Thanks for making the effort to read a 300+ page dissertation Rob :-)<br><br>For those with less time but are still interested then I'd recommend starting with Ch 4 (38pp) which provides a high level overview of alan kay's educational vision
<br><a href="http://thinkubator.ccsp.sfu.ca/Dynabook/dissertation">http://thinkubator.ccsp.sfu.ca/Dynabook/dissertation</a><br><br>Reading up on some of the history of computing / educational computing has altered my views of what we could / should be trying to achieve substantially
<br><br>I've read a lot of Papert's material years ago but the alan kay material adds a whole new dimension to it IMO. Why? One possibility is that with commercialization of computers the original educational potential became terribly distorted - certainly Maxwell explores this theme comprehensively.
<br><br>Although alan kay was strongly influenced by Papert - Kay was involved at a more fundamental level - ie. directly involved in the invention of the PC and the first OOPs language, Smalltalk<br><br>Etoys / squeak is a modern software synthesis of some of the best educational computing ideas from the past 30 years - although not a final end product.
<br><br>I've compiled some rough notes, brief history and an annotated reference list of some of alan kay's best articles and video presentations here:<br><a href="http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/alanKay+talk">
http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/alanKay+talk</a><br><br>cheers,<br>- Bill<br>-- <br>Bill Kerr<br><a href="http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/">http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/</a><br><br> <br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">
On 10/3/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Costello, Rob R</b> <<a href="mailto:Costello.Rob.R@edumail.vic.gov.au">Costello.Rob.R@edumail.vic.gov.au</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Thanks Bill<br><br>Read Maxwells phd thesis<br>(<a href="http://thinkubator.ccsp.sfu.ca/Dynabook/dissertation">http://thinkubator.ccsp.sfu.ca/Dynabook/dissertation</a>)<br>on Alan Kay and his vision of computing - the vision of the dynabook
<br><br>Pretty amazing document, documentation of little known history - at<br>least to me -<br><br>even though his vision of real computing as childs play hasn't been<br>fulfilled, he has still had a huge influence on current software
<br>principles etc<br><br>Catalysing a deep change of thinking on technology directions<br><br>Be nice if the ultranet people read something like this<br><br>Thanks<br>Rob<br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------
<br><br>Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:05:27 +1000<br>From: "Bill Kerr" <<a href="mailto:billkerr@gmail.com">billkerr@gmail.com</a>><br>Subject: Re: [Yr7-10it] Scratch, Gamemaker, VB.net, Python, PHP and<br>
MySQL - Programming for all levels<br>To: "Year 7 - 10 Information Technology Teachers' Mailing List"<br> <<a href="mailto:yr7-10it@edulists.com.au">yr7-10it@edulists.com.au</a>><br>Message-ID:
<br> <<a href="mailto:5d2dce520709211805x768ec01y2b78d9ad17dfef12@mail.gmail.com">5d2dce520709211805x768ec01y2b78d9ad17dfef12@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>
<br>hi rob,<br><br>I see what you mean by breadth (eg. web2.0 apps) versus depth (eg. look<br>under the hood be it programming, RDB or internal architecture of a<br>computer)<br><br>Its worth pointing out that many of the early pioneers of "computing
<br>science" - such as Engelbart, Kay - saw things differently. They thought<br>that computers could be use by children for:<br>- amplification of human reach<br>- expression of the creative spirit<br>- as a medium for self development, not just a tool
<br><br>This was a vision of PC use in which the user was also seen as designer<br>and<br>developer, that the distinction you draw and which is "natural' to draw<br>today b/w breadth and depth would be overcome through the sort of
<br>machines<br>and software that computers could become.<br><br>That early software is still available today (squeak / etoys) and has<br>been<br>updated to incorporate developments that happened later such as logo,<br>the
<br>www, spreadsheets, hypercard etc.<br><br>Also the whole issue of combined optimal hardware and software<br>development<br>is continuing through the OLPC and the NSF grant: Steps towards the<br>reinvention of programming
<br><a href="http://irbseminars.intel-research.net/AlanKayNSF.pdf">http://irbseminars.intel-research.net/AlanKayNSF.pdf</a><br><br>So, the final words in this story have yet to be written<br><br>The distinction b/w end-users and designers/engineers more or less did
<br>not<br>even exist in the early days of computing. It came along later with<br>commercialisation and development of a marketable commodity that<br>required a<br>clear definition of the end user as a user of clearly defined
<br>applications<br><br>We can visualise the "user" as also a co-designer and developer, or,<br>(different vision) visualise the "end user" for which a "user friendly"<br>system has been designed by an "expert" (in which not too much is
<br>demanded<br>of the user)<br><br>Computing could have developed in the former way. And for<br>education/learning<br>it seems to me to be the way to go.<br><br>Some have commented that it is hard to get started on learning squeak /
<br>etoys because it is so different from conventional systems. This is<br>because<br>it was designed with very different goals in mind to the user friendly<br>apps<br>which dominate the desktop today. (more of a difference than a
<br>difficulty)<br><br>John Maxwell's history of the dynabook explains these distinctions in<br>more<br>detail<br><a href="http://thinkubator.ccsp.sfu.ca/Dynabook/dissertation">http://thinkubator.ccsp.sfu.ca/Dynabook/dissertation
</a><br>Ch 4 and 5 for those who don't have time to read the whole thing<br><br>The people who invented the PC and GUI had a very different vision of<br>how<br>computers should be used with children to the way we use them today in
<br>nearly all schools<br><br>cheers<br>- Bill<br>--<br>Bill Kerr<br><a href="http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/">http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/</a><br><br><br>On 9/19/07, Costello, Rob R <<a href="mailto:Costello.Rob.R@edumail.vic.gov.au">
Costello.Rob.R@edumail.vic.gov.au</a>> wrote:<br>><br>><br>> Hi Bill and all<br>><br>> I agree "purist vs ICT user" is not quite the right polarity - it felt<br>a<br>> little loose when I used it. Let me try again by substituting it with
<br>> "breadth vs depth".<br>><br>> My feeling - and I gather its been well discussed in this forum - is<br>> that "ICT" is increasingly being colonised by a "competent user"<br>> (breadth) approach
<br>><br>> (breadth = competent user = teach kids how to blog, use wikis, use<br>other<br>> web2.0 tools, teach them some sort of critical literacy in this<br>domain,<br>> how to be productive users of software apps. In this view ICT is an
<br>> interdisciplinary, facilitating thing that crops up in every other<br>> discipline. ICT as a stand alone discipline is seen as "old school"<br>from<br>> this angle - when you only touched a computer in a lab and used for
<br>> programming)<br>><br>> Whereas a "depth" approach = IT as a technical discipline in its own<br>> right - relating to computer science and programming, parallel<br>> complexity to say maths - but maybe more engaging for some. Set kids
<br>on<br>> a path where they might learn how to build their own software. ICT<br>> deserves to be treated as a discipline in its own right from this<br>angle<br>> - and programming is an essential key to innovation, control and
<br>> customisation of software<br>><br>> That was kind of polarity I had in my head when I said "purist vs ict<br>> user" - (not really meaning "purist" as a strict computer science<br>> approach versus a less rigorous programming approach - but whether its
<br>> worth broaching programming at all)<br>><br>> I would still see Gamemaker as rather hybrid - more towards the<br>"depth"<br>> end , since it does build some programming skill - but enough appeal
<br>to<br>> compete against the breadth approaches. (and with big jump into the<br>> coding side, it does allow you to also go deep - though I suspect the<br>> jump is not too easy)<br>><br>> I'm wired towards defending programming as a worthy pursuit
<br>><br>> But I can see that ICT as breadth also has merit - it does fit well as<br>> an enabling tool in all disciplines<br>><br>> Too much depth - like forcing quadratics on every kid for the sake of<br>
> the few who ever manage to use that skill<br>><br>> But removing programming - like removing higher maths since its too<br>dry<br>><br>> (and I wonder if that might be less of a problem in todays economy,
<br>than<br>> losing programming)<br>><br>> Given VELS is meant to encourage depth, and remove the "breadth" of<br>> superficial coverage of half digested material, its maybe ironic its<br>> used (maybe improperly) to suggest the "depth" approaches to ICT are
<br>> outdated<br>><br>> Cheers<br>><br>> Rob<br>> PS I read this in digest mode, so sorry if truncating the subject made<br>> it tricky to follow for those who use email threads properly<br>><br>> ----- Original Message -----
<br>> To: Year 7 - 10 Information Technology Teachers' Mailing List<br>> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 6:55 AM<br>> Subject: Re: [Yr7-10it] Scratch, Gamemaker, VB.net, Python,PHP and<br>> MySQL - Programming for all levels
<br>><br>><br>> Hi Kevork,<br>><br>> well I've tried for 2-3 days to resist responding but in the end I<br>> haven't been successful :-)<br>><br>> the tipping point is that rob used the word "purist" too in the
<br>thread<br>> he started<br>><br>> [quote from rob in other thread] -<br>> I feel a bit like I've found a combination of ICT and philosophical<br>> thinking that seems, in any given school, to be a minority (the "lets
<br>> just use the stuff" approach / use some app with low entry and high<br>> graphics or communication payoff - seems to dominate. That whole<br>tension<br>> is one I'd like to investigate - I'm not unsympathetic to that
<br>approach<br>> for lots of kids - gamemaker is a good hybrid between the two (purist<br>vs<br>> ICT user)<br>> [/quote]<br>><br>> that is one thing that intrigued me about your reply: that you used<br>
> the word "purist" to describe what I described as an educational<br>> approach to the use of computers<br>><br>> One aim is to try to get at your thinking behind this use of<br>language<br>> and the other language we use wrt computers in schools (?)
<br>><br>> Initially the thinking behind teachers introducing game maker (to<br>> focus on that for a sec) was far from purist<br>><br>> key words here would be - engagement, motivational<br>><br>> advocates of game maker have been criticised for their lack of
<br>purity,<br>> for their capitulation to vulgar populism eg. see Kent's comments in<br>> this thread<br>><br>> go back a few years and the educational flavour of the decade was<br>logo<br>><br>> key words here would be - epistemology or more accurately "genetic
<br>> epistemology" (from Piaget) and papert invented a new one,<br>> "constructionism" (mmm ... not recognised by my spell checker, it has<br>> become a rare beast)<br>><br>> these are difficult words but do have some sort of real basis in
<br>> educational thinking - it's not really fair to describe this approach<br>as<br>> purist<br>><br>> some have argued and produced research studies that logo didn't work<br>> (eg. Roy Pea) in achieving its stated goals - but that's a big
<br>> discussion really<br>><br>> My point is about the language we use in describing computer use in<br>> schools - what I think is that this tends to reflect metaphors of the<br>> computer we have internalised
<br>><br>> I see this as -<br>> obstacles to introducing a child centered developmental approach to<br>> the use of computers in schools<br>><br>> Maybe it's "idealist" in some way because the prevailing ethos is
<br>very<br>> much "some other way" - labels might include vocational,<br>administrative,<br>> data management thinking, hardware / networking focus, VELS etc.<br>><br>> I like rob's approach of exploring the tension b/w existing
<br>approaches<br>> but don't like the way rob has described the poles of the tension<br>> (purist vs ICT user)<br>><br>> I'd prefer something like -<br>> educational versus vocational<br>> or
<br>> epistemological versus instrumentalist<br>><br>> "explore the tension" - good phrase rob<br>><br>> Kevork, I liked this reality check from you -<br>> "if we are looking at what is the best programming language for
<br>> children to learn in Period 1, and in Period 2 we are teaching<br>students<br>> VET IT and what they need to go out and work in industry next year and<br>> the period after that we are teaching Cisco students how to set up a
<br>> network in the "real" world through a simulated or school based<br>problem<br>> then you will forgive my oversight if I stray into what is needed in<br>> industry as part of what they are doing. Maybe I am suffering VET
<br>> fatigue."<br>><br>> and there have been other such recent comments, eg<br>> "I don't have time to learn a new programming language"<br>><br>> cheers,<br>> - Bill<br>>
<br>> Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If<br>> received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before<br>opening<br>> or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of
<br>any<br>> loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the<br>sender<br>> or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached<br>files<br>> our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any
<br>> representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual<br>sender,<br>> and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Early<br>Childhood<br>> Development.<br>><br>> _______________________________________________
<br>> <a href="http://www.edulists.com.au">http://www.edulists.com.au</a> - FAQ, resources, subscribe, unsubscribe<br>> Year 7 - 10 IT Mailing List kindly supported by<br>> <a href="http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au">http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au
</a> - Victorian Curriculum and Assessment<br>Authority<br>> and<br>> <a href="http://www.vitta.org.au">http://www.vitta.org.au</a> - VITTA Victorian Information Technology<br>Teachers<br>> Association Inc<br>>
<br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL:<br><a href="http://www.edulists.com.au/pipermail/yr7-10it/attachments/20070922/48892">http://www.edulists.com.au/pipermail/yr7-10it/attachments/20070922/48892
</a><br>9d9/attachment-0001.html<br><br>------------------------------<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Yr7-10it mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Yr7-10it@edulists.com.au">Yr7-10it@edulists.com.au</a>
<br><a href="http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/yr7-10it">http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/yr7-10it</a><br><br><br>End of Yr7-10it Digest, Vol 31, Issue 35<br>****************************************<br>
<br>Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.
<br><br>_______________________________________________<br><a href="http://www.edulists.com.au">http://www.edulists.com.au</a> - FAQ, resources, subscribe, unsubscribe<br>Year 7 - 10 IT Mailing List kindly supported by<br>
<a href="http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au">http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au</a> - Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority and<br><a href="http://www.vitta.org.au">http://www.vitta.org.au</a> - VITTA Victorian Information Technology Teachers Association Inc
<br></blockquote></div><br><br>