Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2016 August 24
| Computing desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 23 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | Current desk > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
August 24
editWindows 7 - restore "My Documents" shortcut
editI've accidentally deleted the shortcut to "My Documents" from the Libraries > Documents folder (as displayed in Windows Explorer). Is there any way of restoring it? I can create a new shortcut in "Public Documents", but I really want to get back the shortcut that was in the top-level Documents folder. Tevildo (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Tevildo: Do you see the shortcut in your Recycle Bin? If so, try right-click on that and Restore. This is per Windows 10 but 7 should be close. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- If gone from recycle bin: Right-click Libraries and click "Restore default libraries", or right-click Libraries and select New Library, then edit properties and include folder in there. Then rename New Library. Sandman1142 (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sandman1142 - that fixed it, thanks. (Specifically, editing the properties of the Documents library, if anyone else has this issue). Tevildo (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Teaching computer science: topics or projects?
editHow does a course organization change educational outcome? Is it better to organize it around topics (architecture, compilers, algorithms) or around projects (implement this or that, solve this problem). Would it produce different outcomes? Is one form or the other overrepresented in good colleges? --Hofhof (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- To help us better answer your query, can you explain whether you are a (current- or prospective-) student of computer science, or if you are a (current- or prospective-) teacher of computer science, or a member of some other audience? Nimur (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am on the learning part. Hofhof (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- If one was better than the other, it would be the only option to use as universities are very competitive with one another. The reality is that project-based and theory-based teaching both work well in some cases and not so well in others. The amount I allocate to lecture, projects, written homework, and tests is based on what I believe each course requires. There is no concept that projects are always better or lecture is always better. 209.149.113.4 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wouldn't pretty much all undergraduate university courses include a lecture component and a prac component? I don't think there's anything about "computer science" which would make it different in this regard than just about any other field of study. Vespine (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Some are pure lecture - no practical at all. Mainly, liberal arts doesn't need anything practical, but they will often wedge in something like a silly campus survey in a sociology class. Some are pure practical - no lecture. That is often in engineering. You go in and work on a project. Working on the project is the "lecture." There is a somewhat hidden side to all of it as well. Grades need some foundation. So, professors use homework, tests, and projects to create support for grades. They don't really want to grade homework, tests, and projects, but it is helpful to have an obvious grading rubric to show the students. Therefore, if a class could be pure lecture with nothing except an end-of-term final, there will likely still be homework, tests, and projects throughout the semester for grading purposes, not for teaching purposes. 209.149.113.4 (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about a single "unit", there might be a single engineering "unit" that is "practical" only, but i doubt there is a single person on the planet who has a (legitimate) engineering degree without having sat through a single lecture. Similarly no one would have a degree in Literature only attending lectures, there would be practical research and writing components to other lib arts degrees too. Vespine (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Some are pure lecture - no practical at all. Mainly, liberal arts doesn't need anything practical, but they will often wedge in something like a silly campus survey in a sociology class. Some are pure practical - no lecture. That is often in engineering. You go in and work on a project. Working on the project is the "lecture." There is a somewhat hidden side to all of it as well. Grades need some foundation. So, professors use homework, tests, and projects to create support for grades. They don't really want to grade homework, tests, and projects, but it is helpful to have an obvious grading rubric to show the students. Therefore, if a class could be pure lecture with nothing except an end-of-term final, there will likely still be homework, tests, and projects throughout the semester for grading purposes, not for teaching purposes. 209.149.113.4 (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- I understand. It isn't like trying to wrap up 2,500 years of pedagogy in a single response is going to difficult at all. 209.149.113.4 (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Here [1] is a nice research paper discussing project-based based and problem-based learning. Here [2] is the google scholar search I used to find it. Also note that it is completely possible to organize a course around both projects and topics. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)