RM> One could argue, however, that while students must certainly
RM> be functional in math and english, and have at least a
RM> nodding acquaintance with science, they could, in general, 
RM> survive quite nicely without being able to program.
Every thing you do in your daily life is programming. Why prevent kids from 
learning an orderly process?
SA> Uses of math and english require logic, the fundamental discipline of
SA> computer programming, what is your point?
 RM> We're not talking about teaching logic, we're talking about
 RM> teaching programming to 6th graders... 
I fail to see the difference?  I guess you fail to see the link.  Even 
knitting requires programming.
 RM> My point was, and is, that teaching programming to EVERYONE is  RM> 
unnecessary.  
You fail to see how programmin applies to every day life.  You seem to think 
that programming stops whan you turn the computer off.
 RM> YOUR point seems to be that programming involves logic,  RM etc, so it 
SHOULD be taught to everyone - I disagree.  
It is the best possible tool to teach logic, argument, orderly thinking, 
organization, and process.  
 RM> Physics involves logical thought processes also, and while it'd be 
 RM> nice to see everyone exposed to it, I really don't think it 
 RM> necessary.  
MAybe it is because you are choosing not to think it of it's value.
 RM> Logic, etc, can be taught in other ways beside 
 RM> programming OR physics....
Shore can, but it involves being clouded by specific disciplines.  Computer 
programming can be applied to any study.  Students often do not make the link 
between the logic of math to the logic of biology.  Computer science is not 
subject specific.
RM> Certainly SOMEONE has to know how, but it isn't needed by
RM> everyone or even MOST....  
EVERYONE uses logic, orderly thought, argument, etc.  Those that learn it 
earlier are much better at it and oltimatly win out over those that don't.
 RM> Hardly... SOMEONE cannot figure out YOUR budget, balance
 RM> YOUR checkbook, etc... Nor can "they" communicate for you,
 RM> vote for you (although there are some who would gladly DO
 RM> this), etc... Someone CAN, however, program for you, do 
 RM> research for you, etc..
It takes orderly thinking, logic, argument etc to balance a check book, 
figure a budget, communicate. BTW, Yes one can figure out my budget, check 
book, and communicate for me, and even vote for me (College electoral, no?)  
If all you want to so is turn out students that will ahve to hire someone to 
do all that for them, then keep on your track.
RM> What's more, by dint of your argument, would not the teaching of RM> 
assembler (not macro) or straight binary coding then be the ULTIMATE way RM> 
of teaching programming (they WOULD demand the most in logical progress
RM> and orderly thinking)?
SA>Do you always seek the most painful way to teach something?
 RM> Excuse me?  I thought the idea was to teach logic, orderly
 RM> thinking, etc?  Now we're worried about "painful"?  
So, you think that learning has to be painful?
 RM> I found assembler to be very enjoyable, personally; as was FORTH!
 RM> The logic of these low-level languages appealed to me, and
 RM> I thought this (the logic) was what you were espousing?
And if you are bent on taking this to the lowest possible terms, that might 
work but you are going to lose 90% of the students.  Yes, that may prove that 
my way is going to fail.  I could do that with any form of study.  Take all 
the flavour out of anything and no one is going to eat it.
You can teach math with pencil & paper, but wouldn't it work better with 
pictures, diagrams, flash cards, games, animations, colors, crayons, etc.
IOW, apply different forms of thinking/learning/teaching to get across to the 
widest spectrum of student?  Do you boil out all those from your style of 
teaching?  Why expect me to do that with mine?
 
--- DB 1.58/003138
---------------