Papert: Not Just Logo!
The Children's Machine - Photo by rodrigo mesquita (by)
Many of you may know Seymour Papert as the creator of Logo. If you don’t know about Logo or Seymour’s role in its development, there are some resources below.
Dr. Papert has often been recognized as the Father of Educational Computing. His impact on the early world of information technologies in schools is legendary for it was borne from his collaboration with Jean Piaget, theories of constructivism, and the ‘tutee’ concept within Tool, Tutor, and Tutee.
But Seymour has been much bigger than Logo.
What You May Not Know
But what you possibly don’t know about Seymour Papert is his significant contribution to the field of cognitive science. With Marvin Minsky, he cofounded the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at MIT. He collaborated with Marvin Minsky on Perceptrons (1969), which temporarily reduced the focus on neural networks and encouraged increased study of symbolic models. Indeed, inthe early 80′s, the exploration of neural networks rebounded and became a prominent force in Artificial Intelligence (AI) research and development. I don’t pretend to understand the ins and outs of these very technical arguments among the Newell & Simon cognitivists, artificial intelligence supporters, and cyberneticists. However, these times were central to the creation of the current theories of cognitive science.
Seymour Papert & Nicholas Negroponte, Founder & Chairman of 'One Laptop Per Child' - photo by Bud the Teacher (by sa nc)
The Human Side
I’ve had the good fortune of spending some time with Seymour Papert. I wish I’d had more time and I wish that I’d had more opportunities for debate with him – not about cognitive science but about cognitive psychology and his dreams for schools and children’s learning.
We were at a conference together in Israel. I helped usher him away from the throngs of people after his presentation to his hotel in another city. He was always deluged in those days and he valued his privacy. He asked me if I wouldn’t mind driving his rental car for him. He found it crazy to drive there and, of course, I was happy to oblige. On the way, we stopped in the old city and were happily walking along, browsing at the stalls. Then, I turned around and he was gone! Oh my goodness! It took me some 20-30 minutes to find him. He was contentedly sipping tea with a shopkeeper and deeply involved in a wonderful conversation about the state of the world.
I miss Seymour’s presence. He was severely injured in a motorcycle accident several years ago. His strength of passion and genius should not be missed. Read his work.
A Last Word about Logo
If you have not explored using Logo with kids, I can still recommend that you do this. I am sure it must fit a 21st Century Skill or two. :-) There are many versions available. Seymour Papert was the Chair of the Board of LCSI for many years and they have, in my opinion, made the best versions of this computer language.
Logo is a programming environment – an accessible one for all learners. Now programming doesn’t mean what you might think. Many of us believe that students should engage in some aspects of computer science for the purposes of developing rich, divergent, reflective thinking. @dougpete makes reference to this frequently.
NOTE: DON’T be scared away by the term ‘programming’! All ages can take part. Check out MicroWorlds EX and MicroWorlds Jr (the latter is for primary kids).
RESOURCES
- A Critique of Technocentrism in Thinking about the School of the Future by Seymour Papert
- The Turtle’s Long Slow Trip: Macro-educological Perspectives on Microworlds by Seymour Papert
- On the Origins of Cognitive Science: The Mechanization of the Mind by Jean-Pierre Dupuy, MIT, 2009 ISBN 978-0-262-51239-8
- MicroWorlds EX and MicroWorlds Jr
- Learning with Logo - by Gary Stager
Bricolage, Schools & the Internet
I am amazed at the differences between learning ‘in school’ versus learning ‘out of school’.
Once again, as a result of a post by Graham Attwell ‘How we use technology and the internet for learning‘, I am amazed at the differences between learning ‘in school’ versus learning ‘out of school’. The first time I formally thought of this distinction was when I read an article by Lauren Resnick which was the 1987 Presidential Address – called ‘Learning In School and Out‘. (Full PDF here.) It remains, to this day, one of my favourite articles. Two of the main points Resnick makes are these:
- ‘Individual cognition in school versus shared cognition outside.’ In school, the most prevalent form of learning and performance is individual. Oh yes, group activities and ‘collaborative learning’ are common, but when it comes time for judgment, schools typically evaluate the individual performance. In addition, many of the school activities, such as homework, are individual. Outside of school, tasks and jobs are often socially shared and, as a result, performance of the ‘group’ or ‘team’ is often what is judged. Resnick cites a beautiful example of this ‘social distribution of knowledge’ by the anthropologist Edwin Hutchins. Imagine a ship being piloted into and out of San Diego harbour. There are six people with three different job descriptions. ‘Two people on the deck take visual sightings on predetermined landmarks, using special telescopic devices mounted on gyrocompasses that yield exact readings of direction. They call out their readings to two other individuals, who relay them by telephone to a specialist on the bridge. This individual records the bearings in a book and repeats them aloud for confirmation. Next to the recorder, another individual uses specialized tools to plot the ship’s position on a navigational chart and to project where the ship will be at the next fix and beyond. These projections of position are used to decide what landmarks should be sighted next by those on deck and when a course correction will be required. The entire cycle is repeated every one to three minutes. No individual in the system can pilot the ship alone. The knowledge necessary for successful piloting is distributed throughout the whole system.’
No individual in the system can pilot the ship alone. The knowledge necessary for successful piloting is distributed throughout the whole system.
- ‘Pure mentation in school versus tool manipulation outside.’ In school work, although tools (calculators, spell-checkers, concept-mapping, websites, word-predict, smart phones) are often used during learning, when it comes to assessment and evaluation, these tools are very often not allowed. Schools base the ‘greatest premium’ on solo performance – on a student’s efforts without the use of any tools – books, notes, calculators and all those tools previously mentioned. However, outside of school, people are ‘engaged intimately’ with tools as ‘cognitive partners’, as Gavriel Salomon would say. The ship’s personnel in the previous paragraph clearly used tools to achieve their successes. Schools need to welcome all the tools and look at performance in partnership with those tools. Open-book exams, if you are into exams, make more sense than do exams without such access.
Graham Attwell makes the point in the above mentioned post that young people (in fact, many people) ‘are using social software and Web 2.0 technologies for work, play and learning outside institutions’. This is no surprise to many of us. The major difference that this highlights, however, is in the nature of the learning – the formality, the control, the engagement. Learning in educational institutions is generally ‘system directed’ and ‘formal’. Learning outside of school is generally ‘self-directed’ and ‘informal’.
Learning in educational institutions is generally ‘system directed’ and ‘formal’. Learning outside of school is generally ‘self-directed’ and ‘informal’.
Graham cites a Pew Research study which found that 56 percent of American young people were using computers for ‘creative activities, writing and posting of the internet, mixing and constructing multimedia and developing their own content.’ He goes on to describe the ‘bricolage’ nature of this constructionist learning – a phenomenon which Seymour Papert held close to his heart. The bricoleur tinkered with materials at hand to invent and construct something new.
Schools need to adapt. Administrators and teachers need to accommodate the tools and devices that many students bring to school. We need to value true collaboration – with other people and with the tools that serve as cognitive and social partners.
This is quite a challenge for us as a society. Are we up for it?
Related Articles
- Why Isn’t It About the Pedagogy? (dougpete.wordpress.com)
Deep Understanding & the Issue of Transfer
“Effects with” and “Effects of” Technology
In her post called What is Deep Understanding @brendasherry asked this question – “Are students connecting ideas together and connecting with previous experiences?” I’d like to springboard from this and ask, “Are students connecting ideas together and learning for future experiences?
Does computer use lead to knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are transferable to other situations? Or maybe a better question might be, “How can students use computers in ways that will allow for this transfer?”
If you ever wonder at the end of a day just what your kids learned while working at the computers and you are dissatisfied with your thoughts, consider the following simple model. Gavriel Salomon (1992) posed an analysis of the difference between “effects with” and “effects of” computers.
Effects with are the changes that take place while one is engaged in intellectual partnership with peers or with a computer tool…
Effects of are those more lasting changes that take place as a consequence of the intellectual partnership…
Effects with are the changes that take place while one is engaged in intellectual partnership with peers or with a computer tool, as, for example, is the case with the changed quality of problem solving that takes place when individuals work together in a team. On the other hand, effects of are those more lasting changes that take place as a consequence of the intellectual partnership, as when computer-enhanced collaboration teaches students to ask more exact and explicit questions even when not using that system.
In other words the effects with are the enhanced ability one gets from the use of technology. Salomon elaborates: “The combined product of human-plus-machine yields a higher level of performance.” The effects of are the lasting individual changes resulting from the computer-supported collaboration, the cognitive residue, one might say, the transferable knowledge or skills.
So, just how might you go about helping your students experience the effects of having used the computer?
Opportunities to Teach Transferable Knowledge/Skills
I have found that the best way to identify opportunities to teach transfer is by looking for tools or features that provide mental models for kids.
Some examples include:
- Programming (I know. I know. ‘Kids don’t have to program these days!‘ I hear it all the time. But, give it a wee read anyway!
) - Outliners – in Wordprocessors
- Concept Mapping (Inspiration, Smart Ideas, Webspiration)
- Tag Clouds
- Tagging
- Wordle
Programming with Logo
The first uses a simple Logo example (MicroWorlds Pro or others including free listed here).
Figure 1. A subprocedure for creating a square is shown within a superprocedure for creating a flower.
In Logo, as in other programming environments, you write procedures (or small programs), which may become part of larger procedures. The included ones, therefore, are called subprocedures, and the enclosing programs are called superprocedures. This is much like a builder using bricks that become part of a wall, which then becomes part of a house. For example, the procedure for creating a square can become a subprocedure inside a superprocedure for creating a flower (Figure 1).
To square Repeat 4 [forward 50 right 90] EndTo flower Repeat 18 [square right 20] End
Jeffrey (a Grade 2 rascal!) made a most interesting leap from Logo to a completely different domain one day.
We were having a discussion inspired by the flight of the space shuttle piggybacked on a jumbo jet. Our Grades 2/3 class had the opportunity to watch the flight. When we returned to the classroom, a discussion of space naturally arose. One child asked if Earth was in space, and in asking the question, she determined it must be, because it wasn’t sitting on anything. The discussion continued until Jeffrey piped up.
“You know . . . it’s sort of like Logo.”
We stopped and looked at him curiously.
“What do you mean?” I asked him studiously.
He replied, “Well, Earth is like a procedure. It’s like a subprocedure inside the solar system. The solar system is the superprocedure. And the solar system is like a subprocedure in- side the universe. The universe is like the superprocedure.”
“Fascinating,” I said, then asked, “What’s the biggest superprocedure?”
After a moment he replied, “I don’t know. I guess the universe.”
Well, I was truly amazed at the generalization across domains that Jeffrey had made. He clearly demonstrated significant transfer of a concept from his experiences with Logo to an authentic event. Although Jeffrey’s illumination happened spontaneously, I learned that I could play an important role in helping students to acquire Salomon’s “effects of” by providing opportunities for them to look for these comparisons across subject areas.
I learned that I could play an important role in helping students to acquire Salomon’s “effects of”
I started playing a game with students that I called Metaphoria. I gave them sentence starters such as “Programming in Logo is like … ” or “Finding a bug in a program is like … ”. Students have answered: “Programming in Logo is like playing tennis. First, I take a turn, then the computer takes a turn.” “Finding a bug in a program is like looking for a needle in a haystack.”
Outliners
Does word processing make students better writers? Research (Bangert-Drowns, 1993; Breese, 1996; Owston & Wideman, 1991) has indicated that students write better whenever they use word processors. Their work is longer, better revised and edited, and so forth. This would constitute effects with. But can they subsequently write better after having used word processors? Can they write better without the use of a word processor? The answer to these questions is likely dependent on both the connections teachers explicitly make in class as well as the types of activities in which students are engaged while using word processors. For example, if they use an outlining tool within a word processor or presentation software, they would then have a functional mental structure to carry with them to other tasks. Thus benefiting from effects of having used a word processor.
How does using the outliner tool differ from just using indents and hard returns? The ability to expand and collapse the headings and subheadings provides, in my opinion, a significant mental model.
The ability to expand and collapse the headings and subheadings provides, in my opinion, a significant mental model.
Examples of using the outliner feature of word processors are detailed in this pdf - Transferring Knowledge with Technology published in Learning & Leading with Technology, vol. 30, no. 4 © 2002, ISTE ® (International Society for Technology in Education), <www.iste.org.> All rights reserved.
Concept Mapping, Tag Clouds, Tagging, Wordle, and?
It is easy to then see how certain other applications and uses of technology lend themselves to mental models with which to think. I invite you to think about concept mapping, Tag clouds, tagging, Wordle and others.
Conclusion
These are but a few basic examples of software tools that provide students with a mental model—a model that is durable and independent of the computer. It is what Salomon would call a residual effect (1992).
One example of this residual effect became evident after the students’ experience with “bug collecting” during their time with Logo. They had learned that identifying problems in their 
Logo code meant that they had mistakes, or bugs, in their thinking. Of course, actively seeking bugs was a necessary component to getting the program to do what they wanted. Bug seeking naturally evolved into bug collecting. Every time a bug was solved, the kids squished it—metaphorically, of course! The class had built a large papier maché turtle, and one of the students suggested that perhaps when a bug was solved it could be fed to the turtle instead. This was delightful and useful in and of itself, but the transfer of this model became clear as I overheard two students working on a traditional paper math task. They knew their answer wasn’t right. One student said to the other, “There’s a bug in here somewhere. We’d better find it!”
Be explicit in building the bridge—in making the connection of this skill to other domains.
I believe it is important to maximize the opportunity for the acquisition of these skills as your students are using computers. Do not leave it solely to the use of the computer. Be explicit in building the bridge—in making the connection of this skill to other domains. Discuss them in class. Have students describe other situations where these skills might be used.
In fact, take it one step further. Ask your students to think of particular uses of computers that give them generalizable skills. In this way, you are empowering them to take more responsibility for their own learning.
References
Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 69–93.
Breese, C. (1996). Promise in impermanence: Children writing with unlimited access to word processors. Early Child Development and Care, 118, 67–91.
Owston, R. D., & Wideman, H. H. (1991).
Effects of word processing on student writing in a high computer access environment. Technical Report 91-3. Available: www.edu.yorku.ca/~rowston/written.html.
Salomon, G. (1992). What does the design of effective CSCL require and how do we study its effects? (Reprinted from SIGCUE Outlook, 21(3), 62–68.) No longer available free online.
