessa) > > If you start from a more philosophical perspective of amplifying human > reach, of computer as a meta medium for expressing the creative spirit then > the attitude to the user is different. The user, as well as being a user, is > also a potential constructionist designer and developer who eventually will > be able to create their own tools. So, the tools for exploring the system > should be powerful and easily accessible. This is one of the features of > Smalltalk. > > The ethic is one of mutability and simplicity. Every component of a system > is open to be explored, investigated, modified and built upon. The tool / > medium distinction is blurred and so is a lot of other false clarity. Rather > than a world of reified “experts”, “engineers”, “designers”, “end-users”, > “miracle workers” and “plain folks” it would be better to blur these > boundaries, particularly for learning environments. >
Elliott Soloway summed it up nicely: Learning-centric design should be our goal. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
