[Edu-sig] re: CP4E-2002

[Phillip Kent]

>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
++++++