Looking for a defined path to learn Rev (for new users)

[Judy Perry]

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Jim Bufalini wrote:
> It seems to me that your are trying to lead horses to water, who are neither
> thirsty nor want to drink. ;-)

But the staggering amount of public funds that have been dumped into 
computers in the classroom requires that they really ought to either get 
thirsty really quickly or be force-fed the water.

Here's a sad, sobering read:

http://www.hull.ac.uk/php/edskas/Cuban%20article%20-%20oversold.pdf

Yes, it was written some time ago, but I've not really seen any studies 
that indicate that things have changed for the better.  In my children's 4 
years in the public school system, there were a number of computers 
present in each classroom.  Mostly they never got used.  Or, if they did 
get used, it was for something completely stupid, like reading a story 
online.  My niece and nephew, in the third grade, were required to use 
PowerPoint to present their vocabulary and spelling words.  Yet another 
stupid use of computers in education.  I've seen school district 
technology implementation plans for using computers to teach math -- how? 
Have the students type up word problems and type up the answers.  DUMB 
DUMB DUMB!

Or, in the case of I believe it may have been LA Unified, they 
forced the kids to use math education software that was SO BAD that 
hundreds of math educators and mathematicians signed an online petition 
saying that it was the worst educational software they'd ever seen.  So, 
why was the school using it?  It had been somebody's pet project and the 
district was threatened with the loss of NSF funds if they didn't use the 
software, which the NSF had underwritten.

My children's first grade teacher, when I asked her about the computers 
(she's the one who had them reading stories online), and I made a joke 
about PowerPoint, her response was "gee, I wish I knew how to do that in 
class!"  I wanted to weep.  PowerPoint.  For 6 year olds.  When there was 
so much more that was possible to do with computers in education MORE THAN 
TWENTY YEARS AGO.

> But you raise an interesting point. We talk about the world embracing
> revTalk and revlets because the language is so easy. And, indeed it is. But,
> when I think back to when I first found rev, the major paradigm shift was
> not the language, but the concept of stacks and cards and how this equated
> to a windowed GUI. And, had I not had 15 years of extensive programming
> experience in another rev, called Revelation, which is PICK on the PC and
> which is very, very similar to rev in that it is a scripting language with
> chunks, no variable typing, compiling is at the individual script level, so
> you run and program at the same time, and many, many other similarities, I
> would have also probably had to go through a paradigm shift with the concept
> of chunks and where to put or organize scripts.

--And, of course, this is exactly why it is perhaps a better audience for 
using this particular program, because cards and stacks of cards are 
things they already understand from the real world whereas typed data and 
where to put your semi-colons and how to indent your curlicue brackets are 
not.  They have no pre-existing models by which to be confounded.

> The leap is in the structure and not the language. So while I think your
> "course outline" rightfully starts out with stacks and cards, I think, more
> than how to create, the focus in the beginning needs to be on the "theory"
> of stacks and cards and how these equate to the structures they are already
> familiar with.

--That would be none.  And none is a good thing ;-)

> Next, needs to be the theory of chunks and variables and then followed by
> theory of scripting and where to place blocks of code and what makes this
> all work or ties it all together, which is the message path. Also, before
> you get into objects you need o cover the theory behind commands and
> functions and how, in general, scripts are organized.

--At this point, they've either run screaming to the hills to fire up 
PowerPoint or their eyes are glazed over or they're asleep.  Guaranteed. 
They need short, sweet project-based learning that allows them to 
immediately begin using whatever little they've learned to date.

> I think without making this paradigm shift first, a programmer used to top
> down or OOP programming will just feel like a stranger in a strange land and
> will not "hear" your lessons on buttons and fields because he will be
> sitting there still trying to get his bearings. So, I think you need focus
> on the lay of the land first. Once a programmer has this down pat, the rest
> is easy and almost doesn't have to be taught because there is so much
> documentation that can easily be looked up for syntax and details.

--Here's the problem:  Teachers do not want to be turned into programmers. 
Who cares if they do in 15 lines what you'd do in 3?  Admire your 
elegantly-crafted 3 lines, certainly.  Laugh at my 20, certainly (well, 
okay, laugh discretely).  But, at the end of the day, I'm pleased that I 
*can* make little things that help my children.  They don't care how many 
lines it took ;-)  And there's no reason why kids in the classroom should 
care either, as long as it works and meets some need.

Judy