[Edu-sig] CP4E

[Kirby Urner]

> I cannot accept parsing a file in a programming language to be a basic
> skill, and think considering it so deprecates the notion of "basic
> skills".

> My own interest in technology and education at the early grades is limited
> to the extent to which technology might indeed be able to enhance the
> learning of basic skills, but don't recognize that that those skills are
> related in the slightest to the use of technology.  And maybe therefore
> tend to conclude that the entry of technology has little to justify itself

> at that stage of the game.

We're at opposite ends of the spectrum then.  In my view, the basic skills
include using technologies, starting with pen/pencil and paper, also toilets
and sinks, eating utensils, telephone, clock, CD drive, keyboard and so on.
The school I attended in Rome focused on eating utensils quite a bit --
British school, there's a right way to tilt your bowl when you eat soup.

Technology is pervasive and this isn't a new thing.  Sports likewise involve
technology (balls, other apparatus), the skillful use and maintenance
thereof.

Now that computers have entered the picture, I see them as ubiquitous, and
important to start practicing on early.  Python in many respects replaces
the bash shell as a primary command line, though we're not averse to these
other shells (we studied bash at West Precinct).  

But understanding that files are the basic unit on a computer is important,
and is better appreciated through hands-on exposure, vs. just some teacher
saying "files are the basic unit... blah blah".  The distinction between
human-readable e.g. text, and binary formats, the whole idea of "formats" is
something to get into (segue to music below).

> It's not, I don't think, that I am going out of my way to be
> argumentative. What you are saying here in fact touches what I consider 
> to be the near basic nerve where I consistently get off the bus - i.e. I 
> reject programming skills as anything near basic, and think any emphasis 
> of such skill should be directed - out of the box - at solving real and 
> more fundamental learning goals.  

I see programming skills as ultra basic, yes.  Not that they're currently
phased in that way, but I think they should be.  The idea of a loop, with
ifs, elses, i.e. conditional processing within iteration, is as basic as
logic itself.  It's one of those abstractions you see everywhere.  When the
teacher takes attendance and makes checks next to names in an attendance
book, that's ultra basic, and pretty much the same thing (programming, just
using pre-computer tools).  When captains pick sports teams:  iteration,
choice, a control structure, the result being the two teams.

> And that if we conclude that such an approach is unrealistic - it
> might in fact be - than we should satisfy ourselves with programming for
> the few with an active interest and aptitude.
> 

I'm willing to vary the intensity of exposure based on self-selection, but
when it comes to providing basic insight into what it means to script a
computer, to program it, to set it up with tasks, I'm not willing to just
let a few in on this secret.  Everyone should get the basic idea, just like
everyone should have a clue about how an internal combustion motor works,
how various parts of the human body work (digestive tract vs. lungs for
example -- not something to only tell "future doctors and nurses" about).

> To my ears you are making the "it is important to learn programming
> because it is important to learn programming" argument, which I do not or 
> cannot accept. Especially from a programmer.
 
It's important to learn skills related to a key feature of our civilization:
the automation of routine or mundane tasks such that vast amounts of data
get processed at superhuman speeds.  We're talking about a nervous system as
basic to day-to-day living as the human one -- it's the *rest* of the human
nervous system (the part outside our bodies).  We also program our bodies of
course, i.e. "programming" might be considered a pre-computer art and skill,
depending how we define it.  Education has always been about programming --
it's just a matter of what, not whether.

> Where would you place parsing through a file, versus, say, being able to
> read music notation - as a "basic skill" for fifth graders?  Where should
> we be directing limited resources? This wouldn't in fact be a discussion
> worth having (if it is in fact worth having) were it not for the fact that

> it is a hard reality that things such as music programs are suffering as a

> result of the prioritization of "computer skills".  And I keep thinking we

> are still digging out of some kind of mass technology bubble mentality 
> when we can't differentiate better than that.
> 
> Art
> 

Parsing music notation *is* a kind of file parsing (my own 5th grader has
been studying it) -- musical scores are files, formatted according myriad
conventions.  

Computers and music are not antithetical subjects/topics.  I'm all for
getting more music back into the curriculum, and see computers as an ally
(not calculators though -- they're not really up to the job).  

I went through the Python + MIDI options again a few weeks back.  There's a
lot more we could do.  Squeak is ahead of Python with audio tools.

Kirby