Alan Kay on 'The Camel has Two Humps'
I had some amazing comments left here by Alan Kay himself. Alan Kay (for those who haven't been paying attention) is the father of smalltalk, pioneer of Object-Oriented Programming (plus dynamic programming, message-based programming, gui-environments and much more), 2003 Turing Award Winner... he's a visionary without whom there'd likely be no windows in MS Windows (or Macs), no 'one laptop per child' program and many more things besides all that. Alan from Tron? Based on Alan Kay. Seriously.
Alan's writing -- even in comment form -- is so perfectly crafted that I thought i'd move it into its own post, and turn some of the words into hyperlinks, and added two [bracketed] notes.
First I asked this...
Something I'd love to know is what does Alan Kay think of this (draft) paper from 2006, 'The Camel has Two Humps'? (also discussed at Coding Horror)
Personally i've discounted it as poorly conducted research -- but it had a lot of resonance with readers at the time.
i'd be very interested in your response.
Alan Kay's Response...
I saw this a few years ago. They could be right, but there is nothing in the paper that substantiates it.
(How to do a short reply here?)
Notion 1: Good science can rarely be pulled off in an environment with lots of degrees of freedom unless the cause and effect relationships are really simple. Trying to assess curricula, pedagogy, teaching, and the learners all at once has lots of degrees of freedom and is *not* simple.
So for example we've found it necessary to test any curriculum idea over three years of trials to try to normalize as much as possible to get a good (usually negative) result.
Notion 2: Most assessments of students wind up assessing almost everything but. This is the confusions of "normal" with "reality".
For example, in our excursions into how to help children learn powerful ideas, we observed many classrooms and got some idea of "what children could do". Then I accidentally visited a first grade classroom (we were concerned with grades 3-6) in a busing school whose demographic by law was representative of the city as a whole. However, every 6 year old in this classroom could really do math, and not just arithmetic but real mathematical thinking quite beyond what one generally sees anywhere in K-8 [kindergarten and grades 1 through 8].
This was a huge shock, and it turned out that an unusual teacher was the culprit. She was a natural kindergarten and first grade teacher who was also a natural mathematician. She figured out just what to do with 6 year olds and was able to adapt other material as well for them. The results were amazing, and defied all the other generalizations we and others had made about this age group.
This got me to realize that it would be much better to find unusual situations with "normal" populations of learners but with the 1 in a million teacher or curriculum.
I found Tim Gallwey, who could teach anyone (literally) how to play a workable game of tennis in 20 minutes, and observed him do this with many dozens of learners over several years.
I found Betty Edwards who could teach (again literally) anyone to draw like a 2nd year art student in one intense week.
And so forth, because what the exceptional teaching is doing is actually allowing assessment of what general human beings from a typical bell curve can learn from crafted instruction.
And, I think some of the keys here are in the metaphor of bell curve. Students will exhibit distributions of talent, motivation, learning skills, style, etc., and one will see these show up right away in any simple-minded form of instruction and curriculum.
But if the battle cry is "Learner's First", then what we really want to know is what can be done to help the different types of learners. Some don't need any help. Some need to learn some things before they tackle the main subject. Some need to be shown different POVs so they can see a route for them to learn.
Really good teachers want to get all the students to be fluent, and they often find ways to do this. "Regular" teachers often just want to get through the material. Some school systems want to use education to sort the population rather than to educate the whole population. Etc.
I don't know the general answers here, but our research groups in the mid-70s [presumably the Learning Research Group at Xerox Parc] set a goal of 90% fluency for (say) 10-12 year olds, and then we proceeded to fail to achieve this until about 1998, when enough things had been done in the computer environment to provide hooks to many different kinds of children without losing the essential high quality of powerful ideas that was our goal.
I think as a teacher, one has to embrace the bell curve idea and be prepared to deal with at least three tiers of preparedness in the students. One could hope that a lot more general prep about thinking and symbolizing would have happened in K-12, but it doesn't in the US for sure.
There has been some very interesting work with respect to science teaching that seems parallel here (for example, by Tinker and others at Tufts). They not only found a pretest (could they interpret various kinds of graphs?) that would predict the grades of the 1st year physic students, but found that teaching the kids skills in doing well on the pretest (using some very creative ideas that Jerome Bruner would find familiar) would also vastly improve their performance in the physics class itself.
So the pretest was not just testing, but also finding some forms of relational and figurative thinking that some of the students needed skills in, before tackling physics.
I think every musician who is reading this will know what I'm driving at here. Music is a lot of skills and types of thinking and few musicians are naturally good at all of them. The desire to be a musician plus decent music instructors will find the things each learner will need to work on to get fluent. The result is that most skilled musicians can play advanced stuff, but they are all rather different on their outlook, how they practice, what they practice, etc.
(Sports and art also ... and almost certainly the more holy subjects sanctified by society, and those pretenders to the throne such as computing ....)
'Eric Lavigne' on Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:59:11 GMT, sez:
Check your Coding Horror link. Instead of "http://..." it starts out as "here http://...".
'lb' on Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:58:58 GMT, sez:
@Eric, fixed thank you ;-)
'Rick' on Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:19:06 GMT, sez:
Alan Kay is a visionary. A paper that claims certain people can't learn things is preposterous. Sure, certain people may have a natural aptitude for it, that doesn't mean they can't learn it. Material is taught in a limited concrete way. With different teaching methods and other ways to engage students I think everyone can learn how to program and have the concepts at their disposal.
'Martin C. Martin' on Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:13:26 GMT, sez:
Anyone have a link to a paper about the "natural kindergarten and first grade teacher who was also a natural mathematician?" I'd love to know how she did it, as a parent of two little kids.
'lb' on Tue, 26 Aug 2008 07:43:56 GMT, sez:
@Martin -- great question, I'd love to know more about any such teachers.
Maybe the camel has two humps paper is valuable -- even if (IMO) it's not conclusive.
As Alan says, other studies not only found a pretest (for a physics class) but found that teaching people to do well at the pretest greatly improved their performance in the actual class.
Similarly -- maybe finding suitable lessons to help students improve at the pretest would be a simple way to get them 'up to speed' in taking actual computer studies.
So if the only thing the 'Camel' paper has achieved is to find just such a pretest, it's still a valuable thing.
I really like that insight in particular.
'Dejon H.' on Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:42:08 GMT, sez:
Fantastic subject matter here. One component we are exploring at the ahainstitute.com is how redefining the way human beings relate to sign sets directly relates to their understanding of various subject matter.
'howard noble' on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:59:44 GMT, sez:
Perhaps the writers of this paper, and the educational establishment in general is too obsessed by assessing the INDIVIDUAL. While I agree that any ONE individual can learn to program, I don't agree that this should be seen as desirable.
If assessments were focused on expressing an understanding of large problems, and maths and programming were seen as tools to do this, then I expect we'd see that a GROUP of people will separate into roles and all make valuable contributions.
A hypothesis: humans quickly develop into individuals that exhibit aptitudes that help them perform in groups. If education was focused on supporting groups to solve/ express understanding of problems large enough to require diverse skills, then we would not be so perplexed or worried that some people do not perform well at a single task.
If we consider a large problem e.g. how to adapt to climate change, we would not want this problem solved by programmers alone. Humans form their own niche in a broader intellectual process, this is not an indication of aptitude, its more to do with the vicissitudes of their life.
If we want to teach/ shape this development then we could allow learners to decide when and whether they are the ones who's should focus on programming.
My own experience of programming and maths: I've never been able to do 'them' unless I was trying to solve a problem that interested me personally, and preferably some other people around me. How often can this happen on a curriculum-intensive education system that is obsessed by assessing individuals so much of the time?
'peterchen' on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 00:12:48 GMT, sez:
>> "A paper that claims certain people can't learn things is preposterous"
- rhetorical question, but maybe you convince me ;)
'David Smith' on Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:37:55 GMT, sez:
in the College of Computing at Georgia Tech, we teach introductory CS to over 1,500 students per semester. I read the "Camel hasTwo Humps" paper initially with fascination. Then I thought. If there were a definitive test of ultimate programming capability I could apply on the first day of class, what would I say to those who "failed"?
OfficeQuest... Gamification for the Office Suite
New product launch: NimbleSET
Programming The Robot from Diary of a Wimpy Kid
Happy new year 2014
Downtime as a service
The Shape of Your Irrationality
This is why I don't go to nice restaurants any more.
A flowchart of what programmers do at work all day
The Telepresent Man.
Interview with an Ex-Microsoftie.
CRUMBS! Commandline navigation tool for Powershell
Little tool for making Amazon affiliate links
Extracting a Trello board as markdown
hgs: Manage Lots of Mercurial Projects Simultaneously
You Must Get It!
AddDays: A Very Simple Date Calculator
Google caught in a lie.
NimbleText 2.0: More Than Twice The Price!
A Computer Simulation of Creative Work, or 'How To Get Nothing Done'
NimbleText 1.9 -- BoomTown!
**This** is how you pivot
Art of the command-line helper
Go and read a book.
Slurp up mega-traffic by writing scalable, timeless search-bait
Do *NOT* try this Hacking Script at home
The 'Should I automate it?' Calculator
Complete secretGeek Archives
TimeSnapper: automatic screenshot journal
25 steps for building a Micro-ISV
3 Minute Guide Series
Universal Troubleshooting Checklist
Top 10 SecretGeek articles
Now at CodePlex
RealTime Online CSS Editor
How to be depressed
You are not inadequate.
the little schemer
The Best Software Writing I
The Business Of Software (Eric Sink)
InfoText - amazing search for SharePoint
LogEnvy - event logs made sexy
Computer, Unlocked. A rapid computer customization resource
BrisParks :: best parks for kids in brisbane
PhysioTec, Brisbane Specialist Physiotherapy & Pilates