[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)