On 22/03/2022 18.04, dn wrote: > and thank you - it is refreshing, if not enervating, to receive feedback > on efforts-expended! > > You will also notice, that now you understand the id() stuff, the > tag-team effect between @Chris and I (which we have often played, albeit > not by-design), now makes sense as an whole (if you didn't quite follow, > earlier). > > > My research-topic is Cognitive Psychology (how we learn - albeit not > usually in Python). I found this conversation useful, and may well apply > it as an example (with your permission, and suitably anonymised) - one > doesn't need to be a 'computer person' to follow the logic and thus > realise the dissonance! > > While learning (this part of) Python and adding to 'previous > experience', you formed a "mental-model" of how things work (just as we > all do). However, when it came time to implement this knowledge: > > - you created a 'situation' > - (all) things didn't 'work' (which also required realisation) > - you analysed and rationalised (but noted inconsistency) > - you asked a question (which many of us quickly understood) > - you've learned/corrected > > > The 'issue' is *not* a fault on your part, nor (necessarily) a lack of > learning or a lack of effort. So, no criticism from me! > > The (under-lying) lesson, is that we (as trainers, but with application > to all helpers, pair-programmers, mentors, documentation-writers, et al > - working with less-experienced colleagues) shouldn't spout a whole load > of 'facts', 'rules', and formulae/s - which we expect to be committed to > memory. We need to help form a 'correct' mental-model ("correct" being > defined by the Python interpreter and 'the Python gods' who build it - > big "thank you" to them!). > > Accordingly, my criticism of tests/exams which require recitation of > facts ("parroting"), compared with "mastery" (can you actually DO what > is being asked). More importantly, and finally getting to the point: > 'tests' should be defined to reveal these (personal) 'quirks' of > learning/understanding, which led to a 'faulty' mental-model! > > Your rationale made sense, was logical and understandable. How are you > to know that Python deems it 'wrong'? (until a 'test' shows you!) > > The 'interest' should not be on the people who, and all the 'answers' > which, were 'correct'. What is more informative, is why someone (aside > from guessing, ie intelligent, reasonable, after learning the material, > exerting effort...) got it 'wrong' - but thought his/her path was true! > -- > Regards, > =dn
Wow, this is super interesting. You have my permission, and please feel free to contact me offline if you want to ask anything. Yes, I had noticed the tandem with @Chris. I think I needed both! I already have a folder on my Mac called ‘Cameron’. Perhaps I now need an additional folder. Then I can ask my question about whether Python grows to be more like its programmers, or do programmers learn to think Pythonically? — Paul St George -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list