Mailman 3 February 2000 - Edu-sig

RE: [Edu-sig] Age groups
by Jason L. Asbahr Feb. 11, 2000

Feb. 11, 2000

At 08:50 PM 2/10/00 -0600, Dustin wrote: > >Now imagine that we allow a student to drag-and-drop 'steps' into a >'program', then click 'go' to see the program do its thing. Suddenly they >can see the effects of their sequencing, and experiment until they get it >right. Great idea, Dustin! It sounds a lot like the Lego Mindstorms robotic kit programming environment -- but a truly visual Python IDE. A window to the side could show the actual text of the program that they are assembling, with correct case usage of course. ;-) "Syntax errors" could be shown in the graphical environment with large blinking red arrows, and if the IDE is smart enough, it could suggest alternate orderings or constructions. There is no reason why the text window couldn't also be edited, which would affect the graphical representation as it text was recognized. Outside library modules could be imported into the environment, allowing students to program actually useful -- or at least effective -- software, performing tasks like reading mail from a remote server, printing out 2D and 3D graphics, or other interesting hands-on activities. Anyone remember the BASIC programming cartridge for the Atari 2600? It came with a unique push button controller with button like "for" and, of course, "goto". Anyway, building such a visual programming environment for Python seems to me to be an excellent near term goal for the CP4E crowd. There are R&D aspects to it, no commercial IDE vendor would be likely address this market, and learners could smoothly transition from visual representation and manipulation to actual textual programming. As long as it is open source, we could start simply, with modest goals, and expand the system over time. Heck, students themselves could expand the system as their final project in class. :-) Could such a system be added to IDLE? Jason Asbahr Origin Systems, Inc. jasbahr(a)origin.ea.com

1 0

Re: [Edu-sig] Getting it going (long)
by Ulf Engstr�m Feb. 11, 2000

Feb. 11, 2000

> > Seems like some people have gathered up now, but still the posting is >close > to nothing. > >That's probably because everyone thinks "I'm not talking yet because I >don't want to repeat things". I'm going to say everyone joining after now >to read the archives. But reading the archives can't take more then 10 minutes as of now, and then they don't have to be afraid to repeat. I think it's mostly a matter of people not really knowing what to say before everything's gotten started. I'm one of those people who really doesn't like it when it too quiet and therefore talking with or without something to say ;) > > With what intentions do you all get into this and what kind of >discussions > should we have? > >Everythink concerning education: >* changes to Python like case insensitivity >* how to explain things in books, lik a variable is a box with a > sticker on it, a dictionairy is a... a class is a... >* CP4E >* ...any suggestions? I don't wanna get into a big discussion about this, but I really prefer a language to be case sensitive. I know some people have trouble seeing the difference between upper and lower case, so it might be a thing that would have to be changed in order for 'Everyone' to learn. I just hope it won't be necessary. > > The post from Matthias Felleisen for example wasn't really > focusing on >Python but on CP4E using any existing languages or creating one. > >I wouldn't like it if Python became case sensitive. But that's me. If >there'll be a big quarrel, we can split up the interpreter. But I hope >that won't be necesarry, because it would only give more difficulties. Splitting the interpreter is not such a good idea, and it'd mean a lot of problems importing modules, since some people are going to use var-names such as In instead of using in which is reserved, as long as the language is case sensitive. > > Are we focusing on general CP4E or Python? > >CP4E, with Python as language. OKi :) > > Do we wanna build new tools, > >No, we want to extent idle. One patch I want to write is that >"if a:" autoindents, "if a: # if it's true" does not. I can't find where >to change it, and that's one thing Guido pointed out: tools would make >that easier. Especially (how do you spell that word?) for kids. But I >don't think new tools would be needed for that: idle could be extended >and promoted. Then I think we come to another question as well; seems like we're focusing a lot about learning for children (which I like), but I think that if we're talking everyone, we should talk about older novices as well. And they don't need an extended IDLE, they don't need 3D-stuff. They just need someone to show them Python. I think even a lot of kids could learn a lot from the current IDLE, which I myself really like for fast interaction. > > make smaller implications of the core language of Python, > >Why would we? Something smaller is easier to learn, and eventhough the core language is not that big, there are still some things in there that's been on the python-list that 'can' be taken away. Take the well-talked-of lambda (Sorry for bringing it up again Guido), it's used a whole lot now and can't be taken away, but is that something someone wanna try to teach a novice? Also in the standard distribution there's a lot of things that a beginner to a language don't need. "OKi, so don't use them". But if they're there, you ARE gonna look them up, right? At least that's the curious me ;) > > or discuss how to teach, > >Definetely. Great :) Are there many school-teachers here? Are people planning to teach as an extra thing? Someone wanna teach teachers? I myself would like to go to a couple of schools and just show them Python, I think that'd make a big difference. Also planning on writing some programming things. > > which books are good for teaching > > and what books we can write? (I'm interested either way:) > >I'd love to see such a book. And because it's for kids, translating >is important. I want to help with the book. I think I'm the youngest >one here who learned programming as a kid, *almost* with python. I tried >to learn Python first, but didn't understand it. After a Logo like >language, learning what variables and lists are, I did understand it. I'm not very old either, and I've been more or less programming since your age (started a little earlier, got stuck without a computer for a couple of years and returned;), but I didn't know of Python 'til last year, after going through a 15 languages or so, not beeing an expert in either one. But after learning a lot of basics from languages I know how *I* like an introduction to be and how I learn. (One thing is that I'm an 'by example' learner) >I think that bridge should be destroyed. Not only for English speaking >kids, but also for Dutch, German, French, Japanese and Chinese speaking >kids. But translating is definately something for the future. Of course :) > > I've been programming for a couple of years and stumbled onto Python 6 > >months ago, and now I do all my programming in Python. I'm trying to help > >some of my friends to start programming with Python instead of C/C++ which > > they are beeing taught in school now, but don't get at all. Their >progress > in Python is a lot better however. I think Python is a perfect >language to > start out with and I'd sure like to teach it to people of any >age. (I'm not > a teacher, but I might get to teach others in my job) > >I already got *five* people to learn Python instead of C, C++, Perl, Pascal >and Java :) That's great going, and if now everyone in here get 5 new, and each of those 5 get 5 new and ... and... ;) We're gonna conquer the world ;) Regards Ulf Engstrøm (mail) ulf.engstrom(a)b2b-link.com (phone) +47 6676 5863 (fax) +47 6676 5861 (web) http://www.b2b-link.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

10 15

Brains
by Fredrik Lundh Feb. 10, 2000

Feb. 10, 2000

Gerrit Holl wrote: > > I believe that with the right way of teaching it anyone can understand it > > (left or right-brained, and btw I have to say I think most ppl here are > > left-brainers, but don't flame me over this one) > What does right-brained or left-brained mean? picking a random URL: http://www.funderstanding.com/learning_theory_how8.html (I actually tested my brain in the mid-eighties, using a clever little device created by some swedish researchers. I was the only whole-brained programmer they'd ever stumbled upon ;-) </F>

3 4

Re: Edu-sig digest, Vol 1 #15 - 4 msgs
by sam schulenburg Feb. 10, 2000

Feb. 10, 2000

----- Original Message ----- From: <edu-sig-request(a)python.org> To: <edu-sig(a)python.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 9:00 AM Subject: Edu-sig digest, Vol 1 #15 - 4 msgs > Send Edu-sig mailing list submissions to > edu-sig(a)python.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > edu-sig-request(a)python.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > edu-sig-admin(a)python.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Edu-sig digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. More re "Python Notation" (Kirby Urner) > 2. RE: Rational Division (Jeffrey Kunce) > 3. Re: Rational Division (Frank Stajano) > 4. Re: Rational Division (Gerrit Holl) > > --__--__-- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 09:15:41 -0800 > To: edu-sig(a)python.org > From: Kirby Urner <pdx4d(a)teleport.com> > <s89ef61d.093(a)mail.conservation.state.mo.us> > <000201bf71ff$ad48ece0$d92d153f@tim> > Subject: [Edu-sig] More re "Python Notation" > > > I meant to shut up for a week and concentrate exlusively > on writing Xbase for money, but this edu-sig is just too=20 > interesting -- can't resist... > > Math notations assume human "parcers" -- increasingly=20 > numerate readers as the training progresses. A lot of=20 > work goes into getting those humans "programmed" to read=20 > without stumbling. > > Software engineers typically have two "clients" for their=20 > output, a stupid but extremely fast and efficient machine > on the one hand, and the "naive user" on the other. =20 > > The progammer is the mediator, writing all sorts of error=20 > checking into the code, trying to anticipate what that > "naive user" might do (or a malicious hacker) and trying=20 > to protect the integrity of the application (keep it from=20 > crashing and/or becoming hopelessly confused). > > Some of what I'm doing with Python flies in the face of=20 > all this "reflex conditioning" on the part of programmers. > I'm not trying to make robust code that runs on expensive=20 > computers, where crashes mean big bucks, angry clients,=20 > loss of jobs. > > Rather, I'm going back to the "trained human readers" paradigm=20 > (not naive). They're reading Python as an alternative way=20 > to express some ideas, such as:=20 > > * how to generate Pascal's Triangle using expressions=20 > with factorial in them=20 > * how to spit out the number of spheres in a triangular,=20 > square, cubic, half-octahedral or cuboctahedral packing =20 > > I've posted some code for all of the above in earlier posts,=20 > except for this last, which I'll give here: > > def cubocta(L): > # L is number of layers in a cuboctahedral packing > # Returns cumulative number of spheres > return (10.0/3.0)*L**3 + 5*L**2 + (11.0/3.0)*F + 1 > > In action: > > >>> cubocta(1) > 13.0 > >>> cubocta(0) > 1.0 > >>> cubocta(2) > 55.0 > >>> cubocta(100) > 3383701.0 > > Notice: I don't check for negative numbers (which in this > case would actually work -- but have no geometric interpretation=20 > in this context -- i.e. are "meaningless"). L is supposed to=20 > be "the number of layers around a nuclear sphere" and is a whole=20 > number. In my classroom context, it may be assumed that students=20 > simply know this. We aren't going to clutter the function with=20 > a lot of error trapping. > > Here's a web page with an animated GIF showing a growing=20 > cuboctahedron, plus other animations showing how this relates > to crystallography. I did these GIFs using Java + Povray,=20 > but could have done them using Python + Povray (I just=20 > hadn't written oop7.html yet): > > http://www.inetarena.com/~pdx4d/ocn/xtals101.html > > Although math books include the concept of "domain of a function"=20 > (as one subscriber pointed out by private email), the economy=20 > of expressions like n!/k!(n-k)! depend on our _not_ cluttering=20 > the notation with a lot of redundant "error checking" to make=20 > sure the archetypal "naive reader" doesn't substitute -10,=20 > Root(2), or a character string for n or k. =20 > > In a "for humans only" text, you've codified the "domain" of=20 > factorial elsewhere, probably in a different book, at a different=20 > grade level. Now you just assume all this "context sensitivity"=20 > on the part of your readers -- something software engineers=20 > have rarely felt their workaday world allowed them to assume=20 > (machines don't do context, and the naive users need to have=20 > their errors trapped). > > So, as a classroom-focused math teacher, my bias is different=20 > from the software engineer's. The Python I write is for human=20 > readers to scan and comprehend, much as they learn to scan=20 > and comprehend those "crypto-compressed" math notations we=20 > already expect them to learn (a lot of geeky greek letters,=20 > like SIGMA, PHI, PI, THETA). =20 > > Plus Python has the added benefit of being machine-interpreted=20 > out the back -- so you can set up these interactive situations=20 > with a computer that offer immediate feedback and reinforcement. =20 > Every time you test an expression or short function definition,=20 > you get rewarded with a response (kind of like having a text=20 > book with "answers in the back" -- you can immediately confirm=20 > your understanding, or lack thereof). > > So, now that I've set up all this context, I will conclude by=20 > appending a real life post to the Association of Mathematics=20 > Teacher Educators (AMTE) listserv. I don't mention Python by=20 > name, but you'll see how I'm practicing this very philosophy=20 > in that context: > > ------------------------------------------------ > Archived at the Math Forum=20 > thread =3D http://forum.swarthmore.edu/epigone/amte/belgandjy > ------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Re: substitution > Author: Kirby Urner <pdx4d(a)teleport.com> > Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 16:36:19 -0800 > > > =3D Sally > =3D Kirby > > > For another example with perhaps makes is clearer,=20 > > f(x)=3Dx^2, g(x)=3Dx+1, find f=B0g(x) and g=B0f(x). (The symbol =B0 is=20 > > a degree sign on my keyboard, the closest I can come to the=20 > > composition symbol, but it might not be that on others' > > screens.) When this is first introduced at least half of=20 > > the students will give me f=B0g(x)=3Dx^2+1 AND g=B0f(x)=3D(x+1)^2. > > When doing composition of functions, I might have a student > perform the role of x + 1. "Whenever someone gives you a number, > your job is to simply add 1 to it and hand it back." =20 > > Sally takes that job. We test it out a few times. Looks like=20 > she's got the hang of it. Sally(x) =3D x + 1 > > Frank's job is to multiply a number by itself and return the=20 > result. We do a little job training to make sure he's got it=20 > down. Fred(x) =3D x * x > > So let's say I start with 3 and hand it to Sally. I get back 4. > Now I take my 4 and hand it to Frank. I get back 16. Suppose > I go in the reverse order. I start with 3 again, get back 9=20 > from Frank and then 10 from Sally. Different answer. Order > matters. > > Or we could talk about other operations, besides those dealing > with numbers. =20 > > Sally paints anything she's given the color red. > > Frank paints green polka dots on whatever he's given. =20 > > So if I give this toy horse to Sally first, then Frank, I get=20 > back a red horse with green polka dots. But what happens if=20 > I give it to Frank first and then Sally? Again, order matters. > > Frank(Sally(horse)) --> red horse w/ green dots > Sally(Frank(horse)) --> horse is completely red (dots=20 > painted over) > > If my class has access to an interactive command line (as per=20 > earlier posts re my favored model of a math class), they could=20 > explore composition of functions by writing two definitions=20 > and taking g(f(x)) vs f(g(x)) -- no need for the little circle=20 > symbol I don't think, or we can show them that later (it's=20 > somewhat redundant). I'd expect students to make up their=20 > own functions and test the outcomes of composition. > > And again (as per my last post), I'd like to *move away*=20 > from:=20 > > (a) the idea that operations are always about numbers (real=20 > or otherwise) and=20 > (b) the convention of using single letters for method and > variable names > > On the contrary, I want my students to: > > (a) see "operations" as more generic than "number functions" > (b) get in the habit of using longer strings to name their > variables and operations > > In the example below, I follow my own advice: > > >>> 'A'*3 =20 > 'AAA' > > [Note: when used with a characters, the operators * and +=20 > mean 'repeat' and 'concatenate' respectively. This exercise > presumes students are already quite familiar with this=20 > behavior.] > > >>> def Sally(input): > return input * 3 > =09 > >>> def Frank(input): > return "CA"+input > =09 > =09 > >>> Frank("T") > 'CAT' > >>> Sally("T") > 'TTT' > >>> Frank(Sally("T")) > 'CATTT' > >>> Sally(Frank("T")) > 'CATCATCAT' > > In the exercise given: > > f(x)=3Dx^2, g(x)=3Dx+1 > > f=B0g(x)=3D ? > > I might write an alternative next to it, such as: > > temp =3D g(x) > answer =3D f(temp) > > This makes it clearer that the output of the innermost > function is the input of the enclosing function. Or I might=20 > use concentric circles, with g inside of f (I've seen text=20 > books that do this). > > I'm sure other list members have tried many of these ideas > (plus many more), with varying degrees of success. > > Sometimes it's just the notation that's confusing, and switching=20 > to some other notation, while keeping all the ideas intact, clears=20 > up some conceptual confusions. Then you can go back to the original=20 > notation, with more confidance that the concepts are well-anchored. > > Kirby > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > None of this means that I'm "against" using Python in other > ways (e.g. to teach computer programming). It's a great > segue into all kinds of other patterns of usage. But I=20 > just wanted to be clearer about my model, which owes a lot > to Iverson's APL. APL is the first programming language=20 > I ever learned, and it was love at first sight. And APL, > as some of you know, was originally a chalk board notation. =20 > It was designed for sophisticated human readers, _plus_ it=20 > had the advantage of being executable in silicon circuits. > Just amazing. > > Kirby > > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 11:52:46 -0600 > From: "Jeffrey Kunce" <kuncej(a)mail.conservation.state.mo.us> > To: <edu-sig(a)python.org> > Subject: RE: [Edu-sig] Rational Division > > [Tim Peters] > > > I don't buy into this. Python's closest predecessor (ABC) *was* = > designed to > > be maximally unsurprising (via iterative user testing and redesign), and > > ended up a self-contained universe, thoroughly isolating its users even = > from > > their native filesystem ("too quirky"). Python tries to regularize the = > mess > > that is the "real computing world", but doesn't try to deny or hide its > > existence. CP4E's goals seem much more in tune with that latter. > > I'm not sure that CP4E's goals are that well defined. There were a lot > of proponents for "Everyone" being virtually everyone. The Alice people > are proceeding on that premise, and they are the ones who brought up > the case and division issues. > > My opinion is that CP4E should concentrate, initially, on serving those=20 > who already *want* to learn or teach programming, but who are frustrated > because of lack of resources and because of the mess you refer to. > From this POV, I think python is pretty darn good just as it is > > --Jeff > > > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 22:45:27 +0000 > To: gerrit(a)nl.linux.org, Tim Peters <tim_one(a)email.msn.com> > From: Frank Stajano <fstajano(a)uk.research.att.com> > Subject: Re: [Edu-sig] Rational Division > Cc: edu-sig(a)python.org > <s89ef61d.093(a)mail.conservation.state.mo.us> > <000201bf71ff$ad48ece0$d92d153f@tim> > > At 2000-02-08 15:21 +0100, Gerrit Holl wrote: > >2/3 is 0 rest 1. That's what I learned when I was 7, 8 years old. > > I won't question what you learnt when you were little, and indeed different > primary schools in different parts of the world may follow very different > systems; but at mine they would have failed me in arithmetic unless I > upgraded that answer to 0 rest 2 ;-) > > Frank (http://i.am/filologo.disneyano/) http://www.uk.research.att.com/~fms/ > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 08:14:09 +0100 > From: Gerrit Holl <gerrit.holl(a)pobox.com> > To: Frank Stajano <fstajano(a)uk.research.att.com> > Cc: Tim Peters <tim_one(a)email.msn.com>, edu-sig(a)python.org > Subject: Re: [Edu-sig] Rational Division > Reply-To: Gerrit <gerrit(a)nl.linux.org> > Tim Peters <tim_one(a)email.msn.com>, edu-sig(a)python.org > > Frank Stajano wrote on 950046327: > > At 2000-02-08 15:21 +0100, Gerrit Holl wrote: > > >2/3 is 0 rest 1. That's what I learned when I was 7, 8 years old. > > > > I won't question what you learnt when you were little, and indeed different > > primary schools in different parts of the world may follow very different > > systems; but at mine they would have failed me in arithmetic unless I > > upgraded that answer to 0 rest 2 ;-) > > Oops! > 0 rest 2, of course. > > regards, > Gerrit. > > -- > Homepage: http://www.nl.linux.org/~gerrit > -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- http://www.geekcode.com > Version: 3.12 > GCS dpu s-:-- a14 C++++>$ UL++ P--- L+++ E--- W++ N o? K? w--- !O > !M !V PS+ PE? Y? PGP-- t- 5? X? R- tv- b+(++) DI D+ G++ !e !r !y > -----END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- moc.edockeeg.www//:ptth > > > > --__--__-- > > _______________________________________________ > Edu-sig mailing list > Edu-sig(a)python.org > http://www.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig > > > End of Edu-sig Digest_______________________________________________ > Edu-sig mailing list > Edu-sig(a)python.org > http://www.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig

1 0

Re: Rational Division
by Gordon Worley Feb. 10, 2000

Feb. 10, 2000

This isn't really a problem. It's just a lack of knowledge about syntax. It's not intuitive (because they don't teach it this way in school), but it makes sense once you know about it. Oh yeah, here's it (taken from a Python interpreter session): >>> 2/3 #returns number of times can be divided into 0 >>> 2%3 #modulus, returns remainder 2 >>> 2.0/3.0 #decimals make them floats 0.666666666667 As you can see, there is a way to do all the behaviors that might be expected, it just takes an appropriate knowledge of the syntax to do it. Just as it is necessary to know the syntax for control statements, it is also necessary to know the proper syntax for preforming basic arithmetic. - Gordon Worley http://www.crosswinds.net/~orla_redbird/ mailto:orla_redbird@crosswinds.net

1 0

Re: [Edu-sig] Classes and learning (Was:Age groups)
by Ulf Engstr�m Feb. 9, 2000

Feb. 9, 2000

I've been programming for quite some years and I've been through a couple of OO languages. I could get it working and thought I understood. When I learned Python (first with Guido's tutorial and then with Learning Python) I finally did understand for sure. The conclusion I took from my own learning was that either: * It took me that long to really understand * It's highly dependent on the language you do it in and the tutorial you learn it from I think mostly the second one, that makes most sence for me. But when we then here the opinions from others; Gerrit thought it was hard even with Python, but did however get it, and others that got it immediately from any OO-language. I believe that with the right way of teaching it anyone can understand it (left or right-brained, and btw I have to say I think most ppl here are left-brainers, but don't flame me over this one) and use it, but it can't be forced on the Everyone and it'll have to take some time. It's sure not the first thing to learn. And when you're gonna learn it it's important with a lot of examples, classes are kinda abstract for most people, but with examples it make sence. Regards Ulf Engstrøm (mail) ulf.engstrom(a)b2b-link.com (phone) +47 6676 5863 (fax) +47 6676 5861 (web) http://www.b2b-link.com >That's funny. My experience was quite different. When I first saw >objects and classes it was like a relevation from God. They seemed >intuitively obvious and the answer to my prayers. I wonder if this > is a >right brain/left brain thing or something. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

Re: [Edu-sig] Rational Division
by Jeffrey Kunce Feb. 9, 2000

Feb. 9, 2000

>> So, what does "E" think? Does 2/3==0 or does 2/3==1 >> or does 2/3=0.66..67 or does 2/3==2/3? >In E, there are two operators for division: > 2 / 3 yields 0.666666 > 2 _/ 3 yields 0 Leave it to me to try to be cute and wind up obscuring my point. Leave it to Ping to dig up a language called "E" I meant "Everyone" as in CP4*E* :-) Some people have been saying that "Everyone" thinks 2/3==0.6666 Others say that 2/3 is obviously 0 I was suggesting that perhaps "Everyone" thinks 2/3==2/3 It should be tested, of course, by asking a subset of "Everyone" But this is similar to the case-sensitive issue, and Guido has spoken. I stand by my general point, though. Programmers don't have a clue about what "Everyone" thinks or needs. If we pretend we do, CP4E will have all the credibility of a Star Trek convention. --Jeff

5 5

RE: [Edu-sig] Rational Division
by Jeffrey Kunce Feb. 8, 2000

Feb. 8, 2000

[Tim Peters] > I don't buy into this. Python's closest predecessor (ABC) *was* designed to > be maximally unsurprising (via iterative user testing and redesign), and > ended up a self-contained universe, thoroughly isolating its users even from > their native filesystem ("too quirky"). Python tries to regularize the mess > that is the "real computing world", but doesn't try to deny or hide its > existence. CP4E's goals seem much more in tune with that latter. I'm not sure that CP4E's goals are that well defined. There were a lot of proponents for "Everyone" being virtually everyone. The Alice people are proceeding on that premise, and they are the ones who brought up the case and division issues. My opinion is that CP4E should concentrate, initially, on serving those who already *want* to learn or teach programming, but who are frustrated because of lack of resources and because of the mess you refer to. >From this POV, I think python is pretty darn good just as it is --Jeff

1 0

More on age
by Gordon Worley Feb. 8, 2000

Feb. 8, 2000

Many of you seem to be ignoring the studies of psychologist (unless most of you are previously unfamilier with the studies that I'm about to mention). While my HS book likes to be broad in mentioning studies (i.e. it doesn't give any way to learn about the specific experiments that it reads about), it happen to list the develop of cognative functions according to age. Skipping a few ages, it has been found that people can generally not abstract information until they are circa 12 years old. Trust me, this is the truth, because I began programming in 2nd grade and for a long time was largely unsuccessful because I was programming by patterning. By that I mean that I knew what to type by taking old code and changing a thing or two to make it do what I wanted. When I did program new code, it was because I remembered the old code and just reimplimented it with slightly different syntax. I started trying to learn Java in 7th grade, and still didn't understand it all until I made it to 9th, because I was a The difference may seem trivial to some of you, but consider that until one can abstract, programming abilities will always limited to what one has already seen coded (this is not entirely true, it is possible to intuitively combine patterns to get new patterns and to just happen to, by accident, create new code). For example, my first Java project was to create a simple sketching program. The book I was using provided plenty of good patterns to look at for how to develop the drawing space, the drawing events, and the GUI. Making a space to sketch in and then making sketching happen was easy, since the book practically did it for me. The GUI, on the other hand, was considerably more complicated to design. I had no problems when I did exctly what the book said to and then changed it to fit my program, but in trying to developing a new interface that would be specific to the functions that I could impliment in my program, my attempts were disatorious. This was not a case of inability to code or lack of What this all comes around to is that, while you can try to teach sub12 year olds how to program, results will always be limited. In addition, it is very important to spell things out *exactly* to the younger age group, because they will not make those abstract connectiosn like their slightly older counterparts will. If you say to a class of young children that a list can contain any type of variable, you need to show them an example of every variable class being used as a list item. In a similar way, it is necessary to show that spam + grail = grail + spam and in the fuction spam(arga, argb, argc), arga, arb, and argc can have any name, but must have the correct type of data in them. Trust me, if you show every instance you can think of and give lots of sample code, young children will do fine, but if you start to assume that they can suddendly jump from spam(arg), arg is number to spam(gra), gra also has to be a number. - Gordon Worley http://www.crosswinds.net/~orla_redbird/ mailto:orla_redbird@crosswinds.net

2 1

RE: [Edu-sig] Rational Division
by Will Ware Feb. 8, 2000

Feb. 8, 2000

Regarding rational division (and extensible, one imagines, to the issue of case sensitivity), Tim Peters wrote: <<< One way to "make learning easy" is to (as in the recent Dijkstra quote) infantalize the subject matter. If that's what CP4E becomes, why bother ... >>> The principle of minimal surprises is laudable, but zero surprises is unattainable. Perhaps there should be a budget of, say, a half-dozen surprises. Two have been used up, four are left for future issues. I found learning easiest when the subject matter had some kind of organizing principle. This was easy to find in math and science, and would have been easy in a programming class if one had been available, but I couldn't find one in history or English. The English language is full of irregular verbs and awkward spellings, yet we expect even the dummies to stumble through it more or less successfully. Maybe Everybody has a slightly larger capacity for surprises than one might think. -- I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And -- -- I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. -- Will Ware - N1IBT - wware(a)world.std.com

1 0