Papert and Solomon readings

 Papert’s example of geometry and coding was really interesting. I wonder if back when I was learning math if this familiarity with coding would have helped me in my mathematical courses. Due to the child’s confidence, he was able to bridge the gap to geometry with more ease than if he was just handed a worksheet and told to learn it. In Dewey’s words, an extension of your experience; taking what is learned elsewhere and applying it how you know how to. 

As it was pointed out, these goals and findings were developed before technology was “mainstream.” Not everyone had access to a computer. In “Mindstorms,” Papert and Solomon point out that ““JUST A FEW YEARS AGO people thought of computers as ex-pensive and exotic devices.Their commercial and industrial uses affected ordinary people, but hardly anyone expected computers to become part of day-to-day life.” Today, we know that they are part of our days, even every second of our day.  That makes what Papert and Solomon were thinking, developing, and advocating for even more impressive. It was groundbreaking then and it is groundbreaking as I sit here reading about it. Even today, as I view CS and coding with my students, it still seems like a new frontier, even though it clearly is not. 

The reading continues to state that “Thus, this book is about facing choices that are ultimately political. It looks at some of the forces of change and of reaction to those forces that are called into play as the computer presence begins to enter the politically charged world of education.” While I know schools and towns to be fairly political places, whether we want to outwardly admit it or not, computers as a political force was a different take to me. I would say that they are no longer political in the way that Papert and Solomon were fighting back then, but the new “warfront” could be considered as phones in the classroom. Put them away? Use them to both the teacher’s and student’s advantage? In the current covid world we live in, technology is not going away. It is a necessity. This current climate could influence viewing technology as more of an asset than a political piece. 

It was interesting for Papert and Solomon to point out the disbelief that adults have about programming and children. They believe that you need to be “mathematically” gifted in order to program a computer, while Papert and Solomon quickly point out that they know very “average” elementary students who pick it up quite quickly and easily. As someone who has now done what those elementary students did, I can confidently agree that anyone can code. Perhaps as it gets more complicated (say, programming a NASA spaceship) it would be out of reach, but the idea that coding is not accessible to everyone is not true.

I liked their idea that computers don’t teach children, that children learn through or with the computers. The idea that “computer aided education” is not entirely correct, for the children can become masters of the machine that they are utilizing. 

I really liked how Papert and Solomon call out education with their “intellectual timidity” in Twenty Things to do with a Computer.” As a future educator and in a previous blog post, I did discuss the likelihood of using coding in my English classroom. I was hesitant to do so, but after reading what Papert and Solomon said, I would feel slightly cowardly if I didn’t at least give it a go. It was really helpful to read “Twenty Things to do with a Computer” because it started to help me see different things that I could do. For example, if we are reading something with really strong imagery, could I have my students create an image with the turtle function to reflect that? Or similar to them growing a flower, could we manipulate that to show a growth of a character over time? This was both the motivating factor for me to explore more ideas and not be fed up with coding (the last week has been great with no coding, the break that I needed). 

As I read the three different writings of Papert and Solomon, I found myself agreeing across the board, even if I previously hadn’t considered a point. I think if I had read these before we started coding I may have challenged their points a little more, but having the experience I currently have now, it was refreshing to read their thoughts. It still blows my mind that they had these ideas so long ago!