

Symbolic Programming Vs. the A.P. Curriculum - b-man
http://el.media.mit.edu/Logo-foundation/pubs/papers/symbolic_vs_ap.html
For anyone interested in teaching programming, this one is a must read
======
davidalln
> Now they need a kind of apprenticeship: real tasks to work on, the freedom
> to experiment and to risk failure, but in an environment that models respect
> for commitment.

As someone who just got out of an AP Computer Science class, I could not agree
with this statement more despite the fact that it was written over 15 years
ago. While I had an excellent teacher and really enjoyed the class, I found
that in the textbook and on the test that we were simply required to
demonstrate that we knew the basic components of the Java API, not necessarily
how to implement them. Even on the free response questions, the test writers
held our hands through unrealistic problems that tested whether or not we knew
what a HashMap was and if we knew how to iterate through it.

The GridWorld case study doesn't help either. In their failed attempt the
create a more "real world" problem, they created more questions that could be
answered on the ability to memorize what classes in the program do what and
not on how well you understand programming concepts.

Sure, it makes sense for Google to "test" their job applicants with a
programming problem, but I honestly doubt they ask "The following program will
throw a (blank) exception".

Perhaps The College Board should structure their curriculum similar to their
Studio Art curriculum, where students send in pieces of their portfolio to be
judged and "graded". Students should be given a real world application to
create or a difficult puzzle to solve that must be turned in at a certain date
to be given a grade. Obviously there would be a bit more involved thinking in
that process, but I really think that would provide a much more meaningful
experience.

Any person can memorize a bunch of rules from an API, but a real "5" student
can actually apply those rules and manipulate them to solve any problem thrown
at him.

------
johnnybgoode
Although they obviously have room for improvement, rigid schools do not lend
themselves to a more flexible approach like this one.

To use a more extreme example, let's say a general wants to introduce more
flexibility in the way his military is run. How far can that really go?

~~~
b-man
That's exactly the point of constructionism (the epistemological school that
the article's author subscribe to). The objective of the educational system is
to form citizens capable of critical thinking and independence, something that
a soldier is very much discouraged to do, so your analogy is exemplary of an
incorrect approach for the educational system (which is our current rigid
model, of course).

~~~
johnnybgoode
I don't oppose constructionism at all, but I believe state-run schools are
fundamentally incompatible with real flexibility. The author's website
suggests he is a Marxist -- I don't know if that means state socialist or
anarchist in this case, but if it's the former, he would probably disagree
with me.

~~~
b-man
I take a libertarian stance on that too man. But I also follow a pluralist
approach on how people organize their own systems, so if people want to trust
the government (specially in very miserable and risk intense areas I do
believe the government can play a very important role to set up a framework
that could be built by incremented the individuals).

