[HN Gopher] Compared to traditional activities, programming did ...
___________________________________________________________________
Compared to traditional activities, programming did not benefit
math learning
Author : chaosprint
Score : 21 points
Date : 2022-09-05 19:54 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.sciencedirect.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.sciencedirect.com)
| fspeech wrote:
| Programming and math both depend on mastering a language, while
| much simpler than natural languages, that is both rigid and
| abstract, at least for beginners. While repetition leading to
| pattern recognition and comprehension works for everyone
| acquiring a mother tongue, I am troubled by the de-emphasis of
| the need of rote learning (that is, work) at the elementary
| school level. In my own case we did extra exercises (adaptitve
| q&a a couple of times a day) to make sure our younger one
| actually master multiplication and division. I remember being
| worried how kids without additional attention at home would fare.
| g42gregory wrote:
| I am not sure why programming should even be considered as
| beneficial for Math learning. Isn't the question the other way
| around? - Should Math be beneficial for programming? Math is a
| tool (for everyone except for 0.000001%, who could use it as an
| occupation) to use somewhere else. While programming technically
| is also a tool, it's a tool which is also an occupation for
| millions of people. So we better make sure that teaching of Math
| benefits programming, not the other way around.
| josephg wrote:
| It's surprising because (anecdotally), math students in college
| consistently have a much easier time learning computer science
| than other students. I'm not sure if there have been studies on
| this, but it was remarkably consistent when I taught first year
| CS.
| tonightstoast wrote:
| Yeah that's a bit of a chicken vs egg problem though, isn't
| it? It's like how physics students routinely have the highest
| LSAT. If they were already towards the top of their class
| upon entry, it's not surprising to see them doing well in
| comparison to their peers.
|
| Edit: added last sentence.
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| It's not on sci-hub yet?
| melony wrote:
| I am not surprised there was little to no improvement in algebra
| and arithmetic capabilities. They should measure for discrete
| math performance instead, as that is what CS is. Programming (for
| general purpose applications) has very little to do with non-
| discrete math unless you are doing ML/scientific programming/game
| development.
| whaaswijk wrote:
| I have some anecdotal evidence against this. Learning how to
| write automated proofs using Isabel and HOL definitely improved
| my ability to write proofs with pen and paper. Also, I wonder
| what is meant by "traditional activities". Unfortunately the
| article seems to be behind a paywall so I can't check...
| tsimionescu wrote:
| I don't think writing proofs in Isabel is really comparable to
| regular programming. Note also that writing formal machine-
| verifiable proofs is a skill that few career mathematicians
| have. Writing regular proofs is a comparably much simpler
| skill, one that is universal among career mathematicians.
|
| So, the fact that your practice of a very complex version of a
| skill also improved your ability to practice the simpler
| version of the skill isn't really surprising.
|
| Coincidentally, my understanding is that many mathematicians
| find such deeply formal proofs hard to follow, compared to more
| informal ones. It would actually be interesting to know if your
| proofs have become more or less satisfying to a practicing
| mathematician after your experience with Isabel and HOL.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| Well, others in this discussion are already questioning it, but
| this particular research was on 4th and 5th grade students
| using Scratch and on some basic math (arithmetic) concepts. I'm
| not sure Isabel would be appropriate for them. The _submission_
| title is pretty clickbaity, the actual title is more
| reasonable: _Impact of programming on primary mathematics
| learning_.
|
| Which also conveys the level of math (primary math) being
| evaluated against.
| joeframbach wrote:
| This studied fourth and fifth graders. However I might add my one
| irrelevant anecdotal data point from when I was in 10th grade 20
| years ago. In an attempt to "cheat" at Chemistry class I wrote a
| stoichiometry equation balancer with step by step answers on a
| TI-83. I wrote various solvers for Physics class and Stats class.
| Working through all the edge cases of these problems helped
| immensely. Fourth and fifth graders just don't have as many
| opportunities to apply programming to the real world.
| SapporoChris wrote:
| My anecdote: I did my intro aerospace engineering homework on
| spreadsheets instead of using my HP15C calculator and paper.
| The spreadsheets helped organize and track errors easily. To no
| ones surprise except my freshman self, I couldn't replicate the
| results on tests where I didn't have access to spreadsheet
| software. Doing things more 'by hand' results in more
| reinforced learning in my humble opinion. Did not become an
| aerospace engineer :(
| 8note wrote:
| I wrote lots of scripts into my ti-89 titanium.
|
| I made some matrix helper functions, and loops through some
| of the standard stress/strain/failure criteria and so on,
| with some fully set up problem solvers etc
|
| For tests, I did the hard part, figuring out what matters and
| what to check, then delegated the math to my calculator.
| Saved like an hour on a variety of open-textbook tests
|
| If I was better with my calculator in jr high, I could have
| done a ton with it there too
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| What about teaching excel? I swear that would turn some lights
| on.
| [deleted]
| chaosprint wrote:
| Highlights:
|
| * Compared to traditional activities, programming did not benefit
| mathematics learning.
|
| * A negative though small effect of programming on mathematics
| learning was found.
|
| * High-road transfer from programming to mathematics is not self-
| evident.
|
| * Visual programming languages might distract students from
| mathematics activities.
| jimhefferon wrote:
| Grades four and five.
| withoutsnow wrote:
| Well, it only proves Scratch is not good for kids learning math,
| and the paper has some weak points as pointed out in other posts.
|
| Actually, my first reaction when I heard of Scratch was -- why
| are these poor kids forced to learn something they will never use
| in the future of their lives?
|
| The paper got one thing right -- it doesn't make any sense to
| design visual language deliberately for kids education. It's like
| saying -- kid, you are so naive so you have to do visual
| programming, even though it is slow and inefficient. If you are
| the kid, will you feel good?
|
| If I have to choose a programming language for kids, I will
| choose LOGO.
|
| Code for visual! Not visual for code!
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| My 9 year old started programming lua in Roblox. He doesn't
| really know whats going on, he is just following the tutorials,
| transcribing what he sees on screen. When he makes a mistake he
| has a hard time reading through the code to see what went
| wrong.
|
| A few weeks ago he rediscovered Scratch. It's a completely
| different experience. He started out following tutorials like
| he was with Roblox, but quickly made the metal leap to altering
| and enhancing the tutorials. Adding sound effects, changing
| values. Restructuring and reconstructing for loops to do what
| he wants.
|
| Now he is breaking problems down and solving them one at a
| time. Setting a goal and working out how to achieve it. I think
| that's a far more valuable skill at this stage.
| mkl95 wrote:
| What does math learning mean? A basic understanding of boolean
| algebra can get you far in programming.
|
| Some fields such as graphics programming and machine learning do
| apply advanced mathematics, but you are likely to use a high
| level abstraction that wraps the hard parts.
| chaosprint wrote:
| Since I am developing Glicol (https://glicol.org), I am
| particularly interested in this question, also because many often
| say Glicol should be used in education.
|
| My take is:
|
| Good education should be personalised.
|
| The main challenge for programming education is to let the
| student build the motive for coding, asking questions: why should
| I program? what can I do with codes?
|
| To do music live coding can be one motive. But in the end, I want
| to let them know, they can have any kind of motive.
|
| Motive/curiosity first. Math, or programming is just the method
| they will employ, not the goal. Perhaps with the motive, they can
| pick up math/programming more efficiently using "traditional
| activities".
| aprao wrote:
| First time seeing Glicol - really cool!
| Sin2x wrote:
| "In Theory There Is No Difference Between Theory and Practice,
| While In Practice There Is"
|
| For me personally it seems rather obvious that learning theory is
| a prerequisite for being good at practice, not the other way
| round.
| ggm wrote:
| The reversed relationship however, is strong: maths benefits
| programming learning immensely.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > The reversed relationship however, is strong
|
| Is it? How do you know?
| ggm wrote:
| By osmosis.
|
| Are you seriously wrestling with the proposition that
| computing is a subfield of mathematics?
|
| My intuition here is strong. I am deficient in maths and
| struggle with formalisms in computing. All my competent
| programming family & friends who program are mathematically
| literate. Those who program in functional languages
| especially so.
|
| But your point though tersely made stands: it deserves to be
| demonstrated rather than just asserted. Certainly there are
| proponents of the theory language faculty matters more than
| mathematical ability.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| I'm absolutely atrocious at maths and I have a PhD and
| successful-enough research career in CS - they seem
| disjoint to me.
| ggm wrote:
| Yes but that's anecdata against statistics, studies and
| theories of mind.
|
| I am also 44 years into an uninterrupted career in CS and
| networks. I still believe it's a strong indicator of
| skill and ability to have the maths chops I don't
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Yes but that's anecdata against statistics, studies and
| theories of mind.
|
| _I 'm_ using anecdata? You said your argument was just
| 'intuition' a second ago and then gave some anecdotes
| about your mates.
|
| Can you reference the statistics, studies and the data
| supporting the theories of mind?
| user432678 wrote:
| Completely agree. And also disagree with the research results
| to some extent. My anecdotal experience is quite the opposite.
| I have started grasping programming while at school
| specifically to be able to make games. And that helped me
| immensely to learn math and physics.
| xor99 wrote:
| Do you have proof of this like a large participant study or it
| is just intuition or your personal experience? I feel like lots
| of people who are good at maths are good at programming but
| they are not actually similar structurally.
|
| To me it was always much more similar to some combination of
| learning a language and learning the linguistic rules of that
| language in great detail to the point where you have a
| metalinguistic understanding of it. Then, math would be an
| adjunct but very separate component that could be manipulated
| by the programming language.
| thesz wrote:
| Languages are part of mathematics.
|
| Please read this fascinating book:
| https://dickgrune.com/Books/PTAPG_1st_Edition/
|
| Parsing, generating phrases, understanding (analysis), etc,
| are all studied in applied math.
| xor99 wrote:
| Ah cool, that looks interesting!
|
| My interest in the comment was whether learning programming
| is like learning for natural languages or mathematics. At
| least one study shows that both intuitions about learning
| programming turn out to be wrong lol:
|
| https://boingboing.net/2020/12/30/study-finds-brain-
| activity...
| [deleted]
| trgn wrote:
| Absolutely, in practice, math degree is such a good indicator
| whether a hire will grok code.
| galdosdi wrote:
| Bizarre study that does not shed much light on anything.
|
| Programming is most similar to algebra; anyone studying both at
| the same time can't help but see the obvious connection.
|
| At least in the USA, algebra is typically taught in 7th, 8th,
| 9th, or 10th grade, not 4th or 5th. Fourth graders are usually
| more concerned with more foundational topics as multiplication
| and division.
|
| The same study in 8th or 9th grade would actually be interesting.
| Or on advanced fourth graders that are studying Algebra I. Or if
| you followed up years later to see if once the same children are
| in 8th grade, they have an easier time with Algebra I.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| I am curious what exactly you mean by algebra here, that is
| studied in 7-10th grades but that is similar to programming.
| The only algebra I studied in that period was linear algebra
| (polynomial equations and systems of equations), and I don't
| see any obvious connection to general purpose programming (say,
| I don't see how that kind of algebra helps with understanding
| quicksort).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-05 23:00 UTC)