Online Homework, an Epidemic

Has our college education system become over dependent on online teaching tools? Are these tools being used properly, as a way to aid students, or are they being used in a way to lessen the professor’s work load? Hell, are these online teaching tools even as effective as they could be? All of these are questions that I’ve had running through my mind as I’ve gone through my college experience, but this year it’s gone a step too far,

I frequently help my girlfriend with her chemistry homework, I read about the topics, explain them to her the best I can, and help her get through it. Why do I do this? Obviously because I love her, but even more so because the class feels more self-taught than professor instructed.

Emily’s professor for entry level college chemistry uses a tool called Aleks. In the beginning I thought it was great. I thought it was the best attempt at online homework that I had ever seen; while I still do think that it is really good, it is not being used properly by her teacher. The homework that she does and what she learned in class almost never correlate, as in: the things she is expected to be able to do online are barely (if not never) lectured on by her professor.

I see several different possibilities for why it’s this way. 1) The professor is expecting the knowledge learned on Aleks as a prerequisite for what he will be teaching in class. 2) The professor is unaware of what things are being taught/reinforced on Aleks. 3) The lectures on less throughout the week and expects the students to make up the difference online on their time.

Clearly option three is by far the worst, and the least likely, but after 10+ hours of working on chemistry homework assigned on Thursday, due Sunday, it starts to feel that the professor could have spent a bit more time on the topics. Mind you, these 10+ hours are filled with googling, researching and pure trial and error attempting to figure out the solution to problems.

What’s most frustrating about the whole situation is that the tool is really quite strong. It is broken up into several categories of essential knowledge for the course, and then has things that are required before diving into the essential knowledge. Every few weeks the student takes an assessment that judges their knowledge of the math and basic scientific principles required to complete the next few weeks of assignments. If the student has substandard skills in any of the required areas, they are required to do lessons in those skills before moving forward.

In each lesson, you are asked a question, and expected to get it right 3 times before moving on. You may answer the question, or you may hit explain, and it gives a textbook quality explanation of what you are working on, while working through the problem you were just given. Getting the question wrong requires you to get it right one extra time (up to a total of 4) and getting it right the required number of times moves you forward.

I’ve exceeded my 500 word limit, so this discussion will continue tomorrow with how this brilliant and strong learning aid isn’t being used to its fullest capacity. Tomorrow, or the next day (depending on tomorrow’s length) I will also be discussing some things that I think could be added to the tool to make it even stronger.

As always, thanks for reading, check out some of our other posts!

Austin

Objective-C is a Beautiful Language

So, the truth comes out: I asked Matt to write his post on the history of Objective-C for me. Here’s why:

Initially I wanted to write a post on how Steve Jobs did not let anything he touched come out ugly, and Objective-C was no exception. However, Matt informed me that Jobs really did not have that much to do with the development of Objective-C, so now I just have to go off of how pretty of a language it is.

Matt did a great job explaining the fundamentals of object oriented programming, for those of you who don’t know, however, there are many different languages that accomplish object oriented programming. Objective-C, C++ and C# are all based off the libraries of C, but then there’s more as well, one of which is called Java (which is based off C, but written with complete cross platform capabilities in mind.)

Now, over the course of this experience with Matt, I’ve become pretty adept in Objective-C, and through classes and other reading, I’ve become well versed in C++ as well. Let me show you two lines of code that mean the exact same thing, in the different languages.

double volume = calculateVolumeOfCylinder(23, 4);

double volume = [self calculateVolumeOfCylinderWithHeight:23 andRadius:4];

Line 1 is written in C++, and line 2 is written in Objective-C. Both lines start out the same, declaring a variable of data type double, the equal sign signifies that we will be placing the value of the second expression into the first, and here’s where things get different. Looking at the C++ code, could you tell me off the bat what is going on? Sure, you could assume that since the function is called calculateVolume that the numbers will be used to calculate the volume of a cylinder, but what belongs to what? Hopping down to the Objective-C code, it is easy to tell exactly what the function will be doing, and what numbers will be used where! Sure, the code is a bit lengthier, but it is written in a way that we can read and understand better.

This is why I call Objective-C such a pretty language. All the functions, everything is written in a way that can easily be compared to English. This makes it quick and easy to debug, as long as you stick to the convention when you write your own classes and functions. The same cannot be said about C++, when I look at a file of C++ code, all I see is an abundance of parenthesis and numbers without context.

If you made it this far, I’m impressed. I threw quite a bit of techno mumbo jumbo at you. To summarize, I’m happy to be working with a language that has as many strengths as Objective-C does. While it may not be cross platform, I feel like it has been a great step into programming, as the logic and code match up and are easy to follow.

Thanks for reading,

Austin

Motivation

Yesterday Matt wrote an excellent post on motivation, and what keeps him going in this endeavor through all the ups and downs. Today, I decided I wanted to copy his idea and do the same, as I thought it was excellent.

Motivation is incredibly important in our situation. It’s easy to lose it, to lose sight of what we are doing and just kind of give up. But we went into this knowing that it wasn't going to be easy. Our supporters, are friends, those closest to us all know that this is difficult as well, and they have gone into this with just as much faith and motivation as we have. So a big shout out to them as well.

I turned 21 yesterday. My dream has always been to own a company that can support me before I graduate college, and with every ticking day, with every passing year, I come closer to that deadline. This, however, is not enough to keep me going; in fact, it can be quite the opposite, it can be very daunting.

When I get down and find myself in a rut, what pulls me out of it are the games I love. Old games like The Witcher series, new games like Hero Siege and Reaper – Tale of a Pale Swordsman. These are fantastic games, they are games that were independently developed. They are games that come from people that had a dream, and saw that dream come true right in front of their eyes.

I think about the audiences I can reach with games, I think about the stories that I want to tell, the visions I have. These are the things that get me going when I find myself down.

But most of all, the continued support of our small fan base is really what keeps me going. Especially when we see that small group grow little by little. We want to keep open lines of communication between us and our fans, so please leave a comment if you see something you like, or have a suggestion for us. One person, one comment, could change the amount of effort we put into a project in the day.

That's all for now,

Austin

Digital Pacification: The Repercussions

Well, I know it’s a bit late coming, but here is Part Three, the final part, of my series on Digital Pacification.

We’ve discussed what Digital Pacification is, we’ve looked at the cause and effect and now we need to look at what the possible repercussions are for us as developers.

When we develop, we look to many sources to come up with our inspiration. One of the biggest places we search for inspiration is the demographic we will be developing for. While I may be an idealist, somebody who wants to develop for a ‘gamer’ demographic, it’s hard to ignore the more casual demographic; especially as we are getting our feet off the ground.

As time goes on, that demographic will be the kids that we’re seeing at restaurants these days. The kids that aren’t growing up with binkies, but digital binkies. I feel that, because of that, we will be seeing less and less of the games that made my generation so great.

Let’s take a second to talk about Pokémon. Pokémon was the defining game of my generation to me, it’s the game that has sent me on the path that I have chosen. It allowed me as a kid an outlet, as well as an ability to relate to all the other kids playing the game. However, the game required focus. It required reading, thinking and puzzle solving, to be short: it required an attention span!

One of the things that I think will be missing from the upcoming generation is just that, an attention span. If sitting through dinner isn’t enforced or encouraged, how can we expect the upcoming generation to pay attention to any games more complicated than Candy Crush? Furthermore, how can we expect them to sit through a school class? (Though this is a topic for another time.)

To wrap up this series, let me ask a series question. What games did you play growing up? How do they differ from those that kids are growing up with today?

The next few years present a whole series of new challenges as game developers. We (I) may have to stray from my initial dream in order to get off the ground. Hopefully by the time we get off the ground, it won’t be too late to create the games that I want to create. Those that have an impact on another’s life.

Thanks for reading! Check out Part 1 and Part 2 here.

Austin

Digital Pacification: The Effects

It’s no secret that children learn the majority of their life skills by example. They learn to speak by hearing their parents speak, and as they age they continue to learn by example: from their parents, from their peers, from their teachers, anybody and everybody has an influence on the way that they act. My question is, what happens if their most prominent social role model is not a physical one, but one put in front of them, a digital one.

That question is asked in a myriad of ways: do violent video games cause children to be violent? And it’s been asked in different ways throughout the generations, from banned books to deeming Rock and Roll the Devil’s music. Authority figures, much like our immune systems, see something new and consider it a threat, they’ll do everything in their power to stomp out the threat. However, what happens if the potential threat isn’t so obvious?

If children learn by example, is it going too far to say that things like: table manners, polite social skills, even how to act in public is learned in the beginning by watching those around them at the table? I would postulate that by putting children in front of a screen at a restaurant, we inhibit their ability to learn many of the social skills we take for granted on a daily basis. What if the simple act of handing a kid an iPad at the dinner table is just as harmful as buying a 13 year old a Call of Duty game? Would you hand them the iPad?

I ask these questions not to criticize, but to understand. When I was a kid, dinner was the most important part of the day, for many reasons. Whether my family went out, or we sat down at the table together, we were together. We discussed our days, and learned something new about manners, about speaking to one another, about respecting other’s opinions and ideas, about creating meaningful conversation. Many of these skills, to me, seem like they cannot be taught conventionally, but rather are learned symbiotically with those around you.

Let me hear what you have to say. Your voice is just as important as mine, and I want to understand. I don’t write to criticize, I write to question and to understand. Critical thought and critical discussion are skills I learned at the table, I want to put them to use here.

To summarize, I postulate that children put in front of digital devices at dinner tables are prone to slower development of many social skills that we regularly take for granted. I argue that we take these skills for granted because we learned them without knowing that we did.

Again, thank you for reading, please leave some comments below. To be continued next Monday! If you haven't already, check out Part 1 of this series!

Austin