[Squeakland] Panel discussion: Can the American Mind be Opened?

[Tony Forster]

> However, beyond such material, I get thoroughly confused by an
> inability to distinguish proven knowledge, accepted wisdom, and pure
> pseudo-science.    It seems that a lot of educational research is done
> by anecdote rather than by controlled blind large group studies.

Thanks Mark for initiating this thread. There needs to be more discussion of 
the pedagogy so that Squeak/etoys can be optimised as a learning tool.

For more criticism of Constructivism/ionism you could also read (though I 
strongly support constructionism):
http://scil.stanford.edu/about/staff/bios/PDF/Cog_Effects_Prog (will open 
with Acrobat)
ON THE COGNITIVE EFFECTS OF LEARNING COMPUTER PROGRAMMING
ROY D. PEA and D. MIDIAN KURLAND
and
http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf
Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the 
Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and 
Inquiry-Based Teaching Paul A. Kirschner

Controlled blind large studies are rarely done. This is because the lab 
rabbits are real kids and there are real ethical concerns. We are stuck with 
anecdote and assertion for the large part. We need to critically examine all 
this, as there is little hard evidence.

It would be good if we could examine the large amount of teaching with Game 
Maker. It has been used back to 2002 and, at least in Australia, there are 
hundreds of schools using it. The pedagogy of Game Maker and etoys is 
similar. This large body of data has never been properly examined because it 
is just ad hoc use by teachers which has never been attached to a university 
research program

Tony