Y'know, yesterday I was fretting about the fact that without strong theoretical underpinnings, my programming website for kids would never become a useful tool. But there no reason for me to have such a crisis of confidence because, honestly, which of these people is most likely to make the best programming tool for kids:
A PhD from MIT who has been professionaly developing his patented educational programs for more than 10 years.
A Turing award winner who has spent decades studying user interactions with programming languages.
Me.
Obviously, my approach will be the best. :-)
Friday, June 03, 2005
Teaching about Loops
So I finally finished most of the artwork for the "if" section of my programming website for kids. It seems that the Java VM has improved a bit since I last used it. I'm finally getting consistent synchronization behaviour between when my applet running in a web broswer and my applet running stand-alone. And Swing now seems to support automatic text cut&paste with Windows applications (sigh, all of this could have been avoided if they used native widgets!).
And I'm now starting the section on loops. I've spent a few months thinking about this topic, but I'm still not sure about what the best approach is.
In traditional programming books about BASIC, the loop section would talk about FOR...NEXT loops:
FOR n=1 to 5
REM Stuff that happens 5 times
NEXT n
Unfortunately, the Javascript for loop is a little bit cryptic (especially since I haven't covered increment operators, the less-than operator, or the greater-than operator). Additionally, the convention for loops is that they start at 0. But, people are more comfortable with loops that start incrementing at 1 (like in BASIC). However, if I use 1-based loops throughout my examples, people might get confused when they later start working with normal code.
I suppose I could treat the syntax of the "for" loop as gobbledygook that should be treated as a black-box. This then reduces the number of concepts that need to be understood to work with loops.
Another alternative is that I could start with while loops. The advantage is that the word "while" actually means something, so it might be easier to understand. Unfortunately, there isn't all that much that one can do with a while loop without understanding the concept of sentry variables, which involves teaching 2 or 3 abstract concepts all at the same time.
I could teach the concept of the infinite loops first via "while(true)," but assuming that I don't teach boolean algebra beforehand (which I don't), then the whole command would need to be treated as a black-box, defeating the whole purpose of starting with the "while" loop in the first place. Then, I could follow that by teaching the concept of using "break" to break out of loops. This seems a little odd to me because no one else teaches loops in this way. Perhaps the "breaking out of loops" concept is simply too abstract a concept. But it does seem like a lot less work than discussing sentry variables and such.
Well, I don't know. For the past few months, I've been keen on the idea of starting with the while loop, but now I'm starting to come around to the idea of starting with infinite for loops. I'll have to ponder this some more.
And I'm now starting the section on loops. I've spent a few months thinking about this topic, but I'm still not sure about what the best approach is.
In traditional programming books about BASIC, the loop section would talk about FOR...NEXT loops:
FOR n=1 to 5
REM Stuff that happens 5 times
NEXT n
Unfortunately, the Javascript for loop is a little bit cryptic (especially since I haven't covered increment operators, the less-than operator, or the greater-than operator). Additionally, the convention for loops is that they start at 0. But, people are more comfortable with loops that start incrementing at 1 (like in BASIC). However, if I use 1-based loops throughout my examples, people might get confused when they later start working with normal code.
I suppose I could treat the syntax of the "for" loop as gobbledygook that should be treated as a black-box. This then reduces the number of concepts that need to be understood to work with loops.
Another alternative is that I could start with while loops. The advantage is that the word "while" actually means something, so it might be easier to understand. Unfortunately, there isn't all that much that one can do with a while loop without understanding the concept of sentry variables, which involves teaching 2 or 3 abstract concepts all at the same time.
I could teach the concept of the infinite loops first via "while(true)," but assuming that I don't teach boolean algebra beforehand (which I don't), then the whole command would need to be treated as a black-box, defeating the whole purpose of starting with the "while" loop in the first place. Then, I could follow that by teaching the concept of using "break" to break out of loops. This seems a little odd to me because no one else teaches loops in this way. Perhaps the "breaking out of loops" concept is simply too abstract a concept. But it does seem like a lot less work than discussing sentry variables and such.
Well, I don't know. For the past few months, I've been keen on the idea of starting with the while loop, but now I'm starting to come around to the idea of starting with infinite for loops. I'll have to ponder this some more.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Theoretical Underpinnings for Kids' Programming Tools
During the weekend, I happened to come across a cheap scanner for sale, and I grabbed one so I would have the tools to start working on my programmingbasics.org website again. This then inspired me to take another look at the tools available for teaching kids to program. It looks like the same stuff as always--Squeak, ToonTalk, and Logo. Of course, all of these tools have strong theoretical underpinnings describing interaction models, learning processes, etc., whereas my website simply focuses on recreating the programming environment available to me when I was a kid. I'm no longer confident that I'm taking the right approach any more. Will my website (assuming that I ever finish it) have the correct foundation for teaching kids to program? Should I take a more holistic approach to the site and try to provide a complete environment for "experimentation" as opposed to simply creating something that focuses solely on just programming? Hmm. Perhaps I'm being naive. Kids today associate computer with great graphics and sound. Creating an environment that focuses on programming and doesn't allow kids to immediately generate flashy animations might lose their interest too quickly.
When I learned programming, all computers were textual. In fact, I didn't even own a computer. I was fascinated by flowcharts and wrote my first computer program out on paper by hand. The books available for teaching kids to program focused on real languages and on real syntax issues. And that's what I wanted to learn when I read those books. That's why my website is based on Javascript and focuses on syntax. But maybe those old programming books for kids died out for a reason, and maybe that reason was that kids aren't interested in learning programming that way any more. I guess I'll have to think about it.
When I learned programming, all computers were textual. In fact, I didn't even own a computer. I was fascinated by flowcharts and wrote my first computer program out on paper by hand. The books available for teaching kids to program focused on real languages and on real syntax issues. And that's what I wanted to learn when I read those books. That's why my website is based on Javascript and focuses on syntax. But maybe those old programming books for kids died out for a reason, and maybe that reason was that kids aren't interested in learning programming that way any more. I guess I'll have to think about it.
FBX File Format
Previously, I've complained about the U3D file format for having such an obscure encoding scheme that I felt it was impossible to read a U3D file without using the unreleased Intel U3D libraries that everyone else apparently uses to read and write this file format.
But after looking at some other 3d file formats, perhaps this isn't so unusual. For example, Kaydara's FBX file interchange format (now owned by Alias) doesn't even have a documented encoding format. As far as I can tell, the only way to read a FBX file is to use the provided SDK libraries. Personally, I can't imagine how you could call something an interchange file format if you don't actually describe what the file format is. But maybe I'm just not used to how things work with 3d graphics.
Oddly enough, the only light-weight 3d file format that seems to be well-documented is Microsoft's DirectX file format. Unfortunately, it's apparently no longer under active development.
But after looking at some other 3d file formats, perhaps this isn't so unusual. For example, Kaydara's FBX file interchange format (now owned by Alias) doesn't even have a documented encoding format. As far as I can tell, the only way to read a FBX file is to use the provided SDK libraries. Personally, I can't imagine how you could call something an interchange file format if you don't actually describe what the file format is. But maybe I'm just not used to how things work with 3d graphics.
Oddly enough, the only light-weight 3d file format that seems to be well-documented is Microsoft's DirectX file format. Unfortunately, it's apparently no longer under active development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)