[MWForum]research project help

[Wendy Petti]

You've asked some very interesting and important questions.  I've enjoyed
the dialogue so far, here and on the LogoForum.  See my remarks interspersed
with your questions below.

> I'm curious as to its status in the
> broader educational community of today, and the status of the "give
> kids the tools to figure it out" philosophy which goes with it, at
> least in regards to computing.  My impression is that Logo users are
> like the lone Apple computer fanatic in an office of PCs.  Is this
> accurate?

I've sometimes felt this way, or, as Daniel Ajoy has remarked, like the
Linux hacker.  In the early to mid-1980's, when schools were using Apple
IIe's, it seemed to me that programming with Logo as a significant part of
the computer curriculum was more of a "given."  As computers became more
powerful and also as most schools got online and most classroom teachers
were encouraged to integrate technology, not just computer specialists, I
heard more teachers and administrators questioning the value of elementary
students learning the fundamentals of programming.  Or they would say, "If
students are going to learn to program, they should learn a language used in
industry."

In reply, I've often used the analogy of music education.  Many students
learn to play an instrument through school music programs, and no one says,
"What is the point of this unless they are preparing to become professional
musicians?"  We accept that there is value in learning to play an instrument
in its own right and that this knowledge will have value in other aspects of
the student's life, too.  I think administrators "get this" easily because
many of them were exposed to an instrumental music program in their own
schooling.  But since they got through their school lives without learning
anything about computer programming, it is largely a mystery to them, and
many cannot appreciate its inherent value nor the beauty and simplicity of
Logo.

By the way, I've also been surprised at how many educators who learned Logo
themselves as students or younger teachers do not begin to appreciate the
full scope of Logo as a programming environment today.  For instance, they
might not know about the multimedia versions of Logo - including
MicroWorlds - that make it much easier to create games, simulations, and so
forth.  They might never have known that Logo is more than turtle
graphics... might never have used it for list-processing, etc.  And many
computer science students who've never actually used Logo themselves are
automatically dismissive of it for the same reasons; they don't view it as a
"real" programming language.  Even though they might never have used it,
they feel qualified to denounce it based on things they've heard.

> In your opinion, how wide-spread is the use of Logo in 2004, in
> whatever format?

A couple of years ago, LCSI told me that they've sold over 20,000 school
site licenses for MicroWorlds.  I don't know the current statistics.  But
I'm aware of schools that own a site license where Logo programming is not
taught at all and sometimes where MicroWorlds is not even installed on the
computers.

> Are the typical people who put together tech integration projects and
> curriculum (as opposed to people who've been using Logo for the last
> 20 years) at all looking at Logo as part of their toolbox?

In a way, you're asking the wrong folks, because those of us on the MWForum
or LogoForum lists are likely to be looking at Logo as part of our
toolboxes, although I think some teachers on the list have expressed that
their schools are pulling farther and farther away from Logo programming.
We can't really speak for what is going on in the country at large except to
give our general impressions, as you have.  I'm not aware of a survey that's
been done tracking the prevalence of Logo in the schools over time, but
perhaps there is such a study.  I have met teachers at workshops who are
earning Master's degrees in educational technology, who are learning how to
manage networks and integrate technology but who've never had a course in
any sort of programming; not one single course in programming is required
for their Master's degree.  I find this surprising (maybe even alarming) and
discouraging.

> Are there parts of the US and world where Logo is more solidly part
> of current instruction? (I read an article which projected that in
> Costa Rica 50% of students would soon be using Logo (well, as of
> 1988).  I wonder if it came true, and stays true?)

I think that certain states (and certain areas of other states) are quite
invested in Logo.  I think Minnesota is such a state.  I think the Baltimore
City Schools are heavily involved with Logo.  And I've heard, as you've
heard, about Costa Rica; I think it did come true and stays true.  Awhile
back (5+ years), Australian teachers (at least in some parts of Australia)
were required to integrate technology using MicroWorlds; I don't know if
that's still true.

> With constructivism on the backswing of its popularity pendulum and
> standards/testing/accountability on the front, how hard is it for you
> to keep Logo as a tool and a philosophy in your technology
> implementation?

I think that every teacher who believes in the value of "learning by doing"
should do everything possible to stand up for constructivism and not let the
current obsession with testing suffocate real learning.  Some teachers are
finding that they must meet the administration halfway in order to keep Logo
alive; for instance, perhaps they are required to post a specific learning
standard on the board that is being addressed by the Logo activity going on
in the classroom or lab... even if they have broader and more important
learning goals in mind for their students, and even if it's hard to specify
one particular objective that is being met during one class session in a
constructivist computer lab. (What if each student is working on an
individual or team project and each one is, therefore, addressing a
different cluster of standards/objectives?)

I think we also need to do whatever we can to "re-educate" our school
administrators who are buckling to the pressure of high-stakes testing.  We
need to remind them that there are many ways to assess student learning and
that standardized testing might be the worst way to gauge the kind of
learning most important to us as we aim to cultivate lifelong learners.
Portfolios (including electronic portfolios or projects), teachers' notes on
student performance and attitudes, students' enthusiasm (measured sometimes
by their eagerness to continue working on computer projects during recesses,
etc.) - and other "non-standard" methods of assessment can often tell us
more than standardized tests.

If administrators think the parents are clamoring for standardized measures
of school success, I want to know who these parents are.  Every parent I've
ever spoken to has wished for far less obsession with testing and far more
focus on truly meaningful learning.  They want their children to love
learning.  I have yet to find a kid who loves learning in a test-obsessed
environment.  If a particular school really has test-obsessed parents, then
they need re-educating too, and we as educators need to be courageous and
resourceful enough to do what we can to launch a counter-revolution.


Wendy Petti
OWL's MicroWorlds in Action
http://mia.openworldlearning.org