Palm Springs, California May 2000
NEEDS EDITING (and ends abruptly – sadly)
[00:00:00] Terry Cannings: Conference we had LA and Seymour Seymour was keynote speaker in 87 and 89. Seymour was again keynote speaker. So we’ve had a long affiliation with Seymour over the, uh, a number of years and I had a discussion this afternoon and we wanna extend that relationship. You may have heard about those points of light or that part of that, uh, network he’s putting together.
He mentioned the keynote speech this morning. Well is probably gonna be one of those universally, it’s gonna work with Seymour as well.
I venture to see what one of the things we would do over the next two months is again, looking at the whole notion of pre-service teacher education, where we’re focusing very heavily at the moment and looking at alternative ways of preparing pre-service teacher educators, but in alignment with the lab, school or other schools who wish to be affiliated with it.
And so come July, see what’s gonna come out again. And for those people who are interested in participating with us in that concept. We will need to Seymour for three or four hours that day and work out some details. So you may wanna think about it if you really want to become heavily involved in that kind of project and say, yes, we believe in what Seymour was talking about this morning.
We want practice that. We wanna implement that and talk to me because you can be part of that conversation on that day. So I think that’s very exciting. The other thing, you need to know what Seymour has given up to come here this afternoon. I didn’t know this until this afternoon. He had the opportunity of doing a direct flight from LA to Russia.
[00:01:23] Audience member: Oh, that’s,
[00:01:24] Terry Cannings: he gave up that direct flight to come here this afternoon and see how he’s on another flight tomorrow. It’s not a direct flight. You wanna thank him doing better?
He not, this is gonna be a few words more than it’s gonna be a q and a, so he just wants to hear what you are asking. John talk. Well, let’s have questions.
[00:01:47] Seymour Papert: What Q say? Well, thank you. I love being here and there’s lots of, some of you are known from all the states that Terry mentioned. Have lucky memories and some so to family better. So let’s have a question
provided
somebody must be able to
[00:02:15] Audience member: question.
[00:02:16] Seymour Papert: Gary, you.
Yes.
[00:02:21] Audience member: I’m so curious. What might you and Gary say in your top out over lunch
isn’t
[00:02:29] Seymour Papert: right up there? Are you rich? Well, is that clear? Gary can ask me that, but uh, I was ahead of that by some younger people. What did we talk about overnight? Well, we sort of had that, well, we did. What did we talk about? Uh. Mostly, I think we talked about, uh, how to keep the momentum going of the, this laptop thing.
I think that, uh, what we saw, what we saw in Maine with that, that outpouring of, of, of interest and debate and doesn’t much from people against it as people forward. I took those both as positive signs that somehow it touches a nerve in people’s thinking and people know that this is close to. Something important that’s happening.
I think that 10 years ago if a governor said, I want to give a kill laptop, nobody would take me. No. It’s not something they excited about. And if they hadn’t gotten excited about it negatively, I don’t think they would’ve gone through. People just ignored it. What made it go through in the end was that you got this outpouring of interest, including the negative, and people became involved and started thinking for the first time.
So Gary and I were talking about how to keep up that momentum and what to do about it, and we are thinking about writing a thing together called the laptop or something like that, that could present both a little bit, the history of various sorts of laptop ideas, how they’ve gone wrong and use it as.
Uh, that’s nice. What we talked about isn’t
so, but when we get together, we get, be pretty.
[00:04:14] Audience member: Is there any other state looking at the option, like Maine, who’s just taken on? Are there any other areas or,
[00:04:20] Seymour Papert: well, the areas, uh, New York City has a, a project on the table to give all called from fourth grade computers. Uh, there’s an issue there that I’m not sure what I think about, and that’s that part of the idea there is to probably finance it by having advertising on the, on the web.
And that makes a lot of, uh, a lot of opposition. I don’t like that. On the other hand, I’m not absolutely, I’m just shaking about not liking it because it’s not as if you could, if you could keep kids away from all this ODing of advertising, I would say that’d be a good thing. But if they’re already being bombarded by advertising everywhere to say, well, we are purists.
We won’t get it happen anywhere near us, but it’s happening anyway, as if it’s okay. For it to have the movie not looking. Uh, so I’m not, I’m not sure what I, I think my vote is against it, but I don’t feel very, very clear that, but that, that’s, I think that’s the, the biggest, uh, Texas has talked about it.
Texas has talked about, they’ve talked about it, but there isn’t actually a, is actually a proposal from the table being being discussed. But I think it’s in everybody’s mind. I think 10 years time, there’s no question to be there and maybe five years or less, and it’s struck the corner.
[00:05:42] Audience member: Um, after your speech this morning, there was murmurings, of course, from people saying, I believe in what I heard, but where do I start?
Um, for people that are stuck in this antiquate. Um, school system and the teachers in the trenches that are having enough foisted upon them. Um, where would you recommend people like that start and what would you say to these people as a way to get started with some of the ideas that you’re seeing are working out there and you think might work
[00:06:06] Seymour Papert: well?
I suppose I would say they only find out care about other people who have done things up. I think that, uh. Everybody’s got a unique situation. It’s not easy for anybody. For anybody, and there’s not gonna be any formula, I would say. There are certain issues, certain common elements, though. The first is to try first.
We’ve gotta recognize as a political issue and not just a matter of what’s right to education. Political issue means you need to know who your allies are and, uh, I said this. Suddenly a while ago she said she’s doing that already. I think a lot of people are doing that already, but I think a lot of people feel that they don’t have support, that feel isolated.
They don’t have the parents, the support of the parents, and the parents are supporting the, the system. Well, I don’t, I think that parents are supporting the system because they don’t know enough. I think they mostly care about, about their kids, and I think a lot of teachers,
it’s not a collusion, the teachers. Don’t want to criticize the school, the system with the parents. And you have a, you have a confidence with the parent about the, how the kid’s doing. Uh, not doing well on the tests. I gonna say, because the tests are bad, most teachers won’t. Um, they, you will hesitate. So I think that that’s something to examine carefully each.
It’s a matter of each person’s conscience, but I think that most people are in a position where they can go further than they do in getting there, developing your space of support. So that gives you a strength to do things. I think that I still look for cracks in. Can you proposals to deep teach and break down that, uh, usually they not do get away with it.
Proposals to make a, a sub school inside the school or to shift from one school to another. Where, where people can, people together. There, there are lots of things of, of that sort thing that be done. I would say the, the goal is to make some topic inside the system where pocket change, maybe it’s it’s after school or before school, maybe it’s trying to bear a
try, trying to make her get one period a day. To be, uh, used differently if there’s a, if there’s a computer lab and you can get, you have control. Have control work people do. Instead of making it somewhere where, which is happening everywhere, that you dissipate this opportunity by, by, by serving the manter, learning keyboarding, and, uh.
27 different little softwares if you use that in a concentrated way to establish pocket where kids were very hard on very good long term projects. You push around, you fill out the we spot.
[00:09:09] Audience member: I have a question is, uh, probably hard. Um, you’re working in Maine, the government. That’s good. How about why is there, why, um, wouldn’t it be good idea more superintendents of schools or influential positions that, um, perhaps read some of your books or, um, you would just try to, are they interested in even listening to anything that you’ve written?
So I think without having that buy-in, it makes it a much longer process. I mean, it’s not, they don’t want it to be top down Totally. But they need to be, I think there’s process there.
[00:09:49] Seymour Papert: Superintendents. Yeah. In the dynamic of that situation and this laptop that you made, uh, the superintendents actually as a group were the last group to, to support.
I think a lot of them stood back is of the professional groups, the principles were. Uh, pretty early teachers. I think the majority of teachers from a fairly early stages that came from increasing superintendents have a vest of interest in against that particular problem. ’cause they would, the superintendents would rather have whatever money has done, be given to the district grants or whatever they do.
Uh, on the other hand, there’s one superintendent who, who went around. And with this, all the, the industries in the, in the region have got them to agree to put up money and they, they didn’t do the laptop thing themselves with or without the, the state. So superintendents are, they’re not all the same. I try to get the superintendents, I know three or four in that state who are, uh, who very four.
For doing the sort of, of way I, I’m not behind the question actually. I’m going to be little bit of delivering, but I’ve got myself invited to be keynote, speaker, superintendent, state superintendent,
[00:11:17] Audience member: other laptops and computer. Really, I tend to think them as, as tools, just like telephone or anything else. Um, and, and you know, I’ve seen the way students have been trained and software companies come up with software and essentially what they do is put textbooks online or on cd, ROS or whatever. So the mode of instruction hasn’t changed, just that they’re looking at on computer screen.
And I think unless there’s change in the way, um, teachers themselves and administrators. Uh, see the role of the teacher and then all technology in the world will make a whole lot of difference, um, in, in the way that we deliver the structure. Well, I think that’s one
[00:11:55] Seymour Papert: of the reasons why I think it’s important that laptops are not computers in classrooms.
I think the kids take them, take them home, it’s their thing. There’s more chance that. Something’s gonna develop outside of the control of the school administration or the software. The kids go home with this thing and nobody is supervising what they’re doing. I think that’s an important part of it. I think that kid power is a key concept for, I think we’re beginning to see.
What I’d like to get your, that’s, I’d like to get who, who feels that you are seeing any signs of the following? K. That we are at a time now where we see the first, for the first sort of little cohort of kids who really have grown up with a lot of access to computers outside of school. And I think we’re getting to see a trickle of kids who’ve come, who’ve had computers at home, who have done good learning experiences with them.
Now, I don’t mean all kids at home have good learning experience by no means, but some do. And when they do and they come into the class and they see what’s this going on here? They tend to say that what’s going on, do something better, and they know enough to be able to teach that teacher how to do something better.
I think we’re getting to get it still spotty, but they aren’t there. We’re beginning to find kids who come into class knowing what it’s like to have a better way of learning that same stuff and having the technical knowledge. And I think when you get to a point where every class has one or two of those, it doesn’t have to be everybody.
And this creates a pressure for change from the inside. And I think that’s one of the major factors that can force change in the schools and in the case, again, with this question of, of what the teacher do, that’s another piece of reliance. Maybe another ally is the kids in that class who have computers at home maybe, or other learning experiments.
You might be in voice now or whatever. There are kids in your class who know better about how to create a good learning environment. And the point about, I think the power of this lab laptop thing is that it will amplify. We magnify that, that, that number. So that’s, I see. I think the, that you can’t make the teachers teach differently, but I think some teachers will want to teach differently and some kids will be pushing them to teach differently.
So I think that a strategy is not to try and get all the teachers to do anything in particular. ’cause that would. The strategy is to give support to those teachers who want to do something different, help them do it and make the whole thing as transparent as possible so that if every time a teacher’s doing something great, getting good results, this is as visible as possible to everybody else.
[00:14:34] Audience member: Seymour, one of the things, um, I knew you were doing a while ago was working with the National Center on the Education and the economy and establishing standards. Um, how do you put together establishing standards? Some of the new ways of looking at education, um, things that are much more Project-based and things that are not as tied to the kinds of things that are standardized test based.
[00:14:57] Seymour Papert: Well, I think there’s, there’s a big play on words in this talk about standards because the sort of word game is, uh. Confusing setting high standards with standardization, having a standard, and, and this is that they get confused and you say, I don’t like standard tests. And people start saying, well, should we have standards for, well, we don’t.
We, we meet standards for different people of different standards and different ways of being able to show your, that they do good things. So I think there’s a lot of, of, of pressure that mean a lot, develop that, some very good thinking going on about using portfolios and other ways of kids being able to demonstrate what they can do.
By showing that they’ve done something interesting and difficult. And that’s from really, I’m really thinking that a lot more work needs to be done. And for example, here’s something I, I’ve gotta say, I’ve found a way, put this into practice, but we’ll find a way and I think we’ve gotta do that sometime.
That I would like to be able to say to, to kids. I. Uh, you’re doing this project, I’d like you to write up your, keep your portfolio, write up your report about it, and do it in a way that demonstrates to somebody looking in that you have ed, that you’re using some mathematical ideas. I want you to use some math.
Anything you like, I don’t, I don’t tell you what, but it’s up to you to, it’s gonna be, we think it’s important for you to. Not how to think mathematically. We don’t want to tell you exactly how. There are lots of ways we’ll show you ways to think mathematically. It’s up to you to choose one and to demonstrate it, right?
I think that can be very comparing, and some kids do that. I don’t know how to generalize it. They make all kids do it, but I think that that’s the kind of direction that. We should be working towards to have the kids take more responsibility for their own learning. And part responsibility is demonstrated to themselves first and other people also, that they are what they’re doing.
And then if they show what they’re doing, we can discuss with them whether that’s they has limitations, whether they can be doing something differently, different. So I don’t know if that’s answering your question though, but I think that, uh, it is very important to be able to find a way of assessing standards and assessing progress.
We all, but primarily because we all need it to. Whatever we are doing, we like to know how well we doing it and that should be the primary reason. And if that’s not well, we’ll also work for demonstrating to other people.
[00:17:28] Audience member: It was a bit of a set up question ’cause I had a feeling, I knew why you were working with standards, but a lot of people see it as a conflict for the kind of work that you do.
’cause they think of it as standardized tests, as opposed to high expectations as you pointed out. So I was hoping that you’d say that so that it made sense to other people. Okay.
[00:17:45] Seymour Papert: By the way, also assessment. Somebody has been, somebody in the conversation I was having with, uh, two people were sitting over there, um, discussing small schools where multi eight, where like how we are working with, with one teacher schools in Costa Rica and other places.
And a couple of places in bank on the islands. It’s interesting that the question of promotion, it doesn’t arise how well the kids are doing, whether they’re flourishing or not. That does arise. And there’s a teacher there who is very sensitive to those things and knows those kids and cares about them, and, and if this kid is lagging and not doing much, there’s a reason that that teacher will try to understand that reason.
But isn’t this idea at the end of the year, we have to decide whether you. That other route because isn’t another route.
[00:18:39] Audience member: I wanted to address the, the laptop discussion because I think it speaks to the bigger issue of, of more technology and we need more computers and I’m questioning the, um, if kids are left alone with the laptop and more kids get laptops. With my Mer experience, I’ve only been teaching computers for a year.
Um, but in our school we have a lot of kids who come to school with laptops and left to their own devices. They play CD ro, they play DVDs, they play Math Blaster occasionally, and then they’ll play, and this is with just on their own. And they’ll play candy sandwiches. Games and being inundated with advertisement.
But I think my question is, and my I’d like you to comment what I think they might need some structure, and I think teachers maybe should be involved in some way. And if they are thinking differently, great. But in order to give them some support and structure so that they’re not just tooling around surfing for sports, sports figures or whatever it is, you know, that they’re looking on, uh, just interest wise or just ni or just their niche of.
Interests? Well, yes.
[00:19:41] Seymour Papert: I think the point is that if you go in schools, what kids are doing in school, when they’ve got their computers there, they’re doing increasingly trivial things. I think it’s been going downhills. In the eighties, they were doing better things than the nineties and that is the case. And so we, as educators, we’ve got a job to inspire direct to, but I think that part of the problem, part of something makes it, the fact that there’s only a little bit of that is much technology makes it much more difficult.
That I think, I would say 90% of the difficulty that teachers have handling what to do with computers in schools. Is battling with the fact that they don’t have adequate technology is you. For example, if, if every kid had a computer and a teacher is looking for interesting things, interesting kind, new assignments and project, you can find a project that requires using that computer and deep and constructive way.
You can’t do that if only 90% of the kids have computer. You can’t make that the main thrust of your, of your work with those kids because there’s the 10% you don’t have. So that the main thrust of your work has to be what they do without the computer, and the computer becomes marginalized as a, a. As something that’s off on the side or used in ways like you write the same sort of writing a site without the computer and other people are, but you’ll do it on a computer.
It’s not a even enough difference to make a make a difference or although it might be, obviously it’s often better for the individual kid, but it doesn’t make a structural take. So if you’re saying. Teachers need to teach and guide kids and they put pressure on them and they even maintain standards. Yes.
But, uh, the fact that with a few computers we have trouble doing that doesn’t mean we have more trouble if we’ve got more computers. It’s other, how about at the back? Yeah, I, I can take a couple online computer courses
[00:21:42] Audience member: and training and there’s a lot of question emphasis on, um. Integrated computer into other subject, what they call philoso areas, like social studies.
Um, my question two is, is it possible that we can direction?
I feel that, and I know I would like to see, learn more about spreadsheet. Spreadsheet. I like to see them learn more about. You know, using graphics, you know, with different types of tasks as opposed to this, that you’re not using the computer well child relationship unless you’re, how do you feel about that?
Good. I dunno if that’s the area, but,
[00:22:31] Seymour Papert: well, I think that in X years time, let, let be safe, say 50 years time history students looking back at what we teach our kids in elementary school. We’ll say point, wasn’t that weird? I think the core subjects in elementary school should be there and integrated, obsolete, and then go away, and I hope it doesn’t take 50 years.
So when I agree that these core subjects not only should really be integrating this to them, should be using the computer as the. Opportunity to introduce a much better subject into, into school. And that’s what’s gonna happen practically. You have to sort of find a balance somewhere, introducing as much as you can of new powerful idea.
Uh, and I would try and find some of them that that sort of spinoff, spinoff on the course objects can pass the test. Deal with the, uh, with some of the pressures that that got to bear. But I think that if you have your kids doing spreadsheets, not the spreadsheets, there’s some example too, but that’s okay if you have your kids doing spreadsheets and computer graphics all day.
Uh, and they’ve gotta do whatever your California math test is. You’ll probably take, you might take a weekend, do everything in that weekend. They need to pass the test. And there’s a lot of, there’s just a lot of experience that the kids who are not focused on the tests and are doing other intellectually developmental activities go, they do better on the test than the one where teachers are teach the test all the time.
[00:24:15] Audience member: Okay. We, sir, this morning, your march. You touched a little bit on visioning and Yeah. We’re, you said that the visioning has been taken away from educators, directly involved education, and the vision is being forged by politicians. Message that I thought you talk a little bit about. See that we have a lot of programs with very little vision.
I work in a large district, LA Unified, and there are always programs and always money, but there never seems to be a purpose and certainly teachers are never involved in creating whatever focus there may be. So I’m wondering your take on how we can turn that around and how we as educators to become more involved in education.
[00:25:04] Seymour Papert: Well now first of all, I mean you correctly interpret me or you, I agree with you. If you say yourself that the primary problem is to develop vision and I think that there’s some, some simple things that people don’t do, like, for example, really sit down and spend a little bit of time thinking, will Nancy imagine a kid in 20 years time?
Let’s imagine this kid growing up in the kind of technological environment that is gonna be there just pushing a little bit ahead of where we are now. Now. So imagine this kid from, from age, from the beginning if the kid becomes interested in, to take my question that I used in children’s in how giraffes look or sleep or that kid can find out about that and is used to finding out about that.
And maybe even tune in and then sits and watches that camera up in water hole in Africa looking for and gets to know a lot about these things. And this for everything that kid gets to be interested in this kid. Now let’s imagine this kid coming along to, to first grade and being given something like what we dish out now as a pre digest kind of textbook lamp, you.
And, and I think that what if one takes the trouble just to imagine what it’s gonna be like, what the life would be like. It becomes obvious that the kind of programs we’re talking about in schools are hopelessly wrong, hopelessly inadequate, and they gotta go away. So I think even there to make, get yourself and other people, your colleagues, the parents, and anyone around to just do a little bit of thinking about where we go.
Is already a big step towards, uh, turning away from the, the tyranny of the, of the programs and getting excited about trying to do something really different. So I, I think the answer is we have to keep on, we just have to work hard at trying to get people to think more about, about their future. Where is it going?
And I think in discussions in the school or with parents or wherever we do it. When somebody comes along as all this discussion, there was discussion that’s going on right now. Like, are the computers paying more? Is the money being spent on computers worthwhile? So we look at numbers like how did it, what it add to the tests, the test scores.
We want to refuse to allow people to, we make them feel stupid and we want stand the discussion towards, it’s not a question of. How did it affect the test scores? Next, next quarter? It is. How does this prepare the way for big changes that might come next year in five years time? It’s a different mindset and we can be responsible for propagating that mindset.
[00:28:00] Audience member: Um, this morning you made the comment and, um, you said, uh, that the direction that. Teachers are headed now, they’re often forced to lie about why they are learning the subject that they’re learning in the classroom. And I thought that the statement by the teachers have a choice. And, um, I wondered if you might speak a little bit more to that.
’cause I see in today’s climate that a lot of our teachers don’t feel as they have a voice
[00:28:23] Terry Cannings: having.
[00:28:28] Audience member: Two,
[00:28:34] Seymour Papert: one of my favorite principles, those to Benny Manchester, principal of a school in in Bruswick Main. Uh, or makes a speech to her staff at the beginning of the year. I don’t whether it applies to California, but it may, she points out that, uh, everybody in that room except one has tenure. That one is, her principles don’t have tenure, so she’s the only one who’s really gonna be afraid.
They’re all pretty safe and she can’t do much to them. Nobody can do much to them. So people get on, scream at them. In Massachusetts, they’re paying a $20,000 sign up fee for people who come from out of state to to be teachers. I think the way things are right now, it’s just not true that, that, that they’ve got a big stick to meet you except that you let yourself be.
It’s compound. How many teachers do you know who applied? They didn’t? Uh. They personalized the systems and they didn’t do what they told you. I’m sure there’s some mean go the next school is get, it’s just interest in. I think that, uh, we’ve gotta encourage this kind of subversive thing. Change might different circumstance, but at the moment, I don’t think that.
I think teachers in a very strong position now to be able to say, this is what I’m gonna do and I define you to do about, and, and by the way, I mean, I think on this test thing and stand, that’s another place of where teachers lie because, and are forced, pushed by the system to lie that they, what would happen, why teach math but also.
Will the parent, the parent conference with the parent about this kids is not doing well on the test? Do you say it’s the test wrong? I don’t believe in this test, or do you discuss with the parent what to do to get better test scores and, uh, well, that’s for everybody. I individual cases vary. It might be that this kid would be doing better on the test in general.
I think that the pressure of the system of the teacher is to enter into that little game that the test score is the real way of doing the kids, because that’s easiest way to talk to a parent and to save the parent. Well, yeah, he do well on the test, but he’s done very well in other ways, and that’s much more important
[00:30:55] Audience member: to, what do you attribute. The, what I see is overwhelming silence on the part of teachers in the face of, of things that really go against our grade list, standardized testing and whatnot. Uh, in lieu of the previous question, are we all chickens? Yeah. Are we all people, personalities that don’t wanna take on the, the challenge?
[00:31:20] Seymour Papert: Well, it’s certainly not, certainly not mean. Some people are checking the south market, but some people are very brave. I respect. So that’s not a, that’s not the explanation. I think the explanation has to lie in the dynamics of the culture dynamics and way organizations work and the way that. Operate that, uh, we are not sure enough of ourselves that it’s very hard to stand up and say the king doesn’t have any, doesn’t have any clothes, and, uh.
[00:31:59] Audience member: Um, with all the topic I, with all this technology, I decided that it was much better to take a break and enjoy myself a little bit in the sunshine and think that’s. That speaks to my, my point is that, um, just as important as technology is also, um, an interesting project and other ways of evaluating student, uh, assignments and, you know, making learning more fun, uh, I think it’s also very important that.
Teacher, uh, make the classroom, if that’s what we have in the future, still it should be around for a while. Um, make it make it more interesting by, by bringing in the human factor. Um, I, I find a lot of success for what I do just by asking people how they feeling or, you know, how was your weekend or, um, and it has nothing to do with computers.
It has nothing to do with technology. It’s just. Um, human relations, you establish trust, show trust, and the trust individuals. They’re not following procedures, but, um, there’s a lot to be said by establishing a very nice form, learning environ, feel comfortable to make mistakes, ask questions. And that has nothing to do with technology, that has to do with psychology suppose.
And I think that’s equally important. Um, the other things that more.
[00:33:14] Seymour Papert: Well, yeah, I mean, I hope I’m not projecting an impression on that. I think technology, but that’s definitely the case. I think we should keep in perspective. It’s hard to keep perspective sometimes. What is the role of, of this technology maybe ’cause it doesn’t have a single role.
But certainly if it does have a single role, its role is to enable what you’re talking about. And for example, that kid I was talking about this morning, uh, I think that perhaps a woman relationship in his school might himself got a problem. I also think that given who he was at that particular time anyway.
Giving him this technology where he could get involved in a, this construction proper to really work on that. It wasn’t even the wrong environment, but giving him, having this, this thing that he would work on, that he felt was more symptom, more congenial to him, made a huge difference to how. Effectively the supporting environment could be.
And I think that across the board, that’s a big, big factor for more, for some kids than others. I mean, for some technology or no technology, it doesn’t make any difference. And obviously we were, everybody in this room was successful in learning me. And if you get through, grow up to be an intellectually active person.
If you went to be in a place like this, you did it. Most of us didn’t have technology around, so we did it without it. But I think there’s difference with kids. Well, there’s one difference is that there a lot of kids who didn’t get here. And I know that number is, but I think an awful lot of kids make it through the, that, that process.
And I don’t know how many you would say about having had more supportive relationships. Obviously some, but, uh, that’s a problem. I think also though, that technology’s become more and more important. For a reason that society has changed, that you can create a situation where you want kids to buy into the idea of school and they look outside.
It’s exaggerate. Anybody outside doing intellectual work is using computers. Nobody outside is writing except for the computer. Nobody is doing anything mathematical except with these computers. So somehow in the space called school, we are expected to do things in a way that’s hard tuned. With the way everything’s being done outside, you are creating a dissonance.
You’re creating a conflict. You are creating an obstacle to that kid behind him to school. So maybe you can sell school to that kid by your, your force of your personality, but a good relationship you’re gonna establish with the kid, but then that’s manipulative. Maybe you shouldn’t, maybe you shouldn’t be doing that.
Maybe you’re setting a bit of words to the kids. Well, I think there are all these different sides to it. It’s a picture, but
[00:36:07] Audience member: I’m saying if you have the technology already position like that, that part really is the education of the student.
[00:36:16] Seymour Papert: Yes. When you have the technology, there’s a lot more to be done here.
[00:36:23] Audience member: I, I did a lot of, um, work with pre-service teachers this year. Assessing their use of technology in their practice teaching. So for many of them, it was not only their first time teaching, but their first time using technology. And they, uh, really didn’t have a lot of instruction or really ideas as to how to use technology.
But one thing I found again, again, is they were very afraid to relinquish control of, of the technology and put in the hands of the students. I, I watched teachers whose technology lessons consisted of them sitting in front of the computer, the teacher, the students sit sitting beside them. And them saying, um, what graphic shall I put in your picture?
And, and the student very upset with me when I said, well, why did you do that? And they said things like, well, you know, a first grader can’t do that. You know, they don’t have motor control to, you know, mouse. I’ve seen three and a half year old kids, uh, you know, moving this. I wonder if pre-service teachers were all given or not given, or had, let’s say a laptop computer just.
A doctor who graduates from medical school has a stethoscope. It’s part of their practice. And that would help to change the, the, the thinking of the teacher so that at least they wouldn’t, I, I, I see it being a fear with the teacher themselves because they find technology so difficult. Theresa. Yes. As of next, not this gonna fault that be service teachers that, but I will have laptop because it will be required of them as part of their program.
So when they leave, they’ll have.
[00:37:43] Seymour Papert: Well, yeah. Yes, small. That would help. I don’t think that the fact that that teacher wants to, doesn’t believe that that first, kindergarten, first grader could do computer. Partly, this does reflect teacher’s own insecurity about computer, but even, even being fluent into the computer.
You could still wonder about whether the first grade would do it and try to control the first grader, and we’ve got to put part of the blame on the fact that we’ve got a school system that is essentially controlling and doesn’t let the first grader show what he or she can do. I certainly view in the past that would be a good thing to have new teacher, which will soon happen.
It’s the extra opportunities.
[00:38:34] Audience member: I’m just wondering how to get, I guess it’s what you were talking about is just getting people to think differently. ’cause I think a lot of people have preconceived notions about technology, um, a lot of which is fear, but how do you get them? Uh, like part of my job is to train teachers, but I don’t just wanna train them in, in the tools of technology, but I wanna, I wanna engage ’em in a conversation as to why they’re using it in the first place.
And, and I don’t know that I have lot opportunities to really get ’em to think about things that you write about in your books and speak about ’em. It seems like it’s sort of this, this circle here of people in this room all, we’re all on the same page, but when we leave this room and we go back to our, our schools and places that we work, how do we get other people to sort of see.
I always think like an evangelist, you know, how would get to see the light? Yeah.
[00:39:18] Seymour Papert: Well, obviously no simple answer. Just one point. I think that we’ve gotta give up time to convince everybody how long ago I used to get very upset when people till they go and used it bad after while I decided that’s okay.
Use there where teachers also, I’m more interested in helping those who want to do good things, to do the good things that we try to persuade the others to, not to. And I think the way you would in the long run persuade the others is by going as far as you can can in the doing of good things with those who want to do that.
And, uh, well, you, it’s better. Why not try to take others long too? Sure. Except. If bringing the other one others margin is going to cause you to be less effective in helping those who want to go forward is not worth it. The trade should never be that, but we should focus, our energy is on, on going as fast forward as we can with those who want to do that.
Yes.
[00:40:21] Audience member: I want you to comment a little more. You talked about. Having a few students that were in the class and that they would have, and I see with my 14-year-old that teach that they not only are comfortable with it, but in fact they are leaders. They know and, and they’re ones that the past six years have totally been using communication with each other that adults seem to just sort of be discovering.
And the shift that we’re continue to be facing in society is seeing them as experts and yet still novices. And guiding them ethically, et cetera, through some of this. But we come to things like school system is so entrenched with, you know, I’m the knowledge, I’ll give it to you. That in that paradigm shift is I, I’ll leave it Patrick.
The paradigm shift of, of the kids having that ability where they’re, they’re, they’re the teacher in a sense. They know. And I just don’t think that the school, I don’t think that experienced
[00:41:21] Seymour Papert: teachers are prepared to even acknowledge. Well, I think since we are talking about how to prepare people to be teachers.
That should be part of the preparation to be teachers. And, and of course maybe that doesn’t deal those who are already out there. But the fact is, I think that the, in general, these schools of education are not doing anything different from what they did in the past. And they’re pulling out group cohorts of teachers with the same, that same problematic attitude.
I think there’s one place where that could change, but I mean, other places also, like I was collecting. Stories in following sort. I described this in, in the German machine about how when I got out to husband, I started connecting this following story that teachers who I was interviewing about how they, what the computer made, they passed out and you get over and over again this story.
I was terrified of those computer scan because I knew that sooner or later those kids would know more about it than I did. I lose my authority, lose my position, and I was terrified. But one day the awful thing happened and I just had to give in and I had to, it was just so obvious that those kids over there knew how to handle the situation.
Better than that, I had to give up pretending that I knew and take over that thing about fear. Was a liberation and I just changed my whole attitude, not only to computers, but to teaching you. After that, I became a much better teacher. I enjoyed it more. I didn’t have to pretend anymore, pretend to be, I gave up pretending to know it more, and, and life was just better.
Now it happens. I think we could encourage that happen more and uh, then be known a bit more than that happened to individuals. I think we all went through some experiences of that sort one way or another, and let it be known to the rest of the world if we had this kind of learning experience and. Uh, and I think that’s, that’s something will spread and we can say way it can happen.
It’s a real phenomenon that people have that kind of fear. We can see it in its roots, but it does break down, and we can encourage that evolution. I, two more questions.
[00:43:35] Audience member: One,
[00:43:35] Terry Cannings: okay. One, two.
[00:43:37] Audience member: Um, I’m a math teacher in LA Unified, and right now we’re in a major dilemma. We have two different types of programs for our math students.
We have those integrated math, which is a combination of algebra, geometry. And algebra two or more advanced algebra as opposed to traditional. And I wanna get your opinion on that. Um, what I find out is that integrated series is more of a problem based and take different topics from those three traditional areas and bring them down to a ninth grade level to you, a lower level than having those students wait until they get to say, 11th grade to take that particular advanced class in advanced topics at an earlier age.
I’d just like to get your opinion on that. I mean, you were a, you are a mathematician and, um. In your dealings with students you’ve been dealing with in the last few years, how do you feel about something like that as opposed to just giving them a traditional three year algebra as opposed to innovative, which will blend everything together.
But is this another, I know it’s, I know it’s like year petition. I opinion I might on this product.
[00:44:30] Seymour Papert: Well, you know, obviously, you know, I think that. Integrations. Well first with is integration, and I think it’s not just integration of algebra, it’s geometry, integration of algebra, geometry, mathematics with science, with history, with writing, with everything you do historically.
Historically, how the mathematics happen. It grew out of action. Those improvements, they were trying to, in front of the Nile, people were doing trade and all sorts of stuff. A certain kind of thinking that we can now call mathematical thinking began to emerge. And then bit by bit it separated out into eventually this beautiful thing called pure mathematics.
Came out of that. Well, for reasons that have to do with the nature of school, we reverse that process. Instead of going through the, the growth of knowledge out of doing things, we start with this very abstract, formal kind of pencil and paper math, and then we, afterwards, we go through some sort of semblance of applying it.
But the way we expect to be learn is as an abstracter, I think that’s gonna be wrong. We should thoroughly reverse that order and that mathematical thinking should emerge from its use in all sorts of different, so to do that, you can’t, you can’t separate it all, nor can you sequence it. Maybe. The fact is that if you need a piece of mathematical knowledge for something you doing in the project, you need it now.
You don’t need it for the, it’s in somebody’s curriculum sequence. So we have to make away from that idea of the, the ordered. Presentation was fragmented. No,
[00:46:12] Audience member: do do bar. I was wondering if you could say a little more about what you think the learning bar, the people that participate in that collaborative, what there’s, what they would be doing, and two, I think I heard you say. Okay. 90% of the problem, uh, the teachers aren’t doing more interesting things with computers, is that there’s not a one-to-one ratio of, of computers to kids.
And if I heard you say that, does that imply that suddenly there was enough saturation of equipment that teachers would know how to do things differently? No,
[00:46:39] Seymour Papert: that isn’t exactly what I said. I said that 90% of the difficulties, somebody was talking about the difficulties teachers have in controlling what the kids do and giving them interesting things to do when they want to.
And so I think the practical difficulties that you have dealing with computers and in your classroom, a lot of those come from the. The conditions, including possibly small number of computers. So for somebody who is trying to do good things with a computer, it becomes not just a little bit easier, but dramatically easier if everybody’s got, but that doesn’t mean to say everybody’s gonna be trying to use.
Trying to do good things, and I think that what the goal of the learning bond is, is I think the central goal is to try to develop better examples, better projects, better models for intellectually rich things that can be done. Very kids in the context of having different but, but by no means don’t be technology there.
Automatically produce atop wonderful education
[00:47:44] Terry Cannings: learning. We began with a question about what did Seymour and Gary talk about at lunch? We with Gary asking Seymour questions.
[00:47:58] Gary Stager: So Seymour, this is Q, right? How about a couple specifics. What, what, what kinds of things are kids to be doing with computers and how may that. Be different or similar to what you would find in the exhibit hall or in a conference program of something like this, right? People hear your idea we’ll at laptops or look at computers for kids and how does reality differ from what, what you’d like to actually be seeing kids doing.
[00:48:30] Seymour Papert: You know, I think that. No, that’s two. Two set up question then negative parts. Easy that that hardly anything else saw that Exhibital is part of what they should be doing. That almost entirely what we saw that Exhibital is using the computer to bolster the old, rather than using it to open observing. I was sort of bad.
I was thinking about, I haven’t really used that. That, that language I’ve been using before, so maybe you’ll tell me, is this, this idea of abolition, we need names for the, for the parties in this, in this game. So abolitionists and slaves. How is this, does it, does it catch up figures?
It should be.
Got anybody’s attention.
[00:49:34] Audience member: But you know what? You have to really understand the concept of slavery. People may know the definition of the word, but there’s no one here who has experienced it. But because of various ethnicities or background or cultural belief system that may determine, uh. Your perspective as it relates to being an abolitionist or being enslaved.
So
[00:49:56] Seymour Papert: Well, you say it’s too, there’s too many res with other products it can,
well not use it. No,
[00:50:07] Audience member: no.
[00:50:07] Seymour Papert: I think it is
[00:50:08] Audience member: analogy, it makes people think, yeah,
[00:50:11] Seymour Papert: that’s what I.
[00:50:21] Audience member: Projects that we engage in, the less software I seem to.
[00:50:34] Seymour Papert: But of course there’s people making the software that like that
would’ve encouraged me actually. I know, I think I managed to say this morning, I know that came across. I think that I’ve never felt as optimistic as this year about. That we very close to really being able to make big changes. I think we look around and we see the signs of cracking after the system. You see one of the…