4 ms·
Ah that's a good point that both you and scottcha make regarding the typing strengths/weaknesses of children, which would make a typing-based approach maybe no
by jerluc 10y ago
Ah that's a good point that both you and scottcha make regarding the typing strengths/weaknesses of children, which would make a typing-based approach maybe non-practical. I guess more generally what I was trying to better understand was whether or not the use of these fitted blocks (as I understand Scratch to do) has been studied enough to be considered more fruitful in developing an understanding of rudimentary programming rather than a more free-form way of doing so (maybe just blocks that can be combined in any way, even if they don't work as intended). Maybe said a slightly different way: why did MIT researchers choose to use a "coloring in the lines" method (which may hinder creativity and potentially interest)?
- neovive 10y agoFrom my experience and interactions with the LLK group at MIT, they have been very careful to position Scratch as a creative, story-telling tool, where the connecting of blocks is just one form of expression. Making your creations come to life through art and logic and sharing with the community is at the core of the Scratch. You actually won't find the words "coding" or "programming" on the homepage (https://scratch.mit.edu/ https://scratch.mit.edu/). I find that any understanding of rudimentary programming tends to be side-effect of trying to make things work :-) Here are a few good links that might help. http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/12/11/458782056/a-kids-coding-expert-says-were-making-computer-class-way-too-boring http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/12/11/458782056/a-kids-c... Mitch Resnick's TED talk from 2012: https://www.ted.com/talks/mitch_resnick_let_s_teach_kids_to_code?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/mitch_resnick_let_s_teach_kids_to_...