What’s the future of Education? This is a question that we can’t know for sure, but I generally agree with Eisenberg. As far as learning goes, people should be presented with some type of tangible object to learn with. They need that  object that they can fall in love with and relate to in the real world. That’s not to say that computers should not be utilized, in fact they should, but I believe that having that tangible object, or personal connection to what one is learning makes the learning worthwhile. That is, the learning becomes intrinsic to the user and therefore more important. I also like this idea of using the computer as a fabrication device. Even in this class, I’ve learned things I had not set out to, by just trying to make my products work. Still, although these papers have been out for a while, it does not seem like the idea is spreading as quickly as it should be.


Abrahamson’s program was quite interesting. I really liked the way that they took a digital interface, made it interactable, and then used it to teach a concept that is normally very hard to teach to young kids. I used tutor some of my peers in high school and I was amazed at how hard concepts like proportions were for even high school students to get. It’s also so simple, which I think adds to its usability. However, I am left wondering what other fields this could be expanded too. While I do think it’s something that would serve as a great tool for teaching students about proportions, it seems like, once they solve the puzzle once, there’s not much more one could do with it. I’m curious to find out if it’s been expanded any since the initial publication of this article.