One more political observation, which I hope won't piss anyone off this time

[maradydd]

As most of you have probably picked up on, I'm among that minority of computer scientists who actually writes code, and often prefers it to writing papers (much to the chagrin of my advisors and colleagues). I enjoy my theoretical work, but if I spend too much time on theory alone, the joy turns hollow; I want to build things that people can use.

Comments

[morbid_curious]

*nod* Both the Mathematician and the Engineer want to find a solution, but one is looking for a theoretical solution and the other an operant one. One wants to produce an idealised model, the other an implementation roadmap. When everything's working well, there's a synergy where a goal is identified and a path found. If not, then both are frustrated at the other's lack of clear goal/path inhibiting their path/goal. Of course, then there's the within-condition problems of different groups of engineers squabbling about the optimal route, and different groups of mathematicians squabbling about the optimal destination. Everyone has a slightly different model, and different conditions they deem sufficient for validating and verifying conditions under them

[maradydd]

but one is looking for a theoretical solution and the other an operant one. One wants to produce an idealised model, the other an implementation roadmap

Well, I think most political Mathematicians want to see their models implemented -- but are willing to spend a lot longer refining those models before implementing them than political Engineers find practical, and indeed perhaps longer than is practical.

"While we wait, people are dying," says the Engineer. "I know, I know," says the Mathematician, "but please let's not implement something that will make more people die!" Which is an extreme way of looking at it, and that extremism gets jumped on and distorted in ugly, dishonest ways by the Sarah Palins of the world. The situation isn't made any easier when people with an axe to grind jump in with completely made-up bullshit designed to prompt emotional reactions and get people to shut off their reason.

Everyone has a slightly different model, and different conditions they deem sufficient for validating and verifying conditions

[morbid_curious]

The short short version: research into understanding and improving virtual learning environments.

The slightly longer version involves capture and analysis of a bunch of quantitative data about learner experiences to complement and validate existing qualitative methods (e.g. pre- and post-tests, semi-structured interviews, questionnaires and direct observation). Hopefully this will allow us to better understand what people are actually experiencing in such environments, and thus develop better design techniques for providing effective instruction and learning opportunities.

The deadline's the day before I visit the U.S. for a month, and I'm also co-writing a paper for an ACM SIG submission. So it's a Fun Time All Round right now :-)

[maradydd]

Cool. Do you know steer? He's a mathematician in London who's been an instructor before, and ISTR he's used a variety of different virtual learning environments, both closed-source and open. He might have some useful observations.

I have a bunch of cascading deadlines from mid-September through mid-October, so I feel your pain :-/

[whswhs]

I look at this in what I'd almost have to call a dialectical way:

I don't believe in great society-wide mathematical schemes that everybody must adhere to. I believe in a network of local engineering problem-solving efforts. I emphasize local, and, in particular, I favor each local decision-maker having as much freedom as is consistent with allowing others the same freedom; I don't believe in treating one person as a resource for somebody else's social engineering