Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- misc:thoughts_on_computing_education [2012/03/08 02:14] – [Pedagogical Methodology] mithat
+++ misc:thoughts_on_computing_education [2012/03/12 01:42] – mithat
@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 While there are countless treatises on pedagogical methodology, I have found Nigel Cross' discussion of design education one of the most enlightening---not just for what it has to say about the unique demands of design education, but also because of what it observes about education in the long-established areas of the sciences and the humanities.((Cross, Nigel. "Designerly Ways of Knowing." Design Studies 3, no. 4 (1982): 221-227.))
-Cross posits that design represents a third educational culture alongside the humanities and the sciences. He further posits that each of the cultures relies on different languages, phenomena of study, core methods, and core values. For our present purposes, the comparisons he draws between science and design are particularly apt, especially with respect to cognitive methods. Cross asserts that science concerns itself with optimizing and truth-finding and is //analytic// whereas design concerns itself with satisficing, problem-solving, and is //constructive//. He underscores the need to recognize constructive cognition as a distinct and important model when he states that inductive and deductive reasoning are the standard cognitive models used in the humanities and the sciences, but that design requires constructive reasoning as well.
+Cross posits that design represents a third educational culture alongside the humanities and the sciences. He further posits that each of the cultures relies on different languages, phenomena of study, core methods, and core values. For our present purposes, the comparisons he draws between science and design are particularly apt, especially with respect to cognitive methods. Cross asserts that science concerns itself with optimizing and truth-finding and is //analytic// whereas design concerns itself with satisficing, problem-solving, and is //constructive//. He underscores the need to recognize constructive cognition as a distinct and important model when he states that inductive and deductive reasoning are the standard cognitive models used in the sciences and humanities but that design requires constructive reasoning as well.
 An issue addressed only obliquely in Cross' discussion is that not all students will respond equally to the same pedagogical methods and cognitive models---either because of their personal idiosyncrasies or because the nature of the program in which they are studying has accustomed them to particular methodologies. Therefore, when faced with a situation where the educator's preferred methodology is at odds with the student's, one must decide whether "the methodology is the message" (as it very well may be). If it is not, then flexibility in approaches will be essential to maximize the benefit to all students.
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 ===== Theory versus Technology =====
-It's possible to approach computing as a purely theoretical area of study, a purely technological one, or something in between.
+It is possible to approach computing as a purely theoretical area of study, a purely technological one, or something in between.
 Proponents of a purely theoretical perspective attempt to position computer science as a theoretical field alongside other arts and sciences and point to the universality of the knowledge imparted to their students by programs based on such a perspective. Critics of theory-oriented education point out that it is possible for such programs to inadequately address professional requirements and that computing, being artificial at its core, cannot ever have the same abstract standing as, say, physics.
-Proponents of technology-driven computing education point to the irrelevance of computing in the absence of any real (i.e., technological) means of expression. They also reference the need to satisfy the "demands of industry". Critics of technology-oriented education argue that such an approach often fails to sufficiently impart an understanding of transferable conceptual abstractions. They also point out that such programs fail to adequately recognize the transient nature of technology---especially in the area of computing---and can very quickly degenerate into what is essentially vocational training.
+Proponents of technology-driven computing education point to the irrelevance of computing in the absence of any real (i.e., technological) means of expression. They may also reference the need to satisfy the "demands of industry". Critics of technology-oriented education argue that such an approach often fails to sufficiently impart an understanding of transferable conceptual abstractions. They also point out that such programs fail to adequately recognize the transient nature of technology---especially in the area of computing---and can very quickly degenerate into what is essentially vocational training.
-It may be important to note that the theory--technology dichotomy is often cast as a science--engineering one. I believe this is an erroneous conflation. While it may be true that a science-based perspective will tend to be theory-based, it does not follow that engineering is therefore technology-based. Rather, the science--engineering dichotomy is essentially the science--design distinction discussed by Cross. Furthermore, it is possible to implement engineering programs that emphasize theory-centric or technology-centric approaches to problem solving.
+It may be important to note that the theory--technology dichotomy is often cast as a science--engineering one. I believe this is an erroneous conflation. While it may be true that a science-based perspective will tend to be theory-based, it does not follow that engineering is therefore technology-based. Rather, the science--engineering dichotomy is in many important ways equivalent to the science--design distinction discussed by Cross. Furthermore, it is possible to implement engineering programs that emphasize theory-centric or technology-centric approaches to problem solving.
 ===== Program Demands =====