• A way to solve problems.  I love trying to figure out new stuff and make things work.  In computer science, we are given a problem and a processor, and then we have to get the processor to solve the problem.
• A way to build something useful.  One of my most satisfying projects was to build the BYU Intramural Activities scheduling and online registration system.  I had played Intramurals many times and it was exciting to build something that I knew I would use, along with 10,000 other BYU students per semester.  It was also fun to see people explain the new rules (that I helped create) to me, having no idea I created the site they were using.  (They have put a new look on it, but I believe they are still using my system today.)
• A way to learn about how things work.  I have had a hard time understanding why people don’t want to know how something works, because I have to know how everything works.  From cars to the ocean tides, I want to know how it works.  It strikes me odd that most Computer Science graduates have a very limited understanding on how a computer actually works.  They might know a little bit about the CPU, but they really don’t know how all of the I/O devices, and the operating system all function together.  For the most part, they are completely content just knowing that it works and writing programs that run on top of it all.  (Of course, I am sure the reason why people don’t want to know how everything works is due to a limited amount of time.  No?  Okay, so maybe I am just a weirdo.)

Anyway, as I have been developing lots of programming projects to torture my students, I have realized the best assignments have some sort of excitement factor.  In order to create the best labs, I really need to know what entices students.

One way is with graphics.  Many students like creating graphics, or so I have been told.  This is why they created Alice.  Unfortunately,  Alice has very little appeal to me.  I can’t really solve any new problems with it.  I don’t know why, but making a girl skate around on the ice for hours isn’t all that motivating to me.  So when some of my colleagues suggested that I make everything in Computer Science graphical, it really bothered me.  Mostly because once they graduate, chances are they are going to be typing text into a text editor or an IDE 8 hours a day.  So, (to me) their goal was to trick the students into liking Computer Science by making it fun – ie. graphical.  I used to think, “Computer Science should be fun by itself, it doesn’t need skating ballerinas.  If they don’t like it, they should probably choose another major.”

Don’t get me wrong, I was never against including more graphics in my assignments.  I just wasn’t motivated to spend hours trying to create labs that did have graphics in them.

When one of my colleagues introduced a graphics lab where students draw beach huts that can be posted on a web page, it made me think a lot about my previous opinions about graphics in Computer Science.  It was easy to tell that some of the students spent a lot of time making their hut.  I then thought about what motivates them to spend 3-4 extra hours on their lab when they probably have a lot of other assignments and, here in Hawaii, a lot of surfing to do. Okay, so I had to admit that this lab had some sort of excitement factor to it.  Then, does that mean that everyone who spent extra time to make their hut prettier has the wrong motivation, and will eventually be really upset that we tricked them to think that Computer Science is really just making fun pictures?

So here are some of the possible factors that motivated these students:

• Being an artist.  They liked painting their canvas by typing words like drawCircle.
• A sense of accomplishment by actually creating something they can show people, just like I liked being the Intramural site creator.
• Overcoming a challenge.

Can you think of others?

So, if the students are motivated only by the first factor that I mentioned, my guess is that they have a major disappointment coming their way.  However, if they are motivated by the other factors, they could be hooked enough to trade their surf board for a new computer.

So, are graphics the only way to motivate people into Computer Science?  Maybe so, and this is why.  Most beginning CS having only interacted with the graphical aspects of a computer.  Surfing the web is highly graphical, especially with flash ads on every page.  Even writing a report has many graphical elements (how long do you spend formatting?).  So, when a student actually builds something graphical he can feel like he created something that fits into his paradigm of a computer program.

Not until they catch a vision of  all of the other things computers do behind the GUI will they start to appreciate what programming really is.  For a beginning programming class, graphics will probably do a lot of good, but we have to transition them to the real Computer Science by having them explore behind the GUI.  So, I guess I have to say, “Skate on ballerina.”

Image via Amazon.com

The dean of my college gave all the faculty this book.  I really enjoyed reading it.  It was a page turner that made me think a lot about success in my own life.

I really liked the beginning story about the Canadian Junior Hockey League.  As Malcolm points out, most of them are born in the first three months of the year.  Why? When the boys are 11 years old they get evaluated and the good ones are chosen to be in the better leagues.  The problem is that the boys that were born in December are competing with the boys that were born in January, so the boys that are 11 months older (and that much bigger and more mature) are more likely to be selected to play for the better coaches, play against tougher competition, and have more practice time. So the boys born in December have a huge disadvantage.

This happens with public education as well, except the cut off time is August, not January.  So, as you would expect, kids born in August, September, and October have an advantage over kids born in July.  They perform better on tests and assignment, get assigned to more advanced classes with better teachers, get into better colleges, etc.

This is just one example Malcolm gives in his book.  He gives many other examples, including the advantages that  Bill Gates, Bill Joy, and the Beatles had in their lives.

I did, however, have a couple of problems with the book.  First, all of his stats and stories seem to be cherry-picked.  He only tells stories and relates statistics that support his point of view. Of course, I would expect this from anyone, but it just seems that he is overselling their significance and ignoring any contradicting evidence.

Second, he never really discusses what his definition of success is.  As far as I can tell, his definition of success is being rich, famous, or both.  I have a much different definition of success – happiness.  I do believe that his analysis can be applied to my version of success.  As I read this book I was constantly thinking about the opportunities and advantages that led me to where I am today.  Unlike the book, I feel that my opportunities did not happen by mere chance, but as the blessings and tender mercies of a loving God.

I do agree with Malcolm that we have to provide more people more opportunities for success.  However, I was a little disappointed that Malcolm didn’t go on to say that as people, we need to look for our advantages and then use them for our success.  We need to find out how we are different, identify what advantages we have, and then work really hard to achieve the success that we want using those advantages.

Image from Amazon.com

I find it really strange that my favorite course to teach just happens to be the course that I hated the most when I had to take it – computational theory.  I thought that I would love to teach my favorite subject during my undergraduate and graduate studies.  I am not sure why I have had such a change of heart.  All I can do is be grateful that I have a job that has allowed me to teach such a variety of areas.  I have basically taught every course in the undergraduate degree except computer organization and the very beginning programming course in a year and a half.  (Which, by the way, is a very good method for studying for a qualification exam.)  It also excludes courses that are covered by the Information Systems and Technology degrees like networking and databases, and senior level electives.

Some of them I feel like I did really well, and others did not go well at all.  However, through all of it, computational theory became my favorite course.  I know it was not because it was the easiest for me to teach.  In fact it was the hardest.  I had to spend hours reading the book and working out proofs and homework problems for each lecture.  What was the reason for the switch?  I am not sure, but any of the following could have contributed:

• I did not like the teacher who taught me the subject.  He was boring, and it was obvious that he didn’t really want to be teaching this course.  His approach for help was saying, “Yeah, that is a hard question.  It took me a couple hours myself.  Good Luck.”
• I couldn’t see the big picture while I was taking the course.  I didn’t like the fact that there wasn’t any programming projects.  I couldn’t see why this theory fit in with computer programming.  After finishing my degree and working on  graduate degrees, I can see how theory fits into the full scheme of Computer Science.
• I have figured out that I liked Computer Science (or programming as I thought of it back then) because of the problem solving, not the programming.  In the theory class, it tends to be pure problem solving, no typing required.  Just a lot of thinking and problem solving.
• I learned to appreciate the history of my field, and respect the people who pioneered it.  This appreciation has led me to study their work.

Anyway, from my experience taking this course, I found that I really needed to catch my students interest in this course.  The first time I taught it, I started to hear the same complaints I had when I took it.  I found myself defending the course.  The best explanation I was able to come up with was that companies don’t want mindless programmers.  They want people who are problems solvers.  Anyone can learn how to program.  It’s the people who can solve difficult problems with efficient and elegant solutions that really have worth to a company.  If you do that for the companies you work for, you will see your demand raise, and with it your salary and job security.  Computational theory develops problem solving skills.

Does anyone have a better explanation on why take computational theory?  How do you motivate your students?

I bring this topic up because I read a post on Phil Windly’s blog talking about receiving a lot of email (not spam) and trying to respond to it all. I do agree that no matter what you do, you probably will never keep up with all your email.  However, as a teacher, I can really use Tantek’s advice.  Whenever you receive an email question, you could post it on the course message board, along with your response.  Then when you get that question again, just refer the student to the board.

In theory, students will look at the board and see that their other questions were answered on the board, and then start checking the board before emailing their professor.  Hopefully, the class could transform a previous unused and unnoticed message board into their first source for help.

To make the process easier, it would be really nice to have a drag-and-drop interface to just drag your email conversation to the message board.  Then, for students with similar questions, you could drag their email to the post, which would automatically reply to their message with a link to that post.  Maybe that will be my next project.

During the summer, I spent a lot of time creating labs and planning lectures for this new Java course.  After my Java class today, I had a discussion with a few struggling students.  After listening to their comments, I realized I had made a mistake on how I organized the class.  I decided to follow what most textbooks suggest and even brag about, focus on objects right at the beginning.  To me, this sounded like the best way to explain objects and classes.  An object is just like an object in the real world.  It has a nice interface and you just tell it what to do and it does it.

Today, I realized a major problem with this. They are still trying to grasp the concept of methods, and now they have to put the method in one file and the call in another.  They are still trying to grasp the concept of a variables, and now they put the declaration at the top of a class, and then use them inside the methods.  Plus, when they want to use a variable they are probably writing their main method and the variable is hidden in another file.  On top of all of this, they are trying to solve a problem.  Try working out a math problem on a bunch of different puzzle pieces and then put the pieces together in the right order to form a solution.  Thinking back to my beginning programming class, I remember struggling with the same thing when I first learned about objects and classes.

So here is my solution.  First, teach them about variables and how to use them.  Next focus on types, and then control structures, methods, and arrays.  Then present the idea of an object and class.  But first, as just a bunch of different variables that are related (like a struct).  What might work best is an example of keeping track of students -  their names, ids, and addresses.  Isn’t it a lot of work to declare a string for each student and a int for their id and another string for their address and somehow keep them related?  Wouldn’t it be nice to have all of those grouped together in an “array”?  Well we can, it’s called an object.  Make the member variables public and use them like any other variable.  Next explain how it would be nice if the address edit method was somehow grouped with the student as well.  Then explain the constructor, and work towards encapsulation.

This way, the student first learns the basics without the need to memorize where everything goes.  They also learn object-oriented programming the same way it was invented, which shows the value of object-oriented programming.  Show them the structured programming way, and then show them how object-oriented programming improves upon it and simplifies the code.  By thinking that the why of oo-programming is to complex to explain, I actually made oo-programming more confusing.

Now I have to reorganize my class for next semester.