# Dancing Algorithms

Yes, it appears that the two can go together. Not in that the algorithms are dancing, but one can do a dance with a choreography such that it demonstrates an algorithm. Zoltan Katai and Laszlo Toth from Romania came up with the idea of this intercultural computer science education [1], with a theoretical motivation traced all the way back to Montessori. It has nothing to do with the scope of my earlier post on folk dancing and cultural heritage preservation, yet at the same time, it contributes to it: watching the videos of the dances immerses you in the folk music, rhythm, the traditional clothes of the region, and some typical steps and and movements used in their dances.

The context, in short: learning to program is not easy for most students—as our almost 900 first-year students are starting to experience from next week onwards—and especially understanding the workings of algorithms. Katai and Toth’s approach is to involve ‘playing out’ the algorithm with people, not by clumsily walking around, but using folk dance and music to make students understand and remember it more easily. They took several sorting algorithms to demonstrate the idea, and tested it on their students, demonstrating that it improved understanding significantly [1].

Perhaps because of my bias toward the dancing, I didn’t take note of the algorithm being danced-out when I watched it the first time, or perhaps it is useful to have read the core steps of the algorithm before watching anyway. You choose: watch the video of the selection sort algorithm—given a list, repeatedly select the smallest remaining element and move that to the ‘sorted’ section of the list—with a Gypsy (Roma) folk dance, or read further below what selection sort is. (note: the video goes on double speed in the middle, for it gets a bit repetitive.)

So, what was happening in the dance? We have one ‘comparer’ (x, for short) and one ‘compared with’ (y). The left-most dancer, with number 3 (our first value of x), starts to dance to the front, calls on the second one in line, being the guy with 0 (our first y), he swirls her back in the line in the spot he came from and stays at the front (0 being the new value of x), and calls on the next, the lady with the 1 (the new value of y), who gets back in the line; and so on till the last one (with number 6). Dancer 0 does a solo act and goes to the first spot: he’s now the first one in the ‘sorted’ part, and we have completed one iteration. Starting with the second main iteration: now number 3 is again at the front of the unsorted, and she dances again to the front (so the value of our x is 3 at this point), calling the second one in the unsorted list, who has number 1, so the lady with number 3 goes back in the unsorted again, and the dancer with 1 continues through the remainder of the list, has her solo, and joins the guy with the 0 in the sorted part, having completed the second main iteration. And so on until about 6:20 minutes into the video clip when the list is sorted and the dancers do a little closing act.

A bit more structured, the following is happening in the choreography of the dance in the video:

1. Divide the list into a ‘sorted’ part (initially empty) and an ‘unsorted’ part (initially the list you want to sort)

2. Do for as long as there’s more than one item in the ‘unsorted’ (find the smallest item in that list):

1. select first element of the unsorted list (with some value, that we refer to with x)

2. if we’re not at the end of the ‘unsorted’ list, then get the next element of the ‘unsorted’ list (with some value, let’s call that one y)

1. if x < y, then y is put back in the same spot in the unsorted list, and we return to the start of step (b) to get the next item to test x against (being the one after the one we just tested)

2. else (i.e., x > y), then the value of x takes y‘s spot in the unsorted list, we assign the value of y to x, and we return to the start of step (b) to get the next element from the unsorted list

3. else (i.e., we’re at the end of the list and thus x is the lowest value), place (the value of) x in the next available spot in the ‘sorted’ part. Then go back to the start of step 2.

3. Place the last item from ‘unsorted’ at the end of the ‘sorted’.

4. Done (i.e., there’s nothing more in ‘unsorted’ to sort)

The algorithm itself is less cumbersome by not having those “let’s pick out one and come to the front” steps, but direct comparisons. I did not plan to include here, but do after all for it makes a nice sequence of artsy → informal analysis → semi-precise structure → specification the computer can work with. (Never mind that that was not the order things came about). Using our CSC1015F course material (2012 samples) that teaches Python, one of the possible sample code snippets is as follows:

```def selection_sort ( values ):
"""Sort values using selection sort algorithm."""
# iterate over outer positions in list
for outer in range (len (values)):
# assume first value is minimum
minimum = outer
# compare minimum to rest of list and update
for inner in range (outer+1, len (values)):
if values[inner] < values[minimum]:
minimum = inner
# swap minimum with outer position
temp = values[minimum]
values[minimum] = values[outer]
values[outer] = temp
return values```

This is not the only way of achieving it, btw, and the 1017F lecture and lab lecture files have another version of achieving the same (I just thought that this one may be more readable by non-CS readers of the post).

Other danced sorting algorithms are insertion sort (video) with Romanian dance, and shell-sort (video) and bubble sort (video) on Hungarian dances, and more information is also available from the Algo-rythmics website. This isn’t new, and dances on many other tunes can be viewed on youtube, e.g., various bubble-sort dances. Reconstructing the bubble-sort algorithm from the dance below (5min, no fastforward) is an exercise left to the reader… likewise making dances on other algorithms (the ICPC’14 solution to the baggage problem seems like a fun candidate line dance-like), and the same dances but with other folk dances and music.

References

[1] Zoltan Katai and Laszlo Toth. Technologically and artistically enhanced multi-sensory computer programming education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2010, 26(2): 244-251.

# On the need for bottom-up language-specific terminology development

Peoples of several languages intellectualise their vocabulary so as to maintain their own language as medium of instruction (or: LoLT, language of teaching and learning), to conduct scientific discussions among peers and, in some cases, still, publish research in their own language. Some languages I know of who do this are French, Spanish, German, and Italian; e.g., the English ‘set’ is conjunto (Sp.) and insieme (It.), and the Dutch for ‘garbage collection’ (in computing) is geheugensanering. I found out the hard way last month that my Italian scientific vocabulary was better than my Dutch one, never really having practiced the latter in my field of specialisation and I noticed that over the years that I have been globetrotting, quite a few Anglicisms in Dutch had been replaced with Dutch words and some were there for a while already (as excuse: I studied a different discipline in the Netherlands). How do these new words come about? There are many ways of word creation, and then it depends on the country or language region how it gets incorporated in the language. For instance, French uses a top-down approach with the Académie Française and Spain has the Real Academia Española. The Netherlands has De Nederlandse Taalunie that isn’t as autocratic, it seems; for instance, to follow suit with the French mot dièse for the twitter ‘hashtag’, there was some consultation and online voting (sound file) to come up with an agreeable Dutch term for hashtag. But how does that happen elsewhere?

We found out that there is a mode of practice for language-specific terminology development that happens in small ‘workshops’ of some 13-15 people, constituting mainly of terminologists and linguists, and 1-3 subject matter experts. There may be a consultative event with stakeholders, who are not necessarily with subject matter experts. Shocking. The sheer arrogance of the former, who ‘magically’ grasp the concepts that typically take a while to understand when it comes to science, but they supposedly nevertheless understand it well enough to come up with a meaningful local-language word. But maybe, you say, I’m too arrogant in thinking subject matter experts, such as myself, can come up with decent local-language terms. Maybe that’s partially true, but what may be more problematic, is that only a few subject matter experts are involved, so there is an over-reliance on those mere few. Maybe, you say, that’s not a problem. We put that to the test for a computing and computer literacy terminology development for isiZulu, and found out it was: it depends on who you ask what comes out of the term harvesting and term preference. And then asking just a few people is a problem for a term’s uptake. (The students involved in the experiments did not even know there was a computer literacy term list from the South African Department of Arts and Culture, published in 2005, and boo-ed away several of the terms.)

The way we tested it, was with three experiments. The first experiment was an experts-only workshop, with ‘experts’ being 4th-year computer science students who have isiZulu as home language, as there were no isiZulu-speaking MSc and PhD students, nor colleagues, in CS at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, where we did the experiment. The second experiment was an isiZulu-localised survey among undergraduate CS students to collect terms, where we hoped to see a difference between a survey where they were given the entity with an English name and the entity as a picture. The third experiment was a survey where computer literacy students (1st-year science students) could vote for terms for which there was more than one isiZulu term proposed. The details of the set-up and the results have been published recently in the Alternation open-access journal article “Limitations of Regular Terminology Development Practices: The Case of isiZulu Computing Terminology”, in the special issue on “Re-envisioning African Higher Education: Alternative Paradigms, Emerging Trends and New Directions”, edited by Rubby Dhunpath, Nyna Amin and Thabo Msibi. It describes which isiZulu terms from where are affected, ranging from a higher incidence of ‘zulufying’ English terms in aforementioned list by the South African Department of Arts and Culture cf. the proposals by the experiments’ participants, and, e.g., expert consensus for inqolobane for database, versus a preference for imininingo egciniwe by the computer literacy students (see paper for more cases). Further, when all respondents across the survey are aggregated and go for majority voting, the proposed terms by the experts are snowed under. The latter is particularly troublesome in a country where computing is a designated critical skill (or: there aren’t nearly enough of them).

A byproduct of the experiments was that we have collected the, to date, longest list of isiZulu computing terms, which have gone through a standardisation process in the meantime. The latter is mainly thanks to the tireless efforts of Khumbulani Mngadi of the ULPDO of UKZN, and the two expert CS honours students who volunteered in the process, Sibonelo Dlamini and Tanita Singano.

Our approach was already less exclusionary cf. the aforementioned traditional/standard way, but it also shows that broader participation is needed both to collect and to choose terms; or, in the words of the special issue editors [2]: a “democratization of the terminology development process” that “transcends the insularity and purism which characterises traditional laboratory approaches to development”. We are still working on-and-off to achieve this with crowdsourcing, and maybe we should start thinking of crowdfunding that crowdsourcing effort to speed up the whole thing and complete the commuterm project.

As a last note: in case you are interested in other contributions to “re-envisioning African higher education”: scan through the main page online, read the editorial [2] for main outcomes of each of the papers, and/or read the papers, on topics as diverse as postgrad supervision in isiZulu, teaching sexual and gender diversity to pre-service teachers, maths education, IKS in HE, and much more.

References

[1] Keet, C.M., Barbour, G. Limitations of Regular Terminology Development practices: the case of the isiZulu Computing Terminology. Alternation, 2014, 12: 13-48.

[2] Dhunpath, R., Amin, N. Msibi, T. Editorial: Re-envisioning African and Higher Education: Alternative Paradigms, Emerging Trends and New Directions. Alternation, 2014, 12: 1-12.

# Updated ontology engineering lecture notes (2015)

It’s that time of the year again, in the southern hemisphere that is, where course preparations for the academic year are going on full steam ahead. Also this year, I’ll be teaching a CS honours course on ontology engineering. To that end, the lecture notes have been updated, though not in a major way like last year. Some sections have been shuffled around, there are a few new exercises, Chris’s update suggestion from last year on the OBO-OWL mapping has been included, and a couple of typos and odd sentences have been fixed.

Practically, this installment will be a bit different from previous years, as it has integrated a small project on Semantic Wikis, funded by CILT and OpenUCT. Set up, maintenance, and filling it with contents on ontology engineering topics will initially be done ‘in house’ by students enrolled in the course and not be generally available on the Web, but if all goes well, it’ll be accessible to everyone some time in April this year, and possibly included in the OER Commons.

Semantic MediaWiki’s features are fairly basic and there are a bunch of plugins and extensions I’ve seen listed, but I didn’t check whether they all worked with the latest SMW. If you have a particular suggestion, please leave a comment or send me an email. One thing I’m still wondering about particularly, but haven’t found a solution to, is whether there’s a plugin that lets you see the (lightweight) ontology when adding contents, so that it makes it easier to use terms in the text from the ontology’s vocabulary rather than find an having to process manually whatever (near)synonyms have been used throughout the pages (like, one contributor using ‘upper ontology’, another ‘foundational ontology’ and the third ‘top-level ontology’), and allow on-the-fly extensions of that ontology.