LOGO-L> Re: What really is Logo?

[bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)]

"Bill Kerr" <kerrb@senet.com.au> writes:
> Some people who describe themselves as
>"progressive" see technology as essentially a bad thing (eg. the neo
>Luddites, the Greenies to throw in a couple of extra short labels).

Yes, for example, John Holt was one of these, although he sometimes
made an exception for Logo.

But your comment really sharpens the point for me, in the following way:
I feel that I have more in common with a progressive educator who hates
technology than with a Logo fan who thinks school is basically okay.

The progressive educator who hates technology is having an essentially
correct response to most of the uses of technology s/he's seen; s/he can
probably be convinced quite easily to support good uses if s/he sees some.
By contrast, any teacher who thinks that (for example) giving grades is
okay doesn't think so for lack of having seen the results of grades; the
problem is deeper than mere ignorance.

P.S.  In the newspaper just yesterday was a study about how much schools
are paying in hidden costs of technology, mainly repairs and upgrades,
and how that's affecting their commitments to other programs.  Seymour
pooh-poohs this sort of thing by talking about how computers keep getting
cheaper, but right now, at least, I can see how progressive teachers might
well dislike even Logo when costs vs. benefits are taken into account.

P.P.S.  The Luddites were not against technology.  Although they did
smash equipment in *some* factories, they supported the use of equipment
in other factories.  The difference was whether the technology was used
in a way that made workers' lives easier and safer, or in ways that just
made the workers work faster.




---------------------------------------------------------------
Please post messages to the Logo forum to logo-l@gsn.org.  Mail
questions about the list administration to logofdn@gsn.org.  To
unsubscribe send    unsubscribe logo-l    to majordomo@gsn.org.