Papert on Logo and learning to program:

The point is that Logo is not a person; it neither promises nor delivers. It's a medium of expression, for both children and teachers; and, when I travel across the country and the world seeing Logo in many different contexts and many different classrooms, I'm struck by the variety of forms it takes in these different settings with different teachers and different children.

This isn't just casual observation. One of my major research interests at the moment is, in fact, examining the way that Logo is taken up by different people in different cultural, social, and educational settings, and becomes something thoroughly different in each of them. If there is anything that Logo promises, it's this protean ability to take different forms—and, if you use it right, to become a kind of mirror in which you can see reflections of yourself.

But there is, of course, no "right way" of using Logo. Trying to establish one would destroy the very diversity I just described. But there are ways of "using it wrong" which I'd like to clarify by quoting a child in an interview—a nine-year-old child who contrasted the fun he'd had during the summer when he had access to Logo on his friend's computer, and what was happening in his school. "In the summer," he said, "we learned to program. At school, they are teaching us to write a program."

Seymour Papert (1985). Different visions of Logo. Computers in the Schools 2(2-3): 3-8.