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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#4688

On 2014-09-02, Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>
> If I were designing this for real, I think I'd go for a browser-based
> interface.  "Programs" would be on stored on the server with all the
> components previous written immediately available in some way (i.e. no
> "program in files" concept).  Part of the screen would be an edit window
> with real-time syntax checking, with the output displayed in another
> part as soon as the "program" generates any.  ("Program" in quotes
> because I don't know exactly what I mean by that in the context.)

Such learning interfaces already exist.  A month or two ago I came across
a programming course which offered an environment akin to what you describe.

I'm now trying to remember where I found it... :-(

-- 
If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail
If you own a jackhammer, every problem looks like hours of fun

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

#4649

On 2014-09-02, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <jCWo060GWCUx8svQg454q6sz@dont-email.me>, 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.
>
> Open a Terminal window on your Mac and type:
>
>   PHP -a
>
> at the prompt. You can then enter PHP statements, a good way to get
> started as PHP is a simple enough language.

"PHP: a fractal of bad design"
<http://eev.ee/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/>

And that inspired one on MySQL:

mysql - choose-something-else 
<http://grimoire.ca/mysql/choose-something-else>

> BASIC is rubbish: AVOID.

VAX BASIC wasn't that bad.  You could write proper programs in it, as
I recall. Hmm, you could also write micro style BASIC with it - when someone
investigated why a VAX was providing "lumpy performance", it turned out to
be a chap who thought that the way to slow a screen down was to put in a
FOR/NEXT loop with a million iterations.  He'd never thought of "Press
space or <Return> to continue".

-- 
If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail
If you own a jackhammer, every problem looks like hours of fun

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

#4650

In article <ee2hdb-ob32.ln1@news.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture
<nospam@sture.ch> wrote:

> On 2014-09-02, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> > In article <jCWo060GWCUx8svQg454q6sz@dont-email.me>, 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.
> >
> > Open a Terminal window on your Mac and type:
> >
> >   PHP -a
> >
> > at the prompt. You can then enter PHP statements, a good way to get
> > started as PHP is a simple enough language.
> 
> "PHP: a fractal of bad design"
> <http://eev.ee/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/>

Oh yawn, Paul. C'mon, you can do better than that.

> > BASIC is rubbish: AVOID.
> 
> VAX BASIC wasn't that bad.  You could write proper programs in it, as
> I recall. Hmm, you could also write micro style BASIC with it - when someone
> investigated why a VAX was providing "lumpy performance", it turned out to
> be a chap who thought that the way to slow a screen down was to put in a
> FOR/NEXT loop with a million iterations.  He'd never thought of "Press
> space or <Return> to continue".

Arf. Remember that you can write FORTRAN in any language, too.

-- 
"If you're not able to ask questions and deal with the answers without feeling 
that someone has called your intelligence or competence into question, don't 
ask questions on Usenet where the answers won't be carefully tailored to avoid
tripping your hair-trigger insecurities."                  - D M Procida, UCSM

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

#4699

On 2014-09-02, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> In article <jCWo060GWCUx8svQg454q6sz@dont-email.me>, 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.
>
>> Open a Terminal window on your Mac and type:
>
>>   PHP -a
>
>> at the prompt. You can then enter PHP statements, a good way to get
>> started as PHP is a simple enough language.
>
>> BASIC is rubbish: AVOID.
>
> Some of us classify PHP into that rubbish bin as well.

Hear, hear.


-- 
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] | [next] | [standalone]

#4701

In article <c6rcv2F5ve4U1@mid.individual.net>,
Huge  <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote:
>On 2014-09-02, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>> In article <jCWo060GWCUx8svQg454q6sz@dont-email.me>, 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.
>>
>>> Open a Terminal window on your Mac and type:
>>
>>>   PHP -a
>>
>>> at the prompt. You can then enter PHP statements, a good way to get
>>> started as PHP is a simple enough language.
>>
>>> BASIC is rubbish: AVOID.
>>
>> Some of us classify PHP into that rubbish bin as well.
>
>Hear, hear.

I learned with BASIC. Many many others in the late 70's and early 80's
did the same. I even (relatively) recently wrote my own interpertation
of a BASIC interpreter - just because I wanted to.

I have also written thousands and thousands of lines of PHP.

And C and a fair few C++ - even some FORTRAN and Pascal, although that
was never in a working environment..

What I have found and seen over the years is that it's more about the
attitude and abilities of the teacher than the actual programming
language that's important for people learning to write programs -
and I think I got lucky - although I started on BASIC at school in
'78, my teachers were good enough to discourage spagetti code - GOTO,
etc. were unavoidable then, but with comments and putting subroutines
into well defiend blocks it made something slightly more readable, when
when I moved to other languages those lessons did we well.

Modern BASICs are a far-cry from the 8-bit versions I started on -
structured syntax, no line-numbers, named procedures, recursion and so on,
and I do think being introduced to it as a text-based language (after 
the now compulsory Scratch in the UK primary schools) is a good and
gentle step before taking the plunge into C/Python/Ruby/Java/etc.

What I've also noticed is that young peopel respond much better to
something physical happening than the boring number crunching I started
with - light up an LED rather than calculate compund interest. Then
there's (turtle) graphics. Much fun to be had there too!

-Gordon

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

#4711 — Re: Why Johnny can't code

Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> writes:

> What I've also noticed is that young peopel respond much better to
> something physical happening than the boring number crunching I started
> with - light up an LED rather than calculate compund interest. Then
> there's (turtle) graphics. Much fun to be had there too!

Young people -- say 6 to 16 -- arrive at a coding opportunity with an
existing notion that computing is all kinds of user interface
technical effects: popups, crossfades, video, audio, animation,
buttons etc. usw.  Only those things:

     (a) are hard or
     (b) depend on complex libraries that are also hard.

Number crunching and text manipulation -- say, calculating interest on
a loan or getting a word frequency count from a text -- are relatively
straightforward but don't have any of the glitz that the coding newbie
imagines is the epitome of using a computer.

"Yes, yes, but what does it *do*?  That's all? Boooorrring.  Gotta put
some selfies up on FB.  Byyyeeee."

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

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

#4664

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.
> 

Rich, you are putting the cart before the horse.  The task is NOT to teach a 
beginner to code!  Rather, your effort is much better spent teaching him how 
to PROGRAM.  The language is largely irrelevant - every developer will tell 
you that coding is the effort to implement a program and language is just 
one of the tools used achieve that end.

You hit a nerve with your question - I would love to have back all the hours 
I've used over the years teaching coders who didn't know what their 
objective was...

-- 
Will Honea

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

#4668

Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> wrote:
> 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.
> > 

> Rich, you are putting the cart before the horse.  The task is NOT to teach a 
> beginner to code!  Rather, your effort is much better spent teaching him how 
> to PROGRAM.  The language is largely irrelevant - every developer will tell 
> you that coding is the effort to implement a program and language is just 
> one of the tools used achieve that end.

Note, Rich did not write the blog post, and the above is simply a quote
from the blog.  Rich simply pointed comp.misc to an interesting blog
post.

With that said, I whole heartedly agree.  Teaching the young'ns how to
"program" is the key.  How to think, how to divide and conquer, etc. 
The mechanics of "coding" are trivial to pickup if one has the
programming mindset.

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

#4671

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:08:59 -0600, Will Honea wrote:

> 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.
>> 
>> 
> Rich, you are putting the cart before the horse.  The task is NOT to
> teach a beginner to code!  Rather, your effort is much better spent
> teaching him how to PROGRAM.  The language is largely irrelevant - every
> developer will tell you that coding is the effort to implement a program
> and language is just one of the tools used achieve that end.
> 
> You hit a nerve with your question - I would love to have back all the
> hours I've used over the years teaching coders who didn't know what
> their objective was...

Hear hear. I cringe when I hear this 'we are going to teach CODING' stuff 
on TV. Cart before the horse indeed.



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

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

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

#4680

Bob Eager wrote:

> Hear hear. I cringe when I hear this 'we are going to teach CODING' stuff
> on TV. Cart before the horse indeed.
> 

First thing I've seen from you in a loooong time, Bob.

Here in the US we are in the midst of re-inventing education - again.  I 
convinced the wife to retire before this latest hair-brained scheme to 
implement a national "common core" with money support to the schools doing 
best on a set of standardized tests is implemented. Somehow, the notion that 
education can accomplish nothing more than teaching the skills necessary to 
producing a student with the tools to learn what interests him/her has been 
lost.  That skill I can teach; I've never "learned" a student anything.

-- 
Will Honea

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

#4695

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 23:07:25 -0600, Will Honea wrote:

> Bob Eager wrote:
> 
>> Hear hear. I cringe when I hear this 'we are going to teach CODING'
>> stuff on TV. Cart before the horse indeed.
>> 
> First thing I've seen from you in a loooong time, Bob.

I mainly frequent UK groups...and alt.sys and comp.*.bsd ..!

> Here in the US we are in the midst of re-inventing education - again.

Same here. Worst exam results for years, although they are probably more 
accurate assessments.

> I
> convinced the wife to retire before this latest hair-brained scheme to
> implement a national "common core" with money support to the schools
> doing best on a set of standardized tests is implemented. Somehow, the
> notion that education can accomplish nothing more than teaching the
> skills necessary to producing a student with the tools to learn what
> interests him/her has been lost.  That skill I can teach; I've never
> "learned" a student anything.

Exactly. This obsession with 'coding' seems to be the equivalent of 
teaching someone to lay bricks without teaching them where or in what 
configuration they need to lay them...




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

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

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

#4696

Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 23:07:25 -0600, Will Honea wrote:

> > I convinced the wife to retire before this latest hair-brained
> > scheme to implement a national "common core" with money support to
> > the schools doing best on a set of standardized tests is
> > implemented. Somehow, the notion that education can accomplish
> > nothing more than teaching the skills necessary to producing a
> > student with the tools to learn what interests him/her has been
> > lost.  That skill I can teach; I've never "learned" a student
> > anything.

> Exactly. This obsession with 'coding' seems to be the equivalent of
> teaching someone to lay bricks without teaching them where or in what
> configuration they need to lay them...

The obsession with "coding" is likely coming from the folks who
couldn't create a program to do something they needed done to save
their life.  Even creating a simple spreadsheet that performs
calculations (a "form" of programming) would be beyond their abilities. 
It's the same obsession with teaching the answer key to the
standardized tests so the students can score high marks vs. teaching
the students real problem solving skills so they can score high marks
no matter the questions on the tests.  They see the output result, and
teach towards the output result, when the true point isn't to teach the
output result, but how to walk the path to derive the output result.

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

#4697

On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 11:09:48 +0000, Rich wrote:

> Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 23:07:25 -0600, Will Honea wrote:
> 
>> > I convinced the wife to retire before this latest hair-brained scheme
>> > to implement a national "common core" with money support to the
>> > schools doing best on a set of standardized tests is implemented.
>> > Somehow, the notion that education can accomplish nothing more than
>> > teaching the skills necessary to producing a student with the tools
>> > to learn what interests him/her has been lost.  That skill I can
>> > teach; I've never "learned" a student anything.
> 
>> Exactly. This obsession with 'coding' seems to be the equivalent of
>> teaching someone to lay bricks without teaching them where or in what
>> configuration they need to lay them...
> 
> The obsession with "coding" is likely coming from the folks who couldn't
> create a program to do something they needed done to save their life. 
> Even creating a simple spreadsheet that performs calculations (a "form"
> of programming) would be beyond their abilities.

Exactly.

> It's the same obsession with teaching the answer key to the standardized
> tests so the students can score high marks vs. teaching the students
> real problem solving skills so they can score high marks no matter the
> questions on the tests.  They see the output result, and teach towards
> the output result, when the true point isn't to teach the output result,
> but how to walk the path to derive the output result.

Quite right. I run admissions for CS courses, and some of the applicants 
have GCSE maths (taught to age 16) and some have gone on to A-level 
(taught to age 18). We normally admit at 18.

In many cases we can't tell whether someone has done the A-level or not 
from their actual ability. Some schools teach it well, but many do what 
you say. So we don't *require* A level maths - we teach the parts of it 
we need (and other stuff such as discrete maths) ourselves in the first 
year. What they get covers what they need in the first and second years 
(compulsory modules all) and then anything else is picked up by the 
optional modules in the final year.

Further confused by different syllabi and the existence of choices (made 
by each school) about which parts to cover; very often the teacher can 
only do parts of it anyway.




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

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

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

#4710

Bob Eager wrote:

> Quite right. I run admissions for CS courses, and some of the applicants
> have GCSE maths (taught to age 16) and some have gone on to A-level
> (taught to age 18). We normally admit at 18.
> 
> In many cases we can't tell whether someone has done the A-level or not
> from their actual ability. Some schools teach it well, but many do what
> you say. So we don't *require* A level maths - we teach the parts of it
> we need (and other stuff such as discrete maths) ourselves in the first
> year. What they get covers what they need in the first and second years
> (compulsory modules all) and then anything else is picked up by the
> optional modules in the final year.
> 
> Further confused by different syllabi and the existence of choices (made
> by each school) about which parts to cover; very often the teacher can
> only do parts of it anyway.
> 

One of the most useful approaches I ever saw to this was at a Military 
Service Academy.  All first-year and most second-year courses were subject 
to "challenge" whereby any student could ask to take the final exam rather 
than the course itself.  Passing that exam entitled the student to credit 
for the course and allowed him to select a substitute course to fill the 
time - no sense letting him just goof off!  Most of my classmates actually 
graduated with credit for at least 3-4 courses they never sat in.

-- 
Will Honea

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

#4714

On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 22:58:41 -0600, Will Honea wrote:

> Bob Eager wrote:
> 
>> Quite right. I run admissions for CS courses, and some of the
>> applicants have GCSE maths (taught to age 16) and some have gone on to
>> A-level (taught to age 18). We normally admit at 18.
>> 
>> In many cases we can't tell whether someone has done the A-level or not
>> from their actual ability. Some schools teach it well, but many do what
>> you say. So we don't *require* A level maths - we teach the parts of it
>> we need (and other stuff such as discrete maths) ourselves in the first
>> year. What they get covers what they need in the first and second years
>> (compulsory modules all) and then anything else is picked up by the
>> optional modules in the final year.
>> 
>> Further confused by different syllabi and the existence of choices
>> (made by each school) about which parts to cover; very often the
>> teacher can only do parts of it anyway.
>> 
>> 
> One of the most useful approaches I ever saw to this was at a Military
> Service Academy.  All first-year and most second-year courses were
> subject to "challenge" whereby any student could ask to take the final
> exam rather than the course itself.  Passing that exam entitled the
> student to credit for the course and allowed him to select a substitute
> course to fill the time - no sense letting him just goof off!  Most of
> my classmates actually graduated with credit for at least 3-4 courses
> they never sat in.

Interesting idea but if some of the learning outcomes are assessd via 
practical work and group work, harder to do.



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

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

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

#4724

Bob Eager wrote:

>> One of the most useful approaches I ever saw to this was at a Military
>> Service Academy.  All first-year and most second-year courses were
>> subject to "challenge" whereby any student could ask to take the final
>> exam rather than the course itself.  Passing that exam entitled the
>> student to credit for the course and allowed him to select a substitute
>> course to fill the time - no sense letting him just goof off!  Most of
>> my classmates actually graduated with credit for at least 3-4 courses
>> they never sat in.
> 
> Interesting idea but if some of the learning outcomes are assessd via
> practical work and group work, harder to do.
> 

Quite true, but in the environment the primary goal of the program was to 
insure a proper grasp of fundamentals allowing earlier entry into more 
advanced levels.  That's where the assessments you mention occurred.

It also permitted some of us to avoid classes that had nothing to do with 
our individual goals - I tested out of every history course that the Academy 
required freeing the time for additional engineering courses, for example.

-- 
Will Honea

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

#4725

On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 13:55:17 -0600, Will Honea wrote:

> Bob Eager wrote:
> 
>>> One of the most useful approaches I ever saw to this was at a Military
>>> Service Academy.  All first-year and most second-year courses were
>>> subject to "challenge" whereby any student could ask to take the final
>>> exam rather than the course itself.  Passing that exam entitled the
>>> student to credit for the course and allowed him to select a
>>> substitute course to fill the time - no sense letting him just goof
>>> off!  Most of my classmates actually graduated with credit for at
>>> least 3-4 courses they never sat in.
>> 
>> Interesting idea but if some of the learning outcomes are assessd via
>> practical work and group work, harder to do.
>> 
>> 
> Quite true, but in the environment the primary goal of the program was
> to insure a proper grasp of fundamentals allowing earlier entry into
> more advanced levels.  That's where the assessments you mention
> occurred.

I see. We partly do that with the intro maths module - if they 
demonstarte yhey can do it, they can skip part of it.

> It also permitted some of us to avoid classes that had nothing to do
> with our individual goals - I tested out of every history course that
> the Academy required freeing the time for additional engineering
> courses, for example.

All of our first two years in CS (of three or four) have entirely 
compulsory modules.

When I did my electronics degree, my first term covered a variety of 
science based things. Physical stuff on particles, thermodynamics, 
astronomy, physical chemistry, microbiology.... In the second term we 
moved to just physics/electronics stuff. The physics labs were 
interesting..every week we carried out an experiment to determine a 
fundamental constant. So one week it was G, another week it was 
Boltzmann's constant, another it was Young's modulus, another it was 
Millikan's oil drop...




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

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

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

#4698

Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx>:

> This obsession with 'coding' seems to be the equivalent of teaching
> someone to lay bricks without teaching them where or in what
> configuration they need to lay them...

I have never laid bricks in my life. As a home-owner I run into such
problems all the time. I'm sure the fixes are really simple, but I'm
equally convinced that expensive mistakes are inevitable so I don't dare
to touch anything personally. Unfortunately, hiring a pro to do it will
also wreak havoc half the time so that leaves me in a bind.

If someone had taught me to do all those things, I would find plenty of
uses for the skills.

Coding might not have exactly the same applicability, but I have made
good use of my skills. For example, I've written a simple accounting
application to help me manage the finances of a soccer team.


Marko

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

#4703

On 04/09/2014 11:58, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 23:07:25 -0600, Will Honea wrote:
>
>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>
>>> Hear hear. I cringe when I hear this 'we are going to teach CODING'
>>> stuff on TV. Cart before the horse indeed.
>>>
>> First thing I've seen from you in a loooong time, Bob.
>
> I mainly frequent UK groups...and alt.sys and comp.*.bsd ..!
>
>> Here in the US we are in the midst of re-inventing education - again.
>
> Same here. Worst exam results for years, although they are probably more
> accurate assessments.
>

We seem to be witnessing increased grades in my ex-poly UK university. 
You can probably guess why.

>> I
>> convinced the wife to retire before this latest hair-brained scheme to
>> implement a national "common core" with money support to the schools
>> doing best on a set of standardized tests is implemented. Somehow, the
>> notion that education can accomplish nothing more than teaching the
>> skills necessary to producing a student with the tools to learn what
>> interests him/her has been lost.  That skill I can teach; I've never
>> "learned" a student anything.
>
> Exactly. This obsession with 'coding' seems to be the equivalent of
> teaching someone to lay bricks without teaching them where or in what
> configuration they need to lay them...
>

I do agree, but only to a point. I strongly believe you need to make the 
students aware of what's out there, and introduce them to different ways 
of thinking about it. So in your example, you do need to teach them 
about laying, and introduce them to a variety of bonds, mortars, bricks 
and so on (you can tell I've never laid a brick!), and the pros and cons.

Once they can describe, they can analyse. Once they can analyse, they 
can form an opinion. We can't, or rather shouldn't, teach opinion. IMHO.

For a variety of reasons, I see teaching going in a more case study, 
narrative driven direction. At least in my field of social sciences. 
Less theory, less history/contexts, less knowledge of basic concepts and 
structures. Drives me up the wall!

Not sure if we're agreeing or not . . .

-- 
Cheers, Rob

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

#4704

On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 20:27:25 +0100, RJH wrote:

> On 04/09/2014 11:58, Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 23:07:25 -0600, Will Honea wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hear hear. I cringe when I hear this 'we are going to teach CODING'
>>>> stuff on TV. Cart before the horse indeed.
>>>>
>>> First thing I've seen from you in a loooong time, Bob.
>>
>> I mainly frequent UK groups...and alt.sys and comp.*.bsd ..!
>>
>>> Here in the US we are in the midst of re-inventing education - again.
>>
>> Same here. Worst exam results for years, although they are probably
>> more accurate assessments.
>>
>>
> We seem to be witnessing increased grades in my ex-poly UK university.
> You can probably guess why.
> 
>>> I
>>> convinced the wife to retire before this latest hair-brained scheme to
>>> implement a national "common core" with money support to the schools
>>> doing best on a set of standardized tests is implemented. Somehow, the
>>> notion that education can accomplish nothing more than teaching the
>>> skills necessary to producing a student with the tools to learn what
>>> interests him/her has been lost.  That skill I can teach; I've never
>>> "learned" a student anything.
>>
>> Exactly. This obsession with 'coding' seems to be the equivalent of
>> teaching someone to lay bricks without teaching them where or in what
>> configuration they need to lay them...
>>
>>
> I do agree, but only to a point. I strongly believe you need to make the
> students aware of what's out there, and introduce them to different ways
> of thinking about it. So in your example, you do need to teach them
> about laying, and introduce them to a variety of bonds, mortars, bricks
> and so on (you can tell I've never laid a brick!), and the pros and
> cons.

I think I chose a bad analogy!

> Once they can describe, they can analyse. Once they can analyse, they
> can form an opinion. We can't, or rather shouldn't, teach opinion. IMHO.

In CS, the analysis needs to come before the coding, although I can see 
that *some* coding might be a good idea, as you say. They trouble is I 
have seen little evidence of them going back and learning the preliminary 
problem solving skills.

> For a variety of reasons, I see teaching going in a more case study,
> narrative driven direction. At least in my field of social sciences.
> Less theory, less history/contexts, less knowledge of basic concepts and
> structures. Drives me up the wall!
> 
> Not sure if we're agreeing or not . . .

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



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

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

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web