Computationally enhanced toolkits for ch

Computationally enhanced toolkits for children: historical review and a framework for future design. Paulo

selective exposure / interface design embedded error correction / affordance tangibility mapping

“The most important catalyst in the development of the Cricket was the research group’s continued belief that science instruction dominated by direct instruction and lab activities was ineffective, and that children needed the opportunity to engage in real-world science”

Arduino works best for someone who starts with the idea of a micro controller (and the mindset of an electrical engineer)—this person will be delighted by the interface presented by the Arduino. However, tools for learning will present themselves in the context of an idea of a task to be accomplished, a project to be built, or just idle curiosity (and are charged with some responsibility for encouraging an effective mindset). 

Feedback…

2) What are the direct connections between specific design decisions and the learning goals intended for the toolkit.Design decisions about these abstraction layers can radically affect the achievable learning goals. For example, a toolkit that is supposed to help students learn robotics, but makes them spend half of their time figuring out how a breadboard works, will not be able to live up to its goals.

How is this different from the Resnick/Zuckerman distinction between FiM /MiM?

3) Toolkits should be considered as part of a larger developmental trajectory. How are we to receive this claim? Elsewhere expertise has been explicitly discounted as the goal. * could become a question for increased parallelism*

Selective Exposure -> Affordace

In justifying the necessity of the concept of selective exposure, emphasize the difference between hardware, software kits and other manipulatives (they fundamentally have overwhelming complexity inside; this problem is forced on us)