3. Gedenryd, H. How designers work—Making sense
of authentic cognitive activities. Ph.D. thesis. Lund
4. Goldweber, M. et al. Enhancing the social issues
components in our computing curriculum: Computing
for the social good. In Proceedings of the 2010 I TiCSE
Working Group Reports. ACM, New York, N Y, 2010,
117–133, ISBN 978-1-4503-0677-5.
5. Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. Competing paradigms
in qualitative research. Handbook of Qualitative
Research. N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, Eds. Sage
Publications, London, U. K., 1994, 105–117.
6. Harrison, A., Tatar, D. and Sengers, P. The three
paradigms of HCI. In Proceedings of alt.chi. ACM
7. Kramer, A.D.I., Guillory, J.E. and Hancock, J. T.
Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional
contagion through social networks. In Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 111, 24 (June 17,
2014), 8788–8790, ISSN 0027-8424.
8. Kuhn, T.S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
2nd Edition. University of Chicago Press, 1970, ISBN
9. Lawson, B. How Designers Think. Routledge, 2005.
10. Light, A. et al. Special topic: Taking action in a
changing world. Interactions 25, 1 (Dec. 2017), 34–45,
11. Lister, R. Toward a developmental epistemology of
computer programming. In Proceedings of the 11th
Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing
Education (Münster, Germany, 2016), DOI:
12. Luckner, N. and Purgathofer, P. Exploring the use of
peer review in large university courses. IxD&A 25
13. Nissenbaum, H. How computer systems embody
values. Computer 34, 3 (2001), 120–119, DOI
14. Pflüger, J. Konversation, manipulation, delegation:
Zur ideengeschichte der interaktivität. Geschichten
der Informatik. H. D. Hellige, Ed. Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg, 2004; https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
15. Pflüger, J. Writing, building, growing: Leitvorstellungen
der Programmiergeschichte. Geschichten der
Informatik. H. D. Hellige, Ed. Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg, 2004; https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
16. Rittel, H. W.J. and Webber, M. M. Dilemmas in a general
theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4, 2 (1973),
155–169, DOI: 10.1007/BF01405730.
17. Schön, D.A. The Reflective Practitioner: How
Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books, New
18. Selvin, S. A problem in probability (letter to the editor).
American Statistician 29, 1 (1975), 67–71.
19. Skirpan, M. et al. Ethics education in context: A case
study of novel ethics activities for the CS classroom.
In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium
on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY,
2018, 940–945, DOI: 10.1145/3159450.3159573.
20. Snyder, L. et al. The first five computer science
principles pilots: Summary and comparisons. ACM
Inroads 3, 2 (2012).
21. Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. and Macnaghten, P. Developing
a framework for responsible innovation. Research
Policy 42, 9 (Nov. 2013), 1568–1580, DOI 10.1016/j.
22. Tucker, A.B. Ed. Computing curricula 1991.
Commun. ACM 34, 6 (June 1991), 68–84; DOI
23. Willingham, D. Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to
teach. American Federation of Teachers 31 (2007),
24. Wing, J. M. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 49,
3 (Mar. 2006), 33–35, DOI 10.1145/1118178.1118215.
Christopher Frauenberger ( christopher.frauenberger@
tuwien.ac.at) is a senior researcher and principle
investigator of Social Plays Technologies at TU Wein,
Peter Purgathofer ( email@example.com)
is an associate professor in the Institute of Visual
Computing and Human Centered Technology at TU Wein,
Copyright held by authors/owners.
Publication rights licensed to ACM. $15.00.
with more reflection, the value became more apparent and with the final
challenge I really realized what I can
take away from it—much more than I
thought. (Final reflections, translated)
Another goal of the course was to
help students in understanding the
rationale for our curriculum. Ways of
Thinking in Informatics is part of an
introductory/orientation phase of the
program. By offering apriori meaning for many of the courses they visit
later, we supply an opportunity to see
purpose in the curriculum.
We ran this course in its entirety
for the first time during winter semester 2017. With over 800 registered
students, it has been a tremendous
challenge, not only to design the content and the pedagogical approach,
but also to find innovative solutions
to the logistics of teaching such large
numbers of students. We can confidently say this experiment has been
a success as evidenced by the largely
positive feedback we received from
students. What the longer-term impact is—that is, the ways in which we
enabled students to think differently
about what they will learn in the remainder of their studies—remains
to be seen, but we are inspired by
the students’ engagement with this
course, and are hopeful that it has
created a new quality of foundations
to their studies.
As computer scientists and educators, we also are humbled to be given
the opportunity to plant this seed in
so many students at a crucial juncture
of their development—at the start of
their studies. While the task to teach
a new introductory course in informatics to hundreds of students hardly
ever draws many volunteers among a
faculty, our experience was that it results in no small gratification to have
made a, maybe small, but significant
difference in shaping what so many
future technologists see as their role
in the world.
We invite everyone to leave inline comments on any
part of the full syllabus at http://wot.pubpub.org
1. Biggs, J. Enhancing teaching through constructive
alignment. Higher Education 32, 3 (1996), 347–364.
2. Buxton, B. Sketching User Experiences: Getting the
Design Right and the Right Design. Morgan Kaufmann,
2007, ISBN 978-0123740373.
We believe that
what you learn
is to a great extent
the diverse and
you are enabled
to think about
a subject matter.