Jim Hirsch:
… Dr. Papert is internationally recognized as a leading thinker and pioneer activist in the evolution of learning in the digital world. His background in mathematics and philosophy led to a collaboration with Jean Piaget in Geneva, and then to an appointment at MIT, where he co-founded the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory with Marvin Minsky, and served as Professor of Mathematics and Education and Director of Professional Learning Research at the Media Laboratory. He is the principal inventor of the Logo programming language. His writings include The Connected Family: Bridging the Digital Generation Gap, Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas, and The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. Dr. Papert now lives in Maine, where he has founded a small laboratory called the Learning Bar, to develop methods of learning along the lines of his vision and theories of education. He has been named Distinguished Visiting Professor by the University of Maine. He played a leading role in the process that led to the state of Maine’s commitment to providing a laptop computer for every elementary student. More information on, on these and, and many other projects can be found on his two websites, papert.org or learningbarn.org.
And Linda Roberts, a close friend of this community, directed the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Education Technology from its inception in September nineteen ninety-three to January two thousand and one, and served as the Secretary of Education Senior Advisor on Technology. While Project Director and Senior Associate at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, Dr. Roberts led three landmark technology studies: Power On: New Tools for Teaching and Learning, Linking for Learning: A New Course for Education, and Adult Literacy and Technology: Tools for a Lifetime. Dr. Roberts now serves as senior advisor to several companies, foundations, and government agencies, and is a member of the Board of Trustees for the Sesame Workshop and the Education Development Corporation, and is a member of the Board of Directors of Wireless Generation and Carnegie Learning.
With those introductions, let’s please welcome Dr. Papert and Dr. Roberts. audience applauding: And I’m gonna get more comfortable now as well. And I think for the, the remainder of this discussion, we will be in more so that we Seymour and Linda, while I’m up here. And I think before we get to some specific discussions on what we’ll call our digital platform odyssey, let’s give both Linda and Seymour that opportunity to share with us a little prognostication on what they might see as the near-term future of educational technology in particular. Are we on the upswing, or are we on a down slope? And Linda, I’m gonna let you have the first prognostication.
Linda Roberts:
Okay. Well, you know, the quick answer to that question is we’re on an upswing, and I believe we’re on an upswing because there’s no question in my mind about the tremendous advances we make in every aspect of, of technology development itself, uh, whether we’re talking about the power of computing or the ability to, um, create the kind of infrastructure that supports access for anyone, anytime, and anywhere. There’s a second reason I think we’re on an upswing, and that’s because we actually do know more about learning, and if we only apply it, uh, I think the power of the technology will begin to be realized. Finally, I think we’re still on the upswing because I have spent, as you all know, um, the last ten years of my life, uh, visiting schools and, um, classrooms all over this country, and in fact, uh, in other parts of the world. And I truly have been, um, astounded by some of the things that I’ve seen, um, that, that people have been able to do with technology. That’s not to say everybody’s there, but those examples have always been for me, the, the, the points that I grab onto and use as the, um, if you want to think about it, the turning points for what can happen next. So, you know, briefly, I think there’s no question we’re going upward.
Jim Hirsch:
Seymour, the same. Now, I’m your turn. You might go too far out yet. laughing:
Seymour Papert:
Well, I think first of all, that’s not a dimensional thing, that we don’t believe in single intelligence anymore. We don’t believe in a single measure of where we are, and in some ways, we’re obviously on an upswing. There’s more computers, more use, but I think it’s important to remind us of something else. There’s an important respect in which I think we’re still on a downgrade that we’ve been on for the last fifty years, but I think we’re bottoming out. But this downgrade is represented by the fact that, uh, when I first moved computers in education, that’s back in eighty… People thought of the computer as a mathematical machine, something with deep ideas. They gradually got transformed into something else, an information machine, and that got reflected in this really bad language of information technology, because by… This sort of echoes with a popular, very bad idea of education, that education is about giving information. So I think that that switch has come about, has come about a degradation in the vision for what computers do. You know, and I think it’s not that this kind of computer culture has grown up in the last fifty years. It’s not that it’s a good thing for kids to get more information and get data and get all that, uh, contact about the rest of the world. It’s a wonderful thing, but the reduction, the big struggle in the evolution of education, to break away from the idea that education is giving information, and towards information, education is doing things, making things, building ideas, and I fear that there’s this culture that’s grown up, where it’s doing easy, it’s getting flashy results, it’s getting a lot of information. It’s not grappling with hard ideas through the technology. But I think that, as I said, I think we’ve bottomed out, and we’re beginning to see, uh, a light at the end of that tunnel. So I’m cautiously optimistic about the next three or four years.
Jim Hirsch:
So, oh, rest eternal, you’re on the stage today. That’s the new for all of us, I guess. Uh, I want you to center yourself just for a moment. The, the term technology, of course, brings such different interests to all of us. Technology is in, in this title of this session, and you all know the history of that term, right? Sixteen fifteen, I believe, the first time it was actually put in some type of
Jim Hirsch:
paper form, where people came to a, a common agreement of definition of that…. We’re much beyond 1650, but center yourself on, on a particular year, 1976, because what I’m gonna ask both Linda and Seymour to focus on next is all of us in the arena of technology have experienced watershed moments, what I call watershed moments. There’s one thing that, that still sticks in your mind, and that made a difference for you, that, that’s, uh, the kind of thing that, that you continually focus on, that, uh, it made a shift from one era of our experience of technology to another. And in 1976, not even thinking about it, uh, yes, it was the bicentennial, but that’s not what I was going for. 1976, two, two particular introductions, an Apple I
Jim Hirsch:
and JVC, right off the VCR, in terms of technology. Now, I’m not saying those are watersheds at all. I wasn’t in the classroom. I have much simpler ones, but I’m going to see if Seymour and then share with the audience, as we look back in time, what are some of those watershed moments that you saw that changed and transcended from one era to another in educational technology? Seymour?
Seymour Papert:
… It’s based on my perception.
Jim Hirsch:
Your perception. laughing:
Seymour Papert:
And my observation. There’s two s- two pretty events for me that I come. One was in 1963, after working in Geneva, kindergarten, four years at MIT, and I went to the computer lab. In those days, a computer was something you signed up for if you had half an hour or an hour of precious time. And there, I just… On the day I first, I was, there was a computer sitting there, you could just do anything. And in the course of two days, I solved four problems that I’ve been just too scared to tackle in the rest. So I suddenly was met with this, this intellectual amplification. And coming from kindergarten, where there was so much concept, kindergarten shows children have such wonderful, powerful learners, and yet school, we have such a lot of trouble teaching them, much less. There’s gotta be something that can give the brain power, and that started my obsession with the computer escape, but it’s gotta be this one. And then the next thing, a little after that, I was in a school. Now, all asked art group, and I looked inside, I saw beautiful things being made. Those kids were doing soap sculpting, beautiful things, and some of the classics, the ki- these are professional, which I sell them. Well, I said, we would have already promised the teachers. laughing: And that sort of gave me my stage hour. Where in a mathematics class have you seen teachers buy with one another to get products of the kids, kids are producing? And that started connecting with this other one. My vision in life is that the kids in every mathematics class should be producing things that teachers will buy with one another to take home-
Jim Hirsch:
chuckles:
Seymour Papert:
… share with other people. Uh, and so far, I’ve got a little bit far from that, but I think we still some do it.
Jim Hirsch:
My fair title, there’s plenty of people who say math is their best subject. laughing: Maybe not. Linda, your turn.
Linda Roberts:
Well, you know, this is a marvelous question, uh, that everybody should ask themselves from time to time. And I hope all of you will ask that question, too, because the technology in our lives is, it’s, it’s very personal, and it really has to-
Seymour Papert:
Sure
Linda Roberts:
… hit us in a way that we start to think about things differently, and we start to think about who we are in, in a new set of dimensions, and I think that’s what Seymour is saying. So for me, personally, one of the most important turning points in my life was in 1968, not with computers at all, but with a group of people in New York City who were given the task to think about what television might do to help young children think about themselves as learners. And as most of you know, that was the, the starting point for Sesame Street. And the turning point for me, I was a teacher then. I was teaching third grade in Tennessee, and I was fortunate enough to be going to New York. And for me, the real key was to not think that I needed another teacher on television. What I was thinking about was ways to amplify the very things I couldn’t do well with my kids, and the first thing that struck me was, surprisingly, music. I still can’t say no, and, you know, the idea that there could be music that would engage kids in thinking about the alphabet, and thinking about street songs, and thinking about who they were, was, it was magic. And to be with Joe Raposo, who was a songwriter, right there, who was at that point writing songs, um, you know, as I was talking, it was a magical moment. So I think that was a, a real turning point, and it always has shaped everything else I’ve done in my project. But I gotta tell you about one other important turning point moment, was when I was
Linda Roberts:
with a group of students in Mantua, um, Elementary School, in Memphis, Tennessee, in Fairfax, Virginia. And it was the first time I’d seen kids who really just literally thought about the, uh, their computers as extensions of their arms. And these kids were literally walking around with iPads on… Like this, you know, I mean, literally. And at one point, we were in a music class, and I, I noticed the kids had computers out, and they were laptops out, and they was playing games. And I went to the kids, and I said, “What are you doing?” And one of the kids looked at me, this was a fifth grader, and, you know, he just, like, what a stupid question. Basically, he spoke, “I’m taking notes.” laughing:
Linda Roberts:
And it was that notion of the tool was invisible. The tool was part of the work. I think that is a, uh, word. coughs:
Jim Hirsch:
You all agreed that knowing those kinds of moments in our own lives does help shape where we head towards the future.
Jim Hirsch:
But still, I wanna go one more back in the past for both Linda and Seymour, and ask them about the experiences that they’ve had. As you look through the math and technology innovations, lessons that, that you yourself have learned from a variety of innovations you’ve been involved with, the technology in classrooms in the past, what are those lessons taught you that you want to share with us in terms of what we’re thinking about the
Jim Hirsch:
future? Seymour, go ahead.
Seymour Papert:
Well, I’m a technician, right? I think it’s just by me to do it this way or the other, but, uh, then I’ve studied history of technology more. 1976-… microcomputers first became available to visionary teachers. In the next five or six years, we saw visionary teachers bring computers into classrooms with the hope, just barely, you know, to change something. They might not have known how. Following, by the, by the end of the ’80s, the situation changed dramatically. It’s moved out of the hands of the visionary teacher. Now, it’s not given more visionary teachers, but the dominant, sociologically speaking… And that’s the wrong word. Think sociological. Sociologically speaking, the dominant part of that group was no longer the visionary teacher, but the administration. The system had taken over this thing, and the system had converted what was an instrument of revolutionary change into an instrument of support for the system that, that would protect it from getting revolutionary. During this period, it grew up a culture of
Seymour Papert:
computer experts. A set of committees, what do you do? clears throat: A set of professionals, of courses, of consultants, of, of speech makers, of books, all about creating this, this culture. What computers… Now, that culture was made at a time when it was in the possession of the system itself, so not revolutionary. But also where the availability of the computers was very thin. There weren’t a lot of them. So even those people who wanted to do really good things with them, had to be doing things that you could do with a small number of them. Cultures get cast in cultural concrete, and the biggest problem that we have today, the absolutely vital key issue in the future of, of, of education, is how we’re going to escape from that culture, and how we’re gonna break out of this paradigm that established itself. Well, today, when we’re seeing many audio glitch:
Seymour Papert:
where there’s no longer that restriction of only a few hours, people an hour a day. Nevertheless, the images and the concepts that grew up in that time are still firmly implanted in people’s minds, and that’s a culture, and that’s the biggest obstacle at the moment. Not only the computers, but the education.
Jim Hirsch:
I wanna follow up on one other thing, because it seems like part of what’s coming out audio glitch: is just the use of technology.
Seymour Papert:
Well, not only the technology, but I think, I think one of the most sim- I mean, I sometimes like to think of a professor of history and education in the middle of the century, giving his graduate students an assignment to explain this paradox. That at the time when there was about to be the biggest change in learning in history, the whole world was seized by a paradoxism in global training. And just as an example, I was re-reading the other day, the National Science Foundation coughs: Standards for Science Education. In it, computer science is not as good as bachelor’s of science. None of the ideas that feed into seeing the very structure as information. None of the ideas that have to do with control systems, none of this. It’s not really, it’s just absolutely not there. Well, it’s easy to understand why it’s not there, because this was made by people in … But it’s quite amazing, and it’s gonna be an interesting
Seymour Papert:
historical future to explain how we could let ourselves be lulled into this trap of making almost a law of the land, that you cannot introduce any new idea into education. laughing:
Speaker 3:
It is the law.
Linda Roberts:
Well, the lesson learned, yes. The lesson learned. Um, I think
Linda Roberts:
I agree with what, what Seymour expressed there, and I think that there are many levels of truth, coughs: and many levels of, of what we’ve learned about technology, and teaching, and how to make things happen. And audio glitch: there, really, I think to me, one of the most important lessons maybe that we’ve learned over these almost fifteen years, although February is the tenth year celebration of it, is that we do this all the time with technology. We tend to overpromise the immediate impacts of whatever it is we’re doing. You know, it is gonna revolutionize the world. I mean, the radio was supposed to revolutionize teaching. And then we really actually underestimate the long-term effects of the technology, and I mean that seriously. Um, I am stunned at the subtle changes that have taken place, um, because of computers and the internet in our society, and not just our society, but in the world. And I don’t think there is a kid today who doesn’t think that there is a way to get an answer to a question, if they, if they are given the opportunity to go search for an answer. That has… That change in expectation is really quite profound. Whether we capitalize on it or not is a different issue. But I think that part of what we ought to be doing, understanding our history, or our evolution, or our experience with all of this technology, is to ask the question: What are some of the things that have happened in people’s… In our kids, in our teachers, in our expectations for how we do things, that we aren’t– that have, that have really changed, but we aren’t even aware that they’ve changed? And I just gave you an example. We could probably list a hundred things like that. And then the real question is: How do we power those kinds of changes so that they become– they enable us to overcome the, the, the true inertia that exists in the systems themselves? You know, trying to sort of briefly what Seymour said, but what I really think about what we do.
Jim Hirsch:
There are… Those are challenges to all of us. We’re still active on that question. Let me turn in a little different direction now. This is almost like this afternoon could be eighth grade, and this afternoon could be left billing. laughing: This is, this is gonna be a different type of question that I wanna ask, but when it seems like when we first had, and that’s that there have been so many changes over the past, in terms of the, the technology, but primarily, it’s in many cases, been dealing with hardware?… Of course not. Well, I’m, I’m interested in finding out, in your opinion, what has had the greatest impact? I know– What’s had the greatest impact in terms of classroom use of technology? Has it been the hardware devices and the gadgets, or has it been the applications that run on top of the gadgets? Environment versus the experience. Now, that’s a tough question, but think about that, see if there’s anything you can share with the group. Because I know this side of the room is hardware, this side of the room is software.
Jim Hirsch:
laughing:
Linda Roberts:
Well, I don’t think you can make that dichotomy.
Jim Hirsch:
Okay.
Linda Roberts:
I mean, I, I really don’t, and, uh… sighs:
Linda Roberts:
I think in the end, if, if I think like a classroom teacher, okay? Um, I think what most teachers really want is to see an opportunity to do what they do in a better way. I mean, I don’t know a teacher in this, in the world who doesn’t, deep down inside, want to be a better teacher or coach or facilitator. And so I think that
Linda Roberts:
the magic occurs for teachers when,
Linda Roberts:
um, there’s something there that they really begin to say in their mind, “I can’t live without it.” I can’t… And I’ve actually talked to teachers around the country who’ve said to me, whatever it is they were doing, whether it was, you know, people who were using, uh, MBL, computer-based labs, or recently, teachers who are using a handheld application to, um, to observe reading and, and their kids’ reading performance and track it. I mean, there are, there are these people that will say, “You can’t take that away from me.” And when you reach that point, um, that’s when you know you’re onto something that’s, that’s really incredible. It’s kind of… This doesn’t answer your question, but I, and I-
Jim Hirsch:
Yeah.
Linda Roberts:
Let me put this out there. I’ve been thinking a lot about technology per se. I’m at a point in my life where I really don’t have to think about technology. What I can think about is what I really want to do, whether it’s to create or to learn, to build, or to, you know, um, capture something. I just came back from Antarctica, and I will tell you I think the greatest tool, um, is my– ’cause I have this incredible story to tell about my trip, and, and it’s been relatively easy to tell the story. So I know I didn’t answer your question, but- coughing:
Jim Hirsch:
Mine was a tough one.
Linda Roberts:
It’s a… Yeah, yeah. laughing:
Jim Hirsch:
The positive part of that, obviously, for our… I think the bottom line for our private sector is, we can’t do it without you. We need both the gadgets and the applications that run on top of the gadgets, and you can’t separate them. And that’s hope, and that’s kind of what we get, that one does things as well. You can’t build an environment and hope that magic will happen. You can’t try and build an experience without an environment that allows that to happen.
Seymour Papert:
You’re absolutely right. I’ve done this. It’s what you want to do with it that’s your starting point, and from that point of view, the hardware and software that you have get in deep in the brain, because neither were designed as a function of, of original meditative. That is, they both… They were designed for other reasons and evolved for other reasons, have nothing to do with what we’re doing today. So I think that what’s really important is the development of new hardware, new software that will be ready for what we see.
Jim Hirsch:
All right. Well, listen, I’ve been able to keep these two in the past for some time. Can you believe that? It’s time to move to the future, I think, for everyone. Part of the discussion that’s been occurring in post-conference throughout this day, and there’s been a focus on education, quite a focus on the instructional process, instructional strategies, and not necessarily a focus on the content. Okay, so this one, this is gonna go off a little bit, and I even use the key word. But as you think back now on your experiences in the classroom, how does that conversation need to go? Should it continue to focus on the instructional strategies that the brain-based learning… So Monica has been involved very heavily in the last few years. What are these strategies, and what is VR for students on that kind of stuff? You want to-
Linda Roberts:
You know, I, I think, again, I think you want to do both.
Jim Hirsch:
Okay.
Linda Roberts:
I really do. Uh, I, I think that it is very… You can’t– If you’re talking about education, coughing: you can’t ignore the context in which you operate. So it becomes very important as developers and, um, the next generation of graduate students at universities, and the people who are in publishing or working at early progress, um, they’ve got to pay attention to what people are trying to do in the schools. But that’s not the end, that’s not where you want to stop. Um, I, but I still think there’s a tremendous amount of opportunity to, to build tools and applications that can really make significant improvements, um, in the opportunities or, you know, open up the opportunities for kids to learn in a variety of ways, and create the idea that there’s only one way to do something. Um, but then there’s a whole world of notes, and I think, I mean, I’m the last to say I can predict or forecast what will be possible to do in the future. Um, but I know something about that, and I know that it is… I just wish that we could be investing in research and development. I mean, basic research, I mean, applied research, open-ended research, where we could really be exploring both the frontiers of learning and the frontiers of technology. Um, Mitch Resnick, um, said something very interesting, uh, ACM retrospective on, you know, the next fifty years of technology. And, you know, he made the argument that the next generation of technology developments for education ought to not just be satisfied with making marginal improvements, but really ought to be-… just at the cutting edge of, of application for that generation of kids who deserve the best that we could dream of. And they take part in many ways, it’s very interesting part, they take part in the design processes. Uh-
Seymour Papert:
Well, you see,
Seymour Papert:
I’d like to say something. I think, uh, we have a thing called a curriculum stuffed in our kids’ mind. My estimate, it’s about one billion, the sum total of human knowledge. Why have we singled out that belief and made such a sugar that this is what kids have to know? Well, I think there’s a combination of a couple of reasons. Historically, it evolved and was teachable with the knowledge and technologies at the time that was formed, and was relevant to society at the time. The time being, say, late nineteenth century, early twentieth. Then it got cast in cultural concrete by thirty. It changed because, uh, you know, some of the figures know how to do it. The content wasn’t a curriculum. I believe, again, my, my professor of history in, at Stanford used to have to see that most of what we want to teach coughs: is totally, you know, stupid choice. It doesn’t have any reason in it. This is particularly true in mathematics. I’m a mathematician. I think mathematics is the jewel of the human mind, and I absolutely want everybody to learn mathematics, but there’s a distinction between mathematics and a different thing, math. Math is what you do in school, mathematics is something that is hardly allowed to get into the school. So, um, it’s gonna take time for the system to do this, but that’s what’s gonna happen, that the… This new technology means that we can teach, kids can learn something incredibly different from anything that we’ve done before. And I think that is such a much bigger factor than anything we’ve done in school. By a thousand to one, we, uh, you know, that, that’s,
Seymour Papert:
it’s– that’s the important thing. And we focus on these other things because we don’t dare to go into the real issue. And this real issue is, as I see it, I think that maybe somebody in this audience wants to be the next Bill Gates. I think the way that Bill saw that the microcomputer wasn’t a little thing, that’s the idea. He could grab the initiative and become the original guy around. I think there’s really something to the education future that might have influence, courage, and resources.
Linda Roberts:
coughs: Well, I think… I mean, I, I see a real time where I think you have the courage, and I think there is a real– Now, to Charles, I… You know, I think we’re really making a huge mistake in, in not being the f- the government, being the funding source of new ideas. Um, you know, right now, the public sector doesn’t have any risk-taking. They’re really trying to stay large. And I think that, um, you know, when I see some of the, the work that, that took years and years to do, um, it was… If you look at all the history, it was largely funded either through the National Science Foundation or the old, uh, you know, previous iterations of the Department of Education, or even, um, DARPA, the defense agency. And, you know, if we can’t do it, I don’t know who will. And I think when I talk about research, I’m not talking about proving that what we’re doing right now is exactly right, because I don’t think there’s no way we’re ever going to have to prove that. I think you’re always going to talk about things that we’ve proved. And I think where we should be, where we should be calling on the government to make investment, the risk-taking side, to be the venture capitalist for the next generation of learning and technology. And, um, you know, I, I meant to say this before Seymour, and I’ll say it now, um, one of the, the real life-changing events for me
Linda Roberts:
was reading Mindstorms, and we need a new generation of Mindstorms to think about and read about. Um, that doesn’t close in on options that we have as educators, as developers, as creators, as citizens, as learners, but rather opens up those options, and that’s what we need more of now.
Jim Hirsch:
I actually share one, uh, uh, colleague, a term that I hadn’t heard before, and I was grappling with considered curriculum disintegration. chuckles: Interesting. That’s an interesting concept. I, I don’t want to trivialize any of the conversation still to come here, but I, I’m gonna walk again, since we are in Washington, and I’m in Washington not very often. And when we look at, again, policies that come in terms of what we’re attempting to provide for our children in Washington, and the opportunity to see what the impact of our current policies on where we’re headed in the future of education technology, what correlation do you see?
Seymour Papert:
laughing: This is one…
Seymour Papert:
Well, I think, uh,
Seymour Papert:
positive side is that I was listening to a lot of discussions in here today about the concept of research-based
Seymour Papert:
events,
Seymour Papert:
and I think that’s a great idea, super idea. But I think it’s gotta be thinking about how to interpret it. Um, going back to my example of computer culture based on few computers versus what we’ve got now in many places. Uh, what do we do? So what do we do with… coughs: When we’ve got, everybody’s got computers all the time, and we’re thinking to give ideas, um, how do you base that on research? I think you have to, and doing how maybe expensive, but you need to have a different kind of research. And doing that research means you need to be able to do experiments, and the sort where, let’s see, let’s create some pilots where-… in some towns, some schools, or if we take that resource where we can really put the natural resource needed to build US new content, new concepts into some, uh, school, you would have to spend on those kids that we normally spend on. But think of it like sending people
Seymour Papert:
to the moon, you know? Wasn’t people like the moon, something bigger. Um, so I think that’s the model of, of research. So, and what I think we have to do is stretch the, the, the concepts that are being advanced, that we need research base, and that’s the same sort of stretching for the other concepts that are, that are coming up. So these concepts could strangle the future, or they could flourish by it, and it’s up to, to people, for us to think
Seymour Papert:
how to stretch them, to, to that how audio glitch: that they include.
Linda Roberts:
Mm-hmm. Yeah, you know, the policies, the general way describe sort of the title of this conference, if you think about it. We’ve got new policies about assessment, accountability, um, and curriculum. And it’s, it’s kind of like having new policies about technology. We have to think about the intended and the unintended consequences of those policies. And it is not the policies, per se, that are… I, I think, in fact, I really actually believe that
Linda Roberts:
there were really, uh, just really, uh, major, major, uh, policy decisions that were made by the Congress, um, in the No Child Left Behind Act. But it is the interpretation or the implementation of those policies that I think we- it seem right, we’re saying the same thing. We’re both saying we’ve got to be thinking about the consequences of the way in which, um, those policies have been implemented. And it is absolutely, I think it’s true, that there have been whole segments of our kids in our schools who have been, um, shortchanged, who have been under-challenged, um, who have not been given the full range of opportunities.
Seymour Papert:
Mm-hmm.
Linda Roberts:
But so the idea of every child, every child learning to the full extent of their capabilities is a very important policy. But the opportunity, you know, the, the way we carry out the policy, if it becomes a command and control kind of implementation, what we’re going to end up with is something we wish we never had. And so, you know, when I think about this, and I say to myself, it could go one way, and it could be incredible. I’m a former reading teacher. You know, I really think the reading section of the bill is, it is fantastic. If we could really help every first, second, third grade teachers, we could really do the right, the full job of reading, we would have every kid reading at this time. But if we too narrowly define what is the path to take, we will end up having more kids who can’t read rather than kids who… So, you know, it’s how we do it.
Seymour Papert:
I, I, I mean, I have two points about No Child Left Behind. I mean, I think that this can- the- there are also aspects of it that really-
Linda Roberts:
Attention.
Seymour Papert:
-one of the bad things, though, isn’t only because of this happening, but over the time, there’s been an increased focus in thinking very differently on the kids who are at the bottom. And I know in my daily work, for example, dealing with all these kids, where the work that could be liberating,
Seymour Papert:
spectacularly, unimaginably high performance, the kids who are already doing well is being pushed out of the way because of the interests of kids that are, that are in trouble. And it doesn’t have to be. We don’t have to say… So I think, I think it’s so interesting how through that, we’ve got to close the gap between the high performers. We’re not closing the gaps between kids right now. laughing: We don’t close the gap. We want everybody to be, to be doing the, the best that they can do. And we want to close the gap between myself and, I don’t know, Bill, Jill, anybody. laughing: No, we want to, we want to close the gap, and it affects the whole ability that we- that is well-intentioned. Everything I, you know, for- we want to do something about a lot of kids who are getting a bad deal, and we’ve got to give them a lot, but what we can give them is sacrifice. And I think that it’s not just model. I think that this country is heading for disaster if we continue to track this course. What makes this country great was in the mind of mind, and the one hope I see there in short term is that we’ve got to bring the kids who are in out of schooling, and many other sides, the kids are dropping out of the, you know, of the education system. I think it’s horrible. You know, I, it scares me, again, uh, benefit of the public education, but in my view, this can be what is the rootings of the United States. I hope not, yes, uh, kids, uh, but anyways, I think that we want to more carefully examine our, our language. And I found that this challenging, that nobody want- everybody knows closing the gap is an obvious no-brainer, that that’s a good thing to do. But once you think, I only want to think-
Linda Roberts:
You know, when I used to talk to Dick Riley about this, certainly, he always used a different analogy, which was the idea that you raise your friends about, you know, that when you have water in all of those spots, um, you’re not, you’re not holding anybody down. It’s a very different way.
Seymour Papert:
But definitely, that’s the-
Linda Roberts:
But these guys-
Seymour Papert:
As you know, the policies were that it’s much easier to get funding if, you know… And I just had a fight the last few weeks. There’s a, doesn’t matter what it is, it’s a vision of medical foundation that wants to… It says its goal is to encourage schools to do things, but as we’ve been doing, then I see slipping into the material is the– there is a measure of need in terms of, like, how many kids have subsidized lunches. It’s confusing, being confusing, the two goals, national-
Jim Hirsch:
… into making, with keeping in mind the traditional and evolution of, of the basic education. Great, it’s a healthy conversation, far away laughing: from technology and, and into education.
Linda Roberts:
Yeah, that’s better.
Jim Hirsch:
Because I brought that one up a little bit. That one definitely, um… We all know what can have impact. Where the gorilla sitting is pushing, I think. We have many tools and processes that can help that move along, at least we hope. Now, I know everyone in the audience right now is really envious of me, because not often do you have the opportunity to sit next to Linda and Seymour and ask questions. So I’m gonna ask two really short questions, and then I’m gonna give you an opportunity as we end the session, to think of questions that you might like to pose to Linda or Seymour or both. These are really simple. What we’d like to hear from both is, what is the single greatest enthusiasm for the future of plastic technology, and then also, the single greatest challenge to reaching that with plastic?
Seymour Papert:
Well, my single greatest enthusiasm is to do away with the word classroom. The technology can do away with the concept of learning as you sit in the same room, segregated by age, segregated by subjects, go away. It makes no sense. Technology makes blend of studies better. And just wondering, how many more generations, how much kids must sacrifice before we accept the reality that it’s not about policy, but behavior?
Linda Roberts:
I was thinking very similar things. I’m thinking there are no boundaries, and, uh, there are no masters of universe. laughing: I think about the greatest hope for technology, I think about our kids. They never disappoint.
Jim Hirsch:
So very similar. So what are– What’s the greatest challenge making that happen?
Linda Roberts:
Well, I think we’ve been talking about those challenges indirectly in a number of things. And, and I think the greatest challenge is to really, first of all, be able to see what’s happening, and be reflective about it, and have the wherewithal to, to throw out what’s not working, and to work in what’s- what is making a difference. And thinking outside of conventional wisdom is really, really important. And I think that maybe we can develop some tools. I mean, I hear, I think… I wonder if technology itself, there are tools that we could develop that would help us be more reflective, um, about where we’re headed and what we’re doing. And, um, I have to say something about this morning, about the TCO tool. Um, there, and this is an example of a tool that might, might,
Linda Roberts:
you know, understand what we’re spending money on, but it could have such a downer effect, coughing: is the goal of the tool is to lower the cost, to get the lowest number possible, um, total cost of operating. I guarantee you, it will be a disaster, um, because you’ll see everything disappear. On the other hand, if you start to think about the real return on investment, and you never decide that what you really care about is to learn, then I think you can be more athletic and also more effective.
Seymour Papert:
The biggest challenge is to create an atmosphere where people think more. A really good serious amount of time to think about what we want. And I think that it’s amazing, in fact, the education works and aircraft industry, where I spent hundreds of millions studying how to change my life in ten or twenty years’ time. In education, we do not spend significant resources, uh, resource, significant resources on thinking about what is beyond what we’re doing anyway. And I think I’m sort of, I was resting this, pounding the, one of the machines in the exercise room downstairs, and I think that was good. laughing: I think that to reflect that very much could be the most important, uh, learning experience for educators. Um, I would say try ten percent. Your time, ten percent, everybody’s budget, spend on really doing the detail, real technical, and seeing what that future might be like.
Seymour Papert:
Well, now, you’ve had an opportunity perhaps to be thinking of some questions. We do have some time where you can– If you wouldn’t mind coming to a microphone, we’ve got a gentleman ready to go right now. I’m not sure if those microphones are on, so you might want to check that. There’s a switch there where you can turn on.
Speaker 3:
We’ve got that too, yeah.
Jim Hirsch:
I know everyone will want to hear this question. laughing:
Speaker 3:
My battery’s gonna die. Do you have a battery?
Jim Hirsch:
All right, here we go.
Speaker 3:
I’d like, I’d like to, uh, follow up on Seymour’s last point and ask each of you, if you had a billion dollars
Speaker 3:
to finance, you would invest a billion dollars in, or in some cheap version of the region?
Linda Roberts:
If I had… You said a billion, right?
Speaker 3:
Say a trillion. chuckles: Tell me about it.
Seymour Papert:
I’d invest hundreds of dollars in research to make a hundred dollar computer, and I’d invest a hundred million in making kind of pilots of school and keep their mind.
Jim Hirsch:
So you think most important is that total price?
Seymour Papert:
Yes, I think if you put this in everybody’s hands in a short way through the system, and the first things people will do will be very, very magical. But it will start by expanding global access, right?
Linda Roberts:
Oh, man! A billion dollars, well, um, over five years. I, I go back to the point I made before about the need for research. I mean, I just feel, I think that the low cost, low cost technology is very, very important, but I think there has to be real experimentation…. with context, with learning in many different kinds of settings, um, in many different areas. I, I do think context is very important, um, but I don’t think it only in isolation. So I’d really love to see, um, some work in content as well as in technology. And I really, I would want- I, I gotta tell you, I, I’ve been very impressed by, um, this report. I’ll hold it up, ’cause believe me, I’ll hold this report. Really interesting report from the National Academy of Sciences on scientific research and education. And I guess I would like to see the level of investment in real data learning and learning in many different contexts, on the order of the kind of investment that we have made in curing cancer. So I can’t tell you what the full agenda is, but I think that’s where we really want to spend the money.
Speaker 3:
Thank you. Yes?
Speaker 4:
I’d like to, I guess, ask an old question with a slight twist.
Speaker 3:
Mm-hmm.
Speaker 4:
I’d like you to phrase that historians use when they talk about the history of revolution, a phrase, “stop in the mind.” Um, for centuries, the English people were confronted with bad rulers who were killed on battlefields or in back alleys, because they couldn’t figure out legally how to deal with a tyranny. In sixteen forty-nine, they actually tried sedition, and executors came on the grounds of treason, which they broke through, and they were able to break through this stop in the mind and re-conceptualize sovereignty. So the question I have is: Do you think there’s some stop in the mind that’s preventing us from understanding how do we use technology creatively, effectively in education? Is there something that just can’t quite bring it to a certain… Or is it maybe just a matter that we can’t get it cheap enough or to work well enough or stop there?
Linda Roberts:
You know, I, I’m not sure how to deal with that question, because I actually think if we’ve given you the impression that we think that I, I, if I’ve given the impression, I think that nothing good has happened, that’s crazy. Let me hear a bit-
Speaker 3:
It’s a good question.
Linda Roberts:
Just incredible things, uh, that I think have been done with the technology we have already. I think what we’re trying to say here is, we need more. That’s all. And, and maybe it’s not the end, as a culture. I really believe that we are pioneers. We were pioneers when we came to this country, and I think we’ve always been sort of that pioneer spirit. So I don’t see it as a stop.
Seymour Papert:
I don’t think it’s a question of breakthrough, it’s a question of breakdown. laughing: As I see it, the perfect analogy is with our education system, Soviet command economy. Centralized cohort, centralized system. It broke back. It seemed to be unchanging, it seemed to be permanently there, and it took a remarkably short time. I think our education, you know, that system in the Soviet style, is in a similar state. It’s about to break down. It’s about to… We’re gonna see.
Linda Roberts:
Okay. I, I really don’t dis- I, I don’t agree. I, I actually see some pretty phenomenal things happening right-
Seymour Papert:
Well, you put it a little differently than me, actually.
Linda Roberts:
Well-
Seymour Papert:
But the point is to make a distinction between the phenomenal great things that happen within the system, and the things that would break that system. This is our paradigm shift, so the old analogy can be used. That’s the fundamental difference
Seymour Papert:
that Mitchell was referring to there, that we have to keep in mind. We’ve seen wonderful things happen in small chunks, but they are of a particular kind. They are within the structure of a system that doesn’t make sense as a whole. And the big question is how that system can change. Little things like, why do we have these? Why do we teach kids to do these stupid algebra word problems? Why do we spend less time learning how to multiply fractions than learning, uh, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera? And we don’t have to do that. That’s part of a structure there, and things can get… Within the structure, you can do lots of good things, and maybe some pretty poor things have happened, that people in a century will look back and see, are those things which from their perspective, and see that they were wrong actually. They were in the way of producing the right system and, and make it a very fun one.
Linda Roberts:
And they broke through.
Seymour Papert:
Hmm?
Linda Roberts:
And they broke through. They broke the system.
Seymour Papert:
Of course, that makes sense. The system doesn’t make sense, so humanity, when it’s in our DNA, little systems don’t make sense for twenty years, fifty years, eventually-