princetonpoh98

Right, so a creative tool meant to promote constructionism for students eventually becomes a blunt hammer used to drive mechanical outcomes.

Side note, I do think your phrase "build to understand" is a good layman explanation for constructionism. Akin to "write to think".

I've always been curious why this "clearly better way to learn" hasn't been more widely adopted.

Thank you for sharing! Is it possible to try your inhouse LOGO? :)

Do yall think Scratch is better than LOGO? O.o

Do yall think Scratch is better than LOGO?

Do you think the state of mathophobia and the systems driving has improved since his book? Or worsened? Stayed the same?

Do you think Scratch is better than Logo?

How old were you then?

Have you tried playing again with it now as an adult then? HAHAHA

Gotta agree it's really good! Chapter 1 is already a banger. Did you manage to recreate all those explorations on LOGO yourself?

I'm curious!

1. Are your students still using LOGO? (if yes, which one? if no, what did you moved on to?) 2. Given everything you've said about LOGO, including how it transforms the student's relation with math from anxiety to joy of tinkering, do you think that LOGO should be learned by everyone? 3. Hate to be the guy bringing AI into this but, but do you mind expanding on your arguments on why LOGO still has a place admits this blistering pace of progress?

Do you think the ideas behind LOGO has been forgotten as well? As you've mentioned, it has spawned many learning tools since. My question is, do you think anything new has superseded LOGO in achieving its goals? Or is LOGO still the best embodiment of the ideas set out by Seymour?