Path: utzoo!attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!aimed!nick
From: nick@aimed.UUCP (Nick Pemberton)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: Teaching computer science.
Summary: IMHO - the wrong way to teach
Message-ID: <154@aimed.UUCP>
Date: 19 Jan 89 22:51:47 GMT
References: <576@blake.acs.washington.edu>
Organization: AIM, Inc, Toronto, Ontario
Lines: 65

In article <576@blake.acs.washington.edu>, mcglk@blake.acs.washington.edu (Ken McGlothlen) writes:
[introductory comments deleted]
> So far, so good.  The headache began when the professor opted to
> force each of his students to use his personal set of library
> functions *instead* of the standard Modula-2 libraries.  Apparently,
> the prof "didn't like" the original libraries, and wrote a number
> of small procedures which called the real procedures, using a
> different set of parameters, names, and so on.  He took points off
> for different commenting styles (you had to use *his*), different
> (though perfectly valid) indentation styles, and using the standard
> Modula-2 routines instead of his personal library.
> 
> At the end of the course, if anyone wanted to use Modula-2 for anything,
> they had to unlearn some of the ridiculous stuff they had picked up in
> his class.
While I'm no teacher, I have had to train a large number of people coming
into our company. I've always held that it is far better to learn a
language, a software package, an os feature, etc, as it was originally
intended. Several langauges, C included, allow one to define constructs,
macros, etc, that make the langauge "look like" something the user is more
used to. This is really harmfull in that the user then doesn't really know
or hasn't really learned what the package is about; rather they have learned
how to make it look like something they already knew. (Classic example
of this in the original K & R, making C look like algol (intro to the
C preprocessor) ).

The only argument I can think of *for* this kind of action is to try and
introduce some form of standards, but I can't think of a stupider way to
do it ... all he'll end up with, as you point out, are very confused
students.

As to writing his own routines, his own library, etc, and ramming 'style'
down students throats, well, there are lots of problems with that. Forcing
style is quite serious, it leads to students who tend towards spitting out
programs 'as they were taught to' rather then thinking for themselves how
it ought to be done. Understanding *how* to indent is far less usefull
then knowing *why* one should indent. Writing his one library is just plain
stupid, especially if it achieves the exact same thing as the original. Might
as well invent a whole new langauge like, say, turing... :-)
> 
> Maybe I'm just a little out of date.  This can't possibly be a sound
> approach to teaching a computer course, can it?  Or is it actually
> suggested somewhere that this is a good pattern to follow?
> 
Well, IMHO its a terrible way to teach, and the programmers who come out
of this are either going to be way behind their peers or just downright
unemployable.
> 
> It pains me somewhat.  I'm rather enthusiastic about computers, but then
> I've had a few really wonderful teachers in my time (thank you Dean
> Gienger, wherever you are).  Seeing this happen just irks me somewhat.
> 
I know how that feels - when I was at the University of Alberta I had some
first rate teachers, how shall remain nameless for the moment, and they
only served to strengthen my liking of computers.
>
> If I'm wrong--if this *is* a good approach--could someone please set
> me straight, and tell me why?
> 
Well I think you're right, as I'm sure you can tell...
-- 

Nick Pemberton                   UUCP: !{utzoo,utai}!lsuc!aimed!nick
AIM, Inc                          Bus: (416) 429-4913
                                 Home: (416) 690-0647