100 likes | 211 Vues
In this exploration of the LOGO programming language, we contrast the perspectives of key contestants like Papert, Mitterer, and Rose-Krasnor. The discussion encompasses techno-centrists versus techno-romantics, highlighting biases in educational methodologies and the necessity of cultural representation. We ponder the effectiveness of tools in fostering learning, debate the implications of short study timelines, and emphasize the significance of relationships in education. This analysis invites reconsideration of how we measure success and the interplay between theory and practice in learning environments.
E N D
LOGO: The Promise & Reality EDUC 804
Our Contestants Papert vs Mitterer & Rose-Krasnor
Techno-centrists vs Techno-romantics Calling Names
Papert has his biases - Hui Only accepts results that support his agenda - Frank Biases
Is just a tool? - Mary Do good tools produce good results? - Kevin, Shane Technology
Time Study was too short - Frank, Leona Time on task promotes transfer of learning - Andrea
Catholic children are not representative - Leona Subjects
M & R-K failed to identify cultural aspects - Elaine Without relationships the tools are meaningless - Deb What about the culture?
What is the theory of LOGO? - Nadine LOGO is tool to get inside an idea Programming & Geometry - Robyn Measuring the right thing?
The difference between theory and practice is greater in practice than it is in theory