Everything else is kept constant. After a suitable lapse of time you come back and apply a test to see whether the particular thinking skill that interests you is better developed in the experimental group than in the control group. There is nothing wrong in principle with this "treatment" model. Some very good science is based. It is the standard model for testing medical treatment by drugs - hence its name - and, indeed, some very good support for logo has come from. For example, clement and Gullo at Kent State University (Clement gullo 1984) used it skillfully to show that certain cognitive and metacognitive skills developed significantly better in a group of children who worked at logo than in a control group who worked at computer-assisted instruction. But the use of the model requires care, and technocentrism places unskilled users at risk.
The balance between Positive and
Everyone realizes that it is carpenters who use wood, hammers, and saws to produce houses and furniture, and the quality of the product depends on the quality of their work. But when it comes to computers and logo, critics (and some practitioners as well) seem to move into abstractions and ask "Is the computer good for the cognitive development of the child?" and even "Does the computer (or logo or whatever) produce thinking skills?". As i already said: such language suggests a diagnosis of technocentrism. To confirm it, one has to look more closely at what lies behind the language. This I shall do from several perspectives in the following discussion. For the moment I note one. Technocentrism is often supported by a certain model of what a "rigorous" experiment in educational psychology consists. I'll call this "the treatment model.". You take two groups of children. One group, the experimental group, is given a certain "treatment." (For example, yogi these students are taught logo.) The other group, the control group, is not given the treatment.
It would be frivolous to dwell on what the reference to promises and delivery evokes for me: the image of a technological "fix"- the image of logo driving a delivery truck loaded with crates of promises. But it is far from frivolous to examine what is presupposed and implied by treating "logo" as an entity that can "produce" changes in thinking (or anything else!) "Does logo work?" "Is logo good for learning this or that?" write All these turns of speech are. Consider for a moment some questions that are "obviously" absurd. Does wood produce good houses? If I built a house out of wood and it fell down, would this show that wood does not produce good houses? Do hammers and saws produce good furniture? These betray themselves as technocentric questions by ignoring people and the elements only people can introduce: skill, design, aesthetics. Of course these examples are caricatures. In practice, hardly anyone carries technocentrism that far.
I don't think any of us is safe from falling into occasional technocentrisms. What is important is having a set of concepts that allow one to correct oneself listing - and then having the sense and humility to. Logo didn't Deliver What It Promised. The following discussion of a "poor way" to talk about logo will sharpen these remarks by making my point about the pitfalls of "technocentrism" more concrete. The september 1984 issue of, psychology today featured articles on computers and education. In one of these (by james Hassett we read: "In several studies comparing children who learned logo with control groups who did not, researchers at Bank Street College's Center for Children and Technology have been surprised to find that, as Jan Hawkins put. Bank Street researcher roy pea found no evidence of intellectual benefits on two planning tasks designed to measure higher levels of thinking skill supposedly produced by logo learning.".
And talking about logo has a culture-building side. The way a teacher talks to parents about logo feeds back into the attitudes the child brings to class, and the way the teacher talks in class influences the talk about computers in the living room. The popular interest in computers gives every teacher the opportunity to influence the development of the "computer culture" not only in the school but also in the society at large. Taking that opportunity is part of teaching - or at least of what teaching ought. Developing a discourse is at the heart of developing a culture, and a more textured and knowledgeable discourse about logo contributes to the "logo culture the "computer culture and to the "learning culture" in its broadest sense. It sets the cultural context for personal learning. Finally, a more self-conscious discourse will help the logo community become increasingly self-critical; not, by any means, to put itself down, but because, like eliot writing poetry, we need well-honed critical thinking to carry out the "frightful toil" of responsible educational creativity.
Essay on the benefits of Positive, thinking
Computer stereotypes are as essay much cultural constructs as are stereotypes of women or blacks, and will be as hard to extirpate. The struggle against sexism went far deeper than correcting erroneous beliefs about women. It has led to a re-examination of fundamental assumptions about human nature and about society. Combating technocentrism involves more than thinking about technology. It leads to fundamental re-examination of assumptions about the area of application of technology with which one is concerned: if we are interested in eliminating technocentrism from thinking about computers in education, we may find ourselves having to re-examine assumptions about education that were made.
(One could even argue that the principal contribution to education made thus far by the computer presence has been to force us to think through issues that themselves have nothing to do with computers.). What logo practitioners need to Know. If you ask, "What does a logo practitioner need to know?" the answer goes beyond the ability to use and teach logo. The practitioner needs to be able to talk about logo, to criticize it, and to discuss other people's criticisms. Talking about logo has a political side: how do you reply when an administrator says he read. Psychology today that "logo doesn't work?" It has a pedagogical side: logo is at a stage where one very high priority marriage is to talk critically about a first implementation in order to decide where to go next.
Within this already restricted purpose, i shall concentrate on just one proposition: I believe that computer criticism is blocked at a stage that I think is properly called technocentric - a term that captures an analogy with the egocentric stage in piaget's model of the. Egocentrism for piaget does not, of course, mean "selfishness" - it means that the child has difficulty understanding anything independently of the self. Technocentrism refers to the tendency to give a similar centrality to a technical object - for example computers or logo. This tendency shows up in questions like "what is the effect of the computer on cognitive development?" or "does logo work?" Of course such questions might be used innocently as shorthand for more complex assertions, so the diagnosis of technocentrism must be confirmed by careful. However, such turns of phrase often betray a tendency to think of "computers" and of "logo" as agents that act directly on thinking and learning; they betray a tendency to reduce what are really the most important components of educational situations - people and cultures.
The context for human development is always a culture, never an isolated technology. In the presence of computers, cultures might change and with them people's ways of learning and thinking. But if you want to understand (or influence) the change, you have to center your attention on the culture - not on the computer. One might imagine that "technologists" would be most likely to fall into the technocentric trap and that "humanists" would have a better understanding of the role of culture in the so called "effects of the computer." But things are not so simple. People from the humanities are often the most vulnerable to the technocentric trap. Insecurity sometimes makes a technical object loom too large in their thinking. Particularly in the case of computers, their intimidation and limited technical understanding often blind them to the fact that what they see as a property of "the computer" is often a cultural construct. I am not talking about simple misunderstandings that could be dispelled by a course on "how computers really work." you should rather think of the way sexist or racist stereotypes are rooted in, and supported by, the cultures in which we grew.
Soul Surfer (2011) - imdb
Eliot, computer criticism is in gender its infancy compared with the sister disciplines i imagine it emulating. Many would argue that it must always remain at best a lesser sibling since the objects, computational ones, on which it brings to bear its critical powers will never, in their opinion, have the stature of Shakespeare or the depth and complexity of social structure. I think history will gainsay this attitude. The computer is a medium of human expression and if it has not yet had its Shakespeares, its Michelangelos or its Einsteins, it will. Besides, the complexity and subtlety of the computer presence already make it a challenging topic for critical analysis. We have scarcely begun to grasp its human and social implications. In this paper, i shall be concerned with issues closer to earth: not with the highest reaches that computer criticism may someday attain, but with its daily practice here and now: with how people talk about computers when they argue such practical matters as book policies.
I am proposing a genre of writing one could call "computer criticism" by analogy with such disciplines as literary criticism and social criticism. The name does not imply that such writing would condemn computers any more than literary criticism condemns literature or social criticism condemns society. The purpose of computer criticism is not to condemn but to understand, to explicate, to place in personal perspective. Of course, understanding does not exclude harsh (perhaps even captious) judgment. The result of understanding may well be to debunk. But critical judgment may also open our eyes to previously unnoticed virtue. And in the end, the critical and the creative processes need each other.the large part of the labor of an author in composing his work is critical labor; the labor of sifting, combining, constructing, expunging, correcting, testing; this frightful toil is as much critical.
intellectual value in its proper place. I shall argue that this proper place is a conservative context where change is small, slow, and superficial. The crucial experiment, to take one example, is based on a concept of changing a single factor in a complex situation while keeping everything else the same. I shall argue that this is radically incompatible with the enterprise of rebuilding an education system in which nothing shall be the same. I would like to propose a very different model for thinking about the dialogue between logo and the world. This model is a department of thought that adopts the adjective "critical" in Webster's first sense.
Do i like it? My judgment is personal and intuitive. I answer to myself alone, and consider only the immediate object of my attention. Soon, however, something more is needed; taste must be justified. Others challenge our opinions and counter with their own, and even personal development eventually requires us to grapple with our reasons. The logo shredder community faces the challenge of finding a voice for public dialogue. Where do we look? There is no shortage of models.
Alphabetical list of Ghost switches - symantec
Technocentric Thinking, by seymour Papert, a version of this piece was published as "M.I.T. Media lab Epistemology and learning Memo. Another version appeared. Critic (from Greek kritikos able to discern or judge) 1: one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter involving a judgment of its truth value or righteousness, an appreciation of its beauty or techniques, or an interpretation. 2: one given to harsh or captious judgment. The critic may on occasion be called upon to condemn the assignment second rate and expose the fraudulent: though that duty is secondary to the duty of discriminating praise of what is praiseworthy. Eliot, in the beginning, criticism is simple.