1. The Beautiful Story of Logo Papert (1980) Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas

2. How to approach the topic Programming Programming Learning by design Learning by design ConstrucTIVEism ConstrucTIVEism ConstrucTIONism ConstrucTIONism Robotics Robotics “learning without curriculum” “learning without curriculum” Effects WITH versus effect OF (Soloman, Perkin & Gloverson) Effects WITH versus effect OF (Soloman, Perkin & Gloverson)

3. Papert’s Claims Logo provides nurturing environment for cognitive development. Logo provides nurturing environment for cognitive development. Logo increases student delight in learning. Logo increases student delight in learning. Logo allows students to create microworlds for studying math and science concepts. Logo allows students to create microworlds for studying math and science concepts.

4. What is Logo? Lisp-like language. Lisp-like language. Capable of recursion and structured programming (modular or procedural). Capable of recursion and structured programming (modular or procedural). »Contrast with object-oriented Turtle graphics embedded. Turtle graphics embedded. Usable by pre-school to college. Usable by pre-school to college.

5. The story unfolds: Teachers adopt Logo, believing... Logo will promote math problem solving. Logo will promote math problem solving. Logo makes students more interested. Logo makes students more interested. Logo will improve math & science test scores. Logo will improve math & science test scores.

6. The problem Discovery WITH Logo vs effects OF learning the Logo language. Discovery WITH Logo vs effects OF learning the Logo language. Teaching WITH Logo vs. teaching ABOUT Logo. Teaching WITH Logo vs. teaching ABOUT Logo. Over-scaffolding learning vs. allowing discovery and “subversive learning.” Over-scaffolding learning vs. allowing discovery and “subversive learning.”

7. The answer? Controlled research studies of Logo Controlled research studies of Logo Teach a student Logo…. See if they are better problem solvers or score higher on math tests. Teach a student Logo…. See if they are better problem solvers or score higher on math tests.

8. The problem (revisited) When done near MIT.. It works. When done near MIT.. It works. When done elsewhere.. Not so much. When done elsewhere.. Not so much.

9. The answer (part #2) Papert rejects research as “technocentric” thinking. Papert rejects research as “technocentric” thinking. Paper argues the DVs should be about the “culture of learning” not about individual achievement. Paper argues the DVs should be about the “culture of learning” not about individual achievement.

10. The problem (anew) Educators attack Papert and reject Logo as just programming. Educators attack Papert and reject Logo as just programming. Important philosophical and measurement concerns go unaddressed. Important philosophical and measurement concerns go unaddressed.

11. The answer (Part #3) Lego to the rescue. Lego to the rescue. Robot programming with Logo-like language. Robot programming with Logo-like language. 40-minute, bite-sized units created for classroom use. 40-minute, bite-sized units created for classroom use. Lego simplifies and reduces the Logo Language. (accommodating education) Lego simplifies and reduces the Logo Language. (accommodating education) Teacher easily integrate the lessons into their curriculum. Teacher easily integrate the lessons into their curriculum.

12. The problem (again) Logo pulls out saying the materials do not promote the kind of learning Logo was designed for. Logo pulls out saying the materials do not promote the kind of learning Logo was designed for. Issues of philosophy and measurement remain unresolved. Issues of philosophy and measurement remain unresolved.

13. Moral?