1

Research Perspectives on the Objects-Early Debate: A study of the March 2004 SIGCSE-members discussion list “storm”.

Presenter: Raymond ListerUniversity of Technology, Sydney &ITiCSE 2006 Working Group

Melbourne Conventicle, November 17, 2006.

2

3

99 postings from 39 people – nobody changed their mind.

Direct experience, introspection, and intuition can’t solve disagreement!

The religious ware.g. SIGCSE-members discussion list “storm”, 2004

4

197 Nov 13 Michael K÷lling (4126) I Object 198 Nov 14 Jens Benned Benned (5477) Re: I Object 199 Nov 14 Dennis J Frailey (4869) Re: I Object 200 Nov 14 Tom Horton (6199) procedural co 201 Nov 14 Dennis J Frailey (4995) Re: I Object 202 Nov 14 Scot Drysdale (7143) Re: I Object 203 Nov 14 Timothy Stanley (3692) Re: I Object 204 Nov 14 Frank H. Young (5258) Re: I Object 205 Nov 14 Joseph Bergin (4276) Re: I Object 206 Nov 14 Rob Faux (4413) Re: I Object 207 Nov 14 Guzdial, Mark (7754) Re: I Object 208 Nov 14 Carl G. Alphonce (4853) Re: I Object 209 Nov 14 Rick Gee (5434) Re: I Object 210 Nov 14 Stefan Brandle (4094) Re: I Object 211 Nov 15 Rich Lamb (4440) Re: I Object 212 Nov 15 Dennis J Frailey (4945) Re: I Object 213 Nov 15 Byron Weber Becker (5605) Re: I Object 214 Nov 15 Guzdial, Mark (5011) Re: I Object 215 Nov 15 James Walden (7667) Re: I Object

5

Research vs. Teaching (reprised)

Guided by direct experience and introspection

Guided by “folk pedagogies”

Outcomes remain “private”

Read literature, attend seminars/conferences

Work within well defined theoretical or empirical framework

Peer-reviewed publication

We lead a double life

6

Boyer (1990)

The “Scholarship

of Teaching”

7

Furthermore …

Computing Education research is as much the study of the teachers as it is the study of students.

8

Misunderstandings of Education Research

From the March 2004 sigcse-members storm …

“Don’t educational experiments almost always succeed, especially if the evaluation is qualitative …”

“I have yet to meet … someone who has seriously … tried several alternative of the proposed OO introduction methods and is really in a position to make comparative … statements.”

9

Subgroups

Literature Phenomenography Rhetoric Biography

10

The “Literature” SubgroupMembers: Jacqui, Kate, Brian

Claims investigated: 1. OO programming is easier/harder to learn than

imperative programming.2. Students who learn OO first do not learn

algorithmic problem solving.3. Students who learn OO imperative first find

learning OO programming difficult.4. Success in teaching depends on a match

between language and teaching paradigms. Evidence: See next slide …

11

12

Directly related literature

Tew et al, 2005 Ramalingam and Wiedenbeck Willshire Ventura and Ramamurthy Decker Garner, Haden, and Robins Haaster and Hagan

… Plus “classic” papers from the 70s and 80s.

13

The “Rhetoric” Subgroup

Members: Kathy, Tony, Andrew, Lew Question: In the absence of real data, how does

the computer science community debate this issue? How are individual positions justified?

(Aristotle & rhetoric: “ethos”, “pathos”, and “logos” )

e.g. The Yoda argumente.g. “paradigm” (c.f. Bob Dylan)OO advocates as having the “power”

14

The “Phenomenography” Subgroup

Member: Anders Berglunde.g. …

OO as a new paradigm

vs.

OO as an extension of imperative

(“Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”?)

15

The “Biography” Subgroup

Members: Carsten Schulte, with Joe Bergin

Question: What life experiences contributed to people adopting their position?

Two biographies: Pro: Jo Bergin: a prior commitment to OO?Con: Stuart Reges: learnt OO in order to teach it.

16

99 postings from 39 people – nobody changed their mind.

Direct experience, introspection, and intuition can’t solve disagreement!

Summary and Conclusion