I'm a retired teacher in the UK. My experience of classroom-based teaching using a creative program was with MSWLogo. My approach then was what I'd probably adapt for use with Scratch if I were to use it today. The following strategy was used with pupils ranging between years 4 to 8 (ages 8 to 13/14)
(1)I began by creating a series of graded information sheets introducing key instructions.
(2) I then assigned tasks and challenges from the very start so that pupils actually had a target to achieve. At this point I did NOT encourage experimentation, believing that basic principles needed to be understood first. Reward and public acknowledgement of success was a key part of the approach. (In early days this meant crowding round a monitor to watch. Later on, I could use electronic whiteboards or projectors).
(3) Because these lessons were part of the curriculum and necessitated the assessment of pupils' achievements and attainments, I gave each pupil a copy of the assessment sheet - this included a summary of the assignments and the assessment criteria.
(4) By about the third assignment, elements of creativity were encouraged so that pupils could find their own solutions to a common assignment. At this stage, how they got there didn't matter as long as it worked.
(5) Next, as each pupil or group was ready, I introduced, explained and demonstrated additional commands and the process began all over again - but usually only with one or two strictly controlled assignment before creative problem-solving was encouraged. By this point, some pupils were encouraged to act as mentors to those who were finding things harder to grasp.
(6) Stage 5 was repeated until a respectable repertoire of commands had been learned, tested and used.
(7) Pupils were then encouraged to create their own problems and find their own solutions.
(8) From this point on, I often found that pupils needed to explain their work to me because they started learning so fast.
Like Scratch, MSWLogo had a HUGE advantage in that pupils could have or download a copy to use at home. Those who did this made astonishing progress.
Offline
Thank you for sharing your approach. I have been thinking recently about how to support children learning incrementally--and at the same time encourage open-ended, creative thinking. So I'm very interested to read about your approach.
I've also been interested in the idea of "early assured success" in order to encourage further persistence (particularly for those who initially don't have confidence in their ability).
We typically introduce a few concepts, then allow experimentation, then introduce more. It's interesting that you emphasize not allowing experimentation until the third assignment.
Recognition of work in progress on a projector we have also found motivating.
Offline
natalie wrote:
It's interesting that you emphasize not allowing experimentation until the third assignment.
That was certainly my general rule, and one I tended to stick to pretty rigidly unless there were exceptional circumstances. (eg: once or twice I encountered new-admission pupils who had experience of Logo in other schools, so once they'd adapted to the particular structure of MSWLogo, they could often skip some of the basic work ..... but I still ran the assessments, often using the ploy "OK, show me what you can do".)
I nearly always found that by introducing just the key commands from the outset (after having run a few demo programs to get them interested), pupils weren't at all put off by me seeming to hold them back. Success rates were high simply because it was easier for them to all be working at the same level. Once they were allowed room to create and improvise, however, there was a need to keep an eye open for those few pupils who liked to show off and put down others with less skill or confidence.
As an adjunct - and I've absolutely no idea if this approach could be applied to Scratch - I also used to teach Logo not just in its Maths/IT/Art contexts, but also as an offshoot of Literacy education. It can, after all, be seen as a language based primarily on verbs (eg: RT, PU, Hide), phrases (eg: RT 90 FD 100), 'sentences' (eg: a REPEAT command), 'paragraphs' (eg: procedures) and 'stories' (ie: the whole program).
That's a very simplistic and incomplete summary, but after all, this IS a Scratch forum and not one for Logo. But I must admit, if I were teaching Scratch today, I'd be wondering if a similar approach was valid. Certainly, the 'story' element would be appropriate.
Incidentally, if you want to see a Scratch project where Logo and Scratch meet head on, look at David_Hellam's excellent 'Pattern2'. Try changing the 'turn' value as the program runs. When I first saw it, I guessed that he would be using a value in the top 80's, but try it with 45, 60, 90, 120, 135, 180 and then repeat the experiment and add or subtract 1 from each value. I can virtually guarantee that you'll soon find yourself in full Logo mode asking yourself "I wonder happens if I try ....."
http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/David_Hellam/3503
If you want me to provide a rough outline of the sequence of assignments I tended to use with Logo, let me know - but they probably wouldn't be too applicable to Scratch ..... apart from the fact that with Scratch, like Logo, you soon learn that you can (a) test 'on the fly' (as with the Pattern2 tests suggested above) and (b) a surefire way to learn is to find solutions to problems that are literally of your own making.
Last edited by mohlar (2007-05-31 05:32:30)
Offline
mohlar wrote:
natalie wrote:
It's interesting that you emphasize not allowing experimentation until the third assignment.
That was certainly my general rule, and one I tended to stick to pretty rigidly unless there were exceptional circumstances. (eg: once or twice I encountered new-admission pupils who had experience of Logo in other schools, so once they'd adapted to the particular structure of MSWLogo, they could often skip some of the basic work ..... but I still ran the assessments, often using the ploy "OK, show me what you can do".)
I nearly always found that by introducing just the key commands from the outset (after having run a few demo programs to get them interested), pupils weren't at all put off by me seeming to hold them back. Success rates were high simply because it was easier for them to all be working at the same level. Once they were allowed room to create and improvise, however, there was a need to keep an eye open for those few pupils who liked to show off and put down others with less skill or confidence.
As an adjunct - and I've absolutely no idea if this approach could be applied to Scratch - I also used to teach Logo not just in its Maths/IT/Art contexts, but also as an offshoot of Literacy education. It can, after all, be seen as a language based primarily on verbs (eg: RT, PU, Hide), phrases (eg: RT 90 FD 100), 'sentences' (eg: a REPEAT command), 'paragraphs' (eg: procedures) and 'stories' (ie: the whole program).
That's a very simplistic and incomplete summary, but after all, this IS a Scratch forum and not one for Logo. But I must admit, if I were teaching Scratch today, I'd be wondering if a similar approach was valid. Certainly, the 'story' element would be appropriate.
Incidentally, if you want to see a Scratch project where Logo and Scratch meet head on, look at David_Hellam's excellent 'Pattern2'. Try changing the 'turn' value as the program runs. When I first saw it, I guessed that he would be using a value in the top 80's, but try it with 45, 60, 90, 120, 135, 180 and then repeat the experiment and add or subtract 1 from each value. I can virtually guarantee that you'll soon find yourself in full Logo mode asking yourself "I wonder happens if I try ....."
http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/David_Hellam/3503
Also, look at Spiral_pattern3 by deegee and read the comments. This is what I mean - people automatically get sucked in to testing their own ideas.
http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/deegee/8277
If you want me to provide a rough outline of the sequence of assignments I tended to use with Logo, let me know - but they probably wouldn't be too applicable to Scratch ..... apart from the fact that with Scratch, like Logo, you soon learn that you can (a) test 'on the fly' (as with the Pattern2 tests suggested above) and (b) a surefire way to learn is to find solutions to problems that are literally of your own making.
Offline