A model for incorporating learning theories into preservice computer training

Abstract

thought is lost. Papert also proposes that this type of exploration encourages students to evaluate their work in a new way; they begin to look at their attempts in terms of what needs to be done to make them work, as opposed to the fact that they are wrong. It is hoped that these debugging strategies, and many other cognitive skills, will be transferred to other areas. As yet the research does not clearly indicate that such transfer does in fact take place. In response to critics, Papert (1987) answers that controlled experiments in which a single factor in a complex situation is changed while keeping everything else the same may not be the appropriate method for determining the efficacy of this approach to learning. He also argues that technocentric thinking mistakenly puts the emphasis on technology as opposed to people and the cultural context, resulting in the wrong questions being asked (i.e. What can Logo do? vs What can teachers do with Logo). Concerning research methods presently used to investigate Logo, Papert points out that the results vary based on how the effects are measured. When they are narrowly defined, as by Pea and Kurland (1984), the results are negative; when more broadly defined, as by Clements and Gullo (1984), the results are positive. Whether or not adequate techniques exist at this time to examine complex human behavior is a