In the 1970s, Seymour Papert’s constructionism entered the classroom in the form of Logo, a revolutionary programming language embodied by an innovative turtle robot that made it fun for children to learn. Besides teaching children about algorithms and logic, Papert proposed that learning is a creative process. When children “think with” the robot, they learn by doing, in a kind of “virtual hands-on” approach. That is, they construct abstractions by projecting themselves into a reflective space that facilitates abstraction. Whereas Logo and the turtle did not really catch on, Scratch and other reality simulation languages have gained popularity, and digital devices such as tablets have dramatically increased simulation spaces in the classroom, at relatively low cost. In homage to the demise of the visionary creator, this presentation reconsiders the genius of Logo and the turtle that delighted and inspired millions of children around the world. What lessons can we take away about the impacts on learning? The extensive research in the 1980s on Logo and more recently on Scratch and ScratchJr has not matched hoped-for results, which may have been unreasonably high. Nevertheless, studies should revisit the topic by exploring the methodological and procedural potential of new forms of simulation. Empirically, there is tangible evidence that simulations have enabled real progress in terms of teaching and learning abstract concepts. We therefore address the different ways of learning through simulation, including microcosms, games, and robotics. We present the results of a study on the impact of video gaming on academic learning, with a particular focus on students’ attitudes when interacting with the game. We also describe how robots are used with children affected with autism, and how the robot, therapist, and autistic child interact verbally and nonverbally. We conclude with the findings of a study on the use of simulation for medical training and the student–simulator relationship. We review this French experiment and propose some opportunities and limitations for educational simulation activities.

Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79-122. Papert, S. (1987). “Computer Criticism vs. Technocentric Thinking.” Educational Researcher, 16(1), 22–30. Pardamean, B., Suparyanto, T., & Evelyn. (2015). Improving problem-solving skills through Logo programming language. New Educational Review, 41(3), 52-64. doi:10.15804/tner.2015.41.3.04 Vaca-Cardenas, Azucena, L., Bertacchini, F., Tavernise, A., Gabriele, L., Valenti, A., . . . Bilotta, E. (2015). Coding with Scratch: The design of an educational setting for elementary pre-service teachers. Paper presented at the Proceedings of 2015 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning, ICL 2015, 1171-1177. doi:10.1109/ICL.2015.7318200