I, as a teacher, have had to learn several languages, but that’s not the dumb reason bit. The dumb reason bit was WHY I had to teach Python, which once I learnt it (so I cold teach it) I could see right away was NOT a suitable language for teaching to Year 7 (who up to now have only used Scratch). I was teaching the U.K. curriculum, and I found out that teaching C# was also allowed - still not ideal, but better than Python for learners -but pretty much all schools were teaching Python. When I dug into it I found I was far from alone in not wanting to use Python… and I also found out the reason schools were teaching Python. It was because from an ADMINISTRATIVE point of view it was much easier for the schools to have us teaching Python. In other words, the office-workers who didn’t have to teach it, only had to admin it, were forcing everyone to teach Python because they wanted the lower overhead that came with installing/maintaining that vs. C#. ARGH! All the teachers who wanted to teach C# were running into exactly the same road-block.
I’m really surprised to hear that teaching C# to 7th graders is easer than teaching them python. Python was invented to teach. It looks like pseudo code. I have almost zero experience in teaching so I trust your experience. But can you elaborate a little? What makes teaching C# easier?
I just replied to someone else with the same question. Less can go wrong (but in either case a non-OOP language, like Pascal, is a much better starting point. You should only ever teach students one concept at a time).
As it is, when we had to teach them HTML, the resources we were given were using PHP at the same time, so I scrapped that and just taught them HTML myself. We never teach more than one concept at a time, so I don’t know how these other things found their way into the curriculum/resources.
P.S. as a teacher, I can tell you I have seen students who even struggle to write pseudo code. It’s like trying to teach them Greek (not all students, but some, and we need to cater to the lowest common denominator).
I hate having to cater to the lowest common denominator, I had to struggle with un-engaging classes all throughout elementary and middle school. I’ve seriously thought about becoming a teacher so I’d like to ask, in your experience, what happens to the children that are able to process more advanced information? Can something be done to keep them engaged and nurture their development too?
Oh definitely! Different students have different learning styles - some learn by memorising rules (ROTE), some learn by understanding the rules (Constructivist), some are visual learners, some are better at learning in group activities, etc. - and we have to cater to them ALL, to keep them all engaged (here’s WHY we have this rule, here’s a video about it, here’s a group activity about it, here’s a worksheet to practise it). But I was referring to the TOOLS that we use with class. We can’t use a tool that the advanced students have no trouble with but the less adept students struggle with - we have to use a tool that the whole class can use, and that’s what I meant about catering to the lowest common denominator.
Also some (not all) schools have special classes for gifted and talented (G&T) students. And in fact one class I’ve had in my time is a class which was comprised of half the students had various learning difficulties (such as being dyslexic), though they weren’t told that (these days it’s all about trying to keep them in the mainstream as much as possible. So in this class the dyslexic student had a regular student sitting next to him for immediate help with reading anything, which left me free to only need to help him with actual educational issues).
Oh! I just remembered this video. If you wanna know how students can struggle with pseudo code, watch the video. I use this video when I teach algorithms (students are even worse at that than pseudo code).
I’ve always seriously questioned why python has become the defacto beginner language. Sure, a simple print hello world is short, but I feel like static languages are easier to see what’s going on.
Well, I’m only speaking here for my experience with teaching the U.K. curriculum, but probably the same thing applies elsewhere. I know this much - as a teacher, it’s very frustrating!
Honestly, I taught myself JS in like 2009 as my first programming language. My high school taught Java, but I didn’t get OOP. I understand functional programming though, so after JS I taught myself Elixir, then OCaml and Haskell. I really wish I was just taught Clojure or another lisp-like in school though. Python is… okay… I need expressions in my language, though, and Python is not that.
I, as a teacher, have had to learn several languages, but that’s not the dumb reason bit. The dumb reason bit was WHY I had to teach Python, which once I learnt it (so I cold teach it) I could see right away was NOT a suitable language for teaching to Year 7 (who up to now have only used Scratch). I was teaching the U.K. curriculum, and I found out that teaching C# was also allowed - still not ideal, but better than Python for learners -but pretty much all schools were teaching Python. When I dug into it I found I was far from alone in not wanting to use Python… and I also found out the reason schools were teaching Python. It was because from an ADMINISTRATIVE point of view it was much easier for the schools to have us teaching Python. In other words, the office-workers who didn’t have to teach it, only had to admin it, were forcing everyone to teach Python because they wanted the lower overhead that came with installing/maintaining that vs. C#. ARGH! All the teachers who wanted to teach C# were running into exactly the same road-block.
I’m really surprised to hear that teaching C# to 7th graders is easer than teaching them python. Python was invented to teach. It looks like pseudo code. I have almost zero experience in teaching so I trust your experience. But can you elaborate a little? What makes teaching C# easier?
Surely an unpopular opinion lol.
Python is a great first language.
…and riding a bike is easy. Now go watch some kids who have never ridden a bike before and see how that’s working out for them.
as an adult who never rode a bike I can see
I just replied to someone else with the same question. Less can go wrong (but in either case a non-OOP language, like Pascal, is a much better starting point. You should only ever teach students one concept at a time).
Pascal was my first language. Self-taught. It was pretty good.
My first language was Basic, and Pascal is definitely better than that as a first language (it’s what it was designed for).
As it is, when we had to teach them HTML, the resources we were given were using PHP at the same time, so I scrapped that and just taught them HTML myself. We never teach more than one concept at a time, so I don’t know how these other things found their way into the curriculum/resources.
P.S. as a teacher, I can tell you I have seen students who even struggle to write pseudo code. It’s like trying to teach them Greek (not all students, but some, and we need to cater to the lowest common denominator).
I hate having to cater to the lowest common denominator, I had to struggle with un-engaging classes all throughout elementary and middle school. I’ve seriously thought about becoming a teacher so I’d like to ask, in your experience, what happens to the children that are able to process more advanced information? Can something be done to keep them engaged and nurture their development too?
Edited an unfortunate typo
Oh definitely! Different students have different learning styles - some learn by memorising rules (ROTE), some learn by understanding the rules (Constructivist), some are visual learners, some are better at learning in group activities, etc. - and we have to cater to them ALL, to keep them all engaged (here’s WHY we have this rule, here’s a video about it, here’s a group activity about it, here’s a worksheet to practise it). But I was referring to the TOOLS that we use with class. We can’t use a tool that the advanced students have no trouble with but the less adept students struggle with - we have to use a tool that the whole class can use, and that’s what I meant about catering to the lowest common denominator.
Also some (not all) schools have special classes for gifted and talented (G&T) students. And in fact one class I’ve had in my time is a class which was comprised of half the students had various learning difficulties (such as being dyslexic), though they weren’t told that (these days it’s all about trying to keep them in the mainstream as much as possible. So in this class the dyslexic student had a regular student sitting next to him for immediate help with reading anything, which left me free to only need to help him with actual educational issues).
Thanks for your reply!
No problem. Feel free to ask me questions.
Oh! I just remembered this video. If you wanna know how students can struggle with pseudo code, watch the video. I use this video when I teach algorithms (students are even worse at that than pseudo code).
Does it though? I imagine most pseudocode looks like the language the writer is most familiar with. My pseudocode definitely doesn’t look like python.
I’ve always seriously questioned why python has become the defacto beginner language. Sure, a simple print hello world is short, but I feel like static languages are easier to see what’s going on.
Well, I’m only speaking here for my experience with teaching the U.K. curriculum, but probably the same thing applies elsewhere. I know this much - as a teacher, it’s very frustrating!
Honestly, I taught myself JS in like 2009 as my first programming language. My high school taught Java, but I didn’t get OOP. I understand functional programming though, so after JS I taught myself Elixir, then OCaml and Haskell. I really wish I was just taught Clojure or another lisp-like in school though. Python is… okay… I need expressions in my language, though, and Python is not that.
Yes, the correct sequence of events - one thing at a time, basic programming, then OOP. :-)
It’s not a lot of things, which makes it poor for a teaching language.