[From Dick Robertson, 2001.11.30.1050CST]
Bruce Nevin wrote:
[From Bruce Nevin (2001.11.28 22:50 EST)]
Bill Powers (2001.11.28.2006 MST)--
>Excellent thought! I've been sort of stymied, but maybe this will get me
>started again in working up materials for Dick's book. I know Dick would
>like to move faster, but I really haven't had any worthy thoughts about how
>to do what he wants. Focusing on a workshop-style meeting could help a lot.And that is good news!
Dick, you wanted something more elementary and accessible than what we're
talking about now, but if you have simpler stuff in the text itself, and
more advanced exercises and tutorials in an associated workbook, mightn't
that work well? A lot more students these days are learning programming
skills than when we were in school!
Bruce,
Yes, I would like to hear from any of our members who are teaching general psych
or social science about the programming level of their students.
Thanks for thinking about the textbook. I confess I had been thinking about
giving up the project because of the underwhelming support I have received so
far. Although, I do have one excellent complete applied chapter from Tim Carey
and a few other tentative promises.
I am still liking my idea of approaching programming-unsophisticated psychology
and social science students with elementary programs like Rick's ecoli to start
with, showing how it was constructed from idea to algorithm to code, leaving no
steps out so the student get his first experience simply by copying. Rick
doesn't want to modify the ecoli himself and hasn't responded to my request to
give me the code, so I have started slowly to relearn programming myself and
hope he won't object if I redo it. As for the idea of including some kind of
workshop for modeling and programing as part of the text, or the course, that
sounds like a great idea.
I liked Lloyd's suggestion last summer to think of doing the text in modular
form, putting out each part as they get finished, and that leads me to the idea
of broadening it into a course. The first part would be very brief, basic PCT,
then hands-on experience in modeling along the lines I have been talking about.
This reverses the way we've always done it before--giving the theory and
following with demos. Module one would give the theory in connection with the
demos. I think Module 2 should be Making Sense, and in Module 3 the behavioral
findings that have come from PCT and the reinterpretations of traditional
questions in PCT terms and inspiration for future research.
Best, Dick R.
···
At 08:10 PM 11/28/2001 -0700, Bill Powers wrote: