Procedural Automatic-Processing and K12 Education in Japan (1)— “Dolittle” Language Experiences —Yasushi KUNO∗
2006.6.17

Contents1.2□ IPSJ’s ”Proposal 2005”□ The second problem: many Japanese teachers
are allergic to programming.

□ ”Dolittle” programming language□ ”Dolittle” experiences1• "Programming is too difficult toteach/learn; most students cannot
understand the materials; consumes too
many hours; ..."
• So we have to investigate some strategies
to make them accept our proposals...

Proposal 2005

□ Information Processing Society of Japan(IPSJ) --- largest academic society
targeted to computer sciences / information
technologies in Japan.

□ Our claim: "Procedural Automatic-Processing"is the heart of computers; we have to teachthis to every students.

□ ‘‘Proposal 2005 on Information andInformation Processing Education in Japan’’by IPSJ (2005.10.29).

• For example, spreadsheets, simulations, 3D
renderings, and musical software include
procedural automatic-processing.
• However, we STILL think that programmingis the most straight, quickest and easiest
way to go.

• Points to the problems in current Japanese
IT environment (mainly on human resources)and proposes solution actions.

1.1

Procedural Automatic-Processing

Backgrounds for the Proposal 2005

□ The process of "Procedural AutomaticProcessing:"□ Problems:• Japanese citizens lack appropriate ITunderstandings.

• (1) Recognize, describe and formalize
the problem; then investigate for thesolution.
• (2) Construct and formulate the solution
to an algorithmic and computer- executableform.
• (3) Execute the solution, evaluate theoutcomes and revert to the previous stages
if not sufficient.

□ Causes:• IT education in K12 education has onlyrecently started.
• Mainly targeted to IT literacy and IT
society --- Principles of information
processing are not taught much.
□ We are NOT saying that IT literacy andIT society are unimportant --- they ARE
certainly important!

□ Experience of "debugging" is very importantto understand the nature of programming.

□ However, Japanese citizens ALSO needappropriate understanding of principle ofcomputers.

□ Our proposal for K12 education...

• All Japanese students should haveexperiences of procedural automaticprocessing in EACH of elementary, juniorhigh, and high school.
• Interested students should be able to takeadvanced classes at high school.
• College entrance exam. should include
subject on IT.

• This lack of understanding causes many
problems --- e.g. System troubles inTokyo securities trading market etc.
• The only/quickest/easiest way to teach theprinciple: programming.
∗ Graduate School of Business Sciences, University of Tsukuba,Tokyo, Japan1

□ CAUTION: "experience" is the point --- asin experiments in physics, chemistry, andbiology.

• With approx. 3 to 5 hours ofexperiences, students will have intuitive
understandings of what computers
can/cannot do.

2”Dolittle” Programming Language□ To be successful in IT education, we needappropriate tool.

• In the case of procedural automaticprocessing, the tool should be a good"educational programming language (EPL)."□ Problems in traditional programming language
classes:• Learn programming language syntax
one-by-one (boring; time- consuming).
• Unfriendly syntax (English-based, manysymbols).
• Resulting programs are unattractive (e.g.
read two numbers; print their sum).

□ Students should type in the code and run theprogram. Then choose their original line
drawings and craft their programs.
□ Lesson 2: a loop in a small program can dolots of work.

□ Our EPL should be the contrary!

• Simple and friendly syntax.
• Students should be able to "walk bythemselves" as quickly as possible.
• Resulting program should be attractive(visual, multimedia, ...)

Pen = Turtle ! create.
[Pen ! 100 forwared 144 rightturn] ! 5 repeat.

□ Dolittle: a new EPL with the above
properties.

• Developed by Prof.
Univ) and I.

Kanemune (Hitotsubashi□ Use national (Japanese / Hangul) characters.
□ Object-oriented (required for attractiveoutcome).
□ Basic syntax: object!
verb (param) ...verb.

(param) (param) ...

• Verbs comes last in an expression (naturalfor Japanese and Korean, might not be sofor other countries...)• Program consumes smaller number oflines compared to C or Java (similar toordinary text) --- more comprehensive (noscrolling).
□ Lesson 1:

instruction in predefined format.
□ Students should choose their original line
drawings with repetition, and craft theirprograms.

Pen = Turtle ! create.
Pen ! 100 forwared 90 rightturn 100 forward.

2□ Lesson 3: anything a program handles is an"objects," and every object has their own
properties and functionalities.

• Experimental Lecture (3 students, 3 hours)• Drawing, timer (animation), objects andmethods• Students had many new findings on theprinciples of computers (screen pixels,operating systems, role of programming)• Students enjoyed the classes.

Pen = Turtle ! create.
[Pen ! 100 forwared 144 rightturn] ! 5 repeat.
Star1 = Pen ! makefigure (green) paint.
Star2 = Star1 ! create 30 30 move (blue) paint.

□ Kamata Junior High school, Mie prefecture.

• Mandatory classes (Technology subject,11hours, 2nd grade, 132 students)• Line drawings, figure objects, timer(animation), GUI parts.
• Evaluation by ordinary paper test for 3rdterm --- approx. 80 to 90 percent haveunderstood various concepts of Dolittle
programming.
• Subjective enquiry --- as the curriculum
proceeds, "difficulty" measure increased,but "enjoyable" measure also increased.
Students have enjoyed challange ofprogramming.
□ Voluntary class at Shimada city, Shizuoka
prefecture.

• 17 nearby junior-high school students
applied to the class. 4 hours: 1.
turtle graphics, 2. ping-pong game (1person), 3. networking, 4. kraft one’soriginal network program.
• Students have learned what networks are
and how they can be used from software.
• Many student chose text-based network
communication program rather than
network-based games (this was against
teachers’ expectation.) They might felt
more interests in practical uses network
communication.

□ Students should design their original(painted) pictures, and craft their programs.
□ In 5 hours, students will become capable ofchoosing their outcomes (problem statement),plan for programming code (solution), anddebug their programs (evaluation/repetition)--- The core cycle of procedural automaticprocessing.

□ Other experiences...
□ Robot control programming in Dolittle (highschool, junior high school, elementaryschool)□ Other functionalities of Dolittle:• Students can write robot control programsin Dolittle, transfer the program to robotcars and run them --- plan, construct,debug process.

• Animation (periodic execution).
• Reactive GUI parts (buttons, menus, textfields...).
• Musical outputs.
• Distributed/networked programming.
• Serial port I/O --- robot controls,
sensors, ...

3□ Musical Programming in Dolittle (high school)• Students experienced playing well-known(or original) melodies using Dolittle.

Experiences of Education Using 4”Dolittle”

Summary□ Proposal 2005:necessary.

□ University of Tsukuba Attached High school3

IT Processing education is□ Procedural Automatic-Processing:tools for IT curriculum.

effective□ Dolittle: educational programming languagewith simple, comprehensive syntax and O-O.
□ Dolittle experiences: many classes havesuccessfully used Dolittle.

5References□ IPSJ, Proposal 2005 on Information
and Information Processing Educationin Japan, 2005. (in Japanese)
http://www.ipsj.or.jp/12kyoiku/proposal-20051029.html□ IPSJ, Comments on Accidents Duringlate-2005 to early-2006 and their Relations
to IT Education, 2006. (in Japanese)
http://www.ipsj.or.jp/12kyoiku/statement2006.html□ Dae-Yong Kwon, Hye-Min Gil, Yong-Cheul
Yeum, Seoung-Wook Yoo, Susumu Kanemune,
Yasushi Kuno, Won-Gyu Lee. Application andEvaluation of Object-Oriented Educational
Programming Language Dolittle for Computer
Science Education in Secondary Education.
The Journal of Korean Association of Computer
Education, Vol.7, No.6, pp1-12, 2004.
□ Susumu Kanemune, Yasushi Kuno. Dolittle: anobject-oriented language for K12 education.
EuroLogo 2005, Warszawa, Poland, pp144-153,2005.
□ Susumu Kanemune, Takako Nakatani, Rie
Mitarai, Shingo Fukui, and Yasushi Kuno.
Dolittle 2̆014 Experiences in Teaching
Programming at K12 Schools. The Second
International Conference on Creating,Connecting and Collaborating throughComputing (C5), IEEE, pp.177-184, Kyoto,
Japan, 2004. (invited paper)4