dosxuk Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Surely the plethora of existing development environments are good enough, schools don't need their own special one. For people who've never done any sort of coding before, environments like Eclipse are far too massive, and the other alternative of using a text editor and command line prompt isn't just as unfriendly. If these things do kick off in schools, remember the vast majority of people using them will have no wish to be using them. Even teaching the students how to get a project solution started in Eclipse will be a challenge. If the aim is to improve programming skills (and introduce them to a wider range of people), we need to get people thinking about algorithms, and breaking a problem down into steps. Teaching them how to make a linked list in C++ without breaking pointers, isn't going to be anywhere near as useful. With the RasPi being so cheap, those who find out they're interested can get one of their own and start using the "grown up" environments and languages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 You might not want to be teaching 6 year old children Eclipse, but if they've chosen to do that subject at GCSE then that's what they should be using. There are a variety of development environments available, most of them less complex than Eclipse & a variety of programming languages too. I don't think they're starting the kids off on C++, but that doesn't mean they can't use another useful standard language, like Python, maybe move on to Java. I was writing my own basic at 7, pascal at 11 & that was in my own time without any teachers, when it was much harder to get tools or learning materials. We don't need to dumb it down for kids, that'd be a huge mistake. Put it on your kid's Christmas list. Maybe by this time next year they'll have taught you how to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 You might not want to be teaching 6 year old children Eclipse, but if they've chosen to do that subject at GCSE then that's what they should be using. The thing is though the intention is to use this in GCSE IT, and make everyone take it, even those who's entire plan for their life is to maybe get a hairdressing qualification but mainly become a housewife (no insult intended to any housewife hairdressing programmers there may be out there). There are a variety of development environments available, most of them less complex than Eclipse & a variety of programming languages too. I don't think they're starting the kids off on C++, but that doesn't mean they can't use another useful standard language, like Python, maybe move on to Java. It needs to be a language which gives an immediate payback (so doesn't take an age to compile), is user friendly (no cryptic error messages) and is accessible (no bewildering syntax "sir, why do I have to put a ; at the end of each line?" - "because you do"). With an appropriate framework and development environment built up around it, Java or Python could be good choices. But in their plain forms, they're going to be too complicated and too confusing for the majority of students. I was writing my own basic at 7, pascal at 11 & that was in my own time without any teachers, when it was much harder to get tools or learning materials. Me too. But back then basically every computer came with a programming environment (MS-DOS with QBasic for example) as a starting point. And things like TurboPascal weren't particularaly expensive either for development at home. And I used to use a Library(!) to get books out on programming all the time. The information was there for those who were interested, as it still is. I think one of the problems today is that while we were growing up, a decent bit of software would run on the command line, or be a handful of forms. You could write simple games in your bedroom without too much hassle. Today what users expect from software has got so high, it's virtually impossible for the hobbiest to match it. We don't need to dumb it down for kids, that'd be a huge mistake. It's not about dumbing it down, it's about making it approachable and friendly so you don't scare them all off before they've started. Give them them the ability to work out how to build things, and then they'll start building them. Just giving them the ability to write "hello world" on a window in Java won't help them one bit. When I was at school, one of the things which really got me interested in development was some software where you could basically link different blocks together to build a program, but was linked to some real hardware - the best kit was a working (minature) set of traffic lights, with a pedestrian crossing. You had to build this graph to make it all work. It was brilliant for teaching algorithms, and even the kids who would rather be seen dead than using a computer enjoyed working with those kits. You could say that was programming dumbed down, but I would describe it as accessible. Put it on your kid's Christmas list. Maybe by this time next year they'll have taught you how to use it. I think I'll be fine thanks, since I'm already running it in an emulator for the various projects I'm intended to build with them once I can actually get hold of one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryRiley Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 But surely school computers are already sufficient to teach programming. Also, if Mr Gove wants a generation of programming ternagers making working apps then schools are going to have to come up with some insanely simple programming enrivonment and language for kids to even get the basics with an hour a week in the classroom. I seems to me that the people championing the use of the Pi to teach programming to youngsters are either those who don't really know what programming is, or those who already programme perfectly sufficiently and so don't see how learning programming would cause a problem for the average teenager. The Raspberry Pi is great at allowing a child to bring his own computer in to school to play around with. Now we've solved that 2% of the problem of teaching programming, someone else will have to solve the other 98% of the problem involving what platform we're going to use to allow kids to make anything close to a useful program without spending the whole 5 years mastering the for loop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryRiley Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 When I was at school, one of the things which really got me interested in development was some software where you could basically link different blocks together to build a program, but was linked to some real hardware - the best kit was a working (minature) set of traffic lights, with a pedestrian crossing. You had to build this graph to make it all work. It was brilliant for teaching algorithms, and even the kids who would rather be seen dead than using a computer enjoyed working with those kits. You could say that was programming dumbed down, but I would describe it as accessible. These are still used widely in schools, albeit in different programmes than you would have used. The main one is called Flowol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I seems to me that the people championing the use of the Pi to teach programming to youngsters are either those who don't really know what programming is, or those who already programme perfectly sufficiently and so don't see how learning programming would cause a problem for the average teenager. Why would it cause problems for the average teenager? Would they get stuck in a loop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 It's just a PC isn't it? They're going to program it like they would a PC, using whatever language they like I suppose. To start off with they'll use Scratch. Then I suspect, Python (what the Pi in Raspberry Pi alludes to). Python also has IDLE which is great for kids (and adults too). I happen to really enjoy programming in python, and all my programs look really tidy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryRiley Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Why would it cause problems for the average teenager? Would they get stuck in a loop? A hour a week is not enough to teach programming to teenagers. I'm not only talking about the time constraints but also the fact that each child is not going to be listening intently while their teacher talks about the need for headers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Who is proposing an hour a week? Do you need headers in Scratch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryRiley Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Who is proposing an hour a week? Do you need headers in Scratch? The government. Gove's idea is for kid to be making apps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.