Amusing little thing

[kirby1024]

Read from a paper linked from pfhsblog. I submit that this is one of most daring and most amusing conclusions that I have ever seen in an academic paper:

7 Conclusion
There is a test for programming aptitude, or at least for success in a first programming course. We have speculated on the reasons for its success, but in truth we don't understand how it works any more than you do. An enormous space of new problems has opened up before us all.

That's the whole conclusion. Everything. That little paragraph. To make it a touch more... generic, "We found something interesting, we have no firms ideas as to why it's interesting, but we think it's going to generate a lot of research".

Tell me that's not exactly how you'd like to end your thesis...

Comments

[delphaeus.livejournal.com]

I want to be your friend!

[kirby1024.livejournal.com]

Of course! :)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_sabik_/]

Hmm, interesting - and intuitively plausible.

Two questions, though:

1) Could this be taught as a skill? It would certainly be useful in today's world...

2) What implications does this have for User Interface Design? After all, it doesn't make much sense to talk about the user's "mental model" if only half the users actually have one.


I've commented on this on my blog:
http://www.baum.com.au/~jiri/ae/blog/01159430551


η

[hikaizer.livejournal.com]

At least they know that they don't know. :P

[omnot.livejournal.com]

It's certainly a fascinating approach to a very frustrating problem.

I've shown this paper to staff and students in the course I'm in at the moment. (Java and VB.Net for a start) The teachers, especially, are rivetted by the idea that some intrinsic capability might be identifiable, not only for screening or aptitude testing purposes, but for improved teaching technique, and to give the students who are really, really strugging a dignified 'out'.

I believe that the students I have opportunity to observe fit neatly into the categores that are described in that paper. There are some quite bright people in that class who just don't 'get' what seem to others to be pretty simple concepts. I've even tried explaining, and although it helps a bit, they seem to get tangled up again pretty rapidly. Their distress at falling ever further behind is disturbing to behold.

If there is an inherent capability/incapability thing involved, I have to question whether it's entirely fair to insist that in order to pass an IT course which can lead to work in non-programming fields, everyone has to pass programming. Perhaps an overview might suffice in some cases? Hrm.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_sabik_/]

I suspect being in IT without a trace of programming ability would likely be quite distressing, both for the person and for those around them.

η

[omnot.livejournal.com]

Indeed - but that is not what I propose. I suggest that an overview might be developed in which people learn *about* programming, but don't necessarily have to master programming.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_sabik_/]

The problem may be that with no programming experience nor even aptitude, people may have difficulty grasping what is and is not programmable (see also the "gedanken" entry in the Jargon File). Without this sense, it will be difficult for them to make any meaningful contribution to anything that will eventually be programmed.

Remember, this study isn't about mastering programming but about grasping the very basics. I don't think an overview will be any easier to digest for people who simply don't get programming at all.

η

[omnot.livejournal.com]

Good points, but I still hold that people who do not intend to program after completing their IT course might benifit from an alternative to the existing 'get it or fake it, you still have to pass it' system. Too much effort is being put into getting non-programmers to pass programming tests. This makes the delivery and assesment sub-optimal for everyone concerned.

[designadrug.livejournal.com]

LOL - I did kind of end my thesis like that :)