princetonpoh98

3 ms·

1.
by princetonpoh98 19d ago
Right, so a creative tool meant to promote constructionism for students eventually becomes a blunt hammer used to drive mechanical outcomes. Side note, I do think your phrase "build to understand" is a good layman explanation for
2.
by princetonpoh98 22d ago
Thank you for sharing! Is it possible to try your inhouse LOGO? :)
3.
by princetonpoh98 23d ago
Do yall think Scratch is better than LOGO? O.o
4.
by princetonpoh98 23d ago
Do yall think Scratch is better than LOGO?
5.
by princetonpoh98 23d ago
Do you think the state of mathophobia and the systems driving has improved since his book? Or worsened? Stayed the same?
6.
by princetonpoh98 23d ago
Do you think Scratch is better than Logo?
7.
by princetonpoh98 23d ago
How old were you then?
8.
by princetonpoh98 23d ago
Have you tried playing again with it now as an adult then? HAHAHA
9.
by princetonpoh98 23d ago
Gotta agree it's really good! Chapter 1 is already a banger. Did you manage to recreate all those explorations on LOGO yourself?
10.
by princetonpoh98 23d ago
I'm curious! 1. Are your students still using LOGO? (if yes, which one? if no, what did you moved on to?) 2. Given everything you've said about LOGO, including how it transforms the student's relation with math from anxiety t
11.
by princetonpoh98 23d ago
Do you think the ideas behind LOGO has been forgotten as well? As you've mentioned, it has spawned many learning tools since. My question is, do you think anything new has superseded LOGO in achieving its goals? Or is LOGO still the be