Mailman 3 January 2001 - Edu-sig

Re: Edu-sig digest, Vol 1 #207 - 5 msgs
by Dorothea Salo 08 Jan '01

08 Jan '01

> I'm pretty sure I'm missing something here, but using HyperCard= > to > present practice problems is a lot different from writing a= > program > to solve the problems. Or did the stacks solve the problems > themselves? Insofar as the stack had to figure out the right answer, yes. I'm practically positive the right answers were algorithmically-derived, not handed to the program up front -- in at least one case I remember, at least two correct solutions were possible, and the program accepted two (the two I tried, anyway) as correct. Essentially, the stack would show you a problem, let you solve it, and tell you whether you were right or wrong. If you were wrong, it would show you the problem ("parallel fifth here" "that isn't really a ii chord") so that you could revise your solution. > I understand that natural language is a wonderful thing, and a > lot of > the interesting stuff in CS is closely related to language. I > just > think that it would be a hard way to teach programming and still > > teach language concepts at the same time. Can writing a program > give > greater appreciation for a work of literature? Maybe it can, and > I > would love to see some examples. With math, however, programming > can > uncover things that would otherwise go unnoticed, and the > programming > is relatively simple. Same for language (which is not the same thing as literature; let's not get our fields mixed here). It's relatively simple to write a program to produce regular verb paradigms from natural-language-of-choice. In the process, though, students absolutely will uncover a lot of knowledge about language they didn't know they had. Toss irregulars into the mix (easier for Romance languages, harder but still possible for English), and you have a winner -- tough-but-interesting programming problem that touches on a significant pedagogical problem. As for literature, I'd turn kids loose on writing a concordancer in a hot minute. It's absolutely astonishing what you can learn about an author's use of language from a concordance. For English poetry, I think stress analysis would be fun (especially combined with a pre-written speech synthesis module). If you stress a poem precisely according to The Rules, does it sound right? Why or (more often!) why not? What departures from The Rules do poets make? Does a poem that precisely fits The Rules necessarily sound better than one that breaks them every now and then? (For Spanish poetry, syllable analysis is the analogous-but-not-identical problem.) > Other subjects would require a pretty extensive > re-evaluation of current curricula and teaching methods This is probably true, but once again, if our goal is genuinely Programming for Everyone, we can't balk at that. In a way, too, part of what I'm putting forward is Natural Language for Programmers, who are reputed (how fairly or unfairly I can't say, not having taught a large enough sample) to have difficulty learning foreign languages. I think the two-way enrichment is part of what CP4E is after. Dorothea -- Dorothea Salo Impressions Book and Journal Services, Inc. phone: (608) 244-6218 fax: (608) 244-7050 http://www.impressions.com

1 0

Re: [Edu-sig] A fact on the ground
by Dirk-Ulrich Heise 08 Jan '01

08 Jan '01

Dirk confirms he intended this for the list, suggested I could redirect... ============= BvR: > >Let me confirm that there is a difference between aptness for math and > >for programming! While I have a math degree, it became clear to me > >that I wasn't a math-head about halfway my second year in college. > >Around the same time it was also abundantly clear that I loved > >programming! :-) > > > >--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) > > > KU: > I think any fork in the road between being a "math head" or a > "programmer" could/should come later in life. In K-12 at least, > we don't want to overspecialize. Synergy, integration, making > connections, is what's good for young and growing neural nets. > > You'll have all the time you need to specialize and narrow your > focus later in life. But lets start with more of a commitment > to well roundedness. Here's how i came to computers: In the age of 15 or so, i started soldering together some synthesizer modules. They sounded terrible, very noisy, and every circuit knew just one trick. As the first sound samplers appeared on the scene, i built my first 8080- based computer in order to make sound. Instead, it turned out to be much more fascinating to build computers and do systems programming. In school, math was easy for me, but i *never* used my homebrew computers or the then-arriving CBMs and C64s for solving math problems. It was always two very distinct things for me. Computing and outputting a sine wave in real time is nearly no math but a lot of assembler language. I understand that it seems natural for math teachers to associate computers with math. They would make just as much sense in music (if music teachers were not so conservative about what is music and what is noise in their ears), natural sciences etc. Using computers is usually a meta-activity, or it starts as a meta-activity: you want to improve the electronic sounds you can make, so you program a computer to produce sounds.You want to visualize a geometric shape, so you program a computer to do that. You want to synthesize natural language, so you build a program for that. Whatever. It has nothing to do with math. Maybe it has more to do with languages than with math. Okay, i use simple arithmetic all the time, like return x[i] is some address arithmetics (at least, it would be in C.). Well, what a lot of complicated math that is!!! You really want to convince me programming and math are related??? Insofar buying a loaf of bread and counting the change is a very math-related activity! Python is quite good for doing math programming, and bad for realtime I/O control, so no wonder that on a Python-centric list people associate "CP4E" with "math". The language you use determines what you can think about. Dipl.Inform. Dirk-Ulrich Heise business: hei(a)adtranzsig.de private: dheise(a)debitel.net

2 2

re: Alice
by Arthur_Siegel＠rsmi.com 07 Jan '01

07 Jan '01

Jim - Thanks for an honest take from another perspective. Looked at the project site. First let me congratulate myself on one thing I learned. Squeak Alice is here. http://www.alice.org/stage3/sqalice.html A much, much better match of aesthetics. My high regard for my own worldliness is reinforced and we prove once again that even paranoids have enemies. >I hesitate to add to this thread, partly because it's difficult to know >exactly what the various participants are really thinking I think I can be accused of ignorance, or stupidity. But I'm saying what I'm thinking. Which is probably my worst stupidity. >In my experience, most successful leaders of university R&D groups have this >characteristic--marketing yourself and your work energetically is almost a >requirement in a setting where external funding defines a person's worth. Heh. Sounds like the world I live in too. And Randy a master by all accounts. But I vote for a world in which the most successful leaders of university R&D groups are those doing the most important work, with the most integrity. I am I Don Quixote. >you haven't mentioned specific examples of bad science or >critiqued specific published hypotheses or results (forgive me if you've >done this and I've just missed it). Alice doesn't have hypothesis and conclusions. Apparently that's old fashion science. It has "lessons". Lessons don't reveal their source or basis which is convenient because you can't refute them. So I will quote from Alice's lessons at http://www.alice.org/stage3/lessons.html <quote> Vocabulary Matters The choice of names for behaviors is critically important in a system for novices. Among the more notable examples in the names we use are: Move, not Translate: Translation, to novices, is the process by which English is translated to French. Resize, not Scale: A scale is an object used to weigh other objects, not a verb. <quote> But whereas you can't refute lessons, you can laugh at them and call them names if you are so inclined. I am so inclined: Laughable shameful silliness. But the lesson I like the best, which gets its own 14 point bold: <quote> Typing is Hard <quote> And of course anyone else is well entitled to laugh at my laughing and call me names. Which I guess is why real science is a good thing.. >Using an environment like this, experimental user interfaces for creating >and manipulating the environments can be created and tested. Never said Alice couldn't be used in doing science. So can card decks and inkblots. >The manipulation of 3D objects provides an outcome that is easy to grasp >cognitively and logic errors are quickly perceived. Manipulation of 3D graphics >is also strongly reinforcing to many people. 100% insanely enthusiatic agreement. > Enthusiasm from Alice proponents in this direction is, I think, > understandable opportunism. A term hard to ponder. But I know I don't like it. If those proponents are serious let them give it some real attention in a serious way. And once we all understand where VR research ends and education begins, I will be the first to welcome them. I am quite serious about that. Stephen Figgins, if he can remember, should be able to verify that one of the first things I ever said about Alice was that I wish I was on the team. No question they are having fun. I like fun. > In any case, it doesn't invalidate Alice's usefulness as a 3D > interface-design laboratory. Alice will be used for secondary purposes > to the extent that it is truly beneficial. No it doesn't invalidate anything. Just having my say on how beneficial I think it has been in this arena to date. >It's reasonable for Python to point to projects with a certain coolness >factor like Alice as examples of the capabilities of the language. Absolutely. The bunnies *are* cute. But I think Lightflow way cooler. >Python will incorporate lessons from Alice and other research People much more important to the future of Python than I have expressed some displeasure about the possible incorporation of at least one of Alice's "lessons". >but it's real success will depend on projects like Zope, optimal relational >and object-oriented database access libraries, porting up-to-date XML >processing software into the Python libraries, Kirby's math curriculum >examples, Jeff Elkner's students' demonstration of excellence, and the like. Amen.

1 0

Re: [Edu-sig] A fact on the ground
by Kirby Urner 07 Jan '01

07 Jan '01

>so, why don't we look at computer science as a discipline of its own, >teach it on its own, and then use it to enhance -other- subjects, not the >other way around. maybe we'd get more people interested in computers early >if it wasn't tied to acheievement in some other subject, so those who like >it can be good at it instead of having to prove themselves at something >they may not like first. > > >Andrew I think a better solution is to make sure that no math barrier prerequistes get set up to prevent those eager to learn programming from getting into it. Your remark that your math skills have improved through programming is precisely the reason I advocate phasing in more programming, starting early, and not making it a matter of prerequisites. It's just that math courses are cram packed with stuff it makes sense to program around. So even IF the computer science or programming courses ARE offered separately down the hall, by other teachers, my sincere hope is that the math teachers don't sit on their hands and make do with mere calculators, while the real party passes them by. Math class should be fully endowed with high tech, not languish as a "calculator ghetto" while all the good stuff happens in other areas. Kirby

5 4

Re: Alice (was re: Question about a programming system.)
by Arthur_Siegel＠rsmi.com 07 Jan '01

07 Jan '01

"Stephen R. Figgins" <fig(a)monitor.net> on 01/05/2001 07:05:52 PM >>You have more of a specific objection to this project. You consider >>it opportunistic and bad science. Keyword - "opportunistic" >>I actually didn't get the impression that it was meant to be science at >>all I'm disarmed again. I can't argue against Alice as science because its not supposed to be science. I can't argue against it as relevent to education because its not supposed to be relevant to education. I can't argue against it as relevant to teaching programming because of course that was never its intent. And the unavoidable truth is that my issue is with owner@edu-sig - who keeps citing its significance while being unwilling to engage on the topic. Did I make up the fact he cited the Alice "studies" as a key factor in a decision whether to case insensitize Python, nearly turning the world on its head. Did I make up the fact that his Linux Journal article on CP4E never mentioned Python, but was all about some abstract conception of human/computer interface. We are not being honest if we don't see the Alice in it. So either I'm blowing smoke at straw horses in which case I'm happy to shut-up, or I'm taking a stand on something that is of clear significance to the business of Python/CP4E - in which case I am happy to continue the discussion.

3 2

Re: Alice
by Arthur_Siegel＠rsmi.com 06 Jan '01

06 Jan '01

>>I guess my own view at this time is Alice is harmless ... Essentially true, now. But some efforts towards keeping its ambitions in check may not be a wholly unworthy or unnecessary endeavor. Truly sadly to me, that has come to mean tangling with Guido. Knowing I might seem off on a crazy tangent to most. And suspecting I will not be winning any popularity contests in the community. >> Arthur or Guido, as both are fonts of creativity I don't put myself anywhere near his class. But I do consider myself at least as worldly.

1 0

Re: [Edu-sig] re: Question about a programming system.
by Arthur_Siegel＠rsmi.com 06 Jan '01

06 Jan '01

"Stephen R. Figgins" <fig(a)monitor.net> on 01/05/2001 04:33:05 PM To: Arthur Siegel/NewYork/MP/RSMi@RSMi, edu-sig(a)python.org cc: Subject: Re: [Edu-sig] re: Question about a programming system. >Am I understanding you right? Not fully. I wouldn't be quite as passionate if it was only that. I happily accept Alice for what it publically states itself to be - "free and easy interactive 3d graphics for the world wide web" I think is the wording. But if you look at the history of the project it has become whatever it needs to say it is to different audiences at different times to try to justify its existence. And it has been all over the lot, It has never stated clearly what its intention were and lived within those statements. I see it as fundamentally without integrity. And the dissertation to the extent it has pretenses to being science, is corrupt science. Love to be knocked down on this. I have already been accused of everything from missing its importance as exploration of computer/human interaction to not appreciating how cute the bunnies are. IMO, now that you've asked

2 1

A fact on the ground
by Arthur_Siegel＠rsmi.com 06 Jan '01

06 Jan '01

Any kind of programming one might be doing of any seriousness- math related or not - it is a means to some end, not an end to itself. That statement would seem to be supportable by everyone who posted up on the topic. If programming is going to be introduced into the school system, it should earn its place - be a means to some end Which is a more controversial statement, perhaps, but reasonable I think, where precious resources are being consumed, and a small percentage of the students are likely to have a lifelong interest in the subject. So it is not so such a matter of introducing programming in a math curriculum, but enhancing math education with the tool. One does need to buy-in that a grounding in and excitement about math is a worthy goal And I hope we are not at the point where that is a controversial matter. The best intentions of using elementary programming skills to enhance other fundamental subject matter in fundamental ways has been discussed abstractly Kirby's work - which he knows well I have my own quibbles with - is well beyond the abstract discussion stage. We know we are talking about something real So hoping we send the math teachers to Kirby's math school rather tham Industrial Artists to Java school, should not be a suggestion that should raise many hackles here, I would think.

1 0

Re: [Edu-sig] re: Question about a programming system.
by Arthur_Siegel＠rsmi.com 05 Jan '01

05 Jan '01

Benjamin Fallenstein <b.fallenstein(a)gmx.de> on 01/05/2001 08:57:40 AM To: Arthur Siegel/NewYork/MP/RSMi@RSMi cc: edu-sig(a)python.org Subject: Re: [Edu-sig] re: Question about a programming system. >I can't say anything about Alice menuing yet (haven't found anything >related to it), but about PovTalk. (At least about the comparison to the >notes about my programming system experiment.) PovTalk let's you *key >in* statements in natural language, I believe I understand, in broad terms at least, why none of the apps I cited are greatly on point to what you are trying to accomplish. What I don't understand is why Alice is. Nor apparentlyt do you, yet. What I would say is that one of the greaqt challenges you face is achieving simplicity and accessibility while avoiding condescension. Looked at it aestthetically, rather than technically, Python achieves this wonderfully. Alice, for whatever else it might accomplish (and I admit I'm even missing that) fails miserably. I see Python|Alice as a monstrous aesthetic clash. Which is why I persist in seeking an explanation from Guido on what he sees and I miss.

3 2

Re: [Edu-sig] A fact on the ground
by Kirby Urner 05 Jan '01

05 Jan '01

>Let me confirm that there is a difference between aptness for math and >for programming! While I have a math degree, it became clear to me >that I wasn't a math-head about halfway my second year in college. >Around the same time it was also abundantly clear that I loved >programming! :-) > >--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) > I think any fork in the road between being a "math head" or a "programmer" could/should come later in life. In K-12 at least, we don't want to overspecialize. Synergy, integration, making connections, is what's good for young and growing neural nets. You'll have all the time you need to specialize and narrow your focus later in life. But lets start with more of a commitment to well roundedness. Let's call it "numeracy" if labels are the problem. Calling it "math" or "computer science" gives people the wrong idea that we're trying to mirror specialists in these respective disciplines. There need be no hard lines between math and computer science in the early grades (unless your goal is to play turf wars, in which case maybe we should transfer our kids to a school with a more enlightened faculty). Kirby

2 2