[IAEP] [Grassroots-l] OLPC in Kindergarten

[Albert Cahalan]

Tony Forster writes:

> Nobody knows the age limit on teaching graphical programming.
>
> Experience with Scratch and GameMaker is that it works at the whole of a
> class down to grade 3 though I have had smart individuals down to grade 1.
> But I note that the cognitive load is higher for these programming tools,
> they allow multiple objects and are event driven. The beauty of Turtle Art
> is its simplicity, only 1 object, the turtle and no need to get your head
> around events and their associated actions.
>
> So I agree, lets get something out there, get it road tested and refined
> and see how low it will go.

In terms of grade level, plain old BASIC on the Apple ][ went at
least that low. It doesn't seem that "graphical" gets you anything
other than layout trouble and a dead-end tiny-community language.

> Where the graphic is not reasonably intuitive, maybe better to retain the
> text? At least an adult could read them. Walter is going to do tool tips,
> that would make my point irrelevant, graphics on blocks with text
> tooltips.
>
>> They don't need localization. This is important for children whose
>> language of instruction is not their native language. English in
>> Ghana, for example, or French until recently in Rwanda.
>
> Yes, reminds me of Vanuatu, their local language is spoken the village,
> Bislama is the national language but the language of instruction may be
> English or French. I doubt we would ever see localisation down to the
> local language level, maybe 1000 speakers.
>
> Final thought. We are not eliminating language, just substituting one
> symbol set for another, hopefully more recognisable ones. Language in the
> wider sense is symbols with meanings which can be used for communication
> and as tools to think with. Mathematics is a language too. Though some
> blocks could have photorealistic symbols, we are mostly using abstract
> symbols like the arrow. (the arrow is based on the bow and arrow but we
> have all but forgotten the roots of its symbolism).

It is eliminating language by any usual definition.

It's not right to provide equality by making everybody do without.
You're right that translating for a language of 1000 speakers isn't
all that likely, but **hurting** everybody else to acheive equality
is a cure worse than the disease. (steal from the rich and... burn it)

If you want to help these people to have a future without poverty,
give them text in a language that can provide economic benefit.
This would tend to be a national language.