[Edu-sig] Python for non-programmers

[Steve Morris]

Kirby Urner writes:
 > I think your work is very much relevant to what this EDU-SIG is
 > about.  However, for the purposes of discussion, I think we need
 > to draw a distinction between:
 > 
 >    (a) applications written in Python that are useful to 
 >        students in various subject areas
 > 
 >    (b) applications written in Python that have "teaching
 >        Python" as a primary goal
 > 
 >    (c) non-applications (e.g. modules that run in IDLE but
 >        do not provide a custom GUI) that are useful to 
 >        students in various subject areas
 > 
 >    (d) non-applications that have "teaching Python" as a 
 >        primary goal

This is an interesting slicing of the problem space and probably
represents the traditional pedagogical split but I don't think that is
the best way to look at it for CP4E. As a physicist I feel like you
have just told me we need to separate the observer from the system
being observed, something a physicist knows is impossible. I think
CP4E needs to instead emphasize the interaction, i.e. you teach
programming by allowing the student to explore a subject area with a
programming language. You guide them through both in parallel. The
difference is one of emphasis.

It is different in a classroom where you have students already primed
to learn a specific language. However it is my understanding that CP4E
is trying to reach a different audience and has a different
point. CP4E is trying to teach the purpose and use of "programability"
to people of diverse backgrounds and skills.

To me the language/subject dichotomy is a noun/verb, object/action
kind of thing. Python is the verb that acts on the subject being
explored (the noun.) You need to start with simple nouns and verbs and
work up to complex ones. The complexity of both need to go in
parallel, especially when you are tring to draw in the student in a
single course or at a single point of contact.

My late father-in-law was an impressive self tought linguist. He
started with German, Latin and Greek in school and then tought himself
to be fluent in French, Spanish, Russion and Romanian and then to be
able to read technical work and poetry (!) in many other languages. He
usually learned a new language because there was something he wanted
to read in that language and he didn't trust the translators.

He was obviously gifted (his rote memory was phenominal) but his
methodology was interesting. He said that instead of finding a
language tutorial/course etc.  and learning to say simple but useless
things he started by trying to read a subject that he knew well, the
more complex the better as long as he already understood the
complexities of the subject. He said that his understanding of the
subject gave him clues that help him learn the language as it is used.

The same distinction shows up in trying to teach English writing
skills. It is much easier to teach students to write about something
when they have something to say.