An animated curriculum using the C2C Tech Tree

SlapstickMojo

Chieftain
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
14
Location
Barberton, Ohio
Forgive me if this is the wrong place to post this, I wasn't really sure where it would fit -- something like forum games if I had seen that.

i7tICw2.jpg


Years ago, I found a book called "Creative Transformation" by John David Garcia. It's a thick read, and at times strays into a bit of mystical thinking, but the piece I've found myself coming back to for over a decade was his "Lifetime Curriculum", seen here: http://www.see.org/garcia/ethout.htm

The idea was using what was essentially a Tech Tree as a school curriculum:

-----

"... an educational program that ... enables the child to acquire all the traditional educational information many times faster and more coherently. This is done by teaching the child through a process of rediscovery, where all subjects are taught in the same order and context as the human race learned these things.

Instead of merely regurgitating information, the child is encouraged to use its imagination, and its own creativity, to reinvent the accumulated knowledge of humanity, in the same order and context as humanity invented and discovered this same information.

...

The entire program integrates knowledge by having ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny at the psychosocial level. Students learn in an order, context, and manner similar to that in which the human race learned the same material and are given an opportunity to rediscover this knowledge. Everything they learn is always related to everything they know in a meaningful, practical way."

http://www.see.org/garcia/e06.htm
http://see.org/garcia/e-ct-6.htm

----------

I want to create a series of short animated videos, using a combination of Garcia's curriculum, and the C2C Tech Tree, to illustrate these concepts, using the little character I drew up at the top of this post. My thought was something similar to the limited animation of "Extra Credits" or "Zero Punctuation" (the character is already sliced up for tween animation). One of my ideas was "Sixty Second Civilizations" where each video touched on the basic concept of a tech in around a minute, with the option to either move on to the next tech or expand on the idea with a longer vid.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this idea? My biggest problem is figuring out where to start -- Civ 5 has a prehistoric mod that has techs going back to the KT extinction event, primate cognition, bipedalism... the Garcia curriculum is a little less strict on the timeline (songs and painting at the same time as simple stick tools). Should I just write up a script starting with Nomadic Lifestyle and go from there? Would anyone want to help out, mainly editing/reviewing the scripts?

Another option would be just to turn this into an interactive forum comic here, similar to MSPaintAdventures or Homestuck, where I add suggested elements to the scene and see how the character will interact with -- limited to only natural resources and accumulated knowledge.

Sorry if this was a bit long -- a decade worth of ideas trying to get out into writing!
 
While I've gotta stay focused on the mod design and refinement, I have to say this idea is AWESOME!

One thing you may need to also include, beyond just following the knowledge that the tech tree puts forward, would be actual history, the cultures and people and migrations. So if you were to explain things from a historical standpoint as you go as well, that would flesh out that side of things nicely.

All in all, great concept! I could see how it would work very effectively.
 
While this sounds interesting, here is the other side of the coin (if I have understood you correctly): http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/history.html

Edit:
Spoiler Relevant for actually teaching students that way :
Sorry if that is a bit technical, but the main gist is: When you "relive" the discoveries in order, you repeat every single mistake and worse, you lose the option of presenting things in relation to how they are seen today. A few months ago (I think) there were some people complaining that certain animals gave the wrong myths, but people actually thought once that they were closely related. By repeating history you would have to tell the students first that these animals were related only to tell them later that they weren't.

Then there is Geocentrism (which was actually challenged for a while in Ancient Greece, then universally adopted as knowledge, then refuted), people actually forgetting good solutions for a while (concrete, building arches, Antikythera) which students won't do in a much shorter time. In short: It can get confusing.


Of course, if you only meant presenting things that way, that could really be awesome. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
 
Last edited:
One thing you may need to also include, beyond just following the knowledge that the tech tree puts forward, would be actual history, the cultures and people and migrations. So if you were to explain things from a historical standpoint as you go as well, that would flesh out that side of things nicely.

That's one of the areas I've been toying with -- explaining how it happened in our history, but leaving open the possibility for alternate paths. Playing with the idea that these are human-like enough, but not exactly, and that the world is Earth-like but different, what knowledge would still be roughly the same, and what might have been different with an alternate setup of landforms (ala Guns, Germs and Steel).
 
When you "relive" the discoveries in order, you repeat every single mistake and worse, you lose the option of presenting things in relation to how they are seen today...
Then there is Geocentrism (which was actually challenged for a while in Ancient Greece, then universally adopted as knowledge, then refuted)
Of course, if you only meant presenting things that way, that could really be awesome. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

I think it would be more of the latter -- "here is something people discovered/invented, and it turned out not to be true, but it did shape future development". Teaching about all the past religions that nobody today believes would be like that: sure, they weren't actually true, but we can see how they affected the culture at the time, and how future beliefs built on top of them.

So yeah, I'm all for a bit of "people used to mistakenly believe the sun went around the Earth. We now know it's the other way around, but can you imagine WHY they thought that? It would look the same either way, and believing the ground is immovable and this thing moving through the sky is the orbiting thing makes more sense, doesn't it? sometimes the right answer isn't always the obvious one"
 
That sounds a lot better than I first thought. But that reminds me of something regarding things like Geocentrism that doesn't quite belong in this thread ...
 
Teaching about all the past religions that nobody today believes would be like that: sure, they weren't actually true, but we can see how they affected the culture at the time, and how future beliefs built on top of them.
In regards to ancient faiths, I would advise to take care not to automatically invalidate them. There are discoveries in physics taking place today that are often validating some very old, more intuitively concluded ancient religious concepts about reality. There could yet be more to come. A judgement-free expression of what Animists, for example, believe(d) would be more useful to the education process. Let the student decide for themselves what faith-based answers for the unanswered questions in life feel right to them. Remember that sometimes modern educators view scientific conclusions as superceding other ways of seeing things, but if you take a step back you can see both may actually be true, just seeing a thing from different angles perhaps.
 
This is a very interesting idea, and please share your thoughts as it develops.

Any plans to take on the future eras? Most of our near future technologies are things that are at various stages of research and development, while the far future techs are highly speculative and hypothetical.
 
Back
Top Bottom