[Edu-sig] On the front page

[Kirby Urner]

I confess I haven't studied the Alice documentation carefully, 
although I have the plug-in and have played with it in the 
past -- in cursory fashion.

I think "minimum cognitive load" has various interpretations,
and at least one of these is OK:  Python helps minimize 
irrelevant noise, i.e. doesn't clutter the picture with 
too many syntax-related concerns even as students are trying 
to focus on ideas about VR.  The verbs "demystifies" and 
"deobfuscates" come to mind in this context.

Like, yesterday I was talking to Albert (he takes me to 
lunch -- represents an agency I work for now and then), 
and we talked over curriculum design issues.  I asked 
if he'd used Mathematica and he shared how his first 
college calculus class was taught in conjunction with 
this program (he went to George Fox College, in Newberg
Oregon -- dual chemistry and religion major).

He said it was difficult and frustrating, because 
Mathematica so nit-picky and unforgiving, e.g. was 
case sensitive, and presented a host of new computer-
related concepts to kids just making the transition 
for regular high school math.  

All that "computer stuff" seemed to really complicated 
matters unnecessarily in a lot of ways, although in 
retrospect he said he better appreciated where the 
curriculum writers were coming from (he thought the 
text book was especially poor -- too much a cook book 
(I don't know which one it was)).

The case sensitivity thing struck a chord, as that's 
where a some of our initial chatter was focussed when 
this list really got rolling in February (a thread Guido 
found somewhat irrelevant, as our purpose here is not
to overhaul the language, but to think about where we
might go with it by accepting the current reality). 
I learned that students have found Alice difficult 
for the same reason, and I'd say case sensitivity falls 
into that "noise" or "irrelevant conceptual load" 
category.

However, Albert and I agreed that if a Python or other
suitable computer language(s) had been in the picture 
since the early grades, i.e. throughout K-12, and not 
"sprung" on kids just entering college, then a lot of 
these issues, including case sensitivity, would likely 
be moot by the time calculus was entering the picture 
in a big way.  

According to this model, the idea of case sensitive 
variables, data structures (e.g. lists, tuples, 
dictionaries), parameterized algorithms (function defs), 
objects (defs + data structures, encapsulated, with 
inheritance capability), plus ideas about controlling 
flow, converting between types, scoping variables, 
loading namespaces, would all be second nature by 
the end of the teenage years.

Likely even Mathematica would seem a lot easier, because 
of the background students would have already received 
-- they'd already have a lot of "transferable skills" 
as we say in the training world (I've been a trainer 
for older workers needing bizapp skills -- Lotus, 
WordPerfect, dBase were among the top 3 back then 
(dates me) -- and we put a lot of emphasis on the 
"transferability" of these skills (certainly I've
continued "porting" my skillset from one upgrade to
the next (sometimes the gradient gets pretty steep))).

Turning to the "math wars" for a sec, I haven't checked 
the NY Times yet today, but I surmize it's focused on 
the NCTM versus Mathematically Correct polarity, i.e.
reformists versus traditionalists.  

The crop of text books released since the NCTM first 
released its standards for K-12 math have been derided 
as "fuzzifying" the subject, lowering standards to 
meet student and teacher needs, at the cost of putting 
a lot of higher tech jobs out of reach at the other 
end of the pipeline, meaning people from outside the 
public school system (those still getting the old 
school's training -- including in Europe, Asia) are 
landing all the best jobs.  Or such is the argument 
made by the traditionalists.  

The reformists claim their new approach is working, 
while the old approaches were notorious for turning 
kids off math way too early in the game.  The NCTM 
released new standards in Chicago recently, and these
seem to contain "course corrections" which address 
some of the sharpest criticisms (the National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics has been sensitive, some
think guiltily over-defensive, regarding this 
"fuzzy math" charge).

A sub-debate in all of the above is the appropriate role 
of technology in the classroom.  On this one, I come away 
frustrated that "technology" is quasi-universally identified 
with calculators, including graphing calculators, with 
computers mostly a footnote, mentioned in passing, with 
a nod and a shrug.  When/if computers _do_ enter the 
picture, it's usually with a spreadsheet front and center, 
as the most appropriate "bizapp" for improving numeracy 
skills.  

Anyone talking about a real programming language is auto-
matically pigeon-holed as a computer science teacher, which 
implies a whole different text book and approach, another 
specialty.  This frustrates me as well, as many high 
schools don't have any "computer science", or if they do, 
its an elective, but all of them have math.  

I'm suspicious of overspecialization, compartmenting the 
disciplines too finely in the early grades.  We're still 
aiming at producing comprehensivists at this point, or 
should be.  And computer literacy, like basic numeracy, 
should just be part of the everyday content -- is my view.

I have a lot of writings on file about all of this stuff 
and should cut it short at this point -- this is the 
Python SIG.

I'll conclude by saying that, if we're serious about 
seeing more Python in K-12, we should brainstorm more
at the big picture level about what's relevant to students 
today.  

I heard a presentation by a former Disney recruiter on 
the radio recently and he was talking about how his 
industry couldn't get enough of the "hybrid artist" type 
-- those with good grounding in one or more of the arts, 
but with enough technical background to take to a state 
of the art studio like fish to water.  He stressed that 
he was talking about the humanities, about well-rounded 
individuals with a lot of appreciation for culture, 
contemporary as well as past.  His industry wants 
comprehensivists, in other words.  I consider this a 
helpful cue.

Kirby