LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA Archives

TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA  June 2001

TEAM-ADA June 2001

Subject:

Re: Discussion of introductory programming language

From:

Michael Feldman <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Michael Feldman <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:49:56 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (114 lines)

Mike Stark et al,
>
> My opinion is that change is needed in how computer science is taught -- it
> is at least as important to understand how an event-driven interface such
> as Java Swing works as how indexed indirect addressing works -- a lot more
> people will be develoing user interfaces than OS kernels or device drivers.
> I think UI design is good to introduce as early as possible, as it gives
> the added benefit of teaching how to read and understand a library such as
> Swing.  But the choice of language should follow from educational goals,
> and I didn't see much about what the goals of CS1 should be in that thread.
> Perhaps Mike Feldman can enlighten us all ;)
>
> Mike
>
Well, since Mike S. invited me to jump in...

CS education has always been fraught with debate over what to teach,
and - more to the point - in what order to teach it. After 26 years of
teaching courses ranging from freshman level to doctoral level and
just about everything in between, and nearly as many years of going
to SIGCSE conferences and suchlike, I observe that:

- there is reasonably good consensus - in the respectable departments -
  on what we should teach over 4 years.

- there is _no_ good consensus - and, IMHO, unlikely to be much in
  the forseeable future - on the propr order.

The main difference between full-scale undergraduate programs, on one
hand, and "training" programs like commercial certifications, 2-year
community-college things, etc., on the other hand. is that the former
focuses more on fundamentals - those things that _don't_ change
from year to year, while the latter focuses more on short-term
concerns - products, "technologies", and skills.

Obviously there is a lot of "skill" stuff mixed into an undergrad
program, but there is much more than that also.

If you're interested in reading about the nearest approximation to
a consensus view of a good undergrad structure, see the accreditation
standards published by CSAB, which is a creature of ACM and the IEEE
Computer Society. Visit www.csab.org for this. Click on "Criteria 2000"
for details; click on "Comp. Sci. Profession" for the underlying
philosophical basis.

You'll note that while some subjects in the standards are "obviously"
introductory, abnd others are "obviously" advanced, in most cases
CSAB does _not_ prescribe an order to introduction.

There is little - if any - credible comparative research on the
various tradeoffs in selecting presentation orders. For example, should
we do UI's "early" (as Mike suggests)? Some do it, and claim success.
Others present UIs "late", and claim success. Nobody can _prove_ one
is better than the other. Similar with O-O concepts, computer
architecture, blah-blah.

In fact, if over 4 years, we are all teaching the subjects we agree
on (and, as I said, there is pretty good agreement here), then the
order really doesn't matter much and we can let each department
follow its own tastes. I think this is the case, and probably always
will be. It's not really productive to spend too much time trying
to change some department's presentation order.

My bottom line to students AND to my colleagues in industry is this:

As a designer of a _4-year_ curriculum (and I AM the curriculum chair
in my department!) I am obliged to produce _seniors_ who have these
basic attributes (in no particular order):

- are prepared for their first job, but also for their 10th job
- understand what changes and what doesn't
- can make design choices
- can tell the difference between revolutionary breakthroughs
  and marketing bullshit
- have enough math and science in their lives to be able to
  communicate with scientists and engineers
- can prepare a decent written report
- can give a decent oral presentation
- can work as a member of a team, not just as an isolated geek

(Aside: If they can read an API like Swing, fine, but if they can't,
they can learn, because in college, they've learned how to learn.
If they haven't learned how to learn, don't hire them!)

OK, that's what I'm obliged to produce. I am NOT (NOT!!!) obliged to
produce:

- A worker bee who can jump right into a project with absolutely
  no on-the-job education into the tools and cultures of his/her
  employer. Employers must be willing to invest in their employees.
  If your employer won't invest in you, don't work there!

- A second-year summer intern who has exactly the right skillset
  the employer demands. You're an intern - there to learn, not to
  produce. If your employer doesn't understand this, quit and
  do something fun in the summer. I was a summer camp counselor
  till I got tired of it.

The above is part of my standard lecture to undergrad advisees,
of whom I have roughly 125 right now.:-)

Whew! I'm sure that's more than you bargained for, but that's what
you get for inviting a prof into this discussion!

Oh - if you have a few minutes, read a piece of mine:

www.seas.gwu.edu/~mfeldman/papers/aspirations.html

Sigh... you asked for it.:-)

Cheers,

Mike Feldman

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
February 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager