From: pjulich@su102c.ess.harris.com (Paul M. Julich)
Subject: Re: ACM Curriculum Proposal - Some Remarks
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 12:49:21 GMT
Distribution: global
Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne  FL
Keywords: ACM Logo Lego

In <16j2odINN1f2@agate.berkeley.edu> bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:

>KlausF@OSGO.ks.he.schule.de writes:
>>The proposal tries to design a CS-course which is similar in level and
>>methodology to ``typical high school pre-college science courses''. The
>>course should concentrate on ``fundamental scientific principles and
>>concepts'' in the field.
>>
>>Who doesn't agree with these goals.

>I don't, for one.


>is the place for learning how to learn, and learning to love learning.  It
>doesn't matter so much about any specific facts you might learn.  This is
>true even in "pre-college science courses"; the main point of high school
>physics had better be to get the kids to love physics--love its methodology
>as well as its content--and it wouldn't matter so much if all the physics
>they learn is wrong (e.g., Newtonian).

stuff omitted ...

>The big exception is computing.  Many kids, through programming, can and do
>learn to love formal mathematical thinking.  They stay up all night getting
>their program to work.  That's the *only* important thing that computing
>has to offer in high school education!  Some of these kids may end up staying
>with computing; if so, they'll have the "fundamental scientific principles
>and concepts" in college.  Others may get interested in some other, related
>scientific area.  But we got them hooked by letting them program!

>The ACM curriculum wants to destroy all this by taking the fun out of
>programming and making it feel like a trigonometry class.  It's full of
>Shalt-Not style rules, RAM/ROM/CPU buzz words to memorize, and on top of
>that it enshrines an obsolete, low-level idea of programming languages
>(no modern language has type declarations or loop constructs).

I want to second the comments of Klaus and Harvey with regard to the
place that computers play in the school.  I have twin daughters,
beginning 6th grade this year.  I have encouraged my daughters to
experiment on the computer.  LogoWriter was a valuable purchase (3
years ago).  With it they have not only learned aspects of problem
solving, but have also used their imagination to solve many problems -
all with very minimal interference from me.  I also purchased a
LEGO/DACTA set and they have had a great deal of fun using their
imagination creating their own designs while without knowing it they
were learning many valuable facts.  As a result of this activity their
interest in all areas of school has gone up and their grades have
improved.  They love working with the computer.

The point of all of this is the following.  Last spring they came home
from school very depressed.  They said that beginning this fall there
would be a class on computers in which they would receive a grade.  The
teacher had apparently made a sales pitch about all that they would
learn, definitions and the like and it did not appeal to them at all.
Do we have to take this wonderful tool and destroy it as an
educational vehicle by taking the creativity out of it.  Frankly, I'm
distressed with our schools over this approach.

On the area of two many architectures, etc, I believe this approach is
destroying much of the secondary education.  We are in all areas of
mathematics trying to teach too many facts without teaching thinking.
Math homework assignments for my junior and senior high school kids
are filled with long numbers of trite (apply the canned formula)
problems and little thinking.  We have often confused hard (lots of
work) with good.  Is there any hope for reversing this trend and
getting kids back to understanding mathematics?  I heard recently of a
geometry camp where in three weeks, a kid can get credit for an
entire year of geometry so that he/she can move on to Algebra 2 next
year.  Frankly I do not believe that one can absorb the principles of
theorem proving which are the core of this course in three weeks.  Am
I way off base?  


pjulich@rhino.ess.harris.com






Newsgroups: comp.edu