Last changed 14 Jan 2019 ............... Length about 400 words (5,000 bytes).
This is a WWW document maintained by Steve Draper, installed at http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/localed/jcomments.html.

Web site logical path: [www.psy.gla.ac.uk] [~steve] [localed] [Jenkins' paper] [this page]

Comments on Jenkins

These are my comments on Jenkins' paper on the issue of why is introductory computing, particularly introductory programming, so hard; that is, on Tony Jenkins' paper "On the difficulty of learning to program" given to the ICS LTSN 2002 conference, and published at this defunct site: http://www.ics.ltsn.ac.uk//pub/conf2002/jenkins.html, and locally, and more printably, here.

Should be more radical. It seems plausible that the single biggest issue is that learners learn programming at very different speeds, and so it must be structured around self-paced learning, not lectures.
Having special easy learning programming languages sounds plausible, but is probably entirely wrong. People learn natural languages (much more complex than computer languages) by immersion in the real grown-up version. Not only is this true of infants, but it is also true of grownups learning a second (or fifth) language. These used to be taught as programming is now: by lectures on syntax etc. Today, that would be regarded as irresponsibly sticking to a failed approach.
He mentions in the text that so many examples and problems in courses are pathetically unattractive in content, but doesn't include this in his summary action list. However it may be much more important than appears. Carnegie Mellon's Women In Computer Sciences succeeded in increasing female participation and retention (from less than 8% to 42% and still rising). This alone shows that changes to how a course is run can transform successful participation by particular groups many times over. I believe that one of their interventions was to change the content of examples to something that might relate to the experience and interests of young women. This issue may be putting off young men too: many of the examples look like the kind of thing familiar to those doing A-level physics 30 years ago (formulaic conversions etc.) -- but not to recent school-leavers.
[Pointers on CMU's WIC project:
- The project
- Short paper on the project
- Long paper on the project
- The paper most about course /example content:
  Margolis, J. and Fisher, A. (1997) "Geek Mythology and Attracting Undergraduate Women to Computer Science" In Impacting Change Through Collaboration, proceedings of the Joint National Conference of the Women in Engineering Program Advocates Network and the National Association of Minority Engineering Program Administrators.
- See also:
  Cohoon, J.M.G. (2001) "Toward improving female retention in the computer science major" CACM vol.44 no.5 (May) pp.108-114 doi:10.1145/374308.374367 or psu.edu
- Margolis,J. & Fisher,A. (2002) Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing (MIT press) ISBN 0262133989 GU lib record=b2734515
  See also www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/gendergap/www/papers/
]

Web site logical path: [www.psy.gla.ac.uk] [~steve] [localed] [Jenkins' paper] [this page]
[Top of this page]