1. Motivation
It was noted in the SG20 Kona face-to-face that learning is an iterative process, requring malleability, and that the stages outlined in P1389 were too rigid and linear; this might be too restrictive on curriculum design as a result. This proposal sets out to ask SG20 to discuss the ideas behind a set of topic modules where stages are embedded into a module. The benefit of the guidelines having sets of topics as opposed to sets of stages is that teachers will be able to formulate their own curricula more easily.
P1389R0 stated that that a student should be able to meet all of the objectives and satisfy all of the outcomes in Stage 1 before they are ready to progress to Stage 2, and so on. This means that there are some unrelated topics that are coupled together. In hindsight, the author of P1389 also acknowledges that the sets of stages is closer to a prescibed curriculum than intended. For example, some of P1389’s Stage 1 has algorithms, basic I/O, computation constructs, containers, contracts, and designing and using classes. None of these topics are strictly related, but Stage 2 is completely blocked until all the topics in Stage 1 are exhausted. Since P1389 advises derived types be introduced in Stage 2 -- and Stage 2 is blocked until Stage 1 is completed -- P1389 excludes the possibility of a curriculum introducing derived types as a part of the class design topic, despite it has no real dependency on basic I/O.
If P1389 or its successor were to advise modules of topics, where strict dependencies are outlined, then this would make it possible for both curriculum designs in the previous paragraph to co-exist and still conform to the recommendations outlined in the 'Standing Document for Teaching C++ to C++ Novices with Programming Experience' (P1389’s target). This will help shape the Standing Documents that SG20 outputs, so that they are significantly less prescriptive, and satisfy the advisory role outlined in the SG20 charter, as opposed to accidentally becoming a prescriptive curriculum.
2. Design goals
It should be noted that while P1725 suggests a handful of modules and topics that fall within those modules, it is by no means an exhaustive list of either. Furthermore, P1725R0 does not make any attempt to draw a dependency graph among the topics listed in each topic. The author is requesting the help of SG20 to formulate an exhaustive list of modules and topics, as well as a strong dependency graph that will help teachers structure their curricula.
These modules are designed to have their own assoicated objectives and outcomes. A curriculum’s objectives are essentially a contract between a student and the course. By the end of a course, a student should have developed certain knowledge, understanding, and skills about particular topics. These are assessable through course outcomes, which advise that a student should be able to do something related with that knowledge, or related to that skill. For example, Table 1 outlines a few objectives and outcomes from a hypothetical introductory C++ course.
Note: Table 1 is an example set of objectives and outcomes for a particular hypothetical course and is deliberately incomplete: P1725 is not proposing the contents of Table 1 be added to any document published by SG20.
| Objective | Outcome |
| Students will develop | A student |
| 1. knowledge and understanding about how software engineers build systems |
|
| 2. knowledge and understanding about why testing is an important for software development |
|
| 3. knowledge and understanding about why benchmarking is important for software development |
|
| 4. knowledge and understanding about software engineering tools |
|
| 5. skills in the C++ programming language |
|
3. A non-exhausive list of modules
Table 2 outlines a non-exhaustive list of modules and their related topics. The modules are not listed in a meaningful order; instead, they are listed so that the table is evenly formatted.
C++ compilation model
|
Error handling
|
I/O
|
C++ object model
|
Functions
|
User-defined types
|
Program design
|
Type system
|
Tooling
|
| History of C++ No topic suggestions at present. | Interop with C No topic suggestions at present. | Undefined behaviour No topic suggestions at present. |
An astute reader should notice that there are a few topics that are mentioned in multiple modules. This highlights that the above modules could perhaps be further refined or that certain topics cannot be taught in isolation. Given that features of C++ are designed to work with one another, the author believes that the latter case is more likely. The reader should also note that both types and 'user-defined types' have been listed as modules and topics within other modules.
The author would like to propose that SG20 adopt the module/topic model -- even if it is in a different form to what is outlined above -- and begin discussing the kinds of modules desired, the topics underneath each module, the objectives for each module, and the relevant module outcomes associated with each objective.
4. Bikeshedding
It’s been noted that the term module is overloaded with core language. Terms such as unit may be more applicable.
5. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank JC van Winkel for his direct feedback on this proposal, as well as the members of SG20 who provided feedback on P1389R0’s structure.