By tim, on January 16th, 2012 at 10:28 pm I’m not what you’d call a football fan. Yes, I always listen out for Derby’s result and occasionally listen to Radio Derby’s commentary, though it really hasn’t been the same since Graham Richards retired. But I’ve probably been to fewer than 10 professional games in my entire life.
One of the reasons for my disenchantment with football is the constant nonsense spouted by many of the people running the game. Such as Paul Jewell’s recent pronouncements on female assistant referees or the ludicrous assertion by Adrian Bevington of the FA (and many others) that the next England manager should be English. Surely we’d be better off picking the best person for the job, regardless of their nationality – or gender for that matter.
However, one person who nearly always makes me reach for the off switch is the current Arsenal manager, Arsene Wenger. It’s not because I dislike him or his club – I’m decidedly ambivalent about both – but that he is forever reminding me about the fundamental attribution error (FAE) from DD307.
Put simply, the FAE is an argument which states that there is a tendency everyone has to overvalue dispositional or personality-based explanations for the observed behaviours of others while undervaluing situational explanations for the same behaviours. For example, the FAE could be argued to be operating when Arsene Wenger claims that a poor decision was made because the referee isn’t very good at their job (a dispositional attribution) rather than because of the difficulties of refereeing a game where most of the participants don’t know how to spell sportsmanship, let alone understand what it is. Just occasionally when Arsenal lose you’d expect Wenger to acknowledge the possibility of situational explanations, but he seems to invariably make dispositional attributions about other people’s behaviour instead.
So when Arsenal were beaten 3-2 by Swansea last weekend, Wenger is reported by the BBC as claiming that their defeat is in large part due to a poor decision made by the referee. Earlier on that week he appeared to be blaming Arsenal’s problems on the television schedulers. In December, when they lost to Manchester City, Wenger attributes their failure to the inability of the referee to understand the offside rule. Look at the match reports on the BBC Sport website if you think I’m exaggerating!
There is a point to this rant. Most people exhibit this attribution bias even if it’s not to the extent that the Arsenal manager appears to. So do I.
The danger is that our tendency to make such attributions means that we – I – miss the real reasons for success and failure. I’m not sure if I can do anything about my own tendencies, but at least I’m now aware of the possibility that my own explanations of other’s behaviour might just be wrong sometimes …
By tim, on January 11th, 2012 at 10:16 pm In some ways I’m rather encouraged by today’s announcement by the education secretary that he wants to see a greater emphasis on the teaching of computer science in the schools curriculum. But I think the suggestion that he seems to be making, or at least the media interpretation of it, that teaching someone how to use popular computer programs like office suites (his definition of ICT) is no longer worthwhile and what should be taught instead is how to program them (his definition of Computer Science) is an unproductive dichotomy. Let me explain.
Back in the mid to late 1980s, everything taught in schools around the topic of computing was computer science focused. It had to be. If you wanted to get any benefit from a BBC micro or Sinclair ZX81, you had to learn how to program it first – usually in one of the many weird and wonderful dialects of a programming language known as BASIC. I still have an attic full of Computing Today and Practical Electronics magazines which were crammed full of BASIC listings that you had to type into these machines to get them to play games or do more worthy calculations, such as working out how to obtain a non-standard electrical resistance from two resistors placed in parallel. The often buggy nature of these listings and the non-standard features that many BASIC dialects had helped you to gain a deeper understanding of how computer programming worked. I spent (probably far too many) happy hours as a teenager translating programs to work on my Sharp MZ80K and its own peculiar BASIC dialect.
 My brother using our Sharp MZ80K, aged 15 At some point during the 1990s, what schools taught the majority of pupils changed from programming activities and the understanding of how computers worked to focus almost exclusively on the use of commercial packages, particularly office productivity suites. I still despair at what my daughters were taught in their ICT lessons. There was lots of stuff about how to use word processors, spreadsheets and small databases, with nothing at all about how these things were built in the first place.
The thing is, both aspects of computing are important. It’s a bit like cars. It’s true that most people simply need to know how to drive (use) them rather than how to build a car in the first place or even service one. But having an understanding of how they are built and serviced prevents you from being ripped off by the garage or from attempting things in your car that it wasn’t designed to do!
Similarly, it’s important that the use of common software applications is taught as today such knowledge has a direct impact on your prospects in the world of work. But perhaps having just a little understanding of the complexity involved in even the simplest forms of software engineering or computer programming should mean that there are fewer failed technology programmes in future. With knowledge that you are able to apply, you become harder to fleece as well as becoming better able to understand the art of the practical – as anything is possible with computer software given enough time and money. Despite all appearances to the uninitiated, computers are not magic – but that we can get them to do anything for us at all is the result of hard logic and clever algorithms. When software really works well, it’s also the result of disciplined engineering processes.
So my nagging concern with today’s announcement is not that computer science will be back on the curriculum – its more widespread return within our schools is long overdue. Instead, it is the false dichotomy being peddled that learning how to make a computer program that someone else has created do something useful for you is somehow boring or a second class pursuit. It isn’t.
Such skills are every bit as important today as understanding how to use shorthand and slide rules were for the engineers of my father’s generation.
By tim, on January 8th, 2012 at 9:23 am … to everyone who’s sent me a note of support this week, either by leaving a comment on my last post, through twitter, facebook or by sending me an email. It’s been somewhat overwhelming to be honest!
It’s also been my first week back at work after the Christmas and new year holidays and I’ve been very busy, so I haven’t (yet) been able to reply to everyone who’s contacted me and I apologise if you’re one of the people on that list. I will try to get my act together over the course of the next few days.
By tim, on January 4th, 2012 at 9:22 pm tenpencepiece.net is my second attempt at blogging. My first, which was created during the early days of blogger, ran out of steam at some point during the early 2000s. I eventually deleted it and I don’t have a backup, but I know that it wasn’t very good. Fortunately, I’m certain that almost no-one read it.
It wasn’t until late 2008 that I started again. I was between OU modules and was due to start ED209, but I didn’t start this one with any particular intent to blog about my OU experience. However, for most of the last 3 years that’s . . . → Read More: Why this blog went dark over Christmas
By tim, on January 2nd, 2012 at 3:24 pm A look back at the eleven most read posts on this blog from 2011, in 2011.
Open University students in limbo over fees until spring 2012 (1,397 views) From 2nd May, when the OU’s own (now defunct) fourinten campaign was suggesting that OU students would have to wait until the spring of 2012 to find out what autumn 2012 fees would be. I calculated £4,965 as being the likely 120 credit equivalent for students in England – not too far away from the £5,000 eventually announced. A headline no-one wanted to see – OU fees to rise to £5,000 in . . . → Read More: Eleven from eleven in eleven
By tim, on December 20th, 2011 at 8:44 pm … has just arrived in my inbox from the Faculty of Social Sciences. It confirms what I’d been told by the Yorkshire region a few weeks ago, with the merest hint that something may be resolved in time for late 2012. The email is reproduced below, with my thoughts in italics.
Dear Tim Holyoake
I understand from PGSS colleagues in Region 07 that you have enquired about studying psychology at postgraduate level with the OU/Faculty of Social Sciences. I note from your academic record that you have recently achieved a first class honours degree in psychology with us. Warmest congratulations . . . → Read More: News from the OU about postgraduate psychology provision
By tim, on December 15th, 2011 at 10:37 pm One of the entitlements a degree gives you is the ability to use post-nominals after your name. In the case of my recent Open University degree an email I’ve received today tells me that once the degree is conferred on me (31st December) and I have received my certificate, I will be able to put BSc (Hons) Psych (Open) after my name.
Except, of course, that very few people do so – especially if they have other post-nominals from other academic study and professional memberships. It would just make the whole process of writing your name too long and tedious.
. . . → Read More: Fun with post-nominals
|
Ebuzzing Labs demystifies Social Media
|
|
Recent Comments