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.
Behing the more eye candy aspect of Scratch, Scratch is also better ergonomically with a more structured UI helping confort of the kids: color scheme, predefined purpose area.
In the other hand, Etoys is more at heart a beloved place for a creative spirit, but less easy to catch for kids.
However, Etoys and Scratch are very differents in purpose for me, so not really competing.
Hilaire
Le 03/09/2011 04:04, Steve Thomas a écrit :
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.
squeakland mailing list squeakland@squeakland.org http://lists.squeakland.org/mailman/listinfo/squeakland
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@gosargon.com To: iaep iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; naturalmath@googlegroups.com; squeakland squeakland@squeakland.org; scratched@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@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
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@3dicc.com
From: squeakland-bounces@squeakland.org [mailto:squeakland-bounces@squeakland.org] On Behalf Of Alan Kay Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 11:34 PM To: Steve Thomas; iaep; naturalmath@googlegroups.com; squeakland; scratched@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@gosargon.com To: iaep iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; naturalmath@googlegroups.com; squeakland squeakland@squeakland.org; scratched@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@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Thanks Ron!
Well, there are no barriers besides some work and a few more features to make up the differences in either direction. So that is probably what should be done.
Cheers,
Alan
From: Ron Teitelbaum horont@earthlink.net To: 'Alan Kay' alan.nemo@yahoo.com; 'Steve Thomas' sthomas1@gosargon.com; 'iaep' iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; naturalmath@googlegroups.com; 'squeakland' squeakland@squeakland.org; scratched@scratch.mit.edu; John Maloney jmaloney@media.mit.edu Sent: Friday, September 2, 2011 10:47 PM Subject: RE: [squeakland] [IAEP] Why is Scratch more popular than Etoys?
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@3dicc.com From:squeakland-bounces@squeakland.org [mailto:squeakland-bounces@squeakland.org] On Behalf Of Alan Kay Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 11:34 PM To: Steve Thomas; iaep; naturalmath@googlegroups.com; squeakland; scratched@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@gosargon.com To: iaep iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; naturalmath@googlegroups.com; squeakland squeakland@squeakland.org; scratched@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@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Great discussion, thanks - We've been using Scratch for K-4 (Fairfax County VA) and last spring shifted over to BYOB/Snap (from Berkeley - now being named Snap with the new version not out yet). We also started a Netlogo (Northwestern) intro for the older students. Along with Etoys, I think it'll be great to try all of these environments with the kids, like you all are saying, each may have strengths and weaknesses. BYOB/Snap has programming structures that can allow for connecting with other programming languages. For example - - Definition of new blocks (procedures/funtions returning a value) These blocks can have multiple inputs, Block to leap to a portion of the screen and spin a polygon shape leapTo x: y: (Smalltalk type of syntax) spinPolygon sides: length: times:
- arrays/lists of data (though I find these process slowly in the current version of BYOB) it can take a while to sort through a long list of numbers list processing commands/statements/methods
- broadcast statements (I haven't explored these much)
- functional programming, mapping a block over a list, 'keeping' values that satisfy a test. These capabilities are added at the Berkeley site.
- recursion
- parallel processing (I haven't explored this much)
Netlogo is a 'typed in' language, has an easy to use interface. Easily created thousands of turtles for simulation and modeling projects.
Python is very powerful and relatively easy for students to get started with, also a language called Processing. These two languages may be examples of 'older student' programming that Scratch/Snap/Etoys can lead to.
With Etoys, is an eventual move for kids into Smalltalk part of the thinking? It doesn't sound like that's necessarily a goal.
I think our students here are excited to be able to use all of these platforms at some point. I'm not sure how much of the programming/development teams are available to make adjustments to the platforms as we receive feedback from the students.
I like the idea of a language environment incorporating lessons learned from all of these. THanks again for the discussion, Randy Latimer
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Alan Kay alan.nemo@yahoo.com wrote:
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@gosargon.com *To:* iaep iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; naturalmath@googlegroups.com; squeakland squeakland@squeakland.org; scratched@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@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
squeakland mailing list squeakland@squeakland.org http://lists.squeakland.org/mailman/listinfo/squeakland
One thing that hasn't been mentioned (but I should have) is not just the initial experiences and learning curve for children/students, but also for the adults who are trying to help them. I think this is where the relative opacity of Etoys really hurts its acceptance, and why the intro UI should be set up differently. Adults can so easily bypass things that are good for children if they find them difficult to learn (consider what has happened to real math and real science).
When Mitchel, Brian and John Maloney were thinking of doing Scratch, I urged them to try a new design center that built on the Etoys experience in the hope that we could test more ideas. I think they succeeded brilliantly with both children and adults (I was only disappointed that so much of the good Etoys depth was excluded in the process).
The good news is that enough was retained to still bring real content (as opposed to e.g. the iPad, which discarded too much of what a computer is in order to be readily learnable and popular in the pop culture).
But (to me), once Hypercard appeared in the late 80s, it showed how to do "media programming for beginners" and (to me) drew a line that we should not retreat backwards from. The irony is that the media objects and tools for doing a Hypercard like experience as part of the environment are lurking below the surface in Squeak Smalltalk. Etoys exposes them wrapped in tile programming, and Scratch does not. This is a big mistake for Scratch IMO. Hardly anyone complains because hardly anyone understands what is being lost.
Given the problems with plugins, downloads, etc., one could imagine the next versions of Etoys and Scratch being done in Javascript (or less usefully in Flash). Here the temptations will be great to exclude needed features that are not already programmed in the substrate system. And we could see a further watering down of the ideas (for example it is not easy -- not possible pragmatically -- to do a particle system in Javascript). There will be many rationalizations concocted to explain away the lost abilities (just as there have been for what is still not doable in browsers after 20 years that is readily doable on the computers that run the browsers!) -- but the end result will be less for the learners, and that would be a real shame if allowed to happen.
We don't want to wind up with "Guitar Hero" here. We are trying to get children to learn powerful ideas, not just to "have a fantasy experience".
Cheers,
Alan
From: R.D. Latimer rdlatimer@gmail.com To: Alan Kay alan.nemo@yahoo.com Cc: Steve Thomas sthomas1@gosargon.com; iaep iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; "naturalmath@googlegroups.com" naturalmath@googlegroups.com; squeakland squeakland@squeakland.org; "scratched@scratch.mit.edu" scratched@scratch.mit.edu; "Allard, Fred" fallard@fcps.edu Sent: Saturday, September 3, 2011 4:09 AM Subject: Re: [squeakland] [IAEP] Why is Scratch more popular than Etoys?
Great discussion, thanks - We've been using Scratch for K-4 (Fairfax County VA) and last spring
shifted over to BYOB/Snap (from Berkeley - now being named Snap with the new version not out yet). We also started a Netlogo (Northwestern) intro for the older students.
Along with Etoys, I think it'll be great to try all of these
environments with the kids, like you all are saying, each may have strengths and weaknesses.
BYOB/Snap has programming structures that can allow for connecting with other programming languages. For example - - Definition of new blocks (procedures/funtions returning a value) These blocks can have multiple inputs, Block to leap to a portion of the screen and spin a polygon shape leapTo x: y: (Smalltalk type of syntax) spinPolygon sides: length: times:
- arrays/lists of data (though I find these process slowly in the current version of BYOB) it can take a while to sort through a long list of numbers list processing commands/statements/methods
- broadcast statements (I haven't explored these much)
- functional programming, mapping a block over a list, 'keeping' values that satisfy a test. These capabilities are added at the Berkeley site.
- recursion
- parallel processing (I haven't explored this much)
Netlogo is a 'typed in' language, has an easy to use interface. Easily
created thousands of turtles for simulation and modeling projects.
Python is very powerful and relatively easy for students to get
started with, also a language called Processing. These two languages may be examples of 'older student' programming that Scratch/Snap/Etoys can lead to.
With Etoys, is an eventual move for kids into Smalltalk part of the thinking? It doesn't sound like that's necessarily a goal.
I think our students here are excited to be able to use all of these platforms at some point. I'm not sure how much of the programming/development teams are available to make adjustments to the platforms as we receive feedback from the students.
I like the idea of a language environment incorporating lessons learned from all of these. THanks again for the discussion, Randy Latimer
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Alan Kay alan.nemo@yahoo.com wrote:
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@gosargon.com
To: iaep iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; naturalmath@googlegroups.com; squeakland squeakland@squeakland.org; scratched@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@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
squeakland mailing list squeakland@squeakland.org http://lists.squeakland.org/mailman/listinfo/squeakland
Alan Kay wrote:
[...] Then we handed Etoys over to the Squeak Foundation, and the version they put out online retains the classroom UI with flaps.
Actually, that would be the Squeakland Foundation. But in the Squeak Board at least Bert and I try to represent the interests of the Etoys (and Scratch) users.
One reason for Scratch's popularity is the restrictions they have made which upset some people in the OLPC community. Etoys, on the other hand, suffered from some of the problems that open source projects have - students and teacher become very upset when some project they have created won't load into a newer version of the system. Note that I am fully on the side of Etoys here, but we have to be aware of the costs.
It is interesting to me that Scratch's explict loops (compared to Etoys' clock driven scripts) don't seem to cause any difficulties for beginners nor for young children. That shows how important it is to test stuff rather than follow our intuitions.
What I would really like (in the sense that I am trying to get funding to pay a group of people to build) would be a system within Croquet/Cobalt that would start out like Scratch, then become more and more like Etoys as the programmer's skills improved with a smooth path all the way to the Smalltalk level.
Jens Mönig, the guy who did BYOB (Build Your Own Block extension of Scratch), also created Elements, which is a Scratch syntax for Smalltalk-80:
http://www.chirp.scratchr.org/blog/?p=24
So it is easy enough to see how far this approach can scale.
-- Jecel
Interesting question :-)
Some observations on Etoys: Etoys have much bigger scope and much more features. Features hidden in lots of layers and obscure places. Etoys has less organized authoring where code editors and players overlap and can obscure each other. Many of Etoys powerful features make the learning curve steep and confusing. It is not obvious why thing are the way they are in Etoys.
I have several times failed at making projects and gotten totally lost. Like the graphic 'look like' another player is quite unforgiving and it's easy to lose drawings (because they now look like the other player) when doing animation and testing.
I think Etoys are great and I have been bug fixing etc for years. I learn stuff all the time using it and fixing it.* *I often have to restrain my self for adding new features 'because it would be cool etc'
It could be that the problems people have with Etoys is that there are to many possibilities and too many thing to explore. It get's confusing and they don't know where to start.
Karl
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Steve Thomas sthomas1@gosargon.com wrote:
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.
squeakland mailing list squeakland@squeakland.org http://lists.squeakland.org/mailman/listinfo/squeakland
squeakland@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Alan Kay -
Hilaire Fernandes -
Jecel Assumpcao Jr. -
karl ramberg -
R.D. Latimer -
Ron Teitelbaum -
Steve Thomas