Обсуждение:Logo in Russia
INT, which became the center of dissemination of Logo, had a diverse profile. INT actively supported various educational projects, believing that they were the key to diversity in education. On the other hand, INT always emphasized a specific educational philosophy, the fundamental principles of which were similar to those of Logo. These principles are formulated in the core documents of INT as follows: “The development of the students’ abilities to seek and uncover the truth on their own, acquiring and applying skills for solving novel problems is of utmost importance to the educational philosophy of INT. This approach brings the activities of the teachers and students closer to those of scientists, engineers, artists, and professionals in general. It is akin to the modern constructivism which grew out of the Piaget school. On a more general level, this is in accordance with the general development of the modern school, characterized by a problem-oriented, project and research-based approach.” Thus, INT’s efforts in promoting and supporting Logo in Russia was in essence a continuation, and a practical application of its educational philosophy. Logo was the realistic model which successfully illustrated the idea of the project based approach and the benefits of using computers. From this point of view it was fortunate that the first Logo program in Russia was LogoWriter. This program was definitely a good instrument for the realization of the project based approach (apart from turtle graphics and a programming language) through the turtle shapes and the possibility of working with text and sound. Its oldfashioned reliability and flexibility also deserve to be mentioned. Note that LogoWriter is still being used in many Russian schools and prompts exceptionally positive comments from teachers.
There is a principle: the quality of the instrument defines the style of work and the quality of the resulting product. The history of using LogoWriter confirms this observation. Often teachers of the old tradition, who at first used Logo exclusively as a language for teaching children computer programming, gradually, starting with the “democratization” of programming exercises, “condescended” to using computers and Logo for such practical purposes as preparation of physics and biology projects. We should mention that versions of Logo for different computer platforms from various unknown sources appeared before LogoWriter officially came out in Russia. The fact is that Logo does not spread easily “on its own.” Certainly, informatics teachers willingly exchanged software and therefore would see Logo at one point.
However, this did not result in any substantial application of Logo in the classroom. Logo was only used for a short time: teachers would try Logo without finding “anything special” in it.
The reason for this appears to be simple. The views about what to do with software in the classroom were still rather narrow at the time. There was not much need for using Logo in the traditional way, as yet another environment for teaching computer programming. Basic, Pascal, C, and Modula were satisfactory; the “ecological niche” had been filled. When used as a programming environment, Logo was introduced by the teacher as one more computer language, albeit a somewhat exotic one. The idea of using Logo as a new approach to education, such as programming for solving problems in other subjects (supporting other subjects), did not occur to teachers upon becoming familiar with the software. They were able to appreciate and understand these ideas, however, once they were expressed explicitly.
The practical application of Logo in Russia clearly demonstrated that Logo is a complex instrument composed of many organically interconnected parts, such as the software itself, a set of educational concepts, exchange of ideas and others. If you separate the material part, i.e. the software, from the rest, then it becomes clear that the non-material parts, i.e., the educational concepts, seemingly very “light” at first glance, outweigh the material part by a great margin. The software on its own did not have much meaning in the eyes of the teachers. The value of the software increased enormously when it was accompanied by the explanation about how education could be organized differently, examples of teachers working with Logo, and, finally, teaching guides and examples of projects. The “talk” about Logo and the relationship between educators convinced by it, the existence of the Logo community of teachers, all played the role of that detonator which is responsible for the explosion that took Logo into classrooms, as well as into the minds of teachers and students. After being introduced to the ideas of Logo, there were cases of teachers who would radically change their teaching techniques, without necessarily using actual Logo programs (for example, because the school did not have computers). Thus, it was obvious that distribution methods, applicable to usual software, would not work in the case of Logo. Since INT considered its major goal to be the distribution center of new educational technologies, it put a lot of emphasis on all activities related to Logo, not limiting itself to the sale of the software. The ideas of the Logo approach to education were an organic part of the set of views promoted by INT. Similarly, the practical affairs of INT related to the distribution of Logo became a natural part of the institute’s everyday work.
All this began with a limited, experimental distribution of LogoWriter by oral permission from LCSI and with Papert’s blessing. At this time, a few advanced schools and non-academic institutions were working with Logo. These were mostly in Moscow except for school #470 in St. Petersburg where Sofia Gorlitskaya taught.
What exactly were INT’s Logo activities? First, INT’s members themselves taught Logo classes in schools and computer clubs. The general-director of INT, Aleksei Semenov and both authors worked in School #57 in Moscow. (Sergei Soprunov still teaches there.) Since some of these schools were already experimental, Logo as a new technology fit in quite well. These schools had obtained official status that allowed them to choose their curriculum and teaching methods. Usually, the groups of students that had Logo classes were not taught according to a traditional curriculum in their other classes either. They were using programs developed by teachers as well as methodology offered by INT. The same could be said about computer clubs. The two major computer clubs in
Moscow, “Computer” and “Zodiac”, were, in essence, experimental grounds for the approval of various new educational technologies and many INT employees worked in these clubs on different projects. Secondly, INT organized forums to promote INT’s philosophy: various types of meetings with teachers, presentations, exhibitions, demonstrations of the software and the curriculum. Somewhat later, in December of 1994, a teachers’ club named “TechoLogia” was organized. Again, the main emphasis here was on discussions of alternative approaches to education including Logo and a wide selection of other programs. It was interesting that as teachers became interested in Logo, they were more open to other new educational programs. Different types of activities, in this case, complemented and enriched each other, so that a wide range of interests did not get in the way of a deeper understanding of Logo.
Thirdly, INT gave and continues to give many instructional workshops and consultations about Logo and numerous other subjects for teachers. The first Logo seminar was held by Seymour Papert and Brian Silverman in 1988. The audience included teachers and members of INT. The future members of the Russian Logo groups were introduced for the first time to various aspects of the Logo phenomenon, and, along the way, received a wonderful lesson on how to work with teachers. This seminar and the next one, held with the assistance of Michael Temple two years later, had a decisive effect on the development of Logo in Russia.
Most of the workshops that INT organized integrated Logo with other subjects, for example, “Language and Mathematics in elementary school” and “Integrated approach to teaching subjects in the natural sciences.” These workshops were very popular among teachers. From time to time, foreign educators took part: it is a pleasure to recall the spectacular presentations of Marilyn Shaffer from Hartford University and Monica Bradsher of the NGS. Naturally, such seminars could only provide an introduction to Logo. A large number of in-depth Logo workshops were held as well in Moscow and in other cities.
Apart from these activities, INT also took part in the localization of Logo. It seems to us that translation of software is in many ways similar to more traditional translations, such as translation of books, and touches on many of the same aspects, from purely technical points to linguistic and pedagogical ones.
Thus, in particular, although the developers of LogoWriter envisaged it as an educational environment, in the Russian schools the program ended up almost exclusively in the hands of informatics teachers, who tended to view it solely as a programming language. Of course, these teachers, mostly with a computer programming background, had a very definite picture of what a program of this style should look like. The idea that the child should interact with the computer in his native language, the very essence and goal of Logo, went against these views. The programming languages to which the teachers were accustomed were using English vocabulary, had formal documentation, etc. As a result, it was not feasible to simply translate the primitives and messages of the program into Russian. This would have prompted an instinctive protest from the teachers.
In order to make the transition to the Russian version smoother, we decided to make the program bilingual. This meant, that the users had at their disposal both the English primitives and their Russian equivalents. In the same program, both English and Russian words could be used. Some teachers made use of this feature in their methodology: the children had to write the body of the program in English, but give the procedures Russian names. They believed that this made structured programming more transparent and emphasized the difference between primitives and user defined procedures. This might sound nonsensical: imagine a classroom of American children sitting behind a computer and moving around a turtle on the screen with enthusiasm, putting together at the same time Russian words out of unfamiliar Cyrillic letters.
Logo in Russia is bilingual to this day, but now this is a relic of the past. Although some teachers still use English names for primitives, many, who were unhappy with the usage of the Russian “esli”, because they found the English “if” more scientific sounding, gradually made the transition to Russian in programming.
Another subtle point was attempting to keep the original style in the vocabulary of the translation. Wherever it was possible, the command verbs were given in imperative form to emphasize that the “child is controlling the turtle”. On the other hand, the error messages were made to sound as soft and friendly as possible, using formulations which did not make the children responsible for the mistake. It is well-known that children interpret any unexpected message from the computer as a bad grade, as a reproach rather than useful information. The younger ones often erase the messages without reading them, as soon as they appear. Unfortunately, this principle was not followed in all Russian versions of Logo. In some cases, a mistyped command name prompted the unfriendly and useless response “Incorrect name!”, without even pointing out the particular command.
The documentation also required adaptation to local customs. Russian informatics teachers were used to a more formal exposition and more detailed description of the structure of the programming language, than the reference guide provided. The style of the Russian version is characterized by chapter names such as “The structure of the system”, “Basic data types”, etc. This was not a change in the structure of the document, rather an adaptation of its style. Later, with the kind permission of LCSI, a few Russian textbooks were added to the original documentation.
The effort in resolving general localization problems of LogoWriter resulted in well-made decisions allowing the Logo group at INT to translate the subsequent Logo programs in the same style and traditions. This was clearly convenient for the users. The acquired experience also made it possible for INT to participate in various international projects: INT translated LogoWriter into the Czech, Lithuanian and Korean languages with the permission of LCSI.
The Russian translation of Mindstorms, which came out in 1989, had a huge impact on the implementation of Logo in Russia. Some teachers contacted INT and asked to be included in the experimental project after having read the book, because they were so excited by its ideas. It worked in the opposite direction as well. Teachers familiar with Logo, who were reaching a dead end on the road of “teaching programming for its own sake,” were directed towards project-based work.
The period of experimental distribution of LogoWriter showed that this program was interesting and useful for Russian schools. A large number of schools “joined” the experiment using illegal copies of the program, partly because of deeply rooted customs and partly because it was impossible for them to obtain the program officially with documentation and accompanying materials, consultations, and participation in the seminars.
This rather long experimental period ended in 1992 with the signing of a contract between INT and LCSI. The contract stated “that the Institute of New Technologies in Education of Moscow has been appointed exclusive distributor of Russian LogoWriter.”
In the same year, the Moscow Department of Education decided to help schools with acquiring software for their educational needs. Up to that point, this problem had to be solved by the schools themselves. The department decided to buy a city-wide license for the set of most popular programs. Which programs on the market were deemed to be popular was judged in a manner rather unusual for the Soviet Union. A long series of presentations was organized in the building of the Moscow Department of Education, where INT and other developers showed the products they were distributing to visiting teachers. The teachers were then asked to complete a survey evaluating the programs’ usefulness and feasibility for their schools.
LogoWriter was among the top choices in this survey. Thus, using this license, any Moscow school equipped with MS-DOS computers could become a registered user of LogoWriter if it wished to do so. At the end of the validity of the license, about two hundred schools had taken advantage of this opportunity.
The license included not only the software with all of the Russian language documentation and materials available at the time, but also instruction seminars for the teachers. In effect, this led to a new informal Logo-society of teachers, first concentrated in Moscow, but later extended to other regions of the country.
In the next few years, Logo became well-known in Russia. Most teachers were aware of Logo, even those who had not worked with it. INT’s method of distribution was still the most productive, leading to subsequent regular usage in schools. Naturally, the traditional software distribution of “you use it, give your friend a copy” also worked, but with much less efficiency. In this case, there would be no documentation or built-in support accompanying the software, resulting in an unhappy experiment of a teacher loading the program and being disappointed that he or she could not do anything with it.
We often witnessed “moments of enlightenment”, when an experienced informatics teacher would recall the first encounter with Logo: “Wait a minute! I cannot believe it: this is Logo? I did try it once ... and somehow could not see that it was so interesting. If I knew this THEN... This was exactly what I needed.”
