Re: [OT] Teaching methodology
On 12/08/15 15:51, Mark Schonewille wrote: 1) A course can be systematic yet playful. The teacher needs to stick to a number of principles and a plan, but the children should just have fun and learn something. Of course. Except I take exception to the *just* in just have fun as that debases coding classes to the level of something to keep snotty-nosed children off their parents' backs, and there is far more to coding than that. While kids learning coding should find it enjoyable, they should also be aware that it is NOT 'fun' in the sense that a game of Snakes and Ladders is fun, but a whole lot more. 2) When I create software, I do this with the skills I already possess. When I run into a problem, I enhance my skills until I can solve the problem. As a programmer, I am always ready to learn something new. If it is required to solve the problem, I'll learn a (to me) entirely new language. Well, that goes for me as well. The semi-quote (i.e. I reconstructed it from a Skype chat I had with that chap) was not from me, but it did seem a provocative statement that could reflect some of my questions and worries, and how one can communicate those to people who are not experienced school teachers and not experienced xTalk coders. 3) Programmers want to work efficiently. If they decide to invest time into learning something new, they are already out of their comfort zone. However, if this is about the parents of the children you teach, you have a problem. Bulgarians do not like teachers telling them what is good for their kids: even if some of those parents are, frankly, extremely ignorant. Bulgaria is also an intensely patriarchal society: I had a thundering fight with a father of 2 girls [he threw a chair at me] who had decided they should go to the hairdressers' school when they wanted to go to the Mathematics school: why? because Maths 'is' for boys. Luckily I prevailed and they will be starting at the Maths High school in September [admittedly at the price of their father thinking I am an insufferable pig . . . Ha, Ha!]. The father is an electronics engineer who programs circuit boards: I hope his daughters rip shit out of him in that field very soon indeed - and somebody else can cut his hair! These parents don't want to take the time to learn something new and they don't need to, but their children do. Ah, but stupid Mummy knows best, and stupid Daddy says 'Yes' to stupid Mummy - and, Please, don't tell me that is only a Bulgarian phenomenon, because it isn't. Do people really think that the world may fall apart, if everybody could suddenly make their own programmes? Until the late 1980s, everybody was forced to figure out programming by himself, because a) there were no specialized schools for this and b) the internet was only barely available. People went to computer clubs and everybody who was interested could not only make his or her own software, but also build his or her own computer! Did the world fall apart? No! Well, I started with MiniFortran at my school computer club 40 years ago: but Bulgaria was in the Communist chest freezer and those things just didn't happen. Only the very privileged (i.e. the kids of the Politburo) ever saw anything bearing a very faint resemblance to what we had in the West. I think you need to convince the parents that the world has changed. this is not really about the difficult parents. This is about whether I should bother to give the children I teach a long, tedious systematic introduction which will serve to turn most of them right off one day 1 [Oops . . . I seem to have answered my one question] or just get on with the programming. For instance, the 1998 book on C++ has absolutely co**-crinkling sections on What is a computer? going into excruciating detail. I generally start off by telling kids that a computer is a *box full of magical properties* that is only limited by our need to learn how to communicate with it properly, and that the way people communicate with computers is through a programming language. I then tell them, that, as cavemen communicated in a language that was simpler than ours, languages developed within the last 20 years are better and easier for communicating with computers than those developed 50 years ago. I also don't have an urge to tell them about *compiling* and *running* as with LiveCode it isn't necessary. Not only has programming become easier, programming is now everywhere in our daily life and has become a required skill. Like driving a car. AND, also like driving a car insofar as it is not a prerequisite to driving a car to understand all about internal combustion engines. Not only because some people might want to become a programmer, but also because people need to be able to understand an error message on the computer, think logically when programming the microwave or DVR/PVR/STB, and be careful and precise when entering a key on the
Re: [OT] Teaching methodology
Richmond, ive used a combo when teaching high school kids in the US software or programming. I do some mini lessons so they do practical project (always found this better than theoretical exercises with most students) on a subset of commands or features. proceed each with a small amount of discussion of the commands and features, then the assignments. after a few of these then move to more open ended assignments to let them tie it all together but have a wider understanding of the software or system. Of course there are usually some exceptions to the rule with some way out there students who just dive in and figure it out. these more precocious students usually dont have the tunnel vision issue, that tends to be the grade grubbers who just care about getting the A on the assignment in the most direct course... cheers jeff On Aug 12, 2015, at 12:37 PM, use-livecode-requ...@lists.runrev.com wrote: Based on my experience with teaching programming to kids who already have some programming experience but are self-taught, I find that many of these self-taught programmers tend to focus on a very limited subset of one particular programming language and ignore the other, richer features because they have not had a systematic introduction to the language or to general principles of programming. That is a semi-quote from an acquaintance of mine trying to teach progging to High School kids in China. I would be grateful for lots of insight on my questions that stem from his statement. 1. Do children really need a systematic introduction to the language or to general principles of programming when it come to working with LiveCode? 2. Is this bit true in your experience of self-taught programmers: they tend to focus on a very limited subset of one particular programming language and ignore the other, richer features ?? 3. Id #2 is true have you any ideas on how to get self-taught programmers out of their comfort zone and leveraging other aspects of a programming language? Richmond. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
[OT] Teaching methodology
Based on my experience with teaching programming to kids who already have some programming experience but are self-taught, I find that many of these self-taught programmers tend to focus on a very limited subset of one particular programming language and ignore the other, richer features because they have not had a systematic introduction to the language or to general principles of programming. That is a semi-quote from an acquaintance of mine trying to teach progging to High School kids in China. I would be grateful for lots of insight on my questions that stem from his statement. 1. Do children really need a systematic introduction to the language or to general principles of programming when it come to working with LiveCode? 2. Is this bit true in your experience of self-taught programmers: they tend to focus on a very limited subset of one particular programming language and ignore the other, richer features ?? 3. Id #2 is true have you any ideas on how to get self-taught programmers out of their comfort zone and leveraging other aspects of a programming language? Richmond. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: [OT] Teaching methodology
1) A course can be systematic yet playful. The teacher needs to stick to a number of principles and a plan, but the children should just have fun and learn something. 2) When I create software, I do this with the skills I already possess. When I run into a problem, I enhance my skills until I can solve the problem. As a programmer, I am always ready to learn something new. If it is required to solve the problem, I'll learn a (to me) entirely new language. 3) Programmers want to work efficiently. If they decide to invest time into learning something new, they are already out of their comfort zone. However, if this is about the parents of the children you teach, you have a problem. These parents don't want to take the time to learn something new and they don't need to, but their children do. Do people really think that the world may fall apart, if everybody could suddenly make their own programmes? Until the late 1980s, everybody was forced to figure out programming by himself, because a) there were no specialized schools for this and b) the internet was only barely available. People went to computer clubs and everybody who was interested could not only make his or her own software, but also build his or her own computer! Did the world fall apart? No! I think you need to convince the parents that the world has changed. Not only has programming become easier, programming is now everywhere in our daily life and has become a required skill. Not only because some people might want to become a programmer, but also because people need to be able to understand an error message on the computer, think logically when programming the microwave or DVR/PVR/STB, and be careful and precise when entering a key on the website of their bank. It would be ludicrous to think that everyone first would have to learn C++ to acquire these skills. I know a toddler who can't even talk yet, but uses pictures on a mobile phone to show what she likes to eat and then goes to Youtube to listen to her favourite music. In fact, I know several examples like this one. These people are not going to need programming languages the way we do now, but we need to offer them some framework within which they can develop their skills. 4GL's may offer this framework, together with Arduino's, Raspberry Pies, and who knows what else we'll see in the near future. -- Best regards, Mark Schonewille Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer KvK: 50277553 Installer Maker for LiveCode: http://qery.us/468 Buy my new book Programming LiveCode for the Real Beginner http://qery.us/3fi LiveCode on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/runrev/ On 8/12/2015 12:28, Richmond wrote: Based on my experience with teaching programming to kids who already have some programming experience but are self-taught, I find that many of these self-taught programmers tend to focus on a very limited subset of one particular programming language and ignore the other, richer features because they have not had a systematic introduction to the language or to general principles of programming. That is a semi-quote from an acquaintance of mine trying to teach progging to High School kids in China. I would be grateful for lots of insight on my questions that stem from his statement. 1. Do children really need a systematic introduction to the language or to general principles of programming when it come to working with LiveCode? 2. Is this bit true in your experience of self-taught programmers: they tend to focus on a very limited subset of one particular programming language and ignore the other, richer features ?? 3. Id #2 is true have you any ideas on how to get self-taught programmers out of their comfort zone and leveraging other aspects of a programming language? Richmond. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: [OT] Teaching methodology
like +1 /like On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Mark Schonewille m.schonewi...@economy-x-talk.com wrote: 1) A course can be systematic yet playful. The teacher needs to stick to a number of principles and a plan, but the children should just have fun and learn something. 2) When I create software, I do this with the skills I already possess. When I run into a problem, I enhance my skills until I can solve the problem. As a programmer, I am always ready to learn something new. If it is required to solve the problem, I'll learn a (to me) entirely new language. 3) Programmers want to work efficiently. If they decide to invest time into learning something new, they are already out of their comfort zone. However, if this is about the parents of the children you teach, you have a problem. These parents don't want to take the time to learn something new and they don't need to, but their children do. Do people really think that the world may fall apart, if everybody could suddenly make their own programmes? Until the late 1980s, everybody was forced to figure out programming by himself, because a) there were no specialized schools for this and b) the internet was only barely available. People went to computer clubs and everybody who was interested could not only make his or her own software, but also build his or her own computer! Did the world fall apart? No! I think you need to convince the parents that the world has changed. Not only has programming become easier, programming is now everywhere in our daily life and has become a required skill. Not only because some people might want to become a programmer, but also because people need to be able to understand an error message on the computer, think logically when programming the microwave or DVR/PVR/STB, and be careful and precise when entering a key on the website of their bank. It would be ludicrous to think that everyone first would have to learn C++ to acquire these skills. I know a toddler who can't even talk yet, but uses pictures on a mobile phone to show what she likes to eat and then goes to Youtube to listen to her favourite music. In fact, I know several examples like this one. These people are not going to need programming languages the way we do now, but we need to offer them some framework within which they can develop their skills. 4GL's may offer this framework, together with Arduino's, Raspberry Pies, and who knows what else we'll see in the near future. -- Best regards, Mark Schonewille ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
