re: promoting computer literacy through programming python
John -
I also ignored all the personal interactions ...
Yeah. That would be the novel, not the dissertation. But the beat goes on. And as much as I enjoyed the dissertation (and I did) and I am disappointed that one theme, advocated strenuously by one AS, was implicitly rejected without analysis, evidence, or comment. The "Disadvantages of Python" section includes both case sensitivity (with some equivocation) and zero based list indexing. There is also discussion of integer division with accepts in all respects the thinking that links the issue as a significant barrier to entry for beginners. My consistent position has been that these entry level barriers are demonstrably trivial next to the true and significant barriers inherent in the process of learning to program, as well expressed in Dethe's "Programming is hard" quote introducing Chapter 2. The particular "barriers" under analysis can as well be seen to represent aspects of a gentle introduction to the inherent uniqueness of the programming milieu, as distinct from the natural language or mathematical milieu. The adjustment to which is a necessity. Remove all trivial barriers, and we are only left with the significant ones. There is a wall, rather than a ramp leading over a wall. My Zen on the issues, and nothing more. But I feel strongly, and I think there is enough merit to require some evidence, counter-argument to reject out-of-hand in a study attempting some scientific grounding. Art
My Zen on the issues, and nothing more. But I feel strongly, and I think there is enough merit to require some evidence, counter-argument to reject out-of-hand in a study attempting some scientific grounding.
Art
I didn't quite get your point Art. It sounds to me like you were agreeing with Dethe that programming is difficult, beyond the trivial things like 0-based indexing or case sensitivity. But I thought John took that up, as a kind of tension, e.g. in math class how relevant would it be to move towards the "most concise" form of an algorithm, once you've already got a working version? He made the analogy to rhetoric. Perhaps in math class, we just don't have time to always buff and polish our rough and ready efforts. I'd tend to agree. Were you perhaps alluding to other difficulties we've discussed, such as Python's "by reference" approach, and the resultant confusions about "same as" versus "copy of" that might arise, say, when you go 'm = [1,2,3]' and then 'n = m' (so now n and m both reference the very same object)? If so, I think you should be less elliptical. Kirby
participants (2)
-
Arthur -
Kirby Urner