Re: LOGO-L> Requirements (was: dynamic programming projects and speed of MicroWorlds)

["John St. Clair" <jstclair@cyberg8t.com>]

I'm forwarding the message below from John Gough.  Please reply to John
Gough <jugh@deakin.edu.au> or logo-l  and not to me.

>From: John Gough <jugh@deakin.edu.au>
>Subject: Re: LOGO-L> Requirements (was: dynamic programming projects and
> speed of   MicroWorlds)
>
>Dear John,
>could I beg a favour, please.
>
>Like you, I prepared a reply to Chuck Shavits, but for some reason I am
>currently unable to access the LOGO-L list.
>
>Could you please send the message below, on my behalf? Thanks,
>John
>
>Chuck Shavit (27 Oct 97) said:
>>Surely MW and MSWLogo (and other "kids languages") have each their
>>strengths and weaknesses.  This thread seems to expose them well indeed.
>>For example, Jeff above mentions that particular tools (picture editors?
>>Visual-Basic-like positioning of controls?) make MW a preferred medium in
>>schools.  George mentioned a slew of MSWLogo capabilities like 3D, animated
>>GIFs and many others.
>>
>>But I could not find a mention of the metric according to which the
>>languages are being judged.  How does one judge whether a given feature in
>>one of these environments makes that environment better suited for its use?
>>
>>Many of the contributors to this news group are educators.  My question to
>>them is, what are you using Logo for, and what are your requirements from
>>Logo (or any other language) to make it suitable for what you are using it?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Chuck Shavit <CShavit@MagicSquare.com>
>
>I use Logo (formerly as LogoWriter, on Apple IIe, and later on Macintosh,
>with some use of IBM versions; more recently MicroWorlds on Macintosh, with
>some IBM) in two settings:
>
>1. In teacher training, both for Primary (Elementary) and Secondary
>mathematics,  within courses on mathematics curriculum and methodology; and
>
>2. In computer education, predominantly for Primary and Secondary teachers,
>doing a post-graduate course on Information Technology slanted to
>developing the use of computers and IT in schools.
>
>Parallel to this I also use HyperCard, and have looked a little at
>HyperStudio.
>
>What do I use Logo for, in these two settings?
>
>1. In the mathematics education setting I explain to my students that
>programming is equivalent to making a mathematics proof, constructing an
>argument that starts with formally defined terms and processes, that
>results in some final demonstrated logical consequence. I stress the way
>mathematics problem solving comes into the learning and fiddling that
>occurs in developing a Logo program. I point out the overt and implicit
>mathematics content in Logo programming, such as: length, angle, rotation,
>perimeter, polygons, geometric shapes, logic and logical connectives, size,
>sequencing, problem solving, coordinates, probability and set membership,
>lines, regions, and numerical operations and calculations.
>
>I insist that they attempt some simple turtle geometry, first using only
>forward and turn commands, and then using set-position commands, so they
>can see the two different ways of drawing: one way that can be used to
>create adaptable "building blocks" that can be used repeatedly in different
>patterns and spatial arrangements; the other way in a point-to-point
>fixed-on-the-screen way which has great precision, but is otherwise
>immoveable without having to change lots of coordinate values.
>
>I also have them make a music program (now using note, formerly tone,
>commands), and explain that music is filled with mathematical
>relationships, specifically in the pitch and in the duration of sounds, and
>I argue that learning to read music is similar to learning to interpret a
>map with some rather strange contour lines, and special symbols that range
>across the contours. I also require that the song the students make be
>fitted with words, so they see something of Logo's text-displaying commands
>- which can possibly link with non-mathematics curriculum areas (as the
>music obviously does). I want them to realise that even though they are
>learning this within a mathematics curriculum setting it has far wider
>ramifications for other curriculum areas (as does mathematics, itself).
>
>I have them use the turtle-shape features of LogoWriter or MicroWorlds to
>create simple turtle animation using a flicker-book approach to animation,
>in which successive turtle shapes are assigned to a turtle (which might
>also be moving). While this is less inherently mathematical, I know that
>the more clearly these teachers (or student teachers) can appreciate the
>real motivational excitement that Logo can generate in school students, the
>more they are likely to use it in their schools after they finish studying
>with me.
>
>I also extend the simple turtle geometry to programmed graphics, using
>different pen colors and region-filling commands, and turtle-shape
>stamping. Again, this is not because it is so mathematical but because I
>know school students enjoy it, and it is a more effective way (because it
>is saveable on the Flipside or Procedures page) of creating lasting
>editable graphics than point-and-click approaches using dedicated graphics
>software packages or even MicroWorlds' own graphics tools.
>
>I prefer to focus on the program-thinking rather than on developing merely
>mechanical skills with the software tools that might come with the program.
>
>At Secondary levels of mathematics curriculum, I stress the clarity with
>which a few lines of Logo commands can show what is really happening in
>something like a probability simulation, or a graph of two algebraic
>equations, or the summing and manipulation of a list of data. For me there
>is far more sense in a Logo program you have made yourself than in the more
>cryptic formulas that can be constructed using spreadsheets or graphic
>calculators.
>
>2. In the outright programming work, I cover the same kind of territory
>that I go through with the mathematics curriculum classes, but more quickly
>and with less overt stress on the mathematics that is implicit in this
>work. I then move to investigate other aspects of Logo programming. These
>include using multiple turtles, variables, incrementing variable values,
>recursion, list-handling, further text-handling, and parallel processing. I
>find that most of my students respond favourably to learning how to create
>programs for user-interaction, where, for example, a question is randomly
>generated by the computer, and the user is asked to type an answer, which
>is then corrected by the computer. Alternative forms of user-interaction
>include creating interactive games. Part of this includes aspects of
>software design (clarity, simplicity, user-friendliness, and efficiency, as
>well as genuine purpose).
>
>I am well aware that none of my students are really creating commercially
>competitive pieces of software. LogoWriter and MicroWorlds are too slow and
>clumsy to ever make a good shoot-'em-up arcade-style game, for example.
>Similarly, in the time available to my students, their interface and
>program design cannot result in a MicroWorlds project or collection of
>LogoWriter pages that could realistically out-compete something glitzy like
>"Where in Heaven's Name or Elsewhere is Carmen San Diego?" for student
>attention. But I think my students, and in turn their school students, see
>the value in a bit of honest home-grown do-it-yourself software. Moreover,
>having made it themselves, it fits their own curriculum. In the eyes of
>their school students these teachers are software heroes - and certainly
>excellent role models, however limited the actual results of their
>programming.
>
>Finally, why do I use Logo, rather than other kinds of programming? My own
>mathematics training was predominantly in mathematics logic, computablity,
>set theory and abstract systems. I then trained as a mathematics teacher.
>In the early days of Logo, when it started being described in teacher
>research journals, I was immediately attracted to the clear link between
>Logo primitives, syntax, and logic, and ordinary everyday naive language
>use. The fact that Logo procedures can be so readily explained as a kind of
>dictionary definition built out of existing known vocabulary, resulting in
>an addition to the known language, makes it easy to teach. While there are
>certainly some tricky bits that aren't immediately transparent (output,
>butfirst and seth, for example, or recursion and list-handling), even the
>abbreviated primitives can be explained or interpreted in terms of fairly
>obvious English equivalents. I believe that the more readily we can
>translate something into plain English, and back from plain English into
>the specialism, the easier the specialism is to learn, because much of
>learning is a process of learning new terms, making sense of them, and
>learning how to speak sensibly with these new terms.
>
>My "metric" for judging programming languages and approaches is clarity,
>naturalness, transparent connections with naive language use, and easy
>accessability for teachers and their school students. The more technical
>and finnicky a language, the more it is cryptic (DOS is an outstandingly
>bad example of crypticity), the less I want to use it or know anything
>about it - for my educational, teaching and learning purposes. If kids
>can't use it (I mean, program with it, not just point-and-click immediate
>mode palette and tools) quickly and happily I don't want to use it either.
>
>With apologies for such a long answer, I hope some of this may answer
>Chuck's initial questions.
>
>
>jugh@deakin.edu.au (John Gough)
>Lecturer in Education
>http://128.184.132.3:80/sci_dev/Staff/jgough.htm
>Deakin University SDS, 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia
>phone:   Australia, Melbourne area code 03 9244 6390
>fax:     Australia, Melbourne area code 03 9244 6734
>


---------------------------------------------------------------
Please post messages to the Logo forum to logo-l@gsn.org.  Mail
questions about the list administration to logofdn@gsn.org.  To
unsubscribe send    unsubscribe logo-l    to majordomo@gsn.org.