I was first introduced to the Scratch platform through my reading of Lifelong Kindergarten: Cultivating Creativity through Projects, Passion, Peers, and Play by Mitchel Resnick (2017), Professor of Learning Research at the MIT Media Lab. In his book, Resnick exemplifies the function and potential of Scratch using techniques like presenting transcribed interviews with Scratch community users and learners who have benefited and grown using the platform. During my readings, I obtained a sense of the learning potential that the Scratch platform offers. It seemed to be an explorative space for people to discover or develop their passions as projects through play and tinkering in a collaborative community of peers with like- or complimentary intentions. A clear benefit of Scratch is that it acts as a powerful introductory tool for those unfamiliar or inexperienced with logical thinking and programming languages and allows them to create algorithmically without first obtaining a prerequisite competence in programming.

Resnick modeled an ADST educational pedagogy of cultivating creativity through Projects, Passion, Peers and Play, where free inquiry was imperative to learning development; however, I could not help but notice some looming constraints with his model when mentally applying it to the school district I live in. First, to effectively use Scratch, there needs to be the technological resources available for students. It astounds me that there aren’t sets of laptops or computers available for all classrooms in 2021—stepping back into the classroom for practicum has been a wake-up call to the disconnection between the emphasis on 21st century learning in the B.Ed program and the restrictive prehistoric state of resources that actually exist in classrooms (sorry, the leap from overhead projectors to document cameras don’t satisfy the needs for modern learning). Second, I find free or guided inquiry based learning theoretically more difficult to implement in senior science classes. My upcoming experiential practicum (EDUC 391) placement is in a technologically dated Chemistry 11 classroom and is somewhat pedagogically constrained by the pace and quantity of content required for students to understand in order to participate in Chemistry 12. Although I can see clear potential benefits of using platforms like Scratch in a Chemistry 11 classroom, I am constantly weighing the time required for students to develop competence in computational thinking through play with respect to the actual chemistry they will get to explore, and what quality of curricular relevance will be achieved during that time. The implementation of Scratch in a cross-curricular or project-based setting is largely feasible. Moreover, the introduction to computational thinking needs to start in primary grades, not begin in senior classes.

Yesterday, I participated in a workshop titled “Coding with Scratch.” It was a great introduction to block-based coding with Scratch, which is a programming language that allows users to develop algorithmic coding designs using block-instructional code. The advantage of block-based coding is that it allows beginners to programming a way of exploring computational thinking through play and design without memorizing a text-based language or being constantly frustrated with syntax errors. One cool and important characteristic of computers is that they always do exactly what you tell them to do, and if it does not work, then the error is in your algorithm and is always exposed.
The pace of the workshop seemed moderate and inclusive for the diversity of attendees. The instructions were guided, but the time allotted to develop the block algorithms were open enough for me to explore the program from several angles. I could perform the same task using multiple methods or alter the task to become more personalized and exploratory. This seems to be at the heart of Scratch—through simple instructions and the opportunity to play, engaged exploration became inevitable and the learning expanded beyond the instructions in a very natural manner. Furthermore, I found the process to be as difficult as it was easy. For example, following the instructions to get the cat and ball to do what was intended was simple; however, having the cat run after the ball and catch it was difficult enough to be engaging. Programming has no limit on complexity or difficulty, thus, it is an incredible learning space for students to stay engaged–with Scratch, even the most inexperienced beginners have the opportunity to design without the steep initial learning curve, while those who are experienced or expert programmers can simply put their skill set towards solving more complex problems.

Personally, I could see myself animating organic chemical reaction mechanisms for demonstrating the geometries and pathways of chemical reactions. To be successful in organic chemistry, students really need to refine their skills on rotating 3-dimensional objects in their heads—animating reaction mechanisms in Scratch may help to facilitate students to visualize and conceptualize such abstractions. Therefore, the next logical step in my professional and personal utilization of Scratch is to try the process out for myself. I will need to pay attention to how much time I spend on designing my ideas, how effective they are with respect to my intentions, what aspects of learning was emergent, and be mindful of what is accessible for technological resources in the average SD57 classroom.

 

References:

Resnick, M. (2017). Lifelong Kindergarten: Cultivating Creativity through Projects, Passion, Peers, and Play (Illustrated). The MIT Press.