Slashdot Mirror
Should Students Be Taught With or Without an IDE?
bblazer asks: "Beginning this next school year, there is a strong possibility I will be teaching an intro to Java and an intro to Python course at the local community college. I was wondering what the prevailing wisdom is when it comes to teaching languages - should students be taught with or without an IDE? I am a bit old school and wouldn't mind having them all use vi or emacs, but using a good IDE does have some advantages as well. I should note that the students I will be teaching will have had at least 1 semester of programming in VB or C++." Even though there is limited time in a semester, could a curriculum be constructed to accommodate both methods?
I'd have to go with a non-IDE approach initially and introduce an IDE later on so as to avoid teaching dependence on something which shouldn't be required. Incidentally - vi would be a bad idea, it's got to much of a learning curve when they're really supposed to be learning programming - gedit or notepad might be better.
Yes, students should: Part of teaching programming is showing students how to best use all tools at their disposal. IDEs have some valuable features that are vital to professional programmers.
IMO, the best time to go without the IDE is around the same time that you teach assembly. The non-IDE experience is mainly valuable to students who are going to be professional programmers. For into-type classes where there will most likely be non-major students, keeping them in the IDE will help them be more effective if/when they ever need to program in the future. Likewise, once you reach very advanced CS classes, your students will have better things to worry about then command-line switches, and thus will be able to make good use of the IDE's features.
Again, the above statements are just my opinion.
No, I will not work for your startup
I generally prefer without. My intro CS course (in Java) five years ago was taught using emacs (which I actually didn't like at the time), and part of the beginning of the course was graded on knowing emacs shortcuts. A later course that I was a TA for used BlueJay, and again grading was done dependent on using that IDE.
I am more a fan of letting students choose their own environment. I've been using UltraEdit for a long long time, and I'm very happy with it. My suggestion would be to give students a list of good editor options, but not require them to use any single one. Maybe a later lesson could focus on the debugging potential of one IDE or another (I hate to say it, but Microsoft has some great debuggers). My experience, though, is that the main issue for students is what they're writing, not how they write it.
Bravery is not a function of firepower.
~J.C. Denton (Deus Ex)
It depends on what your goal is for teaching, but by your words, "I will be teaching an intro to Java and an intro to Python course", using an IDE will mask much of what could be valuable in learning, to the extent students don't even "get" some of the important underlying principles.
I've seen kids of friends who ostensibly have taken "programming" classes, and virtually all of them are IDE based curricula. And every one of these kids lacked the most basic understanding of programming. They could cobble together a simple form, but lacked skills to extend much beyond.
Sometimes it's the school/teacher's fault. I know of one example where a teacher had to teach java, and had never used java before. The kid I know who took the class constantly complained about how stupid the teacher was (he mentioned she had a "Java for Dummies" book for herself). She not only didn't know and understand java, but picked an inferior IDE (I won't start any flame wars by naming it, but it was lesser known, and lacking in features).
Admittedly I'm from old school, I started with a 3Gl (PL/I) as an introduction, and my second course was assembly. Things are obviously different today, but I'm glad I understand technology at the level I was required to learn it. I don't think I'd have insights for solutions today without that background.
Since you're asking for opinions: If you want students who'll come back later and thank you, try to emphasize the language and its semantics in your curriculum, and sprinkle in a little exposure to IDE late in the course (that indeed will server a useful purpose).
Good luck.
YMMV.
no.
as long as they trust the editor to catch their mistakes, they'll never actually learn to avoid them; they'll simply let the IDE be their guide and never learn it.
similarly, as long as they can debug in the IDE, they'll never learn real debugging techniques that the "cold metal", or even just debugging a running server they can't get an IDE into.
They should learn to program as close to the raw as possible. notepad, command line, debugging through prints.
They should learn software development separately, with an IDE, with integrated debugging and complex build systems. Learning to program, and learning to be a good software developer are two separate things.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
There are lots of factors that will probably make this decision for you:
- what do you want to spend your time teaching? Every class minute you spend teaching vi or emacs is a minute you're not teaching the programming. Every assignment you assign to practice vi and emacs is an assignment that can't focus as much on the programming
- what does the college expect someone who passes your class to know? Are they expected to know how to use an IDE for the class that has yours as a pre-req?
- which gives more value to your students? while learning an archaic text editor might be handy, learning to make the most of an IDE might serve them better - knowing how to set breakpoints, watches, stepping through code, etc.
I would suggest you pick the method that will let your students spend more time and energy learning to write good code -- and let them use the system that serves them best.
Teach them without computers.
No, seriously.
If you really want to teach programming (instead of teaching "using a computer"), start them out on paper and make them actually think about what they're trying to do instead of getting caught up in using the interface. Then have them work in groups using a whiteboard, and don't let them test their code until they've all agreed that it's correct. Teach them to look out for their own mistakes, and the mistakes of others, rather than counting on the computer to do their thinking for them.
There was a definite advantage to the old submit-a-deck-of-cards system, in that mistakes were annoying and you worked hard to avoid them. To do this, you had to really think about what you were trying to accomplish, how you planed to do it, and what might go wrong. In other words, you were really learning to program.
On the other hand, with highly interactive environments (which are extremely useful once you know what you are doing) beginners are all to tempted to fall into a trial and error loop until they get something that "works"--which is to say, it happens to produce reasonable results for whatever limited test case they are using--without ever really thinking about the program.
Suppose you were teaching flying. Would you start your students out in an advanced aircraft with an autopilot that could take off and land unassisted, and all sorts of doodads to make flying easy--or would you sit them down with a pad of paper and make them work out things like stall speed and fuel requirement problems until they really understood the issues?
-- MarkusQ
BTW, given the way the original question was asked, I would have just answered "yes".
I taught college level math (trig through intro to calculus) back in the '80s and the same debate raged with regard to using calculators. If I was teaching arithemtic, I would argue against using calculators since the whole idea is the class is supposed to be about learning simple skills like add, subtract, multiply and divide. If I'm teaching a higher level subject like trig or calculus, I'd say using calculators is great because it allows the students to concentrate on the concepts and not get bogged down in the arithmetic. Hell, when I was working on my MS I used an IBM 5100 running APL to do a bunch of the matrix manipulations for my abstract algebra class and the prof thought it was great since I wasn't spending hours row reducing matrices to get eigenvectors and eigenvalues.
I would argue that the same principle applies here. Higher level classes should encourage the students to use an IDE and higher level languages since the idea is to teach them concepts like data structures, complexity theory, numerical algorithms, etc. Introductory classes really benefit from having the students flail at things like compiler errors and trivial logic errors that a good IDE flags so they understand how little a computer can do until someone programs it. In between, the students need to be exposed to an IDE in a way that makes the transition itself a learning experience and ties in with software engineering, tools and the whole mess that Fred Brooks charaterized as accident vs. essence.
I'd also like to see a class that has students solve a problem using a programming language that's appropriate for the task and one that isn't (e.g., COBOL for a CGI problem) just so they also get some understanding of how using the right tool for the job makes a difference and the problem domain for a given tool is limited. This is probably beyond the scope of the original question.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
no.
:-)
as long as they trust the editor to catch their mistakes, they'll never actually learn to avoid them; they'll simply let the IDE be their guide and never learn it.
Exactly. I've been developing software for 12 years and I still go back to emacs whenever I want to learn a new technique, technology, or toolkit. The dev work may take a little bit longer, but I learn so much more when I have to search through directories or look up an interface in the documentation that you just don't get with an IDE.
I strongly recommend staying close to the metal as possible when learning, then gradually getting more abstracted as your grasp of the underlying skill develops.
(The AC is probably one of that group of programmers whose code I have to rewrite, but I guess we'll never know for certain...
Regards,
Ross
One of the most important things when you are starting out (and, actually, when you are experienced as well, but that's less obvious) is to get feedback on what you are doing wrong as quickly as possible. Don't throw this away lightly.
It's quite easy for students to work very long and hard doing something _completely and utterly wrong._ This does _not_ make them better programmers than if they got immediate feedback on what was wrong; it just frustrates them.
(I spent over a year teaching 100-300 level CS classes, and we actually started with paper-based flowcharting in one intro class, so I'm not speaking hypothetically here.)
--
Carnage Blender : Meet interesting people. Kill them.
Dumbass. Integrated Drive Electronics interface, one of the most popular hard drive interfaces. If you or the author of the article would have simply used Google, you would find that information and the author would know that using IDE sucks and SCSI is like way better.
Exactly. I've been developing software for 12 years and I still go back to emacs whenever I want to learn a new technique, technology, or toolkit. The dev work may take a little bit longer, but I learn so much more when I have to search through directories or look up an interface in the documentation that you just don't get with an IDE.
Whenever I'm trying to learn something new I get out the hard drive and move the bits around myself. IDEs like emacs just get in the way.
debugging through prints.
Now I remember why I hated programming.
I'm going to disagree with the parent and say IDEs. Although I think his point about software development and programming being two separate things has merit.
They should - although you shouldn't assume - have already been taught how to programme. Are they're going to use an IDE when they leave college? You are supposed to be training them for the work place.
First and foremost - teach them good practice, tight simple modules with good comments.
Introduce them to an IDE, show them a couple if you've got time. Assign them tasks using the IDE. Go through the source code line by line. (starting at the end?) Write some really crappy code and get them to fix it using the IDE. Chuck out the IDE and get them to fix more crappy code using whatever masochistic tool you like. Have them debug each others work.
What I'm saying is try to replicate your experiences of the real world as much as possible. Just because IDEs weren't available when a lot of us were being taught doesn't mean we have to perpetuate a crappy situation.
Teach them to be efficient and fast - show them how to use what's available to them so they're not reinventing the wheel.
Ok, now that I've written efficient, we're going to have people argue that IDEs don't produce efficient code. One word... Java?
Ronan
I still think that you are wrong. IDE's have their place in beginning CS classes. You shouldn't be screwing around in vi/emacs trying to figure out how to type at all. Command line proves nothing. Some of the best programmer's a know use both GUI's and command line. I personally use almost all command line tools, but that's from personal choice. I don't think the youngsters should be sitting around scratching their ass trying to figure out vi, gcc, or make when the class is about learning a frikken language. They can do that in round 2 after their appetite for PROGRAMMING has been whetted
love,
Anonymous Coward.
Several years ago (early 90s), I was hired as an adjunct faculty member to teach some night classes at my local university. The first class I taught was "Advanced C++", which was a fourth-year CS class, and presumed that the student had previously taken "C++", and before that had taken a variety of other programming and theory classes, working in Pascal, assembler and C, at the least.
During the first week of class, I gave them a quick review of C++ syntax. One evening I touched briefly on the 'static' keyword and gave a quick rundown of its meanings in various contexts. When I mentioned what it does in a global scope (make the symbol local to the current compilation unit), I could see glazed eyes and baffled expressions so I started asking some questions.
Well, they didn't know what a compilation unit was, so I explained that, but they were still confused. After digging further it dawned on me that the root of the problem was that these students had never even heard of a linker, had only the vaguest idea what a compiler was, and weren't sure how the editor was different from the compiler. They were quite certain that single-stepping through code made use of the compiler, though.
These were Computer Science seniors, most of them one semester away from a Bachelor's Degree. I was shocked and dismayed to think they they could have gotten that far without ever understanding these pretty basic concepts. I'm still confused as to how they could have passed their compiler design course without figuring out what a compiler is.
The reason the students all lacked this basic understanding was, of course, the fact that they had used nothing but IDEs (specifically Turbo Pascal and Borland C++), except in their assembler class, and that had been done entirely on paper, so they never actually had to use an editor or an assembler.
I didn't have time to teach them these things, of course; I'd also discovered that most of these students had also managed to pass their previous C++ course without learning hardly anything at all about C++, so we had a great deal of material to cover. My solution was very simple, and probably somewhat cruel: I announced that I would compile and run all of their programming assignments on a Sparcstation, using the GNU compiler. I required all assignments to be e-mailed to me in a .tar.gz file that included source, makefile and any necessary supporting files. I informed the students that they were welcome to do their development on any platform they wanted (everyone had PCs and Borland C++, of course), but that any assignment that failed to build and run on the Sun would get a maximum of 50% credit, and probably far less, so testing on the Sparcstation was highly recommended. There were plenty of X-Window terminals in the lab, so there was no problem getting access to the equipment.
Nearly a quarter of the class dropped that week. The rest learned something, though, so I don't think that was such a bad outcome.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I couldn't disagree more. Searching through directories is time you wasted, not time you spent learning a language. You learn a language by using it and by reading about it - both of these tasks are made easier by a good IDE. Javadoc integration makes APIs discoverable, just like well designed user interfaces are discoverable. You don't ever need to leave the IDE to read the documentation, because it's right there. Of course auto-complete helps when you're in doubt, but there's nothing wrong with that. There isn't much merit to knowing a billion function prototypes by heart, those are details you shouldn't worry about, bigger things are much more important. And stuff like for example the highlighting of other instances of a selected variable is just crucial when you need to understand a large piece of code written by somebody else.
IDEs make programming easier to learn and more efficient. I still don't think he should spend a lot of time integrating it into his class. Tell them about the existance of IDEs and let them figure it out themselves.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
I would suggest the oppsite. Go with something new.
I'd suggest you both fell into the trap posed by an incomplete question. Teaching someone to use an IDE and teaching them not to use an IDE are not mutually exclusive.
A good programmer should know the basics without distraction, and also know when to save time by using an IDE.
Why not let students make use of IDE features such as code completion, color coding, et cetera? When they get into the real world, they will be able to use an IDE with these features if they please, why force them to practice on something they won't actually use when they graduate? That's just a waste of time for the students. Sure, some of these IDE features make learning the language easier for them, but it won't turn them into code idiots. They'll still need to understand the language in order to be able to program with it!