Assignment !

Assignment 1: A brief exploration of the interaction between children and their computer microworld

Liddy Nevile.

In 1982, the computer language LOGO was released for use by teachers in schools. It was merely a language and no teaching methods were built into the package.

Previously, computing with children had operated on the tutorial system: the computer was to play the role of the electronic teacher, and the child was to be "taught" according to a predetermined programme.

Logo in contrast, came with a manual that described the function of a few primitive words which were the basis of the language, and from there on it was the user's responsibility to decide what to do.

There were some reports similar to the Brookline report which showed that children had learnt to write programmes in Logo. There were articles in journals suggesting that Logo was about something more significant than this. But there were no teaching methods documented which described teaching plans which were consistent with the "philosophy" which was, by 1982, being attributed to Logo.

The Logo philosophy is that children can learn concepts

"bottom-up", that is, they can be given, with computers particularly, the chance to develop concepts in the natural and gentle way they learn their mother language, and that when this is done, the results are likely to be better than when they are taught in the traditional "top-down" method.

In an effort to explore the validity of this claim, a method of using Logo was developed which does not aim at the writing of procedures, but allows children to "play" with commands, in the way they play with sounds before they start to speak.

The strings of commands they use are set up with no more rigour than that they are consecutive and contain a Logo 'word' and a number. They are not pseudo-formulae, and do not have any particular significance. They are so simply established that pre-literate children can write them. There are no correct "hum-calls" as they are called, and therefore no incorrect ones, only ones that don't work (this is very different).

The method then develops as the children do things to their hum-calls: one may'do it again, even a number of times, and so achieve a Total Turtle Trip (an important mathematical concept), another may rotate his, etc.(i)

Having created what is, I believe an approach to teaching with Logo that accords with Logo philosophy, while incorporating the hidden uses to which the Brookline project alerted us, I planned a short exploratory project to see what happened.

Two student teachers who had completed the usual teacher training course in using computers with children were asked to study the use of hum-calls in a short booklet I made for them.

They were then given two 6 year-old children who had done some work with hum-calls, one more than the other. They were to spend half an hour at the computer with their conversations being taped, then to talk about the experience immediately afterwards. It was planned that they would return one week later with 'a prepared lesson' and that the same thing would happen again.

The exercise was planned this way so that all parties could benefit:

• the children would have a good time, learn some more(one couldn't be sure what until the exercise took place);
• the students would discover how far apart were the worlds of children and themselves and gain some insight into how they might bridge the gap;

• and I would hopefully find out if the method of teaching was worth pursuing.

The plan was followed, and if nothing else it was fun.

In fact, the students when they returned the second week had independently chosen tasks for the children. One had chosen to ask the children to draw a sitting-room, and the other to get the children to work their way through a maze. This captured the essence of the project- children can and will work happily in an open-ended situation but adults feel insecure until they have a clear goal. The tasks proved too difficult for the children and they were abandoned.

The tapes were not fully transcribed, but parts were and the possibilities in terms of interpretations follow below. The main purpose in considering the transcript was to highlight the difference between the meaning the children gave to the words they used, and the interpretation that is usually placed on them by adult observers. This should demonstrate the sorts of problems which I have suggested are inherent in the results of the Brookline project. The relevant parts of the transcript are included at the end.

One of the things that the children were doing was giving instructions to the "Turtle" on the screen to travel forward across the screen drawing a line as he went. They had to tell him how many units long the line was to be. So the command was of the type: FD 45 if they wanted a line 45 units long.

The obvious question is, can children of 6 years understand the size of the number 9999? Reading the transcript carelessly, one might say yes, because they refer to this number as bigger than another number. Further analysis suggests that the numbers were different because there were more digits, not because they represented greater quantities and that was how the children were using the word "bigger". But that too was discredited a short time later when a much smaller (quantitatively) number was-wanted and David was surprized to find he did not get it when he tried 4444.

The importance of exposing this understanding gap is self-evident and the students were convinced that the children could be well left alone making contact with concepts they had appeared to understand in the classroom but were now showing they had not 'learnt' after all.

For the exercise, a dribble file was not used, although it was available. For a fuller study, the above recording method might be augmented by a computer file and then a more accurate analysis of the data gained might be possible.

The main feature of the project which was verified, in my mind, was that interference in the child's micro-world was mere likely to be counter-productive than helpful with normal teachers.

(i) Crab Canons and Turtle Hums, Nevile,Com-3,1983,

C.E.G.V.Journal, Vic. and Let's Talk Turtle, Nevile and Dowling (Prentice-Hall, in a minute!).

e

a

PART OF TRANSCRIPT OF LOGO SESSION 1.

Two children, aged 6, and named Sally and David, sat in front of a computer running in Apple Logo. Two student teachers, Pat and Thomas sat there too.

From a tape recording of the 1/2 hour session, the following passages have been extracted for analysis:

• yes

• what does control f mean S it has to... to make

• what are you getting rid of when

I

6

S it go all white

• you do that? what goes away?

S ...you want f d..space you just want

• ooh!

S f d space return so we don't control f

• what happened?

S uh huh huh ! I'll do this again

• how does it do that

• do you know how it does that? S

S ...um well umm it's meant to draw and you are making it draw lots and lots

• Do you want to do a smaller no. to

• go on

• show, is it David?

• yeah,yeah I know what

S oh I'll just see if you know it

• happens

S change the colour

S oh! see, see David..that doesn't go in

• why doesn't it go in the middle? S middle

S cos usually it doesn't do what it's told...I know what I'll do....oh

• (?) That'll

• you haven't S F D

• go and cover the screen again

• done anything have you? do you want

• oh why did you do that?

• to keep explaining on your way, so he understands?

S David it goes

• I don't understand it

S all white because of you put in too much nos. in it so it doesn't draw picture it just goes I might