To: Arthur <ajs@ix.netcom.com> cc: edu-sig@python.org Subject: Re: [Edu-sig] re: CP4E-2002 From: Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 22:33:52 -0400
Art, have you actually *read* the CP4E proposal? Or are you basing your rejection still on the article I wrote for LJ?
I am not so naive to expect that most children of 7-8 years old can learn to program -- though there definitely have been unusually talented children that young who *have* used Python (and everything else from Basic to assembler) successfully to create what can only be called computer programs.
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
I've haven't been reading this thread in detail - but if anyone is interested in the extent to which young children can learn to program, I recommend checking out a project by colleagues of mine, "Playground", which was precisely aimed at investigating what 7-8 year old children could learn in a "visual programming" environment (ToonTalk - www.toontalk.com ) - www.ioe.ac.uk/playground (The web site is a bit neglected, since the project is finished - but email them for more details) Piaget is often wheeled out in arguments like this to "demonstrate" that children cannot access formal reasoning until they achieve the "formal stage" (around 12 years old). However, I think the case against Piaget is pretty conclusive now (besides, Piaget is "out" in educational theory and we're all supposed to "into" Vygotsky nowadays). An old, but very very good argument for why computers change mental performance is "Mindstorms" by Seymour Papert (1980). And more recently, "Changing Minds" by Andrea diSessa (MIT Press, 2000). - Phillip ++++++ Dr Phillip Kent, London, UK mathematics education technology research p.kent@mail.com mobile: 07950 952034 ++++++
For what its worth, I do not doubt for a second that young children can 'program'. I believe we will later look back in astonishment at these early days when it was even questioned. Why am I so sure? Because from birth we learn at a phenomenal rate. We are seemingly hard- and soft-wired for *Language*. What biology left out, the momentum of living and our environment takes care of. Children [we all of us] program all the time. This is often called 'play'. And now we have new digital 'toys and games' like computers and Python. We have long ways to go in making them really suitable for children. Partly because of the chosen forms, functions, and design principle they manifest. But also in large measure simply because of how we use, view, present and teach them ourselves. How many would agree that toughest problems of widespread 'computational literacy' is lack of good experienced teachers and parents, (in societies that can afford it)? Compounded by educational inertia, conservatism, ignorance and fear. It is pretty safe so say that everyone here is witness to being the first generation who had these tools...um\ 'toys', including global internet. Perhaps the second generation to experience from birth and environment of global tele-communications [phone Radio TV]. The kids being born right now are entering a veuy different landscape. What do you suppose will be the jot topic of discussion in 25 years time? If 'memetic' writers like Susan Blackmore are on the right track, then 'copying' is a fundamental part who we are, and we we do. Over the course of long biological evolution as a species, through social cultural changes, and within each individual lifetime. http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/mmsynop.html How we approach, teach, and design the next generation of computer-based programming tools will be very different. Becuause, in part the assumptions of early learning of that generation will be shaped by differnt environment. But in memetic terms, it will take several generation for the changes to deeply take root. While at the same time, we are part of the phenomenal speed with which ideas and 'memes' can travel. ...Ask any child who can 'program' the VCR which his parents cannot what the problem is? Or the teenagers in Asia typing with one thumb at lightening speed on their mobile phones..? ./Jason
participants (2)
-
Jason Cunliffe
-
Phillip Kent