Officially retire the alg-, re-, and ds- prefixes

[schanzer]

These were never meant to be longterm anyway. Let's rip them out. Some things to consider:

• [x] Don't forget to change lesson-order.txt in all the pathways
• [ ] Don't forget to change the lessons-and-standards.rkt file
• [x] solutions-pages
• [ ] slide decks
• [x] Maybe finally unify the applying-functions and defining-functions lessons across Algebra and Data Science?
• [x] Standardize contracts across pathways

[flannery-denny]

• [ ] Move Boolean page from DS Pyret Intro to Inequalites? We decided to keep Booleans in Values and operators. Be sure to think about how to modify the simple Inequalities lesson

[flannery-denny]

@schanzer here's a start...

[schanzer]

Most of your renaming proposals also make sense, although I'm curious how you would rename "Player Animation" and "Problem Decomposition". But feel free to rename these lessons asap.

I agree that "Starting to Program", "Defining Functions, "Applying Functions", "Defining Values" and "Function Composition" should all be shared. There's some work to be done making that possible, though. We could probably make "Measures of Center" available as a math lesson as well -- it's fairly self-contained, including the workbook pages.

I don't agree with the list of lessons that are more CS than math. We should discuss at our next meeting.

[flannery-denny]

@schanzer

• I'm seeing three special OK lessons: intro to coe, intro to contracts, intro to pyret... wondering if there's a reason they're different from regular intro to pyret... should we add this to our tuesday call?
• are you sure you want the reactive lessons to also not have re-prefixes?
• what does hoc stand for?

[schanzer]

1. Those are super old, and can definitely be deleted

2. Good point, let's keep the reactive lessons as is

3. Hour of code

[flannery-denny]

@schanzer pushed a first pass at renaming files

[schanzer]

I like the renaming thus far! Let's discuss the "cross-pathway" lessons in our call this week.

[flannery-denny]

@schanzer I started working on lesson ideas in googledoc and it doesn't feel like the right strategy. I'm working on an inventory of what would happen if we merge the lessons and will complete it here

• [x] I'm thinking that it would make more sense to make 6 new asciidoc files where I try to merge the material than to try to mock things up in googledocs. Work for you?

The files I propose making are:

• Values & Operators
• Defining Values
• Contracts
• Defining Functions
• Leftover fragments to incorporate into other DS lesson
• Leftover fragments to incorporate into other algebra lessons.

Values and Operators

• Order of Operations and intro to pyret discuss definitions area / interactions area
• The Order of Operations lesson has a section on Numbers
• Intro to pyret introduces numbers, strings & booleans... but numbers & strings are treated separately from Booleans... perhaps they don't have to be part of this lesson?
• [x] Algebra introduces booleans through circles of evaluations, DS does not.It wouldn't make sense I'm not sure it's important that Booleans be introduced through COE. Thoughts?
• The new inequalities lesson initially introduces Booleans with the Booleans starter file and Boolean functions (about a 5-minute exercise) that are not inequalities... perhaps this could stay in the intro and inequalities could be saved for the inequalities lesson in algebra and table methods in DS?
• Intro to pyret has students look at how the column titles are listed in the starter file. I think this could easily move to another lesson.

Defining Values

• Intro to Pyret has a defining values section that is not DS specific
• Algebra does a better job of talking about why it's useful to define values to avoid duplicate code
• Algebra also gets to cleaning up code
• Algebra materials include prize-star

Applying Functions / Contracts

• Both versions look at contracts / domain & range / functions
• Algebra has great machine input output context that would be good for both
• Both versions get to contracts for images
• Vocab lists are quite similar. Algebra version includes language table - would be good for both.
• Looks like materials overlap
• DS opens with f(x)=x^2… while I know we wanted to include advanced examples, it’s not the most user-friendly opener for algebra… but also if DS is being used for younger kids, it’s also not the most user-friendly for DS. Both lessons reference domain & range of square and square root later in the lesson plan
• The Algebra version opens with graphs function v not a function… not an ideal opener for DS, either… this could move to the new Domain & Range lesson.
• We’d have to shift Data Science workspace from animals starter file to CPO to generalize the lesson
• Algebra Materials list: -- Blank Contracts Page updated to include function names -- Exploring Image Functions (Page 16) updated - should only be for algebra bc DS doesn't use coe -- Reading for Domain and Range (Page 17) not sure whether we want compound functions here -- Matching Images to Code (Desmos) good as is for both pathways --Matching code to images using overlay and put-image (Desmos) this belongs somewhere else -- Domain and Range Frayer model good as is for both pathways -- Identifying Parts of Expressions I don't think questions like this belong in this lesson What is the third argument to the star function in rotate​(​45, star​(​15, "solid", "orange"​)​)? -- Identifying Parts of Expressions (2) maybe reorganize the questions in these two files so that some go with contrats and others go with function composition? -- Matching Expressions and Contracts if we keep it, needs to be updated so that students actually read contracts
• Data Science Materials list: -- Applying Functions (Page 9) first half is definitely a good model. second half is on bugs - do we keep it here? -- Practicing Contracts (Page 10) this is great for both pathways - could be longer -- Matching Expressions and Contracts (Page 11) -- Fun with Images require rotate and put-image - if we keep it, add a spot for writing code -- Practicing Contracts (2) -- Matching Expressions and Contracts (2)

Defining Functions

• The core of both the Algebra & DS lessons are green triangles. They both refer students to the Design Recipe. Vocab is almost the same. The language table for DS includes Boolean, but it doesn't actually appear in the lesson.
• DS gets to defining functions over other datatypes (sticker, nametag) and custom image scatter plots. We’d have to move this somewhere else.
• Algebra Materials list: -- Mapping Examples with Circles of Evaluation (Page 27) -- Fast Functions (Page 28) -- Matching Examples and Function Definitions (Page 29) -- Review: Define Values & Fast Functions (Desmos) -- Creating Contracts From Examples -- Creating Contracts From Examples -- Bug Hunting in WeScheme (Wescheme)
• Data Science Materials list: -- The Design Recipe (Page 23) -- The Design Recipe (Page 24) -- The Design Recipe

[schanzer]

I think this is a fine approach. For now, can you focus on a strong 1st draft for the first two lessons? And I would also add a bug-hunting activity to both, similar to what we have now in DS: lots of simple syntax errors.

[flannery-denny]

@schanzer Looking at the materials for combined intro to pyret lesson. I think the Boolean page has been really well developed. I'm a little less sold on our materials for introducing numbers and strings.

2 options:

• get rid of notice and wonder page for this lesson and make better scaffolded page for numbers and strings
• open ended notice and wonder for numbers & better scaffolded materials for strings that don't all focus on numbers.

preference?

[schanzer]

If these are my options, my preference is the first one. Numbers just aren't that exciting for kids, so restricting notice and wonder to numbers alone feels like leaving them hanging.

[flannery-denny]

Cool. That was my inclination, too. The existing notice and wonder is not very inspiring to wonder about.

[flannery-denny]

@schanzer Thinking through what stays and goes in the combined contracts lessons. please weigh in on the bullets with checkboxes below.

Materials for Contracts lesson: algebra-specific:

• Algebra Blank Contracts Page updated to include function names

• Exploring Image Functions updated - should only be for algebra bc DS doesn't use coe

• [x] many-types-coe-code-1 and 2 --> theoretically like these pages - disagree with using code that we wouldn't actually write. let's look at it together.

core:

• Matching Images to Code (Desmos) good as is for both pathways_

• [x] also want the workbook page Matching Expressions and Contracts. it needs to be updated so that students actually read contracts_ (ES - yes, let's include that page, and update as necessary)

• Domain and Range Frayer model good as is for both pathways

• [x] Applying Functions (Page 9 DS) first half is definitely a good model. second half is on bugs - do we keep it here? (ES - I think including bugs is makes sense here)

• [x] Practicing Contracts (Page 10 DS) & Practicing Contracts (2) this concept is great for both pathways - could be longer... let's think about which functions we want it to introduce - also want to show formatting difference between html and pdf versions

• [x] Reading for Domain and Range (Page 17) is similar to practicing contracts and titled better but formatted less nicely. not sure whether we want to introduce compound functions here scale​(​2, circle​(​40, "solid", "blue"​)​) (ES - yeah, let's delay composition of contracts until the composition of functions lesson. )

Maybe core?

• [x] Identifying Parts of Expressions & Identifying Parts of Expressions (2) - maybe reorganize the questions in these two files so that some go with contracts and others go with function composition. Do you think questions like this belong in this lesson? What is the third argument to the star function in rotate​(​45, star​(​15, "solid", "orange"​)​)? (ES - not if we're moving composition out, and into the next lesson)

• [x] Some files currently use overlay, rotate and put-image. We could get there in this lesson by walking them through reading the contract and then giving them the challenge to use them. Do we want to do that now or better to wait? (ES - tough call. I'm inclined to keep them, but make the whole thing optional. Function composition is where we'll really teach it) We decided to make these the launch for defining functions lesson

• [x] Matching Expressions and Contracts (Page 11) & Matching Expressions and Contracts (2) - like the concept - could be combined to make one more robust page. Do we want to introduce functions that aren't built in during this lesson? (ES - I think it's fine to include functions they haven't yet seen -- that's actually one of the big points under contracts, right? That as long as you know the contract, you can get a pretty good idea of what code to write?)

• Fun with Images require rotate and put-image - if we keep it, add a spot for writing code

• Matching code to images using overlay and put-image (Desmos)

[flannery-denny]

@schanzer I'm looking at the new Order of Operations page and it links to some Quiziz files.

• [x] Noticing that one of them asks students to write circles of evaluation from verbal expressions like "Five plus the product of ten and negative two". This is a learning goal that none of our other materials address. Wondering if we want to commit to making some materials for problems like this? Maybe matching activities between verbal expressions and circles or code? Not attached to the idea. Just seems weird to throw something into quizziz that we don't address anywhere else so wondering... Thoughts?
• [x] Also, we have very few Quizizz materials and none of them are very well conceived. Thinking we should get rid of all of them and either commit to making new ones for many of our lessons or stop repping ourselves as offering them. Preference?
• The best one was this compound inequality booelans quiz

[flannery-denny]

@schanzer There's a bullet in the original issue about standardizing contracts across pathways. I don't know what that means.

[schanzer]

@flannery-denny

1) I answered the big comment via an in-line edit. 2) Yeah, the quizziz stuff is pretty lame. I say get rid of them. Someday we might use them, but I'm a lot more excited about Desmos for now because it gives us the opportunity to actually collect research data! 3) The DS lessons include the name of the variable as part of the contract. The algebra ones don't. This is something you and I should discuss on a call.

[flannery-denny]

@schanzer I'm looking at the applying functions page. It's currently set up to ask students to type the buggy code in, record the error message, and explain what's wrong. I would like to propose that we instead create a page that includes both the buggy code and the error messages and asks students to identify the problem... Objections?

[schanzer]

No objections :)

[flannery-denny]

add to contracts lesson

• [ ] string-append
• [x] isosceles-triangle
• [x] right-triangle
• [x] triangle-sas
• [x] triangle-asa
• [x] polygon-star star-polygon
• [ ] fillmode

Nod to usefulness of more complex contracts with radial star

add to function-composition lesson

• [x] frame
• [x] scale-xy scale/xy
• [x] above
• [x] beside
• [x] overlay

[flannery-denny]

Contracts Lesson:

• Matching expressions uses fictional functions
• Practicing contracts uses fictional functions_
• Think carefully about which functions to use and how to scaffold using contracts

[flannery-denny]

closing with #476