> -----Original Message----- > From: Arthur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 8:51 AM > To: 'Arthur'; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Edu-sig] Beyond CP4E > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Arthur > > > > Dethe writes - > > And we need not pre-suppose what particular machine might be or become > relevant to a particular student's life. > > So we are free to move on to other things, in good enough conscience.
It is precisely the ubiquitous nature of PCs and the level of abstraction achieved for its use that argues *against* it significance in the classroom. My argument here not coming from abstract thinking, alone. I talk to young folks about their exposure to PCs in school and mostly hear that they are being taught things that either they already know, or know they can find out for themselves easily enough when the time comes to find it out. If they want to find it out. They are being bored, mostly. School does enough of that already. Show them how to find state capitals on the internet by writing complicated, obtuse text files and they know well enough they are being taken the long way around. My son was asking Mr. Jeeves early in the game. Yes, there is some thought and effort that can be given to getting folks below the surface of the machine's interface. But getting to the PC and the Fab machines is ludicrous, when the light bulb hasn't been tackled, and something like a primitive radio beyond the scope of what it seems realistic, or worth the effort, to tackle (somehow). What are we thinking? What am I missing? Art _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
