CP4E was Re: Deitel and Deitel Book...

[Geoff Gerrietts]

Quoting Jeff Hinrichs (jlh at cox.net):
> "Geoff Gerrietts" <geoff at gerrietts.net> wrote in message
> news:mailman.1015439904.7322.python-list at python.org...
> > Quoting Ramkumar Kashyap (rkashyap at sympatico.ca):
> > For the space of around three years, a child is immersed almost
> > constantly, from waking to sleep, and even sometimes while asleep, in
> > language. For those first three years, the child is almost completely
> > incapable of making him or herself understood.
>
> *BUZZ* Sorry, but as a parent I can firmly say that children can
> make a point well before 3 years. In fact, by 12-16 months they have
> the ability to utter rudimentary words, associate action and
> reaction and are deeply focused on interpersonal relationships,
> among other things.  First words are normally, familial (i.e
> mom/dad/et al), then "NO," then "More" with a slew of words of
> interest to them come next.

I'm a parent, too, and there's a big difference between "daddy",
"mommy", and the pronouncements that come from a child anywhere on up
to 18 months and spoken language.

At three (in April), my son speaks more or less complete sentences
with occassional nods to the rules of grammar. About 3/4 of the time
my wife and I understand him. About 1/4 of the time, others can
understand him. And he's pretty advanced for his age; a lot of parents
guess him at older.

That's like saying that I speak French because I know how to say "oui"
and "merci". You might make that claim, but expecting a Parisian to
hold a conversation with me is somewhat unreasonable.

What is it about internet discussion forums that makes everyone
struggle to find grounds to argue rather than make an effort to
understand?

> > People don't get smarter as they get older, they just have a better
> > foundation for building on. It would be just as difficult for someone
> > to learn programming through reading or transcribing lots of text as
> > it would be for someone to learn French by riding the Metro all day
> > long.
> This depends on how you define "smart."  I refer to smart as the mixture of
> wisdom + experience + ability to intuit.  <wink>

Again, this is begging the question, and after two pointless arguments
niggling over the semantics of "smarter", I'm starting to get a little
annoyed. I can define smarter as "having a higher IQ", as "best
educated", or as "most able to solve a given problem" and all of them
work pretty well. Right now I'm talking about ability to ingest raw
information and retain it. It's clear I should have been a little more
explicit; I guess terms like "smarter" are just begging for people to
fight.

> > My belief is that most people find computer programming to be
> > difficult because logic is not the natural way people think; it is a
> > forced mode. People tend to think intuitively, using "gut feelings"
> > and good guesswork. That's the way we tend to summarize the knowledge
> > of our experiences: as gut feelings.
> I agree with you here.

I think a previous poster has pointed out that I oversimplify here by
reducing abstract thinking to intuition and gut feelings, but I think
we all kinda get the point, when we're thinking in that mode.

> I do believe that Ramkumar's point is valid.  <my $0.02>Children, especially
> the young, suffer from fewer of the social pressures that retard adult
> learning.  The most salient, is the disregard for being wrong.  Adults, I
> believe, hamper their own learning process by limiting their questions or
> not asking them if they feel that by exposing their "knowledge holes" they
> are negatively impacting the social surroundings.  (i.e. Don't want to look
> stupid in front of the class.)  Unfortunately, the fastest way to learn
> something new is to expose your limited knowledge to the
> teacher/instructor/peers so that they can more effectively rid you of
> misconceptions and fill-in those "knowledge holes."  I have a strong
> suspicion this is why adults have a relatively more difficult time learning
> new spoken languages than children do. (vocabulary that is, pronunciation is
> another issue) </my $0.02>

I'm not sure that adults do. I think that your average diplomat who
needs a speed-training in a foreign language, can master
conversational language within a few months, and can be highly fluent
inside a year. It requires careful coursework supplemented by a great
deal of practice. Immersion is helpful, which (when we get back to the
start of the thread) is the sentiment that started the whole thing.

By contrast, the child can't converse effectively with his peers for
three to four years, and can't hold his own in a conversation with an
adult for even longer than that.

Maybe a slight switch in topic: if the logical constructs are
disorienting, how would we approach instruction? Hello World seems to
go okay, right? (Do we have anything like a consensus from this?) But
then where do we go? More examples?

I'm not sure what my goal is here, but it seems like we started with
an idea on how we could make computer programming more accessible for
everyone, including those whose relationship with logical thought can
only be described as "dysfunctional", but starting with those who are
at least making occassional sallies at the task of learning.

So where do we go next? If not "if", then what? Or do we go ahead with
"if" and "else", but abuse it with lots of examples?

Looking back at the pieces of pedagogical literature I've been exposed
to, I'm led to believe that learning (at least in children) occurs in
response to encountered frustrations with the limits of the current
knowledge base. Can we assemble something that looks like a cooked
series of examples or sample problems that exploit this?

--G.

-- 
Geoff Gerrietts             <geoff at gerrietts dot net>
  I AM YOUR KING! BOW BEFORE ME, PEASANT!   -- Dogbert