Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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

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This discussion has been archived.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.
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: 2) by Pav on Sunday January 14 2018, @12:38AM (1 child)

    by Pav (114) on Sunday January 14 2018, @12:38AM (#622016)

    So what you're saying the size of the world economy (or the part thereof one limits themselves to) is an upper constraint on wealth? That's both obvious, and isn't an argument against the fact that wealth disparities (when unconstrained) lead to an ever increasing share of the economy.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 14 2018, @04:59AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 14 2018, @04:59AM (#622094) Journal

    So what you're saying the size of the world economy (or the part thereof one limits themselves to) is an upper constraint on wealth?

    I'm saying a lot more than just that.

    and isn't an argument against the fact that wealth disparities (when unconstrained) lead to an ever increasing share of the economy.

    It is however an argument against the claim that such wealth disparities can be exponentially increasing.