<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Walter Bender <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:walter.bender@gmail.com">walter.bender@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="im">On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Bill Kerr <<a href="mailto:billkerr@gmail.com">billkerr@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div></blockquote><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="im"> > however, I do think the roll back of enlightenment principles is not well<br> > understood (<a href="http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/nonUniversals" target="_blank">http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/nonUniversals</a>) and that a<br> > better understanding might persuade more people of the need to keep<br> > searching and struggling for different ways to go against some of the tide<br> > of local culture - there is a recent interesting comment thread on mark<br> > guzdial's blog which is worth reading from this point of view<br> > <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3F4TMBURELZZK" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3F4TMBURELZZK</a><br> ><br> <br> </div>Regarding Guzdial's blog, I am optimistic. While I had always feared<br> that "phone culture" would turn us into a society of consumers of<br> services that Ma Bell chose for us; but the iPhone and the Android are<br> programmable and, while Apple is the iPhone gatekeeper, the meme that<br> phones can be programmed is spreading. This is a huge step forward.</blockquote><div><br></div></div>I'd also point out that there are some other great themes in the mark guzdial comments thread, eg. the difficult question of the need to transcend a marketing approach (dialogue b/w mark guzdial and alan kay)<br> <br>I've recently had some striking experiences from a couple of people - both huge mac fans - who I thought perversely avoided anything to do with programming, including visual drag and drop using scratch or even raw HTML markup<br> <br>The Guzdial blog helped me make the connection - that the mac way does in fact brainwash people to the mentality that everything is perfect, beautiful and shiny as it comes packaged to you, that there is an app for everything. <br> <br>Although I find that most students will accept "simple" challenges such as scratch programming and become absorbed in them this minority(?) trend does worry me - Guzdial's blog is pretty much devoted to the theme of how induce more students into programming in view of the trend to falling enrolments in programming courses (in Australia too, as well as the USA)<br> <br>I then thought of some notes I made a couple of years ago after reading John Maxwell's history of the dynabook (<a href="http://thinkubator.ccsp.sfu.ca/Dynabook/dissertation">http://thinkubator.ccsp.sfu.ca/Dynabook/dissertation</a>):<br> <a href="http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/alanKay+talk">http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/alanKay+talk</a><br><br><div style="margin-left: 40px;">What sort of user interface is suitable for learning?<br><br> We have become very used to a certain style of user interface, one which is “user friendly” and which gives us access to the function of the computer. The user friendly user interface has been designed by experts to not demand too much of the end user. Some systems take this a step further and actively discourage the user from becoming curious about how things work under the hood.<br><br> It is not just a matter of “user friendly”, in itself that is not serious grounds for complaint. It is the idea of users as users of clearly defined applications that have been developed by “experts”. In large part this state of things has arisen through commercialisation. A marketable commodity requires a clear definition. So proprietary applications are developed as a black box as an expression of “efficient software engineering”. In this commercial vision the “personal computer” is not really personal because most of its interfaces have been standardised which transforms the actors into docile agents who respond in predictable ways to stimuli.<br><br> “my life belongs to the engineers ... we hesitate to exist” (Latour)<br> “The self evident state of the art blinds people to other possibilities” (Andy diSessa)<br><br> If you start from a more philosophical perspective of amplifying human reach, of computer as a meta medium for expressing the creative spirit then the attitude to the user is different. The user, as well as being a user, is also a potential constructionist designer and developer who eventually will be able to create their own tools. So, the tools for exploring the system should be powerful and easily accessible. This is one of the features of Smalltalk.<br><br> The ethic is one of mutability and simplicity. Every component of a system is open to be explored, investigated, modified and built upon. The tool / medium distinction is blurred and so is a lot of other false clarity. Rather than a world of reified “experts”, “engineers”, “designers”, “end-users”, “miracle workers” and “plain folks” it would be better to blur these boundaries, particularly for learning environments.<br></div>