Hi Bryan!

If it is enough for learners to to make own software for learning or not must depend on what is on the curricular agenda (what students are supposed to to learn) and also on what you mean with software in "program their own software".

I see the functions of ICTs in education as basically two:

1) To decrease friction of information. Better communication, more accessible media, faster, cheaper etc. Basically the function used in "distance learning", "e-learning", "online learning", "blended learning". This development did not commence with digital tools, but rather with wreiting, print, etc - but has speeded up a lot in the latest decades. This is, as I see it, not the core function of digital ICTs. Here a preset software device as Skype, email or a VLE is not so bad to have ready for service, and not tro program a new one each morning. But you do not mean that of course.

2) To process information. Alan Turing formulated this first, in the 1950ies. There is now information processing happening for the first time besides biological brains, by machines. This is the new and unique characteristic with digital ICTs. What will this mean for development of society and education, and for the human species as such?

Anyway, education is, and has always been, a lot about the "software" side of human existence. We can do a lot more and better in life if we are good at processing information. This demands education and/or training. Luciano Floridi, professor in Philosophy of Information at Oxford Internet Institute, argues that the "what" and "what for" of education are more important questions than the "how" of education. He urges us to think about what to learn in the future as "the languages of information", meaning all from human languages, to concept sets in sciences, to programming and connecting sets of data via APIs in mockups. People that transfer data from one information source to another manually are at high risk for losing their jobs, but people that can, with help of spcialised information-processing algorithms or computer programs, process information into new knowledge are far better off.

Anders Norberg

Thank you! A great response! You have outlined some important ideas to keep in mind here.

Where I get very excited about the next big future for Education is a decrease in predetermined outcomes -- mind you, this does not happen very often, as you likely know. But what I am trying to research and promote is a pure model of Constructivism that is not concerned with graduation outcomes and curricular maps set in place before the child is even born. :-)

I see computers and compuTING as the key -- much like Papert, I am of the mind that if we create classes (laboratories? workshops?) where students can pose problems and solve them by learning how to program their own software, that they will eventually face all of the expectations of traditional schooling but in a natural sequence according to their work and progress.

So glad that what I wrote seems to have made sense to you. I see we are somewhat at similar lines. I do not yet think we have seen any final outcome of the use of digital ICTs. The next big, and somewhat quite disruptive thing I expect is development in the direction of learning analytics and adaptive learning. This will begin to respect that learners need different time and other different resources and relations to learn. Instead of time being the constant and learning variable, learning can be constant and time variable. But this destroys school scheduling and organisation and calls for reconstruction of social learning structures in organised education.

I leave a couple of attachments here to papers on RG, by Floridi, that I think you will like, related to my previous post - and a conference presentation of mine.

You write about constructivism - but I wonder if you are in your thinking closer to constructionism. Papert was a friend of Piaget (constructivist) but became in the end a constructionist. A lot of difference here. Floridi sees it as the difference between knowledge of the user and knowledge of the maker, and blames the knowledge of the user, knowledge as a spectator sport, on Plato. Floridi sees it as a historic mistake - it is the maker of artefacts (which Plato despised) who has deeper knowledge - he or she knows how it works, can take the artefact apart, explain and put it together again. Think of the difference between a car user and a car mechanic. Artefacts can also be non-physical of course. See attached paper ”What the makers knowledge could be”, and ”In defence of constructionism”. I will also send you on RG mail a short text behind a paywall.

However, if you are doing a dissertation under surveillance, deviations from the almost all-dominant constructivism dogma may not be problem-free. Just a heads-up...

Article E-ducation and the Languages of Information

Article What a maker’s knowledge could be

Article A Defence of Constructionism: Philosophy as Conceptual Engineering

Conference Paper Using Philosophy of Information to look at teaching, technol...

Anders Norberg

You are my new best friend!

:-)

We do think alike in a lot of ways, and I am enjoying getting to read more about how you process and articulate -- it helps me quite a bit. Thank you!

I will read everything you sent. I am grateful for the assistance!

Regarding Constructionism: Yes, I have considered that I am likely more Constructionist, a la Papert, than Constructivist, but I suppose I am still willing to get lost in my "non-productive" abstract knowledge gaming of the mind . . . though I endeavor to find it useful and viable towards some end or artifact or product. I have chosen to focus on Techno Constructivism, actually Critical Techno Constructivism is my full phrasing, because I see the intersections and in-between spaces and margins as potentially untapped opportunities, with technology, to do just as you suggest with learning as constant and time as variable.

Put another way: Constructive in the abstract state may lead to Construction in the physical form. I think that computers and computing are misunderstood and misused in schools, but with a reconfiguration can help mediate the relationships that learners have to knowledge and learning in the abstract state to a product in the physical form.

So, while I may get spanked for following the Constructivist dogma, I shall wag my tail in defiance! ;-p

Thanks Bryan P. Sanders ! We all need new friends.

Best, Anders

I suggest you to develop your own software that covers your research area. Your new outcome would be a milestone for all across the world! Thank you!