“Children who grow up with the opportunity to explore the jungles and the cities and the deep oceans and ancient myths and outer space will be even less likely than the players of video games to sit quietly through anything even vaguely resembling the elementary-school curriculum as we have known it up to now.” Papert, […]
Q: What is the point of having a curriculum? A: “I think there’s not only no point in it, but that it does incredible harm. It turns the teacher into a technician whose job is to hand out facts, not someone who’s in a human relationship with students, someone whose job it is to help
“The phrase “computer literacy” has such a devalued meaning by now that its almost impossible to rescue it. Ive been using the term “technological fluency.” I dont think we have language yet for talking about the kind of knowledge people have about or through these new technologies. Say someone is fluent in French. This doesn’t
“Literacy refers not just to being able to read, but to having taken in a whole culture around reading, a culture which usually comes through reading. With multimedia, the role of the written word may become much less important. In the future I suspect we will be less likely to associate people who are educated
“By asking questions such as: “What’s the best way to teach science,” there’s an implication that there’s a single entity that can make that decision. It’s not like that, maybe never was.” Moore, A. (1998) Seymour Papert quoted in archived article, Targets Hit, Targets Missed — Seymour Papert, chronicling his speech at the October 1998
“Games never advertise as being easy; rather, how difficult. Kid never say schools is too hard; they say it’s boring. Yet we still insist on “making it easier.” Game designers know that if games aren’t hard, they will go out business. Well, curriculum designers must make it easy to get through, to encourage more curriculum
“Information technology is the wrong name, and leads to its misuse. The fact that you can get a lot of information out of the Net is NOT merely what it’s about. Most digital technologies — processors and chips, for example — are not about information at all. They are constructional medium…we make things from them.
Today’s feature is a very special addition to The Daily Papert. It is not by Seymour Papert, but is about some of his most important work, the invention of the Logo programming language for children. In 1967-68, few others imagined putting computational power in the hands of children. Two of those visionaries are honored here.
We describe four major milestones in our development: 1. In the late sixties we recognized that while computers have tremendous potential for use in education, the technology of that time was marginally effective and too expensive. We consequently adopted a strategy of preparing for a future which has now arrived 2. For the first half
“We don’t know how to make an alternative intellectual diet for children. We do not have this experience, it is not what our researchers in education are trained to do, nor even our teachers. And this is something we need to put more resources into and this we need to see as a goal.” Papert,