Computer Science

« first day (1356 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3085 days later) »

2:42 PM

Oh, wow. I'm currently reading "Specification Grading" by L.B. Nilson. There's lots of good stuff in there, but the chapter about learning levels strikes me as particularly profound.
(It's kind of sad that I went through 13 years of school, 5 years higher ed, and spent 3 years as a teacher myself, and I'm still learning things from that short summary. Speaks volumes about our education system.)

I'm posting this here because I think these things apply to SE. Let me dig one thing up.

See page 36 in this PDF; via wolcottlynch.com. (There are also videos.)

What strikes me is that this gives names to behaviour patterns that I have observed on Computer Science and have based (my opinions about) policies on. Maybe we can use these (or something similar) to make some policies more tangible, move them away from "I know it when I see it".

1) The "Confused Fact Finder" is somebody we almost never want on the site, at all. Many cranks and all vampires fall into this category. They won't understand answers to their questions.

2) The "Biased Jumper" is also problematic: they will have trouble posting good questions and answers. They can handle some answers, though, so basic questions by them may be fine. Those cranks that are not type 1 usually fit here. (I think we have some long-term troll-ish participants that fall into this category.)

3) The "Perpetrual Analyzer" are the first kind that we like to have around. They have problems, but they can articulate them and understand answers. Their questions are probably a boon for the site, and some of their answers.
(I think I recognize some "faces" here as well. I know *I* am probably at this level for some topics.)

4+5) The "Pragmatic Performer" and "Strategic Re-Visioner" are probably mostly indistinguishable for the purposes of our site. They are our "experts" and workhorses. The "Strategic Re-Visioners" are probably those that tackle "hard" questions, i.e. those that require new insight.

What do you think?

I feel like most problematic SE activity can be explained/diagnosed by the user being of type 1 or 2. Many drive-by users (most notably the "SO user sees a hot question and posts a programmer-type answer) fall into one of these, too.

Also, I think that engaging with type 1 is mostly useless: we are in no position to enlighten them on such a basic level.

1 hour later…

vzn

4:10 PM

thx for sharing R. reminds me of blooms taxonomy

Bloom's taxonomy

Bloom's taxonomy is a way of distinguishing the fundamental questions within the education system. It is named after Benjamin Bloom, who chaired the committee of educators that devised the taxonomy. He also edited the first volume of the standard text, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. == HistoryEdit == Although named after Bloom, the publication of Taxonomy of Educational Objectives followed a series of conferences from 1949 to 1953, which were designed to improve communication between educators on the design of curricula and examinations. The f...

while a helpful framework, but, maybe SE can function without trying to guess intentions of questioners and its better to "give asker benefit of doubt" unless there is significant symptoms otherwise...

also, its worth pondering that maybe at least US edu system has (counterintuitively) moved away from critical thinking wrt emphasis on stdized testing which is in direct conflict with some "critical thinking" precepts eg "there is not only one answer" etc

as for "strategic revisioner," honestly think ppl in this category may be actually routinely discouraged from interacting with SE based on its limiting Q/A format and strict criteria for narrow questions/ answers etc... it roughly fits scenario of research inquiry etc... maybe more relevant to SE research sites although even on those, limiting...

3 hours later…

Raphael

7:17 PM

Um... duplicate gets the Famous Question badge?

Q: How many edges must a graph with N vertices have in order to guarantee that it is connected?

Possible Duplicate: Every simple undirected graph with more than $(n-1)(n-2)/2$ edges is connected At lesson my teacher said that a graph with $n$ vertices to be certainly connected should have $ {\frac{n(n-1)}{2}+1 \space }$ edges showing that (the follow is taken from the web but say...

Is it really a duplicate?

Raphael

7:52 PM

If something is horribly wrong with my thinking above and that is the reason for the lack of responses, please let me know. Otherwise I may start thinking and eventually working on Computer Science Meta in this direction.

1 hour later…

Tom van der Zanden

9:00 PM

I find it somewhat confusing that the thinking performance patterns focus so heavily on critical thinking, evidence and multiple viewpoints: CS is about rigid, mathematical reasoning where there usually is only one correct answer.

1 hour later…

Raphael

10:20 PM

@TomvanderZanden Well, learning theory has to cover social sciences as well. :)

That said, a) huge parts of CS are not about that at all, and b) even in TCS we better discuss our axioms in order to make sure our absolute truths (in the model) actually mean something. (I can name several things off the top of my head where the established "community consensus" is utterly irrelevant for most purposes, imho.)

@TomvanderZanden That said v2, critical thinking certainly applies ("Is this proof sketch valid? Does this model answer the question?"), evidence as well ("Do they give sufficient proof?"). "Multiple viewpoints" applies to meta issues mostly; well, some things are best understood when investigates from several perspective, and leads to higher forms of understanding when you happen to connect apparently different/disconnected concepts.

So while our implementation of these things may differ from other disciplines, I think the broad strokes apply.

« first day (1356 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3085 days later) »

all rooms