“Q: But there are statistics to show that in most cases technology in schools doesn’t work. A: The statisticians ask a silly question and get a silly answer. Of course “technology doesn’t work.” Technology doesn’t do anything. People do. Statistics that lump together technology implementations across the board — averaging the good with the bad […]
September 22, 2012 Read More »
There won’t be schools in the future…. I think the computer will blow up the school. That is, the school defined as something where there are classes, teachers running exams, people structured in groups by age, following a curriculum-all of that. The whole system is based on a set of structural concepts that are incompatible
September 13, 2011 Read More »
“So, I think the first impact of paper on education is that we’ve created a form of school and of learning that means that people with certain kinds of personalities, certain structures, neurological structures, take to it well and succeed, and some of them take to it less well and don’t succeed, and some of
“I’d like to make a very clear distinction between how you think as a revolutionary, not someone who wishes to force change, but someone who looks far enough ahead and sees that there is going to be change. There is going to be fundamental change. And the big question that I would like to raise
“Isn’t it time for us to grow up? And as we grow up, we should stop seeing ourselves as specialists of computers in education, because that casts us in the role of a kind of service profession. Accepting the role allows that other people are the ones to decide the big goals of education, what
“Those other people, they don’t have conferences about “paper in education.” They have conferences on education, because they think they’re talking about the real thing. By having a conference on computers in education, we are defining ourselves in a subordinate position.” Papert, S. (2004) Keynote address at the i3 1 to 1 Notebook Conference. Sydney,
“Seymour Papert: I’m introducing a word for that, when I was at school they made us learn Latin, why? Not because we were going to speak Latin but because by learning Latin you would learn to think in a rigorous way. We’d laugh at that. I’d think we’d laugh much too soon. Because the justification
“Another way in which computers can be either integrated into or isolated from the learning process has to do less with the computer as an instrument than with computing as a set of ideas. The issue appears very clearly when one contrasts what has come to be called “computer literacy” with the sense of the
“Despite many examples of such excellent work, the isolation of the computer presence must be seen as a kind of immune response of school to a foreign body; whether or not the participants were aware that this is what they were doing, it is clear that the logic of the process was to bring the
“The eighth big idea is we are entering a digital world where knowing about digital technology is as important as reading and writing. So learning about computers is essential for our students’ futures BUT the most important purpose is using them NOW to learn about everything else.” Papert, S. (1999) “The Eight Big Ideas Behind