Hello, I’m also against changing this. I never noticed a problem with naming the colours, when i asked for pink i accepted as a valid answer different shades of purple etc... Children like to play. Also, it would be a pity to add differences between simple and advanced mode. I think the argument to make it more “evaluable” is not so relevant; with robotics we say we want to promote creativity and experimenting, not right/wrong exercises. Also it sounds to me it would be more like “over design the experiment until you’re certain to get the result you want”; I’d rather leave this strategy to people who like to evolve neural networks :P
Cheers Fanny Le 2/10/14 6:04 PM, « Michael Bonani » <[email protected]> a écrit : Hi, I found this reduce to much the feature. Playing, mixing colour is one of the first thing I teach to children. I prefer to ask "to switch a color , then to another color after some seconds". Letting them some choice is primordial for letting them feel they can control the robot, understand the technology. Regards Bonani Michael Tél.: +41 (0) 21 693 78 69 Mobile: +41 (0) 76 349 72 14 Association Mobsya Av. Vinet 7 1004 Lausanne www.mobsya.org <http://www.mobsya.org> 2014-02-10 17:47 GMT+01:00 Stéphane Magnenat <[email protected]>: Hi, If I understand correctly, the idea would be to have "red or not", "green or not" and "blue or not" (and the mixes)? I don't really see how this would be an advantage. Playing with the colours can be fun, finding the blue you want instead of having only one can bring some creativity and can be a good pretext to make students play with VPL. I would vote no. The point of simplifying VPL is to make the introduction to computer science, and its evaluation, as simple as possible. Quoting. Prof. Gärtner: "Imagine a problem where you ask children to switch the color to blue, then to red after some seconds. What you want to check here is whether they get the logic right, and not whether they can correctly mix colors. And if for example, a kid does a mixture of red with some other color (they do such things for fun if they can), do you consider the solution correct?" I have not seen this problem but it might be because I was not paying attention. What is clear is that, if we wish to test our tool in a scientifically-sound way, we have to be attentive of not testing something else than we think we test. That said, I currently feel that this change reduces too much the feature set, but I would like to hear from people who have more educational experience than me. kind regards, Stéphane
_______________________________________________ Aseba-edu mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/aseba-edu
