[Edu-sig] Acadmic gender gap (was Thoughts)

[Kirby Urner]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John M. Zelle [mailto:john.zelle at wartburg.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 4:55 PM
> To: edu-sig at python.org; Kirby Urner
> Subject: RE: RE: [Edu-sig] Acadmic gender gap (was Thoughts)
> 
> I hate to belabor this thread, as it seems a bit off topic, still I really
> feel that I've learned a lot. I just have to make one last response. See
> below.
> 

I don't think we should be too concerned about the apparent off topic-ness.
We've zoomed out from the specific Python course (whatever) and are
exploring the broader terrain.  But it's ridiculous to pretend that the
zoomed-in particulars have no context.  As educators, it's responsible and
topical to at least brush with these threads.

> 
> I find this a dangerous attitude. You could just as easily say we agree
> that taking large amounts of LSD has effects on very young children.
> Whether that is "good" or "bad" can only be a politicized conclusion, as
> there is no objective criteria for what is good and bad.
> 

I too find it somewhat dangerous (like life itself).  Nor do I have any
illusions that Arthur's protestations about please, no more studies, will be
heeded.  Science will barrel forward, come hell or high water, churning out
studies on any and everything.  So I expect these studies.

My recommendation over on math-teach, where a similar thread came up in
regard to global warming (similar in the sense of being so broad brush as to
appear off topic), was to both read the science *and* study the political
and ideological affiliations of the scientists who do it.  I think we're
more sophisticated about science these days:  we know the funding sources
are not irrelevant.

My own prejudice is that "video game" is a very broad category and studies
will need to start with a long preamble about what, exactly, they mean by
it.  You have coin-operated arcade games, often two-person, in the malls, in
theaters.  You have Xbox, Nintendo, the various game consoles that use a TV
screen -- these are very similar to what's in the mall, in terms of hardware
and software.  But the interface is more general purpose (as you're able to
play a wide variety of games, not just "car racing" or whatever).  Then you
have stuff that runs on a general purpose computer.

However, even these categories don't go very far in defining the taxonomy.
It's as complicated as a zoo.  Do we want to study whether "animals" (in
general) are good or bad for kids, or do we want to look at the various
species, one at a time.  A gorilla might not have quite the same effect as a
zebra.

At Les's house, there's a quite young child (younger than my daughter).  She
isn't strongly encouraged to play computer games -- maybe not at all (I've
never seen her play one).  She's out with the horses, learning to ride them.

The game Les was playing is specifically aimed at an somewhat older
demographic, as are many of these games.

My post was aimed at one specific downside:  the power of professionally
designed games to encourage a young person from getting started.  Ordinary
mathematics may have a similarly dismaying impact:  pick up something by
Euler, and feel like you'll never be like that.  Euler is the like Valve on
steroids -- just too cool.

Kirby