On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Robert Hansen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
<< SNIP >>
> I have been studying pre-exposure for some time. I cannot find any > evidence that learning (my definition) is occurring. That doesn't mean I am > against it, just that I think it should not be treated as part of the > academic progression. Even though I think Logo and the like were complete > flops for their intended purpose, to teach programming to young kids, I > think the activity is worthwhile, for other reasons. I still hold to a > 75/25 mix. 75% of the lesson plan should be development while 25% should be > engagement. In high school that changes somewhat. > > Bob Hansen > >
Many ways to look at the problem / challenge.
I'm at least relieved it's legal in Oregon to experiment e.g. we might bus a cadre of home schoolers to some corporate campus to find out what the engineers want us to learn, and yet on the books it's math. That's why they get their equivalency certificate, or even a regular PPS diploma if its an EDS-managed program (sorry for the alphabet soup, we all have our peculiar set of organs).
It might "feel" like CS to you and me, but thanks to changes in the law, it counts towards math credit, and that high school degree comes closer every minute spent staring at those weirdo Portland-made (some of 'em) toons (anime) re group theory or whatever it is, with followup coding exercises.
Note to post-Algebra teachers:
Remember, they want to code "games" (we say "simulations") and that's doable (also to play them, simulations that is) but don't forget to tell them about "cartoons".
A lot of 'em would just as much like to code cartoons but didn't see that as an option. They think "computer games" and forget to think "computer movies".