Well, it only proves Scratch is not good for kids learning math, and the paper has some weak points as pointed out in other posts.
Actually, my first reaction when I heard of Scratch was -- why are these poor kids forced to learn something they will never use in the future of their lives?
The paper got one thing right -- it doesn't make any sense to design visual language deliberately for kids education. It's like saying -- kid, you are so naive so you have to do visual programming, even though it is slow and inefficient. If you are the kid, will you feel good?
If I have to choose a programming language for kids, I will choose LOGO.
It shows potential but still remains a toy for now, reminding me of the looping app on iPad where you can add or remove loops to compose music. You will never fail, but that's the problem: improvisation often comes with risk and that makes us exciting. Can learn different things from other interesting web-based interfaces:
Actually, my first reaction when I heard of Scratch was -- why are these poor kids forced to learn something they will never use in the future of their lives?
The paper got one thing right -- it doesn't make any sense to design visual language deliberately for kids education. It's like saying -- kid, you are so naive so you have to do visual programming, even though it is slow and inefficient. If you are the kid, will you feel good?
If I have to choose a programming language for kids, I will choose LOGO.
Code for visual! Not visual for code!