# Technologies in the classroom

How to modernise education? How to make use of new technological developments that are around us to make learning in schools better? These are some of the questions that we will look at in the current post. In particular, we will be looking at the so-called satellite education as being implemented in some schools.
In many discussions regarding education, the teachers are usually blamed for not doing their assigned jobs correctly. There is some truth in these accusations. Having worked with teachers at different levels (primary to university) and in different settings (govt schools, private elite schools, teacher training institutes, colleges, and universities) I have come to the conclusion that teachers are part of the problem. This will be elaborated in another post and before you draw out your pitchforks the disclaimer: of course there are good teachers, who do their jobs well.
So one of the solutions is to take these good teachers to all the classrooms. Of course, it cannot be done in a physical way. This is where the technological advance pitches in. We take the good teachers to classrooms via satellites. The TV in the classroom becomes the blackboard, which allows the students to get the best of experiences that the system can offer. Now, this is not just limited to schools but also colleges, some of the best institutes in the country are offering “distance-education” courses like this. The government has invested a large sum in higher education in the form of Swayam channels. These channels are running lectures by various faculties of institutes across India 24×7. Mind you most of these are not specially produced lectures for the TV, they are recordings of usual lectures that these faculties give to their classes. Most are boring af, with them reading out the powerless-pointless slides one after other. They cram as much text as possible on these slides. Making them dense in terms of ink ratio, but unfathomable in terms of learning from them. Anyways this is a subject for another post.

## Imagination and philosophies

Our sense of imagination is limited by what we know, and the
philosophies that we subscribe to. For some, it is clear about what their assumptions are for others it is not. They think that this is how it should be, completely ignorant of the notion that some of their concepts are based on assumptions. For some people, this is something that they are aware of, for most of us, we are not aware of this. Many
times we think of finding solace in things which are traditional. Since it has stood the test of time, it must have some inherent value they say. It is our ignorance and arrogance that we are not seeing any value in it. Hence people resist change. Why try something new which might or might work, or work equally well when we have something which is tried and tested? Of course, stability is important, but then stability does not lead to change. Yet when people change things, they try to replicate the models that they have found to work, and hence reducing the risk.
If we apply the same idea with regards to education, we also come across many such examples. The satellite television used in the classroom is one such case. The idea is not new. As soon as television technology became commonly feasible in the 50s and 60s, immediately some pedagogues of the era jumped to the idea of using them for education. This ideally suited the “transmission model” of education which was in vogue at that time with behaviorism ruling the roost of psychology in general and education in particular. In a way, learning via television is the ultimate epitome of the transmission model. In a regular classroom, there is at least a scope for the teacher and student to interact. But in this case, the entire flow of information is in one direction. The transmission is the transmission of learning. No wonder for many decades, and even now television was seen as a game-changer and harbinger of technological learning. Television was also seen as non-invasive technology, as it is passive which works for everyone involved, except perhaps for the most important stakeholders the learner. The television didn’t and doesn’t challenge the traditional “transmission model” of education, which most teachers and stakeholders (including parents) do believe in. The values which enlightened pedagogues worship, find a very low priority with most other stakeholders.

## The central mindset in education

The term “centralised mindset” refers to the idea that in complex systems there has to be a controlling agent who overseas all executions.  The centralised mindset refers to a belief that any system which works well must have a system or authority (in the form of a person or a group) which must somehow control the mechanism. The belief in the centralised mindset is that the individuals in a complex system are too unintelligent to behave in a coordinated, complex manner. For example, for a long time, it was believed that the “V” formation that one sees in the flying birds is due to a “leader” in the group. This supposed leader will make the group fall in the “V” patterns by organising the other group members. This is a very intuitive model that appeals to common sense. Whenever we see some patterns, we assume there must be an inherent design or a designer. In the case of the birds in “V” shape the same logic applies. There must be a leader who makes sure such a pattern is created. But such a view, however intuitive and correct it may seem is incorrect. As it happens with most of the other principles in science, in this case too the correct explanation is counter-intuitive. There is no leader in the case of the birds. The “V” pattern that we see is an example of what is known as an emergent phenomenon. It arises from the interaction of the birds which are flying together. When all the individuals follow simple rules in interacting with their neighbours, the “V” pattern emerges. The people who believe in a central leader are wrong in this case. It is a fiction that makes things that we observe easy to accept. But it is not correct. For many such examples and deeper discussions, see Turtles, Termites, and Traffic Jams by Mitchel Resnick.
There are several natural and artificial phenomena where earlier we (including the experts who propose such explanations) though that there was a central control involved in creating patterns, but in most cases, we have discovered otherwise. The counter-intuitive explanation that there is no central control or mechanism just doesn’t appeal to people. How can it be that there is no central control and yet the thing works on its own? Do we always need a centralised control? People argue that without a centralised control there will be chaos or anarchy. Stable patterns of behaviour or observations cannot emerge, it is assumed if there is no central control. Examples are given of a central governing that we are used to so much.
Now you might be wondering what has this to do with education? The general bureaucracy in the educational field is seen as centralised. For example, the creation of a textbook or syllabus or curriculum and assessment is always a centralised process. Think of the board exams.

Why cannot a school or a teacher decide upon textbooks and curriculum?

Why this is so? Because that is how it was in the other government departments. This is what the tradition says. A bunch of experts (preferably with a prefix of a Dr. or Prof.) will decide for everyone what they should learn and more importantly how they should learn it and most importantly how will this learning be assessed. This triumvirate or what to learn, how to learn and how to assess is assumed to be too complex and too important to be left to the plebs. This is where centralised mindset in the form of centralised expert committees is brought in.
The power of the teacher in the classroom is reduced to
a mere executioner ( a meek dictator if you will, as per Krishna Kumar) of all the algorithms set for them to follow. Some good teachers would improvise on this little elbow room that the classroom did offer. But now in an effort to make it
more central in discourse and execution, a centralised teacher and
teaching is needed. Indeed this is the idea behind the satellite television in the
classrooms. To ensure that quality (standardised) education reaches all learners. This also reduces the load on the local teachers, who just have to shepherd the learners to the AV room, and their job is done. The parents are happy as their children are supposed to be learning from the best teacher. And this happens live in some cases, I witnessed this entire process in Rajasthan. Seeing it from the studio being recorded and transmitted live via the satellite, and also saw (at another time) how it is received and executed in the schools. In some cases for interactivity and feedback, a Whatsapp number is provided where the teachers or the learners can reach out to the teacher in the studio. This teacher at the studio genuinely believed that he was being helpful to the students and the system worked. The proof for this was not some study but the messages he received from the school teachers thanking him for taking their class. Real interactivity which might happen in an actual classroom was found to be missing.
Just like the illustration on the top of the post shows, the core idea in the satellite television in the classroom is to centrally repeat the process of transmission of knowledge to all the learners with an added bonus of synchronicity. One act can be used at multiple locations. But this creates inhibitions for interactivity. Constructivism of the experts can go for a toss. Why do we need to create a custom curriculum for each child, when one expert in one manner can teach them all at the same time?

# A Piagetian Curriculum?

There are those who think about creating a “Piagetian curriculum” or “Piagetian teaching methods.” But to my mind these phrases and the activities they represent are contradictions in terms. I see Piaget as the theorist of learning without curriculum and the theorist of the kind of learning that happens without deliberate teaching. To turn him into the theorist of a new curriculum is to stand him on his head. – Seymour Papert, Mindstorms

# Sharing knowledge and learning collaboratively at schools

We have a vision for a better society in which the values of sharing and collaborating knowledge and technical know-how form an integral part. There are two aspects to this issue. One is why it should be done, and given the current social structure how it can be done. Though the why question is as important as the how one in this article we will try to focus more on how it can be done with aid of proper technology and what are the possible implications of this intervention to the citizens of the future.

The current education system does little to promote and impart the ideas of sharing knowledge with peers to the students who will be the future citizens. In our educational system it is more like each-one-for-oneself; if you help your peers you will be at a loss in the future. Another aspect is that the educational system by its nature is consumerist. By consumerist we mean that the schools system treat the students more like consumers, who are then passively fed in what has already been produced by others. There is no or little scope left for students to produce or construct anything meaningful. So the platform/technology which will address these issues should have the following qualities:

• It should be based on principles of Free Software (see http://gnu.org/education).
• It should allow for collaboration / sharing of knowledge.
• It should allow for active, meaningful and collaborative production / construction contexts, through which students will learn.
• It should give immediate feedback to the student, not the delayed one (year end) which the current school system has. This is essential as it makes children reflective about the work that they are doing.

Learning in the context of constructing some tangible thing is a philosophy of education proposed by Seymour Papert, called constructionism. Constructionist learning is inspired by the constructivist theory that individual learners construct mental models to understand the world around them. However, constructionism holds that learning can happen most effectively when people are also active in making tangible objects in the real world. A closely related term that you might have heard is that of constructivism, but there are differences though.

The potential for transforming classrooms in a revolutionary way is present in the constructionist way of learning, which the existing CBTs (computer based tutorials) do not challenge but reinforce. The advances in technology have made it possible now to implement constructionist ways of learning to masses. So where are the examples of this?

The Sugar learning platform  is just one such example which is specifically developed keeping in mind the above considerations. But the idea of constructionist learning is not limited only to using computers. displayed. The very idea of the platform is centered around the idea of constructionism. Though initially developed for OLPC (One Laptop Per Child) Project, now it can run on almost all computers. Learning in an environment where sharing knowledge is an inherent principle rather than an added externality provides the students with a whole new way of learning. Each activity on Sugar is designed keeping in mind the collaborative, construction context and immediate feedback principles.

The Sugar platform provides construction contexts from different areas to learn collaboratively like language, mathematics, science, drawing, music, games, programming, photography, audio and video recording among other things. For each of this activity can be done collaboratively by the students and can be shared with others. This also provides students to make meaningful connections between different concepts. In this context we have seen a strong urge in the children to share the knowledge and activities that they have with others, but in the current school system there is no or little provision for this. Sharing of activities provides context for feedback from peers, which in turn is fruitful in improving learning. Thus we see that the tools and time is ripe for changing our perspective towards education for a more inclusive and better society, whose core values are sharing of knowledge and collaboration.

There are pilot projects of Sugar running at many places across India, one is the Khairat Project which is running successfully for past 4 years at a primary tribal school of first generation learners near Mumbai, another one is at Merces School near Panaji in state of Goa.

# The Children’s Machine

These are some unfinished notes that I have taken while reading the Children’s Machine by Seymour Papert. Hope that someday I will weave them into something more fluid.

Why, though a period when so much human activity has been
revolutionized, have we not seen comparable change in the way we
help our children learn?

* Quotes

116

One could indeed make kitchen math part of the School by making School part of the kitchen.

127

Are there any snakes in the house?
Yes there are, there are zero snakes in the house!

So. negative numbers are numbers too, and their reality grows in the course of playing with turtle.

130
You can’t retire from a good project simply because it has succeeded.

139

Constructionism: It does not call in question the value of  instruction as such

The kind of knowledge that children most need is the knowledge that will help them get more knowledge.

140
If the children really want to learn something, and have the opportunity to learn it in its use, they do so even if the teaching is poor.

Constructionism looks more closely than other educational -isms at  the idea of mental construction. It attaches a special importance to role of constructions in the world as a support for those in the head, thereby becoming less of a purely mentalistic doctrine. It also takes the idea of constructing in the head more seriously by recognizing more than one kind of construction and by asking questions about the methods and materials used.

How can one become expert in constructing knowledge?

What skills are required?

Are these skills different for different kinds of knowledge?

144

School math, like the ideology, though not necessarily the practice, of modern science, is based on the idea of generality – the single, universally correct method that will work for all problems and for all people.

145

Use what you’ve got, improvise, make do.

147

The natural context for learning would be through particiaption in other activities other than math itself.

148

The reason is that the educators who advocate imposing abstract ways of thinking on students almost practice what they preach – as I  tried to do in adopting a concrete style of writing – but with very different effects.

149

But however concrete their data, any statistical question about  “the effect” of “the computer” is irretrievably abstract. This is because all such studies depend on use of what is known as the “scientific method,” in form of experiments designed to study the effect of one factor which is varied while taking great pains to
keep everything else same. … But nothing could be more absurd than  an experiment in which computers are placed in a classroom where nothing else has changed. The entire point of all the examples I have given is that the computers serve best when they allow everything to change.

150

The concept of highly rigorous and formal scientific method that most of us have been taught in school is really an ideology  proclaimed in books, taught in schools and argued by philosophers but widely ignored in actual practice of science.

154

They count the same, but it’s more eggs.

161
My overarching message to anyone who wishes to influence, or simple understand, the development of educational computing is that it is not about one damn product after another (to paraphrase a saying
about how school teaches history). Its essence is the growth of a  culture, and it can be influenced constructively only through understanding and fostering trends in this culture.

167
I would be rather precisely wrong than vaguely right.
– Patrick Suppes

It had been obvious to me for a long time that one of the major difficulties in school subjects such as mathematics and science is that School insists on the student being precisely right. Surely it is necessary in some situations to be precisely right. But these situations cannot be the right ones for developing the kind of thinking that I most treasure myself and many creative people I know.

168
What computers had offered me was exactly what they should offer children! They should serve children as instruments to work with and to think with, as means to carry out projects, the source of concepts to think new ideas. The last thing in the world I wanted or needed was a drill and practice program telling me to do this sum of spell that word! Why should we impose such a thing on children?

183
The opportunity for fantasy opens the to a feeling of intimacy
with the work and provides a peep at how emotional side of
children’s relationship with science and technology could be very
different from what is traditional in School. Fantasy has always
been encouraged in good creative writing and art
classes. Excluding it from science is a foolish neglect of an
opportunity to develop bonding between children and science.

184

Errors can become sources of information.

185

Although the ultimate goal was the same, the means were more than
just qualitatively different; they were episte,mologically
different in that they used a different way of thinking.

Traditional epistemology is an epistemology of precision:
Knowledge is valued for being precise and considered inferior if
it lacks precision. Cybernetics creates an epistemology of
“managed vagueness.”

197

The real problem was that I was still thinking in terms of how to
“get the children to do something.” This is the educator’s
instinctive way of thinking: How can you get children to like
math, to write wonderfully, to enjoy programming, to use
higher-order thinking skills? It took a long time for me to
understand in my gut, even after I was going around saying it,
that Logo gaphics was successful because of the powet it /gave/ to
children, not because of the performance it /got from/ them.

Children love constructing things, so let’s choose a construction
set and add to it whatever is needed for these to make cybernetic
models.

198

What will they [children] learn from it [Logo]? And won’t it favor
boys over girls?

The first question concerns what piece of the school curriculum is
being learned but I attach the most importance to such issues as
children’s relationship with technology, then idea of learning,
their sense of self. As for the gender issue, I am thinking more
about, how in the long run comoutational activities will affect
gender than how the gener will affect the activities.

Their work provies good examples of material that overlaps with
School science and math, and of an alternative style applied to
these subjects – ins
tead of formal style that uses rules, a
concrete style that uses objects.

202

It is worth noting that the students appreciated the
self-organizing nature of the traffic jam only because they had
written the programs themselves. Had they been using a packaged
simulation, they would have had no way of knowing the elegant
simplicity of the programs underlying the jam.

Emergent stuctures often behave very differently than the elements
that compose them.

207

The cathedral model of education applies the same principle to
building knowledge structures. The curriculum designer in cast in
the role of a “knowledge architect” who will specify a plan, a
tight progra, for the placement of “knowledge brick’s” in
children’s minds.

208

What is typical of emergently programmed systems is that
deviations from what was expected do not cause the wholw to

209

We are living with an edicational systsem that is fundamentally as
irrational as the command economy and ultimately for the same
reason. It does not have capacity for local adaptation that is
necessary for a complex system even to function effieciently in a
changing environment, and is doubly necessary for such a system to
be able to evolve.

Defininf educational success by test scores is not very different
from couting nails made rather than nails used.

212

But calling hierarchy into question is the crux of the problem if
educational change.

216

Each of these cases suggests ways in which a little school created
in a militant spirit can mobilize technology as an assertion of
identity.

217

I could continue in this spirit, but this may be enough to make
the point that little schools could give themselves a deeper and
more conscious specific identity. Everything I have said in this
book converges to suggest that this would produce rich
intellectual environments in which not only children and teachers
but also new ideas about learning would develop together.

I see little schools as the most powerful, perhaps an essential,
route to generating variety for the evolution of education.

The prevailing wisdom in the education establishment might agree
with the need for variety but look to other sources to provide
it. For example, many – let us call them the Rigorous
Researchers – would say that the proper place for both variation
and selection is in the laboratory. On their model, researchers
should develop large numbers of different ideas, test them
rigorously, select the best, and disseminate them to schools.

In my view this is simply Gosplan in disguise.

218

The importance of the concept of the little school is that it
provides a powerful, perhaps by far the most powerful, strategy to
allow the operation of the principle of variation and selection.

This objection depends on an assumption that is at the core of the
technicalist model of education: Certain procedures are the best,
and the people involved can be ordered to carry them out. But even
if there were such a thing as “the best method” for learning, it
would still only be the best, or even mildly good, if people
believed in it. The bueracrat thinks that you can make people
beleive in something by issuing orders.

221

The design of learning environment has to take account of the
cultural environment as well, anad its implementation must make
serious effort at involvement of the communities in which it is to
operate.

223

It is no longer necessary to bring a thousand children together in
one building and under one administration in order to develop a
sense of community.

224

I do not see that School can be defended in its social role. It
does not serve the functions it claims, and will do so less and
less.

*

MegaChange!

Talking about megachange feels to them like fiddling when Rome
burns. Education today is faced with immediate, urgent
problems. Tell us how to use your computer to solve some of the
many immediate practical problems we have, they say.

Impediments to change in education such as, cost, politics, the
immense power of the vested interests of school bureaucrats, or lack
of scientific research on new forms of learning.

Large number of teachers manage to create within the walls of their
own classrooms oases of learning profoundly at odds with the
education philosophy espoused by their administrators…

But despite the many manifestations of a widespread desire for
something different, the education establishment, including most of
its research community, remains largely committed to the educational
philosophy of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and
so far none of those who challenge these have hallowed traditions
has been able to loosen the hold of the educational establishement
on how children are taught.

Do children like games more than homework because, the later is
harder than the former?

Most [games] are hard, with complex information – as well as
techniques – to be mastered, in the information often much more
difficult and time consuming to master than the technique.

These toys, by empowering children to test out ideas about working
within prefixed rules and structures in a way few other toys are
capable of doing, have proved capable of teaching students about the
possibilities and drawbacks of a newly presented system in ways many

In trying to teach children what adults want them to know, does
School utitlize the way human beings most naturally learn in
non-school settings?

If it has so long been so desperately needed, why have previous
calls for it not caught fire?

K[G]nowledge Machine

Is reading the principal access route to knowledge?

Literacy is being able to read and write. Illiteracy can be
remedied by teaching children the mechanical skill of decoding black
marks on white paper.

/Letteracy/ and /Letterate/

… the Knowledge Machine offers children a transition between
preschool learning and true literacy in way that is more personal,
more negotiational, more gradual, and so less precarious thant the
abrupt transition we now ask chidlrento malke as they move from
learning through direct experience to using the orinted word as a
source of important information.

…. School’s way is the only way beacause they have never seen or
imagined convincing alternatives in the ability to impart certain
kinds of knowledge.

* Babies learn to talk without curriculum or formal lessson

* People
develop hobbies at skills without teachers

* social behavior is picked up other than through classroom
beahvior

Parable of the Automobile:

… certain problems that had been abstract and hard to grasp
became concrete and transparent, and certain projects that had
seemed interesting but too complex to undertake became
manageable.

Paulo Freire: “Banking model” information is deposited in
child’s mind like money in a savings account.

/Tools/ for creating new experiments in effective fashion.

* Ideas

* Dewey: children would learn better if learning were truly a
part of living experience

* Freire: chidlren would learn better if they were truly in
charge of their own learning processes

* Piaget: intelligence emerges from an evolutionary process in
which many factors must have time to find their equilibrium.

* Vygotsky: Conversation plays a crucial role in learning.

Why did the discovery method fail?

By closing off a much larger basis of knowledge that should
serve as a foundation for formal mathematics taught in school
and perhas a minimal intuitive basis directly connected with
it.

The central problem of mathematics education is to find ways
to draw on the child’s vast experience of oral
mathematics. Computers can do this.

Giving chidlren opportunity learn and use mathematics in a
nonformalized way of knowing encourages rather than inhibits
the eventual adoption of formalized way, just as the XO,
rather than discouraging reading, would eventually stimulate

Traditionally teh art and writing classes are for fantasy but
science deals with facts; union of technology with biology.

It allows them to enter science through a region where
scientific thinking is most like there own thinking.

Reading biographies and iterrogating friends has convinced me
that all successful learners find ways to take charge of their
early lives sufficiently to develop a sense of intellectual
identity.

Schools have inherent tendency to infantilize the children by
placing them in a position of have to do so as they are told,
to occupy themselves with work dictated by someone else and
that, morever, has no intrinsic value – school work is done only
because the designer of the curriculum decided that doingthis
work would shape the doer into a desirable form[for the
authorities?].

NatGeo: Kidnet??Robert Tinker

Researchers, following the so-called scientific method of
using controlled experiments, solemnly expose the children to
a “treatment” of some sort and then look at measurable
results. But this flies in the face of all common knowledge
of how human beings develop.

The method of controlled experimentation that evaluates an
idea by implementing it, taking care to keep everything else
the same, and measuring the result, may be an appropriate way
to evaluate the effects of a small modification. However, it
change… It will be steered less by the outcome of tests and
measurements than by its participant’ intuitive understanding.

The prevalent literal-minded, “what you see is what you get”
approach measuring the effectiveness of computers in learning
by teh achievements in present-day classroons makes it certain
that tomorrow will always be prisoner of yesterday.

Example of Jet attached to horse wagon.

… most people are more interested in what they learn than in how
the learning happens.

But math is not about feeling the relationship of your body to
numbers.

Turtle lets you do this!

Intellectual work is adult child’s play.

Example that if observation of schools in some country where
only one writing instrument could be provided for every fifty
students suggested that writing does not significantly help
learning.

The change requires a much longer and more social computer
experience than is possible with two machines at the back of
the classroom.

/Balkanized Curriculum and impersonal rote learning/

What had started as a subversive instrument of change was
neutralized by the system and converted into an instrument of
consolidation.

Schools will not come to use computers “properly” because
researchers tell it how to do so.’

It is characteristic of a conservative systems that
acoomodation will come only when the opportunities of
assimilation have been exhausted.

* Immediate Feedback
* Individualized instruction
* Neutrality *

CAI will often modestly raise test scores, especially at the low end
of the scale. But it does without questioning the structure or the
educational goals of the traditional School.

Today, because it is the 15th Monday of your 5th grade year,
you have to do this sum irrespective of who you are or what
you really want to do; do what you are told and do it the
way you are told to do it.

Piaget was the theorist of learning without curriculum;
School spawned the projectof developing a Piagetian curriculum.

The central issue of change in education is the tension
between technicalizing and not technicalizing, and here the teacher
occupies the fulcrum position.

Shaw: He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.

The system defeats its own purpose in attempt to enforce them.

School has evolved a heirarchical system of control that
sets narrow limits within which the actors – administators
as well as teachers – are allowed to exercise a degree of
personal initiative.

Hierarchy vs. Heterarchy

The major obstacle in the way of teachers becoming learners

The problem with developed’ countries as opposed to developing’ ones
is that the developed countries are already there, there is no further
development possible.

In education, the highest mark of success is not having imitators but
inspiring others to do something else.

As long as there is afixed curriculum, a teacher has no need to become
involved
in the question what is and what is not mathematics.

Society cannot afford to keep back its potentially best teachers
simply because some. or even most, are unwilling.

The how-to-do-it literature in the constructivist subculture is almost
as strongly biased to the teacher side as it is in the instructionist
subculture.

Some etymology:

/Mathematikos/ disposed to learn
/mathema/ a lesson
/manthanein/ to learn

\ldots mathetics is to learning what heuristics is to problem solving.

What is that feeling when you look at a familiar object, with a sense
that you are looking at the object for the first time?
It is /jamais vu/.

Attempts by teachers and textbook authors to connect school fractions
with real life via representations as pies simply reuslyed in a new
rigidity.

* What is the difference in learning at school and all other learning?
Generally in life, knowledge is acquired to be used. But school
learning more often fits Freire’s apt metaphor: Knowledge is treated
like money, to be put away in a bank for the future.

* What does /Computer Literacy/ mean?

* The Technology of the Blackboard and The Technology of The Computer

* Lines You can use:

**
The computer to program the student…
OR
The student to program the computer…

**
Computer as an expensive set of flash cards.

**
If the students scores improve, our approach must be right.

**
Self-directed activities versus carefully guided ones
**
If the scores improve does it mean that the strategy is effective/
approach is right?
**
Heterarchical versus Hierarchical
**
Totalitarian Education or Trivialized Education

# Turtle Art Galore…

Here is one for the Turtle Art!

The idea that the child should program the computer and not the other way round was initiated by Seymour Papert in his book Mindstorms. Papert calls the field constructionism instead of Piaget’s constructvism. Will elaborate the detailed differnces in some other post. But we at gnowledge.org lab  are tryingto bring that in India using Sugar as a learning platform and we are not exclusively using OLPCs for that. We conduct regular teacher training workshops throughour India. One of our basic guidelies in all this is the use of Free and Open Source Software in education.
One of the first things that we introduce to newcomes in Sugar is the Turtle Blocks.

How to define Turtle Art? Well it is a studio! It has components of mathematics. logic, and art embedded in it. Artemis Papert [related to Seymour Papert?] has a website on the art that can be created using Turtle Art here www.turtleart.org

Have a look at the amazing gallery with the source code also available in case you want to have a peek at how such lovely pictures can be made using Turtle Blocks!!

Here is mine, adopted from the cover of the Turtle Art Book 3 by Artemis Papert.

And this is how I did it.