
Top Myths About Teaching Computer Science (2015) - wallflower
http://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/189498-top-10-myths-about-teaching-computer-science/fulltext
======
Jemmeh
#2 is off. The article says "the Bureau of Labor Statistics says that we don't
need many more software developers" but the link provided
([https://computinged.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/we-need-to-
prod...](https://computinged.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/we-need-to-produce-far-
more-software-developers-than-programmers-how-do-we-change/)) says we need
loads of software developers, but not as many programmers.

From reading the BLS descriptions and some discussions on the programmers
stack exchange I'd say programmers as far as the way BLS describes it are
essentially intern/entry level software devs. They need someone else to give
them direction. [http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/4951/what-
are...](http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/4951/what-are-the-key-
differences-between-software-engineers-and-programmers)

------
Bluestrike2
Very interesting. The gender data for AP tests in particular, as it seems to
suggest that there's a strong self-selection bias at work years before people
start applying for tech jobs. Identifying the reasons behind that and
persuading otherwise seems like a particularly important area for women in
tech groups to focus on.

~~~
bo1024
I'm surprised it isn't clear to more people that we need to be addressing
gender imbalances in CS at a much younger age.

Anecdotally, many people get into computer science originally because they're
interested in programming because they like the idea of, for a major instance,
creating video games. Surprise, many of these kids are male. Added to this is
a general STEM selection bias.

So we need outreach about careers, opportunities, and the fun of CS and
programming, much younger, and targeted at groups like girls who would
otherwise be less likely to try it out on their own. Address our diversity
issues from youth up rather than when it's too late.

~~~
timje1
This NPR podcast posits that the source of the current male / female divide in
computing began in the early 80s as a result of home computer and videogame
marketing. It's definitely worth a listen.

[http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-
women-stopped-coding)

------
CM30
It's an interesting set of points, but damn, this article is really difficult
to read. The light text colour and the tiny font size means I had to basically
squint at the screen to make out most of it.

~~~
stephenhuey
That's because the mobile link was submitted. If you're on a desktop then
remove the m. subdomain prefix to go here:

[http://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/189498-top-10-myths-
abou...](http://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/189498-top-10-myths-about-
teaching-computer-science/fulltext)

~~~
CM30
Huh, I keep getting redirected to the mobile version on a desktop. Guess it
must have something to do with uBlock Orign or something.

~~~
quentusrex
This is the link you want: [http://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-
cacm/189498-top-10-myths-abou...](http://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-
cacm/189498-top-10-myths-about-teaching-computer-
science/fulltext?mobile=false)

~~~
reviseddamage
^ the hero we deserve

------
cant_kant
The graph accompanying the article indicates that we need a global campaign to
persuade more men to do "studio.art.drawing".

At the very least, we need an article in the Communications of the ACM on the
Top 10 Myths About Teaching Studio.Art.Drawing.

~~~
arthur_pryor
i'm guessing this is tongue in cheek, but i think it's actually a good idea.
though i think the gender bias that keeps women out of traditionally male-
dominated fields is usually more pernicious than the bias that keeps men out
of traditionally female-dominated fields [0], the latter's still a problem
worthy of addressing. men shouldn't feel odd about wanting to be nurses or
teachers or house-husbands or any of the many things that are not
traditionally seen as male roles.

also, the article for the "top 10 myths about teaching studio art drawing"
would probably be more appropriate for a journal on studio art drawing. the
ACM should be concerned with gender bias in the computing world. it doesn't
have to be concerned with gender bias in studio art drawing just because you
want a witty counter-example to show that gender bias against women isn't such
a big deal (because actually, it is).

[0] i think bias against women is more pernicious because there tends to be
less bias against men in this regard, and so any one incidence of bias is less
likely to be terribly detrimental to their life overall. a gross
generalization, obviously, but i don't think it's off the mark.

------
pbhjpbhj
>If you think that some students just aren't "wired" to program, you as a
teacher are unlikely to do as much to help them learn. //

So, is true but you mustn't think it? Or you have to pretend it's not?

I don't think their conclusion necessarily follows either, seems a possible
outcome but some teaching is all about enabling the least "gifted" (and this
can tend to fail at stretching those who appear to have a natural propensity).

Of there really no genetic element to intelligence?

~~~
juliendorra
There is obviously inherited factors for all basic cognitive abilities. Humans
varies.

But cultural factors, bias, training is what start to have impact at birth,
what we can leverage. The scientific consensus seems to be that
culture/education/context/opportunity is the major factor when concerned with
two standard persons (average cognitive abilities at birth).

I didn't personally read any cognitive science studies that validated the
existence of some people having superior cognitive powers. It appears to be
quite grouped at the center, with outliers with very specific talents
("savants").

So let's use the Ockham razor and go for the most likely explanation when
learners struggle with any subject: they are not given the right learning
process.

It has most probably nothing to do with how their brain is wired, because
statically, it is most probably very similar to any other brain picked
randomly. (As is our genetic code apparently. Two random humans on earth have
a very closely similar genetic code, more than was expected at first).

For example I have a deplorable sequential memory: I can't really well
memorize songs or karate katas. I blame my total lack of musical and dance
education. I never really trained for memorizing sequences… Of course I could
point to some innate genetic flaw, but this seems like a less likely
explanation given what we know about the brain plasticity.

~~~
Nadya
_> So let's use the Ockham razor and go for the most likely explanation when
learners struggle with any subject: they are not given the right learning
process._

Strange, I came to the conclusion that people not interested in a subject
won't retain information about that subject because they don't care about the
subject.

I can think of several topics off-hand that no matter how someone tried to
teach me, how many resources they gave me, or what the "learning process" was
designed as: I wouldn't care to learn a thing. Zilch. I'm not interested,
kindly buzz off and let me do things I'm actually interested in.

Actually - that's exactly why I dropped out of school in freshman year and
became an autodidact. I was sick of others telling me what to learn about and
thought my time would be better spent teaching myself about things I actually
care about.

I 'lucked out' and got a job I enjoy doing things I enjoy because I did things
I enjoyed instead of things I didn't enjoy. I'm puzzled how other people could
reason to themselves that the reason I didn't become a doctor or a lawyer was
because of the learning process and not because of my complete lack of
interest.

How come the learning process is only relevant to STEM fields? Especially
"tech"?

------
ArkyBeagle
I feel like on #4 that at least some exposure to rigor is in order somewhere
in high school, for everybody. I say that because that would have helped me a
lot because I took a lot of math and _really_ grokking rigor made all the
difference once I got there. And then both my kids had exactly the same
experience.

Is a high school CS course that place for that? Probably not. So I vote for a
much tougher algebra course that then of course nobody would ever take.

~~~
thearn4
> I vote for a much tougher algebra course

I've played with the notion in my head of teaching something rigorous (but not
arduous) like basic Group or Ring theory somewhere in HS. Perhaps in place of
the rather large amount of time spent on the algebra of second-order
polynomials? Hard to say. I'll admit I have zero training in pedagogy.

~~~
arthur_pryor
i've thought for a while that a good survey philosophy course would be a great
thing for high schoolers. it could introduce a certain sort of rigor (not
quite the same as a programming class where things have to run, or a math
class where you have to write proofs, but important and maybe easier for many
to grasp at first). plus, it'd introduce a wide variety of other belief
systems, things like the need to honestly address objections the other side
might have, etc.

but a good CS course would be great too, because computational literacy and
facility/comfort with computational thinking are only becoming more important
for making it through the world and having some control over your own fate.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
The course that made it for me was based on "Transition To Advanced
Mathematics" by Egger , Smith and St. Andre.

Just learning the actual proofs ( beyond calculus style proofs ) techniques
was a big leg up, especially induction and contradiction.

------
Wildgoose
57.3% of UK students are female. The majority of University courses in the UK
are at least 60% female. If there is any gender bias in evidence it is clearly
biased against men. There are only two subjects where the marked pro-female
bias switches in favour of men: Computer Science and Engineering.

From Times Higher Education, link here:

[https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/infographic-
gender...](https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/infographic-gender-
breakdown-at-course-level)

I have two daughters and have desperately tried to interest them in maths and
computing and understand my enthusiasm for the subjects. They're just not
interested. The elder of the two is off to University this autumn to study
Illustration (Art).

Personally I am sick of hearing about "gender discrimination against women"
when all the evidence points to the exact opposite. Men and Women are
different. They have different interests. The only myth is that these
differences are down to systemic male prejudice towards women. It's nonsense
and it's about time this nonsense started being called out for what it is.

~~~
inimino
This is a good example of why we say that the plural of anecdote isn't data.

Even if you had two boys, that wouldn't be at all surprising, right?
Statistically, most kids aren't going to be interested in computer science.
Most children of computer scientists aren't going to go into computer science.
Most people don't pick the same major that their parents did, across any and
every field.

It's only looking at the broader statistics across all kids that we see these
tremendous gender imbalances. It's not surprising that any particular young
women aren't interested in computer science, but what's surprising is that
practically none are. You can attribute that to inherent differences in
interest or aptitude, but to do so is to disregard the strong social signals
that programming is "for boys".

If art was as overwhelmingly male-dominated as computer science is, would your
daughter still have developed her interest in it in the first place? That's
not as easy a question to answer.

~~~
Wildgoose
I agree that I can't expect my children to necessarily follow in my footsteps,
however the point I was attempting to make was that my daughters weren't
interested in maths and computing even after having been actively encouraged
to take such an interest. (I have a son as well - he's studying Engineering at
University).

Meanwhile, you haven't addressed the data that the majority of subjects are
female dominated. Psychology for example is 75% female, and yet men are three
to seven times more likely to commit suicide than women - yet another gender
imbalance that seems to get ignored.

All my life I have heard demands that something must be done about any issue
where men are in the majority, but at the same time a deafening silence when
the reverse is true.

A recent study has shown that when applying for tenure-track positions in
university science departments that female candidates are now twice as likely
to be chosen as equally qualified men.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2015/04/1...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2015/04/14/study-finds-surprisingly-that-women-are-favored-for-jobs-in-
stem/)

That suggests that the current male dominance in STEM subjects is actually
_despite_ the same pro-female bias that we see elsewhere.

------
efaref
#1 is definitely off, for certain in the opposite direction. There are some
people who simply do not "get" software, and never will. And that's ok.

I'm have aphantasia, so I will never be an artist. That's ok. Some people are
tone deaf and so will never be musicians. That's ok. Some people are just,
let's say "logic blind", and so can never understand how a computer will work
through software. They just can't follow it in their minds, in the same way
that my mind just can't visualise pictures that are not currently in front of
my eyes.

It's important that we don't claim the opposite so that people who discover
they have aphantasia, or are tone deaf, or are logic blind don't think there's
something wrong with themselves, because if "everyone can do it" but they
can't then they must be either broken or lazy.

------
acbart
#7 and #8 can be summarized as "Teaching is the right combination of
presentation, participation, and feedback". Lecture is a valuable way to do
presentation, but you need to integrate participatory activities such as
clickers, worksheets, ANYTHING that gets the student to actively work with the
material. And of course, that won't be enough for non-didactic people, so you
should plan for how students will get timely feedback. Clickers are one
mechanism that let you give immediate feedback, but there are many other
approaches.

------
minionslave
I wanna smoke whatever that web designer was smoking.

~~~
hutzlibu
I don't. Grey on white ... and no(!) margin left. _sigh_

------
mucker
Ah the Nordic Self-Selection Paradox showing up in AP studies. Not shocking.
Notice too that the writer is not horrified that men don't want to join AP Art
History or AP Psychology.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
There is an argument to be made that the asymmetry in art history should be
resolved by having fewer women study it rather than more men.

~~~
over
What's the argument?

------
madmax96
Does anyone else notice that the graph shows that women vastly outnumber men
for AP tests? Or are we ignoring that fact?

------
JoeCoder_
> to get more women in CS

As a single male I admit it would be nice if there were more women in CS, but
ultimately why does it really matter? Men and women are interested in
different things and most women I know just aren't very interested in CS. Is
there also a push to get more men into French language culture or studio art
drawing? Even though most men would find it boring.

~~~
hackuser
> most women I know just aren't very interested in CS

That makes an assumption about their motivation. Much evidence exists that
women aren't "interested" becuase they face exclusion and discrimination in CS
and pressure to study more 'feminine" subjects. Why do more women take the
Statistics AP exam than men? Also, I think there are now more female math
majors in colleges than male (but I don't have the data in front of me).

The same arguments were used, AFAIK, when women were exluded from most of the
workforce and from much of higher education: Women just aren't interested in
those things. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, first in her class at
Columbia Law School, couldn't get a job at top law firms (and Justice
Frankfurter turned her down because of her gender, per Wikipedia) at the
beginning of her legal career. Now the majority of law school graduates are
female - I guess they were interested after all.

But perhaps most telling is that we are talking about women in the third
person - this is exactly the problem with a lack of diversity: A bunch of guys
are sitting around drawing conclusions about what women experience and think.
If only HN was half female - could you imagine the difference?

~~~
JoeCoder_
I find this response rather surprising.

I can't speak about law, or the way things used to be, but in software dev
I've worked with several women and more men. In my own experience the men
sometimes chide with each other to the point I've seen other men complain to
management about bullying. But I don't see the women being treated that way at
all.

In my personal life I often talk about programming to non-devs. Both genders
have some people that are completely uninterested, but it's usually the women.
Likewise I have little interest in most female-dominated fields. And that's
ok.

Maybe things are different beyond my own limited perspective, but that's what
I've seen. It may be different in other fields.

~~~
Jtsummers
A large part of this is culture. My ex-girlfriend grew up with parents who
coddled her and her sister, protecting them from many things (a common
behavior with female children from what I've seen). The consequence is two
very fearful women (nominally) who have strong aversions to technical fields.
They were told it was ok they weren't good at math _because_ they were girls.

On the other hand, I've worked with and known many women in adult life, and
either they overcame that attitude from their parents and teachers or they
weren't presented with that attitude growing up. I can speak with many of them
about programming topics (watered down in the same manner I'd water it down
with men who don't have a programming background) and bore or interest them to
the same degree.

If we, as a society, stop telling people "this is feminine" and "this is
masculine" (particularly with respect to fields of study, both technical and
non-technical) you'd likely see these things even out quite a bit (though the
implied feminine and masculine by observing people's roles in society will
still be present).

------
bloaf
Why the hell would you even think to plot 2^Log2(x) instead of just x?

