Logo and Learning Does Logo Training Increase The Use

LOGO AND LEARNING: DOES LOGO TRAINING INCREASE THE USE
OF FORMAL OPERATIONAL THOUGHT?
by
BARBARA GALE WALKER HYINK, B.A., M.A.T.
A DISSERTATION
IN
EDUCATION
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
Approved
Accepted
Dean of the Graduate School
August, 1987
jY'T _,
Copyright
Barbara Gale Walker Hyink
1987
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of this document is a personal goal.

However, it would not have been possible without the
support and guidance of many people.
I first want to thank my husband, Bruce, and my
children, Anne and Cheryl, for their support and
encouragement, because this journey has been theirs as
well as mine. We have all grown through this endeavor.
To Dr. Jerry Willis, I extend special appreciation

for incisive and thoughtful questions which have served
to guide this project from beginning to completion.
Observing his intellectual creativity and methodological
rigor has been a privilege. His encouragement, support,
and friendship have added immeasurably to my graduate
education.
I also want to thank the other members of my
committee who have all offered me their friendship and
shared their wisdom throughout my graduate program. Dr.
LaMont Johnson has guided me in an ongoing study of the
relationship between Logo and Piaget. Dr. Jay Blanchard
has kept me apprised of Logo related articles as they
appear in the literature. Dr. Tom Irons provided the
initial impetus to write the proposal for this
dissertation. And last, though far from least. Dr. John
11
Nevius provided thoughtful insight into the theories of
Piaget. Other faculty members who deserve mention for
their support are Dr. Cleborne Maddux and Dr. Bruce
Barker.
I am grateful, too, for my fellow graduate students,
particularly Jeff Bostic, who was always ready to lend a
helping hand, provide moral support, and share
stimulating ideas.
And finally, I want to recognize and thank those
within the Lubbock Independent School District who made
this research possible: Carroll Melnyk, for suggesting
the pilot Logo Classes; Tim Holt for teaching the
classes; and Jerrell Snodgrass for his friendship,
guidance, and support in my three years as a graduate
research assistant within the school district.
• • •
111
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT vi
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem ... 1

Contribution of the Study . . . 2
Limitations and Considerations
of the Study 4
Conclusion 6
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . 8
Introduction 8
Review of Research Literature . 30
Assessment of Studies to Date . 40
Research Problem 43
III. METHODOLOGY 46
Subjects 46
Apparatus 48
Dependent Measures 48
Description of Treatment ... 51
Design and Analysis 55
Procedure 57
IV
IV. RESULTS 59
Descriptive Data 60
Analysis of the Data 74
Hypotheses 87
V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 93

Summary 93
Discussion of the Study . . . . 96
Conclusion 108
REFERENCES 109
APPENDICES
A. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 118

B. RAW DATA 120
C. LOGO ACHIEVEMENT TEST AND
CURRICULUM OBJECTIVES 124
v
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to determine the

effect of Logo training on seventh grade students' use of
formal operational thought as described by Piaget, on
higher level thinking skills as described in Bloom's
taxonomy, and on levels of creative thought as described
by Torrance.
Logo is a computer programming language developed to
help children develop higher level thinking skills.
Supporters claim that its use may make abstract concepts
more concrete for the learner, and thus allow the learner
to advance to levels of formal thought. Much anecdotal
evidence has been collected to support this claim, but
little positive evidence has come from traditional
experimental research.
This study followed a quasi-experimental
pretest-posttest design because random assignment to
treatment groups was impractical. The experimental
subjects were 25 seventh graders identified as being the
"best" sixth-grade computer students during the previous
year. Students in the experimental group were enrolled
in a one-semester class (approximately eighty-five 50
minute periods) devoted to Logo programming. Control
subjects were 30 seventh graders at a different junior
VI
high, similarly identified, and who received no Logo
instruction during the treatment period. Students in
both groups had from one to three years prior computer
instruction including some Logo.
Measurement instruments used in the study included
(1) the Arlin Test of Formal Reasoning, (2) the
Developing Cognitive Abilities Test, and (3) the Torrance
Test of Creative Thinking. A fourth test developed by
the researcher measured the level of Logo achievement.
Analyses of pretest and pre-pretest data determined

that the control group scored significantly higher than
the experimental group, indicating that the groups were
nonequivalent prior to the study. Each of the three
hypotheses was tested by analysis of covariance using the
pretest score on the dependent variable as the covariate.
Although the experimental group increased their Logo
programming ability significantly and scored higher on
posttest measures than the control group, none of the
analyses revealed a significant difference that could be
attributed to treatment with Logo training.
Vll
LIST OF TABLES
1. Demographic Information For Each Group . . . . 61

2. Logo Achievement Test Pretest Scores By
Group 63
3. Pre-Pretest Means and Standard Deviations
for Treatment Groups on Achievement
and Aptitude Test Scores 68
4. Stepwise Multiple Regression on
Group Membership 75
5. Dry-Run Analyses of Covariance on
ATFR, DCAT, and TTCT Pretests 76
6. Pre and Posttest Scores on the Logo
Achievement Test by the Experimental
Group . . . . * . 78
7. ATFR Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and
Pre to Posttest Gains By Group 79
8. DCAT Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and
Pre to Posttest Gains By Group 81
9. TTCT Average and TTCT Creativity Index
Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and
Pre to Posttest Gains by Group 83
10. Analysis of Covariance: ATFR Posttest . . . . 88
11. Analysis of Covariance: DCAT Posttest . . . . 89
12. Analysis of Covariance: TTCT
Average Posttest 91
13. Analysis of Covariance: TTCT Creativity
Index Posttest 92
Vlll
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Pre-Pretest CAT Total Reading Grade

Equivalent Means for Experimental
and Control Groups 69
2. Pre-Pretest SFTAA Mean Scores on LIQ6,
NIQ6, and TIQ6 for Experimental
and Control Groups 70
3. Pre-Pretest TABS Mean Scores on Math and
Language for Experimental and
Control Groups 71
4. ATFR Pre and Posttest Means for
Experimental and Control Groups .... 80
5. DCAT Pre and Posttest Means for
Experimental and Control Groups .... 82
6. TTCT Average Pre and Posttest Means for
Experimental and Control Groups . . . . 84
7. TTCT Creativity Index Pre and Posttest
Means for Experimental and
Control Groups 85
8. Pre and Posttest Mean Scores on the
Logo Achievement Test for
the Experimental Group 103
ATFR for the Experimental Group . . . . 104
DCAT for the Experimental Group . . . . 105
TTCT Average Score for the
Experimental Group 106
TTCT Creativity Index for the
Experimental Group 107
IX
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem

Education is currently in a developmental stage.
An outcry from the public has influenced legislatures to
mandate accountability for the education process.
Educational reform packages have been developed across
the nation in an effort to fix whatever is wrong with
education. Unfortunately, there is little agreement on
how to fix the problem. One suggested format is through
computer instruction. In less than ten years, what
started with a few interested educators has become a
standard element of the curriculum of most schools, with
the potential for causing a dramatic change in
educational methods (Willis, 1987). As educators, we are
challenged to meet the developing demand for computers in
the schools with a body of research that will aid in
guiding this development (Rieber, 1983).
One movement within educational computing concerns

the hypothesis that learning to program will help
children develop higher level thought processes such as
formal thought (Piaget, 1972), creativity (Torrance,
1974), and the higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy such as
application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Bloom,
1956) .
Logo is a computer programming language designed and
developed specifically as a medium to enable children to
develop higher thought processes. Supporters of Logo
have hypothesized that its use may make abstract concepts
more concrete and allow children to advance to levels of
formal thought. Particularly, Logo's developer, Seymour
Papert (1980) , has suggested that "the computer can
concretize (and personalize) the formal...I believe that
it [Logo] can allow us to shift the boundary separating
concrete and formal" (p. 21).
The question asked by this researcher was "will
children at the age when transition between concrete
operational thought and formal operational thought
normally occurs be able to use Logo as a vehicle to
transport them through Piaget's developmental hierarchy
more quickly?" Secondary questions dealt with
development in other areas of cognition, namely
creativity and the higher thinking skills named in
Bloom's taxonomy, as a result of training with Logo.
Contribution of the Study
The review of related literature revealed that
research on the value of Logo training for problem

solving or cognitive development is inconclusive. Much
positive anecdotal evidence has been collected to support
the claims, but little positive evidence has come from
traditional experimental research. The teaching of Logo
in schools has spread so rapidly since it became
available for microcomputers that researchers have not
had time to design experiments, carry them out, write
research reports, and publish them in scholarly journals
(Maddux & Johnson, in press).
Problems with available studies include
misinterpretation of the results, no assessment of
whether Logo learning took place, no description of the
Logo teaching method employed, small sample sizes, no
inclusion of a control group, and no random assignment to
treatment groups (Maddux & Johnson, in press). This
study is an attempt to meet these criteria as closely as
possible given the confines of educational research
within a public school setting.
Although many studies have attempted to examine the
claims made by Seymour Papert and others as to the
benefits offered to all students by Logo training, there
is as yet no consensus. When an innovation such as Logo
occurs, a lapse of time is necessary so that its true
worth can be measured (Reggini, 1983). This study
provides additional empirical information regarding the
effect of Logo training on children's transition from
Piaget's stage of concrete operational thought to formal
operational thought. Measures taken on the cognitive
levels of Bloom's taxonomy and on the degree of creative
thinking further detail the extent of higher order
thinking skills that may or may not be advanced through
the use of instruction in Logo.
Limitations and Considerations

of the Study
An accurate measurement of human cognition is
difficult, particularly a measurement of formal thought.
Formal thought was measured by Piaget in a clinical
interview format, as opposed to a group measure. Piaget
was interested in a qualitative measure of an
individual's thought processes. Today, educators who are
attempting to adapt curriculum to student capabilities
have a need for a more quantitative measure of those
thought processes (Alliger & Harvey, 1984; Arlin, 1982).
Many studies have attested to the difficulty of
measuring formal thought (Nagy & Griffiths, 1982). The
clinical interview method has two major drawbacks.
First, the amount of time necessary to individually
interview large numbers of students on each of the tasks
outlined by Piaget is impractical in public school
settings. Second, the clinical method is not
standardized, as it depends upon the interpretation and
skill of the individual doing the interview (Staver &
Gabel, 1979). To alleviate the problems of the clinical
interview method, many researchers have developed paper
and pencil tests designed to measure formal thought
(Arlin, 1982; Lawson, 1985; Modgil, 1974 Staver & Gabel,
1979; Tobin & Capie, 1981). A characteristic of this
group of tests, when looked at as a whole, is the
diversity of methods utilized to determine the level of
formal thought (Alliger & Harvey, 1984). However, their
common advantages include group administration of a
measure of formal thought, a more comprehensive
assessment of the formal schemata than is usually
accomplished using the clinical method (due to time
constraints), a decreased need for trained clinicians,
objective rather than subjective scoring schemes, and
standardized test administration procedure (Arlin, 1982).
The instrument chosen to measure formal thought in
this study was the Arlin Test of Formal Reasoning (Arlin,
1984) . Although numerous tests of formal thought have
been developed, this was the only measure of formal
thought listed in The Ninth Mental Measurements Yearbook
(Mitchell, 1985) designed for the age group of the
subjects in this study. The Arlin test can be
administered in less than one hour, which allows it to be
given within the standard 50-minute time period used for
junior high classes in this school district; moreover,
the Arlin test format requires no formal training for
accurate test scoring and interpretation. However,
because any group test of formal thought may be a weak
measure of formal thought, the use of this test may
result in a limitation of the study.
A further limitation of this study may be the sample
size. A sample size of 55 subjects is certainly
respectable, but inferences would be more reliable with a
larger sample.
A greater limitation of this study is its
restriction to the use of intact groups. The study was
conducted within a public school system and was confined
to the administrative directives of the district. Random
assignment to groups was not possible because the
experimental and control groups were housed in different
schools.
Conclusion
A variety of conjectures, or in some cases "claims,"
have been made regarding the value of teaching Logo to
children. This study has focused on the hypothesis that
Logo training will enable students to develop more
sophisticated thought structures and will facilitate

their transition to higher levels of cognitive
development than their peers who do not receive Logo
training.
The purpose of this research is to compare the
cognitive development of two groups of adolescents: one
group receiving Logo training, and one group receiving no
Logo training.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
Cognitive learning theory deals with the process of
knowing, and with acquiring knowledge. Cognitions are
the perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs that individuals
have about their environment. In cognitive learning
theory, the learning takes place as the individual's
behavior is modified by experience. Cognitive theories
consider the flexibility of human intellectual processes
and the ways people deal with complex problems. The way
knowledge is acquired by an individual changes as the
individual matures. As people get older they acquire
more knowledge (in cognitive terms) and larger
repertoires of response, and therefore behave
differently. We are now realizing that they also think
and learn differently (Hill, 1977) and that has led to
the study of developmental psychology.
Piaget
The foremost developmental psychologist is Jean
Piaget, the Swiss psychologist who studied the processes
of thinking in children. Piaget attempted to isolate and
describe the mental structures on which the reasoning
8
processes are based, independent of formal training
(Inhelder & Piaget, 1958). Piaget used the dialectic
argument of thought passage: from a thesis through an
antithesis to a synthesis, that in turn becomes a thesis
for further study. In psychology, the thesis is
behaviorism, the antithesis is Gestaltism (and ethology)
and the synthesis is Piagetian developmental psychology
(Boden, 1980).
Piaget used the schema as an intervening variable

with regard to mental activity. Schemata are ways of
perceiving, understanding and thinking about the world.
Piaget's exploration of children's schemata may have been
his greatest contribution (Hill, 1977). The essence of
cognitive development is the constant change that takes
place in an individual's schemata. Piaget referred to
this change as adaptation to the environment. When an
individual has an experience that is inconsistent with a
schema, the individual has a tendency to modify the
schema to accommodate the new input. Therefore, the
process by which schemata change is called accommodation.
The process by which schemata influence the
interpretation of experiences is called assimilation.
Adaptation is a basic tendency of any organism, and
consists of these two complimentary processes of
accommodation and assimilation. Assimilation involves
10
the person's dealing with the environment in terms of his

intellectual structures, whereas accommodation involves
the transformation of these structures in response to the
environment. These processes are simultaneously present
in every human act (Ginsburg & Opper, 1979).
As a person's schemata gradually but constantly
change throughout life, Piaget theorized that it is
possible to describe developmental stages that each
person passes through. Stage refers to one mode of
behavior in a sequence of behaviors related to but not
determined by the age of the individual (Elkind, 1976).
Each stage is characterized by a different kind of
psychological structure and a different type of
interaction between the individual and the environment.
These psychological structures, used by the individual to
adapt to the environment, change from one age level to
another. At each stage a child's schemata have certain
characteristics different from those in earlier or later
stages. The order of succession of these stages has been
compared by Piaget (1972) to the stages of embryogenesis,
in that they are extremely regular, even though the speed
of development can vary from one individual to another.
Piaget ultimately described four distinct developmental
stages: the sensory-motor stage, the preoperational
11
stage, the concrete operational stage, and the stage of
formal operational thought.

Sensory-motor Stage. The sensory-motor period
extends from birth to age two. The schema that develop
are those that involve the child's perception through
sense organs, and the body coordinations the child makes
to deal with these perceptions. The child forms basic
conceptions about the material world, and acquires a
basic sense of causality through the way actions are seen
to affect objects. The child's world changes from
unorganized confusion to an orderly arrangement of more
or less permanent objects, related causally to each other
and to the child's own behavior (Hill, 1977).
Preoperational Stage. The preoperational period
includes ages two through six to seven years. The
preoperational child can use symbols by generalization
and attempts to manipulate reality by intuitive
regulations instead of operations (Inhelder, & Piaget,
1958). Boden (1980) described 6- to 7-year-olds as
understanding the moral and material world in terms of
self. They often have better verbal skills than math
skills. They tend to focus on one aspect of a situation
and ignore other relevant information. This
characteristic of cognitive activity Piaget called
centration (Ginsburg & Opper, 1979). Preoperational
12
children have not yet developed the operational

structures of classification, seriation, and
reversibility that generate truly logical understanding.
Concrete Operational Stage. At about age 7 the
child enters the concrete operational stage. This stage
extends through approximately age 11. The term operation
is used here as a means for mentally transforming data
about the real world so the data can be used selectively
in the solution of problems. These problems must be
related to materials and not just symbols (Elkind, 1976).
Concrete data is characterized by immediate experience of
realities, whether physical in nature, or from sensations
or emotions. The properties of this concrete data are
abstracted by the concrete operational child in order to
perform mental operations. One characteristic of the
concrete operational child is decentration which allows
the child to attend to several dimensions of a problem
simultaneously (Ginsburg & Opper, 1979). Piaget (1972)
stated that during this stage a logic of reversible
action is constituted which allows the formation of
intellectual structures. These include a classification
system, an ordering system, the construction of natural
numbers, the concept of measurement of lines and
surfaces, perspective, and certain general types of
causality. The concrete operational child masters
13
operations of arithmetic, measurement, logical classes,

class and set relationships, and conceptions of space.
This child can understand the present and the actual and
sometimes can glimpse the possible. However, the
possible cannot be appreciated until the child reaches
the next stage—formal operational thought.
Formal Operational Stage. The children studied by

Piaget entered the stage of formal operations at age 11
or 12 (Day, 1981). Later studies indicate that full
attainment of formal operations may not be reached until
the late teens, if at all (Lawson, 1985; Nagy &
Griffiths, 1982; Pallrand, 1979; Piaget, 1972). The
stage is reached in different areas according to the
child's aptitudes and specializations (Piaget, 1972).
Even then, the way these formal structures are used
varies with the individual (Chiappetta, 1976).
The principal characteristic of this stage is the
individual's capacity to reason in terms of verbally
stated hypotheses, rather than in terms of concrete
objects and their manipulation (Piaget 1972). The formal
operational child thinks about the real and the possible
differently than does the concrete operational child.
Concrete operational children start with the real and
work toward the possible. The formal operational child
reverses this. The focus of formal thinking is no longer
14
reality, but possibility, with the real being but one of

the possibilities (Furth, 1981).
Inhelder and Piaget (1958) stated that formal
thinking is essentially hypothetico-deductive. Deduction
no longer refers to perceived realities but to
hypothetical statements—propositions which are
formulations of hypotheses or which postulate facts or
events independently of whether or not they actually
occur. The most general property of formal thought is
that it constitutes a combinatorial system. This formal
combinatorial system furnishes the total number of
possibilities; and on the experimental level the search
for new combinations is exactly what characterizes
hypotheses. The formal thinker will be able to combine
all the elements in a set systematically to create all
possible combinations. This ability allows the child to
use the strategy of controlling variables (Day, 1981).
Another characteristic of the formal thinker is his
ability to consider only the logical relationships
between statements, and ignore their concrete content.
Formal thinkers are also able to use self-referential
thinking about thinking itself.
Day stated that formal operational skills are

important for an individual to function in a complex
democratic society. However, Chiappetta (1976) reported
15
that most adolescents (perhaps as high as 85%) do not

appear to have attained the formal operational level of
intellectual development. Piaget (1972) hypothesized

that:
All normal subjects attain the stage of formal

operations if not between 11-12 to 14-15 years, in any
case between 15 and 20 years. However, they reach
this stage in different areas according to their
aptitudes and their professional specializations, (p.
10)
Piaget's stages have been described as descriptions of
competence—the behavior of which the individual is

capable—rather than of cognitive performance that occurs
in all situations (Day, 1981; Ginsburg & Opper, 1979).
Competence is, unfortunately, more difficult to measure
than performance.
In Piaget's view, all organisms inherit the basic
tendencies of adaptation and organization. Organization
is the tendency to integrate structures into higher order
systems or structures (Ginsburg & Opper, 1979). By means
of adaptation, the developing child's knowledge of the
world is constructed through assimilation and
accommodation of the schemata he or she perceives. This
knowledge is not acquired directly but is constructed by

each individual child (Elkind, 1976). Those structures
necessary to the adult mind such as logico-mathematical

structures are built up little by little (Wadsworth,
16
1979). Children discover and collect schemata from their

own environment or culture. They use these schemata to
develop cognitive structures in an evolutionary process
within themselves. The process of assimilation insures
that schemata will not be copies of reality;
accommodation insures that constructions will have some
correspondence to the real world (Wadsworth, 1979). The
order in which children pass through Piaget's stages is
held to be invariant because each one is a reconstruction
of its predecessor (Boden, 1980). However, the timing is
somewhat variable, so the ages given for any stage are
only approximate. Piaget claimed that one cannot enter a
later stage until his/her schemata have reached the
necessary level of complexity in the previous stage
(Hill, 1977).
In Piaget's studies of cognitive development, the
age of the child is the only independent variable. This
approach does not allow us to determine what role, if
any, environmental influences play in the development of
thinking and reasoning, and therefore in the emergence of
intelligence. Is intelligence affected by the
technology, language, or values of a particular culture?
This question has been posed by investigators who believe
that "intelligence is to a great extent the
internalization of tools provided by a given culture"
17
(Greenfield & Bruner, 1973, p. 369). Educators are in

the business of providing tools for the development of
intelligence.
Piaget's research is not directed toward education
and teaching but his theories of how children acquire
knowledge and develop intellectually are certainly
relevant to education. Piaget believed that the
intellectual structures of children are not the same as
that of adults. If we accept the premise that formal
operational thought is important and valuable, then we
must find ways of creating conditions which challenge and
help adolescents reach that stage (Cowan, 1978) .
Educators must use methods that present the subject
matter in forms assimilable to children of different ages
in accordance with their mental structures and various
stages of development (Elkind, 1976).
Seymour Papert
Seymour Papert is one educator who studied Piaget's
theories and applied them to educational settings. He
believed that curriculum sequences should be designed
with regard to children's changing cognitive status.
Papert agreed with Piaget that a child is ready to
develop a particular concept only when the necessary
schemata have been acquired by that child.
18
Papert interpreted Piaget to mean children are the

builders of their own intellectual structures. In
Mindstorms, Papert (1980) wrote "Like other builders,
children appropriate to their own use materials they find
about them, most saliently the models and metaphors
suggested by the surrounding culture" (p. 19). He
believed that an individual can learn anything easily, as
long as it can be assimilated into the individual's
collection of models.
Papert argued that our culture has a "relative

poverty in materials from which the apparently 'more
advanced' intellectual structures can be built" (p. 20).
By culture Papert was comparing precomputer cultures with
the computer cultures that may develop in the next
decades. Programming the computer in order to accomplish
a goal or solve a problem, instead of for the sake of
learning to program, makes the computer a part of the
culture (Papert, 1985). According to Piaget, the slow
development of a certain concept may be due to its level
of complexity or formality. In other words, the child is
not ready to construct that concept at his or her present
operational level. In contrast, Papert believed the
critical factor was instead the poverty of materials in
our culture that would make the concept simple and
concrete.
19
The two fundamental ideas advanced by Mindstorms

were (1) that computers can be designed so that learning
to communicate with them is a natural process; and (2)
that learning to communicate with a computer may change
the way learning takes place. Instead of accepting
Piaget's views completely, Papert placed the emphasis on
the intellectual structures that could develop as opposed
to those that at present d£ develop in the child (V7alker,
1984). Papert was looking at human potential—at how the
computer might be used to expand the human mind. Papert
was especially interested in Piaget's observation that
children learn a great deal from personal experiences,
outside the formal school setting. He also remembered
from his own childhood that he had been fascinated by
gears. Papert (1980) believed that as a child he used
the interaction of gears as an "object-to-think-with" (p.
11) in his personal intellectual construction of abstract
mathematical thought.
Papert conjectured that:
Computer use can concretize (and personalize) the

formal...It is not just another powerful educational
tool. It is unique in providing us with the means for
addressing what Piaget and many others see as the
obstacle which is overcome in the passage from child
to adult thinking. I believe that it can allow us to
shift the boundary separating concrete and formal.
Knowledge that was accessible only through formal
processes could now be approached concretely... this
knowledge includes those elements one needs to become
a formal thinker. (p. 21)
20
Piaget's formal stage includes combinatorial

thinking which is reasoning in terms of all the possible
states of a system. Computers do combinatorial thinking
with nested loops. A second characteristic of formal
thought is self-referential thinking. Papert wanted to
develop a computer language that would allow the
individual to use the computer as an
"object-to-think-with" (1980, p. 23).
Logo
In the late 1960s Papert and others developed the
computer language Logo. They soon established the
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. Their goal was to devise a
computer language and a learning philosophy that enabled
people to learn subjects like math and English by
interacting with a computer instead of being taught in
the traditional manner. The new language was named Logo,
derived from the Greek word logos, meaning thought or
word. They felt the word symbolized both the programming
language and the philosophy (Lough, 1983).
Turtle Graphics. The simplest form of Logo is seen
in Turtle graphics. The Turtle, a computer-controlled
cybernetic animal, is a small triangular or turtle-shaped
pointer on the screen that corresponds to Euclid's point
21
in space. The Euclidian point is a static entity that

has a position but no other properties. The Turtle has
the property of position, as well as heading, color,
size, and shape—and it is dynamic. The Turtle responds
to a few simple commands such as FORWARD, BACK, LEFT, and
RIGHT. The command RIGHT 90 FORWARD 100 will cause the
Turtle to turn 90 degrees to the right and draw a line
100 Turtle steps (about three inches) in the direction it
is facing. By repeating the above commands four times,
the Logo programmer can instruct the Turtle to construct
a square. These commands can be given in the interactive
mode, where they will be executed immediately when typed
at the keyboard, or they can be given in the deferred
mode, by including them in a procedure.
Procedures. Logo is like many modern computer
languages in that a program to solve a problem consists
of many smaller subprocedures, each dedicated to solving
one small piece of the problem. These small independent
pieces are called procedures in Logo. The above example
could be rewritten as a procedure by typing the words To
Square before the RIGHT and FORWARD commands. This
procedure would be written like this:
22
TO SQUARE
RIGHT 90 FORWARD 100

RIGHT 90 FORVÂRD 100

END
This procedure could be simplified by changing it to

read:
TO SQUARE
REPEAT 4 [RIGHT 90 FORWARD 100]

END
With either version of the procedure, a square will now

be drawn by the Turtle whenever the word SQUARE is typed
at the keyboard, or included in another procedure. A
similar procedure could be written to draw a triangle,
and the TRIANGLE and SQUARE procedures could be used
together in another procedure called HOUSE. The original
commands of RIGHT and FORWARD are two of Logo's many
primitive commands which are included in the language.
SQUARE, TRIANGLE, and HOUSE are considered user-defined
commands by virtue of being named by the user (Markuson,
Tobias, & Lough, 1983).
Shapes. Turtle graphics allow the programmer
(child) to manipulate the Turtle by typing instructions

23
such as direction, distance, color and even visibility.

Some versions of Logo include shapes that can be given to
the Turtle, or to multiple Turtles, that can be
programmed to move with specific heading and speed. The
shapes are invisible until the programmer calls them and
gives them color and form. The shapes can be pre-defined
or designed by the programmer. Use of shapes in Logo
provides the student an opportunity for exploration of
ideas somewhat separated from the real world
complexities, yet still providing, through simulation,
real world experiences (Knight, 1985).
Word Manipulation. Vôrd manipulation, or language

processing, is a more complex feature of Logo. The three
kinds of data objects available for word manipulation in
Logo are words (strings of characters), numbers, and
lists. Lists are structured collections of data that can
be made up of words, numbers, or more lists. The power
of Logo comes from the procedures for dealing with these
data objects. Procedures are used to build data objects
or to take them apart. Procedures can be written to
obtain letters from words and objects from lists. A
typical list operation would be PRINT FIRST :ROSTER,
which tells the computer to print the first name on a
previously defined roster (list) of names.
24
Numeric functions of Logo include addition,

subtraction, multiplication, and division. Numbers can
also be manipulated as words through list processing.
Other more advanced features such as exponential
notation, and sine and cosine functions vary according to
the version of Logo.
In Logo versions with a screen editor, individual

procedures can be developed and tested independently.
This process is called debugging. The debugging process
helps teach the child the importance of the process as
well as the product.
Recursion. Other aspects of Logo that make the
language a challenge suitable for a formal thinker
include the use of variables and recursion. Recursion
refers to the ability within Logo for a procedure to call
itself as a subprocedure. Of the commonly available
languages for educational use, only Logo and Pascal have
this capability (Martin, 1985). This adds power to the
language, but may make it difficult to follow the flow of
the program because simple programs using recursion can
lead to varied, unexpected results (Abelson, 1982b).
Martin (1985) explained the two types of recursion as
follov/s. Tail recursion occurs when the recursive call
is the last line of a procedure.
25
TO SQUARE
FORWARD 50
RIGHT 90
SQUARE
END
When SQUARE is entered from the keyboard, the Turtle will

draw 50 steps forward, then turn right 90 degrees, then
repeat this sequence (SQUARE) indefinitely. A stop rule
can be included to cause the procedure to halt execution
whenever some predetermined condition becomes true. This
type of recursion is relatively straightforv/ard and
generally understandable.
Embedded recursion occurs where the recursive call
is not the last line in the procedure. Here the
situation is more complex due to the way Logo handles the
stopping of recursive call, and also due to the way Logo
runs procedures in levels. When a Logo subprocedure
STOPS, control reverts back to the procedure that called
it, and the program continues from that point. Each call
to a procedure sets up a copy of that procedure, complete
with a private library of variable values associated with
it. Logo keeps track of these procedures by means of
levels of operations. Level 0 refers to procedures typed
in at the keyboard. A procedure called by a level 0
26
procedure is running at level 1; a procedure called by a

level 1 procedure is running at level 2; and so on. V7hen
2 procedure STOPs, then the level 1 procedure will
continue from the point where the level 2 was called.
Provided the stop rule is adequate, all levels of the
procedure will eventually STOP and the program will END.
Often the order in which these STOPs and continuations
occur can be very difficult to follow and understand.
The combination of recursion and variables is especially
interesting to explore.
Ease of Use. Error messages within Logo are

especially user friendly. If the command RIGHT 90 is
misspelled, VJRITE 90, the computer will reply "I don't
know how to WRITE". If data is generated within a
procedure but not sent anywhere by the procedure, Logo
will generate a message like "You don't say what to do
with 25, in line '5 * 5' at level 1 of SQUARE." Logo has
been called a language with no threshold, and no ceiling.
It is easy to learn at the entry level, but still
challenging to the advanced programmer.
Logo Philosophy. In Papert's view, Logo encourages
the child to deliberately think like a computer in a
step-by-step, literal, mechanical fashion. By
deliberately learning to imitate mechanical thinking, the
learner can discriminate between what is mechanical
27
thinking and what is not, and can choose a cognitive

style that suits the problem. This makes children fit
Piaget's description of epistemologists when they can
"learn to think articulately about thinking" (Papert,
1980, p. 27). Logo is both simple and powerful at the
same time, and these aspects are complimentary (Abelson,
1982a) . The simplicity of Logo programming allows the
beginner the power to do interesting things in a short
time. The best kind of Logo activity uses programming,
mathematics, aesthetics and exploration. Abelson (1982a)
preferred to think of Logo as a "computer-based learning
environment" (p. 112) rather than just as a programming
language. Abelson said.
Computational descriptions, like those of science or
mathematics, provide a perspective, a collection of
'tools of thought,' such as procedural organization,
hierarchical structure, and recursive formulations.
Logo, and languages like it, will help make these
tools available to everyone. (1982a, p. 112)
Papert (1980) said "The role I give to the computer
is that of a carrier of cultural 'germs' or 'seeds' whose
intellectual products will not need technological support
once they take root in an actively growing mind" (p. 9).
By providing a child at the concrete operational level
these tools of thought, we can expect that child to use
these tools at the formal level of operational thought at
an earlier age than expected otherwise. By providing
28
these tools of thought to a child at the formal

operational level, we can expect more children (age 11 or
above) to use these tools to perform at a higher degree
of formal operational thought than is normally expected.
Field Testing. The Logo language was originally
developed on large research computers but was later
refined and developed for the personal computer market.
Versions are now available for microcomputers made by
Texas Instruments, Terak, Apple, Radio Shack, Commodore,
IBM, and others. Papert field-tested Logo in schools at
Edinburg, Scotland; Brookline, Massachusetts; New York
City, New York; and Dallas, Texas.
The Edinburgh Logo Project involved a private school
that attempted to discover whether a group of 11 sixth-
grade boys in the lowest ability math class could do and
talk about mathematics more effectively after programming
with Logo. The published results showed little
difference from the control group in basic math tests and
math attainment tests. The teacher's perception of each
group showed that those students in Logo classes were
able to "argue sensibly about mathematical issues and to
explain their mathematical difficulties clearly" (Watt,
1982, p. 118). Watt (1982) observed that much
interesting data about what the students learned was
29
collected during this study—but little of this

information has been analyzed or published.
The Brookline Logo Project involved 50 sixth-grade
students. The learning experience of 16 of those
students was carefully documented. All students (ranging
from academically gifted; to those with poor academic
records; to the learning disabled) were found to be
successful in Logo classes. Standardized tests were not
used here because they were thought to be irrelevant.
Problem solving and mathematical tests devised by the
project staff were inconclusive. Testing problem solving
or procedural thinking seemed to be difficult (Watt,
1982) .
Computers in the Schools, New York City, was a Logo
project involving students in grades two though nine.
The teachers were given extensive training and each
classroom was assigned a computer for the entire year.
To date there are no published results, but project
coordinator Mike Tempel felt the project was
successful—with interaction among students being a major
positive consequence (Watt, 1982).
The goal of the Lamplighter School Logo project in
Dallas, Texas, was to establish a setting in which
student access to computers would not be a limiting
factor. All of the 400 students (ages 3 to 9) plus the

30
teachers, were involved to some extent. Computers were

an integral part of the school. Watt (1982) visited the
school and found "unique, exciting and wonderful things
have been happening" (p. 132) , but because most of the
expected research studies had not materialized, "one gets
the feeling that nobody's watching" (p. 132). An
independent study did report a significant difference
between third-grade students required to spend one hour
per week on Logo as opposed to those required to spend
1/2 hour per week, on a test of rule learning (Gorman,
1982). Gorman believed the results showed that the extra
Logo sessions improved the students' general problem
solving skills.
Review of Research Literature

Papert (1980) has suggested that Logo programming
will enhance problems solving and/or encourage the use of
higher level thinking skills. Empirical studies are
starting to appear testing these claims. However, there
is not yet a concensus on what exactly is to be tested.
The use of Logo is being examined from a variety of
viewpoints. The studies reviewed will be grouped into
three general categories: (1) Measurement of the
cognitive abilities and characteristics of children
trained in Logo, (2) Assessment of children's mental
31
models of Logo, and (3) Measurement of the effects of
variations in the method of Logo instruction.
Cognitive Abilities and Characteristics

Attributions of Success. Horner (1984) studied the
use of Logo with 74 learning disabled (LD) students and
non-LD students at the 7th and 8th grade. The students
were divided into four groups: two experimental (Logo
instruction) and two control (math curriculum). The two
groups within the experimental and control groups were:
(a) LD students, and (b) Non-LD students. Students
were pre and post-tested for four variables: (1) problem
solving skills, (2) locus of control, (3) math attitudes,
and (4) geometric angle recognition. During fourteen 55
minute sessions the experimental groups had Logo
instruction, while the control groups had regular math
instruction. Test results showed no significant
differences between experimental and control groups on
any of the four dependent variables. A weekly
self-report of attributions of success or failure with
Logo showed a significantly greater number of students
who reported internal attributions about Logo than was
measured on the standardized measure of internal locus of
control.
32
The use of computers for both Logo and word

processing was investigated for its affect on locus of
control for a group of high socioeconomic status students
ages 9 to 15. Children less than 12 years old were found
to experience a significant internal shift after sixteen
hours of computer use (Louie, Luick & Louie, 1985-86).
Milojkovic (1984) found that fifth-grade students
using computers for either Logo, Basic, or
Computer-Assisted Learning were less likely to take
responsibility for positive outcomes, but more likely to
take responsibility for negative outcomes on a measure of
locus of control than a control group not using
computers. However, there were no significant
differences in locus of control among the three
computer-using groups.
In contrast to the previously mentioned studies
showing a significant effect for locus of control, Fickel
(1986) found no significant difference between sixth-
grade students trained with Logo and sixth graders in a
control group with regard to locus of control.
Field dependence-independence. Rampy (198 3)
investigated relationships between Logo programming
strategies, cognitive styles and gender in fifth-grade
students. Programming styles were observed to be
product-oriented or process-oriented. Programming
33
strategy was not related to gender or cognitive style

except in the case of programs using subprocedures.
Students using procedures in Logo programming were always
highly field independent.
Intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation. Logo
students reported placing a significantly greater value
on independent judgment (as opposed to reliance on the
teacher's judgment) than students in a BASIC group
(Milojkovic, 1984).
General cognitive effects. Milojkovic (1984)
investigated a variety of cognitive measures with fifth-
grade children randomly assigned to instruction in either
Logo, BASIC, Computer-aided-instruction, or a control
group not using computers. These measures included the
California Achievement Test, a test of Mental Rotation,
the Gottschaldt Hidden Figures Test, Mapping Skills (a
set of transfer measures used by Papert, Watt, deSessa
and Weir in the Brooklin Logo Project mentioned earlier),
the Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes, an Algebra
test, and a Means-Ends Problem Solving test. None of
these cognitive transfer measures showed significant
differences between the four groups.
Problem solving. The transfer of problem solving
skills from the domain of computer programming to
non-computer tasks has been investigated with a variety
34
of research designs. Mitterer & Rose-Krasnor (1986) in

an attempt to correct problems with earlier studies
investigated the effects of a standard play-oriented Logo
curriculum on a group of 96 sixth-grade students from
four elementary schools who were randomly assigned to one
of four groups for seven weeks of instruction in Logo,
BASIC, a problem solving curriculum, or a control group.
This age group was selected on the theory that children
beginning formal operations could best benefit from Logo
instruction. Pretest scores on the Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test (PPVT) revealed no significant
pretreatment differences between the four groups.
Students were pre and posttested on a variety of measures
including the Weschler Intelligence Scale for
Children-Revised, a Tower of Hanoi problem which can be
solved recursively, a test of creativity, and a measure
of problem solving integration which assesses the child's
ability to integrate two variables in problem solving.
Posttest scores were analyzed using analysis of
covariance with the pretest as a covariate. After 40
hours of training, the researchers observed no
generalized benefit from either type of computer training
on classical measures of problem solving skills.
In similar studies Gaffney (1984), Fickel (1986) and

Shaw (1984) found no significant differences in problem
35
solving skills in fourth-, fifth- or sixth-grade children

taught programming in Logo or Basic. No relationship
between the development of planning skills and learning
Logo programming was found by Pea and Kurland (1984) in
two studies conducted a year apart using 8- to
9-year-olds and 11- to 12-year-olds in each study.
Fifth- and sixth-grade students taught Logo through the
guided discovery method showed a significant increase in
the skills of analysis and evaluation but no increase in
the use of synthesis skills when compared to the
nontreatment control group (Odom, 1984). Fickel (1986) ,
in a similar study of sixth-grade students taught Logo
through the guided discovery method, found no significant
differences in skills of knowledge, comprehension,
application, application or analysis as measured by the
Developing Cognitive Abilities Test.
However, several studies (Bamberger, 1984; Dvarskas,

1983; Evans, 1984; Kline, 1985) have indicated that
children's revision practices in paper and pencil
composing, or in solving mathematical word problems are
strengthened by the revision practices inherent in Logo.
These include strategies of planning, breaking large
problems into more manageable sized chunks, checking
results, and debugging.
36
Clements & Gullo (1984) compared the effects of Logo

training with the effects of computer-aided instruction
(CAI) on 18 six-year-olds. Logo trained first graders
demonstrated significant pre to posttest differences in
reflective thinking compared to students using CAI.
Significant differences were also found on measures of
the children's ability to monitor and evaluate their own
cognitive processes (meta-cognitive ability) and ability
to describe directions. No between group differences
were found on measures of cognitive development or
logical thinking.
In a subsequent study involving 72 children (36

first graders and 36 third graders) randomly assigned to
Logo, CAI, or a control group, Clements (1986) reported
significantly higher scores on the cognitive skills of
classification and seriation, plus two of three
metacognitive skills. No between group differences were
found in reading and math achievement.
Clements' most recent study (Clements, 19'87) was a
longitudinal study of the subjects of his 1984 research.
Eighteen months after the initial Logo and CAI treatment,
the 16 remaining children (2 had moved) were tested on
the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, the Test of
Cognitive Skills, the California Achievement Test (CAT),
and a measure of geometric analysis. The students scored

37
significantly higher on the language portion of the CAT,

but not on the math portion. Compared with their school
district as a whole, the CAI children generally scored
near the 50th percentile on the CAT, whereas the Logo
children generally scored above the 60th percentile.
Significant differences were not found on any of the
other measures. In fact, on the measure of geometric
analysis, the researchers thought that Logo training
caused the children to answer one question incorrectly.
Creativity. Clements and Gullo (1984) and Clements
(1986, 1987) found significant pre to posttest

differences on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
(Figural subtest) for first and third graders trained in
Logo. The affect was most pronounced on the originality
and elaboration subtests. Control groups with and
without CAI showed no significant differences between pre
and posttests. Van Dyke (1984) found a positive
correlation between ability at Logo programming and
creativity as measured by the Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking (Figural and Verbal subtests) in 27 nine to
twelve-year-olds—only when used with measures of
intelligence. Creativity alone showed no significant
correlation to Logo ability. A major flaw of this study
is the short (three week) duration of the Logo training.
38
Assessment of Children's
Mental Models of Logo
Kurland and Pea (1983) investigated the mental
models that children hold when programming with Logo.
Children 11 to 12 years of age were able to predict
turtle graphics when using direct or iterative commands,
and when using tail recursion. These same children were
not able to accurately predict graphics of programs
containing embedded recursion. Problems with explaining
embedded recursion were traced to two factors:
conceptual errors in the children's mental model for how
lines of programming code dictate the computer's
operations in program execution, and the particular
control structure of embedded recursive procedures.
Children tend to view all forms of recursion as
iteration, instead of considering each command within the
context of the procedure.
Hopkins (1984) used programming with Logo as a means
of assessing the degree of procedural thinking used by
students when solving process problems.
A pilot study using Assessing Learning With Logo
developed by Horton and Ryba (1986) was an attempt to
systematically examine the effects of Logo programming on
students' thinking skills. This method differs from
traditional testing approach at the end of a treatment
39
period in that assessment is built into the program as a

continuous and ongoing process. Sixteen junior high
students were randomly assigned to Logo and non-Logo
groups. Students progressed to more difficult levels of
Logo instruction as they mastered the thinking skills and
programming operations at each level. The results of pre
and posttest scores were not statistically analyzed due
to the small sample sizes. However, the Logo group
outperformed the non-Logo group on each of the cognitive
tasks of exploration, analysis & planning, prediction,
coding, and creativity. An unexpected finding was that
the non-Logo group outscored the Logo group on the
debugging task. The authors feel this may have been due
to increases in reflective thinking in the Logo group
which would slow these students down when completing the
debugging task.
Effects of Variation in Logo Instruction

Two methods of Logo instruction were compared to
determine effects on the students' mastery of Logo
programming (Kinzer, Littlefield, Delclos, & Bransford,
1985). The unstructured method was based on a discovery
learning model. The instructor introduced new Logo
commands or concepts, demonstrated concrete examples, and
related new material to the previous day's work. The
40
remainder of the one hour class period was unstructured,

as long as the students were working on Logo. The
teacher spent the unstructured time observing and
answering questions. The structured method was based on
a structured computer tutorial model. After instruction
on the computer tutorial, students were given assignments
to write programs to draw figures provided on a
worksheet. The same materials and examples were used
with each group. Results showed no difference between
groups in their mastery of Logo commands. However, the
unstructured group showed significantly lower ability to
predict a figure produced by a set of commands, and to
write a Logo program to reproduce a specific figure, than
v/as shown by the structured group.
Assessment of Studies to Date

Research results are conflicting. Most reports of
success are measured within the Logo environment, rather
than measuring transfer. Anecdotal studies in which the
researcher works closely with and observes the children
are more likely to report success than studies involving
control group research designs (Clements, 1985b; Ginther
& Williamson, 1985; Watt, 1982). Proof has not yet been
established that Logo, as a specific teaching technique,
can advance cognitive development to higher levels or
41
increase creativity. This may be because the shift to

formal thinking is gradual and difficult to measure
(Horner, 1984). We consider formal operational
structures important in order to compete successfully in
today's world. Chiappetta's (1976) review of Piagetian
studies relative to science instruction indicates that
formal operational structures develop in 50 per cent or
less of the secondary school and college level students
in the United States (cited in Bass, 1985, p. 113). Can
the Logo language serve as a means of intervention in the
development of thinking skills? Seymour Papert (1980)
proclaims that in his vision:
The child program the computer and, in doing so, both
acquires a sense of mastery over a piece of the most
modern and powerful technology and establishes an
intimate contact with some of the deepest ideas from
science, from mathematics, and from the art of
intellectual model building. (p. 5)
Papert's views are exciting and hopeful but his claims
beg research.
The method of Logo instruction may have an affect on
the development and transfer of problems solving skills.
The open discovery method of teaching Logo is based on
Papert's suggestions in Mindstorms. The use of other
more structured methods to teach Logo may result in more
effective learning outcomes. Program control structures
such as recursion need to be specifically taught rather
42
than left to self-guided discovery methods (Kurland &

Pea, 1983). Studies of learning transfer must specify
the method used to teach Logo, plus provide some measure
of the Logo learning that actually took place (Kinzer,
Littlefield, Delclos, & Bransford, 1985).
Clements (1985a) reached the conclusion that Logo
instruction may affect the way children use the cognitive
abilities they already possess. The locus of control
studies by Louie, Luick, & Louie (1985-86) moderately
justify Papert's claims that computer use leads to
empowerment of children, leading them to playfully
acquire and manipulate powerful ideas. Logo may have a
potential value in helping students take responsibility
for their successes and failures, especially if their
internal attributions of success can be generalized to
academic areas (Horner & Maddux, 1985).
Maddux (1984a) asserts, "The lack of good research
is our current most pressing educational computing need"
(p. 36). If we don't answer the questions posed by Logo,
"what today seems the bright promise of microcomputers in
education may tomorrow be regarded as simply another
disappointing and trendy fad which never quite came of
age" (Maddux, 1984b, p. 88).
43
Research Problem
The purpose of this study is to determine the effect
of instruction in Logo programming on high achieving
seventh-grade students. Does Logo training effect the
students* use of formal thought as described by Piaget,
and/or higher level thinking skills as described in
Bloom's taxonomy? Does Logo training effect the creative
thinking skills of students?
The Lubbock Independent School District (L.I.S.D.),
Lubbock, Texas has been committed to implementing Logo
training in elementary classrooms for several years.
Former Instructional Program Administrator for Elementary
Computer Education, Rebecca Reagan, said (personal
communication, October 26, 1984) "L.I.S.D. believes Logo
will develop higher level thinking skills and that these
skills will have carry-over value into other
disciplines." A pilot project, to teach a one semester
Logo class at the seventh grade, began in the 1986-87
school year in a L.I.S.D. junior high school. The goal
of this pilot was to provide Logo instruction at the
seventh-grade level to a select group of students who had
excelled in computer classes at the elementary level. In
addition to Logo pilot program for seventh-grade
students, there was a computer literacy course in place
44
for all eighth-grade students, as required by the state
of Texas.
The pilot program in Logo training offered a unique
opportunity to observe and analyze results of Logo
instruction over a longer period of time than any of the
treatment periods found in the literature reviewed. An
added bonus was the age of the students, because seventh
graders should be, according to Piaget, entering the
stage of formal operational thought, an area of specific
interest to this researcher.
The review of the literature indicates that several
important questions have not been conclusively answered
regarding the effect of Logo training on children at the
age of transition from concrete operational thought to
formal operation thought. More specifically, this
research addresses the following questions(s):
(1) What is the effect of instruction in
programming with Logo on high achieving seventh-grade
students (who have some prior experience with Logo) on
the students' use of formal thought?
the students' use of the cognitive skills of knowledge.

45
comprehension, application, analysis, and synthesis as

described in Bloom's taxonomy?
(3) V^hat is the effect of instruction in
the students' creative thinking ability?
In an effort to answer these questions, the
following hypotheses were proposed for investigation.
Hypothesis 1. Students who receive instruction in
programming with Logo will show a greater increase in
formal thought as measured by the Arlin Test of Formal
Reasoning than the control group receiving no Logo
programming instruction.
programming with Logo will demonstrate a greater increase
in the use of Bloom's cognitive classes of knowledge,
comprehension, application, analysis, and/or synthesis as
measured by the Developing Cognitive Abilities Test than
the control group receiving no Logo programming
instruction.
programming with Logo will exhibit a greater increase in
the use of creative thinking skills as measured by the
Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking than the control
group receiving no Logo programming instruction.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The review of the literature pertaining to formal

thought, Logo, and the claims made by Logo enthusiasts
suggest several questions that should be investigated.
Based on those questions, the purpose of this research
was to test the hypotheses posed in the previous section.
This section discusses the methods used.
Subjects
High achieving sixth-grade computer students were
selected by teacher recommendation to participate in the
pilot of two seventh-grade Logo classes, with
approximately 13 students per class. The control group
was comprised of a group of students also selected by
teacher recommendation, in anticipation of a Logo class
(that failed to materialize) at another junior high
school. Teacher recommendation of both groups took into
consideration the student's previous participation and
achievement in elementary school computer classes. Both
experimental subjects (N=25) and members of the control
group (N=30) had from one to three years experience with
computers (including some Logo instruction) in elementary
school. Treatment for the experimental group was Logo
training for a semester in daily 50 minute classes for a
46
47
total of approximately 71 hours. The treatment is

described in detail in the Description of Treatment
section later in this chapter. There was no computer or
Logo training for the control group.
Experimental Subjects. Of the 25 subjects in the
experimental group, 7 were male and 18 were female.
Within this group were 2 Black students, 11 Hispanic
students, and 12 White students. The age range at the
beginning of the study was 11.8 to 13.8 with a median age
of 12.6 years.
Control Subjects. Of the 30 subjects in the control
group, 12 were male and 18 were female. Within this
group were 4 Hispanic students, 1 Asian student, and 25
White students. Their ages ranged from 11.9 to 14.5 with
a median age of 12.5 years.
Equivalence of the two groups was evaluated by
comparison of demographic data available on each student,
plus comparison of scores on district wide standardized
tests administered to all students prior to the study.
These include the California Achievement Test (CAT)
(Tiegs & Clark, 1970) and the Short Form Test of Academic
Aptitude (SFTAA) (Sullivan, Clark, and Tiegs, 1970) which
are both norm referenced measures administered to the
subjects in April of their sixth-grade year, and the
Texas Assessment of Basic Skills (TABS) (1985), a
48
criterion referenced measure administered during the

subjects' 5th-grade year. The SFTAA, administered at the
same time as the CAT, provides three IQ measures,
language, non-language, and total. The Total IQ measure
of the SFTAA is based on a different distribution of raw
scores than the Language or Non-Language IQ raw score
distributions, and therefore should not be considered an
average of the Language and Non-Language IQ scores
(Sullivan, Clark, and Tiegs, 1970).
Apparatus
The computer lab was equipped with 15 Apple lie
microcomputers, 4 Epson printers, and LogoWriter, a
recent version of Logo that includes word processing
(Logo Computer Systems Inc., 1986).
Dependent Measures
The Arlin Test of Formal Reasoning (ATFR) published
by Slossen Educational Publications, (Arlin, 1984) is
used to assess an individual's ability to use the
concepts of volume, probability, correlations,
combinations, proportions, momentum, mechanical
equilibrium, and frames of reference associated with
Piaget's stage of formal operations. Individuals are
profiled as concrete, high concrete, transitional, low
49
formal, or high formal. The ATFR meets the general

conditions for discriminant validity (Santmire, 1985).
The Developing Cognitive Abilities Test (DCAT) is
published by American Testronics (1981) as a measure of
characteristics and ability that contribute to academic
performance. It is based on the assumption that
instruction can alter and improve those characteristics
and abilities. The DCAT measures two dimensions of
aptitude. The first dimension includes verbal,
quantitative, and spatial abilities. The second
dimension provides information based on five of the six
cognitive classes of Bloom's taxonomy: (1) knowledge,
(2) comprehension, (3) application, (4) analysis, (5)
synthesis. Reliability as assessed by a measure of
internal consistency is fairly high for both the verbal
and spatial subtests, and somewhat lower for the
quantitative subtest. Its potential for
diagnostic-prescriptive instructional planning in
relationship to Bloom's taxonomy make it more generally
useful than other more traditional aptitude measures
(Fox, 1985).
The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) is
published by Scholastic Testing Service (Torrance, 1974)
Torrance (1974) describes creativity as:
50
a process of becoming sensitive to problems,

deficiencies, gaps in knowledge, missing elements,
disharmonies, and so on; identifying the difficulty;
searching for solutions, making guesses, or
formulating hypotheses about the deficiencies: testing
and retesting these hypotheses and possibly modifying
and retesting them and finally communicating the
results, (p. 8)
The test is suggested for use in assessing the
differential effect of experimental programs or
curriculums. Conversion to a standardized total score
(with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 20) for
each of the dimensions of creative ability can be made
for pre and posttest comparisons. Test-retest
reliability ranges from .50 to .93, which is satisfactory
for evaluating changes in group characteristics over a
period of weeks (Chase, 1985; Treffinger, 1985).
A Logo Achievement Test designed to assess the level
of Logo achievement was developed by the researcher based
on the Logo Test (Milojkovic, 1984), the Logo Ability
Test (Van Dyke, 1984), and the Logo Achievement Test
developed at the 1986 Logo Institute (Hyink, de Caviedes,
& Estes, 1986) . A major consideration in developing the
test was to avoid using commands that are specific to a
particular version of Logo. Logo instruction at the
elementary level within this school district varies
according to the computer hardware available. Some
schools use Texas Instruments Logo on Texas Instrument's
51
TI-99/4A microcomputers. Other schools use Terrapin,

Krell, or Apple Sprite Logo on Apple lie microcomputers.
The syntax of commands in each Logo differs somewhat.
Therefore, the Logo Achievement Text was designed to use
only commands that are generic to all versions of Logo.
Students in both the experimental and control groups
had varying amounts of previous Logo instruction.
Pretesting with the Logo Achievement Test was used to
determine the initial Logo performance level of the
students in the pilot Logo classes, and to provide a
comparison of Logo abilities between the experimental and
control groups. Posttesting the experimental group with
the Logo Achievement Test provided a measure of the Logo
programming knowledge the students gained from a
semester's instruction. Access time for the control
group was limited, because these students could only be
tested during release time from regular classes. As a
result, the control group was not posttested with the
Logo Achievement Test, the assumption being that without
Logo training, their scores pre to post would not differ
significantly.
Description of Treatment
The Logo instruction was implemented by a computer
instructor using a curriculum designed jointly by the
52
computer instructor, the school district's Computer

Program Administrator and the researcher. A copy of the
Logo curriculum objectives is located in Appendix C.
Instruction in Logo included both Turtle graphics as
related to geometry and/or art, and list processing as
related to language arts or data base manipulation. A
project approach was followed, in which the students were
given instruction over specific Logo commands or
concepts, then given a short structured assignment using
the commands, and finally, were allowed to incorporate
the commands into a theme project of their own design.
For example, the concepts of superprocedures and
subprocedures were taught by demonstrating a Logo Turtle
graphic birthday cake for one of the students, using CAKE
as the superprocedure, and MOVEl, LAYERl, M0VE2, LAYER2,
M0VE3, LAYER3, CANDLE & FLAME as subprocedures.
Following the demonstration by the teacher, students were
assigned to create a Logo birthday cake for the teacher,
and to decorate it creatively. Broad theme projects such
as a street scene, an interactive Halloween story.
Thanksgiving scene, and Christmas scene were used later
in the semester.
The experimental group consisted of a total of 25
students who met during 1st Period (13 students) or 2nd
Period (12 students). Instruction in the two classes
53
followed the same lesson plans and included the same

instructional activities. The classes were held in a
classroom recently remodeled into a computer lab which
was equipped with 15 Apple H e computers, color monitors,
4 Epson printers each connected through a network with
three or four computers, and one Apple ImageWriter
printer. The small class sizes allowed each student to
work alone at their computers, although student
interaction was encouraged. The students appeared to be
highly motivated to work on the computer at all times.
Printouts of their work was especially motivating.
I visited and observed each Logo class approximately
once per week for the 18 weeks of the study. During my
visits, I often demonstrated on the computer the new Logo
commands the computer instructor was presenting on the
chalk board. Following the demonstration, I worked with
students individually as they developed their projects.
Some days the instructor would request that I spend the
entire period with a particular student who was having
difficulty with a specific concept. Other days, I moved
around the classroom spending some time with each
student. Students were encouraged to walk through any
Turtle bugs (problems) they encountered in programming by
imagining themselves to be the Turtle and walking through
the steps the Turtle must take to accomplish the goal of
54
their Logo program. Procedural programming was required

by the instructor, and the students soon learned that
short subprocedures incorporated into a master calling
procedure (superprocedure) were much easier to debug than
long rambling procedures.
Student Logo programming projects were developed
individually or in groups of two. Most projects
consisted of scenes incorporating text, sound, and
graphics (including color). The finished programs
displayed differing levels of complexity. Some students
were satisfied with projects similar to the structured
class assignment given to demonstrate a concept or Logo
command, whereas others consistently pushed themselves to
use Logo as a tool to create on the screen the
preconceived idea they held in their minds. Often two
students working together on a project exhibited each of
these characteristics respectively; one being
conservative and trying to stick with methods he or she
knew worked, while the other student insisted on taking
risks trying new methods in order to accomplish the
goal.
Students all seemed to enjoy their Logo training.
Several were quite disappointed when reminded that the
class was only one semester long instead of lasting both
semesters. Many of the students expressed a desire to
55
continue in the Logo class for the second semester of the

school year—an experience new to the instructor after 12
years of teaching in another discipline.
Design and Analysis

Both the experimental and the control groups were
pretested on the measures of Logo ability, and pre and
posttested on the dependent measures of formal thought,
cognitive achievement, and creative ability. The pre and
posttesting for the control group was administered within
a few days of the pre and posttesting for the
experimental group. The treatment was presented five
days per week for 18 weeks prior to posttesting.
The research design was quasi-experimental, because
random assignment to treatment groups was not possible
(Huitema, 1980) . Intact groups were used. Pretest data
was used to determine differences, if any, between groups
prior to the study. The experimental group received Logo
instruction daily in 50 minute sessions for one semester
(approximately 85 days). The control group received no
Logo instruction during this semester.
Each of the three hypotheses was tested using
analysis of covariance and gain score analysis of
variance following a pre-analysis dry-run procedure to
56
determine bias within the samples. This will be

explained in detail in the Results section.
Hypothesis 1 was tested using an analysis of
covariance (ANCOVA) and with gain score analysis of
variance (ANOVA). The dependent variable for the ANCOVA
was the posttest score on the Arlin Test of Formal
Thought (ATFR). The independent variable was the
treatment. The pretest score on the ATFR was used as the
covariate. The dependent variable for the ANOVA was the
difference between the pre and posttest scores on the
ATFR. The independent variable was the treatment.
Hypothesis 2 was tested using an analysis of
covariance and with gain score analysis of variance. The
dependent variable for the ANCOVA was the posttest score
on the Developing Cognitive Abilities Test (DCAT). The
independent variable was the treatment. The pretest
score on the DCAT was used as the covariate. The
dependent variable for the ANOVA was the difference
between the pre and posttest scores on the DCAT. The
independent variable was the treatment.
Hypothesis 3 was tested using analyses of covariance
and with gain score analyses of variance. The dependent
varialjles for the ANCOVAs were the Average Score and the
Creativity Index on the posttest administration of the
Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT). The
57
independent variable was the treatment. The pretest

scores on the TTCT Average Score, and the TTCT Creativity
Index were used as the respective covariates. The
dependent variables for the ANOVAs were the differences
between the pre and posttest scores for the TTCT Average,
and the TTCT Creativity Index. The independent variable
was the treatment.
Analysis was performed using Systat; The System for
Statistics for the IBM PC (Wilkinson, 1985). Systat was
developed as a general-purpose statistics package by
SYSTAT, INC. of Evanston Illinois. In a BYTE review of
24 statistics packages, SYSTAT was rated as powerful,
fast and accurate (Carpenter, Deloria, & Morganstein,
1984) .
Procedure
The Logo Achievement Test, the Torrance Test of
Creative Thinking, the Arlin Test of Formal Reasoning,
and the Developing Cognitive Abilities Test were
administered by the researcher to subjects in the
experimental group on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th days of
the fall semester, 1986, and to the control group on the
7th and 8th days of the semester. After the period of
pretesting, Logo instruction began for the experimental
group. The control group members were pulled from their
58
respective classes into a large classroom for the purpose

of the testing. At the end of the treatment period (one
semester) the subjects in both groups were posttested in
the same manner as they were pretested.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to determine the
effect of instruction in Logo Programming on high
achieving seventh-grade students with regard to the
students' use of formal thought as described by Piaget
(1972), higher level thinking skills as described by
Bloom (1956), and creative and divergent thinking skills
as described by Torrance (1974). More specifically, this
research addressed the following questions(s):
(1) What is the effect of Logo programming
instruction on the use of formal thought by high
achieving seventh-grade students (who have prior
experience with Logo)?
students (who have prior experience with Logo) on the
students' use of the cognitive skills of knowledge,
comprehension, application, analysis, and synthesis as
described in Bloom's taxonomy?
(3) What is the effect of instruction in programming
with Logo on high achieving seventh-grade students
(who have prior experience with Logo) on the student's
creative thinking ability?
59
60
Descriptive Data
Demographic Information
The subjects of the study consisted of 25 seventh-
grade students in one junior high school, and 30 seventh-
grade students from another junior high school in the
same school district. These 55 students comprised two
intact groups: (1) experimental, and (2) control. Both
groups of students were identified prior to entering
seventh grade by their sixth-grade computer teachers as
being the best computer students in their sixth-grade
classes. The subjects represent 15 elementary schools
feeding into the two junior high schools. All but one
student (a member of the Control group) had had some Logo
training in elementary school computer classes prior to
the study. Table 1 shows the demographic information for
each group.
Initial comparisons between the experimental and
control groups were made using demographic character-
istics of age, sex, and ethnicity. To determine whether
the distributions of age, sex, and ethnicity in the two
populations were significantly different, a Pearson
Chi-square test of independence was performed on these
frequencies.
61
TABLE 1
Demographic Information For Each Group
Experimental Control Total
(n = 25) (n = 30) (N = 55)
Age
11 Years Old 1 ( 4.0%) 1 ( 3.3%) 2
12 19 (76.0%) 23 (76.6%) 42
13 5 (20.0%) 5 (16.6%) 10
14 0 ( 0.0%) 1 ( 3.3%) 1
Median Age 12.6 12. 5 12.6
Sex
Male 7 (28.0%) 12 (40.0%) 19
Female 18 (72.0%) 18 (60.0%) 36
Ethnic
Black 2 ( 8.0%) 0 ( 0.0%) 2
Hispanic 11 (44.0%) 4 (13.3%) 15
White 12 (48.0%) 25 (83.3%) 37
Asian 0 ( 0.0%) 1 ( 3.3%) 1

62
The Chi-square for age by treatment group (X2, (18,

N = 55) = 20,11, £ = .291) indicated no significant
difference in the frequency distributions of age within
each group. The Chi-square for sex by treatment group
(X2, (1, N = 55) = .87, p = .351) indicated the
difference in frequency distributions of sex within each
group was also not significant.
Due to insufficient observed frequencies for
ethnicity in some of the cells, categories of Black,
Hispanic, and Asian were collapsed into one Minority
category which was then compared to White across the two
groups. A Chi-square of ethnic frequency by treatment
group (X2, (1, N = 55) = 7.73, £ = .005) indicated the
two populations did differ significantly with respect to
ethnicity.
Logo Achievement
As a method of determining initial Logo programming
ability, both the experimental and control groups were
pretested with the Logo Achievement Test (see Appendix
C). Table 2 shows the comparison of initial Logo
programming ability between the experimental and control
groups as a result of their elementary school training in
Logo.
63
TABLE 2
Logo Achievement Test
Pretest Scores
By Group
Experimental Control

Score (70 possible)
Minimum 5.000 5.000

Maximum 32.000 42.000
Mean 18.444 19.167 .740
SD 7.136 8.722
Table 2 shows that although the control group scored

slightly higher on the Logo Achievement Test prior to the
treatment than the experimental group, this difference
was not significant. This indicates that the two groups
were equivalent in terms of their Logo programming
ability prior to treatment.
Nonequivalence of Groups
Thus, although the two groups were selected using the

same criteria and revealed no differences in Logo
programming ability prior to treatment, the difference in
64
ethnic distribution indicated that the two groups might

have been drawn from different populations. Therefore,
the data analyses in this study had to consider that the
two groups were non-equivalent with regard to ethnicity,
and perhaps with regard to other factors as well. Those
differences might effect performance on the dependent
measures in this study. This often happens when intact
groups must be used for research purposes. Random
assignment is not feasible in many applied research
situations where answers to questions about treatment
effects are sought, particularly in school settings.
Children cannot be randomly assigned to schools, or
often, even to classes within the same school. For
researchers, the choice is often not whether to use
random assignment to groups, but whether or not to do the
study at all, based on the problems involved in trying to
interpret data collected from preexisting groups. A
study based on preexisting groups is usually preferable
to no study at all (Linn & Slinde, 1977).
Huitema (1980) would classify this study as one in
which the groups were formed on the basis of unknown
selection factors. Unfortunately, the method of
selection into groups (computer teacher rating and school
attendance area) brought in unknown and unavoidable
65
selection factors which caused the groups to represent

non-equivalent populations.
In a comprehensive analysis of interpretation of
data resulting from the use of non-equivalent groups,
Huitema (1980) stated that the basic problem in analyzing
this type of design is to separate treatment effects from
differences due to the nonequivalence of the groups.
Attention must be given to the type of analysis used, and
to the possible biases introduced. In the early 1960s,
application of analysis of covariance to studies where
initial group assignment was non random was widely
recommended by statisticians, but that practice is now
not highly regarded (Cronbach & Furby, 1970). If the
treatment groups differed systematically prior to the
start of a study with respect to any relevant character-
istic other than the covariate, even a perfect measure of
the covariate could not remove the confounding effect.
Lord (1967) , quoted by Cronbach & Furby, (1970) and Linn
& Slinde, (1977), advises "...there simply is no logical
or statistical procedure that can be counted on to make
proper allowances for uncontrolled preexisting
differences between groups" (p. 305). There is no way of
knowing which statistical techniques provide the proper
adjustments in the dependent scores to eliminate bias.
66
Following the determination of nonequivalence of the

two groups, several methods of analysis of the dependent
measures were considered. Unfortunately, there is no
analysis procedure that would provide unambiguous results
with this type of design (Cronbach & Furby, 1970;
Huitema, 1980; Linn & Slinde, 1977; Lord, 1967). Huitema
suggests that the best analysis strategy is to apply
different analyses that are based on different
assumptions, and then compare the results. Both
consistent and inconsistent results should be reported.
In cases where data available on the two

nonequivalent groups include scores that have been
collected at two different points in time prior to
administration of treatment (i.e., pretest and
pre-pretest scores), as well as posttest scores; and
where the amount of time between the pre-pretest and the
pretest is the same as the amount of time between the
pretest and the posttest; analysis should start with a
dry-run experiment.
The dry-run analysis consists of an ANCOVA, using
the pre-pretest as a covariate, and the pretest as the
dependent variable. If this dry-run analysis yields a
nonsignificant difference between adjusted means, ANCOVA
is considered acceptable for the real analysis using the
pretest as the covariate and the posttest as the
67
dependent variable. If the dry-run analysis yields a

significant treatment effect, we must conclude that the
real ANCOVA would be biased because no treatment was
administered during the dry-run experiment.
A concerted effort was made to determine the initial

capabilities of both groups of students. School district
records of standardized test scores for each subject were
collected as a means of comparing the two groups. These
measures will be referred to as pre-pretest scores
(Huitema, 1980). Because information such as demo-
graphics and pre-pretest measures were available on these
subjects in addition to their pre and posttest dependent
measures, the analysis suggestions by Huitema (1980, p.
309) were followed, after first comparing the pre-pretest
scores by group.
School District Records of

Standardized Test Score¥
Table 3 and Figures 1-3 shows comparisons of the
following pre-pretest scores: California Achievement
Test (CAT) and Short Form Test of Academic Aptitude
(SFTAA), both administered to the subjects in April of
their sixth-grade year; and the Texas Assessment of Basic
Skills (TABS), administered during the subjects 5th-grade
year. Equivalence of the two groups with regard to the

68
TABLE 3
Pre-Pretest Means and Standard Deviations for Treatment
Groups on Achievement and Aptitude Test Scores
Difference
CAT R6 N = 24 30
Mean 7.642 9 ., 2 6 3 * * 1.622
SD 1.842 2 , .252
SFTAA, LIQ6 N = 24 30
Mean 96.333 1 0 5 ,. 8 0 0 * * 9.467
SD 12.024 1 1 , .124
SFTAA NIQ6 N = 24 30
Mean 107.625 1 1 3 , .500 5.875
SD 12.003 1 3 , .615
SFTAA TIQ6 N = 24 29
Mean 100.792 1 0 9 ,. 7 5 9 * * 8.967
SD 10.413 1 2 . .246
TABS5M N = 24 28
Mean 40.500 4 3 .. 6 0 7 * * 3.106
SD 4.501 3 .. 2 8 1
TABS5L N = 24 28
Mean 36.542 3 8 .. 9 6 4 * 2.422
SD 4.854 3.. 4 6 9
Note: California Achievement Test (6th-Grade Scores)

R6 = Total Reading, Obtained Grade Equivalent
Short Form Test of Academic Aptitude
LIQ6 = Language Intelligence Quotient
NIQ6 = Non-verbal Intelligence Quotient
TIQ6 = Total Intelligence Quotient
Texas Assessment of Basic Skills (5th-Grade Scores)
TABS5M = Mathematics
TABS5L = Language
Significance of group comparisons

*£< .05
**£< .01
69
Mean CAT Reading Score

Grade Equivalent Scores
12n
10-
FIGURE 1. Pre-Pretest CAT Total Reading Grade Equivalent

Means for Experimental and Control Groups.
70
Mean SFTAA S c o r e s
120-1 LIQ6. NIQ6 a n d TIQ6
115- Ctrl
110-
105-
100-
LIQ6 NIQ6 TIQ6
FIGURE 2. Pre-Pretest SFTAA Mean Scores on LIQ6, NIQ6,

and TIQ6 for Experimental and Control Groups.
71
Mean TABS S c o r e s
Math and Language
50-1
^ Ctrl
47-
44-
Math Language
FIGURE 3 . P r e - P r e t e s t TABS Mean S c o r e s on Math and

Language f o r Experimental and Control Groups.
72
pre-pretest measures was determined by jt-test analyses of

these scores.
As shown in Table 3, the analyses of the

pre-pretest measures revealed a significant difference
between the experimental and control groups for reading.
Language IQ, Total IQ, and both the math and language
portions of the TABS. Only the non-language IQ scores
were not significantly different.
Thus, five months prior to the study, students in
the control group scored significantly higher than
students in the experimental group on the CAT score for
reading achievement, and the Language IQ and Total IQ
portions of the SFTAA. The analysis did not reveal a
significant difference on Non-language IQ scores between
the two groups. More than a year prior to the study,
students in the control group scored significantly higher
than the experimental group on the Mathematics and
Language sections of the Texas Assessment of Basic Skills
(5th-grade administration).
Results of the analyses of pre-pretest measures

indicate that the control group and the experimental
groups were not equivalent in aptitude or achievement
prior to the study. Even though both groups were
selected according to the same criterion, and exhibit
similar Logo programming ability, the control group
73
scored significantly higher than the experimental group

on five of the six Pre-Pretest measures.
To determine the variable most likely to remove bias
in the dry-run comparison of nonequivalent groups, a
systematic search and analysis of the possible variables
is advised (Huitema, 1980). First construct a group-
membership variable by assigning a one to all subjects in
the treatment group, and a zero to all subjects in the
control group. Then regress the zero-one group
membership variable on all potential selection variables
available by using step-wise multiple regression. The
variable or variables identified in the multiple
regression equation as explaining the most variance,
should then be used as covariates in the dry-run
analysis.
When nonequivalent groups have been selected from
two populations through an unknown selection process,
multiple analyses are necessary. Following the dry-run
and real ANCOVAs previously discussed, gain score ANOVAs
may be advisable (Huitema, 1980), even though
"investigators who ask questions regarding gain scores
would ordinarily be advised to frame their questions in
other ways" (Cronbach & Furby, 1970, p. 80). If the
results of all analysis are consistent, some confidence
can be placed in the conclusions. Huitema reminds us.
74
however, that it is always possible that all the analyses

are biased in the same direction by unknown confounding
variables. If the various analyses yield very different
results, little can be done to clarify the results.
Analysis of the Data

This study fits Huitema's model of a nonequivalent
group design in which background variables were available
in addition to the pre and posttest scores. Both
demographic information and district wide standardized
test scores fitting Huitema's description of pre-pretest
scores were available for students in both groups. One
set of pre-pretest measures (R6, LIQ6, NIQ6, and TIQ6)
were administered approximately five months prior to the
treatment period. The pretest measures on the dependent
variables, administered immediately prior to treatment,
were followed approximately five months later by posttest
measures on the dependent variables. Because the time
period between pre-pretests and pretests matches the time
period between the pretests and the posttests (Huitema,
1980), a dry-run approach was warranted.
The dry-run ANCOVA was carried out using a
pre-pretest measure as the covariate, with the pretests
as the dependent variables. To determine the specific
variable most likely to provide an unbiased estimate of
75
the treatment effect, multiple regression was carried out

using group membership as the dependent variable, and
demographic data on sex and ethnicity plus the
pre-pretest measures of LIQ6, NIQ6, TIQ6, R6, TABS5M,
TABS5L, and TABS5W as possible predictors of group
membership. The results of this stepwise multiple
regression are shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4
Stepwise Multiple Regression
on Group Membership
STEPWISE REGRESSION
WITH ALPHA-TO-ENTER= .150 AND ALPHA-TO-REMOVE= .150
STEP= 1 ENTER LIQ6 R= .453 RSQUARE= .205
STEP= 2 ENTER ETHNIC R= .501 RSQUARE= .251
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE SUM-OF-SQUARES DF MEAN-SQUARE F-RATIO P
REGRESSION 4.328 9 0.481 2.354 .030

RESIDUAL 8.378 41 0.204
Table 4 shows LIQ6 and ETHNIC to be the variables

explaining the most variance between groups. The LIQ6
score allows us to account for the variation between
groups with a continuous measure (necessary for analysis
of covariance) instead of the categorical measure that
ethnicity provides. Consequently, the dry-run procedures
were run using LIQ6 as the covariate and the pretest
76
measures for the ATFR, DCAT and TTCT(average) and

TTCT(index) as the dependent variables. The results are
shown in Table 5.
None of the dry-run analyses shown in Table 5

yielded a significant result, indicating that ANCOVA is
considered acceptable for the real analysis using pretest
TABLE 5
Dry-Run Analyses of Covariance on
ATFR, DCAT, and TTCT Pretests
DEP VAR; ATFR

Treatment 11.569 1 11.569 .921 .342
LIQ6 41.573 1 41.573 3.310 .075
ERROR 602.793 48 12.558
DEP VAR: DCAT

Treatment 26.150 1 226.150 .361 .551
LIQ6 1998.630 1 1998.630 27.558 .000
ERROR 3626.238 50 772.525
DEP VAR: TTCT(Average)

Treatment 282.480 1 282.480 2.764 .103
LIQ6 67.009 1 67.009 .656 .422
ERROR 5211.491 51 102.186
DEP VAR: TTCT(Index)

Treatment 277.904 1 277.904 2.170 .147
LIQ6 215.811 1 215.811 1.685 .200
ERROR 6532.323 51 128.085
77
measures as covariates, and posttest measures as

dependent variables (Huitema, 1980 p. 309).
Before performing the real analysis, an examination
of the experimental group's pre and posttest scores on
the Logo Achievement Test provided an assessment of the
Logo learned, thus answering one of the criteria for
effective Logo research described by Maddux and Johnson
(in Press). There is no point to examining the effect of
Logo training until we establish that Logo was indeed
learned by the subjects in the treatment group. Because
the control group had no access to computers this school
year, and access time to this group was limited to times
they could be excused from their regular classes, the
control group was not posttested on the Logo Achievement
Test.

To determine the actual Logo programming knowledge
gained by the experimental group as a result of
treatment, the subjects were posttested with the Logo
Achievement Test following treatment. The results are
shown in Table 6.
Comparison of the pre and posttest scores on the
experimental group's Logo Achievement Tests show the
posttest scores (M = 42.720) of the students trained in
78
Logo to be significantly higher than their pretest scores
(M = 18.440), ;t(48) = 11.065, £ <.001. Thus, we can say,
with confidence, that subjects in the experimental group
gained a significant amount of Logo knowledge due to the
Logo instruction received.
TABLE 6
Pre and Posttest Scores on the
Logo Achievement Test by the
Experimental Group
Pretest Posttest Gain
Minimum 5.000 26.000 21.000
Maximum 32.000 54.000 22.000
Mean 18.440 42.720 24.280 .000
SD 7.136 8.334
In this study, it has been established that the

question of the value of Logo training is of definite
practical and/or theoretical importance to educators.
Therefore, significance tests, even though possibly
biased due to the non equivalence of the groups, may
provide useful information regarding the value of Logo
training for children.
79
Descriptive Statistics on
the Dependent Measures
The dependent variables in this study are the

scores on three measures providing information regarding
a wide variety of cognitive abilities. The Arlin Test of
Formal Reasoning measures formal thought, the Developing

Cognitive Abilities Test measures depth of cognitive
functioning, and the Torrance Test of Creative Thought
measures creative and divergent thought. Tables 7, 8,
and 9, and Figures 4, 5, and 6 show the means and
standard deviations of these measures for both the
experimental and the control groups as well as pre to
posttest differences for each group.
TABLE 7
ATFR Mean Scores, Standard Deviations,

and Pre to Posttest Gains By Group
Pre-Mean 11.880 11.852
SD 2.587 4.330
Post-Mean 12.080 12.133

SD 4.242 3.665
Gain .200 .281
80
MEAN PRE Sc POSTTEST ATFR SCORES

Far Control and Experinnental Group
r>n -
15-
Pretftst PoatTest
Control Experimental
FIGURE 4. ATFR Pre and Posttest Means for Experimental

and Control Groups
81
TABLE 8
DCAT Mean Scores, Standard Deviations,
and Pre to Posttest Gains By Group
Pre-Mean 32.520 39.414

SD 9.980 10.759
Post-Mean 39.600 44.467
SD 11.467 11.045
Gain 7.080 5.053
As shown in Table 7 and in Figure 4, the mean

differences on the ATFR are quite small compared to the
possible range of scores (0 - 30).
The obtained mean values on the DCAT (Table 8 and
Figure 5) show means, standard deviations, and pre to
post gains for each group with higher gains for the
experimental group than for the control group. There are
72 points possible on the DCAT.
The TTCT subtest scores of Fluency, Originality,
Abstractness of Titles, Elaboration, and Closure were
combined in the scoring report provided by Scholastic
82
MEAN PRE ac POSTTEST DCAT SCORES

For C o n t r o l a n d Experinnental G r o u p
60-1
50-
40-
50-
20-
10-
Control E;< peri mental
FIGURE 5. DCAT Pre and Posttest Means for Experimental

and Control Groups
83
Testing Service, Inc. into two scores, the TTCT Average,

and the TTCT Creativity Index. The TTCT Average score is
the average of the subtest scores, whereas the TTCT
Creativity Index is a composite of the average plus a
measure of additional creative strengths shown by the
individual. Analysis of the subtest scores revealed a
great deal of variability from one subtest to another.
Due to variation in these scores, further analyses were
limited to the two composite scores, TTCT Average Score,
and TTCT Creativity Index. Descriptive statistics on
these scores are shown in Table 9.
For both the TTCT Average, and the TTCT Creativity
Index, (Table 9 and Figures 6 & 7) the obtained means of
pretest scores were higher for the control group, but
posttest means were slightly higher for the experimental
group. The experimental group's obtained mean pre to
post differences were higher than the control group's for
both the TTCT Average and Creativity Index.
To further examine the equivalence or non-
equivalence of the subjects in the two groups, _t test
analyses were performed on the pretest measures by group.
The pretest scores on the ATFR, _t(51) = .028, £ = .978
and the TTCT Creativity Index, t_(54) = 1.906, £ = .062
did not show significant differences between the two
groups. However, pretest scores for the DCAT,
84
TABLE 9
TTCT Average and TTCT Creativity Index
Mean Scores, Standard Deviations,
and Pre to Posttest Gains
by Group
TTCT(AVG)
Pre-Mean 96.000 101.333
SD 11.387 9.041
Post-Mean 103.500 103.200
SD 9.450 9.371
Gain 7.500 1.867
TTCT(IND)
Pre-Mean 103.760 109.700
SD 12.673 10.452
Post-Mean 112.833 111.167
SD 10.256 11.161
Gain 9.073 1.467
Note. TTCT = Torrance Test of Creative Thought

Form A = Pretest
Form B = Posttest
AVG = Average
IND = Creativity Index.
85
MBAN PRE Sc POSTEST CREATIVITY SCORES

For Control and Experimental Group
110-1
100-
Conlrol
FIGURE 6. TTCT Average Pre and Posttest Means for

Experimental and Control Groups
86 86
MEAN PRE &: POSTTEST CRBATIVITf INDEX

For Control and Experimental Group
120-1
110-
100-
Contro
FIGURE 7. TTCT Creativity Index Pre and Posttest Means

for Experimental and Control Groups
87
t_(53) = 2.All, £ = .019 and the TTCT Average, t(54) =

1.936, £ = .058 were significantly higher for the
subjects in the control group.
Thus, two of the pretest measures show the control
group to be significantly higher than the experimental
group, reinforcing the previous determination of
nonequivalence of the two groups, and further indicating
the use of Huitema's model for nonequivalent groups.
However, as shown in Table 5, none of the dry-run ANCOVAs
showed the differences between the two groups to be great
enough to bias the results of ANCOVAs on the dependent
measures using pretest scores as the covariate.
Therefore, following Huitema's model, after finding
non-significant results on the dry-run analysis, the real
analysis was carried out for each hypothesis. The
results of these analyses is presented in the following
section.
Hypotheses
In an effort to answer the questions posed regarding
the effect of Logo training, the following hypotheses
were proposed for investigation.
88
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 1 stated that students who receive

instruction in Logo programming will show a greater
increase in formal thought as measured by the Arlin Test
of Formal Reasoning than students in the control group
who receive no Logo programming instruction. This
hypothesis was tested by obtaining pretest and posttest
ATFR scores and using Analysis of Covariance with the
pretest as a covariate, after first determining through a
dry-run procedure that ANCOVA would produce unbiased
estimates. The results of the ANCOVA (see Table 10) show
no significant differences between the scores of the
experimental group and the control group on the ATFR.
The hypothesis was not supported.
TABLE 10
Analysis of Covariance:
ATFR Posttest
DEP VAR: ATFR

Treatment .501 1 .501 .043 .836
Pretest ATFR 239.881 1 239.881 20.652 .000
ERROR 569.144 49 11.615

89
Hypothesis 2

instruction in Logo programming will demonstrate a
greater increase in the use of Bloom's cognitive classes
of knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis,
and/or synthesis as measured by the Developing Cognitive
Abilities Test than students in the control group who
receive no Logo programming instruction. This hypothesis
was tested by obtaining pretest and posttest DCAT scores
and using Analysis of Covariance with the pretest as a
covariate, after first determining through a dry-run
procedure that ANCOVA would produce unbiased estimates.
The results of the real ANCOVA (see Table 11) show no
significant differences between the scores of the
experimental group and the control group on the DCAT,
TABLE 11
DCAT Posttest
DEP VAR: DCAT

Treatment 0.013 1 0.013 .000 .988
Pretest DCAT 3587.000 1 3587.000 65.549 .000
ERROR 2790.862 51 54.723

90
A gain score ANOVA also revealed no significant

differences between the experimental and control group's
pre to posttest differences. Thus, the hypothesis was not
supported.
Hypothesis 3
instruction in Logo programming will exhibit a greater
increase in the use of creative thinking skills as
measured by the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking than
students in the control group who receive no Logo
programming instruction. This hypothesis was tested by
obtaining pretest and posttest TTCT scores for the
subscales of Fluency, Originality, Abstractness of
Titles, Elaboration, Closure, plus an Average Creativity
score, and a Creativity Index. Because the subtest
comparisons showed little consistency when compared with
the Average score and the Creativity Index, TTCT analyses
reported were limited to the two composite scores. The
Average score and the Creativity Index were analyzed
through an Analysis of Covariance, using the respective
pretest scores as covariates; after first determining
through a dry-run procedure that ANCOVA would produce
unbiased estimates. The results of the ANCOVAs (Tables
12 and 13) show no significant differences between the
91
scores of the experimental group and the control group on

either the TTCT Average scores or the TTCT Creativity
Index. Gain score ANOVAs also revealed no significant
differences between the experimental and control group on
their pre to posttest differences. Thus, hypothesis 3 was
not supported.
Tables 10 - 13 show that no significant results were

found for any of the dependent measures with the ANCOVA
procedure using pretest measures as a covariate.
Even though none of the ANCOVA results showed
significance, in light of the trend shown in Tables 7, 8,
and 9 toward a greater gain by the experimental group
than the control group on several of the dependent

measures, gain-score ANOVAs were performed on the
TABLE 12
TTCT Average Posttest
DEP VAR: TTCT(Average)

Treatment 20.416 1 20.416 .239 .672

Pretest TTCT 237.604 1 237.604 2.777 .102
ERROR 4363.196 51 85.553

92
TABLE 13
Analysis of Covariance
TTCT Creativity Index
Posttest
DEP VAR: TTCT(Index)

Treatment 97.318 1 97.318 .868 .356
Pretest TTCT 314.122 1 314.122 2.802 .100
ERROR 5717.378 51 112.105
pre-posttest differences. Again, no significance was

found. Because the findings thus far were consistently
nonsignificant, no further analyses were attempted.

CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary
Seymour Papert (1980) has suggested that the
experience of learning to program in the Logo computer
language, will enhance the problem solving abilities of
children, and encourage their use of higher level
thinking skills. Papert, as the primary developer of
Logo, based the Logo philosophy partially on Piagetian
learning theory which states that children's cognitive
development proceeds as an unfolding process through a
series of cognitive stages. Although the time spent in
each stage varies with the individual, the sequence of
passage through the stages is invariant. Children of age
7 through about 11 are in the concrete operational stage.
These children are capable of performing operations
involving concrete experiences but are unable to use
abstract thought. At age 11 or 12, children move into
early formal operations. Their thought has the capacity
for more abstractness, often in the form of developing
hypotheses about the cognitive tasks they face. Even
though Piaget postulated that children will reach the
stage of formal thought by age 12, research has shown
that as many as 50% of the secondary and college students
93
94
in the United States have not developed the formal

cognitive structures necessary for formal thought
(Chiappetta, 1976).
Logo was developed by Papert and others as a medium

for providing children control over powerful
computational resources which they can use as concrete
tools for learning, playing and exploring in an
intriguing environment. Papert conjectures that
experience with the concrete tools provided by Logo will
allow children to move into the level of formal thought
at an earlier age. Many educators have taken Papert's
suppositions seriously, and have rushed Logo training
into the classroom without empirical proof of its value.
There is a need for carefully controlled studies which
evaluate the effect of teaching Logo to children.
A review of the literature revealed a small body of
research on the effects of Logo training, using two basic
approaches. In general, studies that are anecdotal in
nature and which measure the effect within the Logo
environment report positive results after Logo training.
More traditional experimental designs attempting to
measure transfer of effect are less likely to report
success. In either case, there is insufficient evidence
to conclusively judge the value of Logo training at this
time. Maddux and Johnson (in press) identify problems
95
with previous studies as including (1) no measurement of

Logo learning, (2) short treatment periods, (3) no
description of the Logo instruction provided as
treatment, (4) small sample sizes, and (5) non-random
assignment to groups.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect
of Logo training on the thinking skills of seventh grade
students. Structured programming with Logo, as with any
computer language, requires solving problems through a
process of breaking the problem at hand into smaller,
more easily handled pieces. This process requires an
analysis of the problem, a plan for solving the problem
(developing the algorithm), application of programming
knowledge, and debugging skills. The process could be
described as using skills of formal thought such as
hypothesizing, using skills named in the higher levels of
Bloom's Taxonomy such as application and synthesis, plus
skills used in creativity such as divergent thought.
This study was planned as a means of determining if the
skills necessary for programming with Logo would transfer
into other measurable areas.
A traditional experimental design was chosen for the
study,-, with an attempt to meet the criteria mentioned by
Maddux and Johnson (in press). In addition, Papert
(1987) advocates the use of a wide range of measures when
96
testing the effects of Logo. This study also meets that

suggestion by using measures of cognition, formal
thought, and creative ability.
Discussion of the Study

The results of the study indicated no support for
the hypotheses. There are, of course, many potential
explanations for nonsignificant results. In this area of
research the short treatment, small sample size, or no
measurement of the treatment provided are common
problems. An attempt was made to control for those
factors in this study. However, during the course of the
study, it became clear the particular design of this
study complicated the interpretation of nonsignificant
results.
In evaluating studies exhibiting the problems listed
by Maddux and Johnson (in press), it was reasonable to
rationalize the lack of significant gains shown by
students exposed to Logo training as potentially due to
the problems specific to each study. However, this study
meets all but one of the criteria. First, the
experimental group students showed major gains in Logo
achievement following treatment. Therefore, we can
confidently say that these students learned Logo.
Second, the length of the study was longer than any seen
97
in the literature reviewed, as these students met for

Logo training 50 minutes per day, five days per week, for
an entire semester. Third, the Logo instruction in this
study was carefully planned to include both a structured
Logo curriculum and a Piagetian style freedom to explore
with Logo.
Fourth, although sample sizes of the experimental

and control groups were not large, as fewer subjects than
anticipated were available to participate in the study,
the sample sizes easily met acceptable limits on cell
size for data analysis. However, larger sample sizes
might have increased the power of the test.
The fifth Maddux and Johnson (in Press) criterion of
random assignment to groups was the only criterion this
study was unable to meet. The study was done in a public
school system in order to evaluate a pilot program of
Logo instruction. For administrative reasons, the
experimental subjects were students attending one junior
high school, and the control group subjects were students
identified in the same manner as the experimental group
subjects, but who attended a different junior high
school. Not only were the subjects in this study not
randomly assigned to groups, neither were they assigned
to groups on the basis of any criteria other than the
junior high school they were attending. Thus, this
98
design constitutes forming the groups by selecting

subjects from different populations rather than by
randomly assigning subjects to groups or by assigning
subjects to groups on the basis of a pretest score.
Huitema (1980) emphasizes that this design should not be
used if there is a possibility of employing a randomized
or biased assignment design instead.
Although randomization would have eliminated many
interpretation problems, in this study, as in many
research areas, the researcher did not have the final
word. Huitema (1980) states that:
The real world is such that some version of the
nonrandomized design is often the only alternative to
no design at all. In some applied areas, such as
program evaluation, it appears that this is the most
frequently employed design. (p. 298)
Randomization was impossible to carry out in this
situation. Consequently, it was necessary to use intact
groups for the experimental and control groups.
Regardless of the reason for the use of intact groups of
subjects, this type of design requires careful attention
to the type of analysis procedures used in order to make
a meaningful inference based on the results. "The basic
problem in analyzing this design...is to separate
treatment effects from differences that are due to the
nonequivalence of the groups" (Huitema, 1980, p 308).
99
The Problem of Nonequivalence
From the analysis of the demographic and pre-pretest

data, it was determined that the control group was
significantly different from the experimental groups with
regard to ethnicity, reading ability, IQ scores and TABS
scores. Specifically, the control group had an ethnic
distribution of 17% minority and 83% white, whereas the
experimental group had an ethnic distribution of 52%
minority and 48% white. Five months prior to the study,
than students in the experimental group on the CAT score
for reading achievement. The SFTAA, administered at the
same time as the CAT, provides three IQ measures,
language, non-language, and total. The analysis did not
reveal a significant difference on Non-language IQ scores
between the two groups. However, the control group did
score significantly higher on the measures of Language IQ
and Total IQ, than did the experimental group.
In addition, more than a year prior to the study,
than the experimental group on the Mathematics and
Language sections of the Texas Assessment of Basic Skills
(5th grade administration).
The abilities measured on the one score in which
there was not a significant difference, Non-Language IQ,
100
are less dependent upon verbal skills than the abilities

measured by Language IQ, and are probably less sensitive
to socio-economic and cultural influences (Sullivan,
Clark, & Tiegs, 1970). Thus, the nonsignificant results
for non-language IQ might be expected when considered in
the light of the nonequivalent ethnic distribution
between the two groups.
Due to the determination that the two groups were
nonequivalent prior to the study, data analysis followed
Huitema's (1980) model for analyzing the results of
studies involving "nonequivalent groups due to unknown
selection factors" (p. 308) In designs such as this one,
in which pre and posttest data is available on the two
groups for dependent variable analysis, and additional
information such as pre-pretest scores, and demographic
data is also available, Huitema suggests the use of a
dry-run procedure followed by a real analysis. If the
dry-run analysis yields a significant difference between
the groups prior to treatment, then an ANCOVA is not
warranted because it would produce biased results.
Instead, a series of analyses based on different
assumptions concerning the selection model are outlined
by Huitema. However, in this study, the dry-run analysis
yielded a nonsignificant difference between groups, in
which case Huitema considers ANCOVA acceptable for the
101
real analysis using the pretest as a covariate and the

posttest as the dependent variable. The real ANCOVA also
produced nonsignificant results. Huitema suggests
further analyses using gain score ANOVAs when the
subjects have been selected from two different
populations. Gain score ANOVAs on the dependent measures
also produced nonsignificant results.
Studies such as this are particularly hard to

interpret when the various analyses produce conflicting
results. Fortunately, this study produced consistent
results from all the suggested analyses. There were no
significant differences in favor of the treatment. The
most likely conclusion; consequently, is that despite the
length of the treatment, the clear gains made by students
in terms of Logo programming knowledge, and the trend by
the experimental group toward higher scores on the
dependent measures, the study does not support the
hypotheses that students with Logo training will also
show gains in cognitive processing abilities.
Minimum Results Needed to

Encourage Further Research
The problem of nonequivalent groups does limit the
confidence we can put in the results of this study. Is
it possible that Logo training did produce significant
102
improvements in cognitive abilities, but the
nonequivalence problem masked those results?
If the results were masked by nonequivalence, the

experimental group should, at a minimum, have
significantly improved from pre to posttest on the
measures of cognitive abilities. That is the minimum
result necessary in this study to recommend additional
research. In other words, as well as addressing the
question of a difference in scores between the two
treatment groups, we should also address the question of
whether the group treated with Logo instruction showed a
gain on the dependent measures following the treatment.
Regardless of the equivalence of the groups, if Logo
training has an effect on learning, there should be gains
pre to post on the dependent measures.
The charts showing pre and posttest means on the

dependent measures (Figures 8-12) for the experimental
group show that there is a gain in all cases.
A matched pairs _t test was performed post hoc. The

gain in Logo programming ability as measured by the Logo
Achievement Test (gain = 24.280 points) is highly
significant with ;t(24) = 11.065, £ <.01. However, the .2
gain seen pre to post on the ATFR is not significant,
t_(24) = .262, £ >.05. The pre to posttest gain of 7.080
points on the DCAT j_s significant with t_(24) = 4.48,
103
Mean Scores on Logo Achievement Test

45-1
Experimental Group
Pretest Posttest
FIGURE 8. Pre and Posttest Mean Scores on the Logo

Achievement Test for the Experimental Group
104
Meon S c o r e s on ATFR
Experimental Group
15-1
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
Pretest Posttest
FIGURE 9. Pre and Posttest Mean Scores on the ATFR for

the Experimental Group
105
M e a n S c o r e s on DCAT
Experimental Group
45-1
40
25-
30-
25-
20-
15
Pretest Posttest
FIGURE 10. Pre and Posttest Mean Scores on the DCAT for
the Experimental Group
106
Meon S c o r e s on TTCT(Average)
Experimental Group
110-1
105-
100-
95-
90-
85-
50
Pretest Posttest
FIGURE 11. Pre and Posttest Mean Scores on the TTCT

Average Score for the Experimental Group
107
Meon Scores on TTCT(lndex)

120 n
Experimentol Group
115-
110-
105-
100-
Pretest Posttest
FIGURE 12. Pre and Posttest Mean Scores on the TTCT

Creativity Index for the Experimental Group
108
£ <.01. The two scores analyzed on the TTCT also show

significant gains with TTCT (Average), gain M = 7.5,
t(23) = 2.999, £ <.01, and TTCT (Creativity Index), gain
M = 9.073, t = 3.278, £ <.01.
Because the post hoc paired t_-test results were

positive for the TTCT (Average), the TTCT (Creativity
Index), and the DCAT, even though not for formal thought
(ATFR), there seems to be some promise in pursuing this
question as a topic of study. Perhaps in a more
controlled study, with carefully matched groups, or
random assignment to groups, while still dealing with the
other problems outlined by Maddux and Johnson (in press),
significant differences could be obtained.
Conclusion
This study, however, joins a growing body of
experimental studies that DO NOT support the theories
used to advocate Logo. At this point, the burden of
proof is on the Logo advocates. This study, like Fickel,
(1986), Horner (1984), Mitterer and Rose-Krasnor (1986),
Pea and Kurland, (1984), and many others, does not
support the hypothesis that Logo training produces
improvements in cognitive skills.
REFERENCES
Abelson, H. (1982a). A beginner's guide to Logo: Logo is

not just for kids. Byte, pp. 88-112.
Abelson, H. (1982b). Logo for the Apple II.

Massachusetts: Halliday Lithograph Corp. Areata Co.
Alliger, R.J., & Harvey, A.L. (1984). Problems in
measuring formal operations. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement
in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 249 270)
Arlin, P.K. (1982). A multitrait-multimethod validity
study of a test of formal reasoning. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 42, 1077-1088.
Arlin, P.K. (1984). Arlin test of formal reasoning. New
York: Slosson Educational Publications, Inc.
Bamberger, H.J. (1984). The effect of Logo (turtle
graphics) on the problem solving strategies used by
fourth grade children. (From Dissertation Abstracts
International, 46, 04-A. Abstract No. AAD85-12171)
Bass, J.E. (1985). The roots of Logo's educational
theory: An analysis. In C. D. Maddux (Ed.), Logo in
the schools (pp. 107-116). New York: The Haworth
Press.
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objectives: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
Boden, M.A. (1980). Jean Piaget. New York: Viking.
Carpenter, J., Deloria, D., & Morganstein, D. (1984,
April). Statistical software for microcomputers. BYTE
p. 234-251.
Chase, C.I. (1985). Review of Torrance tests of creative
thinking. In J. V. Mitchell, (Ed.), The ninth mental
measurements yearbook: Vol. 1. (pp. 1631). Lincoln,
Nebraska: U. of Nebraska Press .
Chiappetta, E.L. (1976). A review of Piagetian studies
relevant to science instruction at the secondary and
college level. Science Education, 60, 253-261.
109
110
Clements, D.H. (1985). Logo programming: Can it change

how children think? Electronic Learning, pp. 28,
/ nt ^ TX O #
Clements, D.H. (1985b). Research on Logo in education: Is

the turtle slow but steady, or not even in the race?
In C. D. Maddux (Ed.), Logo in the schools (pp.
55-71). New York: The Haworth Press.
Clements, D.H. (1986). Effects of Logo and CAI

environments on cognition and creativity. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 78, 309-318.
Clements, D.H. (1987). Longitudinal study of the effects

of Logo programming on cognitive abilities and
achievement. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, _3' 73-94.
Clements, D.H., & Gullo, D.F. (1984). Effects of computer

programming on young children's cognition. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 1051-58.
Cowan, P.A. (1978). Piaget; With feeling. New York: Holt,

Rinehart & Winston.
Cronbach, L.J., Furby, L. (1970). How we should measure

"change"—or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74,
68-80. —
Day, M.C. (1981, October). Thinking at Piaget's stage of

formal operations. Educational Leadership, 39, 44-47.
Developing cognitive abilities test, (1981). Glenview,
IL: Scott, Foresman and Company, Test Division.
Dvarkas, D.P. (1983). The effects of introductory

computer programming lessons on the learners' ability
to analyze mathematical word problems. (From
Dissertation Abstracts International, 44 09-A,
Abstract No. AAD84-00949)
Elkind, D. (1976). Child development and education: A

Piagetian perspective. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Evans, H.R. (1984) . Some effects of Logo programming

instruction with fourth grade children (problem
solving, math attitudes, motivation). (From
Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 12-A,
Ill
Nebraska, 1986.
Fox, L.H. (1985). Review of developing cognitive
abilities test. In J. V. Mitchell (Ed.). The ninth
mental measurements yearbook; Vol. 1. (pp.
460).Lincoln, Nebraska: U. of Nebraska Press.
Furth, H.G. (1981). Piaget & knowledge; Theoretical
foundations, (2nd ed.). Chicago; U. of Chicago Press.
Gaffney, C.R. (1984). Computer languages; tools for
problem-solving? (From Dissertation Abstracts
International, 45, 09-B. Abstract No. AAD84-
26831)
Ginsburg, H., & Opper, S. (1979). Piaget's theory of
intellectual development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.;
Prentice Hall.
Ginther, D.W., & Williamson, J.D. (1985). Learning Logo:
What is really learned? In C. D. Maddux (Ed.), Logo
in the schools (pp. 73-78). New York: The Haworth
Press.
Gorman, H. Jr. (1982, August). The Lamplighter project.
Byte, pp. 331-332.
Greenfield, P.M., & Bruner, J.S. (1973). Culture and
cognitive growth. In J. S. Bruner (Ed.) Beyond the
information given (pp 368-393). New York; Norton.
Hill, F.W. (1977).Learning: A survey of psychological
interpretations. New York: Harper and Row.
Hopkins, M.H. (1984). A classroom model for diagnosing
the problem-solving skills of elementary school
students. (From Dissertation Abstracts International,
45, 09-A. Abstract No. AAD84-27307)
Horner, C. (1984). The effects of Logo in learning
disabled children. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech
University, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 45 06A.
Horner, C , & Maddux, C D . , (1985). The effect of Logo on
attributions toward success. In C. D. Maddux (Ed.),
Logo in the schools (pp. 45-54). New York: The Haworth
Press.
112
Horton, J., & Ryba, K. (1986). Assessing learning with

Logo; A pilot study. The Computing Teacher, 14(1),
24-28. ^ —
Huitema, B.E. (1980). The analysis of covariance and

alternatives. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hyink, B.C., de Caviedes, A.M., & Estes, G. (1986). Logo
achievement test. Unpublished manuscript presented at
the 1986 Logo Institute.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical
thinking; From childhood to adolescence. (A. Parsons &
S. Milgram, Trans.) New York; Basic Books.
Kinzer, C , Littlefield, J., Delclos, V.R., & Bransford,
J.D. (1985) . Different Logo learning environments and
mastery: Relationships between engagement and
learning. In C. D. Maddux (Ed.), Logo in the schools
(pp. 33-43). New York; The Haworth Press.
Kline, C.H. (1985). The influence of Logo revision
strategies on the written revision practices of young
children; A stepping stone. (From Dissertation
Abstracts International, 46, 09-A, Abstract No.
AAD85-24223)
Knight, R. (1985, December). Using Apple Sprite "Logo" to
explore the educational environment. Discovering
Tomorrow Today, Pre-Conference/LOGO Issue, Texas
Computer Education Association, p. 5-6.
Kurland, D.M., & Pea, R.D. (1983). Childrens's mental
models of recursive Logo programs (Technical Report
No. 10). New York, NY: Bank Street College of
Education, Center for Children and Technology. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 249 929)
Lawson, A.E. (1985). A review of research on formal
reasoning and science teaching. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 22, 567-617.
Linn, R.L., & Slinde, J.A. (1977). The determination of
the significance of change between pre- and
posttesting periods. Review of Educational Research,
_47, 121-150.
LogoWriter, (1986). New York: Logo Computer Systems, Inc.
113
Lord, F.M. (1967). A paradox in the interpretation of

group comparisons. Psychological Bulletin, 68,
304-305. ^ —
Lough, T. (1983, March). Discovery learning with the
classroom's newest pet. Electronic Learning, pp.
49-53. • ^
Louie, S., Luick, A.H., & Louie, J.L. (1985-86). Locus of

control among computer-using school children: A report
of a pilot study. Journal of Educational Technology
Systems, 14, 101-118.
Maddux, C D . (1984). Educational microcomputing: the need
for research. Computers in the Schools, 1, 35-41.
Maddux, C D . (1984b). The educational promise of Logo.
Computers in the Schools, 1., 79-89.
Maddux, C D . , & Johnson, D.L. (in press). Logo; A methods
book for teachers. New York: The Haworth Press.
Markuson, C , Tobias, J., & Lough, T. (1983, January).
Logo fever; The computer language every school is
catching. Instructor, pp. 74-76.
Martin, M. (1985). Recursion—A powerful, but often
difficult idea. In C D. Maddux (Ed.), Logo in the
schools (pp. 209-217). New York; The Haworth Press.
Milojkovic, J.D. (1984). Children learning computer
programming; Cognitive and motivational consequences.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 45/OlB 385.
University Microfilms No.8408330.
Mitchell, J.v., Jr. (Ed.). (1985). The ninth mental
measurements yearbook (Vols. 1-2). Lincoln, Nebraska:
University of Nebraska Press.
Mitterer, J., & Rose-Krasnor L. (1986). Logo and the
transfer of problem solving: an empirical test. The
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 32, 175-193.
Modgil, S. (1974). Piagetian research: A handbook of
recent studies. New York; Humanities Press.
Nagy/ P.r & Griffiths, A.K. (1982). Limitations of recent
research relating Piaget's theory to adolescent
thought. Review of Educational Research, 52, 513-556.
114
Odom, M.L.N. (1984). The effects of learning the computer

programming language Logo on fifth and sixth grade
students' skills of analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation. (From Dissertation Abstracts
International. _4^, 08-A. Abstract No. AAD84-26197)
Pallrand, G.J. (1979). The transition to formal thought.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, _16, 445-452.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. New York; Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1985). Different visions of Logo. In C D.
Maddux (Ed.), Logo in the schools (pp. 3-8). New York:
The Haworth Press.
Papert, S. (1987). Computer criticism vs. technocentric

thinking. Educational Researcher, 16, p. 22-30.
Pea, R.D., & Kurland, D.M. (1984). Logo programming and
the development of planning skills (Technical Report
No. 16). New York, NY: Bank Street College of
Education, Center for Children and Technology. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 249 930)
Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from
adolescence to adulthood. Human Development, 15, 1-12.
Rampy, L.R.M. (1983). The programming styles of fifth
grade students; an exploratory study using Logo. (From
Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 10-A.
Reggini, H.C (1983, September). Logo and von Neuman's
ideas. (Report No. IR 010 964). Paper presented at the
Conference on Computers in Education and Culture.
Buenos Aires, Argentina. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service N. ED 239 602)
Rieber, L.P. (1983). The effect of Logo on increasing
systematic and procedural thinking according to
Piaget's theory of intellectual development and on its
ability to teach geometric concepts to young children.
(Report No. IR Oil 583). The Pennsylvania State
University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
256 288)
Santmire, T.E. (1985). Review of Arlin test of formal
reasoning. In J. V. Mitchell, (Ed.) The ninth mental
measurements yearbook: Vol. 1. (pp. 80-81). Lincoln,
Nebraska: U. of Nebraska Press.
115
Shaw, D.G. (1984). The effects of learning to program a

computer in BASIC or Logo on the problem solving
abilities of fifth grade students. (From Dissertation
Abstracts International, 45, 07-A. Abstract No.
AAD84-23897)
Staver, J.R., & Gabel, D.L. (1979). The development and
construct validation of a group-administered test of
formal thought. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 1^, 535-544.
Sullivan, E.T., Clark, W.W., & Tiegs, E.W. (1970). Short
form test of academic aptitude. Monterey, CA:
CTB/McGraw-Hill.
Texas assessment of basic skills TABS. (1985). Iowa City,
Iowa: National Computer Systems, Department of
Assessment.
Tiegs, E.W., & Clark, W.W. (1970). California achievement
test. Monterey, CA; CTB/McGraw-Hill.
Tobin, K.G., & Capie, W. (1981). The development and
validation of a pencil and paper test of logical
thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
^ , 413-424.
Torrance, E.P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative
thinking; Norms-technical manual. Bensenville, IL:
Scholastic Testing Service.
Treffinger, D.J. (1985). Review of Torrance tests of
creative thinking. In J. V. Mitchell (Ed.). The ninth
mental measurements yearbook: Vol. 1. (pp. 1632-1634) .
Lincoln, Nebraska: U. of Nebraska Press.
Van Dyke, J.S.G. (1984). The relationship between 'Logo'
and creativity. (Doctoral Dissertation, Texas A&M
University, 1984) Dissertation Abstracts
International, 45, 09-A.
Wadsworth, B. (1979). Piaget's theory of cognitive
development (2nd Ed.). New York: Longman.
116
Walker, A.D. (1984). Teaching the turtle...A paper on

Papert (Sociological implications of computer
education for women and minorities). (Report No. IR
010 937) Dallas, Texas: Association for Educational
Communications and Technology. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 238 415)
Watt, D. (1982, August). Logo in the schools. Byte, pp.
116-134.
Wilkinson, L. (1985). Systat; The system for statistics
[Computer Program]. Evanston, IL; Systat, Inc.
Willis, J. (1987). Educational computing; A guide to
practical applications. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch
Scarisbrick.
APPENDICES
A. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
B. RAW DATA
C LOGO ACHIEVEMENT TEST AND CURRICULUM

OBJECTIVES
117
APPENDIX A: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ATFR Arlin Test of Formal Reasoning

CAT California Achievement Test
DCAT Developing Cognitive Abilities Test
LIQ6 SFTAA; Language Intelligence Quotient, 6th
Grade Administration
NIQ6 SFTAA; Non-Language Intelligence Quotient,
6th Grade Administration
R6 CAT; Reading, Obtained Grade Equivalent, 6th
SFTAA Short Form Test of Academic Aptitude
TABS5L Texas Assessment of Basic Skills, Math, 5th

TABS5M Texas Assessment of Basic Skills, Language,

5th Grade Administration
TIQ6 SFTAA; Total Intelligence Quotient, 6th Grade
Administration
TTCTA Torrance Test of Creative Thought, Figural,
Form A
TTCTB Torrance Test of Creative Thought, Figural,

Form B
TTCT(AVG) Average
TTCT(CLO) Closure
TTCT (ELB) Elaboration
118
119
TTCT (FLU) Fluency Subtest

TTCT(IND) Creativity Index
TTCT(ORG) Originality
TTCT(TIT) Abstractness of Titles
APPENDIX B: RAW DATA
LOGO PILOT STUDY DEPENDENT MEASURES

Subject ID GROUP AGE SEX ETHfnC P R E T E : 5TS
T r e a t = »2 M== 1 Bl acl<=l LOGO TTCT-A
Contrs= 1 F==2 Hi s p a n i c-=2 S c o r e Fl u e n c y Or i Q i n a l T i t1 e s
i te=3
A s i ari=5
1 1 13.2 2 5 20 105 100 1 15

2 1 •12.0 1 3 12 31 ?3 95
3 1 12.9 1 3 23 1 15 141 110
4 1 12.5 2 3 16 110 •^•7 1 15
5 1 12.6 2 3 19 122 134 121
6 1 13.0 2 3 18 86 93 90
7 I 13.3 1 2 14 88 86 110
8 1 12.3 1 3 25 115 131 105
9 1 12.1 2 3 15 105 103 / '
Q
10 1 12.4 2 3 125 134 100
11 1 14.5 2 2 9 83 '7 79
12 I 13.0 1 3 5 130 127 6"--
13 1 12.4 2 3 32 115 127 105
^. er
14 1 12.8 2 2 22 100 1 17
15 1 12.7 1 3 26 120 134 85
16 1 12.3 2 3 25 100 1 14 90
17 1 12.8 1 3 16 105 107 100
18 1 13.0 1 3 5 105 107 •=•5
19 I 12.2 2 3 17 144 124 95
20 1 12.6 2 3 32 31 97 85
3 6 83 '3 S '-'
21 1 12.4 2
22 1 12.0 1 3 13. 110 107 1 00
0 =
23 1 12.0 2 3 26 98 1 14
24 1 12.5 1 3 42 88 100 105
25 1 12.7 2 3 1 1 112 12-4 115
26 1 1 1 .9 3 17 88 100 1 10
27 1 12.5 2 3 24 93 93 105
28 1 12.6 2 o 91 en 7'''
29 1 12.1 1 3 24 103 127 10 0
0=;
30 1 12.5 1 29 115 124
31 2 12.5 2 2 10 64 76 6 '^'
32 2 12.2 2 2 10 95 1 1-4 1 10
33 ••5 13.7 1 2 •'3 '"'7 100
2 "J "•
1 10 120 0 ^
34 2 12.6 1
1 17 9* V o !^5
35 2 12.9 1
36 2 12.5 ^
• ^
iL 2^ 105 1 10 1 15
66 90 - c
37 2 12.5 C
"j
13.9 2 9 ~" 96 •p /, ! 00
38 2
39 2 12.6 1
• ^
14 103 1 20 121
40 2 12,S 1 'I; 19 103 -0 1 10
•:• o
41 2 1 1 .8 1 4. 15 '^9 I 15
42 2 12.^'
•;»
20 1 10 1 17 •" 0
43 2 1 3.0 1 3; •3 2 127 1 20 105

44 2 12.2 ^ xl 17 86 '"•7 1 21
3 30 99 p 3 1 21
45 2 12.5 2
i> "• t[ •'0
46 2 12.5 15 61
47 2 12.3 2 1 20 6'' . ^ . ••
- '
43 2 12.7 Z' ii"-' '"0 '''7 105
49 2 13.5 2 3 1' 120 120 •^î
50 ^ 13.5 2 ^ •:' i" 1 27 14.1 74

51 2 12.8 2 3 22 103 1 14 . ^ . ••
C
52 2 12.6 ii ^ 144 151
53 2 12.6 2 2 o '^3 90 -0
54 2 12.9 2 ^ 16 1 15 lo:' 11 5
55 2 12.9 2 3 13 86 •'3 11J 0
120
121
LOGO PILOT STUDY

Subject ID POSTTE;sTs
ATFR DCAT LOGO TTCTB
E l a b o r . CI osure Aw erage Creat i\<j'\ ty Sc ore SIcore Flu ency
Index (Treat men t
Group Only)
1 95 99 103 -7 109 11 36 i , 86
2 95 86 90 11 102 20 26 6 . 92
3 95 -i- 49 . 81
11 1 114 125 18 1
4 88 107 103 i-T 112 13 34 3 . 129

5 88 99 113 ' 11 127 7 35 -( . 106
6 95 86 90 -'' 98 13 53 0 . 91
7 88 94 93 99 • • ' . 106
8 101 86 108 1 17 13 45 1'3 . 106
9 81 99 93 101 11 35 II a 1 12
10 88 103 110 -n 116 8 29 7 . 132
11 81 107 89 o 92 . 25 :L . •?2
12 81 HI 104 -/ 109 11 23 2? . 123
13 128 111 117 - f -*
129 10 42 ^ . 123
14 95 11 1 104 • ' ' : •
108 11 42 / . 103
15 101 1 11 110 -/ 122 7 48 f -^
. 81
16 88 103 99 u 108 13 33 r . 123
17 81 120 103 ^ 1 12 12 40 5 . 1 15
18 88 99 99 J 109 5 31 / ~^ . 146
•4
19 81 116 110 -r 1 16 3 22 J . 155
20 75 103 88 1; 95 9 45 ? . 10 =
21 81 77 82 '1 88 12 49 1 . 101
22 88 124 106 -V 114 8 25 1 . 101
23 88 120 101 !6 1 10 13 54 -1 • 12?'
24 115 99 101 L 114 22 63 '/ . 95
25 101 94 11 1 1. 1 19 13 47 3 . 12^
26 75 107 96 102 19 58 X . 1 1 2
27 101 11 1 101 ^ 1 10 14 42 1-^ • 103
28 101 82 87 94 12 30 Ii • 115
f- .">
29 95 116 108 122 12 42 -ii •
107 11 3 . 1 • "" 0
30 88 124
—-^ 14 26 V 35 0 C'
31 75 65
1 1 16 7 _3 ^ 123
32 81 103 ' 101 106
33 95 36 94 104 10 9
•:>~
50 96
34 95 99 102 107 13 •30
<( 51 S3
• - ^ —
94 -2 15 40
n
•z -•
35 75 82
•30
36 75 1 11 103 109 10 34 '' 1 2':-

37 88 73 80 95 12 40 'T 50 — _l
38 95 86 91 OQ 11 17 - I =; "3
'' '^^^
1 20 10 35 1 ( 54 0 0
39 95 107 1 10
•j ' ^
'? 13 0 C" 12t
40 81 1 16 100 I 10 "
J 1 21
41 75 103 .;•-" '? 10? 12 22 •^'-•
0/, 1 03
42 95 103 103 V 1 13 1 1 7 41
1 * '"• ' 0 9-•
43 101 C'C 1 10 -^ 1 22 10 51
7-
44 108 107 104 ^ 11 ' 10 49 49 91

C*"? -1 1 10 14 50 =; 3 2
45 108 86
46 101 82 91 -1 14 3'' 42 1 u •'•
47 101 65 -•c; 'i' i. 12 1 11 ( 47 •

-, /-•
13 1^. 4- 9 -:
48 88 90 94 1 00
•-. (r
49 88 92 101 I 109 1 1 -11 47 91
50 75 96 103 11> ) 09 14 2'I 7 »i '1^ 1 3--'
20 47 0 44 1 i j •=
51 81 124 7 O )0 104
52 88 1 16 1 17 -- . 12:" 12 24 7 42 1 2-'-
C''"' -- O II -7 10-
53 95 96 •'• S
54 75 116 106 -_ 1 12 10 30 -r 3'^ 1 2r

(-, "7 -. c: —^
^ 42
55 75 94 90 £.-J
1
122
LOGO PILOT STUDY

Subject ID
ATFR DCAT
Original Titles Elabor. Closure Average Creativity Score Score
Index
1 93 120 82 101 96 100 13 48

2 130 111 89 111 107 121 15 42
3 139 129 89 121 11 2 123 16 50
4 175, 106 89 116 123 132 10 -37
5 93 84 68 86 87 93 7 2-'
6 98 79 75 96 86 93 18 53
7 120 106 89 116 107 1 13 13 27
8 107 125 89 111 108 120 12 55
9 125 75 75 101 98 102 1 1 46
10 125 79 96 51 97 106 9 36
1 1 89 111 82 71 89 96 1 1
12 134 84 82 76 100 107 V 46
13 120 106 89 96 107 115 18 50
14 107 88 75 81 91 95 12 43
15 130 79 68 96 91 7 / 10 '-:'?.
16 166 84 89 111 115 129 13 43
17 139 102 82 106 109' 1 16 13 46-
18 116 79 89 81 102 108 16 43
19 98 93 82 96 105 1 12 c
20 139 88 82 91 102 108 10 54
21 120 93 82 1 11 101 106 13 56
22 152 88 75 96 102 1 10 7 34
23 148 84 96 126 117 124 10 53
24 107 120 82 121 105 1 19 22 74
25 134 106 '•6 101 113 • 1 19 10 50
125 147 104 101 118 132 16 6 0
26
=; i..
27 111 115 11 1 96 107 1 1? 10
28 134 88 96 106 103 1 19 14 44
97 89 106 99 10 •=• 1 2 31
29 98
Q C
30 120 ,.- 1 1 1 75 •^1 101 ''-' ••?>,
C'C 1~
31 80 84 75 71 80 30
152 88 82 106 110 1 19 4 "' -! .
32
92 99 C'O 1 1 •X- -
33 1 16 93 '^' •_•
34 134 120 8- 106 1 06 1 17" 15 44

1^ ^
35 120 97 75 ••5 '" '" 15 .'c.

157 102 75 91 10- 11 5
36 c c
129 99 10 7' 1 19 19
37 125 ~j •^'
1 39 99 9T' 101 104 1 13 1 t

38
39 11 1 9 9 1 0 •: 103 1 12 1 -• 51
125 ~j^ ~~
148 1 15 9' ,s 106 1 19 126 1 1

40
125 75 ,-i ^
11 ^ 10 4 1 0 •' '=' •- -
41
139 102
ft ^
V >, 10~ 1 21 14 4'
42 4 ••
1 15 O "* C i, 101 1 I2 0
43 125
44 120 106 104 •=1 1 00 1 13 1 1
c r •;-
84 134 10 f 1117 15
45
46 139 11 1 82 1 26 1 13 123 1 ~ 51
47
93 75 96 C'-- 106 13 51
48 148
49 1 16 147 O *• 10 1 105 t 1 T' 1' 24
50 157 120 •"••<
9.-, 1 1' 1 '-t? 19 2"
t1 ? 13 •i~
51 1 25 vT •"• ^ 1 1 1 109
52 148 84 82 116 1 12 1 1- 1 1 31
tî
53 139 11 1 96 101 111 1 [•' 40

54 134 89 '^3 1 0 <: 104 in: - • ^ ^
55 89 102 B'^' 76 86 100 .% NT* 4L

123
LOGO PILOT STUDY PRE-PRETEST MEASURES

Subject ID
LIQ6 NIQ6 TIQ6 TABSM TABSL TABSW R6
1 98 107 102 44 33 23 8
2 108 1 11 110 41 40 23 12.9
3 112 117 116 47 41 23 10.1
4 97 93 95 44 29 24 6.7
5 100 112 105 45 35 23 8
6 98 120 105 • . . 8
7 91 85 88 44 36 23 5.7
8 HI 129 1 18 46 39 24 8.3
9 107 122 1 12 47 42 24 7.4
10 98 88 94 36 37 20 8.3
11 75 91 82 • . • 4.4
12 103 116 109 46 33 19 8.3
13 100 107 103 44 38 23 7.3
14 95 106 100 43 41 23 8.3
15 110 122 1 15 46 38 23 8
16 118 109 115 43 37 21 3.6
17 • • , 44 41 23 9.5
18 121 116 122 44 34 22 11.1
19 123 125 127 48 44 24 1 1 .7
20 105 123 11 1 43 40 24 11 .7
21 106 143 116 45" 41 24 12.7
22 100 107 103 36 39 22 8.6
23 117 116 1 18 43 43 24 12.7
24 127 141 139 46 41 24 12.9
25 110 109 1 10 46 44 24 10
26 128 127 132 47 42 24 12.''
27 108 113 1 1 1 42 43 24 9.5
28 101 108 104 44 39 23 8.1
29 101 126 109 35 40 24 10.6
30 100 HI 105 42 37 21 / • '_•
31 88 107 96 43 36 19 6 .5
32 83 106 94 34 33 15 6.3
33 103 101 102 99 96 24 6. 1
34 114 11 2 1 14 43 - • ' ' 24 9.6
35 112 11 6 1 15 46 3. '^-' '•-•
•-• c ;
36 100 96 99 44 \' '"'
37 112 11 5 1 15 46 44 24 11.7
38 85 109 94 41 29 21 4.6
39 « , . • • • •
40 110 105 109 40 37" 19 3
C' 0 T* 3 20 cj -'
41 82 96 35
-> 3 9 .6
42 106 101 104 40 ~I '^
4? 98 108 102 43 49 21 9 .6
44 97 1 96 109 46 42 24 8. 1
45 11 6 1 19 1 I-' 47 43 22 *
46 92 128 103 42 44 24 11.1
47 / /' 89 81 91 *! ,i, 20 "• /^
48 110 1 18 1 14 42 42 24 10.1
•% -%
C'-' 41 t; 3 .*. VI
49 94 106
-> i. l6
50 78 97 P7 37 4.6
C' •-
51 101 121 109 45 - ' • - ^'
.;. C -3
52 89 104 34 31 6.4
*'0 23 6.4
53 88 7 1 42
93 92 37 03 24 5.6
54 92
55 85 1 13 96 34 xS 21 7.4
APPENDIX C: LOGO ACHIEVEMENT TEST
AND CURRICULUM OBJECTIVES
L060 ACHIEVEMENT TEST
NAHE Date School _.
On a Scale of 1 to 10 (10 is an expert) rate your Logo prograAiiing ability,
Write or draw your answers to each question on this test paper.

niiiniimmnniiiinniiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiHiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiii
1. Write a procedure to make the turtle draw a square with sides of length 50.
2. Write a procedure to make the turtle draw a triangle with sides of length 50.
3. Write one or fnore procedures to make the turtle dran a house like the one below.
4. Write a procedure to nake the turtle draw a circle,

h
124
125
Page 2
S. Here is a procedure called BOP:
TO BOP
FORWARD 40
RIGHT 90
FORWARD 20
RIGHT 90
FORWARD 40
RIGHT 90
FORWARD 20
END
BeloM is the turtle in the HOME position with its pen down.
(a) ShoM Mhat the turtle Mould dram if ne told it to BOP.
<b) ShoM which May the turtle would be pointing when it finishes BOP.
6. Here is a procedure that uses BOP from question 5.
TO FOURBOP
REPEAT 4 [BOP]
END
BeloM is the turtle in the HOME position with its pen down.
Show what the turtle would draw if we told it to FOURBOP.
7. Using the REPEAT ccmnand, write a procedure that prints the following:
HELLO WORLD
HELLO WORLD
HELLO WORLD
HELLO WORLD
HELLO WORLD
126
Page 3
8. What do you think this procedure does?
TO MYSTERY
PRINT [JOHN]
MYSTERY
END
9. Here is a set of procedures. If we tell Logo to GREET what will Logo print out
on the conputer screen?
TO GREET
PRINT [HELLOl
GREET. 1
PRINT [NICE TO SEE YOU]
END
TO GREET.1
PRINT [GOODBYE]
END
10. Here is a new set of procedures. If we tell Logo to GREET now, what will Logo
print out?
TO GREET
PRINT [HELLO]
GREET. 1
PRINT [NICE TO SEE YOU]
END
TO GREET.1
GREET.2
PRINT [GOODBYE]
END
TO GREET.:
PÎNT [HOW ARE YOU'']
EMD
127
Page 4
11. Fill in the space beneath each of the turtle drawings below with the nane of
the procedure which produces that drawing.
TO BOZ
REPEAT S [FORWARD 40 RIGHT 30]
END
TO ZOB
REPEAT S [FORWARD 40 RIGHT 451
END
TO ROB
REPEAT 5 [FORWARD 40 RIGHT 72]
END
TO BOR
REPEAT S [FORWARD 40 RIGHT 144]
END
>
ANS=, ANS = .
12. Here are two procedures called ZORK and WIZ.

r
AHS
TO ZORK :SIDE
REPEAT 2[F0RWARD :SIDE RIGHT 901
END
TO WIZ :ANGLE
REPEAT 3 [FORWARD 90 RIGHT :ANGLE]
END
Write a procedure using either ZORK or WIZ to drjw the picture below.
iC
128 128
Page 5
13. Explain the 'Total Turtle Trip Theorem".
14. When a program line docs not work correctly we say it has a
15. Editing a procedure to correct an error is called

(a) a bug.
(b) an error.
(c) correcting.
(d> debugging.
16. Which of the following commands need an input following it?
(please circle)
PU FD RT ST HT LT BK LOAD PRINT SAVE REPEAT PD
17. Using the following procedure, create a STOP rule which will stop the program
Mhen the SIZE is greater than 100.
TO COLORSPI :SIZE
FORWARD :SIZE
RIGHT 90
COLORSPI :SIZE • 5
END
18. In the drawing below, Mhere must you move your turtle to make it "state
transparent?"
B
iiSr
19. What Mill these program lines do'l'
MAKE "CHOICE 1 • RANDOM 50
PRINT :CHOICE
129
Page 6
20. What will these program lines do?
MAKE "IMAGEM "LIST

PRINT BUTLAST «IMAGEN
21. Mhat Mill this program line do?
PRINT BL BL BL "light
22. What command makes the turtle become invisible?
23. When the turtle goes off the screen and reappears on the opposite
side we call this .
24. What will this program line do?
PRINT WORD (FIRST "phone) (FIRST BUTFIRST "phone)
25. Recursion is Logo's ability to
(a) repeat a series of steps a fixed number of tines.
(b) write procedures that use their own name in their directions,
(c) understand a series of commands named by the programmer.
(d) execute three different procedures at one time.
26. Change the RSQUARE procedure to one which uses recursion.
TO RSQUARE :SIZE
REPEAT 4[F0RWARD tSIZE RIGHT 90]
END
27. In the. RSQUARE procedure what is sSI ZE ?

(Circle one)
procedure command diekfile variable
130
Page 7
In the next series of questions pretend that you have just typed the commands that
are shown. On the lines following the commands, write what will happen (be
displayed) on your computer screen.
28. PRINT FIRST [LOGO IS THE BEST]
29. PRINT BUTLAST [BIS BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU]
30. PRINT LAST [TIME FOR LUNCH]
31. REMAINDER 7 5
32. REMAINDER 2 2
33. PRINT 3 • 2 » 5
34. PRINT (SENTENCE [THIS] [IS] [THEl [LAST] • [QUESTION])

131
Junior High Logo Curriculum Objectives

The following objectives were incorporated into
eight units lasting one semester.
The student will;
1. define the classroom rules.

2. list and define the parts of the computer.
3. use proper care in the use of the computer.
4. define and apply the Logo primitives of FORWARD,
BACK, RIGHT, and LEFT; first in spatial
relationships and then in Logo.
5. identify the portions of the LogoWriter screen known
as the COMMAND CENTER, PAGE, and FLIP SIDE.
6. define and apply the Logo commands of PENUP,
PENDOWN, CLEARTEXT, CLEARCOMMANDS,
CLEARGRAPHICS, and RESETGRAPHICS.
7. be able to save to the SCRAPBOOK a page created
using the commands of NAMEPAGE and the ESCAPE
key.
8. be able to erase a page from the SCRAPBOOK.
9. use a protractor and ruler and apply these tools
to the measurement and estimation of Turtle
graphics.
132
10. define and apply the REPEAT and WAIT commands.

11. explain and predict the Turtle's State.
12. explain the Total Turtle Trip Theorem, and apply
this theorem when drawing figures in Logo.
13. define a procedure for segment of a project. This
includes the use of the FLIP keys.
14. define and use superprocedures and subprocedures to

develop individualized projects.
15. run a project under procedure control.
16. use a printer to print out Turtle graphics and text
created on the screen.
17. be able to use all special LogoWriter keys.
18. define and apply the commands of FILL, HIDETURTLE
SHOWTURTLE, SETBACKGROUND, SETCOLOR, SETSHAPE
SHADE, TONE, SHAPES, and STAMP.
19. use multiple Turtles in a procedure.

20. demonstrated the ability to use variables as size
inputs when drawing geometric shapes with Logo
21. define and apply the concept of tail recursion
in Logo.
22. define and apply the concept of embedded recursion
when using Logo.
133
23. use and explain a STOP rule to control recursion.

24. define and apply the LogoWriter list processing
commands of PRINT, SHOW, TYPE, INSERT, WORD,
SENTENCE, FIRST, BUTFIRST, LAST, and BUTLAST.
25. use and explain a conditional statement to control

the flow of a Logo program.
26. define and apply the commands of POS, SETPOS, and
SHOWPOS in Logo programs using Cartesian
coordinates.

Logo and Learning Does Logo Training Increase The Use

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Logo and Learning Does Logo Training Increase The Use

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Logo and Learning Does Logo Training Increase The Use

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LOGO AND LEARNING: DOES LOGO TRAINING INCREASE THE USE

OF FORMAL OPERATIONAL THOUGHT?

BARBARA GALE WALKER HYINK, B.A., M.A.T.

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

Dean of the Graduate School

Barbara Gale Walker Hyink

The completion of this document is a personal goal.

To Dr. Jerry Willis, I extend special appreciation

Statement of the Problem ... 1

V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 93

Discussion of the Study . . . . 96

A. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 118

The purpose of this study was to determine the

Analyses of pretest and pre-pretest data determined

1. Demographic Information For Each Group . . . . 61

1. Pre-Pretest CAT Total Reading Grade

Statement of the Problem

One movement within educational computing concerns

Contribution of the Study

The review of related literature revealed that

research on the value of Logo training for problem

Limitations and Considerations

A variety of conjectures, or in some cases "claims,"

have been made regarding the value of teaching Logo to

children. This study has focused on the hypothesis that

Logo training will enable students to develop more

sophisticated thought structures and will facilitate

Piaget, the Swiss psychologist who studied the processes

of thinking in children. Piaget attempted to isolate and

describe the mental structures on which the reasoning

Piaget used the schema as an intervening variable

the person's dealing with the environment in terms of his

stage, the concrete operational stage, and the stage of

formal operational thought.

children have not yet developed the operational

operations of arithmetic, measurement, logical classes,

Formal Operational Stage. The children studied by

reality, but possibility, with the real being but one of

Day stated that formal operational skills are

that most adolescents (perhaps as high as 85%) do not

intellectual development. Piaget (1972) hypothesized

All normal subjects attain the stage of formal

competence—the behavior of which the individual is

knowledge is not acquired directly but is constructed by

necessary to the adult mind such as logico-mathematical

1979). Children discover and collect schemata from their

(Greenfield & Bruner, 1973, p. 369). Educators are in

Papert interpreted Piaget to mean children are the

Papert argued that our culture has a "relative

The two fundamental ideas advanced by Mindstorms

Papert conjectured that:

Computer use can concretize (and personalize) the

Piaget's formal stage includes combinatorial

in space. The Euclidian point is a static entity that

RIGHT 90 FORWARD 100

RIGHT 90 FORWARD 100

RIGHT 90 FORWARD 100

This procedure could be simplified by changing it to