Robert Hansen (RH) posted Mar 12, 2014 11:07 AM (Mar 12, 2014 11:07 AM} - GSC's remarks interspersed: > > On Mar 11, 2014, at 4:35 PM, kirby urner > <kirby.urner@GMAIL.COM> wrote: > > > My own point in using the phrase / meme was in > response to Joe's point that > much-younger-than-high-school-aged kids may learn to > program. > > We need to define better what we mean by ?learn?. I > think Joe meant ?can be exposed to? and I am fine > with that. But when we start saying ?learn? I am > thinking of a transformational event in one?s life. > It?s a big deal! It doesn?t mean you have learned > everything there is to know about the subject at > hand. In fact, at that transformational movement, you > have learned very little of what there is to know > about the subject. It means that you reach a point > where you say to yourself ?I see what this is > about!?. Whether the rest of the story is appealing > to you or not is another issue altogether. > One thing is, I believe, certain: that such 'transformational moments' occur mainly - I'd even say ONLY - when the learner has PUSHED (or even GOADED) him-/herself to overcome the barriers and difficulties that confront each and every learner. Such transformation cannot 'systematically occur' (IMHO) when the 'educational philosophy' underlying is that the teacher or parent must PUSH (or GOAD) the learner into learning math (or anything else, for that matter). The PUSH has to come from within the 'learning system' (i.e., the learner). > > But there are prerequisite conditions that must be > met before one can actually experience that > transformational moment and these conditions and how > soon they can be met vary depending on the subject. > Such transformational moments occur during the learning of every discipline, I would believe - not only the learning of math. I would guess it's a matter of endorphins being produced in the brain of the human animal on meeting and overcoming a challenge. > > For example, a 4th grader can obviously learn music, > by my definition, but they can?t learn calculus. I > have seen very little learning of programming in > elementary school, but some decent pre-exposures. I > think there are several reasons (conditions not met) > that inhibit learning programming in elementary > school. Understanding algorithmic problem solving is > one. Understanding the syntax and grammar of > programming languages is another, and not having an > understood application to which to apply programming > to is yet another. And then there is the element of > maturity. While I believe that some of these things > do begin to develop in 5th or 6th grade, they just > aren?t there yet, together. This is why they use > legos and non grammatical programming tools. And > there is plenty of empirical evidence out there to > study. My son is a big > Minecraft fan and you can tell which kids are modding > (actually programming) and which are just playing and > how old the two groups are. And you don?t see any > real programming activity in Legos or First Robotics > till middle school. > Piaget (as well as Montessori) did pioneering work in the stages of 'learning development'. I'm certain plenty of good work has been done subsequently. Your analysis above appears, to me, to be extremely superficial. > > I pride myself on seeing what things are about, as I > hope many of you strive to do. And it it isn?t > something I was good at in 3rd grade, or middle > school, or even high school. It is something you > acquire with experience. When I had that > transformational moment in algebra class, it wasn?t > because I knew what I was looking for, it was because > of the curriculum, the teacher, and me keeping up. > The same goes for physics, and chemistry. But after > each success, you start realizing more what to look > for and you become more able to get to it quicker and > teach yourself. This skill seems to start in high > school but really kicks in during college. But you > always get better, throughout life, as you mature and > as you keep learning. > Your analysis above is extremely superficial. There is plenty of sound material freely available on the Internet. David Boulton's essay on learning may be a useful corrective - in any case, it is a good start - http://www.implicity.org/centdyn.htm > > I have been studying pre-exposure for some time. I > cannot find any evidence that learning (my > definition) is occurring. That doesn?t mean I am > against it, just that I think it should not be > treated as part of the academic progression. Even > though I think Logo and the like were complete flops > for their intended purpose, to teach programming to > young kids, I think the activity is worthwhile, for > other reasons. I still hold to a 75/25 mix. 75% of > the lesson plan should be development while 25% > should be engagement. In high school that changes > somewhat. > > Bob Hansen > See above.
GSC ("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING!! Not GOADING!!!")