Teaching methods are erroneous: approaches which lead to erroneous end-user computing

📝 Abstract

If spreadsheets are not erroneous then who, or what, is? Research has found that end-users are. If end-users are erroneous then why are they? Research has found that responsibility lies with human beings’ fast and slow thinking modes and the inappropriate way they use them. If we are aware of this peculiarity of human thinking, then why do we not teach students how to train their brains? This is the main problem, this is the weakest link in the process: teaching. We have to make teachers realize that end-users are erroneous because of the erroneous teaching approaches to end-user computing. The proportion of fast and slow thinking modes is not constant, and teachers are mistaken when they apply the same proportion in both the teaching and end-user roles. Teachers should believe in the incremental nature of science and have high self-efficacy to make students understand and appreciate science. This is not currently the case in ICT and CS, and it is high time fundamental changes were introduced.

💡 Analysis

If spreadsheets are not erroneous then who, or what, is? Research has found that end-users are. If end-users are erroneous then why are they? Research has found that responsibility lies with human beings’ fast and slow thinking modes and the inappropriate way they use them. If we are aware of this peculiarity of human thinking, then why do we not teach students how to train their brains? This is the main problem, this is the weakest link in the process: teaching. We have to make teachers realize that end-users are erroneous because of the erroneous teaching approaches to end-user computing. The proportion of fast and slow thinking modes is not constant, and teachers are mistaken when they apply the same proportion in both the teaching and end-user roles. Teachers should believe in the incremental nature of science and have high self-efficacy to make students understand and appreciate science. This is not currently the case in ICT and CS, and it is high time fundamental changes were introduced.

📄 Content

Teaching methods are erroneous: approaches which lead to erroneous end-user computing Mária Csernoch, Piroska Biró 4028 Kassai út. 26. Debrecen, Hungary csernoch.maria@inf.unideb.hu, biro.piroska@inf.unideb.hu

ABSTRACT If spreadsheets are not erroneous then who, or what, is? Research has found that end-users are. If end-users are erroneous then why they are? Research has found that responsibility lies with human beings’ fast and slow thinking modes and the inappropriate way they use them. If we are aware of this peculiarity of human thinking, then why do we not teach students how to train their brains? This is the main problem, this is the weakest link in the process; teaching. We have to make teachers realize that end-users are erroneous because of the erroneous teaching approaches to end-user computing. The proportion of fast and slow thinking modes is not constant, and teachers are mistaken when they apply the same proportion in both the teaching and end-user roles. Teachers should believe in the incremental nature of science and have high self-efficacy to make students understand and appreciate science. This is not currently the case in ICT and CS, and it is high time fundamental changes were introduced. 1 INTRODUCTION Research focusing on spreadsheet analysis has come to the conclusion that almost without exception spreadsheet documents, – more than 90% of them – have various types of errors, and that these errors – along with the extremely high level of human and computer resources required to administer the documents (EuSpRIG, Panko, 2008; Powel et al., 2008; Thorne, 2010) – cause serious financial losses (Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2012). Speaking generally, it has been accepted that spreadsheets are erroneous. However, Panko (2013) claimed that it is not spreadsheets which are erroneous but rather the end- users who create the documents. He explains that one of the reasons for making mistakes is the overuse of attention mode (ATM) thinking compared to automatic mode (AUM) thinking (Panko, 2013, 2015; Maynes, 2015; Kahnemann, 2011). This finding is closely related to Kelemen’s, who claims that there is unreliability in metacognitive accuracy, while both memory and confidence are usually consistent between tasks (Kelemen et al., 2000). Compared to Panko, our research group took several further steps by analyzing the different metacognitive computer problem solving approaches, the problem solving approaches of end-users, the mathability level of software tools, cognitive load theory, the teaching methods applied in end-user teaching and training, the textbooks and coursebooks, teacher education, as well as several informatics and computer science curricula. Considering all these different approaches and their connection to spreadsheets, we have found that one of the main reasons spreadsheet users make mistakes is that teaching methods and materials are erroneous. Consequently, until we transform end- user-teaching approaches, nothing will change. In the present paper we focus on the educational aspect of the TEAM (Tools Education Audit Management) Approach (Chadwick, 2002). We argue that we have both the theoretical background and the teaching tools needed to introduce concept- and algorithmic-based spreadsheet management as an effective tool in end-user computing. Proceedings of the EuSpRIG 2016 Conference “Spreadsheet Risk Management” ISBN : 978-1-905404-53-7 Copyright © 2016, EuSpRIG European Spreadsheet Risks Interest Group (www.eusprig.org ) & the Author(s)

2 PROBLEMS TO DEAL WITH We are faced with a high number of problems in end-user-teaching. (1) As mentioned in the Introduction, Panko (2013), based on his research on cognitive science, claimed that most spreadsheet errors are due to ATM thinking. Consequently, we have to develop end- users’ AUM thinking to reduce spreadsheet errors. (2) Panko & Port (2013) have also claimed that “[end-user computing] … seems to be invisible to the central corporate IT group, to general corporate management, and to information systems (IS) researchers.” (Panko & Port, 2013; Burnett, 2009). (3) “The public image of computer science does not reflect its true nature. The general public and especially high school students identify computer science with a computer driving license. They think that studying computer science is not a challenge, and that anybody can learn it. Computer science is not considered a scientific discipline but a collection of computer skills.” (Hromkovic, 2009). These misleading opinions are openly expressed by Gove (2012) and Bell & Newton (2013). “…children bored out of their minds being taught how to use Word and Excel by bored teachers…” (Gove, 2012). “…a collection of low-level routine knowledge such as how to format pages in a word processor, or how to make tables in HTML.” (Bell & Newton, 2013). The following three problems are straightforward conse

This content is AI-processed based on ArXiv data.