> > Yes. I typically bring up J (the language) and the LEX Institute at this > point, the former because the documentation consciously adopts "grammar" and > "parts of speech" as the dominant paradigm, the latter because here you have > human language learners (pioneers in techniques) tackling Fourier > Transformations as a topic. O'Reilly's 'Head First' titles reminds me of > LEX, per this blog post: >
http://worldgame.blogspot.com/2005/01/brainstorming-about-pedagogy.html Everything is a moving target of course, i.e. innovations in computer technology will revolutionize how we teach human languages, in terms of using YouTube like clips and so on. Another important teaching from pedagogy: we don't all like learning the same way, or, put another way, have these personalized optimal ways of learning that, if catered to, will multiply learning effectiveness by orders of magnitude. So to talk about "evolving" or "evolution" should not get us thinking "convergence" as if it's all narrowing to some Borg-like mono-culture. My sense of technology is it facilitates precisely the opposite: an explosion of possibilities and a consequent multiplicity of lifestyles (and learning styles). Kirby
_______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
