Differences

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

--- misc:thoughts_on_computing_education [2012/03/07 20:50] – [Personal Proclivities] mithat
+++ misc:thoughts_on_computing_education [2016/02/16 03:55] (current) – [Personal Proclivities] mithat
@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 ===== Pedagogical Methodology =====
-While there are countless treatises on pedagogical methodology, I have found Nigel Cross' discussion of design education one of the most enlightening---not just because 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.))
+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 =====
@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 ===== Personal Proclivities =====
-Having a formal education that has encompassed the liberal arts, engineering, and design (in both a school of fine arts and in institutes of technology), I find myself agreeing emphatically with Cross' analysis discussed above. More to the point, I believe it is possible to align computing education with all three of the cognitive approaches mentioned by Cross. In particular, "classical" computing education has not traditionally emphasized constructive methodologies. However, the culture surrounding the nascent field of physical computing has a strong constructive component---and has produced practitioners capable of simultaneously elegant and complex computing solutions. This has some interesting implications for computing education in any context that I believe are worth perusing.
+Having a formal education that has encompassed the liberal arts, engineering, and design (in both a school of fine arts and in institutes of technology), I find myself agreeing emphatically with Cross' analysis discussed above. More to the point, I believe it is possible to align computing education with all three of the cognitive approaches mentioned by Cross. In particular, "classical" computing education has not traditionally emphasized constructive methodologies. However, the culture surrounding the nascent field of physical computing has a strong constructive component---and has produced practitioners capable of simultaneously elegant and complex computing solutions. This has some interesting implications for computing education in any context that I believe are worth purusing.
 Within the context of university education, my personal preference is to focus on conceptual and theoretical issues and to use technology as a vehicle to explore them. I am comfortable using inductive, deductive, or constructive approaches as required by the content and students. I believe this approach best satisfies the pedagogical, academic, and professional needs of the student.
@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 While abstract theory lies at the core of the academic experience, it is important to recognize that computing is also a professional discipline and that a degree of professional competence will be expected from and/or desired by graduates. To many practitioners, this means functional competence in specific technologies (along with other requirements). The use of technology to motivate, explore, and/or reinforce theoretical issues gives the student functional experience with specific technologies upon which greater specific competences can be built as required or from which confidence to learn new technologies can be drawn.((I have developed an IDE of sorts for use in my introductory programming courses that supports the perspective outlined above. You can read more about it and its motivation at [[http://jidee.tuxfamily.org|the project's homepage]].))
-Having said this, I feel it's equally important to state that the above perspective has been shaped by about a decade of teaching in a particular context and almost exclusively in one program. I am respectful of other perspectives and am comfortable modifying my proclivities as required to accomplish the larger aims of any program that I feel to have merit.
+Having said this, I feel it's equally important to state that the above perspective has been shaped by about a decade of teaching in a particular context and almost exclusively in one program. I am respectful of other perspectives and am comfortable modifying my proclivities as required to accomplish the larger aims of any program of merit.