 |
|
| University | Education | PGCE | ICT | IT | |
| ICT Resources |
THE USE OF ROAMER AS A CONSTRUCTIVIST TOOL IN EARLY
LEARNING
THE USE OF ROAMER AS A CONSTRUCTIVIST TOOL IN EARLY LEARNING
Introduction:
As a teacher of Mathematics, and the mother of two children, I have always been interested in the way young children learn mathematical concepts, such as number and shape recognition. Does an early understanding of these concepts help in later mathematical understanding? It would certainly seem that if a young child is exposed to several different ways of looking at shape and number, then their enhanced experiences may lead to a fuller understanding.
I decided to look at one aspect of how Information Technology is used to enhance children’s understanding of these mathematical concepts: the Roamer Turtle. Roamer is an easy starting point for LOGO, a discovery-based programming language especially developed for use in schools. I looked at the development of LOGO, its roots in Constructivist Learning Theory, and how LOGO and Roamer can be used in schools. I also spent time in a local primary school and observed lessons where Roamer was used. One of these lessons was the initial introduction of Roamer to Reception-class children and the other was to a class of Year 2 pupils who had used Roamer several times over the course of the previous years. I also asked the Year 2 pupils to write down anything they liked or disliked about Roamer or lessons using Roamer. All the children involved enjoyed the lessons, and this enjoyment alone must surely assist in the understanding of mathematical concepts.
Constructivism as a Learning Theory:
Much research has been done on the way in which children learn. One
of these learning theories is constructivism, which is about constructing
knowledge, not receiving it. (Marlowe and Page, 1998, p.2).Constructivism
is based on the assumption that children learn best when they find out
for themselves the specific knowledge that they need (Papert,1993). The
kind of knowledge children most need is the knowledge that will help them
get more knowledge.
Much current mathematical teaching ( as shown by the video-taping of lessons within the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, undertaken in March 1995) is didactic, in that the teacher , standing at the front of a class of pupils, will show them how to go about solving a type of problem, and the class will then practise this method by completing an exercise of similar problems (usually increasing in difficulty). The constructivist attitude to teaching is to teach in such a way as to produce the most learning for the least teaching. If children really wish to learn something (for example, a complex video game) then they will do so whatever instruction is given. This learning occurs because the children have the opportunity to learn ‘in use’. Constructivism is about thinking and the thinking process rather than about the amount of information a pupil can learn and recite. This does not mean, however, that content is not important, it is only the delivery of the content that is different. In a constructivist classroom the teacher does not stand at the front and present information to the pupils. Rather, the pupils uncover and discover information for themselves.
In constructivist terms, learning is:
- both the process and the result of questioning, interpreting and analysing information
- using this information and thinking process to develop, build and alter our meaning and understanding of concepts and ideas and
- integrating current experiences with our past experiences and what we already know about a given subject. (Marlowe and Page, 1998)
Using this definition of constructivist learning: because no two pupils have had exactly the same experiences then their own understandings and interpretations of any concept will not be exactly the same as anyone else’s. It is because all pupils make their own meanings and understandings of issues, concepts and problems that the emphasis in a constructivist classroom is not on the transmitting of information, but on promoting learning through pupil activity such as questioning, investigating, problem generating and problem solving. It is about pupils constructing knowledge for themselves. Through such activities as these, pupils are encouraged to develop the ability to think for themselves, and to think critically.
Marlowe and Page (1998) looked at the views of several educators, philosophers and psychologists on traditional and constructivist learning theories, amongst them Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Dewey, Piaget, Brunner and Friere. They concluded that, although their theories of learning may be different, they all revolved around the same propositions:
- Students learn more when they are actively engaged in their own learning.
- By investigating and discovering for themselves, by creating and re-creating, and by interacting with the environment, students build their own knowledge structure.
- Learning actively leads to an ability to think critically and to solve problems.
- Through an active learning approach, students learn content and process at the same time.
(Marlowe and Page, 1998)
Although information is important, passively accumulating this information is not learning. To learn, a student has to be mentally, and often physically, active. A pupil will learn when she discovers her own answers, solutions and relationships and creates her own interpretations.
An extension of constructivism, constructionism is both a theory of learning and a strategy for education. It builds on the theory of constructivism, asserting that knowledge is not simply transmitted from teacher to pupil, but actively constructed by the mind of the learner. Children don’t get ideas; they make ideas. (Kafai and Resnick, 1996, their emphasis). Constructionism suggests that learners are particularly likely to make new ideas when they are actively engaged in making something ( for example, a sandcastle, a poem, a computer program), which they can reflect upon and share with others. Kafai and Resnick (1996), also explain how constructionism recognises that a learning environment should encourage multiple learning styles and multiple representations of knowledge.
LOGO and Roamer:
The growing use of computers in the classroom has been compared to the introduction of the printing press 500 years ago (Weir, 1987). Seymour Papert (1993) assured us that a radical change in education was possible, and that change was directly tied to computers - that there would soon be as much technology in schools as there were pens and pencils. While this situation might not yet be present, increasing numbers of schools have computers, multi-media technology and access to the Internet. A major impact is inevitable, but how schools and teachers handle that impact will be critical.
With this in mind, Seymour Papert set out to create an environment where children could learn mathematical concepts ‘in use’. He hoped to change the way in which children were taught in schools, and saw computers as an ideal forum:
The most powerful use made of computers in changing the epistemological structure of children’s learning has been the construction of microworlds, in which children pursue mathematical activity because the world into which they are drawn requires that they develop particular mathematical skills.(Papert, 1993). He believes that programming is first and foremost a problem-solving activity, calling for both convergent and divergent thinking; both logic and intuition. (Papert, 1993) This type of thinking allows children to develop mathematical ideas and absorb new concepts, enabling them to use these concepts to understand more complex issues in the future.
In a microworld children are free to explore an environment at their own pace, and to draw from that environment those principles that are meaningful to them. Used in appropriate ways, a computer (and, especially, a microworld) gives a student an unprecedented degree of control over his learning. When allowed to take the initiative, and to set his own goals, a student is likely to reveal his own ways of working (Weir,1987). This allows the teacher to understand how the children construct their learning, and to enable an environment to be built which will match individual needs and learning styles. Vygotsky stated (as quoted in Weir,1987) that ‘understanding learning has been described as moving from understanding with the help of another, to internalised individual; moving from being regulated by others to regulating oneself.’ Traditionally, this aid has come from the teacher. In future it may also come from the interactive nature of the computer, as used in microworlds such as LOGO, or other interactive tools.
LOGO is a programming language which was specially written so that it could be learnt and used in an easy and natural way. It is an open-ended, general purpose, discovery-based programming language used by Papert and his associates to offer accessibility to a wide range of users, and to be used as a catalyst in the classroom. It provides children with the opportunity to learn about problem-solving strategies and mathematical ideas, and to use what they have learned as objects for future reflection (Subhi, 1999).
Although it is very powerful and can be used for very sophisticated and complex programming, LOGO also has an easy and inviting starting point through controlling a turtle as a graphic on-screen. Prior to this, Roamer is an even earlier introduction for younger children. Roamer is a dome-shaped programmable robot, about 12 inches (30 centimetres) in diameter. It is a self-contained unit which does not have to be attached to a computer, making this turtle very moveable and versatile. It is controlled using LOGO-type commands from control pads on its back, so forming an excellent introduction to LOGO. These control pads include direction arrows (forward, backward, right turn, left turn) and number pads 0 to 9. Roamer turns in degrees, so the directions for turning also have to include a number to indicate the size of the turn. Although Roamer usually moves in units equivalent to it’s own length, this can be changed if required. They can carry pens, thus enabling shapes or pictures to be drawn (accuracy dependent upon the surface they are running on). They can even be made to play music!
There are many studies which have looked at the use of LOGO programming in schools, and the effects it can have on children’s learning. These would appear to show that LOGO programming, in particular turtle-graphics, is an effective medium for providing mathematical experiences. When students are able to experiment with mathematics in varied representations, active involvement becomes the basis for their understanding.(McCoy, 1996, in Maddux and Johnson, 1997). Although less work has been done with younger children using Roamer, some research with children in the pre-school to 7-year age range (Key Stage 1, for which Roamer is aimed) has suggested that the proportion of very young children’s experiences in programming, relative to other experiences, may be much higher, and hence play a more significant role than programming does with older children. (Maddux and Johnson, 1997). This would appear to indicate that young children are particularly susceptible to the many advantages which inter-active learning can bring to the classroom. Roamer provides an environment where young students are encouraged to investigate, design plans, provide solutions to problems and evaluate their own thoughts and ideas. This may help young students to facilitate basic number sense. For example, learning relationships between the size of numbers and the length of a line drawn on the ground by Roamer, or learning the properties of a square by trying to program Roamer to draw one.
Using Roamer as part of the Mathematics Curriculum.
Introducing LOGO and Roamer into Mathematics classrooms is seen as a way of providing opportunities for mathematical investigation, encouraging discussion and project work and generally making mathematics a more open and practical subject, accessible and popular for more pupils. It is also appropriate as a medium for learning some areas of mathematical content. For example, Roamer or LOGO could be used as a vehicle to learn to navigate in two-dimensional space, to recognise and draw angles and regular polygons. LOGO could also be used to begin to understand co-ordinate geometry (Hoyles and Sutherland, 1989). The National Curriculum for Mathematics certainly expects some use of computers by pupils within mathematics lessons. It states, for example that pupils should be given the opportunity to develop and apply their IT capability in their study of mathematics and that pupils should be given opportunities to use IT devices for example programmable toys and turtle graphics packages.(DfE, 1995).
Using Roamer may be helpful within the Key Stage 1 classroom in developing social skills as children work together to solve programming problems, and even in developing a greater tolerance for errors or mistakes. Janet Rees, a mathematics advisory teacher for Suffolk County Council, has used Roamer to help motivate and improve the confidence of Reception and Year 1 pupils. She devised a game where Roamer took on the role of Postman Pat and travelled down a ‘street’, taking letters to ‘houses’. The children co-operated well, with high motivation and constant discussion. The children were engaged in making decisions, making predictions, testing predictions, estimation, sorting and ordering.... as well as looking at numbers, sequencing, ordering and shape, both 2-D and 3-D. (Rees , in Times Educational Supplement, March 18, 1994). Most importantly, the children obviously enjoyed the lesson, and the activity helped to enhance their mathematical communication skills. Imaginative use of Information Technology such as this will surely help children to understand mathematical concepts and ideas.
Practical Observations of Roamer in Early Years Classrooms
In order to observe Roamer in use in Key Stage 1 classrooms for myself, I approached the local primary school which my children attend. I was invited to watch two classes in action: a Year 2 class, who had used Roamer within their class approximately ten times over the last two years; and a Reception class who had never previously used Roamer. The school had the use of one Roamer, with a selection of different covers. Although both teachers were aware that a pen could be used with Roamer, neither teacher had actually used this capability
The first lesson I watched was the Year 2 class. The class took place on a Tuesday afternoon in early December, in addition to their usual Numeracy Hour (which had taken place in the morning, prior to my arrival). The class consisted of 23 children (14 boys, 9 girls) of ages six and seven. Within their Numeracy classes, they had been looking at measuring and at estimating distances. The aim of the session was to extend their Numeracy work by using Roamer as a non-standard unit of length for estimating and measuring.
The class began with all the children seated in a large circle around the teacher. Since it had been several weeks since they had last used Roamer, the first few minutes were a revision for the children on the use of the command-keys on Roamer’s back (forward, backward, right turn and left turn arrows), the necessity for using the ‘CM’ key (Clear Memory, before keying in new commands), ‘Go’ and the numerical keys. The teacher then went on to ask who remembered how far Roamer travelled when FORWARD 1 was pressed.
After some discussion, one child tried it, and all children agreed that ‘1’ was the length of Roamer itself. There then followed a discussion on how many ‘turtles’ it would be for Roamer to move to H, who was sitting at the far end of the circle froim the teacher. Sitting next to the teacher, C estimated 6 ‘turtles’, and keyed in the command. However, this was not far enough, and further attempts were made to ensure Roamer reached H. Several children then successfully estimated that it was about 10 ‘turtles’ across the circle.
The children then took turns to estimate and key in the commands for Roamer to reach another child, with varying degrees of success. After a while, one child decided to make Roamer move to another child and come straight back, so requiring 2 commands. This was followed by a discussion on how to make Roamer turn, using the left-turn and right-turn keys, and how large a number to type in. 2 of the children remembered that it should be 90, because ‘there are 90 degrees in a right angle’, and proceeded to demonstrate that this would happen. Unfortunately, the bell for afternoon playtime rang before the children could experiment further with the angles.
After playtime, I took the children in groups of 3 to 5 into the corridor to continue with their investigations. I allowed the children to dictate which direction they wished to follow, some of them wishing to look further at estimating, some at angles. One group of 5 wanted to work out the length of the corridor . I asked them to estimate it first, which led to a variety of responses. One child paced the length of the corridor, and came up with 60 ‘turtles’, another used his hands to ‘mark out’ visually the length, and estimated 45 ‘turtles’. Two others looked at the corridor and said they should try 100 and see what happened, and the fifth child split the corridor into sections, adding together the ‘turtles’ it would take to reach the door of the next classroom, then to the cupboard, then to the next classroom. She came up with an estimate of 52 ‘turtles’. All methods of estimating were agreed by the children to be valid, and possibly accurate. They decided to try 50 and see what happened. Not reaching the end, they added an extra 10, and then an extra 12. The eventual length was agreed at 72, which they proceeded to prove by keying in FORWARD 72, and watching Roamer travel to the end of the corridor. Throughout this time, the children were discussing mathematical ideas, making predictions and testing them and completely engrossed in the activity.
Another group of three children decided to make Roamer turn in a circle. One boy did not understand this until another got up and explained ‘make it spin round’, and demonstrated what he meant. This boy suggested RIGHT TURN 90, RIGHT TURN 90, RIGHT TURN 90, RIGHT TURN 90. There was some discussion as to whether or not this would work, until it was tried and shown to do so. I asked them if they could make Roamer turn without any of the stops and the first boy keyed in RIGHT TURN 900. All three boys were very pleased with this effect, although recognised that this was not the desired result. After several attempts, they agreed that RIGHT TURN 360 would work, also LEFT TURN 360. Again, the group were highly motivated, wanting to try out ideas to see what would happen, but staying very much on-task throughout the time I had them, having set their own tasks within the group.
The following day, the teacher asked them to write about anything they liked or disliked concerning Roamer, and what they thought they had learnt using Roamer. All the children had positive comments to make about Roamer and the lessons (although they were not sure about learning anything!). Many children liked being able to tell Roamer what to do, liked pressing the buttons and playing music, while they did not like his colour or the noise it makes:
The following week, I observed a class of Reception children using Roamer for the first time. This class was on a Tuesday afternoon and was replacing their usual Numeracy hour. There were 26 children in the class (12 boys, 14 girls), all aged 4 or 5. For 9 of the children it was only their second week of full-time schooling, and 2 others were there only that afternoon since they were not starting school until after Christmas. The mothers of these children were present, also the full-time classroom assistant.
The lesson began with the children sitting in a large circle where they could see the teacher. She placed Roamer in the centre of the circle and asked the children what they thought it was. There were many suggestions, including a Christmas decoration and a new table! Having been told it was a robot, they decided that the buttons on top were important and could make the robot move. Volunteers were asked for, to try the buttons, and one boy was selected from the several who put up their hands. He tried pressing the FORWARD key, and suggestions were made as to what he should try next. After several attempts, a successful combination of FORWARD 4 was tried and GO, to the great excitement of the class. Other children were then allowed to take turns at pressing keys, and it was discovered that the CM key was required between attempts. At this stage, I took small groups of three or four children into the corridor to continue experiments with Roamer, while the rest of the class undertook other group activities in the classroom.
Again, I allowed each group to decide what they would like to do, but they all wanted to see what the various keys were for. Each group initially debated which colour cover to put on, and some groups continually changed covers, to see if that would make a difference to the performance of Roamer. Each group had at least one child who was unsure of Roamer and initially did not want to try pressing the keys, although this fear was quickly overcome in every case except one. This child, however, was quite content to watch the others. Within the groups, each child took turns at pressing the keys on Roamer, while the other children usually pointed out which keys to press. The first group started by making Roamer move 1 step at a time, until one girl suggested FORWARD 2. This led to larger numbers to make it move down the corridor. A second group experimented with the music key and different number combinations. Another group tried to make Roamer rotate by trying every number in turn from 1 to 100 (good practice for their counting skills). In fact, this illustrated that many of the children at this age were unsure of how to key in a number such as 25 until told which ones to press by another member of the group.
As with the Year 2 class, all the children were highly motivated and enjoyed the work undertaken. They were conversing mathematically, experimenting, learning about numbers and angles and how to co-operate in groups. I had only a few minutes with each group, and without exception, they were disappointed when they needed to return to the classroom.
Summary
My initial aim within this assignment was to look at whether Roamer could be used as a constructivist tool to help enhance young children’s knowledge and understanding of Mathematics. The evidence would certainly indicate that it is an excellent tool for use within the classroom. The children enjoy lessons using Roamer (as based on my own observations) and, used imaginatively, Roamer can assist in the teaching and learning of many mathematical concepts. Introducing Roamer into mathematics lessons can provide opportunities for investigation, encourage mathematical discussion and generally make mathematics more practical and enjoyable. Hoyles and Sutherland (1989, p.3) summarised their belief in the use of LOGO in the classroom: We believe that the ability to take responsibility for one’s actions, to take risks and see what happens, to experiment and find out for oneself, are all crucial elements for effective learning, that is, learning that can be used flexibly and creatively at a later date. Roamer can help to provide that flexibility, and thus enrich children’s mathematical understanding.
Bibliography
AINLEY, J. (1996). Enriching Primary Mathematics with IT. London : Hodder and Stoughton.
BETTS, J.S. (1997) I Thought I Saw a Roaming Turtle . In LOGO : A Retrospective. New York: The Haworth Press
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (1995) Mathematics in the National Curriculum. London : HMSO
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (1999) The National Numeracy Strategy : Framework for teaching Mathematics from Reception to Year 6 . Suffolk : Cambridge University Press.
HOYLES, C. and Sutherland, R (1989) LOGO Mathematics in the Classroom . Revised edition. London : Routledge.
KAFAI, Y and Resnick, M , editors (1996) Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking and Learning In a Digital World . New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
KEYS, W , Harris, S. and Fernandes, C (1997) Third International Mathematics and Science Study : Second National Report .Berkshire : National Foundation for Educational Research
MADDUX, C.D. and Johnson, D.L. (1997). LOGO : A Retrospective. New York :The Haworth Press
MADDUX, C.D and Johnson, D.L. (1988) LOGO : Methods and Curriculum for Teachers. New York : The Haworth Press.
MARLOWE, B. A.and Page, M.L. (1998). Creating and Sustaining the Constructivist Classroom. California : Corwin Press.
McCOY, L.P.(1996) Computer-based Mathematics Learning. In Journal of Research on Computing in Education , 28 , in LOGO : A Retrospective. New York : The Haworth Press.
PAPERT, S. (1993) The Children’s Machine : Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. Harvester Wheatsheaf.
REES, J (1994) . Roamer Delivers a Lively Lesson . In Times Educational Supplement , March 18, 1994
SUBHI, T. (1999) The Impact of LOGO on Gifted Children’s Achievement and Creativity . In Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , Vol 15, No. 2 , pp 98-108.
WEIR, S. (1987). Cultivating Minds : A LOGO Casebook . New York : Harper and Row.
http://www.media.mit.edu/groups/Logo.foundation/Logo/Logo.html
(accessed on 12 November, 1999)
| Back to the top of the page | Last updated: 12 September 2003 |