Re: [Edu-sig] Don't kids program anymore?
Darren Payne wrote:
Re programming - kids want to PLAY GAMES most of all!
Many would like to program their own games ... but do not wish to put in the time/ effort neccessary to develop the level of skill required.
It takes between one and three years to develop a commercial game. Students who take on game programming can be soon disappointed because they are likely to produce games that look really primitive in comparison to their favorite commercial games. Many students who thought that they may create real games are eventually destined to be disappointed with the actual products of their game programming experience.
In addition, programming ... as many of us in this list know it ... is primarily CONSOLE BASED - by this I mean you spend alot of time entering text on a screen to run the thing to get more text on the screen - BORING BORING BORING ... FOR MODERN KIDS!
I disagree, particularly when it comes to college/university level students. Text based programming (meaning no GUIs, no graphics) can be very satisfying and rewarding with contemporary college/university students. First, the instructor needs to pick up interesting problems that make sense on their own. Forget about 'write a program to calculate this meaningless expression, because it is a good learning exercise'. Have students do something that they can understand and that makes some sense to them (such as money-related calculations, for example, or a text-based game). It must be something students can manage within a reasonable time interval (such as one class period). The most important features of text-based programs are (1) that students can succeed with them after having applied a reasonable effort and (2) that students can understand then (i.e., be in control while succeeding). This is what motivates everyone best: (1) succeeding - while doing something that makes some sense - and (2) being in control while succeeding. Text-based programs in Python are good to start this process. Such programs prepare well students for GUIs and graphics. In my Python First courses (http://studypack.com) students start with meaningful and manageable text-based labs and end with some GUIs and graphics. Almost all succeed in their labs and understand what they are doing in the process. One Python First student (in a class taught by a colleague) told me recently that such text-based Python programs actually are helping him understand and manage mathematics better. This statement came to me as a very pleasant surprise.
Like I said at the start kids want games, fun and multimedia - colour, music and animation / video
We should not underestimate our students (particularly at the college/university level) by thinking that only color, music, animation/video, and games can attract them to programming and computer science. This would be wrong. The vast majority of students are willing to learn and understand programming and computing. Really, they are. They are NOT some lazy folks who would not come to class if we do not try to entertain them with multimedia and games. They will come to class if we entertain them with (1) a chance to really *succeed* in meaningful and manageable class activities and (2) a chance to *be in control* and understand while succeeding. GUIs and graphical games are probably not such activities in entry-level studies. Text based programming in Python (which reduces the syntax clutter to a minimum) can serve this purpose really well.
regards Darren Payne
Great post, Daren. Thank you. I understand you share experience with HS students. I wrote of my college/university experience - thing can be somewhat different at HS, I do not know. Atanas Atanas Radenski radenski@chapman.edu http://www.chapman.edu/~radenski http://studypack.com Digital courses for the net generation
On 4/30/06, Radenski, Atanas <radenski@chapman.edu> wrote:
It takes between one and three years to develop a commercial game. Students who take on game programming can be soon disappointed because they are likely to produce games that look really primitive in comparison to their favorite commercial games.
Exactly. This continues a thread from 2004: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/edu-sig/2004-December/004187.html Programs like Gamemaker, which provide a sophisticated graphics engine and not so difficult API are the way to go. Per email from Jason (Tue 4/25/2006 3:50 AM), TSF is already looking at this version of Logo as suggestive of a look and feel:
And of course we're not just talking about games per say, but of simulations based in game theory. Kirby
There is a profound relationship between gaming and education, one which is not primarily about sounds and graphics, but about goals, rewards, and sequencing. A very simple example of what I mean is at pythonchallenge.com . There is some effort not to expose the nth problem to you until you have demonstrated mastery of problem n-1. The experience is then of the next problem being the REWARD for solving the previous problem, with mastery as a side effect. Most kids, most humans in general, will voluntarily spend many hours in such environments. The game industry proves this. That the graphics are amusing is secondary to the design of interesting vs dull games. What keeps games interesting is that they stay near the optimum flow point between triviality and frustration. This impulse can and should be channelled toward useful skills. mt
On 4/30/06, Michael Tobis <mtobis@gmail.com> wrote:
Most kids, most humans in general, will voluntarily spend many hours in such environments. The game industry proves this. That the graphics are amusing is secondary to the design of interesting vs dull games. What keeps games interesting is that they stay near the optimum flow point between triviality and frustration. This impulse can and should be channelled toward useful skills.
mt
I'm glad you mention REWARD. Many of us share this vision: find a way to disburse credits via distance education circuits such that those putting in the hard work of actually learning this stuff actually get rewarded, and not just in heaven, but on this very Earth as well. You'd think it wouldn't be so hard, given ample precedents, including clippable coupons or ID specific promotionals (e.g. use this code for a free subscription to...). As soon as you start making a return (maybe not in terms of cash, but in terms of barter, which eCommerce makes easier), the "school space" gives way to the "work place" i.e. they're paying you instead of you're paying them -- or at least it's more of a 2-way street. Relevant: http://worldgame.blogspot.com/2006/04/computer-lab-as-playground.html Kirby
This has been an interesting thread. I haven't had time to contribute, but I saw something here that I felt I had to address. On Sunday 30 April 2006 14:47, kirby urner wrote:
On 4/30/06, Michael Tobis <mtobis@gmail.com> wrote:
Most kids, most humans in general, will voluntarily spend many hours in such environments. The game industry proves this. That the graphics are amusing is secondary to the design of interesting vs dull games. What keeps games interesting is that they stay near the optimum flow point between triviality and frustration. This impulse can and should be channelled toward useful skills.
mt
I'm glad you mention REWARD. Many of us share this vision: find a way to disburse credits via distance education circuits such that those putting in the hard work of actually learning this stuff actually get rewarded, and not just in heaven, but on this very Earth as well. You'd think it wouldn't be so hard, given ample precedents, including clippable coupons or ID specific promotionals (e.g. use this code for a free subscription to...).
We need to be very careful about "rewards" in this context. A lot of psychological research suggests that once a person is "paid" for doing something that is fun to them, it ceases to be fun and they tend not to do it anymore unless they are paid. One of the real problems in our educational system is that we unwittingly train our students that everything should be done for external rewards (a good grade now, a better job later). Learning becomes something to be done for external reasons, rather than doing it for the joy of learning itself. That leads to all sorts of negative outcomes (rampant cheating is one). In a video game, the compelling reward is simply being good at the game. In learning to program, the reward should be the sense of accomplishment and empowerment that comes with mastering a bit of that craft. I fear that any other type of reward is counterproductive in the long run.
As soon as you start making a return (maybe not in terms of cash, but in terms of barter, which eCommerce makes easier), the "school space" gives way to the "work place" i.e. they're paying you instead of you're paying them -- or at least it's more of a 2-way street.
Relevant: http://worldgame.blogspot.com/2006/04/computer-lab-as-playground.html
Kirby _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list Edu-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
-- John M. Zelle, Ph.D. Wartburg College Professor of Computer Science Waverly, IA john.zelle@wartburg.edu (319) 352-8360
In a video game, the compelling reward is simply being good at the game. In learning to program, the reward should be the sense of accomplishment and empowerment that comes with mastering a bit of that craft. I fear that any other type of reward is counterproductive in the long run.
Yes, this is a valid point, but in the context I'm thinking in, our students have very slim access to life support as it is, so the idea that a school might turn into a way for a village to receive income is too important to side-step. In fact, TuxLabs already tend to be used as businesses after hours. The same machines lead a double life: school teachers by day, work stations by night. Bascially, we're looking at the guild system, with an apprenticeship leading to gigs of one's own. When the new talent is judged ready for prime time is largely up to the guild, so I won't presume to dictate too much (except within mine I'll likely remain a source of feeback -- I need to pay attention to quality where my own bona fides are concerned). Kirby
On 30/04/06, Radenski, Atanas <radenski@chapman.edu> wrote:
Darren Payne wrote:
Like I said at the start kids want games, fun and multimedia - colour, music and animation / video
I tend to disagree about the "fun" need. Kids are not interested for long about video games (or educational activity) which are just "fun". The game has to be difficult enough to challenge them and when they master a level they have no envy to do it again just because it's colorful, multimedia, violent, sexy, etc. As Seymor Papert explains I believe the real challenge is to make education *hard-fun* for each pupil (which is very different of making it "fun"): http://www.papert.org/articles/HardFun.html francois
participants (5)
-
francois schnell -
John Zelle -
kirby urner -
Michael Tobis -
Radenski, Atanas