Hi folks,
Paul Fernhout, former Squeaker, posted an interesting post-mortem analysis of his experiment to create an educational environment in Python:
http://patapata.sourceforge.net/critique.html
- Bert -
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Paul D. Fernhout" pdfernhout@kurtz-fernhout.com Date: November 26, 2006 22:50:02 GMT+01:00 To: "edu-sig@python.org" edu-sig@python.org Subject: [Edu-sig] FYI: PataPata postmortem link
Just as an FYI, as a way to wind up the PataPata project (or at least one phase of it), I wrote a lengthy postmortem critique of the PataPata project to date, plus ideas for where to go from here. You can read the critique by following this link:
"PataPata critique: the good, the bad, the ugly" http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php? thread_id=31111569&forum_id=48729
Comments welcome.
For reference, the PataPata project is/was """an experiment to support educational constructivism on the Python platform, inspired by "Squeak" and "Self", but going beyond those in a Pythonic way."""
From the introduction: """It's been about three months from my last post to the PataPata list as well as my last major change to the system. I have been thinking about the system in the intervening time, and feel ready to produce a critique of it as an experiment (sort of as a, sadly, "postmortem" report). Others are welcome to chime in. This critique covers various good, bad, and ugly results from this experiment, and then outlines some thoughts on where to go next. This note marks the end of this phase of the PataPata experiment. I am uncertain if this project on SourceForge will see more development, but I am certain if there is more development on this particular SourceForge project, it will likely be in a radically different direction than the work published here to date. """
===
By the way, my decision to write a critique of PataPata was inspired in part by this paper by Drew McDermott, "Artificial Intelligence meets Natural Stupidity".
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1045340 [fee based link]
The core of the paper is here:
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1406540
From there:
"McDermott explains how all research should be based on actual implementations, and be a thorough report on them. What is needed is a very clear picture of what was tried, what worked, what didn't, why didn't that work. And there must be a working program that later researchers can play with. Later research can build on these partial solutions, and report the exact improvements made since the previous version, the improvement in performance, etc. As McDermott states:
The standard for such research should be a partial success,but AI as a field is starving for a few carefully documented failures. Anyone can think of several theses that could be improved stylistically and substantively by being rephrased as reports on failures. I can learn more by just being told why a technique won't work than by being made to read between the lines."
Thanks again to people here for your previous feedback on the project.
--Paul Fernhout _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list Edu-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig