Translation of a opinion article published in Computer Sweden no 11, Monday 2 of April 1984.
The imminent or ongoing mass education of the Swedish people in schools, study associations, etc., seem to mainly focus on the programming of computers, preferably in the BASIC programming language. To some extent also taken into account societal aspects, consequences and the current use within the computer range. My thesis then is that the centre of gravity is incorrect and should be moved so that a generally suitable and more satisfactory teaching can happen. The risk -- as I see it -- is otherwise that people think they understand that which passes them by. This will be investigated in more detail below.
People are now mainly trained in how to program, abstractly program construction, etc., enough for them to be able to manufacture their own program of simple type. What happens is that they have to learn how to adapt to the computer to adapt the computer to themselves. This procedure is at present very cumbersome and time-consuming, especially after the short experience the course provides. Pay attension to the development of programming languages: intuitively constructed structures, versions in step with the change in the architecture of the computer at large, without fixed theoretical control of, for example, semantics. Moreover, it is possibly so that what they have learned is or can be something highly temporary. For example, if the future development turns out to have such a rapid course, that within a few years much of the learned knowledge is of no real value.
Thus, for the vast majority, the education appears to be somewhat distorted vision, which can have a harmful impact instead of the opposite purpose. This is particularly evident in short-term education. But it can sure to be very instructive to the few who will deal with it professionally, or otherwise comes into intimate contact with the computer.
What should happen is that a more general education can be offered to those people who will not be using the computer in direct programming in the short term. It should furthermore, have an even balance between the internal and the external. With the former I understand everything that is concrete, directly connected to the computer by both hardware and software. In the latter I want to include everything that does not is internal, but of course relevant relative to the computer. This includes e.g the consequences of computerization (officerization, robotization, etc.). The training should also pay attention to the early stages of development and use. To concisely summarise the above hints is a possible educational content and goals: the past, present and future of both the external and the internal, in terms of development and use.
Perhaps this described training seems inappropriate in practice, but let me then comment another possible improvement to the already existing one. Herbert Söderström has previously given expression to such, where he mentions how the method of learning can change.
When elementary teaching of a programming language takes place, its syntactic and semantic qualities up, through often already constructed and working examples and partly programs made by the students themselves. They are expected further in a considerable speed to acquire and understand this. Very little of the time is devoted to ascertain whether this has really happened. The education can get a completely different character as we also see that the programs' behaviour changes through changes in atomic functions. My intention here is not that, but what HS tends to, that tests and corrections etc. in programs should become some main task. I also do not believe that programming languages should in any way become natural, such as they are out today. But only so that the specific behaviour of the programming language is made sufficiently comprehensible. Allowing the students to change a certain instrument, may well be pedagogically more evident than showing all individuals details, parts with which you can, for example, build this. From the above we understand why an education, where we concentrate on the computer as a structure but not as a model as well as a levelling of the interest of the total, will be a suitable alternative. Thus the conclusion is a direction towards the previous proposed training.
Set Lonnert