[squeakland] [IAEP] Why is Scratch more popular than Etoys?

Ron Teitelbaum horont at earthlink.net
Sat Sep 3 01:47:37 EDT 2011


Hi All,

 

Terrific answer Alan.  The user experience issue is something we deal with
in a number of different places.  Our systems are very difficult to explain
to people but once you get people in to try it they get it.  The learning
curve on OpenQwaq is very small for beginners and we have depth for advanced
users (arguably to much depth in places, making the system more complex than
it needs to be).  The problem seems to be getting people in and keeping them
there long enough to get it.  

 

I showed Etoys and Scratch to my daughter.  She was 15 at the time I
believe.  She needed some prodding to understand Etoys but picked up Scratch
right away.  The initial concept explanation was very simple with Scratch:
This is a thing, this is an action, this is logic.  See how they are all
puzzle pieces that fit together?  The initial concept explanation for Etoys
took longer.   In both cases she was drawn to drawing and making things look
interesting much more than the movement or logic.  

 

I love both pieces of software.  Scratch is fun and easy to explain plus it
drives people to try and understand programming by giving hints about what
things can work together.  I spent much more time enjoying Etoys.  Not
surprising considering what I do for a living, but still I was playing and
creating much more interesting things in Etoys.  The concepts are a bit
harder to pick up because it demands more understanding from students and
takes more mentoring from teachers but I agree with Alan: it has more depth,
which is much more satisfying for someone with real interest.   

 

I've been considering a 3d version of Scratch or Etoys for OpenQwaq.  I've
been drawn more to Scratch then Etoys probably because I place a higher
value on the amount of time it takes to explain and see initial results.
>From a teacher perspective this has tremendous value since it makes my job
easier, and it allows more people to take advantage of the features if they
find them.  It would keep their interest long enough to find value and then
come back later to try some real things for themselves.  I suppose I worry
that Etoys would be very useful but if people don't use it long enough to
see it work they will give up and never use it.

 

So from my perspective as a software provider Scratch wins, but if I were
providing the software for ME to use I would rather see Etoys.  I guess I've
convinced myself that there is no good answer.  What matters more is not the
software but the student and the teacher.  Given a talented and motivated
student I'd probably spend the time and energy showing them Etoys because
they will hit the wall on Scratch much sooner.  A student that shows little
interest and really only wants the basics will do better on Scratch. 

 

Interesting discussion.

 

All the best,

 

Ron Teitelbaum

Immersive Collaboration Expert

3d Immersive Collaboration Consulting

Ron at 3dicc.com

 

From: squeakland-bounces at squeakland.org
[mailto:squeakland-bounces at squeakland.org] On Behalf Of Alan Kay
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 11:34 PM
To: Steve Thomas; iaep; naturalmath at googlegroups.com; squeakland;
scratched at scratch.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [squeakland] [IAEP] Why is Scratch more popular than Etoys?

 

Both Etoys and Scratch were done by some of the same people (especially John
Maloney), and both are on top of Squeak Smalltalk. The original Etoys
interface was more like Scratch's (small area for action results, most of
the screen area used for showing tools, tiles, etc.). The first Etoys was
aimed at the web (at Disney), and making the start up more obvious and using
more screen for it is a good idea I think. The projects for the first Etoys
were also like Scratch projects: effects, jokes, postcards, simple
animations, etc.

 

The next version of Etoys was for classrooms that would have much more help
and do more ambitious projects. So we went to a full screen with flaps for
the tools. This worked well in this setting.

 

The OLPC XO presented a problem in that it had lots of pixels but a very
small visual angle.  We decided to stay with the classroom version, and I
think this was a good idea on the one hand, but it went against the general
lack of help that might be available in many of the XO's destinations.

 

Then we handed Etoys over to the Squeak Foundation, and the version they put
out online retains the classroom UI with flaps.

 

Personally, I think the Scratch UI is better for many things than the Etoys
UI, especially first encounters, which are so important for so many
beginners these days. And I think the Scratch people have done a fantastic
job on their web presence, including their gallery, the emulator for Scratch
projects so you can see what they do, their online materials, etc.

 

On the other hand, Scratch lacks a real media system, a massively parallel
particle system, and many other features that are really needed and useful
for learning things beyond simple programming. Etoys is much more complete
in many more ways.

 

Both systems have strong and weak points as to their language choices. Both
lack nice extensions into more sophisticated programming. Both need to be
greatly improved.

 

And so forth.

 

But I think in the world we live in, it is initial experiences that count in
a non-classical culture (and this is most cultures around the world
including the US). So we have to praise Scratch here, and wish that it had
more depth. Etoys could easily be set up with a more useful exposed UI, and
this would help tremendously in initial impressions.

 

As to how many features to include, this is a tricky one. Scratch has quite
a few features -- such as the thought balloon one -- because it was
primarily initially designed for the "Computer Clubhouses", afternoon drop
in experiences for junior high and high school kids. 

 

Etoys has fewer built in features because part of the "real deal" is to
learn how to make your own features. It could have clip art, but we left it
out because it is cognitively a good thing for children to learn how to
draw. This is good for a "learning tool", but is not good for a
"productivity tool".

 

There is no question that both systems could be improved along the lines of
their current styles.

 

One could also imagine taking the lessons learned from both systems and
inventing a new environment that is quite a bit better than either. I like
this option the best.

 

Cheers,

 

Alan

 


  _____  


From: Steve Thomas <sthomas1 at gosargon.com>
To: iaep <iaep at lists.sugarlabs.org>; naturalmath at googlegroups.com;
squeakland <squeakland at squeakland.org>; scratched at scratch.mit.edu
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2011 7:04 PM
Subject: [IAEP] Why is Scratch more popular than Etoys?

I have taught both Scratch and Etoys to kids and hands down most kids prefer
Scratch.  I also prefer Scratch for certain things, but prefer Etoys for
most learning and teaching.

 

What can we learn from Scratch (and TurtleArt et al) to improve Etoys?  And
vice versa what can be done to improve Scratch?

.  

I have ideas, which I will share later, but I am curious to hear the
thoughts of others (as mine add nothing to my current understanding and
repeating them will simply further ingrain incomplete and incorrect
assumptions and prejudices ;)

 

Stephen

P.S. I fully believe kids should learn multiple languages and am not looking
for the "one ring to rule them all."  Each language/environment has its
advantages and we need multiple.


_______________________________________________
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakland.org/pipermail/squeakland/attachments/20110903/fd75bab8/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the squeakland mailing list