Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #4638 > unrolled thread

Why Johnny can?t code

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Why Johnny can?t code Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-02 10:02 +0000
    Re: Why Johnny can?t code Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-09-02 12:23 +0100
      Re: Why Johnny can?t code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-09-02 14:43 +0100
        Re: Why Johnny can?t code Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-09-02 16:40 +0200
          Re: Why Johnny can?t code Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2014-09-03 12:43 +1000
        Re: Why Johnny can?t code scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2014-09-02 15:17 +0000
          Re: Why Johnny can?t code RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-09-02 18:24 +0000
            Re: Why Johnny can?t code Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-02 21:01 +0000
            Re: Why Johnny can?t code greymaus <greymausg@mail.com> - 2014-09-03 14:55 +0000
              Re: Why Johnny can?t code Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-09-03 18:04 +0100
              Re: Why Johnny can?t code Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-09-03 14:38 -0400
                Re: Why Johnny can?t code Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-03 19:55 +0000
                  Re: Why Johnny can?t code Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-09-03 17:33 -0400
                    Re: Why Johnny can?t code Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-03 21:35 +0000
                    Re: Why Johnny can?t code scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2014-09-04 15:24 +0000
                      Re: Why Johnny can?t code Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-04 20:17 +0000
          Re: Why Johnny can?t code Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-02 18:56 +0000
          Re: Why Johnny can?t code Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-09-03 20:59 +0200
        Re: Why Johnny can?t code Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-02 18:45 +0000
          Re: Why Johnny can?t code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-09-02 20:50 +0100
            Re: Why Johnny can?t code Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-09-03 21:05 +0200
      Re: Why Johnny can?t code Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-09-02 16:56 +0200
        Re: Why Johnny can?t code Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-09-02 16:09 +0100
      Re: Why Johnny can?t code Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-09-04 14:57 +0000
        Re: Why Johnny can?t code Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2014-09-04 15:24 +0000
          Re: Why Johnny can't code Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-09-05 02:33 -0300
    Re: Why Johnny can?t code Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> - 2014-09-02 14:08 -0600
      Re: Why Johnny can?t code Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-02 20:55 +0000
      Re: Why Johnny can?t code Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-09-02 21:02 +0000
        Re: Why Johnny can?t code Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> - 2014-09-02 23:07 -0600
          Re: Why Johnny can?t code Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-09-04 10:58 +0000
            Re: Why Johnny can?t code Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-04 11:09 +0000
              Re: Why Johnny can?t code Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-09-04 11:17 +0000
                Re: Why Johnny can?t code Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> - 2014-09-04 22:58 -0600
                  Re: Why Johnny can?t code Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-09-05 11:38 +0000
                    Re: Why Johnny can?t code Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> - 2014-09-05 13:55 -0600
                      Re: Why Johnny can?t code Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-09-05 20:02 +0000
            Re: Why Johnny can?t code Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-09-04 14:28 +0300
            Re: Why Johnny can?t code RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2014-09-04 20:27 +0100
              Re: Why Johnny can?t code Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-09-04 19:55 +0000
                Re: Why Johnny can?t code Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> - 2014-09-04 22:50 -0600
                  Re: Why Johnny can?t code Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-09-05 11:37 +0000
                    Re: Why Johnny can?t code Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-09-05 13:05 +0100
                      Re: Why Johnny can?t code Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-09-05 15:22 +0000
                        Re: Why Johnny can?t code Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> - 2014-09-05 13:48 -0600
                          Re: Why Johnny can?t code Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-09-05 20:09 +0000
    Re: Why Johnny can?t code Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2014-09-03 12:26 +1000
    Re: Why Johnny can?t code Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2014-09-04 00:34 +0100
    Re: Why Johnny can?t code Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-09-04 15:01 +0000

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#4709

Bob Eager wrote:

> Probably! We tend to teach some theory, present a problem and require a
> solution.
> 

The problem I see - at least with the US approach - is the dependence upon 
standardized testing as the sole metric.  That leads what is commonly called 
(and practiced) "teaching the test".  In many of the engineering courses I 
taught, the grading of tests allotted 60-70% of the maximum credit to the 
demonstrated methodology of the student's evaluation with the ultimate 
answer accounting for the remainder.  That allowed us to beef up instruction 
of the concepts as they emerged during analysis of the entire effort on a 
question - a far more useful approach.

-- 
Will Honea

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4713

On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 22:50:39 -0600, Will Honea wrote:

> Bob Eager wrote:
> 
>> Probably! We tend to teach some theory, present a problem and require a
>> solution.
>> 
>> 
> The problem I see - at least with the US approach - is the dependence
> upon standardized testing as the sole metric.  That leads what is
> commonly called (and practiced) "teaching the test".  In many of the
> engineering courses I taught, the grading of tests allotted 60-70% of
> the maximum credit to the demonstrated methodology of the student's
> evaluation with the ultimate answer accounting for the remainder.  That
> allowed us to beef up instruction of the concepts as they emerged during
> analysis of the entire effort on a question - a far more useful
> approach.

Yes, pre-university, most of it can be 'taught to the test'. However, 
there are multiple ways of qualifying, e.g.:

- A levels - most schools, this is partly coursework but a lot of exam. 
teaching to the test is common.
- BTEC Diplomas - no exmas, entirely coursework, more practically based. 
In some ways better but no training for later exams at university.
- International Baccalaureate - wide ranging, challenging, hard to 'tech 
to the test'. relatively uncommon.

Schools can choose what they like. A levels can be taken with a number of 
different exam boards too.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4715

In article <c6tlklF1r0bU6@mid.individual.net>, Bob Eager
<news0002@eager.cx> wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 22:50:39 -0600, Will Honea wrote:
> 
> > Bob Eager wrote:
> > 
> >> Probably! We tend to teach some theory, present a problem and require a
> >> solution.
> >> 
> >> 
> > The problem I see - at least with the US approach - is the dependence
> > upon standardized testing as the sole metric.  That leads what is
> > commonly called (and practiced) "teaching the test".  In many of the
> > engineering courses I taught, the grading of tests allotted 60-70% of
> > the maximum credit to the demonstrated methodology of the student's
> > evaluation with the ultimate answer accounting for the remainder.  That
> > allowed us to beef up instruction of the concepts as they emerged during
> > analysis of the entire effort on a question - a far more useful
> > approach.
> 
> Yes, pre-university, most of it can be 'taught to the test'. However, 
> there are multiple ways of qualifying, e.g.:
> 
> - A levels - most schools, this is partly coursework but a lot of exam. 
> teaching to the test is common.

Where Pure Maths was concerned, at least in the 60s, it was the course
content that wasn't so useful. 9-point circle anyone? Inscribed circle?
Escribed circle? Too much pure geometry by half.

What was more use was an extra course our maths teacher laid on -
matrices, determinants, complex numbers, and prolly a lot more except I
dropped out as he insisted in giving too much homework to go with the
course. Partial differential equations would have been handy for when I
got to Uni - we all had to have an extra one-year Maths course at Uni
so that we could do the Physics.

-- 
"I love the way that Microsoft follows standards. 
 In much the same manner as fish follow migrating caribou."
                                               - Paul Tomblin, ASR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4720

On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 13:05:46 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

> What was more use was an extra course our maths teacher laid on -
> matrices, determinants, complex numbers, and prolly a lot more except I
> dropped out as he insisted in giving too much homework to go with the
> course. Partial differential equations would have been handy for when I
> got to Uni - we all had to have an extra one-year Maths course at Uni so
> that we could do the Physics.

I did A levels as two separate subjects (Pure and Applied) towards the 
end of the 1960s. I too would have benefited from the material above, had 
it been included (our maths teacher was partially senile and we had to 
teach ourselves, largely).

Matrices are useful for our CS intake but we can't relay on people having 
done them. We accept applicants with only GCSE maths (exmained at 16, two 
years before university entrance). No matrices there, but if the do a 
BTEC in IT then they *sometimes* get a unit there that includes it.

We don't insist on A level maths because there are too many other routes 
anyway so we have to do the maths ourselves.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4723

Bob Eager wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 13:05:46 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
> 
>> What was more use was an extra course our maths teacher laid on -
>> matrices, determinants, complex numbers, and prolly a lot more except I
>> dropped out as he insisted in giving too much homework to go with the
>> course. Partial differential equations would have been handy for when I
>> got to Uni - we all had to have an extra one-year Maths course at Uni so
>> that we could do the Physics.
> 
> I did A levels as two separate subjects (Pure and Applied) towards the
> end of the 1960s. I too would have benefited from the material above, had
> it been included (our maths teacher was partially senile and we had to
> teach ourselves, largely).
> 
> Matrices are useful for our CS intake but we can't relay on people having
> done them. We accept applicants with only GCSE maths (exmained at 16, two
> years before university entrance). No matrices there, but if the do a
> BTEC in IT then they *sometimes* get a unit there that includes it.
> 
> We don't insist on A level maths because there are too many other routes
> anyway so we have to do the maths ourselves.
> 
 
I actually lucked out in my last two years of school prior to what you call 
University.  My chemistry teacher was a retired department head from a large 
university.  That man could TEACH! He managed to merge most of those topics 
into what was supposed to be an algebra course he taught one period per day 
because he enjoyed doing it.  He was in his late 70s at the time but he was 
one of a handful of teachers I've had that you learned because of rather 
than in spite of.

The other was the sitting department head of the mathematics department at 
the same university.  He was allowed to chose his own students and the 
course was taught an hour before the normal school schedule began so that he 
could get to work on time.  His rationale was that his instructors needed to 
adjust to the level of incoming students and this was his way of tracking 
that.

Sometimes, luck puts you in a good situation.
 
-- 
Will Honea

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4726

On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 13:48:49 -0600, Will Honea wrote:

> I actually lucked out in my last two years of school prior to what you
> call University.  My chemistry teacher was a retired department head
> from a large university.  That man could TEACH! He managed to merge most
> of those topics into what was supposed to be an algebra course he taught
> one period per day because he enjoyed doing it.  He was in his late 70s
> at the time but he was one of a handful of teachers I've had that you
> learned because of rather than in spite of.

I wanted to do 'single Maths' rather than 'double Maths' but the school 
pressured parents because they wanted students for a new combined 
physical science A level (that they had funding for) and we were only 
able to take 3 A-levels in total. I had wanted to do maths, physics and 
chemistry. The single maths teacher was excellent, and I knew that. 
However, I got what I got. I did badly in the exams, re-took the 
following year, and went to a different university. That was 1970, and 
I'm still here! Met my wife here too, so it all worked out for the best 
(I think...)

My most entertaining lecturer was Roger Jennison - very eccentric.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Clifton_Jennison
-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4677

On 2/09/2014 8:02 PM, Rich wrote:
> http://www.salon.com/2006/09/14/basic_2/
>
>     For three years - ever since my son Ben was in fifth grade - he and I
>     have engaged in a quixotic but determined quest: We've searched for a
>     simple and straightforward way to get the introductory programming
>     language BASIC to run on either my Mac or my PC.
>
>     Why on Earth would we want to do that, in an era of glossy
>     animation-rendering engines, game-design ogres and sophisticated avatar
>     worlds? Because if you want to give young students a grounding in how
>     computers actually work, there's still nothing better than a little
>     experience at line-by-line programming.
>
>     Only, quietly and without fanfare, or even any comment or notice by
>     software pundits, we have drifted into a situation where almost none of
>     the millions of personal computers in America offers a line-programming
>     language simple enough for kids to pick up fast. Not even the one that
>     was a software lingua franca on nearly all machines, only a decade or so
>     ago. And that is not only a problem for Ben and me; it is a problem for
>     our nation and civilization.
>
>     ...
>

Let him be. If he never learns to program, he'll go into management, and 
get paid three times as much.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4693

On 02/09/2014 11:02, Rich wrote:
>     For three years - ever since my son Ben was in fifth grade - he and I
>     have engaged in a quixotic but determined quest: We've searched for a
>     simple and straightforward way to get the introductory programming
>     language BASIC to run on either my Mac or my PC.

Did he not try searching using Google?

Two seconds turns up Chipmunk Basic <http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/basic/>

-- 
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey
England
(bruce at scorecrow dot com)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4700

On 2014-09-02, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> http://www.salon.com/2006/09/14/basic_2/
>
>    For three years - ever since my son Ben was in fifth grade - he and I
>    have engaged in a quixotic but determined quest: We've searched for a
>    simple and straightforward way to get the introductory programming
>    language BASIC to run on either my Mac or my PC.
>
>    Why on Earth would we want to do that, in an era of glossy
>    animation-rendering engines, game-design ogres and sophisticated avatar
>    worlds? Because if you want to give young students a grounding in how
>    computers actually work, there's still nothing better than a little
>    experience at line-by-line programming.
>
>    Only, quietly and without fanfare, or even any comment or notice by
>    software pundits, we have drifted into a situation where almost none of
>    the millions of personal computers in America offers a line-programming
>    language simple enough for kids to pick up fast. Not even the one that
>    was a software lingua franca on nearly all machines, only a decade or so
>    ago. And that is not only a problem for Ben and me; it is a problem for
>    our nation and civilization.

Aren't there a number of programming languages designed for beginners?

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2468227/internet/scratch--squeak--alice-and-go----programming-for-kids--adults-and-everyone-else.html

http://scratch.mit.edu/

http://www.squeak.org/

http://www.alice.org/index.php

http://golang.org/

-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 28th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3180
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere,
diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies”. Groucho Marx.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web