Make to Think: Ideas, Spaces and Tools
Claudia Urrea Giraldo, calla@media.mit.edu
MIT Media Lab
Eleonora Badilla Saxe, eleonora.badilla@ucr.ac.cr
University of Costa Rica
Ximena Miranda Garnier, ximena.miranda@ucr.ac.cr
University of Costa Rica
Danny Barrantes Acuña, danny.barrantesacuna@ucr.ac.cr
University of Costa Rica
Abstract:
The purpose of this essay is to share a
learning experience research designed for, and developed by, an
interdisciplinary group of faculty members of the University of Costa Rica.
The proposal was put into practice in the form of a workshop, which used Scratch programming language and PICO Boards as an opportunity to model a constructionist learning environment.
Powerful ideas, spaces, and tools were made available to the participants for
the construction of digital stories, models, and simulations. The final goal
was to enable the teachers to experience, through a hands-on experience, the
environment, ideas, and tools of constructionist learning, so they could
extrapolate them later on into their own fields and lessons.
Keywords:
Constructionism, Scratch, PICO Boards,
Higher Education
Introduction
A workshop “Ideas, Spaces and Tools:
Thinking by Doing” was an initiative of the Institutional Network for Faculty
Training and Evaluation (RIFED, Spanish acronym) and the University Chair for
Transdisciplinarity, Complexity and Eco-education of the Academic
Vice-Presidency of the University of Costa Rica.
The initiative was designed for faculty
members from various areas and disciplines, to the purpose of modeling a
constructionist learning environment. Using Scratch programming language and
PICO Boards (which will be explained further on), participants were able to
design digital stories, models, and simulations, individually and in groups.
As will be presented further on,
Constructionism is Seymour Papert’s educational proposal for the creative use
of new technologies in learning, involving communication, information and
collaboration. The Scratch Language and PICO Boards are digital tools designed
at the Media Laboratory (Media Lab) of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT), by the Lifelong Kindergarten group led by Dr. Mitchel
Resnick.
As to learning models and simulations,
these creations aim to illustrate scientific phenomena, obtain a better
understanding of an observed phenomenon, or explain to other people specific
ideas or data regarding a research (Colella et al, 2001). According to these
authors, there are several types of models:
· Illustrative: those that show scientific
processes or systems. For example: planetary orbits of the solar system, DNA
chain models that can be manipulated to show the replication or transcription
processes, or transparent human bodies showing internal organs. All these
capture an angle of a scientific system or process, helping us to understand it
in new ways.
· Analytical: based on mathematical equations,
they enable the exploration of a variety of scenarios. For example, an
economics professor could discuss a described supply and demand model by means
of equations. Or a physics professor could want to do a model explaining how,
in a given equation, position depends on acceleration and time.
· Simulative: instead of solving equations, the
underlying mechanisms are described, letting them run through time to see what
happens. These models can easily include random and probabilistic events,
reflecting important features of the world that surrounds us. These
characteristics of simulation models allow us to perform explorations difficult
to achieve through analytical models, and impossible to achieve with
illustrative models.
The “Ideas, Spaces and Tools: Make to
Think” workshop was designed, planned and developed by an interdisciplinary group
of faculty members, for the benefit of a faculty group also interdisciplinary.
It was carried out on May 16-20, 2011, with the participation of 16 teachers
from the following schools: Computer Science, Evaluation, Communication,
Economics, Human resources, School Administration, Law, Sociology,
Architecture, Mathematics, Chemistry, Medicine, and Geography and History.
The general purpose of the workshop was to
enable the teachers to experience, through a hands-on experience, the
environment, ideas and tools of constructionist learning, so that they could
extrapolate them later on into their own fields and lessons.
On Constructionism: Make to Think
Based on the constructivist ideas of Jean Piaget and on
Lev Vygotsky’s thought, the well known thinker Seymour Papert proposed
Constructionism as an innovative educational vision on the use of digital
technologies to support people’s learning. But far beyond this vision,
Constructionism makes it possible to understand the way in which society and
the individual take possession of digital technology (Papert, 1990). For the
author, knowledge is something that is built in the mind, while something
tangible, which must also be meaningful, is constructed in the physical world
(Papert, 1990).
In this educational approach, Papert granted an active
creative role to the apprentices, placing them as designers of their own
projects and builders of their own learning. It is a question of empowering
apprentices, so they can take on this active role. Opposed to computer-assisted
instruction (CAI), which promotes that the computer teaches and programs the
user, Papert proposed that the apprentice should be the one to program the
computer, since by doing so, he/she acquires “… a sense of command over an
element of the most powerful and modern technology, establishing at the same
time an intimate contact with some of the most in-depth ideas of science,
mathematics, and the art of constructing intellectual models” (Papert,
1987, p. 17-18). Papert maintains that the best learning will not come from
finding the best ways to teach, “… but rather from providing the students
with the best opportunities to construct” (in Fabel, 1990, p. 2).
These premises imply that people
possess a natural ability to learn from experience, creating mental structures
that allow them to organize and combine the information and knowledge built
throughout their lifetime. According to Papert, knowledge is constructed in an
especially fruitful manner when apprentices consciously involve themselves in a
public construction, which may be exhibited, discussed, proved, examined or
admired (Flabel, 1990, p. 2-3). In this sense, Papert warns that in order to
do so, it is not enough to ask students to take charge of their own learning:
they need to be equipped with the proper tools for them to do it.
Papert (1990) says that Constructionism is
more than learning by doing. He states that it is doing with an intrinsic
motivation; doing with the drive of personal values and desires; doing with an
understanding of what is done. Above all, it is to take possession of
knowledge; to make it one’s own. According to Papert, this is finally achieved
when the construction tools become invisible and the apprentice focuses on
his/her own learning and knowledge.
On Two Powerful Ideas: Technological
Fluency and Collaboration
A constructionist learning environment
focuses on the exploration and construction of powerful ideas, as well
as on their reflection and articulation (Papert, 2000). Powerful ideas are not
important due to the place they occupy within a curricular framework, but
rather because they give the apprentice the autonomy to approach a topic and
study it in depth, by means of an actual construction process that puts it into
context. Some constructionist learning tools enable the exploration of
far-reaching powerful ideas: algorithmic thinking (Logo: Papert, 1987),
decentralized thinking (StarLogo; Resnick, 1994), mentoring (MOOSE Crossing:
Bruckman, 1998), moral values (Zora: Bers, 2001), collaboration and remix (Maloney,
Resnick et al, 2010; Seneviratne, & Monroy-Hernandez, 2010).
The workshop in question took on the
challenge of proposing situations in which the participants could experience
some powerful ideas, and even the most powerful of all: the idea of powerful
ideas. This time, two ideas in particular caught the general interest:
technological fluency and collaboration. These two ideas not only constitute
an important part of the learning process in which the teachers/apprentices
were involved; they also nourished the design and development of the
constructionist learning tools that were being used: Scratch and PICO Boards
(explained further on).
Technological Fluency
Technological fluency refers to the use and
appropriation of technological tools to do or construct a task; to create,
communicate, and design. According to Papert’s and Resnick’s (1995)
description, technological fluency involves much more than the ability to use
technological tools, which would be equivalent to understanding some common phrases
in a language. In order to be really fluent in a language (such as English or
French), the person must be capable of articulating a complex idea or telling a
“fascinating” story; that is to say, he or she must be capable of “doing
things” with the language. Analogically, the concept of technological fluency
not only implies knowing how to use technological tools, but also knowing how
to build meaningful things using those tools. A technologically fluent person
must be able to go from the source of an intuitive idea, to the execution of a
technological project.
Moreover, technological fluency refers to
the ability to program, which broadens the possibilities of what can be
created, and what can be learned. It allows reflection on personal thought,
and even reflection on the activity of thinking itself. For Resnick and the
Scratch group, “… technological fluency means designing, creating, and
remixing, not just browsing, chatting, and interacting” (Resnick et al, 2009,
p. 60). This is why Scratch was created as a learning environment:
1) in a ground floor or with an easy access, meaning that its users can
easily manage this constructionist learning tool, even if they have no previous
experience in programming;
2) with a high ceiling, meaning that projects can become more complex
as the users acquire experience and fluency with this tool; and
3) with thick walls, enabling the creation of different types of
projects, involving people with different interests and learning styles.
Collaboration
The Scratch design, as a learning tool, is
accompanied by its own website. The MIT Media Lab group that designed this
tool is convinced that “… for (its) success, the language must be linked to a
community where people can support, collaborate, criticize, and construct based
on each other’s work” (Resnick et al, 2009). Collaboration, besides being a
powerful idea promoted from the Scratch design and experience itself, was
essential to the workshop.
The interface of the Scratch learning tool
was also designed with the goal of enabling collaboration. For instance, the
page includes the “share” button, which means that a single “click” is needed
in order to do so. Furthermore, when a person decides to share his/her project
on the Scratch website, it is made available to all the other users. Apart
from viewing it and getting inspiration from it, they can use it, reuse it,
rate it, and assess it. This multi-channeled feedback gives shape, gradually,
to a community, becoming one of the greatest motivations to create and share
projects. Community members are continuously adapting and creating projects,
based on the ideas of other members. The reuse and enrichment of projects is
known as “remix”. Information on how often and who has remixed a project is
available at the site.
On the other hand, Scratch has been
translated into more than 40 languages, raising collaboration to international
level. The Scratch infrastructure not only favors its translation into several
languages, but also accepts the use of any type of character.
In the workshop held at the University of
Costa Rica, the participants worked in groups on the design and creation of
their Scratch projects. They also had the opportunity to share their projects
on the website, making them visible to the world at large. Some of the
subgroups found their inspiration in projects available at the Scratch website,
to conceptualize and design their own. In this occasion, and due to time
restrictions, communication and feedback among participants was not carried out
through the site, but rather in person. Each one of the subgroups had the
chance to share their ideas, receive feedback from others, and reflect upon it
so as to improve their projects. In addition, all of them could “borrow” ideas
from the others, incorporating them into their designs.
On the Tools: the Scratch Programming
Language and the PICO Boards
As we mentioned above, both the Scratch
Programming Language and the PICO Boards are digital tools designed by the
Media Laboratory (Media Lab) of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT), by the Lifelong Kindergarten group led by Dr. Mitchel Resnick.
These tools inherit Papert’s
constructionist ideas and derive from previous proposals, such as the Logo
Language and the programmable bricks,
also from the Media Lab. Resnick and his group (2009) not only meant to provide
new generations with powerful digital tools for learning, but also with an
entire environment of mutual support and collaboration.
The Scratch programming language is based
on professional programming languages specifically developed for young
programmers, such as Flash/ActionScript or Alice 7and Squeak Etoys 5. However,
its designers searched for a threshold that would make programming learning
more accessible, offering a larger variety of options to develop
logic-computational thinking. According to Resnick (2009), they designed a
digital language more tinkerable, more meaningful and friendlier than
other programming languages. For this reason, the Scratch language’s grammar
is based on a set of programmable digital blocks that assemble together, just
as the physical blocks do when children and young people play with them.
Scratch programmable blocks are designed to assemble only if by their joining
they achieve a syntactical meaning. The language control structures (such as repeat and forever) are shaped as a C, indicating that the programmable blocks
must be placed inside. The shape of the value-producing blocks depend on the
value they return (ovals for numbers and hexagons for Boolean functions). The
conditional blocks (such as if, or repeat until) have an
incomplete hexagonal shape, indicating that a Boolean function is required.
Figure 1. Examples in
Scratch programming
Besides being a programming language, Scratch also aims
to satisfy the diversity of learning styles. That is why it promotes its use
among programmers who plan in a vertical way (from top to bottom), as well as
among those who prefer to tinker with a thought and plan from bottom to top.
In like manner, the programming activity of this language consists of mixing
graphics, animations, pictures, music, and sounds.
Figure 2. Picoboard
The PICO Boards
(Fig. 2) are electronic cards that allow Scratch-programmed projects to
interact with the physical world, by means of light and sound sensors. They
also have a slider that controls the value of the entries (resistance), a
button that reacts to contact, and a pair of loops that detect when the cards
are connected. Therefore, these cards allow projects on the screen to react
before stimuli (light, contact, resistance, or sound) coming from the outside
world, making them interactive.
On the Workshop’s Design and Development
The design of a constructionist educational
activity requires previous and careful planning, in order to guarantee a
reference framework that is solidly supported and, at the same time, very
flexible. This combination of conceptual solidity and methodological
flexibility is what grants complexity to the constructionist design of a
learning environment. But only through careful planning is it possible to
accommodate emergents and active participation from all the people involved,
without running the risk of promoting a senseless activism. In this context,
and in agreement with Papert’s ideas, “objects-to-think-with” must be
available; and the construction of meaningful projects on the part of the
participants constitutes the fundamental strategy of learning. Hence the
workshop’s name (title of this paper): thinking by doing.
With these
ideas in mind, the workshop included a dynamic combination of lectures about
powerful ideas (regarding Constructionism, as well as on the potential of the
Scratch language and PICO Boards); demonstrations; guided exercises; design and
construction of individual and group projects; and sessions of reflection and
reconstruction of the experiences and learnings (Fig. 3). The title “Ideas,
Spaces and Tools” was chosen because it reflects the workshop’s educational
spirit or vision: to create a space where the encounter between ideas and
tools could become a reality.
The Workshop
was carried out at a computer lab of the Department of Computer and Information
Sciences (ECCI, Spanish acronym) of the University of Costa Rica (UCR), lasting
four days (Monday 16, Tuesday 17, Thursday 19 and Friday 20, May 2011). Each
day, the four-hour work blocks (1:00 to 5:00 p.m.) were separated by a short
recess and refreshments. Since the workshop dates was held close to the
celebration of the World Scratch Day (May 21, 2011), it was entered as part of
Costa Rica’s Scratch Day activities.
Figure 3. Working sessions, of the organization team
The workshop was launched with an
introduction called “The Workshop’s Spirit”, which included a Scratch project
to describe the purpose of creating a space where all participants, apprentices
and mediators alike, would have the opportunity and tools for “thinking by
doing” as a team. Scratch, PICO Boards and construction materials (including
waste material) were presented as the tools which would enable them, in this
case, to think and do together, so as to find ways to improve university
teaching (Fig. 4). Constructionism, collaboration, technological fluency, and
the creation of models, simulations, and digital stories were presented as ideas
especially placed in this space, to encourage innovation in the university
learning environments. In other words, the educational vision of the workshop
was briefly presented at this stage.
Figure 4.
Construction materials and PICO Boards
Immediately after, there was a first
demonstration of the basic operation of Scratch, followed by a period of free
exploration of Scratch projects, included in the original gallery of this
programming language. The second and third days began with similar demonstrative
sessions, covering the operation of the PICO Boards and useful capsules of
programming concepts. The “Sensorboard 1 Sunrise” project was used to
demonstrate PICO Boards, taken from the examples on motors and sensors
originally included in Scratch, which includes a cottage built with cardboard
and waste materials (Fig. 5).
After the Scratch free exploration period,
a group dynamics was carried out, collecting the first impressions and initial
ideas of the participants. This first encounter turned out to be vital within
the programmatic logic of the workshop, to the extent that it allowed the
creation of a propitious and evocative atmosphere. Moreover, it enabled
participants and facilitators to find convergent interest lines and specific expectations
for the development of the workshop. The exercise was intentioned, aimed at
targeting a contextual construction of the reality shared by the set of
participants. In Resta’s words, “behavior, thought and content are the bases
that structure teaching and learning – at least in what pertains to organized
teaching –. These structural elements become accessible by working on the
design of ‘authentic’ realities in the classroom practices” (Resta, 2004, p.
184).
The proposed problem-inducing node aimed at
discussing the different expectations held by the participants regarding the
workshop. The development line was designed in terms of a possible project or
topic, and its expected impact on the teaching evolution of each participant.
Apprentices were asked to write down their answers on a piece of cardboard, all
of which were then adhered to the blackboard. Once their answers were
displayed, discussion started to the purpose of gathering common ideas, mainly
those related to the three thematic areas: digital stories, simulations, and
models. Participants analyzed different ideas, enriching the discussion and
enabling the appointment of work teams, for the process developed throughout
the week (Fig. 6).
Figure 5. PICO Board demonstration Figure 6. Team work
discussion
Powerful ideas were presented on the first
and second day, followed by an open plenary session. The topics developed
followed thematic lines broached and discussed from the start. Likewise, new
theoretical-practical enrichment axes were presented: technological fluency
and collaboration, their current importance, and the manner in which they
appear in Scratch. As was mentioned above, the spirit and intentionality in
the design of this training space was the construction of a formative scenario,
which would enable the apprentices’ immersion into a constructionist
environment.
This environment would be innovative in
nature, by developing a setup with non-traditional elements for an
interdisciplinary group of faculty members. Although Scratch, the tool,
represented an important appeal, it was always assumed and promoted as a
cognitive medium that allowed different interaction levels. In Papert’s words,
it became an “object-to-think-with”.
Cabero described it as: “In short, what we
want to say is that the system’s technical determiners will not be what mark
its quality and efficacy, but rather the attention we pay to the educational
and didactic variables put into operation. Nowadays, problems are not technological,
but derived from knowing what to do and how to do it, and why we want to do it”
(Cabero, 2006, p. 8).
Four work teams were formed at the end of
the second day, granting them a period to start planning a group project with
Scratch and PICO Boards. Days 3 and 4 were mainly devoted to the development
of these projects. Two groups focused on the development of simulation
projects, while the other two created digital stories.
Due to the workshop’s constructionist
approach, the groups shared their learnings after each work session, through
dynamics where each group showed the others their ideas, progress, and
difficulties. This favored a greater exchange of ideas and learnings among the
participants, based on a process of reflection upon the work developed in the
projects. Closing each day with a reflection and reconstruction period on the
process experienced was equally important.
A demonstration on the way to integrate the
international community of Scratch, by means of its webpage (www.scratch.media.mit.edu), was performed at the end of the workshop.
The projects developed by the participants
were shared with the international community through this means.
On the Findings
Although the technological tools played an
important role in this workshop, let us recall that they always did so as
objects-to-think-with. The goal was to try out and reflect on a
constructionist learning environment, as an educational alternative to
traditional university teaching.
Expectations and First Reactions
Most of the participants started the
workshop with the following expectations: to discover innovative forms of
education, realistic and applicable in their courses; to discover new ways to
approach knowledge, for both them and their students; and to acquire more
instruments to make their lessons more attractive, by allowing the students to
lead the knowledge construction processes. Participants were asked to express
their first reaction with a short phrase. Some of their answers were:
Nevertheless, some of the people enrolled
placed their expectations on technology itself, on learning to use it so that
it would help them to continue teaching their students in the traditional way.
Assessment
At the end of the workshop, and by means of
an online survey completed by 14 of the 16 participants, different angles of
the workshop were evaluated.
The majority (78%) considered that the
objectives set out in the program were accomplished. Likewise, the majority
(93%) expressed that the contents learned during the workshop were relevant for
their teaching work, while 86% felt that they could adapt what they learned to
mediate in their students’ learning.
Regarding the participation and
organizational aspects of the activity, most participants (86%) considered them
satisfactory, and a similar percentage (85%) was pleased with the work carried
out by the facilitator team, expressing that they would recommend this workshop
to other faculty members.
The less appreciated feature was the
physical space; only 35% thought the physical space was appropriate for the
execution of the activity. The placement of the furniture, computers, and
other equipment did not favor the visual traffic or movement of the
participants, and their rearrangement to accommodate small groups or plenary
sessions was difficult.
The general rating of the workshop was
positive; in a scale of 1 to 10, 43% rated it with a 10, 21% with a 9, 21% with
an 8, and only 14% marked it with a 7 or lower.
The survey included an open section for
observations and suggestions, opinions summarized as follows.
In general terms, the enthusiasm and good
opinion expressed by the participating faculty members show a favorable
reception and satisfaction levels. Their appreciation regarding the elements
surrounding the dynamics, the thematic pertinence, and the results were rated
in a positive way. On the one hand, many of their thoughts were gathered
during breaks, as well as during the presentation of their projects. The
general opinion was that the workshop offered a set of ideas that they could
develop, in a similar manner, in the classroom with their students. Thus, the
workshop’s original objective was reached: to model with a view to subsequent
implementation in the participants’ specific learning environments.
Figure 7.Simulation project in progress Figure 6.Digital
story group discussion
In other cases, participants were mainly
concerned with finding some follow-up means to continue working as they did
during the workshop. There was a general feeling concerning the need to have
participation and experimentation spaces for the teachers, a non-traditional
element in their routine at the University of Costa Rica.
This factor is especially important, since
it poses new lines of development towards future complementary projects. These
should be considered in the logic of the network structures already developed
within the Institutional Network for Faculty Training and Evaluation (RIFED),
among others.
In like manner, one of the participants
expressed dissatisfaction on most of the aspects assessed, justifying it by
saying that:
“There was no support material for
the tool itself; it is as if someone said, we’re going to do an Access
workshop, the tool is there, now use it and discover how. That is not the way
to do it.”
Since the workshop design included
continuous support on the part of the facilitators, by means of demonstrations
and one-to-one work, complemented with support materials on the Scratch tool
available online, this comment was interpreted as a reaction to the habit of
participating in traditional learning environments, more structured, more
linear, and usually based on theory. In this case, the participant did not
understand nor accept the constructionist vision.
In general terms, a percentage of people
are expected to react defensively facing innovations, for they prefer the
comfort zone of the familiar.
One of the workshop’s more positive results
was the type of projections expressed by the participants following the
experience, documented by means of interviews. For instance, there was a case
in which the workshop enabled a person to find in Scratch the necessary tool to
study the development of peace processes among young vulnerable local groups, as
part of a Ph.D. research. Several participants recognized in Scratch a tool
they want to use, to help programming students with their studies. Though the
workshop did not restrict itself to presenting Scratch and its operation, but
rather its use to enable the immersion into a constructionist environment (as
was previously explained), the knowledge and identification of the tool is
still worthwhile, due to its use in different contexts.
The interviews complemented the survey
data, agreeing in the favorable opinion of the participants and the
acknowledgement of a new way to learn, as can be seen in the following comment:
“The workshop was very interesting;
it makes you feel free to create. And they kept their promise: it has changed
my perspective on learning.”
In short, it is valid to say that the UCR
faculty members who participated in this constructionist experience positively
assessed the execution of this kind of activities, not just for the reasons
mentioned above but because it promotes the interaction between teachers from
different disciplines and academic units, and for the level of freedom to learn
and create offered by the constructionist approach.
Acknowledgement and Recognition
Our special thanks go to Dr. Libia Herrera,
Academic Vice President of the UCR, for her unconditional support concerning
important aspects towards the development of this workshop. To Dr. Mitchel
Resnick, who supported the workshop as well and sponsored, through the Lifelong
Kindergarten Group, the visit of Dr. Claudia Urrea to the country. To Barbara
Ocampo, Stephanie Fallas, and Armando Vargas, for their important and essential
collaboration with the organization, dissemination, logistics, and
documentation of the workshop.
Pictures were taken by Barbara Ocampo.
References
Badilla Eleonora, Chacon Alejandra
(2004). Construccionismo: objetos para pensar,
entidades públicas y micromundos, in Revista Actualidades Investigativas en Educación, volumen
4, N.1
http://revista.inie.ucr.ac.cr/articulos/1-2004/archivos/construccionismo.pdf
Bers, M. (2001). "Identity
construction environments: developing personal and moral values through the
design of a virtual city." The Journal of the Learning Sciences
10(4): 365-415
Bruckman, A. (1998). Community support
for constructionist learning. In Computer Supported
Cooperative Work 7: 47-86
Cabero, J. (2006). Bases
pedagógicas del e-learning. Revista de
Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento, 3(1), 1-10.
Flabel, Aaron (1990). Construccionismo,
Fundación Omar Dengo, free translation by Eleonora Badilla Saxe in
http://llk.media.mit.edu/projects/panama/lecturas/Falbel-Const.pdf
Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N.,
Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The Scratch Programming Language
and Environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), vol. 10,
no. 4 (November 2010).
Seneviratne, O., Monroy-Hernandez, A.
(2010). Remix Culture on the Web: A Survey of Content Reuse on Different
User-Generated Content Websites. In Web Science.
http://journal.webscience.org/392/
Papert, Seymour (1990). A Critique of Technocentrism in Thinking About the School of the
Future, en http://www.papert.org/articles/ACritiqueofTechnocentrism.html
Papert, Seymour (1987). Desafío
de la mente. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ediciones
Galápagos.
Papert, S. (2000). “What’s the Big
Idea? Steps toward a pedagogy of idea power.” IBM Systems Journal,
Vol. 39, Nos 3&4, 2000.
Papert, S., and Resnick, M. (1995). Technological
fluency and the representation of knowledge. Proposal to the
National Science Foundation. Cambridge, MA.
Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles,
termites, and traffic jams: explorations in massively parallel microworlds. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
Resnick, M., Maloney, J. et al.
(2009). Scratch: programming for all. Commun. ACM. 52, 11, 60-67.
Resta, P. (2004). Las tecnologías de la información y la
comunicación en la formación docente: Guía de
planificación. Montevideo, Uruguay: Ediciones Trilce.
Stevens, Klopfer y Resnick (2001). Adventures in modeling: exploring complex, dynamic systems with
StarLogo. Teachers College Press, New York. 188p.
