programming with scratch software: the benefits for year ... · education, 2013) with a strong...

J Briggs October 2013 1

Programming with

Scratch Software:

The benefits for year six

learners

Julia D Briggs

This dissertation is submitted in part fulfilment of the

regulations for the MA in Learning and Knowledge

Technology

Bath Spa University

October 2013


This dissertation is an original piece of work. It is my own work and has not

been submitted either in the same or different form to this or any other Higher

Education Institution for a degree or other award. It is available for

photocopying and for inter-library load, with the permission of the Dean of the

School of Education.

Signed: Julia Briggs

Date: 18th October 2013


Acknowledgments

The researcher is grateful to Somerset County Council for the job experiences

and opportunities for study provided between 1995 and 2013.

The children and teachers in the year six classes at All Saints, Beechgrove

and Catcott Primary schools are the researchers who have made the

discoveries within this dissertation. Thank you to those schools. Sherril

Atkins, Matt Mustafic and Nicky Mills were inspirational in the way they

worked with their learners.

Emma Asprey, my supervisor has provided indispensable guidance and

support.

Dr Steve Coombs taught me the disciplines of study which have provided the

skills to complete this project.

My colleagues contributed to the completion of the research. Ian Gover

prodded and pushed until I adopted computational thinking in my approach to

programming, something that has been essential to the project. Lucinda

Searle enabled me to have the opportunity to take the time to carry out this

research. She has provided on-going encouragement and support.

Finally my husband Steve, has put up with many exclamations as I made

discoveries within the writings of Vygotsky, Bruner and Papert, and was willing

to listen as I verbalised my thoughts.

To all of these I am grateful and without whom this project would not have

been realised.


Abstract

The new programme of study for computing (Department of Education, 2013)

places an emphasis on programming. This research considers the benefits

for year six learners as they are introduced to programming through Scratch

software. A grounded theory approach is used for the findings to emerge

from three case study schools. A triangulation of the evidence is used to

confirm the outcomes. Comparisons are made between the three groups of

researchers: learners, teachers, and the researcher; as well as between the

three schools and three types of data collection.

Children became researchers as they considered what they learnt and how

they learnt whilst being introduced to use Scratch, through an open-ended

exploratory approach. The researcher was a participant-observer and

reflected on the learning experiences with the teachers involved. It is hoped

that the data is presented in such a way that primary teachers can relate to

the outcomes.

Twelve benefits emerged from the findings. The most significant were

‘developing independent learning’, ‘developing logical thinking’ and

‘encouraging exploration’. Perseverance was indicated as an important part

of the independent learning. The ‘teacher changing role’, an ‘exploratory

approach’ and a ‘supportive environment’ were the key factors identified

which contributed to those benefits. Data also demonstrated the way that the


‘width and height’ of the software allowed the children to create unique games

and animations whilst developing logical thinking.

The teachers permitted the children to discover Scratch software for

themselves. The children were allowed to make mistake and to learn from

them. Support was provided by their peers with only occasional interventions

by the teachers.

A cycle, including exploration and providing instructions for projects which can

then be adapted by the children, is suggested for programming as an effective

approach for children to achieve in this area of the curriculum.


Contents

Contents 1

Glossary 4

Chapter 1 Introduction 6

Chapter 2: Literature Review 11

Empowering the learner 12

The learning potential of programming software 21

The Learning Environment 22

The role of the teacher 26

In conclusion 29

Chapter 3 Research paradigm 30

Generalization of outcomes 31

The participants 33

Data collection 34

Data analysis 38

Chapter 4 Results and Findings 45

The overall picture 45

Case Study One: All Saints Primary 51

Case Study Two: Catcott Primary School 62

Case Study Three: Beechgrove Primary School 70

Validity of the findings 78

Confirming the findings 82

Chapter 5 Conclusions 83

Discoveries 83

Future research 89

Final conclusions and recommendations 91

References 94

Appendices 100


List of Figures

Figure 1: Screen capture of the on-line version of Scratch 9

Figure 2: Codes linked to Perseverance (Atlas ti 7) 40

Figure 3: Triangulation of evidence 42

Figure 4: Summary of activities in the three schools 46

Figure 5: Twenty super-codes (Atlas Ti) 47

Figure 6: Difficulties indicated by codes that were associated with or part

of the super-code (Atlas Ti) 47

Figure 7: Benefits to learners (Analysis of All data Atlas Ti) 49

Figure 8: Comparison of benefits in case study schools (Atlas-ti) 49

Figure 9: Factors that contributed to the benefits to learners (Atlas Ti

Analysis of All data) 50

Figure 10: Comparison of factors contributing to benefits in all three case

study schools (Atlas-ti) 50

Figure 11: What have you learnt about yourself? 56

Figure 12: Benefits to School 1 Learners (Atlas-ti analysis) 58

Figure 13: Factors contributing to the benefits to School 1 learners (Atlas-

ti) 60

Figure 14: Actions of six learners counted during video of a programming

session (School 1). 61

Figure 15: Learning interactions between pupils and Scratch software 62

Figure 16: Benefits to Learners School 2 (Atlas-ti) 64

Figure 17: Factors that contributed to the benefits to learners School 2

(Atlas Ti) 66





Figure 20: Blog posts: Programming Day (Swallow, 2013)

Figure 21: Blog posts: Difficulties with Scratch (Swallow, 2013) 74

Figure 22: Benefits to Learners School 3 (Atlas-ti) 76

Figure 23: Factors that contributed to the benefits to learners School 3

(Atlas Ti) 77

Figure 24: Triangulation of learner evidence: Benefits 79


Figure 25: Triangulation of learner evidence: Factors contributing to

benefits 80

Figure 26: Consideration of peer influence with group interviews: Factors

contributing to benefits. 81

Figure 27 ‘The dynamic relationship between teacher, student and robot

shows that the learning and teaching interactions are bi-directional’,

(Catlin and Blamires, 2012). 84

Figure 28: Cycle of programming 86

Figure 29: The exploration triangle 87

Figure 30: Benefits to year 6 learners in adopting an exploratory approach

to introducing Scratch 90

List of Plates

Plate 1: Discovering movements 53

Plate 2: Crab moving sideways 53

Plate 3: Hercules game 59

Plate 4: Duplicating sprites 67

Plate 5: Witch disappearing 68


Glossary Algorithm ‘Algorithms are re-usable procedures (often a sequence of steps) for getting something done. For example, plan the shortest delivery route for a lorry, given the required stops on the route’ (Royal Society, 2012). Broadcast instruction ‘Broadcast’ and ‘receive broadcast’ programming blocks are used to announce an instruction has been completed and to confirm receipt of that announcement so that a new action can occur. Code Club ‘A nationwide network of free volunteer-led after-school coding clubs for children aged nine to eleven. We create projects for our volunteers to teach at after school coding clubs or at non-school venues such as libraries. The projects we make teach children how to program by showing them how to make computer games, animations and websites. Our volunteers go to their local club for an hour a week and teach one project a week’ (Code Club, ca. 2012). ICT Information Communication Technology Logo The Logo programming language was designed as a tool for learning. It is a text based programming language (Logo Foundation, 2012). Floor robot or Floor turtle ‘Turtles, the first breed of educational robot’ emerged from development of the Logo programming language (Caitlin and Blamires, 2012). The robots have a microchip within which is programmed by pushing buttons to dictate what the robot will do. PC Personal computer


Program blocks Programming in Scratch ‘is done by snapping together colourful command blocks to control sprites’ (Maloney et al, 2010). These are sometimes referred to as program blocks. Programs ‘These tell a computer exactly what to do. Every program is written in some programming language, each with different strengths.’ (Royal Society, 2012). Scratch Scratch is a visual programming environment that allows users (primarily ages eight to sixteen) to learn computer programming while working on personally meaningful projects such as animated stories and games (Maloney et al, 2010). Two versions were used by the schools in the case studies. 2.0 online version was used at All Saints Primary. The downloaded 1.4 version was used at Catcott and Beechgrove. Sprite Scratch uses the term sprite for the characters and objects which can be programmed with the software. Turtle A turtle can be a floor robot or floor turtle. It is also the object on a screen which is programmed by Logo. The correct text input ‘would start the turtle going’ on the screen (Logo Foundation, 2012).


Chapter 1 Introduction One of the antinomies in education described by Bruner (1996: 67) is that,

whilst its purpose is to ‘reproduce the culture that supports it’, to ‘further its

economic, political, and cultural ends;’ it also allows individuals to gain their

full potential. This presents a pair of truths that could seem to contradict each

other yet, as seen in schools today and, as recognised by Bruner (ibid: 69),

become merged together.

A similar antinomy emerges from the ‘Shut down or restart?’ report (Royal

Society, 2012) which identified Computer Science as being of enormous

importance to society in the United Kingdom in terms of being globally

competitive (ibid: 4); but at the same time developing critical thinking skills of

pupils which can increase their understanding of the world. It stated that it was

‘essential for pupils to develop their aptitudes in the subject, for their individual

benefit and for the future prosperity of the nation’ (ibid: 5).

Ways in which technology can support learning were recognised by the

Secretary of State for Education in his 2012 speech (Gove, 2012) on ICT in

the curriculum. At the same time however the curriculum, which teaches the

skills and understanding of that technology, was referred to as failing the

needs of the country.

‘The UK had been let down by an Information Communication Technology (ICT) curriculum that neglects the rigorous Computer Science and programming skills which high-tech industries need’. (ibid).


Bruner (1982: 69) suggests that in times of rapid change it is important to

keep the antinomies in balance. The realisation of an individual’s progress can

also preserve the culture.

The discussion, both political (Gove, 2012) and educational (Royal Society,

2012) has led to a new computing programme of study (Department of

Education, 2013) with a strong emphasis on computer science and in

particular programming. In this dissertation the researcher will consider what

the benefits to the individual rather than to society could be. Specifically the

benefits to year six children using Scratch software (Scratch, ca. 2007).

Through this it is hoped that the study will contribute to a consideration of

whether Bruner’s antinomies are in balance.

The researcher has advised schools throughout Somerset on ways to

implement the previous ICT (Information Communication Technology)

curriculum and seeks to use the findings of this dissertation to support the

implementation of the new computing programme of study. For the

researcher, working with schools has always included the development of the

use of technology to support all areas of learning. Therefore recognising the

benefits of programming which may contribute to other learning is an essential

part of the outcomes.

The aim of the research is to identify the benefits for year six children as they

begin to program using Scratch software. The questions which will be

investigated are:


• How are individual learners benefitting from the experience?

• What are the children learning while using the software?

• How much of the learning is related to programming?

• What other kinds of learning are taking place?

• What understanding are they gaining of technology?

• What is contributing to that learning?

• What understanding are they gaining of how they learn?

The researcher chose Scratch as the focus for the research as it is a free

resource developed for education (Maloney et al, 2010: 2). Recently it has

been seen by the researcher to grow in popularity as the tool of choice for

teachers as they plan early experiences of programming for their learners.

The Secretary of State for Education referred to its potential,

‘We could have 11 year-olds able to write simple 2D computer animations using an MIT tool called Scratch.’ (Gove, 2012).

The researcher previously worked as a primary school teacher and used

technology to support children in achieving targets they had struggled with

previously. An ontological belief developed that children had a right to access

technology and this could make a difference to their learning. This belief was

enhanced through studies such as Pearson and Somekh (2006) which

discusses the way technology has become an integral part of children’s lives

and the way they think and learn. The belief also contributes to a

constructivist approach to teaching which considers the experiences that


should be provided for children to scaffold their learning through Vygotsky’s

(1978) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) using materials that are part of

their culture (Papert, 1984).

An important aspect of Scratch for the researcher is therefore the way that

primary-aged individuals can create their own unique programs or projects

which reflect computer games that are part of their societal culture;

‘Scratch is a visual programming environment that allows users (primarily ages 8 to 16) to learn computer programming while working on personally meaningful projects such as animated stories and games. A key design goal of Scratch is to support self-directed learning through tinkering and collaboration with peers.’ (Maloney et al, 2010: 1).

The environment it provides is shown in Figure 1 below. Children can have a

concrete experience of making things happen on a screen while developing

their abstract thinking. This is an idea which is explored in Chapter Two.

Figure 1: Screen capture of the on-line version of Scratch


The grounded theory approach identified for the research and discussed in

Chapter Three reflects the constructivist beliefs of the researcher (Mills et al.,

2006) and provides a methodology to involve teachers and children in the

research process. This is to enable the ‘Learner Voice’ (Rudd et al., 2006) to

be represented in the outcomes presented in Chapters Four and Five.


Chapter 2: Literature Review In this review, the researcher considers the literature available to explore the

ways in which primary aged learners may benefit from appropriate software

being used to support the new programme of study for computing. It does not

consider the benefits of becoming a computer programmer or even

understanding the science behind the technologies that are ubiquitous in

today’s society. It focuses on the possibility of programming activities to

develop the potential for increased learning for an individual. The review

draws strongly on social constructivist theories of learning. This emerged

from the identification of the programming language of Logo as the precursor

to the development of Scratch (Maloney et al, 2010). Maloney describes

Scratch as ‘building on the constructionist ideas of Logo’ (ibid: 3). This is

reflected in the account provided by Robyler and Edwards (2000: 64) who

refer to the influence of Piaget’s way of ‘looking at children as active builders

of their own intellectual structures’ as the driver for Papert working with others

at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to develop Logo as a

programming language for the youngest learners.

The social and cultural aspect of the constructivist theories has evolved

through the review as links have been made with Bruner’s (1996) culture in

practice, and Vygotsky’s (1962) theory of thought and language deriving from

both the culture surrounding the child and social interactions.


For a complete picture it will be necessary to acknowledge that the beneficial

effects of programming cannot be separated from other influences (Goodyear,

1984) and therefore reference is made to:

Empowering the learner

Learning potential of programming software

Learning environment

Role of the teacher

Empowering the learner

Crook (2009: 5) draws attention to the way Scratch can ‘empower children to

control the computer and create their own applications rather than use the

computer in a passive manner’. It is similar to Papert’s (1993: 107)

observation of Logo allowing children to be ‘producers rather than consumers

of educational software’. Luckin et al (2007: 91) referred to learners as

‘creators not consumers’ of technology and Luckin (2008) described the active

role of learners when the educational context belongs to the learner as well as

the teacher.

This active role is explored in an article describing the contribution of online

communities to the learning taking place while using Scratch (Monroy-

Hernández and Resnick, 2008). The article refers to children creating and

sharing Scratch projects ‘as a way to express themselves creatively, much as

they would paint a picture or build a castle with LEGO bricks.’ The research it

is based on arises from Papert’s idea (1984) of a transitional object to help a

child to make contact with ideas and to develop their thinking. He links the


shaping and crafting of physical materials to the programming of a computer.

As the child programs the computer they ‘establish an intimate contact with

some of the deepest ideas from science, from mathematics and the art of

intellectual model building’ (ibid: 5).

Similarly, Bruner recognises the importance of producing ‘works’ or ‘oeuvres’

(Meyerson, 1948 cited in Bruner, 1996: 22). Something that is produced by a

group of learners will give ‘pride, identity and a sense of continuity to those

who participate’. It is a record of the mental efforts. Something external that

can help the individual or group to reflect on what has been learnt. This builds

on Vygotsky (1962) describing the way in which an object that a child is

dealing with can shape their thought processes.

The idea of an object to learn with; and to have an outcome that can support

the reflection on that learning, is developed in activity theory. Here cognitive

activity uses a tool which can ‘mediate internalization’ and interaction with

other people (Fjeld et al, 2002: 155). Physical outcomes create ‘artefacts’ and

allow the externalization of thoughts. One person’s thoughts ‘become more

accessible to other people’ (ibid). Fjeld refers to activity within the context of

augmented reality where shared understanding can be achieved by ‘creating

objects-to-think-with in collaborative design activities’ (ibid: 160). A mix of

physical and virtual tools is used to support a group of adults to develop a set

of design guidelines. This mix is similar to the use of floor robots and

programming software in a classroom to develop thinking such as

mathematical understanding of two dimensional shapes (Vincent, 2003).


However, within Fjeld’s work the focus is on creating an object which is the

focus for a group whereas Papert’s (1984) focus is the object developing the

thinking of an individual which can then be shared with others.

This externalization can be linked to the ways in which gestures can be part of

constructing new knowledge. Lucas and Claxton (2010: 93) refer to Goldin-

Meadow and Wagner (2005) as they describe the way that movement can

support the identification of new ideas.

‘Hands connected up to bits of the brain that may ‘know’ or suspect or wonder about things that our more conscious and deliberate minds are as yet unaware of’.

Floor turtles (see Glossary) and paired work on giving precise instructions to

each other is a physical starting point experienced by many young children as

an introduction to programming.

Further to the idea of physical movements contributing to learning, Papert

(1984) describes the turtle in logo programming as being body syntonic.

Children programming an on-screen turtle to draw a circle, relate the

movements required to their knowledge of their own bodies. Although

Jonassen (1998) recognises the way technology offers tools to explore and

solve problems; the closeness of the link between the individual and that tool

is not the same as that identified by Papert. Jonassen refers to ‘Mindtools’ as

‘intellectual partners’ (ibid: 14) which the learner can use to ‘off-load’ some of

the task. The learner should be responsible for making use of the tool to do

the processing for them while the learner does the thinking. He suggests that

the combination of a ‘Mindtool’ and the engagement of a learner can enhance


the thinking and learning that is taking place. It creates an environment where

learners actively participate to construct their own knowledge. The description

of technology tools as environments is also used by Way and Beardon (2003:

3) in considering their contribution to mathematical learning.

However the relationship between the user and the tool can be far more

intricate than this. Tools can become part of that person’s intelligence.

Blakeslee and Blakeslee (2007, cited in Lucas and Claxton, 2010) refer to

enhancers that expand the sense of self, such as a blind person and their

stick. This is explored by Pearson and Somekh (2006) with reference to

technology being an integral part of children’s lives. For some learners it has

become an extension of themselves. Pearson refers to the need to reframe

traditional approaches to cognition to take account of digital processes

(Lankshear, 2003, cited ibid: 533), to make use of ‘mediated cultural tools’

(ibid: 529). Bruner (1996: 151) described the mind as ‘an extension of the

hands and tools that you use and of the jobs to which you apply them.’ He

discusses (ibid: 17-18) Vygotsky’s ZPD in terms of the capacity to go beyond

the limits which can be imposed due to the ‘nature of language and notational

systems’.

The semiotic language of programming could be considered to be taking

children beyond previous limits in their learning as they use it to control the

behaviour of the computer. Papert (1984) described the computer as an

object to think with. Explaining something physical is far easier for people

than having to find the ‘mental categories’ to explain our own minds


(Chomsky, 1969 cited in Bruner, 1996: 161). Logo programs allow children to

construct and manipulate objects in relationship to their environment. Papert

(1993: 116-128) uses a composite pupil called Maria to describe the reactions

of some of a group of nine and ten year olds when they have the opportunity

to program Lego models. Maria builds connections with other learning as she

creates her own model home and then becomes intrigued by the

programming she sees others are doing and is determined to make the lights

in her house blink on and off (ibid: 119). Through the process she is able to

exercise choice and be in control of her own learning. This reflects Bruner’s

(1996: 87) idea of agency where the learner takes control of their own mental

activity. They take decisions about their learning and build their own

heuristics (ibid: 93) but this comes from the ‘crucial role of self-generated

discovery in learning a subject’ (ibid: 39) as demonstrated by Maria in

developing her house (above). Maria’s independence links to the observation

by Somekh and Davis (1997: 142) that, ‘almost all highly skilled computer

users profess to be largely self-taught’.

Despite this Underwood and Underwood (1990: 35-49) are cautious of

Papert’s ‘powerful ideas’. They refer to Pea and Kurland’s (1984 in ibid: 48)

phrase of ‘naïve techno-romanticism’ in considering the idea that

‘programming experiences can transform children’s minds’. Their review of

the evidence from a range of studies on Logo, using matched groups that are

tested before and after a three month period, concludes that benefits can be

observed. In particular an increased ability to explain mathematical rules (47),

gains in creative thinking (45) and the ability to evaluate their own knowledge


(46); although, no additional gain was made in verbal memory (45) and visual-

spatial matching (46).

While accepting these benefits, Underwood and Underwood (1990) express

overall reservations that the profound developments claimed by Papert were

not realised (48). However one of the differences identified in both the

investigation reported by Clements and Gullo (1984 in ibid: 45) and

Finlayson’s study (1984 in ibid: 47) was the verbal expression achieved by the

learners in cognitive tests following an experience of using Logo. This links to

Vygotsky’s recognition of speech as an instrument of thought (1962: 16-17)

which can move a child towards purposeful behaviour. Unless there is an

understanding of a concept the relevant words, even where they are familiar,

will not be usable by the child (ibid: 7). Once the concept has ‘matured’ the

word becomes available and can be part of the articulation of the learning that

is taking place. Six year old children that are able to provide a verbal

description of a route when presented with a map (Underwood and

Underwood, 1990: 45); and eleven year old children that can give verbal

descriptions of the rules which generate a pattern for a set of number

sentences (ibid: 47); are all demonstrating their understanding of concepts

that has come as a result of their Logo experience.

Kathy is a student described by Vincent (2003: 59). She used logo to create a

resource for other children who did not understand fractions. She has low

self-esteem, short attention span and poor language and written mathematics

skills. She


‘worked long and hard without a single distraction except when others, who now saw Kathy as an ‘expert’, asked her for advice.’

She was teaching while she created her ‘artefact’. Likewise, Goldstein and

Pratt (2003) describe how a child can become the teacher of a computer

when using Logo. In doing this they can make their own decisions about what

they want to achieve and how they will do it. They are developing their own

learning; ‘Every teacher knows that one of the best ways to understand

something is to teach it to someone else.’ (ibid: 72).

Programming provides immediate feedback on the effect of a procedure that

has been created. Children can explore possibilities and debug those which

do not achieve the outcome they require. In this way they can ‘concretise’

ideas (Goodyear, 1984: 32). They can make

‘a manipulable thing of otherwise abstract ideas about knowledge, learning, thinking and problem solving.’

The computer has become an ‘intellectual mud pie’ (ibid)!

This mix of concrete and abstract thinking is something which Papert (1993:

151) identifies as a ‘blind spot’ in Piaget’s insights about development.

Papert’s transitional object was developed from Piaget’s model of the child

building their own intellectual structures based on the materials in the culture

(Papert, 1984: 7). But despite this there are differences in the way in which

Papert views the development of children’s learning. Piaget explained the

slow development of learning about a concept being due to its greater

complexity. Papert describes it as being due to the ‘relative poverty of the

culture in those materials that would make the concept simple and concrete’


(1984: 7). While children are developing their thinking through working with

every day materials they are also developing understanding of abstract ideas.

He sees concrete and abstract working in parallel rather than one preceding

the other (Papert, 1993: 151). At any stage of education the two can be

interchangeable to construct ‘important and sophisticated’ ideas. Concrete

thinking is not just a first stage in solving problems; it is an on-going part of

the process. Likewise, Vygotsky (1962: 125) describes continual movement

back and forth between the mature abstract understanding of a word and the

process of using the word in a concrete setting.

Similarly, Lucas and Claxton (2010: 59) attest that children do not outgrow

earlier learning modes. They add ‘imagining and reasoning’ to ‘observing and

experimenting’ making the learning more powerful.

This relates to Papert’s (1993) philosophy of constructionism. The use of a

learning object benefits a child in a way which an instructionist approach at

any stage of development cannot. A teacher telling a group of children

something only provides that piece of knowledge, it doesn’t provide them with

knowledge which will ‘help them get more knowledge’ (Papert, 1993: 139).

An instructionist approach could be considered in viewing the learning object

as part of Skinner’s (1954) behaviourist model of learning. He refers to

‘contingencies of reinforcement’ (ibid: 107) as a way to reinforce a child

developing the appropriate actions to achieve an outcome. While

programming with a learning object, the learner would experience a positive

reinforcement each time a set of commands achieved the outcome that is


expected. Goodyear (1984: 25) refers to the child’s needs being met ‘swiftly

and accurately’ as they master the language of programming. However, he

also outlines the need for the learners to have time to experiment, to make

mistakes and to gain confidence. Papert (1984: 23) is concerned that children

are held back by thinking ‘they’ve got it right or got it wrong.’ The

contingencies of reinforcement would need to include the satisfaction of

correcting a ‘bug’ in the program. This is in contrast to their application

through drill and practice software, developed by behaviourists such as

Suppes (Solomon, 1987: 8, 23), which provides a positive stimulus for a

correct response. The understanding of the children during the process

needs to also be considered. Vygotsky (1962: 82) describes the process of

concept formation as ‘more than mental habit’. He stated that the ‘act of

thought cannot be taught by drilling.’

However, positive reinforcement of using the appropriate actions to

accomplish a specific outcome could allow a learner to achieve fluency in

programming. They ‘learn to use the tools built into the computer system’

(Solomon, 1986: 152). This is closer to Bloom’s (1986) idea of automaticity.

Indeed, computer languages are listed in Bloom’s (1986: 76) table of

automated processes that contain early skills that are a prerequisite for later

learning (Appendix 22). In contrast to this, Papert (1984: 24) describes the

mastery of programming as becoming ‘highly skilled at isolating and correcting

bugs’. This relates more to an active interaction with the learning object by

the learners and indicates more purposeful choice and control by the learner

as discussed above in terms of Bruner’s (1996: 87) idea of agency.


The learning potential of programming software

The consideration of programming software as a transitional object for

learning has been developed in different ways. Goldstein et al (2001: 2)

highlight the importance of developing software where interaction is no longer

restricted to a textual interface. Bruner (1996: 155) sets out three levels of

representing new learning materials; enaction which requires physical

manipulation, iconic where you can think of the world in pictures, and symbolic

systems based on language. In terms of learning programming this could be

the steps from floor turtles, to direction icons on a screen, to the text of Logo

and then other program languages. Scratch is a combination of the iconic

and textual, providing a stepping stone through the ZPD. In this instance

applied to supporting the progress with programming itself, rather than the

programming supporting the development of mathematical or other critical

thinking skills.

This links to Goldstein and Pratt (2003: 86-87) distinguishing between the

width of software to increase the number of possibilities children can explore,

and the height of software to increase what might be achieved. ‘The less

restricted the software in terms of width and height, the more empowered are

the children to follow through their ideas.’ Similarly Papert (1980 in Resnick et

al 2009 : 63) argues for programming languages which should have a ‘low

floor’ and are easy to get started and a ‘high ceiling’, with opportunities for

increasing complexity. Resnick (2009) adds the requirement for ‘wide walls’

to support


‘many different types of projects so people with many different interests and learning styles can all become engaged.’

This engagement of learners with different interests was something Papert

(1993: 119-124) documented as he described Maria’s learning through her

initial design focus on her house before she chose to develop programming

skills to add a lighting dimension to her project.

The ‘tinkerability’ (Maloney et al, 2010: 4) of Scratch relates to Maria’s

experience. Users are helped to discover the functionality of programming

blocks by clicking on them before using them as part of a detailed piece of

programming. Sets of programming blocks can be tested separately rather

than having to run complete programs. In both cases the visual feedback

(ibid: 5) provided by the program supports the resolution of any problems.

Appropriate software also supports learners to become cognitive apprentices

(Seely-Brown et al, 1989: 33). In the case of Scratch, the software can be

used by children to develop the computational thinking which is required for

computer programming (Crook, 2009: 3) while they create games which they

recognise as authentic (ibid: 5). The games and animations are recognisable

by the learners as part of their culture which relates to Bruner’s (1996: 3)

‘meaning making’ being ‘situated in a cultural context.’

The Learning Environment

Despite all the possibilities detailed previously it is also necessary to consider

the limitations which can occur where programming activities are planned.

Bruner (1996) speaks with caution about Piaget’s theory of learning that relies

on gaining knowledge of the world purely from direct hands-on experiences.


He emphasises the need for a community of learners. This builds on the

socio-cultural theory of learning of Seely-Brown et al (1989: 39) who describe

the way in which learning about the world comes from others through

‘collaborative social interaction’. This is part of the experience in the

classroom which is required by Goodyear (1984: 120) who reminds us that the

actual programming is only part of the ‘total learning environment’. The

success in programming depends on the classroom environment created by

the teacher. The attitudes of the learners will affect how much they can learn.

One example is how debugging of programs may be viewed. It is not

evidence of failure but can be the ‘source of new thinking’ (ibid: 33).

Another example is the attention required to sustain interest when

programming becomes more difficult. Lucas and Claxton (2010) refer to the

‘butterfly defect’ (Salomon, 1997 cited in ibid: 97); a reduction in the attention

habits of children through too much internet-surfing and television viewing.

Lucas and Claxton (ibid) use it to consider the way digital technologies could

‘undermine the ability and pleasure in slower, more detailed and painstaking kinds of learning’.

This description could easily be applied to what is entailed in programming.

Could one type of technology affect the ability to maintain concentration in

exploring another type of technology? Lucas and Claxton (ibid: 97) suggest

that it depends on the kinds of ‘attention-shaping activities’ that are part of the

experience of the child and the ‘frame of mind’ in which they engage with

different technologies. Developing these will be part of the ethos a teacher

will need to create within the learning environment.


Bruner’s culture-in-practice (1996: 77) allows children to develop a sense of

their own possibilities. This ‘enabling culture’ is one where the teacher’s role

can change as the children become peer teachers, ‘offering their expertise to

those with less’ (ibid: 93). The children are sources of information and advice

as they discover new routines within programming. Watt (1982, cited in

Goodyear, 1986) describes a classroom where children are allowed to move

between computers,

‘as problems are solved, and new enthralling patterns appear, so

children will move to see them or explain how they were created.’

Hawkins et al, 1982 cited in Goodyear (ibid: 162) attest that,

‘there was more task-related interaction during computer activity, than

during other non-teacher-directed classroom activity.’

This relates to the experience of Maria described earlier where she chooses

to extend her own learning having been intrigued by the programming of

others (Papert, 1993: 119).

Further to this are the ‘authentic situations’ (Seely-Brown et al., 1989: 21)

which have been referred to in considering appropriate software. Cognition is

situated in the activities where the concept has been developed. The group of

children, together with the tool they are given, can be part of a ‘community of

practitioners’ (ibid: 24), where the teacher can model the appropriate

behaviour of a programmer. The problem solving can happen in an

environment which takes away the need to process the learning ‘solely inside

heads’ (ibid: 29). The children can be ‘off-loading part of the cognitive task

onto the environment’.


This provides a mixture of concrete thinking, as instructions are given to an

object through the programming which is taking place; and abstract thinking,

as new possibilities are imagined or planned for. It adds an additional

requirement to the learning environment. Children will need to have time for

the imagining and reasoning. ‘Dreamy sides of the mind’, (Lucas and Claxton,

2010: 89) may need to be used to free up thoughts and ideas.

Structured learning may have been used to equip the children with the

knowledge and skills to program an object but they may need the distraction

of other activity to allow the mind to move from ‘mountainous thinking’ (ibid:

72-74) to ‘meadow thinking’. The mountainous thinking is the concepts and

habits that have established existing pathways to solve known problems.

Meadow thinking tends to happen when not fully focussed on a task but when

you may be engaged in something else but ‘mulling over’ possibilities,

perhaps not even consciously. It is when more patterns of the brain are

opened up, increasing the chances of finding a new pattern which offers a

new idea of how to move forward with a challenge. It is ‘more like switching

on a large circuit of fairy-lights across the brain than a big bulb in a single

location’ (ibid: 73). This is similar to Vygotsky’s description of the way that

‘concepts evolve in ways differing from deliberate conscious elaboration of experience in logical terms’ (1962: 79).

He refers to Piaget (1924 in ibid: 13), ‘logical activity is not all there is to

intelligence’, in recognising that imagination is needed to find solutions to

problems.


Both ‘meadow and mountain’ thinking are required to bring benefits to the

learner but a teacher may need to consider how the disposition to make use

of the imagination can be encouraged (Lucas and Claxton, 2010: 84) in the

learning environment they are creating. Bruner (1998: 52) describes this as

giving children the right stepping stones to allow them to discover that they

‘know more than they thought they knew’. He draws together four

perspectives which must be congruent (ibid: 54-63). The development of

habits through imitation, the acquisition of knowledge from didactic exposure,

the development of a model of the world constructed from their experience

and the management of the knowledge gained. However, the development of

the learning environment, still links to the process of thought focused on the

product of the learning described above as Bruner’s (1996) works or Papert’s

(1984) transitional object.

The role of the teacher

The teacher has a key role to play. The management of a classroom is ‘a

more significant variable than any other in terms of helping learning’ (Watkins,

2005, cited in Lucas and Claxton, 2010: 118). The teacher has the choice to

either instruct learners on how to program or to guide the learner to construct

their knowledge and therefore to gain greater benefits. In the words of Way

and Beardon (2003: 5) the teacher is the one who can either ‘unleash this

potential or inhibit it’.

For many educators the demand for the inclusion of technologies challenges

existing pedagogies (Underwood et al, 2010) and therefore they are unlikely


to adopt them. Way and Beardon’s (2003: 3) perspective of digital

technologies as ‘environments’, rather than just tools for learning and

teaching’ requires ‘a fundamental change in teaching practice for many

teachers.’ Developing the kind of learning environment described above is

only part of this.

The Secretary of State for Education (Gove, 2012) described benefits to

society as a reason to include programming in the curriculum. This may not

be sufficient to encourage teachers in primary schools to invest time in

becoming proficient in this area of learning and to change their practice. They

may need to have an increased understanding of how their pupils will benefit.

Ofsted reports on ICT in schools in both 2009 and 2011 (Office for Standards

in Education, 2009, 2011) identified control aspects of the ICT curriculum as a

weakness due to the lack of teacher confidence in their own knowledge. For

young learners to benefit from programming, something different will need to

happen in terms of the professional development currently offered.

Szymanski and Morrell (2009) identified the importance of teachers receiving

training in a ‘situated context’ where not only was the professional

development ‘tailored to individual needs’ but they could see an increase in

student engagement and motivation. Teachers’ belief in their success at

bringing benefits to learners will depend on their subject matter knowledge,

but also the pedagogy necessary to achieve the required outcomes (Rohann

et al, 2012). Conversely, is it acceptable to still view the use of technology as

something which teachers should be persuaded to adopt? Or do ‘teachers


have an overpowering responsibility to incorporate these technologies

effectively into their teaching’ (Way and Beardon, 2003: 1).

Vincent (2003 :67) describes an instructionist teacher who, despite being very

nervous of technology began to use MicroWorlds, a program based on Logo,

with her class. She began to learn alongside the children. She watched as

the children learned from each other. Her role became one of a guide. She

became a constructionist in her approach. Vincent sees this as letting go of

the ‘belief in the power of language to teach and lead from the front.’ The

teacher uses her knowledge of the learners to guide them to achieve

whatever may be possible without limiting the challenge.

This implies a need for a teacher to change from an instructionist approach to

constructing the knowledge of learners. Papert (1993: 164) describes

instruction as something that is done to the child and implies ‘particles of

knowledge’ are selected by the instructor to pass to the learner. He supports

Piaget’s view (ibid: 142) that ‘knowledge cannot simply be transmitted or

conveyed ready-made to another person’. This reflects the social

constructivist ideas that have been the main focus of this review. In contrast

Skinner’s (1954: 108) behaviourist model directs knowledge to the learner

through a series of interactions in order for them to achieve the behaviour

desired.

Both constructivist and behaviourist models can be seen in Costa and Killick

(2000) describing the ability to solve complex problems as developing ‘Habits


of Mind’. These are the skills and cues which are learnt from past

experiences, but give a learner confidence to work on problems which cannot

be solved immediately. The teacher who is building her own confidence in

programming will be developing the habits to overcome difficulties and in this

way constructing new domains of knowledge (Bruner, 1996: 119). That

teacher can choose to plan experiences which will foster the construction of

those same domains for their learners. In this way the teacher would not be

instructing the children and thereby relying on the learners’ understanding of

the computational language that the teacher had acquired.

In conclusion

The review has developed some key ideas which provide concepts that can

underpin the findings of the case studies. The learning object of appropriate

software can teach children and allow them to be not only an ‘emancipated,

self-directing learner’ (Goodyear, 1984: 24) but also an epistemologist as they

reflect on that learning (ibid: 32). The potential benefits to the learner may

depend on the learning environment created by the teacher and the attitude of

that teacher, as well as open-ended programming software. To maximise that

proficiency, learning activities will need to be planned to allow the children to

share the responsibility for their own learning. They will need to be allowed to

‘get on with it’ (Bruner, 1996: 151).


Chapter 3 Research paradigm

Discovering the benefits of learning experiences using Scratch programming

software required an interpretative paradigm as the researcher was seeking to

learn at first-hand about the social world being investigated (Hitchcock and

Hughes, 1995: 6). The researcher was able to describe learning experiences

in three schools and, through this, provide an interpretation of the events and

actions of the participants (ibid: 16). Although the research had a specific

goal in mind (ibid: 18), which is a characteristic of a positivist paradigm, there

was no testability of theory (ibid: 22) or a reliance on hypotheses (ibid: 23).

The researcher used a grounded theory approach to allow a ‘systematic

generation of a theory’ (Cohen et al, 2011: 598). The approach reflects the

researcher’s constructivist understanding of learning, as ideas were

generated from the data collected (Dunne, 2011: 140).

This approach allowed the researcher to move ‘backwards and forwards

between the data and the emerging explanations, and analyses’ (Hammersley

and Atkinson, 1995: 174) and eventually to develop a theory. Through the

close working with the teachers involved, a co-construction of meaning

evolved which Mills et al, (2006) describe as a constructivist approach to

grounded theory.

In using Grounded theory the researcher acknowledges that extensive

reading had already been part of preparing for the research. The decision for

the inclusion of a literature review as an early part of research had therefore

already been made, as advocated by Strauss and Corbin in Dunne (2011).


Glaser (1998, in Dunne 2011) raises a concern that a literature search in the

substantive area of the research should only occur during the sorting and

writing up stage so that preconceived ideas cannot be imposed on the

research. However, the researcher tends to the argument of Dunne (ibid),

that any researcher undertaking a study without some level of prior knowledge

or ideas is simply unrealistic. It is certainly a requirement of the Masters

programme and, as described by Urquhart (2007, cited in Dunne, 2011: 351),

‘There is no reason why a researcher cannot be self-aware and be able

to appreciate other theories without imposing them on the data.’

The research is set in three primary schools (see Appendix 1 for description of

schools) where programming with Scratch is being experienced for the first

time by both teachers and year six pupils (ten and eleven year olds). This

suggested a case study approach to enable the researcher to focus the

enquiry around this instance (Adelman et al, 1984: 94). Using the definition of

Stake (1994, cited in Cohen et al., 2000: 183), it is an instrumental case

study. A particular case, the introduction of programming to year six pupils, is

being examined ‘to gain insight into an issue or theory’. Observations were

made in three contexts over a short period of time. The use of linked

situations as a case study is described by Hitchcock and Hughes (1995: 317)

as being a story of ‘certain aspects of social behaviour in a particular setting.’

It enabled the researcher to ‘spread the net for evidence’ (Bromley 1986, cited

in ibid) within the clear boundaries of the learning experience identified.

Generalization of outcomes

It is important to the researcher as an adviser for schools throughout

Somerset that the outcomes of the research can be generalized. This is


rejected by Denzin (1983, cited in Schofield, 1990: 173) as a goal impossible

for an interpretivist who will be representing only ‘a slice from the life world’.

However Schofield allows the generalization as long as the research is

designed with this in mind. It is a

‘matter of the fit between the situation studied and others to which one might be interested in applying the concepts and conclusions of those studied’ (ibid: 226).

Furthermore, Denscombe (2007, cited in Bell, 2010: 43) links the extent to

which findings can be generalized to how far the case study example is similar

to others of its type. The design for the research includes the use of multi-sites

where a similar learning experience of programming with Scratch software is

being provided, within year six classrooms. These will need to be linked to

the findings in a way which allows teachers to make a choice of how to apply

them to learning possibilities in their own classroom (Hitchcock and Hughes,

1995: 5).

Bassey (1981, cited in Bell, 2010: 9) preferred the term ‘relatability’. This

appeals to the researcher in communicating the findings to other teachers.

For Bassey the criterion is the

‘extent to which the details are sufficient and appropriate for a teacher

working in a similar situation to relate his decision making to that

described in the case study.’

He also refers to the necessity of the study being carried out systematically

and critically.


The participants

The researcher worked as a participant-observer (Hammersley and Atkinson,

1995) together with the teachers in each school to plan, share and reflect on a

learning experience using Scratch software. The planned learning

experiences varied in each school to attempt to focus on the learning that took

place, rather than one teaching strategy which could be affecting that

learning. Despite this, as the experiences evolved, an exploratory approach

for the learners became common in all three. The planning is provided in

Appendix 2.

School One provided an opportunity for pairs of children to explore the

software, share what they have discovered and then to work

individually, initially using prepared materials to create games. The

final activity was to individually create games based on their class

topic.

School Two used Code Club (Sutcliffe and Sandvik, 2012a) materials

for children to independently create two games with Scratch, including

‘Whack a Witch’ (Sutcliffe and Sandvik, 2012b). The children had the

support of ‘experts’ who were members of the class that had attended

an after school Code Club (see Glossary). Between using instructions

to create two games the children were given open-ended challenges to

demonstrate their confidence with the software.

School Three provided an opportunity for children to independently

explore the software, followed by an opportunity to each become

experts at a particular aspect of Scratch programming. The children

were grouped (based on their abilities in mathematics and literacy) and


given a set of instructions to individually produce a game. Children

were then paired with someone who had made a different game to

complete a problem solving activity with Scratch. Finally they worked

individually to create their own version of a ‘Racing Car Game’ (see

Appendix 3).

In Schools one and three a team teaching role was adopted. In School two a

supporting teacher role allowed the researcher to become more of an

observer-participant (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995).

Data collection

The researcher used video, sound recording and note taking to collect data

from the learning experiences. Appendix 21 has a summary of the evidence

collected. The sound recording included informal conversations and moments

in the classroom as well as that of interviews. Children and teachers were

made aware each time the sound recorder was used and permission was

obtained prior to the research. The inherent difficulty of anonymity and

confidentiality when using visual media (Prosser et al, 2008 in Cohen et al,

2011: 534) had to be resolved and this is discussed within the ethics section

of this paper.

Hargreaves (1967, cited in Woods, 1986: 35) suggests the use of sound and

video recording to collect data ‘decreases the extent to which the investigator

disturbs the ‘natural’ situation’. It also provides a more ‘unfiltered’

observational record (Simpson and Tuson, 2003 in Cohen et al, 2011: 470)

than relying on human observations and can be viewed several times to


scrutinise the behaviour. However the video camera was in a fixed position in

order to reduce reactions from the learners, and therefore the data could be

described as selective (ibid: 531) based on the focus and angle. The

researcher made no selection of the learners that were in the view of the

camera. The positioning was purely a matter of where the camera could be

stable and undisturbed during the lesson. The triangulation of data discussed

in Chapter Four suggests the actions of the learners captured on video

reflected the actions of other children in the class within each case study.

In carrying out the research, the researcher recognised the difficulty

highlighted by Hitchcock and Hughes (1995: 121) in resisting the tendency to

become a ‘non-observing participator’. Part of the role adopted meant time

was spent teaching or responding to children who indicated the need for

support to increase their confidence in using the software. However, notes

were taken immediately after each learning experience and sound and video

recording used to capture moments in the classroom. Reflection time

between the teachers and the researcher occurred at moments during and

following the learning experiences. This allowed for the sharing of expertise

(Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995: 88) and a change of roles between

researcher and teacher (ibid: 109) which provided access to different data.

Through the teaching the researcher gained additional insights into the

learning process but this increased the possibility of contributing to a

Hawthorne effect (Cohen et al, 2011: 246) where

‘the presence of the researcher alters the situation as participants may wish to … impress … the researcher.’


Children were referred to as ‘researchers’ as well as ‘programmers’ during the

learning experiences. The researcher considered both their involvement, and

that of the teachers in reflecting on the experiences, of paramount

importance. The idea of pupil researchers came from Pearson and Somekh

(2006: 521) where they involved pupils and teachers in both planning and

evaluating the conditions for transformative learning. This provided a

methodology to decrease ‘unequal power relations’ (Scott, 1985 cited in

Riddell, 1989: 83) between the researcher and the participants. The

importance of the ‘Learner Voice’ is highlighted by Rudd et al. (2006: 1),

‘Learners need to be active in making their own voices heard but schools and teachers should also take a lead in developing ways to enable the views and opinions of learners to be expressed, allowing them to enter into dialogue and to bring about change.’

Note-taking by the children took the form of writing their responses to

reflective questions on post-it notes. Each class was asked to reflect on

‘What have you learnt?’ and ‘How did you learn it?’

There was no expectation of teachers making notes as the researcher was

always mindful of making demands which would impact adversely on their

time. This ‘personalistic’ reflection is included as one of the aspects which

need to be part of research (Valli, 1997 cited in James, 2010). However, the

contributions of the teachers were captured through the recording of reflective

conversations with the researcher, a method not as demanding as written

contributions. The partnership working enabled the researcher to be part of a

‘critical community of practitioners’ (Riding et al, 1995).


Semi-structured interviews with groups of children provided insights into the

learning that had taken place. A trial unstructured interview had been tested

with one of the members of the Code Club (see Glossary) at School Two.

Low level responses prompted the researcher to consider the questions more

carefully and to plan for group interviews following the learning experiences.

The questions used are in Appendix 4. Similarly a semi-structured interview

was trialled with a colleague from the Somerset advisory team and the ICT

coordinator at School Two. Questions for the teachers were refined

(Appendix 4) based on these and used to develop ‘a conversation with a

purpose’ (Dexter, 1970 cited in Bell, 1995:123).

The group learner interviews allowed the participants to interact with each

other and with the researcher; while at the same time providing a framework

to simplify recording and analysis (Bell, 2010). The researcher was careful to

provide the opportunity for children to choose whether to participate to protect

them from feeling powerless (Riddell, 1989) in a circumstance where they are

working with an adult. The researcher considers whether learners may have

been influenced by the responses of their peers (Newby, 2010: 350) in the

findings.

The interviews with children and teachers further built the community that

developed through the case studies. Children, teachers and researcher

became a ‘dialogical community’ (Berstein, 1983 cited in McNiff 1988: 41) to

evaluate the learning that emerged from the classroom activities. Interviews

were recorded and transcribed to assist the researcher in reviewing the data


for bias (Bell, 1995: 170) and to code the responses for analysis (ibid: 164).

The choice to record all the interviews and as many of the conversations as

possible was to avoid a reliance on note-taking. Walker (1995, cited in

Hitchcock and Hughes, 1995: 171) comments that ‘note taking’ draws the

researcher into the interpretation early in the study.

Transcripts were necessary in order to analyse the evidence. Kvale (1996:

167) is cautious about the use of transcripts,

‘the transcript can become an opaque screen between the researcher and the original live interview situation.’

For the researcher the transcripts of the interviews were essential to reflect on

the evidence collected. The texts reflect both the feelings and the words of

the learners and teachers, as recalled by the researcher. Therefore whilst

noting these words of caution, the researcher has made use of this data to

avoid a ‘massive data loss’ (Cohen, 2011: 426). Excerpts of the text of the

interviews have been widely used in Chapter Four and therefore the reader

can judge their usefulness.

Data analysis

The data from reflective conversations, video observations, transcripts of

interviews and learner post-it note contributions, were collated and uploaded

to Atlas.ti 7 software (Atlas.ti, 2002-2013). The first stage of analysis involved

the researcher reviewing the text evidence and video, highlighting quotations

and coding them to indicate their significance. This open coding (Friese,

2013) evolved according to what the children had learnt about themselves;

the feelings and actions that arose from them being able to explore the


software; the things that had helped their learning; and the many aspects of

the ways in which the learners had responded to both the software and the

learning activities. Quotations were also coded for researcher and teacher

observations and reflections, and facets of Scratch software itself. The two

hundred and nineteen codes listed in Appendix 5 were then grouped in the

second stage of coding (ibid) as overarching ideas were recognised. These

were the ‘super-codes’ (Appendix 5) that emerged as the potential benefits for

learners and then, as an explanation of the relationships between the codes

became clearer, a group of them were identified as the factors that

contributed to benefits. Appendix 5 clarifies all the terms used for the factors.

‘Teacher changing role’ was used for quotations where children, or the

teachers, described the teacher as doing things differently in terms of allowing

the learners to construct their knowledge through ‘participating in certain

experiences’ rather than ‘transmitting knowledge to learners’ (Roblyer and

Edwards, 2000: 50). This included children discovering the functionality of

Scratch software for themselves, acting as peer teachers to their friends and

being allowed to make mistakes.

The network function within Atlas-ti supported the researcher in recognising

these factors. Figure 2 shows an example of the number of first stage codes

that were linked to perseverance. It is not expected that all the codes can be

seen in the diagram (see enlargement in Appendix 5) but it demonstrates the

complexity of the relationships. The codes are linked according to whether

they were a ‘cause of’, ‘part of’ or ‘associated with’ perseverance.


Figure 2: Codes linked to Perseverance (Atlas ti 7)

In this way, descriptive level analysis moved to conceptual analysis based on

Friese’s (2013) NCT model of ‘Noticing things’, the first stage of coding;

‘Collecting things’, the second stage where the codes were collected together

in super-codes; and ‘Thinking about things’ where the relationships between

the codes were considered.

The descriptive level of analysis related to concrete examples of the learning

theories reviewed in Chapter Two. These led to abstract ideas in the

conceptual level of analysis. The thinking of the researcher continued to

move between the two in much the same way as Papert (1993) described

concrete and abstract thinking working in parallel to construct ‘important and

sophisticated’ ideas (ibid: 151). In this way areas of overarching interest were

identified and used to compare and contrast data for different groups and for

different aspects of the findings.


The videos from each school were analysed using event sampling (Cohen et

al, 2011) and based on two minute partial interval recording. Each two

minutes were coded in Atlas-ti according to the actions of the learners. These

actions are listed in Appendix 13 and Figures 14, 18 and 19 below. Inferences

were made by the researcher that

‘a particular behaviour indicates a particular state of mind or particular intention or motivation’ (ibid: 463).

These were validated through triangulation with other data.

Triangulation was used to validate the outcomes overall (Hitchcock and

Hughes, 1995: 324). This protects the researcher from a tendency described

by Miles and Huberman (1994 cited in Bell, 2010: 170) to ‘overweight facts

they believe in or depend on’ or to ‘forget data not going in the direction of

their reasoning.’ In particular this helped in the analysis of the video data to

ensure that ‘particular moments’ are not picked out that could make them

seem ‘more powerful’ than was the reality in the classroom situation

(Hitchcock and Hughes, 1995: 138).

Three of the four kinds of triangulation listed by Denzin (1970 cited in

Hitchcock and Hughes, 1995: 324) are used in the analysis; data from more

than one location (the three schools), the use of more than one observer

(researcher, teacher and pupils), and the use of more than one method of

obtaining information (observations including video, interviews and post-it

notes). These are represented in Figure 3 below. In this way ‘different

perspectives from different sources’ (ibid: 323) are represented in the findings

but also the researcher can be seen to be ‘identifying different ways the


phenomena are being perceived’ (ibid) through the use of different types of

evidence.

Figure 3: Triangulation of evidence

Data presentation

Care was taken to present the data in a format where it can be a ‘source for

researchers and users whose purposes may be different from our own’,

(Adelman et al, 1984: 101). The ‘twin notions’ (Cohen et al, 2011: 301) of

‘fitness for purpose’ (Robson, 2002 in ibid) and ‘fitness for audience’ (Yin,

2009 in ibid) have been reflected in the writing. The ‘fitness for purpose’ is

demonstrated through the validity of the evidence achieved by the

triangulation described above. The ‘fitness for audience’ is considered by

presenting the findings in a way that attempts to ‘portray the richness of the

case’ (Cohen, 2000: 182) to allow the reader of the research to develop their

own interpretation (ibid). Verbatim quotations have been used ‘to add life to

the narrative’ (ibid: 553) and to convey a point ‘without it being mediated or

Between learner evidence

Post-it notes

Interviews Video

Between researchers

Researcher Teacher

Learner

Between school based evidence

School A

School B School C


softened’ (ibid) by the language of the researcher. In this way, events and

situations have been

‘allowed to speak for themselves rather than to be largely interpreted, evaluated or judged by the researcher’ (ibid: 182).

The researcher’s hope is that there may be a ‘shock of recognition’ (ibid: 96)

by the reader as they consider their own practice.

Research ethics

The contribution of both the teachers and children is important to the

outcomes of the research. It was therefore essential that both groups

understood what is entailed in the research (Riddell, 1989). The British

Educational Research Association (2011) sets out an ethic of respect. The

researcher used the principle of ‘respect for all participants’ to establish a

contract for pupils (Appendix 6) and teachers (Appendix 7) which includes

clear information about how the analysis of the research will be disseminated

(Bell, 2010). It was planned that this would help to safeguard the ‘trusted

relationship’ (ibid: 55) that has been established with the schools to allow the

research to take place. It sets out the anonymity which can be expected by

the pupils. At the same time it provides a choice for the name of the school

and the teachers to be included in acknowledgement of the contribution they

will be making. However, it is imperative that, even where pseudonyms are

used for children, their ideas and thoughts are recognised in the outcomes of

the research (Davies, 1985 cited in Riddell, 1989).


Permissions for the use of video and sound data are included within the

contracts for pupils and teachers (Appendix 6 and 7). In addition each school

signed an agreement for the use of video (Appendix 7). The difficulty of

anonymity when using video is acknowledged within the contract for pupils,

‘I will look after all the information I collect so that it isn’t seen by others.

Other people will only be able to read the final document I write, or look

and listen to what we found out at any presentations I do about the

research.’ (Appendix 6).

Throughout the writing of the dissertation the researcher has been aware that

a belief in a constructivist approach to teaching could influence the

observations; and therefore triangulation of data as described above has been

crucial. The choice to research the benefits for children’s learning, rather than

benefits to society, has been made clear (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995).

The transcripts of interviews contain the text of the way questions were asked

to allow for the consideration of any bias. Further to this, the analysis of follow

up questions to those planned has been examined and where a bias may be

inferred, the response has not been considered in the outcomes used to

establish a theory. The researcher was also sensitive to the possibility that a

status as a perceived ‘expert’ visiting the school could influence responses.

The role of Education Technology adviser who had trained the teachers could

allow the potential that both the children and teachers ‘may want to give the

researcher the answers the respondent feels they want’ (Hitchcock and

Hughes, 1995: 164). Consideration of the manor of responses and

conversation suggests this was not the case. However, it cannot be

discounted.


Chapter 4 Results and Findings

Case studies were carried out in three similar sized primary schools, of over

two hundred pupils, during May and June 2013. The teachers in each school

were enthusiastic users of ICT but had not yet introduced Scratch software to

their learners.

The data gathered through interviews with the teachers and learners provided

a rich source of evidence from which to consider the benefits of programming

with Scratch software. Together with the observations and video evidence it

provided a picture of the way a transitional object (Papert, 1984), Scratch,

could provide a focus for a group of learners to develop the twelve benefits

which emerged from the data analysis. The benefits reflected the

constructivist theories of learning described in Chapter Two, such as Bruner’s

(1996:87) idea of agency as the learners took control of their own learning;

and the ‘imagining and reasoning’ and ‘observing and experimenting’ attested

by Lucas and Claxton (2010:59) as making for powerful learning.

The overall picture

The planned sequence of learning experiences varied across the schools.

The plans for each school are in Appendix 2. These changed slightly during

the visits to the schools. Figure 4 below is a summary of the activities which

actually took place.


Figure 4: Summary of activities in the three schools

The analysis of the results produced the twenty super-codes listed in Figure 5

below, which shows ‘developing independent learning’, ‘encouraging

exploration’ and the ‘teacher changing role’ as the three most significant

findings.

All Saints Primary

Paired exploration of

Scratch

Whole class: what

have you discovered?

Individuals

programming a game

from instructions

Individual

programming games

from different

instructions (choice of

game based on self-

assessment)

Watch help videos

from Scratch website

Individuals planning

and creating own

games

Catcott Primary

Teacher and ‘experts

in class’ talk briefly

about features of

Scratch and provide

tips

Individuals (8 children

in pairs) programming

a game from

instructions then

making changes to

appearance of game

Ten block challenge

Cat and Dog

challenge

Individuals (8 children

in pairs) programming

a second game from

instructions then

making changes to

appearance

Beechgrove Primary

Individual exploration

of Scratch

Whole class: what

have you discovered?

Individuals

programming games

from instructions (4

groups working with

different games)

Whole class: sharing

games created

Paired sharing of

games (paired with

peer who had created

different game)

Ten block challenge

Individuals adapting

instructions to

program own game


Figure 5: Twenty super-codes developed from the grounded theory approach with ‘difficulties experienced’ and ‘learning from mistakes’ emerging with equal

significance. (Atlas Ti)

Among the other outcomes in the chart it can be seen that some difficulties

(Figure 6) were expressed by the learners in the evidence collected. The

researcher is beginning the discussion of the findings with this as it is not part

of the list of benefits, or factors to support benefits that are considered within

the case studies.

Figure 6: Difficulties indicated by codes that were associated with or part of the super-code (Atlas Ti)


Difficulties signify two per cent of the evidence. This could be matched with

the two per cent of the evidence for ‘learning from mistakes’. One thing that

emerges from the case studies below is the way the children persevered and

although teachers were sometimes asked for help, it was often their peers

who provided the necessary support. In this way difficulties could be

considered a benefit, certainly a necessary part of the learning experiences.

Programming was not easy for the children but it was enjoyed. They were

engaged and motivated to work their way through the challenges set and, as

described by the teacher in case study three, were proactive in challenging

themselves.

From the super-codes the researcher identified twelve benefits (Figure 7

below) and eight factors which contributed to those benefits (Figure 9 below).

There are differences in the amount of evidence from each school for each

benefit and factor (Figures 8 and 10) but there is overall agreement on which

had most impact. Developing independent learning, encouraging exploration

and developing logical thinking are indicated as the key benefits. The

‘teacher changing role’ and ‘time for exploration’ are the factors that have the

most impact on achieving those benefits.

The selection of the factors was influenced by the literature review. Goldstein

and Pratt (2003) describe the importance of the width and height of the

software to challenge learners. Within the case studies it will be seen that

Scratch offers these. Also demonstrated in the case studies is a ‘supportive

environment’, where the teacher is prepared to let children make mistakes


and learn from them. This is described by Goodyear (1984) as crucial to the

success of programming. Further to this the children created games which

Bruner (1996) recognises as ‘oeuvres or works’ which give ‘pride and identity’.

Figure 7: Benefits to learners (Analysis of All data Atlas Ti)

Figure 8: Comparison of benefits in all three case study schools (Atlas-ti)


Figure 9: Factors that contributed to the benefits to learners (Atlas Ti Analysis of All data)

Figure 10: Comparison of factors contributing to benefits in all three case study schools (Atlas-ti)

Particular aspects of the benefits of learning to program with Scratch software

are described in each case study below. These reflect the findings from the

schools overall. Rather than refer to every benefit and factor for each of the


schools, the researcher identified areas to describe in each of the schools.

This was in order to include as many of the findings as possible within the

word constraints of the dissertation. As Swain (2006 in Cohen et al, 2011:

241) comments in describing the discipline required to manage the material

gathered during research, ‘less than one per cent of the collected data may

feature in the final report.’ Where differences were identified this is described

by the researcher.

Case Study One: All Saints Primary

The researcher visited the year six class of seventeen girls and eleven boys at

All Saints Primary over four days (see Appendix 1 for a description of the

school). Three mornings were spent as a participant observer and a further

morning interviewing the teacher and groups of children. A team teaching

approach was adopted as the children were introduced to Scratch and then

provided with instructions to make specific games. The children were then

challenged to plan and create their own game with the software based on

their learning from their history topic of Ancient Greece. The shared planning

for the sessions is in Appendix 2.

The teacher had previously used a completely open-ended exploratory

approach with a different class, to introduce a piece of software. This was

agreed as the most appropriate way for the children to begin using Scratch.

The children initially worked in pairs on laptops in the classroom. The only

introduction they had was being asked to go to the software on the Scratch

website (Scratch, ca. 2013) and to find out what it could do. The children


responded positively to this, as can be seen from these examples of

responses in the group interviews when children were asked what they

thought of the way in which they were introduced to Scratch. Sarah said,

‘I liked the way that you didn’t tell us what to do but if we needed a bit

of help you knew what you were doing so you could help us. It was

independent as well.’

Ruby appreciated the planning,

‘I think it was planned out well because we would normally get told

what things to do and told what buttons to press but because we got to

discover it ourselves it gets stuck in our head a bit more.’

Andrew described how the exploring let him, ‘know the depth of what you

could do with the software’ which he was able to use later in his final game.

In the same way, Louise described ‘getting it into her head’ and then,

‘knowing you had the depth of choosing, not being told you have to do

this and this and this.’

A few children expressed some initial worry but, in the same way that Toby

described his feelings below, they were resilient in managing the difficulties

and achieving an outcome:

‘When I first saw Scratch it worried me a bit just seeing all those blocks

and having to put them together just to do one little thing. So at the

start I felt a bit uneasy about erm using the program in general

because of its capacity of blocks. It did sort of put me off a bit but then

I did try and carry on and it did feel I understood it.’

After an initial period of totally open ended exploring the children were asked

to focus particularly on one sprite (a character on the screen) and see what

happens when different programming blocks are clicked or moved into the

programming area. The link between the programming blocks and the

movement of the sprites was important as the children gained confidence in

using the blocks to program a set of actions.


A pair of girls discovered ways to move and turn their

character around the screen. The transcript of the

recording of their exploration is in Appendix 8. Their

enjoyment was clear and also their willingness to

‘have a go’ to see what might happen.

Plate 1: Discovering movements

A pair of boys became fascinated by the

movements they caused, ‘He’s circling, he’s

going sideways because he’s a crab.’

Plate 2: Crab moving sideways

The children then moved on to working with their own device using a set of

instructions to create games. Half the class used laptops in the classroom

and the other half worked on PCs in a computer suite. The children were

working by themselves but encouraged to talk to one another.

The instructions for games had been published by the Somerset County

Council e-Learning and Information Management team (Somerset, 2013a).

The ‘Racing Car Game’, Appendix 3 became important to understand how

rules could be set such that, if a sprite touches a particular colour, an action

will occur. The impact of the ‘Racing Car Game’ is described in more detail in

the case study for Beechgrove Primary. At All Saints the knowledge gained

from this game and others was used by the children when they planned and

created games based on legends that had been part of their Ancient Greece

topic. The importance of the instructions they had worked with was expressed


by Andrew in answering the question about what had helped him learn to

program;

‘Well I found the most useful thing was when we had the set of how to

make basic games because that really helped me to understand what

each block does and then I just used that information for the final

project. And I knew which did what. Which I wouldn’t of if that hadn’t

happened. If we’d just tested around and then gone straight to the

Greek game.’

The independent following of instructions was important to developing

understanding of programming. However, the creativity of the children had

been enhanced through the exploration which had let them discover the ‘width

of the software’ (Goldstein and Pratt, 2003), as discussed in Chapter Two.

Children had changed the background of the stage area (see Figure 1). They

had added and edited sprites and discovered they could add sound including

recordings of their own voices. These discoveries were observed by the

researcher to be used by the children to adapt the games they created from

the instructions, and to inspire ideas when they planned and implemented

their own. Screen shots of the games can be seen in Appendix 9.

The children felt that following this process planned by the class teacher and

the researcher provided the right level of challenge. One group of children

discussed this together;

‘Amy: I liked the way you didn’t really rush into everything. You like, first go to the computer and have a little play around and we come back and you’d set something for us and we had to go and do that and then we’d come back Alfie: A step up Amy: Yeh there was always a challenge to add on to it. Then you just learnt new things as you were doing it.


Kevin: But not a challenge that would be so hard. But not a challenge

that would be too easy. Just right.’

The class teacher, together with the researcher, reflected on the learning

process they had planned;

‘I think we did it quite well (laugh). I think the exploration was brilliant

and they said so to. And I can say this because you planned this as

well so it’s not like me saying yes I’m actually wonderful. Then I think

giving these games you suggested giving them. That was brilliant

because they could then see the possibilities but it was all there. So

they had that sort of concrete and some of them were happy to just

leave it like that but a lot of them then started seeing the possibilities. If

we’d given them endless exploration it would have got quite boring

quite quickly but the exploring then using it for this little challenge and

then here’s your next challenge it’s the car game and then the more

complicated game. So that by the time they designed their own games

they were quite buzzy and just wanted to get on with it.’

The children recognised and appreciated the way in which their learning had

been scaffolded. Alfie thought,

‘It was quite useful that at the start we had an exploring lesson and we

could just get used to how it all works. As most people found out how

to spin the characters so that was useful just to start exploring to see

how it works. And then when we got given the pieces of paper I found

that even more useful. You learn like other stuff to do and then when

we got to making our own games. For some of us we made a maze.

We remembered how to program to use the keys and everything.’

Lisa described it as being,

‘almost like a young child learning how to walk and us learning how to use the game.’

This understanding of the process is an indication of how much the children

felt in control of their learning. A note on one of the post-it notes collected

from the children said,

‘It helped me to do it individually and to be able to do it on my own. And to be able to adjust it ourselves.’


The feeling of control had been strengthened by them being told that they

were also researchers in this process. Over the period of four days the

children were referred to as researchers during each session and given a

number of occasions to reflect on the learning. Therefore, prior to the group

interview, they had the opportunity to consider the impact of the experiences.

In consequence, a ‘Hawthorne effect’ (Cohen et al, 2011: 246), discussed in

Chapter Three, may have contributed to the evidence that was collected. The

children as researchers was emphasised most strongly at All Saints.

However, although it cannot be discounted, the triangulation of the data

across the schools suggests no obvious impact of this across the schools (see

Appendix 10). The only area where a different finding was identified for

School One can be seen in the responses to the question about what the

children had learnt about themselves through the learning experiences

(Figure 11). School One had the lowest number of children who participated

in the group interviews but were the highest contributors to the question.

Figure 11: What have you learnt about yourself?


The increased confidence of learners was described in each school but at All

Saints in particular, some of the children identified that they had learnt that

they should not give up on things. Toby, who had expressed his worry about

the difficulty of the software, described this;

‘I know I wasn’t the most confident with it to begin with but as I worked through it I began erm … like I know you have to. I learnt about myself to stop giving up, you’ve got to keep trying because I would if I did this at home without any support. I would just totally give up and just not bother with it but today and yesterday and the day before I kept going and I felt I did a good game with a good idea.’

Gemma considered how this might help her in the future;

‘If in a test or something I didn’t get something erm, or in sports or anything I couldn’t do something, it would help me to carry on with that certain thing until I get it.

The benefits of learning to program with Scratch identified by the learners,

teacher and researcher at All Saints are set out in Figure 12. ‘Becoming an

independent learner’ was the key benefit with ‘being ready to explore’ ‘working

together’, and ‘developing logical thinking’, emerging as the other highest

scoring codes.


Figure 12: Benefits to School 1 Learners (Atlas-ti analysis)

One of the post-it notes that described the independence of the learners

stated,

‘I found that the trial and effort method had to work for me, working out what I needed and then changing it.’

The feeling of independence is also reflected in the way that some of the

children described being in control of the technology. This was Claire’s

response to why she liked Scratch;

‘Because it’s different and normally when you go onto a computer you normally have that feeling, not that you’re not in control of the computer but it telling you. But when you’re on Scratch you control the computer and its actions and what it is doing.’

Another aspect of the independent learning was the problem solving which

took place. Mark described how he solved a problem in his game where he

wanted a player to lose a life when Hercules touches a fire,


‘I learnt how to make an object associated with something still react to something it’s not associated with so that when Hercules touches a fire a heart would disappear..’

Mark had been trying to use a broadcast

instruction (see Glossary) when Hercules

touched the fire and then for the ‘heart’ to

receive the broadcast and to hide. This

would not work for him (Game online, 2013).

The researcher suggested he went out to

play and clear his mind so that he could come back to his game and try

something else. Mark did this and came back with a new approach, adding a

black costume to the heart so that when it received the broadcast command it

disappeared into the black background he added at the top of his stage. This

solved the problem.

The independent problem solving that was developed during the programming

was seen two weeks later to have an impact on the maths problem solving

which was described by the teacher in an email to the researcher (Personal

communication, June 2013);

‘Just thought that you would like to know that I gave the class a maths investigation to do in groups of four today. They had to record systematically, although I didn't tell them this and as I went around I was so impressed with what every single person (except Felicity, who was doing a different task) was suggesting. When I told them how amazed I was with their logical approach, Gemma said it was because the Scratch programme had helped them to learn this logical way of thinking! Lots of others then piped up that they agreed. They were definitely approaching the task in a far more systematic way than I have ever seen before.’

The strongest factors that were identified as contributing to the benefits to

learners (Figure 13) were, the ‘teacher changing her role’, ‘time for

Plate 3: Hercules game


exploration’ and a ‘supportive environment’. The teacher had created a

learning environment where the children were empowered to support each

other. There was an expectation they would be talking to each other and

movement around the classroom and computer suite was allowed to facilitate

this.

Figure 13: Factors contributing to the benefits to School 1 learners (Atlas-ti)

Alfie responded to the question of what helped you in learning to program by

describing the contribution of his friends.

‘Mmm I’d say friends as well because one of us always found out something. So say I didn’t know how to change my background, someone else would know, so what I mean is there’s always someone there who knows what to do.’

The support for each other was seen in the video evidence of the group of six

children programming their Greek games. In Figure 14 the interaction

between the learners is the highest number of incidents counted and is

matched by high counts for children focussing on their laptops individually.


Figure 14: Actions of six learners counted during fifty six minute video of a

programming session (School 1). Each count is during two minutes of video

This supports the observations of the whole class by the researcher during

the session. Continuous interactions took place between all the learners

similar to those reported by Goodyear (1986) using Logo. The mutual support

occurred in between moments when individuals were working by themselves.

Children also gained support and ideas from looking across at the screen of a

peer (see Figure 15). Talk in the classroom and the computer suite was

unbroken but on task. This is reflected in four minor (less than one minute) off

task incidents during the fifty six minutes of video and no major off task

incidents being counted.


While working alone, the children were interacting with the learning object of

Scratch software. This learning object could be considered Papert’s (1984)

transitional object for learning or Bruner’s (1996) ‘work’ or ‘oeuvre’ which is a

focus for their learning and talk about their learning. Therefore the whole

picture of interactions during programming was a mix of the learning object

and their peers as represented in Figure 15.

Figure 15:Representation of learning interactions between pupils and Scratch software (black arrows on-going interactions, grey arrows occasional interactions)

The class teacher reflected on her enjoyment in seeing the way the children

responded to the learning process,

‘I think it’s been brilliant just watching them … Yeh it was nice to … all the things we’d put in place to stand back and watch it work and see how they supported each other and how they got on. And they probably wouldn’t of wanted us to be going round and talking when they were concentrating. It was just when they wanted us and that was nice.’

Case Study Two: Catcott Primary School

Six boys in the year six class at Catcott had become experts in programming

with Scratch through attending Code Club (see Glossary) over a period of two

terms. The Higher Level Teacher Assistant (HLTA) who took the class for ICT

had run the club alongside the ICT coordinator. She decided to use the Code


Club materials (Code Club, ca. 2012a) to introduce the other seventeen girls

and seven boys in the class to Scratch and to use the Code Club members to

support the other children. A short introduction was used to show the children

the different areas within the Scratch software and for the Code Club

members to pass on tips such as, ‘If you don’t read instructions it goes wrong’.

The children were then given a set of instructions to create a ‘Felix and

Herbert’ (ibid) game where Felix the cat chases Herbert the mouse. The class

worked on PCs in the computer suite with six of the children working in pairs

and the rest individually. The children were encouraged to talk to each other

to sort out any problems. Five Code Club boys worked on their own games

but responded when asked for support by different children. The other Code

Club boy worked in a pair with a pupil needing additional help.

The children used the instructions and explored the software to make

changes to the appearance of the game. Appendix 11 shows the way in

which each game became unique as the children discovered the width of the

software. The children were also given the ‘Ten block challenge’ (Somerset,

2013b) and the ‘Cat and Dog challenge’ (Quinlan, 2012) to assess how much

they had learnt about Scratch from following the game instructions. During the

second session the children were given a second set of instructions, ‘Whack a

Witch’ (Code Club, ca. 2013b). Again the children supported each other to

succeed in creating the game and then adapted it to make it their own.

The children at Catcot indicated their awareness of learning from mistakes

and, alongside this, perseverance (Figure 16).


Figure 16: Benefits to Learners School 2 (Atlas-ti)

Miles felt that he learnt most when things went wrong,

‘I thought it helped when you made mistakes and then you suddenly understand what has happened wrong. What’s gone wrong that helps you more because then you understand the program more.’

Children also expressed their enjoyment of mistakes. Edward was one of these,

‘I liked when you did something wrong and it went really funny. Like it just made me laugh instead of being frustrated it made you laugh.’

Being able to make mistakes was one of the two things Jason described when

asked about his favourite thing in using Scratch;

‘Two things, achieving something and the funniness when something goes wrong (laugh) like something moving on the screen when it’s not supposed to.’

Lizzie described the combination of the enjoyment of mistakes but also

recognised that mistakes will also cause something to happen,

‘I enjoyed it when something went wrong. It still did something even if it was something you didn’t want.’


The learning from mistakes was included as a separate category for benefits

but is also part of independent learning. This was expressed on one of the

post-it notes where the learners were asked how they had learnt to program,

‘Being driven to put things right on my own’.

The children were aware of the perseverance that was required to put things

right. Alison considered this when she was asked what she had learnt about

herself through the programming,

‘I didn’t know I was that determined I must admit. I didn’t know I could be that … I‘d have thought I would have given up but I didn’t.’

Fiona described discovering the determination to keep going as one of the

things she enjoyed most about the sessions,

‘I enjoyed quite a lot of it. But I think the main thing was it kind of helped me with my determination and everything. Like it helped me continue on with it and kept making me keep going with it so I had something to be proud of at the end.’

The class teacher was asked whether perseverance had been part of

previous experiences in the classroom. It had been part but the teacher

recognised the contribution Scratch had made;

Yes, it’s part. A thing like that is very good though because they’re on their own aren’t they. So you have to keep going, you have to persevere. We encourage them to be like that with tasks. But a task like that in the ICT suite is really beneficial to help them. Especially year six when they’re going to go to secondary school and they can’t just give up at the sight of something being a bit tricky. And the enjoyment. That enjoyment, one child, I walked past when you were doing it, and the satisfaction when she realised she hadn’t given up. She’d achieved. That’s fantastic isn’t it. I didn’t give up, I got there and I actually achieved. And that’s worth a lot actually. It really is.’


An open-ended exploration time had not been included at Catcott but the

children were encouraged to take an exploratory approach to using the

instructions to create the games. Children could make changes and try

different things without any adult intervention. This change in the role of the

teacher emerged as the strongest factor in enabling the children to gain

benefits from the programming as can be seen in Figure 17.

Figure 17: Factors that contributed to the benefits to learners School 2 (Atlas Ti)

The lack of adult intervention was observed by Nicholas,

‘I thought that instead of going through the whole process she let us give it a go to see what we could do on our own’.

Tamsin felt it was important to be able to progress at her own rate,

‘The problem is if we’d done it on the board. We’d have put it in chunks and been waiting for ever. Because other people would have been at different stages.’


One of the group interviews focussed on the freedom when thinking about

whether there was anything that could be improved. They described it in

terms of the width of the software:

‘Fiona: It doesn’t give you a guide line on what you have to do. You can roam free. Eleanor: You can explore anything. Some games you look at are dull and boring but when you look at it there's all these different things you can press. You can explore all over it. Fiona: It’s not like you have to do this. You have to do this. Sometimes there’s only a certain amount of things you can click but in this you can do anything. You can change the colours and everything. Eleanor: It’s like art and creativity all in technology (describes witches where appearance had been changed to bright pink). Fiona: No-one said you’re not supposed to do this. There’s kind of no right and no wrong with Scratch. Which I thought was really good because no-one could say you're not supposed to this or do that. You could just do it on your own. Eleanor: It’s like art there’s no right and no wrong. Miles You can make it yours. Eleanor and Fiona: mmm, unique Miles: Yes, it’s unique’

This combination of the width of the software and the approach of the HLTA

was seen to benefit Dalan, a pupil with English as an Additional Language

(EAL) who had joined the class part way through the year. He had support to

follow the instructions from the HLTA and the

researcher but kept remaking them until he did

it independently.

He made one version of the project where

Plate 4: Duplicating sprites

disappearing


many sprites were flying across the screen. He had discovered he could

duplicate a sprite and change it to a different character (Plate 4).

He made another version of the project where the

witch appeared and disappeared. This used one

part of the instructions which he recreated in

isolation from the others.

The full transcript of the short conversation with Dalan can be read in

Appendix 12. He describes what is happening on the screen and, in response

to a question from the researcher, what is making it happen;

‘Researcher: What’s making it do it? What in those instructions there?

Dalan: I got (pointing at the screen) ‘When clicked’ from orange bit. I

got ‘forever’ and I put ‘hide’ and I put ‘wait one second’ and I put ‘pick

random 2 to 5’ and then I put ‘show’ and then I put ‘wait one second’

and on it I put ‘random 3 to 5’ and I click to here and it starts doing that.

Researcher: What does that pick random do?

Dalan: Pick random. It makes it hide and then 2 to 5 seconds or 3 to 5

seconds later it come backs.’

The ‘Whack a Witch’ (Code Club ca. 2013) project was a learning object

which allowed focussed talk to discover the learning that had taken place but

also, during the session, provided a shared focus as the children collaborated

together.

As had been seen at All Saints there was continuous conversation while the

children continued on task for the forty six minutes of the video (Figure 18).

Interaction between pupils was balanced by learners working alone. The

Plate 5: Witch disappearing


reactions of the children in the video group were consistent with those of the

rest of the class.

Figure 18: Actions of six learners counted during forty six minute video of a programming session (School 2). Each count is during two minutes of video

Exploration was also seen as part of the challenges. Eleanor described the

‘Ten block challenge’ (Somerset, 2013b) as one of her favourite things,

‘Like that ten block challenge. There were so many different things you could do with those blocks and you didn’t really know what you can do but when you experimented you saw how many different things your sprite could do. It was really interesting.’

In reflecting on the two sessions the HLTA felt the Scratch software and the

instruction hand-outs had enabled the appropriate level of challenge to be set;


‘That’s where it targets it well because it makes it achievable doesn’t it. Without making it so simple that you could do it in five seconds… It’s enough of a challenge but it’s eminently possible.’

Case Study Three: Beechgrove Primary School

A ‘Programming Day’ was planned by the researcher and then refined in

discussions with the class teacher prior to the visit. A team teaching approach

was used with the mixed year five and six class. The class size was thirty

four. Twenty were year six and fourteen year five. Although this study is

focussed on year six learners the researcher made the decision to treat the

group of year fives as equal to the other learners and absorb their

contributions into the overall findings. The research took place towards the

end of their time as year fives. The comparison of data for the three schools

in Figures 18 and 19 suggest that any effect of the younger children has made

little perceived difference to the findings. That indicated within the video

evidence is discussed below. There were nineteen girls and fifteen boys.

A whole class discussion about what had been learnt through a sequence of

lessons programming with Go Control software (Data Harvest, ca. 2009)

began the day. The children were keen to talk about the ‘algorithms’ they had

created. Following this the children worked in a computer suite on individual

PCs to explore Scatch then moved to work in pairs on the ‘Cat and Dog

challenge’ (Quinlan, 2012).

During the second session the children were grouped by their teacher

according to their literacy and mathematical ability and provided with

instructions to make a game. The least able children created an ‘Etch a


Sketch game’, the middle ability children created a ‘Dance sequence’ or the

‘Racing car game’, and the most able created a ‘Tennis Game’. All these can

be seen on the Somerset County Council ELIM website (Somerset, 2012a).

As had happened at the other schools, the children worked individually but

with continuous conversations focussed on their projects. The interactions

between learners were counted (see Figure 19) and, unlike in the other case

studies, these were all between pairs and always with a person sat next to

them. The count was less than that for the other schools but the video was

shorter and was recorded at an earlier stage in the learning process.

Appendix 13 has a table with the data adjusted to have a fair comparison of

the interactions. It may be that the factor of the group of year fives within the

class meant the children preferred to work with the children either side.

Although the researcher did observe that during the afternoon, when the

children created their own game, movements across the room took place and

interactions of more than two children.


Figure 19: Actions of six learners counted during eighteen minute video of a programming session (School 3). Each count is during two minutes of video

After the individual work the class reviewed the games created. They paired

with their ‘Talking Partners’ then showed each other the different

programming they had done. The observation notes of the researcher

confirmed the concentration of the class as the outcomes of the programming

were discussed together in pairs and as a whole class. The learning object of

the program they had been working on provided a common focus for a

discussion of errors and ways to improve the program. Following this a

session allowed all of the children to create the ‘racing car game’ and then to

adapt it to their own version of a game moving a ‘sprite’ around a background.

A wide variety of versions was created (see Appendix 14) and, as had


happened with the Greek games at All Saints, showed how the earlier

exploration had allowed children to recognise possibilities which were made

use of to make unique creations. Feedback on the class blog (Swallows,

2013) showed that the opportunity to create their own ‘racing car game’ was

the part of the day that had been enjoyed the most (Figure 20).

Figure 20: Blog posts School 3 Afternoon of Programming Day (Swallow, 2013)

The majority of the posts described how much they had enjoyed exploring

Scatch and using instructions to make games. At the same time a few

expressed difficulties and frustrations that had been experienced (Figure 21).

In the group interviews Jake referred to being worried by the initial exploration

but he felt this was due to being dyslexic and dispraxic. Initially he found the

blocks confusing. An aspect he enjoyed was being able to ‘control something

that’s not programmed whatsoever’. He also liked the discovery of ‘fantasy

devil’ sprites.

Jess’s reply comment on her blog post (Figure 21) demonstrates the way in

which, despite difficulties, the children were determined to find a way to make


their games work. The learners returned to their programming to identify

mistakes they had made.

Figure 21: Blog posts School 3 - Difficulties with Scratch (Swallow, 2013)

When interviewed the class teacher talked about the attitudes to ICT that

were already in place and the different ways the class had worked previously;

‘They were used to exploring a program and investigating without being

told what to do. That’s something I do with them anyway. So they were

quite happy to do that and to not know what they were doing to start

with. They are very used to working in different ways. So they are

used to working independently, to working in groups and supporting

each other, they’ve got talking partners they are used to working with.

So on the day when we asked them to work in those different ways that

was all in place and … that didn’t cause any issues.’


However he went on to describe the difference he felt that programming with

Scratch had made to the learners.

‘Certainly it reinforced perseverance. Perseverance is not something

(pause). They know that they need to persevere but they’re not always

particularly good at it, if that makes sense. But on Wednesday I don’t

think anybody at any point gave up because they were all trying to

either achieve that challenge or in the afternoon when they knew what

they wanted to achieve, they all really persevered.’

‘The one thing I really noticed that day is a kind of pro-activity. This

class is not typically pro-active. They want to achieve, they want to

achieve a challenge, but they are not always motivated to do that, to

achieve that themselves. They want that support, they want to be

given that next step in order to get to the challenge. Not every single

one of them, but that is a feel you get from the class quite often and I

feel when I am teaching them that I have to work really quite hard

sometimes to get them motivating themselves. I’m motivating them to

motivate themselves. On Wednesday I didn’t have to do that at all.

They were completely self-motivated. I mean Miles … he was

stretching himself all day. And he is often very reluctant to stretch

himself. He will do what he’s been asked to do but he won’t do

anywhere beyond at all. But he, with possibly Alex, was the most

advance of all of them.’

From the coding of quotations it could be seen that the perseverance and pro-

activeness of the learners contributed to ‘developing independent learning’

emerging as the greatest benefit from the programming day (Figure 22).


Figure 22: Benefits to Learners School 3 (Atlas-ti)

Leanne prompted other children around her to be imaginative in their

adaptation of the ‘racing car game’. She created a monkey to move along a

jungle track. In the group interview she expressed her appreciation of being

able to do what she wanted.

‘And then you had your own like, you had to do your own like extra bits

to it. I think that was better because you could work out more stuff like

yourself. Instead of just being told what to do.’

Collecting together the responses made by Polly (see Appendix 15)

demonstrated the way in which the programming made a difference to an

individual. Polly found the instructions reassuring; in terms of being sure she

was doing the right thing. However she also discovered that sometimes

having a go and pressing buttons could allow her to achieve new things, ‘Why

am I doing so much thinking? Press buttons’. Her response when talking

about the difference this had made was to describe how it would make her

more adventurous,


‘When I go different places I’m normally a bit shy and stay behind

people. But now I think I’m going to be looking round places. Because

most of the playground I didn’t really want to explore because I was too

scared but now I’m not because it’s fun adventuring (giggle).’

As emerged in the other case studies the ‘changing role of the teacher’ was

the largest factor contributing to the benefits for learners. The opportunity to

explore the software before moving on to more focussed learning activities

came after this, as can be seen, in Figure 23 below.

Figure 23: Factors that contributed to the benefits to learners School 3 (Atlas Ti)

The class teacher made the decision to follow the interest of the learners and

change the planning in the afternoon to allow the children to create their own

version of the ‘racing car game’, rather than plan a game based on their topic

of the Romans. This is indicative of the way in which the children had been

able to lead the learning through the day, based on the learning activities that

had been planned. Miles expressed the way this had benefitted him,


‘Well I thought the way it was introduced was really good because we didn’t have a limit of what we could really do. So we could do whatever we wanted and figure some bits out for ourselves.’

Validity of the findings

Triangulation was used to confirm the identification of the benefits to learners

and the factors that contributed to those benefits. The triangulation between

the three schools for both benefits and the factors contributing to those

benefits (see Appendix 10), showed common agreement. ‘Exploration’ and

the ‘teacher changing role’ had an increased emphasis at All Saints; although

they were still high scoring factors in all three schools. The difference may

have been that the children had a longer period of time to work at creating

their own games.

The three groups of researchers, learners, teachers and the researcher were

also in agreement (see Appendix 16). Although the greater number of

learners needed to be recognised in comparing the data. ‘Independent

learning’, ‘exploration’ and ‘development of logical thinking’ stood out strongly

for each group.

In terms of the three types of data collected from learners, shown in Figure 24

below, it can be seen that the ‘development of independent learning’ emerged

more strongly from the interviews with learners. ‘Working together’,

‘development of logical thinking’ and ‘developing perseverance’ were seen

more clearly from the post-it note responses (example in Appendix 20). The

difference may come from children being asked to verbally express their


thoughts and to write their thoughts down. Vygotsky (1962: 100) describes

the difference between the spontaneous activity of oral contributions and the

more abstract understanding required for writing. Another explanation could

be that the post-it note expression of thought was prior to the interviews so

may have contributed to the evolution of the ideas that were later expressed

verbally. Alternatively the difference could be due to the post-it note evidence

being captured immediately after using Scratch.

Figure 24: Triangulation of learner evidence collected in the three schools: Benefits (The data has been adjusted to take into account the different quantities of each type of

evidence. See Appendix 17 for comparison of all evidence.)

The video evidence confirmed most of the benefits. It is considerably lower

than interviews and post-it notes for ‘learning from mistakes’, ‘understanding

technology’ and ‘developing perseverance’. This is most likely due to these

benefits being less visibly apparent than others.

Figure 25 below, compares the learner evidence for the factors that

contributed to the benefits. Adjustments have been made to allow for the

different quantities of each type of evidence that was collected. It is clear that


a large difference exists between the video and other evidence in terms of

‘engagement and motivation’. The video evidence for this was largely based

on the observation of the learners working alone or together without becoming

distracted.

Figure 25: Triangulation of learner evidence collected in the three schools: Factors contributing to benefits

(The data has been adjusted to take into account the different quantities of each type of evidence. See Appendix 17 for comparison of all evidence.)

The video evidence is based on eighteen learners, six in each school. So

care needs to be taken in extrapolating a conclusion from this data. However,

‘engagement and motivation’ was in the top three of the factors identified from

the researcher and teachers evidence, with only ‘exploration’ and ‘teacher

changing role’ higher. It may be, for the learners, that enjoying time on the

computer is something which is assumed and therefore not commented on in

the same way as the other factors.


The outcomes for the learner interviews seen in Figures 24 and 25 were in

line with the post-it note evidence and in most instances that of the video

evidence apart from those discussed above. In Chapter Three attention is

given to the possibility of peer influence in responding to the questions

(Newby, 2010). Figure 26 below suggests this may have occurred for group

three at All Saints. The transcript of this interview with four girls is included as

Appendix 18 to provide an example of the interviews. There is a degree of

agreeing with statements made by peers but this is with a qualifying statement

provided.

Figure 26: Consideration of peer influence with group interviews:

Factors contributing to benefits. Responses relating to each factor are grouped for seventeen interviews.

The agreement of the group is seen within a discussion of the question of

what they enjoyed the most about programming with Scratch.

‘Lisa: Making our Greek games. Annie: Getting to have free time to find out all the things the program does.


Lisa: Also, also it’s kind of fun Sarah: And you’re learning. Lisa: And it’s like free time all of the time but then you’re learning at the same time and you’re learning something at the same time. Sarah: And it’s fun to see if you get the blocks wrong you can change them and make them do different things. And change your sprites and everything. Lisa: And once you’re done it’s not like you can’t change it but you can change it. Chloe: I think the best thing was just being able to try things and if they don’t fit try again until you’ve got it right. Annie: And I liked making the greek games and having free time so we could trial and error and then you know how to do stuff and you’re also learning as well as having fun. Chloe: A fun way of learning.’

Confirming the findings

The two factors which impacted the most on the learner benefits were the ‘role

of the teacher’ and an ‘exploratory approach’ to introducing Scratch. The

researcher was keen to see whether a similar impact would be seen working

with younger children. Visits were made to three other schools where the

researcher worked with classes of year three and four children (eight to nine

year olds). This allowed the researcher to see whether the different ‘role of

the teacher’ and an ‘exploratory approach’ would benefit younger learners.

The researcher observations and the reflection of the teachers (Appendix 19)

in those classes confirmed that, in the settings visited, the approach was

effective for introducing Scratch to other key stage two learners.


Chapter 5 Conclusions

The aim of the research was to identify the benefits for year six learners as

they began to program with Scratch. Through a grounded theory approach to

the research, twelve benefits have emerged, together with factors that have

contributed to those benefits. In addition the methodology adopted has

provided answers to the questions set out in the introduction. It is hoped that

the case studies have described ‘real people in real situations’, (Cohen, 2000:

181) and will enable ‘readers to understand ideas’ (ibid) and relate them to

their own circumstances (Bassey, 1981, cited in Bell, 2010).

Discoveries

The researcher is cautiously excited by the findings as they suggest that for

these children the software and the approach taken by the teachers has made

an impact on, not only their learning, but their attitudes to other experiences in

the future. The idea of a learning object teaching the children and allowing

them to be an ‘emancipated, self-directing learner’ (Goodyear, 1984: 24) is

described in Chapter Two through the theories of Papert (1984) and Bruner

(1996). This was seen as the children were able to develop the use of

Scratch in unique ways. The width of the software (Goldstein and Pratt, 2003

and Resnick et al 2009) meant they were able to create a game based on

their own interests, whether it was a cartoon animal, a vehicle or a member of

a ‘boy band’ (Appendix 14). The height of the software (Goldstein, 2003 and

Resnick 2009) meant the children could challenge themselves. Mark found a

solution to ‘lives’ being lost in his game, Dalan independently sent sprites


flying across the screen, and Miles was proactive about his learning

throughout all the Scratch sessions.

The ‘dynamic relationship’ (Catlin and Blamires, 2012) between teacher,

learner and Scratch seems to be similar to that of the model shared by Catlin

and Blamires (Figure 27) from their research around the use of a floor turtle

(see Glossary).

Figure 27 ‘The dynamic relationship between teacher, student and robot shows that the learning and teaching interactions are bi-directional’, (Catlin and Blamires, 2012).

The reactions of the children also echoed the discoveries of Papert’s (1993)

Maria who followed her own interests in creating a house but then, through

seeing what others were achieving, set herself a new goal to have lights that

would turn on and off within it. The researcher recognised that, not only were

the learners using the learning object of their Scratch project to talk through

problems, but they were looking across and gaining ideas from others. The

diagram in Figure 15 aimed to show these different interactions which are

consistent with the ‘collaborative social interaction’ of the socio-cultural theory

of Seely-Brown et al (1989).


Through the interaction with each other and Scratch the ‘development of

logical thinking’ emerged as another benefit. This is part of computational

thinking (see Glossary) and could be interpreted as preparing learners to

contribute to ‘high-tech industries’ (Gove, 2012). Although this would be a

limited view of the value of ‘developing logical thinking’, it could perhaps

suggest that the factors that were recognised in bringing benefits to the

individual could also bring benefits to society. In this way Bruner’s antinomies

of education could be considered in balance.

Looking at the overall findings in Figure 9 and Figure 10 the ‘teacher changing

role’ and the ‘exploratory approach’ provided for the children were the two

strongest factors in achieving the benefits. Bruner’s (1996) ‘enabling culture’

allowed the children to develop their own possibilities but also to become peer

teachers. The learner group interviews included descriptions of the children

solving each other’s problems. Alfie, at All Saints Primary, refers to the way

that ‘someone else would know’ so he did not need to rely on the teacher as

the only source of help. The activities observed in all three case study

schools echo Watt’s classroom (1982, cited in Goodyear, 1986), where

children were allowed to move between computers. They were continually

providing support for each other.

Papert’s (1984) description of the turtle in Logo programming, as being body

syntonic, was echoed by the children who explored the use of programming

blocks to create movements for sprites. In the All Saints case study a pair of

girls giggled as their actions caused the character to turn or move off the


stage (Appendix 8, Plate 1). A pair of boys was proud of their crab which

moved sideways round a circle (Plate 2). Dalan in the Catcott case study was

able to talk about the programming blocks he used to make a witch appear

and disappear. He had discovered this possibility through using instructions.

The importance of instructions in the sequence of learning was expressed by

learners such as Andrew. They helped him to ‘understand what each block

does’ and he ‘used that information for the final project’. In this way children

may develop habits through imitation (Bruner, 1998). They gain ‘Habits of

Mind’ (Costa and Killick, 2000) where the learner develops skills and cues to

give them confidence to work on problems which may not be easily solvable.

The process suggested by the mix of exploration and the use of instructions

could be considered the cycle of becoming a programmer (Figure 28).

Figure 28: Cycle of programming


The experience at Catcott Primary, suggests that consideration should be

given in the future to ways in which exploration can be introduced at different

points in the cycle. In Appendix 19 the researcher describes how this idea

was developed in year three and four classes following the understanding

gained from the case studies. The telling of a joke in front of the class was

used as a prompt for children to investigate how this could be programmed.

Physical role play may be a strategy for supporting on-going exploration.

The research suggests that, in order for the benefits described in the case

studies to emerge, the teacher’s role needs to allow the learners to construct

their knowledge (Roblyer and Edwards, 2000: 50) through exploration of

Scratch. The children can be independent and working together to support

each other. Through this they can challenge themselves, learn from mistakes

and develop perseverance as represented in the ‘Exploration Triangle’ in

Figure 29.

Figure 29: The exploration triangle


The teachers in all three case studies identified the way in which programming

with Scratch allowed children to recognise the contribution perseverance can

make to their learning. Salmon’s ‘butterfly defect’ (1997, cited in Lucas and

Claxton, 2010) was not seen at any point during the visits to the schools.

Lucas and Claxton (2010: 97) have suggested that this effect depends on the

kind of ‘attention grabbing activities’ that are part of the learning experience.

From this research Scratch appears to absorb children in their learning.

It also emerged that the children became aware themselves, of the way ‘not

giving up’ enabled them to achieve outcomes they enjoyed and, as described

by Toby above, were proud of. Their awareness may have been due to them

being involved in the case studies as researchers. However this example of

the children becoming an ‘epistemologist as they reflect on that learning’

(Goodyear, 1984:32) could be a strategy to encourage perseverance in other

areas of learning. The teacher at Beechgrove Primary was keen to use the

same programming experience as part of the induction process for his class at

the beginning of the school year. He felt it would provide a reference for the

children of the attitudes required for achievement in all areas of the

curriculum. Indeed, Goodyear (1984) refers to the way the attitudes of

learners will affect how much they can learn, so a further study in this area

would be of interest to the researcher.

A factor which may have impacted on the outcomes is the access for the

learners to their own device to interact with the software. The video

observations showed no major time off-task and only seven minor off-task


incidents in one hundred and twenty minutes (Appendix 13). This could have

been due to the way the children were absorbed in using Scratch or it could

be that, in using their own device, each could progress at their own rate.

Tamsin recognised that ‘other people would have been at different stages’.

The visits to confirm findings (Appendix 19), suggested that appropriate

pairings needed to be considered where children were sharing a device, in

order for them both to interact together with the learning object. Figure 15

illustrates how the interaction with their own learning object while collaborating

with others created the learning environment observed in the research. The

benefits of this have been described above in terms of the outcomes for

Papert’s Maria (1993) and Mark, Dalan and Miles in the case studies.

Future research

A number of areas have emerged for future research. These include the

benefit of one-to-one access to a device; the impact of the use of Scratch as

part of induction for children at the beginning of a school year; and ways in

which exploration could be used as part of on-going learning experiences with

Scratch.

Further to this, the researcher has grouped the benefits (Figure 30) in four

categories to consider the overall gains for learners and other possible areas

for study.


Personal attributes

Learner understanding

Attitude to learning

Ways of learning

Challenge myself

Developing logical thinking

Increasing creativity

Working together

Increase confidence

Developing problem solving

Learn from mistakes

Encouraging exploration

Developing perseverance

Understanding of technology

Sense of achievement

Developing independent

learning Figure 30: Benefits to year 6 learners in adopting an exploratory approach to

introducing Scratch

Recognising the contribution that programming might make to other learning

was identified as being of importance in the introduction. The development of

learner understanding (Figure 30) through programming is of interest in terms

of the contribution it may make to problem solving in mathematics. This arose

from the case study at All Saints and is another area for additional study. It

would link to associations already made by Papert (1980, 1984) and Way and

Beardon (2003).

Another aspect of learner understanding which emerged was the suggestion

that programming with Scratch may contribute to letting the children feel in

control of the technology which is part of their lives. This would expand

Luckin’s (2007) idea of the child as a creator and not just a consumer of

technology.

Consideration is also required for the children who were worried by the

exploratory approach. This was expressed by seven of the learners. Of

these, five were at Catcott, where their exploration was through using the

instructions. Jake, from Beechgrove, felt that his worry was due to being

dyslexic and dispraxic. Toby from All Saints, despite being worried, also


described how he learnt to ‘stop giving up’. The possibility for anxiety should

not be ignored. For some children ‘mountainous thinking’ (Lucas and Claxton,

2010), that is well used and provides safe ways of doing things, may be more

comfortable than ‘meadow thinking’ (ibid) with its uncertainties.

Final conclusions and recommendations

The researcher was inspired by the excitement of the teachers and learners

that contributed to the case studies. The classrooms were buzzing as children

used Scratch as Papert’s (1984) ‘transitional object’. They were creating

‘objects-to-think-with’ (Fjeld et al, 2002) using a technology that was part of

their culture. This reflected Vygotsky’s (1962) theory of the culture developing

the thought and language which allowed the children to learn.

Papert (1984) was concerned that children are held back when they are

concerned about getting things right or wrong. Children at Catcott were

laughing at the results of their mistakes and using them to develop their

learning.

There appears to be an inextricable link between the learning environment

established by the teacher and the degree to which the children are, and see

themselves as, programmers. The learning environment is not only the

classroom ethos but the width and height offered by Scratch software.

The benefits from ‘this instance’ (Adelman et al, 1984: 94) of introducing year

six children to Scratch have been described in three settings. They can be


grouped (Figure 30) as; developing logical thinking and problem solving of

learners, changing attitudes to learning, and increasing children’s

understanding of the way they learn. Alongside this is the potential for

development of personal attributes that can make a difference to future

experiences for the learners.

The recommendations that have evolved from the case studies are:

Children should be allowed to experience an introduction to

programming which allows them to ‘explore and discover’ before being

guided as they develop their skills, knowledge and understanding

further. It is not something to be taught to them but something which is

‘scaffolded’ across Vygotsky’s (1962) ZPD. Bruner (1996: 151) quotes

Ella Fitzgerald, ‘When you’re talking about it, you ain’t doing it’.

On-going opportunities for exploration need to be planned into

programming experiences with Scratch. The possibility of using

physical role play to set challenges for this should be investigated. This

can support children to add ‘imagining and reasoning’ to ‘observing and

experimenting’ (Lucas and Claxton 2010: 59), and has the potential to

make the learning more powerful.

Programming with Scratch could be used as part of the induction

process for a new school year. It can help the children develop an

attitude which can increase how much they learn (Goodyear, 1984).


Children should have the opportunity to make links between

programming and problem solving in mathematics. Research into how

best to make the connection could contribute to raising attainment in

this area. It may be that, as seemed to have occurred at All Saints, the

children will transfer the skills and understanding without a need for

guidance from their teacher.

The vision for learners beginning to program that has emerged for the

researcher, could be that described by a fourteen year old glider pilot on BBC

Breakfast News in May 2013,

‘Freedom to go everywhere and anywhere, as far as the eye can see.’


References

Adelman, G., Jenkins, D. and Kemmis, S. (1984) Rethinking Case Study, in

Bell, J. (1984) Conducting small scale investigations in educational

management. London: Harper & Row, Chapter 6.

Atlas.ti 7 (2002-2013) [Online] available from http://www.atlasti.com [accessed

26th August 2013].

BBC Points West (2013) Breakfast News 23rd May 2013. BBC Somerset.

Bell, J. (2010) (5th Edition) Doing Your Research Project: A guide for first-time

researchers in education, health and social science. McGraw Hill: Open

University Press.

Bloom, B. S. (1986) Automaticity: "The hands and feet of genius". Educational

Leadership, 43(5), 70-77. [Online] available from

http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198602_bloom.pdf

[accessed 27th May 2013].

British Educational Research Association (2011) Ethical Guidelines for

Educational Research. [Online] available from:

http://www.bera.ac.uk/publications/pdfs/ETHICA1.PDF?PHPSESSID=9d05d2

b248b084807e1fe572bfe2396c [accessed 4th April 2013].

Bruner, J.S. (1996) The Culture of Education. Harvard University Press.

Catlin, D. and Blamires, M. (2012) The Principles of Educational Robotic

Applications (ERA): A framework for understanding and developing

educational robots and their activities, Advancing Education Summer 2012,

NAACE. [Online] available from http://www.naace.co.uk/1948 [accessed 24th

November 2012].

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2000) (5th Edition) Research Methods

in Education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2011) (7th Edition) Research

Methods in Education. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

Costa, A. and Kallick, B. (2000) Describing Sixteen Habits of the Mind.

Adapted from Costa, A. and Kallick, B. (2000) Habits of Mind: A

Developmental Series. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Crook, S. (2009) Embedding Scratch in the Classroom. Redware Research

Ltd.

http://www.atlasti.com/


http://www.bera.ac.uk/publications/pdfs/ETHICA1.PDF?PHPSESSID=9d05d2b248b084807e1fe572bfe2396c


http://www.naace.co.uk/1948


Data Harvest (ca. 2009) Go Control demo version. [Online] available from

http://apps.dataharvest.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_i

d=9 [accessed 13th October 2013]

Department for Education (2013) Computing programmes of study: key

stages 1 and 2. National curriculum in England. [Online] available from

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/

239033/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_-_Computing.pdf [accessed 13th

September 2013].

Dunne, C. (2010) The place of the literature review in grounded theory

research. International Journal Of Social Research Methodology [Serial

online]. March 1, 2011;14(2):111-124. Available from: E-Journals, Ipswich,

MA, [accessed 2nd April, 2013].

Fjeld, M., Lauch, K., Bichsel, M., Voorhorst, F., Krueger, H., Rauterberg, M.

(2002) Physical and Virtual Tools: Activity Theory applied to the Design of

Groupware. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 11: 153–180, 2002.

Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Friese, C. (2013) Proposing a New Method for Computer-Assisted Qualitative

Data Analysis. [Online] available from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N3bwa5Lt94&list=PL8CTEdsSSmZEq7Sn

pRtBzUijqXaaeTUdF&index=5 [accessed 26th July 2013].

Game 2013, Hercules in progress . [Online] available from

http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/10405964/ accessed 23rd May 2013.

Goldstein, R., Kalas, I., Noss, R. and Pratt, D. (2001) Building Rules,

Cognitive Tools 2001. University of Warwick.

Goldstein, R. and Pratt, D. (2003) Teaching the Computer. ICT and

mathematics edited by Way, J. and Beardon, T, 2003. Open University Press.

Goodman, G.S. (2007), 'CHAPTER TWO: Coming to a Critical Constructivism'. Educational Psychology: An Application of Critical Constructivism pp. 13-32 n.p.: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Education Research Complete EBSCOhost. [accessed 4 May 2013]. Goodyear, P. (1984) Logo, a guide to learning through programming. Ellis

Horwood Ltd.

Gove, M. (2012) Speech at BETT show 2012. [Online] available from

Department for Education

http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/speeches/a00201868/michael-gove-

speech-at-the-bett-show-2012, [accessed 26th March 2012].

http://apps.dataharvest.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=9

http://apps.dataharvest.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=9

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239033/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_-_Computing.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239033/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_-_Computing.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N3bwa5Lt94&list=PL8CTEdsSSmZEq7SnpRtBzUijqXaaeTUdF&index=5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N3bwa5Lt94&list=PL8CTEdsSSmZEq7SnpRtBzUijqXaaeTUdF&index=5

http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/10405964/

http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/speeches/a00201868/michael-gove-speech-at-the-bett-show-2012

http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/speeches/a00201868/michael-gove-speech-at-the-bett-show-2012


Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1995) (2nd Edition) Ethnography. London:

Routledge.

Hitchcock, G. and Hughes, D. (1995) (2nd Edition) Research and the Teacher:

A Qualitative Introduction to School-based Research. London: Routledge.

Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C. and Hsiu_Ping, Y. (1998) Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking. [Online] available from http://www.siue.edu/education/techready/5_Software_Tutorials/5_AncillaryPages/Mindtools.pdf [accessed 6th May 2013]. James, F. (2010) 'Leading educational improvement in Trinidad and Tobago', School Leadership & Management, 30: 4, 387 — 398. [Online] available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2010.497481 [accessed 23rd June 2011]. Kvale, S. (1996) Interviews. London: Sage.

Logo Foundation (2012) The Logo Programming Language. [Online] available

from http://el.media.mit.edu/logo-foundation/logo/programming.html [accessed

16th September 2013].

Lucas, B. and Claxton, G. (2010) New Kinds of Smart, How the science of

learnable intelligence is changing education. McGraw Hill, Open University

Press.

Luckin, R. (2008) The Learner Centric Ecology of Resources: a Framework for using Technology to Scaffold Learning. Computers & Education 50 (2008) 449–462. [Online] available from http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/2167/1/Luckin2008The449.pdf [accessed 1st June 2013]. Luckin, R., Akass J., Cook, J., Day, P., Ecclesfield, N., Garnett, F., Gould, M., Hamilton, T., Whitworth, A. (2007) Learner-Generated Contexts: sustainable learning pathways through open content. OpenLearn: Researching open content in education (2007) 90-94. [Online] available from http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/getfile.cfm?documentfileid=12188 [accessed 1st June 2013]. Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., and Eastmond, E. (2010) The Scratch Programming Language and Environment. [Online] available from http://web.media.mit.edu/~jmaloney/papers/ScratchLangAndEnvironment.pdf [accessed 30th August 2013]. McNiff, J. (1988) Action research: Principles and Practice. Basingstoke:

Macmillan, Chapters 2 and 3.

Mills, J., Bonner, A. and Francis, K. Adopting a constructivist approach to

grounded theory: Implications for research design. International Journal Of

http://www.siue.edu/education/techready/5_Software_Tutorials/5_AncillaryPages/Mindtools.pdf

http://www.siue.edu/education/techready/5_Software_Tutorials/5_AncillaryPages/Mindtools.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2010.497481

http://el.media.mit.edu/logo-foundation/logo/programming.html

http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/2167/1/Luckin2008The449.pdf

http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/getfile.cfm?documentfileid=12188

http://web.media.mit.edu/~jmaloney/papers/ScratchLangAndEnvironment.pdf


Nursing Practice [Serial online]. 1st February 2006;12(1):8-13. Available from:

E-Journals, Ipswich, MA, [accessed 3rd April 2013].

Monroy-Hernández, A. and Resnick, M. (2008) Empowering Kids to Create

and Share Programmable Media. Design: What It Is, and How To Teach and

Learn It, Interactions, March-April:(50-53). [Online] available from

http://info.scratch.mit.edu/Research [accessed 10th April 2013].

Newby, P. (2010) Research Methods for Education. Pearson Education

Limited.

Office for Standards in Education (2009) The importance of ICT: Information

and communication technology in primary and secondary schools, 2005/2008.

London: Office for Standards in Education.

Office for Standards in Education (2011) ICT in schools 2008–11: An

evaluation of information and communication technology education in schools

in England 2008–11. London: Office for Standards in Education.

Papert, S. (1984) (2nd Edition) Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Harvester Wheatsheaf. Papert, S. (1993) The Children’s Machine: Rethinking school in the age of the Computer. Basic Books. Pearson, M. & Somekh, B. (2006) 'Learning transformation with technology: a

question of sociocultural contexts? 1'. International Journal of Qualitative

Studies in Education (QSE), 19 (4), 519-539.

Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E.,

Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J., Silverman, B. and Kafai, Y.

(2009) Scratch: Programming for All. Communications of the ACM, 2009 Vol.

52 no. 11.60-67.

Riddell, S. (1989) Exploiting the exploited? The ethics of feminist educational

research, in Burgess, R. (ed.) (1989). The ethics of educational Research.

Lewes: Falmer Press, Chapter 4, 77 – 99.

Riding P., Fowell S. and Levy P. (1995) An action research approach to curriculum development. Information Research, 1(1) [Online] Available at: http://InformationR.net/ir/1-1/paper2.html [accessed 23rd June 2011]. Roblyer, M. & Edwards, J. (2000) (2nd Edition) Integrating Educational

Technology into Teaching. New Jersey: Merrill.

Rohaan, E, Taconis, R, & Jochems, W. (2012) 'Analysing teacher knowledge for technology education in primary schools'. International Journal Of

http://info.scratch.mit.edu/Research

http://informationr.net/ir/1-1/paper2.html


Technology And Design Education, 22, 3, pp. 271-280, E-Journals, EBSCOhost, [accessed 4 May 2013].

Rudd, T., Colligan, F. and Naik, R. (2006) Learner Voice: A handbook from

Futurelab. Futurelab and ESSA.

Schofield, J. W. (2004) “Increasing the Generalizability of Qualitative

Research”, in Huberman, M. and Miles, M. B., (eds.). The Qualitative

Researcher’s Companion. Sage Publications, Inc. Chapter 8, 171-203.

[Online] available from Google Play

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=46jfwR6y5joC&oi=fnd&pg=PA

171&dq=increasing+the+generalizability+of+qualitative+research&ots=smFS

CMwsMV&sig=uTVdQEOJzg0fHBtT_7Wa9FE5TkI#v=onepage&q=increasing

%20the%20generalizability%20of%20qualitative%20research&f=false

[accessed 4th April 2013].

Scratch (ca 2007). [Online] available from http://scratch.mit.edu/ accessed 8th September 2013.

Seely-Brown, J., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989) 'Situated Cognition and the

Culture of Learning'. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-42.

Skinner, B.F. (1954) The science of learning and the art of teaching. Readings

for Reflective Teaching edited by Pollard, A. (2002). Continuum.

Solomon, C. (1986) Computer Environments for Children: A Reflection on

Theories of Learning and Education. MIT Press.

Somerset (2013a) Programming with Scratch. [Online]

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Site%20Pages/Scratch.asp

x [accessed 12th September 2013].

Somerset (2013b) Scratch: 10 Block Challenge. [Online]

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%

20ICT/Programming/Scratch/Questions/Scratch%2010blocks.pdf [accessed

15th September 2013].

Somekh, B. and Davis, N. (1997) Using Information Technology effectively in

Teaching and Learning. London, Routledge.

Sutcliffe, C. and Sandvik, L. (2012a) Code Club. [Online]

https://www.codeclub.org.uk [accessed 26th August 2013].

Sutcliffe, C. and Sandvik, L. (2012b) Whack a Witch. [Online] http://codeclub-

assets.s3.amazonaws.com/public/codeclub-whackawitch.pdf [accessed 26th

August 2013].

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=46jfwR6y5joC&oi=fnd&pg=PA171&dq=increasing+the+generalizability+of+qualitative+research&ots=smFSCMwsMV&sig=uTVdQEOJzg0fHBtT_7Wa9FE5TkI#v=onepage&q=increasing%20the%20generalizability%20of%20qualitative%20research&f=false




http://scratch.mit.edu/

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Site%20Pages/Scratch.aspx

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Site%20Pages/Scratch.aspx

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%20ICT/Programming/Scratch/Questions/Scratch%2010blocks.pdf


https://www.codeclub.org.uk/

http://codeclub-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/public/codeclub-whackawitch.pdf

http://codeclub-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/public/codeclub-whackawitch.pdf


Szymanski, M, & Morrell, P 2009, 'Situated Cognition and Technology', International Journal Of Learning, 15, 12, pp. 55-58, Education Research Complete, EBSCOhost [accessed 4 May 2013]. The Royal Society (2012), Shut down or restart? The way forward for

computing in UK schools. The Royal Society. [Online] available from

http://royalsociety.org/education/policy/computing-in-schools/report/ [accessed

20th October 2012].

Underwood, J., Baguley, T., Bamyard, P., Dillon, G., Farrington-Flint, L.,

Hayes, M., Le Geyt, G., Murphy, J., and Selwood, I. (2010) Understanding the

Impact of Technology: Learner and School level factors. Nottingham Trent

University and University of Birmingham, Becta.

Underwood, J. D. M. and Underwood, G. (1990) Computers and Learning:

Helping children acquire thinking skills. Basil Blackwell.

Vincent, J . (2003) Teaching the Computer. ICT and mathematics edited by

Way, J. and Beardon, T, 2003. Open University Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1962) Thought and Language. M. I. T. Press Cambridge,

Massachusetts.

Way, J. and Beardon, T. (2003) Digital technologies + Mathematics Education

= Powerful Learning Environments. ICT and mathematics edited by Way, J.

and Beardon, T, 2003. Open University Press.

Woods, P. (1986) Inside schools, ethnography in educational research.

London: RKP, Chapter 3.

http://royalsociety.org/education/policy/computing-in-schools/report/


Appendices

Appendix 1: Description of the case study schools 101

All Saints (2012) 101

Catcott (2008) 101

Beech Grove (2010) 101

Appendix 2: Planning for sequences of Scratch lessons in Case Study schools 102

School 1 102

School 2 103

School 3 104

Appendix 3: Instructions for car racing game 106

Appendix 4: Questions for interviews with learner groups and with teachers 108

4.1 Questions for learner 108

4.2 Questions for teachers 108

Appendix 5: Atlas ti software: List of Codes 109

Appendix 6: Ethics contract for pupils 116

Appendix 7: Ethics contract for teachers with permission for video included 117

Appendix 8: Transcript of video of paired exploration of movements on screen 121

Appendix 9: Greek Games: School A 122

Appendix 10: Triangulation across three schools 123

Appendix 11: School B Session 1 Felix and Herbert Game 124

Appendix 12: School 2 Talking with English as an Additional Lanugage (EAL) pupil

about his Whack a Witch project 125

Appendix 13: Comparison of video evidence from classroom sessions 127

13.1 Table of results 126

13.2 Graph to show comparisons of incidents for all schools 127

Appendix 14: School C Variations on car racing game 128

Appendix 15: School C Focus on Polly 129

Appendix 16: Triangulation across groups of researchers 132

Appendix 17: Triangulation of learner evidence 132

Appendix 18: Example of group interview All Saints 134

Appendix 19: Demonstration lesson visits to year 3 and 4 classes 139

Appendix 20: Post-it notes, child researchers School C – How did I learn? 144

Appendix 21: Summary of Evidence collection 145

Appendix 22: Bloom’s Table of some possible Automated Processes 147


Appendix 1: Description of the case study schools

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report accessed

online 29th June 2013

All Saints (2012)

This is a broadly average-sized primary school with pupils attending from the

local area. There are seven classes. Nearly all pupils are of White British

heritage. The proportion of pupils who are supported by school action plus or

with a statement of special educational needs is below the national average.

The proportion of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals is below

average. Children in the Early Years Foundation Stage are taught in a

separate Reception class and have their own outside learning area. There is a

daily breakfast club managed by the governing body. The school meets the

government’s current floor standards which set the minimum expectations for

pupils’ attainment and progress.

Number of pupils on roll: 211 Year 6 class: 17 girls and 11 boys

Catcott (2008)

Almost all pupils at this average sized primary school are White British. Pupils'

home circumstances are more favourable than average and their skills on

starting school are generally better than those expected for their age. A

smaller than average proportion of pupils has learning difficulties and/or

disabilities. There is a higher than average turnover of pupils during the

school year. The school has several awards including Investors in People,

Basic Skills, Healthy Schools, Activemark and Eco Schools.

Number of pupils on roll: 207 Year 6 class: 17 girls and 13 boys

Beech Grove (2010)

Beech Grove is larger than most primary schools. Most pupils are from White

British backgrounds. The proportion of pupils with learning difficulties and/or

disabilities is average, whereas the proportion of pupils eligible for free school

meals is below average. A children's centre which is not managed by the

school shares the same site. The school has gained the Silver Eco award,

Healthy Schools Status and the Study Support award.

Number of pupils on roll: 297 Mixed year 5 and 6 class with 20 year 6 and 14

year 5, 19 girls and 15 boys

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report


Appendix 2: Planning for sequences of Scratch lessons in Case Study

schools

School 1

1

I can use sequence, selection and repetition in programs.

Individual exploration of Scratch software. Teacher intervention and review to guide children as required towards:

Sequence of instructions (Make something surprising happen to your sprite.)

Repetition (Repeat [move, add sound move back])

Add a background / Add new sprites

Different kinds of programming blocks Think, pair, share: What have you been able to do? What have you found out about the software?

2

I can explain how a simple algorithm works.

What is an algorithm? What can it allow you to do? Provide closed or open task as appropriate to learners. Create an etch-a-sketch game (Know how to program keys to do different things, recognise what each section of programming achieves.) Can you program different keys to do different things on the screen? What does programming do? (you are teaching the computer to do things)

3

I can detect and correct errors in algorithms and programs. I know how to use a variable to measure something in a game.

What did you learn from creating the etch-a-sketch game? Today we are going to make two more games. Follow the instructions but also think about what you are doing. Keep testing the programme to see how it is working. Programming a Car Racing Game (Know how to create an ‘if’ instruction to make something happen when sprite touching a colour) Introduce idea of selection. If xxxxx happens then xxxxx. How could we move something with the mouse on the screen? Emphasis need to keep testing sets of programming blocks to check they are doing what you want them to do.

What did you learn from creating the car racing game? Choose a second game to create. Tennis if you are confident or Dance moves if you want to reinforce your confidence in making sprites move on the screen. Create a tennis game (Know how to program two sprites) Can you move the sprite with the mouse? Can you add a variable to score / to speed up ball each time you hit it with racquet? Add variables to tennis game. Dance moves (change of costume, add sound) Add to or adapt program to make it your own game. Keep testing how the programme is working. What have you found out about Scratch software? Did anyone discover any useful tips for each other? Did anyone run into difficulties? How did you solve them? How have you used colours for features of the game?

4

I can plan an algorithm for a game.

Plan a game based on our topic [eg game based on Greek myths, following listening and retelling stories, drama, talk and writing.] What skills have you learnt? Which can you use in your game? What algorithm will you need to follow? Think about how you make the keyboard or mouse move things on screen. Think about the way colours can be used to select actions. Consider how variables can measure what is happening in a game. Write the algorithm for your game. Consider the sprites, background and programming you will need.

5 I can solve problems by decomposing

Create or discover backgrounds and sprites for the game planned. Refine ideas for game

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%20ICT/Programming/Scratch/scratch%202%20etchasketch.pdf

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%20ICT/Programming/Scratch/scratch%203%20car%20racing%20game.pdf

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%20ICT/Programming/Scratch/scratch%204%20tennis%20game%20no%20variables.pdf

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%20ICT/Programming/Scratch/scratch%204%20tennis%20game.pdf

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%20ICT/Programming/Scratch/scratch%202a%20Dance%20moves.pdf

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%20ICT/Programming/Scratch/Planning%20Games/Create%20your%20own%20Scratch%20game.pdf


them into smaller parts. I can design and write programs that accomplish specific goals I can detect and correct errors in algorithms and programs

6

Program, test and improve games. Evaluate and make appropriate changes. Children could upload projects to the Scratch community website http://scratch.mit.edu. This will allow them to play each other’s games online in school and at home. Comments can be made on each others’ games after modelling and guided writing of responsible and appropriate peer assessment See information about Scratch community and parent’s permission letters.

School 2

1

I can use sequence, selection and in programs.

Look at Scratch together. Indicate sprites, stage, program blocks and script area. Provide Code Club instructions Level 1, Felix and Herbert. Describe expectation for children to use instructions to create a game, children to use Code Club members as a resource to help, children to support each other. Model talking through the algorithm Show what you have created to your friend. Can you describe the algorithm for the game? What changes would you like to make to the game? Time to edit and solve problems.

2

I can explain how a simple algorithm works.

Ten Block Challenge What can create with these ten blocks? You can use any of them as many times as you want. You can change the numbers in any of the blocks. Show your friends what you have done. Explain the actions you have put together. What problems did you have to overcome? What else would you like to add to your project?

3

I can detect and correct errors in algorithms and programs. I know how to use a variable to measure something in a game.

What did you learn from creating the Felix and Herbert game? Today we are going to make ‘Whack a Witch’ (Code Club level one). Talk through algorithm. Emphasise continually trying out the program at each step. Pause once children are well on the way to completion. What variable did you add? What is a variable? Show what you have created to your friend. Can you describe the algorithm for the game? What problems did you have to solve? What changes would you like to make to the game? Time to edit and solve problems.

4


Question challenge: Can you make your cat move around the screen? Can you add a dog? What will happen? Can you show what will happen? Show your friends what you have programmed.

5.


Plan a game based on our topic [eg game based on Greek myths, following listening and retelling stories, drama, talk and writing.] What skills have you learnt? Which can you use in your game? What algorithm will you need to follow? Think about how you make the keyboard or mouse move things on screen.


https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%20ICT/Programming/Scratch/Scratch%20community%20benefits.pdf

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%20ICT/Programming/Scratch/Scratch%20community%20parent_carer%20letter.doc

http://codeclub.org.uk/


http://codeclub.org.uk/

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%20ICT/Programming/Scratch/Questions/Scratch%20Questions.pdf

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%20ICT/Programming/Scratch/Planning%20Games/Create%20your%20own%20Scratch%20game.pdf


Think about the way colours can be used to select actions. Consider how variables can measure what is happening in a game. Write the algorithm for your game. Consider the sprites, background and programming you will need.

6.

I can solve problems by decomposing them into smaller parts. I can design and write programs that accomplish specific goals I can detect and correct errors in algorithms and programs

Create or discover backgrounds and sprites for the game planned. Refine ideas for game

7.

Program, test and improve games. Evaluate and make appropriate changes. Children could upload projects to the Scratch community website http://scratch.mit.edu. This will allow them to play each other’s games online in school and at home. Comments can be made on each others’ games after modelling and guided writing of responsible and appropriate peer assessment See information about Scratch community and parent’s permission letters.

School 3

1

I can explain how a simple algorithm works. I can use sequence, selection and repetition in programs.

Minimum of 20 minutes exploration time. Ask class to explore Scratch software individually. Class leave their computer and rotate around the room to see what each-others’ screens look like, think about what they have done. Open a new project. Focus on sprite and programming blocks. Introduce words: sprite, background, blocks. Explore individually, but stay with the one sprite. Try blue, purple and pink blocks. When appropriate introduce control blocks. (Children will play with other blocks but those make increasing sense as they develop use.) Split into four groups, each to become experts at programming different things to happen. Instruction sheets given to each group. Group 1 LA Create an etch-a-sketch game (Know how to program keys to

do different things) Project blank provided. Can you program different keys on the keyboard to do different actions? Group 2 MA Create a dance on-screen (Know how to make a sprite move and change costume) Can you make a sprite move and change? Group 3 MA Programming a Car Racing Game (Know how to create an ‘if’

instruction to make something happen when sprite touching a colour) Project provided with background. Can you program in a ‘selection’ if the car touches the grass? Group 4 HA

Create a tennis game (Know how to create programs for two sprites). Project provided with sprites and background. Can you move the sprite with the mouse?





https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%20ICT/Programming/Scratch/Blank%20etchasketch.sb

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%20ICT/Programming/Scratch/scratch%202a%20Dance%20moves.pdf

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%20ICT/Programming/Scratch/scratch%203%20car%20racing%20game.pdf

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%20ICT/Programming/Scratch/scratch%204%20tennis%20game%20no%20variables.pdf

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%20ICT/Programming/Scratch/Tennis%20game%20blank.sb


Groups finishing can add to or adapt their program. Can you add variables to score and increase speed of tennis ball? What have you found out about Scratch software? Did anyone discover any useful tips for each other?

2

I can detect and correct errors in algorithms and programs. I can solve problems by decomposing them into smaller parts.

Jigsaw the groups, i.e. create groups of one expert from each of the previous session groups. Show your friends what the game you made. Talk through any problems. Can you find solutions. What did you learn? What tips do you have for anyone who wants to program with Scratch? Groups work at a computer, read script of Cat and Dog scenario to the class: https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%20ICT/Programming/Scratch/Questions/Scratch%20Questions.pdf Can each group use their pooled expertise to meet the challenge? How did you get on working together? What have you learnt from your friends? Individually try 10 block challenge: What can you create? Look at what your friend has achieved.

3

I can explain how a simple algorithm works. I can use sequence, selection and repetition in programs.

Give all children Car Racing Game instructions. Working individually, but supporting each other, create the game as it is then start again but create your own version of this game. (Different background and different sprite and/or two player game) Talk through possibilities. Examples that children have created: monkey moving through a jungle, pop star getting to a stage, unicorn going on a journey What is the algorithm you have used? Which sets of programming blocks did you need? What variations did you introduce?

4

I can detect and correct errors in algorithms and programs

Give groups the dragon and snowman scenario. Let them have a go at meeting the challenge. Stop them after about 10 – 15 minutes. Get them to open the sample project which has errors. Can they detect the problem? Can they correct the error? (Snowman doesn’t appear properly at the beginning of the project. Snowman could melt more slowly. Dragon could fly more slowly.)

5

I can design and write programs that accomplish specific goals

Link to current topic eg Minotaur in Ancient Greece, Boudicca as part of Romans, moving round local area/area that is being studied. Individually plan a game. What skills have you learnt? Which can you use in your game? What algorithm will you need to follow? The children could be encouraged to work online at home, and have a go (if there’s not time in school to try out the project they have planned). See information about Scratch community and parent’s permission letters.






https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%20ICT/Programming/Scratch/Questions/dragon_and_snowman.sb




A car is driven along a road.

The car goes back to the beginning if it touches the grass.

When the car gets to the end of the course a sound is played and a message

displayed.

Appendix 3: Instructions for car racing game Somerset ELIM (2013) with

acknowledgment to Simon Haughton’s Blog for idea.

A Create your background and add new sprite

1. Right-click on the cat sprite, delete. 2. Go to Backgrounds tab. (You will see it when

you click on stage.) 3. Click Paint. 4. Fill background with green paint. 5. Use thick grey brush to paint a road running

across the screen and draw a coloured line at one end to mark the finish line. (The more bends the harder the game.)

6. Click on OK. You can go back to background and choose edit at any time to make changes.

7. Add a new sprite. (Go to transportation to find a car.)

8. Use the shrink button to make the sprite a size to go around bends.

B Programming the game

1. ‘Tell’ the arrow keys to move the car.

TIPS:

Right click on a block to duplicate the block and those below.

Hover over the background area with the mouse to see the position coordinates.

Right click on the scripts area to add a comment (see yellow box).

http://www.simonhaughton.co.uk/scratch-programming/


2. Set a rule if the car touches the green grass.

TIP: To get the correct colour hold the dropper over the area of the stage containing

the colour you need.

OR

You can add a written message OR Record a message if they touch the grass.

Choose play sound from the sound blocks.

Choose record from drop down arrow.

Press red circle to record your sound and grey square to stop.

3. Add a second if condition for the end of the game.

This can be a recorded message and a written congratulations message. (A timer

can also be added.)

Challenge

Add a variable called timer and, at the end of the game, broadcast how long it

takes for the car to get to the finish line.

Try adding a second car to make it a two person game.


Appendix 4: Questions for interviews with learner groups and with

teachers

4.1 Questions for learner (Shown at beginning of the interview)

4.2 Questions for teachers

Attitude of learners

What were the attitudes to learning already in place which helped the children to begin to program? Which did Scratch programming re-inforce? Were there any new attitudes you saw developing?

Effective teaching/learning strategy

After this series of lessons, what are your thoughts about effective strategies to teach primary aged children to program?

Perceived benefits

What do you perceive as the benefits of learning to program for the children in your class? Are there any children who have benefitted in particular ways?

Learning taking place

What are the children learning while using the software? How much of the learning is related to programming? What other kinds of learning are taking place? What is contributing to that learning? What understanding are they gaining of how they learn?

Technology

What understanding are they gaining of technology?

Teacher attitude and confidence

What have you enjoyed most about doing the Scratch programming with the class? What about effective strategies to develop teacher confidence in teaching programming? Where do you think programming fits with other curriculum areas? How important do you think it is for children to learn?

What have you enjoyed most about

programming with Scratch? Is there

anything you didn’t like?

How important is it for

children to learn to program?

What did you think about the way

you were introduced you to Scratch?

.

What helped you to learn to use

Scratch? How did you learn to

program?

Have you learnt anything about yourself

while you were programming?

What have you learnt about

technology?

Are there any other questions I

should ask? What was your favourite

thing about the software?


Appendix 5: Atlas ti software: List of Codes

Codes for quotations with an explanation of the terms used for super-codes in 5.2

and an example of an abstract network.

5.1 First stage codes identified during review of evidence in Atlas-ti software

Code for quotations Researcher thoughts

What did the learners discover about themselves while they were programming with Scratch?

How did the opportunity to explore Scratch in an open ended way affect the learners?

What helped the children to learn to program?


Which things affected the learners?


What did the researcher observe?

What were the features of Scratch software that affected the learning?

What did the teachers observe and how did they contribute to the learning?


5.2 Second stage codes identified from consideration of first stage codes in Atlas-ti software

The researcher has listed the thinking behind each of the super-codes. These refer to the child but also include first stage codes used for teacher or researcher observations. Achievement: child has recognised personal achievement in using Scratch. Challenge myself: child has challenged themselves to do something which was not asked of them by the teacher. Collaboration: children are working together or recognise the way in which they have worked together. Computational thinking: refers to a set of thinking skills that contribute to programming. The researcher changed this to logical thinking to be more accurate. Creativity: child has been creative in the way they have used Scratch.


Difficulties: child has found difficulty or been worried in the use of Scratch. Engagement and motivation: child has been engaged in programming over a sustained period or demonstrated motivation to achieve an outcome. Exploration: child has talked about the way having time to explore the software has

brought benefits. This includes quotations where the term ‘trial and error’ has been used. Importance of instructions: child has expressed the need for/enjoyment of, using a set of instructions. Increased confidence: child has expressed ways in which their confidence has increased through using Scratch software. Independent learning: child has talked about, or demonstrated the way in which they have been able to discover learning for themselves. Learn from mistakes: child has talked about the way they have learnt from mistakes

they have made whilst working to achieve an outcome. Learning object: child has expressed the way they have learnt from/with Scratch software. Logical thinking: (replaced computational thinking) where children have demonstrated or talked in terms of a logical process to achieve an outcome. Perseverance: child has demonstrated or talked about ‘not giving up’ or being determined to achieve an outcome and to continue to work towards that. Problem solving: child has worked to solve a problem that has occurred in

achieving an outcome, either by themselves or with peers. Supportive environment: child has talked about the way members of the class have helped each other. Teacher changing role: children, or the teachers, described the teacher as doing things differently in terms of allowing the learners to construct their knowledge through ‘participating in certain experiences’ rather than ‘transmitting knowledge to learners’ (Roblyer and Edwards, 2000: 50). Understanding technology: child has expressed a way in which their understanding of technology has increased through programming with Scratch. 5.3 Examples of a network to support conceptual analysis (Friese, 2013), see over


Appendix 6: Ethics contract for pupils

Pupil Research Contract for ‘Programming with Scratch in a primary

school’

What is the aim of the research?

To find out what you are learning when you have the opportunity to

programme with Scratch software. This means not just the learning to do

things with the software, but the other kinds of things you may be learning at

the same time.

What will happen during the research?

1. I will work with your teacher to plan lessons for you to learn to use Scratch

software.

2. Your teacher and I will discuss what we observe during the lessons.

3. We will video or use a sound recorder during some of the lessons.

4. I will interview your class teacher and some of you to talk about what you

learnt.

What will happen once the research is finished?

The research will be written up in a document which will be assessed for me

to get a Masters qualification. I will also use it to speak to other teachers at

conferences and in training sessions to help them as they teach children

about using Scratch.

What are my rights?

Programming is part of the ICT curriculum in your school so you will be part of

the lessons.

BUT, you can choose not to be included in videoing of the lessons and you

can choose not to discuss your learning with me.

I won’t use your real name in any of the writing that I do about the research,

but I will make sure that I don’t take credit for any interesting things that you

discover during the research.

I will do all I can to make sure you enjoy learning to use Scratch and are

comfortable to answer any questions.

I will look after all the information I collect so that it isn’t seen by others. Other

people will only be able to read the final document I write, or look and listen to

what we found out at any presentations I do about the research.

I give my consent to being part of the ‘Programming in a Primary School’

research.


Appendix 7: Ethics contract for teachers with permission for video

included

Research Contract for ‘Programming with Scratch in a primary school’

Aim of the research:

To identify the learning that takes place when pupils have the opportunity to

programme with Scratch software.

Learning experiences:

The researcher will be working with teachers in three schools to plan, share

and reflect on a learning experience using Scratch software.

School One will use children that have become ‘experts’ in using

Scratch through an after school Code Club to support whole class

teaching of programming with Scratch using the Code Club materials.

School Two will provide an opportunity for pairs of children to explore

the software, share what they have discovered and then to work

individually, initially using prepared materials to create games, and then

to create their own games linked to their class topic.

School Three will provide a jigsaw opportunity for four groups of

children to become experts at a particular aspect of Scratch. An expert

from each group will then be assigned to a problem solving group

which will be given a problem to be solved with Scratch.

Ethical principles:

Respect for the school

The researcher would like to acknowledge the school’s contribution to the

research as this will be a partnership with the teacher and children involved.

However, should the school ask for anonymity in terms of their name not

being given in any write up or presentation, this will be ensured.

The outcomes of the research will include a Masters’ level dissertation,

presentations to the South West ICT Conference and Somerset ICT

Conference 2013; and a contribution to training sessions and support for

teachers and support staff in schools in Somerset. The findings may also be

included in papers submitted to education journals or other presentations to

conferences.

The research methods being used will include the following, although method

two will only be used if the Headteacher, teacher, parents and pupils give

additional permission to that requested for the overall research.


5. Participant observations will be made of planned learning experiences.

This refers to the researcher team-teaching with the class teacher and

making observations.

6. A video or sound recording of the experiences will be made with the

permission of the Headteacher, teacher, parents and pupils. This will

be used for analysis of the learning that has taken place and also,

should the school give additional permission, may be used to select

excerpts for presentations to support the development of the use of

Scratch by other teachers.

7. Interviews with the class teacher and pupils will be used to elicit further

data on the learning that has taken place.

8. A context describing the school will be agreed with the Headteacher to

support the write up of the findings of the research. This will be used to

support readers of the outcomes in relating the experiences and

learning to their own setting.

Respect for the teacher

The researcher will work in partnership with the teacher to plan, share and

reflect on a teaching and learning experience developing pupils’ knowledge

and skill in using Scratch software. The teacher can choose whether their

name is included in the outcomes of the research as an acknowledgement of

the contribution they have made or whether they choose to remain

anonymous in the outcomes.

In addition to the methodology set out above the following will involve the

teacher.

1. Discussions via email, telephone or by pre-arranged visit to agree the

planning for the learning experiences using Scratch.

2. Informal conversations reflecting on the learning experiences and the

learning outcomes for the pupils and teachers.

3. Informal conversations reflecting on the interviews with pupils to elicit

the learning that has taken place.

Respect for the pupils

The researcher and teacher will work in partnership with pupils to identify the

learning that has taken place through:

1. The planned learning experiences using Scratch programming

software.

2. Discussions between pupils following the classroom activities.

3. Further learning which individual pupils may choose to do beyond

school.


Pseudonyms will be used for pupils in the outcomes of the research. Any

references to the ability of pupils which may be linked to the learning

outcomes will be discussed with the class teacher and Headteacher before

they are included in the outcomes of the research. A research contract will

be worded for pupils to support them in giving fully informed consent as

required by Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the

Child. Article 12 requires that children who are capable of forming their own

views should be granted the right to express their views freely in all matters

affecting them, commensurate with their age and maturity. The researcher

will also comply with Article 3 that in all actions concerning children, the best

interests of the child must be the primary consideration.

In addition to the above; the researcher will

1. Recognise the right of any participant to withdraw from the research for

any or no reason, and at any time.

2. Take all necessary steps to reduce any sense of intrusion in the life of

the school or the community of the class and will conduct themselves in

such a way as to put all participants at ease.

3. Seek to limit any impact on the workload of participants.

4. Store electronic data collected on a password protected computer.

Paper based data will be kept in folders used only for the research and

stored responsibly and then destroyed as confidential waste once the

Masters’ dissertation has been assessed by Bath Spa University.

5. Provide access to any data as requested by a participating school.

6. Provide the participating schools with a summary of the findings of the

research in straightforward language that can be shared with pupils

and parents as appropriate. A copy of the Masters’ Dissertation will be

made available on request.

Ethics statements based on British Educational Research Association (2011)

Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research available from:

http://www.bera.ac.uk/publications/pdfs/ETHICA1.PDF?PHPSESSID=9d05d2

b248b084807e1fe572bfe2396c

XXXXXXXXXX,Headteacher consents to XXXXXXX Primary School

participating in this research. XXXXXXXXXX ,Class teacher consents to

participating in this research. We give / do not give permission for videoing or

sound recording during the classroom activities.

Julia Briggs, Researcher promises to do all that is possible to abide by this

contract.




Video permission XXXX School is working with Julia Briggs of Somerset County Council to do some research on the ways in which computer programming education can benefit the overall learning of pupils. You may be aware that the Government are keen to have a greater emphasis on programming as part of new curriculum that is being put in place for September 2014. Julia proposes to use video as part of collecting information. There is no problem if you would rather your child wasn’t included in the videoing. Please complete the form below to give permission for your child to be part of the research. The following is the information Julia has provided to inform the children about being part of a research project: What is the aim of the research? To find out what you are learning when you have the opportunity to programme with Scratch software. This means not just the learning to do things with the software, but the other kinds of things you may be learning at the same time. What will happen during the research?

I will work with your teacher to plan lessons for you to learn to use Scratch software.

Your teacher and I will discuss what we observe during the lessons.

We will video or use a sound recorder during some of the lessons.

I will interview your class teacher and some of you to talk about what you learnt.

What will happen once the research is finished? The research will be written up in a document which will be assessed for me to get a Masters qualification. I will also use it to speak to other teachers at conferences and in training sessions to help them as they teach children about using Scratch. What are my rights?

Programming is part of the ICT curriculum in your school so you will be part of the lessons.

BUT, you can choose not to be included in videoing of the lessons and you can choose not to discuss your learning with me.

I won’t use your real name in any of the writing that I do about the research, but I will make sure that I don’t take credit for any interesting things that you discover during the research.

I will do all I can to make sure you enjoy learning to use Scratch and are comfortable to answer any questions.

I will look after all the information I collect so that it isn’t seen by others. Other people will only be able to read the final document I write, or look and listen to what we found out at any presentations I do about the research.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Please delete as appropriate:

I am happy for my child / do not want my child to be part of the ‘Programming in a Primary School’ research.

I give permission for my child to be included in video to provide information for the research.

I am happy for the video to be used to train teachers in the future.

I give permission for my child to be part of the research but I do not want them to be videoed


Appendix 8: Transcript of video of paired exploration of movements on

screen

Monday 20th May 2013. Session 1 Exploring Scratch (School A)

Two girls sharing laptop to explore programming blocks and sprites in

Scratch. One is ‘operating’ laptop and talking about what to do. The

other is looking, making suggestions and pointing to actions on the

screen.

Girl 1: 'Look, in there.' Girl 2: 'A hundred.' (Edits number on move block) (Quiet laughter) Girl 1: 'She's off the page.' (Points to screen) Girl 2: 'OK, make it two hundred.' (Points to screen) Girl 1: 'Somehow turn her round, turn her round.' (Turning block dragged on screen) Girl 2: 'Yeh, turn her round.' (Points to block on screen) Girl 1: 'That worked.' Girl 2: 'Yeh, turn her round.' (Change value in block) Girl 1: 'I don't think that's meant to happen.' Girl 2: 'Whoo-oo!' Girl 1: 'I don't think that's meant to happen.' Girl 2: 'Move towards .... ' (Point towards block added to screen) Girl 1: 'What can we move towards?' (Clicks on drop-down arrow next to’ Point towards’.) Girl 2: 'Dog.' Girl 1: 'There you go.' (Points to screen) Girl 2: 'Now she's upside down.' Girl 1: 'Go to.'(Go to block dragged on screen) Girl 2: 'What shall we make her go to?' (Clicks on drop-down arrow next in ‘Go to’.) Girl 1: 'Nano!' Girl 2: 'And click on it' Girl 1: 'Now she's still upside down' Girl 2: 'See how far we could turn her round' (Drags another turning block on screen) Girl 1: 'Put 100 in' Girl 2: 'Put 200 in' (Points to screen) Girl 1: 'Almost' Girl 2: 'She's awkward' Girl 1: 'Almost, almost' Girl 2: 'She's awkward' Girl 1: '150' Girl 2: 'Try it' Girl 1: 'She's ...' Girl 2: 'No she's upside down' Girl 1: (Points to screen) 'No it's turning, that again.' Girl 2: 'Er' Girl 1: 'Now we've moved that' (Quiet laughter) Girl 2: 'Oh wait, here you go' (Quiet laughing)


Appendix 9: Greek Games: School A

Children have set themselves different levels of challenge to create a game

inspired by the topic on Ancient Greece.

Hercules needs to get key from centre of the maze. The

three headed dog will try to stop him.

Two player game, will Hercules get to the centre of

the maze first?

To retrieve his sword, Hercules needs to get passed

the centaur that is moving up and down.

Hercules moves through three levels of maze, avoiding

Cerberus the three-headed dog. He needs to get to his

real parents.

When Theseus touches green hydra in the centre of the

maze he will move through to palace.

Hercules has three lives to achieve his challenge.

The first version of this game is available online




Appendix 10: Triangulation across three schools for benefits to learners

and factors contributions to the those benefits

Benefits:Triangulation across schools

School 1 School 2 School 3 TOTALS:

Sense of achievement 10 21 16 47

Challenge myself 40 16 24 80

Working together 80 59 28 167

Developing logical thinking 74 34 70 178

Increasing creativity 20 19 66 105

Encouraging exploration 97 49 87 233

Increased confidence 18 13 23 54

Developing independent learning 122 61 106 289

Learn from mistakes 13 24 15 52

Developing perseverance 58 67 46 171

Developing problem solving 27 32 26 85

Understanding of technology 26 21 29 76

TOTALS: 585 416 536 1537

Total number of documents coded 13 15 12 40

Percentage of documents 33% 38% 30%

Factors contributing to benefits:Triangulation across schools

School 1 School 2 School 3 TOTALS:

Engagement and motivation 69 53 38 160

Enjoyment 42 34 27 103

Exploration 108 50 88 246

Importance of instructions 19 47 24 90

Learning object 54 32 63 149

Scratch software 49 38 63 150

Supportive environment 87 59 39 185

Teacher changing role 123 80 86 289

TOTALS: 551 393 428 1372



The number of incidences of code can be compared across schools. This is based on a comparison of the number of documents that have been coded for each school (removing the documents with five or less codes). Each school has 33% of the total number of primary documents +/- 5%. The number of codes for each document vary between 0 and 94.


Appendix 11: School B Session 1 Felix and Herbert Game

Pupils were all given Code Club instructions to create a game called Felix and

Herbert. Felix is a cat and Herbert is a mouse. The mouse has to avoid

getting caught by the cat.

After making the game the learners made changes to the sprites and

background. Games became unique as the children began to discover the

editing possibilities in Scratch software.


Appendix 12: School 2 Talking with English as an Additional Lanugage

(EAL) pupil about his Whack a Witch project

Dalan had followed instructions with support from the HLTA who was teaching

the lesson and the researcher. He started the project several times until he

did it himself with no help.

He discovered he could duplicate the sprite and have many sprites chasing

the baby.

Remake duplicating flying sprites

Dalan: Ha, mm Ha (laughs quietly to himself)

Researcher: So what’s it doing then.

Dalan: They’re chasing the baby and the baby

says ‘mmm’. They say ‘Hello’ hmm

Remake Witch appearing and disappearing

Researcher: Tell me what happens

Dalan: Hides … and then comes back

again. Hides … and it come back again.

Researcher: What’s making it do it? What in those instructions there?

Dalan: I got (pointing at the screen) ‘When clicked’ from orange bit. I got

‘forever’ and I put ‘hide’ and I put ‘wait one second’ and I put ‘pick random 2 to

5’ and then I put ‘show’ and then I put ‘wait one second’ and on it I put

‘random 3 to 5’ and I click to here and it starts doing that.

Researcher: What does that pick random do?

Dalan: Pick random. It makes it hide and then 2 to 5 seconds or 3 to 5

seconds later it come backs.


Appendix 13: Comparison of video evidence from classroom sessions

in case study schools

13. 1 Table of results (Incidents are counted every two minutes) School A: Creating own game School B: Second opportunity to create game based on instructions School C: First opportunity to create game based on instructions

A B C TOTAL A B C

Length of video (minutes and percent of total video time)

56 100%

46 82%

18 32%

120

Data adjusted by % amount of

time

Video: asks for peer 3 2 0 3 3 3 0

Video: asks for help teacher 7 3 5 15 7 4 15

Video: focus on instructions 3 15 7 25 3 19 21

Video: interaction by looking across at another learners screen 4 7 4 15 4 9 12

Video: interaction discussing instructions 0 11 1 11 0 14 3

Video: interaction where friend uses keyboard 6 1 0 7 6 1 0

Video: interaction with pupil from another area 15 10 0 25 15 13 0

Video: learner interaction 2 pupils 17 19 5 41 17 24 15

Video: learner interaction 3 or more pupils 10 11 0 21 10 14 0

Video: learner moves to help friend in another area 9 1 0 10 9 1 0

Video: learner off task major 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Video: learner off task minor (less than 1 minute) 4 3 1 7 4 4 3

Video: learner refers to help video being played for class 4 0 0 4 4 0 0

Video: learner showing achievement 12 12 0 24 12 15 0

Video: learner shows frustration 9 4 1 14 9 5 3

Video: shows awareness of camera 4 1 1 6 4 1 3

Video: teacher and learner discuss achievement of another learner 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

Video: teacher interaction to a group 2 1 0 3 2 1 0

Video: teacher interaction to whole class 6 3 6 15 6 4 18

Video: teacher interaction with 2 learners 0 6 1 7 0 8 3

Video: teacher interaction with one learner 12 3 7 22 12 4 21

Video: teacher interaction with teacher uses keyboard 6 3 0 9 6 4 0

Video: working alone 3 or more learners 18 4 8 30 18 5 24

Video: working alone one or two learners 10 17 0 27 10 21 0


13.2 Graph to show comparisons of incidents for all schools


Appendix 14: School C Variations on car racing game

All children had the opportunity to make the car racing game and then adapt it

to their own game.

The children who had made the game in the morning had the opportunity to

talk through with the teacher, how they would adapt their game.

Learners created:

monkey going through forest

fox finding hen coup

star wars troupers getting

back to base

favourite pop stars getting

to stage (having searched

for picture of pop star on

Internet)

bee returning to

honeycomb

ship getting back

to harbour

One learner discovered an alternative

example of coding a car racing game

and altered the way the car could be

controlled.


Appendix 15: School C Focus on Polly

From teacher interview

Polly excelled when using Go Control software.

R: There was one comment on the blog, from two that seemed to be saying

that as soon as we saw it, we recognised it and thought of I think it was,

something Warrior game.

T: Oh that was Polly and she was talking about her and Ian and she said. ‘As

soon as we saw it we knew what it was going to do and we could recreate the

Warrior Queen.’ The Warrior Queen is the play they are doing. So what she

was saying. She said it to me right at the beginning of the day. She said ‘Oh

look there is a stage and costumes and sprites which are characters. We

could make a play. What she was saying really was that right at the

beginning of the day she understood the possibilities.

Polly Responses to Interview Friday 21st June (taken from group

interview, other responses removed

Scratch is different to anything else. You can make your own stuff, , I told my

sister about it and she wants to have a go now. It’s fun.

At the start I didn’t know what I was doing. I just felt like I wanted to know

what to do so that I could get on and actually do like, at the end make your

own thing, like do the car game and stuff like that. That was really fun. And I

always get frustrated when I can’t do stuff. (laugh)

If it goes wrong [while you are exploring], it’s more difficult whereas if you’ve

got the script it’s easier to work out what went wrong, where it went wrong and

how to

Follow the instructions. If you follow the instructions you will get it right.

[What helped you?] Having people sitting next to me.

The person sitting next to me said to the person sitting next to him. ‘How do

you do that?’ ‘Oh right then’ And going up the lines.

So like you’re kind of owing the favour. (Yeh) And they’re returning it.

[How did you learn to use Scratch?] Pressing buttons and then watching it.

Right that does that, right lets press a different one.

Stop all! Red button.

[How did you feel?] Proud


Like I can do this. Hah bet you can’t (laugh)

Pressing buttons makes me feel happy, so when I’m pressing buttons I’m fine.

I think it’s important to learn to program because if they want to do something

like a computer programmer or something like that. They’re gonna want to

start with Scratch. They’re going to need to do that and then they’re going to

go on to Go Control, which is a bit advanced, and that’s fun. But with Go

Control I managed to complete the challenge that we’d been on for four or five

weeks. I was the first person to do it. I was like, yeh!

[Go Control is harder] No colour (laugh)

[What have you learnt about yourself?] Realising what I thought it was and

then thinking and then ‘why am I doing so much thinking, press buttons’. ‘See

what it does’.

When I go different places. I’m normally a bit shy and stay behind people.

But now I think I’m going to be looking round places. Because most of the

playground I didn’t really want to explore because I was too scared but now

I’m not because it’s fun adventuring (giggle).

Polly: It’s not as hard as it sounds. So if someone says ‘oh what does that

mean’ but now you’re ‘Oh this is what it does, that it what it is’ ‘Oh it’s not that

scary in that case. It’s just like that.’

Like on a scale of 1 to 10. How much do you reckon you’ve enjoyed yourself?

I say 10. I think I enjoyed myself a lot.

Another question could be, would you recommend this to older children,

adults, or younger children.

[Referring to younger children] Because they have more imagination that us

sometimes. Because the stuff they come out with is like ‘wish I thought of

that’

Oh some of them, like well there’s a dragon fairy princess. So long as you

can imagine it in your mind and put it on a computer and then you’ve got

something.

We’ve got our buddies but maybe they’re too young.

Yes, I think that’s a good idea being able to access it at home. That’s good

because you don’t just have one day of it but you can go and do it whenever

you feel like it.

I’m in an imaginative mood. I’m in a Scratch mood. Computer!


Appendix 16: Triangulation across groups of researchers for benefits to

learners and factors contributions to the those benefits

Benefits Triangulation across groups of researchers

Learners

Researcher observations

Teacher reflection TOTALS:

Sense of achievement 30 8 17 55

Challenge myself 56 10 24 90

Working together 134 9 33 176

Developing logical thinking 119 17 62 198

Increasing creativity 91 11 14 116

Encouraging exploration 184 29 53 266

Increased confidence 41 4 14 59

Developing independent learning 232 19 61 312

Learn from mistakes 44 3 9 56

Developing perseverance 127 5 47 179

Developing problem solving 56 9 32 97

Understanding of technology 64 1 18 83

TOTALS: 1178 125 384 1687



Factors contributing to benefits: Triangulation across groups of researchers

Learners

Researcher observations

Teacher reflection TOTALS:

Engagement and motivation 59 69 40 168

Enjoyment 75 13 28 116

Exploration 184 39 53 276

Importance of instructions 80 6 11 97

Learning object 121 23 12 156

Scratch software 125 21 27 173

Supportive environment 155 17 25 197

Teacher changing role 206 38 70 314

TOTALS: 1005 226 266 1497



Consideration of the number of incidences of code needs to take account of the number of documents for learners being approximately double the number for researcher and teacher. The number of documents considered is based on the removal of any document with five or less codes.


Appendix 17: Triangulation of learner evidence

Benefits:Triangulation across learner evidence

Learner interview

Learner interviews adjusted

Learner: Post-it notes


adjusted Video

observation

Video observation

adjusted

Sense of achievement 24 35 5 25 3 26

Challenge myself 46 67 7 35 13 114

Working together 83 121 51 255 5 44

Developing logical thinking 77 112 38 190 8 70

Increasing creativity 64 93 16 80 8 70

Encouraging exploration 132 193 42 210 9 79

Increased confidence 33 48 7 35 3 26

Developing independent learning 176 257 39 195 14 123

Learn from mistakes 26 38 17 85 1 9

Developing perseverance 81 118 43 215 1 9

Developing problem solving 36 53 18 90 7 61

Understanding of technology 37 54 19 95 0 0

Total number of documents coded 24

7

4


Factors contributing to benefits:Triangulation across learner evidence

Learner interviews

Learner interviews adjusted



adjusted

Video observation

Video observation

adjusted

Engagement and motivation 47 69 11 55 57 499

Enjoyment 60 88 11 55 5 44

Exploration 132 193 42 210 9 79

Importance of instructions 46 67 34 170 0 0

Learning object 91 133 26 130 12 105

Supportive environment 94 137 61 305 4 35

Teacher changing role 132 193 65 325 12 105

Scratch software 65 95 48 240 4 35

Total number of documents coded

24

7

4

Adjusted data is calculated based on percentage of total number of

documents coded for each evidence type.


Appendix 18: Example of group interview All Saints Friday 24

th May 2013 Group of 4 girls

Introduction by researcher with a copy of the questions on the table (Appendix 4)

These are the questions that I will ask you, so that you know the kind of things I’ll ask. Okay. And you don’t have to answer them all. It’s up to you for each one whether you’ve got something you want to say. So you’re happy with those? As I say don’t worry if there’s one you don’t want to answer.

Researcher: What have you enjoyed the most about programming with Scratch?

Lisa: Making our greek games. Annie: Getting to have free time to find out all the things the program does. Lisa: Also, also it’s kind of fun Sarah: And you’re learning. Lisa: And it’s like free time all of the time but then you’re learning at the same time and you’re learning something at the same time. Sarah: And it’s fun to see if you get the blocks wrong you can change them and make them do different things. And change your sprites and everything. Lisa: And once you’re done it’s not like you can’t change it but you can change it. Chloe: I think the best thing was just being able to try things and if they don’t fit try again until you’ve got it right. Annie: And I liked making the greek games and having free time so we could trial and error and then you know how to do stuff and you’re also learning as well as having fun. Chloe: A fun way of learning. Lisa: Yes because like with literacy you’re learning but there’s not much fun coming along with it. Chloe: And you’re not told what you do. You just fiddle around with it. We were given time to just play around and see what … Sarah: If you were doing a class thing they tell you what to do but with Scratch you can find things out for yourself. Teach yourself. Chloe: And also the sheets you gave us. The blocks you could put together to see what they did. I find that quite fun. Did you find that fun? Others: Yeh Chloe: Putting the blocks together and then trying it out to see what it made the sprite do.

Researcher: This kind of follows on from what you were saying, I think. What did you think about the way Mrs Atkins and I introduced you to Scratch? We planned it out but what do you think about the way we did it?

Lisa: I kinda liked it because you didn’t say you’ve got to do this, you’ve got to do this. You got to, and you should have this. You let us try it out for ourselves so that we could find out what we had to do with it. Sarah: And erm, I liked the way that to start off with we got free time and then it built up to like games.


Lisa: Cos like back then on Monday we didn’t have a clue. If you came in on Monday and said like you’re making a greek game go. We’d probably have been sitting there thinking … Chloe: What does this block do? I don’t know, I don’t know what we’re doing. Lisa: But then like the first two days we were trialling and error and working it out and do it for ourselves. Annie: Yeh, I thought it was, like we were just saying, fun to see what it did. Rather than, like Lisa said, rather than us just being given a sheet to go and make this game, and that game. We were given that time to just introduce ourselves rather than yeh. Lisa: I liked the way we were introduced to it. Researcher: Sarah, what were you going to say. Sarah: I liked the way that you didn’t tell us what to do but if we needed a bit of help you knew what you were doing so you could help us. It was independent as well. Lisa: It was almost like a young child learning to walk and us learning how to use the game. Annie: Yes, I agree with Sarah because if you didn’t have the build-up to what we did then we were just either told or not told. If we hadn’t had the build-up to explain what it did we would have just been sat there. But if we were told what to do I reckon we would have found that boring. Lisa: Yeh Annie: Because by following instructions you’re not being creative. Lisa: Yeh but then I guess some of them like the car one we had to follow it. But that was the fun way because we knew what we were doing and we were getting used to it as well. (Annie trying to interrupt) It wasn’t like have to do this, follow this, follow that, do that. It wasn’t like that because we were enjoying that. If we were given a sheet like Annie said, do this without none of the build up then it would have been different in a way. Researcher: So what do you think that first, that very first session when Mrs Atkins said have a look and explore. What do you think you got from that because the next step was have a go see what these blocks do together. But what was important do you think about that first bit for you? Lisa: Because by the end of that first one we kinda knew most of the blocks did. I thought that was good. Chloe: Yeh, the first game was kind of like a starter, just getting you used to things like Annie said, or someone said. But anyway it’s getting you ready to carry on and make your own game. Lisa: And also, and also … Annie: It just, it makes you feel like if you give up I’m never going to learn more about it so you’re going to want to keep on trying. Oh that doesn’t work then put another bit in and then it fits. Then it makes you feel good because you know you’ve tried and you’ve got it right. Chloe: Because you’ve made it fun for us we more want to carry on and see what other things do. Researcher: What about you Sarah what do you think?


Sarah: It was good because we didn’t really know the blocks but we got to get used to them. Trial and error sort of stuff. To find a bit out ourselves before you started to tell us a bit about it. Lisa: Yes, that was what I thought as well. I also really enjoyed the movement one where we had to make the person dance. It was very different because we did the car one first and then we did the dance one and I thought that that one really showed us, because it was quite hard to show that you shouldn’t give up as well. And I almost gave up when my computer lagged out but I kept going on the new computer and so it was, yeh. Sarah: Yeh, I didn’t just enjoy the programming. I really enjoyed making, creating backgrounds, costumes, making your own sprite. Lisa: I also enjoyed with the dancing one. I enjoyed it so much that I didn’t want to give up. So that one was … Chloe: Yes, that was what I felt as well cos I had some problems Annie: Because you realised if you were going to give up you probably wouldn’t get the chance to learn more. Chloe: Yes, because I reckon you didn’t want to give up, Lisa, did you because you were having so much fun. It was a fun way of learning. Lisa: And also it was a nice way of learning with our topic as well. Because our topic is ancient Greece and it was a nice way of learning our topic. Although we spend the whole week on computers and our eyes are probably square but it was really good. It was really nice to work in that way.

Researcher: We kind of talked a bit about this yesterday and we put ideas on post-it notes. But, what would you say helped you, each of you, to learn to program? What actually helped you to be able to get on.

Annie: I think that friends really, really help you. (Lisa: Definitely, definitely, Yeh, yeh friends) Like if you’re stuck and the person next to you has already done it. And they really understand it like me and Rachel on the first program. I was a bit stuck and she was like do you want some help. And that’s what how I started to understand what was happening. Lisa: I enjoyed with the friends like Chloe said, that’s what I put on the post-it note as well. Even friends that were stuck on their own they came and helped me so we could help them. Like Harry helped me and then Harry was stuck and so I help Harry. So we were almost working in pairs I guess because we were helping each other. Sarah: I think friends and teachers because I was sat next to Alice and Annie and even if like I don’t know who said it. Even if they were stuck they’d helped me and then maybe if they were stuck on something else I could help them with that. (Yeh, from Lisa) Because you understand different things about the programming and if you find people who understand the other parts other than what you know and you put it all together and you’re like a team that help each other. Lisa: Mmm. It’s almost like football if you don’t work in a team nothing goes on. Sarah: Nothing gets done. Lisa: Like with a computer and Scratch. If you didn’t help each other we would have still been on the first step. Because if it wasn’t for the other people we wouldn’t have got any work done. Sarah: Like when we were making our own games. Lisa: Yeh, even in the hard times for them like when they were really, really struggling and their computer was about to go flat and everything they still helped us.


Sarah: Yeh, and the teachers were there. They were really good. They hadn’t had much experience of computer programming. But they said if you try this it might work Lisa: Even if it was the thing on the top of their head. Annie: And it was funny because if it didn’t work laugh together about what the character does. Lisa: Mmm like with mine on the dancing one someone said try this and something ridiculous happened. It was flying in the air and even if it was the wrong way on the learning thing it was still something we could laugh about in a way. Chloe: I agree with was those three. I think teachers and friends but I thought the friends certainly helped a lot because if they, if you were stuck they could help you and then that was one extra thing you know to help someone else. How we helped each other. Lisa: Because it kind of wouldn’t have been fair, if someone was really stuck and I say oh I’m really stuck can you help me. They would come over. It would kind of be a bit mean if when they are stuck if you don’t go over it’s kind of a bit mean. Annie: It wouldn’t make your game better if people said no if you asked for help because they wouldn’t know the knowledge that you know and you wouldn’t know the knowledge that they know. Researcher: How much as a class, thinking over the whole year, have you got used to that helping each other and how much was it something knew in doing Scratch. Lisa: I think it was a big change. Annie: Because in our class we usually work independent like writing and maths. But since, well it’s been a few month since we tried this. Choosing where you sit, to sit next to a friend so that the friend can help you. We did this on a trial. If you got stuck you would have your friend next to you and they could help you and it’s just a way of working together really. Researcher: So you’d already been working together. Lisa: Yeh, but it hasn’t been like literacy. You wouldn’t just say oh can you help me. If it’s a big write or something or .. Annie: But you can’t ask for help. Lisa: No well, anything like that really. You can’t really say of I’m really stuck can you help me. You’d have to put your hand up and the teacher would come and help you. And I think it’s a nicer way for us to help each other. In a way it’s nicer when your friends help you. Researcher: So is there any way that Scratch has got you helping each other in new ways. Lisa: I think now that we’re going to be helping each other all the time. Twenty-four seven I think. Researcher: What were you going to say there Chloe? Chloe: I was going to say I don’t think that we did notice the difference it made helping each other. Doing Scratch we, you know, I noticed a lot more people were helping and sharing ideas. Annie: Working together Chloe: Yeh, working together.


Annie: Because in Scratch in the ICT suite. Well I always worked in the ICT suite. There’s always someone stood up running around to help each other Lisa: Yes exactly Annie: Because it’s not just. If the people next to you don’t understand either, then the people from the other side of the ICT suite saying, Oh I heard you needed help and they come and they help you. Lisa: And in the classroom, I think me and Sarah were in the classroom there’s only a few of us in there but nearly every second one or two of them were up helping other people. Researcher: So it didn’t matter whether you were in the classroom or in the ICT suite that helping was still going on. Lisa: Because I think it makes the person feel good if you help somebody. Because I helped someone and I walked back to my seat and actually I thought I’d helped someone back their game a little bit better. So you kinda do feel good helping each other. Researcher: Good, brill.

Researcher: This might be a tough question and if you don’t want to answer it that would be fine. I think it is the most difficult one to think about. Have you learnt anything about yourself while you were programming? So this week have you learnt something about yourself that you hadn’t realised about yourself before?

Annie: I realised that well, like before I would give the face and give up really easily. But on this I’ve learnt that I can actually do what the task is set. And I can make my own thing out of it. Like I can turn it into my own piece of work. Instead of going to teachers to say I can’t do that and it turning into their piece of work. Researcher: What about you Sarah? (shake of head). It’s alright, no worries. Chloe? Chloe: Well I agree with Annie I wanted to give up not Monday, I think it was Tuesday when we did our erm, what day did we do the dance game? (Yes, Tuesday). Well I wanted to give up then because it just like stalled. It froze and I thought well I’d done a lot of work on this and it just deleted and I thought I can’t do this. And it was really tricky because I couldn’t find the right blocks to like get my sprite to do what I wanted it to do. And I thought it was really stressy. But now I know what to do and I think it is fun. A fun activity. Lisa: I think also at home on the computer, this isn’t anything to do with this, but at home I log on the computer and I’m thinking what shall I play on but now I’ve played on Scratch and I think I’m going to be playing on Scratch all the time now in a way but I’ve also got something for the question. And I’ve also got something for the question. Researcher: Go for it. Lisa: Erm, I’ve never really helped people as much as I have over this week. Because like we were saying earlier we’ve helped each other so much. And I don’t think I’ve ever when someone says I’m really stuck and can I have some help please. I don’t know what my character is doing at all. There’s about three or four people who would immediately stand up when someone says that and I think I’ve really helped people and I think I can really help people all the time now. Researcher: Brilliant, right I better let you get back to the classroom. Thank you ever so much. That was really useful, really interesting.


Appendix 19: Demonstration lesson visits to year 3 and 4 classes

Developing an exploratory approach to introducing Scratch to learners Visit 1: South Petherton Junior, year 3, class size 34 (18 boys and 16 girls) The purpose of this demonstration lesson was to see whether the exploratory approach that has been described in the case studies would be successful with younger children. The children worked in pairs on laptops in the classroom, using the downloaded version of Scratch 1.4. Children of differing ability in terms of literacy and mathematical confidence were put together. Initially the children were given a completely open ended opportunity to explore the software. They discovered different sprites and ways in which they could be changed. One pair discovered they could edit the background and were invited by the researcher to demonstrate this to the rest of the class. Some children had begun to see what the programming blocks would do. The researcher intervened to instruct all the children to just have one sprite on the screen and to see what they could make happen using the program blocks. The children were stopped at different points so that things could be demonstrated as they were discovered by different people. The children were then given Etch a Sketch game instructions (Somerset ELIM, 2013) to use with their partner. The children found difficulties with the link between the exploration, when the purpose was to make the sprite move on the screen; and the game instructions, which were to use keyboard arrow keys to make a line appear on the screen. The discussion with the class teacher following the session reflected on the difficulties experienced.

‘Teacher: The lower ability children seemed to need more structure. Researcher: Do you think it would have been different if each child had their own laptop to be doing it for themselves? Teacher: They would have been more involved. They would have been happier to fiddle around. It was the instructions they found difficult. Researcher: I think I chose the wrong activity for them to move on to after the exploration. It was too different. Teacher: The exploration was good. The boys in particular enjoyed the freedom to not be instructed, just to try it. The children should really have the chance to do this kind of thing more often.’


Visit 2: West Monkton Primary, year 4, class size 33 (19 girls and 14 boys) The researcher taught two sessions at West Monkton, with the children working in pairs on the downloaded version of Scratch 1.4 on laptops in the classroom. Using the thoughts from the assessment of the lesson at South Petherton some alterations were made to the structure. The first session provided the same exploration of the software as had been used previously. However this now had more structure. Twenty minutes was spent on the completely open ended exploring where the children discovered different sprites and how to change them. They edited the background and discovered they could record sound. The children were stopped at different points so that things could be demonstrated as they were discovered by different people, as had happened before. The children were then tasked with having just one sprite on the screen and exploring what they could make it do using the programming blocks. Initially the motion blocks, adding in control and then looks and sound. The researcher then set a ten block challenge (Somerset, 2013b) to see what the children would create. During the second session the children were tasked with animating a ‘Knock, knock joke’. The telling of a joke was modelled and then the children left to see how they would meet the challenge. The researcher stopped the class at appropriate moments to reflect on the issues that arose (primarily two sprites on screen talking at the same time), and discussing solutions identified. Some prompting was used to direct children to the ‘wait’ program block. Jokes were created and shared. The researcher then provided a set of instructions for the children to use the same algorithm to tell the joke using ‘broadcast’ program blocks. The resulting outcome was discussed and different solutions to achieving the animation were compared. The children, before and after this ‘plenary’ time, began to enhance their animations with different backgrounds and additional actions. The teacher of the year four class at West Monkton Primary reflected on the lesson in an email (Personal communication, July 2013),

‘The session was excellent. I found it interesting how Julia allowed each pair to explore the program first. I have now adopted this in my practice and used this for a recent animation topic which was once again successful. The children were highly motivated, loved sharing their new discoveries with the rest of the class. The whiteboard was used to demonstrate findings, problems and solutions and I felt that the children worked very well with this process. There was a lot of progression within the lesson, thanks to the exploratory approach, and the class asked me if they could go on Scratch again. The children were allowed to find the problems (such as timing with the knock, knock joke) then solved it’

The children in the class confirmed the motivation that came from being able to discover things for themselves. Two of the responses passed on by the teacher (ibid) were;


‘I liked the way that the lesson was set out in the way that Mrs Briggs allowed us to explore. First of all she didn't tell us what to do and then she taught us new things. The chance to explore made me feel excited as you didn't know what you could find out!’ ‘We were allowed to Figure out lots of things for ourselves this made me excited. The programming was fun and I was amazed that I could program a computer.’

Visit: Draycott and Rodney Stoke First School, mixed year 3 and 4, class size 24 (Year 3 girls 4, Year 3 boys 6. Year 4 girls 4, Year 4 boys 10) The researcher based the two sessons at Draycott on planning which had evolved from the previous visits, see below. The teacher describes the independence of the children,

‘All the children were engaged in the task and were able to evaluate each other’s work, making suggestions for improvements, peer assessment. They were confident to continue working on the program without adult support and some have continued to use the program at home. I think the staff were more ‘wowed’ by the children’s achievement than they were themselves!’

The teacher also reflected on the reason for the success of an exploratory approach,

‘This is obviously how they approach computer games at home and created an immediate engagement to the subject and lesson.’

Outcome: The researcher felt that the structure of the sequence of activities now scaffolded the learning so that the children remained in control of the progress they made in becoming programmers.

The lesson plan that evolved is below.

1

I can use sequence and repetition in programs.

Minimum of 20 minutes exploration time.

Ask class to explore Scratch software individually (where this is possible) with an expectation that they will be looking at the achievements of the person beside them and talking about what they are achieving.

Class leave their computer and rotate around the room to see what each-others’ screens look like, think about what they have done.

Open a new project.

Focus on sprite and programming blocks. Rule: Only use cat and blue (motion), purple (looks) and pink (sound) blocks.

Introduce words: sprite, background, blocks. Explore individually


talking to your friends about what is happening, but stay with the one sprite.

When appropriate introduce control blocks. (Children will play with other blocks but those will really only being to make sense as they develop use of Scratch.)

Open a new project. Choose your background and sprite. Make something surprising happen to your sprite.

Show your friends the project your have created.

What have you found out about Scratch software? Did anyone discover any useful tips for each other?

At this point you could choose to provide some of the Scratch Cards from scratch.mit.edu to allow children to investigate all kinds of possibilities. OR / AND Tell a knock, knock joke: Choose a joke from http://www.activityvillage.co.uk/knock_knock_jokes.htm Have two people telling a knock, knock joke. Who says which part? Open a new project. Choose two sprites. Can you program the sprites to tell a knock, knock joke? Remind them of the looks block ‘say XXXX for XX sec’. (Some children may decide to record their own voice. If they choose this way they will need to record the correct part of each line of the joke for each sprite) Leave children to work at telling the joke, intervening as required. Prompt children to use when green flag clicked to start each sprite. Some may discover other ways but using the green flag will start both sprites off. Children may need to consider the ‘wait for xxx’ control block so that one sprite sprites waits for the other to finish before they tell their part of the joke. Early finishers can be prompted to add a background and perhaps to add a bit of movement to their sprites.

Ask children to save projects. View and discuss projects with 2 stars and a wish.

2

I can explain how a simple algorithm works. I can detect and correct errors in algorithms and programs.

What have we discovered about Scratch so far? Today you are going to discover a different way to create a joke animation. Provide children with Tell a Joke support sheet. Talk through the algorithm. You may choose to provide them all with the same knock, knock joke or allow them to use their own. http://www.activityvillage.co.uk/knock_knock_jokes.htm Let children follow the instructions independently. Children save projects which can be looked at together or, if saved in the same folder, they can view each others. Talk about the difference between the way they found to tell a joke and using the broadcast block. Why is the broadcast program block useful? (Each sprite needs to know when it is their turn to speak.) Talk about how there are different ways of programming the same algorithm. Talk about efficient programming, stressing that there is no wrong way just more efficient ways. Look at the algorithm. Which bits of programming achieve the different steps in the algorithm? What have we added to our knowledge about Scratch?

3/4

I can explain how a simple algorithm works. I can use sequence and

Give all children Dance Moves or / and Tell a story. Have a look at the algorithm. Look at the programming blocks. Can you describe what the programming blocks will do? Plan a dance or a story. Planning templates are available here. Can you suggest an algorithm for a dance? Which programming blocks will you need? Plan a dance using an algorithm. Create the program to make it work.

http://scratch.mit.edu/help/cards/

http://scratch.mit.edu/help/cards/

http://www.activityvillage.co.uk/knock_knock_jokes.htm

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%20ICT/Programming/Scratch/scratch%201a%20Knock%20Knock.pdf

http://www.activityvillage.co.uk/knock_knock_jokes.htm

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%20ICT/Programming/Scratch/scratch%201b%20Dance%20moves.pdf

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%20ICT/Programming/Scratch/scratch%201c%20Tell%20a%20story.pdf

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%20ICT/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fcypd%2felim%2fsomersetict%2fInnovative%20Use%20of%20ICT%2fProgramming%2fScratch%2fPlanning%20Games&FolderCTID=&View=%7b5D1BCDE6%2d16DE%2d4020%2d


repetition in programs. I can design and write programs that accomplish specific goals. I can detect and correct errors in algorithms and programs.

Can you suggest an algorithm for a story? Which programming blocks will you need? Plan a story using an algorithm. Create the program to make it work. Discuss errors that occurred and what needed to be done to sort them out. View each others’ projects. Describe two stars and a wish.

5

I can explain how a simple algorithm works. I can use sequence, selection and repetition in programs. I can detect and correct errors in algorithms and programs.

Give all children Etch a Sketch instructions. Have a look at the algorithm. Look at the programming blocks. Can you describe what the programming blocks will do? Discuss the use of selection: if I press the up arrow key etc. Encourage children to continue to problem solve with each other where errors are occurring in their programming. Create your Etch a Sketch game. Fill in the ‘algorithm boxes’ which describe what each set of programming blocks achieves. (Children are likely to need to create the whole ‘game’ before going back and being clear about what each set of blocks achieves). Challenge: What can you add to improve your Etch a Sketch?



Appendix 20: Post-it note responses

Child researchers School C – How did I learn?

19th June 2013 (After sessions one and two with Scratch) G Girl B Boy

Help from friends

and also people around me were helping me as well. G

I learnt it because of friends and talking partners. B

and seeing other people and my talk partner. G

Through helping others and learning from them. B

I learnt by listening, asking friends … for help. G

Help from teachers

I learnt how to use Scratch because a very special visitor came in. B

I have learnt from listening and getting teacher’s help. G

and asking teachers for help. G

Exploring I have learnt by listening and discovering. G

I think that I learnt how to do this because I explored Scratch first … G

I have learnt from exploring and not being afraid to press any button. G

How I thought I did it is because I explored all of the buttons and boxes! G

By using Scratch and finding out. B

I learnt it by being curious about what things are and exploring and finding things out on our own. G

I experimented and saw you could have a box saying change colour so I tried it. G

I have learnt it because of exploring time. I found you can have loads of sprites. G

I learnt it because I didn’t know what Scratch was and how to program it. G

By looking at all of the different blocks and testing out what they do. B

Written instructions

I think I learnt this because on the challenges it told you how to do it. G

Because the instructions were very clear and easy to follow. B

You had instructions. G

Instructions B

I think it was from today.

Getting it wrong By doing lots of work on Scratch and being told my mistakes. G

By learning from mistakes. G

I learnt it because I got frustrated and looked through and fixed it. G

Because everything I done did not go well first time. G

I learnt it by making mistakes and doing it wrong. B

I learnt it because it didn’t go quite well. B

I learnt by making a mistake and realizing it and changing it so that its right. B

Seeing the work of others

And seeing other people. G

Listening I learnt how because I listened. B

I have learnt how to make an algorithm.

I have learnt by listening G


Appendix 21: Summary of Evidence collection

School 1 20th – 24th May 2013 Year 6 class 28 pupils 17 girls, 11 boys

Session 1 20th May 9.15 – 10.15am

Exploration of software Focused exploration of programming blocks

Notes on interventions and activity

Session 2 20th May 11.00am – 12.00

Create Etch a Sketch Transcript of reflection of teacher and researcher

Session 3 21st May 9.15am – 12.00

a) Car racing game

b) Tennis or Dance

Activity session 3 Transcript of teacher introducing car racing game. Plenary of a) moving on to b) End session 3 reflections What have you learnt post-it notes?

Session 4 22nd May

Planning Matt planning of game

Session 5 23rd May 9.15am – 12.00

Creating Greek game Child researchers, What helped you to learn, also reflections on creating session. Photographs and short videos of games. Video of independent programming, 1 hour Post-it notes what has helped you most to learn programming?

24th May Reflection interviews Transcript teacher interview (Two learners end of 5 sessions) Transcripts groups learner interviews

School 2 4th, 5th and 11th June 2013 Year 6 class

Session 1 4th June 1.30 – 3.30pm

Introduction, Felix and Herbert instructions, Cat and Dog challenge

Notes of introduction Post-it notes what have you been learning and how have you learnt and reflections during session including cat and dog challenge. Transcript conversation with class teacher

4th June Reflection interview Transcript teacher (HLTA) interview

Session 2 5th June 9.00 – 9.55am

Whack-a-witch game instructions and Ten block challenge

Video of using instructions to create game and completing ten block challenge Words to describe experience

11th June Reflection interviews Transcripts class teacher and group learner interviews

School 3 19th June 2013 (whole day), 21st June (interviews) Year 5 and 6 class

Session 1 19th June

Individual open exploration and

Transcript of sound recording Observation notes and conversation


9.15 – 10.30am

focused exploration of programming blocks

with class teacher

Individuals working on differentiated instructions to create games (project starts provided). Plenary to talk through games.

Video of using instructions to create game. Observation notes

11.30 – 12.30 Talking pairs explaining games to each other, Cat and Dog challenge. Continuing game or creating second game from instructions. Contribute to blog

Observation notes, photographs Blog contributions

1.30 – 3.00pm

Creating own version of racing car game Contribute to blog

Observation notes, photographs and short videos of games. Blog contributions

21st June Reflection interviews Transcripts teacher and group learner interviews

School 4 21st June 2013 Year 3 class

1.30 – 2.00pm

Paired open exploration and focused exploration of programming blocks

Summary notes

2.00 – 2.45pm

Etch a sketch game instructions

School 5 26th June 2013 Year 4 class

9.10 – 9.40am


Summary notes and email from teacher

9.40 – 10.25am

Independent ‘Knock, knock joke’

11.00 – 11.45am

‘Knock, knock joke’ instructions

School 6 1st July 2013 Year 3 and 4 class

9.30 – 10.00am


Summary notes and email from teacher

10.00 – 10.30am

Independent ‘Knock, knock joke’

11.00 – 11.45am

‘Knock, knock joke’ instructions, followed by personal adaptations


Appendix 22: Bloom’s Table of some possible Automated Processes

(Bloom 1986: 76)

Early skills that are a prerequisite for later learning

Bodily control

Household skills

Communication skills

Man - instrument

Man - machine

Sports

Eating

Walking

Running

Jumping

Catching

Throwing

Stair

climbing

descending

Dressing

washing

Sewing

Knitting

Ironing

Mopping

Sweeping

Use of

spoon

fork

knife

Hammering

Sawing

Raking

Speaking

Reading

Writing

Braille

Deaf sign-

language

Computer-

languages

Shorthand

Musical-

instruments

Singing

(trained)

Dancing

(trained)

Drawing

Painting

Sculpturing

Juggling

Typing

Adding-

machine

Morse code

- telegraphy

Driving

Flying

Motor-

boating

Motor-

cycling

Swimming

Diving

Running

Jumping

Gymnastics

Tennis

Handball

Skating

Cycling

Skateboard

Wind-

surfing

Skiing

Sailboating

Bloom, B. S. (1986) Automaticity: "The hands and feet of genius". Educational

Leadership, 43(5), 70-77. [Online] available from


[accessed 27th May 2013].


programming with scratch software: the benefits for year ... · education, 2013) with a strong...

Documents