On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 22:39:30 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 24-8-2011 21:51, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:21:45 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>> Aside: my main surprise in this was that the students from CS simply
>>> accepted this level of teaching, many did not even notice.
>>
>> That was something that surprised me as well - but then again, when I
>> took my Assembly class, I had programmed in something like 15 different
>> languages - more than anyone else in the class - and had been
>> programming (even was paid to write code) since I was about 10.
>>
>> So many CS students need that level of teaching, because they have
>> (perhaps) math aptitude, but not (a lot of) hands-on experience writing
>> code.
> 
> A low level would be acceptable for that reason. But a guy that writes a
> straight line and axes on the blackboard with a formula that does not
> match what he has drawn? Adding that there is a problem with either
> horizontal or vertical lines, because something might become infinitive
> and choosing the wrong one (matching neither his formula, nor his
> graph)? Or the assistant at the practical part that does not know the
> difference between a variable and a parameter? Nobody needs that level
> of teaching.

That's certainly true - what's being taught has to be taught effectively 
*and* correctly.

Jim

Post a reply to this message