The Children’s Machine

Seymour Papert has made a good point about computers and their status in the classroom.  The way he describes “Schoolers” is very true to the way some schools are run.  There are teachers who fear computers because they do not understand them.  These teachers have no vision on how to use them with their students besides Computer Aided Instruction, like drill and practice problems in math.  Which is better than nothing, because it does give back immediate feedback.  The “Schoolers” have everything in a neat little box and dare “Yearners” to step out of it. 

I found it interesting that he felt that students should learn through trial and error.  Students who spend more time with something trying to solve it, by taking their time and discussing it with other students seemed more successful.  These went right along with a math workshop that I just attended.  The theory behind it was to let kids personalize the concepts they were learning through discussion, exploration, peer help and a context that had meaning to them.  The teacher does not go around telling them they are right or wrong she has them explain it to her.  If they can not do that she gets help from their peers to explain it or show it using manipulatives.  The teacher makes sure that the students see different ways to solve something.  After reading the first five chapters I was comparing his theory with Catherine Fosnot’s City Landscapes math program. 

Papert was really concerned about the fact that there should be more of a megachange in schools today with the type of technology schools have access to.  The problem is you can have all kinds of new things but if the ones in control of this technology can not see it’s importance it will just set around gathering dust.  That is why teachers and administrators all need to be trained or allowed to work with this new technology so that they feel comfortable with it.

The tone he used with computer labs made me wonder if he thinks computers would be more useful left in the classroom. His definition of computer literacy was more realistic than the other definitions.  He felt like literacy was just knowing the basics.  You were  computer literate if you could do things that went along with the computer culture.