Computer Concerns and Programming
Are concerns about Children’s Increasing Interaction with Computers valid when
children use Programming Software?
Abigail Holtz
CD 145
April 6, 2005
Abstract
Since the early1990s computers have become more and more prevalent in
American society, providing children with a myriad of computer based activities from
games and the Internet to word possessing and educational software. Most people,
including parents, school faculty, and researchers, are quick to advocate computer use
and cite benefits they offer to children; however, there are some people who have become
increasingly concerned about the long hours children spend in front of the computer.
They speak extensively about the risks that computers pose to children including physical
health hazards, intellectual, social, emotional, and moral developmental problems,
detachment from society, and decline in motivation, and creativity. They worry that
computer use (especially the use of programs designed for children’s educational
purposes) may not be as beneficial as once thought, and that it may actually be
detrimental to the health and development of young learners. The question this paper
examines is whether or not these concerns are relevant to and valid for programming
software (like Logo and Basic, to name just a couple) developed for children. The
following pages will address many criticisms and concerns surrounding computers and
children to see if and how they apply to the realm of computer programming. But before
we begin analyzing, let us begin with a brief overview of the programming software for
children we seek to critique.
What is Programming Software?
There are many pieces of programming software available for children on the
market today. Some examples of this type of software are Logo, Boxer, ToonTalk,
2
AgentSheets, Stagecast, SmallTalk, Alice, Rehearsal World, Karel the Robot, GRAIL,
HyperTalk, AppleScript, MacGnome, and Visual Basic Programming (Pane, 2002).
Although many of these are fairly recent creations, programming software for children
has its roots in the 1980s. In 1980, Samuel Papert released Logo, a programming
language for kids. A majority of this paper will focus on the Logo because of its
popularity, its longevity, and the wealth of studies and articles written about it. Logo’s
simple and commonsensical language makes it quick and easy for young children to
learn. By giving the turtle on the screen commands like “right 25” or “forward 10” the
user enters the programming world. They quickly learn how to instruct the turtle to draw
shapes, letters, and houses. From there the possibilities are endless as they invent new
commands and learn how to create complex programs that include multiple turtles, play
music and sounds, and even interact with the user. Beyond having fun, children using
programming software like Logo are, “learning a language for talking about shapes and
fluxes of shapes, about velocities and rates of change, about processes and procedures.
They are learning to speak mathematics, and acquiring a new image of themselves as
mathematicians” (Papert, 1980). Not only does programming afford children an
understanding of how to construct different shapes and a familiarity with mathematics,
but it also teaches them valuable problem solving skills. When a child writes a series of
commands and the turtle doesn’t do what the child wanted or expected, this gives them an
opportunity to reflect on and debug their work. Instead of giving up and feeling like they
have failed, children learn how to troubleshoot and see the source of their problem. In
addition to these skills, programming also fosters creativity and personal investment in
their work. Since their programming is generally open-ended, children have the freedom
3
to work on projects that are meaningful to them. Because of this they become very
involved in and dedicated to their work. When programming software is used in schools,
children are able to see the work of their peers and get ideas and help from each other as
well as from teachers. In programming, children become active participants in their
learning rather than being passive recipients of instruction. In using programming
languages like Logo the traditional roles in the relationship between the computer and the
child are reversed, “the child, even at preschool ages, is in control: The child programs
the computer. And in teaching the computer how to think, children embark on an
exploration about how they themselves think” (Papert, 1980). As the reader can see,
computer programming is completely unlike most other interactions that children have
with computers; therefore, it is fair to question: are the common concerns about children
using computers valid when it comes to computer programming?
Health Concerns
We will begin by examining potential health risks the computer poses. Critics of
children’s extended computer use cite several health-based reasons to decrease the use of
computers among young learners. One concern is about toxic emissions and
electromagnetic radiation from computers; however, these risks can be avoided relatively
easily. By getting rid of old screens and terminals and orienting the computers so that
children are not exposed to the backs and sides of the terminals where the most radiation
is emitted, most of the dangers of radiation and toxic emissions can be eliminated.
Some critics also speak of the danger of Musculoskeletal injuries, like carpal
tunnel syndrome, that can occur when kids whose muscles, bones, tendons, and nerves
4
are still developing spend hours a day on their computers. It is important to take breaks
from the computer to minimize these injuries; Alan Hedge, professor of ergonomics at
Cornell University advises, “that children take a break from computer work every 20
minutes and spend no more than about 45 minutes in any hour at a computer” (Alliance
for Childhood, 2000). Even though children who program often spend a couple hours
working on their projects, they frequently take breaks from the computer as they observe
each other’s projects and present their progress. Incorporating other classroom work with
computer programming, which programming tends to do, also allows children breaks
from the computer. Because of these breaks and the mobility of children when they look
at the work of others, the likelihood of musculoskeletal injuries decreases and concerns
about these injuries are less relevant.
Concerns about eyestrain and visual fatigue due to prolonged computer use have
also been raised. In addition, “some optometrists suggest that the rate of myopia, or nearsightedness, in childhood will increase as children are encouraged to use computers for
long stretches at home and school” (Alliance for Childhood, 2000). The likelihood of
near-sightedness is amplified when individuals partake in close visual work, as in sitting
close to a computer which children are liable to do. Unfortunately, because programmers
spend a fair amount of time staring at the computer screen, eye concerns are more
difficult to alleviate. Besides taking frequent breaks and not sitting close to the screen,
there is little that can be done in the programming setting to lessen the impact that
computer screens have on the eyes of children; therefore, this is definitely relevant risk
that should be considered when deciding whether or not to program in the classroom.
5
Obesity, Diabetes, Lack of Exercise, and Attention Disorders
As rates of obesity and diabetes rise, concerns about the health risks of a
sedentary lifestyle are only intensified by widespread computer use. Worries that
children who grow up spending hours a day on the computer instead of actively
experiencing the world outside are at risk of obesity and diabetes are not unfounded;
however, computer programming curriculum may not have the same implications. This
is because software, like Logo, encourages active projects that tie in with other aspects of
the class. For instance, in one classroom a teacher used Logo to create an exercise with
path to a “bakery” and instructed the students, “Take the turtle up the path to the bakery. I
want you to stay on the path and try to get to the bakery in as few moves as possible. If
you go off the path you must get the turtle on the path as quickly as possible” (Yelland,
1995). The teacher could further tie in the programming project by taking the children to,
“visit a bakery after deciding on the most or least effective route there, choosing a means
of transport, investigating the different types of bread and conduction experiments with
yeast and other ingredients” (Yelland, 1995). As this example shows, computer
programming does not automatically entail a sedentary lifestyle—no more than any other
subject taught in classrooms do. In fact, programming can often spark interest in and
lead to active, exercise-abundant options that tie into the curriculum.
In addition to obesity and diabetes, rates of attention disorders in children have
been increasing as well. Developmental specialists have supposed that these disorders
have developed because of the increasing amount of time children are spending in front
of the computers. In contrast, studies of children working on meaningful projects using
Logo to program have found that, “Children learned to keep their attention focused on the
6
problems they were working on, and to resist being distracted by external stimulation.
They also learned to control their anxiety when a problem was difficult” (Harel and
Papert, 1990). Because programming projects tend to be simultaneously open ended
enough for children to create projects they are interested in and excited about and
structured enough to give the children some general guidance, they successfully
command children’s attention. Since software like Logo (largely due to its flexibility and
meaningfulness) appears to promote attention, concerns about computers and attention
disorders seem less significant.
Effects on Emotional and Social Development
Comments about the effects that the computer lifestyle are likely to have on the
social and emotional skills of users are generally very worrisome. In a recent study it
was, “estimated that children between the ages of 10 and 17 today will experience nearly
one-third fewer face-to-face encounters with other people throughout their lifetimes as a
result of their increasingly electronic culture, at home and school” (Alliance for
Childhood, 2000). These researchers are not so much concerned with the fact that there
are less in-person interactions; rather they are interested in the negative affects that this
lack of live communication will bring. In order to gain solid social skills, face-to-face
interactions are imperative. They help children in the emotional maturation process and
are the essential foundation for developing social skills. The worry is that when
computers play such a large role at home and in the classroom, the children become so
involved with the technology that they miss out on the personal relations and skills that
are absolutely necessary to become a functional adult in today’s society.
7
But using computers doesn’t automatically imply isolation and lack of human
interaction. Programming often entails significant interaction, like the Instructional
Software Design Project (ISDP)—a Logo-based learning research project in a Boston
inner-city public school—shows. In the ISDP, “There were interactions and reciprocal
relations among the students, teacher, researcher, members of the MIT staff, and
sometimes visitors—all of whom walked around the computer-area, talked together,
helped each other, expressed their feelings on various subjects and issues, brainstormed
together, or worked on different programming projects individually and collaboratively”
(Harel and Papert, 2000). Instead of spending time alone with their computers, the young
programmers constantly had valuable interactions with their peers, teachers, and other
adults. The atmosphere of the programming curriculum is conducive to the active
participation that is crucial to the development of social and emotional skills; therefore,
there is little reason to worry that computers will lead to social and emotional
developmental problems in this setting.
Decline in Motivation
It is not uncommon to hear complaints that computers are detracting from
learning goals instead of being valuable tools that motivate children to learn and work
hard. Critics explain that kids quickly become captivated by and obsessed with their
computers, but they seldom reap intellectual gains. They point out that, “some studies
have indicated that any initial academic gain generated by bringing computers into the
classroom may dissipate as the novelty of the technology wears off for both students and
teachers” (Alliance for Childhood, 2000). If a child is placed in front of a boring drilling
8
exercise or even an “exciting” piece of educational software, it is easy to see how the
child could get tired of the program or simply gain little from the technology.
In the case of programming, however, the child does not just sit back and play the
game or answer questions. They are motivated to create projects that interest them,
whether that means creating a model of the planets orbiting the sun or constructing a car
with LEGOs and programming it to move forward when it senses an increase in light.
And since projects are personally meaningful and teach new concepts, the novelty of
programming seldom wears off and the children remain hooked. Speaking of his
programming software Logo, “Papert (1986) has observed, ‘that children love the turtle’
(p. 34) and engage in Logo activities with a high level of motivation and a deep level of
concentration” (Yelland, 1995). The freedom of choosing their own projects allows
children to become so involved in them that they don’t even recognize their enthusiastic
interest as an increased motivation to learn. So when critics complain about extensive
computer use and cite, “Research [that] indicates that the most troubled schools can
improve the educational performance of their students by strengthening teacher-student
bonds and making other, people-oriented changes to foster a strong sense of community”
they should note that programming curriculum does just that (Alliance for Childhood,
2000). Instead of distancing the child from learning, programming sticks each kid at the
helm of his or her learning vessel. With direction and advice from teachers and peers,
students create a vision and follow it to completion, intent on debugging, refining, and
learning any other necessary skills and knowledge required for a successful outcome.
Therefore, we see that concerns that computers may decrease children’s motivation to
learn are not so applicable to computer programming.
9
Creativity and Imagination
During childhood, it is critical to have situations and learning atmospheres that
foster creative and intellectual development. Increased computer time among children,
some worry, may not allow for creativity and imaginative thought. When they are,
“Entertained constantly and effortlessly by so many adult-generated images, children
seem to be finding it harder to generate their own images and ideas” (Alliance for
Children, 2000). But this is hardly the case when children use computer-programming
software. For example, Lego teamed up with Logo to create a, “version of Logo with
LEGO building pieces (including motors, gears, wheels and sensors) [that] provides a
novel outlet for this creativity” (Science News, 1988). Children become inventors and
come up with their own original plans for projects. They come up with problems they
want to solve, topics they want to demonstrate, subjects they want to teach, and even
artwork they want to create. The children are creative in their ideas, presentation, and
demonstration. Their ideas show originality, too. This is quite apparent to the teachers
who gave their class an assignment to create a program that explains and teaches
fractions and received all different representations of the same subject matter (Harel and
Papert, 2000). Instead of being at risk, creativity and imagination thrive in the computer
programming setting.
Intellectual Development
Concerned researchers say intellectual development may also be at risk as our
society becomes more computer-centered. They stress that, “Computers, which are
10
supposed to accelerate the pace of children’s cognitive development, reflect the same
mechanistic approach to education as a narrow focus on raising standardized test scores”
(Alliance for Childhood, 2000). Since the goals of programming software are to allow
the child to explore things that are meaningful to them and use the computer as an object
to think with instead of directly raising test scores, much intellectual development takes
place. The student who plays around drawing with the turtle on Logo quickly discovers
how to program the turtle to draw a circle (by repeating fd 1 rt 1), and from there, moves
on to try and master more complicated mathematical procedures (Papert, 1990). By
coming up with the answers on their own, like this child devised formulas for complex
shapes, children become excited and gain a deeper understanding of the subject matter.
In the Instructional Software Design Project students, “became software designers, and
were representing knowledge, building models, and teaching concepts on their computer
screens. They were thinking about their own thinking and other people’s thinking—
simultaneously—to facilitate their own learning” (Harel and Papert, 2000). This project
enabled students to firmly grasp complex concepts through ways relevant and meaningful
to them. One student, Debbie, who initially “hated fractions,” was finally was able to
understand fractions through her programming efforts. After dividing in half and
coloring all the objects on her screen, she added text that read, “This is a house. Almost
ever shape is 1/2! I am trying to say that you can use fractions almost every day of your
life!” (Harel and Papert, 2000). Debbie, and other children who program, don’t
encounter intellectual developmental problems because of the use of the computer. On
the contrary, the computer (in combination with the programming software) allows for
her to truly grasp an idea that was once too abstract for her to understand.
11
In addition to the creative aspect of programming that facilitates intellectual
development, children programmers also participate in debugging their programs. When
a program does not run correctly or does something unexpected, the young programmer
is forced to figure out what they did to cause it. They learn that, “the question to ask
about the program is not whether it is right or wrong, but if it is fixable” (Papert, 1980).
Debugging is an incredibly worthwhile intellectual skill for children to develop,
especially since it can be applied to their life outside of the computer realm. It helps
build critical thinking skills and promotes working through difficult problems.
Distraction from Meaning
Making intellectual connections is definitely an extremely important aspect of
learning, but there are individuals who believe that the computer culture is distracting
children from the material they are supposed to be taking in. The dean of education at the
C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University, Jeffrey Kane, claims, “that teachers,
parents, and children may be too dazzled by classroom information technologies to focus
much at all on the child’s inner experience of meaning” (Alliance for Childhood, 2000).
Whether he is referring to a personal or intellectual meaning is unclear, but computer
programming can make a strong case against either claim.
Programming for children is all about meaning. It is about creating an
environment that allows children to come up with a project within a certain subject area
that is personally meaningful to them and helps them to obtain a firmer grasp on the
concept. Education coordinator at the Computer Museum in Boston, Natalie Rusk, “has
the children build something they care about—for example, a dinosaur on wheels. Then
12
they decide what they want their creations to do—the dinosaur should roll forward, then
roar, then turn. Finally, they figure out how to make it happen with the computer”
(Aycock, 1991). With regard to the individual meaning, programming offers greater
freedom for projects, and therefore deeper personal connection and significance. In terms
of intellectual meaning and comprehension, programming is especially useful in turning
abstract ideas into concrete understanding. Programming is not like other computer
software that entertains, dazzles, and distracts children. It concentrates them on the
subject at hand, and requires them to comprehend difficult processes by doing them in
small steps. In contrast with the typical classroom style of lecturing on an abstract
concept where children can easily miss the relevance of the lesson, programming is all
about real life application. The distance between the student and the lesson or concept is
drastically reduced when they can see its practical use. Best of all, because they
understand the concepts more deeply, they can easily draw upon their new knowledge in
the future.
Patience for challenges
Another concern about today’s computer culture is that children have and will
become used to instant gratification and are therefore be less equipped to deal with
challenges and frustration. Some speculate that this inability to deal with frustration may
manifest itself in anger among young children. Alliance for Childhood notes, “Many
people worry that computers sugar-coat learning and ultimately this will cause children to
lose motivation and shut down when they encounter challenges” (Alliance for Childhood,
2000).
13
Is programming guilty of sugarcoating learning as well? Does it give instant
gratification in a way that opposes patience for challenges? Someone familiar with
programming software would likely say no. Programming encourages the child to work
hard through difficult problems, frequently forcing them debug several times, before their
completed program runs smoothly and gives them significant gratification. Since the big
payoff of their work is given at the end, children have a great incentive to stick with their
work—even through obstacles. In a workshop where children built and programmed
LEGO creations one girl and her father worked on a project to demonstrate friendship by
programming two dolls to hug. When they “completed” the program, the dolls appeared
to be hitting each other rather than embracing. Because the value of friendship was very
important to the girl, “she debugged her program and played with the mechanics until she
came up with a movement that looked very much like a hug” (Bers and Urrea, 1999).
Instead of giving up and settling for an imperfect project, which the young programmer
could have easily done, she worked patiently and diligently through her setback and
ultimately learned more and produced a better product.
Risks to Moral Development
Some researchers fear that increased computer usage will interfere with children’s
moral development. They worry that computers fall short of steering children along the
path to becoming well-rounded, mature individuals and fail, “to bring all the resources of
the culture to help them experience meaning, identity, purpose, and responsibility in the
whole of life” (Alliance for Childhood, 2000). Childhood is a very critical time for the
development of morals, ethics, and values, and some people believe that increased
14
computer time leads to isolation from conversations with peers and teachers as well as
experiences in the world. Ultimately, they are concerned that this isolation will harm the
development of personal identity and morals.
Although children who program spend much time on the computer, it is unlikely
that this will cause any disturbance in their development of values. Since most
programming curriculum stresses projects of personal meaning for children, they are
obliged to explore different areas that interest them. And as they work on their projects
they are exposed to the work of their peers and engage in conversations with adults and
other children about what they are doing, how they are doing it, and why it is important
and meaningful to them. Take, for example, the girl who created the hugging dolls. Not
only did she use programming to demonstrate a value that was important to her, but she
also wrote a story to accompany it, and participated in, “an in-depth discussion about
value issues such as what friendship means” (Bers and Urrea, 1999). As opposed to
interfering with moral development, discussions, like the ones brought about by
programming, absolutely build the framework for strong identities and values.
Computer Centered Learning
As computers are introduced in every educational setting, there is a great fright
that the learning will become centered on using the computer rather than focusing on the
student. It is dangerous to look at the computer as a panacea that will automatically
increase the intelligence of all children who use it. Although this is a legitimate concern,
it is not applicable to computer-programming which centers itself on the child. The
software doesn’t do anything on its own; it completely relies on input from the young
15
programmer. This insures that the learning revolves around the child who will only get
out from the computer what they put in.
Conclusion
It is undeniable that with each passing day our society is becoming more
computerized, and because of our increasingly computerized culture, criticisms and
concerns about the effects of computers on the lives children have risen and will continue
to surface in the future. Risks associated with health, intellectual, moral, social and
emotional development, motivation, creativity, patience, and meaning have already been
cited as criticism of extensive computer use among the younger generation. But these
risks do not apply to every use of the computer! When children program, using software
like Logo and Microworlds, their interaction with the computer is completely different.
The child is the inventor and the teacher, instructing the computer to do what they want it
to do. Because programming is flexible, children are able to create meaningful projects
and be active social participants in their learning—this undisputedly encourages rather
than hinders development. After bringing up and addressing multiple concerns
surrounding the children’s use of computers with regard to computer programming
software, it is clear that many of these worries are unnecessary; however, it is important
to take into consideration the health concerns surrounding computer use that cannot be
alleviated at this point. When it comes to computer programming and children these
seem to be the only fears that remain applicable. Other criticisms seem to be irrelevant,
as programming curriculum tends to promote the development, motivation, creativity,
16
patience, and understanding that some researchers say extended computer usage may
detract from.
17
Work Cited
Alliance for Childhood (2000). Fools Gold: A Critical Look at Computers in Childhood.
http://www.allianceforchildhood.net
Aycock, H. E. H. (1991, December). How to start your child with programming.
Compute, 13(12), 2. Retrieved April 1, 2005, from Expanded Academic ASAP
database.
Bers, M., & Urrea, C. (2000). Technological Prayers: Parents and Children Working with
Robotics and Values. In A. Druin & J. Hendler (Eds.), Robots for Kids:
Exploring New Technologies for Learning Experiences (pp. 194-217). NY:
Morgan Kaufman.
Harel, I., & Papert , S. (1990). Software Design as a Learning Environment. Interactive
Learning Environments, 1, 1-32.
Pane, J. F. (2002). A Programming System for Children that is Designed for Usability
(Thesis for Doctoral of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University, 2002).
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York:
Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1990). Computer Criticism vs. Technocentric Thinking. M.I,T. Media Lab
Epistemology and Learning Memo, 2.
Science Service, Inc. (1988). A Leg up for Logo robotics. Science News, 133(23), 364.
Retrieved April 1, 2005, from Expanded Academic ASAP database.
Yelland, N. J. (1995). Encouraging young children’s thinking skills with Logo.
Childhood Education, 71(3), 152-156. Retrieved April 1, 2005, from Expanded
Academic ASAP database.
18