Resnick notes that technology sits atop a generative system that is the same as ever. He is saying that tech is lipstick on a pig, a good walk spoiled.

He has invoked the problem side of the equation. Now, as a reader, I insist on seeing the solution side. But is this necessarily fair. Perhaps the idea that we must have a solution in mind immediately upon identifying the problem is prima facia ridiculous. First, we may not have actually defined the problem, just a first draft of it. Second, we may need to grow the solution forever. As the solution changes so too does the problem. Are they feedback and feedforward in an independent gear of knowing/doing? In other words is the template of problem/solution always in danger of becoming as Leibniz called them monads, independent and unconnected. If they are, they become simulacra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation) or worse, homunculoids in some wackadoo Cartesian theater.

Rethink our educational and learning ways to fit the newly afforded digital age. We need to put on a new outfit? That is one the implications of using the word fit. I am having fun imagining Horace Rumpole in his rumpled suit at the Old Bailey or the Emperor in his new clothes.

These are the new affordances of technology.

Resnick acknowledges this affordance, but ‘worries’ about how this view is too ‘info-centric’. Resnick’s rethink is not about delivering or getting access to information. That alone is not transformative, acc 2 Resnick. It is only one of the affordances generated by the digital age. It is too much like what architect Christopher Alexander calls System B, the top down, anti-holism of positivitist thinkers—expert on top not on tap.

Using technology as part of an expert system to delivery knowledge and information to the learner—old wine, new bottles.

I deliver stuff to you. I deliver information to you.
F2F, FB, Twitter, et al.

My question is this. Are most of the digital systems we have placed on top of the net capable of generative, whole, connected learning?

The transmission model doesn’t fit. So what clothes do fit or is that asking the wrong question, the drunk under the lamp problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect)

Don’t use tech as a transmission line soley, but also use it as “material for building things in the world”. (Piaget’s active construction of new knowledge) Knowledge made by connecting and building. (this fits into the bridge and bond buildig of social capital theory).

Piaget—>Papert—>MIT—>Resnick—>digital affordances

Developed StarLogo, a programming language that allows users create simple rules (initial conditions) and then allow observation of the emergent stuff that is born from those rules.

Write a rule for a ‘bird’ object then watch flocking behavior emerge. Or rules for ‘car’ and watch traffic jamming behavior.

Emergent phenomena and decentralized systems can now be understood by middle school students without grad level math.

Lego Mindstorms

Robotics
Programming
Feedback & control

Resnick talks about more advanced affordances:

fast prototyping

Resnick admits offhandedly that technology has always provided these affordances, but not to the breadth or depth, new tech expands the range of design and thus, the range of learning.