hardware paradigms
On a CSC111 (comp sci for non-majors) midterm, 88% of students can identify a picture of "flash memory", whereas only 63% were able to correctly identify a picture of a hard disk, a paltry 43% were able to correctly identify RAM modules, and very surprisingly only 17% were able to recognize a picture of a CPU chip (well at least I got them to quit calling the case the CPU!)
The kicker is this: I showed NOTHING in class that had to do with flash memory, no pictures of it, nothing other than a brief description of how it works in theory and a comparison to related/older technologies. Yet I spent 200 minutes on the OTHER hardware concepts, recognizing the pieces, passing them around the room, taking them apart, watching videos of how they were developed, etc.
They were able to recognize the flash memory based on having bought this themselves and probably installed it in a phone or camera.
I am embarrassed to admit this since it shows the ineffectiveness of the teaching method I chose for hardware components, but I guess it's illustrative of how widespread the mobile paradigm is, and how it has utterly eclipsed the desktop paradigm, at least with this particular batch of students.
I bet nearly every student in this class has a cell phone and knows where the memory goes in it and how to upgrade the memory, but they haven't the first clue what's inside a desktop computer. (They also don't know how flash memory works, or why it's called "flash", but at least they can identify it when shown a picture.)
And even if they do own a computer, it's probably a laptop, and we don't really teach about what hardware inside the laptop looks like because what's the point? The only thing you can change about a laptop is MAYBE the memory, MAYBE the battery, and MAYBE swap out a hard drive. But who does that? The last time I upgraded memory in a laptop was 1997. (Of course, with desktop components now all "onboard" it's getting less and less likely to upgrade or tinker with an actual desktop either. Couple this with the throw-away mentality and planned obsolescence, and I ask you: When was the last time you actually bought something new that required that you open the case?)
The smaller the device, the more difficult it is to take apart, the less likely you are to be able to modify it or fix it yourself, the less likely it is that you can upgrade the hardware. Frankly, it's really interesting to create these small devices, but they're boring as hell to teach because you can't take them apart and it's all solid-state.
So old-school hardware is more interesting to teach but new mobile devices are ubiquitous and relevant.
What about a grant to have enough hardware for each student to build their own PC which they then use in class? It doesn't solve the mobility problem but it would be fun.
The kicker is this: I showed NOTHING in class that had to do with flash memory, no pictures of it, nothing other than a brief description of how it works in theory and a comparison to related/older technologies. Yet I spent 200 minutes on the OTHER hardware concepts, recognizing the pieces, passing them around the room, taking them apart, watching videos of how they were developed, etc.
They were able to recognize the flash memory based on having bought this themselves and probably installed it in a phone or camera.
I am embarrassed to admit this since it shows the ineffectiveness of the teaching method I chose for hardware components, but I guess it's illustrative of how widespread the mobile paradigm is, and how it has utterly eclipsed the desktop paradigm, at least with this particular batch of students.
I bet nearly every student in this class has a cell phone and knows where the memory goes in it and how to upgrade the memory, but they haven't the first clue what's inside a desktop computer. (They also don't know how flash memory works, or why it's called "flash", but at least they can identify it when shown a picture.)
And even if they do own a computer, it's probably a laptop, and we don't really teach about what hardware inside the laptop looks like because what's the point? The only thing you can change about a laptop is MAYBE the memory, MAYBE the battery, and MAYBE swap out a hard drive. But who does that? The last time I upgraded memory in a laptop was 1997. (Of course, with desktop components now all "onboard" it's getting less and less likely to upgrade or tinker with an actual desktop either. Couple this with the throw-away mentality and planned obsolescence, and I ask you: When was the last time you actually bought something new that required that you open the case?)
The smaller the device, the more difficult it is to take apart, the less likely you are to be able to modify it or fix it yourself, the less likely it is that you can upgrade the hardware. Frankly, it's really interesting to create these small devices, but they're boring as hell to teach because you can't take them apart and it's all solid-state.
So old-school hardware is more interesting to teach but new mobile devices are ubiquitous and relevant.
What about a grant to have enough hardware for each student to build their own PC which they then use in class? It doesn't solve the mobility problem but it would be fun.
