Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Computer programming and kindergarten children in two learning environments Clouston, Dorothy Ruth 1988

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A8 C56.pdf [ 9.47MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055104.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055104-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055104-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055104-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055104-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055104-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055104-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055104-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055104.ris

Full Text

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING AND KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN IN TWO LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS by Dorothy Ruth C l o u s t o n A.(Ed.), Memorial U n i v e r s i t y o f Newfoundland, 19 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Education) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as comforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1988 ©Dorothy Ruth Clouston, 1988 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 i i Abstract Research Supervisor: Dr. Marvin Westrora This study examined the appropriateness of introducing computer programming to kindergarten children. Three issues were explored i n the research: 1. the programming c a p a b i l i t i e s of kindergarten children using a singl e keystroke program 2. sui t a b l e teaching techniques and learning environments for introducing programming 3. the benefits of programming at the kindergarten l e v e l . The subjects f o r the study were 40 kindergarten students from a surburban community i n B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada. A l l students used the single keystroke program, DELTA DRAWING. Two teaching techniques were used—a structured method and a guided discovery method. Quantitative data were c o l l e c t e d by administering f i v e s k i l l s t e s t s ( s k i l l s r e l a t i n g to programming) as pretests and postests to both groups. A programming posttest was also given. Qualitative data were obtained by recording d e t a i l e d observation reports f o r each of the 22 lessons (11 for each group), conducting an interview with each c h i l d at the end of the study and d i s t r i b u t i n g a parent questionnaire. I t can be concluded that i t i s appropriate to introduce computer programming to kindergarten students. The children i n t h i s study showed they are capable of programming. A l l students i i i mastered some programming commands to i n s t r u c t the " t u r t l e " to move on the screen. DELTA DRAWING was determined to be a suitable means to introduce programming to kindergarten children. A combination of a structured teaching method and a guided discovery method i s recommended for introducing a sing l e keystroke program. I t was observed that students i n a guided discovery learning environment are more enthusiastic and motivated than students i n a structured environment. Students need time to explore and make discoveries, but some structure i s necessary to teach s p e c i f i c commands and procedures which may otherwise not be discovered. S o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n should be encouraged while children use the computer, however most kindergarten childr e n prefer to work on t h e i r own computer. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the two groups on a l l but one of the f i v e s k i l l s t e s t s f o r both the pretests and the posttests. On the Programming Test the two groups did not perform s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . I t can also be concluded that learning to program promotes cognitive development i n c e r t a i n areas. On a l l but one of the f i v e s k i l l s t e s t both the Structured Group and the Guided Discovery Group scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y better on the posttest than on the pretest. Lesson observation reports, student interviews and responses on parent questionnaires suggested that the computer experience was p o s i t i v e and rewarding for the kindergarten students. i v CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES v i i i LIST OF FIGURES . X ACKNOWLEDGEMENT . x i Chapter Page 1. THE PROBLEM 1 Statement of the Problem 5 Purpose of the Study 5 Assumptions of the Study 6 Limitations of the Study 6 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 7 Young Children and Computers - Pros 7 Young Children and Computers - Cons 10 Advantages of Computers 12 Problems with Computers and Young Children 13 Young Children and Programming 14 J u s t i f i c a t i o n s f o r Teaching Programming 14 I n t e l l e c t u a l Benefits of Programming 15 So c i a l Benefits of Programming 20 Negative Findings Regarding Programming 21 Can Young Children Program? 22 Why Logo? 27 What i s Logo? 32 V Introducing Logo to Young Children 39 Summary of the Review of the Lite r a t u r e 43 3. METHODOLOGY 46 Questions of the Study 47 Programming C a p a b i l i t i e s of Kindergarten Children 47 Teaching Technique / Learning Environment 48 Benefits of Programming 48 Sample 49 Design 50 Intervention 50 Treatments 51 Instrumentation 71 Pretests and Posttests 71 Other Types of Data C o l l e c t i o n ..76 Observation Reports 76 Student Interview 77 Parent Questionnaire 77 Procedure 78 Data Analysis 80 4. RESULTS - QUANTITATIVE SECTION 82 Pretest / Posttest Results 82 Numeral Recognition Test Results 84 Upper Case Letter Recognition Test Results 86 Dir e c t i o n a l / Po s i t i o n a l S k i l l s Test Results 87 Design Concepts Test Results 87 Procedural Thinking Test Results 91 v i Programming Test Results 93 5. RESULTS - QUALITATIVE SECTION 96 Observation Reports - Structured Group ...............96 Summary of Observation Reports f o r the Structured Group 110 Observation Reports - Guided Discovery Group I l l Summary of Observation Reports for the Guided Discovery Group 123 Student Interview 125 Parent Questionnaire 133 6. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 139 Conclusions - Programming C a p a b i l i t i e s of Kindergarten Children 145 S u i t a b i l i t y of Keystroke Programs 144 Type of Programming Experience 146 Conclusions - Teaching Technique and Learning Environment 151 Conclusions - Benefits of Programming 157 Implications f o r the Classroom 161 Recommendations for Future Research 164 REFERENCES 168 APPENDIX A. Procedural Thinking Tests 177 B. Student Record Sheet - Procedural Thinking Test 180 C. Programming Test 181 D. D e f i n i t i o n of Major and Minor Problems for v i i Programming Test 182 E. Student Record Sheet - Scale for Programming Test....183 F. Student Interview 184 G. Parent Questionnaire 185 H. Lesson Plans 189 v i i i LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4.1 Summary of S t a t i s t i c a l Significance f o r Five S k i l l s Tests 83 4.2 Numeral Recognition Test Means and Standard Deviations 84 4.3 Summary of ANOVA for Numeral Recognition Test 85 4.4 Upper Case Letter Recognition Test Means and Standard Deviations 86 4.5 Summary of ANOVA for Upper Case Letter Recognition Test 87 4.6 Di r e c t i o n a l / Po s i t i o n a l S k i l l s Test Means and Standard Deviations 88 4.7 Summary of ANOVA for D i r e c t i o n a l / P o s i t i o n a l S k i l l s Test 89 4.8 Design Concepts Test Means and Standard Deviations 90 4.9 Summary of ANOVA for Design Concepts Test 91 4.10 Procedural Thinking Test Means and Standard Deviations 92 4.11 Summary of ANOVA for Procedural Thinking Test 92 4.12 Summary of t - t e s t f o r Programming Test 94 4.13 Item Analysis for Programming Test 95 5.1 Summary of Results for Sticker Test 98 5.2 Summary of Results for Maze 100 5.3 Summary of Results for Letter Project 103 5.4 Summary of Results for Command Sheets 103 5.5 Summary of Results for Shape Transparencies 105 5.6 Summary of Results for Students with Partners on Shape Transparencies 105 5.7 Summary of Results for Shape Directions (1) 106 5.8 Summary of Results for Shape Directions (2) 108 ix 5.9 Student Attitudes Towards the Computer 125 5.10 Student Attitudes Towards Programming 126 5.11 Drawing Preference - With or Without Computer 127 5.12 Preference Towards Working Alone or with a Partner 129 5.13 Computers i n the Home and Computer Use by Children 133 5.14 Responses Supporting or Opposing Young Children Using Computers 135 5.15 Indicators of Posi t i v e or Negative Computer Experience 136 5.16 Chi Square f o r Home Computer Group vs. No Home Computer Group 137 X LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 5.1 Computer drawing by a kindergarten student of a shark 120 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I s i n c e r e l y thank the members of my examining committee for the time and e f f o r t they have spent on my th e s i s . My thanks go to Dr. Marvin Westrom, the chairperson, f o r h i s guidance and support throughout the study. I am gra t e f u l to Dr. Douglas Owens, a member of my committee, for h i s encouragement and d i r e c t i o n throughout my Master's program. I also very much appreciate the i n t e r e s t Dr. H i l l e l Goelman, a member of my committee, showed i n my top i c . My thanks also go to Dr. Walter Boldt f o r h i s assistance with the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis. I am g r a t e f u l to the students and t h e i r parents who so w i l l i n g l y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study and to the school administration for permitting me to do the research. F i n a l l y , I am thankful to my husband, Ross, f o r h i s patience and encouragement throughout the program and h i s c a r e f u l analysis of the th e s i s . 1 Chapter 1 THE PROBLEM Children today are growing up i n an era of high technology. Computers, and more s p e c i f i c a l l y microcomputers, have played an in t e g r a l r o l e i n t h i s revolution. Microcomputers are now quite inexpensive. As a r e s u l t of t h e i r a f f o r d a b i l i t y and t r a n s p o r t a b i l i t y , there has been an i n f l u x of microcomputers into both homes and schools. In education, computers are being used i n a l l areas of the curriculum f o r a v a r i e t y of applications ranging from word processing to problem solving to teaching physics. A l l age l e v e l s , from the kindergarten classroom to college students, use t h i s t o o l . Clarke (1985-86) j u s t i f i e s t h e i r use i n the educational system. She notes, "Computers are providing the p o s s i b i l i t y of amplifying human a b i l i t y , both by enabling users to undertake tasks which were previously considered too d i f f i c u l t , too tedious, or too time consuming and by providing a t o o l f o r the development of cognitive s k i l l s . Microcomputers also have the po t e n t i a l to serve as tool s i n creating and maintaining an enthusiasm f o r learning through t h e i r capacity to make learning stimulating, relevant and i n t r i n s i c a l l y e x c i t i n g " (p. 32) . Microcomputers are being used more frequently i n early childhood programs. There are many questions which must be asked when discussing the ro l e of the computer i n t h i s area. What role 2 does (or could) a microcomputer play i n early childhood education? Should young children be exposed to computers? At what age l e v e l should they f i r s t be introduced? Spencer and Baskin (1983) question what children can and should learn about computers and what they should learn f i r s t . What computer s k i l l s , concepts and knowledge can be expected of young children, and at what l e v e l s should these be introduced? Can children i n Piaget's preoperational stage of development learn to program? Should programming, and i n p a r t i c u l a r Logo, be introduced using a single keystroke program? What teaching methods are most appropriate f o r teaching childr e n to program? These are only a few of the pertinent questions which must be addressed when discussing the r o l e of the microcomputer i n early childhood education. Many of these issues have not yet been addressed i n current research. Ellingham (1982), with reference to t h i s problem, suggests that we are at such an early stage i n the area of computers i n primary education that no one can yet give any clea r answers. In addition, Brady and H i l l (1984) question the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y , v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of those studies that have been done. They note, "When reviewing the current research r e l a t i n g to young childre n and computers, i t becomes c l e a r that there i s much more rh e t o r i c than s o l i d evidence, that current studies have used very small groups, have maintained few standard research controls, and usually involve a u n i v e r s i t y s e t t i n g " 3 (p. 50). However, since increasingly more primary students are now using computers, more studies are l i k e l y to be conducted i n t h i s area. Despite the lack of rigorous research i n c e r t a i n areas, computers are being used with young children f o r a multitude of purposes. The l i t e r a t u r e documents many of these a c t i v i t i e s which tend to f a l l into three c a t e g o r i e s — t h e computer as a tutor, the computer as a t o o l , and the computer as a tutee. Some educators suggest that the computer be used as a tutor to teach the c h i l d r e n c e r t a i n concepts, s k i l l s and knowledge or to rein f o r c e s k i l l s previously taught (for example, Computer Assisted Instruction programs). Obrist (1983) believes that CAI " i s undoubtedly one of the best ways of introducing the computer to the teacher and the children. For the teacher using a computer with childr e n f o r the f i r s t time these types of programs are exceptionally easy to understand, require only a l i t t l e help from the teacher and are e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y received by children" (p. 27). Educators have also suggested using the computer as a t o o l , f o r example for word processing. The t h i r d type of computer a c t i v i t y i s to use the computer as a tutee, that i s , for programming (Bandelier, 1982; Clements, 1983-84; Papert, 1980; Shumway, 1983). In t h i s s i t u a t i o n the children have the control over the computer rather than v i c e versa. They have to teach the computer what to do by giving i t e x p l i c i t d i r e c t i o n s to do a p a r t i c u l a r task. This i s programming. Proponents of t h i s view would suggest that i t i s a creative use of the machine—one i n which ch i l d r e n can u t i l i z e natural c u r i o u s i t y and progress at 4 t h e i r own rate. Some researchers believe CAI-type programs involve passive learning and are used as e l e c t r o n i c f l a s h cards (Williams, 1984) whereas programming involves active and creative learning because i t i s more discovery and play oriented (Chandler, 1984). A l l three applications, as a tutor, as a t o o l and as a tutee, have already been implemented i n early childhood programs. The question i s , does the computer belong there? "People r i g h t l y question whether young ch i l d r e n are able to use a computer or whether computers are p h y s i c a l l y , psychologically or s o c i a l l y harmful" (Gillingham, 1983, p. 2). This paper w i l l focus on young children learning to use the computer as a tutee, that i s , learning to program. In the l i t e r a t u r e two programming languages are commonly referred to for use with young children, BASIC and Logo. Logo i s the most frequently mentioned language and tends to be viewed as a young c h i l d ' s programming language. I t i s said to be " f r i e n d l y and accessible" (Clements, 1983-84) and i s a language which places "the c h i l d i n a s e t t i n g where he or she controls both the learning environment and the technology" (Markuson et a l . , 1983, p. 48). The structure of the BASIC language i s too complex for young children. Therefore, Logo has been chosen as the foundation f o r t h i s study due to i t s popularity i n the l i t e r a t u r e f o r use with elementary school-aged childen. I t has been accepted as a means of introducing young childre n to programming. Curriculum guides f o r computer studies even suggest 5 u s i n g L o g o w i t h k i n d e r g a r t e n s t u d e n t s . T h i s s t u d y w i l l a s s e s s w h e t h e r a s i n g l e k e y s t r o k e p r o g r a m w h i c h i n c o r p o r a t e s T u r t l e g r a p h i c s i s a s u i t a b l e p r o g r a m m i n g l a n g u a g e f o r y o u n g c h i l d r e n . S t a t e m e n t o f t h e P r o b l e m I s i t a p p r o p r i a t e t o i n t r o d u c e c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m m i n g t o k i n d e r g a r t e n c h i l d r e n ? T h r e e a r e a s o f t h i s p r o b l e m w e r e i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h i s s t u d y : 1. i s s u e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e c a p a b i l i t i e s o f k i n d e r g a r t e n c h i l d r e n t o p r o g r a m 2. i s s u e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e t e a c h i n g t e c h n i q u e s e m p l o y e d t o i n t r o d u c e a s i n g l e k e y s t r o k e p r o g r a m a n d t h e l e a r n i n g e n v i r o n m e n t w h i c h i s c r e a t e d 3. i s s u e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e b e n e f i t s o f l e a r n i n g t o p r o g r a m T h e s e i s s u e s w e r e b r o k e n down i n t o e i g h t e e n s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s i n C h a p t e r 3, t h e m e t h o d o l o g y s e c t i o n . P u r p o s e o f t h e S t u d y The p u r p o s e o f t h e s t u d y was t o e x a m i n e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f i n t r o d u c i n g c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m m i n g t o k i n d e r g a r t e n c h i l d r e n . I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e s t u d y e x a m i n e d : 1. t h e c a p a b i l i t i e s o f k i n d e r g a r t e n s t u d e n t s t o p r o g r a m . 2. t w o t e a c h i n g t e c h n i q u e s f o r i n t r o d u c i n g a s i n g l e k e y s t r o k e p r o g r a m . 6 3. the e f f e c t of a teaching technique on learning to program. 4. the e f f e c t of a teaching technique on learning s p e c i f i c s k i l l s a f t e r learning to program. 5. the e f f e c t of learning to program on the a c q u i s i t i o n of s p e c i f i c s k i l l s . 6. the e f f e c t of learning to program on s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . Assumptions of the Study I t was assumed that: 1. the students would be motivated to work on the computer. 2. students would program to the best of t h e i r a b i l i t i e s . 3. the students would represent a v a r i e t y of developmental l e v e l s and a b i l i t i e s . 4. the teacher as researcher would r e s u l t i n a study with v a l i d conclusions. Limitations of the Study The following i s a description of the l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s study: 1. the sample was from one elementary school and was a convenience sample. 2. the researcher was the teacher of the students. 3. the length of the study was l i m i t e d to one month. 7 Chapter 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This review of the l i t e r a t u r e w i l l focus on the s u i t a b i l i t y of young childre n using computers and s p e c i f i c a l l y learning to program i n Logo. I t includes a discussion of the benefits of young ch i l d r e n learning to program, reasons opposing young chi l d r e n learning to program and suggested techniques f o r teaching Logo. Young Children and Computers - Pros "Paul Karoff presents a f a i r l y comprehensive and unbiased account of the various positions concerning computers and the three to six-year-old age group. He states that 'the bottom l i n e , of course, i s that i t i s s t i l l too early to t e l l . . . 1 " ( B a l l , 1985, p. 374). Are computers appropriate f o r young children? I f computers are to be used with these c h i l d r e n there should be l o g i c a l and legitimate reasons f o r doing so. Furthermore, within the school system, i f microcomputers are to be used with preschool and primary school children, there should be a v a l i d educational reason for doing so. One j u s t i f i c a t i o n i s to prepare these childr e n for t h e i r adult l i f e so that they may function i n and contribute to a society i n which computers play an i n t e g r a l r o l e (Fetterman, 1981; Wayth, 1983; Jones, 1984). Fetterman (1981) adds that, "ignorance of technology can only 8 make people apprehensive, f e a r f u l and vulnerable." (p. 27). Many adults s u f f e r from computerphobia (Doorly, 1980). To avoid t h i s problem with the next generation, i t i s believed we should introduce the childr e n to computers as early as possible. In addition, chi l d r e n not provided with computer experiences w i l l p ossibly lag behind those that have had some exposure. Williams and Williams (1984) believe that i f we do not provide computer t r a i n i n g f o r students at an early age then we may have to compensate f o r the loss when they are older. Educational equity i s also c i t e d as a key reason f o r beginning computer l i t e r a c y i n kindergarten so that a l l students may benefi t from experiences with the computer (Hunter, 1983). I f computer l i t e r a c y i s postponed to the higher grades, where s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i n subjects and streaming often occurs, then many students w i l l not have the opportunity to work with the computer. Instead, only a se l e c t few w i l l be given t h i s p r i v i l e g e . Another reason presented i n favour of using microcomputers with young ch i l d r e n through programming i s that i t makes the abstract more concrete (for example, through using Logo). Relationships that young children were previously not exposed to because of t h e i r complex nature are inherent features of Logo. Papert contends Logo makes these abstractions more understandable and concrete. "In h i s book, Mindstorms, Papert describes how Logo enables childr e n to enter 'mathland', a place where they can explore sophisticated, advanced mathematical concepts such as d i f f e r e n t i a l geometry, but i n terms and ways that they understand and enjoy" (Coburn et a l . , 1985, p. 67). I f t h i s i s indeed so, 9 then childr e n could possibly move through Piaget's stages of cognitive development at a fas t e r rate (Papert, 1980; Piestrup, 1984; W i l l i s et a l . , 1983). Some researchers also believe that using the computer to program promotes problem solving and l o g i c a l or procedural thinking s k i l l s (Alper, 1980-81; Papert, 1980). Their reasoning i s that i n order f o r the children to d i r e c t the computer, they must determine a s p e c i f i c plan f o r carrying out the task. To do t h i s , the children need to discover how they might carry out the plan and consequently must r e f l e c t on t h e i r own thinking (Papert, 1980). A major c r i t i c i s m of using computers with young childre n i s that computers have l i m i t a t i o n s and force c h i l d r e n to perceive r e a l i t y i n a p a r t i c u l a r way. A l l playthings presented to children have t h e i r l i m i t a t i o n s and so computers are no d i f f e r e n t i n t h i s respect from other media (Silvern and McCary, date unknown). For example, one l i m i t a t i o n of the computer that i s often c i t e d i s that i t l i m i t s the physical a c t i v t i y of the c h i l d . This i s no d i f f e r e n t from other valuable early childhood a c t i v i t i e s such as reading, writing, drawing and painting (Silvern and McCary, date unknown) which also l i m i t physical a c t i v i t y but would not be eliminated from an early childhood program because of t h i s l i m i t a t i o n . The computer can provide another valuable learning experience f o r the young c h i l d . Young Children and Computers - Cons Contrary to these b e l i e f s are those who oppose the view that computers should play a r o l e i n early childhood education. For instance, Barnes and H i l l (1983) believe c h i l d r e n should not use the computer u n t i l they approach the concrete operational stage (approximately seven years o l d ) . They argue that c h i l d r e n i n the preoperational stage who use the computer are being deprived of concrete, three-dimensional experiences. They comment that, "Young ch i l d r e n s i t t i n g at microcomputers are being short-changed i n terms of f u l f i l l i n g those needs which are fundamental to learning and to t h e i r optimal development...They are being l i m i t e d to dealing with two-dimensional abstractions of r e a l objects that are represented on a screen (p. 13)." Davy (1984) supports t h i s view and describes the Logo environment as "perceptually impoverished" (p. 550). He contends that young childen do not need to demonstrate computer competency. Instead, t h i s can be l e f t f o r the high schools. Obrist (1985) o f f e r s a caveat on the subject. "In introducing c h i l d r e n to microcomputers at an early age we must be c a r e f u l not to r i s k i n c urring that 'squeeze on infancy' that has deprived them of the r i g h t to go at t h e i r own pace" (p. 52). This opposition group also contends that young children i n the preoperational stage of development do not possess the l e v e l of abstract thinking that i s required to work on the computer (Barnes & H i l l , 1983). At t h i s stage c h i l d r e n are believed to be i n f l e x i b l e i n t h e i r thinking and unable to conserve. For a c h i l d to be able to successfully 11 debug a program he or she must be able to think f l e x i b l y . Otherwise, the c h i l d s t a r t s the problem again discarding i n t o t a l the previous solution. S t i l l other opponents suggest that computers do not promote human i n t e r a c t i o n and communication and i n f a c t may have a deleterious e f f e c t on s o c i a l development (Larter, 1983; Barnes and H i l l , 1983). They fear that the computer discourages s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . Barnes and H i l l (1983) indicate that working on the microcomputer may be an i s o l a t i n g experience and may not promote communication s k i l l s . Studies have tended, however, to show the opposite i s true. In a study conducted by Clements and Nastasi (1985) they found "that computers f a c i l i t a t e on-task cooperative work" (p. 6). These r e s u l t s were unexpected by the researchers. They were both surprised and encouraged that s o c i a l interactions, s i m i l a r to what occurs i n play-oriented learning centers, took place when they worked on computers despite the abstract and cognitive aspect of the programs. These interactions were greater than i n t r a d i t i o n a l school s i t u a t i o n s . Yet another view i s that young childre n do not possess the necessary reading, number and coordination s k i l l s to successfully use the computer (Larter, 1983). This problem has been overcome by using programs which l i m i t the number of keys the c h i l d needs to use as well as l i m i t i n g or eliminating the amount of written information presented on the screen. Another perspective on t h i s issue i s that the age of introduction to a computer i s a moot point. Proponents of t h i s view say that the technology has arrived, so i t w i l l be used with c h i l d r e n of a l l ages and i t i s u n l i k e l y that t h i s process w i l l be reversed. (Spencer & Baskin; 1983, Reimer, 1985). In fac t Larter (1983) states that, "The idea that there i s a minimum age below which childr e n should not be using microcomputers has been of almost no i n t e r e s t to the authors of a r t i c l e s . . . about the educational uses of microcomputers." (p. 62). Advantages of Computers I f the movement to use microcomputers with young children has already begun, then the advantages to using these machines for i n s t r u c t i o n a l purposes should be i d e n t i f i e d . Many of the advantages which w i l l be l i s t e d have not been supported to date by studies but instead are opinions based on observation or what "experts" i n the f i e l d suggest. The benefits f o r using microcomputers with children include the following: 1. presenting material i n various modes 2. encouraging cooperative work 3. increasing concentration span 4. providing immediate feedback 5. providing i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n 6. providing motivation 7. increasing self-esteem 8. increasing confidence 9. developing thinking s k i l l s 10. developing eye-hand coordination 13 11. patience of the machine 12. nonthreatening and nonjudgemental environment 13. developing cognitive s k i l l s (Burron, 1982; G i l l , 1983; Larter, 1983; Long, 1985; Piestrup,-1984; Spencer & Baskin, 1983; Wayth, 1983). Problems with Computers and Young Children Even though computers are used f r e e l y with young children, the computer world f o r young childre n has i t s problems. One of the most fundamental d i f f i c u l t i e s i n t h i s area is. t h e lack of good q u a l i t y software ( G i l l , 1983; Williams, 1984). Educators and software developers need to coordinate t h e i r e f f o r t s to produce both educationally and t e c h n i c a l l y sound programs. Another important problem i s that many early childhood educators do not have s u f f i c i e n t t r a i n i n g and are reluctant to use the computer i n t h e i r classes (Williams & Williams, 1984). Teachers who do use computers tend to use CAI programs i n i t i a l l y with t h e i r students rather than teaching a programming language such as Logo since CAI programs are easier and quicker to learn. Furthermore, there are very few developed computer l i t e r a c y (or awareness) curriculums for the early chldhood age range. Consequently, teachers must t r y to develop t h e i r own programs. These problems can be solved by time and involvement of larger numbers of people who include teachers, curriculum supervisors, developers of programming languages and producers of software packages. 14 Young Children and Programming "The c h i l d as programmer. This i s perhaps the most controversial aspect of the use of the computer i n the Primary School" (Kent, 1984, p. 83). Many people are i n favour of teaching young childre n programming (Bandelier, 1982; Birch, 1984; Clements, 1983-84; Hines, 1983; Jaworski and Brummel, 1984; Papert, 1980; Shumway, 1983) because they believe programming involves active and creative learning which i s discovery and play oriented (Chandler, 1984) whereas CAI-type programs involve passive learning and are often used as e l e c t r o n i c f l a s h cards (Williams, 1984). There are, however, many opponents to young chi l d r e n learning to program (Barnes and H i l l , 1983; Burg, 1984). They contend that computers, and more s p e c i f i c a l l y programming, i s too abstract for young children. This section w i l l address both sides of t h i s issue. J u s t i f i c a t i o n s f o r Teaching Programming Why should young children learn a programming language? "At present there seem to be three major j u s t f i c a t i o n s f o r the emphasis on computer programming i n grades kindergarten to 12. "These are: 1) to prepare students f o r jobs and f o r post-secondary education; 2) to prepare students f o r c i t i z e n s h i p i n a computer-based society; and, 3) to use computer programming to enhance a student's general i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t i e s " (Coburn et a l . , 1985, p. 63). These are very general reasons f o r 15 introducing computer programming to a l l students. There are more s p e c i f i c reasons stated f o r primary children. B i t t e r and Camuse (1984) state that learning Logo at an early age provides a p o s i t i v e experience and a foundation f o r l a t e r learning of more complex programming languages. Reimer (1985) reasons that i t i s important f o r young children to receive early exposure to computer programming because i t w i l l help prevent computerphobia as an older c h i l d and as an adult. I n t e l l e c t u a l Benefits of Programming Besides preparing students for future programming i n other computer languages and providing p o s i t i v e exposure to computers, does learning to program benefit the c h i l d c o g n i t i v e l y or i n t e l l e c t u a l l y , or i n any other ways? The research presents very c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s i n t h i s area even though much of the l i t e r a t u r e claims that Logo promotes cognitive and perceptual growth (Clements, 1984; Gillingham, 1983; Hines, 1983; Papert, 1980). In a study conducted by Clements ("Cognition, Metacognition S k i l l s and Achievement," 1985) with grade one and grade three children, the r e s u l t s indicated growth i n several areas, which seemed a t t r i b u t a b l e to Logo use. Seventy-two six-year-olds and eight-year-olds were randomly assigned to one of three treatment conditions: computer programming i n Logo, computer-assisted i n s t r u c t i o n and a control group. Clements concluded that performance on c e r t a i n cognitive and metacognitive s k i l l s , on 16 measures of c r e a t i v i t y and giving d i r e c t i o n s can increase from learning Logo programming. Achievement i n reading and mathematics was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t f o r the three groups. Papert (1980) claims that Logo promotes metacognitive s k i l l s because i n order f o r the c h i l d to teach the computer how to perform a p a r t i c u l a r task, he must f i r s t examine how he thinks himself. "Thinking about thinking turns the c h i l d into an epistemologist" (p.,19). When children write or debug a program, they must go through t h i s thought or problem solving process. Papert (1980) suggests that every program written i n Logo develops problem solving strategies. His claims are supported by anecdotal evidence. Kieren (1984) suggests that, " . . . i n a l l of i t s uses Logo i s seen e x p l i c i t l y or i m p l i c i t l y as a problem solving task" (p. 28). In a study by Hines (1983) at North Texas State University, s i x five-year-olds were given Logo i n s t r u c t i o n over a ten week period. The researcher aimed to determine whether kindergarten childre n could perform simple computer programming. Her conclusions were based on r e s u l t s of f i v e c h i l d r e n (one c h i l d moved). A l l of the childre n were capable of working out a computer program during the study. The conclusions stated that, "Five-year-old child r e n are able to use the computer as a t o o l f o r t h i n k i n g — f o r solving problems and learning about mathematics i n a meaningful way" (p. 12). 17 Another study conducted by Reimer (1985) also explored the use of Logo with kindergarten children. The p i l o t study investigated the e f f e c t of learning to program i n Logo on the c h i l d ' s readiness f o r grade one, on c r e a t i v i t y and on self-concept. The study involved a treatment group and a control group with eight kindergarten students i n each and i t was a pretest-posttest design. The treatment group who had Logo computer experiences achieved more on the readiness, c r e a t i v i t y and self-concept t e s t s . However, the treatment group made s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t gains only on four of the eleven readiness t e s t s . The gains made by t h i s group on the c r e a t i v i t y and self-concept t e s t s were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Nevertheless, " r e s u l t s of t h i s study suggest that age f i v e kindergarten childr e n can show greater gains i n several commonly taught curriculum and developmental areas when they are involved i n a Logo programming experience than childr e n of the same age and grade l e v e l who do not have t h i s experience" (p. 12). Papert (1980) also contends that using Logo can permit young chi l d r e n to concretize formal operations well before the expected eleven or twelve years of age. The r e s u l t s of few studies have strongly supported t h i s contention. Clements ("Cognition, Metacognition and Achievement S k i l l s , " 1985) reports that a few studies have shown weak evidence that Logo programming can increase performance on Piagetian operational tasks (Brown and Rood, c i t e d i n Clements, "Cognition, Metacognition and Achievement S k i l l s , " 1985; Hines, 1983). I t i s not known whether the age l e v e l of the c h i l d a f f e c t s the r e s u l t s . I t may only 18 occur i n childr e n who are making the t r a n s i t i o n from the preoperational to the concrete operational l e v e l (Clements, "Cognition, Metacognition and Achievement S k i l l s , " 1985). Many reports (Martin and Berner, 1982; Papert, 1972; Statz, c i t e d i n Howe et a l . , 1979) suggest that Logo can improve mathematical understanding because Logo i s a mathematical and a geometrical environment. Kelman et a l . (1983) discuss the impact of Logo on mathematics. They contend that the graphics computer can help overcome student's d i f f i c u l t y with v i s u a l i z i n g geometric and trigonometric relationships and thus a i d i n t h e i r teaching. This w i l l mean more emphasis w i l l be put on " f i g u r e " i n mathematics education whereas i t presently emphasizes "number". Although Logo may be a mathematical environment, Leron (1985) warns educators that engaging i n mathematical a c t i v i t i e s does not ensure that the childr e n w i l l learn the mathematical concepts involved. The learning process w i l l have to a s s i s t the students i n making the t r a n s i t i o n from using the program to formulating these concepts. Several studies have investigated the e f f e c t of programming i n Logo on mathematical achievement and understanding. Clarke (1985-86) conducted a p i l o t study with 43 g i r l s i n grades one, three and f i v e i n a g i r l ' s school. The students received two 20 minute Logo computing sessions per week during the school year. Testing at the end of the year showed an increase on SAI scores and attitudes toward mathematics "suggesting the Logo experience had a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on general a b i l i t y and on expressed i n t e r e s t i n learning about mathematics" (p. 33). 19 The focus of the Edinburgh Logo project by Howe et a l . (1979) was to study; the e f f e c t programming i n Logo had on the mathematical achievement of children who experienced d i f f i c u l t y with mathematics. Eleven boys, a l l 13-years-old, were involved i n a two year study. The experimental group's classroom mathematics performance improved more than the control group and t h e i r a t t i t u d e was marginally more p o s i t i v e than the control group. The researcher concluded that the mathematical understanding of l e s s able children can improve a f t e r using a mathematics program based on Logo. He also concluded that Logo can a i d i n learning geometry." The findings of the MIT Brookline Project (1979), which observed c h i l d r e n using Logo, were that the students' a b i l i t i e s to estimate length and angle developed considerably during the project a f t e r having Logo experiences (Papert, 1979). In the Lamplighter Project, Logo was introduced to three- to nine-year-old child r e n and the students were observed over four years. The conclusions were that the childr e n gained a better understanding of mathematics concepts and enjoyed mathematical a c t i v i t i e s even though t h e i r performance on standardized tests did not necessarily improve (Watt, 1982). This study implies that Logo may not d i r e c t l y improve mathematical performance but i t i s a good motivator f o r the subject which i n i t s e l f i s a worthwhile use. 20 Reiber (1985) conducted a study with second grade children using Logo f o r a three month period. The r e s u l t s showed that the experience s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased the students' recognition of geometric shapes by the end of the study. So c i a l Benefits of Programming Many educators fear that the computer i s an i s o l a t i n g t o o l . They believe that the computer discourages s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . There have been studies, however, which have shown the opposite i s true. In addition to i n t e l l e c t u a l benefits, studies have also suggested that learning to program has a p o s i t i v e s o c i a l e f f e c t (Kieren, 1984). In a study conducted by Clements and Nastasi (1985) they found, as d i d previous research, "that computers f a c i l i t a t e on-task cooperative work" (p. 6). Clements ("Logo and CAI on S o c i a l Behaviours," 1985) reports that c h i l d r e n a c t u a l l y prefer to work with others when using the computer than to work alone and consequently s o c i a l and emotional development i s fostered rather than i n h i b i t e d . Several studies and discussion papers i n the l i t e r a t u r e have focused on the s o c i a l and emotional development benefits of a Logo s e t t i n g . "Tim Riordon claimed that the sharing of ideas i s a fundamental part of the Logo environment" (Jaworski and Brummel, 1983, p. 23). Children programming i n Logo tend to use t h e i r peers f o r help and t a l k to each other about t h e i r work more than during noncomputer classroom a c t i v i t i e s (Hawkins, 1983). In a study conducted by S i l v e r n et a l . (1988), 39 students ranging 21 from three-year-olds to seven-year-olds had access to a computer i n a learning center. The study t e n t a t i v e l y concluded that using the computer "supports, (and) perhaps even requires, s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n " (p. 33). In addition to s o c i a l benefits others believe Logo can promote self-confidence. Reimer (1985) c i t e s Berry (1981) as claiming that students have a higher self-esteem i f they had a p o s i t i v e experience learning to program i n Logo. Considerably more research on the s o c i a l e f f e c t s of using Logo needs to be done before d e f i n i t e conclusions can be drawn. Negative Findings Regarding Programming Not a l l of the research supports Papert's claims that Logo benefits a c h i l d i n t e l l e c t u a l l y and s o c i a l l y . "There has always been a strong demand e s p e c i a l l y from the outside, f o r the Logo community to supply research data to prove i t s grand claims regarding the educational value of Logo. Several 'evaluation studies' have recently appeared with negative findings" (Leron, 1985, p. 32). For example, Statz (cited i n Howe et a l . , 1979) found l i m i t e d improvement i n problem-solving s k i l l s as a r e s u l t of learning to program. Pea, one of the researchers at the Bank Street School, has taken a closer look at the e f f e c t s of learning Logo on procedural thinking and the r e s u l t s were disappointing. The structured thinking displayed during programming d i d not tr a n s f e r to non-computer tasks (Burns, 1983; Tashner, 1984). 22 Students were using and producing the language without understanding i t . These conclusions concur with the r e s u l t s of studies done with college computer science majors who had programmed fo r numerous hours but f a i l e d to understand basic p r i n c i p l e s that underlay even short programs (Tashner, 1984). "These studies, Pea concludes, do r a i s e serious doubts about the sweeping claims made fo r the cognitive benefits of learning to program" (Tashner, 1984, p. 30). They imply that Logo i s not the educational panacea Papert claimed i t to be. Some chi l d r e n are experiencing d i f f i c u l t i e s with i t and also they are not making the educational gains which were anticipated. Can Young Children Program? Can young childre n program? There are strong supporters on both sides of the issue. Those who oppose young ch i l d r e n programming contend that computers and more s p e c i f i c a l l y programming i s too abstract for young children. They suggest that teachers and parents are expecting too much from the children, since the children have not developed the adequate l o g i c s k i l l s to be able to understand programming (Barnes and H i l l , 1983; Burg, 1984). Burg (1984) warns readers, "There i s the danger that some w i l l expect young childre n to be able to develop simple programs. Early childhood professionals must be ready to remind parents and others that a five-to-seven-year-23 old's i n t e l l e c t u a l development i s not s u f f i c i e n t f o r programming" (p. 32). These opponents use Piaget's cognitive stages of development to j u s t i f y t h e i r argument. There are four stages i n Piaget's theory of i n t e l l e c t u a l development which include: the sensorimotor stage ( b i r t h to two years), the preoperational stage (two to seven years), the concrete operational stage (seven to eleven years) and the formal operational stage (eleven to f i f t e e n years). The l a t t e r three stages are of concern i n t h i s discussion. The preoperational c h i l d i s able to use representational thought but h i s or her thought i s dominated by perceptions and l i t t l e attention i s paid to transformations. The concrete operational c h i l d i s characterized by more freedom and control i n thinking such as r e v e r s i b i l i t y of thought. The c h i l d can think through an act but can also undo the act mentally without r e l y i n g on physical actions. The formal operational c h i l d has f l e x i b i l i t y , control, mobility and freedom of thought and can deal with abstractions (Smart and Smart, 1977). Opponents of young children using the computer state that programming requires formal l o g i c a l reasoning (Favaro, 1983) which does not develop u n t i l the formal operational stage of development. The concrete operational c h i l d ' s thinking i s not usually l o g i c a l and r e l i e s more on t r i a l and error (Burg, 1984). Burg goes on to say that the young children's information processing a b i l i t i e s do not permit them to be able to plan a program. Children at t h i s l e v e l "place one event a f t e r another with no attention to natural sequencing by cause and e f f e c t . 24 They cannot consider more than one aspect of a s i t u a t i o n simultaneously. Consequently, they can neither imagine nor s t r i n g together a set of commands to t e l l a computer what to do, even i n the most simplest [sic] case" (p. 32). In addition, according to Piaget's theory, childr e n under about seven years of age are b a s i c a l l y state-oriented which means that they cannot r e l a t e states (orientation and location) and transformations (commands to a l t e r state) (Cuneo, 1985). In order to debug a program, t h i s f l e x i b i l i t y of thought, which i s not present i n the young c h i l d , i s necessary so the student can determine the error without s t a r t i n g again (Munro-Mavrias, 1983). In a p i l o t study conducted by Munro-Mavrias with grade one children, over a three month period, the a b i l i t y to reverse thought processes as well as spatial-motor a b i l i t y was rela t e d to success i n programming a modified version of Logo. Educators assume that because childre n can use Logo commands almost immediately then they have an understanding of t h e i r function. Cuneo (1985) conducted a study with four- to seven-year-olds to investigate the students' l e v e l of understanding of single t u r t l e commands as transformations that connect t u r t l e states. Logo i s a language that i s a system of states and transformations i n which the states are defined by ori e n t a t i o n and l o c a t i o n and the transformations are the commands which r e s u l t i n a change of state. For the study, 32 four- and five-year-olds and 32 s i x - and seven-year-olds used a single keystroke Logo program. The researchers conclusions were not p o s i t i v e . The majority of the children misunderstood some or a l l 25 of the basic t u r t l e commands. "The r e s u l t s suggest that young children's entry into t u r t l e graphics programming w i l l not be as spontaneous as suggested by anecdotal evidence" (p. 10-11). A report by Hawkins (1985) further supports t h i s notion. Two upper elementary teachers introduced Logo to 25 eight- and nine-year-old children and 25 eleven- and twelve-year-olds and observed t h e i r development with the programming language over a two-year period. They aimed to gain further understanding of the cognitive and s o c i a l e f f e c t s of using Logo. The expectations of the teachers changed during the study. I n i t i a l l y they had hoped that programming would promote problem solving a b i l i t i e s and l o g i c a l thinking s k i l l s . A f t e r the f i r s t year, they viewed Logo more as "... a context f o r learning about programming and computers" (Hawkins, 1985, p. 16) than as a context promoting problem solving s k i l l s . Transfer of l o g i c a l thinking a b i l i t i e s were not apparent. In addition, the students' depth of understanding of the language was very low (Hawkins, 1985). Burns (1983) reports that even though eight- and nine-year-old students at the Bank Street School were able to program i n Logo, they d i d not have a good understanding of the l o g i c of the language because of i t s abstract nature. Rather, they had a functional understanding only. They could use the commands appropriately but had not i n t e r n a l i z e d the meanings of the commands. Therefore they reached a plateau i n t h e i r programming a b i l i t y where they required assistance to write more complex programs. 26 Despite the opposition to young children's programming and the research which suggests that "powerful ideas" are not being learned as e a s i l y as expected, there are many a r t i c l e s i n the l i t e r a t u r e c i t i n g examples of young children (of about four years and u p — f o r example, the Lamplighter Project) learning Logo and being successful with i t (D'Angelo, 1981). "The Lamplighter experiment does demonstrate... that the rudiments of Logo are e a s i l y learnable (and teachable) by very young p u p i l s " (O'Shea and S e l f , 1983, p. 187). Hines (1983) concluded i n her study with five-year-olds that young children can perform simple programming on the computer. Jaworski and Brummel (1984) conducted a study with 28 f i r s t graders. The students worked i n pa i r s f o r 10 weeks with 15 to 30 minutes of computer time each week. She concluded "...the o v e r a l l hypothesis that elementary age school childr e n of diverse a b i l i t i e s can learn to f e e l comfortable with and exert some control over the computer was d e f i n i t e l y supported by the project" (p. 55). Clements (date unknown) comments about the pot e n t i a l of Logo programming with primary grade children. He states "that young students with high p r o f i c i e n c y i n programming can perform as well or better than t h e i r older counterparts (p. 177). He contends that programming i s not beyond the c a p a b i l i t i e s of young children. Much of the dispute concerning whether young childre n can program seems to focus on the d e f i n i t i o n of programming. Munro-Mavrias (1983) defines programming "as a serie s of 27 ins t r u c t i o n s to a computer i n order to have i t carry out a task" (p. 1). Papert (1980) defines i t as "nothing more or les s than communicating to (the computer) i n a language that i t and the human user can both understand" (p. 6). I f these d e f i n i t i o n s are applied to young children, then t h i s age group i s probably capable of programming. I f , however, Obrist's (1985) d e f i n i t i o n i s used then the preoperational c h i l d probably would not be capable of programming. Obrist contends that "In order to q u a l i f y as a program, the sequence of ins t r u c t i o n s must be written with intent to produce a p a r t i c u l a r r e s u l t " (p. 72). In addition, i n order to program at t h i s l e v e l a c h i l d must also be able to use c e r t a i n problem solving strategies. "The d i f f i c u l t y f o r a preoperational c h i l d i n generating problem solving strategies i s that she cannot reverse the d i r e c t i o n of her thought" (Almy, c i t e d i n Burg, 1984). Perhaps, instead of using one d e f i n i t i o n or the other to define programming, both can be used to define d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of programming with Obrist's d e f i n i t i o n representing a higher l e v e l of programming than Munro's or Papert's d e f i n i t i o n . Therefore, many young childre n using Logo may be i n a more rudimentary l e v e l of programming rather than the higher l e v e l of programming. Why Logo? Educators who have chosen to teach young childre n programming have primarily used Logo as the introductory language. What c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Logo make i t appropriate for 28 early childhood education? When se l e c t i n g a programming language suit a b l e for young children, Mullan (1984) suggests that one considers the a v a i l a b i l i t y of the language, the structure of the language, the u s a b i l i t y of the language and the conceptual ease. When these c r i t e r i a are applied, Logo then appears to be the most appropriate language f o r young children. Gillingham (1983) l i s t s two reasons why young childre n should use Logo. They are that: 1. "Logo o f f e r s the raw material to b u i l d t o o l s f o r children's thinking." 2. "Logo o f f e r s a f l e x i b l e and easy to use computer language for exploring one's thinking." (p. 16) There are numerous other j u s t i f i c a t i o n s i n the l i t e r a t u r e regarding the s u i t a b i l i t y of Logo f o r young ch i l d r e n . Birch (1984) states that chil d r e n can begin using Logo as soon as they recognize the l e t t e r s of the alphabet since sin g l e keystroke programs only use one l e t t e r to represent a command (for example, "F" means forward). Papert (1980) r e f e r s to the ease by which young ch i l d r e n use the language and also to the p o t e n t i a l i t has for being used to solve complex problems by s t a t i n g Logo has "no threshold and no c e i l i n g . " Another reason c i t e d i s that Logo i s not too abstract but more concrete and understandable than other programming languages (Clements, Computers i n Early and Primary  Education f 1985). "Logo i s a computer language designed to be accessible to children. I t i s developmentally appropriate for young ch i l d r e n and i s i n t e r a c t i v e " (Clements & Gullo, 1984, p. 1054). Coburn et a l . (1985) contends that Logo i s le s s abstract 29 than other programming languages. The r e s u l t s of givi n g commands (drawing of l i n e s and reorientation of the t u r t l e ) can be immediately seen on the screen (Clements, Computers i n E a r l y . . . f 1985; Coburn et a l . , 1985). Marshall (1986) expands on t h i s notion and believes that the Logo philosophy i s compatible with the seven goals of the kindergarten curriculum i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The goal of emotional development and well-being i s promoted i n a Logo environment because the successful learning of Logo develops the c h i l d s self-esteem and independence. S o c i a l development i s developed by the sharing of ideas and knowledge that occurs i n a Logo environment. So c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s developed because chi l d r e n approach the same problem i n d i f f e r e n t ways so they learn to respect the views of others. The goal of physical development and well-being i s promoted through off-computer a c t i v i t i e s such as p r a c t i s i n g t u r t l e movements on the f l o o r . Logo encourages aesthetic and a r t i s t i c development because the students can imagine a picture and create i t on the screen through an exploration of the language. I n t e l l e c t u a l development occurs because of the nature of the language which requires an in t e r a c t i o n of mental and physical action. F i n a l l y , language development i s fostered because the children learn the commands of the Logo language and must understand t h e i r meanings to be successful with programming. They also become f a m i l i a r with computer rel a t e d terminology. Marshall believes Logo " i s a natural learning process" f o r the kindergarten c h i l d (Marshall, 1986, p. 62). 30 There are many references i n the l i t e r a t u r e which r e f e r to the term "body syntocity" or "body geometry" as an important factor that Logo i s more concrete and easier to learn by young chi l d r e n . Rosser (1983) defines the term as, "bringing new information into harmony or resonance with children's experience and knowledge of t h e i r own bodies" (p. 2). Children can r e l a t e to the movements of the t u r t l e because they are bodily movements which they have already experienced such as forward, backward, r i g h t , and l e f t (Hines, 1983; Martin and Berner, 1982; Pantiel and Petersen, 1984; Papert, 1979; Weir, c i t e d i n Jaworski and Brummel, 1984). They transfer t h e i r previously acquired knowledge of how t h e i r body moves to how the t u r t l e moves. "Syl v i a Weir (1981) r e i t e r a t e d t h i s b e l i e f as she f e l t that as you command the t u r t l e to move around the screen your i n t u i t i v e knowledge about how your body moves around i n space i s mobilized" (Jaworski and Brummel, 1984, p. 21). Papert intended Logo to be s e l f - d i r e c t e d learning where the c h i l d i s free to investigate, explore and experiment with the language at h i s own pace. This type of exploration i s often referre d to as "play" which i s a natural means of learning for young children. "The c h i l d learns through h i s or her inner drive to explore, experiment, and discover...As c h i l d r e n play, information gained through experience i s explored, tested, and represented i n a v a r i t y of ways" (Ministry of Education, 1984, p. 59). Therefore, childen can "play" with the Logo language and become absorbed i n the a c t i v i t y since they i n i t i a t e and control the learning (Maxwell, 1984; Markuson et a l . , 1983). The concept 31 of play i s of great importance with t h i s age l e v e l since, as Chandler suggests, "For the young c h i l d , f a r more learning occurs during play than i n any deliberate and structured manner" (Chandler, 1984, p. 9). Play f a c i l i t a t e s cognitive development (Ministry of Education, 1984). I f Logo creates an environment i n which ch i l d r e n can play, then the experience should be of benefit to them c o g n i t i v e l y . The computer, and more s p e c i f i c a l l y Logo, can be used as "another medium fo r exploration, expression, and play a v a i l a b l e to young children and t h e i r teachers" (Genishi, 1987, p. 22). Burg (1984) further supports the use of computers i n the early chldhood classroom and comments, " I t ' s doubtful that microcomputers w i l l ever replace blocks or d o l l s or trucks or crayons. But the microcomputer can provide c h i l d r e n with developmentally appropriate experiences" (p. 31). The computer becomes j u s t another part of a r i c h environment providing a v a r i e t y of a c t i v i t i e s f o r the young c h i l d ( Silvern and McCary, date unknown). Some important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of play l i s t e d by Garvey (cited i n Chandler, 1984) and Labinowicz (1980) inherent i n Logo are spontaneity, voluntary and enjoyable p a r t i c i p a t i o n , active p a r t i c i p a t i o n , promotion of enthusiasm, questioning, puzzlement and no e x t r i n s i c goals. Besides b e n e f i t t i n g from a play experience, Logo programmers also receive immediate feedback regarding the success of t h e i r program by watching the execution of the program on the screen (Clements, Computers i n Early.... 32 1985). Therefore, "learning to write computer programs becomes fun, not j u s t hard work" (Pantiel and Petersen, 1984, p. 79). What i s Logo? "Logo i s perhaps the best known computer language used i n elementary schools today. I t was designed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r c h i l d r e n over a 12-year period by Seymour Papert, h i s colleagues at Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e of Technology, and other researchers around the world" (Pantiel and Petersen, 1984, p. 79). Logo i s a philosophy of education i n which the learner i s i n charge of learning (Jaworski and Brummel, 1984). "Logo can be described as a language created expressly f o r the purposes of teaching and learning...Thus, unlike many other computing languages created fo r other than educational purposes. Logo i s s p e c i f i c a l l y t a i l o r e d to meet educational needs" (Upitis, 1982, p. 28). Papert had a s p e c i f i c type of learning environment i n mind when he designed the Logo language. Logo i s meant to create "microworlds" or learning environments which "allow childr e n to experiment with ideas by manipulating elements of a computer model i n order to discover i t s structure" (Dewitt, 1984, p. x i v ) . For example t u r t l e geometry i s a microworld which permits c h i l d r e n to discover geometric concepts and p r i n c i p l e s . I t i s an environment which aims to foster thinking s k i l l s . Papert wished to encourage a "top-down problem-solving strategy rather than a "bottom-up" approach ( G o l l i n i , 1985). "The top-down programmer st a r t s with a c l e a r model of what he wants to achieve. This i s 33 broken down into the various sub-procedures that are needed and then the sub-procedures solved" (Papert et a l . , 1979, p. 93). Furthermore, the Logo environment i s meant to be a supportive s e t t i n g i n which there i s no r i g h t or wrong answer. Children experiment with the language to determine a s o l u t i o n to a problem and i n so doing "develop (a) s c i e n t i f i c approach to learning and experience r e a l problem-solving" (Maxwell, 1984, p. 106). Papert also intended Logo programmers to explore the language independently so they could make personal discoveries about i t . Maxwell (1984) believes that these discoveries are possible because Logo " i s f l e x i b l e and so well structured i n i t s e l f that the c h i l d r e n do b u i l d on t h e i r knowledge as they progress" (p. 106). The student becomes the teacher of the computer and gains a sense of power and mastery (Housey, c i t e d i n Jaworski and Brummel, 1984). They attend to the task because they are i n control (Jaworski and Brummel, 1984). In addition, chi l d r e n are encouraged to share t h e i r ideas and help t h e i r peers solve problems i n t h i s s e t t i n g ( W i l l i s et a l . , 1983). In summary, Enns (1986) describes a Logo environment as "safe, discovery-oriented, democratic and epistemological" (p. 30). The Logo language i s based on Piagetian developmental theory. "Piaget's work holds that childr e n are builders of t h e i r own i n t e l l e c t u a l structures and that i n t e l l e c t u a l development does not always need e x p l i c i t teaching" (Vaidya and McKeeby, 1984, p. 30). Children can learn without being taught. Piaget also believes that childr e n learn i f they are presented models and examples. Papert used these ideas to create a geometric 34 learning environment (Eyster, 1981) which uses a discovery or natural learning approach. According to Flake et a l . (1985) there are two important aspects of Piagetian theory that are evident i n Logo. They are: "1) s p a t i a l o r i e n t a t i o n ; and 2) ch i l d r e n learn best from t h e i r own actions" (p. 24) which both r e l a t e to 'body syntocity' or Piaget's term of 'body transfer'. In addition, s o c i a l elements of Piaget's theory are also evident i n Logo. Students are encouraged to share and work with others and also to be creative (Jaworski and Brummel, 1984). The two learning theories of Piaget and Papert do c o n f l i c t , however, on c e r t a i n points. "The Logo approach i s underpinned by Piaget... But i t i s a 'new' Piaget s e t t i n g aside h i s framework of natural development i n favour of a more 'i n t e r v e n t i o n i s t ' approach" (Davy, 1984, p. 549). Piaget contends that thinking processes develop "according to fi x e d b i o l o g i c a l laws, i n conjunction with - but never determined by - interactions with the environment" (Riedesel and Clements, 1985, p. 123). Papert (1980) contends, however, that young childre n w i l l progress through the stages of development at a fa s t e r rate i f they have Logo experiences. Formal ideas w i l l become concretized through Logo and so understanding of the concepts w i l l occur at an e a r l i e r age (O'Shea and Sel f , 1983; W i l l i s et a l . , 1983). Children could reach a formal operational l e v e l before 11 to 12 years of age. "Papert places emphasis on the i n t e l l e c t u a l structures that could develop as opposed to those that a c t u a l l y at present do develop i n the c h i l d " (Papert, 1980, p. 161) which means he believes the stages of development are not r i g i d l y fixed 35 but can be speeded up. A second point of contention i s that Piaget characterizes the f i v e - to seven-year-old as having a topo l o g i c a l view of the world rather than viewing the world as having f i x e d and r i g i d shapes (Reiber, 1985). T u r t l e geometry, however, focuses on drawing fi x e d and r i g i d shapes. Underlying the philosophy and learning theory of Logo i s a teaching methodology. Since Logo i s meant to promote discovery learning, the teacher becomes free to act as a resource person or a f a c i l i t a t o r rather than a source f o r knowledge (Jaworski and Brummel, 1984). The teacher's duties are to guide, to guestion, to challenge, to c l a r i f y , to in s p i r e , to motivate and to f a c i l i t a t e the learning (Reimer, 1985; S t r e i b e l , 1983). The teachers "help students gain control over the learning process" (Hortin and Teague, 1983, p. 23). Birch (1984) suggests ways to teach Logo. She advises that, "The questions you ask should be leading questions which guide each c h i l d toward a possible solution...Give hints to solutions rather than solutions themselves" (p. 11). Papert intended Logo to fo s t e r s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n between students. Therefore, C o l l i n s and White (1984) suggest that teachers should not "hover" over the students but give them enough freedom and encourage i n t e r a c t i o n between students rather than between student and teacher. In a Logo environment, Riordon (1982) contends that students should decide when they need help, seek that help and therefore be responsible for t h e i r own learning. Teachers must be s k i l l f u l to know when to intervene to a s s i s t with problems and when to r e f r a i n from i n t e r f e r i n g (Wellington, 1985). 36 The l i t e r a t u r e reveals a difference of opinion about the amount of structure that should be present i n a Logo environment. The range extends from a very open s e t t i n g where the students explore Logo on t h e i r own, to a s e t t i n g i n which students select from a v a r i e t y of tasks, to a s e t t i n g i n which a l l students must do the same tasks following a r i g i d series of steps (Kieren, 1984). Mullan (1984) believes that without some structure, the students w i l l not l i k e l y discover the more d i f f i c u l t concepts. However, Papert, following true Piagetian learning, does not believe the teacher should provide any structure. He contends that c h i l d r e n can learn "powerful ideas" through Piagetian learning which i s learning without being taught. "Powerful ideas are ideas that connect deep and important concepts from mathematics, computer science, problem-solving etc., with what i s important to childr e n by giving them the power to achieve goals that they see as important" (Leron, 1985, p. 26-27). Leron does not believe that these two g o a l s — P i a g e t i a n learning and powerful i d e a s — c a n be attained simultaneously. Students who are l e f t alone to discover with Logo, Leron argues, end up using a "hacking" s t y l e of programming. Also, Riedesel and Clements (1985) note that the Progressive Education Movement showed that when chi l d r e n are l e f t i n control of t h e i r own learning, they l i m i t t h e i r learning range. To overcome these d i f f i c u l t i e s , Leron (1985) recommends a "quasi-Piagetian learning" environment i n which the students receive some d i r e c t i o n and are given time to r e f l e c t on t h e i r r e s u l t s . However, students are also given the opportunity to work on t h e i r 37 own projects because "exploration sparked by the student's own imagination and creative energies i s central to the Logo philosophy" (Torgerson, 1983, p. 6). Students receive more d i r e c t i o n i n i t i a l l y and then gradually become more independent (Vaidya and McKeeby, 1983). Clements (Computers i n Early.... 1985) also supports the quasi-Piagetian s e t t i n g and suggests that, "there needs to be a balance between teacher directed lessons, group problem-solving discussions and student-planned and executed projects" (p. 163). Many others support t h i s quasi-Piagetian s t y l e of teaching Logo. "Setting goals and sub-goals does not d i s t r a c t from the philosophy of Logo, i t rather enables the c h i l d and the teacher to d i r e c t t h e i r attention to the main objectives, and develop t h e i r own way of achieving them" (Mullan, 1984, p. 110). The teacher should teach the commands and provide time f o r group discussions so that the students may benefit from what t h e i r peers have learned. Hawkins (1985) reported an experiment i n which two upper elementary teachers taught Logo i n t h e i r classrooms f o r a two-year period. The teachers went through a process of i n t e r p r e t i n g and r e i n t e r p r e t i n g the value of teaching Logo. One teacher believed that Logo "was a self-expressive medium" so began teaching Logo with l i t t l e structure. He taught the commands but d i d not give the students any add i t i o n a l ideas. The second teacher provided new commands when the students were ready. He shared ideas with the students and they shared t h e i r ideas amongst themselves. Due to the student's performances, by the end of the study the teachers had changed t h e i r somewhat 38 unstructured views of teaching Logo. "Rather than viewing Logo as discovery-based learning, they saw i t as a complex symbol system requiring structured support" (p. 35). The teachers f e l t that the students d i d not have a good understanding of the language at the end of the study and that they would benefit from the s k i l l s being taught i n a coherent sequence. Kieren (1984), i n support of a more structured view, designed a sequence or i n s t r u c t i o n a l structure f o r teaching Logo. He contends that there are d e f i n i t e l e v e l s to learning Logo which include: 1. d i r e c t mode 2. naive programming mode 3. planned programming mode 4. formal programming mode The f i r s t two l e v e l s are i n the immediate mode and d i r e c t feedback occurs from a p a r t i c u l a r command but t h i s i s not formal programming. The degree of sop h i s t i c a t i o n at these l e v e l s depends on the words or commands introduced. The second stage, where preplanning i s s t i l l not involved, i s the beginning of simple programming. The l a s t two l e v e l s "represent more i n s i g h t f u l programming. These l e v e l s demand the a b i l i t y to make at l e a s t simple concrete generalizations and to pre-think the structure of the task" (p. 11). Due to the h i e r a r c h i c a l structure of Logo, Kieren recommends moving at a slow pace. He believes that i t i s , "Better to do sophisticated, successful things at a lower l e v e l , than simple but rather rote things at a higher l e v e l of language use" (p. 12). 39 Evaluation i s an important part of any teaching methodology. Logo, however, i s not meant to be evaluated as other subjects are i n the curriculum because i t i s self-paced and based on discovery learning (Riordon, 1982). Teachers, however, should be aware of the progress t h e i r students have made. Birch (1984) recommends the teacher to keep a Logo log book which records types of drawings, approaches to solving problems, r e p e t i t i o n of procedures, learning s t y l e , and anything unusual about how the student solves Logo problems. Jaworski and Brummel (1984) also suggest keeping anecdotal records and f i l e s of the student's work. This type of evaluation enables the teacher to follow the student's development i n Logo but does not contradict the Logo philosophy. Introducing Logo to Young Children The l i t e r a t u r e describes several d i f f e r e n t ways to introduce young ch i l d r e n to Logo. This section w i l l examine these methods. A popular suggestion i s having the children learn a single keystroke program. There are many software packages avail a b l e which allow young children to press sing l e keys to draw shapes, designs and pictures and to explore geometric concepts (for example, shape and angle). Children seem to have been successful and the programs e f f e c t i v e (Dobson & Richardson, c i t e d i n Kieren, 1984; Cathcart & Cathcart, c i t e d i n Kieren, 1984; Berdonneau, c i t e d i n Kieren, 1984). Clements (1983-84) refe r s to these programs as "s c a f f o l d i n g " and they enable the children to grasp 40 concepts that would have otherwise been beyond t h e i r a b i l i t i e s . He believes sing l e keystoke programs are necessary. "Without specially-designed assistance using Logo may be eit h e r a f r u s t r a t i n g experience or l i t t l e more than graphic fun fo r many young chil d r e n . . . Even with a 'f r i e n d l y ' and accessible language, l i k e Logo, research indicates that f u l l procedural programming i s a complex task f o r children as old as eight or nine years (Pea, Hawkins & Sheingold, 1983). However, i f given support i n t h e i r e f f o r t s even preschool childr e n have been reported to create graphics programs" (Clements, 1983-84, p. 24). Leggett (1984) suggests that the threshold f o r learning Logo may be lowered by providing these "platform programs". Flake et a l . (1985) also support the use of sin g l e keystroke programs. They reason that young ch i l d r e n do not have a good grasp of what large numbers represent but can s t i l l benefit from programming using the single keystroke programs. There are many of these programs avail a b l e on the market and they vary i n d i f f i c u l t y . Two singl e keystroke programs recommended by Birch (1984) include INSTANT and DELTA DRAWING (this notation symbolizes the registered trademark of DELTA DRAWING). She believes that, "Both of these programs are excellent introductions to Logo at any age and are e s p e c i a l l y good for young chi l d r e n " (p. 10). DELTA DRAWING introduces the children to procedural programming but i n a simpler way. The students do not become fr u s t r a t e d with the complexity of the syntax of the language (Birch, 1984). B a l l (1985) l i s t s some v a l i d reasons f o r using these types of programs i n i t i a l l y with young children. They include: 41 1. children's l i m i t e d keyboarding s k i l l s do not i n t e r f e r e with cognitive development 2. c h i l d r e n lack confidence with two d i g i t numbers 3. t o t a l number of commands i s small; most of the keyboard i s inoperative 4. the number of symbols and associated concepts i s small i n number and simple i n scope (p.374). The l i t e r a t u r e presents other reasons as well f o r using these programs. The children can concentrate on what they want the t u r t l e to create rather than focusing on the verbal aspect of the command (Vaidya and McKeeby, 1984). Children must remember single l e t t e r s f o r commands but do not need to concern themselves with correct s p e l l i n g s , spaces and numbers. Another j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r using these programs i s that most of the programs produce immediate feedback and v i s u a l r e s u l t s as soon as a key i s pressed which i s unlike true Logo (Tan, 1985). The procedure i s executed immediately without the c h i l d having to i n s t r u c t the computer to do so. Clements (1983-84) c i t e s two reasons why young childre n have d i f f i c u l t y with programming i n true Logo. They are psychomotor s k i l l s and thinking s k i l l s . Psychomotor s k i l l s r e f e r to s k i l l s such as typing s k i l l s , memory s k i l l s , and mathematical s k i l l s whereas the thinking s k i l l s include such things as planning, ordering, and remembering a sequence of in s t r u c t i o n s . To overcome these obstacles, Clements designed three l e v e l s of support programs f o r primary students. Level 1 was s i m i l a r to the many si n g l e keystroke programs available on the market but 42 with a few additions. Children used i t to define procedures and b u i l d other procedures. Level 2 incorporated "the usual Logo commands but i n addition u t i l i z e d several powerful programs provided by the teacher" (p. 25-26) which helped c h i l d r e n when they encountered d i f f i c u l t i e s . Level 3 used the Logo edi t o r as well as s p e c i a l procedures which were provided. F i r s t grade ch i l d r e n involved i n a three-month study which incorporated these l e v e l s demonstrated favourable r e s u l t s . How long should the childr e n use these s i n g l e keystroke programs? Birch (1984) suggests that t h i s depends on the i n d i v i d u a l . "The time a c h i l d spends on the introductory material before programming i n Logo depends upon the degree of readiness i n t e r e s t and p r i o r experience. Children learn at d i f f e r e n t rates and should be encouraged to work at a l e v e l which they f e e l comfortable" (p. 11). When students show signs of f r u s t r a t i o n with a program because i t i s l i m i t i n g what they can do, then they should be exposed to a more complex program (Birch, 1984). Numerous other on and off-computer Logo t r a n s i t i o n a c t i v i t i e s are also mentioned throughout the l i t e r a t u r e . These include: 1. Play T u r t l e (Campbell, 1985; Jaworski and Brummel, 1984; Martin et a l . , 1982; Munro-Mavrias, 1983; Reimer, 1985; Torgerson, 1983) 2. T u r t l e i n the Pond (Campbell, 1985) 3. T u r t l e Talk (Horn, 1986) 4. Masking Tape (Horn, 1986) 43 5. Milk Carton Forest (Horn, 1986) 6. T u r t l e Town (Horn, 1986) 7. Simon Says (Horn, 1986) 8. Mr. Robot (Hawaii State, 1984) 9. Gameboard (Hawaii State, 1984) 10. Geometric shapes (Martin et a l . , 1982) 11. Craft projects (Martin et a l . , 1982) 12. Cooking experiences Martin et a l . (1982) suggest that these a c t i v i t i e s are very valuable since they help childr e n expand t h e i r experience with Logo and thus increase t h e i r learning through Logo. Many of them enable the student to better r e l a t e h i s movements to the movements of the t u r t l e promoting "body syntocity". Others fos t e r procedural thinking s k i l l s by requiring the c h i l d to follow a sequence of procedures. Careful attention should be paid to the introductory a c t i v i t i e s and programs presented to young childre n so that t h e i r f i r s t experiences with Logo can be p o s i t i v e and successful. Summary of the Review of L i t e r a t u r e The review of the l i t e r a t u r e examined many of the issues r e l a t i n g to young children using computers. Studies and opinions both supported and opposed the use of computers with young chi l d r e n . The l i t e r a t u r e did not present overwhelming evidence to support e i t h e r side of t h i s issue. Some researchers d i d not even regard i t as an issue. They believe that since computers 44 are being used with young children, t h i s process w i l l not be reversed. Instead, i t i s important to determine how the computer should be used rather than whether i t should be used. The next t o p i c of discussion i n the review of the l i t e r a t u r e focused on introducing programming to young children. Once again there are those who favour young children learning to program and those who strongly oppose i t . Arguments supporting both sides were presented. Supporters have claimed and some studies have concluded that learning to program can be of benefit to the programmer both i n t e l l e c t u a l l y and s o c i a l l y . However, the r e s u l t s of the studies investigating the cognitive benefits were often c o n f l i c t i n g . I t i s s t i l l too early to conclusively state that learning to program promotes cognitive growth. S p e c i f i c areas of i n t e l l e c t u a l development may improve more than others but studies have not yet c l e a r l y determined these areas. The research d i d suggest, however, that using the computer and learning to program i n Logo promoted s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n between students. Numerous reasons were c i t e d why programming i s too abstract fo r young c h i l d r e n but there i s considerable evidence that young chi l d r e n are indeed learning to program at a basic l e v e l . I f programming can be considered to have d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s then i t may not be too abstract f o r young children. I f young children are going to learn a programming language then i t i s important that a suitable and developmentally appropriate language i s selected. The l i t e r a t u r e unequivocally supports using Logo with young children. A Logo environment 45 provides a supportive s e t t i n g i n which children investigate and explore the language to make discoveries on t h e i r own. However, some researchers suggest that the Logo learning environment should have some structure to help students make these discoveries and to help prevent stagnation at a p a r t i c u l a r programming l e v e l . In the f i n a l section of the chapter ways of introducing Logo to young childre n with a focus on singl e keystroke programs was examined. These programs provide support f o r young children. They eliminate obstacles which make Logo more d i f f i c u l t f o r the young c h i l d to master. Numerous off-computer a c t i v i t i e s were also l i s t e d . Many of these help students r e l a t e the movement of the t u r t l e to t h e i r bodily movements. Others promote development of s k i l l s necessary, for programming. Based on the l i t e r a t u r e the focus of the study was refined. The study aimed to further investigate issues about young children learning to program. The language chosen was Logo and i t was introduced through a singl e keystroke program and off-computer a c t i v i t i e s . Two methods of teaching were selected, a structured approach and a guided discovery approach, to determine how they affected young children learning to program. 46 Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY The purpose of the study was to examine the appropriateness of introducing computer programming to kindergarten children. In t h i s study a computer software program c a l l e d DELTA DRAWING was used. In the study several issues r e l a t i n g to the programming a b i l i t i e s of these childr e n were addressed. The c a p a b i l i t i e s of the childr e n to program were examined; how the learning environment and teaching technique affected the programming a b i l i t i e s of the children and the a c q u i s i t i o n of s p e c i f i c s k i l l s were examined; and, the benefits of learning to program were examined. F i r s t , t h i s chapter presents the questions r e l a t i n g to these issues. Then there i s a discussion of the sample and the design which includes a discussion of the intervention of DELTA DRAWING and the two groups. In the second part of the chapter the instrumentation i s discussed. The s t a t i s t i c a l component of t h i s study was a mixed-factor design. Pretests and posttests on f i v e d i f f e r e n t measures as well as a programming posttest were administered to two d i s t i n c t groups. Details of these t e s t s are presented. The study also contained a q u a l i t a t i v e component. Data were c o l l e c t e d through observations, a student interview and a parent questionnaire. Information i s provided f o r each of these instruments. 47 The t h i r d section of the chapter outlines the procedure of the study and the l a s t section discusses data analysis. Questions of the Study The questions of the study arose from an examination of the l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to t h i s t o p i c and concerns of the researcher about the subject. Certain issues kept recurring and some of these have been chosen as the focus f o r t h i s study: Programming C a p a b i l i t i e s of Kindergarten Children Developmental Issues 1. Can kindergarten children learn to program? 2. Is programming too abstract and complex f o r kindergarten children? S u i t a b i l i t y of Single Keystroke Program 3. Are single keystroke programs a suitable means f o r introducing programming to kindergarten children? 4. What are kindergarten students 1 c a p a b i l i t i e s i n learning to program with single keystroke programs? 48 Type of Programming Experience 5. Is learning to program a f r u s t r a t i n g or rewarding experience f o r kindergarten children? 6. What d i f f i c u l t i e s do students encounter when learning to program with sing l e keystroke programs? Teaching Technique / Learning Environment 7. Is a structured teaching s t y l e appropriate to teach kindergarten children to use a single keystroke program? 8. Is a guided discovery approach appropriate to teach kindergarten children to use a single keystroke program? 9. Does the teaching technique a f f e c t the a b i l i t y to program? 10. Does working with a partner a f f e c t learning to program? 11. Does working on a computer promote or i n h i b i t s o c i a l interaction? Benefits of Programming 12. Does programming with DELTA DRAWING a f f e c t children's numeral recognition? 13. Does programming with DELTA DRAWING a f f e c t children's upper case l e t t e r recognition? 14. Does programming with DELTA DRAWING a f f e c t children's understanding of d i r e c t i o n a l / p o s i t i o n a l terms? 49 15. Does programming with DELTA DRAWING a f f e c t children's recognition of geometric shapes? 16. Does programming with DELTA DRAWING a f f e c t procedural thinking s k i l l s ? 17. Does the teaching technique a f f e c t the a c q u i s i t i o n of s p e c i f i c s k i l l s ? 18. Is there an in t e r a c t i o n of teaching technique and the ac q u i s i t i o n of s p e c i f i c s k i l l s ? Sample Forty kindergarten students p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study. The sample consisted of 21 boys and 19 g i r l s . The children, p r i m a r i l y middle-class, attended an elementary school i n Richmond, B r i t i s h Columbia. The students attended school for 2.5 hours per day. Sessions were held i n the morning and i n the afternoon. The 22 morning class students were assigned to the Structured Treatment Group and i t was comprised of 12 boys and 10 g i r l s . The 18 afternoon class students were assigned to the Guided Discovery Treatment Group and i t was comprised of 9 boys and 9 g i r l s . A convenience sampling was used because random assignment was not possible. In September, cl a s s assignments were made on the basis of order of r e g i s t r a t i o n . Where possible, the school accomodated parental requests f o r t h e i r c h i l d to begin with e i t h e r mornings or afternoons. 50 Design This study had two parts: a quantitative part and a q u a l i t a t i v e part. The quantitative part employed a mixed-factor design. Performance was measured by f i v e pretests and posttests and a programming posttest. Data f o r the q u a l i t a t i v e component were c o l l e c t e d through observation reports, student interviews and a parent questionnaire. The researcher considered attitudes of the students, i n t e r e s t l e v e l of the students, attitudes of the parents, degree of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , and performance on lesson assignments (for the Structured Treatment Group only because the Guided Discovery Treatment Group was not given compulsory assignments). Intervention A l l students i n the study used the single keystroke programming language c a l l e d DELTA DRAWING on the computers. The computer sessions occurred for four weeks between l a t e February and mid-March. Seven to ten computers were i n the classroom for these sessions. For both groups there were three sessions a week for three weeks and two sessions the l a s t week. Each session was between 45 minutes and one hour i n duration. Both groups received the same number of sessions (11) f o r the same length of time. The sessions, for both groups, involved group time, on-computer time and off-computer time (students worked on 51 programming or computer related tasks). During some lessons, the students worked i n d i v i d u a l l y on the computers but at other times they worked with partners. The school d i d not have a computer room so the computers were wheeled on t r o l l e y s to the kindergarten classroom at the appropriate time by the grade-seven students. Consequently, the structure of the sessions often vari e d from what was i n i t i t a l l y planned because i t was affected by the a v a i l a b i l i t y or prompt a r r i v a l of the computer hardware. Lessons frequently were modified because of problems i n one of these areas. Treatments This study involved two treatment groups. The 40 kindergarten students were assigned to ei t h e r the Structured Treatment Group (the morning class) or the Guided Discovery Treatment Group (the afternoon c l a s s ) . The treatments d i f f e r e d by the teaching technique which was employed to present the program DELTA DRAWING. In the review of the l i t e r a t u r e , opinions varied about the recommended teaching technique f o r teaching Logo-type programming. Papert, a main proponent of Logo, i s opposed to any type of structure when students use Logo. He believes that they should have complete freedom to explore and discover the "powerful ideas" of the language on t h e i r own (Papert, 1980). Others believe that some structure i s necessary; otherwise, the students w i l l not l i k e l y discover the d i f f i c u l t concepts on t h e i r own (Leron, 1985; Mullan, 1984). Thus, t h i s 52 study focused on two d i f f e r e n t teaching techniques and aimed to compare how the two techniques affected the performance l e v e l of the students i n using the programming language. The Structured Treatment Group The Structured Treatment Group (hereafter refer r e d to as the Structured Group) followed a series of eleven structured lessons about DELTA DRAWING which were presented by the teacher over a one-month period. The teacher used a d i d a c t i c method of teaching and the students followed the lessons step-by-step. Students had li m i t e d choices during the lessons. The teacher assigned both the on- and off-computer tasks. The lessons were c a r e f u l l y planned by the teacher before the study commenced. A scope and sequence f o r the introduction of the commands were determined and det a i l e d lesson plans were drawn up. Each lesson plan (Appendix H) included the objectives of the lesson, a l i s t of the materials needed, the procedure of the lesson, information about supplementary off-computer a c t i v i t i e s and d e t a i l s of the assigned p r o j e c t ( s ) . During the course of the sessions a few lessons were modified due to d i f f i c u l t i e s with previous lessons. The teacher d i d not i n s i s t on moving on to the next lesson without some degree of understanding by the students on the previous lesson. Each lesson f o r the Structured Group involved: 1. Group i n s t r u c t i o n . This was given to the whole class by the teacher. During t h i s time new commands were introduced, commands were reviewed, questions were 53 answered, previous lessons were discussed, supplementary a c t i v i t i e s were introduced and assigned tasks were presented. 2. Instruction i n DELTA DRAWING. This was presented through a ser i e s of lessons which progressed through d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s . 3. Supplementary off-computer a c t i v i t i e s . The a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t e d to the lessons and were provided f o r each lesson. These a c t i v i t i e s included such things as playing t u r t l e , playing games, using gameboards, and discussing geometric shapes. The teacher assigned the students a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y f o r each lesson. 4. Assigned tasks. On-computer projects were assigned to the students for each lesson. Depending upon the outcome of the previous day's project r e s u l t s , the assigned task was sometimes repeated f o r a second day to improve the mastery l e v e l of the task. Some lessons involved both on-computer and off-computer assignments. A b r i e f summary of each of the eleven lessons f o r the Structured Group follows. Lesson 1. Before the lesson started, the teacher used masking tape to form a large (2m x 2m) square, to represent the computer screen on the f l o o r . Then the students were gathered i n a large group and the teacher introduced the program DELTA DRAWING to the students. She showed them the " t u r t l e " (cursor) on a computer screen and discussed how they would be learning to control the t u r t l e to move i t around the screen. The teacher 54 explained that the t u r t l e only moved i f i t was given c e r t a i n commands. The commands Draw (D), Right (R), Left (L) , Move (M) and Erase (E) were then introduced and the teacher used wall charts to a s s i s t her explanation. The wall charts had the commands printed on the l e f t side and what the command did ( p i c t o r i a l representation and word) on the r i g h t side. The teacher used the computer to demonstrate the e f f e c t of each command on the t u r t l e . Next the students were asked to s i t around the masking tape computer screen on the f l o o r . One c h i l d was selected to be a " t u r t l e " and asked to stand i n the center of the screen. The teacher gave t h i s student computer commands and helped him move i n the correct manner around the masking tape screen. Then the students took turns d i r e c t i n g the c h i l d who acted as the t u r t l e . Students were asked to f i n d a partner. One c h i l d i n each p a i r was given the off-computer assignment c a l l e d T u r t l e Tracks 1-oc ("oc" referred to off-computer) on paper. There were s i x parts to the project and i t l i s t e d the computer commands. For example, the f i r s t part l i s t e d the following commands: D, D, R, D, L. One student was directed to read the commands while the second student was to act l i k e the t u r t l e following the commands c o r r e c t l y and walking i t out on the f l o o r . Once a l l commands had been read by the f i r s t student, the children switched r o l e s . The students were then gathered together. The teacher explained the computer assignment c a l l e d T u r t l e Tracks 1-c ("c" referred to computer). Students were asked to draw l i n e s on the screen i n d i f f e r e n t positions. Eight d i f f e r e n t l i n e s were drawn 55 on the assignment sheet. Students were also asked to put the t u r t l e i n eight d i f f e r e n t positions as indicated on the assignment sheet. The teacher assigned the students to partners and then to the computers. Assignments were d i s t r i b u t e d . Students worked on the computers u n t i l the end of the session. Lesson 2. The teacher read the story The Tu r t l e and the  Rabbit to s t a r t the lesson. She emphasized how a r e a l t u r t l e moves slowly and st e a d i l y and so does the t u r t l e on the screen. Next the f i v e commands introduced i n Lesson 1 were reviewed with the teacher r e f e r r i n g to the wall charts. Special emphasis was placed on the difference between the commands D and M. Different coloured s t i c k e r s were put on each c h i l d ' s r i g h t and l e f t hands. The teacher directed the students to move about the f l o o r . The students pretended to be t u r t l e s and responded to the commands. The r i g h t and l e f t commands were focused on during t h i s part of the lesson. Next the students were gathered together f o r the teacher to explain the computer project. A s t i c k e r was put on the computer screen with masking tape on the back. The chi l d r e n were asked to move the t u r t l e so that i t pointed towards the s t i c k e r . Students were assigned to partners and computers. Stickers were put on the screens and the students were asked to complete the assigned task. When they f i n i s h e d the task, they put up t h e i r hand to indicate to the teacher that they were fi n i s h e d . The students were given sheets of paper with a picture of a t u r t l e on i t . Students were asked to put the s t i c k e r from the screen on t h i s 56 sheet of paper and a new s t i c k e r was put on t h e i r screen. This procedure of receiving a s t i c k e r for suc e s s f u l l y completed work was referre d to as the s t i c k e r page system. Students were gathered on the f l o o r away from the computers. The Turtl e Board Game was explained to the c l a s s . Small boards (70cm x 30cm) as well as small t r i a n g u l a r cardboard t u r t l e s (5cm e q u i l a t e r a l triangle) were d i s t r i b u t e d . The chi l d r e n were asked to put the t u r t l e i n the center of the board and to locate the nose of the t u r t l e . Students worked with partners. One student moved the cardboard t u r t l e while the second student gave the commands. Students switched r o l e s upon the teacher's d i r e c t i o n . The materials were c o l l e c t e d and the teacher explained the second computer task. Stickers were once again put on the screens but the students were asked to move the t u r t l e so that i t h i d under the s t i c k e r . Students were assigned to partners and to computers. The s t i c k e r page system was used when the c h i l d completed the task. The teacher recorded the t o t a l number of s t i c k e r s that the students received during the computer sessions. Lesson 3. P r i o r to the session the teacher made four mazes on the f l o o r using masking tape. Students were assembled and the f i v e basic commands were reviewed once again. The teacher used the wall charts f o r reference. The students were asked to s i t around one of the f l o o r mazes and the teacher explained what to do. One c h i l d was selected to be the t u r t l e . The remaining students were asked to give the t u r t l e d i r e c t i o n s to move him around the maze. Students chose partners and the cl a s s was 57 divided into four groups. Each group was assigned to a d i f f e r e n t f l o o r maze. Each c h i l d i n a p a i r took h i s or her turn as a t u r t l e and gi v i n g the commands. The groups were rotated so that students moved through more than one maze. Students were gathered and the computer assignment—the maze transparencies were explained. Six d i f f e r e n t mazes were drawn on s i x pieces of acetate with a marker. The transparency was attached to the computer screen with masking tape. Students were instructed to move the t u r t l e around the maze. For the example the teacher typed i n the commands that the students suggested. Students chose t h e i r partners and computers were assigned. Mazes were attached to each computer screen. The s t i c k e r page system was used when the students completed the task. They were encouraged to complete more than one maze. Lesson 4. Before the lesson began the teacher made four curved mazes on the f l o o r with masking tape. The commands introduced to the students during the f i r s t week of lessons were reviewed by playing a guessing game. The teacher would give a clue about one of the commands and the students had to determine the command. Seven new commands [Colour (C), Hide (H), Redraw (SHIFT G), and s c r o l l i n g commands ( f , i , -> and<-)] were introduced. The teacher used the wall charts and the computer to explain these. Next the discussion focused on other types of l i n e s that could be drawn on the computer besides s t r a i g h t l i n e s . Curves and shapes were suggested. 58 The students were gathered around one of the curved f l o o r mazes and a c h i l d was chosen to be a t u r t l e . The remainder of the c l a s s was asked to d i r e c t the t u r t l e around the maze. A second maze was done with a d i f f e r e n t c h i l d emulating the t u r t l e . Next the class discussed drawing l e t t e r s on the screen which would incorporate drawing both st r a i g h t l i n e s and curved l i n e s . Students were directed to draw t h e i r i n i t i a l s on the computer. Partners were assigned and the students worked on t h i s task on the computers. Continuing to work with partners, the childre n were assigned to a f l o o r maze. Each c h i l d i n the p a i r was directed to act as a t u r t l e and to give the commands before moving to a new maze. Children were then reassigned to the computers i n p a i r s and were instructed to continue drawing l e t t e r s . Lesson 5. The seven commands introduced i n the previous lesson were reviewed. The teacher l e d a discussion about how to draw curves on the computer. A l l childr e n were asked to f i n d a space on the f l o o r and the teacher gave the students d i r e c t i o n s to walk out a curve. This procedure was repeated. The students were gathered and the teacher introduced the l e t t e r mazes. The twenty-six upper case l e t t e r s were i n d i v i d u a l l y drawn on pieces of acetate with a marker. A l e t t e r maze was attached to the computer screen with masking tape. The students were asked to move the t u r t l e around the l e t t e r on the screen. The children were directed to press S when they were f i n i s h e d a l e t t e r to save the procedure they had typed into the computer and to put the 59 t u r t l e back i n the center of the screen. Students chose t h e i r partners and they were assigned to computers. Since the computers were delayed i n a r r i v i n g , there was no time during the session f o r an off-computer a c t i v i t y . Lesson 6. A l l the commands that had been introduced to date were reviewed by playing a guessing game. The teacher asked questions which began with the phrase, "What do I press i f . . . ? " The students had to determine the correct command from the clue. Next the teacher reviewed the l e t t e r transparencies which were introduced i n the previous lesson. She attached a l e t t e r to the screen and had the students suggest how to move the t u r t l e to draw the l e t t e r . The new computer assignment c a l l e d T u r t l e Tracks 2-c was then introduced. Students were asked to type i n the commands as they were printed on the sheet and then to draw the p i c t u r e which they saw on the screen on t h e i r paper. The "Logo Board Game" was explained to the c l a s s . Four students could play the game at once. I t reinforced the basic commands of DELTA DRAWING which included D, M, R, L and E. These commands were written on cards. Each player had a t u r t l e marker. A die was r o l l e d and a card was turned over. The player would move h i s or her t u r t l e the correct number of times i n the manner stated on the command card. For example r o l l i n g a s i x and turning over a D card would mean the player moved ahead s i x spaces. The f i r s t person to land on a "Logo" square was the winner. 60 Half the students were assigned to the computers. They were instructed to complete one l e t t e r transparency and one Tu r t l e Tracks 2-c sheet (there were s i x to choose from). The remaining students were divided into groups of four and played the Logo Board Game. The two groups switched a f t e r f i f t e e n minutes. The l a s t ten minutes of the session were spent on the computer. Students worked with partners and chose to do e i t h e r a l e t t e r transparency or a Turtl e Tracks 2-c sheet. Lesson 7. P r i o r to the lesson the teacher made each of the f i v e basic s h a p e s — c i r c l e , square, rectangle, t r i a n g l e and diamond on the f l o o r with masking tape. The teacher used a t t r i b u t e blocks and pattern blocks to have the students i d e n t i f y the f i v e d i f f e r e n t shapes and to determine d i s t i n g u i s h i n g features of each shape. Students were then gathered around one of the shapes on the f l o o r . One c h i l d was picked to be a t u r t l e and the other students gave the di r e c t i o n s to move him around the shape. This procedure was repeated with a second shape. Next the shape transparencies were introduced to the c l a s s . The f i v e basic shapes were drawn i n d i v i d u a l l y on pieces of acetate with a marker. The shapes were attached to the computer with masking tape. The children were asked to move the t u r t l e around the shape. The s t i c k e r page system was reviewed. The off-computer assignment c a l l e d T u r t l e Tracks 2-oc was explained. The students had to complete each row by copying the shape at the beginning of each row several times to f i l l up the space. 61 The cl a s s was divided into two groups. One group was assigned to the computers (children worked independently) and directed to work on the shape transparencies. The s t i c k e r page system was used when the students completed a task. Children i n the second group were asked to f i n d a partner and move around each of the shapes drawn on the f l o o r . Each p a i r was asked to take turns being a t u r t l e and givi n g the d i r e c t i o n s . Then t h i s group was asked to complete Turt l e Tracks 2-oc. The two groups were rotated a f t e r f i f t e e n minutes. Lesson 8. Four new commands [U Turn (U), f i l l shape (CTRL F), new screen (CTRL N) and erase picture (CTRL E)] were introduced during t h i s lesson and two commands (Save and C) were reviewed. The wall charts were used i n the explanation. The f i v e basic shapes were reviewed by playing a game. The teacher provided clues about a shape and the students had to guess the correct shape. Next the shape d i r e c t i o n wall charts were introduced. The teacher had printed on large cards the commands needed to draw the f i v e shapes i n two d i f f e r e n t s i z e s (large and small). There were ten cards i n t o t a l . These were hung on the wall. The computer assignment c a l l e d T u r t l e Tracks 3-c was s i m i l a r to the wall charts. Each shape page had di r e c t i o n s for a shape i n two d i f f e r e n t sizes, students were directed to type i n the commands i n the proper order. As each command was typed, students were encouraged to cross o f f that command on t h e i r paper with a p e n c i l . Once the shapes were drawn, the chi l d r e n were asked to f i l l the shape with colour. 62 The c l a s s was divided into two groups and one group was assigned to the computers. The students were instructed to t r y to complete at l e a s t two shape pages. The s t i c k e r page system was employed. The off-computer group was given in s t r u c t i o n s on Tur t l e Tracks 3-oc. The teacher gave the students o r a l d i r e c t i o n s to colour the shapes on t h e i r paper d i f f e r e n t colours. The two groups switched a f t e r f i f t e e n minutes. Lesson 9. The f i v e basic shapes were reviewed with the class by playing a game. The teacher held up one of the f i v e shapes and the students had to hop the correct number of times f o r each side. Next the teacher reviewed the shape d i r e c t i o n cards on the wall. She e l i c i t e d from the students the patterns that they could see i n the d i r e c t i o n s . The computer project, T u r t l e Tracks 3-c, was reviewed. The teacher d i d an example on the computer. Half the students were assigned to computers and directed to complete two shape d i r e c t i o n sheets (Turtle Tracks 3-c). The s t i c k e r page system was used when each task was fi n i s h e d . Geoboards and e l a s t i c bands were d i s t r i b u t e d to the off-computer group. Students were instructed to make the four l i n e a r shapes i n d i f f e r e n t s i z e s on the geoboards. The two groups switched a f t e r f i f t e e n minutes. Lesson 10. The teacher l e d a discussion which focused on the s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences of drawing on the computer and drawing with paper and p e n c i l . The teacher then presented four p i c t u r e f i l e s , one at a time, that existed on the DELTA DRAWING disk when i t was purchased. Each picture was loaded onto the 63 computer and discussed with the students. The teacher intended f o r the students to see the vast p o t e n t i a l of the computer program which they were using. Next the teacher used experience chart paper and a marker to draw a face on the chart. She used the students' ideas about how to draw the face and what parts were needed. The teacher provided d i r e c t i o n when i t was necessary. She then explained the computer assignments which included drawing a face on the computer and then drawing any pic t u r e . She recorded the children's intended ideas f o r pictures. Half the group was assigned to computers and directed to work on the computer projects. The remaining students were given a choice of using geoboards, pattern blocks, a t t r i b u t e blocks or paper and p e n c i l o f f the computer. Students who chose to use paper and p e n c i l were asked to draw a picture of something they would l i k e to draw on the computer. The two groups switched a f t e r f i f t e e n minutes. Lesson 11. P r i o r to the lesson the teacher set up videotape equipment. A student teacher operated t h i s during the lesson. On an experience chart, the teacher drew a picture of something that could be drawn on the computer—a house with trees. She e l i c i t e d from the students the parts of the picture the order to draw i t i n , how to draw i t and where to draw i t . Then the teacher asked the students what they would l i k e to draw on the computer and recorded t h e i r thoughts. Half the class was assigned to computers and asked to draw t h e i r p i c t u r e . The 6 4 off-computer group could choose to use the geoboards, the pattern blocks, the a t t r i b u t e blocks or paper and p e n c i l . The two groups rotated a f t e r twenty minutes. The Guided Discovery Treatment Group The Guided Discovery Treatment Group (hereafter referred to as the Guided Discovery Group) had eleven sessions over a one-month period which focused on DELTA DRAWING. The students were given some guidance by the teacher during the sessions, but intervention was l i m i t e d . The children were encouraged to make discoveries on t h e i r own and to share t h e i r knowledge with t h e i r classmates. Commands were presented on wall charts and the teacher suggested to the students to r e f e r to the charts and to explore and investigate the d i f f e r e n t commands. At the end of the second lesson, a l l the commands that the Structured Group would be exposed to were present i n t h i s groups' environment. The commands were presented on wall charts and posted on the walls. I f the teacher deemed the time to be appropriate or the student asked f o r assistance, i n d i v i d u a l students were shown, at t h e i r computers, how to perform c e r t a i n tasks. When students asked the teacher f o r help, the teacher frequently redirected the student to another c h i l d who had knowledge i n that p a r t i c u l a r area. I f another student was not able to help, the teacher would provide assistance and would ask probing questions to involve the student rather than show the student a formula f o r solving the problem. During the four weeks of the study the teacher 65 occasionally created si t u a t i o n s to encourage the students to move to a higher l e v e l of working with the program. The eleven sessions f o r the Guided Discovery Group involved: 1. Group discussions. These involved both the students and the teacher. The teacher would ask leading questions to guide the d i r e c t i o n of the discussion. These sessions presented an explanation of the commands f o r the programming language, a sharing time of what the children had learned during previous sessions, questions by the teacher to help guide but not d i c t a t e the course of the computer time and an introduction and/or an explanation of the supplementary off-computer a c t i v i t i e s . 2. Command charts. The commands for DELTA DRAWING were presented to these students on charts and each command was explained by the teacher. Students used the commands when they chose to do so, i f they chose to do so and i n any order. Students used free exploration to explore the program. 3. Supplementary off-computer a c t i v i t i e s . A number of these a c t i v i t i e s (chosen by the teacher) were made available to t h i s group during the non-computer time of the sessions. The students chose an a c t i v i t y from a selected l i s t of a c t i v i t i e s . A b r i e f summary for each of the eleven lessons f o r the Guided Discovery Group follows. 66 Lesson 1. The students were introduced to the computer program DELTA DRAWING. The teacher showed the students the t u r t l e on a computer screen and discussed how they would be c o n t r o l l i n g the t u r t l e to move i t around the screen. Five basic commands (D, M, R, L and E) were introduced to the students using the wall charts f o r reference. The teacher demonstrated on the computer. The chil d r e n were assigned partners and computers. They were directed to explore the f i v e basic commands on the computer. Off the computer the teacher directed the students to work with a partner. Students could choose from two a c t i v i t i e s . Students could d i r e c t large t r i a n g u l a r cardboard t u r t l e s (20cm e q u i l a t e r a l triangle) attached to straws around the f l o o r by giving i t the proper commands. The a l t e r n a t i v e a c t i v i t y was using the Tu r t l e Board Game (as described i n Lesson 2 of the Structured Group Lessons) which involved d i r e c t i n g small t r i a n g u l a r cardboard t u r t l e s around boards. E x p l i c i t d i r e c t i o n s fo r these a c t i v i t i e s were not provided by the teacher. She only instructed the chidren to move the t u r t l e s using the computer commands. Students could choose more than one a c t i v i t y during the off-computer time. The teacher gathered the cla s s to discuss what they had discovered during the computer and off-computer a c t i v i t i e s . Lesson 2. The teacher discussed a l l the remaining wall charts and commands. She used the computer to demonstrate how the commands affected the t u r t l e . Children were assigned partners and computers. They were directed to explore and 67 investigate the commands presented on the wall charts. Off the computer the students could choose from manipulating the large cardboard t u r t l e s or the small cardboard t u r t l e s . The session ended with a discussion period about what was drawn on the computers and how to use the off-computer materials properly. Lesson 3. The students b r i e f l y discussed some of the d i f f e r e n t pictures they had drawn on the screen. Then the teacher directed them to think about what else they could draw. Students chose partners and were assigned to computers. They engaged i n free exploration on the computers. Off the computer students could use the large and small cardboard t u r t l e s or move around the mazes on the f l o o r (used with the Structured Group). Students had two sessions of f i f t e e n minutes on the computer and ten minutes o f f the computer. The l a s t off-computer time was followed by a short group discussion during which students shared t h e i r discoveries of the day. Lesson 4. Students discussed what they had discovered on the computer during the previous week's sessions. Partners and computers were assigned for the free exploration period on the computers. Off the computer students once again could choose to use the cardboard t u r t l e s or the f l o o r mazes. Students had f i f t e e n minutes on the computer, ten minutes o f f the computer and another f i f t e e n minutes on the computer. There was a b r i e f sharing time at the end of the session. Children shared t h e i r discoveries and one c h i l d demonstrated what he had learned on the computer. 68 Lesson 5. The teacher r e c i t e d a poem about a t u r t l e to get the students' attention and then she taught the students the rhyme. The teacher directed the students' thoughts during the group time. She asked the students: 1) to explain what the wall charts were fo r and how they could be used; 2) to explain the difference between the commands D and M; 3) i f they thought i t was possible to draw l e t t e r s on the screen; and f i n a l l y , 4) what else could be drawn on the computer screen besides f i l l i n g i t with l i n e s . The students were divided into two groups. One group worked on the computers and were engaged i n free exploration. The other group chose from the manipulatives that had been previously introduced to t h i s group as well as the curved f l o o r mazes. The rules of the games were reviewed. The two groups were rotated a f t e r f i f t e e n minutes and then the students worked with partners f o r the l a s t ten minutes of the session. Lesson 6. P r i o r to the lesson the teacher drew l e t t e r s on a few of the screens to see i f the childr e n would notice them. There was a b r i e f discussion period during which the rules of the off-computer a c t i v i t i e s were reviewed and the Logo Board Game was introduced. The class was divided into two groups. One group explored f r e e l y on the computers. The maze transparencies (used with the Structured Group) were avail a b l e f o r any student who wished to use them. The second group chose an a c t i v i t y from the manipulatives which had already been introduced, the f l o o r mazes 69 and the Logo Board Game. The two groups switched a f t e r f i f t e e n minutes. Then students worked fo r ten minutes with partners on the computers. The session ended with a sharing time. Lesson 7. Before the lesson started the teacher drew simple pictures, l e t t e r s and shapes on some of the computer screens. A group discussion reviewed the r e s u l t s of the previous week. The clas s was divided into two groups and one group worked on the computers. Shape transparencies (used with the Structured Group) were made ava i l a b l e to t h i s group. Students engaged i n free exploration on the computers. The teacher asked the students probing questions about t h e i r drawings and t r i e d to lead them to a higher l e v e l of programming. Off the computer the students selected an a c t i v i t y from the manipulatives, the f l o o r mazes and the Logo Board Game. Af t e r f i f t e e n minutes the two groups switched over. Lesson 8. The r e s u l t s of the l a s t lesson were reviewed during the discussion period. Students explained how to f i l l shapes with colour and discussed d i f f e r e n t types of drawings. Half the cl a s s was assigned to free exploration on the computers. The teacher reinforced any indications of planned programming. She also suggested to a few students how to combine shapes to make a new picture. The off-computer group selected an a c t i v i t y from the geoboards, the pattern blocks, the a t t r i b u t e blocks, the Logo Board Game and the small and large cardboard t u r t l e s . The groups rotated a f t e r f i f t e e n minutes. There was a short discussion period at the end of the session. 70 Lesson 9. The discussion period focused on the v a r i e t y of pictures that could be drawn on the computer. Students made suggestions about what they would l i k e to draw on the computer. As with previous lessons, there was a computer group and an off-computer group. The computer group engaged i n free exloration on the computers with guidance from the teacher. The off-computer group chose an a c t i v i t y from the same materials that were put out i n Lesson 8. The two groups switched a f t e r f i f t e e n minutes. Lesson 10. Before the lesson started the teacher loaded a picture f i l e that was on the DELTA DRAWING disk when i t was purchased. During group time the teacher presented three other picture f i l e s from the program disk. The students inquired about who drew the pictures and about i n t e r e s t i n g features of the pictures. The group time also included a presentation of a student's drawing of a shark which was completed i n Lesson 9. The p i c t u r e was put on the computer and the c h i l d explained i t to the remainder of the c l a s s . He was given a printout of the picture. The teacher asked the students what they would l i k e to draw on the computer during the session and she recorded t h e i r thoughts. Students were then assigned to computer and off-computer groups i n the usual manner and the two groups rotated a f t e r f i f t e e n minutes. A l l materials that had been previously introduced were made availa b l e to the off-computer group. 71 Lesson 11. P r i o r to the lesson the videotape equipment was set up. A student teacher operated i t during the lesson. The group discussion provided time f o r eight students to present to the c l a s s t h e i r computer pictures from the previous lesson. The clas s was divided into a computer and off-computer group. The computer group engaged i n free exploration and the off-computer group selected from the materials provided i n previous lessons. Students worked fo r twenty minutes and then switched the type of a c t i v i t y . Instrumentation Pretests and Posttests The kindergarten students i n both groups were given f i v e pretests and s i x posttests. They were i n d i v i d u a l l y given f i v e pretests and posttests to assess the benefits of learning to program. Four of these t e s t s were BRIGANCE (this notation symbolizes the registered trademark f o r BRIGANCE) standardized t e s t s of which three were from the BRIGANCE Diagnostic Inventory  of Basic S k i l l s and one was from the BRIGANCE Diagnostic  Inventory of Early Development. The f i f t h t e s t , a Procedural Thinking Test, was designed by the researcher. The s i x t h posttest was a Programming Test which assessed the students a b i l i t i e s to program. 72 In the review of the l i t e r a t u r e several studies suggested that child r e n benefit i n t e l l e c t u a l l y from learning a programming language. The pretests and posttests aimed to examine t h i s issue for t h i s study. The following t e s t s were administered: 1. Numeral Recognition (BRIGANCE Inventory of Basic S k i l l s ) . 2. Upper Case Letter Recognition (BRIGANCE Inventory of  Basic S k i l l s ) . 3. D i r e c t i o n a l / P o s i t i o n a l S k i l l s (BRIGANCE Inventory of  Basic S k i l l s ) . 4. Design Concepts (BRIGANCE Inventory of Early  Development). 5. Procedural Thinking Test (designed by researcher). The concepts and s k i l l s assessed i n these t e s t s were determined by the researcher to r e l a t e to the programming language DELTA DRAWING. The pretests and posttests were intended to determine whether there was a change i n the l e v e l of understanding of the concepts and s k i l l s a f t e r exposure to DELTA DRAWING. Numeral Recognition Test For the BRIGANCE Numeral Recognition Test the researcher asked the kindergarten student to i d e n t i f y and name the numerals from one to ten. The numerals were presented i n random order on a sheet of paper from the manual for the t e s t . The t e s t was scored 73 out of ten with one point given to each correct answer. In the student record book, the researcher c i r c l e d each numeral c o r r e c t l y recognized. Upper Case Letter Recognition Test For the BRIGANCE Upper Case Letter Recognition Test the researcher asked the student to i d e n t i f y and name the upper case l e t t e r s of the alphabet. The l e t t e r s were presented i n random order on a sheet of paper from the manual f o r the t e s t . The tes t was scored out of 26 with one point given to each correct answer. In the student record book, the researcher c i r c l e d each l e t t e r c o r r e c t l y recognized. D i r e c t i o n a l / P o s i t i o n a l S k i l l s Test For the BRIGANCE D i r e c t i o n a l / P o s i t i o n a l S k i l l s Test the researcher gave the student d i r e c t i o n s involving one d i r e c t i o n a l / p o s i t i o n a l word. The researcher followed the d i r e c t i o n s i n the t e s t manual fo r what to say to the student f o r t h i s t e s t . The kindergarten student was asked to perform the correct actions for each word. There were 18 words tested. The t e s t was scored out of 18 with one point given to each correct answer. To score two points f o r understanding the p a i r of words " r i g h t " and " l e f t " and two points f o r "forward" and "backward," the student had to answer c o r r e c t l y f o r both words i n the p a i r . A l l other words 74 were scored i n d i v i d u a l l y . In the student record book, the researcher c i r c l e d each word which the student indicated he or she understood. Design Concepts Test For the BRIGANCE Design Concepts Test the researcher asked the students to i d e n t i f y and name f i v e geometric shapes. The f i v e shapes were c i r c l e , square, rectangle, t r i a n g l e and diamond. The shapes were presented on a piece of paper i n the te s t manual. The t e s t was scored out of f i v e with one point given to each correct answer. The researcher c i r c l e d correct answers i n the student record book. Procedural Thinking Test The l i t e r a t u r e also suggested that thinking s k i l l s of students improve when they learn a programming language. Consequently, the researcher designed a procedural thinking t e s t to assess programming rel a t e d thinking s k i l l s . The Procedural Thinking Test (Appendix A) was administered as a pretest and a posttest with d i f f e r e n t forms but the same format f o r both t e s t s . This t e s t was comprised of three sections which included 1) g i v i n g d i r e c t i o n s , 2) breaking the whole into pieces, and, 3) sequencing. For the "giving d i r e c t i o n s " section the student was asked to (orally) give the researcher the d i r e c t i o n s to perform a p a r t i c u l a r task. The "breaking the whole into pieces" 75 section involved the student (orally) r e l a t i n g a l l the pieces that made up the whole-—for example, a vase of flowers. The "sequencing" section required the students to put a series of cards (sets ranged from two to s i x cards) i n the correct sequential order. In each of the three sections one t e s t item had two parts, one item three parts and t h i s continued up to s i x parts. Each item was scored on the basis of the number of parts i t contained, so item scores ranged from two to s i x . There were 15 items i n t o t a l on the t e s t . Each of the three sections was worth 20 points so the t o t a l score of the t e s t was 60. The researcher recorded scores for each t e s t item on a student record sheet (Appendix B) as the t e s t proceeded. Programming Test The Programming Test (Appendix C) was designed by the researcher to assess the programming a b i l i t i e s of the students at the end of the study. The subjects were asked to produce f i v e predetermined pictures on the computer. The pictures were the same f o r a l l students. The items included: 1) surrounding a s t i c k e r , 2) drawing an open rectangle, 3) drawing a trapezoid, 4) f i l l i n g a trapezoid with colour, 5) drawing a l o l l i p o p , and 6) drawing a s a i l b o a t . The researcher presented pictures of what she wanted produced on the computer screen. There was a time r e s t r i c t i o n f o r the completion of each item which ranged from two minutes to f i v e minutes. For each t e s t item, the researcher rated the performance l e v e l of the student on a four point 76 scale. A r a t i n g of one was no attempt. Two represented some attempt but showing major problems i n the sol u t i o n . Three represented a good attempt with minor problems i n the solution. Four was for t o t a l success. The researcher defined the major and minor problems (Appendix D). The researcher recorded the student's score f o r each t e s t item on a student record sheet (Appendix E). The average of each student's scores was calculated to determine an average t o t a l score f o r each c h i l d . The highest possible average score was four. Other Types of Data C o l l e c t i o n Observation Reports During the course of the study the researcher kept a journal on both groups. Entries were made for each computer session. The researcher reported on a v a r i e t y of topics such as the success of the lesson, the in t e r e s t l e v e l of the students, changes which needed to be made for the next lesson, discoveries by students, successes and f a i l u r e s , f r u s t r a t i o n s of the students and the teacher, cooperation and in t e r a c t i o n with other students, and, types of drawings. A f t e r the study, the researcher analyzed the data i n the journal to determine trends occurring i n the lessons on the various topics l i s t e d above. 77 Student Interview A student interview (Appendix F) comprising of eleven questions was designed by the researcher. The interview attempted to determine the attitudes of the students towards the computer and the programming language, to determine whether the students had an understanding of how the computer program worked, and also, to determine whether the students preferred to work alone or with a partner on the computer. A l l interviews were tape recorded. The researcher also took notes about the student answers on student interview sheets. Parent Questionnaire The parents of the subjects were sent a questionnaire (Appendix G) at the end of the study. The questionnaire was intended to assess the l e v e l of exposure to computers outside the school. I t consisted of 18 questions, but not a l l of these were required to be answered. Whether a question was to be answered depended upon whether there was a computer i n the home and whether the c h i l d used the computer. Two questions to assess the attitudes of the parents towards young childre n using computers and the programming experience the students had i n the study were mandatory. Parents were asked to complete the questionnaire within f i v e days and then return i t to the researcher. 78 Procedure The research study was conducted during a six-week period from the middle of February to l a t e March. Pretesting took place during the f i r s t week of the study. The intervention of the program DELTA DRAWING to the two groups occurred during the four middle weeks of the study. Posttesting, administration of the programming t e s t and the student interview took place from the end of the f i f t h week and throughout the s i x t h week of the study. For the pretests, the researcher administered the four BRIGANCE s k i l l s t e s t s during one s i t t i n g . The t e s t s were given i n d i v i d u a l l y to the children during regular classroom hours. Two days at the beginning of the f i r s t week were a l l o t t e d f o r administration of these t e s t s to a l l chil d r e n i n both groups. When the student came to the researcher, the researcher explained the general purpose of the t e s t s to the student. For the Numeral Recognition Test and the Upper Case Letter Recognition Test the researcher showed the student pages from the t e s t manual. The Di r e c t i o n a l / P o s i t i o n a l S k i l l s Test involved o r a l d i r e c t i o n s by the researcher. The Design Concepts Test also required the t e s t manual. The remainder of the week was used to administer the Procedural Thinking Test. I t was administered by the researcher to the students on an i n d i v i d u a l basis within the classroom and during regular hours. This t e s t involved the teacher explaining o r a l l y about each section of the t e s t . Part I and II of the tes t 79 required o r a l reponses by the c h i l d and Part III required manipulation of sequence cards (prepared by the teacher) by the student. The lessons proceeded as described i n the "Treatments" section above. The Structured Group followed 11 c l e a r l y defined lessons-over the four week period. The teacher prepared the materials needed fo r the lessons p r i o r to the sessions. The Guided Discovery Group had 11 lessons over the four week period. These lessons were only structured by the fac t that they a l l had a group time, a computer time and an off-computer time. The computer time and the off-computer time was not structured by the teacher. For the posttests, the researcher administered the four BRIGANCE s k i l l s t e s t s at one time. They were administered at the end of the f i f t h week. The same procedure was followed f o r the posttests as fo r the pretests. The Procedural Thinking Test was once again given separately and was administered at the beginning of the s i x t h week. At the beginning of the s i x t h week the parent questionnaire was also sent out to the students 1 homes. Parents were asked to return the forms by Friday of the s i x t h week. Next the Programming Test was given to the students i n p a i r s within the classroom and during regular school hours. I t was administered during the middle of the s i x t h week. The researcher sat between the two children. The computers were situated so that i t was d i f f i c u l t f o r one c h i l d to view the other's computer. Each student worked on h i s or her own computer. The researcher o r a l l y 80 explained to the children what they were expected to do, and they were shown a picture of each item on the t e s t except f o r f i l l i n g i n the trapezoid with colour. A stopwatch was used to time the students. The student who fi n i s h e d f i r s t would wait f o r the other student to complete the task before proceeding to the next t e s t item. The student interview was given during regular school hours within the classroom. I t was given at the end of the s i x t h week. Before s t a r t i n g the interview, the researcher discussed the purpose of the tape recorder with the student and then b r i e f l y explained the purpose of the interview. Each student was interviewed i n d i v i d u a l l y and the interviews were tape recorded. Data Analysis The data c o l l e c t e d from the four BRIGANCE s k i l l s t e s t s , the Procedural Thinking Test and the Programming Test were analyzed using a computer. ANOVA was used to analyze the f i v e pretests and posttests (the four BRIGANCE te s t s and the Procedural Thinking Test). The computer program BMDP2V ANOVA for a repeated-measures factor and a between-groups fac t o r was used for each t e s t . The data c o l l e c t e d from the Programming Test were analyzed by a computer using a t - t e s t for differences between the two treatment groups. The computer program used was MINITAB. 81 Part of the data c o l l e c t e d from the parent questionnaire was analyzed using a Chi square t e s t of association. The computer program MINITAB was also used to carry out t h i s analysis. For a l l t e s t s that were analyzed by computer, computer programs stored at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Centre were used. The remaining data from the lesson observations, the student interviews and the parent questionnaires were analyzed by the researcher. 82 Chapter 4 RESULTS - QUANTITATIVE SECTION The r e s u l t s section i s divided into two parts. Chapter 4 focuses on the quantitative section of the study, the mixed-factor design. The r e s u l t s for the f i v e Pretests and Posttests are presented followed by the r e s u l t s of the programming t e s t . Chapter 5 focuses on the q u a l i t a t i v e part of the study. The observations made by the researcher, the r e s u l t s of the student interview and the r e s u l t s of the parent questionnaire are summarized. Pretest / Posttest Results Five Pretests and Posttests were administered f o r t h i s study. The computer program BMDP2V ANOVA for a repeated-measures factor (Pretests and Posttests) and a between-groups factor (the Structured Group and the Guided Discovery Group) was used to analyze a l l f i v e sets of t e s t s . Table 4.1 presents a summary of the s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e r e s u l t s f o r the f i v e t ests i n the study. For each t e s t three outcomes are reported. The f i r s t states whether there was s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e between the two groups, the Structured and the Guided Discovery, the second states whether there was s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e between the two l e v e l s of te s t i n g , Pretest and Posttest, and the t h i r d states whether there was 83 s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the i n t e r a c t i o n of the Group factor and the Test l e v e l factor. Following the table, each t e s t i s analyzed i n d i v i d u a l l y . Table 4.1 Summary of S t a t i s t i c a l Significance for Five S k i l l s Tests Test name Str. vs G.D. Pre vs. Post Interaction Numeral Recognition NS NS NS Upper Case Letter Recognition S S NS D i r e c t i o n a l / P o s i t i o n a l S k i l l s NS S NS Design Concepts NS S NS Procedural Thinking NS S NS Note. Str. = Structured Group; G.D. = Guided Discovery Group. S = s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e at the .05 l e v e l or better; NS = no s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e at the .05 l e v e l . There was no s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e on the Numeral Recognition Test for eithe r the Group factor or the Test l e v e l factor. The Upper Case Letter Recognition Test had s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r both the Group factor and the Test l e v e l f actor. The remaining three t e s t s , the D i r e c t i o n a l / P o s i t i o n a l S k i l l s Test, the Design Concepts Test and the Procedural Thinking S k i l l s Test had s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e only f o r the Test l e v e l factor. There was no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n 84 ef f e c t s on any of the f i v e t e s t s . Numeral Recognition Test Results On the BRIGANCE Numeral Recognition Test there was l i t t l e d i f ference between the means of the Structured and the Guided Discovery Groups. The means of the Pretest and the Posttest scores also showed l i t t l e difference. Table 4.2 presents the mean r e s u l t s and the standard deviations f o r the Structured and the Guided Discovery Groups on the Pretest and the Posttest. Recognition of the numerals between one and ten were tested so the t o t a l possible score for t h i s t e s t was ten. Table 4.2 Numeral Recognition Test Means & Standard Deviations Test Structured Guided Discovery Test l e v e l l e v e l Mean (SD) Mean (SD) means Pretest 9.73 (0.88) 9.89 (0.47) 9.80 Posttest 9.90 (0.29) 9.83 (0.71) 9.88 Group means 9.81 9.86 9.84 Note. N = 22 f o r the Structured Group; N = 18 f o r the Guided Discovery Group. The ANOVA r e s u l t s f o r the Numeral Recognition Test are presented i n Table 4.3. 85 Table 4.3 Summary of ANOVA fo r Numeral Recognition Test Source Sum of squares Deg. of freedom Mean square F B Groups(G) 0.04 1 0.04 0.05 0.82 Error(G) 26.35 38 0.69 Test levels(T) 0.08 1 0.08 0.73 0.40 G X T in t e r a c t i o n 0.28 1 0.28 2.58 0.12 Error (G X T) 4.11 38 0.11 Note. N = 22 for the Structured Group; N = 18 f o r the Guided Discovery Group. On the Numeral Recognition Test there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the Structured Group and the Guided Discovery Group on t e s t performance. The ANOVA also indicated that there was not a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between Pretest and Posttest scores on t h i s t e s t a f t e r the intervention of DELTA DRAWING. The teaching s t y l e d i d not make a difference to learning the numerals to ten. S i m i l a r l y there was no s i g n i f i c a n t change between Pretest and Posttest scores on the recognition of numerals afte r DELTA DRAWING had been introduced. 86 Upper Case Letter Recognition Test Results The BRIGANCE Upper Case Letter Recognition Test r e s u l t s showed a difference between the means of the Stuctured and the Guided Discovery Groups as well as a difference between the means of the Pretest scores and the Posttest scores. The mean r e s u l t s and the standard deviations are presented i n Table 4.4. There were 26 l e t t e r s to be i d e n t i f i e d on t h i s t e s t so the t o t a l possible score for the t e s t was 26. Table 4.4 Upper Case Letter Recognition Test Means & Standard Deviations Test Structured Guided Discovery Test l e v e l l e v e l Mean (SD) Mean (SD) means Pretest 21.63 (5.48) 24.67 (1.97) 23.00 Posttest 23.32 (4.13) 25.00 (1.88) 24.08 Group means 22.48 24.83 23.54 Note. N = 22 f o r the Structured Group; N = 18 f o r the Guided Discovery Group. Table 4.5 presents a summary of the ANOVA r e s u l t s f o r the Upper Case Letter Recognition Test. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the t e s t performances of the Structured Group and the Guided Discovery Group on the Upper Case Letter Recognition Test (p =.05). The Guided Discovery Group achieved a higher mean (24.83) than the 87 Table 4.5 Summary of ANOVA fo r Upper Case Letter Recognition Test Source Sum of squares Deg. of freedom Mean square F E Groups(G) 109.91 1 109.91 4.17 0.05* Error(G) 1000.48 38 26.33 Test levels(T) 20.10 1 20.10 6.74 0.01** G X T in t e r a c t i o n 9.00 1 9.00 3.02 0.09 Error G x T 113.39 38 2.98 Notes. N = 22 f o r the Structured Group; N = 18 for the Guided Discovery Group. * p_ <.05. ** p_ <.01. Structured Group (22.48) on the Posttest but the Guided Discovery Group achieved a higher mean i n i t i a l l y on the Pretest. The table also showed there was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between t e s t i n g l e v e l s f o r t h i s t e s t (p_ <.05) . The mean of the Pretest (23.00) was s i g n i f i c a n t l y smaller than the mean of the Posttest (24.08). The DELTA DRAWING intervention made a s i g n i f i c a n t difference to the a b i l i t y to recognize upper case l e t t e r s . D i r e c t i o n a l / P o s i t i o n a l S k i l l s Test On the the BRIGANCE Di r e c t i o n a l / P o s i t i o n a l S k i l l s Test there was some difference between the means of the t e s t l e v e l s 8 8 but l i t t l e d ifference between the group means. The mean r e s u l t s and the standard deviations f o r the Structured and Guided Discovery groups on the Pretest and Posttest are presented i n Table 4.6. Eighteen d i r e c t i o n a l / p o s i t i o n a l words were tested for understanding so the t o t a l possible score was eighteen. Table 4.6 Di r e c t i o n a l / P o s i t i o n a l S k i l l s Test Means & Standard Deviations Test Structured Guided Discovery Test l e v e l l e v e l Mean (SD) Mean (SD) means Pretest 15.14 (4.07) Posttest 15.77 (3.90) Group means 15.45 15.06 (3.46) 15.10 15.83 (3.09) 15.80 15.44 15.45 Note. N = 22 f o r the Structured Group; N = 18 f o r the Guided Discovery Group. Table 4.7 presents the outcome of the ANOVA fo r the Di r e c t i o n a l / P o s i t i o n a l Test. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the t e s t scores of the Structured Group and the Guided Discovery Group on the D i r e c t i o n a l / P o s i t i o n a l Test. The teaching technique d i d not make a s i g n i f i c a n t difference to the a b i l i t y to understand d i r e c t i o n a l / p o s i t i o n a l vocabulary. However, the r e s u l t s indicated that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the Pretest and Posttest scores f o r t h i s t e s t (p_ <.05). Once again 89 Table 4.7 Summary of ANOVA f o r Dir e c t i o n a l / P o s i t i o n a l Test Source Sum Of squares Deg. of freedom Mean square F E Groups(G) 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.99 Error(G) 963.80 38 25.36 Test levels(T) 9.90 1 9.90 5.37 0.03* G X T in t e r a c t i o n 0.10 1 0.10 0.05 0.82 Error (G X T) 70.10 38 1.85 Notes. N = 22 for the Structured i Group; N = 18 for the Guided Discovery Group. * p_ <.05. the intervention of DELTA DRAWING made a s i g n i f i c a n t difference to the performance on t h i s t e s t . A f t e r t h i s intervention students performed better on the t e s t of d i r e c t i o n a l / p o s i t i o n a l vocabulary so the intervention affected performance i n t h i s area i n a p o s i t i v e d i r e c t i o n . Design Concepts Test Results The BRIGANCE Design Concepts Test r e s u l t s showed some differ e n c e between the means of the Pretest and Posttest scores but l i t t l e d ifference between the means of the Structured and Guided Discovery Groups. 90 The mean r e s u l t s and the standard deviations f o r the Stuctured and Guided Discovery groups on the Pretest and the Posttest are summarized i n Table 4.8. There were f i v e shapes tested so the t o t a l possible score was f i v e . Table 4.8 Design Concepts Test Means & Standard Deviations Test Structured Guided Discovery Test l e v e l l e v e l Mean (SD) Mean (SD) means Pretest 4.361 (0.85) 4.22 (1.06) 4.30 Posttest 4.68 (0.65) 4.56 (0.98) 4.63 Group means 4.52 4.39 4.46 Note. N = 22 f o r the Structured Group; N = 18 f o r the Guided Discovery Group. The outcome of the ANOVA f o r the D i r e c t i o n a l / P o s i t i o n a l Test are presented i n Table 4.9. The Structured Group d i d not perform s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the Guided Discovery Group on t h i s t e s t . The teaching s t y l e d i d not make a difference i n recognizing f i v e geometric shapes. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference, however, between the Pretest and Posttest scores on t h i s t e s t (p_ <.05). This suggests that using DELTA DRAWING made a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n a p o s i t i v e d i r e c t i o n to the a b i l i t y to recognize f i v e geometric shapes because Posttest performance was s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than Pretest performance. 91 Table 4.9 Summary of ANOVA f o r Design Concepts Test Source Sum of squares Deg. of freedom Mean square F E Groups(G) 0.36 1 0.36 0.26 0.61 Error(G) 51.03 38 1.34 Test levels(T) 2.10 1 2.10 9.52 0.00* G X T in t e r a c t i o n 0.00 1 0.00 0.01 0.94 Error (G X T) 8.39 38 0.22 Notes. N = 22 for the Structured Group; N = 18 for the Guided Discovery Group. * p_ <.01. Procedural Thinking Test Results On the Procedural Thinking Test there was l i t t l e difference between the means of the two groups but some difference between the means of the two t e s t l e v e l s . The mean r e s u l t s and the standard deviations f o r the Structured and Guided Discovery Groups on the Pretest and the Posttest t e s t are presented i n Table 4.10. There were f i f t e e n items on the t e s t which varied i n value from two points to s i x points and the t o t a l possible score was s i x t y . 92 Table 4.10 Procedural Thinking Test Means & Standard Deviations Test Structured Guided Discovery Test l e v e l l e v e l Mean (SD) Mean (SD) means Pretest 42.96 (10.40) Posttest 50.46 (8.57) Group means 46.71 43.56 (11.21) 43.23 49.72 (12.44) 50.13 46.64 46.68 Note. N = 22 f o r the Structured Group; N = 18 f o r the Guided Discovery Group. The ANOVA r e s u l t s are presented i n Table 4.11. Table 4.11 Summary of ANOVA for Procedural Thinking Test Source Sum of Deg. of Mean F p_ squares freedom square Groups(G) Error(G) Test levels(T) G X T in t e r a c t i o n Error (G X T) 0.09 8011.47 924.55 8.80 567.00 1 38 1 0.09 0.00 210.83 924.55 61.96 38 8.80 14.92 0.59 0.98 0.00* 0.45 Notes. N = 22 f o r the Strucutured Group; N = 18 f o r the Guided Discovery Group. * p <.01. 93 There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the t e s t performance by the Structured Group and the Guided Discovery Group on t h i s t e s t . The teaching s t y l e d i d not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t the a b i l i t y to think procedurally. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between Pretest and Posttest performance f o r t h i s t e s t (p_ <.05). This suggests that DELTA DRAWING made a s i g n i f i c a n t difference to the a b i l i t y to think procedurally. There was an improvement i n t e s t performance a f t e r the intervention. The Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t f o r the Procedural Thinking Test was determined to be .87 where Pretest and Posttest scores f o r both groups were correlated. The computer program SPSS-X, was used to determine t h i s c o e f f i c i e n t . Programming Test Results Since the Programming t e s t was only administered a f t e r the intervention of DELTA DRAWING a two-sample t - t e s t was used to analyze the data using the computer program MINITAB. Table 4.12 rel a t e s the means, standard deviations, error means and the outcome of the t e s t . The r e s u l t s of the t - t e s t indicated that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the performance of the Structured Group on the programming t e s t and the performance of the Guided Discovery Group on the Programming Test. This suggests that the teaching s t y l e d i d not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t the a b i l i t i e s of the students to program. 94 Table 4.12 Summary of t - t e s t f o r Programming Test Group N M SD SE Mean Str. 22 3.099 0.475 0.10 G.D. 18 3.073 0.426 0.10 t = 0.18, p = 0.86, df = 37.6 Notes. Str. = Structured Group; G.D.= Guided Discovery Group. A l l students did achieve some l e v e l of success on the Programming Test. The student's score was an average out of four. For the Structured Group, the lowest student score was 2.17 and the highest score was 3.83. For the Guided Discovery Group, the lowest score was 2.33 and the highest score was 3.67. A l l students made some attempt on f i v e of the s i x items on the Programming Test. The only t e s t item which some students did not attempt was item f o u r — f i l l i n g i n a trapezoid with colour. Four students i n the Structured Group and three students i n the Guided Discovery Group were unable to do t h i s task. Table 4.13 presents the r e s u l t s for each item on the t e s t . The number of students i n each group for each r a t i n g on the scale i s given i n the item columns. The two groups found d i f f e r e n t t e s t items easy and hard. For the Structured Group the items would be arranged as follows: Item 1, Item 2, Item 6, Item 3, Item 5 and Item 4. Item 1 (enclosing a sticker) was the easiest for the Structured Group and Item 4 ( f i l l i n g a trapezoid with colour) was the most 95 Table 4.13 Item Analysis f o r Programming Test Number of Students Scale Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 S G.D. S G.D. S G.D. S G.D S G.D S G.D. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 6 7 7 3 4 3 8 13 6 5 3 0 1 7 7 5 4 4 3 8 5 12 9 4 17 17 9 4 10 11 10 9 6 0 4 4 Notes. S = Structured Group; G.D. = Guided Discovery Group. d i f f i c u l t . For the Guided Discovery Group the items would be arranged i n the following order of d i f f i c u l t y : Item 1, Item 3, Item 6, Item 4, Item 2 and Item 5. Item 1 (enclosing a sticker) was the easiest f o r the Guided Discovery Group and Item 5 (drawing a l o l l i p o p ) was the most d i f f i c u l t . 96 Chapter 5 RESULTS - QUALITATIVE SECTION This section summarizes the observation reports f o r the Structured Group and f o r the Guided Discovery Group fo r each of the eleven lessons and then summarizes the responses to the student interviews and f i n a l l y to the parent questionnaires. Observation Reports - Structured Group Lesson 1. In Lesson 1 the program DELTA DRAWING was introduced to the class and had the students emulate the t u r t l e o f f the computer. Five basic commands were introduced to the students. Students were assigned the off-computer (oc) assignment, T u r t l e Tracks 1-oc, where one c h i l d read the commands printed on the sheet of paper and a partner walked out the commands. On the computers (c) students were assigned the task T u r t l e Tracks 1-c. Students made the t u r t l e on the screen draw d i f f e r e n t l i n e s and had to put the t u r t l e i n d i f f e r e n t positions as i l l u s t r a t e d on the assignment sheet. The lesson d i d not proceed as the teacher expected. During the computer session, observations of the students indicated that they lacked enthusiasm about the new computer program. Several factors were perceived as contributing to the development of t h i s a t t i t u d e . Students were paired on the computers. They had been encouraged by the teacher to work cooperatively on the 97 assigned computer task but only h a l f of the students interacted with t h e i r partners while working on the computer. The others worked alone. Consequently, several childr e n waited a long time before they got t h e i r turn on the computer. In addition, the assignment on the computer seemed to be too long and overwhelmed the children. They did not persevere and see i t through to completion. Six childr e n were o f f task during the computer session. A f i n a l problem with the lesson was that both the off-computer and on-computer periods lasted too long. The students needed more v a r i a t i o n . During the off-computer session students were not always moving according to the t u r t l e commands but instead were randomly moving around. Since i t was the f i r s t day that the commands were introduced, not a l l students immediately learned the actions corresponding to the commands so some chi l d r e n were not always on task. Lesson 2. Students were more enthusiastic during Lesson 2 and more chi l d r e n w i l l i n g l y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n i t . The lesson included reviewing the commands which had been introduced i n Lesson 1, reading the story The T u r t l e and the Rabbit, playing t u r t l e , introducing the Tur t l e Board Game (off-computer game), introducing the s t i c k e r page system (students received a s t i c k e r to put on a picture of a t u r t l e when the teacher checked a task that was successfully competed) and introducing the two projects for the computer (point to a s t i c k e r and hide the t u r t l e under the s t i c k e r ) . There was a v a r i e t y of a c t i v i t i e s during the lesson. The c h i l d r e n worked on and o f f the computers with partners. 98 On the computer the teacher i n s i s t e d that the students alternate turns; which they did. This was to avoid one student dominating the computer. The students, however, d i d not tend to work cooperatively on a project but s t r i c t l y alternated turns. A l l but one student had success with the assigned task. Table 5.1 rela t e s the re s u l t s f o r t h i s task. Table 5.1 Summary of Results f o r Sticker Task Number of Number of Percentage of st i c k e r s students students 0 1 5% 1 2 9% 2 5 23% 3 11 50% 4 3 14% Therefore 87% of the students received a minimum of two st i c k e r s . This high l e v e l of success was r e f l e c t e d i n the attitude of the students during t h i s lesson. They were much more p o s i t i v e . Three students had some d i f f i c u l t y getting started on the project and required teacher assistance and encouragement. Two of these three students often lack i n i t i a t i v e when working i n other areas of the kindergarten curriculum and a l l three students are a f r a i d to be wrong. They need considerable teacher support to t r y something new. In t h i s lesson one of these children 99 became very frustrated and was on the verge of tears when the teacher intervened. The teacher helped her with the commands so that she could be successful. Once the c h i l d gained confidence she attacked the problem and was one of the three students to receive four s t i c k e r s . The second of the three c h i l d r e n required some teacher guidance and then she was also successful with the assignment (received three s t i c k e r s ) . Towards the end of the lesson the t h i r d c h i l d s t i l l had not had any success with the project. The teacher intervened and the c h i l d received one s t i c k e r by the end of the period. Two problems with the computer session were; 1) the d i f f i c u l t y the teacher had i n checking the students' work on the computer; and 2) the d i f f i c u l t y the teacher had i n d i s t r i b u t i n g the s t i c k e r s quickly. During the off-computer session the students worked cooperatively with partners on the Tu r t l e Board Game. Each partner had a turn moving the t u r t l e and givi n g the commands. Lesson 3. In Lesson 3 the commands introduced i n Lesson 1 were reviewed by having the students move the t u r t l e around a maze on the computer (drawn on a transparency and taped to the screen) and by giving appropriate commands to a partner so that the other person would move through a maze on the f l o o r (drawn with masking tape). For the computer session the i n t e r e s t l e v e l of the students was high and they were keen and enthusiastic. One c h i l d was even heard to say, "Wow! This i s fun!" The chil d r e n worked with partners once again but took turns as before. Partners were of t h e i r own choice. The s t i c k e r page system was used so s t i c k e r s were awarded to students once 100 they had succ e s s f u l l y moved the t u r t l e through the maze on the screen. A l l students received at l e a s t one s t i c k e r . Table 5.2 presents the r e s u l t s . Table 5.2 Summary of Results for Maze Number of Number of Percentage of s t i c k e r s students students 1 8 36% 2 3 14% 3 10 45% 4 1 5% The students were quite successful on t h i s task. Sixty-four percent of the students received two or more s t i c k e r s . On the off-computer mazes the children completed the mazes but there were some behavioural problems because i n i t i a l l y the rules f o r moving between mazes were not c l e a r l y established. Lesson 4. The second week of i n s t r u c t i o n i n DELTA DRAWING began with Lesson 4. New commands (C, H, SHIFT G , t , 4 r , - * , and <- ) f o r the computer were introduced and drawing curves and l e t t e r s were discussed. The students were asked to make t h e i r i n i t i a l s on the screen. Off the computer, students were directed to move around curved mazes, which were made out of masking tape on the f l o o r . Generally the class found t h i s lesson quite d i f f i c u l t . The expectations for the project seemed to be too 101 high f o r the age l e v e l . During the computer session nine c h i l d r e n were not on task and during the off-computer session t h i r t e e n students were not on task at some time. Enthusiasm during t h i s lesson waned. The students had most d i f f i c u l t y with the curves. On the computer t h e i r f r u s t r a t i o n l e v e l was high when they could not make a curve properly and consequently could not make t h e i r i n i t i a l . One of the c h i l d r e n who had d i f f i c u l t y i n Lesson 3 was once again very frustrated and wanted to give up. The teacher encouraged her and helped her persevere. Not a l l students expressed a negative attitude towards the lesson. One c h i l d who experienced some success when he completed the f i r s t l e t t e r i n h i s name was heard to utter, "Yeah!" Lesson 5. In Lesson 5 the teacher continued i n s t r u c t i o n on drawing curves and l e t t e r s on the screen but used a d i f f e r e n t teaching strategy. Letters were drawn on transparencies and the ch i l d r e n chose a l e t t e r to tape to t h e i r computer screen. The students were directed to move the t u r t l e around the l e t t e r . This technique enabled the students to have considerably more success than i n Lesson 4. Not a l l students completed a l e t t e r but they stayed on task and made a good e f f o r t to move the t u r t l e around the l e t t e r . Student programming did not tend to be accurate. Many children's drawings wandered from the path of the l e t t e r . Students would t r y to bring the t u r t l e back on course but they usually d i d not erase t h e i r mistakes. During the lesson the students required a l o t of d i r e c t i o n but they d i d stay on task. Two students who had experienced d i f f i c u l t y i n Lesson 3 were successful i n t h i s lesson and were very excited about t h e i r 102 accomplishments. Once again, however, the children had d i f f i c u l t y working together. In several instances one c h i l d dominated the computer. For example, at one computer, one c h i l d completed two l e t t e r s but she had not given her partner a turn on the computer. A l l but f i v e students remained on task during the off-computer game where the teacher gave the students di r e c t i o n s f o r moving l i k e the t u r t l e . The off-computer a c t i v i t y was cancelled because the computers arri v e d l a t e . Lesson 6. For Lesson 6 the class was divided into two groups. A f t e r the large group time, one h a l f of the students worked on the computers. Each student had h i s own computer. The remaining students played a new game c a l l e d the "Logo Board Game". Two tasks were assigned to the computer group. F i r s t the students were to complete a l e t t e r transparency and secondly to type i n commands from a command sheet (Turtle Tracks 2-c) and draw the r e s u l t s on paper. The groups switched a f t e r f i f t e e n minutes and during the l a s t ten minutes the students worked with a partner on the computer doing one of the assigned tasks. The chil d r e n were very task oriented during the lesson. The res u l t s f o r the l e t t e r project are shown i n Table 5.3. On t h i s task 90% of the students experienced success. The two students who d i d not complete one l e t t e r were two of the students who had trouble with previous lessons. Table 5.4 gives the r e s u l t s of the second computer assignment. Seventy percent of the students on t h i s assignment experienced some degree of success. Two of the students who had d i f f i c u l t i e s i n other lessons sought the teacher's assistance. 103 Table 5.3 Summary of Results for Letter Project Number of Number of Percentage of l e t t e r s students students 0 2 10% 1 12 60% 2 5 25% 3 1 5% Note. Two students were absent f o r t h i s lesson. Table 5.4 Summary of Results for Command Sheets Success on Number of Percentage of command sheet students students No attempt 2 10% Not correct 4 20% Completed 1 12 60% Completed 2 1 5% Completed 3 1 5% Note. Two students were absent for t h i s lesson. One of these childr e n experienced success with both computer projects while the other s t i l l was not successful on ei t h e r project. During the off-computer session c h i l d r e n worked i n groups of four and were on task. 104 Lesson 7. The t h i r d week of i n s t r u c t i o n began with Lesson 7. The lesson focused on geometric shapes and how to draw them on the computer. This session was a very quiet working session where there were only three instances of off-task behaviour. Two of these three si t u a t i o n s involved students who were sharing a computer. For the computer assignment, students were given shape transparencies which were taped to the screen and asked to make the t u r t l e go around the shape. Students chose the shapes and the teacher encouraged them to complete a minimum of two shapes. Two tasks were assigned f o r o f f the computer. F i r s t , students were asked to work with a partner to move around masking tape shapes on the f l o o r and then there was a worksheet on which the students drew various shapes (Turtle Tracks 2-oc). On the computer task, students had most d i f f i c u l t y with t r a c i n g c i r c l e s . Their tracings strayed from the shape and were not accurate. Instead of alt e r n a t i n g drawing and turning, the students would draw fo r too long or turn the t u r t l e too much. The r e s u l t s f o r the on-computer task are given i n Table 5.5. The student who d i d not complete one shape worked d i l i g e n t l y at t r a c i n g a c i r c l e . The trac i n g did not remotely resemble a c i r c l e so the teacher asked him to repeat the task but he did not have time to complete the second attempt before the session ended. For the s i x children who had to work with partners on the computer the r e s u l t s are presented i n Table 5.6. A l l students i n t h i s group had some l e v e l of success which was not affected by working with a partner. Students worked 105 Table 5.5 Summary of Results f o r Shape Transparencies Number of Number of Percentage of shapes students students 0 1 5% 1 7 32% 2 8 36% 3 4 18% 4 2 9% Table 5.6 Summary of Results f o r Students with Partners on Shape Transparencies Number of shapes Number of students 2 3 1 1 2 3 quickly through the shapes and exhibited a high l e v e l of in t e r e s t and excitement. They enjoyed being successful. One of the students who had considerable d i f f i c u l t y and was frus t r a t e d with previous lessons experienced success i n t h i s lesson. She completed one shape and seemed disappointed when she had to leave the computer and was not able to complete a second shape. For the off-computer task three students d i d not do the worksheet. 106 Another two students did not complete the sheet. A l l others su c c e s s f u l l y f i n i s h e d the task. For the t u r t l e emulation game of moving around shapes on the f l o o r , students were focused and on task. Providing two off-computer a c t i v i t i e s helped to prevent behavioural problems which arose previously. Lesson 8. Geometric shapes were also the to p i c f o r Lesson 8 but new tasks were assigned. Students were given a sheet of paper with in s t r u c t i o n s f o r drawing a shape i n a small s i z e and a large s i z e (Turtle Tracks 3-c). They had to type i n the commands for the shape. They chose the shape they wished to draw. Table 5.7 presents the outcome of t h i s project. Table 5.7 Summary of Results f o r Shape Directions (1) Number of Number of Percentage of shapes students students 0 3 14% 1 13 62% 2 5 24% Note. One student was absent f o r t h i s lesson. Even though most of the students completed at l e a s t one shape, only f i v e drew the selected shape i n two d i f f e r e n t s i z e s . Since a comparison of sizes and how i t affected the instructions was an important part of the lesson, the teacher decided to 107 repeat the project i n the next lesson. The teacher was needed to a s s i s t several students to perform the task. She helped them type the correct keys. Although the students d i d not experience overwhelming success with t h i s lesson, they persevered and made an e f f o r t to do the assignment. The off-computer assignment (Turtle Tracks 3-oc) required the children to colour d i f f e r e n t shapes according to teacher d i r e c t i o n s . This was a simple project for the children and a l l completed i t properly except for two students who did not do the task. The teacher had a second off-computer a c t i v i t y prepared but there was not s u f f i c i e n t time for i t to be implemented. Lesson 9. The shape d i r e c t i o n sheets introduced i n the previous lesson were reinforced i n Lesson 9. The computer project from the l a s t lesson was repeated. The s t i c k e r page system was employed. Off-computer students used geoboards to make l i n e a r shapes i n d i f f e r e n t s i z e s . The expectations of the computer assignment were better understood by the students and they applied themselves to the task quicker. The outcome of t h i s assignment i s given i n Table 5.8. These r e s u l t s indicated more success on Lesson 9 than on Lesson 8. In the former lesson, 76% of the chi l d r e n completed zero or one shape dir e c t i o n s and 24% fi n i s h e d two shape d i r e c t i o n s . For Lesson 9, however, 33% completed zero or one shape d i r e c t i o n s while 67% fi n i s h e d two or three shape d i r e c t i o n s . For the off-computer a c t i v i t y , students were direc t e d to make geometric shapes on geoboards. Most students 108 Table 5.8 Summary of Results f o r Shape Directions (2) Number of shapes Number of students Percentage of students 1 7 33% 2 10 48% 3 4 19% Note. One student was absent f o r t h i s lesson. followed these d i r e c t i o n s and then proceeded to make other pictures such as designs. Throughout, the lesson the attitude of the c h i l d r e n was quite p o s i t i v e . Lesson 10. The f i n a l week of computer i n s t r u c t i o n i n DELTA DRAWING began with Lesson 10. The computer assignment involved drawing a face on the screen and once t h i s was completed the c h i l d could draw any picture. With the a i d of a chart, the teacher helped the students determine the parts necessary f o r drawing a face and a possible sequence for drawing the parts. The teacher drew a face on the chart. Off the computer the students could choose from a v a r i e t y of materials which included geoboards, pattern blocks, a t t r i b u t e blocks and paper and p e n c i l . The most d i f f i c u l t part of the computer drawing f o r the chi l d r e n was making the outline of the face. A few students made square or rectangular shaped faces. Several others needed the teacher's suggestion to follow the di r e c t i o n s on the large c i r c l e shape d i r e c t i o n chart (posted on the wall) to s t a r t t h e i r face. 109 Only seven childr e n s a t i s f a c t o r i l y f i n i s h e d the face task. Of the seven, f i v e began a drawing of t h e i r own choice. One of these c h i l d r e n completed a picture of a person. A c h i l d who was e a s i l y f r u s t r a t e d i n other lessons was once again ready to give up because she had trouble f i t t i n g a second eye inside the face but with teacher encouragement she persevered. The off-computer task was to create a picture using pattern blocks or a t t r i b u t e blocks or a l t e r n a t i v e l y to draw a picture, on paper, of something that they would l i k e to draw on the computer. Six ch i l d r e n chose the l a t t e r task while the others chose the b u i l d i n g task. A l l students stayed on task. Lesson 11. The f i n a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l session, Lesson 11, gave the students some choice. They drew whatever they wished on the computer. The teacher recommended that the students break the whole picture into parts. She d i d an example by drawing on an experience chart and then on the computer to i l l u s t r a t e t h i s point. Students were required to t e l l t h e i r ideas to the teacher before working on the computer so that she could record t h e i r plans. Three c h i l d r e n d i d not pursue t h e i r ideas and randomly played with the keys. Thirteen students attempted to draw what they had planned. Five students used the pictures that they had drawn the previous day on paper to guide t h e i r drawings on the computer. One student was absent. The teacher gave assistance to several c h i l d r e n on how to get started. One c h i l d i n p a r t i c u l a r needed considerable guidance from the teacher. She had not attempted to s t a r t the project but also had not sought 110 the teacher's help. She knew what she wanted to draw but was unable to devise the procedure to do i t . The v a r i e t y of pictures on the computer suggested that the majority of the students had learned that with the proper instructions the computer can create any p i c t u r e . A few of the students had advanced to the stage where they used preplanning as an a i d to t h e i r computer drawings. The off-computer a c t i v i t i e s were the same as for Lesson 10 and the childre n had no problems i n t h i s area. There were very few incidents of children not on task i n both the computer and off-computer group. Summary of Observation Reports f o r the Structured Group The observation reports f o r the Structured Group reveal some important points about t h i s group. Although they had a f r u s t r a t i n g experience during the f i r s t lesson, the students did not develop a negative attitude towards the computers and t h i s i n i t i a l f r u s t r a t i o n did not negatively a f f e c t the remainder of the sessions. Their i n t e r e s t l e v e l and enthusiasm seemed to depend on the p a r t i c u l a r structure and expectations of each lesson. When students experienced some degree of success during the lesson, they usually had a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e and persevered on the task. When expectations were too high f o r t h e i r l e v e l , they became frus t r a t e d and somewhat negative. The projects that they had most d i f f i c u l t y with were drawing curves and l e t t e r s and drawing a face. A l l of these tasks involved drawing c i r c l e s or parts of c i r c l e s . The students discovered that i t i s much easier I l l to draw s t r a i g h t l i n e s on the computer than curves. Student drawings during the l a s t session indicated the v a r i e t y of le v e l s within the group. Some children were at the random h i t t i n g stage, while others t r i e d to draw planned pictures and a few were t r y i n g to r e p l i c a t e pictures that they had previously drawn. Students frequently found working with a partner a f r u s t r a t i n g experience. One student would often dominate the computer time so that the other c h i l d had no turn or a l i m i t e d turn on the computer. At times the partner s i t u a t i o n was b e n e f i c i a l because the students would draw on each other's knowledge to complete the task. Observation Reports - Guided Discovery Group Lesson 1. The Guided Discovery Group was introduced to f i v e basic commands during Lesson 1. The teacher explained the meaning of each command and used the wall charts to a s s i s t i n the explanation. Then partners were assigned and the children worked i n p a i r s on the computers. The teacher asked the students to explore and investigate the f i v e commands to see what happened to the t u r t l e . When the children worked on the computers, they began to randomly h i t the keys rather than choose a p a r t i c u l a r key to explore. Consequently, they discovered numerous commands other than the f i v e introduced on the chart. The general f e e l i n g of the session was one of overwhelming enthusiasm and excitement. The teacher found i t d i f f i c u l t to keep up with the demands of the students and d i d not have enough 112 time to observe a l l the children. They were continuously asking her to come and see t h e i r screen. Many comments indicated the enjoyment the students were getting from the lesson. Some of these included: Wow! See my l i n e s . Look at mine. Come here. One c h i l d who was very keen on the computer demonstrated a desire to plan what he was doing. He asked the teacher f o r assistance and asked questions such as, "I want to go here and then there. How do I make i t go up?" Not a l l students, however, were enthusiastic about the new computer program. There were two children working together who were of low a b i l i t y and found i t d i f f i c u l t to take the i n i t i a t i v e and discover things about the program. They quickly became frus t r a t e d and started to blame the software f o r t h e i r d i f f i c u l t i e s . One of the children said, "How do you make i t do anything? Ours i s n ' t working." The teacher and t h e i r peers helped them to get started. Most of the childr e n remained on task f o r the computer session. Two childr e n excelled during the session i n terms of t h e i r enthusiasm and t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the program. Five c h i l d r e n l o s t i n t e r e s t during the session. One of these f i v e was quite enthusiastic at the beginning of the lesson but then hi s i n t e r e s t waned. Another c h i l d was very focused f o r approximately twenty minutes but then became upset because h i s partner was not sharing the computer. The remaining students 113 applied themselves to the task. The students frequently interacted with the teacher and t h e i r peers throughout the session sharing newly acquired knowledge. Many of the children also worked alone f o r long periods of time. The off-computer session was not as successful. The teacher presented two types of manipulatives to emulate the movement of the t u r t l e . The students chose which manipulative they wanted to use. During t h i s session there were several instances of off-t a s k behaviours. Materials were not being used properly. Many students did not use the correct commands to d i r e c t the t u r t l e s . A few children, however, did work well i n t h i s session. The discussion period allowed a few children to present what they had discovered during the on- and off-computer sessions. Some children simply related what they had drawn while others were able to explain the outcome of a p a r t i c u l a r command. After the f i r s t lesson, the teacher f e l t confident that the students would make progress i n t h i s group without too much teacher intervention. Lesson 2. The remaining programming commands were introduced to the cla s s on charts during Lesson 2. Af t e r the introduction of these commands, t h i s group had a l l the commands that the Structured Group would be learning over the eleven lessons. A l l command charts were hung on the wall, close to the computers, f o r easy reference. Hardware problems slowed the momentum of excitement and enthusiasm that had begun i n Lesson 1. The computers arrived quite l a t e . Only seven of ten computers arri v e d and two computers malfunctioned during the 114 session. Partners were assigned and two groups had to work as a t r i a d . During the computer time, the childre n i n the larger groups, i n p a r t i c u l a r , had d i f f i c u l t y taking turns. Otherwise the lesson went s a t i s f a c t o r i l y . Students continued to make discoveries and ask the teacher f o r assistance or ask t h e i r peers f o r assistance. There was a v a r i e t y of d i f f e r e n t types of int e r a c t i o n s . Students worked alone, students observed t h e i r peers without conversation, students helped each other, and students sought the teacher's assistance. The off-computer a c t i v t i y , which involved the same manipulatives as the previous lesson, was more successful than Lesson 1 because the expectations of t h i s period were better understood by the students. Lesson 3. Lesson 3 started and ended with b r i e f discussion periods. In the opening discussion the teacher guided the students to t a l k about what they had done previously and then to discuss what else they could t r y on the computer. The teacher helped the students summarize t h e i r discoveries. The explanations provided by the students suggested that they were gaining an understanding of various d i f f e r e n t commands. Children worked i n pai r s on the computers. Some worked cooperatively while others had trouble sharing. Working on a colour monitor became important to the children during t h i s lesson because they began to use the colour command. Students were explaining to others how to draw i n colour on the computer. The teacher encouraged childre n to ask t h e i r peers f o r help as well as to come to her f o r help. The sharing of information became very 115 evident during t h i s lesson. I t was apparent between partners but also between groups working on d i f f e r e n t computers. There was some off-task behaviour during the computer time. One c h i l d consistently did not use the computer. This c h i l d needed considerable d i r e c t i o n and reassurance by the teacher i n other a c t i v i t i e s at school. She was unable to take the i n i t i a t i v e to t r y d i f f e r e n t commands on the computer so she did not p a r t i c i p a t e . There was some off-task behaviour during the off-computer session, but b a s i c a l l y the students stayed on task. During t h i s session child r e n directed cardboard t u r t l e s about but they frequently d i d not state the commands aloud. The teacher reminded the cla s s that the t u r t l e on the computer was unable to move without commands. Students began to make a t r a n s f e r between the t u r t l e on the screen and the cardboard t u r t l e s which they moved about on the f l o o r . (For example, one c h i l d during the off-computer time indicated that he had assimilated what the command K, four t u r t l e s appear on the screen, d i d on the computer when he said, "I can't do K. Then I'd have to be four.") Although the children continued to make discoveries l i k e these, the teacher was concerned about the amount of random key h i t t i n g that continued on the computer. Lesson 4. The second week of the study began with Lesson 4. During the discussion period the teacher guided the group to reca p i t u l a t e what was learned during the f i r s t week. Students were then assigned computers. Off the computer students chose to use the cardboard t u r t l e s or the f l o o r mazes. A couple of 116 ch i l d r e n drew pictures on the computer during t h i s session. One was a diamond and the other was a dragon. The c h i l d who drew the diamond was able to explain how she d i d i t . She was one of two ch i l d r e n at t h i s stage who had made the t r a n s i t i o n from the random h i t t i n g stage to planning what they were doing. The dragon, on the other hand, was a random occurrence. Once the l i n e s were drawn, the children involved i n the drawing decided that i t looked l i k e a dragon. The teacher was impressed during t h i s session about the degree of cooperation on the computers. Students d i d not tend to work independently but instead were in t e r a c t i n g with t h e i r partners and with others. The colour monitors had become of such importance to the students that one c h i l d refused to work on a black and white monitor. He f i n a l l y d i d so a f t e r persuasion from the teacher. Both on and o f f the computer there were some incidents when chi l d r e n d i d not apply themselves to t h e i r tasks but the majority remained quite focused. Lesson 5. The teacher started Lesson 5 with a discussion during which she asked leading questions to help motivate the ch i l d r e n to move to a higher l e v e l of working with the programming language. The group was divided into two. One group worked with partners on off-computer tasks which included two types of t u r t l e manipulatives (large and small cardboard t u r t l e s ) and f l o o r mazes. Students selected the a c t i v i t y they wanted to use. The computer group engaged i n free exploration and worked i n d i v i d u a l l y on the computers. A f t e r f i f t e e n minutes the two groups switched. On the computers, the teacher reinforced and 117 praised students who had not c l u t t e r e d t h e i r screens with random l i n e s or who had made close approximations of l e t t e r s . From the computer drawings, i t was evident that three students had now moved from random h i t t i n g to more planned programming. Off the computer, the children had considerable trouble staying on task and required a l o t of teacher d i r e c t i o n . Two students, however, were doing a good job of shouting out commands and moving around the mazes. Another two c h i l d r e n hugged each other when they successfully moved around a curved maze. The teacher praised these two groups. For the l a s t ten minutes of the session the childr e n chose a partner and they worked together on the computers. Four children made l e t t e r s and two childr e n made a man. The other drawings were random. In these paired si t u a t i o n s some children dominated the computer and d i d not give the other c h i l d much or any opportunity to p a r t i c i p a t e . Lesson 6 . For Lesson 6 the teacher decided to set up a s i t u a t i o n to t r y to help more children make the t r a n s i t i o n from random h i t t i n g to more planned programming. She drew l e t t e r s on a few computer screens before the session began and waited to see i f any c h i l d r e n noticed them. With t h i s minimal amount of guidance many children started to draw l e t t e r s , numbers, shapes and pictures. Some of the pictures included a block l e t t e r "X" which was f i l l e d with colour, Venetian blinds (a random drawing and then the c h i l d named i t ) , a k i t e , and coloured rectangles. Far fewer students c l u t t e r e d t h e i r screens with random l i n e s . Children interacted well with others and were drawing upon the knowledge of t h e i r peers to perform c e r t a i n tasks. Many 118 students requested the teacher's attention simply f o r recognition of t h e i r accomplishments. Others required assistance but the teacher would usually r e d i r e c t the c h i l d to another c h i l d who knew how to perform the desired s k i l l . During the discussion period c h i l d r e n were more than w i l l i n g to describe t h e i r drawings. One c h i l d shared how to make a c i r c l e . She had discovered the technique on her own. In the l a s t computer session of the day, when the children were paired, twelve students had a purpose to t h e i r drawings. On the computer a l l ch i l d r e n were on task except the c h i l d who lacked self-confidence. During the off-computer session the Logo Board Game was introduced and a l l the other manipulatives (previously introduced) were avail a b l e as well. Most students stayed on task. The teacher had been concerned that the students were not going to progress from the random h i t t i n g stage but the r e s u l t s of t h i s lesson disproved t h i s concern. Many students were progressing to a higher l e v e l of programming. Lesson 7. The f i r s t lesson i n the t h i r d week of the study was Lesson 7. P r i o r to the session, the teacher drew simple pictures as well as numbers and l e t t e r s on the computer screens. When the students went to the computers they d i d not appear to notice these drawings because they d i d not not comment about them. During the clas s , s i x children decided on what they were going to draw on the computer. F i l l i n g shapes with colour was a popular choice of t h i s group. Students who knew how to do t h i s shared t h e i r knowledge with others. The g i r l , who had been reluctant to explore on her own, discovered t h i s technique from 119 another c h i l d and began to apply i t . She was t h r i l l e d with her achievements. Other students were not yet combining shapes to make more complicated pictures even though the teacher was encouraging them to do so. The teacher asked questions such as, "Can you turn t h i s shape into something else? What can you add to i t ? What does i t look l i k e ? " She d i d not i n s i s t that the students draw more complex pictures but she d i d demonstrate to a few i n d i v i d u a l s how to combine shapes to make a p i c t u r e . A l l students were on task on the computer and there was a minimal number of of f - t a s k behaviours i n the off-computer group. Two students discovered an off-computer assignment i n the classroom that had been assigned to the Structured Group and asked f o r the i n s t r u c t i o n s which they were r e a d i l y given. They both completed the task successfully. Other childr e n used the t u r t l e manipulatives, the f l o o r mazes and the Logo Board Game during the off-computer time. Lesson 8. Before the next scheduled session began, s i x ch i l d r e n came to the computers which were set up i n the classroom. They began to use the DELTA DRAWING program. They were keen to work on the computers. During the discussion period of Lesson 8, several childr e n discussed the pictures that they had drawn i n the l a s t lesson. Some of these included a "P", a f l a g and a rectangle. The rectangle was drawn by a c h i l d who followed the d i r e c t i o n s from a shape d i r e c t i o n chart which was hung on the wall and had been used with the Structured Group. During the session, the teacher continued to ask questions which might lead the students to higher l e v e l programming on the 120 computer. More of the children began to draw planned pictures. The c h i l d who followed the dir e c t i o n s f o r the rectangle i n Lesson 7 repeated t h i s task and then followed the d i r e c t i o n s f o r a c i r c l e . One other c h i l d attempted the c i r c l e but was not successful. New manipulatives, geoboards, pattern blocks and a t t r i b u t e blocks, were introduced f o r the off-computer session. The other manipulatives which had been used previously were also a v a i l a b l e . A l l students chose to use the geoboards and were quite interested i n the a c t i v t i y . A f t e r a period of time, one c h i l d grew t i r e d of these and selected the pattern blocks. Lesson 9. By Lesson 9 seven students had moved to the planned programming stage. One c h i l d i n p a r t i c u l a r drew a much more complicated picture than any of the other children. He drew a picture of a shark with f i n s and a t a i l . He worked d i l i g e n t l y on h i s pic t u r e and i t was quite i n t r i c a t e . Figure 5.1 Computer drawing by a kindergarten student of a shark. 121 This drawing was another major breakthrough for t h i s group because i t indicated the po t e n t i a l complexity of the drawings to the other students. The programmer presented and talked about h i s p i c t u r e to the remainder of the group. Other childr e n continued to draw simple pictures while the remainder of the clas s were s t i l l at the random h i t t i n g stage. One c h i l d had decided to draw a spoon but gave up on the project because i t had not worked. She did not consider erasing the parts that she did not l i k e . During t h i s lesson both the on- and off-computer periods were very quiet but busy. Students selected from the same materials that were made available i n Lesson 8 f o r the off-computer period. Lesson 10. The f i r s t lesson of the f i n a l week was Lesson 10. I t began with a presentation of a printout of the picture of the shark to the student who had worked on t h i s project. Then the teacher loaded picture f i l e s which were on the program disks onto the computer. These pictures were of sailb o a t s moving along the water, a sun, and an easter egg. The children were extremely interested i n these pictures and asked several questions concerning t h e i r source. The teacher then asked the students what they would l i k e to draw on the computer and she recorded t h e i r thoughts. During the computer session, nine childr e n worked on d i s c e r n i b l e pictures but they were not always the same thing as what they had stated to the teacher during group time. The teacher was disappointed that only three childr e n drew pictures of what they had i n i t i a l l y planned. The nine pictures included a 122 sailboat, a motorboat, a guitar, a snowy mountain (the mountains were coloured white) a sun, an egg, a book, an M, a t r i a n g l e and a treasure chest. The c h i l d who worked on the s a i l b o a t wanted to r e p l i c a t e the picture he had seen on the screen at the beginning of the lesson and kept asking the teacher questions such as, "Did yours have a sun and clouds?" When he f i n a l l y f i n i s h e d h i s pic t u r e , he was e c s t a t i c with h i s work and threw h i s hands i n the a i r to express h i s joy. Another c h i l d began to work on a project but became quite discouraged when he r e a l i z e d h i s computer did not have colour. Interactions between the students were good and so were student-teacher interactions. The children asked the teacher for help and sought her attention to show her t h e i r work. No behavioural d i f f i c u l t i e s arose during the computer or off-computer sessions. Off the computer students chose an a c t i v i t y from the materials previously introduced. Most children used the geoboards to draw pictures. One c h i l d drew a picture on the geoboard s i m i l a r to the one that she drew on the computer (the mountain and the sun). Other pictures included a motorboat, a person and a house. Lesson 11. The l a s t lesson f o r the Guided Discovery Group, Lesson 11, was videotaped. Pictures from the previous lesson were presented i n a b r i e f discussion period and then students were assigned to eit h e r the on- or off-computer group. A l l materials previously introduced were made ava i l a b l e to the off-computer group. On the computers, nine childr e n drew pictures but only four were of objects that had been 123 predetermined. The pictures included an elephant, boats, a rabbit, a shark and shapes. From observations of the students' drawings, i t was evident that the children had mastered numerous commands during the eleven sessions. Even the g i r l who had lacked confidence to t r y out the program on her own i n i t i a l l y was drawing shapes and with the help of other children f i l l i n g them with colour. She was even able to give the teacher a de t a i l e d explanation of how to draw a square on the computer and to describe the commands needed to do t h i s . Independent of teacher intervention, the students began r e l a t i n g the pictures on the computer to the pictures on the geoboards. During t h i s l a s t session, the students attended to t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s both on and o f f the computer. Summary of Observation Reports f o r the Guided Discovery Group The observation reports for the Guided Discovery Group revealed some important points. Through the observations over the eleven sessions, i t was evident that the many chi l d r e n had mastered some or a l l of the following commands: D, R, L, E, T, G, C, S, K, SHIFT G, CTRL F, CTRL E, and CTRL N. The commands were incorporated into t h e i r drawings. Also the students' vocabulary during the lessons suggested that they had gained an understanding of various commands. For instance, one c h i l d commented, "We have to save i t . " I n i t i a l l y , the teacher had been concerned that t h i s group would not make considerable progress on t h e i r own. This skepticism proved to be wrong very early i n the 124 eleven sessions. The students discovered many of the commands and they were able to explain what happened when they pressed them. Teacher intervention was kept to a minimum during the sessions. Guidance rather than intervention was the teacher's goal. The discussion periods were valuable i n providing an opportunity f o r the teacher to provide some guidance and suggestions to the students without d i c t a t i n g the course of the lesson. This time also enabled the students to share with t h e i r peers t h e i r findings and drawings. Since minimal teacher intervention was the goal of t h i s group, the teacher encouraged the students to work cooperatively and share information with each other. This startegy worked with t h i s group and the students used each other as well as the teacher f o r assistance. Throughout the eleven sessions, the student i n t e r e s t l e v e l was b a s i c a l l y very high. The majority of the group remained enthusiastic and excited. Students enjoyed sharing t h e i r achievements with the teacher and t h e i r peers. A couple of chil d r e n had d i f f i c u l t y with t h i s type of learning possibly because of t h e i r personality t r a i t s . They prefer or need to have guidance and d i r e c t i o n rather than working independently to make discoveries on t h e i r own. 125 Student Interviews This section summarizes the general outcomes of the student interviews. The student interview had four purposes: 1. To determine the attitudes of the students towards the computer and the programming language. 2. To determine whether the students had some understanding of how the computer worked. 3. To determine whether the students preferred to work alone or with a partner on the computer. 4. To determine what the students enjoyed or found d i f f i c u l t to do on the computer. Table 5.9 summarizes the children's responses concerning t h e i r attitudes towards the computer. One question on the interview focused on t h i s t o p i c and i t asked, "Do you enjoy using the computers? Why or why not?" The majority of students had a p o s i t i v e attitude towards the computer. Table 5.9 Student Attitudes Towards the Computer Group Po s i t i v e Negative Undecided Str. 20 0 0 G.D. 16 0 2 Note. Str. = Structured Group; G.D. - Guided Discovery Group. 126 Three questions concerned the students 1 attitudes towards programming on the computer. Table 5.10 summarizes the responses to two of these questions. Question 4 asked, "Did you l i k e to use the computer to draw? Why or why not?" and Question 9 asked, "Do you l i k e pictures drawn using the computer? Why or why not? What do you l i k e or d i s l i k e about the pictures?" Table 5.10 Student Attitudes Towards Programming Group Pos i t i v e Negative Undecided Not understand No. 4 Str. 20 0 0 0 G.D. 15 1 1 0 No. 9 Str. 18 0 1 1 G.D. 15 0 1 1 Note. No.4 = Question 4 of the student interview; No. 9 = Question 9 of the student interview. Once again the majority of students i n both groups had a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e towards the program DELTA DRAWING. The r e s u l t s f o r the remaining question about t h i s t o p i c are presented separately. Question 5 asked the students, "What would you l i k e to do more often: a) draw with a computer; or b) draw with a crayon and paper? Why?" Table 5.11 summarizes the responses. 127 Table 5.11 Drawing Preference - With or Without Computer Group Computer Percent Crayon & Percent Both Percent paper Str. 11 52% 7 33% 2 10% G.D. 9 53% 6 29% 2 12% Both the Structured Group and the Guided Discovery Group had more students who preferred to use the computer to draw than to use crayons and paper to draw. Some of the reasons given by the students included the following: I t ' s (the computer) easier. When you f i l l things i n , i t doesn't go outside the l i n e s . You have to make the t u r t l e move. Because you can get i t on a p r i n t e r . You can make f i l l - i n s . ( f i l l i n a shape with colour) You don't' make as many mistakes with the computer. You don't have to get the crayons and pencils and s t u f f . Because the computer i s faster. (The computer is) more fun. You have keys on them. (The computer is) easier. I t ' s much funner. You get to press whichever button you think i s r i g h t . You don't get to press buttons when you draw pictures. You j u s t colour. The l a s t reason stated was from a g i r l who had experienced considerable d i f f i c u l t y with some of the lessons but t h i s statement suggests that she enjoyed the computer experience. Some of the reasons that students preferred to draw with crayons and paper included: 128 I l i k e to draw pictures and they're nice. I t ' s not very hard. Computers are hard. You have more colours. You would't have to do a l l the hard work. I t ' s easier to draw a c i r c l e and that. I t ' s f a s t e r to do. (You can) do more colours than the computer. I t ' s easier than the computer. You j u s t colour i t instead of thinking which keys you have to do. You can j u s t colour. The majority of these reasons focused on the d i f f i c u l t y of using the computer to draw. Many of the childr e n found i t a more mentally demanding task than drawing with a crayon and paper. The student interviews also helped to determine whether the students had some understanding of how a computer works. The relevant question asked, "How do computers draw pictures?" Some of the reponses to t h i s question were: By buttons. You press them. The t u r t l e draws a picture and makes a l i n e . You press the controls and then you get a picture. Push D and i t goes up. Not j u s t up. I t draws something. You push a button and the t u r t l e moves. By pressing the keys. Then you get a picture. By pushing the keys. I t leaves a l i n e behind i t . You can f i l l i t i n with a colour. You press the keys and they help you. You t e l l them. Press the buttons. I t makes the t u r t l e go. By c o n t r o l l i n g the t u r t l e . By pressing the buttons. They need a screen and buttons. I f you press D you get a l i n e . I f you press C you get d i f f e r e n t colours. The answers indicated that most students had a basic understanding of how to make the t u r t l e move. Keys had to be pressed and t h i s caused d i f f e r e n t movements of the t u r t l e . A few 129 students r e a l i z e d that they had the control over the computer and the computer responded to t h e i r d i r e c t i o n s . Two students gave u n r e a l i s t i c answers to t h i s question which were: They have workers. Things that control the t u r t l e f or moving l i n e s . Push a magic button. I t makes a good pi c t u r e . Both responses suggest that the students perceived the computer as having some mystical powers which enabled i t to draw pictures. One question asked the students about how they l i k e d to work on the computer. The question asked, "Do you l i k e working alone or with a partner when you use the computer?" Table 5.12 summarizes the responses to t h i s question. Table 5.12 Preference Towards Working Alone or with a Partner Group Alone Percent Partner Percent Both Percent Str. 10 50% 9 45% 1 5% G.D. 13 72% 4 22% 1 6% Total 23 61% 13 34% 2 5% A much higher percentage of students i n the Guided Discovery Group preferred to work alone than i n the Structured Group. The Structured Group was almost evenly divided between working alone and working with a partner. When the t o t a l responses are 130 analyzed, ignoring the groups, the majority of students preferred to work alone on the computer. Reasons stated by the students f o r working alone included: I don't have to be bothered. I t ' s fun. I get to be by myself. I get to learn by myself what to do. I can work by myself. Because I always get my turn. Because I can do i t everytime by myself. You can get i t done fa s t e r . You don't have to get o f f the computer again and again. You can do whatever you want. You can do things more often. You can think. Because they (partners) do i t wrong. They don't know my plan. Some people share and some people don't. I can't concentrate. I can make my own things. I can have a l o t of fun by myself. The other person doesn't mess up your p i c t u r e . The main points that the students made i n these responses were: 1. The students wanted to be on the computer continuously and not interrupted. 2. The second person was d i s t r a c t i n g . 3. The time spent on the task was perceived to be fa s t e r when working alone. 4. Some students had d i f f i c u l t y sharing. 5. The partner did not always understand the other person's project. Some of the reasons that students c i t e d f o r working with a partner included: 131 (The) partner helps me. (I l i k e my) friends with me. I l i k e company. You can ask fo r help. I f I do something wrong, he helps me. It ' s easier. We each press the keys. The main focus of the majority of these responses was the helping c a p a c i t i y of the other person. Another point was the companionship that the partner provided. The l a s t concern of the student interview was what the students found enjoyable or d i f f i c u l t to do on the computer. Student responses varied considerably. Responses to the question which asked, "What i s your favourite a c t i v i t y when we use the computer? Why i s i t your favourite a c t i v i t y ? " included: A rainbow. I l i k e to make rainbows. A c i r c l e . I t ' s l i k e a face. A boat. I l i k e boats. Drawing a l o l l i p o p . I l i k e d drawing s t i c k s and l o l l i p o p s on the computer. Making faces. I can make d i f f e r e n t things on the face l i k e square eyes. Doing the boat thing....You had to do a l o t of hard work. Draw a shape and f i l l i t i n . Drawing a square because I wanted to make a square on the computer. The boat because i t was s a i l i n g . I t moved. The paintings - f i l l i t (a shape) with colour. I never knew how to do i t and then I d i d i t . Making an Easter basket because I made a picture of i t at home and then I d i d i t . The shapes - the c i r c l e and the t r i a n g l e . They're easy. The answers given to t h i s question covered a broad spectrum of ideas. Most of them focused on p a r t i c u l a r objects or shapes that students enjoyed drawing. One student enjoyed a procedure that 132 he had learned to do ( f i l l i n g a shape with colour) on the computer. Another c h i l d was pleased with her a b i l i t y to draw the same pic t u r e on paper as well as on the computer. This student had reached the planned programming stage. At times, students did have d i f f i c u l t i e s on the computer. The question which was concerned with t h i s t o p i c asked, "What do you f i n d hard to do on the computer? Why i s t h i s hard f o r you?" Some of the answers were: Making a flower. I t was hard to do the leaves. (An) Easter egg. I t r i e d to make i t round. Faces because i t ' s hard to do the c i r c l e . Pressing the buttons. Things happened that I didn't want to. Drawing the c i r c l e . The t u r t l e would go i n and wouldn't touch the other l i n e . The boat. Too hard to make the f l a g on top of i t . The shapes - rectangle and square. I can't make a c i r c l e . I t r i e d to make a c i r c l e and I made a square. Making a f i l l - i n f l a g . I didn't know how to make a f i l l - i n and that was hard. F i l l i n g the pictures i n . Sometimes you couldn't close them up and get the t u r t l e i n . Drawing a man. I can't draw the eyes. The shapes - the ones that have pointed sides and the c i r c l e because I didn't do them before so I didn't r e a l l y know how to. When I d i d shapes - the diamond. I t had points and I couldn't figure out which way to go. Writing your name. The S. You have to go l i k e a r e a l S on a piece of paper. (It's) easier on paper. Common problems for the students included drawing the various shapes, and p a r t i c u l a r l y c i r c l e s , carrying out s p e c i f i c procedures (for example f i l l - i n s ) and drawing l e t t e r s . However, the d i f f i c u l t i e s were quite s p e c i f i c and no one stated that 133 everything was d i f f i c u l t to do on the computer. In general the student interviews suggested that the students had a p o s i t i v e attitude towards the computer and the program DELTA DRAWING, they had gained a basic understanding of how the computer worked, they preferred to work alone on the computer and at times the computer tasks were both enjoyable and d i f f i c u l t . Parent Questionnaire Parent questionnaires were sent out to a l l student's homes at the beginning of the l a s t week of the t e s t i n g period. Parents were asked to complete i t and return i t to school within f i v e days. Of the 40 questionnaires d i s t r i b u t e d , 28 were returned. One question inquired whether there was a computer i n the c h i l d ' s home. Table 5.13 indicates the number of students with or without computers i n the home and the number of students using the computer at home. Table 5.13 Computers i n the Home and Computer Use by Children Group Quest. 1s Computers No computers Home returned use Str. 17 8 9 5 G.D. 11 4 7 4 134 A l l parents who returned the questionnaire answered two general questions regarding t h e i r views about the issue of young chi l d r e n using computers and whether the computer experience at school had been p o s i t i v e or negative f o r t h e i r c h i l d . Data r e l a t e d to the answers for Question 17 are summarized i n Table 5.14. Question 17 asked, "Do you support or oppose young chi l d r e n under eight years o ld using computers? Explain your answer." Two types of answers were given which included responses supporting the use of computers and mixed responses where the respondent l i s t e d both supporting and opposing reasons for using computers. Table 5.14 indicates that there were more reasons stated by parents which supported the use of computers with young children than reasons stated which opposed t h e i r use. The second general question asked on the questionnaire was Question 18. The question asked, "Do you think the experiences your c h i l d had with computers through t h i s study was p o s i t i v e or negative? Explain your answer." The data summarizing the responses to t h i s question i s given i n Table 5.15. Once again there were two types of responses given. One type of response described indicators that the experience was p o s i t i v e . The other type of response was a mixed response where both p o s i t i v e and negative indicators were mentioned. As Table 5.15 indicates, parents c i t e d indicators that suggested the experience was p o s i t i v e more frequently than they c i t e d i n d i c a t o r s that suggested the experience was negative. The remaining questions on the questionnaire were not Table 5.14 Responses Supporting or Opposing Young Children Using Computers Reason No. of quest.'s Supporting Reasons Only: 1) Become f a m i l i a r with a technology 14 which w i l l be an i n t e g r a l part of the c h i l d ' s l i f e as an adult. 2) Provides a stimulating and challenging 8 educational environment. 3) B e n e f i c i a l to s t a r t as early as possible. 6 4) Reason not stated but responded i n favour 3 of using computers. 5) Easier to learn s k i l l s at young age. 2 6) Fear of computers does not develop. 2 7) Promotes l e t t e r recognition. 1 8) Promotes eye-hand coordination. 1 9) Provides an accomplishment with an 1 immediate reinforcement. Mixed Responses - Supporting Reasons: 1) Important s k i l l f o r the future. 2 2) Fear of computers does not develop. 1 3) Enhances education. 1 4) B e n e f i c i a l to s t a r t as early as possible. 1 5) Reason not stated. 1 Mixed Responses - Opposing Reasons: 1) Computer s k i l l s are not a substitute for 3 basic s k i l l s . 2) Children should not play computer games 1 at expense of other subjects. 3) Valuable time i s wasted because the children 1 lack typing s k i l l s . 4) Fear of ra d i a t i o n . 1 5) Computer i s not important at t h i s age. 1 136 Table 5.15 Indicators of Po s i t i v e or Negative Computer Experience Indicator No. of quest.'s P o s i t i v e Indicators: 1) C h i l d was excited about computers. 11 2) C h i l d more aware of computers. 4 3) C h i l d more comfortable with home 4 computer. 4) C h i l d wants a computer/ computer 3 games. 5) No reason stated. 3 6) Good opportunity f o r students to 2 be exposed to computers. 7) Computer experience of benefit f o r 2 higher grades. 8) Computer aids educational and 2 creative processes. 9) Computers promote s k i l l development 1 e.g. l e t t e r s , numbers. 10) C h i l d l i k e d printout. 1 11) Computer helps develop c h i l d ' s 1 confidence. Mixed Responses - Posi t i v e Indicators: 1) C h i l d l i k e d some parts of the study. 2 Mixed Responses - Negative Indicators: 1) C h i l d found some tasks d i f f i c u l t . 1 2) C h i l d has not asked to purchase program. 1 answered by a l l parents. Some questions were answered by parents with computers i n t h e i r homes, some by parents where the c h i l d used the computer i n the home and some by parents whose c h i l d used a Logo-type graphics program. Posttest scores of children who had a computer at home and used i t were compared with posttest scores of children who did not have a home computer. A Chi square t e s t of association was 137 used to determine whether using a home computer affected posttest scores. Table 5.16 presents the observed (0) and expected (E) counts and the Chi square r e s u l t s . Table 5.16 Chi Square f o r Home Computer Group vs. No Home Computer Group Test Computer No computer Total Numeral Recognition 0=9 E=9 0=28 E=28 37 Letter Recognition 0=6 E=7 0=23 E=22 29 D i r e c t i o n a l / P o s i t i o n a l S k i l l s 0=8 E=7.3 0=22 E=22. 7 30 Design Concepts 0=7 E=7 0=22 E=22 29 Procedural Thinking 0=8 E=7.3 0=22 E=22. 7 30 Programming 0=7 E=7.5 0=24 E=23. 5 31 Chi square = 0.44, df = 5, N = 40 The Chi square t e s t r e s u l t s are not s i g n i f i c a n t which suggests that there was no association between owning a home computer and performance on the Posttests. Students who d i d not own and use a home computer performed as well on the Posttests as the students who owned and used a home computer. From both groups only one c h i l d used a Logo graphics program outside of the school s e t t i n g . This c h i l d had used the program 138 for l e s s than one month and he usually worked with an adult on the program. The questionnaire stated that he l i k e d to draw c i r c l e s when using the program at home. However, looking at the ch i l d ' s r e s u l t s on the section of the programming t e s t which involved drawing a c i r c l e (the l o l l i p o p t e s t ) , he received a ranking of two (major problems with drawing). The group mean for t h i s question was 2.3. Thirteen students scored two on the scale and f i v e students scored three on the scale. Working with the program at home did not seem to a f f e c t h i s programming at school. The lesson observation reports, however, indicated that t h i s c h i l d was the f i r s t to draw a de t a i l e d and complicated drawing which was a picture of a shark. 139 Chapter 6 CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study was designed to investigate the appropriateness of introducing computer programming to kindergarten children. The questions of the study focused on three major areas. Questions 1 to 6 dealt with issues regarding the c a p a b i l i t i e s of kindergarten children to program. Questions 7 to 11 dealt with issues concerning the teaching technique and the learning environment. Questions 13 to 18 dealt with issues about the benefits of learning to program. This section summarizes the conclusions of t h i s study f o r each of the three areas. Then, implications f o r the classroom and recommendations f o r further research i n t h i s area are discussed. Conclusions - Programming C a p a b i l i t i e s of Kindergarten Children Developmental Issues Munro-Mavrias (1983) defines programmming, "as a series of inst r u c t i o n s to a computer i n order to have i t carry out a task" (p. 1). Obrist (1985) states that, " i n order to q u a l i f y as a program, the sequence of instructions must be written with the intent to produce a p a r t i c u l a r r e s u l t " (p. 72). Applying Munro-Mavrias' d e f i n i t i o n of programming to the outcome of t h i s study, the conclusion i s that the kindergarten c h i l d r e n were 140 engaged i n programming. The programming t e s t r e s u l t s indicated that a l l students were able to i n s t r u c t the computer to perform s p e c i f i c tasks that they wished i t to carry out. Students were able to give the computer a series of inst r u c t i o n s to produce a desired r e s u l t . I f writing of the commands i s considered a higher l e v e l of programming than simply pressing the appropriate keys to achieve a s p e c i f i c r e s u l t , then the students i n t h i s study were not programming at the higher l e v e l but they were engaged i n a basic l e v e l of programming. These findings oppose Burg's (1984) b e l i e f that young chi l d r e n are unable to give the computer a set of instructions to do a p a r t i c u l a r task "even i n the most simplest [sic] case" (p. 32). The students i n t h i s study did not necessarily know the complete set of instructions before they set out on a task but they were able to put together a serie s of commands to produce a p a r t i c u l a r r e s u l t . The programming t e s t r e s u l t s f o r both the Structured Group and the Guided Discovery Group indicated that learning to program was not too abstract or complex f o r the kindergarten students i n t h i s study because some l e v e l of success was achieved by a l l ch i l d r e n . A l l students made some attempt on f i v e of the s i x items of the programming t e s t . The only t e s t item where students made no attempt was on item f o u r — f i l l i n g a trapezoid with colour. Three students i n the Guided Discovery Group and four students i n the Structured Group were unable to do t h i s task. On a l l the t e s t items, only 18% of the students experienced no success (and t h i s was on item four). In addition, out of a t o t a l 141 possible average score of 4, students i n the Guided Discovery Group achieved a class mean of 3.07 with the lowest average score of 2.33 and the highest average score of 3.67. In the Structured Group, the cl a s s mean was 3.10 with the lowest average score of 2.17 and the highest average score of 3.83. This l e v e l of success on the programming t e s t suggests that kindergarten students are indeed capable of programming. This f i n d i n g further supports Hines' (1983) r e s u l t s which found that s i x kindergarten childre n were able to perform simple computer programming. I t also supports the r e s u l t s of the study by Jaworski and Brummel (1984) and the r e s u l t s of the Lamplighter Project (Watt, 1982) which both found that young childre n were capable of programming or c o n t r o l l i n g the computer. The lesson observations and the student interviews further supported the findings of the programming t e s t . Not only were the students capable of d i r e c t i n g the computer to carry out a task but they also gained some understanding of how the program worked and how the t u r t l e moved. Most students were able to give a r e a l i s t i c explanation that the keys con t r o l l e d the t u r t l e and that d i f f e r e n t keys resulted i n d i f f e r e n t movements of the t u r t l e . Their a b i l i t y to verbalize what was happening on the screen suggested that they had i n t e r n a l i z e d what they had learned about how the t u r t l e moved. They had achieved a basic understanding of what was happening. I f programming had been too abstract and complex for the children they may not have been able to provide a reasonable explanation. 142 Some of the tasks set out f o r the Structured Group i n a few of the lessons appeared too complex f o r the students at the kindergarten l e v e l . However, when the teacher modified the task, the students always became more successful. There was never complete f a i l u r e by everyone i n the group on any lessons, which suggests that i n general the goal of teaching kindergarten students to program was not u n r e a l i s t i c and that the concepts and s k i l l s introduced were generally not too complex. The teacher changed the lesson plans to accomodate the needs of the students and to better s u i t t h e i r a b i l i t i e s . The students i n the Structured Group did not reach the e d i t i n g and debugging stage, which the teacher had i n i t i a l l y intended. In the Guided Discovery Group i t was evident that some students proceeded from the random h i t t i n g stage to the planned programming stage to the preplanned programming stage but no one reached the e d i t i n g and debugging stage i n t h i s group eit h e r . Perhaps, students d i d not reach t h i s higher l e v e l of programming, the e d i t i n g and debugging stage of programming, because they were not developmentally prepared. Their l o g i c a l thinking s k i l l s may not have been s u f f i c i e n t l y developed to program at t h i s l e v e l . This e d i t i n g and debugging stage may be beyond the a b i l t i e s of kindergarten ch i l d r e n . However, i f the study had been extended over several more weeks then some students may have reached t h i s l e v e l . This study was unable to make any conclusions about whether kindergarten childr e n can learn to e d i t and debug programs. 143 The r e s u l t s of t h i s study suggested that the c a p a b i l i t i e s of kindergarten students i n learning to program was highly i n d i v i d u a l . Students' performance l e v e l s on assigned tasks for the Structured Group, on personal projects f o r the Guided Discovery Group and on the programming t e s t varied greatly. In both groups some children mastered a vast number of commands while other childr e n had a l i m i t e d repetoire of commands. In the Structured Group, i n d i v i d u a l student performance ranged from no success on some assignments to t o t a l success. In the Guided Discovery Group, i n d i v i d u a l drawings ranged from random h i t t i n g of keys to drawing pictures on paper and r e p l i c a t i n g i t on the screen. A l l students did, however, achieve some degree of success on the programming t e s t . A l l students had learned some commands to d i r e c t the t u r t l e around the screen. Several factors may have affected the l e v e l of programming achieved by the students. The in t e r e s t l e v e l of the students and the amount of self-motivation may have contributed to t h e i r a b i l i t y to program. While there were no group differences i n programming performance between the Structured Group and the Guided Discovery Group, i n d i v i d u a l performance may have been influenced by the teaching technique. Some students' s t y l e of learning may have been better suited to a d i f f e r e n t learning environment. The i n t e l l e c t u a l l e v e l of the c h i l d may also have affected the l e v e l of programming the student could a t t a i n . Future studies need to address these issues. 144 This study determined that kindergarten childr e n are capable of programming and that a l l childr e n i n t h i s studied mastered the use of some commands. The highest l e v e l that these students achieved (in both groups) was the preplanned programming stage where ch i l d r e n drew a picture on paper and then recreated i t on the computer. Since the computer sessions on DELTA DRAWING ended a f t e r eleven lessons i n one month, i t i s unknown whether the students would have continued to progress to higher l e v e l s of programming i f they were given more time. S u i t a b i l i t y of Single Keystroke Programs The r e s u l t s of t h i s study support the popular view stated i n the l i t e r a t u r e that a single keystroke program i s a good vehicle fo r introducing programming using Logo graphics to young children (Cathcart & Cathcart, c i t e d i n Kieren, 1984; Clements 1983-84; Dobson & Richardson, c i t e d i n Kieren, 1984; Flake et a l . , 1985; Leggett, 1984). The lesson observations f o r the Structured Group indicated that by the second lesson 95% of the students experienced success with the assignment. Students directed the computer to carry out desired tasks very quickly. The high l e v e l of success at an early stage would not l i k e l y have been possible i f the programming language was too complicated. A possible reason that students were successful almost immediately was due to the s i m p l i c i t y of the program. In the early sessions of the Guided Discovery Group, many children were engaged i n random h i t t i n g of 145 keys and l i n e s and designs covered the screens. I t was d i f f i c u l t to ascertain from t h i s s i t u a t i o n the s u i t a b i l i t y of the single keystroke program. However, the students d i d seem to immediately r e a l i z e that pressing d i f f e r e n t keys would make something happen on the screen. I f the program had been more complicated there would not l i k e l y have been as many drawings on the screens. Due to the s i m p l i c i t y of the program, the students could randomly press keys and produce a drawing. However, the program d i d not seem to be too easy because no students reached the e d i t i n g and debugging stage of programming and the students d i d not u t i l i z e a l l of the commands availa b l e i n the program. The programming t e s t r e s u l t s also suggested that since a l l students were capable of programming at some l e v e l then the programming language was suitable for the age group. No student experienced complete f a i l u r e during the lessons and on the programming t e s t . Some students required teacher assistance with determining appropriate keys to press but a l l students at the end of the month were able to do some programming independently. The student interviews indicated that an overwhelming majority of students had a p o s i t i v e attitude about the programming experience. I f the programming language had been too d i f f i c u l t f o r t h i s l e v e l , the students would not l i k e l y have been so p o s i t i v e about t h e i r experience. In both groups most students d i d not seem hindered by the syntax of the programming language. The students d i d not have d i f f i c u l t y inputting the commands but instead had d i f f i c u l t y remembering which key (lette r ) represented which command. Wall 146 charts helped overcome t h i s problem. Some students had trouble remembering the set of instructions f o r a p a r t i c u l a r procedure but a l l students were able to use some commands. The syntax of the programming language, DELTA DRAWING, seems much simpler than Logo. Logo requires the programmer to state the length of l i n e segments and the s i z e of angles whereas DELTA DRAWING allows the programmer to do t h i s i f desired but otherwise uses default values f o r length and angle s i z e . In addition, DELTA DRAWING only requires the students to press a maximum of two keys (for example CTRL F) f o r any command. Logo requires several keys to be pressed (for example FD 10). The r e s u l t s of t h i s study suggest that the sing l e keystroke program DELTA DRAWING i s a sui t a b l e means fo r introducing programming using T u r t l e graphics to kindergarten children. Type of Programming Experience The study showed that learning to program was p r i m a r i l y a p o s i t i v e experience for the kindergarten childr e n involved i n the research. The student interviews indicated that the majority of students had a p o s i t i v e attitude towards both the computer and towards programming i n DELTA DRAWING. Almost a l l students l i k e d to use the computer to draw and l i k e d pictures that were drawn by the computer. A majority i n each group (52% of the Structured Group, 53% of the Guided Discovery Group) and an o v e r a l l class (both groups) majority (54%) said they preferred to use the computer to draw than to use crayons and paper. The reasons for 147 t h i s choice focused on ease of use, the c a p a b i l i t i e s of the computer (for example f i l l - i n s and p r i n t o u t s ) , speed and enjoyment. Some of the students found the computer to be an enjoyable a l t e r n a t i v e to drawing on paper. I t was a new art medium fo r drawing. The parent questionnaire further suggested that the computer experience had been p o s i t i v e f o r the children. The parents c i t e d more p o s i t i v e indicators about t h e i r c h i l d r e n using the computers than negative or mixed responses. Of the 28 questionnaires returned, 11 parents described t h e i r c h i l d ' s enthusiasm and excitement about using the computers at school. I f the students had not been enjoying the experience, they would not have expressed t h i s kind of emotion to t h e i r parents. Numerous other p o s i t i v e indicators were also related by the parents. Only two parents of the 28, c i t e d negative indicators about the computer experience. One parent related that the c h i l d had found some tasks d i f f i c u l t . This i s a legitimate reason to develop a negative a t t i t u d e towards the experience but i t i s worthy to note that the parent chose to use the word "some" and not " a l l " . This implies that the ent i r e experience was not negative because the c h i l d experienced some success. The other negative reason c i t e d was that a c h i l d had not asked to purchase the program DELTA DRAWING for t h e i r home computer. The parent based the c h i l d ' s enjoyment of the program on wanting to buy the program. For a number of reasons, the c h i l d may not have asked to buy the program but i t does not necessarily mean that he d i d not have a p o s i t i v e experience on the computer. 148 The lesson observations present more varying attitudes towards the computer and programming than the student interviews or the parent questionnaires. This may be due to the fact that the lesson observations were more s p e c i f i c . Student and class a c t i v i t i e s and attitudes were recorded for each session. The student interview and the parent questionnaire, however, presented a more general view based on the whole study. I t i s u n r e a l i s t i c to think that every session f o r every c h i l d was p o s i t i v e . The lesson observations indicated where and when d i f f i c u l t i e s arose. In the Structured Group class d i f f i c u l t i e s on the computer assignments occurred when the l e v e l of the task was too advanced for the age group. Once the teacher modified the task to a simpler form, the students always experienced success. The attitudes and i n t e r e s t l e v e l of the students seemed to r e l a t e to the degree of f r u s t r a t i o n or success the students experienced on a task. When there was a good degree of success, the students were p o s i t i v e , perseverant and sometimes enthusiastic. When they were fru s t r a t e d or unsuccessful, the students were more negative. There were three students i n the Structured Group who experienced more f r u s t r a t i o n and were not as successful as the other students during c e r t a i n lessons. These students a l l required extra teacher assistance but they a l l experienced success by the end of the study. Their programming t e s t r e s u l t s indicated that they had achieved some l e v e l of independent programming competency by the end of the eleven computer sessions. 149 In the Guided Discovery Group there was a high l e v e l of enthusiasm and excitement i n the whole group throughout the eleven sessions. The students frequently sought the teacher's recognition of t h e i r projects. They c a l l e d her to view t h e i r screens and they w i l l i n g l y shared t h e i r experiences at group time. For t h i s group, the lesson observations usually documented a p o s i t i v e group attitude about the computers. There were a few children who had d i f f i c u l t y learning through discovery. They appeared to have trouble taking a r i s k and taking the i n i t i a t i v e to create something on t h e i r own without teacher d i r e c t i o n and guidance. These ch i l d r e n r e l i e d on t h e i r peers to give them d i r e c t i o n . Once they had mastered a few commands and procedures, they practiced these on the computer and f e l t more comfortable about the experience. They did not reach the highest l e v e l of programming but t h e i r programming t e s t r e s u l t s indicated that they d i d experience some degree of success. The teaching method used with the Structured Group may have been more appropriate f o r these p a r t i c u l a r c h i l d r e n . In both groups the attitudes of the students towards p a r t i c u l a r lessons was sometimes affected by hardware problems. For instance, p a i r i n g of students, because there were not enough computers f o r each c h i l d , often created a negative a t t i t u d e . Students frequently preferred to work on t h e i r own. Another d i f f i c u l t y was that students ( p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the Guided Discovery Group) preferred colour monitors and there was a mixture of black and white and colour monitors. Some students became quite upset when they were not assigned a colour monitor 150 which meant that they d i d not enjoy the session. F i n a l l y , the attitudes of the students during some lessons were affected by unforseen d i f f i c u l t i e s such as the l a t e a r r i v a l of the computers, disruptions (related to the school) i n the lessons, and rescheduling of lessons. The task analysis for the Programming Test suggests tasks which were easier and tasks which were more d i f f i c u l t f o r the students. The r e s u l t s indicated that the Guided Discovery Group had a higher degree of success on item one (enclosing a s t i c k e r on the screen) than the Structured Group. Students i n the Structured Group may have benefited from more free exploration of moving the t u r t l e around the screen. On item two (drawing an open rectangle), the Structured Group had a higher l e v e l of success. This may have been a r e s u l t of the teacher continually reviewing the "Move" command with the Structured Group. This command enabled the t u r t l e to move without leaving a l i n e on the path i t took. Knowledge of t h i s command was necessary to be successful with t h i s t e s t item. The Guided Discovery Group was more successful on item three (drawing a trapezoid). During the lessons, drawing a shape with slanted sides was not a compulsory assignment f o r the Structured Group so these students may not have understood how to do t h i s or may not have been able to. figu r e out the procedure. There was l i t t l e d ifference on the group r e s u l t s f o r item four ( f i l l i n g i n the trapezoid with colour). About two t h i r d s of both groups were successful with t h i s task. The Structured Group was much more successful on item f i v e (drawing a l o l l i p o p ) than the Guided Discovery Group. 151 Students i n the Structured Group were given a few lessons about drawing curves and c i r c l e s . The teacher's assistance to the Structured Group i n learning t h i s procedure may have influenced t h e i r success rate on t h i s task. Very few of the Guided Discovery Group attempted to draw c i r c l e s during the lessons so they were probably unaware of the procedure. As a group the Guided Discovery Group performed very poorly on t h i s task. For tasks such as drawing c i r c l e s , where there i s a d e f i n i t e t r i c k or ins i g h t to the procedure, perhaps i t i s better to present the procedure to the students rather than wait f o r them to discover i t . Results f o r both groups on the l a s t item (drawing a sa i l b o a t ) , were s i m i l a r and most students were successful with the task. Both groups had d i f f i c u l t y with c e r t a i n items but they were successful with other items. Conclusions - Teaching Technique and Learning Environment The review of l i t e r a t u r e suggested various types of teaching techniques which involved d i f f e r e n t degrees of structure f o r teaching Logo. Papert (1980) i n s i s t s that Logo should be taught using a discovery approach whereas many other researchers (Clements, Computers i n Early.... 1985; Hawkins, 1985; Leron, 1985; Mullan, 1984; Vaidya, 1983) contend that some structure i s necessary f o r introducing Logo or the children w i l l not discover the "powerful ideas". As a r e s u l t of these varying views, t h i s 152 study used a structured teaching method fo r one group and a guided discovery method for the second group to introduce a sin g l e keystroke program. The r e s u l t s of the study showed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the Structured Group and the Guided Discovery Group on the Programming Test. The average scores on t h i s t e s t indicated that a l l students i n the Structured Group made progress i n learning to program with DELTA DRAWING. Consequently, using a structured approach seemed to be an appropriate method of teaching the single keystroke program, DELTA DRAWING. This group performed better on two tasks (items two and five) on the Programming Test than the Guided Discovery Group. Using the structured approach and teaching the s p e c i f i c technique needed to perform these tasks seemed to benefit the children since the mean score of the Structured Group was higher on these two tasks. As the researchers (Clements, Computers i n Early.... 1985; Hawkins, 1985; Leron, 1985; Mullan, 1984; Vaidya, 1983) suggest i n the l i t e r a t u r e , sometimes structure and d i r e c t i o n by the teacher i s necessary. Since the Structured Group did not perform s i g n i f i c a n t l y better o v e r a l l , a structured method cannot be recommended to be the sole method for introducing a single keystroke program. In addition, the lesson observations indicated that the general a t t i t u d e of the Structured Group varied much more r a d i c a l l y than the Guided Discovery Group. The f r u s t r a t i o n l e v e l of t h i s group was high at times possibly because of the project demands put on the students which were perhaps too advanced for 153 kindergarten children. I t i s important that lessons progress slowly making small steps from one concept to the next. The l e v e l of success on lesson tasks seemed to r e l a t e to i n t e r e s t l e v e l by the students. The higher degree of success on the task, the higher degree of in t e r e s t and on-task behaviour. This study did not t e s t t h i s hypothesis but observation records suggested t h i s outcome. The Guided Discovery Group also made progress i n learning to program with DELTA DRAWING so the guided discovery method also seems to be an appropriate method of teaching DELTA DRAWING. This group performed better on two tasks (items one and three) on the Programming Test than the Structured Group. This may have been due to the amount of time the Guided Discovery Group was given to play with the t u r t l e and to explore and investigate the parameters of i t s movements. The Structured Group was not given an opportunity f o r t h i s free exploration to determine the c a p a b i l i t i e s of the t u r t l e . So, i t also seems necessary, as Papert and h i s supporters (Dewitt, 1884; Enns, 1986; Maxwell, 1984) believe, to provide time for discovery and exploration when using a Logo-type program. The Guided Discovery Group did not perform s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than the Structured Group on the Programming Test so the guided discovery method cannot be recommended as the only method for teaching a si n g l e keystroke program eit h e r . The lesson observations for the Guided Discovery Group indicated a high l e v e l of enthusiasm throughout the eleven lessons. This may have been due to the students being i n t o t a l 154 control of t h e i r projects. They were proud of t h e i r discoveries and appeared delighted with t h e i r successes. They took ownership of t h e i r creations. Papert (1980) intended students to make discoveries on t h e i r own when using Logo and wanted childre n to be i n control of t h e i r learning (Jaworski and Brummel, 1984) and f e e l a sense of power (Housey, i n Jaworski and Brummel, 1984) over the computer. The observational records f o r the Guided Discovery Group indicated these p o s i t i v e features. W i l l i s (1983) and Jaworski and Brummel (1984) have reported that a Logo environment also encourages sharing of ideas. In t h i s study the teacher encouraged c h i l d - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n rather than teacher-child i n t e r a c t i o n at the computers as C o l l i n s and White (1984) suggested. Children i n the Guided Discovery Group d e f i n i t e l y shared t h e i r discoveries with each other and many chil d r e n benefitted from t h i s experience. I t allowed students to incorporate commands and procedures into t h e i r drawings that they did not discover on t h e i r own and may not have discovered. The s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n and the language (questioning and explaining) used was a very valuable experience. As well as working at the computers, the students also shared t h e i r ideas at group time. The group time also provided time f o r the teacher to give the students a minimal amount of d i r e c t i o n and guidance. The important components of the Guided Discovery method seemed to include the free exploration time, the minimal teacher intervention, the s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n and the group time. These should be incorporated into the teaching method used f o r introducing a single keystroke program. 155 The r e s u l t s of t h i s study suggest that a combination of structured and guided discovery teaching methods would be most suita b l e f o r introducing a single keystroke program. The l i t e r a t u r e supports t h i s conclusion. Leron (1985) r e f e r s to t h i s type of environment as "quasi-Piagetian" where students are given some guidance but also time to think and explore independently. Clements (Computers i n Early.... 1985) also believes that i n the lessons there should be a balance of the teacher i n s t r u c t i n g the students and free exploration or student projects. Since neither group performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than the other group on the Programming Test, i t i s reasonable to conclude that i t would be b e n e f i c i a l to the students to use a combination of both teaching methods. At times the teacher could provide time f o r free exploration, where teacher intervention i s minimal so that students can make discoveries on t h e i r own. The teacher could also provide some structure to teach s p e c i f i c procedures that are not l i k e l y to be discovered by the students. The learning environment encompasses the teaching method and also how the students work on the computers. In t h i s study, the students worked both with and without partners. The student interviews revealed that a majority of students preferred to work on t h e i r own on the computer. The lesson observations reinforced t h i s outcome. Students tended to work better on t h e i r own than with a partner. Partners often seemed to i n h i b i t on-task behaviours. I t was more d i f f i c u l t for c h i l d r e n to concentrate and complete a task when they were with another c h i l d . 156 More students i n the Guided Discovery Group preferred to work alone than i n the Structured Group. The Structured Group was almost evenly divided between working alone and working with a partner. One factor a f f e c t i n g these r e s u l t s may have been that students i n the Structured Group were assigned the same task whereas students i n the Guided Discovery Group worked on t h e i r own projects. I t would be easier to work with a partner on a common problem than to work with someone else on t h e i r project. S o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y with the Guided Discovery Group, s t i l l occurred when students were on t h e i r own computers. In t h i s group when two students were on one computer they did not seem to work together on a p a r t i c u l a r project, but when they worked on t h e i r own computer they would share t h e i r ideas and help each other solve problems. The Structured Group sometimes worked together on a common problem but frequently each c h i l d waited f o r h i s turn to solve the problem independently. More disputes over computers were heard from the Structured Group but more of t h i s group preferred to work with a partner. Most f i v e and six-year-old children seem to be too self-centered to be able to solve a problem with someone else. A few children, however, preferred to have a partner when working on the computer because the other person helped them with d i f f i c u l t i e s . To conclude, sharing a computer at t h i s age l e v e l does not seem to be advantageous f o r a l l children but may be su i t a b l e f o r some. 157 Conclusions - Benefits of Programming The r e s u l t s of the study suggest that the computer programming experience with DELTA DRAWING had a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on several aspects of the students' cognitive growth. Both groups made s i g n i f i c a n t gains on the BRIGANCE Upper Case Letter Recognition Test, the BRIGANCE Di r e c t i o n a l / P o s i t i o n a l S k i l l s Test, the BRIGANCE Design Concepts Test and the Procedural Thinking Test. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t gains, however, on the BRIGANCE Numeral Recognition Test. These r e s u l t s support the outcomes of previous studies. Programming with young childre n may improve performance on cognitive tasks but does not ensure performance improvement. This study, as i n previous studies, shows both p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s and no e f f e c t s f o r cognitive growth. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t improvement on the BRIGANCE Numeral Recognition Test. The " c e i l i n g e f f e c t " may have caused t h i s outcome. Students were asked to i d e n t i f y the numerals from one to ten and the t o t a l possible score of the t e s t was ten. Students i n both groups scored well on the Pretest, and there was l i t t l e room f o r improvement on the Posttest. For t h i s study, i t was not worthwhile t e s t i n g beyond the numeral ten because the students would not be exposed to numerals higher than ten i n the program. In a study conducted by Reimer (1985), who also used the BRIGANCE Numeral Recognition Test f o r numerals one to ten, he found no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between Pretest and Posttest scores a f t e r a Logo programming experience on t h i s t e s t . Other 158 studies i n v e s t i g a t i n g the e f f e c t s of programming on understanding mathematical concepts and s k i l l s have not s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned numeral recognition s k i l l s . In t h i s study students i n both groups made s i g n i f i c a n t gains from Pretest to Posttest on the BRIGANCE Upper Case Letter Recognition Test so the intervention of DELTA DRAWING affected the r e s u l t s on t h i s t e s t . In addition there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d ifference between the Structured Group and the Guided Discovery Group with the Guided Discovery Group outperforming the Structured Group on both the Pretest and the Posttest. Since group differences were not apparent on any of the other t e s t s , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to ascertain why the Guided Discovery Group achieved better r e s u l t s on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r t e s t . Reimer (1985) administered the same t e s t but d i d not f i n d any differences between the control group and the computer using group. Students i n the Guided Discovery Group started out with a better knowledge of the alphabet. Students i n the Structured Group made more of a gain between the Pretest and the Posttest than the Guided Discovery Group. I t i s d i f f i c u l t to conclude that the teaching method made a s i g n i f i c a n t difference to the recognition of upper case l e t t e r s even though there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the two group means. Further research i s necessary to: 1) explore whether p a r t i c u l a r l e t t e r s of the alphabet (related to the command keys) are better recognized a f t e r a computer programming experience; 2) explore whether o r a l discussion of the commands helps to improve l e t t e r recognition; and, 3) explore whether the teaching method a f f e c t s the recognition of l e t t e r s . 159 The conclusions from t h i s study about the teaching method having an e f f e c t on l e t t e r recogniton are very tentative and need to be supported i n other studies. The t h i r d t e s t , the BRIGANCE Di r e c t i o n a l / P o s i t i o n a l Test also resulted i n differences between Pretest and Posttest scores. This study concludes that learning programming through a single keystroke program does improve students' understanding of certa i n d i r e c t i o n a l / p o s i t i o n a l terms. This conclusion seems reasonable since DELTA DRAWING involves moving a t u r t l e around the screen and putting i t i n d i f f e r e n t positions. Many of the commands, which the students learned, were d i r e c t i o n a l / p o s i t i o n a l terms. Since both groups made s i g n i f i c a n t improvements i t i s possible to conclude that the common experience of both groups, exposure to DELTA DRAWING, was the reason f o r better understanding of d i r e c t i o n a l / p o s i t i o n a l terms. Reimer's (1985) study once again does not support these findings. On the BRIGANCE Design Concepts Test the students also made s i g n i f i c a n t improvements from Pretest to Posttest. Since both groups improved, the re s u l t s suggest that learning a programming language can improve students recogniton of c e r t a i n geometric shapes. The Edinburgh Logo Project (Howe et a l . , 1979) with 13-year-old boys and Reiber's (1985) study with grade two chi l d r e n found s i m i l a r r e s u l t s and made s i m i l a r conclusions. Papert (1980) and h i s proponents (Clements, Computers i n Early.... 1985; Kieren, 1984) believe learning to program i n Logo promotes problem solving s k i l l s and the a b i l i t y to think. This study investigated whether learning to program a f f e c t s procedural 160 thinking s k i l l s i n p a r t i c u l a r and concludes that computer programming indeed has a p o s i t i v e a f f e c t on procedural thinking s k i l l s . Both groups i n the study demonstrated s i g n i f i c a n t gains between Pretest and Posttest scores a f t e r the intervention of the s i n g l e keystroke program. Students were better able to give d i r e c t i o n s , break a whole into i t s parts and sequence a set of pictures a f t e r the programming experience. During the "Giving Directions" section of the t e s t a few students demonstrated that they had transferred the computer learning to off-computer tasks. They gave the teacher d i r e c t i o n s for moving by s t a t i n g t u r t l e commands (for example D,D,D and then R,R,R). This tr a n s f e r may have occurred more natur a l l y f o r the students i n t h i s study because they had used several off-computer supplementary a c t i v i t i e s during which i t was common to i n s t r u c t another c h i l d (the " t u r t l e " ) how to move around. Interestingly, on a l l of the t e s t s administered there were no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s between teaching technique and t e s t l e v e l on the a c q u i s i t i o n of s p e c i f i c s k i l l s . A l l s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s were the r e s u l t of the intervention, DELTA DRAWING or a r e s u l t of the d i f f e r e n t teaching methods but not due to j o i n t e f f e c t s of both of these factors. A s i m i l a r study over an extended period of time would be valuable to investigate these findings further. 161 Implications for the Classroom This research study, which investigated the c a p a b i l i t i e s and benefits of kindergarten children to learn a programming language on the computer, has implications f o r the classroom. These w i l l be discussed i n t h i s section. The study concluded that learning to program i s developmentally appropriate for kindergarten children. These students are capable of c o n t r o l l i n g the computer to have i t perform a desired task. Consequently, students who use computers at the kindergarten l e v e l should be given the opportunity to work with a sing l e keystroke program such as DELTA DRAWING. This experience can be p o s i t i v e and rewarding f o r them as well as challenging. The students take pride and d e l i g h t i n t h e i r accomplishments on the computer. I t i s appropriate to use single keystroke programs with young childre n because of t h e i r ease of use. Children can experience almost immediate success when using t h i s type of program. These programs are a s u i t a b l e means of introduction to T u r t l e graphics. As a r e s u l t of the conclusions of t h i s study, several suggestions r e l a t i n g to the teaching method and general learning environment f o r introducing a single keystroke program can be made. A combination of both a structured teaching method and a guided discovery method i s recommended. At times students need some d i r e c t i o n and input from a knowledgable person (for example the teacher) to guide them on t h e i r computer a c t i v i t i e s but r i g i d structure i s not always necessary and may s t i f l e the students' 162 enthusiasm and excitement from making discoveries on t h e i r own. When d i r e c t i o n and i n s t r u c t i o n i s given i t should be done so by taking small steps otherwise the students cannot make the connection between the two l e v e l s and they may become frustrated. I t may be necessary (but not for a l l children) to provide i n s t r u c t i o n s about s p e c i f i c commands or procedures to help them to make progress with t h e i r programming a b i l i t i e s . Otherwise, these students may stagnate because they do not or cannot continue to make discoveries which would bring them to a higher l e v e l of programming. I t i s also important to provide considerable free exploration time when students are learning to program on the computer so that they can make discoveries on t h e i r own and chose t h e i r own projects. They seem to experience more pride over t h e i r own creations than when they have been directed to perform a s p e c i f i c task assigned by the teacher. They need the opportunity to explore, investigate and play with the program on t h e i r own with minimal teacher d i r e c t i o n . S o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n between students should be encouraged when they learn to program on the computer. The teacher can d i r e c t the students to seek out knowledgeable peers to help with d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n s or the teacher can suggest an "expert". Students should be permitted to move about f r e e l y to observe t h e i r peers and discuss problems with each other. They should also be encouraged to share t h e i r ideas during a group discussion period. These group periods are a valuable time f o r sharing knowledge and problems. 163 Teacher-child i n t e r a c t i o n should also occur i n a se t t i n g promoting computer programming but the teacher should be more of a f a c i l i t a t o r than an inst r u c t o r . Guidance should be the teacher's main goal rather than i n s t r u c t i o n . Instruction w i l l be a component of the program but not a major focus. Sometimes a structured lesson might be necessary to teach a s p e c i f i c procedure that i s not l i k e l y to be discovered by the students. For c e r t a i n children, depending on the learning s t y l e of the c h i l d , more d i r e c t i o n and i n s t r u c t i o n may be necessary to avoid a negative attitude towards the computer and f r u s t r a t i o n by the student. The teacher should frequently make suggestions to the students but not always i n s i s t on a p a r t i c u l a r outcome. During group time the teacher can also share knowledge, sometimes through d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n and sometimes by asking guiding questions. Students at the kindergarten l e v e l should work on the computers on t h e i r own i n i t i a l l y unless they request to work with a partner. As the students gain competency with programming, solving problems with a partner may be more appropriate. I t i s important that the p a i r i n g does not allow one c h i l d to dominate the computer so teachers need to regulate these s i t u a t i o n s on the computer. Teaching the students a programming language may have benefits f o r c e r t a i n areas of cognitive development. Having students learn to program can be used by the teacher as another t o o l to a s s i s t students to make cognitive gains i n various areas of the curriculum. The computer can be integrated into the 164 curriculum and programming introduced to provide another medium to promote cognitive development. The computer would not be used as the only means of teaching various s k i l l s (such as numeral recognition, upper case l e t t e r recognition, recognition of shapes, understanding d i r e c t i o n a l / p o s i t i o n a l term) but i t could be used to supplement and support other techniques. Creating a sui t a b l e teaching / learning environment, as described above, can also r e s u l t i n s o c i a l development i n the children. Since s o c i a l s k i l l s are an important focus of a kindergarten curriculum, teaching programming for the s o c i a l benefits that students could a t t a i n would be worthwhile i n i t s e l f . Recommendations f o r Future Research Numerous recommendations for future research can be made as a r e s u l t of t h i s research study. Some of these recommendations are d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the conclusions. Others are not d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d but instead r e l a t e to issues about young childre n using computers and more s p e c i f i c a l l y learning to program. This section w i l l discuss both. This study took place over a short period of time (one month). A future study should present a singl e keystroke program to kindergarten c h i l d r e n much e a r l i e r i n the school year and the study should continue f o r the whole year f o r a v a r i e t y of purposes. F i r s t , the study could determine whether kindergarten students are capable of learning to program i n the early months. I t could also determine the c a p a b i l i t i e s of the kindergarten 165 students to program over a f u l l year and discover t h e i r upper l i m i t s of programming, i f any. Would any students reach the ed i t i n g and debugging stage of programming i n kindergarten? The focus of another future study could be the e f f e c t of a quasi-Piagetian teaching s t y l e on learning to program. This s t y l e of teaching children to program would be a combination of a structured approach and a guided discovery approach. The programming c a p a b i l i t i e s of students at the end of the study could be explored. This type of study could also investigate how s p e c i f i c factors such as self-motivation, i n t e r e s t l e v e l of the c h i l d , i n t e l l e c t u a l l e v e l of the c h i l d , and motivation of the teacher a l l a f f e c t programming a b i l i t i e s of students. DELTA DRAWING i s j u s t one single keystroke programming language. A comparison of d i f f e r e n t s i n g l e keystroke programs and t h e i r c a p a b i l i t i e s may be worthwhile. I t would be b e n e f i c i a l to determine whether students can make an easy t r a n s f e r to Logo a f t e r using a single keystroke program i . e . was the single keystroke program a b e n e f i c i a l pre-Logo experience? I t i s also worth in v e s t i g a t i n g whether c e r t a i n s i n g l e keystroke programs r e s u l t i n easier transfer to Logo than other sing l e keystroke programs. The d i f f i c u l t i e s experienced i n each group of t h i s study suggest that a p a r t i c u l a r teaching method may be better suited to c e r t a i n c h i l d r e n with a p a r t i c u l a r learning s t y l e . Investigating the i n t e r a c t i o n of teaching methods and learning s t y l e s when 166 chi l d r e n learn to program would be a worthwhile t o p i c f o r a study. Students with a p a r t i c u l a r learning s t y l e may learn to program better i f the appropriate teaching method i s employed. Further research needs to continue on the e f f e c t s of programming on cognitve growth. Future research studies could focus on l e t t e r recognition and learning to program. One study could explore whether p a r t i c u l a r l e t t e r s of the alphabet (related to the command keys) are better recognized a f t e r a computer programming experience. The study could also explore whether the teaching method a f f e c t s l e t t e r recognition. A separate study could focus on d i r e c t i o n a l / p o s i t i o n a l terms and could investigate whether students gain a better understanding of s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n a l / p o s i t i o n a l terms which r e l a t e d i r e c t l y to the programming commands (for example r i g h t and l e f t as opposed to over and under). A study s i m i l a r to the present study but over a longer period of time would be worthwhile to investigate whether there i s an i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between teaching technique and t e s t i n g l e v e l s . The present study did not discover any j o i n t e f f e c t s . The present research study also raised questions f o r future rsearch i n some related issues to young ch i l d r e n and programming. One possible focus f o r a study could investigate r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the c h i l d ' s stage of development (in Piagetian terms) and the programming c a p a b i l i t i e s of the c h i l d . Is the c h i l d ' s programming a b i l i t i e s l i m i t e d by t h e i r stage of development? Is development enhanced by programming? 167 Another t o p i c f o r research could focus on the drawings produced on the computer. A researcher could investigate whether the l e v e l of drawings on the computer cor r e l a t e with the l e v e l of drawings that the c h i l d does o f f the computer. Does the computer advance the c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y to draw? A f i n a l t o p i c f o r research could compare DELTA DRAWING to Logo as a means of introducing T u r t l e graphics to kindergarten students. The programming c a p a b i l i t i e s of both groups could be compared. This section suggests that much research needs to be done i n the area of young childre n using computers and learning to program. The area i s s t i l l i n the developing stages. Unless conclusive research i s made available, the computer i n the Early Childhood area may be quickly dismissed as j u s t another fad and i t s p o t e n t i a l not t r u l y r e a l i z e d . 168 REFERENCES Alper, L. "Pets For L i t t l e People." The Computing Teacher 8.7 (1980-81): 54-55. B a l l , Stanley. "Programming Benchmarks f o r the Young Student." School Science and Mathematics 85 (1985): 374-382. Bandelier, N. "Computer-Assisted Instruction In Reading: Used for Kindergarten and F i r s t Graders In D i l l o n Montana." Proceedings of the NECC, 1981. Bandelier, N. "TI Logo and F i r s t Graders - A Winning Combination." The Computing Teacher 10.3, 1983: 38-39. Barnes, B.J. & H i l l , S h i r l e y . "Should Young Children Work with Microcomputers - Logo Before Lego?" The Computer  Teacher 10.9 (1983): 11-14. B i l l i n g s , Karen. "Developing Mathematical Concepts with Microcomputer A c t i v i t i e s . " The Arithmetic Teacher 30.6 (1983) : 18-19, 57. Birch, Louisa L. Introducing LOGO to Primary Children. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Company, 1982. B i t t e r , Gary G. & Camuse, Ruth A. Using a Microcomputer i n  the Classroom. Reston, V i r g i n i a : Reston Publishing Co., Inc., 1984. Brady, Elizabeth H. & H i l l , S h i r l e y . "Young Children and Microcomputers." Young Children 39.3 (1984): 49-61. Burg, Karen. "The Microcomputer i n the Kindergarten: A Magical, Useful, Expensive Toy." Young Children 39.3 (1984) : 28-33. Burns, George. "Children's Approaches to Programming: A Teacher's Perspective." AEDS Proceedings (1983): 55-58. Burron, D. "Children of the Chip." Prime Areas 25.1, 1982: 29-31. Byte 7.8 (1982): 116-134. Camp, John S. & Marchionini, Gary. "Programming and Learning Implications f o r Mathematics Education." In Computers i n Mathematics Education. Reston, V i r g i n i a : National Council of Teacher's of Mathematics, 1984. Campbell, Sheila. "Preschoolers Meet a High Tech T u r t l e . " Science and Children 22.7 (1985): 37-40. 169 Chandler, Daniel. Young Learners and the Microcomputer. Stratford, England: Open University Press, 1984. Clarke, V a l e r i e A. "The Impact of Computers on Mathematics A b i l i t i e s and Attitudes: A P i l o t Study Using LOGO." Journal of Computers i n Mathematics and Science  Teaching. Winter (1985-86): 32-33. Clements, Douglas H. Computers i n Early and Primary Education. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,1985. Clements, Douglas H. "Effec t s of Logo Programming on Cognition, Metacognition S k i l l s and Achievement."Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, I l l i n o i s : Kent State University, 1985. Clements, Douglas H. "Implications of Media Research for the Instructional Application of Computers with Young Children." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, I l l i n o i s : Kent State University, 1985. Clements, Douglas H. "Logo Programming i n the Early Grades: Research and Implications, np,nd, 174-196. Clements, Douglas. "Supporting Young Children's Logo Programming." The Computer Teacher 11.5 (1983-84): 24-29. Clements, Douglas H. Gullo, Dominic F. "Ef f e c t s of Computer Programming on Young Children's Cognition." Journal of  Educational Psychology 76 (1984): 1051-1058. Clements, Douglas H. & Nastasi, Bonnie K. "Effec t s of Logo Programming and Computer-Assisted Instruction on Social Behaviours and Use of He u r i s t i c s . " Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, I l l i n o i s : Kent State University, 1985. Coburn, Peter, et a l . , P r a c t i c a l Guide to Computers i n Education (2nd ed.). Reading, Mass.: Addison - Wesley Publishing Co.,Inc., 1985. C o l l i n s , Rosann Webb & White, Kathy B. "The Computer Camp Approach to Introducing Children to Computers." Educational Technology 24.6 (1984): 29-32. Cuffaro, Harriet K. "Microcomputers i n Education: Why i s E a r l i e r Better?" Teacher's College Record 85 (1984): 559-568. 170 Cuneo, Diane O. "Young Children and T u r t l e Graphics Programming: Understanding T u r t l e Commands." Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research i n Ch i l d Development. Toronto, Ontario: 1985. D'Angelo, John. "Logo: A Computer Application f o r Elementary Children." In Microcomputers i n Education:  Getting Started. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Mathematics/Science Conference. Arizona State University, 1981. Davy, John. "Mindstorms i n the Lamplight." Teachers College  Record 85 (1984): 549-558. Dewitt, Stephen. Apple Logo A c t i v i t i e s . Reston, V i r g i n i a : Reston Publishing Co.,Inc., 1984. Doorly, A. "Microcomputers For G i f t e d Microtots." G/C/T 14 (1980): 62-64. Ellingham, D. "Microcomputers and M a r c l i f f e Primary Schools." In Roy Garland, ed., Microcomputers and  Children i n the Primary School. Sussex, Eng.: The Falmer Press, 1982. Enns, Keith A. "What i s a Logo Environment?" CUE - The  Journal of CUEBC 5.3 (1986): 29-31. Eyster, Richard H. "Seymour Papert and the Logo Universe." Creative Computing 7.12 (1981): 70-74. Fetterman, J . J . "The Impact of Technology on the E t h i c a l Developemnt of Children." In Mary Frank, ed., Young  Children i n a Computerized Environment. Journal of  Children i n Contemporary Society. 14.1 (1981). Flake, Janice L., Mclintock, Edwin & Turner, Sandra V. Fundamentals of Computer Education. Belmont, Cal.: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1985. Frank, Mary, ed. Young Children i n a Computerized Environment. Spec, issue of Journal of Children i n  Contemporary Society 14.1 (1981). Garland, Roy, ed. Microcomputers and Children i n the Primary School. Sussex, England: The Falmer Press, 1982. Genishi, C e l i a . "Playing with Language: Are Computers Appropriate?" Journal of the Canadian Association for  Young Children. F a l l 1987: 15-23. G i l l , Peter. Microcomputer Assisted learning i n the Primary School. London, England: Ward Lock Educational, 1983. 171 Gillingham, Mark G. "Microcomputers, Logo and Young Children: Building a Powerful Environment. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association for the Education of Young Children." Atlanta, Georgia, 1983. Hawaii State Dept. of Education. Exploratory Computer Literacy Curriculum Guide. Honolulu, Hawaii: O f f i c e of Instru c t i o n a l Services, 1984. Hawkins, Jan. "The Interpretation of Logo i n Practice." Technical Report No.34. New York, New York: Bank Street College of Education, Mar., 1985. H i l l , S h i r l e y A. "The Microcomputer i n the In s t r u c t i o n a l Program." The Arithmetic Teacher 30.6 (1983): 14 Hines, Sandra N. "Preschoolers + Computers = ABC. Computer Programming A b i l i t i e s of Five-Year-Old Children." Educational Computer 3.4 (1983): 10-12. Horn, Bruce. "Using Single Keystroke Logo i n Grade One." CUE - The Journal of CUEBC 5.3 (1986): 53-57. Hortin, John A. & Teague, Fred, eds., Educational  Considerations 10.2 (1983). ED 235 787. Howe, Dr. J.A.M. "Learning Mathematics Through Logo Programming." Conference proceedings of ADCIS, 1981, 109-112. Howe, J.A.M., O'Shea, T. & Plane, F. "Teaching Mathematics through Logo Programming: and Evaluation Study." In R. Lewis & E.D. Tagg, eds., Computer Assisted Learning:  Scope. Progress and Limits. London, England: Heinemann Educational Books, 1979, 85-102. Hunter, Beverley. Mv Students Use Computers. Reston, V i r g i n i a : Reston Publishing Co., Inc., 1983. Introduction to Microcomputers using INSTANT Logo. Nanaimo, B.C.: Georgia Avenue School, 1985. (Vancouver, B.C.: B.C. Teachers' Federation, Lesson Aids Service, 1986.) Jaworski, Anne Porter & Brummel, Brenda. Introducing Computer Education into an Early Elementary Curriculum. Jan. 1984. ED 250 059. Jones, Ron, ed. Microcomputers i n the Primary Classroom. London, England: Edward Arnold Publishers, 1984. 172 Jones, R. Microcomputers; Their Uses i n Primary Schools. London, England: Council f o r Educational Technology, 1980. Kieren, Thomas E. Logo i n Education: What. How. Where, Why  and Consequences. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Department Of Education, 1984. ED 258 536. Kelman, Peter et a l . Computers i n Teaching Mathematics. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1983. Kindergarten Curriculum Guide and Resource Book. V i c t o r i a , B.C.: Ministry of Education Schools Department Curriculum Development Branch, 1984. Kreuger, Larry W. , Karger, Howard & Barwick, Kathy. "A C r i t i c a l Look at Children and Microcomputers: Some Phenomenological Observations." Early C h i l d Development  and Care 32 (1988): 69-82. K r u l l , Sara Margaret. "An Analysis of the E f f e c t s of Learning to Program a Computer on Student Math Performance and Attitude Toward School." DAI 40 (1980): 5711A. Saint Louis University. Labinowicz, Ed. The Piaget Primer: Thinking. Learning.  Teaching. Menlo Park, C a l i f o r n i a : Wesley Publishing Co., 1980. Larter, S y l v i a . The Impact of Microcomputers i n Elementary  Education. Ontario: Ministry of Education, 1983. Leggett, Stanton, ed. Microcomputers Go To School: Where  and How to Get the Most From Them. Chicago, I l l i n o i s : Teach 'em, Inc., 1984. Leron, U r i . "Logo Today V i s i o n and R e a l i t y . " The Computing  Teacher 12.5 (1985): 26-32. Leron, U r i . "Preparatory Notes f o r Talk at Logo '85." CUE -The Journal of CUEBC 5.3 (1986): 9-17. Long, C. "How Are Today's Elementary Schools Using Computers?" Educational Technology 25.5 (1985): 27-29. Markuson, Carolyn, Tobias, Joyce & Lough, Tom. "Logo Fever: The Computer Language Every School Is Catching." Arithmetic Teacher 31.1 (1983): 48-51. Marshall, Bea. "Kindergarten and Logo" CUE - The Journal of  CUEBC 5.3 (1986): 59-62. Marshall, Bea. LOGO LESSONS. Vancouver, B.C.: B.C. Teachers Federation, Lesson Aids Service, 1985. 173 Martin, Kathleen, Beardon, Donna & Muller, James H. "Turtle Graphics On and Off the Computer." The Computing  Teacher. 10.3 (1982): 55-58. Martin, Kathleen & Berner, Andrew. "Teaching T u r t l e s . " The  Computincr Teacher 10.3 (1982): 41-45. Martin, Kathleen & Riordon, Tim. "Getting Started with Logo - 7 Easy Lessons." The Computing Teacher 10.6 (1983): 46-50. Maxwell, Beryl. "Why Logo?" In Kelly, A.V., ed. Microcomputers and the Curriculum. London: Harper & Row, 1984. Mullan, A.P. Children and Computers In the Classroom. Kent, G.B.: Castle House Publications Ltd., 1984. Munro-Mavrias, Sandra. "Computer Programming by Kindergarten Children Using Logo." Paper presented at the Association for Media and Technology i n Education i n Canada/ ADATE Conference. Montreal, Canada, 1983. ED 237 066. Obrist, A.J. Microcomputers and Children. London, England: Hodder and Stoughton, 1985. Obrist, A.J. The Microcomputer and the Primary School. London, England: Hodder and Stoughton, 1983. O'Shea, Tim & Self, John. Learning and Teaching with Computers. Great B r i t a i n : The Harvester Press, 1983. Pant i e l , Mindy & Petersen, Becky, eds, Teachers and Computers. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1984. Papert, Seymour et a l . The Brookline Logo Project. F i n a l Report. Part I I . Project Summary and Data Analysis. A.I. Memo 545. Logo Memo 53. Cambridge Mass.: A r t i f i c i a l I ntelligence Lab, MIT, 1979. ED 196 423. Papert, Seymour. "Computer as Mudpie." In D. Petersen, ed., I n t e l l i g e n t Schoolhouse: Readings on Computers and Learning Reston, V i r g i n i a : Reston Publishing Co., Inc., 1984, 17-26. Papert, Seymour. Mindstorms. New York: Basic Book, Inc., Publishers, 1980. Papert, Seymour. "Teaching Children Thinking." Programmed  Learning and Educational Technology. 9.5, 1972, 245-255. 174 Piestrup, A. "A Computer i n the Nursery School." In D. Petersen, ed., I n t e l l i g e n t Schoolhouse: Readings on  Computers and Learning. Reston, V i r g i n i a : Reston Publishing Co., Inc., 1984, 211-217. Reiber,Lloyd. "Logo Develops Systematic Thinking." AEDS. Jan./Feb, 1985. ED 256 288. Reimer, Gordon. "The E f f e c t s of a Logo Computer Programming Experience on Readiness for F i r s t Grade, C r e a t i v i t y , and Self-Concept. 'A P i l o t Study i n Kindergarten." 1 The  Association for Educational Data Systems 23.7-8 (1985): 8-12. Riedesel, C. A l l a n & Clements, Douglas H. Coping with  Computers i n the Elementary and Middle Schools. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1985. Riordon, Tim. "Creating a Logo Environment." The Computing  Teacher 10.3 (1982): 46-50. Rosser, P h y l l i s . "Computers i n the Classroom: How They May Change the Way Children Learn." Teachers and Writers 14.4 (1983): 1-4. Shumway, R. "One Point of View: Let Kids Write Programs." Arithmetic Teacher. 30.6 (1983): 2,56. S i l v e r n , Steven B. & McCary, Joe C. "Computers i n the Educational Lives of Children: Developmental Issues.",np,nd: 7-20. S i l v e r n , Steven, Williamson, Peter A., Countermine, Terry M. "Young Children's Interaction With a Microcomputer." Early Child Development and Care 32 (1988): 23-35. Simon, Tony. "Play and learning with computers." Early  C h i l d Development and Care 19.1-2 (1985): 69-78. Smart, M o l l i e S. & Smart, Russell C. Children. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1977. Spencer, Mima & Baskin, Linda. Microcomputers i n Early  Childhood Education. 1983, 33p. ED 227 967. Sprigle, Joan E. & Schaefer, Lyn. "Age, gender, and s p a t i a l knowledge influences on preschooler's computer programming a b i l i t y . " Early Childhood Development and  Care 14.3-4 (1984): 243-250. 175 S t r e i b e l , Michael J . Computer Proceedings of the Annual  Penn. State Microcomputer Information Exchange  Conference. University Park, Pennsylvania, 1983. ED 240 978. S t r e i b e l , Michael J . "The Educational U t i l i t y of Logo." School Science and Mathematics 83.6 (1983):475-485. Tan, Lesley E. "Computers i n pre-school education." Early  Childhood Development and Care 19 (1985): 319-336. Tashner, John, ed., Computer Literacy f o r Teachers: Issues,  Questions and Concerns. Arizona: The Oryx Press, 1984. Taylor, Robert, ed. The Computer In the School: Tutor. Tool. Tutee. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York: Teachers College Press, 1980. Torgerson, Shirley, K r i l e y , M.K. & Stone, J . Logo i n the  Classroom. Eugene, Oregon: International Council for Computers i n Education, 1983. ED 248 847. Thompson, Charles S. & Van de Walle, John. "Patterns and Geometry with LOGO." Arithmetic Teacher 32.7 (1985): 6-13. U p i t i s , Rena. "Logo and the Primary - Junior P u p i l : One Student's F i r s t Encounter." The Computing Teacher 10.3 (1982): 28-31. Vaidya, Sheila Rao. "Making LOGO Accessible to Preschool Children." Educational Technology 24.7 (1984): 30-31. Vaidya, Sheila. "Using LOGO to Stimulate Children's Fantasy." Educational Technology 23.12 (1983): 25-26. Vaidya, Sheila & McKeeby, John. "Computer Tu r t l e Graphics: Do They A f f e c t Children's Thought Processes?" Educational Technology 24.9 (1984): 46-47. Waldrop, P h i l l i p B. "Computer Use with Young Children Present Perspectives and Future P o s s i b i l i t i e s . " Early  C h i l d Development and Care 3 (1988): 59-68. Walker, A l i c e D. "Teaching the Tu r t l e - A Paper on Papert." (Sociological Implications of Computer Education for Women and M i n o r i t i e s ) . Jan., 1984. ED 238 415. Watt, Dan. "What Makes I t Exciting?" Popular Computing. Aug. 1983: 106-166. Watt, Molly. "What i s Logo" The Journal of Computers i n Mathematics and Science Teaching II.2 (1982): 11-18. 176 Wayth, Peter J . Using Microcomputers i n the Primary School. Hants, England: Gower Publishing Co. Ltd., 1983. Wellington, J . J . Children, Computers and the Curriculum. London: Harper & Row Publishers, 1985. Williams, Ann. "Preschoolers and the Computer." The  Arithmetic Teacher 31.8 (1984): 39-42. Williams, Frederick and V i c t o r i a . Microcomputers i n  Elementary Education. Belmont, Cal.: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1984. W i l l i s , Jerry W., Johnson, D.Lamont & Dixon, Paul N. Computers, Teaching and Learning. Oregon: Dilithium Press, 1983. Zachmeier, William J . "K-8 Computer Lite r a c y Curriculum -Revised 1982." The Computer Teacher 10.7 (1983) 7-10. Zaijka, Alan. "Microcomputers i n Early Childhood Education? A F i r s t Look." Young Children 38.5 (1983): 61-67. 177 Appendix A. Procedural Thinking Tests Procedural Thinking Test I Part 1 - Giving Directions 1) Ask student to t e l l the teacher to go and touch the door. a) walk b) touch the door N.B. Teacher stands to s t a r t . 2) Ask student to t e l l the teacher how to paint a red l i n e . a) pick up brush b) put brush i n paint c) put paint on paper 3) Ask student to t e l l the teacher how to put a book away i n a tote tray. a) walk to tote tray b) p u l l out tray c) put i n book d) push i n tray 4) Ask student to t e l l teacher how to go to the sandbox. a) walk to door b) open door c) walk through dooor d) turn r i g h t e) walk N.B. Teacher stands to s t a r t . 5) Ask student to t e l l teacher how to wash your hands. a) turn on water b) take soap c) wash hands d) rinse with water e) turn o f f water f) dry hands N.B. Teacher stands at sink. Part 2 - Breaking Whole Into Pieces Teacher asks, "What do you need to ...11 1) Brush your teeth. a) toothbrush b) toothpaste 2) Wrap t h i s present. a) paper b) tape c) bow 3) Make a tomato and lettuce sandwich. a) bread b) tomato c) lettuce d) knife 4) Set the table. a) t a b l e c l o t h b) fork c) knife d) plate e)cup 5) Make a Chinese lantern. a) large paper b) s t r i p for handle c) crayons d) s c i s s o r s e) s t i c k e r s f) stapler 178 Part 3 - Sequencing The students must put the sets of pictures i n the r i g h t order. 1) Blow out candles on cake. 2) Dinosaur emerging from the water. 3) Building a snowman. 4) Making a bubble. 5) Planting seeds. Procedural Thinking Test II Part 1 - Giving Directions 1) Ask student to t e l l the teacher how to pick up lego, a) bend down b) take lego block 2) Ask student to t e l l the teacher how to draw on the chalkboard, a) walk b) pick up chalk c) draw 3) Ask student to t e l l the teacher how to put a c i r c l e on a square (show example). a) cut out square b) cut out c i r c l e c) put glue on c i r c l e d) put c i r c l e on square 4) Ask student to t e l l the teacher how to get a drink of water, a) turn on taps b) pick up cup c) put cup under tap d) turn o f f water e) drink water 5) Ask student to t e l l the teacher how to walk from the desk to the sink. a) walk b) turn l e f t c) walk d) turn r i g h t e) walk f) turn r i g h t Part 2 - Breaking Whole Into Pieces Teacher asks, "What do you need to..." 1) S t r i n g beads. a) s t r i n g b) beads 2) Flowers i n vase. a) flowers b) vase c) water 3) Cut hot dog. a) hot dog b) bun c) knife d) mustard 4) House made of blocks. a) 1 large square b) 2 small squares c) large t r i a n g l e d) 6 small t r i a n g l e s e) 1 rectangle 5) Blow paint picture. a) large white paper b) paint c) p e n c i l d) straw e) t i s s u e paper f) eye dropper Part 3 - Sequencing The students must put the sets of pictures i n the r i g h t order. 1) Dinosaurs emerging from eggs. 2) Eating an i c e cream. 3) Eating an apple. 4) Opening a present. 5) Diving into water. Appendix B. Student Record Sheet Procedural Thinking Test Name of c h i l d : Part 1: 1) 1 2) 1 3) 1 4) 1 5) 1 Part 2: 6) 1 7) 1 8) 1 9) 1 10) 1 Part 3: 11) 1 12) 1 13) 1 14) 1 15) 1 2 2 3 2 3 4 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 6 2 2 3 2 3 4 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 6 2 2 3 2 3 4 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 6 181 Appendix C. Programming Test 1) C i r c l e a sti c k e r on the screen. 2 minutes 2) Draw the following shape on the screen. 2 minutes 3) Draw the following shape on the screen. 3 minutes 4) F i l l i n the shape i n qustion 3 with colour. 2 minutes 5) Draw a l o l l i p o p . 3 minutes 6) Draw a sailboat. 5 minutes 182 Appendix D. D e f i n i t i o n of Major and Minor Problems f o r Programming Test Major Problems: 1. No resemblance to intended shape. 2. Unable to determine the correct keys. 3. Drawing not complete. 4. Not proper shape eg. straight-sided and i t should be c i r c u l a r . 5. S t i c k e r not enclosed (for item 1). 6. Major focus of drawing omitted. Minor Problems: 1. Substituting shapes f o r parts of the p i c t u r e eg. using a rectangle f o r the t r i a n g u l a r s a i l on the boat. 2. Shape open and i t should be closed. 3. Minor d e t a i l of shape not correct and a l l major parts correct. 4. Extra l i n e s . 5. Part of drawing omitted eg. s t i c k of l o l l i p o p . 6. Part of object or object turned i n c o r r e c t l y . 7. Incorrect openings. Too many or too few openings or openings not i n the correct place (item 2). 8. Colour leaked out (item 4 ) . 9. F i l l e d wrong space with colour (item 4. 10. Sti c k omitted (item 5). 11. Sti c k too long (item 5). 12. Sti c k not s t r a i g h t (item 5). 13. Not correct placement of s a i l on boat (item 6). Appendix E. Student Record Sheet Scale for Programming Test Name of c h i l d : 1 - No attempt 2 - Some attempt - major problems 3 - Good attempt - minor problems 4 - Success 1) 1 2 3 4 2) 1 2 3 4 3) 1 2 3 4 4) 1 2 3 4 5) 1 2 3 4 6) 1 2 3 4 184 Appendix F. Student Interview 1) Do you enjoy using the computers? Why or why not? 2) What i s your favourite a c t i v i t y when we use the computers? Why i s i t your favourite a c t i v i t y ? 3) What do you f i n d hard to do on the computers? Why i s t h i s hard f o r you? 4) Did you l i k e to use the computer to draw? Why or why not? 5) Which would you l i k e to do more often - a) draw with a computer; or b) draw with a crayon and paper? Why? 6) How can the computer help you to draw? 7) What can you draw using a computer? 8) Can you draw anything on the computer that you cannot draw on paper? What i s i t ? 9) Do you l i k e pictures drawn using the computer? Why or why not? What do you l i k e or d i s l i k e about the pictures? 10) How do computers draw pictures? 11) Do you l i k e working alone or with a partner when you use the computer? 185 Appendix G. Parent Questionnaire This questionnaire i s a continuation of the study which you approved i n February. I would appreciate your completion of t h i s form. Please answer a l l relevant questions. 1) How many computers are i n your home? I f you do not have a computer i n your home then go to question #16. 2) What type(s) of computer i s i t ? 3) Does your c h i l d use a computer i n your home? Yes / No I f no then go to question #16. 4) How long has your c h i l d used a computer? Less than 6 months 6 months to 1 year 1 to 2 years More than 2 years 5) How much time does your c h i l d spend on the computer per week? Less than 1 hour 1 to 2 hours 2 to 4 hours More than 4 hours. Specify amount 6) Does your c h i l d work on the computer most days? Yes / No I f no then how many days a week? 7) How much time does your c h i l d usually spend on the computer i n one s i t t i n g ? Less than 15 minutes 15 to 30 minutes 30 to 60 minutes More than 1 hour. Specify amount 186 8) What types of a c t i v i t i e s does your c h i l d engage i n on the computer (eg. strategy games, educational games, programming)? B r i e f l y describe each a c t i v i t y (eg. name of the a c t i v i t y , what does the c h i l d do, what i s the object of the a c t i v i t y ) . 1) : 2) 3) 9) Of these a c t i v i t i e s described i n question # 8, which i s your c h i l d ' s favourite a c t i v i t y ? Mark the appropriate box above with an X. 10) What does your c h i l d f i n d d i f f i c u l t to do on the computer? B r i e f l y explain. 11) How does your c h i l d work on the computer? Independently With another c h i l d With an adult Other. Specify 12) Has your c h i l d ever used a LOGO graphics program outside of the school? Yes / No I f no then go to question # 17. 187 13) How long has your c h i l d used LOGO outside of the school? Less than 1 month 1 to 2 months 2 to 6 months More than 6 months 14) How does your c h i l d work with LOGO on the computer? Independently With another c h i l d With an adult Other. Specify 15) What does your c h i l d l i k e to draw using the computer? B r i e f l y describe. * Question #16 i s only to be answered i f you DO NOT HAVE a computer i n your home OR your c h i l d DOES NOT USE the computer i n your home. Otherwise go to question #17. 16) Has your c h i l d ever used a computer? Yes / No I f yes then describe the occasion(s). Please indicate, i f possible, the types of a c t i v i t i e s engaged i n and the approximate duration of the session(s). 17) Do you support or oppose young children under eight years old using computers? Explain your answer. 189 Appendix H. Lesson Plans Structured Environment Lesson 1 Objectives: 1. To introduce the students to the computer program DELTA DRAWING. 2. To introduce students to t h e , " t u r t l e " . 3. To have students emulate the t u r t l e o f f the computer. 4. To introduce the students to the following commands: D, R, L, M and E. Materials: DELTA DRAWING disk Apple H e computers (or equivalent) T u r t l e on a s t i c k (multiple copies) Wall charts of commands Masking tape T u r t l e Tracks* 1-c (see sample on page 206) Tur t l e Tracks 1-oc (see sample on page 207) Procedure: 1. Before the lesson begins use the masking tape to make a facs i m i l e of a computer screen on the f l o o r . 2. Introduce the program DELTA DRAWING to the children on the computer. Inform the students that they w i l l be i n control of the computer and w i l l d i r e c t a " t u r t l e " (the cursor) around the screen. The t u r t l e w i l l leave a t r a i l behind i t when i t moves. 3. Introduce the commands D ,R, L, M and E to the students using the charts f o r reference. Choose one c h i l d to be a " t u r t l e " . Demonstrate to the students how they can make the t u r t l e move on the screen (made out of masking tape) using the f i v e commands l i s t e d above. Allow the students to give the t u r t l e d i r e c t i o n s . 4. Assign the children partners. D i s t r i b u t e the " t u r t l e s on a s t i c k " to one c h i l d i n the p a i r . D i s t r i b u t e the off-computer assignment, T u r t l e Tracks 1-oc, to the second c h i l d i n the pa i r . Explain to the students that one c h i l d i s the t u r t l e and the other c h i l d reads the commands from the paper to d i r e c t the t u r t l e to move. Direct the students to work on the project and to switch r o l e s when the f i r s t c h i l d has given a l l the directions on the paper. 5. Gather the students together. Explain the computer assignment, T u r t l e Tracks 1-c. Students create l i n e s on the screen i n d i f f e r e n t positions. They also put the t u r t l e i n d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s . Assign the students partners and computers. Dis t r i b u t e the assignment. 190 6. The teacher should c i r c u l a t e around the computers and help students when d i f f i c u l t i e s a r i s e . Note. * Tu r t l e Tracks i s a term borrowed from Bea Marshall's book Logo Lessons. Lesson 2 Objectives: 1. To review the commands - D, R, L, M and E with the students through a c t i v i t i e s both on and o f f the computer. 2. To have the students play t u r t l e o f f the computer and focus on r i g h t and l e f t turns. Materials: DELTA DRAWING disk Apple l i e computers (or equivalent) Story - The Turtl e and the Rabbit T u r t l e Board Game Logo s t i c k e r pages Stickers Wall charts of commands Procedure: 1. Read the story The Turtl e and the Rabbit to the children. Emphasize that r e a l t u r t l e s move slow and steady and so does the t u r t l e on the screen. 2. Review the commands D, R, L, M and E and t h e i r meaning. Use the wall charts for assistance. Focus on the difference between D and M. D (Draw) moves the t u r t l e and leaves a t r a i l . M (Move) moves the t u r t l e but does not leave a t r a i l . 3. Play t u r t l e o f f the computer focusing on turning the t u r t l e l e f t and r i g h t . Each c h i l d w i l l put d i f f e r e n t coloured s t i c k e r s on each hand to d i f f e r e n t i a t e r i g h t and l e f t . The teacher w i l l d i r e c t a l l the students to move on the f l o o r emphasizing the r i g h t and l e f t commands. 4. Gather the students. Explain the computer task. The teacher puts a s t i c k e r anywhere on the screen. The students must point the t u r t l e towards the s t i c k e r . When they f i n i s h , the teacher checks t h e i r screen and they put the s t i c k e r on t h e i r paper and get a new s t i c k e r on the screen (This i s the s t i c k e r page system f o r the computers.). Assign the students partners and computers. 5. Explain the off-computer a c t i v i t y , The Tu r t l e Board Game. Students put a board on the f l o o r i n front of them i n a horiz o n t a l p o s i t i o n and move small t r i a n g u l a r cardboard t u r t l e s around i t using the commands learnt. Assign students partners and d i s t r i b u t e one board and one t u r t l e to each p a i r . The teacher d i r e c t s the students to move the t u r t l e to the center of the board. Instruct the children to locate the nose of the t u r t l e . Then, d i r e c t the t u r t l e s around the board. 191 6. Gather the materials and the group. Explain the second computer a c t i v i t y . This a c t i v i t y has the student move the t u r t l e so that i t hides under the s t i c k e r instead of pointing to i t . The students t e l l the teacher when they have f i n i s h e d . The s t i c k e r goes on t h e i r s t i c k e r page and they get a new s t i c k e r on the screen. Assign the students partners and computers. Lesson 3 Objectives: 1. To review the commands D, R, L, M and E with the students by manipulating the t u r t l e through mazes both on and o f f the computer. Materials: DELTA DRAWING disk Apple H e computers (or equivalent) Wall charts of commands Masking tape Maze transparencies Logo s t i c k e r page Stickers Procedure: 1. P r i o r to the session make several mazes on the f l o o r using the masking tape. 2. Review the commands D, R, L, M and E using the wall charts as references. 3. Gather the childr e n and i n s t r u c t them to s i t beside one of the f l o o r mazes. Choose one c h i l d to be the t u r t l e and have in d i v i d u a l s suggest how to move the t u r t l e through the maze. Divide the c l a s s into four groups. Partner the c h i l d r e n i n each group. Have one c h i l d i n each p a i r be the t u r t l e and the other give the d i r e c t i o n s to the t u r t l e about how to move through the maze. The c h i l d r e n i n each p a i r should switch r o l e s . Then rotate the groups. 4. Introduce the maze transparencies. Demonstrate how to use them on the computer. Ask the childr e n to d i r e c t the t u r t l e through the maze and the teacher w i l l type the commands on the computer. 5. Allow the students to choose a partner. Assign computers to each p a i r . The teacher attaches a maze transparency to each computer screen with masking tape. Instruct the c h i l d r e n to complete the task and to show her when they f i n i s h . Students w i l l receive a s t i c k e r f o r t h e i r s t i c k e r page upon successful completion. Then they w i l l get a new maze. 192 Lesson 4 Objectives: 1. To review the commands introduced during the previous week. 2. To introduce the commands C, H, SHIFT G, t , V ,-* and*-. 3. To have the students draw curves on the computer. 4. To have the students draw l e t t e r s on the computer. Materials: DELTA DRAWING disk Apple H e computers (or equivalent) Wall charts of command Masking tape Procedure: 1. P r i o r to the lesson use the masking tape to form curves on the f l o o r . 2. Review the old commands. Play a guessing game. For example the teacher says, I'm thinking of a command which makes the t u r t l e move without leaving a t r a i l . What am I?" The chil d r e n guess the proper command. 3. Introduce the new commands C, H, SHIFT G, f , ^  , -» and*-. Use the wall charts to explain each command and the computer to demonstrate each command. 4. Discuss other types of l i n e s the t u r t l e can draw besides s t r a i g h t l i n e s e.g. curves and shapes. Choose one c h i l d to be a t u r t l e and have the students help the teacher d i r e c t the t u r t l e around one of the f l o o r curves. Repeat with another curve. 5. Discuss drawing l e t t e r s on the screen using s t r a i g h t l i n e s and curves. Assign partners and computers. Instruct the students to draw t h e i r i n i t i a l s on the screen using d i f f e r e n t coloured l i n e s . 6. Continuing to work with partners, assign p a i r s to the f l o o r curves. Have one student d i r e c t the other around the curve and then switch r o l e s . 7. Reassign the students to the computers and in s t r u c t thenm to continue to t r y to draw l e t t e r s . Lesson 5 Objectives: 1. To review the commands introduced i n Lesson 4. 2. To review how to draw a curve on the computer. 3. To have the students draw l e t t e r s on the computer using l e t t e r transparencies. Materials: DELTA DRAWING disks 193 Apple H e computers (or equivalent) Letter transparencies Masking tape T u r t l e Board Game Procedure: 1. Review the commands introduced i n the previous lesson. 2. Discuss how to draw a curve on the computer. E l i c i t from the students the necessary commands. Direct a l l the students to f i n d a space on the f l o o r and pretend to be a t u r t l e . The teacher i n s t r u c t s the students to walk out a curve on the f l o o r . 3. Discuss the l e t t e r transparencies f o r the computer a c t i v i t y . Students move the t u r t l e around the l e t t e r . When they f i n i s h , they press S, the t u r t l e returns to the center and they get a new l e t t e r . 4. Assign h a l f the students to the computers. Each c h i l d works on h i s own computer. 5. Assign the other h a l f of the students to the o f f computer a c t i v i t y , The Turtl e Board Game. The teacher d i r e c t s the students to move the t u r t l e s around the boards to form curves, move i n st r a i g h t l i n e s and make turns. 6. Switch the groups a f t e r f i f t e e n minutesi 7. Allow the students to choose a partner and to work on the l e t t e r transparencies together on the computer. Lesson 6 Objectives: 1. To review the commands introduced i n the f i r s t week and the new commands introduced i n Lesson 4. 2. To have the ; students draw curves on the computer. 3. To have the students draw l e t t e r s on the screen using l e t t e r transparencies. 4. To introduce the Logo Game Board. Materials: DELTA DRAWING disk Apple H e computers (or equivalent) Wall charts of commands Letter transparencies T u r t l e Tracks 2-c—A to F (see sample on page 206) Logo Game Board Masking tape Procedure: 1. Review a l l the commands introduced to date by playing a guessing game - What do I press i f . . . ? 2. Review the l e t t e r transparencies with the students. Do one with the whole group on the computer. 194 3. Introduce the new computer assignment, T u r t l e Tracks 2-c. Students type i n the commands as given on the sheet and draw the picture on the paper that the t u r t l e makes on the screen. 4. Assign h a l f the group to computers (each student works on hi s own computer). Instruct students to do one l e t t e r transparency and one of the Turtl e tracks 2-c (choose from sheets A to F). Switch the groups a f t e r f i f t e e n minutes. 5. Assign the o f f computer group to the Logo Board Game. Four students work together at one board. The game reinforces the basic commands of DELTA DRAWING. 6. Gather the students. Direct the students to choose a partner to work on a computer. Students do ei t h e r a l e t t e r transparency or a Turtl e Tracks 2-c sheet. Lesson 7 Objectives; 1. To have students i d e n t i f y the f i v e basic s h a p e s — c i r c l e , square, rectangle, t r i a n g l e and diamond. 2. To have students determine the important features of the f i v e basic shapes. 3. To introduce the shape transparencies f o r the computer. Materials; DELTA DRAWING disk Apple H e computers (or equivalent) A t t r i b u t e blocks Pattern blocks T u r t l e Tracks 2-oc (see sample on page 207) Masking tape Logo s t i c k e r pages Stickers Shape transparencies (see sample on page 205) Procedure: 1. P r i o r to the lesson use the masking tape to form each of the f i v e basic s h a p e s — c i r c l e , square, rectangle, t r i a n g l e and diamond on the f l o o r . 2. Use the a t t r i b u t e blocks and the pattern blocks to have the students i d e n t i f y the f i v e shapes and to discuss the important features of each shape. 3. Gather the students around one of the shapes on the f l o o r . Discuss the shape. Choose a student to be the t u r t l e and have the remaining students give the t u r t l e i n s t r u c t i o n s to move around the shape. Repeat t h i s procedure with another shape. 4. Introduce the shape transparencies f o r the computer. Demonstrate on the computer. Attach the transparency to the computer with masking tape. Instruct the children to move the t u r t l e around the shape. 195 5. Review the s t i c k e r page system. When students f i n i s h the shape transparency, they t e l l the teacher to receive a s t i c k e r and a new shape. 6. Introduce the off-computer paper project, T u r t l e Tracks 2-oc. Students copy the shapes drawn at the beginning of each l i n e to f i l l up the l i n e . 7. Divide the class into two groups. One group i s assigned to the computers and works on the shape transparencies. The off-computer group has two projects. The chi l d r e n f i n d a partner and work with that person to move around each shape on the f l o o r . Each person has a turn being the t u r t l e and givi n g the directions fo r each shape. When students complete t h i s task they are given T u r t l e Tracks 2-oc. 8. Switch the two groups a f t e r f i f t e e n minutes. Lesson 8 Objectives: 1. To introduce the new commands U, CTRL F, CTRL N, CTRL E and to review S and C. 2. To have the students i d e n t i f y the f i v e basic shapes. 3. To have the, students follow d i r e c t i o n s to draw a shape on the computer. 4. To have the students make the four l i n e a r shapes (square, rectangle, t r i a n g l e and diamond) on geoboards. Materials: DELTA DRAWING disk Apple H e computers (or equivalent) Wall charts of, charts Geoboards E l a s t i c bands At t r i b u t e blocks Pattern blocks T u r t l e Tracks 3-c—A to E (see sample on page 206) Tur t l e Tracks 3-oc (see sample on page 207) Logo s t i c k e r pages Stickers Shape d i r e c t i o n wall charts Procedure: . 1. Introduce the new commands on the computer using the wall charts of the commands for reference. 2. Review each of the f i v e shapes with the students. Use the a t t r i b u t e blocks and the pattern blocks to play a game. The teacher gives clues about each of the f i v e shapes and asks the chil d r e n to answer. For example, the teacher says, "I'm thinking of a shape with four sides that are a l l the same length. What am I?" The student must name the shape and f i n d one i n the set of blocks. Repeat fo r each of the shapes. 3. Introduce and discuss the shape d i r e c t i o n wall charts. 196 4. Introduce the computer a c t i v i t y , T u r t l e Tracks 3-c, to the students. Students are given a shape d i r e c t i o n sheet. Each sheet has di r e c t i o n s f o r one of the f i v e shapes i n a small and large s i z e . Students type i n the di r e c t i o n s to draw the shape on the computer. Students should cross o f f each d i r e c t i o n when i t has been typed. Then the shapes should be f i l l e d with colour. When the shape i s completed, the student t e l l s the teacher who gives him or her a s t i c k e r and another shape page. 5. Divide the class into two groups. One group i s assigned to the computers to work on Turtl e Tracks 3-c. The off-computer group i s assigned two tasks. The f i r s t task i s to follow the teacher's d i r e c t i o n s for Tur t l e Tracks 3-oc. Students colour the shapes on the paper the s p e c i f i e d colour. The second task i s to make each of the l i n e a r shapes on the geobaords using the e l a s t i c bands. 6. Switch the groups a f t e r f i f t e e n minutes. Lesson 9 Objectives: 1. To have students i d e n t i f y the f i v e basic shapes. 2. To have students follow d i r e c t i o n s to draw shapes on the computer. 3. To have students i d e n t i f y the patterns i n the dire c t i o n s for the shapes. Materials: DELTA DRAWING disk Apple H e computers (or equivalent) Wall charts of commands Shape d i r e c t i o n wall charts Geoboards E l a s t i c bands Tur t l e Tracks 3-c (A to E) Logo s t i c k e r pages Stickers Procedure: 1. Review the f i v e basic shapes. The teacher holds up one of the f i v e shapes and the students have to hop the correct number of times f o r each side e.g. three times f o r a t r i a n g l e . 2. Review the computer project, T u r t l e Tracks 3-c, with the students. Demonstrate on the computer. 3. Assign the computer group to computers and d i r e c t them to t r y to complete two shape d i r e c t i o n sheets (Turtle Tracks 3-c). When each shape i s completed the students follow the normal procedure f o r the s t i c k e r system. 4. Di s t r i b u t e the geoboards and e l a s t i c bands to the off-computer group. Direct them to make each of the four l i n e a r shapes i n d i f f e r e n t sizes on the geoboards. 5. Switch the two groups a f t e r f i f t e e n minutes. 197 Lesson 10 Objectives: 1. To have the; students recognize that they can draw any pict u r e on the computer. 2. To have the students recognize that they can plan a pict u r e on paper and pe n c i l and then draw i t on the computer. 3. To have the' students recognize that they can plan a picture using blocks or geoboards and then draw i t on the computer. 4. To introduce the students to breaking a complex picture into i t s components. 5. To expose the students to the po t e n t i a l of what they can draw on the computer. Materials: DELTA DRAWING disk Apple H e computers (or equivalent) Experience chart paper Marker Paper and pencils Geoboards E l a s t i c bands : Pattern blocks A t t r i b u t e blocks Procedure: 1. Discuss the s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences of using the computer and the t u r t l e to draw a picture and paper and pe n c i l to draw a picture. 2. Present four picture f i l e s from the DELTA DRAWING program disk e.g. Easter Egg, House, Sailboat and S t a r f i s h to allow students to view the vast p o t e n t i a l of drawing on the computer. 3. Use the experience chart and the marker to discuss drawing a face. Focus on the parts of the face and the placement of each part. Have the students suggest how to draw the face on the paper. The teacher follows the students d i r e c t i o n s . 4. Direct the students to draw a face on the computer and then to draw any picture. Record the students' ideas. 5. Assign h a l f the students to the computers to work on the face and then t h e i r own picture. 6. Assign the other students to the geoboards, pattern blocks, a t t r i b u t e blocks or paper and p e n c i l . The students choose which a c t i v i t y they would l i k e to use. Instruct them to make a pic t u r e of something that they would l i k e to draw on the computer. 7. Switch the two groups a f t e r f i f t e e n minutes. 198 Lesson 11 Objectives: 1. To have the students draw any picture on the computer. 2. To have the students break the picture into i t s components. Materials: DELTA DRAWING disk Apple H e computers (or equivalent) Experience chart paper Markers Geoboards E l a s t i c bands Pattern blocks A t t r i b u t e blocks Paper and pencils Videotape machine Videotape Procedure: 1. P r i o r to the lesson set up the videotape equipment. Have someone operate the machine during the lesson. 2. Do an example of a picture that could be drawn on the computer on the experience chart e.g. house with trees. Have the students help determine the parts of the picture and where and how to draw them. 3. Ask the children what they would l i k e to draw on the computer and record t h e i r thoughts. 4. Assign h a l f the students to the computers to work on t h e i r own picture. When a student f i n i s h e s a picture, save i t on disk. Assign the other students to the off-computer a c t i v i t i e s . Students choose from the geoboards, pattern blocks, a t t r i b u t e blocks or paper and pen c i l to create a picture. 5. Switch the two groups a f t e r twenty minutes. Guided Discovery Environment Objectives: The objectives f o r the eleven Guided Discovery lessons were: 1. To have the students explore DELTA DRAWING through free exploration. 2. To have the students choose from a v a r i e t y of off-computer a c t i v i t i e s and to use these a c t i v i t i e s appropriately. The materials and procedures f o r each of the eleven lessons d i f f e r e d and w i l l be described below. 199 Lesson 1 Materials: DELTA DRAWING disk Apple H e computers (or equivalent) T u r t l e on a s t i c k (multiple copies) Wall charts of commands Tu r t l e Board Game Procedure: 1. Introduce the program DELTA DRAWING to the children. Inform the students that they w i l l be i n control of the computer and w i l l d i r e c t a t u r t l e around the screen. 2. Introduce the commands D, R, L, M and E to the students using the wall charts for reference. Demonstrate each command on the computer. 3. Assign the children partners and computers. 4. Direct the students to explore the commands introduced i n the lesson. 5. Off the computer d i r e c t the students to choose from the t u r t l e on a s t i c k a c t i v i t y or the Tu r t l e Board Game. Explain to the students that the cardboard t u r t l e s i n both a c t i v i t i e s represent the t u r t l e on the computer screen and can be given commands. Direct the students to use the small t u r t l e s on the boards and the large t u r t l e s on the f l o o r . Allow the students to explore these materials f r e e l y . 6. Gather the students to discuss computer and off-computer discoveries. Lesson 2 Materials: DELTA DRAWING disk Apple H e computers (or equivalent) T u r t l e on a s t i c k (multiple copies) Wall charts of commands Tur t l e Board Game Procedure: 1. Discuss a l l the commands on the wall charts which were not introduced i n Lesson 1. Use the computer to demonstrate the commands. 2. Assign partners to the students and computers. 3. Direct the students to explore a l l the commands on the wall charts. 4. Off the computer d i r e c t the students to choose from the t u r t l e on a s t i c k or the Turtl e Board Game. 5. Gather the students f o r a discussion period. •> 200 Lesson 3 Materials; DELTA DRAWING disk Apple H e computers (or equivalent) T u r t l e on a s t i c k (multiple copies) Wall charts of commands Tu r t l e Board Game Masking tape f l o o r mazes Procedure; 1. Discuss with the students the pictures which they have drawn on the computer. Guide the students to think of new kinds of drawings. 2. Instruct the students to choose a partner and assign the pai r s to computers. 3. Direct the students to explore the DELTA DRAWING program. 4. Off the computer d i r e c t the students to choose from the t u r t l e on a s t i c k a c t i v i t y , the Turtle Board Game or the masking tape f l o o r mazes (used with the Structured Group). 5. Direct the students to use the computers f o r a second session and then to choose from the o f f computer a c t i v i t i e s . 6. Gather the students to have a short discussion period. Lesson 4 Materials: DELTA DRAWING disk Apple H e computers (or equivalent) T u r t l e on a s t i c k (multiple copies) Wall charts of commands Tur t l e Board Game Masking tape f l o o r mazes Procedure: 1. Lead a discussion period about the discoveries of the previous week's lessons. 2. Assign partners and computers. 3. Direct the students to explore the DELTA DRAWING program. 4. Off the computer ask the students to choose from the t u r t l e on a s t i c k a c t i v i t y , the Turtle Board Game or the f l o o r mazes. 5. Gather the students for a sharing time. Lesson 5 Materials: DELTA DRAWING disk Apple H e computers (or equivalent) 201 T u r t l e on a s t i c k (multiple copies) Wall charts of commands Tu r t l e Board Game Masking tape f l o o r mazes - l i n e a r and curved Procedure: 1. Seek the students' attention by r e c i t i n g the poem "The Tur t l e i n a Box". Teach the class the rhyme. 2. Guide the discussion period to include the following issues: a) explanation of what the wall charts are for and how they can be used. b) explanation of the difference between the commands D and M. c) can l e t t e r s be drawn on the computer? d) what else can be drawn on the computer? 3. Divide the class into two groups. Direct one group to use the computers f o r free exploration of DELTA DRAWING. Direct the other group to choose from one of the a c t i v i t i e s . The choices are: t u r t l e on a s t i c k , the Turtle Board Game and the f l o o r mazes (l i n e a r and curved). Review the rules of each a c t i v i t y . 4. Switch the computer and off-computer groups a f t e r f i f t e e n minutes. 5. Assign the students partners and computers. Direct the students to use the computers f o r free exploration. Lesson 6 Materials: DELTA DRAWING disk Apple H e computers (or equivalent) T u r t l e on a s t i c k (multiple copies) Wall charts of commands Tur t l e Board Game Masking tape f l o o r mazes - l i n e a r and curved Logo Board Game Maze transparencies Procedure: 1. P r i o r to the lesson, draw l e t t e r s on a few of the screens to see i f the students notice them. 2. During the discussion period review the rules of the off-computer a c t i v i t i e s and introduce the Logo Board Game (see Lesson 6 of the Structured Group f o r i n s t r u c t i o n s ) . 3. Divide the class into two groups. Assign one group to the computers f o r free exploration. Make the maze transparencies (used with the Structured Group) avail a b l e to t h i s group. Direct 202 the off-computer group to choose an a c t i v i t y from the manipulat i v e s — l a r g e and small cardboard t u r t l e s , the f l o o r mazes or the Logo Board Game. 4. Switch the two groups a f t e r f i f t e e n minutes. 5. Assign the students partners to work with f o r ten minutes on the computer. 6. Discuss the discoveries of the lesson during a sharing time. Lesson 7 Materials: DELTA DRAWING disk Apple H e computers (or equivalent) T u r t l e on a s t i c k (multiple copies) Wall charts of commands Tu r t l e Board Game Masking tape f l o o r mazes - l i n e a r and curved Logo Board Game Maze transparencies Shape transparencies Procedure: 1. P r i o r to the lesson draw simple pictures, l e t t e r s and shapes on a few of the computer screens. 2. Discuss the re s u l t s of the previous weeks' lessons with the c l a s s . 3. Divide the class into two groups. Assign one group to the computers for free exploration. Make av a i l a b l e the shape transparencies (used with the Structured Group). Off the computer d i r e c t the students to choose from one of the following a c t i v i t i e s : small and large cardboard t u r t l e s , f l o o r mazes and the Logo Board Game. 4. Switch the two groups a f t e r f i f t e e n minutes. Lesson 8 Materials: DELTA DRAWING disk Apple H e computers (or equivalent) T u r t l e on a s t i c k (multiple copies) Wall charts of commands Tu r t l e Board Game Logo Board Game Geoboards Pattern blocks A t t r i b u t e blocks Procedure: 1. Discuss the re s u l t s of the previous week's lessons. 203 2. Assign h a l f the class to the computers f o r free exploration. Direct the remaining students to choose from the off-computer a c t i v i t i e s — s m a l l and large cardboard t u r t l e s , Logo Board Game, geoboards, pattern blocks and a t t r i b u t e blocks. 3. Switch the two groups a f t e r f i f t e e n minutes. 4. Gather the students for a discussion period. Lesson 9 Materials; DELTA DRAWING disk Apple H e computers (or equivalent) Tu r t l e on a s t i c k (multiple copies) Wall charts of commands Tur t l e Board Game Logo Board Game Geoboards Pattern blocks A t t r i b u t e blocks Paper and pencils Procedure; 1. Discuss the d i f f e r e n t types of pictures which can be made on the computer. Ask the students what they would l i k e to draw during t h i s lesson. 2. Assign one group to the computers for free exploration and the other group to the off-computer a c t i v i t i e s (choose from large and small cardboard t u r t l e s , Logo Board Game, geoboards, pattern blocks, a t t r i b u t e blocks and paper and p e n c i l s ) . 3. Switch the groups a f t e r f i f t e e n minutes. Lesson 10 Materials; DELTA DRAWING disk Apple H e computers (or equivalent) T u r t l e on a s t i c k (multiple copies) Wall charts of commands Tur t l e Board Game Logo Board Game Geoboards Pattern blocks A t t r i b u t e blocks Paper and pencils Procedure; 1. Load a picture f i l e from the DELTA DRAWING disk onto one of the computers. 204 2. Present the drawing to the students during group time. Load other drawings on the screen. 3. Assign students to either the computer group f o r free exploration or the off-computer group to choose from one of the following a c t i v i t i e s : large and small cardboard t u r t l e s , Logo Board Game, geoboards, pattern blocks, a t t r i b u t e blocks or paper and p e n c i l s . 4. Switch the two groups a f t e r f i f t e e n minutes. Lesson 11 Materials: DELTA DRAWING disk Apple H e computers (or equivalent) T u r t l e on a s t i c k (multiple copies) Wall charts of commands Tu r t l e Board Game Logo Board Game Geoboards Pattern blocks A t t r i b u t e blocks Paper and pencils Videotape machine Videotape Procedure: 1. Before the lesson begins set up the videotape equipment. 2. During the group discussion have a number of students present t h e i r drawings from the previous lesson. 3. Divide the class into the two groups—computer and off-computer. The computer group engages i n free exploration and the off-computer chooses one of the a c t i v i t i e s made available (large and small cardboard t u r t l e s , Logo Board Game, geoboards, pattern blocks, a t t r i b u t e blocks and paper and pencils) 4. Switch the groups a f t e r twenty minutes. 205 Sample Shape and Maze T r a n s p a r e n c i e s Sample On-Computer Turtle Tracks Assignments Turtle Tracks Draw ir\ese. linoj&. Put line. Jurfle. in \Yk position-•tf l> V A ><• S/ A • Turtle Tacks Type M Type D D R ft Type DDDD Type L i DD Press*-*-ft Make, o piclurfc of |h& turtle iracks. C 3 - c lurtle 1 racks Diamonds 0 0 \o maUe. a l a ' 5 9 d i a m o n d 1 . to O CM Sample Off-Computer Turtle Tracks Assignments Turtle Tracks 1. D 0 R D L 2. L M M O O 3. D R M D L M D T.RRD 0 L D L 5. M L D M L D R P \o. D D R D D R D D Turtle Tracks Ccpy ihe shapes. D • A 0 2-oc CM Turtle Tracks 3-oc Follow"iha direct ions "lo colour ll>G. to o 1^ 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055104/manifest

Comment

Related Items