I think one of the trickiest issues in this kind of design is an analogy to the learning of science itself, and that is "how much should the learners/users have to do by themselves vs. how much should the curriculum/system do for them?" Most computer users have been mostly exposed to "productivity tools" in which as many things as possible have been done for them. The kinds of educational environments we are talking about here are at their best when the learner does the important parts by themselves, and any black or translucent boxes serve only on the side and not at the center of the learning. What is the center and what is the side will shift as the learning progresses, and this has to be accommodated.
By exposing everything in Etoys as "First Principles" (which in this particular case I understand to mean, that we have a minimal set of scripting tiles and objects from which everything can be built) we avoid the "productivity tools" issue because everything is exposed. It is also a beautiful, elegant and exposes a powerful idea.
The challenge in a system where everything is done from "First Principles" is that when you are designing an"educational environment" "lesson", or "Artifact" ( better terms might be "playthink" and/or "tool to think with"), it can take a lot of work to build those preferably translucent boxes. And to paraphrase another Alan Kay quote on user interface design: "If it takes one step I'll do it, If it takes two steps I might do it, if it takes three or more steps forget about it!"
No, I am not arguing to make things easy for everyone, we need find ways to get kids to have "hard fun." Hard work and ragging a problem are good habits. I also strongly believe that giving kids a "blank canvas" and a great set of brushes and paints is an excellent and preffered method, but not the only one we should use.
I am arguing (and struggling) with is how in a "First Principle" system like Etoys, we can find ways to make it easier for teachers/designers (ie: make them more productive). I fear I see in some folks (none on this email list of course) a tendency towards what I initially saw (and fell into myself) as the constructivism trap. Where I encountered people who thought kids should construct all knowledge themselves from Scratch (pun intended ;). As I recall Alan (and others pointing out) we can't expect kids to do that, they will repeat the same mistakes people did over thousands of years. My initial thoughts are a repository of Artifacts that teachers can use along with a set of scripts (the problem with the set of scripts idea is that the scripts in Etoys are not decoupled from the ?morphs? (not sure of the correct term here, but basically the pixels visually representing the object). Bert's idea that we have a Player Variable and the scripts that operate on it is a good one, but I think there may be some bugs there, need to test more.
Now I will more directly address Kathleen's question: "What do you mean by "Artifacts".
One of the best and simplest "Playthinks" for teaching I ever encountered was Robert B. Davis' classroom warm-up (which I showed at Squeakfest and have wrote about
here.) Basically it involves drawing on the board a 4 x 4 grid
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Then having kids pick two numbers and using those two numbers as X and Y counting from 0 at the origin point in the lower left and then If they land on the board marking an X or O until one team wins. Some of the keys to this "Playthink" are:
- you let kids puzzle it out for themselves, they figure out the rules, you don't tell them
- it contains a powerful idea
- it can be easily extended to other concepts (negative numbers, a number is all the ways you can name it, is this game fair ...)
- its fun
Bert, your comments on SQ-749 sparked my writing this, I will address it more specifically in a separate email after some more thought.
Including Alan so he can correct any misinterpretations and hopefully comment
FYI: A lot of other excelent writings from VPRI are
here, most are Computer Science related but a number deal with educational issues and Etoys.
Stephen
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Bert Freudenberg <bert@freudenbergs.de> wrote:
On 12.08.2010, at 10:32, Steve Thomas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Bert Freudenberg <
bert@freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>> This would likely be simple to implement, but could break existing projects. E.g. the morphing stuff in the showcase. Maybe you could take a look?
>
> Checked "Morphing" by Kazuhiro Abe and that should be fine. Each Polygon in the holder has the same number of vertices and the script simple changes the positions of the vertices one at a time.
>
> "The Walkers" and associated remixes by P.A. Dreyfus uses a special category "morphing" which would be great to get into Etoys (although I would suggest the addition of some way to show/manage the frames) to make the invisible more visible and to make it easier to create these kind of animations. Anyway, whether this would be a problem or not depends on how it is implemented. If he stores complete information about the polygon in each frame, I see no problems. If he only stores differences and adds/removes/repositions each vertex that MAY cause a problem.
>
> Anyway if it is a simple change and you can make it, I think I can easily test the change by opening the project, then file-in the changes and see if anything breaks. Or you could also ask P.A. Dreyfus (master of polygon's and connectors) what he thinks as he knows and can check the changes against his implementation.
>
> Stephen
Having the new vertex remain at the same position is the only sensible choice. It matches the "copy" behavior of regular objects, which also appear in the same position. It would not scale anyway - see this image where I only inserted 4 vertices. The position quickly converges to the next vertex position.
Also, I'd argue that "add a vertex at beginning" and "add a vertex at end" tiles are not needed in the first place. To be useful they would, as you noticed, have to be "set cursor to beginning and insert vertex" and "set cursor to end and insert vertex", because otherwise one cannot assign their position immediately. But that makes them perform two operations that are available separately. There is no good reason to coalesce those steps into one.
In any case, inserting a vertex should not change the cursor. If you want a cursor change to occur, insert a tile.
So my counter-proposal is: remove the "add vertex at beginning" and "add vertex at end" tiles. (to not break existing projects, the tiles would only be hidden)
- Bert -
_______________________________________________
etoys-dev mailing list
etoys-dev@squeakland.org
http://lists.squeakland.org/mailman/listinfo/etoys-dev