Hi Bill --
What follows is not an argument against (a) using a game making approach (great for some kids) or (b) the worth of getting all children to learn to program (probably a good idea).
What we need to contemplate is the probability of "gaining enlightenment" by being in contact with various kinds of environments and epistemologies.
If we look at the class of "those who know how to program" we see a generally unenlightened group (maybe similar to humans in general, maybe even less enlightened). In any case, we have to conclude there is nothing intrinsic about learning to program that leads to deeper thoughts. One of our rueful jokes about the Logo vogue in the 80s is that everything would be OK if we could just package Seymour on the floppies!
I think it would be even easier to justify the same generalization about gamers and game makers.
Or about archers ... There was an intriguing book in the 60s zeitgeist called "Zen and the Art of Archery" by Herrigel, that made a similiar point: learning archery doesn't confer any automatic enlightenment, but it could be used as a path if much were added to standard training.
Or about any activity that requires concentration, focus and learning. My grandfather Clifton Johnson (a writer and illustrator of many books and also an early photographer) once got asked in 1904 to write an article for the Saturday Evening Post on whether photography could be an art form. He said "Art enters in when one labors thoughtfully over a goal; that is, when one cuts loose from actions that are merely mechanical". It's in that space of "laboring thoughtfully" where there are opportunities for enlightenment.
"Enlightenment about what?" brings up the environmental influences. I don't think that archery or cooking (or photography) are cosmically interesting -- so the kinds of enlightenments in these environments are likely to be personal ones, but with some flashes of "the world is not as it seems". On the other hand, if science is the environment, and one is dealing with its huge epistemological differences with commonsense perceptions -- that is: science has much of cosmic significance in its purview -- then there are great and deep opportunities for enlightenment. (But no guarantees here either, just higher probabilities.)
My interest in education is not as a form of vocational training or preparation, but in helping children to become adults who are more thoughtful, and whose perspectives for thinking are much wider and deeper than the adults of today. The built-in "universals" that are destructive to human growth can be countered to a considerable extent by a modern "real education" that includes powerful invented points of view (the "powerful ideas") that act almost as additional brain/minds and can form a much stronger and less brittle heuristic base for thinking well under wider conditions.
In the end, the epistemology of science can lead to many more and better perspectives on the human condition, and this is where I think education should and must go. Whether children learn computers or not is not the issue for me (nor even whether they gain math or science knowledge) -- it's whether they can gain clearer perspectives on "us and what to do about us" that is critical here.
The established Arts -- including writing -- have as one of their main properties to provide other perspectives and wake-up calls, but they have been less effective than one would hope: they are generally too easily overwhelmed by distracting media, and they have enough story elements that they tend to be compartmentalized (as is the natural case with stories). On the other hand, even though our brain/minds want to make stories out of everything (and judge them by how apt they seem), science stubbornly tries to rise above our "storyminds" to help us make representations of the "what's out there" that are much more accurate "maps and models" (especially including accurate maps and models of ourselves). This is what we need to concentrate on when trying to design new educational experiences.
I don't think we are doing very well at these grand goals for education at the moment, but we haven't forgotten them in all the technical flurries that accompany the invention of new media to hold new ways to look at important ideas.
Cheers,
Alan
At 10:21 PM 8/29/2007, Bill Kerr wrote:
hi paulo,
Thank you for the link to squeakcmi, it looks great, I'll spend some time there
I'm a secondary teacher and in the past few years I've mainly been using GameMaker - but now think Squeak / Etoys is potentially more powerful for a variety of reasons which I have articulated a little but it needs improvement
The Game Making approach is flavour of the month and is good for motivation and engagement of many students (not all). Also many teachers are engaged by the concept. I received hundreds of emails from teachers in just one state of Australia when I initially promoted Game Maker a few years ago. However, it is also true that many teachers oppose Game Maker because they don't see a clear link to curriculum, some see it as pandering to populism.
Both you and alan have mentioned this outlook, to quote from alan in this thread: "a productively environment (Scratch is aimed at productivity) and an educational one (EToys is more aimed in this direction)"
I sort of agree with this approach but am also torn. Game Maker is unashamedly populist, the focus is absolutely clear from its name. So kids end up programming on an inferior platform - no morphic, no late binding, Windows only, proprietary code. It would be nice if more young people spontaneously picked up on etoys / squeak, that it could generate that sort of appeal. The way kids view school these days to promote something as "educational" is almost the kiss of death!!
I would see Etoys / Squeak as more powerful than either Scratch or Game Maker. I wouldn't see young students moving over from Etoys to Scratch as a step upwards, it seems more like a step backwards to me.
I like the low entry, high ceiling approach. You don't need the high ceiling for all students but in any group a small proportion of hackers emerges, say 5%, which does need the high ceiling. One aim ought to be to encourage that advanced group, one thing they do is drag the general level upwards
For the students I teach (secondary) the quality of their sprites is very important. I have seen them abandon their game making projects simply because they couldn't find the sprites they wanted on the web.
I'm still a beginner with etoys / squeak but have done more study recently and now understand how the morphic approach fits in to etoys (the Player class, prototyping approach).
What I'm saying is that it would be good to have multiple pathways into etoys, not always starting with a painting, which is a v strong default at the moment. This would probably mean the ability from the start to select a variety of morphs from a supplies or widgets tab, which is a feature of eg. my squeak 3.8 full image but not a feature of the OLPC/etoys image. You only get the paint option. I can't find the world menu to access morphs in that way at all in the etoys image so I'm wondering about the design decisions that have been made in this case and the rationale behind them.
I think what you and alan will say is that the target group for the OLPC is ages 6 to 12, one of the core_principles: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Core_principleshttp://wiki.laptop.org/go/Core_principles
Fair enough but I think for this group my comments still do have some relevance, so I'll send to the list as well
cheers,
- Bill
-- Bill Kerr http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/
On 8/27/07, Paulo Drummond <mailto:ptdrumm@terra.com.br ptdrumm@terra.com.br> wrote:
On Aug 26, 2007, at 10:07 PM, Bill Kerr wrote:
On 8/25/07, carla gomez monroy <mailto:carla@laptop.org carla@laptop.org> wrote:
However, for some people it can be quite intimidating to get a blank screen when they click on "Make A New Project."
I'm wondering why the first step is always to make a painting - and then when you keep the painting you have an object and can then do more powerful things at that point.
Imho, the first step is to understand a little of this environment and what was the idea behind Etoys. Depending on the age/grade, the deepness varies. However, the teacher has a crucial role here: to understand it first. The book "Powerful Ideas in the Classroom" is of enormous value.
The next expected step for a child (in this environment) is to create an object. Children usually like to pictorially represent their world. They need to express it as they need to situate themselves in the surrounding society. Contextualize.
They can also use other predefined objects like ellipses/circles, rectangles/squares etc to complement their painting, or give a more "realistic" display of their object-symbols. Conversely, they may use the paint palete to "personalize" some geometrical primitives they've place in their world.
It has been demonstrated (http://www.squeakcmi.orghttp://www.squeakcmi.org) that kids at initial grades can use Etoys as a starting point to understand it and to express their ideas, paving the way to more advanced representations using the very same environment.
A naive user might think it is just a paint program. Also some people don't like painting or are not good at it, eg. me. Also it's hard to paint well with a mouse.
Children can use Etoys as a mapping tool. Actually they don't give a penny about accuracy, just because they don't need to. Adults generally do, even not knowing a bit of its usefulness.
Why not have prepackaged sprites which can be loaded immediately (as well as the painting option)? Then the user is one step closer to the more powerful stuff. It also sends a message that it is not just a paint program - there has to be more to it than just loading a sprite
LogoWriter, MicroWorlds and GameMaker all have prepackaged sprites
Then Squeak Etoys would be another thing. When not-so-young kids need a more sophisticated expression-driven, more in the realm of productivity authoring tools with many of the programmatic aspects of Etoys, they may go to another great tool: Scratch.
I have given to the teachers in printed form
- powerful ideas in the classroom
I think *all* of the book, Powerful ideas in the classroom, should be available on the web. The car tutorial on squeakland is great but it's not enough. There are some good pdfs on squeakland too but the site is poorly organised
Afaik, a new squeakland website is in the works.
and it took me ages to find them. I wrote a blog about the frustrating but eventually successful search for etoy resources here: http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/04/frustrating-but-eventually-successful.htmlhttp://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/04/frustrating-but-eventually-successful....
It would be good to have a comprehensive help manual in one place. Pop up help is good but sometimes more detail is needed. Such a manual would probably be used more by teachers than by students but that is still useful.
I could not agree more. Etoys documentation is really very scarce and sparse. With the help of the Squeakland community worldwide, these things are starting to show up here and there. It has been posted in http://laptop.orglaptop.org's [Community-news] that the Etoys dev team has started a discussion about this issue.
paulo
Etoys mailing list Etoys@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/etoys