julian-fietkau.de

This week I would like to take the first attempt to produce an updated teachlet definition. The end result of today's entry will be the first test of an updated definition, which also means that I have to your feedback please (at least if you're feeling or experience teachlet addressed for other reasons).

But before that time the "historical" definition:

On teachlet is an interactive teaching unit in which a working piece software is a clearly defined functionality should be extended to a to illustrate design pattern or a programming language concept. A moderator motivated with the help of a computer and a projector, the output system and the establishment, expansion and is then instruct the participants, the necessary changes to the source code make.

From the results of last week we have the list of the key aspects for teachlet (static) and teachlet units (dynamic).

Teachlet

• Task
• Objective
• Solution space
• Output System
• Implementation
• Architecture
• Target System
• Documentation

Teachlet unit

• Calculator
• Standard drain
• Shared vision (for example, beamer)
• Moderator
• Participants (active,> = 1)
• Interim results hold
• Design Talk
• Interaction

I start at once so that I try the current definition, sentence by sentence to update and thereby the terms have in mind. In the first sentence:

On teachlet is an interactive teaching unit in which a working piece software is a clearly defined functionality should be extended to a to illustrate design pattern or a programming language concept.

What does not fit in this sentence?

I would emphasize first of the interactivity you more, because teachlet unquestionably are highly interactive, which is one of the defining elements. If just "interactive" as is, gives a large room for interpretation (some would perhaps describe as interactive lectures, when questions can be asked).

The term of the executable software is useful in this form.

Instead of extending the functionality I would want more flexibility for the task. An extension of the functionality is indeed the norm, should not be prescribed (such as possible would be a big refactoring).

The phrase "a design pattern or a programming language concept" is also quite restrictive and should be considering other possible learning objectives (certain algorithms, or refactorings) are generalized.

My attempt at a new first sentence that I have two parts, however for reasons of style:

A teachlet is a highly interactive teaching unit in which a working piece of software is modified so that it fulfills a certain task. This is chosen so as to provide very specific learning objective can be achieved.

We come to the second sentence:

A moderator motivates using a computer and a projector, the output system and the establishment, expansion and is then instruct the participants, the necessary changes to the source code make.

Well here is that the moderator and the participants are mentioned. Less good is the restriction on computer and projector, which (according to the consensus of teachlet round) better on a "common view" should be generalized. It would also teachlet about possible in which to reside not a participant and presenter in the same physical space (eg tele-conferencing, teachlet via internet).

To mention the original system is also useful. Should instead an expansion in above sense are more likely to speak of a change.

Ultimately, discuss the extent to which teachlet should be set to the change of source code, when there also, for example visual programming and other paradigms are sure of the software development, in which the term of the source code is omitted in favor of other implementation mechanisms.

Let's see what we can do it:

A moderator motivates the original system and make changes in a common vision with the participants (such as the projector) and can then instruct the participants to make the necessary changes to the software.

Time for a little inventory. The following terms in the above lists are not yet placed: solution space, implementation, architecture, target system, documentation, computer, standard-flow, interim results hold, draft discussion.

Two of them I would like to exclude reason: calculator because the presence of a computer by modifying executable software is implicit, and standard drain because of this is to be represented by the very definition.

In order to introduce a few of the remaining issues, I am now trying to formulate some new phrases:

For the solution of the problem will exist a solution space with several possible variants on the architecture to enable a design discussion. The moderator is here to guide the task of the discussion and interim results to be recorded. After the joint implementation phase is the result of the changed software.

Then a bit longer for the trappings is necessary:

To teachlet is still a documentary that includes the preparation of relevant documentation such as a detailed choreography or an implemented target system.

I could not resist to take up with the choreography, even if we want to have inside the target system. Nevertheless, I still doubt whether this set should belong to the basic definition.

So here is a draft of the updated teachlet definition:

A teachlet is a highly interactive teaching unit in which a working piece of software is modified so that it fulfills a certain task. This is chosen so as to provide very specific learning objective can be achieved. A moderator motivates the original system and make changes in a common vision with the participants (such as the projector) and can then instruct the participants to make the necessary changes to the software. For the solution of the problem, a solution space, there are several possible variants on the architecture to enable a design discussion. The moderator is here to guide the task of the discussion and interim results to be recorded. After the joint implementation phase is the result of the changed software. To continue teachlet is a documentary that includes the preparation of relevant documentation such as a detailed choreography or an implemented target system.

Phew, that's something unusual for more than the old definition does, however, depends significantly more. I hope that the process is more clearly.

I repeat once again my request for feedback on the draft. Ideally, this definition will hold at least as long as the previous one, so I would like to identify potential problems now.

If time is a little feedback, I will by next week inputting into the design. Otherwise, I'm going to make up to that time a few thoughts about the guidelines for my interviews. Until then!