In my NLU class on Tuesday, we discussed how the teaching of the LOGO programming language has come to a standstill. Interestingly enough, this post appeared recently in a listserv I belong to, and I thought I'd share it here.
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 07:22:15 -0400
From: EDTECH Editor-Jones
Subject: Re: Logo status?
From: Paul Left
Has the power of the Internet, digital cameras and multimedia
software met this goal in other ways, such that Logo is dated,
out-of-fashion? Has the standards movement made the constructivist
approach to using it too difficult to carry out in school settings?
I taught with Logo in the early 80s, mostly on Apple II but also on C64. I
loved it (both the turtle graphics and its list processing features) and
regret its demise. It suited my teaching philosophy very nicely. I suspect
it's not popular because:
* not all learners are suited or ready for the demands of problem-solving
with Logo
* very few teachers are suited or ready for it - effective learning through
Logo requires quite a hand-over of autonomy in my opinion
* teachers who taught programming from a commercial perspective didn't like
it because it encourages 'bottom-up' rather than 'top-down' approaches
* it's all about the process but teachers often focus on the product - I
once had a teacher say to me that it would be much quicker and easier to
create graphics using vector drawing software!
* it's challenging *and* content-free, the opposite of what many
decision-makers think is important in education
* working with Logo looks a little too much like play for some people's
comfort
Perhaps my most rewarding teaching experiences with it were with small
groups of Children with Special Abilities (ie 'gifted').
I'd love to hear what you find out if you're willing to post it here...
Paul
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 07:22:15 -0400
From: EDTECH Editor-Jones
Subject: Re: Logo status?
From: Paul Left
Has the power of the Internet, digital cameras and multimedia
software met this goal in other ways, such that Logo is dated,
out-of-fashion? Has the standards movement made the constructivist
approach to using it too difficult to carry out in school settings?
I taught with Logo in the early 80s, mostly on Apple II but also on C64. I
loved it (both the turtle graphics and its list processing features) and
regret its demise. It suited my teaching philosophy very nicely. I suspect
it's not popular because:
* not all learners are suited or ready for the demands of problem-solving
with Logo
* very few teachers are suited or ready for it - effective learning through
Logo requires quite a hand-over of autonomy in my opinion
* teachers who taught programming from a commercial perspective didn't like
it because it encourages 'bottom-up' rather than 'top-down' approaches
* it's all about the process but teachers often focus on the product - I
once had a teacher say to me that it would be much quicker and easier to
create graphics using vector drawing software!
* it's challenging *and* content-free, the opposite of what many
decision-makers think is important in education
* working with Logo looks a little too much like play for some people's
comfort
Perhaps my most rewarding teaching experiences with it were with small
groups of Children with Special Abilities (ie 'gifted').
I'd love to hear what you find out if you're willing to post it here...
Paul
Comments
Ken,
Thank you for your post about Logo. I think there are many of us out
there who agree that the Logo tool is very powerful, even if we don't
buy in to the "Papert is God and the US educational system would be so
much better if we all did teaching his way" hot air that often comes
with it. The technology is great for exploration, creativity and
exposure to programmatic thinking, even if the emperor himself is
naked...
As an old Logo user, I invite you to take a few minutes to look at how
Logo Graphics are implemented in a 21st Century technology called
Visual Logic (available at http://www.prfts.com/VisualLogic.html) We
developed this technology to teach programming concepts to novice
students, and we included Logo Graphics because we knew how valuable
they can be when used in a proper context.
NOTE: The program is a Spring Demo version, so you will have to set
your clock back a month, but it will work if you do so.
Run the program (Window OS only), and then click on the flowchart
ARROW between "Start" and "End", and select "Graphics" from the pop-up
menu... the rest should be like riding a bicycle! :-)
I would love to hear your reaction to the Visual Logic program, and I
hope you are right about an upcoming Logo revival. You can certainly
add my name to the list.
Cheers! --Thad
--
Thad Crews, Ph.D.
Computer Information Systems
Western Kentucky University
(270)745-4643
thad.crewsii@wku.edu
I taught Logo during its "Big Splash" in the early 80s. I had a
wonderful
time teaching it, and my students loved it. At the time, I was
teaching 6th
graders. I was just becoming interested in teaching with computers
at the
time. I was the "computer teacher" at a middle school and had a lab
of Apple
IIes (high tech at the time!). I had been introduced to Logo in a
class I
took and created my own curriculum and refined it over the several
years I
was in the lab. I am convinced that it has great educational value
to teach
a little bit of programming at that age level, it is very valuable in
teaching many very important skills. One thing that I liked about
teaching
it (at least how I created my curriculum) is that it encouraged
creativity
and also allowed students to progress at their own pace. Even the
most
non-academically oriented students loved logo (this was in a very
working
class area). One of the great things from a teacher's standpoint was
the
fact that students practically taught each other how to use it. I
had some
basic lessons that everyone would be required to do, and "extra-
credit"
exercises that were available. If I showed a student a cool little
procedure, within days everyone in the class would know how to do it
because
the students would teach each other. It was the most fun class I
have ever
taught.
All that said, I never completely agreed with Papert's thesis and
philosophy
on using Logo. Still, he made some valid points and his thoughts
were worth
considering.
Its a shame that such a great piece of software has fallen out of
fashion,
but that seems to come with the territory. Maybe someday there will
be a
Logo revival. I've only scratched the surface here on the great
experiences
I and my students had with this great program. I can't think of
anything
similar that has replaced it. Maybe its time to start that revival!
I would be happy to elaborate on my experiences more off the list,
if you
are interested.
Ken Russell
krussell@bham.wednet.edu
Bellingham Schools
To throw another stone in the soup about Logo, I remember that when I was
teaching it in the 80s, for many schools the cost of the program was
prohibitive. There were several different commercial versions but the most
robust version, LogoWriter, was very expensive (maybe its cheaper now that
it is less popular).
There is a freeware version of Logo available that is not quite as fancy as
some of the commercial versions, but it is pretty good for freeware, if
anyone is interested, you might want to check it out:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/
Ken Russell
Bellingham Schools
~Jayme Johnson
jjohnson@village-school.com