4 ms·

Kinda like Montessori except with code? When I see kids build things in Minecraft I wonder if those skills translate to programming later in life. I believe I w

by kanobo 6y ago

Kinda like Montessori except with code? When I see kids build things in Minecraft I wonder if those skills translate to programming later in life. I believe I was lucky in that when I was in grade school even websites by professionals were so janky and amateurish (in a charming way) I felt like there was no barrier and anybody with a text editor could figure it out.

FroshKiller 6y ago
As a programmer who started with DeHackEd patches for DOOM, CON scripting for Duke Nukem 3D, and QuakeC scripting for Quake, yes, they can translate.
indigochill 6y ago
>Kinda like Montessori except with code? There's an education theory called Constructionism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructionism_(learning_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructionism_(learning_theo...) which is all about kids learning through active engagement with the material. Montessori is one constructionist method. Seymour Papert was a pioneer of constructionist theory and contributed to the Logo programming language as well as writing the book "Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas" which became the namesake of the LEGO robotics line which it inspired. "Minds in Play: Computer Game Design As A Context for Children's Learning" is another book that uses game design (and Logo) as a platform for constructionist education. Constructionism has been important to the development of computer interfaces as well since it inspired Alan Kay and his Dynabook concept (which inspired the iPad), which was designed with the intent of making a child-friendly computer. I'm certain Minecraft is a gateway to developing technical thinking, especially if kids start wanting to mod the game (and maybe even make their own mods, at which point they have to reason about the underlying system).
- kanobo 6y ago
  I remember reading an old research paper (pre-minecraft) that tracked long-term effects of kid-friendly languages like logo and scratch-like languages vs textual-based programming like basic. It found that the former got more kids engaged but there was minimal lasting impact (none of those tracked became programmers or stated any interest in learning more as adults). The later got fewer kids interested initially but those who did get interested had a high chance of carrying those skills into programming careers. The results would probably be very different now, but that paper really colored my thinking when I first read it.

by kanobo 6y ago

FroshKiller 6y ago

As a programmer who started with DeHackEd patches for DOOM, CON scripting for Duke Nukem 3D, and QuakeC scripting for Quake, yes, they can translate.

indigochill 6y ago

>Kinda like Montessori except with code? There's an education theory called Constructionism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructionism_(learning_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructionism_(learning_theo...) which is all about kids learning through active engagement with the material. Montessori is one constructionist method. Seymour Papert was a pioneer of constructionist theory and contributed to the Logo programming language as well as writing the book "Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas" which became the namesake of the LEGO robotics line which it inspired. "Minds in Play: Computer Game Design As A Context for Children's Learning" is another book that uses game design (and Logo) as a platform for constructionist education. Constructionism has been important to the development of computer interfaces as well since it inspired Alan Kay and his Dynabook concept (which inspired the iPad), which was designed with the intent of making a child-friendly computer. I'm certain Minecraft is a gateway to developing technical thinking, especially if kids start wanting to mod the game (and maybe even make their own mods, at which point they have to reason about the underlying system).

kanobo 6y ago
I remember reading an old research paper (pre-minecraft) that tracked long-term effects of kid-friendly languages like logo and scratch-like languages vs textual-based programming like basic. It found that the former got more kids engaged but there was minimal lasting impact (none of those tracked became programmers or stated any interest in learning more as adults). The later got fewer kids interested initially but those who did get interested had a high chance of carrying those skills into programming careers. The results would probably be very different now, but that paper really colored my thinking when I first read it.