Path: news.media.mit.edu!grapevine.lcs.mit.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!ntx.City.UniSA.edu.au!magill.magill.unisa.edu.au!kerrb
From: kerrb@magill.unisa.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.lang.logo
Subject: Re: Evolution of logo
Message-ID: <1993Dec31.002508.94@magill.unisa.edu.au>
Date: 31 Dec 93 00:25:07 +1030
References: <1993Dec24.194331.91@magill.unisa.edu.au> <CIMIxG.Lzx@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
Organization: University of South Australia - Magill
Lines: 52

In article <CIMIxG.Lzx@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, dal3@cbnewsg.cb.att.com
(dale.e.parson

> Young kids, especially my own, have led me to look into more
concrete
> embodiments of mathland than anything focused on the computer for
> the sensorimotor, pre-symbol-crunching crowd. Turtle geometry, 
> specifically body math, took us into orienteering. That has been
> very fruitful, and its mathematics covers ground from issues
> like scale and the basic concept of mapping between domains to,
> ultimately, issues such as the fractal dimensions of twisty paths
> through terrains such as rock fields and effective annotation
> of said dimensions on a map so as to give the orienteer a handle
> on the time/length complexity of traversal. It will be years until
> my kids attack that one, but there's plenty of body math between
> here and there.
> 
> I believe that mathland is all around us. Part of what Mindstorms
> said is that we have these cultural models, but our civilized
> cultures are rather poor in mathematical models, and Logo is an
> attempt to help with some of that. Other physical activities
> contain a lot of math if you know where to look, so any activity
> that generates a piece of mathland culture takes another step
> towards establishing that culture. This argument is that an
> advance in technology is secondary to the simple act of
> recognizing, pointing out, and encouraging recognition of
> mathland all around us. It is inspired by kids who know
> right away with their bodies how to interact with manipulatives.
> Very little instruction required.
> 

As a theoretical position I agree. In the interface between the cultural and
the technological, the cultural is primary. 

As I understand it Seymour Papert has the same position as expressed in his
response to the Roy Pea research.
(eg. 'A critique of Technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future')

What I am saying is that more kids with diverse learning styles will prefer to
use the computer and logo if the modern graphical and OOPs features are
incorporated into the language.

As Alan Kay said (and did) the best way to predict the future is to invent it.
It is very likely that our kids futures will include more computers, cheaper
computers and more powerful computers with multimedia features (touch screen,
voice control etc.). This technology will be part of the future cultural
landscape. 

Bill Kerr
Paralowie R12 School 
South Australia