The message below is being cross-posted from the LogoForum. Please
reply here at comp.lang.logo and it will be cross-posted back to the
LogoForum. The original author of this message is
genetheil@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pavel. I'm glad to know you enjoyed it.
I care deeply about this topic because, like many
others, my learning style did not fit the model of
teaching current when I attended school.(I'm 63) I
suffered a lot and got poor marks because of that,
although I understood the work and concepts well. I
was a massive underachiever and never reached my
potential. It's made me somewhat bitter.
I look around and see how much more choice there is
for the average student, and that makes me rejoice.
And then Ilook a bit closer and realize that despite
all this choice, teaching styles and philosophies have
not changed appreciably in 50 years! Perhaps, not in
500 or 5000. Teachers are still convinced that they
are bosses or slave masters or commissars or some
other version of the alpha male style, even when they
are women. It makes for despair. I'm afraid that Abbie
Hoffman was right: In order to get a decent education,
you must steal it!
(the other)
Gene
> The message below is being cross-posted from the LogoForum. Please
> reply here at comp.lang.logo and it will be cross-posted back to the
> LogoForum. The original author of this message is
> pavel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Gene Theil wrote:
> > This has become a bit of a rant, and for that, I
> > apologize.
>
> Not at all. I enjoyed every word of it.
>
> Pavel
>
> __._,_.___
> LogoForum messages are archived at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LogoForum
>
>
>
> > The message below is being cross-posted from the LogoForum. Please
> > reply here at comp.lang.logo and it will be cross-posted back to the
> > LogoForum. The original author of this message is
> > genetheil@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Phil, Dale, Gene Juan,
> > Phil, you talked about the problem of getting back
> > to a 2D mode after running an example that put you
> > into perspective mode. I had exactly the same
> > difficulty the first time I tried to run a 3D
> > procedure. It was pure nostalgia to see someone have
> > the same problem. and the same experience of the
> > struggle to find it's solution.
> >
> > However, you solved it differently than I did. You
> > accessed a fundamental resource that is almost always
> > present when a student learns, that is, a teacher, ie,
> > someone who might know more about the subject than you
> > do, and is willing to share that knowledge
> >
> > I chose to do it differently. I went through the
> > documentation thoroughly, nay, exhaustively, trying to
> > find the answer to my question, as you did. After
> > that, came a long period of increasing frustration, as
> > I tried one thing after another, with no success. The
> > only way to get back to the original state was to
> > close Logo down and restart it. Of course, I did that
> > without saving my work more than once, which made me
> > crazy. At some point, working on a completely
> > different set of procedures, I wanted to go out of
> > "wrap" mode and into "window". Finally, light dawned:
> > "window", "wrap", "fence, & "perspective", of course!
> > The outcome was the same, but I think the process has
> > some vital differences, none of which relate to the
> > emotional states which we experienced, which seem to
> > be the same for each of us, as they are most likely
> > the same for anyone who struggles with a question
> > which he or she knows to be a simple one, whose answer
> > eludes him or her.
> >
> > The reasons why I chose to do it the way I did
> > relate to my history and psychology and are not
> > important except as illustrations of a general
> > distinction which we need to make in the whole
> > discussion of standards for Logo.
> >
> > That distinction is the answer to this question:
> > "What is Logo for?". This teleological notion of a
> > final cause comes into play here because of Logo's
> > history as the result of a struggle by its creators to
> > make something which could help people learn to do
> > things for themselves, in ways which seem good to
> > them. Truly, Logo is a philosophy of learning as well
> > as a language. Because it is a language in several
> > dialects (perhaps more dialects than any other
> > artificial language), one can run into the same
> > problems of translation as with natural languages and
> > dialects, Juan. Sometimes, on this forum, you have
> > asked questions about problems which you are trying to
> > solve in Logo, which, quite probably, could be solved
> > more easily in another language entirely. But you stay
> > with Logo, for many reasons, I'm sure, among which
> > must be that you believe that this language, and not
> > another, helps your students learn things about math,
> > and problem-solving, which can help them think. And
> > you do this because it is also a philosophy of
> > learning. I happen to agree with you, strongly.
> >
> > Constructivist thinking seems to be about, among
> > other things, the power relations between those who
> > know something and want to impart that knowledge, and
> > those who wish to learn it. This world is filled with
> > people who wish to control, guard, or deny knowledge.
> > One has only to read the paper to encounter evidence
> > of this. I mention no examples, for each will have his
> > or her own favorites, and because I have no wish to
> > turn this into a forum on politics. I am,
> > fundamentally, a philosopher. I believe it is vitally
> > important to empower people by facilitating their
> > acquisition of the tools that will enable them to
> > learn to think critically and well.
> >
> > I, personally, happen to believe that the best path
> > to empowerment leads through the thicket of many
> > dialects. I could make the argument that, in the world
> > of ideas as in the world of living creatures,the
> > combination of variation and selection is our best
> > path to optimization. If a few people who use a number
> > of different dialects of the language happen to find
> > it inconvenient that there is no exact translation for
> > this or that construct, and that they have to
> > manipulate their programs a little to get them to
> > work, I think it is a small price to pay for the
> > strength and beauty that come from variation. The
> > evolution of Logo is a (somewhat) living process, and
> > like other such, is quirky and unpredictable. It can
> > lead into barren cul-de-sacs and through inefficient
> > by-ways. It is the dream of reason to make a thing so
> > perfect it will never need to be changed again. Alas,
> > that outcome can happen only for a work of art. Things
> > which are in daily use, and for multiple purposes,
> > change as their users change and as the uses to which
> > they are put change. Perhaps we will will see major
> > types evolve, such as one which optimizes use for
> > list-processing and one for the graphics side, but I
> > doubt it.
> >
> > This has become a bit of a rant, and for that, I
> > apologize. I don't apologize for my opinions.
> >
> > (the other) Gene
> >
> >
> > __._,_.___
> > LogoForum messages are archived at:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LogoForum
|
