> I have never used MIT Scratch, so I can't say. I > have 'glanced' at the MIT Scratch page - found it > quite interesting, and am fairly sure that children > would find it so. But then, I'm not a child. >
Adults find it interesting too. I'm thinking of doing a next "powerpoint" in Scratch, using it as my presentation manager. You don't need to be a child to find Scratch interesting.
> Would like to check out further.
I encourage this. Relate it to "systems thinking"?
> As I've noted elsewhere, there is significant > difference between an 'intelligent curriculum' and a > 'curriculum written by an 'intelligent person'. > > The difference is not, so far as I know, explored > adequately - not by Kirby Urner, and not by RH > either. >
Which is preferable? I'd think an intelligent curriculum is what we want, whereas many intelligent people get pressured into writing curricula that are not intelligent.
> Such a re-examination of 'assumptions of what > pedagogy is' demands a fair bit of 'systems thinking' > on the part of the person doing the re-examination. >
I'd say the evolution of MIT Scratch as a mainstay in some school systems is a result of 'systems thinking'. Long ago, we started with Logo, a language that these later languages have taken their tricks from.
I've been clamoring to introduce "dot notation" as a somewhat critical STEM-related grammatical construct.
turtle = new Turtle() turtle.forward(10) turtle.right(90)
This is how business & industry thinks a lot, at the source code level. Time to update the curriculum to reflect that. Overdue.
Math teachers were lazy about thinking how to introduce this new stuff. Nowadays it looks like CS is taking over. The schools think they have time to overlook this opportunity to retrain math teachers in place, and recruit CS faculty instead. That'll take awhile, they comfort themselves in saying. As if the future will wait. As if clinging to the past were not a risky / radical experiment, doomed from the outset.