Thanks for your reply.

As I think about it the "Internet Cloud" is a pretty big abstraction  
that needs concrete activity to develop understanding. I have always  
treated IT and the Internet as "objects" to be manipulated and formed  
into new objects. Perhaps this is my way of "making the abstract  
concrete." This is a learning from "Mindstorms."

As I thought about the abstractness of the Internet I thought about  
the abstractness of school. The following story illustrates what I mean.

Billy and Jimmy are first graders
Their teacher writes on the "white" board  2+1= ?
All hands are up --- The teachers calls on Jimmy
Jimmy replies "3." --- "Right" responds the teacher.
The teacher writes  2+2 ? - All hands are up -- The teacher calls on  
Billy answers "2+2 is 4" - "Good, Billy" replies the teacher.
The teachers writes on the whiteboard    2+3= ?
All hands are down.
Jimmy and Billy hide behind other students so not to be called on.
Billy leans over to Jimmy and says-- "Just what I have been afraid of  
since the first day of school - CALCULUS!!!"

I think school goes this fast for many students.

School was like playing "catchup basketball" for me. I was allows  
behind. It was like this for me until I met my high school chemistry  
teacher. From him I experienced that wrong answers were as powerful as  
the right ones. That information came from working with real world  
materials. That new questions were better than old answers. That the  
books were filled with wrong answers. He made the abstractness of  
chemistry come alive and real. That there are many ways of seeing. I  
didn't completely understand this until I read Pirsig's, "Zen and the  
Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" some 20 years later.

We need to explore the "backwards" thinking of problem solving and  
make the abstract of the Internet become concrete in more school  



On Jan 25, 2008, at 1:22 AM, Vincent Rossano wrote:

> Frank,
> Good evening from San Diego.
> The methodology you describe sounds like a fantastic way to help  
> kids make the necessary connections - mental and physical - between  
> the abstract and the concrete.  Back in the days before computers  
> where ubiquitous, the direction you worked was right (i.e., concrete  
> to abstract); today, though, kids are adrift in the abstract world  
> of computer technology and, in many cases, don't ever reach dry  
> land.  We need to work in the opposite direction and get the kids TO  
> the concrete from the abstract .  We need kids to understand how  
> concepts play out in the real world.  (One reason I've long been a  
> supporter - to little avail - of shop classes.)   Let the kids go  
> ashore and explore.
> I think it was Lucie who, a while back, posted a link to a talk  
> given by somebody named Gever Tulley. It was called "Five dangerous  
> things you should let your kids do."   It was wonderful.  I mean,  
> here's this computer scientist (I believe that's what Tulley is)  
> whose main purpose (as an educator) is to get kids to do things that  
> don't involve computers; to get kids interacting with the physical  
> world.  (If anyone is interested, here's the link again:
> Also, Frank, your focus on systems is really important.  Systems are  
> what make the world go 'round - the industrial and post-industrial  
> world, in any case.  When people ask me how I learned to work with  
> computers, they are often surprised when I tell them it was from  
> trying to maintain the junk cars I used to drive.  It was all about  
> systems: the fuel system, the electrical system, the carburetor  
> (remember those?), etc.  Car won't start?  What's missing?  Spark?   
> Air?  Fuel?  Supply the missing ingredient and - bingo - car  
> starts.  Immediate, concrete evidence that you've solved a problem.
> So teachers, get those kids out there playing with knives, cars, and  
> fire - just make sure you have another job lined up before you do. :-)
> -Vince
> >>> "Frank J. Watson" <[log in to unmask]> 1/24/2008 4:31 PM >>>
> Good Morning from South Carolina:
> As I have been reading through the recent posts concerning teaching  
> research to the Google generation, Child's Play, From Clicks to...  
> and the pleas for "creative computing " ,  I recalled some work we  
> did at UVM in the late 80's. At that time we were worried about kids  
> spending too much too on computers and not enough on hands-on  
> learning activities in and out of schools. Sound familiar??
>  We  had a lot of student teachers at that time and they were all  
> over the state. They were willing and able to try new ideas  and  
> were in classrooms with a computer (mostly Apples and Commodore  
> 64's). We decided  we would use them to work on finding ways to  
> design "hands-on" activities that included the use of the computer.   
> Looking back I am sure that we were very much influenced by Seymour  
> Papert's book  "Mindstorms" even through only a few of us had Logo  
> on our machines.
> We started out by thinking that we should teach young kids (grades  
> 1-3) about "systems" since they were about to use a computer system.  
> The lessons we designed were guided by "ARC"- They started with  
> concrete experience with "stuff", moved to representational  
> experience (maps, models, drawings) and then to abstractions (words,  
> symbols, formulas).
> We gave the kids wires, batteries, switches, lamps and doorbells and  
> let them put them together. They made drawings of "stuff"  that  
> worked and "stuff" that didn't work. They talked and wrote about  
> "systems"  that were formed with the "stuff." Finally after much  
> hands-on, drawing, writing and talking the computer appeared with  
> software that could be used to design circuits and systems.
> We gave them a collection of blocks that were different colors,  
> shapes and sizes and let them build with the blocks. We played games  
> with the blocks that were guided by "logic rules." They made drawing  
> of the results of the games and talked about the rules. Out came the  
> computer with software (Learning Company??) that allowed the games  
> to be played electronically.
> We gave them water, small cups and seltzer tablets and let them  
> investigate. We had races with warm and cold water, pieces of  
> tablets. We added other substances - salt, chalk, etc. They captured  
> the bubbles produced. Made drawings. They timed reactions. We talked  
> and wrote about system change. They made predictions  and tested  
> them.  We searched for software but I don't think we found any. We  
> decided the best way to get the computer involved was writing about  
> their "work."
> Finally we started looking at the school building as a system. We  
> took "field trips" to the school boiler room, the bus garage, the  
> kitchen etc. We made drawings of the systems that made up the  
> school. We invited the folks that ran those systems to come and talk  
> with the students. We asked them to talk about "trouble shooting"  
> their systems. The students designed ways to keep the systems  
> working. The computer helped by giving us a way  to keep records  
> about our "work."
> It is important to make a note about the classroom environment where  
> these activities took place. Almost all the classrooms had  
> "centers." Those that didn't have "centers" added them soon after we  
> started the activities.  The classrooms had a "work center" with  
> tools, raw materials (wood, cardboard (remember TriWall etc),  
> running water,  etc. Writing and reading centers, and a center for  
> the computer. In most of the classrooms these "centers" were located  
> next to each other to promote easy access across the "centers" and  
> stuff.
> Sorry for such a long ramble. As I wrote I realized we did at least  
> one more project that relates to the topic - so I'll stop here and  
> continue part 2 later.
> Peace
> Frank
> Frank J. Watson
> 1 Lochend Lane
> Cheraw, SC 29520
> "I'll see it when I believe it"

Frank J. Watson
1 Lochend Lane
Cheraw, SC 29520

"I'll see it when I believe it"