The fourth edition of our book will not contain a discussion of the potential benefits of programming experiences (we will expand our online resources in this area for those instructors who are interested). This change reflects the reality of general educational interest in this topic and the need to contain costs so the text can be offered at a reasonable price.
I must admit I enjoy programming — it is kind of a hobby that has some utility as I pursue my professional interests. It can become a challenge to separate personal interests from issues of benefit or efficiency.
Our original presentation of “programming as a tool for learning” focused on LOGO, Papert’s concept of microworlds, and studies of programming experiences as a way to develop problem-solving skills. We later expanded this approach to include other “manipulative environments” such as LegoLogo and Stagecast Creator. We admit to playing a little loose with some of the ideals and ideas of microworlds. You can’t explore all of the nuances of complex ideas in a limited amount of space.
I was moved to bring up the microworld idea again as a consequence of the special issue of the Journal of Educational Computing Research (27(1&2)) which is focused entirely on microworlds. To encompass the variety of papers, the editors define microworlds as “a small, coherent computer environment consisting of tools, structures, and activities that reflect a domain of math or science (because this was the focus of the issue) (Sarama & Clements, p. 2).
Papert offers an article that focuses on the history and potential of microworlds (using Logo as a example). This is a very interesting piece on multiple levels. There is a general comment on the resistance of the institution of education to change (see Cuban and others for descriptions, but a little different explanation). Papert describes “school” as a system of components that have evolved to be mutually supportive. Efforts to change one component (methods of instruction) encounter resistance from other components (e.g., curriculum, evaluation) bringing the system back to the starting point. As an explanation, this makes a lot of sense to me. As a consequence, change to be stable must be systemic. This is the point at which I start to become more careful. I strongly support continued experimentation based on new ideas and the integration of a reasonable number of alternative experiences in most settings. So — call me a wimp.
Papert sees some potential in technology as a systematic change agent because it has influenced society independent of “school” creating pressure for a paradigm shift. Technology is creating an increasingly cultural discordance between schools and society.
He also claims that school culture seems to be able to regularize innovations. If you have followed Papert’s work, it is very evident he has been strongly influenced by work with Piaget. He sees this regularization as assimilation. He remains optimistic that accommodation is still coming (hence the title – the turtle’s long slow trip).
