Re: Alice (was re: Question about a programming system.)
"Stephen R. Figgins" <fig@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.
I guess my own view at this time is Alice is harmless so long as it doesn't motivate any major changes to Python itself (in the direction of dumbing it down, under which heading I'd file case insensitivity). I think being anti anything is an inherently weaker stance than being pro something of your own (not a dig at either Arthur or Guido, as both are fonts of creativity). So I think the best way to keep the bunny rabbits from running amok is to continue elaborating a curriculum through which Python interweaves, as a language, be that through music, math, GUI design, XML or whathaveyou. Lots not leave the stage to Alice alone. Computerworld is absolutely brimming with riches, is my experience. It's a similar experience to going into a Hollywood Video outlet: even if they stopped making new movies today, it'd take a lifetime to just see what we've already got. Of course matters of taste arise, and the subset of the total inventory you'd consider "gems" would only partially overlap mine. Like, what about ToonTalk? A gem! (say I). To be fair to Alice, I personally haven't used it enough to say anything strongly pro or con, nor studied the background literature as thoroughly as Arthur has. I've played with it some. I'm glad it's around. I hope people keep evolving and using it, or stealing good ideas from it. But I don't think it should be allowed to stereotype or typecast Python in education. Typecasting is always a danger (something which happened to Xbase, to its lasting detriment). Finally, I'm very glad many people are working on Python- related projects with an eye to education that are quite different from my own. My slant is useful and valuable, I would claim (most would agree), but it's not the one and only, or be all and end all. I'm especially interested in the music angle, as I think math and music, which used to be taught together, belong in closer association down the road. And of course Arthur's PyGeo is right in the same neck of the woods as my stuff in a lot of ways, an inspiration and source of encouragement. Kirby PS: unrelated question for which I've never gotten an answer: is it true that the Mac version of IDLE doesn't apply color coding to key words? That seemed to be the case when I installed from Mac binaries to an iMac recently, a 2.0 beta version. Answers welcome.
on 1/6/01 12:31 PM, Arthur_Siegel@rsmi.com at Arthur_Siegel@rsmi.com wrote: Re: Alice
You have more of a specific objection to this project. You consider it opportunistic and bad science. Keyword - "opportunistic" -- etc. etc. etc.
I hesitate to add to this thread, partly because it's difficult to know exactly what the various participants are really thinking from what's been written. I hope I'm not severely missing the point when I offer these several thoughts: It's true that Randy Pausch sometimes comes across like a motivational speaker when he talks about Alice, and his presentations for general audiences are mostly gee-whiz and don't really focus on the science. 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. The incentives are strongly in the opportunistic direction, but this doesn't mean that the science isn't also good. It's just that you have to sell your work as hard as you can using anything you can think of (including your personality or your work's gee-whiz aspects) in addition to the science. To evaluate the science, observers must ignore the hype and go to the original published work. Useful information on Alice and it's development group is at http://www.alice.org/stage3/projects.html and a list of peer-reviewed publications is at http://www.alice.org/stage3/pubs.html. Arthur, you may be very familiar with the studies that have been carried out in conjunction with Alice but your references to opportunism and bad science--which could be correct--are difficult to evaluate as appropriate for this list or to respond to because 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). I'm not an expert on Alice, but I have heard Randy Pausch speak and I have read a bit about Alice. I understand it to be a limited but interesting environment that provides opportunities to study various kinds of people's interactions with computer-generated three-dimensional representations. Using an environment like this, experimental user interfaces for creating and manipulating the environments can be created and tested. One interesting issue that has seen some investigation within the Alice group is the perception of 3D computer environments by visual artists, writers and engineers. These perceptions bear on whether a unified interface for manipulating 3D objects might be optimal for humans or whether the optimal 3D interface might vary based on the point of view and background of the user. In a sense, this use of Alice is similar to the studies that Xerox PARC drew upon to create the Star and strongly influence the Mac (note that Alice is not analogous to the Star, but to the laboratories where the key issues were identified and tested that influenced the Star design). Ultimately the work done with Alice will combine with a large number of other studies to influence 3D interface design. An environment like Alice might be re-purposed to be useful in other areas. Once could conceive of a number of settings where creation of 3D environments might be useful in education. As a simple example, Alice might be useful in teaching programming. 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. On the other hand, aspects of Alice's design may be suboptimal for this use. Enthusiasm from Alice proponents in this direction is, I think, understandable opportunism. 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. It's reasonable for Python to point to projects with a certain coolness factor like Alice as examples of the capabilities of the language. In the end, though, Alice itself plays to a limited audience. Python will incorporate lessions from Alice and other research, 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. Jim Harrison Univ. of Pittsburgh
participants (3)
-
Arthur_Siegel＠rsmi.com -
Jim Harrison -
Kirby Urner