53
Not the Computer but Human Interaction
is the Basis for Cognitive Development
and Education
Janni NIELSEN
The Royal Danish School of Educational Studies, Institute of
Education, Emdrupvej 101, DK 2400 - Copenhagen NV,
Denmark
A process description of two pupils working with a computer demonstrates that the pupils have great difficulties in
learning programming.
However, much research leaves the general impression that
children do not encounter many problems when working with
computers. Programming challenges higher mental functions,
and ensures a cognitive development which has general value:
a procedural thinking which may be transferred to other areas
in the child's life. The implication is that the learning process is
of "osmotic" character, "like learning French by living in
France . . . . . . without being taught" (Papert, 1980, p. 4). Thus
children may as well stay at home by the computer, instead of
going to school.
With the work process described as point of departure, a
cognitive model is presented which is founded in human interaction. The model operates with three fundamental ways of
cognition: the sensori-motor, the emotive and the symbolic ±
the latter seen here as language. Though they are presented
independently, they must be considered a whole, the interaction between them being the basis for the development of
human cognition throughout life.
On the basis of this model, the theoretical frame of cognition worked within in much research is being questioned.
It is argued that working with computers, learning programming demands much teaching, hence human interaction;
and this is not a challenge which the computer in the home can
meet.
Janni Nielsen is a psychologist from the University of
1. "Finally we succeeded"
Susan and Jane held their breath, mouths open.
Susan touched the return key, and they both stared
fascinated at the screen. Slowly, smiles grew upon
their faces. " D i d we make that?", asked Susan.
"Apparently ..... we ordered it to do it", said
Jane with surprise in her voice. "Finally we succeeded", stated Susan, and they laughed.
What the girls were looking at was Fig. 1. But
the instruction on the exercise sheet was to use
their program TURN (illustrated in Fig. 2) and
change the right turn order of the triangle so the
six triangles would form a secant (Fig. 3).
During the introductory work with computers
(12 hours) and " L O G O " in a Danish variation,
the girls (15 years old) had been introduced gradually to length, angles, "repeat" and subroutines in
mathematical education. Beginning with working
with the graphics, they moved on to programming,
initially by copying programs from the exercise
sheet, finally being led on to programming by
themselves, but always building on the programs
hitherto introduced.
When the girls had to change the right turn
order, they started out by typing the system order:
REMEMBER (this initializes a new program).
Realizing this was wrong, they then keyed END.
As this did not work either, they entered CATA-
Copenhagen. She has carried out research in Office automation, psychological consequences, with special reference to
women. At present she holds a research fellowship at the Royal
Danish School of Educational Studies; the title of her project
is: Computers and Cognitive Development, with special reference to gender-specific differences. Also of particular interest
to her is the development of science and technology, and the
question of the way to acquire knowledge - this viewed in a
historical and gender specific frame. She is a member of the
Forum for Women Studies and Research at the Royal School.
North-Holland
Education & Computing 2 (1986) 53-61
I ?,. ' 5
¢ y ~." ..
DREJ~
TRYK
Fig. 1.
54
J. Nielsen / Human Interaction: the Basis of Development
Fig. 2.
LOGUE, got confused when they saw the screen
text, then F O R G E T , then GRAPHIC, and finally
again REMEMBER, and got lost.
With help from a teacher they eventually got
around to making corrections. They had worked
with this earlier, but apparently had problems in
reading the screen text. By now they had forgotten
the instruction and tried instead with REPEAT
25, then REPEAT 31, starting fascinated at t h e
screen. Exploring the medium one could say [1,2],
but video-taping the work process showed s?mething else.
One week later, after 4 more hours of programming, the girls were taped again. They still
worked with the program T U R N . This time they
made five attempts to solve the problem, at times
leaving it and hiding behind the screen, and all
one could hear were whispers and screams of
laughter. Giving up... " D o we have to make that
again? ..... Let's not bother", but returning because "if they (the teacher and the researcher) ask
to see it, it is going to be a bit difficult". They
were trying to change the subroutine Triangle with
Square, as suggested on the exercise sheet, but to
start with they had not asked the computer to get
their Square program from the disc. Besides, they
did not understand the use of subroutines. A
program which calls another program was explained by Susan to Jane, after long discussions.
" T h e machine then gives it (the program) the
name of the new program (the subroutine)".
At the fourth attempt the girls had entered this
program: TURN, repeat 31, forward 50, right turn
90, to here, END. As the turn is 90 ° and it is
repeated, the execution will show a Square. Jane's
reaction to this was: Oh - then it just walks
around 31 times .... Of course, because it is a
Square". Susan: " W h a t is so clear about that?"
Jane: " I don't know ..... something must be
wrong". Now what appears to be wrong is that
Susan forgot to key the order Square. But it was
just the word which was missing in the program
they had written, not, it seems, the subroutine,
and the girls did not reflect on the fact that it
drew a Square without this. However, the girls did
have some understanding of angles, because later
when they had entered the line Square, Susan
happened to key a right turn 120, and of course a
triangle was drawn. After some discussion, Jane
stated: " O f course, because we asked it to turn
120", completely ignoring the subroutine Square,
however.
By the fifth attempt the solution for the program was: T U R N , repeat 31, Square, forward 50,
right turn 95, to here, END. They still had not
asked the computer to get their program Square
from the disc, and they had changed the angle to
95 (they did not comment on this). The outcome
was Fig. 4, and the reaction was: Jane: " H o w
cute". Susan: " W e bloody well succeeded".
The girls "solved" two more problems the same
: ( .............
I
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
J. Nielsen / Human Interaction: the Basis of Development
way, and when something was drawn on the screen,
when there was a product, the problem was considered solved.
During the programming work the girls gave up
completely trying to correct a program, even if
they only happened to touch a wrong key while
writing. They simply cleared the screen, and started
all over again, by entering the following commands in the following sequence: CATALOGUE,
FORGET, END, GRAPHIC, CLEAR and REMEMBER.
Whenever a program was entered copying directly from the exercise sheet, they expressed
surprise when it was executed. Even if they had
worked with the graphics, drawing a figure, and
painstakingly noted down the moves with pencil
and paper, afterwards entering it as a program,
they expressed surprise when seeing it executed.
Though they had just drawn it themselves, and
keyed the program, they did not seem to perceive
the relation between the two activities. The reaction: " D i d we do that?" and whether it was right
or wrong, "we succeeded" was most often the
case. They were fascinated by the movements on
the screen, the unexpected product, but the programming language did not seem to carry any
meaning to them.
Yet, when they worked directly with the graphics, they used part of the language. They worked
in a way which may be termed homing-in [2].
Moving step by step, e.g. forward 30, forward 10,
forward 20, back 5 - until "it looks right", and
they did the same when turning. They worked
mainly with turns of 45, 60, 90, 120 and length 20,
30, 40 etc., these being the numbers the exercise
sheet had dealt with. They appeared so much at
home with these numbers, to the extent that when
Jane suggested, after a lot of shuffle forwards and
backwards, that the length needed was 31, Susan's
reaction was, "Oh, what a provoking number".
She is quite fight of course.
One year later, after approximately 40 hours of
computerwork, the girls were taped again. During
the year, variables had also been introduced. Different programs with variables had been presented
and tried out, and the instruction for the exercise
was: Use your programs to draw a man.
The girls did not use any programs. They went
straight to the graphics and worked by homing-in.
Shuffle forwards and backwards, and their man
was drawn. But they did not return to the actual
55
writing of programs.
The two girls are used as an example, but they
embody many of the problems that the average
pupils - boys and girls - encountered during the
year, and did not move beyond. Problems with the
programming language, the relation between-the
different program orders, the relation between the
program and the figure being executed, the system
orders and the systematic procedure.
Yet much research on children and computers
leaves one with the impression that children do
not encounter many problems when learning to
program [1-8].
2. Programming and Cognition
Programming challenges higher mental functions, and the children acquire the ability for
systematic structuring and develop procedural
thinking - this is the impression given. The implication is that the learning process is osmotic,
that i s learning mathematics and programming
without knowing that they learn, "like learning
French by living in France ..... without being
taught". (Papert [1], p. 4).
According to Papert [1] the process in the development of cognition moves from concepts to an
understanding of the relation between concepts granted that the concepts are founded in body
knowledge. Papert argues this by referring to his
own childhood fascination with gears, where he
knew the names of all the parts in the transmission system, the gearbox etc., before he understood the relation between them. An understanding came about by "being the gear", by relating
the process to his body knowledge. With this as
point of departure, the suggestion is to get children
to "do the turtle" e.g. walk in a circle, when they
have problems in programming a circle: or writing
a program which will simulate the juggling with
balls before actually juggling. The power of the
computer is its ability to simulate these processes,
and that it works with uniquely defined concepts
in a systematic sequential structure. Through this
it becomes a transitional object, an object to think
with, to understand other abstract ideas with.
These two aspects account for a general cognitive
gain, a procedural thinking.
As most processes can be simulated by the
computer, starting out with the concepts, and the
56
J. Nielsen / Human Interaction: the Basis of Development
abstract and formalized analyses of the processes,
through which a program may be written, the
main point is to focus on the form, organizing it
into a systematic procedure, ignoring the contents
(the peculiarity of the specific domain). Through
this a certain style of thinking can be learned
[1,3,8], and the ability of procedural thinking developed.
R. Lawler [9,10] also emphasizes the systematic
procedure built into the programming. With a
simple word-processing system he separated content and structure. The structure he presented as a
preprogrammed composition for writing stories:
the beginning (Once upon a time); the middle
part; the end. Lawler's research builds on the
intensive work he did together with his daughter
(then 6 years old) for half a year. And Lawler
suggests that by working within this systematic
procedure the child " m a y gradually perceive the
structure of the text" ([9] p. 16). Again one sees
the osmotic process through which the structure
was acquired by the child and became the structure within the framework of which she several
years later generated her writing [9].
R. Noss [2,6,7] has worked with LOGO and
younger children in primary schools. Noss's research project took place in a normal school setting, and as the necessity of helping children " t o
fully explore their new learning environment" [6]
was realized, the classes alternated between unstructured free playing, and structured with a curriculum.
Noss also values the systematic procedure and
the computer as a transitional object. Noss's point
of departure is that children already structure
their own knowledge, and that their thinking is
logical. Children generalize, specialize, look for
patterns, verify etc. in their everyday life. It is,
according to Noss, the same logical process that
working with mathematics demands. However, as
mathematics is abstract and decontextualized, not
concretely founded like everyday knowledge and
thinking, this has hitherto been difficult for
children (and for adults, one may add). But with
the computer and LOGO, it has become possible
to present the formalization of mathematical
thinking in a concretized way. Learning to program means learning to deal with the rigour and
formalism which is essential in programming,
learning to deal with decontextualized symbols
and knowledge - developing higher cognitive skills.
The research is very promising, yet many of the
teenagers in my research project did not get very
far, despite the fact that they are much older than
the children in the research mentioned and presumably have reached a higher level in cognitive
development. They had problems in understanding the programming language, the necessary temporal structure, the subroutines, and often the text
picture appeared incomprehensible to them. To a
large extent they did not seem to have any mental
images of what a program might execute, just as
they had problems in fully grasping the relationship between the drawing and the program. Very
often the Systematic procedure necessary created
problems or was not understood, as in the case of
Susan and Jane, though they had perceived something about being systematic and working sequentially. Very carefully, CATALOGUE, FORGET,
END etc. were entered.
In order to explain their programming activity,
one has to move beyond the theoretical assumptions and the results presented in the quoted literature. To stay within these frames would almost
inevitably lead to the conclusion that these girls
are plain stupid. They just happen to belong to a
group of pupils - but unfortunately there are
many of them - who neither succeed with programming nor in school.
3. Cognitive Development
As a possible model for understanding the cognitive development and the process of concept
formation, I operate with a paradigm with three
fundamental ways of cognition [11]. They are presented independently, but the development of and
interaction between them is the basis for human
cognition, for the person's comprehension of a
coherent world throughout life.
The sensori-motor way of cognition has body
and senses as its basis, and it is through the
individual's practical activity, by laying hands on
reality, that this qualification is developed. We
may call it the common sense of the body. We see
it most clearly in children, while in adults it is
expressed to a lesser degree.
Emotions also function as a means of cognition. The emotive way of cognition grows out of
human interaction, and is qualified through the
necessary emotional relationships formed with
other human beings. A new-born infant can survive
J. Nielsen / Human Interaction: the Basis of Development
only if an interaction is established between the
mother (primary person) and the child, in which
the physical as well as the emotional needs of the
child are met. The emotions function as an orienting means for the child's way of relating to the
world, and through this is created the possibility
of dissolution of borders between self and others,
hence the ability for caring identification. Neither
of these two cognitive ways enjoys a high status in
our culture, despite the fact that they maintain
their essential role in the development of cognition throughout life.
The third cognitive way is the symbofic. It may
be transformed through language, images, colours,
music etc. I shall deal only with language here.
Cognition is - in our culture - often equated with
the mastering of language, and of meaning: the
ability to let the world be represented in words, to
allot a meaning to the symbol and to understand
on this basis.
Language is introduced in the mother/child
interaction, and moves from being merely sounds
to the child, to become the naming of the interaction - the wholeness. But through the use of
language in many different situations, the sounds
are differentiated, and gradually they are allotted
a meaning, they become concepts: not, however,
uniquely defined concepts, because there are no
sharp borders in everyday life, but blurred, and
the meaning of the concept is derived from the
context in which sensori-motor and emotive dimensions are embedded.
This may be illustrated in the following way
[12,13]:
/~ tacit
process of the concept formation
"~ symbolic
Sensori-motor and emotive cognition I have
defined as the tacit dimensions [14]. Of course,
part of this knowledge may be explicitly verbalized, but it is important to bear in mind that we
know much more than we can say.
But language has a double function. Language
is a means of communication, where it is closely
related to human interaction. However, language
may become detached from the direct experiences.
Through language it becomes possible to transcend the immediate, voice the past and the future, create theoretical constructions, etc. As such,
the language becomes a very essential tool for the
57
development of cognition. Development of theories and scientific concepts may be an example of
an abstract language in which the concepts are
defined rather by their relation to other concepts,
and to a lesser degree by their relation to reality.
Yet they must refer to the reality, else they cannot
become the means for grasping and explaining it.
The results of mental processes must be confronted with reality, otherwise one may speak of
text "sine con", merely figments of the brain.
Formation of concepts thus takes place on the
basis of human interaction and human action, that
is by laying hands on reality, and derives its
meaning from the context. This is the basis for
cognitive development.
Language may, however, become detached from
its basis to the extent that it becomes a pure
abstraction. No body, no senses, nor human relations hold it. When nothing embodies the language, it is without reference and must be defined,
and rules and principles must be made for the use
of it. It is no longer language but signs, like
mathematical and computer languages. This does
no imply, of course, that they cannot be used as
tools.
4. Computers and Human Interaction
It is the latter, the signs, that children have to
work with when learning to program: not the
fuzzy concepts of everyday life, but symbols
without reference, and only a few (if any) may be
referred to body knowledge. Papert suggests walking the circle like the turtle; but children do not
walk circles like the turtle. To do this children
have to break down the process of walking a circle
into the smallest components possible. However,
one does not walk a circle by taking one step,
turning a little, one step etc. On the contrary, the
process is perceived and executed as an organic
whole. And one does not naturally think of the
process explicitly verbalized in fragments. To walk
a circle is a qualification one possesses through
laying hands on reality, an experience acquired in
the process of learning to walk; a process which
takes place long before one possesses the complex
language necessary for voicing the movement - in
detail. This does not imply that one cannot learn
to reduce reality to fragments, but it is a very
special approach which does not come naturally.
58
J. Nielsen //Human Interaction: the Basis of Development
Some kind of help or teaching is essential and,
given this, working with body knowledge may
support the learning process.
Yet many concepts cannot be referred to body
knowledge. The actions they cause are abstract
and take place out of sight, as in the case of Jane
and Susan, who did not seem to understand the
system orders nor the function of these because
they take place within the computer and cannot
be seen, felt or executed by the girls. Thus there is
nothing to hold on to, and the purpose of the
activity is lost. Or rather, one does not work in
order to acquire knowledge, but more in order to
meet the requirements of the teacher. And as the
words carry no meaning, the girls cannot operate
with the systematic procedure either. But having
heard something about the necessity of being systematic, they do their best: CATALOGUE, FORGET, etc. - figments of the brain.
This may also be why the girls have problems
in comprehending the relationship between figure
and text. If words carry no meaning, one cannot
imagine what will happen; therefore the girls did
not have any mental pictures.
However, as pointed out, some concepts are
more readily operated with, e.g. forward, turn. But
this is when working directly with the graphics. In
the case of Jane and Susan, when making drawings, they did not seem to have problems hypothesizing on the basis of a few moves, systematizing,
drawing conclusions and finally reducing the
number of moves necessary. This, however, has
very little to do with body knowledge, but much
more to do with the immediate visibility of what a
keyed order causes. The concepts were connected
directly with the visual information - one may say
that the sensori-motor and symbolic ways of cognition could interact.
This brings me on the question of human interaction when learning programming. Neither Papert
[1,3] nor LaMer [9,10] reflects on the human interaction. Yet Papert states that "gears were part of
the world of adults around me, and through them
I could relate to these people". ([1] p. 11). Gears
were a specific knowledge domain in his childhood, and it was the adults around him who
supplied him with names, and pointed out the
relationship between the concrete elements. The
"feeling" and "love" for gears came about because of, and due to, the human interaction, on
the basis of which a positive feeling was developed.
Human interaction was also an essential part of
the Brookline project [3], where the ratio was one
teacher, numerous researchers, and four children
per session, which took place in a special room to
which these children came from their normal
classes. Without violating the research one can
state that the adults were very engaged in the
children's programming activities as well as the
children themselves. No child is unaffected by all
this attention from adults, which also very clearly
had to do with the new tool. Thus it is not
surprising that these children developed positive
feelings towards the computer (Hawthorne effect).
I would suggest that one may assume that a
very high degree of human interaction and of
teaching took place. Anyone who has tried to
make observations in a classroom will know that it
is very difficult not to become partly engaged in
the activities. One very quickly becomes a par:
ticipant observer - the children simply draw one
into the activities.
And neither does Lawler reflect on the human
interaction, on the significance of "working with
DAD": a father who worked together with his
daughter in computer sessions which took place at
his work-site. The interaction consisted not only
of suggesting contents for her writing, but also
keying the stories (she had difficulties in spelling)
as well as explicitly pointing out to her when the
preprogrammed structure was not kept in the generated text. The father expressed extreme interest
in the child's activities, to the extent of keeping
close track of these, which included keeping a log
o f her activities every half-hour, whenever it was
possible - for five months [10].
Thus I suggest that an essential part of the
explanation for the children's engagement with
computers may be derived from focusing on the
emotive way of cognition: a cognitive way which
functions as an orienting means for the child's
way of relating to the world, the basis of it being
human interaction.
One also has to look at the question of
domain-specific knowledge and the process of
concept formation. The human interaction taking
place while learning to program includes asking
questions, pointing out problems, discussing etc.
Learning programming comes about both by laying hands on, and also by programming concepts
and processes being explicitly verbalized during
the interaction. Working thus over extended time,
J. Nielsen / Human Interaction: the Basis of Development
children may gradually acquire some domainspecific knowledge. Programming abilities do not
come about as a "fingertip effect" ([15], but
through extended human interaction.
In children's conceptualization of the world,
that is in the concepts they develop, the tacit and
the symbolic dimensions are not separated, just as
the relationship between concepts grows organically on the basis of the practical interaction. But
working with programming is working with decontextualized concepts, and the relationship between
these signs is defined a priori.
Programming demands unambiguity, formalization, hierarchical organization and temporal
structuring. Hence programming demands skills
such as reading and comprehending the problem,
the ability to deal with uniquely defined concepts,
decomposing the problem to elements, hypothetically planning steps ahead, following the temporal
logic, and writing the program as a sequential
instruction, and as prerequisite is the mastering of
the programming language. It is therefore essential
that we keep in mind that programming is a very
complex activity which demands qualifications at
what one may term a "metacognitive" level, and
this is no small task to ask of children [16,17].
Writing programs means following the rules
and principles of the formal logic. It is closed
normative system which tells how conclusions
ought to be drawn, and it does not include confronting the premises or the solution with reality
[18]. To engage in an abstract work process is
what children have to learn, and this is also what
creates problems. Programming is not concrete not even when gears and juggling are simulated on
the screen (as opposed to the concrete experience)
it is an abstract activity, and aquiring the ability
does n o t come naturally. On the contrary, by
decontextualizing and separating structure and
contents, a method for treating data has been
developed, and this is what children have to learn.
To acquire this method is not to be comprehended
as possessing procedural thinking. Or rather, procedural thinking is not a psychological category,
but belongs to the world of mathematics and
computer science, and characterizes the way in
which processing of data takes place in a computer.
The logical thinking derived from everyday life
grows out of the practical concrete relationship
with the world. It is the logic of the activities
-
59
where concepts refer to context and may embody
both tacit and symbolic dimensions. It is this
ability to deal logically with the world, based on
experiences gained through everyday life, that we
see expressed in Jane's reaction to Susan's suggestion that they should not bother, "if they ask to
see it is going to be a bit difficult". Real logic we
may call it, as opposed to the logical or procedural
approach to be mastered when programming. The
latter is formal logic, and is inherent in computers.
We may come to master it as a method, but in
order to use it in a qualified way - and this means
to pay attention to the peculiarity of the specific
domain - we have to draw on the tacit knowledge,
the indeterminance in knowledge, in the relationships we perceived, and in the formation, on which
our discoveries rely [14]. Barbara McClintock - a
Nobel prize winner - has described her work
process as one where she cannot always explain
precisely and explicitly why or how she knows
what she knows. Because what is essential in the
process is . . . . . . " t o hear what the material has to
say to you" . .... " t h e openness to let it come to
you", and more than anything else " t o have a
feeling for the organism" [19]. Human logical
processes embody much more and are much richer
than the processes of formal logic. One does sometimes wonder if the promises of a cognitive gain
labelled procedural thinking, or formal logical
thinking, are derived not so much from an understanding of the development of human cognition,
but more from an abstract analysis of the "cognitive computer" [20].
Much human interaction is necessary when
computers are introduced into education, but this
is not a challenge which can be met by the computer in the home, because there is no one there to
teach. The parents are out at work, or out of
work; besides only a minority of them understand
and can work in a qualified way with computers.
Only a very few children - mainly boys - turn
into hackers. Most children do no get hooked on
the computer at all, just as many youngsters are
not hooked on education. Thus the important
question to pose is not really whether computers
in the home will be a challenge to education,
instead we shall have to look at education and the
essential question to pose is: What kind of education do we want? To answer that, we must ask
ourselves: What is the most essential knowledge
we wish our children to develop, and how may
60
J. Nielsen / Human Interaction: the Basis of Development
ir/stead we shall have to look at education and the
essential question to pose is: What kind of education do we want? To answer that, we must ask
ourselves: What is the most essential knowledge
we wish our children to develop, and how may
they acquire it? And this, I will suggest, cannot be
answered by technological junk.
References
[1] Papert, Seymour (1980), Mindstorms, Children, Computers
and Powerful Ideas, Basic Books, N.Y..
[2] Noss, Richard (1985), Creating a Mathematical Environment through Programming: A Study of Young Children
Learning LOGO. University of London, Inst. of Education, Doctoral Dissertation.
[3] Papert Seymour, Watt Daniel, diSessa Andrea, Weir Sylvia
(1979), Final Report of The Brookline Logo Project. Logo
Memo no. 53, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
[4] Papert, Seymour (1981), Computers and Computer Cultures, in: Creative Computing, 7,2, 82-88.
[5] Papert, Seymour (1984), Computer as Mudpie, in: Classroom Computer Learning. January, vol 4, (6), 37-40.
[6] Noss, Richard (1983), Beginning Longo in the Primary
School: Exploring with a Floor Turtle. A UCBE paper no.
1, Chiltern Project, England.
[7] Noss, Richard (1983), Learning with Logo - Is the Teacher
Necessary? A UCBE paper no. 2, Chiltern Project, England.
[8] Watt, Daniel (no year), A comparison of the Problem
Solving Styles of Two Students Leanaing LOGO: a Computer Language for Children, Logo group, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
[9] Lawler, Robert (1980), One Childs Learning: Introducing
Writing with a Computer, LOGO Memo no. 55, Mass.
Inst. of Technology.
[10] Lawler, Robert (1985), Computer Experience and Cognitive
Development, A Child's Learning in a Computer Culture,
Ellis Horwood, N.Y.
[11] Nielsen, Janni and Roepstorff, Lisbet (1985), Girls and
Computers - a world of difference? Contributions to the
Third GASAT Conference, Kingston, England.
[12] Nielsen, Janni (1983), Teknologi, Videnskab, Kon. - rapport fra et studieophold i USA, PPP no. 20, The Royal
Danish School of Educational Studies, Copenhagen.
[13] Nielsen, Janni (1983), Hverdagsliv, snusfornuft og
sandheden, in Gunnar Green, Chresten Kruchov, Lejf
Moos and Jens Rasmussen, eds., Mikroteknologi, skole og
opdragelse, Unge Paedagoger, Copenhagen, 123-139.
[14] Polanyi, Michael (1968), Logic and Psychology, American
Psychologist, 23, 27-43.
[15] Perkins, D.N. (1985, The Fingertip Effect: How Information-Processing Technology shapes Thinking, in: Educational Researcher, vol. 14, 7, August/September, 11-17.
[16] Pea, Roy and Kurland, Midian (1983), On the Cognitive
Prerequisites of Learning Computer Programming, Bank
Street College, N.Y.
[17] Pea, Roy and Kurland, Midian (1983), On the Cognitive
effects of Learning Computer Programming, Bank Street
College, N.Y.
[18] Nielsen, Janni (1986), Videnskab, teknologi og konsspecifikke universer, in Naturkampen, no. 1, 11, Copenhagen
in press).
[19] Keller, Evelyn Fox (1983), A feeling for the organism the life and work of Barbara McClintock, San Francisco.
[20] Schank, Roger with Peter Childers (1984), The Cognitive
Computer, on Language, Learning and Artificial Intelligence, Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts.
[21] Pea, Roy (1983), Logo Programming and Problem Solving, Technical Report no. 12, Bank Street College, N.Y.
Discussion Larson and Janni Nielsen, Denmark.
Zimmer: Could you clarify what you mean by "authentic" and
"derived" meanings for children?
Larson: There are two ways in which concept formation takes
place, the first is direct. For example, the child forms a concept
of what a dog is after seeing many dogs over several days.
After he sees many dogs, he may make an abstract concept of
what a dog is. The second type of concept formation I call
derived. For example, it might be impossible for a child to
form a direct concept of what a giraffe is, without seeing one.
You can ask him to think of a dog, and then modify this
concept by telling him it is something like a dog but with a
long neck and brown spots.
We need to understand the difference between authentic and
derived concepts, and that there must be a balance between
these two types. Computers in the home may lead to a disturbance of such a balance by establishing too many derived
concepts.
D. Tagg: Would interactive video alter the analysis of learning
with computers?
Larson: Interactive video can give a wider base for learning.
However, we must distinguish between bringing the world to
the child and the opposite: to bring the child to the world.
Nielsen: Denmark: 20th century education is more derived
than authentic. How can we solve this authentic/derived
knowledge problem?
Larson: I don't know. We have to face this issue. We should
not focus so much on information technology, but should ask
what should go on outside of information technology.
Lauterbach: We learn intuitively what is socially necessary for
daily living, e.g. language, tool use, how to handle food. School
is usually not concerned with these things; it teaches for a
universe of possible individual futures at work and in public.
What is missing are ways in which children can reflect what
and how they intuitively learn, i.e. how they are influenced and
affected. At home or in school: What are chances and limitations for making these experiences? How do they relate to New
Information Technologies (NIT).
Larson; We must give children the ability to look at themselves
and relate to themselves. The are presently bombarded by the
mass-media. Adults must try to cooperate more with their
children. It is bad to have these groups separated like living in
different corridors. Presently children are separated from adults
rather than the opposite.
W. Tagg: It seems to me that 15 years is the worst age to
J. Nielsen / Human Interaction: the Basis of Development
introduce Logo. At that age learning styles - good or bad have already been developed and are not going to be overturned or even re-examined as a result of a short introduction
to Logo. I would suggest that the two girls in the project could
see little point in the exercise that they were asked to do.
Richard Noss's work, which was referred to, is now institutionalized in m a n y primary schools within the 'Chiltern' Region and the main issue is the level of teacher intervention
which should be introduced.
I think that as children become older, there is more and more
pressure on teachers to become accountable. This tends to
destroy the concept of encouraging children to set their own
goals and I think that this is the main reason for education
" t u r n off" amongst other children.
Nielsen: Yes, the teenagers in m y research m a y be too old for
Logo, as they are for m a n y other elements in education. I think
it is Margaret Donaldson who has asked: W h y is it that so
m a n y of our children begin school so eager for learning and
why is it so m a n y of our older children leave school so bitter
and disilhisioned? Mabe it is because the content of education
has very little to do with their life.
The teenagers I speak of have reached puberty; the body is
changing radically and m a n y other things are on their minds.
61
So it is no wonder that they do not get hooked on the
computer. This is true of both boys and girlo~. But with the
young children, I wonder if it is the children who are the point
of departure for the results forwarded in so m u c h research or if
it is the cognitive computer. Children do not work, think or
develop in terms of linear structures or formal logic. On the
contrary, younger children m a y work with the computer - but
what are they really doing and what are they really learning m a y be both higher cognitive skills; what has been seen m a y
merely be the parrot effect.
Schuyten: There is a basic need in the child to control his
environment. This results in natural learning. Personal involvem e n t (emotion) is essential here. The grown-up child has to go
to school where more systematic learning takes place. This
shift in learning is not successful for every child. W h a t can the
computer at home do to relate the organized education at
school (more systematic learning) and education at home (more
natural learning)? Shouldn't we learn from research concerning
television at home and its challange to education?
Lauterbach: Did you imply that for 15 year olds, Logo-like
tasks are not fitting the complexity of problems they are used
to?
Nielsen: Yes, for 15 year olds, the tasks were too trivial.