PERSPECTIVE (Abstract)
By Seymour Papert
Epistemology and Learning Group, MIT
USA
- One way to make sense of something is by developing concepts for thinking about it. In the case of informatics in
education we need a lot of concepts: we need concepts for thinking about informatics, for thinking about
education and for thinking about the way the education world thinks about informatics in education. The third
group is especially important. One thrust of my lecture is that thinking on this subject suffers badly as a result of
weakness on this methodological “meta” level. The worst mistakes in thinking about the uses of computers in
schoolsÊcome from asking the wrong questions rather than from giving the wrong answers to the questions being
asked. Many “wrong questions” take the form of asking how much children learn from using a particular piece of
software. A better question is to ask what the particular piece of software means for the long term development of
the learning environment. Of course in the long run the “bottom line” is about what is learned. But what is learned
tomorrow by following a certain method can be a very bad indicator of what will be learned by following that
method for ten years. - Another way to make sense of something is to develop concrete “objects to think with”. From this point of view
Logo historically served two purposes. It was good for children (and others) to use. It also allowed many
educators to think more concretely and richly about the idea of programming. But many of these educators fell
short of the benefit to be gained in this way because they could see only one or two of the many forms Logo has
taken. I shall show how Sprite Logo, LogoWriter, Microworlds, Object Logo, “lego-Logo”, “star-Logo” are each
especially good for thinking about programming from different angles. - Yet another way to make sense of something is to find connections with other things. In education circles
“programming” is often taken to refer only to writing instructions for computers. But this does not do justice to
programming as a “powerful idea”. Connecting programming with ideas like “algorithm” widens it a little. But
real width requires connection with animal behavior, with genetic coding, with engineering principles, with
constitutional law etc., etc. These are not “analogies” to help children understand how to write computer
programs. They are fundamental ideas that have become central to late twentieth century thought. - A third way to make sense of something is to see how it evolved, to treat it historically. Many aspects of our
education system make no sense unless they are understood historically. (A good analogy are the QWERTY and
AZERTY arrangements of keys on a typewriter; they are not maintained because they are best, they are there
because of history.) The ways in which computers are used in schools must be understood similarly. - The historical approach is essencial to avoid confusion in discussing policy questions about the future of
computers in learning. For example, it is silly to engage in discussion about whether children “ought” to use
computer or whether they ought to use them for only a limited time. Historical trends in our society make it
inevitable that they will use them, they will use them most of the time they are doing any formal work. It is silly
to ask at what age they should start using them. They will start from the begining. It is inevitable that the
computer will eventually be the primary writing instrument in and out of schools. We have to learn to separate
historical trends from educational choices. Enormous energy is wasted on “research” or “evaluation” by people
who are under the illusion that they are making a choice. - Of course some choices are real. For my lecture I shall take as my main example the set of choices about what
kind of programming should be encouraged in informal life and built into “curriculum” for formal learning. But I
hope to end up showing that the choices are not what most people think they are. Inevitably people will ask me
whether this will be “Logo”. My answer is to ask a different question. Many years ago there was a baby that grew
up to be me. We usually say that the baby “was” me… but you probably would not recognize it if it were brought
here in my place in a time machine. Some of you might even complain to the organizers of the congress!
If you insist on a straight answer here it is: Yes, I think that Logo is a point – or rather a segment – in a historical trend
that will continue into the future. Should teachers continue using Logo? Yes, but only if they see as a phase in a
developing trend into the future and if they want to be themselves part of a trend into the future.