>I'm trying to put together a good case to apply for funding to purchase a
>Valiant 'Roemer', independent hardware turtle, for our 'early years' pupils to
>use for control, and design technology aplications. I'd be grateful for any
>pointers to useful reading references related to this device, and I'd be
>interested in corresponding by email with anyone with experience of using it
>with children aged between 4 and 7 years.
I have found very little work specifically assessing learning with the
Roamer. I have had students use it with a few children as young as 7
years, but it is not wiodely used by teachers here. It is available simply
as an item in our local public science centre (a "Discovery World" which is
part of the Museum), but I have no idea of what usage it generates.
One of my graduate students did a fascinating project with two children
(aged 8 and 9 years) but who had no verbal communication. Both the Roamer
and Logo were wonderful vehicles for them to reveal their thinking in ways
which could not otherwise be assessed. If the Roamer can 'work' for these
children, it is surely of value (when used with teacher guidance) with
other younger children.
I have appended some notes from her study.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Susan M Waldron.
Demonstrating and developing mathematical understanding through Facilitated
Communication.
Paper for Educ 480, University of Otago, 1994.
The study involved Sue, an Itinerant Resource teacher employed to provide
support for students with disabilities who were mainstreamed in their
neighbourhood schools, reporting her work with two students whose main form
of verbal communication was Facilitated Communication. (This involved
their entering letters on a portable Canon Communicator.) Both
participants had successfully used this for approximately one year at the
outset of the study. One was fully integrated into the regular classroom in
a class comprising children in Years 4, 5 and 6. The other was integrated
into a class of children in Years 3 and 4 for approximately four-fifths of
the time.
Sue provided these two students with two or three sessions with the Roamer,
and then followed up with an Apple version of Logo for a number of
sessions.
The results indicate that these two children were clearly able to make use
of the Roamer, and also some use of Logo. Both students demonstrated and
developed their mathematical understanding over the course of the study. In
earlier sessions both boys used a limited number of commands and values.
Although these sessions were of an exploratory nature, it would be
reasonable to assume that these commands used by the boys may have been
related to a knowledge of existing body schema, rather than a demonstration
of explicit mathematical understanding: for example the command FORWARD can
be easily related to moving forwards in space. Ensuing sessions that
required the students to make the turtle draw a series of puzzles or
geometrical shapes required mathematical thinking and problem solving
skills in order to be able to work out the required Logo commands. Here the
students had to really think about Logo, and apply mathematical thinking in
order to calculate the commands and values that they entered in order to
have the turtle execute the required shape. As the puzzles or shapes were
connected with each building on the former one, this allowed the students
to develop mathematical understanding over time.
Richard spent two sessions working with the Valiant Roamer, all of which
were of an exploratory type nature. Using Facilitated Communication,
Richard did not display any direct control over the Roamer preferring to
use the Canon Communicator with the assistance of myself as facilitator to
type the specific command he required to programme the Roamer. When given
the option to programme the Roamer directly, Richard's response was often
to cover his ears and not come towards the Roamer at all. On one occasion
when I suggested that Richard may like to programme the Roamer to execute a
triangle he did so with facilitation. The command was:
CM CM FORWARD 4 RIGHT 90 FORWARD 4 RIGHT 90 FORWARD 4
Sue: Did the Roamer make a triangle?
Richard: N too noisy you are too tough on me to make me go to the Roamer.
(N and Y are abbreviations often used by people facilitating to represent
no and yes).
Sue: What is it that you do not like about the Roamer?
Richard: Too noisy.
Mark spent three sessions working with the Roamer in an exploratory manner.
Contrary to Richard however he did show some direct control over the
Roamer whilst using Facilitated Communication. He preferred to programme
the Roamer directly, using the Canon Communicator to respond to any
questions or initiate communication. The following example illustrates his
control:
After taking my hand to be facilitated Mark programmed the following into
the Roamer:
CM CM FORWARD 7 GO
He watched with intent and delight as the Roamer moved forward.
Sue: What did the Roamer do?
Mark: It moved forward 7. (On Canon)
Sue: How could we get the Roamer back to where we are?
Mark: CM CM BACK GO
Sue: What would you like to tell the Roamer to do now?
Mark: Under the table.
Mark: CM CM FORWARD 9 GO (Session 1)
This first phase was followed by a period whereby Richard displayed control
over the Logo programme in that he was willing to be facilitated in order
for this to happen. In an early session, initiating to be facilitated by
taking my hand, Richard typed:
FORWARD 70 RETURN RIGHT 90 RETURN FORWARD 70 RETURN FORWARD 70 RETURN
Sue: What had you intended to make the turtle do?
Richard: Square
Sue: Can you think of a shape that would result if you carried on with
these commands?
Richard: Rectangle (Session 4)
Another example that illustrates this second phase involved focusing on the
properties of a square.
Sue: Can you tell me what a square is?
Richard: A square is a shape its four sides.
Sue: Lets see if you can tell the turtle how to make a square.
Richard: REPEAT 4 (FORWARD 90 RIGHT 90) RETURN
Sue: Can you make another square of a different size and while you do this
think about which commands you had to change and which you didn't.
Richard: REPEAT 4 (FORWARD 70 RIGHT 90) RETURN
Sue: Which commands did you change to make the smaller square?
Richard: FORWARD
Sue: Which parts did you not have to change?
Richard: REPEAT 4 RIGHT 90 RETURN
Sue: From this then what do you think is the same about all squares?
Richard: They are always 4-sided and have angles of 90 degrees. (Session 6)
Clearly these students were able to "think" with the Roamer and Logo
commands. The participants' inability to communicate in conventional ways
may have often masked what they could understand and achieve. It is
reasonable to conclude that other students, with similar communicative
disorders, may also be able to reveal some of their mathematical thinking
with technological support.
Bruce
-- bruce.mcmillan@stonebow.otago.ac.nzBruce McMillan Ph.: (+64) (3) 479.8818 Dept. of Education Fax: (+64) (3) 479.8349 University of Otago PO Box 56 Dunedin New Zealand.
--------------------------------------------------------------- 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.