Scene 01
My research is based on Seymour Papert's theory of learning called "Constructionism," which believes
that people's knowledge and ideas are better developed when the learners are engaged in activities that involve
construction. He also believes that computer technologies can magnificently enhance this learning environment by
making it easier for learners to visualize and try out their ideas. Examples of these computer technologies include
Logo, Star
Logo and
Lego Mindstorms.
Scene 02
While computer technology
can significantly enhance children's learning,
its presence in classrooms does not guarantee
that good learning will happen. In fact,
computers in schools have been mostly used in
ways that does not allow anything in scene 01 to
happen. While we like to think of computers as
amplifiers of learners' thoughts and ideas*,
they have been used merely as an instruction
instrument. Instead of letting the children
program the computer, schools try to use
computers to program the child*.
It is clear that huge changes need to take place
in schools. We need environments that better
nourishes learners energy and imagination.
This was the main focus of my
Master’s thesis.
* these are
Seymour
Papert's terms and ideas.
Scene 03
Many
people have been aware of scene 01 and 02 since
the early days of computers. However, schools
have evidently chosen to walk the opposite path.
So, what should those few who want to rethink
schools do? How do they create impact?
There
are many limiting factors that suppress the
ideas in scene 01 and 02, such as material
factors, people's mindset about learning, and
forms of school. For any intervention to have
impact there has to be a well-theorized
framework of change. A balance between micro and
macro changes is also needed*. Macro changes are
often the changes induced by school, municipal,
or country level administrators. This top-down
effort to stimulate change is quite common.
Inspiring examples of changes spreading in the
grassroots level are much harder to find. But
what is almost non-existent is a harmonious
change in both directions. It has been my
experience (and others too) that the process of
change is biological and hence is rather
unpredictable. Thus, going about engineering the
change is not the right approach. Any initiative
must be meaningful to those in the grassroots
level, and should be able to spread by itself as
much as possible. Resistance to change is
normal. But if there is enough space for the
seed of change to grow, then there is a chance
for it to gain momentum and create impact. The
managers must also be supportive and willing to
sacrifice their peace of mind (i.e. not being in
control, not knowing exactly will happen) by
allowing things to happen in untraditional ways.
* See works of
David Cavallo
The GoGo board: Nourishing a
culture of making tools
The
GoGo board is a sensing and control device
similar to the
LEGO
Mindstorms (or the RCX brick) and the
Cricket.
There are two versions of the board, one with
memory and the other without memory. The idea of
the board with memory, aka Espion board, is
virtually the same as the RCX brick. The one
without memory operates by receiving commands
directly from the computer. Thus, it can be used
to create, for example, a joy-stick for a game
written in Logo, or to create physical models
that demand computation or multiple media that
can be served only by a PC.
One
strategy I hope to explore is to revisit the
notion of using technology to re-surface the
issues about learning. This happened before
when PCs started to enter schools (and are, to
some degree, still happening today) and again
with the Internet. Similarly, with the
introduction of the GoGo board, questions about
what it is and how to use it naturally becomes a
discussion in the school community. Since the
mindset of how to use this tool has not been
established, we have another chance to seed new
ideas about learning.
“Multiple
entry point” and “transparency” are
the important ideas of the GoGo board framework.
I hope to see a community that composes of:
-
People
who use the GoGo board in the way they would
use the RCX brick or the Cricket. But they are
not limited to the “given” sensors and
actuators.
-
Most
people will be involved in thinking about how
sensors and actuators work and how to create
one that fits their particular needs given the
resources they have.
-
In
addition I hope to establish a group of people
who like to be involved in the assembly,
design, and production process of the GoGo
board itself.
Unlike
the RCX or the Cricket:
-
The
GoGo board uses simple components that are now
available in retail stores in the US and many
other developing countries like Brazil,
Mexico, and Thailand.
-
The
total price of GoGo board components is
relatively low (<US$20).
-
The
design is (will shortly become) open source.
What
all of this means is that people can choose
how they want to use the GoGo board. Many
would just want to use it to trigger something
on the screen, which may be where their main
focus is. Some others would get engaged in
designing sensors that works the way they want
(i.e. a sensor that detects when someone walks
by). And a few would be spending a lot o their
time learning about the GoGo board and may be
how to make one themselves or how to design a
better one.
If the
GoGo board becomes a nice tool that people like
to use, it may spread. It may spread more if the
people feel they actually own the GoGo board.
That is if they can reproduce or even better if
they can redesign it altogether. If people make
their own boards, then we’ve started a
culture of making one’s own tool. I believe
it is exceptionally interesting if it happens
because, unlike making tools with Lego RCX, the
tool can be made entirely from locally available
materials. They are completely independent which
is a very powerful idea in itself. There are
also strong links to Ivan Illich’s ideas of not
being only consumer of the industrial mode of
production.
This
new culture of making tools, whether it is
making a sensor or a GoGo board, could be a
powerful force that fuels the larger changes
that we hope to see in the education system.
It’s a new culture that doesn’t feel intrusive
to the school system (compared to things like
eliminating class segregation) but it still
introduces the quality that schools don’t
provide. This is not to say we create something
that is compatible with school. It’s more about
avoiding head-on confrontation. It’s a kind of
back-door approach that could provide the
support that “change” needs in order to
gain momentum when the time comes.
A few questions
to ask.
The first and foremost
question is why would anyone care about using a
GoGo board. Fortunately, there has been
significant research done in this area.
Programmable devices such as
LEGO
Mindstorms and the
Cricket
has been around for many years and a great
number of interesting outcomes has been
published. Based on these works, I have
successfully developed useful programming
environments for people to use the GoGo board.
The second question is
whether the idea of making one's own GoGo board
or sensors/actuators
would make any sense to people who are
normally just end-users and are generally non-technical?
The third question is how to
make the design of the boards flexible enough to
accommodate different needs or available parts.
This issue obviously involves finding strategies
to allow changes in the board design to happen
easily. Collaborating with a local technical
institute is one simple solution, but it would
be much more interesting if there could be a
system (such as a computer program) that
provides a simple way to reconfigure and
reproduce the board.
For more technical
information about the GoGo hardware framework, please visit the
GoGo board website.