Programming Benchmarks for the Young Student

374

Programming Benchmarks forthe Young Student

Stanley Ball

In the rush to bring computers intothe classroom, there is need for a se-rious examination of the education-al value that computers have for theyoung student. Many educatorssense a great potential for the use ofthe computer in unexplored areas ofcognition. However, decision-making about commitments to com-puter technology is difficult due torelatively little information avail-able concerning the educational val-ue of computers. Paul Karoff (1983)

presents a fairly comprehensive and unbiased account of the various po-sitions concerning computers and the three to six year-old age group. Hestates that "the bottom line, of course, is that it is still too early to telland that it will probably take many years to assemble an adequate re-search base with which to answer the questions. Across the country thatprocess is under way" (Karoff, p. 50). Hopefully the results beingreported here will provide partial answers to these questions.

Streibel (1983) recently discussed the educational utility of computers,specifically with respect to programming in the Logo language, which

School Science and MathematicsVolume 85 (5) May/June 1985

Benchmarks 375

was developed for use by children. He addressed three important ques-tions concerning: 1) the learning experience provided by Logo, 2) theefficiency of Logo as a tool in the classroom, and 3) the role of the teach-er. The answers to these questions have obvious implications for anyoneseriously considering the adoption of Logo in the classroom. The presentarticle deals primarily with the first question�the learning potential ofLogo. What might be learned by young students interacting with Logo inthe classroom? What kind of progress chart might be developed in orderto assess a student’s learning in this area?The thoughts reported here are only initial attempts at describing

cognitive development. There is much work to be performed to replicatesuch investigations as reported here and to evaluate the place of micro-computers in the classroom. Particular interest pertains to how youngpeople are, in fact, integrating experiences with the microcomputer intotheir overall development of cognitive skills. This paper explicates someof the specifics of observations of students in kindergarten and firstgrade who are interacting with a sequence of Logo activities. These de-scriptions promote thought on how the computer enhances students’ taskanalysis and critical thinking skills on an individualized basis.

Programming and Single-Stroke Logo

Logo is considered a computer language and hence students are "pro-gramming" when they are using Logo. Seymour Papert of MIT sensedthe power that the computer possessed when young people could experi-ence control over the "turtle." Therefore, he developed this language foruse in the classroom as a vehicle to promote programming skills. It is im-portant for the reader to consider the term "programming" in its broad-est context. What are the important characteristics of the concept of pro-gramming which are important to this presentation?Programming refers to a logical sequence of steps or commands which

satisfy a need or attain a predetermined objective. It incorporates a cer-tain form of problem-solving skills. When programmers perceive the de-sired goal, they develop a carefully planned process in order to achievethat goal. Sometimes, it is necessary to break one big problem intosmaller problems which can then be individually attacked. Other times,there is a need to consider the flow of commands because the variable,time, is important. Always, programmers must know how to performmodifications and/or corrections.The concept of correcting or "debugging" is important in this context

and should not take on a negative connotation. Instead, it is seen as a


376 Benchmarks

crucial part of the overall process of problem-solving. A final "pro-gram" must do what it was designed to do, but the value of program-ming for the student is in the design, development, testing and revisingprocess itself. Seymour Papert, the primary creator of Logo, states partof his philosophy in the book entitled Mindstorms as follows:

School teaches that errors are bad; the last thing one wants to do is to poreover them, dwell on them, or think about them. The child is glad to take ad-vantage of the computer’s ability to erase it all without any trace for anyoneto see. The debugging philosophy suggests an opposite attitude. Errors bene-fit us because they lead us to study what happened, to understand what wentwrong, and through understanding, to fix it. Experience with computer pro-gramming leads children more effectively than any other activity to "believein" debugging (pg. 114).

Since Logo is a "friendly" language, the student can quickly gain ex-pertise over the set of commands. These include: FORWARD, BACK,RIGHT, LEFT, PENUP, PENDOWN, HIDETURTLE, SHOWTUR-TLE, and REPEAT. Due to the availability of more comprehensive pre-sentations of Logo in numerous books, further detailed explanations ofLogo per se will be dispensed with here. This particular study made useof Apple Logo on the Apple lie or Apple II plus computer. Some of thereferences may not apply to other Logo packages.

"What might be learned by young students interactingwith Logo in the classroom?"

The particular package this author developed for use with students inearly childhood was designed so that only single strokes by the studentwere necessary for execution. There are several advantages to this ap-proach. First, the cognitive development being investigated was clearlyindependent of keyboarding skills. Second, most of the students inkindergarten and first grade may lack sufficient confidence with twodigit numbers for use in the regular Logo commands. Third, since the to-

tal number of commands was small in number, most of the computerkeyboard was inoperative. Psychomotor development was minimally im-portant and as a result observation could focus on cognition. Lastly, thetotal number of symbols and associated concepts was kept small in num-ber and simple in scope.


Benchmarks 377

The three commands which were available to the students for turtlemovement were: 1) forty-five degree left turn, 2) forty-five degree rightturn, and 3) forward one step. Also, the commands for clear the screen,home, hideturtle and showturtle were programmed with single strokecommands. A template was taped to the computer console just above thetop row of number keys showing a straight arrow for the step key, a leftturn arrow and a right turn arrow for the two turn keys, CS for the clear-screen, HOME, HT for hide the turtle, and ST for the show turtle com-mands. Therefore students did not have to memorize which keys to useto control the turtle’s movement.

Patterns which were available in this package appeared on a portion ofthe monitor screen. Using single stroke alphabetic keys, the studentscould call a pattern at will. The students then copied the pattern with theturtle in an adjacent portion of the screen. The order of the patterns wasintended to be progressively more difficult and to be called on in order ofthe alphabet. That is, the first pattern was placed on the monitor screenby touching the letter "A." When the student was ready for the next pat-tern, it was retrievable by touching "B," and on through all possible pat-terns.

Concept Development in Programming

Using the package described, there are several investigations which canbe pursued. The one of primary importance is an attempt to delineatenine benchmarks which are observable and indicative of a student’sprogress in the development of the concept of programming in the gener-ic sense. It must be emphasized that an investigation of this type does notfollow the steps of rigorous research. As decisions are being made withrespect to the appropriate curriculum for particular groups of students,the final analysis must be concerned with the people involved. In thiscontext, Papert (1980, pg. 164) stated that "the importance of studyingthe structure of knowledge is not just to better understand the knowledgeitself, but to understand the person." Therefore, this presentation com-municates the results of observing many young people as they sat atmicrocomputers in their classroom and developed patterns of talking tothe turtle.The following benchmarks apply to young people who have had little

experience on computers previous to this work. The author has workedwith both kindergarten and first grade students and this is the primaryage for which the following is applicable. However, the development of


378 Benchmarks

the concept of programming probably has to pass through these samebenchmarks at whatever age a student begins.

^With experimentation, they develop strategies fordecision-making as to what the next step should be/9

Benchmark #]�Children have reached the first benchmark when theydemonstrate simple control over the turtle rather than merely viewing therandom motion of the turtle as they press keys. There is evidence thatyoung students who have not yet associated turtle movement with key-punching will be somewhat fascinated by the wanderings of the turtleabout the screen without a clear realization that they are, in fact, in con-trol of those motions. This is clear to the extent that, sometimes, withoutregard to the template the student continues to press inoperative keys asif they know that a key has to be pressed but it does not matter whichone.Benchmark ff2�The second benchmark is exhibited by students mak-

ing primitive decisions about the direction the turtle is facing. Havingrealized control over turtle movement, they begin the trial and errorprocess of drawing the shapes which are presented to them. With eachstep, they have two choices: 1) to move forward in the direction the tur-tle is facing, or 2) to turn either left or right. With experimentation, theydevelop strategies for decision-making as to what the next step should be.These strategies include methods of correction for length and direction.Since the turtle will move only in the direction it is facing, the studentmay need to correct the direction. The feedback which students receivewhen they fail to select the right direction is immediate; therefore, theyquickly learn to recognize which direction the turtle is facing.Benchmark ff3�The third benchmark becomes evident when students

make primitive decisions concerning the length of lines. After they dem-onstrate control over direction, they need to learn to control the length oflines. Length correction occurs at several levels. At the least sophisticatedlevel (Benchmark ^3), the produced length is merely compared with thedesired length as the student proceeds in drawing the pattern. There arevisual perception problems with this task for some students. Copyinghorizontal length seems to be easier than vertical length. Also, replicatinglength is easier if the turtle movement is juxtaposed to the line which is


Benchmarks 379

being used as a model, as opposed to an end-to-end replication. Furtherinvestigation will produce information as to the possibility of some inter-action between perception and cognitive readiness as explanation to thisapparent hierarchy.Benchmark ff4�The fourth benchmark is attained when students uti-

lize the turtle’s orientation as an aid to length correction. At a cognitivelevel slightly higher than Benchmark ff3, students will initially decide thatthe line they are drawing is long enough, start to turn the turtle, then no-tice that it is not long enough, straighten the turtle out and add steps tothe length. It is important to realize that initially students are misled indeciding the length of lines because the turtle has length itself. Lengthcorrection necessitates the realization that the turtle turns on its "tail,"not its "head." Therefore, after starting a turn when the true length be-comes more apparent, a student’s decision about length may be changedand a correction made.Two related comments are appropriate in this context. First, con-

ceptually, students need to learn that the turtle turns on its "tail." There-fore, the investigator has another explicit behavior to watch for as a stu-dent’s development is being assessed. Second, it has been beneficial forstudents to use the HIDETURTLE command explicitly to aid in their de-cision-making. Generally, students do not think of this for themselves,but they do use it repeatedly when it has been shown to them.Benchmark ff5�A higher level of length correction can be observed

when a student starts drawing a square of given dimensions, notices aftera side has been completed that it is too short, "fixes" it by drawing theremainder of the square properly, and then patches the first side. Thisclearly demonstrates a higher level of conceptualization. Less experi-enced students will simply clear the screen and start over when they real-ize the first side is too short. The decision to correct by completing the re-mainder of the square first and patching later exemplifies the ability toplan ahead which is more sophisticated than making decisions about thenext step. This serves as an excellent example of growth toward self-confident task analysis on the part of the student.

Because of the previously mentioned phenomenon of the length of theturtle itself, generally students will draw the length too short rather thantoo long. This is fortunate because the error is "correctable." That is tosay, when a side has been drawn too short, it can be lengthened easily by


380 Benchmarks

adding steps. But when the line is drawn too long, there is no chDice butto start over. The package, as it has been developed, does not allow forerasing parts of line segments. The set of commands in Logo for such aprocess was deemed too complex for students in early childhood. Fur-thermore, it appears that the students who are inclined to draw the linesegments too long may be having perception problems or are not yet fullyappreciating the control they have over the turtle.

^Some students feel that there is still some form ofmysticism which is controlling the turtle . . /)

Benchmark ff6�The sixth benchmark is attained by the student whodemonstrates length correction when the pattern is begun all over again.It is important for the investigator to note whether the same error is com-mitted when the student clears the screen and begins a pattern again.Some students feel that there is still some form of mysticism which iscontrolling the turtle and if they start again, the error will correct itself.On the other hand, a student illustrating competence at this level (Bench-mark ff6) will note how to change the length of a line in the pattern so asto complete a successful copy. Once the student has decided to start thepattern again, the success of the next attempt is dependent on consciousplanning as to what to do differently. This is an important step in theoverall acquisition of the cognitive skill of programming (including theimportant process of debugging).Benchmark ff7�The seventh benchmark is observed as students

eclectically utilize the two turn keys. As with length, there are several ob-servable stages of direction correction. First, there is a time at which stu-dents realize that there are two functioning direction keys. Up to thattime, they pick a turn key and use it exclusively at least for that immedi-ate turn. This means that they turn the turtle in only one direction. If theresultant direction is the reverse from what they wanted they simply keepgoing until it points in the desired direction. They often turn too far, butwill proceed in the same direction until "corrected." They may select theother turn key when another turn is needed, and then use that key exclu-sively. Therefore, Benchmark #1 is the use of both turn keys in a waywhich suggests that the student is watching the movement of the turtleand making conscious decisions as to the appropriate key for that situa-tion.


Benchmarks 381

Benchmark ^8�The eighth benchmark is illustrated by the student de-ciding which turn key to use before either key is touched. Once two keysare being utilized (Benchmark ^7), students resort to triat-and-error tomake the decision as to which one to use. Now (Benchmark #S) it is ap-parent that they pay attention to the present direction and consciouslydecide whether to use the right or left turn key. This seems to be an im-portant cognitive step since it is not evident in all students. As studentsdevelop a sense of accomplishment, they decrease the total number ofcommands necessary to draw a given pattern. Early attempts at turtletalk result in repeated and undisciplined use of the turn keys. Later, how-ever, there is visible evidence of forethought as to which turn key is mostappropriate. Critical thinking is developing in an individualized way asdifferent students at different times display their progress.

There are understandable explanations for the difficulty of this task.First, left and right decisions take careful concentration on the part ofmost students in kindergarten and first grade. Therefore, this decision-making is avoided by most students; particularly when it is not criticalfor the correctness of the final pattern. Also, since right and left orienta-tions are relative to the body of the student (not the position of the turtleon the monitor), children must reverse their tentative concept of left andright to accommodate the position of the turtle. For example, if the turtleis facing the top of the monitor screen, then right and left are fairly con-sistent with the students’ right and left hands. But when the turtle is fac-ing the bottom of the screen, left and right switch sides and therefore, acognitive switch must accompany the decision. Lastly, left and right arerelative to the turtle’s facing up and down, but do not seem applicablewhen the turtle is pointing either east or west on the monitor. In this case,students look for the key that turns up or down. It obviously does not ex-ist. Regardless of the explanation, there is a time in the student’s devel-opment when explicit and correct decisions are made with respect to theselection or correction of right and left turns.Benchmark ff9�The last level to be considered in this developmental

scheme has to do with the student’s paying explicit attention to the orien-tation of the resultant pattern relative to the orientation of the given pat-tern. The shape which was originally placed on the screen to be copiedoften ends up higher or lower than the shape which was drawn by the stu-dent. No explanation has yet been found for this phenomenon. It isclearly a function of the initial orientation of the turtle. However, even


382 Benchmarks

when the turtle is positioned so as to suggest the correct orientation,there is a tendency to lower the resultant pattern. Later, students will cor-rect this problem which is probably coupled with their general ability toperceive, establish, and correct direction decisions. Therefore, the high-est level in the hierarchy being presented here refers to the student’s finalpattern having the same relative orientation as the pattern given to becopied, with the least possible number of steps.A recent article by Sheingold, Kane, and Endreweit (1983) reported an

indepth investigation of three educational sites utilizing computers in theclassrooms and stated conclusions with respect to the state of the art.

No one yet really knows the educational or developmental consequences ofusing microcomputers. Teachers report primarily the social outcomes relatedto interaction, status, and self-esteem .... The fact that no one knows whatchildren were learning by interacting with the microcomputers targets this asa high priority for research (pg. 430).

This presentation has attempted to begin the development of knowledgeabout the explicit observable skills acquired by young students as they in-teract with computers. The context of these benchmarks involved thegeneric sense of programming as it was investigated with a specially de-veloped LOGO package. Obviously, it-is only a beginning. Future workwill further these ideas and correlate the benchmarks with other develop-mental patterns or stages of growth. There are a multitude of variablesinteracting and, ultimately, some profile might emerge for diagnosis andprescription with the use of computers in the classroom.

References

1. Karoff, P. Computerized Head Start. Teaching, Learning, Computing, 1983, 7, 44-50.2. Papert, S. Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic

Books, 1980.3. Sheingold, K., J. H. Kane and M. E. Endreweit. Microcomputer Use in Schools: De-

veloping a Research Agenda. Harvard Educational Review, 1983, 53(4), 412-432.4. Streibel, M. The Educational Utility of LOGO. School Science and Mathematics, 1983,

53(6), 474-484.

Stanley BallThe University of TexasElPaso, Texas 79968


Programming Benchmarks for the Young Student

Documents

Transcript of Programming Benchmarks for the Young Student