Personally I'd far rather learn from LiveCode and NOT "Scratch"
(awfully sorry but that was just too juicy to pass up on!)
I posted something that is really goofy on the Forums: basically what I
LiveCode when I'm not being a nutty fruitcake with Sanskrit, but
actually making money
shoe-horning English into young minds.
When I was about 7 years old (that's 50 years ago: spooky when I think
of where all that time has gone)
I went to French lessons and all we had was a monochrome book with small
line drawings, and, oddly
enough we were satisfied with that and we learnt French from Monsieur
Derek whose only other piece
of equipment was a blackboard and bits of coloured chalk: and he did a
d*mn good job too.
Nowadays, young "people" have been "poisoned" by Jobs and his
Technicolor Raincoat and so on.
So, as kids seem to absorb what my generation absorbed from plain paper
from computer screens
that is the way we have to go faute de mieux (Thanks, Derek Swift -
French teacher of mine (1969-1972)).
However (I want "However" chiselled on my gravestone just below "But"),
all the commercial
EFL software that comes strapped to the back of EFL books has these faults:
1. It uses a higher order of language to issue instructions than the
level at which the learners
who are supposed to benefit from that software are supposed to be at.
2. It features screens that are cluttered with "eye-candy" to such an
extent that young learners cannot see
"the wood for the trees" (Thanks, Julian Pyttches - History teacher of
I go for the minimalist, targetted approach.
LiveCode lends itself very well indeed to rapid elementary content
reinforcement and delivery software;
something that may be being overlooked. A teacher should be able to go
from "Zero to Reasonably Competent"
with this sort of thing in a matter of about a week.
> On Nov 3, 2019, at 6:10 AM, Richmond via use-livecode <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 1. It uses a higher order of language to issue instructions than the level at which the learners
> who are supposed to benefit from that software are supposed to be at.
> 2. It features screens that are cluttered with "eye-candy" to such an extent that young learners cannot see
> "the wood for the trees" (Thanks, Julian Pyttches - History teacher of mine (1976-1978)).
Well said! I find both of these faults regularly interfering with commercial instruction packages… and not just electronic delivery.