with that amount of time to go b*****cks to the programme im going swimming
Oscar

Nigel,

I think you’ve got yourself into a bit of a situation here.  In trying to find the ideal programme, you’ll probably go round in circles. I appreciate that you’re probably bored with the “making-a-cup-of-tea” programme, as would anyone teaching the same thing for long periods. However, I think that you need to take a step-back and objectively determine what it is that you are trying to teach your pupils. Bear in mind that each new intake of pupils may not have had any experience of programming. To them, therefore, the “making-a-cup-of-tea” programme will be ideal.

What you can teach them is obviously dependent on how much time can be devoted to it, so I’d imagine that you can really only teach them the principles. To stave-off complete death-by-boredom, from your point, you could try introducing additional elements of the cup-of-tea programme. For instance, you could have the person waking-up, having a shower, getting-dressed etc. This imposes a whole new set of constraints and potential logic, yet still retains simplicity and day-to-day association. As you teach these principles, you can expand by going into deeper and deeper levels of detail with things like drying your hair whilst waiting for the kettle to boil (parallel or serial, reduction of critical-path) or asking how anyone can put the kettle-on without having walked to the kitchen (interpretation of content within a task description).

Remember, Nigel, it doesn’t matter what it is that you’re planning…all that does is just determine the nouns and verbs within the descriptions and the minimum quantity of lines on the programmes. The principles, however, do not change. Remember also, that you, as the teacher, will be considered as God. You must be able to come-out with stuff that students would never even think about…and tell them why. Therefore, the best way to do that is by retaining the most simple of projects, yet astound your students with miniscule levels of detail, by saying “has anyone actually opened their eyes before walking down-stairs?” They’ll be utterly gob-smacked at your pedantry – but it conveys a principle truth.

I used to be an instructor in a sector which meant that students could live or die, literally, in the space of about two seconds. Yet all I could teach them were the principles, because the principles could apply to any given situation regardless of the prevailing dynamics. If I wanted to really test them, I’d have to ask if them if they were prepared to die….and it’s amazing how many of them were! This, of course, prepares them for being a Planner – a messenger-of-doom who is likely to get shot!

Cheers.

James.

Nigel,

Try getting the training programme to contain "perceived logic" and "true logic". It’s surprising how much of a debate can ensue! Moreover, one extremely important aspect is getting the task descriptions correct (clear and unambiguous). This’ll get them realising that good use of language is essential. Moreover, it’ll force them into understanding that, if they are going to sub-divide one set of tasks, they have to do it for the whole lot, otherwise they’ll not be able to make the correct logic-links etc. etc.

I did a training programme for the installation of a kitchen....and boy did it turn-out to be a pain in the bum.

James.

Try going to work scenario
ie get up
rush out the door catch the bus/miss the bus/bus dosent come
miss the train/leaves on the track
etc etc
the best thing here is its likely you will have different programmes as all will have different start locations and you can then add a serries of problems (delays) to affect the programme.
Students then get a grasp of what happens when you get a delay
If you then run an alternative route ie catch the train instead of the bus students start to understand that a programme may contain a number of paths.
Often a simple scenario like this gets the message across, particuarly as most people are aware of the vagaries of transport systems.
Clive