Hi Terje,
Answers in line below:

The turtle graphics concept is often used as a basic teaching tool. Logo,
Scratch, etc.
It seems easy to understand for children, and is a good way to get started.

I have some additional questions to that, though:
How long before children get tired (bored) with the concept?
How would one move on from Turtle graphics?
What other concepts or paradigms might also be used?

I just posted a blog post on the subject of Clojure + teaching kids
programming + Logo:

The timing of that post and this email thread is fortuitous. The post
should address the above points. But to briefly summarize, the point of
the clojure-turtle project is to have a version of Logo that shows that we
can build a bridge between kids learning Logo (a Lisp) and solving more
complex problems using Clojure (a Lisp).

What the post didn't say is that the project's Github front page README
shows examples that start to very subtly insert and blend in more Clojure
functions and functional programming ideas. I believe that a lot more work
can be done to turn subtle hints of a Logo-FP bridge into a fuller, more
comprehensive course of instruction.

If carried out and executed well, I think we can avoid what is described in
this page under the section "The Tragedy of Logo" -
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LogoLanguage -- "most of the schoolkids who learned
Logo hit the ceiling of their instructors' knowledge before they reached
any limit of the language's capabilities ... a six-year-old can learn the
basics of turtle control in a matter of minutes, but can continue building
on those fundamentals indefinitely, and eventually use the same tools to
master advanced programming concepts"

Are there other different approaches that might work equally well (or
Any personal ideas/suggestions?
I haven't yet read the original book Mindstorms by Seymour Papert, but
that's the next thing to do. I believe he proposed a much, much richer,
tactile, multi-sensory turtle experience than *just* a sprite on a 2D
graphics plane. It's a simple idea but a very powerful one. I think it is
worth exploring to the fullest, and my intuition is that doing so will
produce the most return for the effort given. It's funny that our notion
of Logo is a subset of all that he originally proposed, and that our common
usage of Logo is a small subset of the language's full power.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions



site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase