Toward a Student Workstation: Extensions to the Logo Environment

Abstract

Programming is seen as a worthwhile activity to include the school curriculum. The programming language often selected for this activity is LOGO. While children enjoy using LOGO, studies have indicated that children are often frustrated by their programming experience and though the children may understand the syntax of the LOGO commands, often they do not gather an understanding of the semantics of the same commands. This article describes the results of the testing of a workstation environment that was built to eliminate some of these frustrations. The results show that when students are provided with an online practice window they can deepen their understanding of the semantics of LOGO commands. In addition, the workstation seems to allow children more opportunities to explore LOGO as evidenced by the more complicated programming products produced by those students who used the workstation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kull

, Learning and LOGO, in Microcomputers in Early Childhood Education; Conceptualizing the Issues, Fein

Campbell

(eds.), Reston, 1984.

Heller

R. S.

, “The Effect of MECC and Papert Teaching Styles on the Level of LOGO Learning and the Conceptual Tempo of Fourth Grade Students,” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland, 1985.

Bass

, Project Headlight, Technology Review, April, 1987.

Salomon

Perkins

, Transfer of Cognitive Skills from Programming: When and How?, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3:2, pp. 149–169, 1987.

Taylor

, The Computer in the School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee, Teachers College Press, 1980.

Soloway

Lockhead

Clement

, Does Computer Programming Enhance Problem Solving Ability? Some Positive Evidence on Algebra Word Problems, in Computer Literacy, Seidel

Anderson

Hunter

(eds.), Academic Press, 1982.

Papert

, Mindstorms, Basic Books, 1980.

Dolbey

Tourniaire

Linn

, Making Pre-college Instruction in Programming Cognitively Demanding: Issues and Interventions, AERA Symposium, April, 1984.

Ehrlich

Abbott

Salter

Soloway

, Issues and Problems in Studying Transfer Effects of Programming, AERA Symposium, April 1984.

10.

Pea

Kurland

, On the Cognitive Effects of Learning Computer Programming: A Critical Look, New Ideas in Psychology, Pergamon Press, 1983.

11.

Lehrer

, Comparative Study of the Cognitive Consequences of Inquiry-based LOGO Instruction, Journal of Educational Psychology, 8:4, pp. 543–553, December, 1988.

12.

Carver

, “Transfer of LOGO Debugging Skill: Analysis, Instruction and Assessment,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1986.

13.

Drescher

, Object-Oriented LOGO, in Artificial Intelligence and Education, Lawler

Yazdani

(eds.), Ablex Publishers, 1987.

14.

Kagan

, Reflectivity-Impulsivity: The Generality and Dynamics of Conceptual Tempo, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71, 1966.

15.

Milojkovic

, “Children Learning Computer Programming; Cognitive and Motivational Consequences,” Doctoral Thesis, Stanford University, 1984.

16.

Papert

Watt

diSessa

Weir

, Final Report of the Brookline LOGO Project: Part 11, Massachusetts Institute of Technology LOGO Memo #53, 1979.

17.

Kagan

Pearson

Welch

, Modifiability of an Impulsive Tempo, Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 1966.

18.

Young

L. M.

, An analysis of the Effect of the LOGO Programming Environment upon Reflective and Impulsive Cognitive Styles of Second Grade Students, University of Pittsburgh, 1984.