The Intellectual Father of Educational Computing – Seymour Papert
I have listened to Papert’s 2004 keynote speech at the Computing Conference in Sydney.
He really is a very persuasive speaker – “appealingly” logical. He is a mathematician, the developer of the computer language LOGO, a key figure in “Constructionism” (he worked with Piaget).
He asked controversially in 1990 – “We don’t have conferences on the use of paper and education, so why do we have conferences on computers and education?”, and is still explaining this valid question today.
I agree totally with his dilemma about the two sides of thought:
1. What will education be like in 20 years? (Visionary view) VS.
2. But what shall I teach on Monday morning? (Practical View)
We feel this conflict in our BTeach – we don’t even know how to teach our KLA in the current fashion and now we are being asked to redesign the curriculum – a big task … but someone has to begin it and we are in a good position to have open minds. However we still have to get the students to pass the exam… there it is again!
He stresses that you mostly hear HOW we can use technology to teach the same Maths differently… when we need to rethink WHAT we are teaching. This also resonates with Green & Hannon “the mistake of trying to prepare children for today’s jobs” (a great quote).
I had not thought about the current emphasis on the “get information” aspect of computers at the expense of the “computers as construction” aspect. Education should be focussed on active learning rather than retrieving information. This is the heart of the problem of technology and education – by constructing with technology, students achieve “deep understanding” (rigorous thinking). Papert’s ideas help allay a common fear regarding technology and curriculum (see the comments page about SMH’s article “Phone a Friend: the exam revolution”).
He inspires me to look at how we can get students to understand Mathematics in a different way. This is what I hoped to achieve when I enrolled in this course. Practicum surprised me with the rigid, busy curriculum and what a rush it is to cover it – and how students are conditioned for direct instruction.
