The way forward is dump the cr@p, teach some interesting stuff. Like wot RubikWizard is doing. (Not totally sure about the choice of the C64.... but the basic ideas are sound).
The big lie is that all this rubbish done at KS4 (of which DiDA is an example) will somehow help people get a job in "Computers". It barely helps people get a job on Tesco's shop floor. It's also really really dull ; it's partly propped up by "pretty things" like (say) the animation paths in Powerpoint but even that will bore the children after a while. "Oh GAAAAAWDDDD sir, not another (expletive) Poster/Website/Presentation ...... PLEEEEASE can I stab myself with a compass instead ?".
My ten year old (who admittedly is a smart alec like his Dad) mastered Powerpoint years ago and now wants a go at programming Super Mario. Good for him. My thirteen year old probably could do it easily on leaving school. WTF are we going to do with them for 5 years in High School ?
I am amazed how tolerant the children are when faced with retarded drivel about 5-a-day websites or Rock Bands in scumbag Shropshire towns. I think they'd be justified in rioting.
But what other subject limits itself to what supposedly will help employment. I don't see the English department refusing to read Shakespeare, or the Mathematics department abandoning trignometry ?
What does Alice, or indeed C64 coding, do for pupils ? Well, it teaches them useful analytical skills (not moronic spin skills "Oh look we can make a presentation" - who gives a damn ?) it teaches them to think about how things are constructed, how they operate in sequence, how parts can go together to make something bigger. It opens up a whole new world that simply doesn't exist if you go the Information Crap Technology route. Some won't get beyond the basics, or sticking premade bits together, but then that's true of "ICT" and more or less any other subject as well.
For those that want to take their C64 and write 6502 Assembler good luck to them. You will get some tw@ts saying that it's a dead skill. Well, literally, it probably is *but* how do these tw@ts think control works ? Do people sit and point with pretty-little-flowcharts and light up lighthouses ? No, they write code in stuff that pretty much either looks like 'C' or 6502 Assembler. If you code 6502 assembler you have a handle on C ; then you have a handle on everything else, and you write better code 'cos you know what's going on.
The down side is, of course, the inability of people to teach the subject. There's (yet another) poster who 'struggles' with Flowol here.
Unless he's press-ganged into it from another subject (most likely D&T) then what sort of frapping degree is this ?
How can you do a degree in computery things and *not* be able to use Flowol ? There's absolutely s*d all to it. It didn't take long to *rewrite* it let alone learn how to use it.
We all know we're pressganged into teaching this drivel by micromanaging morons who think "M" and "F" are boolean values.
Let's face it, we could come up with a better syllabus in twenty minutes in the pub. But to satisfy inept numpties, we're stuck with it, just nibbling at the edges. AARGH !
I'm biased, Coronel. I have zero ability to tell people whether something looks well designed or not. I have zero sense of style (ask the Missus). Nor do I care about having no taste in clothes, worrying about whether my shirt and trousers match etc etc etc, a source of amusement to every child I worked with (they have a point :))
I don't really give a toss. What this "well designed" means is actually *look pretty*. I'm far more bothered about stupid websites that make you sit through four hours of flash, or have zero content, than whether blue and green make a pretty colour combination.
|
