Re: PPIG discuss: teaching kids to program
On 31 Jul 2007, at 16:33, Alan Blackwell wrote: Marian Petre and I have written a paper, to be presented at VL/ HCC 2007, which sets out to describe what kids *actually* want to program, as opposed to what adults think would be good for them. Anyone who wants a preview, I'm sure Marian won't mind if I offer preview copies to anyone who emails me. Yes, please, Alan. Richard Bornat -- PPIG Discuss List ([email protected]) Discuss admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss Announce admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/announce PPIG Discuss archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/
RE: PPIG discuss: teaching kids to program
Nice response, John! I agree -- there's value in exploring, playing with, and learning programming for its own sake. I've been recently gathering examples of undergraduate courses outside of computing disciplines where programming is used (and typically "taught," too, because rarely are CS courses pre-requisite for these other courses) as the best way to learn the other disciplines. Two examples: - Physics courses at Purdue, Georgia Tech, and North Carolina State now ask students to program in VPython (a form of Python with tight ties to OpenGL so that objects map to visible 3-D models) in order to construct models (e.g., three body problem simulations) and to solve numeric problems iteratively. - Biology courses on many US campuses teach mathematical and computational modeling, since that's become very important to modern biology. The US National Research Council's report "Bio2010" specifically mandates such courses. The courses that I have investigated are taught in Excel, with the more complicated models rendered in Visual Basic for Applications from within Excel. If practicing scientists are finding it useful to use computation (e.g., programming to define models, create simulations, and solve problems) because it helps them with visualization and understanding, then it seems inevitable that it will eventually trickle down to students. In general, scientific tools tend to move from practitioners to students, unless they are too expensive or too complicated. Unlike the earliest microscopes and telescopes, or huge cyclotrons, computational science only requires the computers to which students already have access -- no additional hardware expense is required. It seems likely that computing, even programming skill, will become a pre-requisite to science and engineering learning in the next few years. Mark
RE: PPIG discuss: teaching kids to program
John Pane wrote: Why shouldn't programming be included in the mix of experiences a child has? I think we need to be clear whether we are talking about informal education in the home led by parents, or a national curriculum for delivery by teachers in schools. I think the OP was concerned with the former. I find it hard to see why anyone would think it 'wrong' for a parent to show some aspects of programming to a child who expresses an interest. However inclusion of a topic area in a national curriculum (or exclusion from) is a different matter. In that situation the decision involves thousands of teachers, millions of children and consumption of significant economic resource. Consequently it is appropriate to require such a decision be supported by a strong evidence base. There is also the issue of teacher training. I worked as Head of IT at a sixth-form college ( 16-19 year olds) for around 10 years, and I found it very difficult to recruit staff who were good teachers and also had an adequate knowledge of programming. And recently I've spoken to a teacher/researcher who has told me children in primary schools (9 - 10 year olds) are being taught 'algebra', and being told the idea is that a=1, b=2, c=3 and so on. Sometimes its better to not teach something.
Re: PPIG discuss: teaching kids to program
Ruven E Brooks wrote: Yes, I am really asking the question, why try to teach children programming? ... Walter Milner questions, as do I, whether there is any general benefit in other areas to teaching programming. Yishay Mor gives some references to work that shows that doing programming exercises can help children learn mathematics. Is that because there's something special about programming or just because it meant children were spending extra time on mathematics? I would very much like to have seen a control condition in which, instead of learning ToonTalk, children learned Latin by studying texts about motion and sequences. I wonder whether they might have done even better on the mathematics than the ToonTalk group. Walter Milner wrote: A possible answer would be that it does something which has a positive transfer to other areas - and that there is no evidence that it does, or It produces better commercial programmers whne they grow up - again no evidence When I demonstrate to my 5-year-old how the phases of the moon change, or how an automatic ice maker works, or we watch how a spider catches flies, I don't follow up with a math test to see if there was transfer. When I teach him how to ride a bicycle it is not so that he'll grow up to be a better commercial programmer. I have no idea what impact any one specific activity will have on him in the long run. Rather, I trust it is good. I take pleasure in seeing him learn something, gain an appreciation for life, see what he can accomplish, become interested in things, to have fun! We play around with math too, for the same reasons. Why shouldn't programming be included in the mix of experiences a child has? My philosophy in creating HANDS was to inspire children to see the possibilities, to become empowered to use computers like the majority cannot, maybe to strive to do more with them someday, and hopefully to have fun. Peter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: From my (limited) knowledge of child psychology I wouldn't want to try and teach anyone under the age of about 12-13 programming, because you'd end up having to use a very constrained concepts and programming techniques, and more or less run into a brick wall in some areas until their mental development advances. In my thesis research I had some success teaching 10-year-olds to program. Recently my 5-year-old has showed interest after climbing on my lap while I was checking out Scratch. It remains to be seen what he might learn in the near future, but as long as he's interested I will not let my limited knowledge of child psychology get in the way. :-) John
Re: PPIG discuss: teaching kids to program
On Jul 31, 2007, at 11:15 PM, Linda McIver wrote: I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned John Pane's PhD work yet. John actually did research (gasp) on how kids naturally specify problem solutions, and came up with a system that allowed them to do all kinds of neat programming in what was, according to his research, a fairly natural way. HANDS, I think it was called, or that might have been a precursor - I haven't looked at this stuff in years. I don't know if any follow up work has been done, but the system John came up with was pretty cute. I don't have the references to hand, but it was part of the Natural Programming Project - I dare say a search of Brad Myers' pages would find it! HANDS is the name of the system. The system allows the programmer to create two-dimensional games and simulations using language constructs which are more "natural" than traditional programming languages and systems. HANDS has been recently updated to run with Java 5.0. and OS X 10.4. A number of papers (including John Pane's thesis) and information concerning HANDS can be found by following links on the following page: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~pane/research.html Jeffrey Edgington University of Denver -- PPIG Discuss List ([email protected]) Discuss admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss Announce admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/announce PPIG Discuss archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/
Re: PPIG discuss: teaching kids to program
funnily, this just came in on another list:
On 01/08/07, Bill Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I wanted to make a short pre-release announcement about the next version
> of Tux Paint (my OSS drawing app for young kids). Note: This is directed
> to
> folks here who are teaching _older_ kids computer programming. (Versus my
> typical audience: people using Tux Paint with younger kids for art and
> other
> subjects.)
>
> The next version of Tux Paint (0.9.18), due out {I'm not sure when}, will
> include a plugin feature, similar to what more professional graphics
> programs like The GIMP have.
>
> For those of you familiar with Tux Paint, it's "Magic" tools (blur,
> smudge,
> rainbow brush, etc.) are no longer part of the Tux Paint application.
> They are now shared objects (on Linux, ".so" files) that are loaded at
> runtime. This means that new Magic tools can be developed and tested
> quickly, and an intimate familiarity with the internals of Tux Paint
> ("tuxpaint.c", specifically) is no longer necessary.
>
> Along with making it easier on _myself_ (I've already created over a half
> dozen new Magic tools for v.0.9.18), my fantasy is that older students who
> want to play around with graphics programming (specifically, the bit
> twiddling
> kind of stuff that a Magic tool does) will now be able to use Tux Paint as
> a sort of 'development platform.' :)
>
> What do people think? Am I crazy? Or have I sparked anyone's curiosity?
>
> In the meantime, I've been working on whipping together documentation on
> the
> Tux Paint Magic tool plugin API, which you can read directly via CVS at
> the
> following link (sorry, it's long):
>
>
> http://tuxpaint.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*/tuxpaint/tuxpaint/magic/docs/html/README.html
>
> I'd love some suggestions on how to make this more usable by high school
> students (or possibly create a separate 'Tutorial', and let the current
> docs
> remain as a more general 'Reference').
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> --
> -bill!
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.newbreedsoftware.com/
>
--
___
Yishay Mor, Researcher, London Knowledge Lab
http://www.lkl.ac.uk/people/mor.html
http://yishaym.wordpress.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/yishaymor
http://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=yishaym%40gmail.com
+44-20-7837 x5737
Re: PPIG discuss: teaching kids to program
Enda Dunican wrote: > We had a discussion regarding this at PPIG 2007 in Joensuu. I've just remembered that one of the most exciting PPIG talks I saw was by David Gilmore in 1995 where he gave a demo of KidSim. It was a programming language where you could effectively create visual games (e.g., new object moves horizontally, write a rule about what should happen when it hits another object or the edge). A poke on Google finds that it was renamed Cocoa and then Stagecast Creator. http://www.acypher.com/Publications/CACM/KidSimCACM.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagecast_Creator Paola -- http://www.paolability.com/ -- PPIG Discuss List ([email protected]) Discuss admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss Announce admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/announce PPIG Discuss archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/
Re: PPIG discuss: teaching kids to program
Marian Petre and I have written a paper, to be presented at VL/ HCC 2007, which sets out to describe what kids *actually* want to program, as opposed to what adults think would be good for them. Anyone who wants a preview, I'm sure Marian won't mind if I offer preview copies to anyone who emails me. Alan > Hi all > > We had a discussion regarding this at PPIG 2007 in Joensuu. In my > opinion there is too much emphasis on Lego Mindstorms and introducing > kids to programming using robots. I was at a meeting once where someone > professed that if you aren't interested in Mindstorms or robots you > won't be interested in programming, now there was an open mind! Why > don't we introduce kids to stuff outside of lego and robots e.g. using > mobile phone metaphors (things a large number of them are all into, in > Ireland anyway) - moving cursor around the screen or predictive texting > or a sports metaphor of moving a football player from the corner flag to > the centre circle. We seem to persist with robots and lego ad nauseam > without wondering if there is anything else out there that can get the > basics of programming across to children. Describing something that > worked for me is fine, but assuming it's going to work for others or > it's the only way it can work for others is not. I have no doubt that > lego and robots will work very well for a good number of children but > shouldn't we begin to experiment with other things. I have looked at a > lot of research material in novice programming and the same stuff > appears again and again. Isn't it time we tried something new? Why don't > we examine this on an inductive basis where we ask students what they > are interested in and let these interests form the basis for programming > metaphors. > > Regards > > Enda > > Dr. Enda Dunican > Lecturer in Computing, > Dept. of Computing and Networking, > Institute of Technology Carlow, > Kilkenny Road, > Carlow, > Ireland. > (Tel: 1-353-(0)59-9170508 > + Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > PPIG Discuss List ([email protected]) > Discuss admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss > Announce admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/announce > PPIG Discuss archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/ > -- Alan Blackwell Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/afb21/ Phone: +44 (0) 1223 334418 -- PPIG Discuss List ([email protected]) Discuss admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss Announce admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/announce PPIG Discuss archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/
RE: PPIG discuss: teaching kids to program
Can anyone point me to any research results that show that teaching kids to program has any transfer to other areas? Last I followed this kind of thing, the results were negative - teaching programming doesn't have any more of a beneficial effect on, say, mathematics than time spent directly on math. Can anyone point me to any research that shows that kids who learn programming are better at it than those who learn it later, after you control for personality/apptitude effects? Last, but not least, what is the effect of learning Latin on learning to program? Ruven Brooks "Guzdial, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/31/2007 09:52 AM To "Enda Dunican" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected] cc Subject RE: PPIG discuss: teaching kids to program We're seeing a lot of use of both Alice and the new MIT Scratch with children. We're successfully using Python for media computation with children as young as 11 years old. Mark
RE: PPIG discuss: teaching kids to program
We're seeing a lot of use of both Alice and the new MIT Scratch with children. We're successfully using Python for media computation with children as young as 11 years old. Mark
RE: PPIG discuss: teaching kids to program
Hi all We had a discussion regarding this at PPIG 2007 in Joensuu. In my opinion there is too much emphasis on Lego Mindstorms and introducing kids to programming using robots. I was at a meeting once where someone professed that if you aren't interested in Mindstorms or robots you won't be interested in programming, now there was an open mind! Why don't we introduce kids to stuff outside of lego and robots e.g. using mobile phone metaphors (things a large number of them are all into, in Ireland anyway) - moving cursor around the screen or predictive texting or a sports metaphor of moving a football player from the corner flag to the centre circle. We seem to persist with robots and lego ad nauseam without wondering if there is anything else out there that can get the basics of programming across to children. Describing something that worked for me is fine, but assuming it's going to work for others or it's the only way it can work for others is not. I have no doubt that lego and robots will work very well for a good number of children but shouldn't we begin to experiment with other things. I have looked at a lot of research material in novice programming and the same stuff appears again and again. Isn't it time we tried something new? Why don't we examine this on an inductive basis where we ask students what they are interested in and let these interests form the basis for programming metaphors. Regards Enda Dr. Enda Dunican Lecturer in Computing, Dept. of Computing and Networking, Institute of Technology Carlow, Kilkenny Road, Carlow, Ireland. (Tel: 1-353-(0)59-9170508 + Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PPIG Discuss List ([email protected]) Discuss admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss Announce admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/announce PPIG Discuss archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/
