Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcvax!ukc!its63b!hwcs!aimmi!gilbert
From: gilbert@aimmi.UUCP (Gilbert Cockton)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.edu
Subject: Re: How to teach computers
Message-ID: <876@aimmi.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Mar-87 07:26:11 EST
Article-I.D.: aimmi.876
Posted: Wed Mar  4 07:26:11 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Mar-87 00:48:18 EST
References: <2030@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <269@rabbit1.UUCP> <843@hoxna.UUCP> <648@crlt.UUCP>
Reply-To: gilbert@aimmi.UUCP (Gilbert Cockton)
Organization: Heriot-Watt/Strathclyde Alvey MMI Unit, Scotland
Lines: 69
Xref: mnetor comp.lang.misc:323 comp.edu:149

In article <648@crlt.UUCP> michael@crlt.UUCP (Michael McClary) writes:
>I must agree.  Hands-on is the way to go, and the sooner the better.
>I'd say I learned the most about computer programming (in order of
>decreasing amount learned):
>
> - From "Playing" with the machines.
> - From reading or disassembling other people's code.
> - From trade journals and conferences.
> - From formal classes.
> - From writing programs for work assignments.
>
Whilst there's no doubt that the only way to learn to WRITE programs in real
languages under real operating systems, is to WRITE programs, and READ
other people's prorgams, this process is very time intensive. I have been told
that it has taken 2-3 months for a production team to get used to GEM
for example, and this team was not short on talent at all. There is a
real need for a set of core language and system software principles,
based on an agreed vocabulary of concepts, which can be used to accelerate
the learning process. System developers could then be encouraged to stick to
these core principles, abandoning them only when the principles were
DEMONSTRABLY inadequate for a specific problem. Such departures would
have to be documented clearly - usual trade-off here between individual
ego-bruising and social benefits of standardisation.

Some formal approaches to languages and systems are definitely bankrupt, and
students do not really seem to benefit from them. The problem boils
down to poor EDUCATIONAL technique - if courses are not evaluated
properly by assessing students skills before and after the course, the
quality of the course will never be known. As far as I know, there is
little serious research in this area, and too many students are
victims of half-hearted course development which can largely be
attributed to the fact that few higher education institutions have
their teaching tested by outside independent bodies. The old-boy network
of external examiners which operates in some countries is not the best way to
monitor the quality of university teaching.

I'd be interested to hear how course-work and exams are validated in different
countries/insititutions.  In Britain, we have an absurd situation where far
far less work is required to get a new single-institution masters course off
the ground than a single-institution single-subject secondary school leaving
examination (16 year olds). The quality control on the latter is far superior
to the former, far more than is warranted by the difference in numbers
(perhaps up to 200 students a year for the latter as opposed to 10-40 on a
British MSc).  When you look at the cost differences (thousands of pounds for
MScs, tens for secondary school pupils), the amateur nature of course
development becomes even more scandalous. This should not be be taken as a
personal attack on lecturers - it is an attack on the poor
educational standards of higher education INSTITUTIONS, which good
staff only affect for the time they are there. Nor is there any implied
criticism of technical subject ability either. The problem is one of EDUCATIONAL
skills, which generally get poorer as the consumers get older, largely
because sufficient resources are not allocated to course development
(for ballpark figures try 0.05 man years per hour of lecture, plus
0.005 man years per minute of exam-question - once a course is
developed, these figures drop substantially). Some tested teaching
training would help as well, after all that is part of what lecturers
are paid to do.

P.S. I have a degree in education, and two years school experience.
This gives me a good feel for how courses should be planned - I await
correction that higher-education is so different that none of this
applies. I have a little MSc/industry lecturing experience as well,
and have generally had to rush the preparation of the former, so I'm
not holding myself up as an example.

-- 
   Gilbert Cockton, Scottish HCI Centre, Ben Line Building, Edinburgh, EH1 1TN
   JANET:  gilbert@uk.ac.hw.aimmi    ARPA:   gilbert%aimmi.hw.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
		UUCP:	..!{backbone}!aimmi.hw.ac.uk!gilbert