Forum: The sequel

Date: 10-24-2005 18:40

Author: Fincher, Bridgette 

Subject Papert, Pluralism and a GRIPE!

Over the last week or so, I have found myself becoming more and more prickly by what I have read in the book, articles and by some of the conversation in the last TI. I know that a great deal that rings true in the reads. The whole idea of bricolage and learning needing a real emotional component and exploration for it to stick...as Josh stated in his post. For me it was a real Venus/Mars kind of moment in the gender pluralism article when I read "Men see a hierarchy of autonomous positions. Women see a web of interconnections among people. Men can be with the computer, content that it leaves them alone, even isolated, within a larger organization. When women see computers demanding separation from others, they perceive the machines as dangerous."  I would conjecture that there are as many men who are "mathphobic" and disenfranchised by what they perceive the computer doing and visa versa with woman loving the isolation so being a bit leery to make such overt generalizations, the fact that there were multiple viewpoints being identified by Papert via Gilligan was an eye-opener. He seems to be VERY assured about his position.  My irritation steps from the fact that, as far as my limited exposure thus far has been, that he strikes the same key...Lego, Lego, Lego. Lego has a lot going for it, even I in my funk, freely give the devil...er... Lego its due. (;.>) Yet, he says, "Computers should serve children as instruments to work with and to think with, as a means to carry out projects and as a source of concepts to think of new ideas." If conceptually, his computing philosophy encompasses so much and is so well thought out, why does the execution of the philosophy seem to encompass such a limited...as in small amount, not in power...medium? What about the other options out there that offer children the same kind of exploration? Has Papert addressed this and I am just being clueless to the fact that he has? Or am I just being "soft" ?

Forum: The sequel

Date: 10-25-2005 15:36

Author: Swank, Micheal <micheal.swank@pepperdine.edu>

Subject Re: Papert, Pluralism and a GRIPE!

Well I agree with the sort of sexist assertiveness of Papert's statements as a person who does not fall into his neat categories. I also played with dolls as a child and was teased constantly. Take that Papert!

"Computers should serve children as instruments to work with and to think with, as a means to carry out projects and as a source of concepts to think of new ideas."

I understand the confusion here but I think he is relating this statement in the context of his own experience. Considering his relationship to Logo and his place in the field of education again in relation to Logo. What else can one expect? Context is very important here because it allows me to see his ideas in a larger picture of my own practice. That is where the value is in examining his work for me.

Forum: The sequel

Date: 10-25-2005 18:38

Author: Fincher, Bridgette <bridgette.fincher@pepperdine.edu>

Subject Maybe it is the Why Not the How that is Important

Thanks for the bouncing of ideas on this one, guys. For me, Lego-centric view of world continues to bother me. I did appreciate that Papert acknowledged the fact that he had very different world views than Suppes (CAI) and Kemeny (BASIC) and discussed his divergence of thought from those two. Seems like there is a real difference stems from field that computers are used rather than the gender of the people using them. Perhaps it is choice of field that reflect the users different styles for usage. Regardless of gender, “hard” users embraced computers first because the first applications were mathematically based.  As more applications and technology advances were developed more styles could be encompassed. (One could argue the chicken and eggness of the last statement.) Regardless, teachers are drawn towards the communication aspect of computers because of the mesh with their world view. Which, synthesizes the core of my gripe, my world view about how to use a computer as a communication tool is as valid as others who use the computer for programming. Math is no better or worse than Language as a way to structure, communicate and interact with the world around us. There is difference but there is parity as well. Computing, and learning itself, is a big enough frontier to support multiple viewpoints. At least, one would hope.