3 ms·
IMHO - more like LOGO, re-done poorly. Hey, nothing against the author's creation, but I do often wonder why we keep re-inventing something that Seymour Papert
by cr0sh 10y ago
IMHO - more like LOGO, re-done poorly.
Hey, nothing against the author's creation, but I do often wonder why we keep re-inventing something that Seymour Papert figured out a long, long time ago - and gave us the tools to do it with!
Furthermore - if you read his book (Mindstorms) - the goal isn't to "learn programming" - it's to learn to think computationally, something which can be applied to all areas of learning and life. Furthermore, it's done by manipulating a virtual artifact (the turtle) to create further artifacts - artifacts which can be interactive.
Part of me tends to wonder if this "shoehorning" of education into nice little "holes" (much like rote memorization) isn't more an effort to stifle kids natural urge to creativity, questioning, and ultimately skepticism?
How dare we foster an education that could lead to progressive liberalism and an unfettered mind...unthinkable!
- ux-app 10y ago>more like LOGO, re-done poorly. Each tool serves it's purpose. Currently i'm teaching programming to year 8,9,10 students. We use Logo, Scratch, JS (Khan Academy) and some game dev using unity3D Each tool has it's place and sometimes it's not about the age, but the predisposition of the cohort. E.g. Logo isn;t usually a year 9 starter language (it's usually used for younger kids), but with one particular group of 9s it was the right starting point, so as an educator I say, the more tools we have the better :)