Knowledge media face an awkward chasm between theories.
The old theory was naive transmissionism: "I'll convey this knowledge by telling you about it." That's effectively books' learning model.
But we know that model's wrong: learning is an active process of assimilation.
Conversation
Books (and videos and lectures) sometimes work anyway, but because the learner's doing the heavy lifting—making connections, posing & answering questions, etc
In apprenticeships and great classrooms, the new theory (constructivism) operates: teachers foster active assimilation.
2
3
49
But what's the equivalent of a "book" which was composed using an effective theory of how its reader will learn? We don't know.
It's a rock and a hard place: we know the old theory's wrong; we don't know how to make media which operate under our new theories.
Exciting times.
19
11
80
Where does Logo fit in?
1
Its ideas represent a valuable piece of the puzzle. Yet it's just a piece. If we take Logo to be a vessel for differential geometry: if one is interested in learning about that topic, how exactly should one use Logo to pursue it? Logo assumes an outside facilitator as context.
2
I have some thoughts on this topic (not logo, but learning media) based on recent readings. Perhaps we can discuss via email?
1
1
Replying to
Please write me! andy@andymatuschak.org.
