Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Learning Computer Science is Different than Learning Other STEM Disciplines

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday January 10 2018, @09:10PM   Printer-friendly
from the does-it-count-as-a-foreign-language dept.

fliptop writes:

Mark Guzdial at ACM (Association of Computing Machinery) writes:

I have three reasons for thinking that learning CS is different than learning other STEM disciplines.

  1. Our infrastructure for teaching CS is younger, smaller, and weaker;
  2. We don't realize how hard learning to program is;
  3. CS is so valuable that it changes the affective components of learning.

The author makes compelling arguments to support the claims, ending with:

We are increasingly finding that the emotional component of learning computing (e.g., motivation, feeling of belonging, self-efficacy) is among the most critical variables. When you put more and more students in a high-pressure, competitive setting, and some of whom feel "like" the teacher and some don't, you get emotional complexity that is unlike any other STEM discipline. Not mathematics, any of the sciences, or any of the engineering disciplines are facing growing numbers of majors and non-majors at the same time. That makes learning CS different and harder.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Learning Computer Science is Different than Learning Other STEM Disciplines | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 106 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by deimtee on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:43AM (5 children)

    by deimtee (3272) on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:43AM (#620864) Journal

    This is a no-brainer both in theory and practice. Game theory talks about "positive sum cooperation between entities of unequal economic power" - basically an economic disparity can be leveraged to gain an exponentially increasing share of collective production.

    No, that's not true. I'm sure there are such games, but economics of the market sort works differently. You can't have more than 100% so there's no "exponentially increasing share" possible. Second, perhaps you refer to people who invest their money and hence are likely to have exponentially growing wealth versus people who don't try. That's a bad comparison. A more valid one would be comparing investors against other investors.

    No, what he means is, for example :
    If you and I do equal work on this project, we can realise a total profit of $1000. If we are otherwise equal, we will agree to split it $500 each.
    But if I am under no stress because I already have $1000 in my pocket, and you desperately need $300 worth of medicine for your daughter, I can 'negotiate' my share up to $700 before you will refuse to participate.

    The simple fact of my having more wealth allows me to take more than my 'fair' share.

    --
    No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   3  

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 11 2018, @01:52PM (4 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 11 2018, @01:52PM (#620928) Journal

    The simple fact of my having more wealth allows me to take more than my 'fair' share.

    Except that it's supposedly iterative where next time you can take oh, $900, then $1500, then $2500, etc. That's what exponential means. But there's only $1000 to take and only so much that you can get me to give up before it just doesn't happen.

    The simple fact of my having more wealth allows me to take more than my 'fair' share.

    My lack of planning is not a lack of fairness nor am I an infinite resource. Even if you grew wealthy enough to exploit every kid on the planet with an expensive medical condition, you're only going to get so much. And at that point, you're out of luck, if you want to expand "exponentially" further.

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @02:40PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @02:40PM (#620940)

      Well, if you are going to be a pedantic about it, then 70%, 85%, 92.5%, 96.25%, 98.125%, 99.0625%, etc. would be an exponentially increasing share. (share ratios of 2.33, 5.66, 12.33, 25.66, 52.33, 105.66 to 1)

      Good way to miss the point though.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 11 2018, @03:04PM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 11 2018, @03:04PM (#620945) Journal

        Well, if you are going to be a pedantic about it, then 70%, 85%, 92.5%, 96.25%, 98.125%, 99.0625%, etc. would be an exponentially increasing share.

        Ratios are not shares. It's sloppy language in a sloppy argument.

        • (Score: 2) by Pav on Sunday January 14 2018, @12:45AM (1 child)

          by Pav (114) on Sunday January 14 2018, @12:45AM (#622020)

          So what does an exponentially increasing share of eg. the world economy mean to you then?

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 14 2018, @05:00AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 14 2018, @05:00AM (#622095) Journal
            It's a nonsensical phrase that doesn't mean anything to me.