And luckily, it's not terribly long. One of the dullest books I've ever read.
--Steve Barner, South Burlington

From: School Information Technology Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Vincent Rossano
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 11:56 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: More Thoughts from the Past

Vincent Rossano
Information Technology Director
Montpelier Public Schools
Montpelier, VT 05602
(802) 225-8690
>>> "Frank J. Watson" [log in to unmask]> 1/29/2008 2:02 PM >>
>I didn't completely understand this until I read Pirsig's,
>"Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" some 20 years later.
Pirsig's book was an eye-opener to me too.  For those of you who aren't familiar with it, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" isn't really about maintaining a motorcycle - except to the extent that it represents a technological interaction with a machine. Primarily, the book is an examination of the dichotomy between the pragmatic, objective, linear thinking of the scientist and the romantic, subjective, non-linear world of the artist - and, finally, an attempt at reconciling the two.  Pirsig makes frequent forays into the esoteric world of Platonic philosophy, but, most of the time, he presents his thesis with a chatty casualness that, today, would most likely be published in some sort of travel blog. It's beguiling.  And it's very important to us because we are faced, in our delivery of technology education, with the polarities of atomistic vs. holistic thought, the schematic vs. the gestalt.  Does the average student benefit by being presented with the underlying systemic pieces of a thing or, as Wordsworth suggests, do we "murder to dissect"?  Can we continue to understand the larger meaning of a phenomenon - for instance, the Internet - when we have dived down into the underlying bits and bytes?  I think we can.  I think we must.  Get the book for summer reading; it's extremely thought provoking. 

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

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. :-)

>>> "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.



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"

______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
This email may contain information protected under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). If this email contains confidential and/or privileged health or student information and you are not entitled to access such information under FERPA or HIPAA, federal regulations require that you destroy this email without reviewing it and you may not forward it to anyone.
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner ,ClamAV and Bitdefender, and is
believed to be clean.