[MWForum]research project help
Steve Robson
mwforum@lists.mathcats.com
Sat, 10 Jul 2004 16:05:52 +0000
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
<P>Far too arraigantly! Wendy's comments are very enlightening</P>
<P>Steve</P>
<P><BR><BR> </P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>From: "Wendy Petti" <wpetti@mathcats.com>
<DIV></DIV>Reply-To: mwforum@lists.mathcats.com
<DIV></DIV>To: <mwforum@lists.mathcats.com>
<DIV></DIV>Subject: RE: [MWForum]research project help
<DIV></DIV>Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 11:53:03 -0400
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>You've asked some very interesting and important questions. I've enjoyed
<DIV></DIV>the dialogue so far, here and on the LogoForum. See my remarks interspersed
<DIV></DIV>with your questions below.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> I'm curious as to its status in the
<DIV></DIV>> broader educational community of today, and the status of the "give
<DIV></DIV>> kids the tools to figure it out" philosophy which goes with it, at
<DIV></DIV>> least in regards to computing. My impression is that Logo users are
<DIV></DIV>> like the lone Apple computer fanatic in an office of PCs. Is this
<DIV></DIV>> accurate?
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>I've sometimes felt this way, or, as Daniel Ajoy has remarked, like the
<DIV></DIV>Linux hacker. In the early to mid-1980's, when schools were using Apple
<DIV></DIV>IIe's, it seemed to me that programming with Logo as a significant part of
<DIV></DIV>the computer curriculum was more of a "given." As computers became more
<DIV></DIV>powerful and also as most schools got online and most classroom teachers
<DIV></DIV>were encouraged to integrate technology, not just computer specialists, I
<DIV></DIV>heard more teachers and administrators questioning the value of elementary
<DIV></DIV>students learning the fundamentals of programming. Or they would say, "If
<DIV></DIV>students are going to learn to program, they should learn a language used in
<DIV></DIV>industry."
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>In reply, I've often used the analogy of music education. Many students
<DIV></DIV>learn to play an instrument through school music programs, and no one says,
<DIV></DIV>"What is the point of this unless they are preparing to become professional
<DIV></DIV>musicians?" We accept that there is value in learning to play an instrument
<DIV></DIV>in its own right and that this knowledge will have value in other aspects of
<DIV></DIV>the student's life, too. I think administrators "get this" easily because
<DIV></DIV>many of them were exposed to an instrumental music program in their own
<DIV></DIV>schooling. But since they got through their school lives without learning
<DIV></DIV>anything about computer programming, it is largely a mystery to them, and
<DIV></DIV>many cannot appreciate its inherent value nor the beauty and simplicity of
<DIV></DIV>Logo.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>By the way, I've also been surprised at how many educators who learned Logo
<DIV></DIV>themselves as students or younger teachers do not begin to appreciate the
<DIV></DIV>full scope of Logo as a programming environment today. For instance, they
<DIV></DIV>might not know about the multimedia versions of Logo - including
<DIV></DIV>MicroWorlds - that make it much easier to create games, simulations, and so
<DIV></DIV>forth. They might never have known that Logo is more than turtle
<DIV></DIV>graphics... might never have used it for list-processing, etc. And many
<DIV></DIV>computer science students who've never actually used Logo themselves are
<DIV></DIV>automatically dismissive of it for the same reasons; they don't view it as a
<DIV></DIV>"real" programming language. Even though they might never have used it,
<DIV></DIV>they feel qualified to denounce it based on things they've heard.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> In your opinion, how wide-spread is the use of Logo in 2004, in
<DIV></DIV>> whatever format?
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>A couple of years ago, LCSI told me that they've sold over 20,000 school
<DIV></DIV>site licenses for MicroWorlds. I don't know the current statistics. But
<DIV></DIV>I'm aware of schools that own a site license where Logo programming is not
<DIV></DIV>taught at all and sometimes where MicroWorlds is not even installed on the
<DIV></DIV>computers.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> Are the typical people who put together tech integration projects and
<DIV></DIV>> curriculum (as opposed to people who've been using Logo for the last
<DIV></DIV>> 20 years) at all looking at Logo as part of their toolbox?
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>In a way, you're asking the wrong folks, because those of us on the MWForum
<DIV></DIV>or LogoForum lists are likely to be looking at Logo as part of our
<DIV></DIV>toolboxes, although I think some teachers on the list have expressed that
<DIV></DIV>their schools are pulling farther and farther away from Logo programming.
<DIV></DIV>We can't really speak for what is going on in the country at large except to
<DIV></DIV>give our general impressions, as you have. I'm not aware of a survey that's
<DIV></DIV>been done tracking the prevalence of Logo in the schools over time, but
<DIV></DIV>perhaps there is such a study. I have met teachers at workshops who are
<DIV></DIV>earning Master's degrees in educational technology, who are learning how to
<DIV></DIV>manage networks and integrate technology but who've never had a course in
<DIV></DIV>any sort of programming; not one single course in programming is required
<DIV></DIV>for their Master's degree. I find this surprising (maybe even alarming) and
<DIV></DIV>discouraging.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> Are there parts of the US and world where Logo is more solidly part
<DIV></DIV>> of current instruction? (I read an article which projected that in
<DIV></DIV>> Costa Rica 50% of students would soon be using Logo (well, as of
<DIV></DIV>> 1988). I wonder if it came true, and stays true?)
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>I think that certain states (and certain areas of other states) are quite
<DIV></DIV>invested in Logo. I think Minnesota is such a state. I think the Baltimore
<DIV></DIV>City Schools are heavily involved with Logo. And I've heard, as you've
<DIV></DIV>heard, about Costa Rica; I think it did come true and stays true. Awhile
<DIV></DIV>back (5+ years), Australian teachers (at least in some parts of Australia)
<DIV></DIV>were required to integrate technology using MicroWorlds; I don't know if
<DIV></DIV>that's still true.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> With constructivism on the backswing of its popularity pendulum and
<DIV></DIV>> standards/testing/accountability on the front, how hard is it for you
<DIV></DIV>> to keep Logo as a tool and a philosophy in your technology
<DIV></DIV>> implementation?
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>I think that every teacher who believes in the value of "learning by doing"
<DIV></DIV>should do everything possible to stand up for constructivism and not let the
<DIV></DIV>current obsession with testing suffocate real learning. Some teachers are
<DIV></DIV>finding that they must meet the administration halfway in order to keep Logo
<DIV></DIV>alive; for instance, perhaps they are required to post a specific learning
<DIV></DIV>standard on the board that is being addressed by the Logo activity going on
<DIV></DIV>in the classroom or lab... even if they have broader and more important
<DIV></DIV>learning goals in mind for their students, and even if it's hard to specify
<DIV></DIV>one particular objective that is being met during one class session in a
<DIV></DIV>constructivist computer lab. (What if each student is working on an
<DIV></DIV>individual or team project and each one is, therefore, addressing a
<DIV></DIV>different cluster of standards/objectives?)
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>I think we also need to do whatever we can to "re-educate" our school
<DIV></DIV>administrators who are buckling to the pressure of high-stakes testing. We
<DIV></DIV>need to remind them that there are many ways to assess student learning and
<DIV></DIV>that standardized testing might be the worst way to gauge the kind of
<DIV></DIV>learning most important to us as we aim to cultivate lifelong learners.
<DIV></DIV>Portfolios (including electronic portfolios or projects), teachers' notes on
<DIV></DIV>student performance and attitudes, students' enthusiasm (measured sometimes
<DIV></DIV>by their eagerness to continue working on computer projects during recesses,
<DIV></DIV>etc.) - and other "non-standard" methods of assessment can often tell us
<DIV></DIV>more than standardized tests.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>If administrators think the parents are clamoring for standardized measures
<DIV></DIV>of school success, I want to know who these parents are. Every parent I've
<DIV></DIV>ever spoken to has wished for far less obsession with testing and far more
<DIV></DIV>focus on truly meaningful learning. They want their children to love
<DIV></DIV>learning. I have yet to find a kid who loves learning in a test-obsessed
<DIV></DIV>environment. If a particular school really has test-obsessed parents, then
<DIV></DIV>they need re-educating too, and we as educators need to be courageous and
<DIV></DIV>resourceful enough to do what we can to launch a counter-revolution.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Wendy Petti
<DIV></DIV>OWL's MicroWorlds in Action
<DIV></DIV>http://mia.openworldlearning.org
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>_______________________________________________
<DIV></DIV>MWForum mailing list
<DIV></DIV>MWForum@lists.mathcats.com
<DIV></DIV>http://lists.mathcats.com/mailman/listinfo/mwforum
<DIV></DIV>Attachments archived at:
<DIV></DIV>http://www.mathcats.com/mwforum/attachments.html
<DIV></DIV>To unsubscribe or for administrative questions contact
<DIV></DIV>mailto:mwforum-admin@lists.mathcats.com
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Have more fun with your phone - download ringtones, logos, screensavers, games & more. <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMAENUK/2737??PS=47575">Click here to begin!</a> </html>