simply NOT true: http://scalablegamedesign.cs.colorado.edu/
Look at the data. Up to 900 kids per school per year make simple games and most of the them love it. That is a HUGE number.
they may not only be dead wrong but also inspire other people in pretty stupid ways. On the first day of my ugrad CS education the professor, most likely influenced by Dijkstra's absurd statement, had students raise their hand if they had previous BASIC programming experience. Then, he went on a rant claiming that we, the BASIC programming kind, would have virtually no chance on graduating from this institution. Couple of years later he had to eat his own words and hand me over the price for best student. Later I was one of the few of that class that got PhD in CS. So there Dijkstra!
Here is a curriculum used in schools to get middle school kids learn about computer science/computational thinking through game design:
http://scalablegamedesign.cs.colorado.edu/
start with simple games like Frogger and make it all the way to sophisticated ones like The Sims
from the article: Ms. Cassell writes of the failure of these efforts, "The girls game movement failed to dislodge the sense among both boys and girls that computers were 'boys' toys' and that true girls didn't play with computers."
This may be true for girls PLAYING games but not for MAKING games. This study by the Stanford School of Education suggest that girls, even the ones not actually playing video games, are quite interested in making them: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1241071
If you want to appeal to a broader audience including women and minorities you have to be able to deal with the current perception (e.g., of middle school kids) that computer science is hard and boring. This is a deadly combination. You need to be able to show in a very short amount of time that they can use USE computer science to build something that they care about such as a video game.
Offering easy to use drag and drop programming is one approach that can help because it can overcome pesky syntactic issues. Having produced one of the first drag and drop programming environments for kids, AgentSheets, we know a thing or two about this topic. To be able to overcome syntactic problems is important but it is even more important that you can provide some way for the them to think about computation in a way that helps them to solve problems and to tackle challenging programming challenges (game, computational science) by themselves. To that end, you need to be able to convey a process of design/development including programming and debugging to build complete games.
Some people mention (above) some easy to use programming environments for kids. Please ask yourself: easy to build what? Yes, having having some characters moving on the screen can be entertaining for some time but then what? Can you teach the students even to make some of the classic 1980 arcade games (e.g., Pacman, Frogger)? If not, why not? And if you can, can you move on to SimCity, the Sims kinds of games? Too ambitious? We do not think so. If you give students tools and approaches that cannot deliver then their excitement will quickly be removed with a new, even more profound, kind of frustration. We are teaching middle school, yes middle school, students how to build their own Sims-like games programming sophisticated AI. They learn about math because they NEED math to make the game do what they want it to do. And these are the same kinds that supposedly are bad or not interested in math.
Now for a shameless plug. We are working on a notion called Scable Game Design. We use the notion of design to teach students not just how to use programming environment X but how to think about the design process. This does not take more time but ultimately really gets them into computer science. In the very first session student can build a complete 1980 arcade style game while learning about stacks, methods etc. Moreover, this is not just kid stuff. We use the same idea at the university level:
>> but I don't see how this will translate to better tools for 3D modeling in general
I don't think it does. For that have a look at Inflatable Icons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflatable_Icons . This is not a replacement of 3D modelers such as Maya used by professionals but it can be used quickly even by the artistically challenged to make simple organic shapes. A more recent version supports more sophisticated inflation including noise bump maps, selection based inflation and many additional ways to create 3D shapes in a short amount of time.
One way of using technology effectively is to enable role play in the classroom. Collective Simulations combine social learning pedagogical models with distributed simulation technical frameworks. We have a human physiology simulation called Mr. Vetro. At the beginning of the class organs, simulated by PDAs, are handed out to the students. They have to collaborate in real time to keep Mr. Vetro alive. Nobody is falling asleep in these classes. Things can get very hectic in the classroom with heart and lung team nearly shouting at each other at times. However, this is not just about fun and engagement. Early evidence of our research indicates that the students better retain information and gain a deeper understanding of the interactions between the systems.
Simple but working demo: http://www.agentsheets.com/research/c5/documents/i nteractive%20flier/c5-flier.html
no, its not a joke. The Red Cross was intentionally designed based on the Swiss flag by reversing the color scheme. In other words it IS derivative work. This happened in 1864 by the IKRK. The Red Cross is an international, not just an American, organization with its root in Switzerland. Switzerland should sue J+J.
In case you can read German: http://www.geschichte-schweiz.ch/schweizer-flagge- schweizerkreuz.html
because it can make you jump to conclusions regarding how to conceptualize computation. You can end up all too easily with objects and interactions between these objects that are hard to parallelize. With Antiobjects we try to move from the computational foreground into the background. This way one can implement, for instance, game AI, by mapping computation onto dozens, hundreds or thousands of CPU/cores with very little overhead.
most of these sketching tools are not intended to replace pro tools such as Maya 3D. The main point is to give end-users access to tools allowing them to make very simple 3d models in just seconds/minutes. Inflatable Icons is another example technology. Draw an icon (using a pixel editor) and turn that into a 3D model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflatable_Icons
Our research on AgentSheets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgentSheets is addressing the issues raised. In the last couple of years we have specifically explored why fewer and fewer kids (especially girls) get interested in programming course at the middle school and high school (e.g., AP courses). The main issue is that the process of programming is not perceived to be a fun and creative process. Furthermore, especially high school AP programming use pedagogical approaches (e.g. first learn basics and then some semesters after that start working on "interesting" projects) that simply do not attract students. This approach has not worked for learning natural languages and it does not appear to work for programming languages either. We use AgentSheets to teach students (US, Europe and Asia) to design and build video games. We have a gradual design-based approach in which students learn to make increasingly complex games (Frogger, Pacman,.... The Sims) and in the process of doing so acquire not just programming but more general design skills. Tools that teach creative thinking and technological mastery do exist. You should see the kids - the same ones who play Halo 2 at home and are diagnosed with ADD - make just the most amazing games, learn about math and design in the context of building their own games.
Slashdot Mirror
simply NOT true: http://scalablegamedesign.cs.colorado.edu/ Look at the data. Up to 900 kids per school per year make simple games and most of the them love it. That is a HUGE number.
Scalable Game Design: One can speculate or look at actual data http://scalablegamedesign.cs.colorado.edu/gamewiki/images/b/b2/Scalable_Game_Design_summary.pdf Over 50% of the students are girls, over 78% of the girls want to continue making games.
they may not only be dead wrong but also inspire other people in pretty stupid ways. On the first day of my ugrad CS education the professor, most likely influenced by Dijkstra's absurd statement, had students raise their hand if they had previous BASIC programming experience. Then, he went on a rant claiming that we, the BASIC programming kind, would have virtually no chance on graduating from this institution. Couple of years later he had to eat his own words and hand me over the price for best student. Later I was one of the few of that class that got PhD in CS. So there Dijkstra!
Here is a curriculum used in schools to get middle school kids learn about computer science/computational thinking through game design: http://scalablegamedesign.cs.colorado.edu/ start with simple games like Frogger and make it all the way to sophisticated ones like The Sims
Is there a point to this challenge? I will prove that anything written in C will not be as fast as my implementation of it in assembler.
from the article: Ms. Cassell writes of the failure of these efforts, "The girls game movement failed to dislodge the sense among both boys and girls that computers were 'boys' toys' and that true girls didn't play with computers."
This may be true for girls PLAYING games but not for MAKING games. This study by the Stanford School of Education suggest that girls, even the ones not actually playing video games, are quite interested in making them: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1241071
more about the National Science Foundation supported project called Scalable Game Design here: http://scalablegamedesign.cs.colorado.edu/wiki/
If you want to appeal to a broader audience including women and minorities you have to be able to deal with the current perception (e.g., of middle school kids) that computer science is hard and boring. This is a deadly combination. You need to be able to show in a very short amount of time that they can use USE computer science to build something that they care about such as a video game.
Offering easy to use drag and drop programming is one approach that can help because it can overcome pesky syntactic issues. Having produced one of the first drag and drop programming environments for kids, AgentSheets, we know a thing or two about this topic. To be able to overcome syntactic problems is important but it is even more important that you can provide some way for the them to think about computation in a way that helps them to solve problems and to tackle challenging programming challenges (game, computational science) by themselves. To that end, you need to be able to convey a process of design/development including programming and debugging to build complete games.
Some people mention (above) some easy to use programming environments for kids. Please ask yourself: easy to build what? Yes, having having some characters moving on the screen can be entertaining for some time but then what? Can you teach the students even to make some of the classic 1980 arcade games (e.g., Pacman, Frogger)? If not, why not? And if you can, can you move on to SimCity, the Sims kinds of games? Too ambitious? We do not think so. If you give students tools and approaches that cannot deliver then their excitement will quickly be removed with a new, even more profound, kind of frustration. We are teaching middle school, yes middle school, students how to build their own Sims-like games programming sophisticated AI. They learn about math because they NEED math to make the game do what they want it to do. And these are the same kinds that supposedly are bad or not interested in math.
Now for a shameless plug. We are working on a notion called Scable Game Design. We use the notion of design to teach students not just how to use programming environment X but how to think about the design process. This does not take more time but ultimately really gets them into computer science. In the very first session student can build a complete 1980 arcade style game while learning about stacks, methods etc. Moreover, this is not just kid stuff. We use the same idea at the university level:
Repenning, A. and Ioannidou, Broadening Participation through Scalable Game Design, ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education Conference, (SIGCSE 2008), (Portland, Oregon USA), ACM Press. http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~ralex/papers/PDF/ScalabeDesign_SIGCSE2008.pdf
I don't think it does. For that have a look at Inflatable Icons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflatable_Icons . This is not a replacement of 3D modelers such as Maya used by professionals but it can be used quickly even by the artistically challenged to make simple organic shapes. A more recent version supports more sophisticated inflation including noise bump maps, selection based inflation and many additional ways to create 3D shapes in a short amount of time.
Check out AgentSheets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgentSheets It is simple enough to allow elementary students to make simple Frogger like games, yet powerful enough for CS students to make games with sophisticated AI http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~ralex/courses/gamelet2006/gamelets/The%20Sims/index.html
One way of using technology effectively is to enable role play in the classroom. Collective Simulations combine social learning pedagogical models with distributed simulation technical frameworks. We have a human physiology simulation called Mr. Vetro. At the beginning of the class organs, simulated by PDAs, are handed out to the students. They have to collaborate in real time to keep Mr. Vetro alive. Nobody is falling asleep in these classes. Things can get very hectic in the classroom with heart and lung team nearly shouting at each other at times. However, this is not just about fun and engagement. Early evidence of our research indicates that the students better retain information and gain a deeper understanding of the interactions between the systems. Simple but working demo: http://www.agentsheets.com/research/c5/documents/i nteractive%20flier/c5-flier.html
no, its not a joke. The Red Cross was intentionally designed based on the Swiss flag by reversing the color scheme. In other words it IS derivative work. This happened in 1864 by the IKRK. The Red Cross is an international, not just an American, organization with its root in Switzerland. Switzerland should sue J+J. In case you can read German: http://www.geschichte-schweiz.ch/schweizer-flagge- schweizerkreuz.html
because it can make you jump to conclusions regarding how to conceptualize computation. You can end up all too easily with objects and interactions between these objects that are hard to parallelize. With Antiobjects we try to move from the computational foreground into the background. This way one can implement, for instance, game AI, by mapping computation onto dozens, hundreds or thousands of CPU/cores with very little overhead.
most of these sketching tools are not intended to replace pro tools such as Maya 3D. The main point is to give end-users access to tools allowing them to make very simple 3d models in just seconds/minutes. Inflatable Icons is another example technology. Draw an icon (using a pixel editor) and turn that into a 3D model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflatable_Icons
Our research on AgentSheets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgentSheets is addressing the issues raised. In the last couple of years we have specifically explored why fewer and fewer kids (especially girls) get interested in programming course at the middle school and high school (e.g., AP courses). The main issue is that the process of programming is not perceived to be a fun and creative process. Furthermore, especially high school AP programming use pedagogical approaches (e.g. first learn basics and then some semesters after that start working on "interesting" projects) that simply do not attract students. This approach has not worked for learning natural languages and it does not appear to work for programming languages either. We use AgentSheets to teach students (US, Europe and Asia) to design and build video games. We have a gradual design-based approach in which students learn to make increasingly complex games (Frogger, Pacman, .... The Sims) and in the process of doing so acquire not just programming but more general design skills. Tools that teach creative thinking and technological mastery do exist. You should see the kids - the same ones who play Halo 2 at home and are diagnosed with ADD - make just the most amazing games, learn about math and design in the context of building their own games.