M. David Peterson wrote:
Can't help but agree 100%. In addition, via Jeni Tennison @
http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/30
<quote>
With that in mind, look at how Ruby on Rails is marketed. A big play
is made of how easy it is. But if a language or framework is easy then
people with low self-efficacy can’t win: if they manage to do
something with it then they haven’t really achieved very much because
anyone can do it; if they don’t manage to do something with it then
they’re complete idiots. I’m not saying that we should advertise
languages or frameworks as being hard, because obviously that can put
people off as well, but a recognition of the barriers that people
might face may, in a strange way, make them more approachable.
This is also an issue for trainers: we need to be able to boost the
self-efficacy of the people we train (particularly women) by setting
them challenging (but achievable) tasks and not giving them too much
help to achieve them.
</quuote>
Why particularly women? Not that anyone outside of Jeni Tennison could
answer that.
--
Kamal Bhatt
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--