To the Function Machine Team, and All,

Thanks first for such a good, informative & organized presentation. You not only 
handled the anxiety of Going First well but set a nice example for the rest of us. 
Now to some comments/questions motivated by what you said, what you showed us, and 
some of the questions that followed:

1. A basic question I had was, given the fixed number of function machine 
types you're planning to use, will each student encounter each function machine 
type in every session?

2. I was especially impressed by the quality of the observations you've done in Mrs. 
Lynch's class. Based on what you said about the students' obvious devotion to her, 
and your desire to create a "lovable" character, I wonder what/who you're thinking 
would make a successful character for this kind of exercise. Specifically, I wonder 
whether you plan on an animated character as "guide" or "avatar", or whether you have 
in mind something more in the background. A paper you might find interesting for 
thinking about this is:

"The Case for Social Agency in Computer-Based Teaching: Do Students Learn More Deeply 
When They Interact With Animated Pedagogical Agents?" by Moreno, Mayer, Spires and Lester. 
Cognition & Instruction, 2001, Vol. 19 Issue 2, p177. 
E-version: http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=5209623&db=aph

3. The question of motivation raised by Janete is of course important, as is David's 
concern about "levels". I wonder whether you might reconcile some of the competing 
concerns with choice: e.g. could the students choose whether to have the exercise timed? 
to have the different function machines assigned different numbers of points? to have 
different sounds signal the degree of triumph(?!).

A paper everyone might find interesting in this (motivation/assessment) regard, 
especially in the section on "envy", is

"Designing Instructional Technology from an Emotional Perspective," by Astleitner & Leutner. 
Journal of Research on Computing in Education, Summer2000, Vol. 32 Issue 4, p497, 14p. 
E-version at: http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=3168169&db=aph

4. A similar question, motivated by Sussanah's question about the letters, is whether 
the students using the program could somehow create/choose the objects on which the function 
machines could act (I'm thinking here of some sort of palette that would let users choose 
numbers, letters, shapes in various combinations & colors)? Would this wreck the uniformity 
of the exercise? Create a mere distraction? Be helpful/motivating? Would there be any 
value/motivation to allowing a section in which students could make their own function 
machines from a collection of colored shapes and rules that could be mixed and matched?

5. I thought the question Aicha raised about how best to structure/organize a practice 
space was very good. You might consider having two sorts of practice spaces, or a kind of 
hybrid, with one part illustrative (i.e. showing how the rules work) and the other for actual 
practice. If you decide to give students choices in the actual playing of the game, the 
practice space could help introduce the "feel" of the consequences of those choices as well 
(e.g. could give them a chance to try out a timed exercise without
having to commit to it later).

I suppose this is plenty to think about. Please feel free to respond to any of the above, to 
the list or directly to me, if you like; and again thanks to the Group for such an excellent 
first presentation.

Roger