Re: [IAEP] Why is Scratch more popular than Etoys?
karl ramberg <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.squeak.squeakland |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAGzzWLiosRxqWS8iANaqL14Z=2M_ztKv8SO96XAzn7_qWKTG8Q@mail.gmail.com> |
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 7:05 PM, K. K. Subramaniam <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday 19 Sep 2011 2:27:55 AM Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote: >> About programming for the masses, I see two educational reasons to >> insist on that. > The debates about programmin I encounter is usually around "how" and not > "why". >> A much better reason is Papert's: so the children will have an object to >> think with. The idea is to learn to learn but we need a suitable way to >> talk about learning strategies. > Papert had a multi-modal approach to develop thinking skills in children - > using large spaces, physical movement, manipulation in three- and two- > dimensional spaces etc. Etoys collapses everything to a single dimension - > left-to-right sequence in tiles and top-bottom in scripts. > > Papert's methods were more closely aligned to the way children think and act > while the gap seems to be much larger in Etoys and smaller in the case of > TuxPaint or Scratch. There is lot more in Etoys than in these two but that is > irrelevant if children cannot cross the initial chasm. Yes, a few children may > make it across the chasm on their own steam, but thinking tools should be > designed to benefit 80% of children, not just the top quintile. I don't think Etoys are that far behind either Scratch or Tuxpaint. Etoys does have a steep learning curve. But so has most stuff worth doing anyway :-) I think we need user testing on Etoys to expose the biggest flaws. What are the biggest stumbling blocks ? Fix that issue and repeat the process. Cheers, Karl