[Olpc-open] Academics et al.

[Yoshiki Ohshima]

  Ed,

> http://users.ipa.net/~dwighth/smalltalk/byte_aug81/design_principles_behind_smalltalk.html
> http://vpri.org/pdf/draper_RN-2004-001.pdf
> http://www.squeakland.org/pdf/how_children_learn.pdf
> 
> Squeak, eh? :-)  Now you have jumped from 'software'
> to programming language.  I.e. you have jumped from OS
> preference to programming language preference.  I
> prefer python to squeak.  Another endless 'vi vs
> emacs' debate.  No thanks! :-)  You still haven't
> defined 'good' for software? ;-)

  As Bert wrote, I wasn't putting these links up to show a programming
language, but some ideas behind computer systems for learning.  (I
don't care the actual language part is Smalltalk or not.)

  I wrote this:

"The software in which kids can open the hood, explore, and learn is
good.  Its UI should invite exploration."

If it is not sufficient, probably you need to define what you mean by
"define".

> I see.  So, please define, or give examples of *very*
> good academics.

  How about Jerome Bruner?

------------------------------------------------------------
> I did not criticize whole
> "academics".  I specifically criticized AN academic,
> purporting that computers should be denied to
> children, etc.  Please read more carefully, etc. and
> don't over generalize. :-)

  Ok.  I'm totally mistaken when you wrote "typical ivory tower".
Sorry about that.

> Why not?  If you are proposing that computers are not
> useful for children, then I am attempting to
> communicate to you that I consider this to be on the
> same level as proposing that the world is flat, etc. 
> Please feel free to call anything I write to be
> comparable, if you wish.

  I'm not, and I don't.  Yet, the fact that earth is not flat has been
examined carefully over long time (thousands of years) and it is
simple as people know how to show it without relying on the weakness
of human brain (you better not).  But computers in education is not
that simple.  Is is not as 100% as earth non-flatness.

  But that is not the issue.  Labeling the people you are discussing
with (against) is just a bad thing to do.

> Which is precisely what I did.  I challenged an
> extreme statement on an olpc related list, that
> computers should not be given to children, etc. 
> Egads, I think we may be agreeing on a couple of
> points, and disagreeing on others. :-)  Such is life.

  tallk897's argument wasn't extreme at all.

-- Yoshiki