[Edu-sig] Do we "teach computers" when we write code?

[Edward Cherlin]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, kirby urner <kirby.urner at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm wondering what others on this list think of this non-standard use
> of "teaching" when talking about programming a computer.
>
> The authors say we're "teaching" the computer....

I have a very simple take on this. It is an imperfect analogy, but it
works in some situations. Children learn concepts much better by
programming them than by repeated practice. (Practice should be for
skills, like music or sports.) So, although it is not the same as
teaching a person, we can help people to understand what we are
talking about by judicious use of the analogy.

If you want to know where I got this, I can cite Skill in Means in
Buddhist teaching, or:

In the original Pragmatic philosophy, as set forth by Peirce and
William James, meaning is not an attribute of a word, but of the
context, in particular of the intentions of the persons concerned. Do
we travel around the world every day with the Earth's rotation?  It
depends how you define "travel". Relative to the Earth's surface, in a
rotating coordinate system, we don't move. If we insist that motion
can only be defined in Galilean or Special Relativistic invariant
coordinate systems, where rotation is disallowed, then we move.
General Relativity has its own issues.

If I see a squirrel on a tree, and I go around the tree, with the
squirrel staying out of sight opposite me, do I go around the
squirrel, which has kept the same side toward me the whole time?
(Example from William James)

Am I teaching when I write a textbook? I'm certainly trying to, but
you can say that the teaching or learning doesn't begin until a
student reads it (if then).

Am I teaching when I present examples to a Bayesian spam filter or an
AI? Depends. Dunnit?

"The question whether a computer can think is of no more interest than
whether a submarine can swim."--Edsger Dijkstra.

> """
> Every teacher knows that one of the best ways to
> understand something is to teach it to someone else. But
> teaching a computer is not exactly the same as teaching
> other people. People have a way of interpreting what is
> being said to them. They read the gestures and the facial
> expressions of their teachers as well as the words that
> are spoken. The intonation of the voice is important and
> matters judged to be obvious are not always articulated.
> All this may generally assist the learning process but
> what matters here is that computers are essentially stupid
> so they cannot interpret any of the commands they are
> given and the teacher has to articulate everything that
> is to be learned. A computer has no knowledge of what
> its programmer is attempting to do. It only knows what
> it has been told and so the children who are teaching it
> are compelled to use precise, unambiguous and formal
> language. The children respect this requirement because
> they understand that it is not an arbitrary imposition (as
> many of those made by teachers often are). In todayÕs
> world we cannot yet address machines informally by
> the spoken word and, mathematically at least, there
> may be fewer benefits when we can.
>
> There are other characteristics of computers that make
> them valuable objects to teach. One of these is their
> interactivity. Without any computers we might use
> paper and pencil which are useful devices for recording
> results but less valuable for experimental purposes
> because they do not encourage an exploratory approach
> or suggest activity. The computer, in contrast, begs to
> be used. It always feels quite appropriate to key in ideas
> and try them out. In fact children are usually so willing
> to explore different possibilities that teachers are more
> likely to have the reverse problem of having to persuade
> them to stand back and reflect occasionally.
> """
>
> Teaching the computer
> >From Micromath 18/1 2002 by Ronnie Goldstein
> http://www.atm.org.uk/mt/micromath.html
>
> I'd think this might backfire, as students begin thinking they're
> being treated much as the computers are being treated, as dull and
> stupid, such that teachers have to speak very... slowly... and
> formally.
>
> I'm poking around this site thanks to Ian at the scene, who sees ATM
> dooming itself in some bid to join with a dying NAMA (he was at the
> NAMA conference right before Pycon).  http://www.nama.org.uk/
>
> Not saying I follow entirely as I'm not in the UK (Steve Holden was
> supposed to translate for me), but I surmise ATM and NCTM are somewhat
> parallel organizations.
>
> ATM was actually founded by Caleb Gattengno, so it's ironic, what Ian is saying.
>
> http://www.atm.org.uk/people/caleb-gattegno.html
>
> The article above is obviously dated (2002), plus in mine has a lot of
> incorrect characters, thanks to PDF encoding problems.
>
> I think computers are running our scripts more like player pianos.  We
> don't teach our pianos, we tune them (guitars:  we play them).
>
> We *play* our computers (like guitars) more than we "teach" them, no?
>
> Kirby
> _______________________________________________
> Edu-sig mailing list
> Edu-sig at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
>



-- 
Silent Thunder (默雷/धर्ममेघशब्दगर्ज/دھرممیگھشبدگر ج) is my name
And Children are my nation.
The Cosmos is my dwelling place, The Truth my destination.
http://earthtreasury.net/ (Edward Mokurai Cherlin)