18 ms·
The enormous effort to bring kids/young adults into CS is really awesome and admirable. However I fundamentally disagree with the philosophy of this paper. IM
by flafla2 5y ago
The enormous effort to bring kids/young adults into CS is really awesome and admirable. However I fundamentally disagree with the philosophy of this paper. IMO, we should try to take the kid gloves off of our programming education as soon as possible.
I learned how to code when I was an adolescent (10-12). I wasn’t personally interested in the act of programming itself, but I was fascinated by the possibilities of what I could create with code. My first coding venture was in LEGO mindstorms block-based code, and this was great to introduce fundamental concepts like loops and boolean logic. But I didn’t care about any of that until much later, I just wanted to build a LEGO gun so I could shoot pegs at my brother (hah!).
Soon enough my interests wandered (as would any kid’s), and I wanted to make a mod for Minecraft. At the time this involved decompiling the java source code, modifying the java code with the changes, and recompiling it back to bytecode. That’s right, I installed eclipse at the age of 12. I shudder at the memory.
But you know what? I didn’t care, because I was passionate about what I wanted to create. There were tutorials and tools online to help me with the mundane bits. The OP article opens by claiming that their language is better for learning because it doesn’t have gotcha’s like semicolons… but that was absurdly easy to figure out (just pattern match with the other code you see!). All it took was a drive to figure it all out. And in the end my mod (which is still available online! see [1]) shipped to tens of thousands of players. Until recently it was the most successful project I was ever involved with.
Now, I don’t mean to suggest that every kid should have to deal with arcane build systems and linker hell (that would be sadistic). But my point is that kids are willing to put up with a whole lot of BS in order to create.
I’ve taught summer coding and 3D art classes to adolescents myself, and I’ve verified this personally:
- I’ve seen a 10 year old fiddle with obscure configuration options in the Unity game engine that would confuse a trained artist, just so they could see their stuffed animal in VR.
- I’ve seen a 12 year old download Autodesk Inventor fusion on his home PC so that he can make a 3D model of a lightsaber.
- I’ve had a kid stay hours after class so they can fiddle with a C# script that I provided to them for a game dev assignment — just so they can execute on their vision.
I haven’t seen this kind of success with block based programming. Because the whole language is on rails, you tend to get half-assed results that follow whatever tutorial I supply by the letter. Results are bounded by the bespoke language features that are provided (eg sprites) so kids may not feel that they can achieve exactly what they want. It completely kills the creative freedom that a kid craves.
Block based programming absolutely has its place, but it does not scale beyond the absolute basics. Kids don’t want to be patronized with a training wheel language and we should give them the opportunity to push through the tricky parts of a “big boy/girl” language if they are inclined.
[1] https://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/mapping-and-modding-java-edition/minecraft-mods/1276469-1-2-5-simple-npcs-npcs-for-mapmakers-5000 https://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/mapping-and-modding-ja...
- Jare 5y ago> does not scale beyond the absolute basics > if they are inclined I agree with those, but I want to emphasize how important it is to ensure that the "absolute basics" remain accessible to the least inclined until they discover if they want to scale up to the next level or not. In regular shared classroom education, one of the toughest elements of accessibility is to ensure nobody ends up left out because of unfavorably comparing themselves to the stars of the subject. I myself was a star in computers, but a total and abject "I don't want to be here" failure in physical education - I remember how it feels on both ends.
- flafla2 5y agoI’m glad you brought this up and I totally agree. Indeed, in a “learning language,” the basic things should be easy and approachable for beginners, but the hard things should be as easy as they can be as well. Or at the very least, hard things should be possible. The best learning language that I’ve come across is Python. Nothing is harder than it needs to be at the beginner/intermediate level. And it scales all the way up to real work in the industry. Plus, the author of the OP would be happy to know that semicolons are not an issue :)
- sitkack 5y agoWe should never introduce filters to education and understanding. It is immoral. Giving examples of tenacious kids battling their tooling is evidence that we should increase the slope of the difficulty curve. This isn’t how pros train, this is how you self select for kids you don’t have to teach.
- hjek 5y agoAlright kindergarten, today we're gonna right ahead with calculus part II. Even if we "take the gloves off as soon as possible", there is a point at which Snap is brilliant. Are you going to teach Python to primary schoolers?
- sitkack 5y agoI think we agree? Snap is brilliant and we should strive to teach everyone a subject, not just those that get-it on the first try. I don't think we should make things harder than they must be.