-----Original Message-----
From: Edwin Pilobello [mailto:edwinp13 at home.com]
Sent: maandag 30 juli 2001 9:06
To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
Subject: The goal of K-12 CS education

NEW THREAD - was : Bongo a Java for kids

Scott,

In the US, Logo is not as popular anymore as in the rest of the world. As
proof, there is a big conference coming up in Austria in August. For Logo
links, check out http://el.www.media.mit.edu/groups/logo-foundation/

> Ger: In The Netherlands Logo is death, we had our golden age in 1988. 
> Several efforts for revival (later) did not work out.
> Of course we also have our die-hards.
...

The real question is : "What is the goal of K-12 Computer Science
Education?"  I raise this question because I feel it's a very important
market for SQUEAK apps.

I submit that it is for the students to learn logic, structure and
object-orientation.  Next to playing "Hot, hot cold",  these concepts can be
learned through programming.  Throw in robotics and it becomes more
kinestetic and emergent.  It's hard for a kid to argue that his perfect
Robolab program isn't working because of the RCX.  It's easy to "act out"
the program to show that the robot is doing "exactly" what he told it to do.
Then they learn that programming is an applied IQ test ... pattern
recognition, classification, analogies, math, logical reasoning and general
knowledge

> Ger: the problem is that there is no easy transfer from learning logic in
logo or robotics
> to other learning-areas:
> "Someone good in Logo is also good in... other Logo-problems."
> (Despite Harvey's books about mathematics in Logo at university level...)
>
> I did prefer the approaches where children did projects in Logo,
> So it was more close to their real (complex) normal learning-behavior.
>
> So, not Logo "sec" but formulating, organizing and solving their own
problems in a more
> systematic way then we thougt they usually do....
> (We already new that we could not reach our goal by learning them GPS's )
> (General Problem Solvers, even if we made the GPS's dedicated to a class
or )
> ( group of domain specific problems..)
> 
> In this project approach children formulated their own targets
> They had to reformulate it in a solvable problem,
> they had to divide their problem in smaller parts,
> solve the smaller problems,
> keep record of their efforts,
> reflect on it,
> write down new plans to tackle the problem
> and at last: reassemble it then to the final solution..
> 
>BUT:
> Projects did not fit (and still do not fit) in the timeFrame of a regular
Dutch school-schedule
> ...even a small project would take to much time of the more important
school-subjects...
>BUT ALSO:
> Children do much more clever things then we normally think they do:
> There is this joke that the word Lesson comes from the word Less, because
a teacher 
> removes all the complex-parts from a interesting real-life-problem until
it gets so
> buring that it only can be educational...
  
> My first educational program on my Tandy model-I (1980) should become
> a teaching-tool that could handle a typical Dutch verb-problem in the
context of a sentence. 
> Many Dutch students still not have control over this problem at university
level..
> To make a long story short: The complexity of the problem was so
overwelming that
> I had to give up and ended up with deep respect for all these children who
have this
> skill when they finish primary school: TEACHING them all these skills
would cost more time then > there ever will be in a school-time-table...
> So change your target: How can we mobilize all these hidden capacity in
children by offering
> them learning environments that help them reflect on their learning (on
their own? in a group?)

Problem is, they then hide behind the excuse that they haven't finished
constructing yet. However good constructioNism is, it is still a subset
constructiVism.

> No, we see this almsot finished behavior also with our
20-year-old-students,
> working on a multimedia-project: they want to finish THEIR project,
> solving THEIR problems on their own,
> feeling THEIR success in reaching THEIR goals...
>
> and not the goals of the teacher with his stupid ideas about reflection
etc....

It takes a great deal of trust before the kids can begin to explore on their
own and learn from their mistakes. They are so conditioned to get punished
for their mistakes. So they tend to want to hide their lack of
understanding. After getting them to open up, get excited, and push the
class beyond the time limits, then the next probleam is cleaning up and
sorting the legos.

> Don't blame the children, in the old days our LOGO-goeroe's had a tric: 
> (I remember van Pinxteren form the Logo-Centre in Holland.) 
> they told children they no longer could make mistakes, 
> children only would create bugs, friendly animals they had to solve...
> But still then they did stick to their OWN unsolved.. mistakes?
>
> ..Remember the days when you wrote your first programs and you could not
> solve it: You against that stupid computer and then the joy of finding the
> solution in the middle of the night. 
> I still like that feeling... my wife calls it the surviving child in me..

So, in my quest to find a solution to the logistical problems associated
with Lego/Logo, I thought of using animatronics. This combines my two loves
of programming and robotics into high-tech puppetry. So the talking heads
got me into SQUEAK.  Again, I'd rather lug a notebook to class than a cart
with lots of connections and servos that the kids can't seem to keep within
design limits. It's truly a "head-banger".
:-)  edwin

> In the old days (1988) we had "Karel the Robot" (language: Elan/Algol68)
> a kind of turtle you had to teach running a maze on the screen.
> It was fun to do, but you could not predict if "clever Karel" would
survive 
> if you would change the maze a little: ...again low transfer
> I also saw many graphical versions, even with graphical logic-schemes
> but the feeling of no control or growing insight stays
>
> Game of Life gives you the same feeling of unexpected and unpredictable
> complex results - even with so little and simple rules - and ending up
> with suprising complex results.
> 
> point I want to make is that organizing learning settings with enough
> transfer to more general learning settings is like a Tantalus-torture
> Somewhere - very near - there must be a solution, you have the idea
> that you - with all your experience are just so close to that solution
> but...
> It is here that I share you enthousiasm: Squeak offers a set of tools
> that can help us create interesting learning environments, only...



P.S. - If you wish to re-acquaint yourself with the turtle, I would
recommended MSW Logo for "pros" or ELICA, which is in a class all on it's
own.  Its realistic 3D engine is great for simulations, etc.  For kids,
check out either MicroWorlds Pro by LCSI or Terrapin Logo (both fee-based).
Links are under Resources at the Logo Foundation site.
	For a "head" try a "maxwell" from www.medonis.com. It's a lot
cheaper than
those made for Hollywood.  Try a fitting a latex Halloween mask on it and
I'm sure any "kid" would have a blast.  I do!




-----Original Message-----
From: squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org
[mailto:squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org]On Behalf Of Scott A
Crosby
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 8:12 PM
To: Edwin Pilobello
Cc: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
Subject: RE: Bongo a Java for kids


On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Edwin Pilobello wrote:

> I have been teaching LOGO to kids as young as 3rd grade in Oregon Public
> Schools.  The concept of multiple turtles is something even my High School

Lets see, I first learned Logo, I think, when I was in 2nd grade. In 3rd
grade I think we were doing simple (fixed number of iterations) loops, but
no variables or control structures. That would be in 1985-86, I think in a
C64. This was in a relatively rural school, so I know it has been taught
that young.

Scott