Briggs 2013 Programming With Scratch Software

Programming with
Scratch Software:
The benefits for year six
learners
Julia D Briggs
This dissertation is submitted in part fulfilment of the

regulations for the MA in Learning and Knowledge
Technology
Bath Spa University
October 2013
J Briggs October 2013 1

This dissertation is an original piece of work. It is my own work and has not
been submitted either in the same or different form to this or any other Higher
Education Institution for a degree or other award. It is available for
photocopying and for inter-library load, with the permission of the Dean of the
School of Education.
Signed: Julia Briggs
Date: 18th October 2013

Acknowledgments
The researcher is grateful to Somerset County Council for the job experiences
and opportunities for study provided between 1995 and 2013.
The children and teachers in the year six classes at All Saints, Beechgrove
and Catcott Primary schools are the researchers who have made the
discoveries within this dissertation. Thank you to those schools. Sherril
Atkins, Matt Mustafic and Nicky Mills were inspirational in the way they
worked with their learners.
Emma Asprey, my supervisor has provided indispensable guidance and
support.
Dr Steve Coombs taught me the disciplines of study which have provided the
skills to complete this project.
My colleagues contributed to the completion of the research. Ian Gover
prodded and pushed until I adopted computational thinking in my approach to
programming, something that has been essential to the project. Lucinda
Searle enabled me to have the opportunity to take the time to carry out this
research. She has provided on-going encouragement and support.
Finally my husband Steve, has put up with many exclamations as I made
discoveries within the writings of Vygotsky, Bruner and Papert, and was willing
to listen as I verbalised my thoughts.
To all of these I am grateful and without whom this project would not have
been realised.

Abstract
The new programme of study for computing (Department of Education, 2013)
places an emphasis on programming. This research considers the benefits
for year six learners as they are introduced to programming through Scratch
software. A grounded theory approach is used for the findings to emerge
from three case study schools. A triangulation of the evidence is used to
confirm the outcomes. Comparisons are made between the three groups of
researchers: learners, teachers, and the researcher; as well as between the
three schools and three types of data collection.
Children became researchers as they considered what they learnt and how
they learnt whilst being introduced to use Scratch, through an open-ended
exploratory approach. The researcher was a participant-observer and
reflected on the learning experiences with the teachers involved. It is hoped
that the data is presented in such a way that primary teachers can relate to
the outcomes.
Twelve benefits emerged from the findings. The most significant were
‘developing independent learning’, ‘developing logical thinking’ and
‘encouraging exploration’. Perseverance was indicated as an important part
of the independent learning. The ‘teacher changing role’, an ‘exploratory
approach’ and a ‘supportive environment’ were the key factors identified
which contributed to those benefits. Data also demonstrated the way that the

‘width and height’ of the software allowed the children to create unique games
and animations whilst developing logical thinking.
The teachers permitted the children to discover Scratch software for
themselves. The children were allowed to make mistake and to learn from
them. Support was provided by their peers with only occasional interventions
by the teachers.
A cycle, including exploration and providing instructions for projects which can
then be adapted by the children, is suggested for programming as an effective
approach for children to achieve in this area of the curriculum.

Contents
Contents 1
Glossary 4
Chapter 1 Introduction 6
Chapter 2: Literature Review 11
Empowering the learner 12
The learning potential of programming software 21
The Learning Environment 22
The role of the teacher 26
In conclusion 29
Chapter 3 Research paradigm 30
Generalization of outcomes 31
The participants 33
Data collection 34
Data analysis 38
Chapter 4 Results and Findings 45
The overall picture 45
Case Study One: All Saints Primary 51
Case Study Two: Catcott Primary School 62
Case Study Three: Beechgrove Primary School 70
Validity of the findings 78
Confirming the findings 82
Chapter 5 Conclusions 83
Discoveries 83
Future research 89
Final conclusions and recommendations 91
References 94
Appendices 100

List of Figures
Figure 1: Screen capture of the on-line version of Scratch 9
Figure 2: Codes linked to Perseverance (Atlas ti 7) 40
Figure 3: Triangulation of evidence 42
Figure 4: Summary of activities in the three schools 46
Figure 5: Twenty super-codes (Atlas Ti) 47
Figure 6: Difficulties indicated by codes that were associated with or part
of the super-code (Atlas Ti) 47
Figure 7: Benefits to learners (Analysis of All data Atlas Ti) 49
Figure 8: Comparison of benefits in case study schools (Atlas-ti) 49
Figure 9: Factors that contributed to the benefits to learners (Atlas Ti
Analysis of All data) 50
Figure 10: Comparison of factors contributing to benefits in all three case
study schools (Atlas-ti) 50
Figure 11: What have you learnt about yourself? 56
Figure 12: Benefits to School 1 Learners (Atlas-ti analysis) 58
Figure 13: Factors contributing to the benefits to School 1 learners (Atlas-
ti) 60
Figure 14: Actions of six learners counted during video of a programming
session (School 1). 61
Figure 15: Learning interactions between pupils and Scratch software 62
Figure 16: Benefits to Learners School 2 (Atlas-ti) 64
Figure 17: Factors that contributed to the benefits to learners School 2
(Atlas Ti) 66
Figure 20: Blog posts: Programming Day (Swallow, 2013)
Figure 21: Blog posts: Difficulties with Scratch (Swallow, 2013) 74
Figure 22: Benefits to Learners School 3 (Atlas-ti) 76
Figure 23: Factors that contributed to the benefits to learners School 3
(Atlas Ti) 77
Figure 24: Triangulation of learner evidence: Benefits 79

Figure 25: Triangulation of learner evidence: Factors contributing to
benefits 80
Figure 26: Consideration of peer influence with group interviews: Factors
contributing to benefits. 81
Figure 27 ‘The dynamic relationship between teacher, student and robot
shows that the learning and teaching interactions are bi-directional’,
(Catlin and Blamires, 2012). 84
Figure 28: Cycle of programming 86
Figure 29: The exploration triangle 87
Figure 30: Benefits to year 6 learners in adopting an exploratory approach
to introducing Scratch 90
List of Plates
Plate 1: Discovering movements 53

Plate 2: Crab moving sideways 53
Plate 3: Hercules game 59
Plate 4: Duplicating sprites 67
Plate 5: Witch disappearing 68

Glossary
Algorithm
‘Algorithms are re-usable procedures (often a sequence of steps) for getting

something done. For example, plan the shortest delivery route for a lorry,
given the required stops on the route’ (Royal Society, 2012).
Broadcast instruction
‘Broadcast’ and ‘receive broadcast’ programming blocks are used to

announce an instruction has been completed and to confirm receipt of that
announcement so that a new action can occur.
Code Club
‘A nationwide network of free volunteer-led after-school coding clubs for

children aged nine to eleven. We create projects for our volunteers to teach
at after school coding clubs or at non-school venues such as libraries. The
projects we make teach children how to program by showing them how to
make computer games, animations and websites. Our volunteers go to their
local club for an hour a week and teach one project a week’ (Code Club, ca.
2012).
ICT
Information Communication Technology
Logo
The Logo programming language was designed as a tool for learning. It is a

text based programming language (Logo Foundation, 2012).
Floor robot or Floor turtle
‘Turtles, the first breed of educational robot’ emerged from development of the
Logo programming language (Caitlin and Blamires, 2012). The robots have a
microchip within which is programmed by pushing buttons to dictate what the
robot will do.
PC
Personal computer

Program blocks
Programming in Scratch ‘is done by snapping together colourful command

blocks to control sprites’ (Maloney et al, 2010). These are sometimes referred
to as program blocks.
Programs
‘These tell a computer exactly what to do. Every program is written in some
programming language, each with different strengths.’ (Royal Society, 2012).
Scratch
Scratch is a visual programming environment that allows users (primarily ages

eight to sixteen) to learn computer programming while working on personally
meaningful projects such as animated stories and games (Maloney et al,
2010).
Two versions were used by the schools in the case studies. 2.0 online
version was used at All Saints Primary. The downloaded 1.4 version was
used at Catcott and Beechgrove.
Sprite
Scratch uses the term sprite for the characters and objects which can be
programmed with the software.
Turtle
A turtle can be a floor robot or floor turtle. It is also the object on a screen
which is programmed by Logo. The correct text input ‘would start the turtle
going’ on the screen (Logo Foundation, 2012).

Chapter 1 Introduction
One of the antinomies in education described by Bruner (1996: 67) is that,
whilst its purpose is to ‘reproduce the culture that supports it’, to ‘further its
economic, political, and cultural ends;’ it also allows individuals to gain their
full potential. This presents a pair of truths that could seem to contradict each
other yet, as seen in schools today and, as recognised by Bruner (ibid: 69),
become merged together.
A similar antinomy emerges from the ‘Shut down or restart?’ report (Royal
Society, 2012) which identified Computer Science as being of enormous
importance to society in the United Kingdom in terms of being globally
competitive (ibid: 4); but at the same time developing critical thinking skills of
pupils which can increase their understanding of the world. It stated that it was
‘essential for pupils to develop their aptitudes in the subject, for their individual
benefit and for the future prosperity of the nation’ (ibid: 5).
Ways in which technology can support learning were recognised by the
Secretary of State for Education in his 2012 speech (Gove, 2012) on ICT in
the curriculum. At the same time however the curriculum, which teaches the
skills and understanding of that technology, was referred to as failing the
needs of the country.
‘The UK had been let down by an Information Communication

Technology (ICT) curriculum that neglects the rigorous Computer
Science and programming skills which high-tech industries need’.
(ibid).

Bruner (1982: 69) suggests that in times of rapid change it is important to
keep the antinomies in balance. The realisation of an individual’s progress can
also preserve the culture.
The discussion, both political (Gove, 2012) and educational (Royal Society,
2012) has led to a new computing programme of study (Department of
Education, 2013) with a strong emphasis on computer science and in
particular programming. In this dissertation the researcher will consider what
the benefits to the individual rather than to society could be. Specifically the
benefits to year six children using Scratch software (Scratch, ca. 2007).
Through this it is hoped that the study will contribute to a consideration of
whether Bruner’s antinomies are in balance.
The researcher has advised schools throughout Somerset on ways to
implement the previous ICT (Information Communication Technology)
curriculum and seeks to use the findings of this dissertation to support the
implementation of the new computing programme of study. For the
researcher, working with schools has always included the development of the
use of technology to support all areas of learning. Therefore recognising the
benefits of programming which may contribute to other learning is an essential
part of the outcomes.
The aim of the research is to identify the benefits for year six children as they
begin to program using Scratch software. The questions which will be
investigated are:

• How are individual learners benefitting from the experience?
• What are the children learning while using the software?
• How much of the learning is related to programming?
• What other kinds of learning are taking place?
• What understanding are they gaining of technology?
• What is contributing to that learning?
• What understanding are they gaining of how they learn?
The researcher chose Scratch as the focus for the research as it is a free
resource developed for education (Maloney et al, 2010: 2). Recently it has
been seen by the researcher to grow in popularity as the tool of choice for
teachers as they plan early experiences of programming for their learners.
The Secretary of State for Education referred to its potential,
‘We could have 11 year-olds able to write simple 2D computer

animations using an MIT tool called Scratch.’ (Gove, 2012).
The researcher previously worked as a primary school teacher and used
technology to support children in achieving targets they had struggled with
previously. An ontological belief developed that children had a right to access
technology and this could make a difference to their learning. This belief was
enhanced through studies such as Pearson and Somekh (2006) which
discusses the way technology has become an integral part of children’s lives
and the way they think and learn. The belief also contributes to a
constructivist approach to teaching which considers the experiences that

should be provided for children to scaffold their learning through Vygotsky’s
(1978) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) using materials that are part of
their culture (Papert, 1984).
An important aspect of Scratch for the researcher is therefore the way that
primary-aged individuals can create their own unique programs or projects
which reflect computer games that are part of their societal culture;
‘Scratch is a visual programming environment that allows users

(primarily ages 8 to 16) to learn computer programming while working
on personally meaningful projects such as animated stories and
games. A key design goal of Scratch is to support self-directed learning
through tinkering and collaboration with peers.’ (Maloney et al, 2010:
1).
The environment it provides is shown in Figure 1 below. Children can have a
concrete experience of making things happen on a screen while developing
their abstract thinking. This is an idea which is explored in Chapter Two.
Figure 1: Screen capture of the on-line version of Scratch

The grounded theory approach identified for the research and discussed in
Chapter Three reflects the constructivist beliefs of the researcher (Mills et al.,
2006) and provides a methodology to involve teachers and children in the
research process. This is to enable the ‘Learner Voice’ (Rudd et al., 2006) to
be represented in the outcomes presented in Chapters Four and Five.

Chapter 2: Literature Review
In this review, the researcher considers the literature available to explore the
ways in which primary aged learners may benefit from appropriate software
being used to support the new programme of study for computing. It does not
consider the benefits of becoming a computer programmer or even
understanding the science behind the technologies that are ubiquitous in
today’s society. It focuses on the possibility of programming activities to
develop the potential for increased learning for an individual. The review
draws strongly on social constructivist theories of learning. This emerged
from the identification of the programming language of Logo as the precursor
to the development of Scratch (Maloney et al, 2010). Maloney describes
Scratch as ‘building on the constructionist ideas of Logo’ (ibid: 3). This is
reflected in the account provided by Robyler and Edwards (2000: 64) who
refer to the influence of Piaget’s way of ‘looking at children as active builders
of their own intellectual structures’ as the driver for Papert working with others
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to develop Logo as a
programming language for the youngest learners.
The social and cultural aspect of the constructivist theories has evolved
through the review as links have been made with Bruner’s (1996) culture in
practice, and Vygotsky’s (1962) theory of thought and language deriving from
both the culture surrounding the child and social interactions.

For a complete picture it will be necessary to acknowledge that the beneficial
effects of programming cannot be separated from other influences (Goodyear,
1984) and therefore reference is made to:
 Empowering the learner
 Learning potential of programming software
 Learning environment
 Role of the teacher
Empowering the learner
Crook (2009: 5) draws attention to the way Scratch can ‘empower children to
control the computer and create their own applications rather than use the
computer in a passive manner’. It is similar to Papert’s (1993: 107)
observation of Logo allowing children to be ‘producers rather than consumers
of educational software’. Luckin et al (2007: 91) referred to learners as
‘creators not consumers’ of technology and Luckin (2008) described the active
role of learners when the educational context belongs to the learner as well as
the teacher.
This active role is explored in an article describing the contribution of online
communities to the learning taking place while using Scratch (Monroy-
Hernández and Resnick, 2008). The article refers to children creating and
sharing Scratch projects ‘as a way to express themselves creatively, much as
they would paint a picture or build a castle with LEGO bricks.’ The research it
is based on arises from Papert’s idea (1984) of a transitional object to help a
child to make contact with ideas and to develop their thinking. He links the

shaping and crafting of physical materials to the programming of a computer.
As the child programs the computer they ‘establish an intimate contact with
some of the deepest ideas from science, from mathematics and the art of
intellectual model building’ (ibid: 5).
Similarly, Bruner recognises the importance of producing ‘works’ or ‘oeuvres’
(Meyerson, 1948 cited in Bruner, 1996: 22). Something that is produced by a
group of learners will give ‘pride, identity and a sense of continuity to those
who participate’. It is a record of the mental efforts. Something external that
can help the individual or group to reflect on what has been learnt. This builds
on Vygotsky (1962) describing the way in which an object that a child is
dealing with can shape their thought processes.
The idea of an object to learn with; and to have an outcome that can support
the reflection on that learning, is developed in activity theory. Here cognitive
activity uses a tool which can ‘mediate internalization’ and interaction with
other people (Fjeld et al, 2002: 155). Physical outcomes create ‘artefacts’ and
allow the externalization of thoughts. One person’s thoughts ‘become more
accessible to other people’ (ibid). Fjeld refers to activity within the context of
augmented reality where shared understanding can be achieved by ‘creating
objects-to-think-with in collaborative design activities’ (ibid: 160). A mix of
physical and virtual tools is used to support a group of adults to develop a set
of design guidelines. This mix is similar to the use of floor robots and
programming software in a classroom to develop thinking such as
mathematical understanding of two dimensional shapes (Vincent, 2003).

However, within Fjeld’s work the focus is on creating an object which is the
focus for a group whereas Papert’s (1984) focus is the object developing the
thinking of an individual which can then be shared with others.
This externalization can be linked to the ways in which gestures can be part of
constructing new knowledge. Lucas and Claxton (2010: 93) refer to Goldin-
Meadow and Wagner (2005) as they describe the way that movement can
support the identification of new ideas.
‘Hands connected up to bits of the brain that may ‘know’ or suspect or

wonder about things that our more conscious and deliberate minds are
as yet unaware of’.
Floor turtles (see Glossary) and paired work on giving precise instructions to
each other is a physical starting point experienced by many young children as
an introduction to programming.
Further to the idea of physical movements contributing to learning, Papert
(1984) describes the turtle in logo programming as being body syntonic.
Children programming an on-screen turtle to draw a circle, relate the
movements required to their knowledge of their own bodies. Although
Jonassen (1998) recognises the way technology offers tools to explore and
solve problems; the closeness of the link between the individual and that tool
is not the same as that identified by Papert. Jonassen refers to ‘Mindtools’ as
‘intellectual partners’ (ibid: 14) which the learner can use to ‘off-load’ some of
the task. The learner should be responsible for making use of the tool to do
the processing for them while the learner does the thinking. He suggests that
the combination of a ‘Mindtool’ and the engagement of a learner can enhance

the thinking and learning that is taking place. It creates an environment where
learners actively participate to construct their own knowledge. The description
of technology tools as environments is also used by Way and Beardon (2003:
3) in considering their contribution to mathematical learning.
However the relationship between the user and the tool can be far more
intricate than this. Tools can become part of that person’s intelligence.
Blakeslee and Blakeslee (2007, cited in Lucas and Claxton, 2010) refer to
enhancers that expand the sense of self, such as a blind person and their
stick. This is explored by Pearson and Somekh (2006) with reference to
technology being an integral part of children’s lives. For some learners it has
become an extension of themselves. Pearson refers to the need to reframe
traditional approaches to cognition to take account of digital processes
(Lankshear, 2003, cited ibid: 533), to make use of ‘mediated cultural tools’
(ibid: 529). Bruner (1996: 151) described the mind as ‘an extension of the
hands and tools that you use and of the jobs to which you apply them.’ He
discusses (ibid: 17-18) Vygotsky’s ZPD in terms of the capacity to go beyond
the limits which can be imposed due to the ‘nature of language and notational
systems’.
The semiotic language of programming could be considered to be taking
children beyond previous limits in their learning as they use it to control the
behaviour of the computer. Papert (1984) described the computer as an
object to think with. Explaining something physical is far easier for people
than having to find the ‘mental categories’ to explain our own minds

(Chomsky, 1969 cited in Bruner, 1996: 161). Logo programs allow children to
construct and manipulate objects in relationship to their environment. Papert
(1993: 116-128) uses a composite pupil called Maria to describe the reactions
of some of a group of nine and ten year olds when they have the opportunity
to program Lego models. Maria builds connections with other learning as she
creates her own model home and then becomes intrigued by the
programming she sees others are doing and is determined to make the lights
in her house blink on and off (ibid: 119). Through the process she is able to
exercise choice and be in control of her own learning. This reflects Bruner’s
(1996: 87) idea of agency where the learner takes control of their own mental
activity. They take decisions about their learning and build their own
heuristics (ibid: 93) but this comes from the ‘crucial role of self-generated
discovery in learning a subject’ (ibid: 39) as demonstrated by Maria in
developing her house (above). Maria’s independence links to the observation
by Somekh and Davis (1997: 142) that, ‘almost all highly skilled computer
users profess to be largely self-taught’.
Despite this Underwood and Underwood (1990: 35-49) are cautious of
Papert’s ‘powerful ideas’. They refer to Pea and Kurland’s (1984 in ibid: 48)
phrase of ‘naïve techno-romanticism’ in considering the idea that
‘programming experiences can transform children’s minds’. Their review of
the evidence from a range of studies on Logo, using matched groups that are
tested before and after a three month period, concludes that benefits can be
observed. In particular an increased ability to explain mathematical rules (47),
gains in creative thinking (45) and the ability to evaluate their own knowledge

(46); although, no additional gain was made in verbal memory (45) and visual-
spatial matching (46).
While accepting these benefits, Underwood and Underwood (1990) express
overall reservations that the profound developments claimed by Papert were
not realised (48). However one of the differences identified in both the
investigation reported by Clements and Gullo (1984 in ibid: 45) and
Finlayson’s study (1984 in ibid: 47) was the verbal expression achieved by the
learners in cognitive tests following an experience of using Logo. This links to
Vygotsky’s recognition of speech as an instrument of thought (1962: 16-17)
which can move a child towards purposeful behaviour. Unless there is an
understanding of a concept the relevant words, even where they are familiar,
will not be usable by the child (ibid: 7). Once the concept has ‘matured’ the
word becomes available and can be part of the articulation of the learning that
is taking place. Six year old children that are able to provide a verbal
description of a route when presented with a map (Underwood and
Underwood, 1990: 45); and eleven year old children that can give verbal
descriptions of the rules which generate a pattern for a set of number
sentences (ibid: 47); are all demonstrating their understanding of concepts
that has come as a result of their Logo experience.
Kathy is a student described by Vincent (2003: 59). She used logo to create a
resource for other children who did not understand fractions. She has low
self-esteem, short attention span and poor language and written mathematics
skills. She

‘worked long and hard without a single distraction except when others,
who now saw Kathy as an ‘expert’, asked her for advice.’
She was teaching while she created her ‘artefact’. Likewise, Goldstein and
Pratt (2003) describe how a child can become the teacher of a computer
when using Logo. In doing this they can make their own decisions about what
they want to achieve and how they will do it. They are developing their own
learning; ‘Every teacher knows that one of the best ways to understand
something is to teach it to someone else.’ (ibid: 72).
Programming provides immediate feedback on the effect of a procedure that
has been created. Children can explore possibilities and debug those which
do not achieve the outcome they require. In this way they can ‘concretise’
ideas (Goodyear, 1984: 32). They can make
‘a manipulable thing of otherwise abstract ideas about knowledge,

learning, thinking and problem solving.’
The computer has become an ‘intellectual mud pie’ (ibid)!
This mix of concrete and abstract thinking is something which Papert (1993:
151) identifies as a ‘blind spot’ in Piaget’s insights about development.
Papert’s transitional object was developed from Piaget’s model of the child
building their own intellectual structures based on the materials in the culture
(Papert, 1984: 7). But despite this there are differences in the way in which
Papert views the development of children’s learning. Piaget explained the
slow development of learning about a concept being due to its greater
complexity. Papert describes it as being due to the ‘relative poverty of the
culture in those materials that would make the concept simple and concrete’

(1984: 7). While children are developing their thinking through working with
every day materials they are also developing understanding of abstract ideas.
He sees concrete and abstract working in parallel rather than one preceding
the other (Papert, 1993: 151). At any stage of education the two can be
interchangeable to construct ‘important and sophisticated’ ideas. Concrete
thinking is not just a first stage in solving problems; it is an on-going part of
the process. Likewise, Vygotsky (1962: 125) describes continual movement
back and forth between the mature abstract understanding of a word and the
process of using the word in a concrete setting.
Similarly, Lucas and Claxton (2010: 59) attest that children do not outgrow
earlier learning modes. They add ‘imagining and reasoning’ to ‘observing and
experimenting’ making the learning more powerful.
This relates to Papert’s (1993) philosophy of constructionism. The use of a
learning object benefits a child in a way which an instructionist approach at
any stage of development cannot. A teacher telling a group of children
something only provides that piece of knowledge, it doesn’t provide them with
knowledge which will ‘help them get more knowledge’ (Papert, 1993: 139).
An instructionist approach could be considered in viewing the learning object
as part of Skinner’s (1954) behaviourist model of learning. He refers to
‘contingencies of reinforcement’ (ibid: 107) as a way to reinforce a child
developing the appropriate actions to achieve an outcome. While
programming with a learning object, the learner would experience a positive
reinforcement each time a set of commands achieved the outcome that is

expected. Goodyear (1984: 25) refers to the child’s needs being met ‘swiftly
and accurately’ as they master the language of programming. However, he
also outlines the need for the learners to have time to experiment, to make
mistakes and to gain confidence. Papert (1984: 23) is concerned that children
are held back by thinking ‘they’ve got it right or got it wrong.’ The
contingencies of reinforcement would need to include the satisfaction of
correcting a ‘bug’ in the program. This is in contrast to their application
through drill and practice software, developed by behaviourists such as
Suppes (Solomon, 1987: 8, 23), which provides a positive stimulus for a
correct response. The understanding of the children during the process
needs to also be considered. Vygotsky (1962: 82) describes the process of
concept formation as ‘more than mental habit’. He stated that the ‘act of
thought cannot be taught by drilling.’
However, positive reinforcement of using the appropriate actions to
accomplish a specific outcome could allow a learner to achieve fluency in
programming. They ‘learn to use the tools built into the computer system’
(Solomon, 1986: 152). This is closer to Bloom’s (1986) idea of automaticity.
Indeed, computer languages are listed in Bloom’s (1986: 76) table of
automated processes that contain early skills that are a prerequisite for later
learning (Appendix 22). In contrast to this, Papert (1984: 24) describes the
mastery of programming as becoming ‘highly skilled at isolating and correcting
bugs’. This relates more to an active interaction with the learning object by
the learners and indicates more purposeful choice and control by the learner
as discussed above in terms of Bruner’s (1996: 87) idea of agency.

The learning potential of programming software
The consideration of programming software as a transitional object for
learning has been developed in different ways. Goldstein et al (2001: 2)
highlight the importance of developing software where interaction is no longer
restricted to a textual interface. Bruner (1996: 155) sets out three levels of
representing new learning materials; enaction which requires physical
manipulation, iconic where you can think of the world in pictures, and symbolic
systems based on language. In terms of learning programming this could be
the steps from floor turtles, to direction icons on a screen, to the text of Logo
and then other program languages. Scratch is a combination of the iconic
and textual, providing a stepping stone through the ZPD. In this instance
applied to supporting the progress with programming itself, rather than the
programming supporting the development of mathematical or other critical
thinking skills.
This links to Goldstein and Pratt (2003: 86-87) distinguishing between the
width of software to increase the number of possibilities children can explore,
and the height of software to increase what might be achieved. ‘The less
restricted the software in terms of width and height, the more empowered are
the children to follow through their ideas.’ Similarly Papert (1980 in Resnick et
al 2009 : 63) argues for programming languages which should have a ‘low
floor’ and are easy to get started and a ‘high ceiling’, with opportunities for
increasing complexity. Resnick (2009) adds the requirement for ‘wide walls’
to support

‘many different types of projects so people with many different interests
and learning styles can all become engaged.’
This engagement of learners with different interests was something Papert
(1993: 119-124) documented as he described Maria’s learning through her
initial design focus on her house before she chose to develop programming
skills to add a lighting dimension to her project.
The ‘tinkerability’ (Maloney et al, 2010: 4) of Scratch relates to Maria’s
experience. Users are helped to discover the functionality of programming
blocks by clicking on them before using them as part of a detailed piece of
programming. Sets of programming blocks can be tested separately rather
than having to run complete programs. In both cases the visual feedback
(ibid: 5) provided by the program supports the resolution of any problems.
Appropriate software also supports learners to become cognitive apprentices
(Seely-Brown et al, 1989: 33). In the case of Scratch, the software can be
used by children to develop the computational thinking which is required for
computer programming (Crook, 2009: 3) while they create games which they
recognise as authentic (ibid: 5). The games and animations are recognisable
by the learners as part of their culture which relates to Bruner’s (1996: 3)
‘meaning making’ being ‘situated in a cultural context.’
The Learning Environment
Despite all the possibilities detailed previously it is also necessary to consider
the limitations which can occur where programming activities are planned.
Bruner (1996) speaks with caution about Piaget’s theory of learning that relies
on gaining knowledge of the world purely from direct hands-on experiences.

He emphasises the need for a community of learners. This builds on the
socio-cultural theory of learning of Seely-Brown et al (1989: 39) who describe
the way in which learning about the world comes from others through
‘collaborative social interaction’. This is part of the experience in the
classroom which is required by Goodyear (1984: 120) who reminds us that the
actual programming is only part of the ‘total learning environment’. The
success in programming depends on the classroom environment created by
the teacher. The attitudes of the learners will affect how much they can learn.
One example is how debugging of programs may be viewed. It is not
evidence of failure but can be the ‘source of new thinking’ (ibid: 33).
Another example is the attention required to sustain interest when
programming becomes more difficult. Lucas and Claxton (2010) refer to the
‘butterfly defect’ (Salomon, 1997 cited in ibid: 97); a reduction in the attention
habits of children through too much internet-surfing and television viewing.
Lucas and Claxton (ibid) use it to consider the way digital technologies could
‘undermine the ability and pleasure in slower, more detailed and

painstaking kinds of learning’.
This description could easily be applied to what is entailed in programming.
Could one type of technology affect the ability to maintain concentration in
exploring another type of technology? Lucas and Claxton (ibid: 97) suggest
that it depends on the kinds of ‘attention-shaping activities’ that are part of the
experience of the child and the ‘frame of mind’ in which they engage with
different technologies. Developing these will be part of the ethos a teacher
will need to create within the learning environment.

Bruner’s culture-in-practice (1996: 77) allows children to develop a sense of
their own possibilities. This ‘enabling culture’ is one where the teacher’s role
can change as the children become peer teachers, ‘offering their expertise to
those with less’ (ibid: 93). The children are sources of information and advice
as they discover new routines within programming. Watt (1982, cited in
Goodyear, 1986) describes a classroom where children are allowed to move
between computers,
‘as problems are solved, and new enthralling patterns appear, so

children will move to see them or explain how they were created.’
Hawkins et al, 1982 cited in Goodyear (ibid: 162) attest that,
‘there was more task-related interaction during computer activity, than

during other non-teacher-directed classroom activity.’
This relates to the experience of Maria described earlier where she chooses
to extend her own learning having been intrigued by the programming of
others (Papert, 1993: 119).
Further to this are the ‘authentic situations’ (Seely-Brown et al., 1989: 21)
which have been referred to in considering appropriate software. Cognition is
situated in the activities where the concept has been developed. The group of
children, together with the tool they are given, can be part of a ‘community of
practitioners’ (ibid: 24), where the teacher can model the appropriate
behaviour of a programmer. The problem solving can happen in an
environment which takes away the need to process the learning ‘solely inside
heads’ (ibid: 29). The children can be ‘off-loading part of the cognitive task
onto the environment’.

This provides a mixture of concrete thinking, as instructions are given to an
object through the programming which is taking place; and abstract thinking,
as new possibilities are imagined or planned for. It adds an additional
requirement to the learning environment. Children will need to have time for
the imagining and reasoning. ‘Dreamy sides of the mind’, (Lucas and Claxton,
2010: 89) may need to be used to free up thoughts and ideas.
Structured learning may have been used to equip the children with the
knowledge and skills to program an object but they may need the distraction
of other activity to allow the mind to move from ‘mountainous thinking’ (ibid:
72-74) to ‘meadow thinking’. The mountainous thinking is the concepts and
habits that have established existing pathways to solve known problems.
Meadow thinking tends to happen when not fully focussed on a task but when
you may be engaged in something else but ‘mulling over’ possibilities,
perhaps not even consciously. It is when more patterns of the brain are
opened up, increasing the chances of finding a new pattern which offers a
new idea of how to move forward with a challenge. It is ‘more like switching
on a large circuit of fairy-lights across the brain than a big bulb in a single
location’ (ibid: 73). This is similar to Vygotsky’s description of the way that
‘concepts evolve in ways differing from deliberate conscious

elaboration of experience in logical terms’ (1962: 79).
He refers to Piaget (1924 in ibid: 13), ‘logical activity is not all there is to
intelligence’, in recognising that imagination is needed to find solutions to
problems.

Both ‘meadow and mountain’ thinking are required to bring benefits to the
learner but a teacher may need to consider how the disposition to make use
of the imagination can be encouraged (Lucas and Claxton, 2010: 84) in the
learning environment they are creating. Bruner (1998: 52) describes this as
giving children the right stepping stones to allow them to discover that they
‘know more than they thought they knew’. He draws together four
perspectives which must be congruent (ibid: 54-63). The development of
habits through imitation, the acquisition of knowledge from didactic exposure,
the development of a model of the world constructed from their experience
and the management of the knowledge gained. However, the development of
the learning environment, still links to the process of thought focused on the
product of the learning described above as Bruner’s (1996) works or Papert’s
(1984) transitional object.
The role of the teacher
The teacher has a key role to play. The management of a classroom is ‘a
more significant variable than any other in terms of helping learning’ (Watkins,
2005, cited in Lucas and Claxton, 2010: 118). The teacher has the choice to
either instruct learners on how to program or to guide the learner to construct
their knowledge and therefore to gain greater benefits. In the words of Way
and Beardon (2003: 5) the teacher is the one who can either ‘unleash this
potential or inhibit it’.
For many educators the demand for the inclusion of technologies challenges
existing pedagogies (Underwood et al, 2010) and therefore they are unlikely

to adopt them. Way and Beardon’s (2003: 3) perspective of digital
technologies as ‘environments’, rather than just tools for learning and
teaching’ requires ‘a fundamental change in teaching practice for many
teachers.’ Developing the kind of learning environment described above is
only part of this.
The Secretary of State for Education (Gove, 2012) described benefits to
society as a reason to include programming in the curriculum. This may not
be sufficient to encourage teachers in primary schools to invest time in
becoming proficient in this area of learning and to change their practice. They
may need to have an increased understanding of how their pupils will benefit.
Ofsted reports on ICT in schools in both 2009 and 2011 (Office for Standards
in Education, 2009, 2011) identified control aspects of the ICT curriculum as a
weakness due to the lack of teacher confidence in their own knowledge. For
young learners to benefit from programming, something different will need to
happen in terms of the professional development currently offered.
Szymanski and Morrell (2009) identified the importance of teachers receiving
training in a ‘situated context’ where not only was the professional
development ‘tailored to individual needs’ but they could see an increase in
student engagement and motivation. Teachers’ belief in their success at
bringing benefits to learners will depend on their subject matter knowledge,
but also the pedagogy necessary to achieve the required outcomes (Rohann
et al, 2012). Conversely, is it acceptable to still view the use of technology as
something which teachers should be persuaded to adopt? Or do ‘teachers

have an overpowering responsibility to incorporate these technologies
effectively into their teaching’ (Way and Beardon, 2003: 1).
Vincent (2003 :67) describes an instructionist teacher who, despite being very
nervous of technology began to use MicroWorlds, a program based on Logo,
with her class. She began to learn alongside the children. She watched as
the children learned from each other. Her role became one of a guide. She
became a constructionist in her approach. Vincent sees this as letting go of
the ‘belief in the power of language to teach and lead from the front.’ The
teacher uses her knowledge of the learners to guide them to achieve
whatever may be possible without limiting the challenge.
This implies a need for a teacher to change from an instructionist approach to
constructing the knowledge of learners. Papert (1993: 164) describes
instruction as something that is done to the child and implies ‘particles of
knowledge’ are selected by the instructor to pass to the learner. He supports
Piaget’s view (ibid: 142) that ‘knowledge cannot simply be transmitted or
conveyed ready-made to another person’. This reflects the social
constructivist ideas that have been the main focus of this review. In contrast
Skinner’s (1954: 108) behaviourist model directs knowledge to the learner
through a series of interactions in order for them to achieve the behaviour
desired.
Both constructivist and behaviourist models can be seen in Costa and Killick
(2000) describing the ability to solve complex problems as developing ‘Habits

of Mind’. These are the skills and cues which are learnt from past
experiences, but give a learner confidence to work on problems which cannot
be solved immediately. The teacher who is building her own confidence in
programming will be developing the habits to overcome difficulties and in this
way constructing new domains of knowledge (Bruner, 1996: 119). That
teacher can choose to plan experiences which will foster the construction of
those same domains for their learners. In this way the teacher would not be
instructing the children and thereby relying on the learners’ understanding of
the computational language that the teacher had acquired.
In conclusion
The review has developed some key ideas which provide concepts that can
underpin the findings of the case studies. The learning object of appropriate
software can teach children and allow them to be not only an ‘emancipated,
self-directing learner’ (Goodyear, 1984: 24) but also an epistemologist as they
reflect on that learning (ibid: 32). The potential benefits to the learner may
depend on the learning environment created by the teacher and the attitude of
that teacher, as well as open-ended programming software. To maximise that
proficiency, learning activities will need to be planned to allow the children to
share the responsibility for their own learning. They will need to be allowed to
‘get on with it’ (Bruner, 1996: 151).

Chapter 3 Research paradigm
Discovering the benefits of learning experiences using Scratch programming
software required an interpretative paradigm as the researcher was seeking to
learn at first-hand about the social world being investigated (Hitchcock and
Hughes, 1995: 6). The researcher was able to describe learning experiences
in three schools and, through this, provide an interpretation of the events and
actions of the participants (ibid: 16). Although the research had a specific
goal in mind (ibid: 18), which is a characteristic of a positivist paradigm, there
was no testability of theory (ibid: 22) or a reliance on hypotheses (ibid: 23).
The researcher used a grounded theory approach to allow a ‘systematic
generation of a theory’ (Cohen et al, 2011: 598). The approach reflects the
researcher’s constructivist understanding of learning, as ideas were
generated from the data collected (Dunne, 2011: 140).
This approach allowed the researcher to move ‘backwards and forwards
between the data and the emerging explanations, and analyses’ (Hammersley
and Atkinson, 1995: 174) and eventually to develop a theory. Through the
close working with the teachers involved, a co-construction of meaning
evolved which Mills et al, (2006) describe as a constructivist approach to
grounded theory.
In using Grounded theory the researcher acknowledges that extensive
reading had already been part of preparing for the research. The decision for
the inclusion of a literature review as an early part of research had therefore
already been made, as advocated by Strauss and Corbin in Dunne (2011).

Glaser (1998, in Dunne 2011) raises a concern that a literature search in the
substantive area of the research should only occur during the sorting and
writing up stage so that preconceived ideas cannot be imposed on the
research. However, the researcher tends to the argument of Dunne (ibid),
that any researcher undertaking a study without some level of prior knowledge
or ideas is simply unrealistic. It is certainly a requirement of the Masters
programme and, as described by Urquhart (2007, cited in Dunne, 2011: 351),
‘There is no reason why a researcher cannot be self-aware and be able

to appreciate other theories without imposing them on the data.’
The research is set in three primary schools (see Appendix 1 for description of
schools) where programming with Scratch is being experienced for the first
time by both teachers and year six pupils (ten and eleven year olds). This
suggested a case study approach to enable the researcher to focus the
enquiry around this instance (Adelman et al, 1984: 94). Using the definition of
Stake (1994, cited in Cohen et al., 2000: 183), it is an instrumental case
study. A particular case, the introduction of programming to year six pupils, is
being examined ‘to gain insight into an issue or theory’. Observations were
made in three contexts over a short period of time. The use of linked
situations as a case study is described by Hitchcock and Hughes (1995: 317)
as being a story of ‘certain aspects of social behaviour in a particular setting.’
It enabled the researcher to ‘spread the net for evidence’ (Bromley 1986, cited
in ibid) within the clear boundaries of the learning experience identified.
Generalization of outcomes
It is important to the researcher as an adviser for schools throughout
Somerset that the outcomes of the research can be generalized. This is

rejected by Denzin (1983, cited in Schofield, 1990: 173) as a goal impossible
for an interpretivist who will be representing only ‘a slice from the life world’.
However Schofield allows the generalization as long as the research is
designed with this in mind. It is a
‘matter of the fit between the situation studied and others to which one
might be interested in applying the concepts and conclusions of those
studied’ (ibid: 226).
Furthermore, Denscombe (2007, cited in Bell, 2010: 43) links the extent to
which findings can be generalized to how far the case study example is similar
to others of its type. The design for the research includes the use of multi-sites
where a similar learning experience of programming with Scratch software is
being provided, within year six classrooms. These will need to be linked to
the findings in a way which allows teachers to make a choice of how to apply
them to learning possibilities in their own classroom (Hitchcock and Hughes,
1995: 5).
Bassey (1981, cited in Bell, 2010: 9) preferred the term ‘relatability’. This
appeals to the researcher in communicating the findings to other teachers.
For Bassey the criterion is the
‘extent to which the details are sufficient and appropriate for a teacher
working in a similar situation to relate his decision making to that
described in the case study.’
He also refers to the necessity of the study being carried out systematically
and critically.

The participants
The researcher worked as a participant-observer (Hammersley and Atkinson,
1995) together with the teachers in each school to plan, share and reflect on a
learning experience using Scratch software. The planned learning
experiences varied in each school to attempt to focus on the learning that took
place, rather than one teaching strategy which could be affecting that
learning. Despite this, as the experiences evolved, an exploratory approach
for the learners became common in all three. The planning is provided in
Appendix 2.
 School One provided an opportunity for pairs of children to explore the
software, share what they have discovered and then to work
individually, initially using prepared materials to create games. The
final activity was to individually create games based on their class
topic.
 School Two used Code Club (Sutcliffe and Sandvik, 2012a) materials
for children to independently create two games with Scratch, including
‘Whack a Witch’ (Sutcliffe and Sandvik, 2012b). The children had the
support of ‘experts’ who were members of the class that had attended
an after school Code Club (see Glossary). Between using instructions
to create two games the children were given open-ended challenges to
demonstrate their confidence with the software.
 School Three provided an opportunity for children to independently
explore the software, followed by an opportunity to each become
experts at a particular aspect of Scratch programming. The children
were grouped (based on their abilities in mathematics and literacy) and

given a set of instructions to individually produce a game. Children
were then paired with someone who had made a different game to
complete a problem solving activity with Scratch. Finally they worked
individually to create their own version of a ‘Racing Car Game’ (see
Appendix 3).
In Schools one and three a team teaching role was adopted. In School two a
supporting teacher role allowed the researcher to become more of an
observer-participant (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995).
Data collection
The researcher used video, sound recording and note taking to collect data
from the learning experiences. Appendix 21 has a summary of the evidence
collected. The sound recording included informal conversations and moments
in the classroom as well as that of interviews. Children and teachers were
made aware each time the sound recorder was used and permission was
obtained prior to the research. The inherent difficulty of anonymity and
confidentiality when using visual media (Prosser et al, 2008 in Cohen et al,
2011: 534) had to be resolved and this is discussed within the ethics section
of this paper.
Hargreaves (1967, cited in Woods, 1986: 35) suggests the use of sound and
video recording to collect data ‘decreases the extent to which the investigator
disturbs the ‘natural’ situation’. It also provides a more ‘unfiltered’
observational record (Simpson and Tuson, 2003 in Cohen et al, 2011: 470)
than relying on human observations and can be viewed several times to

scrutinise the behaviour. However the video camera was in a fixed position in
order to reduce reactions from the learners, and therefore the data could be
described as selective (ibid: 531) based on the focus and angle. The
researcher made no selection of the learners that were in the view of the
camera. The positioning was purely a matter of where the camera could be
stable and undisturbed during the lesson. The triangulation of data discussed
in Chapter Four suggests the actions of the learners captured on video
reflected the actions of other children in the class within each case study.
In carrying out the research, the researcher recognised the difficulty
highlighted by Hitchcock and Hughes (1995: 121) in resisting the tendency to
become a ‘non-observing participator’. Part of the role adopted meant time
was spent teaching or responding to children who indicated the need for
support to increase their confidence in using the software. However, notes
were taken immediately after each learning experience and sound and video
recording used to capture moments in the classroom. Reflection time
between the teachers and the researcher occurred at moments during and
following the learning experiences. This allowed for the sharing of expertise
(Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995: 88) and a change of roles between
researcher and teacher (ibid: 109) which provided access to different data.
Through the teaching the researcher gained additional insights into the
learning process but this increased the possibility of contributing to a
Hawthorne effect (Cohen et al, 2011: 246) where
‘the presence of the researcher alters the situation as participants may

wish to … impress … the researcher.’

Children were referred to as ‘researchers’ as well as ‘programmers’ during the
learning experiences. The researcher considered both their involvement, and
that of the teachers in reflecting on the experiences, of paramount
importance. The idea of pupil researchers came from Pearson and Somekh
(2006: 521) where they involved pupils and teachers in both planning and
evaluating the conditions for transformative learning. This provided a
methodology to decrease ‘unequal power relations’ (Scott, 1985 cited in
Riddell, 1989: 83) between the researcher and the participants. The
importance of the ‘Learner Voice’ is highlighted by Rudd et al. (2006: 1),
‘Learners need to be active in making their own voices heard but

schools and teachers should also take a lead in developing ways to
enable the views and opinions of learners to be expressed, allowing
them to enter into dialogue and to bring about change.’
Note-taking by the children took the form of writing their responses to
reflective questions on post-it notes. Each class was asked to reflect on
‘What have you learnt?’ and ‘How did you learn it?’
There was no expectation of teachers making notes as the researcher was
always mindful of making demands which would impact adversely on their
time. This ‘personalistic’ reflection is included as one of the aspects which
need to be part of research (Valli, 1997 cited in James, 2010). However, the
contributions of the teachers were captured through the recording of reflective
conversations with the researcher, a method not as demanding as written
contributions. The partnership working enabled the researcher to be part of a
‘critical community of practitioners’ (Riding et al, 1995).

Semi-structured interviews with groups of children provided insights into the
learning that had taken place. A trial unstructured interview had been tested
with one of the members of the Code Club (see Glossary) at School Two.
Low level responses prompted the researcher to consider the questions more
carefully and to plan for group interviews following the learning experiences.
The questions used are in Appendix 4. Similarly a semi-structured interview
was trialled with a colleague from the Somerset advisory team and the ICT
coordinator at School Two. Questions for the teachers were refined
(Appendix 4) based on these and used to develop ‘a conversation with a
purpose’ (Dexter, 1970 cited in Bell, 1995:123).
The group learner interviews allowed the participants to interact with each
other and with the researcher; while at the same time providing a framework
to simplify recording and analysis (Bell, 2010). The researcher was careful to
provide the opportunity for children to choose whether to participate to protect
them from feeling powerless (Riddell, 1989) in a circumstance where they are
working with an adult. The researcher considers whether learners may have
been influenced by the responses of their peers (Newby, 2010: 350) in the
findings.
The interviews with children and teachers further built the community that
developed through the case studies. Children, teachers and researcher
became a ‘dialogical community’ (Berstein, 1983 cited in McNiff 1988: 41) to
evaluate the learning that emerged from the classroom activities. Interviews
were recorded and transcribed to assist the researcher in reviewing the data

for bias (Bell, 1995: 170) and to code the responses for analysis (ibid: 164).
The choice to record all the interviews and as many of the conversations as
possible was to avoid a reliance on note-taking. Walker (1995, cited in
Hitchcock and Hughes, 1995: 171) comments that ‘note taking’ draws the
researcher into the interpretation early in the study.
Transcripts were necessary in order to analyse the evidence. Kvale (1996:
167) is cautious about the use of transcripts,
‘the transcript can become an opaque screen between the researcher

and the original live interview situation.’
For the researcher the transcripts of the interviews were essential to reflect on
the evidence collected. The texts reflect both the feelings and the words of
the learners and teachers, as recalled by the researcher. Therefore whilst
noting these words of caution, the researcher has made use of this data to
avoid a ‘massive data loss’ (Cohen, 2011: 426). Excerpts of the text of the
interviews have been widely used in Chapter Four and therefore the reader
can judge their usefulness.
Data analysis
The data from reflective conversations, video observations, transcripts of
interviews and learner post-it note contributions, were collated and uploaded
to Atlas.ti 7 software (Atlas.ti, 2002-2013). The first stage of analysis involved
the researcher reviewing the text evidence and video, highlighting quotations
and coding them to indicate their significance. This open coding (Friese,
2013) evolved according to what the children had learnt about themselves;
the feelings and actions that arose from them being able to explore the

software; the things that had helped their learning; and the many aspects of
the ways in which the learners had responded to both the software and the
learning activities. Quotations were also coded for researcher and teacher
observations and reflections, and facets of Scratch software itself. The two
hundred and nineteen codes listed in Appendix 5 were then grouped in the
second stage of coding (ibid) as overarching ideas were recognised. These
were the ‘super-codes’ (Appendix 5) that emerged as the potential benefits for
learners and then, as an explanation of the relationships between the codes
became clearer, a group of them were identified as the factors that
contributed to benefits. Appendix 5 clarifies all the terms used for the factors.
‘Teacher changing role’ was used for quotations where children, or the
teachers, described the teacher as doing things differently in terms of allowing
the learners to construct their knowledge through ‘participating in certain
experiences’ rather than ‘transmitting knowledge to learners’ (Roblyer and
Edwards, 2000: 50). This included children discovering the functionality of
Scratch software for themselves, acting as peer teachers to their friends and
being allowed to make mistakes.
The network function within Atlas-ti supported the researcher in recognising
these factors. Figure 2 shows an example of the number of first stage codes
that were linked to perseverance. It is not expected that all the codes can be
seen in the diagram (see enlargement in Appendix 5) but it demonstrates the
complexity of the relationships. The codes are linked according to whether
they were a ‘cause of’, ‘part of’ or ‘associated with’ perseverance.

Figure 2: Codes linked to Perseverance (Atlas ti 7)
In this way, descriptive level analysis moved to conceptual analysis based on
Friese’s (2013) NCT model of ‘Noticing things’, the first stage of coding;
‘Collecting things’, the second stage where the codes were collected together
in super-codes; and ‘Thinking about things’ where the relationships between
the codes were considered.
The descriptive level of analysis related to concrete examples of the learning
theories reviewed in Chapter Two. These led to abstract ideas in the
conceptual level of analysis. The thinking of the researcher continued to
move between the two in much the same way as Papert (1993) described
concrete and abstract thinking working in parallel to construct ‘important and
sophisticated’ ideas (ibid: 151). In this way areas of overarching interest were
identified and used to compare and contrast data for different groups and for
different aspects of the findings.

The videos from each school were analysed using event sampling (Cohen et
al, 2011) and based on two minute partial interval recording. Each two
minutes were coded in Atlas-ti according to the actions of the learners. These
actions are listed in Appendix 13 and Figures 14, 18 and 19 below. Inferences
were made by the researcher that
‘a particular behaviour indicates a particular state of mind or particular

intention or motivation’ (ibid: 463).
These were validated through triangulation with other data.
Triangulation was used to validate the outcomes overall (Hitchcock and
Hughes, 1995: 324). This protects the researcher from a tendency described
by Miles and Huberman (1994 cited in Bell, 2010: 170) to ‘overweight facts
they believe in or depend on’ or to ‘forget data not going in the direction of
their reasoning.’ In particular this helped in the analysis of the video data to
ensure that ‘particular moments’ are not picked out that could make them
seem ‘more powerful’ than was the reality in the classroom situation
(Hitchcock and Hughes, 1995: 138).
Three of the four kinds of triangulation listed by Denzin (1970 cited in
Hitchcock and Hughes, 1995: 324) are used in the analysis; data from more
than one location (the three schools), the use of more than one observer
(researcher, teacher and pupils), and the use of more than one method of
obtaining information (observations including video, interviews and post-it
notes). These are represented in Figure 3 below. In this way ‘different
perspectives from different sources’ (ibid: 323) are represented in the findings
but also the researcher can be seen to be ‘identifying different ways the

phenomena are being perceived’ (ibid) through the use of different types of
evidence.
Between school based evidence
School A
School B School C
Between learner evidence Between researchers
Post-it notes Learner
Interviews Video Researcher Teacher
Figure 3: Triangulation of evidence
Data presentation
Care was taken to present the data in a format where it can be a ‘source for
researchers and users whose purposes may be different from our own’,
(Adelman et al, 1984: 101). The ‘twin notions’ (Cohen et al, 2011: 301) of
‘fitness for purpose’ (Robson, 2002 in ibid) and ‘fitness for audience’ (Yin,
2009 in ibid) have been reflected in the writing. The ‘fitness for purpose’ is
demonstrated through the validity of the evidence achieved by the
triangulation described above. The ‘fitness for audience’ is considered by
presenting the findings in a way that attempts to ‘portray the richness of the
case’ (Cohen, 2000: 182) to allow the reader of the research to develop their
own interpretation (ibid). Verbatim quotations have been used ‘to add life to
the narrative’ (ibid: 553) and to convey a point ‘without it being mediated or

softened’ (ibid) by the language of the researcher. In this way, events and
situations have been
‘allowed to speak for themselves rather than to be largely interpreted,

evaluated or judged by the researcher’ (ibid: 182).
The researcher’s hope is that there may be a ‘shock of recognition’ (ibid: 96)
by the reader as they consider their own practice.
Research ethics
The contribution of both the teachers and children is important to the
outcomes of the research. It was therefore essential that both groups
understood what is entailed in the research (Riddell, 1989). The British
Educational Research Association (2011) sets out an ethic of respect. The
researcher used the principle of ‘respect for all participants’ to establish a
contract for pupils (Appendix 6) and teachers (Appendix 7) which includes
clear information about how the analysis of the research will be disseminated
(Bell, 2010). It was planned that this would help to safeguard the ‘trusted
relationship’ (ibid: 55) that has been established with the schools to allow the
research to take place. It sets out the anonymity which can be expected by
the pupils. At the same time it provides a choice for the name of the school
and the teachers to be included in acknowledgement of the contribution they
will be making. However, it is imperative that, even where pseudonyms are
used for children, their ideas and thoughts are recognised in the outcomes of
the research (Davies, 1985 cited in Riddell, 1989).

Permissions for the use of video and sound data are included within the
contracts for pupils and teachers (Appendix 6 and 7). In addition each school
signed an agreement for the use of video (Appendix 7). The difficulty of
anonymity when using video is acknowledged within the contract for pupils,
‘I will look after all the information I collect so that it isn’t seen by others.
Other people will only be able to read the final document I write, or look
and listen to what we found out at any presentations I do about the
research.’ (Appendix 6).
Throughout the writing of the dissertation the researcher has been aware that
a belief in a constructivist approach to teaching could influence the
observations; and therefore triangulation of data as described above has been
crucial. The choice to research the benefits for children’s learning, rather than
benefits to society, has been made clear (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995).
The transcripts of interviews contain the text of the way questions were asked
to allow for the consideration of any bias. Further to this, the analysis of follow
up questions to those planned has been examined and where a bias may be
inferred, the response has not been considered in the outcomes used to
establish a theory. The researcher was also sensitive to the possibility that a
status as a perceived ‘expert’ visiting the school could influence responses.
The role of Education Technology adviser who had trained the teachers could
allow the potential that both the children and teachers ‘may want to give the
researcher the answers the respondent feels they want’ (Hitchcock and
Hughes, 1995: 164). Consideration of the manor of responses and
conversation suggests this was not the case. However, it cannot be
discounted.

Chapter 4 Results and Findings
Case studies were carried out in three similar sized primary schools, of over
two hundred pupils, during May and June 2013. The teachers in each school
were enthusiastic users of ICT but had not yet introduced Scratch software to
their learners.
The data gathered through interviews with the teachers and learners provided
a rich source of evidence from which to consider the benefits of programming
with Scratch software. Together with the observations and video evidence it
provided a picture of the way a transitional object (Papert, 1984), Scratch,
could provide a focus for a group of learners to develop the twelve benefits
which emerged from the data analysis. The benefits reflected the
constructivist theories of learning described in Chapter Two, such as Bruner’s
(1996:87) idea of agency as the learners took control of their own learning;
and the ‘imagining and reasoning’ and ‘observing and experimenting’ attested
by Lucas and Claxton (2010:59) as making for powerful learning.
The overall picture
The planned sequence of learning experiences varied across the schools.
The plans for each school are in Appendix 2. These changed slightly during
the visits to the schools. Figure 4 below is a summary of the activities which
actually took place.

All Saints Primary Catcott Primary Beechgrove Primary
Teacher and ‘experts Individual exploration

in class’ talk briefly of Scratch
Paired exploration of about features of
Scratch Scratch and provide Whole class: what
tips have you discovered?
Whole class: what
have you discovered? Individuals (8 children Individuals
in pairs) programming programming games
Individuals from instructions (4
programming a game a game from
instructions then groups working with
from instructions different games)
making changes to
Individual appearance of game
Whole class: sharing
programming games games created
from different Ten block challenge
instructions (choice of Cat and Dog Paired sharing of
game based on self- challenge games (paired with
assessment) peer who had created
Individuals (8 children different game)
Watch help videos in pairs) programming
from Scratch website a second game from Ten block challenge
instructions then
Individuals planning Individuals adapting
and creating own making changes to instructions to
games appearance program own game
Figure 4: Summary of activities in the three schools
The analysis of the results produced the twenty super-codes listed in Figure 5
below, which shows ‘developing independent learning’, ‘encouraging
exploration’ and the ‘teacher changing role’ as the three most significant
findings.

Figure 5: Twenty super-codes developed from the grounded theory approach with
‘difficulties experienced’ and ‘learning from mistakes’ emerging with equal
significance. (Atlas Ti)
Among the other outcomes in the chart it can be seen that some difficulties
(Figure 6) were expressed by the learners in the evidence collected. The
researcher is beginning the discussion of the findings with this as it is not part
of the list of benefits, or factors to support benefits that are considered within
the case studies.
Figure 6: Difficulties indicated by codes that were associated with

or part of the super-code (Atlas Ti)

Difficulties signify two per cent of the evidence. This could be matched with
the two per cent of the evidence for ‘learning from mistakes’. One thing that
emerges from the case studies below is the way the children persevered and
although teachers were sometimes asked for help, it was often their peers
who provided the necessary support. In this way difficulties could be
considered a benefit, certainly a necessary part of the learning experiences.
Programming was not easy for the children but it was enjoyed. They were
engaged and motivated to work their way through the challenges set and, as
described by the teacher in case study three, were proactive in challenging
themselves.
From the super-codes the researcher identified twelve benefits (Figure 7
below) and eight factors which contributed to those benefits (Figure 9 below).
There are differences in the amount of evidence from each school for each
benefit and factor (Figures 8 and 10) but there is overall agreement on which
had most impact. Developing independent learning, encouraging exploration
and developing logical thinking are indicated as the key benefits. The
‘teacher changing role’ and ‘time for exploration’ are the factors that have the
most impact on achieving those benefits.
The selection of the factors was influenced by the literature review. Goldstein
and Pratt (2003) describe the importance of the width and height of the
software to challenge learners. Within the case studies it will be seen that
Scratch offers these. Also demonstrated in the case studies is a ‘supportive
environment’, where the teacher is prepared to let children make mistakes

and learn from them. This is described by Goodyear (1984) as crucial to the
success of programming. Further to this the children created games which
Bruner (1996) recognises as ‘oeuvres or works’ which give ‘pride and identity’.
Figure 7: Benefits to learners (Analysis of All data Atlas Ti)
Figure 8: Comparison of benefits in all three case study schools (Atlas-ti)

Figure 9: Factors that contributed to the benefits to learners (Atlas Ti Analysis of All
data)
Figure 10: Comparison of factors contributing to benefits in all three case study
schools (Atlas-ti)
Particular aspects of the benefits of learning to program with Scratch software
are described in each case study below. These reflect the findings from the
schools overall. Rather than refer to every benefit and factor for each of the

schools, the researcher identified areas to describe in each of the schools.
This was in order to include as many of the findings as possible within the
word constraints of the dissertation. As Swain (2006 in Cohen et al, 2011:
241) comments in describing the discipline required to manage the material
gathered during research, ‘less than one per cent of the collected data may
feature in the final report.’ Where differences were identified this is described
by the researcher.
Case Study One: All Saints Primary
The researcher visited the year six class of seventeen girls and eleven boys at
All Saints Primary over four days (see Appendix 1 for a description of the
school). Three mornings were spent as a participant observer and a further
morning interviewing the teacher and groups of children. A team teaching
approach was adopted as the children were introduced to Scratch and then
provided with instructions to make specific games. The children were then
challenged to plan and create their own game with the software based on
their learning from their history topic of Ancient Greece. The shared planning
for the sessions is in Appendix 2.
The teacher had previously used a completely open-ended exploratory
approach with a different class, to introduce a piece of software. This was
agreed as the most appropriate way for the children to begin using Scratch.
The children initially worked in pairs on laptops in the classroom. The only
introduction they had was being asked to go to the software on the Scratch
website (Scratch, ca. 2013) and to find out what it could do. The children

responded positively to this, as can be seen from these examples of
responses in the group interviews when children were asked what they
thought of the way in which they were introduced to Scratch. Sarah said,
‘I liked the way that you didn’t tell us what to do but if we needed a bit
of help you knew what you were doing so you could help us. It was
independent as well.’
Ruby appreciated the planning,
‘I think it was planned out well because we would normally get told
what things to do and told what buttons to press but because we got to
discover it ourselves it gets stuck in our head a bit more.’
Andrew described how the exploring let him, ‘know the depth of what you
could do with the software’ which he was able to use later in his final game.
In the same way, Louise described ‘getting it into her head’ and then,
‘knowing you had the depth of choosing, not being told you have to do
this and this and this.’
A few children expressed some initial worry but, in the same way that Toby
described his feelings below, they were resilient in managing the difficulties
and achieving an outcome:
‘When I first saw Scratch it worried me a bit just seeing all those blocks
and having to put them together just to do one little thing. So at the
start I felt a bit uneasy about erm using the program in general
because of its capacity of blocks. It did sort of put me off a bit but then
I did try and carry on and it did feel I understood it.’
After an initial period of totally open ended exploring the children were asked
to focus particularly on one sprite (a character on the screen) and see what
happens when different programming blocks are clicked or moved into the
programming area. The link between the programming blocks and the
movement of the sprites was important as the children gained confidence in
using the blocks to program a set of actions.

A pair of girls discovered ways to move and turn their
character around the screen. The transcript of the
recording of their exploration is in Appendix 8. Their
enjoyment was clear and also their willingness to
‘have a go’ to see what might happen.
Plate 1: Discovering movements
A pair of boys became fascinated by the
movements they caused, ‘He’s circling, he’s
going sideways because he’s a crab.’
Plate 2: Crab moving sideways
The children then moved on to working with their own device using a set of
instructions to create games. Half the class used laptops in the classroom
and the other half worked on PCs in a computer suite. The children were
working by themselves but encouraged to talk to one another.
The instructions for games had been published by the Somerset County
Council e-Learning and Information Management team (Somerset, 2013a).
The ‘Racing Car Game’, Appendix 3 became important to understand how
rules could be set such that, if a sprite touches a particular colour, an action
will occur. The impact of the ‘Racing Car Game’ is described in more detail in
the case study for Beechgrove Primary. At All Saints the knowledge gained
from this game and others was used by the children when they planned and
created games based on legends that had been part of their Ancient Greece
topic. The importance of the instructions they had worked with was expressed

by Andrew in answering the question about what had helped him learn to
program;
‘Well I found the most useful thing was when we had the set of how to
make basic games because that really helped me to understand what
each block does and then I just used that information for the final
project. And I knew which did what. Which I wouldn’t of if that hadn’t
happened. If we’d just tested around and then gone straight to the
Greek game.’
The independent following of instructions was important to developing
understanding of programming. However, the creativity of the children had
been enhanced through the exploration which had let them discover the ‘width
of the software’ (Goldstein and Pratt, 2003), as discussed in Chapter Two.
Children had changed the background of the stage area (see Figure 1). They
had added and edited sprites and discovered they could add sound including
recordings of their own voices. These discoveries were observed by the
researcher to be used by the children to adapt the games they created from
the instructions, and to inspire ideas when they planned and implemented
their own. Screen shots of the games can be seen in Appendix 9.
The children felt that following this process planned by the class teacher and
the researcher provided the right level of challenge. One group of children
discussed this together;
‘Amy: I liked the way you didn’t really rush into everything. You like,
first go to the computer and have a little play around and we come
back and you’d set something for us and we had to go and do that and
then we’d come back
Alfie: A step up
Amy: Yeh there was always a challenge to add on to it. Then you just
learnt new things as you were doing it.

Kevin: But not a challenge that would be so hard. But not a challenge
that would be too easy. Just right.’
The class teacher, together with the researcher, reflected on the learning
process they had planned;
‘I think we did it quite well (laugh). I think the exploration was brilliant
and they said so to. And I can say this because you planned this as
well so it’s not like me saying yes I’m actually wonderful. Then I think
giving these games you suggested giving them. That was brilliant
because they could then see the possibilities but it was all there. So
they had that sort of concrete and some of them were happy to just
leave it like that but a lot of them then started seeing the possibilities. If
we’d given them endless exploration it would have got quite boring
quite quickly but the exploring then using it for this little challenge and
then here’s your next challenge it’s the car game and then the more
complicated game. So that by the time they designed their own games
they were quite buzzy and just wanted to get on with it.’
The children recognised and appreciated the way in which their learning had
been scaffolded. Alfie thought,
‘It was quite useful that at the start we had an exploring lesson and we
could just get used to how it all works. As most people found out how
to spin the characters so that was useful just to start exploring to see
how it works. And then when we got given the pieces of paper I found
that even more useful. You learn like other stuff to do and then when
we got to making our own games. For some of us we made a maze.
We remembered how to program to use the keys and everything.’
Lisa described it as being,
‘almost like a young child learning how to walk and us learning how to
use the game.’
This understanding of the process is an indication of how much the children
felt in control of their learning. A note on one of the post-it notes collected
from the children said,
‘It helped me to do it individually and to be able to do it on my own.

And to be able to adjust it ourselves.’

The feeling of control had been strengthened by them being told that they
were also researchers in this process. Over the period of four days the
children were referred to as researchers during each session and given a
number of occasions to reflect on the learning. Therefore, prior to the group
interview, they had the opportunity to consider the impact of the experiences.
In consequence, a ‘Hawthorne effect’ (Cohen et al, 2011: 246), discussed in
Chapter Three, may have contributed to the evidence that was collected. The
children as researchers was emphasised most strongly at All Saints.
However, although it cannot be discounted, the triangulation of the data
across the schools suggests no obvious impact of this across the schools (see
Appendix 10). The only area where a different finding was identified for
School One can be seen in the responses to the question about what the
children had learnt about themselves through the learning experiences
(Figure 11). School One had the lowest number of children who participated
in the group interviews but were the highest contributors to the question.
Figure 11: What have you learnt about yourself?

The increased confidence of learners was described in each school but at All
Saints in particular, some of the children identified that they had learnt that
they should not give up on things. Toby, who had expressed his worry about
the difficulty of the software, described this;
‘I know I wasn’t the most confident with it to begin with but as I worked
through it I began erm … like I know you have to. I learnt about myself
to stop giving up, you’ve got to keep trying because I would if I did this
at home without any support. I would just totally give up and just not
bother with it but today and yesterday and the day before I kept going
and I felt I did a good game with a good idea.’
Gemma considered how this might help her in the future;
‘If in a test or something I didn’t get something erm, or in sports or

anything I couldn’t do something, it would help me to carry on with that
certain thing until I get it.
The benefits of learning to program with Scratch identified by the learners,
teacher and researcher at All Saints are set out in Figure 12. ‘Becoming an
independent learner’ was the key benefit with ‘being ready to explore’ ‘working
together’, and ‘developing logical thinking’, emerging as the other highest
scoring codes.

Figure 12: Benefits to School 1 Learners (Atlas-ti analysis)
One of the post-it notes that described the independence of the learners
stated,
‘I found that the trial and effort method had to work for me, working out
what I needed and then changing it.’
The feeling of independence is also reflected in the way that some of the
children described being in control of the technology. This was Claire’s
response to why she liked Scratch;
‘Because it’s different and normally when you go onto a computer you
normally have that feeling, not that you’re not in control of the computer
but it telling you. But when you’re on Scratch you control the computer
and its actions and what it is doing.’
Another aspect of the independent learning was the problem solving which
took place. Mark described how he solved a problem in his game where he
wanted a player to lose a life when Hercules touches a fire,

‘I learnt how to make an object associated with something still react to
something it’s not associated with so that when Hercules touches a fire
a heart would disappear..’
Mark had been trying to use a broadcast
instruction (see Glossary) when Hercules
touched the fire and then for the ‘heart’ to
receive the broadcast and to hide. This
would not work for him (Game online, 2013).
The researcher suggested he went out to

Plate 3: Hercules game
play and clear his mind so that he could come back to his game and try
something else. Mark did this and came back with a new approach, adding a
black costume to the heart so that when it received the broadcast command it
disappeared into the black background he added at the top of his stage. This
solved the problem.
The independent problem solving that was developed during the programming
was seen two weeks later to have an impact on the maths problem solving
which was described by the teacher in an email to the researcher (Personal
communication, June 2013);
‘Just thought that you would like to know that I gave the class a maths
investigation to do in groups of four today. They had to record
systematically, although I didn't tell them this and as I went around I
was so impressed with what every single person (except Felicity, who
was doing a different task) was suggesting. When I told them how
amazed I was with their logical approach, Gemma said it was because
the Scratch programme had helped them to learn this logical way of
thinking! Lots of others then piped up that they agreed. They were
definitely approaching the task in a far more systematic way than I
have ever seen before.’
The strongest factors that were identified as contributing to the benefits to
learners (Figure 13) were, the ‘teacher changing her role’, ‘time for

exploration’ and a ‘supportive environment’. The teacher had created a
learning environment where the children were empowered to support each
other. There was an expectation they would be talking to each other and
movement around the classroom and computer suite was allowed to facilitate
this.
Figure 13: Factors contributing to the benefits to School 1 learners (Atlas-ti)
Alfie responded to the question of what helped you in learning to program by
describing the contribution of his friends.
‘Mmm I’d say friends as well because one of us always found out
something. So say I didn’t know how to change my background,
someone else would know, so what I mean is there’s always someone
there who knows what to do.’
The support for each other was seen in the video evidence of the group of six
children programming their Greek games. In Figure 14 the interaction
between the learners is the highest number of incidents counted and is
matched by high counts for children focussing on their laptops individually.

Figure 14: Actions of six learners counted during fifty six minute video of a
programming session (School 1). Each count is during two minutes of video
This supports the observations of the whole class by the researcher during
the session. Continuous interactions took place between all the learners
similar to those reported by Goodyear (1986) using Logo. The mutual support
occurred in between moments when individuals were working by themselves.
Children also gained support and ideas from looking across at the screen of a
peer (see Figure 15). Talk in the classroom and the computer suite was
unbroken but on task. This is reflected in four minor (less than one minute) off
task incidents during the fifty six minutes of video and no major off task
incidents being counted.

While working alone, the children were interacting with the learning object of
Scratch software. This learning object could be considered Papert’s (1984)
transitional object for learning or Bruner’s (1996) ‘work’ or ‘oeuvre’ which is a
focus for their learning and talk about their learning. Therefore the whole
picture of interactions during programming was a mix of the learning object
and their peers as represented in Figure 15.
Figure 15:Representation of learning interactions between pupils and Scratch software

(black arrows on-going interactions, grey arrows occasional interactions)
The class teacher reflected on her enjoyment in seeing the way the children
responded to the learning process,
‘I think it’s been brilliant just watching them … Yeh it was nice to … all
the things we’d put in place to stand back and watch it work and see
how they supported each other and how they got on. And they
probably wouldn’t of wanted us to be going round and talking when
they were concentrating. It was just when they wanted us and that was
nice.’
Case Study Two: Catcott Primary School
Six boys in the year six class at Catcott had become experts in programming
with Scratch through attending Code Club (see Glossary) over a period of two
terms. The Higher Level Teacher Assistant (HLTA) who took the class for ICT
had run the club alongside the ICT coordinator. She decided to use the Code

Club materials (Code Club, ca. 2012a) to introduce the other seventeen girls
and seven boys in the class to Scratch and to use the Code Club members to
support the other children. A short introduction was used to show the children
the different areas within the Scratch software and for the Code Club
members to pass on tips such as, ‘If you don’t read instructions it goes wrong’.
The children were then given a set of instructions to create a ‘Felix and
Herbert’ (ibid) game where Felix the cat chases Herbert the mouse. The class
worked on PCs in the computer suite with six of the children working in pairs
and the rest individually. The children were encouraged to talk to each other
to sort out any problems. Five Code Club boys worked on their own games
but responded when asked for support by different children. The other Code
Club boy worked in a pair with a pupil needing additional help.
The children used the instructions and explored the software to make
changes to the appearance of the game. Appendix 11 shows the way in
which each game became unique as the children discovered the width of the
software. The children were also given the ‘Ten block challenge’ (Somerset,
2013b) and the ‘Cat and Dog challenge’ (Quinlan, 2012) to assess how much
they had learnt about Scratch from following the game instructions. During the
second session the children were given a second set of instructions, ‘Whack a
Witch’ (Code Club, ca. 2013b). Again the children supported each other to
succeed in creating the game and then adapted it to make it their own.
The children at Catcot indicated their awareness of learning from mistakes
and, alongside this, perseverance (Figure 16).

Figure 16: Benefits to Learners School 2 (Atlas-ti)
Miles felt that he learnt most when things went wrong,
‘I thought it helped when you made mistakes and then you suddenly
understand what has happened wrong. What’s gone wrong that helps
you more because then you understand the program more.’
Children also expressed their enjoyment of mistakes. Edward was one of

these,
‘I liked when you did something wrong and it went really funny. Like it
just made me laugh instead of being frustrated it made you laugh.’
Being able to make mistakes was one of the two things Jason described when
asked about his favourite thing in using Scratch;
‘Two things, achieving something and the funniness when something

goes wrong (laugh) like something moving on the screen when it’s not
supposed to.’
Lizzie described the combination of the enjoyment of mistakes but also
recognised that mistakes will also cause something to happen,
‘I enjoyed it when something went wrong. It still did something even if it

was something you didn’t want.’

The learning from mistakes was included as a separate category for benefits
but is also part of independent learning. This was expressed on one of the
post-it notes where the learners were asked how they had learnt to program,
‘Being driven to put things right on my own’.
The children were aware of the perseverance that was required to put things
right. Alison considered this when she was asked what she had learnt about
herself through the programming,
‘I didn’t know I was that determined I must admit. I didn’t know I could
be that … I‘d have thought I would have given up but I didn’t.’
Fiona described discovering the determination to keep going as one of the
things she enjoyed most about the sessions,
‘I enjoyed quite a lot of it. But I think the main thing was it kind of
helped me with my determination and everything. Like it helped me
continue on with it and kept making me keep going with it so I had
something to be proud of at the end.’
The class teacher was asked whether perseverance had been part of
previous experiences in the classroom. It had been part but the teacher
recognised the contribution Scratch had made;
Yes, it’s part. A thing like that is very good though because they’re on
their own aren’t they. So you have to keep going, you have to
persevere. We encourage them to be like that with tasks. But a task
like that in the ICT suite is really beneficial to help them. Especially
year six when they’re going to go to secondary school and they can’t
just give up at the sight of something being a bit tricky.
And the enjoyment. That enjoyment, one child, I walked past when you
were doing it, and the satisfaction when she realised she hadn’t given
up. She’d achieved. That’s fantastic isn’t it. I didn’t give up, I got there
and I actually achieved. And that’s worth a lot actually. It really is.’

An open-ended exploration time had not been included at Catcott but the
children were encouraged to take an exploratory approach to using the
instructions to create the games. Children could make changes and try
different things without any adult intervention. This change in the role of the
teacher emerged as the strongest factor in enabling the children to gain
benefits from the programming as can be seen in Figure 17.
Figure 17: Factors that contributed to the benefits to learners School 2 (Atlas Ti)
The lack of adult intervention was observed by Nicholas,
‘I thought that instead of going through the whole process she let us
give it a go to see what we could do on our own’.
Tamsin felt it was important to be able to progress at her own rate,
‘The problem is if we’d done it on the board. We’d have put it in chunks
and been waiting for ever. Because other people would have been at
different stages.’

One of the group interviews focussed on the freedom when thinking about
whether there was anything that could be improved. They described it in
terms of the width of the software:
‘Fiona: It doesn’t give you a guide line on what you have to do. You
can roam free.
Eleanor: You can explore anything. Some games you look at are dull
and boring but when you look at it there's all these different things you
can press. You can explore all over it.
Fiona: It’s not like you have to do this. You have to do this. Sometimes
there’s only a certain amount of things you can click but in this you can
do anything. You can change the colours and everything.
Eleanor: It’s like art and creativity all in technology (describes witches
where appearance had been changed to bright pink).
Fiona: No-one said you’re not supposed to do this. There’s kind of no

right and no wrong with Scratch. Which I thought was really good
because no-one could say you're not supposed to this or do that. You
could just do it on your own.
Eleanor: It’s like art there’s no right and no wrong.
Miles You can make it yours.
Eleanor and Fiona: mmm, unique
Miles: Yes, it’s unique’
This combination of the width of the software and the approach of the HLTA
was seen to benefit Dalan, a pupil with English as an Additional Language
(EAL) who had joined the class part way through the year. He had support to
follow the instructions from the HLTA and the
researcher but kept remaking them until he did
it independently.
He made one version of the project where

Plate 4: Duplicating sprites
disappearing
many sprites were flying across the screen. He had discovered he could
duplicate a sprite and change it to a different character (Plate 4).
He made another version of the project where the
witch appeared and disappeared. This used one
part of the instructions which he recreated in

Plate 5: Witch disappearing
isolation from the others.
The full transcript of the short conversation with Dalan can be read in
Appendix 12. He describes what is happening on the screen and, in response
to a question from the researcher, what is making it happen;
‘Researcher: What’s making it do it? What in those instructions there?
Dalan: I got (pointing at the screen) ‘When clicked’ from orange bit. I
got ‘forever’ and I put ‘hide’ and I put ‘wait one second’ and I put ‘pick
random 2 to 5’ and then I put ‘show’ and then I put ‘wait one second’
and on it I put ‘random 3 to 5’ and I click to here and it starts doing that.
Researcher: What does that pick random do?
Dalan: Pick random. It makes it hide and then 2 to 5 seconds or 3 to 5

seconds later it come backs.’
The ‘Whack a Witch’ (Code Club ca. 2013) project was a learning object
which allowed focussed talk to discover the learning that had taken place but
also, during the session, provided a shared focus as the children collaborated
together.
As had been seen at All Saints there was continuous conversation while the
children continued on task for the forty six minutes of the video (Figure 18).
Interaction between pupils was balanced by learners working alone. The

reactions of the children in the video group were consistent with those of the
rest of the class.
Figure 18: Actions of six learners counted during forty six minute video of a
Exploration was also seen as part of the challenges. Eleanor described the
‘Ten block challenge’ (Somerset, 2013b) as one of her favourite things,
‘Like that ten block challenge. There were so many different things you
could do with those blocks and you didn’t really know what you can do
but when you experimented you saw how many different things your
sprite could do. It was really interesting.’
In reflecting on the two sessions the HLTA felt the Scratch software and the
instruction hand-outs had enabled the appropriate level of challenge to be set;

‘That’s where it targets it well because it makes it achievable doesn’t it.
Without making it so simple that you could do it in five seconds… It’s
enough of a challenge but it’s eminently possible.’
Case Study Three: Beechgrove Primary School
A ‘Programming Day’ was planned by the researcher and then refined in
discussions with the class teacher prior to the visit. A team teaching approach
was used with the mixed year five and six class. The class size was thirty
four. Twenty were year six and fourteen year five. Although this study is
focussed on year six learners the researcher made the decision to treat the
group of year fives as equal to the other learners and absorb their
contributions into the overall findings. The research took place towards the
end of their time as year fives. The comparison of data for the three schools
in Figures 18 and 19 suggest that any effect of the younger children has made
little perceived difference to the findings. That indicated within the video
evidence is discussed below. There were nineteen girls and fifteen boys.
A whole class discussion about what had been learnt through a sequence of
lessons programming with Go Control software (Data Harvest, ca. 2009)
began the day. The children were keen to talk about the ‘algorithms’ they had
created. Following this the children worked in a computer suite on individual
PCs to explore Scatch then moved to work in pairs on the ‘Cat and Dog
challenge’ (Quinlan, 2012).
During the second session the children were grouped by their teacher
according to their literacy and mathematical ability and provided with
instructions to make a game. The least able children created an ‘Etch a

Sketch game’, the middle ability children created a ‘Dance sequence’ or the
‘Racing car game’, and the most able created a ‘Tennis Game’. All these can
be seen on the Somerset County Council ELIM website (Somerset, 2012a).
As had happened at the other schools, the children worked individually but
with continuous conversations focussed on their projects. The interactions
between learners were counted (see Figure 19) and, unlike in the other case
studies, these were all between pairs and always with a person sat next to
them. The count was less than that for the other schools but the video was
shorter and was recorded at an earlier stage in the learning process.
Appendix 13 has a table with the data adjusted to have a fair comparison of
the interactions. It may be that the factor of the group of year fives within the
class meant the children preferred to work with the children either side.
Although the researcher did observe that during the afternoon, when the
children created their own game, movements across the room took place and
interactions of more than two children.

Figure 19: Actions of six learners counted during eighteen minute video of a
After the individual work the class reviewed the games created. They paired
with their ‘Talking Partners’ then showed each other the different
programming they had done. The observation notes of the researcher
confirmed the concentration of the class as the outcomes of the programming
were discussed together in pairs and as a whole class. The learning object of
the program they had been working on provided a common focus for a
discussion of errors and ways to improve the program. Following this a
session allowed all of the children to create the ‘racing car game’ and then to
adapt it to their own version of a game moving a ‘sprite’ around a background.
A wide variety of versions was created (see Appendix 14) and, as had

happened with the Greek games at All Saints, showed how the earlier
exploration had allowed children to recognise possibilities which were made
use of to make unique creations. Feedback on the class blog (Swallows,
2013) showed that the opportunity to create their own ‘racing car game’ was
the part of the day that had been enjoyed the most (Figure 20).
Figure 20: Blog posts School 3 Afternoon of Programming Day (Swallow, 2013)
The majority of the posts described how much they had enjoyed exploring
Scatch and using instructions to make games. At the same time a few
expressed difficulties and frustrations that had been experienced (Figure 21).
In the group interviews Jake referred to being worried by the initial exploration
but he felt this was due to being dyslexic and dispraxic. Initially he found the
blocks confusing. An aspect he enjoyed was being able to ‘control something
that’s not programmed whatsoever’. He also liked the discovery of ‘fantasy
devil’ sprites.
Jess’s reply comment on her blog post (Figure 21) demonstrates the way in
which, despite difficulties, the children were determined to find a way to make

their games work. The learners returned to their programming to identify
mistakes they had made.
Figure 21: Blog posts School 3 - Difficulties with Scratch (Swallow, 2013)
When interviewed the class teacher talked about the attitudes to ICT that
were already in place and the different ways the class had worked previously;
‘They were used to exploring a program and investigating without being

told what to do. That’s something I do with them anyway. So they were
quite happy to do that and to not know what they were doing to start
with. They are very used to working in different ways. So they are
used to working independently, to working in groups and supporting
each other, they’ve got talking partners they are used to working with.
So on the day when we asked them to work in those different ways that
was all in place and … that didn’t cause any issues.’

However he went on to describe the difference he felt that programming with
Scratch had made to the learners.
‘Certainly it reinforced perseverance. Perseverance is not something

(pause). They know that they need to persevere but they’re not always
particularly good at it, if that makes sense. But on Wednesday I don’t
think anybody at any point gave up because they were all trying to
either achieve that challenge or in the afternoon when they knew what
they wanted to achieve, they all really persevered.’
‘The one thing I really noticed that day is a kind of pro-activity. This
class is not typically pro-active. They want to achieve, they want to
achieve a challenge, but they are not always motivated to do that, to
achieve that themselves. They want that support, they want to be
given that next step in order to get to the challenge. Not every single
one of them, but that is a feel you get from the class quite often and I
feel when I am teaching them that I have to work really quite hard
sometimes to get them motivating themselves. I’m motivating them to
motivate themselves. On Wednesday I didn’t have to do that at all.
They were completely self-motivated. I mean Miles … he was
stretching himself all day. And he is often very reluctant to stretch
himself. He will do what he’s been asked to do but he won’t do
anywhere beyond at all. But he, with possibly Alex, was the most
advance of all of them.’
From the coding of quotations it could be seen that the perseverance and pro-
activeness of the learners contributed to ‘developing independent learning’
emerging as the greatest benefit from the programming day (Figure 22).

Figure 22: Benefits to Learners School 3 (Atlas-ti)
Leanne prompted other children around her to be imaginative in their
adaptation of the ‘racing car game’. She created a monkey to move along a
jungle track. In the group interview she expressed her appreciation of being
able to do what she wanted.
‘And then you had your own like, you had to do your own like extra bits
to it. I think that was better because you could work out more stuff like
yourself. Instead of just being told what to do.’
Collecting together the responses made by Polly (see Appendix 15)
demonstrated the way in which the programming made a difference to an
individual. Polly found the instructions reassuring; in terms of being sure she
was doing the right thing. However she also discovered that sometimes
having a go and pressing buttons could allow her to achieve new things, ‘Why
am I doing so much thinking? Press buttons’. Her response when talking
about the difference this had made was to describe how it would make her
more adventurous,

‘When I go different places I’m normally a bit shy and stay behind
people. But now I think I’m going to be looking round places. Because
most of the playground I didn’t really want to explore because I was too
scared but now I’m not because it’s fun adventuring (giggle).’
As emerged in the other case studies the ‘changing role of the teacher’ was
the largest factor contributing to the benefits for learners. The opportunity to
explore the software before moving on to more focussed learning activities
came after this, as can be seen, in Figure 23 below.
Figure 23: Factors that contributed to the benefits to learners School 3 (Atlas Ti)
The class teacher made the decision to follow the interest of the learners and
change the planning in the afternoon to allow the children to create their own
version of the ‘racing car game’, rather than plan a game based on their topic
of the Romans. This is indicative of the way in which the children had been
able to lead the learning through the day, based on the learning activities that
had been planned. Miles expressed the way this had benefitted him,

‘Well I thought the way it was introduced was really good because we
didn’t have a limit of what we could really do. So we could do whatever
we wanted and figure some bits out for ourselves.’
Validity of the findings
Triangulation was used to confirm the identification of the benefits to learners
and the factors that contributed to those benefits. The triangulation between
the three schools for both benefits and the factors contributing to those
benefits (see Appendix 10), showed common agreement. ‘Exploration’ and
the ‘teacher changing role’ had an increased emphasis at All Saints; although
they were still high scoring factors in all three schools. The difference may
have been that the children had a longer period of time to work at creating
their own games.
The three groups of researchers, learners, teachers and the researcher were
also in agreement (see Appendix 16). Although the greater number of
learners needed to be recognised in comparing the data. ‘Independent
learning’, ‘exploration’ and ‘development of logical thinking’ stood out strongly
for each group.
In terms of the three types of data collected from learners, shown in Figure 24
below, it can be seen that the ‘development of independent learning’ emerged
more strongly from the interviews with learners. ‘Working together’,
‘development of logical thinking’ and ‘developing perseverance’ were seen
more clearly from the post-it note responses (example in Appendix 20). The
difference may come from children being asked to verbally express their

thoughts and to write their thoughts down. Vygotsky (1962: 100) describes
the difference between the spontaneous activity of oral contributions and the
more abstract understanding required for writing. Another explanation could
be that the post-it note expression of thought was prior to the interviews so
may have contributed to the evolution of the ideas that were later expressed
verbally. Alternatively the difference could be due to the post-it note evidence
being captured immediately after using Scratch.
Figure 24: Triangulation of learner evidence collected in the three schools: Benefits
(The data has been adjusted to take into account the different quantities of each type of
evidence. See Appendix 17 for comparison of all evidence.)
The video evidence confirmed most of the benefits. It is considerably lower
than interviews and post-it notes for ‘learning from mistakes’, ‘understanding
technology’ and ‘developing perseverance’. This is most likely due to these
benefits being less visibly apparent than others.
Figure 25 below, compares the learner evidence for the factors that
contributed to the benefits. Adjustments have been made to allow for the
different quantities of each type of evidence that was collected. It is clear that

a large difference exists between the video and other evidence in terms of
‘engagement and motivation’. The video evidence for this was largely based
on the observation of the learners working alone or together without becoming
distracted.
Figure 25: Triangulation of learner evidence collected in the three schools: Factors
contributing to benefits
(The data has been adjusted to take into account the different quantities of each type of
evidence. See Appendix 17 for comparison of all evidence.)
The video evidence is based on eighteen learners, six in each school. So
care needs to be taken in extrapolating a conclusion from this data. However,
‘engagement and motivation’ was in the top three of the factors identified from
the researcher and teachers evidence, with only ‘exploration’ and ‘teacher
changing role’ higher. It may be, for the learners, that enjoying time on the
computer is something which is assumed and therefore not commented on in
the same way as the other factors.

The outcomes for the learner interviews seen in Figures 24 and 25 were in
line with the post-it note evidence and in most instances that of the video
evidence apart from those discussed above. In Chapter Three attention is
given to the possibility of peer influence in responding to the questions
(Newby, 2010). Figure 26 below suggests this may have occurred for group
three at All Saints. The transcript of this interview with four girls is included as
Appendix 18 to provide an example of the interviews. There is a degree of
agreeing with statements made by peers but this is with a qualifying statement
provided.
Figure 26: Consideration of peer influence with group interviews:

Factors contributing to benefits.
Responses relating to each factor are grouped for seventeen interviews.
The agreement of the group is seen within a discussion of the question of
what they enjoyed the most about programming with Scratch.
‘Lisa: Making our Greek games.
Annie: Getting to have free time to find out all the things the program
does.

Lisa: Also, also it’s kind of fun
Sarah: And you’re learning.
Lisa: And it’s like free time all of the time but then you’re learning at the
same time and you’re learning something at the same time.
Sarah: And it’s fun to see if you get the blocks wrong you can change
them and make them do different things. And change your sprites and
everything.
Lisa: And once you’re done it’s not like you can’t change it but you can
change it.
Chloe: I think the best thing was just being able to try things and if they
don’t fit try again until you’ve got it right.
Annie: And I liked making the greek games and having free time so we
could trial and error and then you know how to do stuff and you’re also
learning as well as having fun.
Chloe: A fun way of learning.’
Confirming the findings
The two factors which impacted the most on the learner benefits were the ‘role
of the teacher’ and an ‘exploratory approach’ to introducing Scratch. The
researcher was keen to see whether a similar impact would be seen working
with younger children. Visits were made to three other schools where the
researcher worked with classes of year three and four children (eight to nine
year olds). This allowed the researcher to see whether the different ‘role of
the teacher’ and an ‘exploratory approach’ would benefit younger learners.
The researcher observations and the reflection of the teachers (Appendix 19)
in those classes confirmed that, in the settings visited, the approach was
effective for introducing Scratch to other key stage two learners.

Chapter 5 Conclusions
The aim of the research was to identify the benefits for year six learners as
they began to program with Scratch. Through a grounded theory approach to
the research, twelve benefits have emerged, together with factors that have
contributed to those benefits. In addition the methodology adopted has
provided answers to the questions set out in the introduction. It is hoped that
the case studies have described ‘real people in real situations’, (Cohen, 2000:
181) and will enable ‘readers to understand ideas’ (ibid) and relate them to
their own circumstances (Bassey, 1981, cited in Bell, 2010).
Discoveries
The researcher is cautiously excited by the findings as they suggest that for
these children the software and the approach taken by the teachers has made
an impact on, not only their learning, but their attitudes to other experiences in
the future. The idea of a learning object teaching the children and allowing
them to be an ‘emancipated, self-directing learner’ (Goodyear, 1984: 24) is
described in Chapter Two through the theories of Papert (1984) and Bruner
(1996). This was seen as the children were able to develop the use of
Scratch in unique ways. The width of the software (Goldstein and Pratt, 2003
and Resnick et al 2009) meant they were able to create a game based on
their own interests, whether it was a cartoon animal, a vehicle or a member of
a ‘boy band’ (Appendix 14). The height of the software (Goldstein, 2003 and
Resnick 2009) meant the children could challenge themselves. Mark found a
solution to ‘lives’ being lost in his game, Dalan independently sent sprites

flying across the screen, and Miles was proactive about his learning
throughout all the Scratch sessions.
The ‘dynamic relationship’ (Catlin and Blamires, 2012) between teacher,
learner and Scratch seems to be similar to that of the model shared by Catlin
and Blamires (Figure 27) from their research around the use of a floor turtle
(see Glossary).
Figure 27 ‘The dynamic relationship between teacher, student and robot shows that the
learning and teaching interactions are bi-directional’, (Catlin and Blamires, 2012).
The reactions of the children also echoed the discoveries of Papert’s (1993)
Maria who followed her own interests in creating a house but then, through
seeing what others were achieving, set herself a new goal to have lights that
would turn on and off within it. The researcher recognised that, not only were
the learners using the learning object of their Scratch project to talk through
problems, but they were looking across and gaining ideas from others. The
diagram in Figure 15 aimed to show these different interactions which are
consistent with the ‘collaborative social interaction’ of the socio-cultural theory
of Seely-Brown et al (1989).

Through the interaction with each other and Scratch the ‘development of
logical thinking’ emerged as another benefit. This is part of computational
thinking (see Glossary) and could be interpreted as preparing learners to
contribute to ‘high-tech industries’ (Gove, 2012). Although this would be a
limited view of the value of ‘developing logical thinking’, it could perhaps
suggest that the factors that were recognised in bringing benefits to the
individual could also bring benefits to society. In this way Bruner’s antinomies
of education could be considered in balance.
Looking at the overall findings in Figure 9 and Figure 10 the ‘teacher changing
role’ and the ‘exploratory approach’ provided for the children were the two
strongest factors in achieving the benefits. Bruner’s (1996) ‘enabling culture’
allowed the children to develop their own possibilities but also to become peer
teachers. The learner group interviews included descriptions of the children
solving each other’s problems. Alfie, at All Saints Primary, refers to the way
that ‘someone else would know’ so he did not need to rely on the teacher as
the only source of help. The activities observed in all three case study
schools echo Watt’s classroom (1982, cited in Goodyear, 1986), where
children were allowed to move between computers. They were continually
providing support for each other.
Papert’s (1984) description of the turtle in Logo programming, as being body
syntonic, was echoed by the children who explored the use of programming
blocks to create movements for sprites. In the All Saints case study a pair of
girls giggled as their actions caused the character to turn or move off the

stage (Appendix 8, Plate 1). A pair of boys was proud of their crab which
moved sideways round a circle (Plate 2). Dalan in the Catcott case study was
able to talk about the programming blocks he used to make a witch appear
and disappear. He had discovered this possibility through using instructions.
The importance of instructions in the sequence of learning was expressed by
learners such as Andrew. They helped him to ‘understand what each block
does’ and he ‘used that information for the final project’. In this way children
may develop habits through imitation (Bruner, 1998). They gain ‘Habits of
Mind’ (Costa and Killick, 2000) where the learner develops skills and cues to
give them confidence to work on problems which may not be easily solvable.
The process suggested by the mix of exploration and the use of instructions
could be considered the cycle of becoming a programmer (Figure 28).
Figure 28: Cycle of programming

The experience at Catcott Primary, suggests that consideration should be
given in the future to ways in which exploration can be introduced at different
points in the cycle. In Appendix 19 the researcher describes how this idea
was developed in year three and four classes following the understanding
gained from the case studies. The telling of a joke in front of the class was
used as a prompt for children to investigate how this could be programmed.
Physical role play may be a strategy for supporting on-going exploration.
The research suggests that, in order for the benefits described in the case
studies to emerge, the teacher’s role needs to allow the learners to construct
their knowledge (Roblyer and Edwards, 2000: 50) through exploration of
Scratch. The children can be independent and working together to support
each other. Through this they can challenge themselves, learn from mistakes
and develop perseverance as represented in the ‘Exploration Triangle’ in
Figure 29.
Figure 29: The exploration triangle

The teachers in all three case studies identified the way in which programming
with Scratch allowed children to recognise the contribution perseverance can
make to their learning. Salmon’s ‘butterfly defect’ (1997, cited in Lucas and
Claxton, 2010) was not seen at any point during the visits to the schools.
Lucas and Claxton (2010: 97) have suggested that this effect depends on the
kind of ‘attention grabbing activities’ that are part of the learning experience.
From this research Scratch appears to absorb children in their learning.
It also emerged that the children became aware themselves, of the way ‘not
giving up’ enabled them to achieve outcomes they enjoyed and, as described
by Toby above, were proud of. Their awareness may have been due to them
being involved in the case studies as researchers. However this example of
the children becoming an ‘epistemologist as they reflect on that learning’
(Goodyear, 1984:32) could be a strategy to encourage perseverance in other
areas of learning. The teacher at Beechgrove Primary was keen to use the
same programming experience as part of the induction process for his class at
the beginning of the school year. He felt it would provide a reference for the
children of the attitudes required for achievement in all areas of the
curriculum. Indeed, Goodyear (1984) refers to the way the attitudes of
learners will affect how much they can learn, so a further study in this area
would be of interest to the researcher.
A factor which may have impacted on the outcomes is the access for the
learners to their own device to interact with the software. The video
observations showed no major time off-task and only seven minor off-task

incidents in one hundred and twenty minutes (Appendix 13). This could have
been due to the way the children were absorbed in using Scratch or it could
be that, in using their own device, each could progress at their own rate.
Tamsin recognised that ‘other people would have been at different stages’.
The visits to confirm findings (Appendix 19), suggested that appropriate
pairings needed to be considered where children were sharing a device, in
order for them both to interact together with the learning object. Figure 15
illustrates how the interaction with their own learning object while collaborating
with others created the learning environment observed in the research. The
benefits of this have been described above in terms of the outcomes for
Papert’s Maria (1993) and Mark, Dalan and Miles in the case studies.
Future research
A number of areas have emerged for future research. These include the
benefit of one-to-one access to a device; the impact of the use of Scratch as
part of induction for children at the beginning of a school year; and ways in
which exploration could be used as part of on-going learning experiences with
Scratch.
Further to this, the researcher has grouped the benefits (Figure 30) in four
categories to consider the overall gains for learners and other possible areas
for study.

Personal Learner Attitude to Ways of learning
attributes understanding learning
Challenge Developing Increasing Working
myself logical thinking creativity together
Increase Developing Learn from Encouraging
confidence problem solving mistakes exploration
Developing
Developing Understanding of Sense of
independent
perseverance technology achievement
learning
Figure 30: Benefits to year 6 learners in adopting an exploratory approach to
introducing Scratch
Recognising the contribution that programming might make to other learning
was identified as being of importance in the introduction. The development of
learner understanding (Figure 30) through programming is of interest in terms
of the contribution it may make to problem solving in mathematics. This arose
from the case study at All Saints and is another area for additional study. It
would link to associations already made by Papert (1980, 1984) and Way and
Beardon (2003).
Another aspect of learner understanding which emerged was the suggestion
that programming with Scratch may contribute to letting the children feel in
control of the technology which is part of their lives. This would expand
Luckin’s (2007) idea of the child as a creator and not just a consumer of
technology.
Consideration is also required for the children who were worried by the
exploratory approach. This was expressed by seven of the learners. Of
these, five were at Catcott, where their exploration was through using the
instructions. Jake, from Beechgrove, felt that his worry was due to being
dyslexic and dispraxic. Toby from All Saints, despite being worried, also

described how he learnt to ‘stop giving up’. The possibility for anxiety should
not be ignored. For some children ‘mountainous thinking’ (Lucas and Claxton,
2010), that is well used and provides safe ways of doing things, may be more
comfortable than ‘meadow thinking’ (ibid) with its uncertainties.
Final conclusions and recommendations
The researcher was inspired by the excitement of the teachers and learners
that contributed to the case studies. The classrooms were buzzing as children
used Scratch as Papert’s (1984) ‘transitional object’. They were creating
‘objects-to-think-with’ (Fjeld et al, 2002) using a technology that was part of
their culture. This reflected Vygotsky’s (1962) theory of the culture developing
the thought and language which allowed the children to learn.
Papert (1984) was concerned that children are held back when they are
concerned about getting things right or wrong. Children at Catcott were
laughing at the results of their mistakes and using them to develop their
learning.
There appears to be an inextricable link between the learning environment
established by the teacher and the degree to which the children are, and see
themselves as, programmers. The learning environment is not only the
classroom ethos but the width and height offered by Scratch software.
The benefits from ‘this instance’ (Adelman et al, 1984: 94) of introducing year
six children to Scratch have been described in three settings. They can be

grouped (Figure 30) as; developing logical thinking and problem solving of
learners, changing attitudes to learning, and increasing children’s
understanding of the way they learn. Alongside this is the potential for
development of personal attributes that can make a difference to future
experiences for the learners.
The recommendations that have evolved from the case studies are:
 Children should be allowed to experience an introduction to
programming which allows them to ‘explore and discover’ before being
guided as they develop their skills, knowledge and understanding
further. It is not something to be taught to them but something which is
‘scaffolded’ across Vygotsky’s (1962) ZPD. Bruner (1996: 151) quotes
Ella Fitzgerald, ‘When you’re talking about it, you ain’t doing it’.
 On-going opportunities for exploration need to be planned into
programming experiences with Scratch. The possibility of using
physical role play to set challenges for this should be investigated. This
can support children to add ‘imagining and reasoning’ to ‘observing and
experimenting’ (Lucas and Claxton 2010: 59), and has the potential to
make the learning more powerful.
 Programming with Scratch could be used as part of the induction
process for a new school year. It can help the children develop an
attitude which can increase how much they learn (Goodyear, 1984).

 Children should have the opportunity to make links between
programming and problem solving in mathematics. Research into how
best to make the connection could contribute to raising attainment in
this area. It may be that, as seemed to have occurred at All Saints, the
children will transfer the skills and understanding without a need for
guidance from their teacher.
The vision for learners beginning to program that has emerged for the
researcher, could be that described by a fourteen year old glider pilot on BBC
Breakfast News in May 2013,
‘Freedom to go everywhere and anywhere, as far as the eye can see.’

References
Adelman, G., Jenkins, D. and Kemmis, S. (1984) Rethinking Case Study, in

Bell, J. (1984) Conducting small scale investigations in educational
management. London: Harper & Row, Chapter 6.
Atlas.ti 7 (2002-2013) [Online] available from http://www.atlasti.com [accessed

26th August 2013].
BBC Points West (2013) Breakfast News 23rd May 2013. BBC Somerset.
Bell, J. (2010) (5th Edition) Doing Your Research Project: A guide for first-time
researchers in education, health and social science. McGraw Hill: Open
University Press.
Bloom, B. S. (1986) Automaticity: "The hands and feet of genius". Educational

Leadership, 43(5), 70-77. [Online] available from
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198602_bloom.pdf
[accessed 27th May 2013].
British Educational Research Association (2011) Ethical Guidelines for

Educational Research. [Online] available from:
http://www.bera.ac.uk/publications/pdfs/ETHICA1.PDF?PHPSESSID=9d05d2
b248b084807e1fe572bfe2396c [accessed 4th April 2013].
Bruner, J.S. (1996) The Culture of Education. Harvard University Press.
Catlin, D. and Blamires, M. (2012) The Principles of Educational Robotic

Applications (ERA): A framework for understanding and developing
educational robots and their activities, Advancing Education Summer 2012,
NAACE. [Online] available from http://www.naace.co.uk/1948 [accessed 24th
November 2012].
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2000) (5th Edition) Research Methods
in Education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2011) (7th Edition) Research

Methods in Education. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Costa, A. and Kallick, B. (2000) Describing Sixteen Habits of the Mind.

Adapted from Costa, A. and Kallick, B. (2000) Habits of Mind: A
Developmental Series. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Crook, S. (2009) Embedding Scratch in the Classroom. Redware Research

Ltd.

Data Harvest (ca. 2009) Go Control demo version. [Online] available from
http://apps.dataharvest.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_i
d=9 [accessed 13th October 2013]
Department for Education (2013) Computing programmes of study: key

stages 1 and 2. National curriculum in England. [Online] available from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
239033/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_-_Computing.pdf [accessed 13th
September 2013].
Dunne, C. (2010) The place of the literature review in grounded theory

research. International Journal Of Social Research Methodology [Serial
online]. March 1, 2011;14(2):111-124. Available from: E-Journals, Ipswich,
MA, [accessed 2nd April, 2013].
Fjeld, M., Lauch, K., Bichsel, M., Voorhorst, F., Krueger, H., Rauterberg, M.
(2002) Physical and Virtual Tools: Activity Theory applied to the Design of
Groupware. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 11: 153–180, 2002.
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Friese, C. (2013) Proposing a New Method for Computer-Assisted Qualitative

Data Analysis. [Online] available from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N3bwa5Lt94&list=PL8CTEdsSSmZEq7Sn
pRtBzUijqXaaeTUdF&index=5 [accessed 26th July 2013].
Game 2013, Hercules in progress . [Online] available from

http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/10405964/ accessed 23rd May 2013.
Goldstein, R., Kalas, I., Noss, R. and Pratt, D. (2001) Building Rules,
Cognitive Tools 2001. University of Warwick.
Goldstein, R. and Pratt, D. (2003) Teaching the Computer. ICT and

mathematics edited by Way, J. and Beardon, T, 2003. Open University Press.
Goodman, G.S. (2007), 'CHAPTER TWO: Coming to a Critical

Constructivism'. Educational Psychology: An Application of Critical
Constructivism pp. 13-32 n.p.: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Education
Research Complete EBSCOhost. [accessed 4 May 2013].
Goodyear, P. (1984) Logo, a guide to learning through programming. Ellis

Horwood Ltd.
Gove, M. (2012) Speech at BETT show 2012. [Online] available from

Department for Education
http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/speeches/a00201868/michael-gove-
speech-at-the-bett-show-2012, [accessed 26th March 2012].

Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1995) (2nd Edition) Ethnography. London:
Routledge.
Hitchcock, G. and Hughes, D. (1995) (2nd Edition) Research and the Teacher:
A Qualitative Introduction to School-based Research. London: Routledge.
Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C. and Hsiu_Ping, Y. (1998) Computers as Mindtools

for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking. [Online] available from
http://www.siue.edu/education/techready/5_Software_Tutorials/5_AncillaryPa
ges/Mindtools.pdf [accessed 6th May 2013].
James, F. (2010) 'Leading educational improvement in Trinidad and Tobago',

School Leadership & Management, 30: 4, 387 — 398. [Online] available from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2010.497481 [accessed 23rd June 2011].
Kvale, S. (1996) Interviews. London: Sage.
Logo Foundation (2012) The Logo Programming Language. [Online] available

from http://el.media.mit.edu/logo-foundation/logo/programming.html [accessed
16th September 2013].
Lucas, B. and Claxton, G. (2010) New Kinds of Smart, How the science of
learnable intelligence is changing education. McGraw Hill, Open University
Press.
Luckin, R. (2008) The Learner Centric Ecology of Resources: a Framework

for using Technology to Scaffold Learning. Computers & Education 50 (2008)
449–462. [Online] available from
http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/2167/1/Luckin2008The449.pdf [accessed 1st June
2013].
Luckin, R., Akass J., Cook, J., Day, P., Ecclesfield, N., Garnett, F., Gould, M.,
Hamilton, T., Whitworth, A. (2007) Learner-Generated Contexts: sustainable
learning pathways through open content. OpenLearn: Researching open
content in education (2007) 90-94. [Online] available from
http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/getfile.cfm?documentfileid=12188 [accessed 1st
June 2013].
Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., and Eastmond, E. (2010)
The Scratch Programming Language and Environment. [Online] available
from
http://web.media.mit.edu/~jmaloney/papers/ScratchLangAndEnvironment.pdf
[accessed 30th August 2013].
McNiff, J. (1988) Action research: Principles and Practice. Basingstoke:

Macmillan, Chapters 2 and 3.
Mills, J., Bonner, A. and Francis, K. Adopting a constructivist approach to

grounded theory: Implications for research design. International Journal Of

Nursing Practice [Serial online]. 1st February 2006;12(1):8-13. Available from:
E-Journals, Ipswich, MA, [accessed 3rd April 2013].
Monroy-Hernández, A. and Resnick, M. (2008) Empowering Kids to Create

and Share Programmable Media. Design: What It Is, and How To Teach and
Learn It, Interactions, March-April:(50-53). [Online] available from
http://info.scratch.mit.edu/Research [accessed 10th April 2013].
Newby, P. (2010) Research Methods for Education. Pearson Education

Limited.
Office for Standards in Education (2009) The importance of ICT: Information

and communication technology in primary and secondary schools, 2005/2008.
London: Office for Standards in Education.
Office for Standards in Education (2011) ICT in schools 2008–11: An

evaluation of information and communication technology education in schools
in England 2008–11. London: Office for Standards in Education.
Papert, S. (1984) (2nd Edition) Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and

Powerful Ideas. Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Papert, S. (1993) The Children’s Machine: Rethinking school in the age of the
Computer. Basic Books.
Pearson, M. & Somekh, B. (2006) 'Learning transformation with technology: a

question of sociocultural contexts? 1'. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education (QSE), 19 (4), 519-539.
Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E.,
Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J., Silverman, B. and Kafai, Y.
(2009) Scratch: Programming for All. Communications of the ACM, 2009 Vol.
52 no. 11.60-67.
Riddell, S. (1989) Exploiting the exploited? The ethics of feminist educational

research, in Burgess, R. (ed.) (1989). The ethics of educational Research.
Lewes: Falmer Press, Chapter 4, 77 – 99.
Riding P., Fowell S. and Levy P. (1995) An action research approach to

curriculum development. Information Research, 1(1) [Online] Available at:
http://InformationR.net/ir/1-1/paper2.html [accessed 23rd June 2011].
Roblyer, M. & Edwards, J. (2000) (2nd Edition) Integrating Educational

Technology into Teaching. New Jersey: Merrill.
Rohaan, E, Taconis, R, & Jochems, W. (2012) 'Analysing teacher knowledge

for technology education in primary schools'. International Journal Of

Technology And Design Education, 22, 3, pp. 271-280, E-Journals,
EBSCOhost, [accessed 4 May 2013].
Rudd, T., Colligan, F. and Naik, R. (2006) Learner Voice: A handbook from
Futurelab. Futurelab and ESSA.
Schofield, J. W. (2004) “Increasing the Generalizability of Qualitative

Research”, in Huberman, M. and Miles, M. B., (eds.). The Qualitative
Researcher’s Companion. Sage Publications, Inc. Chapter 8, 171-203.
[Online] available from Google Play
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=46jfwR6y5joC&oi=fnd&pg=PA
171&dq=increasing+the+generalizability+of+qualitative+research&ots=smFS
CMwsMV&sig=uTVdQEOJzg0fHBtT_7Wa9FE5TkI#v=onepage&q=increasing
%20the%20generalizability%20of%20qualitative%20research&f=false
[accessed 4th April 2013].
Scratch (ca 2007). [Online] available from http://scratch.mit.edu/ accessed 8th

September 2013.
Seely-Brown, J., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989) 'Situated Cognition and the
Culture of Learning'. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-42.
Skinner, B.F. (1954) The science of learning and the art of teaching. Readings
for Reflective Teaching edited by Pollard, A. (2002). Continuum.
Solomon, C. (1986) Computer Environments for Children: A Reflection on

Theories of Learning and Education. MIT Press.
Somerset (2013a) Programming with Scratch. [Online]

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Site%20Pages/Scratch.asp
x [accessed 12th September 2013].
Somerset (2013b) Scratch: 10 Block Challenge. [Online]

https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of%
20ICT/Programming/Scratch/Questions/Scratch%2010blocks.pdf [accessed
15th September 2013].
Somekh, B. and Davis, N. (1997) Using Information Technology effectively in

Teaching and Learning. London, Routledge.
Sutcliffe, C. and Sandvik, L. (2012a) Code Club. [Online]

https://www.codeclub.org.uk [accessed 26th August 2013].
Sutcliffe, C. and Sandvik, L. (2012b) Whack a Witch. [Online] http://codeclub-

assets.s3.amazonaws.com/public/codeclub-whackawitch.pdf [accessed 26th
August 2013].

Szymanski, M, & Morrell, P 2009, 'Situated Cognition and Technology',
International Journal Of Learning, 15, 12, pp. 55-58, Education Research
Complete, EBSCOhost [accessed 4 May 2013].
The Royal Society (2012), Shut down or restart? The way forward for
computing in UK schools. The Royal Society. [Online] available from
http://royalsociety.org/education/policy/computing-in-schools/report/ [accessed
20th October 2012].
Underwood, J., Baguley, T., Bamyard, P., Dillon, G., Farrington-Flint, L.,
Hayes, M., Le Geyt, G., Murphy, J., and Selwood, I. (2010) Understanding the
Impact of Technology: Learner and School level factors. Nottingham Trent
University and University of Birmingham, Becta.
Underwood, J. D. M. and Underwood, G. (1990) Computers and Learning:

Helping children acquire thinking skills. Basil Blackwell.
Vincent, J . (2003) Teaching the Computer. ICT and mathematics edited by

Way, J. and Beardon, T, 2003. Open University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962) Thought and Language. M. I. T. Press Cambridge,

Massachusetts.
Way, J. and Beardon, T. (2003) Digital technologies + Mathematics Education

= Powerful Learning Environments. ICT and mathematics edited by Way, J.
and Beardon, T, 2003. Open University Press.
Woods, P. (1986) Inside schools, ethnography in educational research.

London: RKP, Chapter 3.

Appendices
Appendix 1: Description of the case study schools 101

All Saints (2012) 101
Catcott (2008) 101
Beech Grove (2010) 101
Appendix 2: Planning for sequences of Scratch lessons in Case Study schools 102
School 1 102
School 2 103
School 3 104
Appendix 3: Instructions for car racing game 106
Appendix 4: Questions for interviews with learner groups and with teachers 108
4.1 Questions for learner 108
4.2 Questions for teachers 108
Appendix 5: Atlas ti software: List of Codes 109
Appendix 6: Ethics contract for pupils 116
Appendix 7: Ethics contract for teachers with permission for video included 117
Appendix 8: Transcript of video of paired exploration of movements on screen 121
Appendix 9: Greek Games: School A 122
Appendix 10: Triangulation across three schools 123
Appendix 11: School B Session 1 Felix and Herbert Game 124
Appendix 12: School 2 Talking with English as an Additional Lanugage (EAL) pupil
about his Whack a Witch project 125
Appendix 13: Comparison of video evidence from classroom sessions 127
13.1 Table of results 126
13.2 Graph to show comparisons of incidents for all schools 127
Appendix 14: School C Variations on car racing game 128
Appendix 15: School C Focus on Polly 129
Appendix 16: Triangulation across groups of researchers 132
Appendix 17: Triangulation of learner evidence 132
Appendix 18: Example of group interview All Saints 134
Appendix 19: Demonstration lesson visits to year 3 and 4 classes 139
Appendix 20: Post-it notes, child researchers School C – How did I learn? 144
Appendix 21: Summary of Evidence collection 145
Appendix 22: Bloom’s Table of some possible Automated Processes 147

Appendix 1: Description of the case study schools
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report accessed
online 29th June 2013
All Saints (2012)

This is a broadly average-sized primary school with pupils attending from the
local area. There are seven classes. Nearly all pupils are of White British
heritage. The proportion of pupils who are supported by school action plus or
with a statement of special educational needs is below the national average.
The proportion of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals is below
average. Children in the Early Years Foundation Stage are taught in a
separate Reception class and have their own outside learning area. There is a
daily breakfast club managed by the governing body. The school meets the
government’s current floor standards which set the minimum expectations for
pupils’ attainment and progress.
Number of pupils on roll: 211 Year 6 class: 17 girls and 11 boys
Catcott (2008)
Almost all pupils at this average sized primary school are White British. Pupils'
home circumstances are more favourable than average and their skills on
starting school are generally better than those expected for their age. A
smaller than average proportion of pupils has learning difficulties and/or
disabilities. There is a higher than average turnover of pupils during the
school year. The school has several awards including Investors in People,
Basic Skills, Healthy Schools, Activemark and Eco Schools.
Number of pupils on roll: 207 Year 6 class: 17 girls and 13 boys
Beech Grove (2010)

Beech Grove is larger than most primary schools. Most pupils are from White
British backgrounds. The proportion of pupils with learning difficulties and/or
disabilities is average, whereas the proportion of pupils eligible for free school
meals is below average. A children's centre which is not managed by the
school shares the same site. The school has gained the Silver Eco award,
Healthy Schools Status and the Study Support award.
Number of pupils on roll: 297 Mixed year 5 and 6 class with 20 year 6 and 14
year 5, 19 girls and 15 boys

Appendix 2: Planning for sequences of Scratch lessons in Case Study
schools
School 1
Individual exploration of Scratch software. Teacher intervention and

review to guide children as required towards:
I can use  Sequence of instructions (Make something surprising happen to
sequence, your sprite.)
1 selection and  Repetition (Repeat [move, add sound move back])
repetition in  Add a background / Add new sprites
programs.  Different kinds of programming blocks
Think, pair, share: What have you been able to do? What have you
found out about the software?
What is an algorithm? What can it allow you to do? Provide closed or
I can explain
open task as appropriate to learners.
how a simple
Create an etch-a-sketch game (Know how to program keys to do different
2 algorithm
things, recognise what each section of programming achieves.) Can you
works.
program different keys to do different things on the screen?
What does programming do? (you are teaching the computer to do things)
What did you learn from creating the etch-a-sketch game? Today we are
going to make two more games. Follow the instructions but also think
about what you are doing. Keep testing the programme to see how it is
working.
Programming a Car Racing Game (Know how to create an ‘if’ instruction

I can detect to make something happen when sprite touching a colour) Introduce idea
and correct of selection. If xxxxx happens then xxxxx.
errors in How could we move something with the mouse on the screen? Emphasis
algorithms need to keep testing sets of programming blocks to check they are doing
and what you want them to do.
programs. What did you learn from creating the car racing game?
3 Choose a second game to create. Tennis if you are confident or Dance
I know how moves if you want to reinforce your confidence in making sprites move on
to use a the screen.
variable to Create a tennis game (Know how to program two sprites) Can you move
measure the sprite with the mouse?
something in Can you add a variable to score / to speed up ball each time you hit it with
a game. racquet? Add variables to tennis game.
Dance moves (change of costume, add sound)
Add to or adapt program to make it your own game. Keep testing how the
programme is working.
What have you found out about Scratch software? Did anyone discover
any useful tips for each other? Did anyone run into difficulties? How did
you solve them? How have you used colours for features of the game?
Plan a game based on our topic [eg game based on Greek myths,
following listening and retelling stories, drama, talk and writing.]
What skills have you learnt? Which can you use in your game? What
I can plan an
algorithm will you need to follow?
algorithm for
4 Think about how you make the keyboard or mouse move things on
a game.
screen. Think about the way colours can be used to select actions.
Consider how variables can measure what is happening in a game.
Write the algorithm for your game. Consider the sprites, background and
programming you will need.
I can solve Create or discover backgrounds and sprites for the game planned.
5 problems by Refine ideas for game
decomposing

them into
smaller parts.
I can design Program, test and improve games. Evaluate and make appropriate
and write changes.
programs
that Children could upload projects to the Scratch community website
accomplish http://scratch.mit.edu. This will allow them to play each other’s games
specific goals online in school and at home.
6
I can detect Comments can be made on each others’ games after modelling and
and correct guided writing of responsible and appropriate peer assessment
errors in
algorithms See information about Scratch community and parent’s permission letters.
and
programs
School 2
Look at Scratch together. Indicate sprites, stage, program blocks and script
area.
Provide Code Club instructions Level 1, Felix and Herbert.
I can use Describe expectation for children to use instructions to create a game,
sequence, children to use Code Club members as a resource to help, children to
1 selection support each other.
and in Model talking through the algorithm
programs. Show what you have created to your friend. Can you describe the algorithm
for the game?
What changes would you like to make to the game?
Time to edit and solve problems.
Ten Block Challenge
I can
What can create with these ten blocks? You can use any of them as many
explain how
times as you want. You can change the numbers in any of the blocks.
a simple
2 Show your friends what you have done. Explain the actions you have put
algorithm
together.
works.
What problems did you have to overcome?
What else would you like to add to your project?
What did you learn from creating the Felix and Herbert game?
I can detect
Today we are going to make ‘Whack a Witch’ (Code Club level one).
and correct
Talk through algorithm. Emphasise continually trying out the program at
errors in
each step.
algorithms
and
Pause once children are well on the way to completion. What variable did
programs.
3 you add? What is a variable?
I know how
to use a
Show what you have created to your friend. Can you describe the algorithm
variable to
for the game?
measure
What problems did you have to solve?
something
What changes would you like to make to the game?
in a game.
Time to edit and solve problems.
I can plan Question challenge:
an Can you make your cat move around the screen? Can you add a dog?
4
algorithm What will happen? Can you show what will happen?
for a game. Show your friends what you have programmed.
I can plan Plan a game based on our topic [eg game based on Greek myths, following
an listening and retelling stories, drama, talk and writing.]
5. algorithm What skills have you learnt? Which can you use in your game? What
for a game. algorithm will you need to follow?
Think about how you make the keyboard or mouse move things on screen.

Think about the way colours can be used to select actions. Consider how
variables can measure what is happening in a game.
Write the algorithm for your game. Consider the sprites, background and
programming you will need.
I can solve Create or discover backgrounds and sprites for the game planned. Refine
problems ideas for game
6. by
decomposi
ng them
into smaller Program, test and improve games. Evaluate and make appropriate
parts. changes.
I can Children could upload projects to the Scratch community website

design and http://scratch.mit.edu. This will allow them to play each other’s games online
write in school and at home.
programs
that Comments can be made on each others’ games after modelling and guided
accomplish writing of responsible and appropriate peer assessment
7.
specific
goals See information about Scratch community and parent’s permission letters.
I can detect
and correct
errors in
algorithms
and
programs
School 3
Minimum of 20 minutes exploration time.

Ask class to explore Scratch software individually.
Class leave their computer and rotate around the room to see what each-
others’ screens look like, think about what they have done.
Open a new project.

Focus on sprite and programming blocks. Introduce words: sprite,
background, blocks. Explore individually, but stay with the one sprite. Try
blue, purple and pink blocks. When appropriate introduce control blocks.
I can
(Children will play with other blocks but those make increasing sense as
explain how
they develop use.)
a simple
algorithm
Split into four groups, each to become experts at programming different
works.
things to happen. Instruction sheets given to each group.
1
I can use
Group 1 LA Create an etch-a-sketch game (Know how to program keys to
sequence,
do different things) Project blank provided. Can you program different keys
selection
on the keyboard to do different actions?
and
Group 2 MA Create a dance on-screen (Know how to make a sprite move
repetition in
and change costume)
programs.
Can you make a sprite move and change?
Group 3 MA Programming a Car Racing Game (Know how to create an ‘if’
instruction to make something happen when sprite touching a colour)
Project provided with background.
Can you program in a ‘selection’ if the car touches the grass?
Group 4 HA
Create a tennis game (Know how to create programs for two sprites).
Project provided with sprites and background. Can you move the sprite
with the mouse?

Groups finishing can add to or adapt their program. Can you add variables
to score and increase speed of tennis ball?
What have you found out about Scratch software? Did anyone discover
any useful tips for each other?
I can detect Jigsaw the groups, i.e. create groups of one expert from each of the
and correct previous session groups.
errors in Show your friends what the game you made. Talk through any problems.
algorithms Can you find solutions.
and What did you learn? What tips do you have for anyone who wants to
programs. program with Scratch?
Groups work at a computer, read script of Cat and Dog scenario to the
class:
2
https://slp.somerset.gov.uk/cypd/elim/somersetict/Innovative%20Use%20of
I can solve %20ICT/Programming/Scratch/Questions/Scratch%20Questions.pdf
problems Can each group use their pooled expertise to meet the challenge?
by How did you get on working together? What have you learnt from your
decomposi friends?
ng them Individually try 10 block challenge: What can you create?
into smaller Look at what your friend has achieved.
parts.
I can Give all children Car Racing Game instructions.
explain how Working individually, but supporting each other, create the game as it is
a simple then start again but create your own version of this game. (Different
algorithm background and different sprite and/or two player game)
works. Talk through possibilities. Examples that children have created: monkey
3 I can use moving through a jungle, pop star getting to a stage, unicorn going on a
sequence, journey
selection What is the algorithm you have used? Which sets of programming blocks
and did you need? What variations did you introduce?
repetition in
programs.
I can detect Give groups the dragon and snowman scenario. Let them have a go at
and correct meeting the challenge. Stop them after about 10 – 15 minutes. Get them
errors in to open the sample project which has errors.
4
algorithms Can they detect the problem? Can they correct the error?
and (Snowman doesn’t appear properly at the beginning of the project.
programs Snowman could melt more slowly. Dragon could fly more slowly.)
I can Link to current topic eg Minotaur in Ancient Greece, Boudicca as part of
design and Romans, moving round local area/area that is being studied.
write Individually plan a game.
programs What skills have you learnt? Which can you use in your game?
5
that What algorithm will you need to follow?
accomplish The children could be encouraged to work online at home, and have a go (if
specific there’s not time in school to try out the project they have planned). See
goals information about Scratch community and parent’s permission letters.

Appendix 3: Instructions for car racing game Somerset ELIM (2013) with
acknowledgment to Simon Haughton’s Blog for idea.
 A car is driven along a road.

 The car goes back to the beginning if it touches the grass.
 When the car gets to the end of the course a sound is played and a message
displayed.
A Create your background and add new sprite
1. Right-click on the cat sprite, delete.

2. Go to Backgrounds tab. (You will see it when
you click on stage.)
3. Click Paint.
4. Fill background with green paint.
5. Use thick grey brush to paint a road running
across the screen and draw a coloured line at
one end to mark the finish line. (The more bends the harder the game.)
6. Click on OK. You can go back to background and choose edit at any time to
make changes.
7. Add a new sprite. (Go to transportation
to find a car.)
8. Use the shrink button to make the sprite a size to go
around bends.
B Programming the game
1. ‘Tell’ the arrow keys to move the car.
TIPS:
 Right click on a block to duplicate the block and those below.

 Hover over the background area with the mouse to see the position
coordinates.
 Right click on the scripts area to add a comment (see yellow box).

2. Set a rule if the car touches the green grass.
TIP: To get the correct colour hold the dropper over the area of the stage containing
the colour you need.
OR
You can add a written message OR Record a message if they touch the grass.
 Choose play sound from the sound blocks.

 Choose record from drop down arrow.
 Press red circle to record your sound and
grey square to stop.
3. Add a second if condition for the end of the game.
This can be a recorded message and a written congratulations message. (A timer

can also be added.)
Challenge
Add a variable called timer and, at the end of the game, broadcast how long it
takes for the car to get to the finish line.
Try adding a second car to make it a two person game.

Appendix 4: Questions for interviews with learner groups and with
teachers
4.1 Questions for learner (Shown at beginning of the interview)
What have you enjoyed most about What did you think about the way
programming with Scratch? Is there you were introduced you to Scratch?
anything you didn’t like?
.
Have you learnt anything about yourself How important is it for
while you were programming? children to learn to program?
What have you learnt about What helped you to learn to use
technology? Scratch? How did you learn to
program?
Are there any other questions I
should ask? What was your favourite
thing about the software?
4.2 Questions for teachers

Attitude of learners
What were the attitudes to learning already in place which helped the children
to begin to program?
Which did Scratch programming re-inforce?
Were there any new attitudes you saw developing?
Effective teaching/learning strategy
After this series of lessons, what are your thoughts about effective strategies
to teach primary aged children to program?
Perceived benefits
What do you perceive as the benefits of learning to program for the children in
your class?
Are there any children who have benefitted in particular ways?
Learning taking place
What are the children learning while using the software?
How much of the learning is related to programming?
What other kinds of learning are taking place?
What is contributing to that learning?
What understanding are they gaining of how they learn?
Technology
What understanding are they gaining of technology?
Teacher attitude and confidence
What have you enjoyed most about doing the Scratch programming with the
class? What about effective strategies to develop teacher confidence in
teaching programming?
Where do you think programming fits with other curriculum areas? How
important do you think it is for children to learn?

Appendix 5: Atlas ti software: List of Codes
Codes for quotations with an explanation of the terms used for super-codes in 5.2
and an example of an abstract network.
5.1 First stage codes identified during review of evidence in Atlas-ti software
Code for quotations Researcher

thoughts
What did the
learners discover
about themselves
while they were
programming with
Scratch?
How did the

opportunity to
explore Scratch in
an open ended
way affect the
learners?
What helped the

children to learn to
program?

Which things
affected the
learners?

What did the
researcher
observe?
What were the

features of
Scratch software
that affected the
learning?
What did the

teachers observe
and how did they
contribute to the
learning?

5.2 Second stage codes identified from consideration of first stage codes in Atlas-ti
software
The researcher has listed the thinking behind each of the super-codes. These refer
to the child but also include first stage codes used for teacher or researcher
observations.
Achievement: child has recognised personal achievement in using Scratch.
Challenge myself: child has challenged themselves to do something which was not
asked of them by the teacher.
Collaboration: children are working together or recognise the way in which they
have worked together.
Computational thinking: refers to a set of thinking skills that contribute to

programming. The researcher changed this to logical thinking to be more accurate.
Creativity: child has been creative in the way they have used Scratch.

Difficulties: child has found difficulty or been worried in the use of Scratch.
Engagement and motivation: child has been engaged in programming over a

sustained period or demonstrated motivation to achieve an outcome.
Exploration: child has talked about the way having time to explore the software has
brought benefits. This includes quotations where the term ‘trial and error’ has been
used.
Importance of instructions: child has expressed the need for/enjoyment of, using a
set of instructions.
Increased confidence: child has expressed ways in which their confidence has
increased through using Scratch software.
Independent learning: child has talked about, or demonstrated the way in which
they have been able to discover learning for themselves.
Learn from mistakes: child has talked about the way they have learnt from mistakes
they have made whilst working to achieve an outcome.
Learning object: child has expressed the way they have learnt from/with Scratch
software.
Logical thinking: (replaced computational thinking) where children have

demonstrated or talked in terms of a logical process to achieve an outcome.
Perseverance: child has demonstrated or talked about ‘not giving up’ or being
determined to achieve an outcome and to continue to work towards that.
Problem solving: child has worked to solve a problem that has occurred in
achieving an outcome, either by themselves or with peers.
Supportive environment: child has talked about the way members of the class have
helped each other.
Teacher changing role: children, or the teachers, described the teacher as doing
things differently in terms of allowing the learners to construct their knowledge
through ‘participating in certain experiences’ rather than ‘transmitting knowledge to
learners’ (Roblyer and Edwards, 2000: 50).
Understanding technology: child has expressed a way in which their understanding

of technology has increased through programming with Scratch.
5.3 Examples of a network to support conceptual analysis (Friese, 2013), see over

Appendix 6: Ethics contract for pupils
Pupil Research Contract for ‘Programming with Scratch in a primary
school’
What is the aim of the research?
To find out what you are learning when you have the opportunity to
programme with Scratch software. This means not just the learning to do
things with the software, but the other kinds of things you may be learning at
the same time.
What will happen during the research?
1. I will work with your teacher to plan lessons for you to learn to use Scratch
software.
2. Your teacher and I will discuss what we observe during the lessons.
3. We will video or use a sound recorder during some of the lessons.
4. I will interview your class teacher and some of you to talk about what you
learnt.
What will happen once the research is finished?
The research will be written up in a document which will be assessed for me

to get a Masters qualification. I will also use it to speak to other teachers at
conferences and in training sessions to help them as they teach children
about using Scratch.
What are my rights?
Programming is part of the ICT curriculum in your school so you will be part of
the lessons.
BUT, you can choose not to be included in videoing of the lessons and you
can choose not to discuss your learning with me.
I won’t use your real name in any of the writing that I do about the research,
but I will make sure that I don’t take credit for any interesting things that you
discover during the research.
I will do all I can to make sure you enjoy learning to use Scratch and are
comfortable to answer any questions.
I will look after all the information I collect so that it isn’t seen by others. Other
people will only be able to read the final document I write, or look and listen to
what we found out at any presentations I do about the research.
I give my consent to being part of the ‘Programming in a Primary School’

research.

Appendix 7: Ethics contract for teachers with permission for video
included
Research Contract for ‘Programming with Scratch in a primary school’
Aim of the research:
To identify the learning that takes place when pupils have the opportunity to
programme with Scratch software.
Learning experiences:
The researcher will be working with teachers in three schools to plan, share
and reflect on a learning experience using Scratch software.
 School One will use children that have become ‘experts’ in using
Scratch through an after school Code Club to support whole class
teaching of programming with Scratch using the Code Club materials.
 School Two will provide an opportunity for pairs of children to explore
the software, share what they have discovered and then to work
individually, initially using prepared materials to create games, and then
to create their own games linked to their class topic.
 School Three will provide a jigsaw opportunity for four groups of
children to become experts at a particular aspect of Scratch. An expert
from each group will then be assigned to a problem solving group
which will be given a problem to be solved with Scratch.
Ethical principles:
Respect for the school
The researcher would like to acknowledge the school’s contribution to the

research as this will be a partnership with the teacher and children involved.
However, should the school ask for anonymity in terms of their name not
being given in any write up or presentation, this will be ensured.
The outcomes of the research will include a Masters’ level dissertation,

presentations to the South West ICT Conference and Somerset ICT
Conference 2013; and a contribution to training sessions and support for
teachers and support staff in schools in Somerset. The findings may also be
included in papers submitted to education journals or other presentations to
conferences.
The research methods being used will include the following, although method
two will only be used if the Headteacher, teacher, parents and pupils give
additional permission to that requested for the overall research.

5. Participant observations will be made of planned learning experiences.
This refers to the researcher team-teaching with the class teacher and
making observations.
6. A video or sound recording of the experiences will be made with the
permission of the Headteacher, teacher, parents and pupils. This will
be used for analysis of the learning that has taken place and also,
should the school give additional permission, may be used to select
excerpts for presentations to support the development of the use of
Scratch by other teachers.
7. Interviews with the class teacher and pupils will be used to elicit further
data on the learning that has taken place.
8. A context describing the school will be agreed with the Headteacher to
support the write up of the findings of the research. This will be used to
support readers of the outcomes in relating the experiences and
learning to their own setting.
Respect for the teacher
The researcher will work in partnership with the teacher to plan, share and
reflect on a teaching and learning experience developing pupils’ knowledge
and skill in using Scratch software. The teacher can choose whether their
name is included in the outcomes of the research as an acknowledgement of
the contribution they have made or whether they choose to remain
anonymous in the outcomes.
In addition to the methodology set out above the following will involve the
teacher.
1. Discussions via email, telephone or by pre-arranged visit to agree the

planning for the learning experiences using Scratch.
2. Informal conversations reflecting on the learning experiences and the
learning outcomes for the pupils and teachers.
3. Informal conversations reflecting on the interviews with pupils to elicit
the learning that has taken place.
Respect for the pupils
The researcher and teacher will work in partnership with pupils to identify the
learning that has taken place through:
1. The planned learning experiences using Scratch programming

software.
2. Discussions between pupils following the classroom activities.
3. Further learning which individual pupils may choose to do beyond
school.

Pseudonyms will be used for pupils in the outcomes of the research. Any
references to the ability of pupils which may be linked to the learning
outcomes will be discussed with the class teacher and Headteacher before
they are included in the outcomes of the research. A research contract will
be worded for pupils to support them in giving fully informed consent as
required by Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child. Article 12 requires that children who are capable of forming their own
views should be granted the right to express their views freely in all matters
affecting them, commensurate with their age and maturity. The researcher
will also comply with Article 3 that in all actions concerning children, the best
interests of the child must be the primary consideration.
In addition to the above; the researcher will
1. Recognise the right of any participant to withdraw from the research for
any or no reason, and at any time.
2. Take all necessary steps to reduce any sense of intrusion in the life of
the school or the community of the class and will conduct themselves in
such a way as to put all participants at ease.
3. Seek to limit any impact on the workload of participants.
4. Store electronic data collected on a password protected computer.
Paper based data will be kept in folders used only for the research and
stored responsibly and then destroyed as confidential waste once the
Masters’ dissertation has been assessed by Bath Spa University.
5. Provide access to any data as requested by a participating school.
6. Provide the participating schools with a summary of the findings of the
research in straightforward language that can be shared with pupils
and parents as appropriate. A copy of the Masters’ Dissertation will be
made available on request.
Ethics statements based on British Educational Research Association (2011)

Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research available from:
http://www.bera.ac.uk/publications/pdfs/ETHICA1.PDF?PHPSESSID=9d05d2
b248b084807e1fe572bfe2396c
XXXXXXXXXX,Headteacher consents to XXXXXXX Primary School

participating in this research. XXXXXXXXXX ,Class teacher consents to
participating in this research. We give / do not give permission for videoing or
sound recording during the classroom activities.
Julia Briggs, Researcher promises to do all that is possible to abide by this

contract.

Video permission
XXXX School is working with Julia Briggs of Somerset County Council to do some
research on the ways in which computer programming education can benefit the
overall learning of pupils. You may be aware that the Government are keen to have
a greater emphasis on programming as part of new curriculum that is being put in
place for September 2014. Julia proposes to use video as part of collecting
information. There is no problem if you would rather your child wasn’t included in the
videoing. Please complete the form below to give permission for your child to be part
of the research. The following is the information Julia has provided to inform the
children about being part of a research project:
What is the aim of the research?

To find out what you are learning when you have the opportunity to programme with
Scratch software. This means not just the learning to do things with the software, but
the other kinds of things you may be learning at the same time.
What will happen during the research?

 I will work with your teacher to plan lessons for you to learn to use Scratch
software.
 Your teacher and I will discuss what we observe during the lessons.
 We will video or use a sound recorder during some of the lessons.
 I will interview your class teacher and some of you to talk about what you
learnt.
What will happen once the research is finished?

The research will be written up in a document which will be assessed for me to get a
Masters qualification. I will also use it to speak to other teachers at conferences and
in training sessions to help them as they teach children about using Scratch.
What are my rights?

 Programming is part of the ICT curriculum in your school so you will be part of the
lessons.
 BUT, you can choose not to be included in videoing of the lessons and you can
choose not to discuss your learning with me.
 I won’t use your real name in any of the writing that I do about the research, but I
will make sure that I don’t take credit for any interesting things that you discover
during the research.
 I will do all I can to make sure you enjoy learning to use Scratch and are
comfortable to answer any questions.
 I will look after all the information I collect so that it isn’t seen by others. Other
people will only be able to read the final document I write, or look and listen to
what we found out at any presentations I do about the research.
_____________________________________________
Please delete as appropriate:
 I am happy for my child / do not want my child to be part of the ‘Programming

in a Primary School’ research.
 I give permission for my child to be included in video to provide information for
the research.
 I am happy for the video to be used to train teachers in the future.
 I give permission for my child to be part of the research but I do not want
them to be videoed

Appendix 8: Transcript of video of paired exploration of movements on
screen
Monday 20th May 2013. Session 1 Exploring Scratch (School A)
Two girls sharing laptop to explore programming blocks and sprites in

Scratch. One is ‘operating’ laptop and talking about what to do. The
other is looking, making suggestions and pointing to actions on the
screen.
Girl 1: 'Look, in there.'

Girl 2: 'A hundred.' (Edits number on move block) (Quiet laughter)
Girl 1: 'She's off the page.' (Points to screen)
Girl 2: 'OK, make it two hundred.' (Points to screen)
Girl 1: 'Somehow turn her round, turn her round.' (Turning block dragged on
screen)
Girl 2: 'Yeh, turn her round.' (Points to block on screen)
Girl 1: 'That worked.'
Girl 2: 'Yeh, turn her round.' (Change value in block)
Girl 1: 'I don't think that's meant to happen.'
Girl 2: 'Whoo-oo!'
Girl 1: 'I don't think that's meant to happen.'
Girl 2: 'Move towards .... ' (Point towards block added to screen)
Girl 1: 'What can we move towards?' (Clicks on drop-down arrow next to’
Point towards’.)
Girl 2: 'Dog.'
Girl 1: 'There you go.' (Points to screen)
Girl 2: 'Now she's upside down.'
Girl 1: 'Go to.'(Go to block dragged on screen)
Girl 2: 'What shall we make her go to?' (Clicks on drop-down arrow next in ‘Go
to’.)
Girl 1: 'Nano!'
Girl 2: 'And click on it'
Girl 1: 'Now she's still upside down'
Girl 2: 'See how far we could turn her round' (Drags another turning block on
screen)
Girl 1: 'Put 100 in'
Girl 2: 'Put 200 in' (Points to screen)
Girl 1: 'Almost'
Girl 2: 'She's awkward'
Girl 1: 'Almost, almost'
Girl 2: 'She's awkward'
Girl 1: '150'
Girl 2: 'Try it'
Girl 1: 'She's ...'
Girl 2: 'No she's upside down'
Girl 1: (Points to screen) 'No it's turning, that again.'
Girl 2: 'Er'
Girl 1: 'Now we've moved that' (Quiet laughter)
Girl 2: 'Oh wait, here you go' (Quiet laughing)

Appendix 9: Greek Games: School A
Children have set themselves different levels of challenge to create a game

inspired by the topic on Ancient Greece.
Hercules needs to get key from centre of the maze. The

three headed dog will try to stop him.
Two player game, will Hercules get to the centre of

the maze first?
To retrieve his sword, Hercules needs to get passed

the centaur that is moving up and down.
Hercules moves through three levels of maze, avoiding

Cerberus the three-headed dog. He needs to get to his
real parents.
When Theseus touches green hydra in the centre of the

maze he will move through to palace.
Hercules has three lives to achieve his challenge.
The first version of this game is available online

http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/10405964/

Appendix 10: Triangulation across three schools for benefits to learners
and factors contributions to the those benefits
Benefits:Triangulation across schools

School 1 School 2 School 3 TOTALS:
Sense of achievement 10 21 16 47
Challenge myself 40 16 24 80
Working together 80 59 28 167
Developing logical thinking 74 34 70 178
Increasing creativity 20 19 66 105
Encouraging exploration 97 49 87 233
Increased confidence 18 13 23 54
Developing independent
learning 122 61 106 289
Learn from mistakes 13 24 15 52
Developing perseverance 58 67 46 171
Developing problem solving 27 32 26 85
Understanding of technology 26 21 29 76
TOTALS: 585 416 536 1537
Total number of documents
coded 13 15 12 40
Percentage of documents 33% 38% 30%
Factors contributing to benefits:Triangulation across schools

School 1 School 2 School 3 TOTALS:
Engagement and motivation 69 53 38 160
Enjoyment 42 34 27 103
Exploration 108 50 88 246
Importance of instructions 19 47 24 90
Learning object 54 32 63 149
Scratch software 49 38 63 150
Supportive environment 87 59 39 185
Teacher changing role 123 80 86 289
TOTALS: 551 393 428 1372
coded 13 15 12 40
The number of incidences of code can be compared across schools. This is based on
a comparison of the number of documents that have been coded for each school
(removing the documents with five or less codes). Each school has 33% of the total
number of primary documents +/- 5%. The number of codes for each document vary
between 0 and 94.

Appendix 11: School B Session 1 Felix and Herbert Game
Pupils were all given Code Club instructions to create a game called Felix and
Herbert. Felix is a cat and Herbert is a mouse. The mouse has to avoid
getting caught by the cat.
After making the game the learners made changes to the sprites and
background. Games became unique as the children began to discover the
editing possibilities in Scratch software.

Appendix 12: School 2 Talking with English as an Additional Lanugage
(EAL) pupil about his Whack a Witch project
Dalan had followed instructions with support from the HLTA who was teaching
the lesson and the researcher. He started the project several times until he
did it himself with no help.
He discovered he could duplicate the sprite and have many sprites chasing
the baby.
Remake duplicating flying sprites
Dalan: Ha, mm Ha (laughs quietly to himself)
Researcher: So what’s it doing then.
Dalan: They’re chasing the baby and the baby

says ‘mmm’. They say ‘Hello’ hmm
Remake Witch appearing and disappearing
Researcher: Tell me what happens
Dalan: Hides … and then comes back

again. Hides … and it come back again.
Researcher: What’s making it do it? What in those instructions there?
Dalan: I got (pointing at the screen) ‘When clicked’ from orange bit. I got
‘forever’ and I put ‘hide’ and I put ‘wait one second’ and I put ‘pick random 2 to
5’ and then I put ‘show’ and then I put ‘wait one second’ and on it I put
‘random 3 to 5’ and I click to here and it starts doing that.
Researcher: What does that pick random do?
Dalan: Pick random. It makes it hide and then 2 to 5 seconds or 3 to 5

seconds later it come backs.

Appendix 13: Comparison of video evidence from classroom sessions
in case study schools
13. 1 Table of results (Incidents are counted every two minutes)

School A: Creating own game
School B: Second opportunity to create game based on instructions
School C: First opportunity to create game based on instructions
A B C TOTAL A B C
56 46 18 Data adjusted
Length of video (minutes and percent 100 82 32 120 by % amount of
of total video time) % % % time
Video: asks for peer 3 2 0 3 3 3 0
Video: asks for help teacher 7 3 5 15 7 4 15
Video: focus on instructions 3 15 7 25 3 19 21
Video: interaction by looking across
at another learners screen 4 7 4 15 4 9 12
Video: interaction discussing
instructions 0 11 1 11 0 14 3
Video: interaction where friend uses
keyboard 6 1 0 7 6 1 0
Video: interaction with pupil from
another area 15 10 0 25 15 13 0
Video: learner interaction 2 pupils 17 19 5 41 17 24 15
Video: learner interaction 3 or more
pupils 10 11 0 21 10 14 0
Video: learner moves to help friend in
another area 9 1 0 10 9 1 0
Video: learner off task major 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Video: learner off task minor (less
than 1 minute) 4 3 1 7 4 4 3
Video: learner refers to help video
being played for class 4 0 0 4 4 0 0
Video: learner showing achievement 12 12 0 24 12 15 0
Video: learner shows frustration 9 4 1 14 9 5 3
Video: shows awareness of camera 4 1 1 6 4 1 3
Video: teacher and learner discuss
achievement of another learner 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
Video: teacher interaction to a group 2 1 0 3 2 1 0
Video: teacher interaction to whole
class 6 3 6 15 6 4 18
Video: teacher interaction with 2
learners 0 6 1 7 0 8 3
Video: teacher interaction with one
learner 12 3 7 22 12 4 21
Video: teacher interaction with
teacher uses keyboard 6 3 0 9 6 4 0
Video: working alone 3 or more
learners 18 4 8 30 18 5 24
Video: working alone one or two
learners 10 17 0 27 10 21 0

13.2 Graph to show comparisons of incidents for all schools

Appendix 14: School C Variations on car racing game
All children had the opportunity to make the car racing game and then adapt it
to their own game.
The children who had made the game in the morning had the opportunity to
talk through with the teacher, how they would adapt their game.
Learners created:
 monkey going through forest
 fox finding hen coup
 star wars troupers getting

back to base
 favourite pop stars getting

to stage (having searched
for picture of pop star on
Internet)
 bee returning to
honeycomb
 ship getting back
to harbour
 One learner discovered an alternative

example of coding a car racing game
and altered the way the car could be
controlled.

Appendix 15: School C Focus on Polly
From teacher interview
Polly excelled when using Go Control software.
R: There was one comment on the blog, from two that seemed to be saying
that as soon as we saw it, we recognised it and thought of I think it was,
something Warrior game.
T: Oh that was Polly and she was talking about her and Ian and she said. ‘As
soon as we saw it we knew what it was going to do and we could recreate the
Warrior Queen.’ The Warrior Queen is the play they are doing. So what she
was saying. She said it to me right at the beginning of the day. She said ‘Oh
look there is a stage and costumes and sprites which are characters. We
could make a play. What she was saying really was that right at the
beginning of the day she understood the possibilities.
Polly Responses to Interview Friday 21st June (taken from group

interview, other responses removed
Scratch is different to anything else. You can make your own stuff, , I told my
sister about it and she wants to have a go now. It’s fun.
At the start I didn’t know what I was doing. I just felt like I wanted to know
what to do so that I could get on and actually do like, at the end make your
own thing, like do the car game and stuff like that. That was really fun. And I
always get frustrated when I can’t do stuff. (laugh)
If it goes wrong [while you are exploring], it’s more difficult whereas if you’ve
got the script it’s easier to work out what went wrong, where it went wrong and
how to
Follow the instructions. If you follow the instructions you will get it right.
[What helped you?] Having people sitting next to me.
The person sitting next to me said to the person sitting next to him. ‘How do
you do that?’ ‘Oh right then’ And going up the lines.
So like you’re kind of owing the favour. (Yeh) And they’re returning it.
[How did you learn to use Scratch?] Pressing buttons and then watching it.
Right that does that, right lets press a different one.
Stop all! Red button.
[How did you feel?] Proud

Like I can do this. Hah bet you can’t (laugh)
Pressing buttons makes me feel happy, so when I’m pressing buttons I’m fine.
I think it’s important to learn to program because if they want to do something

like a computer programmer or something like that. They’re gonna want to
start with Scratch. They’re going to need to do that and then they’re going to
go on to Go Control, which is a bit advanced, and that’s fun. But with Go
Control I managed to complete the challenge that we’d been on for four or five
weeks. I was the first person to do it. I was like, yeh!
[Go Control is harder] No colour (laugh)
[What have you learnt about yourself?] Realising what I thought it was and
then thinking and then ‘why am I doing so much thinking, press buttons’. ‘See
what it does’.
When I go different places. I’m normally a bit shy and stay behind people.
But now I think I’m going to be looking round places. Because most of the
playground I didn’t really want to explore because I was too scared but now
I’m not because it’s fun adventuring (giggle).
Polly: It’s not as hard as it sounds. So if someone says ‘oh what does that
mean’ but now you’re ‘Oh this is what it does, that it what it is’ ‘Oh it’s not that
scary in that case. It’s just like that.’
Like on a scale of 1 to 10. How much do you reckon you’ve enjoyed yourself?
I say 10. I think I enjoyed myself a lot.
Another question could be, would you recommend this to older children,
adults, or younger children.
[Referring to younger children] Because they have more imagination that us

sometimes. Because the stuff they come out with is like ‘wish I thought of
that’
Oh some of them, like well there’s a dragon fairy princess. So long as you
can imagine it in your mind and put it on a computer and then you’ve got
something.
We’ve got our buddies but maybe they’re too young.
Yes, I think that’s a good idea being able to access it at home. That’s good
because you don’t just have one day of it but you can go and do it whenever
you feel like it.
I’m in an imaginative mood. I’m in a Scratch mood. Computer!

Appendix 16: Triangulation across groups of researchers for benefits to
learners and factors contributions to the those benefits
Benefits Triangulation across groups of researchers

Researcher Teacher
Learners observations reflection TOTALS:
Sense of achievement 30 8 17 55
Challenge myself 56 10 24 90
Working together 134 9 33 176
Developing logical thinking 119 17 62 198
Increasing creativity 91 11 14 116
Encouraging exploration 184 29 53 266
Increased confidence 41 4 14 59
Developing independent
learning 232 19 61 312
Learn from mistakes 44 3 9 56
Developing perseverance 127 5 47 179
Developing problem solving 56 9 32 97
Understanding of technology 64 1 18 83
TOTALS: 1178 125 384 1687
coded 24 12 14 50
Factors contributing to benefits:

Triangulation across groups of researchers
Researcher Teacher
Learners observations reflection TOTALS:
Engagement and motivation 59 69 40 168
Enjoyment 75 13 28 116
Exploration 184 39 53 276
Importance of instructions 80 6 11 97
Learning object 121 23 12 156
Scratch software 125 21 27 173
Supportive environment 155 17 25 197
Teacher changing role 206 38 70 314
TOTALS: 1005 226 266 1497
coded 24 12 13 49
Consideration of the number of incidences of code needs to take account of the

number of documents for learners being approximately double the number for
researcher and teacher. The number of documents considered is based on the
removal of any document with five or less codes.

Appendix 17: Triangulation of learner evidence
Benefits:Triangulation across learner evidence

Learner:
Learner Learner: Post-it Video
Learner interviews Post-it notes Video observation
interview adjusted notes adjusted observation adjusted
Sense of
achievement 24 35 5 25 3 26
Challenge
myself 46 67 7 35 13 114
Working together 83 121 51 255 5 44
Developing
logical thinking 77 112 38 190 8 70
Increasing
creativity 64 93 16 80 8 70
Encouraging
exploration 132 193 42 210 9 79
Increased
confidence 33 48 7 35 3 26
Developing
independent
learning 176 257 39 195 14 123
Learn from
mistakes 26 38 17 85 1 9
Developing
perseverance 81 118 43 215 1 9
Developing
problem solving 36 53 18 90 7 61
Understanding of
technology 37 54 19 95 0 0
Total number of
documents
coded 24 7 4

Factors contributing to benefits:Triangulation across learner evidence
Learner:
Learner Learner: Video
Learner Post-it Video
interviews Post-it observation
interviews notes observation
adjusted notes adjusted
adjusted
Engagement
and motivation 47 69 11 55 57 499
Enjoyment 60 88 11 55 5 44
Exploration 132 193 42 210 9 79
Importance of
instructions 46 67 34 170 0 0
Learning
object 91 133 26 130 12 105
Supportive
environment 94 137 61 305 4 35
Teacher
changing role 132 193 65 325 12 105
Scratch
software 65 95 48 240 4 35
Total number
of documents 24 7 4
coded
Adjusted data is calculated based on percentage of total number of

documents coded for each evidence type.

Appendix 18: Example of group interview All Saints
Friday 24th May 2013 Group of 4 girls
Introduction by researcher with a copy of the questions on the table (Appendix 4)
These are the questions that I will ask you, so that you know the kind of things I’ll ask. Okay.
And you don’t have to answer them all. It’s up to you for each one whether you’ve got
something you want to say. So you’re happy with those? As I say don’t worry if there’s one
you don’t want to answer.
Researcher: What have you enjoyed the most about programming with Scratch?
Lisa: Making our greek games.
Annie: Getting to have free time to find out all the things the program does.
Lisa: Also, also it’s kind of fun
Sarah: And you’re learning.
Lisa: And it’s like free time all of the time but then you’re learning at the same time and you’re
learning something at the same time.
Sarah: And it’s fun to see if you get the blocks wrong you can change them and make them
do different things. And change your sprites and everything.
Lisa: And once you’re done it’s not like you can’t change it but you can change it.
Chloe: I think the best thing was just being able to try things and if they don’t fit try again until
you’ve got it right.
Annie: And I liked making the greek games and having free time so we could trial and error
and then you know how to do stuff and you’re also learning as well as having fun.
Chloe: A fun way of learning.
Lisa: Yes because like with literacy you’re learning but there’s not much fun coming along
with it.
Chloe: And you’re not told what you do. You just fiddle around with it. We were given time to
just play around and see what …
Sarah: If you were doing a class thing they tell you what to do but with Scratch you can find
things out for yourself. Teach yourself.
Chloe: And also the sheets you gave us. The blocks you could put together to see what they
did. I find that quite fun. Did you find that fun?
Others: Yeh
Chloe: Putting the blocks together and then trying it out to see what it made the sprite do.
Researcher: This kind of follows on from what you were saying, I think. What did you think
about the way Mrs Atkins and I introduced you to Scratch? We planned it out but what do you
think about the way we did it?
Lisa: I kinda liked it because you didn’t say you’ve got to do this, you’ve got to do this. You
got to, and you should have this. You let us try it out for ourselves so that we could find out
what we had to do with it.
Sarah: And erm, I liked the way that to start off with we got free time and then it built up to
like games.

Lisa: Cos like back then on Monday we didn’t have a clue. If you came in on Monday and
said like you’re making a greek game go. We’d probably have been sitting there thinking …
Chloe: What does this block do? I don’t know, I don’t know what we’re doing.
Lisa: But then like the first two days we were trialling and error and working it out and do it for
ourselves.
Annie: Yeh, I thought it was, like we were just saying, fun to see what it did. Rather than, like
Lisa said, rather than us just being given a sheet to go and make this game, and that game.
We were given that time to just introduce ourselves rather than yeh.
Lisa: I liked the way we were introduced to it.
Researcher: Sarah, what were you going to say.
Sarah: I liked the way that you didn’t tell us what to do but if we needed a bit of help you knew
what you were doing so you could help us. It was independent as well.
Lisa: It was almost like a young child learning to walk and us learning how to use the game.
Annie: Yes, I agree with Sarah because if you didn’t have the build-up to what we did then we
were just either told or not told. If we hadn’t had the build-up to explain what it did we would
have just been sat there. But if we were told what to do I reckon we would have found that
boring.
Lisa: Yeh
Annie: Because by following instructions you’re not being creative.
Lisa: Yeh but then I guess some of them like the car one we had to follow it. But that was the
fun way because we knew what we were doing and we were getting used to it as well. (Annie
trying to interrupt) It wasn’t like have to do this, follow this, follow that, do that. It wasn’t like
that because we were enjoying that. If we were given a sheet like Annie said, do this without
none of the build up then it would have been different in a way.
Researcher: So what do you think that first, that very first session when Mrs Atkins said have
a look and explore. What do you think you got from that because the next step was have a
go see what these blocks do together. But what was important do you think about that first bit
for you?
Lisa: Because by the end of that first one we kinda knew most of the blocks did. I thought
that was good.
Chloe: Yeh, the first game was kind of like a starter, just getting you used to things like Annie
said, or someone said. But anyway it’s getting you ready to carry on and make your own
game.
Lisa: And also, and also …
Annie: It just, it makes you feel like if you give up I’m never going to learn more about it so
you’re going to want to keep on trying. Oh that doesn’t work then put another bit in and then it
fits. Then it makes you feel good because you know you’ve tried and you’ve got it right.
Chloe: Because you’ve made it fun for us we more want to carry on and see what other
things do.
Researcher: What about you Sarah what do you think?

Sarah: It was good because we didn’t really know the blocks but we got to get used to them.
Trial and error sort of stuff. To find a bit out ourselves before you started to tell us a bit about
it.
Lisa: Yes, that was what I thought as well. I also really enjoyed the movement one where we
had to make the person dance. It was very different because we did the car one first and
then we did the dance one and I thought that that one really showed us, because it was quite
hard to show that you shouldn’t give up as well. And I almost gave up when my computer
lagged out but I kept going on the new computer and so it was, yeh.
Sarah: Yeh, I didn’t just enjoy the programming. I really enjoyed making, creating
backgrounds, costumes, making your own sprite.
Lisa: I also enjoyed with the dancing one. I enjoyed it so much that I didn’t want to give up.
So that one was …
Chloe: Yes, that was what I felt as well cos I had some problems
Annie: Because you realised if you were going to give up you probably wouldn’t get the
chance to learn more.
Chloe: Yes, because I reckon you didn’t want to give up, Lisa, did you because you were
having so much fun. It was a fun way of learning.
Lisa: And also it was a nice way of learning with our topic as well. Because our topic is
ancient Greece and it was a nice way of learning our topic. Although we spend the whole
week on computers and our eyes are probably square but it was really good. It was really
nice to work in that way.
Researcher: We kind of talked a bit about this yesterday and we put ideas on post-it notes.
But, what would you say helped you, each of you, to learn to program? What actually helped
you to be able to get on.
Annie: I think that friends really, really help you. (Lisa: Definitely, definitely, Yeh, yeh friends)
Like if you’re stuck and the person next to you has already done it. And they really
understand it like me and Rachel on the first program. I was a bit stuck and she was like do
you want some help. And that’s what how I started to understand what was happening.
Lisa: I enjoyed with the friends like Chloe said, that’s what I put on the post-it note as well.
Even friends that were stuck on their own they came and helped me so we could help them.
Like Harry helped me and then Harry was stuck and so I help Harry. So we were almost
working in pairs I guess because we were helping each other.
Sarah: I think friends and teachers because I was sat next to Alice and Annie and even if like
I don’t know who said it. Even if they were stuck they’d helped me and then maybe if they
were stuck on something else I could help them with that. (Yeh, from Lisa) Because you
understand different things about the programming and if you find people who understand the
other parts other than what you know and you put it all together and you’re like a team that
help each other.
Lisa: Mmm. It’s almost like football if you don’t work in a team nothing goes on.
Sarah: Nothing gets done.
Lisa: Like with a computer and Scratch. If you didn’t help each other we would have still been
on the first step. Because if it wasn’t for the other people we wouldn’t have got any work
done.
Sarah: Like when we were making our own games.
Lisa: Yeh, even in the hard times for them like when they were really, really struggling and
their computer was about to go flat and everything they still helped us.

Sarah: Yeh, and the teachers were there. They were really good. They hadn’t had much
experience of computer programming. But they said if you try this it might work
Lisa: Even if it was the thing on the top of their head.
Annie: And it was funny because if it didn’t work laugh together about what the character
does.
Lisa: Mmm like with mine on the dancing one someone said try this and something ridiculous
happened. It was flying in the air and even if it was the wrong way on the learning thing it was
still something we could laugh about in a way.
Chloe: I agree with was those three. I think teachers and friends but I thought the friends
certainly helped a lot because if they, if you were stuck they could help you and then that was
one extra thing you know to help someone else. How we helped each other.
Lisa: Because it kind of wouldn’t have been fair, if someone was really stuck and I say oh I’m
really stuck can you help me. They would come over. It would kind of be a bit mean if when
they are stuck if you don’t go over it’s kind of a bit mean.
Annie: It wouldn’t make your game better if people said no if you asked for help because they
wouldn’t know the knowledge that you know and you wouldn’t know the knowledge that they
know.
Researcher: How much as a class, thinking over the whole year, have you got used to that
helping each other and how much was it something knew in doing Scratch.
Lisa: I think it was a big change.
Annie: Because in our class we usually work independent like writing and maths. But since,
well it’s been a few month since we tried this. Choosing where you sit, to sit next to a friend
so that the friend can help you. We did this on a trial. If you got stuck you would have your
friend next to you and they could help you and it’s just a way of working together really.
Researcher: So you’d already been working together.
Lisa: Yeh, but it hasn’t been like literacy. You wouldn’t just say oh can you help me. If it’s a
big write or something or ..
Annie: But you can’t ask for help.
Lisa: No well, anything like that really. You can’t really say of I’m really stuck can you help
me. You’d have to put your hand up and the teacher would come and help you. And I think
it’s a nicer way for us to help each other. In a way it’s nicer when your friends help you.
Researcher: So is there any way that Scratch has got you helping each other in new ways.
Lisa: I think now that we’re going to be helping each other all the time. Twenty-four seven I
think.
Researcher: What were you going to say there Chloe?
Chloe: I was going to say I don’t think that we did notice the difference it made helping each
other. Doing Scratch we, you know, I noticed a lot more people were helping and sharing
ideas.
Annie: Working together
Chloe: Yeh, working together.

Annie: Because in Scratch in the ICT suite. Well I always worked in the ICT suite. There’s
always someone stood up running around to help each other
Lisa: Yes exactly
Annie: Because it’s not just. If the people next to you don’t understand either, then the people
from the other side of the ICT suite saying, Oh I heard you needed help and they come and
they help you.
Lisa: And in the classroom, I think me and Sarah were in the classroom there’s only a few of
us in there but nearly every second one or two of them were up helping other people.
Researcher: So it didn’t matter whether you were in the classroom or in the ICT suite that
helping was still going on.
Lisa: Because I think it makes the person feel good if you help somebody. Because I helped
someone and I walked back to my seat and actually I thought I’d helped someone back their
game a little bit better. So you kinda do feel good helping each other.
Researcher: Good, brill.

Researcher: This might be a tough question and if you don’t want to answer it that would be
fine. I think it is the most difficult one to think about. Have you learnt anything about yourself
while you were programming? So this week have you learnt something about yourself that
you hadn’t realised about yourself before?
Annie: I realised that well, like before I would give the face and give up really easily. But on
this I’ve learnt that I can actually do what the task is set. And I can make my own thing out of
it. Like I can turn it into my own piece of work. Instead of going to teachers to say I can’t do
that and it turning into their piece of work.
Researcher: What about you Sarah? (shake of head). It’s alright, no worries. Chloe?
Chloe: Well I agree with Annie I wanted to give up not Monday, I think it was Tuesday when
we did our erm, what day did we do the dance game? (Yes, Tuesday). Well I wanted to give
up then because it just like stalled. It froze and I thought well I’d done a lot of work on this
and it just deleted and I thought I can’t do this. And it was really tricky because I couldn’t find
the right blocks to like get my sprite to do what I wanted it to do. And I thought it was really
stressy. But now I know what to do and I think it is fun. A fun activity.
Lisa: I think also at home on the computer, this isn’t anything to do with this, but at home I log
on the computer and I’m thinking what shall I play on but now I’ve played on Scratch and I
think I’m going to be playing on Scratch all the time now in a way but I’ve also got something
for the question. And I’ve also got something for the question.
Researcher: Go for it.
Lisa: Erm, I’ve never really helped people as much as I have over this week. Because like we
were saying earlier we’ve helped each other so much. And I don’t think I’ve ever when
someone says I’m really stuck and can I have some help please. I don’t know what my
character is doing at all. There’s about three or four people who would immediately stand up
when someone says that and I think I’ve really helped people and I think I can really help
people all the time now.
Researcher: Brilliant, right I better let you get back to the classroom. Thank you ever so
much. That was really useful, really interesting.

Appendix 19: Demonstration lesson visits to year 3 and 4 classes
Developing an exploratory approach to introducing Scratch to learners
Visit 1: South Petherton Junior, year 3, class size 34 (18 boys and 16 girls)
The purpose of this demonstration lesson was to see whether the exploratory
approach that has been described in the case studies would be successful
with younger children.
The children worked in pairs on laptops in the classroom, using the

downloaded version of Scratch 1.4. Children of differing ability in terms of
literacy and mathematical confidence were put together.
Initially the children were given a completely open ended opportunity to

explore the software. They discovered different sprites and ways in which
they could be changed. One pair discovered they could edit the background
and were invited by the researcher to demonstrate this to the rest of the class.
Some children had begun to see what the programming blocks would do. The
researcher intervened to instruct all the children to just have one sprite on the
screen and to see what they could make happen using the program blocks.
The children were stopped at different points so that things could be
demonstrated as they were discovered by different people. The children were
then given Etch a Sketch game instructions (Somerset ELIM, 2013) to use
with their partner.
The children found difficulties with the link between the exploration, when the
purpose was to make the sprite move on the screen; and the game
instructions, which were to use keyboard arrow keys to make a line appear on
the screen.
The discussion with the class teacher following the session reflected on the
difficulties experienced.
‘Teacher: The lower ability children seemed to need more structure.
Researcher: Do you think it would have been different if each child had
their own laptop to be doing it for themselves?
Teacher: They would have been more involved. They would have
been happier to fiddle around. It was the instructions they found
difficult.
Researcher: I think I chose the wrong activity for them to move on to

after the exploration. It was too different.
Teacher: The exploration was good. The boys in particular enjoyed the
freedom to not be instructed, just to try it. The children should really
have the chance to do this kind of thing more often.’

Visit 2: West Monkton Primary, year 4, class size 33 (19 girls and 14 boys)
The researcher taught two sessions at West Monkton, with the children
working in pairs on the downloaded version of Scratch 1.4 on laptops in the
classroom. Using the thoughts from the assessment of the lesson at South
Petherton some alterations were made to the structure. The first session
provided the same exploration of the software as had been used previously.
However this now had more structure. Twenty minutes was spent on the
completely open ended exploring where the children discovered different
sprites and how to change them. They edited the background and discovered
they could record sound. The children were stopped at different points so that
things could be demonstrated as they were discovered by different people, as
had happened before. The children were then tasked with having just one
sprite on the screen and exploring what they could make it do using the
programming blocks. Initially the motion blocks, adding in control and then
looks and sound. The researcher then set a ten block challenge (Somerset,
2013b) to see what the children would create.
During the second session the children were tasked with animating a ‘Knock,
knock joke’. The telling of a joke was modelled and then the children left to
see how they would meet the challenge. The researcher stopped the class at
appropriate moments to reflect on the issues that arose (primarily two sprites
on screen talking at the same time), and discussing solutions identified.
Some prompting was used to direct children to the ‘wait’ program block.
Jokes were created and shared. The researcher then provided a set of
instructions for the children to use the same algorithm to tell the joke using
‘broadcast’ program blocks. The resulting outcome was discussed and
different solutions to achieving the animation were compared. The children,
before and after this ‘plenary’ time, began to enhance their animations with
different backgrounds and additional actions.
The teacher of the year four class at West Monkton Primary reflected on the
lesson in an email (Personal communication, July 2013),
‘The session was excellent. I found it interesting how Julia allowed

each pair to explore the program first. I have now adopted this in my
practice and used this for a recent animation topic which was once
again successful.
The children were highly motivated, loved sharing their new discoveries
with the rest of the class. The whiteboard was used to demonstrate
findings, problems and solutions and I felt that the children worked very
well with this process. There was a lot of progression within the lesson,
thanks to the exploratory approach, and the class asked me if they
could go on Scratch again. The children were allowed to find the
problems (such as timing with the knock, knock joke) then solved it’
The children in the class confirmed the motivation that came from being able
to discover things for themselves. Two of the responses passed on by the
teacher (ibid) were;

‘I liked the way that the lesson was set out in the way that Mrs Briggs
allowed us to explore. First of all she didn't tell us what to do and then
she taught us new things. The chance to explore made me feel excited
as you didn't know what you could find out!’
‘We were allowed to Figure out lots of things for ourselves this made
me excited. The programming was fun and I was amazed that I could
program a computer.’
Visit: Draycott and Rodney Stoke First School, mixed year 3 and 4, class
size 24 (Year 3 girls 4, Year 3 boys 6. Year 4 girls 4, Year 4 boys 10)
The researcher based the two sessons at Draycott on planning which had
evolved from the previous visits, see below. The teacher describes the
independence of the children,
‘All the children were engaged in the task and were able to evaluate
each other’s work, making suggestions for improvements, peer
assessment. They were confident to continue working on the program
without adult support and some have continued to use the program at
home. I think the staff were more ‘wowed’ by the children’s
achievement than they were themselves!’
The teacher also reflected on the reason for the success of an exploratory
approach,
‘This is obviously how they approach computer games at home and

created an immediate engagement to the subject and lesson.’
Outcome:
The researcher felt that the structure of the sequence of activities now
scaffolded the learning so that the children remained in control of the progress
they made in becoming programmers.
The lesson plan that evolved is below.
Minimum of 20 minutes exploration time.
 Ask class to explore Scratch software individually (where this is

possible) with an expectation that they will be looking at the
I can use achievements of the person beside them and talking about what
sequence they are achieving.
1
and  Class leave their computer and rotate around the room to see
repetition in what each-others’ screens look like, think about what they have
programs. done.
 Open a new project.
 Focus on sprite and programming blocks. Rule: Only use cat and
blue (motion), purple (looks) and pink (sound) blocks.
 Introduce words: sprite, background, blocks. Explore individually

talking to your friends about what is happening, but stay with the
one sprite.
 When appropriate introduce control blocks. (Children will play
with other blocks but those will really only being to make sense as
they develop use of Scratch.)
 Open a new project. Choose your background and sprite. Make
something surprising happen to your sprite.
 Show your friends the project your have created.
 What have you found out about Scratch software? Did anyone
discover any useful tips for each other?
At this point you could choose to provide some of the Scratch Cards
from scratch.mit.edu to allow children to investigate all kinds of
possibilities.
OR / AND Tell a knock, knock joke: Choose a joke from

http://www.activityvillage.co.uk/knock_knock_jokes.htm
Have two people telling a knock, knock joke. Who says which part?
Open a new project. Choose two sprites. Can you program the sprites
to tell a knock, knock joke? Remind them of the looks block ‘say
XXXX for XX sec’. (Some children may decide to record their own
voice. If they choose this way they will need to record the correct part
of each line of the joke for each sprite)
Leave children to work at telling the joke, intervening as required.
Prompt children to use when green flag clicked to start each sprite.
Some may discover other ways but using the green flag will start both
sprites off.
Children may need to consider the ‘wait for xxx’ control block so that
one sprite sprites waits for the other to finish before they tell their part
of the joke.
Early finishers can be prompted to add a background and
perhaps to add a bit of movement to their sprites.
Ask children to save projects. View and discuss projects with 2 stars
and a wish.
What have we discovered about Scratch so far? Today you are going
to discover a different way to create a joke animation.
Provide children with Tell a Joke support sheet. Talk through the
I can algorithm. You may choose to provide them all with the same knock,
explain how knock joke or allow them to use their own.
a simple http://www.activityvillage.co.uk/knock_knock_jokes.htm Let children
algorithm follow the instructions independently.
works. Children save projects which can be looked at together or, if saved in
the same folder, they can view each others.
2
I can detect Talk about the difference between the way they found to tell a joke and
and correct using the broadcast block.
errors in Why is the broadcast program block useful? (Each sprite needs to
algorithms know when it is their turn to speak.) Talk about how there are different
and ways of programming the same algorithm. Talk about efficient
programs. programming, stressing that there is no wrong way just more efficient
ways. Look at the algorithm. Which bits of programming achieve the
different steps in the algorithm?
What have we added to our knowledge about Scratch?
I can Give all children Dance Moves or / and Tell a story.
explain how Have a look at the algorithm. Look at the programming blocks. Can
a simple you describe what the programming blocks will do?
algorithm
3/4
works. Plan a dance or a story. Planning templates are available here.
I can use Can you suggest an algorithm for a dance? Which programming
sequence blocks will you need? Plan a dance using an algorithm. Create the
and program to make it work.

repetition in Can you suggest an algorithm for a story? Which programming blocks
programs. will you need? Plan a story using an algorithm. Create the program to
make it work.
I can
design and Discuss errors that occurred and what needed to be done to sort them
write out.
programs View each others’ projects. Describe two stars and a wish.
that
accomplish
specific
goals.
I can detect
and correct
errors in
algorithms
and
programs.
I can Give all children Etch a Sketch instructions.
explain how Have a look at the algorithm. Look at the programming blocks. Can
a simple you describe what the programming blocks will do? Discuss the use of
algorithm selection: if I press the up arrow key etc.
works. Encourage children to continue to problem solve with each other where
I can use errors are occurring in their programming.
sequence, Create your Etch a Sketch game. Fill in the ‘algorithm boxes’ which
selection describe what each set of programming blocks achieves. (Children are
5 and likely to need to create the whole ‘game’ before going back and being
repetition in clear about what each set of blocks achieves).
programs.
I can detect Challenge: What can you add to improve your Etch a Sketch?
and correct
errors in
algorithms
and
programs.

Appendix 20: Post-it note responses
Child researchers School C – How did I learn?
19th June 2013 (After sessions one and two with Scratch) G Girl B Boy
Help from and also people around me were helping me as well. G

friends I learnt it because of friends and talking partners. B
and seeing other people and my talk partner. G
Through helping others and learning from them. B
I learnt by listening, asking friends … for help. G
Help from I learnt how to use Scratch because a very special visitor came
teachers in. B
I have learnt from listening and getting teacher’s help. G
and asking teachers for help. G
Exploring I have learnt by listening and discovering. G
I think that I learnt how to do this because I explored Scratch first
…G
I have learnt from exploring and not being afraid to press any
button. G
How I thought I did it is because I explored all of the buttons and
boxes! G
By using Scratch and finding out. B
I learnt it by being curious about what things are and exploring
and finding things out on our own. G
I experimented and saw you could have a box saying change
colour so I tried it. G
I have learnt it because of exploring time. I found you can have
loads of sprites. G
I learnt it because I didn’t know what Scratch was and how to
program it. G
By looking at all of the different blocks and testing out what they
do. B
Written I think I learnt this because on the challenges it told you how to do
instructions it. G
Because the instructions were very clear and easy to follow. B
You had instructions. G
Instructions B
I think it was from today.
Getting it wrong By doing lots of work on Scratch and being told my mistakes. G
By learning from mistakes. G
I learnt it because I got frustrated and looked through and fixed it.
G
Because everything I done did not go well first time. G
I learnt it by making mistakes and doing it wrong. B
I learnt it because it didn’t go quite well. B
I learnt by making a mistake and realizing it and changing it so
that its right. B
Seeing the work And seeing other people. G
of others
Listening I learnt how because I listened. B
I have learnt how to make an algorithm.
I have learnt by listening G

Appendix 21: Summary of Evidence collection
School 1 20th – 24th May 2013 Year 6 class 28 pupils 17 girls, 11 boys
Session 1 Exploration of Notes on interventions and activity
20th May software
9.15 – Focused exploration
10.15am of programming
blocks
Session 2 Create Etch a Sketch Transcript of reflection of teacher and
th
20 May researcher
11.00am –
12.00
Session 3 a) Car racing Activity session 3 Transcript of
st
21 May game teacher introducing car racing game.
9.15am – b) Tennis or Plenary of a) moving on to b)
12.00 Dance End session 3 reflections
What have you learnt post-it notes?
Session 4 Planning Matt planning of game
nd
22 May
Session 5 Creating Greek game Child researchers, What helped you
rd
23 May to learn, also reflections on creating
9.15am – session.
12.00 Photographs and short videos of
games.
Video of independent programming,
1 hour
Post-it notes what has helped you
most to learn programming?
th
24 May Reflection interviews Transcript teacher interview
(Two learners end of 5 sessions)
Transcripts groups learner interviews
School 2 4th, 5th and 11th June 2013 Year 6 class
Session 1 4th Introduction, Felix and Notes of introduction
June Herbert instructions, Post-it notes what have you been
1.30 – Cat and Dog learning and how have you learnt
3.30pm challenge and reflections during session
including cat and dog challenge.
Transcript conversation with class
teacher
th
4 June Reflection interview Transcript teacher (HLTA) interview
th
Session 2 5 Whack-a-witch game Video of using instructions to create
June instructions and Ten game and completing ten block
9.00 – block challenge challenge
9.55am Words to describe experience
11th June Reflection interviews Transcripts class teacher and group
learner interviews
School 3 19th June 2013 (whole day), 21st June (interviews) Year 5 and 6
class
Session 1 Individual open Transcript of sound recording
19th June exploration and Observation notes and conversation

9.15 – focused exploration of with class teacher
10.30am programming blocks
Individuals working on Video of using instructions to create
differentiated game.
instructions to create Observation notes
games (project starts
provided). Plenary to
talk through games.
11.30 – 12.30 Talking pairs Observation notes, photographs
explaining games to Blog contributions
each other, Cat and
Dog challenge.
Continuing game or
creating second game
from instructions.
Contribute to blog
1.30 – Creating own version Observation notes, photographs and
3.00pm of racing car game short videos of games.
Contribute to blog Blog contributions
21st June Reflection interviews Transcripts teacher and group
learner interviews
School 4 21st June 2013 Year 3 class
1.30 – Paired open Summary notes
2.00pm exploration and
focused exploration of
programming blocks
2.00 – Etch a sketch game
2.45pm instructions
th
School 5 26 June 2013 Year 4 class
9.10 – Paired open Summary notes and email from
9.40am exploration and teacher
programming blocks
9.40 – Independent ‘Knock,
10.25am knock joke’
11.00 – ‘Knock, knock joke’
11.45am instructions
st
School 6 1 July 2013 Year 3 and 4 class
9.30 – Paired open Summary notes and email from
10.00am exploration and teacher
programming blocks
10.00 – Independent ‘Knock,
10.30am knock joke’
11.00 – ‘Knock, knock joke’
11.45am instructions, followed
by personal
adaptations

Appendix 22: Bloom’s Table of some possible Automated Processes
(Bloom 1986: 76)
Early skills that are a prerequisite for later learning
Bodily Household Communication Man - Man - Sports

control skills skills instrument machine
Eating Sewing Speaking Musical- Driving Swimming
Walking Knitting Reading instruments Flying Diving
Running Ironing Writing Singing Motor- Running
Jumping Mopping Braille (trained) boating Jumping
Catching Sweeping Deaf sign- Dancing Motor- Gymnastics
Throwing Use of language (trained) cycling
Stair spoon Computer- Drawing Tennis
climbing fork languages Painting Handball
knife Shorthand Sculpturing
descending Hammering Juggling Skating
Dressing Sawing Cycling
washing Raking Typing Skateboard
Adding- Wind-
machine surfing
Morse code Skiing
- telegraphy Sailboating
Bloom, B. S. (1986) Automaticity: "The hands and feet of genius". Educational

Leadership, 43(5), 70-77. [Online] available from
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198602_bloom.pdf
[accessed 27th May 2013].

Briggs 2013 Programming With Scratch Software

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Briggs 2013 Programming With Scratch Software

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

Briggs 2013 Programming With Scratch Software

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Programming with

This dissertation is submitted in part fulfilment of the

J Briggs October 2013 1

Education Institution for a degree or other award. It is available for

Signed: Julia Briggs

Date: 18th October 2013

J Briggs October 2013 2

and opportunities for study provided between 1995 and 2013.

discoveries within this dissertation. Thank you to those schools. Sherril

worked with their learners.

Emma Asprey, my supervisor has provided indispensable guidance and

skills to complete this project.

My colleagues contributed to the completion of the research. Ian Gover

prodded and pushed until I adopted computational thinking in my approach to

programming, something that has been essential to the project. Lucinda

research. She has provided on-going encouragement and support.

Finally my husband Steve, has put up with many exclamations as I made

to listen as I verbalised my thoughts.

J Briggs October 2013 3

The new programme of study for computing (Department of Education, 2013)

places an emphasis on programming. This research considers the benefits

software. A grounded theory approach is used for the findings to emerge

from three case study schools. A triangulation of the evidence is used to

researchers: learners, teachers, and the researcher; as well as between the

three schools and three types of data collection.

they learnt whilst being introduced to use Scratch, through an open-ended

exploratory approach. The researcher was a participant-observer and

reflected on the learning experiences with the teachers involved. It is hoped

‘developing independent learning’, ‘developing logical thinking’ and

‘encouraging exploration’. Perseverance was indicated as an important part

of the independent learning. The ‘teacher changing role’, an ‘exploratory

approach’ and a ‘supportive environment’ were the key factors identified

J Briggs October 2013 4

and animations whilst developing logical thinking.

The teachers permitted the children to discover Scratch software for

then be adapted by the children, is suggested for programming as an effective

approach for children to achieve in this area of the curriculum.

J Briggs October 2013 5

J Briggs October 2013 1

J Briggs October 2013 2

Plate 1: Discovering movements 53

J Briggs October 2013 3

‘Algorithms are re-usable procedures (often a sequence of steps) for getting

‘Broadcast’ and ‘receive broadcast’ programming blocks are used to

‘A nationwide network of free volunteer-led after-school coding clubs for

Information Communication Technology

The Logo programming language was designed as a tool for learning. It is a

Floor robot or Floor turtle

J Briggs October 2013 4

Programming in Scratch ‘is done by snapping together colourful command

Scratch is a visual programming environment that allows users (primarily ages

J Briggs October 2013 5

become merged together.

Society, 2012) which identified Computer Science as being of enormous

importance to society in the United Kingdom in terms of being globally

Ways in which technology can support learning were recognised by the

skills and understanding of that technology, was referred to as failing the

needs of the country.