| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Dan Ingalls |

Ted Kaehler |

Alan Kay |

John Maloney |

John
McIntosh |

大島 芳樹 |

Ian
Piumarta |

Andreas Raab |

David P. Reed |

Kim Rose |

Michael Rueger |

David A. Smith |

Scott Wallace |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

John Perry
Barlow |

Gordon
Bell |

Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi |

Richard
Dawkins |

Doug
Engelbart |

Betty
Edwards |

Bran
Ferren |

Gerhard
Fisher |

Tim
Gallwey |

Adele
Goldberg |

Danny
Hillis |

Quincy
Jones |

Len
Kleinrock |

Geraldine
Laybourne |

Paul
MacCready |

Marvin
Minsky |

Ike Nassi |

Nicholas
Negroponte |

Doreen
Nelson |

Seymour Papert |

Mitch
Resnick |

Paul
Saffo |

Larry
Smarr |

Elliot
Soloway |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Dave
Evans |

Ivan
Sutherland |

Bob Barton |

Kristen
Nygaard |

Ole-Johan
Dahl |
| 
John
McCarthy |

Butler
Lampson |

Chuck Thacker
|

Doug
Engelbart |

Wes Clark |

Nicholas
Negroponte |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Bill
Atkinson |

Richard
Dawkins |

Andy
diSessa |

Carl
Hewitt |

Takeo
Igarashi |
| 
Henry
Lieberman |

Mike
Travers |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

BJ Allen-Conn |

Bob
Arning |

Tansel Ersavas |

Cathleen
Galas |

Josh Gargus |
| 
Diego Gomez Deck
|

Mark
Guzdial |

阿部 和広 |

Ned
Konz |

Don
Lewis |

Bonnie MacBird |

Peter Maguire |

Roxanne Maloney
|

Randy
Pausch |

Miguel
Perez |

Tim
Rowledge |

Nathanael Schaerli
|

John
Steinmetz
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 
Naala Brewer |

Marcus Denker |

Cliff Forlines |

Josh Gargus |

Adam Guren |
| 
Jana Hintze |

Kirstin Kay |

Caitlin Kelleher |

Bolot Kerimbaev |

Alex Lazarevic |
| 
Jeff Pierce |

大島 芳樹 |

Lex Spoon |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

2002-Present
|

1996-2002
|

1984-1996
|

1981-1984
|

1970-1981
|
| 
1966-1970 |
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
| Constructivist
Theory (Jerome Bruner) |
 |
|
Overview:
A major theme in the theoretical framework of Bruner
is that learning is an active process in which learners construct
new ideas or concepts based upon their current/past knowledge. The
learner selects and transforms information, constructs hypotheses,
and makes decisions, relying on a cognitive structure to do so.
Cognitive structure (i.e., schema, mental models) provides meaning
and organization to experiences and allows the individual to "go
beyond the information given".
As far as instruction is concerned, the instructor
should try and encourage students to discover principles by themselves.
The instructor and student should engage in an active dialog (i.e.,
socratic learning). The task of the instructor is to translate information
to be learned into a format appropriate to the learner's current
state of understanding. Curriculum should be organized in a spiral
manner so that the student continually builds upon what they have
already learned.
Bruner (1966) states that a theory of instruction
should address four major aspects: (1) predisposition towards learning,
(2) the ways in which a body of knowledge can be structured so that
it can be most readily grasped by the learner, (3) the most effective
sequences in which to present material, and (4) the nature and pacing
of rewards and punishments. Good methods for structuring knowledge
should result in simplifying, generating new propositions, and increasing
the manipulation of information.
In his more recent work, Bruner (1986, 1990, 1996)
has expanded his theoretical framework to encompass the social and
cultural aspects of learning as well as the practice of law.
Scope/Application:
Bruner's constructivist theory is a general framework
for instruction based upon the study of cognition. Much of the theory
is linked to child development research (especially Piaget
). The ideas outlined in Bruner (1960) originated from a conference
focused on science and math learning. Bruner illustrated his theory
in the context of mathematics and social science programs for young
children (see Bruner, 1973). The original development of the framework
for reasoning processes is described in Bruner, Goodnow & Austin
(1951). Bruner (1983) focuses on language learning in young children.
Note that Constructivism is a very broad conceptual
framework in philosophy and science and Bruner's theory represents
one particular perspective. For an overview of other Constructivist
frameworks, see http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/constructivism.html.
Example:
This example is taken from Bruner (1973):
"The concept of prime numbers appears to be
more readily grasped when the child, through construction, discovers
that certain handfuls of beans cannot be laid out in completed rows
and columns. Such quantities have either to be laid out in a single
file or in an incomplete row-column design in which there is always
one extra or one too few to fill the pattern. These patterns, the
child learns, happen to be called prime. It is easy for the child
to go from this step to the recognition that a multiple table ,
so called, is a record sheet of quantities in completed mutiple
rows and columns. Here is factoring, multiplication and primes in
a construction that can be visualized."
Principles:
1. Instruction must be concerned with the experiences
and contexts that make the student willing and able to learn (readiness).
2. Instruction must be structured so that it can
be easily grasped by the student (spiral organization).
3. Instruction should be designed to facilitate
extrapolation and or fill in the gaps (going beyond the information
given).
References:
Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1973). Going Beyond the Information
Given. New York: Norton.
Bruner, J. (1983). Child's Talk: Learning to Use
Language. New York: Norton.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education, Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J., Goodnow, J., & Austin, A. (1956).
A Study of Thinking. New York: Wiley.
More about Bruner can be found at: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/bruner.htm
http://www.psy.pdx.edu/PsiCafe/KeyTheorists/Bruner.htm |
| |
|
| Genetic
Epistemology (J. Piaget) |
 |
| Overview:
Over a period of six decades, Jean
Piaget conducted a program of naturalistic research that has
profoundly affected our understanding of child development. Piaget
called his general theoretical framework "genetic epistemology"
because he was primarily interested in how knowledge developed in
human organisms. Piaget had a background in both Biology and Philosophy
and concepts from both these disciplines influences his theories
and research of child development.
The concept of cognitive structure is central to
his theory. Cognitive structures are patterns of physical or mental
action that underlie specific acts of intelligence and correspond
to stages of child development (see Schemas). There are four primary
cognitive structures (i.e., development stages) according to Piaget:
sensorimotor, preoperations, concrete operations, and formal operations.
In the sensorimotor stage (0-2 years), intelligence takes the form
of motor actions. Intelligence in the preoperation period (3-7 years)
is intutive in nature. The cognitive structure during the concrete
operational stage (8-11 years) is logical but depends upon concrete
referents. In the final stage of formal operations (12-15 years),
thinking involves abstractions.
Cognitive structures change through the processes
of adaptation: assimilation and accommodation. Assimilation involves
the interpretation of events in terms of existing cognitive structure
whereas accommodation refers to changing the cognitive structure
to make sense of the environment. Cognitive development consists
of a constant effort to adapt to the environment in terms of assimilation
and accommodation. In this sense, Piaget's theory is similar in
nature to other constructivist perspectives of learning (e.g., Bruner,
Vygotsky).
While the stages of cognitive development identified
by Piaget are associated with characteristic age spans, they vary
for every individual. Furthermore, each stage has many detailed
structural forms. For example, the concrete operational period has
more than forty distinct structures covering classification and
relations, spatial relationships, time, movement, chance, number,
conservation and measurement. Similar detailed analysis of intellectual
functions is provided by theories of intelligence such as Guilford,
Gardner, and Sternberg.
Scope/Application:
Piaget explored the implications of his theory
to all aspects of cognition, intelligence and moral development.
Many of Piaget's experiments were focused on the development of
mathematical and logical concepts. The theory has been applied extensively
to teaching practice and curriculum design in elementary education
(e.g., Bybee & Sund, 1982; Wadsworth, 1978). Piaget's ideas
have been very influential on others, such as Seymour Papert (see
computers).
Example:
Applying Piaget's theory results in specific recommendations
for a given stage of cognitive development. For example, with children
in the sensorimotor stage, teachers should try to provide a rich
and stimulating environment with ample objects to play with. On
the other hand, with children in the concrete operational stage,
learning activities should involve problems of classification, ordering,
location, conservation using concrete objects.
Principles:
1. Children will provide different explanations
of reality at different stages of cognitive development.
2. Cognitive development is facilitated by providing
activities or situations that engage learners and require adaptation
(i.e., assimilation and accomodation).
3. Learning materials and activities should involve
the appropriate level of motor or mental operations for a child
of given age; avoid asking students to perform tasks that are beyond
their currrent cognitive capabilities.
4. Use teaching methods that actively involve students
and present challenges.
References:
Brainerd, C. (1978). Piaget's Theory of Intelligence.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bybee, R.W. & Sund, R.B. (1982). Piaget for
Educators (2nd Ed). Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.
Flavell, J. H. (1963). The Developmental Psychology
of Jean Piaget. NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Gallagher, J.M. & Reid, D.K. (1981). The Learning
Theory of Piaget and Inhelder. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Piaget, J. (1929). The Child's Conception of the
World. NY: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.
Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgement of the Child.
NY: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.
Piaget, J. (1969). The Mechanisms of Perception.
London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul.
Paiget, J. (1970). The Science of Education amd
the Psychology of the Child. NY: Grossman.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1969). The Psychology
of the Child. NY: Basic Books.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1973). Memory and
intelligence. NY: Basic Books.
Wadsworth, B. (1978). Piaget for the Classroom
Teacher. NY: Longman.
For information about current activities relating
to Piaget, see the Jean Piaget Society or Piaget Archive web sites.
|
| |
|
Biography:
Marshall McLuhan |
 |
Marshall McLuhan
McLuhan was still a twenty-year old undergraduate at the University
of Manitoba, in western Canada, in the dirty thirties, when he wrote
in his diary that he would never become an academic. He was learning
in spite of his professors, but he would become a professor of English
in spite of himself. After Manitoba, graduate work at Cambridge University
planted the seed for McLuhan’s eventual move toward media analysis.
Looking back on both his own Cambridge years and the longer history
of the institution, he reflected that a principal aim of the faculty
could be summarized as the training of perception, a phrase that aptly
summarizes his own aim throughout his career.
The shock that McLuhan experienced in his first teaching post propelled
him toward media analysis. Though his students at the University
of Wisconsin were his juniors by only five to eight years, he felt
removed from them by a generation. He suspected that this had to
do with ways of learning and set out to investigate it. The investigation
led him back to lessons on the training of perception from his Cambridge
professors, such as I. A. Richards (The Meaning of Meaning, Practical
Criticism), and forward to discoveries from James Joyce, the symbolist
poets, Ezra Pound; back to antiquity and the myth of Narcissus,
forward to the mythic structure of modern Western culture dominated
by electric technology.
Understanding Media, first published in 1964, focuses on the media
effects that permeate society and culture, but McLuhan’s starting
point is always the individual, because he defines media as technological
extensions of the body. As a result, McLuhan often puts his inquiry
and his conclusions in terms of the ratio between the physical senses
(the extent to which we depend on them relative to each other) and
the consequences of modifications to that ratio. This invariably
entails a psychological dimension. Thus, the invention of the alphabet
and the resulting intensification of the visual sense in the communication
process gave sight priority over hearing, but the effect was so
powerful that it went beyond communication through language to reshape
literate society’s conception and use of space.
Understanding Media brought McLuhan to prominence in the same decade
that celebrated flower power. San Francisco, the home of the summer
of love, hosted the first McLuhan festival, featuring the man himself.
The saying “God is dead” was much in vogue in the counterculture
that quickly adopted McLuhan but missed the irony of giving a man
of deep faith the status of an icon.
Spectacular sales of Understanding Media, in hardback and then
in paperback editions, and the San Francisco symposium brought him
a steady stream of invitations for speaking engagements. He addressed
countless groups, ranging from the American Marketing Association
and the Container Corporation of America to AT&T and IBM. In
March 1967, NBC aired “This is Marshall McLuhan” in
its Experiment in TV series. He played on his own famous saying,
publishing The Medium is the Massage (coproduced with Quentin Fiore
and Jerome Agel), even as he was signing contracts for Culture Is
Our Business and From Cliché to Archetype (with Canadian
poet Wilfred Watson) with publishers in New York. Dozens of universities
awarded McLuhan honorary degrees and he secured a Schweitzer Chair
in the Humanities at Fordham University. At the University of Toronto’s
Centre for Culture and Technology, where McLuhan was director, a
steady stream of visitors arrived from around the world to absorb
his lessons on media, or just to see him and be seen with him. Andy
Warhol was scheduled to visit but did not show (when McLuhan finally
met him some time later, he pronounced him a “rube”);
John Lennon and Yoko Ono arrived unannounced. Understanding Media,
which was eventually translated into more than twenty languages,
overshadowed the only McLuhan book-length publication from the 1960s
that took him back squarely to his roots as a professor of English
literature, the two-volume Voices of Literature (edited in collaboration
with Richard J. Schoeck). By the time the decade ended, he had collaborated
with Canadian artist Harley Parker on Through the Vanishing Point:
Space in Poetry and Painting and once more with Quentin Fiore and
Jerome Agel on War and Peace in the Global Village. This popular
paperback, exploding at every page with McLuhan’s observations
juxtaposed to a visual chronicle of twentieth century happenings,
bore the improbable subtitle, an inventory of some of the current
spastic situations that could be eliminated by more feedforward.
The book looks and feels light years away from the Cambridge University
of the 1930s where McLuhan trained, but that was just where he had
picked up the idea of feedforward—from his teacher I. A. Richards.
McLuhan wrote with no knowledge of galvanic skin response technology,
terminal node controllers, or the Apple Newton. He might not have
been able even to imagine what a biomouse is. But he pointed the
way to understanding all of these, not in themselves, but in their
relation to each other, to older technologies, and above all in
relation to ourselves—our bodies, our physical senses, our
psychic balance. When he published Understanding Media in 1964,
he was disturbed about mankind’s shuffling toward the twenty-first
century in the shackles of nineteenth century perceptions. He might
be no less disturbed today. And he would continue to issue the challenge
that confronts the reader at every page of his writings to cast
off those shackles.
—by Terrence Gordon, July, 2002
W. Terrence Gordon is the author of the biography, Marshall McLuhan:
Escape into Understanding. Gingko Press. ISBN: 1-58423-112-2 |
|
|
John
Holt |
 |
The late John Holt was an author and
educator well known among Homeschoolers. His methods and ideas about
education live on today through books he has written and through
the "Growing Without Schooling" magazine he founded.
The "Growing Without Schooling" magazine was established by John
Holt in August of 1977; it is believed to be the world's first Homeschooling
magazine. The magazine was directed at those who learned to acquire
useful skills and make use of those skills in the working world
without the process of formal schooling. Also, its purpose was to
unite people with similar beliefs as a means of support and sharing
information.
The magazine was based on John Holt's theory about how social changes
came about. Social changes that remain, only do so at a slow pace
because people can only change their lives and their thinking over
a period of time. John Holt knew that his educational beliefs were
in the minority, even though his ideas made so much sense. Actually,
anyone who did not believe in compulsory education (formal schooling)
was in the minority. To some, the idea that a child could learn
without constant coercion and direction from an adult seemed ludicrous.
Holt was aware that his cause would not make a shift in the way
society viewed education, his goal was to help those who believed
in learning freely to grow and prosper with support from like-minded
people.
Some of John Holt's ideas were offensive to other educators. He
was quite outspoken with his beliefs, such as how school children
develop as a result of peer pressure in a school setting. He believed
that the social life was full of cliques, bullying, competitiveness
and many other behavioral problems children could come up with to
seek status among their peers. This of course was his response when
asked the age old question, "What about socialization?" when referring
to education children at home. The social life in compulsory schools
is one major reason why many parents choose to keep their children
home; of course their are many other individual reasons why parents
choose this route.
Pressure in general is another issue Holt believes affected a child's
performance in school. He says, "There must be a limit to the tension
we put children under. If we don't, they will set their own limits
by not paying attention, fooling around or by saying unnecessarily
that they don't get it." According to Holt, children should know
ahead of time that the tension they feel can be stopped. When children
feel more at ease and know that mistakes are acceptable, the stop
worrying and start using their brains. So he believed that educators
need to stop causing the children to be afraid and help them break
the fearful thought pattern. A scared learner is a poor learner.
John Holt lived from 1923 - 1985 and left an admirable legacy behind.
He believed that children who were provided with a rich and stimulating
learning environment would learn what they are ready to learn, when
they are ready to learn it. Sound simple? It can be, but in his
day that was considered radical thinking ... today it is called
"child led learning" or "unschooling."
To find out more about John Holt you can choose from the ten books
he wrote. You may want to start with the classic he wrote in the
1960s school reform movement called, "How Children Fail." In addition
to his books, the "Growing Without Schooling" magazine has continued
to be distributed even after his death.
Written by Dena Lambert |
|
|
Chuck
Thacker |
 |
| Xerox Alto Designer Charles (Chuck) Thacker
has spent almost 30 years in computing. Educated in physics at the
University of California, Berkeley, he joined the university's Genie
project in 1968. The project eventually became the Berkeley Computer
Corporation, which developed the BCC 500 timesharing system. Thacker
is a co-inventor of the Ethernet local area network, and contributed
to many other projects, including the first laser printer and the
Dorado, a high-performance ECL-technology personal workstation. He
also designed and implemented the SIL CAD system. |
|
|
Wes Clark |
 |
| Back in the 1950s, computers were like
castles on the hill—large, expensive, and very mysterious. Since
most biomedical scientists could not afford their own computers, they
often shared a central computer and sometimes waited a day or so to
get the results. Today, of course, small computers are found in practically
every laboratory in the country, where they have revolutionized biomedical
science. Researchers now routinely use computers to analyze experimental
results and to perform such esoteric functions as viewing three-dimensional
(3-D) models of complex molecules and “touching” chromosomes
and viruses in virtual reality. Early NCRR support proved instrumental
in transforming computers into a useful tool for the biomedical scientist.
It all started in 1961 when Wesley Clark, an electrical engineer
at Lincoln Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT), designed a small computer for a brain researcher at MIT.
Clark wanted his computer to be easy to program, easy to communicate
with while it was operating, and able to process biological signals
directly. At the time, no computer came close to fulfilling these
criteria. Clark also wanted his machine to be short enough to see
over and affordable enough for the typical university laboratory.
In 1962, Clark and his colleague, Dr. Charles Molnar, built a working
model of the computer, using existing electronic modules rather
than building new circuits. They dubbed their creation LINC, partly
as a bow to Lincoln Laboratory and partly as a pun alluding to how
the user could link closely to the machine. LINC was about the size
of a refrigerator and used recording tapes that were small enough
to fit in a jacket pocket, another revolutionary concept for the
time.
With $400,000 in seed money from NCRR—and similar sums contributed
by the National Institute of Mental Health and NASA—Clark
and Molnar launched a plan to offer free LINCs to biomedical scientists.
In exchange, researchers had to spend a summer building their own
computers in a learning workshop and then evaluating them in their
laboratories. Eventually 12 LINCs were built at the workshop, and
users quickly discovered that the computers enabled more rapid and
efficient execution of experiments. Also, LINC allowed users to
fine-tune ongoing experiments, reformulating hypotheses “on
the fly” as data accumulated. The LINC development team eventually
relocated to Washington University in St. Louis, where, with Dr.
Jerome Cox, Jr., they established the Resource for Biomedical Computing,
funded by NCRR from 1964 to 1997. |
|
|
Dave
Reed |
 |
| Dr. David Reed's work focuses using digital
technology to transform the design of technological, business, and
social systems. His current explorations center on exploiting new
information technologies that enable people to be more effective,
including mobile computing; highly scalable wireless networking; group
information sharing; pervasive networking; video media processing;
and infrastructures for electronic commerce. Dr. Reed synthesizes
research-level knowledge of computer science, software, protocol and
data architecture, system modeling, electronics, and signal processing
along with commercial experience in R&D management, economics,
and technology-based strategy. David is an independent consultant
on network systems, and is affiliated with the MIT Media Lab as a
visiting scientist. He serves as strategy/technology advisor to a
variety of companies. David was previously chief scientist at both
Lotus Development Corporation and Software Arts, Inc., and a professor
in MIT's Laboratory for Computer Science. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|