[Edu-sig] Re: Python Anxiety
Arthur
ajs@optonline.net
Sun, 06 Apr 2003 10:17:22 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_5gZWOJFXM3pqVFb44unW4w)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Interesting correspondence. I think it gets to the heart of a number of issues.
>With math educators, it does no good to talk about Python's power
>and sophistication vis-a-vis C++ and Java. Their beef is with the
>whole idea of diluting the purity of their discipline with material
>from an alien discipline, i.e. computer science and/or engineering.
And, unfortunately, its a two-way street.
Had an opportunity to chat briefly with Jeff Elkner at PyCon, who was there in force with his students (who I suspect can
Python *me* under the table).
I specifically asked Jeff whether he saw any merit, or has made any efforts, in doing something interdisclinary with any math folks in his school. He pointed out the pracitical problems - busy teachers, on their own tracks, working within defined expectations as to curriculum.
But he also seems to admit that he himslef would be uncomfortable with too much math in a programming related curriculum. He seems clearly concerned that linking the curriculum too closely will turn off students who have a purer interest in programming.
(My best counter is that 3d graphics is a area of everyday computing of interest to many younger - and some older - folks. Why shouldn't it be approached in as low a level a way as possible. It appears the Elkner's students get pretty low level into networking issues, e.g. The fact that 3d graphics at anything much below the point and click level is math intensive, is a fact of life. Are his students willing to write-off the possibility of doing anything truly interesting in that realm? Maybe some are. I can't believe most are.)
>To start using a computer language in an early math curriculum
>looks like the harbinger of nothing good: it means math will
>become mixed up with all kinds incompatible grammars which come
>and go, vs. the staying power of a more stable, core notation.
What level or age is Shelley thinking about? Personally, I am not too keen at introducing any of this too early in the game - except in the atypical case, where a child has expressed a specfic interest. Like the recent 11 year old on python-list. But in those cases the child seems to find their own way to pursue what interests them, and it may be best, if it is going to be apporached formally at all, as an enrichment program of some sort, rather than anything near the core.
The Scheme world has (or had, not sure of its status) Schemers, Inc. - a commerical venture offering an after school enrichment program based on Scheme
http://www.schemers.com/schmrs2.html
''''
The Scheme Advantage?
Scheme is easier, more powerful, and more practical.
a.. With Scheme, students as young as sixth grade are able to grasp such advanced concepts as recursion.
b.. Because Scheme is much easier, with less computerese, students can concentrate on the concepts rather than the syntax.
c.. Clear and elegant, Scheme makes programming fun to learn.
d.. Scheme forces students to think about computation and to develop good programming techniques.
e.. The novice can be writing powerful programs in Scheme much sooner than in BASIC, Pascal, or C, while gaining a more comprehensive understanding of the process.
"""
Now of course this program was designed pre-Python. There may be a basis for a number of religious debates between Scheme and Python devotees. And I am sure the Schemer folks have their points (something about closures, seems to be a religious point given emphasis by the Schemers.) But given this particular list of "The Scheme Advantage", I find it hard to understand how Python cannot be seen as a more significant advantage in at least 4 out of 5 of the categories mentioned.
The main point here, however, is that it seems clear that the program is aimed at exceptional students - exceptional either in their general aptitudes (and in need of enrichment), or exceptional in their specific interest in a programming related extra-curricula activity.
Which, IMO, is one way the CP4E "religion" is a problem. An approach aimed at the gifted and a self-selected group of the highly motivated, seems to me a much more realistic approach and one with which there should be no shame associated.
It also is relevant - to me - that the Schemers program does much with 3d graphics, and is not programming language dogmatic, in that it specfically includes a path from Scheme to C++ as part of its approach.
>Plus if computer languages invade the math classroom, then
>teachers will be forced to learn programming, which many are
>loathe to take up. The hand held graphing calculator is as far
.into computing technology as these teachers want to go, and even
>there, their programmability is often ignored.
Also at PyCon, another high school level teacher made this point. The curriculum he designed was based, at least in part, on what he knew. Obviously teachers cannot teach what they don't know. Having done some presentation (PyGeo related) to college level math instructors, I was surprised how little was known about even basic programming concepts, even at that level. To me that's just pure anachronism - someone with a math Phd. knowing nothing about programming - in a Very High Level Language, at least.
I have always seen the niche of teaching teachers as Kirby's truer calling, BTW.
>It's this ability of computer languages to promote the "rapid and
>accurate exploration of mathematical notions" which some of us find
>exciting and empowering (and if you want to impress math teachers
>with a wholly alien notation, which nevertheless expresses a lot
>of the same ideas (sometimes as generally and formally as any
>traditional notation), have them look at APL or J).
and etc.
Seems to me much of this again speaks to the slow reaction to rapid change in all institutions - including educational institutiions. And the need to make teaching the teachers an early priority.
Which in some sense what the Kirby/Shelly correspondance is about.
Some progress, at least.
Art
--Boundary_(ID_5gZWOJFXM3pqVFb44unW4w)
Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2723.2500" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Interesting correspondence. I think it gets to the
heart of a number of issues. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>>With math educators, it does no good to talk about
Python's power<BR>>and sophistication vis-a-vis C++ and Java. Their
beef is with the<BR>>whole idea of diluting the purity of their discipline
with material<BR>>from an alien discipline, i.e. computer science and/or
engineering.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>And, unfortunately, its a two-way street.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Had an opportunity to chat briefly with </FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman">Jeff Elkner at PyCon, who was there in force with his
students (who I suspect can </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Python *me* under the table).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I specifically asked Jeff whether he saw any merit, or has
made any efforts, in doing something interdisclinary with any math folks in his
school. He pointed out the pracitical problems - busy teachers, on their
own tracks, working within defined expectations as to curriculum.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>But he also seems to admit that he himslef would be
uncomfortable with too much math in a programming related curriculum. He
seems clearly concerned that linking the curriculum too closely will turn
off students who have a purer interest in programming.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>(My best counter is that 3d graphics is a area of
everyday computing of interest to many younger - and some older
- folks. Why shouldn't it be approached in as low a level a way as
possible. It appears the Elkner's students get pretty low level into
networking issues, e.g. The fact that 3d graphics at anything much below
the point and click level is math intensive, is a fact of life. Are
his students willing to write-off the possibility of doing anything truly
interesting in that realm? Maybe some are. I can't believe most
are.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>>To start using a computer language in an early math
curriculum<BR>>looks like the harbinger of nothing good: it means math
will<BR>>become mixed up with all kinds incompatible grammars which
come<BR>>and go, vs. the staying power of a more stable, core
notation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>What level or age is Shelley thinking
about? Personally, I am not too keen at introducing any of this too early
in the game - except in the atypical case, where a child has expressed a specfic
interest. Like the recent 11 year old on python-list. But in those
cases the child seems to find their own way to pursue what interests them,
and it may be best, if it is going to be apporached formally at all,
as an enrichment program of some sort, rather than anything near the core.
</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>The Scheme world has (or had, not sure of its
status) Schemers, Inc. - a commerical venture offering an after school
enrichment program based on Scheme </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><A
href="http://www.schemers.com/schmrs2.html">http://www.schemers.com/schmrs2.html</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>''''</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The Scheme Advantage?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<H3>Scheme is easier, more powerful, and more practical.</H3>
<UL type=disc>
<LI>With Scheme, students as young as sixth grade are able to grasp such
advanced concepts as recursion.
<LI>Because Scheme is much easier, with less computerese, students can
concentrate on the concepts rather than the syntax.
<LI>Clear and elegant, Scheme makes programming fun to learn.
<LI>Scheme forces students to think about computation and to develop good
programming techniques.
<LI>The novice can be writing powerful programs in Scheme much sooner than in
BASIC, Pascal, or C, while gaining a more comprehensive understanding of the
process. </LI></UL></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>"""</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Now of course this program was designed pre-Python.
There may be a basis for a number of religious debates between Scheme and Python
devotees. And I am sure the Schemer folks have their
points (something about closures, seems to be a religious point given
emphasis by the Schemers.) But given this particular list of "The Scheme
Advantage", I find it hard to understand how Python cannot be seen as a more
significant advantage in at least 4 out of 5 of the categories
mentioned.</FONT><FONT size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The main point here, however, is that it seems clear that the
program is aimed at exceptional students - exceptional either in their general
aptitudes (and in need of enrichment), or exceptional in their specific interest
in a programming related extra-curricula activity.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Which, IMO, is one way the CP4E "religion" is a
problem. An approach aimed at the gifted and a self-selected group of
the highly motivated, seems to me a much more realistic approach and one
with which there should be no shame associated. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>It also is relevant - to me - that the Schemers program does
much with 3d graphics, and is not programming language dogmatic, in that it
specfically includes a path from Scheme to C++ as part of its
approach.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT
size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT
size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT
size=2></FONT><BR>>Plus if computer languages invade the math classroom,
then<BR>>teachers will be forced to learn programming, which many
are<BR>>loathe to take up. The hand held graphing calculator is as
far<BR>.into computing technology as these teachers want to go, and
even<BR>>there, their programmability is often ignored.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT
size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>Also at PyCon, another high school level
teacher made this point. The curriculum he designed was based, at least in
part, on what he knew. Obviously teachers cannot teach what they don't
know. Having done some presentation (PyGeo related) to college level math
instructors, I was surprised how little was known about even basic programming
concepts, even at that level. To me that's just pure anachronism - someone with
a math Phd. knowing nothing about programming - in a Very High Level
Language, at least. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I have always seen the niche of teaching teachers as Kirby's
truer calling, BTW. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>>It's this ability of computer languages to promote the "rapid
and<BR>>accurate exploration of mathematical notions" which some of us
find<BR>>exciting and empowering (and if you want to impress math
teachers<BR>>with a wholly alien notation, which nevertheless expresses a
lot<BR>>of the same ideas (sometimes as generally and formally as
any<BR>>traditional notation), have them look at APL or J).<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>and etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Seems to me much of this again speaks to the slow reaction to
rapid change in all institutions - including educational institutiions.
And the need to make teaching the teachers an early priority.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Which in some sense what the Kirby/Shelly correspondance is
about.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Some progress, at least.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Art</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>
--Boundary_(ID_5gZWOJFXM3pqVFb44unW4w)--