Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Request for Comment: Replace edX Calculus sequence with MIT OCW #838

Closed
dougc85 opened this issue Dec 18, 2020 · 10 comments
Closed

Request for Comment: Replace edX Calculus sequence with MIT OCW #838

dougc85 opened this issue Dec 18, 2020 · 10 comments

Comments

@dougc85
Copy link

dougc85 commented Dec 18, 2020

Background:

I'm currently finishing up MIT's Calculus 1B course on edX and I've found it not to be particularly well set up to teach students calculus. It's unclear to me who the intended audience is for the course, since it doesn't seem at all to be geared toward students new to calculus; many of the video lectures are short and lack context for the discussion of each new concept. The video lectures are akin to someone slowly reading out of a textbook, and little effort is made to anticipate issues students might have and to provide elaboration and encourage understanding.

Oddly enough, another course from MIT (with some of the same content) does significantly more to pedagogically engage with students, is less discouraging for newcomers to calculus, and is, I think, better in terms of instruction.

Advantages of OCW over edX:

1. EdX cuts many of the recitation videos, which were among the most helpful bits of the OCW course. The two (student?) instructors take time to walk the viewer through each step of a problem, and they help to fill in any gaps you may have had after watching just the lectures.


2. EdX cuts much of the lecture content of OCW and replaces it with their own shorter lectures. I found the OCW lectures more helpful to a student like me who had not studied calculus before. The edX lectures move quicker and explain less. Additionally, the OCW lectures are videos of actual classes, so they are occasionally punctuated by students asking for clarifications about things that I myself wished I could ask about.


3. OCW has a massive problem bank with answers to all of the hundreds of problems offered there. OCW assigns selective problems for you to work on, but if you need more practice, the extra problems are there for you. No such extra practice exists in the edX class.


4. OCW provides free exams with solutions; edX's exams are behind a paywall

5. OCW is available year-round, while edX is only available in cohorts. You cannot, for example, start the course sequence at any time; you must wait for it to open. Right now, for example, you cannot start Calculus 1A and there is no date set for when it will be available.

Advantages of edX over OCW:

1. edX focuses on more challenging problems.

Assuming a student is prepared for such problems, they will learn more by completing them. To give an example of how difficult the problems are, though, in my Calculus 1A session, there were strings of comments about how difficult a particular unit was, and they were being posted by commenters who clearly already knew calculus (and much more) quite well, by their own admission. If even these commenters were finding trouble with a whole unit's worth of problems, I was left wondering who the course was designed for? It seems not to have been designed for someone learning the material for the first time.

2. edX focuses more heavily on applications of calculus to other fields of study. Again, if prepared for the content, students will learn more about how calculus is used in the real world. Unfortunately, I do not believe edX adequately prepares learners to engage with its physics/probability content.

3. edX has a comments section which is frequented by the instructors. This definitely is, without qualification, an advantage that edX has. The instructors are very knowledgeable, kind, and helpful. That said, the tutors and other students on the OSSU Discord also seem to have these same qualities and would perhaps provide a suitable substitute for this feature.

Comments made by other students on edX

Here is a selection of comments from the end of unit 3 of the current session of Calculus 1B; many students here were leaving comments similar to my sentiments above. Admittedly, some other students also commented on how much they loved the course, but to my eyes these comments were limited to learners who were returning to math after some absence and trying to brush up their skills, not posted so much by students actually learning the material.

"Original MITOCW lectures have saved me. Edx materials are well constructed, but they are like patchwork, and I lost coherency. Edx way must be good for learners having knowledge, they can get information efficiently, but for me, it did not work. Then I found original lectures, and wow! Original lectures are theoretical and consistent, telling me where I am. Important thing is, original lectures have contexts! Contexts are very important for me to construct things. Only essence like edx is not enough."

"the gap between the exercises (which are already harder than what you would see in a typical calculus course) and the problem sets is so large as to be demoralizing even for a student with good math skills and a strong work ethic like myself. Maybe if I were at university taking physics and other technical courses in conjunction with this it would be a different story. I don't know."

"I'm doing fine at the regular class exercises, but when it comes to the Problem Sets, I've been consistently whacked. I think I read somewhere that people usually study from 5 to 10 hours a week for MITx Calculus programs, but for this last Problem Set I've been doing at least 3 hours a day. I almost gave up the course while doing this Problem Set 3A!"

"Try watching the lectures only in the OpenCourseware series, then memorize the basic concepts so they can be recalled immediately. At the end of the day I listen to these lectures only, they are more concise and accessible in OpenCourseware."

"I agree with watching the OCW videos that are very sequential."

Proposal:

For OSSU's calculus requirement, replace the edX Calculus sequence with MIT's OCW
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-01sc-single-variable-calculus-fall-2010/

@dougc85 dougc85 changed the title equest for Comment: Replace edX Calculus sequence with MIT OCW Request for Comment: Replace edX Calculus sequence with MIT OCW Dec 18, 2020
@bradleygrant
Copy link
Member

bradleygrant commented Dec 27, 2020

No objections.

Aside: In my own studies when an EdX course with ~10 minute videos coexists with an OCW course with full lectures, I take both at the same time. I watch the lectures on OCW, take notes on the lecture, and treat the EdX videos as a single-topic review. Therefore, if someone wanted to use only one resource or the other, I would recommend OCW. EdX's value is in the community connection and the hard deadlines which help drive progress through the material, and these are not trivial: I suspect they improve completion rates, which is important especially early in the program.

@Alaharon123
Copy link
Contributor

Something to note is that the edX/OLL version of this course has an optional section on limits, unlike the OCW version. Additionally, limits are not covered in the Khan Academy high school math sequence that OSSU currently recommends nor is it covered in ASU's precalculus course that is sometimes recommended on the Discord. So if the switch is made, which does sound like a good idea for all the reasons mentioned, there'd probably need to be a resource on limits added such as https://www.khanacademy.org/math/ap-calculus-ab/ab-limits-new/

@spamegg1
Copy link
Contributor

spamegg1 commented Jan 18, 2021

I am taking Calculus 1A (to help out a student) on edX and I found it to be quite excellent.
Can't say anything about 1B or 1C yet.
The shorter videos are very good for online interactive pedagogy.
A lecture or recitation-length example is taken up and broken into 10+ interactive pieces of quizzes.
Each quiz holds you by the hand and carefully walks you through the understanding in very small steps.
A LOT OF EFFORT is made to anticipate what difficulties a student might face.
Often the student is led to intuitively figure out a difficulty (with non-penalizing multiple choice questions),
which is then immediately explained by a short video.
The discussion sections at the bottom of each page are quite active with lots of good questions and answers.
Also the recitation videos are present (usually 8-10 min).

Granted, this style of learning and pedagogy is sure to frustrate some people.
I can see that in the discussion sections. Similar sentiments.
Although a lot of learners seem to be loving it.
I am guessing @dougc85 is one of those people whose natural learning style does not mesh very well with this.
There are students who cannot get through the longer lecture videos without falling asleep.
Personally I taught HUNDREDS of such students!
Some would never show up to lectures at all, only to recitations.

So... I found Calculus 1A to be quite the opposite of @dougc85 's experience.
To me it seems like they took a good quality lecture+recitation combo,
and figured out how to translate it to online interactive learning really well.

Personally I don't care either way...
in fact I would prefer OCW because I don't want to deal with stupid "honor codes".
But I have to ask @dougc85 :
why the replacement?
why does it have to be either/or?
Why either OCW or edX?

Can't we offer both, and say "take either according to your learning style/preference"?
And also "take OCW if edX is currently not active".
And also "here is OCW problem bank you might like."
I certainly do not want to rob students who learn better with shorter videos and online interactive style.

I would also like to ask @dougc85 : did you take Calculus 1A?
You say "... for someone like me who didn't learn calculus before"
Did you jump straight to Calculus 1B?
It's quite possible that this is unintended, and MIT prepared the courses to have a certain difficulty curve,
and 1A prepares you to get ready for the higher difficulty later.
I mean, it IS MIT after all.
You wrote "It's unclear to me who the intended audience is for the course, since it doesn't seem at all to be geared toward students new to calculus".
I'm guessing the intended audience is those who finished Calculus 1A.

@dougc85
Copy link
Author

dougc85 commented Jan 19, 2021

@spamegg1

To a certain extent, I think we're just going to disagree about this, but let me try to address some of your points.

To start, yes I did take Calculus 1A, on differentiation. I think it would be a little ridiculous of me to suggest a replacement of a math curriculum I didn't take.

As I've studied, I've watched all the OCW lectures and recitations and completed all the assigned problem sets. I've also done all of the EdX material, and I've taken all the tests on Khan Academy as extra practice. I actually think Sal, on Khan Academy, is the best teacher of all the above material, in terms of thoroughly explaining concepts, but the practice problems on KA are much, much easier than the MIT material, so I can see why the MIT courses would be preferred by OSSU.

I think the EdX 1A course starts very much as you describe, actually. Not all of the content is as I described above. The first two units were generally fairly thorough, and I didn't have much problem with them.

As the course progresses, though, I think this becomes less and less the case. I disagree, in particular, with your assertion that "A LOT OF EFFORT is made to anticipate what difficulties a student might face.". On the contrary, I think little to no effort has been made in this regard. The more difficult problems in the HW (starting, I think in unit 3...maybe 4) are chained together such that if you can't figure out the first part, you really can't do a whole sequence of problems. Further, the worked solutions were not enough for me to be able to understand what even was being done to solve the problem.

This issue only magnifies as the course progresses and then is amplified further in 1B. There is significantly less video content in the Integration section of the course (1B), and what there is, as I stated above, is about as dry as a read textbook and, again, made with seemingly little effort to anticipate problems students might face.

How far are you in the material, @spamegg1 ? And have you done all of the problems? I wonder if you've reached the later sections I'm talking about.

I suppose it's also possible that the course has been modified since I took it; I know they regularly ask for student feedback to improve their courses. It could be the case that we're talking past each other, having each looked at a different version of the course.

As to some of your points:

-I actually agree with your suggestion that both courses be made known to learners. I have many criticisms of the EdX course, but I am glad I went through it alongside OCW, as I think I have a firmer grasp of the material for it.

-EdX includes about 1/3 or fewer of OCW's recitation videos; definitely not all

-I don't agree with your framing of my argument as 'long lectures fit my learning style better than short content'. As I said above, I actually think the Khan Academy videos do the best job of actually TEACHING (that is to say anticipating students' issues, explaining why we do this or that step of a problem, explaining the bigger picture of how things fit together) and those are short videos.

-I maintain that students will be more likely to learn and finish calculus if they primarily follow OCW, in preference to EdX

@spamegg1
Copy link
Contributor

spamegg1 commented Jan 19, 2021

@dougc85 Ah OK then.

I am close to finishing Calculus 1A and I do all of the problems.

Sorry if it came off as reframing your argument. I was simply guessing.
Sometimes I act like I can read people's mind :D I gotta stop doing that.
Because I taught so many students, I came across these learning-style related issues a lot.
My apologies.

I still maintain that they go to great lengths to take care of potential issues students might face.
You are correct that we are just going to disagree.
I still believe this is somehow related to learning styles... but never mind. I'm just wrong.

It's a bit strange that you took Calculus 1A and you were mostly OK with it,
but the quality really started to drop in Calculus 1B,
and you suggest we replace the whole sequence.
Would it not be more natural to suggest replacing just Calculus 1B?
I wish you mentioned your Calculus 1A experience in your original post.

Can there be such a big difference in quality between 1A and 1B? It's hard to believe.
Do you think it's going to get even worse in 1C?
Do you think that, if you had first taken OCW version of Calculus 1B, you would have succeeded much more easily?
There IS a steep difficulty curve that applies to everyone.
Integration is a lot harder than differentiation.
Maybe the material took a while to really sink in?
Your second pass through the material with OCW did it?

I can understand the frustration of not getting the first part of a chain of exercises.
However for a lot of people who do get the first part, this works out really great.
So it's a bit of a pedagogical risk they are taking.
You'll see this a lot in other MIT courses too, like MIT6.00.1x Intro CS course we have.
When it works, it works great; when it doesn't work it fails catastrophically.
Many students "complain" that 1A is too easy. They are like "is this really MIT?"
This is a great complaint to have! It means the approach is successful.

We get a lot of issues opened by learners who want to replace one thing for another.
I'm guessing that if your suggestion goes through, a few months later someone else will open an issue
"bring back edX Calculus".
They will probably say something like "OCW long lectures are really boring I can't get through them"

Anyway, this is a request for comment, and I commented.
I have no problem with the OCW versions. They are great.
I still hope you adjust your suggestion to include edX versions. (You can edit your original post)

@bradleygrant
Copy link
Member

My recommendation is that we include both course sources as top-level options (i.e. not one main suggestion and one alternate suggestion).

@dougc85
Copy link
Author

dougc85 commented Jan 19, 2021

@spamegg1
You raise a good question regarding why we should replace the whole sequence. I have two different responses to that.

-The simplest answer is just that the courses are structured differently. EdX is three separate calculus courses (1A, 1B, 1C) whereas OCW is just one long calculus course covering all of the same material. I think it would be a bit strange and overly complicated to suggest jumping from the end of 1A to week 5.5 (or whatever) of OCW.

-The other answer is that, while I think 1B is less helpful to inexperienced students than 1A, I don't think either does as good a job as OCW, so I would still recommend replacing the whole thing.

I'm not sure I would feel as strongly critical of EdX if I hadn't been doing the two courses simultaneously, but since I did, I found myself often comparing them in my mind.

In the end, my recommendation remains the same. I think there would be more clarity to just having a single recommended course, which I think should be OCW. I don't know if there's space on the front page for something like "go here for extra practice". If there is, I'd support adding EdX to a section such as that, and Khan Academy, for that matter, which I think also provides valuable instruction.

Whatever the OSSU community decides to do, I'll respect the decision. There's good content to be found in all of these courses, and some of y'all (@spamegg1, @bradleygrant) obviously have a lot more mathematics experience than me. That said, my experience as a learner has been that OCW has been head and shoulders above EdX in terms of clarity and thoroughness of explanations.

I don't know what more I can add, since I think I'm just repeating myself at this point. Thanks for the good discussion.

@spamegg1
Copy link
Contributor

spamegg1 commented Mar 14, 2021

OK, just finished MIT Calculus 2 (Integration) on edX.
Once again great course. Very well fitted for online learning, easy small steps.
I found it to be even clearer and easier to understand than Calculus 1.
(Calculus 1, especially the Approximations chapter, was a bit cryptic and hard to follow. It was also too long.
They are basically trying to teach you power series, without teaching you power series...
That's just MIT being MIT I guess.)
The steps and videos were much easier to follow and connect.
There were also a lot of recitation style videos, with even more frequency than Calculus 1.

As for the "more focus on applications":
It's natural for Calculus, especially integration, to focus a lot on applications. That's what Calculus is for! It was invented by Newton, a physicist! (Yeah I know about the whole Leibniz vs Newton thing.) Calculus has always been for physicists and engineers to use in real world applications, not for computer scientists. It's a good thing for a Calculus course to spend MORE time on applications, not less.

However I'm somewhat on your side. In the past I argued for removing Calculus from the curriculum. (I don't care either way anymore.)

@dougc85
Copy link
Author

dougc85 commented Mar 15, 2021

Well, I did list 'more focus on applications' as an advantage edx has over ocw, so we agree there.

@waciumawanjohi
Copy link
Member

This RFC has not garnered comments in many months, it is time to resolve it!

Findings:

  • There has been a healthy discussion about the merits of the approaches of the edx course and the OCW course. In the interim, two additional issues have been opened that point out that edX restricts access to the calculus course after the audit period. Both of these issues recommended using the MIT Open Learning Library (OLL) version. OLL is a relatively new option from MIT.
  • Participants in this discussion have generally agreed with the idea of making students aware of the alternative MIT course.
  • There has not been consensus on whether the single OCW course or the 3 individual courses are a better pedagogical fit.

Conclusion:
Availability trumps most any other concern; an excellent product that students cannot access is a poor match for OSSU. As a result, OSSU will no longer recommend the edX version of the course. The two remaining options (OLL and OCW) will both be highlighted to students. Given the subsequent issues recommending use of OLL, that will be listed as the primary, while OCW will be listed as the alternative.

JulianSpring added a commit to JulianSpring/computer-science that referenced this issue May 16, 2024
* Add security courses on a provisional basis.

See ossu#639

* Include link to HtDP book and problem sets

* Update readings.md

* Added link to HW for Intro to Parallel Programming

Intro to Parallel Programming's grader is broken, it's impossible to submit programming assignments. It's also impossible to compile and run the code on your PC, unless you own an nVidia GPU. Thankfully some nice folks on Github created a Google Research Colab page where you can compile and run your homeworks (unfortunately the Final Exam is not available and probably never will be). I understand this uses Google's GPU sharing.

* Remove dead link

* Simplify table of contents

* Fix spelling mistake

* Links to prerequisites courses added

* Move courses to advanced

Change the Haskell course suggestion. A big thank you to @aryzach for prompting the switch.
Move courses to advanced programming. See Issue.
Closes ossu#669

* Move curricular guidelines out of extras.

* Clarify that CS2013 is the curricular guidance for OSSU

Resolves ossu#679

* Add The Missing Semester

Resolves ossu#678

* Replaced Hack the Kernel with OSTEP

Implementing the proposal from issue 690: ossu#690

* Add note to Changelog that curriculum is > v8 and < v9.

Resolves ossu#674

* Replace LAFF with MIT's OCW Scholar Linear Algebra

Resolves ossu#693

* Reflect addition of new Intro section.

* Make note more prominent

* updated Software Engineering prereqs and added relevant FAQ

* Update README.md

* Update link to curricular guidelines

* Remove link to dead domain

* Update link for Compiler Construction

* Change Programming Languages Part A Prereq

Resolves 716

* How to audit the intro to programming courses

Resolves ossu#724

* Updated PROJECTS.md

Finished Specialization, using its Capstone as Final Project

* Update README.md

* Update OS Course Version

Resolves ossu#707

* Update README.md

* Update README.md

Removed LAFF, changed Parallel Programming

* Update courses.md

Moved Intro to Parallel Programming to Extras

* Update readings.md

Removed Sheldon Axler's "Linear Algebra Done Right (FREE)" because it is no longer free after the end of July 2020. It was made free temporarily due to COVID-19.

* Python for Everyone > Python for Everybody

The course, book and website all say everybody instead of everyone. Just a little nit I noticed.

* Switch Python for Everybody link

Students regularly ask in Gitter how to audit Python for Everybody (Py4E). The instructor of Py4E has created a free version on a standalone site. This has been the alternate link. Instead this should be the main link.

* Replace previous Probability course

Added a new probability course called Stat110 from Harvard, and moved the previous one to the extra courses page.

* Update README.md

* Add new question to FAQ

Tighten language on some FAQ answers

* Rearrange order of FAQ questions

* Simplify Intro to Programming

Resolves ossu#763

* Raise duration estimate to match Coursera's estimate

* Course listing should match course title

* Update .gitignore

* Use Stanford Database courses

Stanford Database courses had long been part of the OSSU curriculum. When Stanford pulled down their platform Lagunita, OSSU had to find a new offering. With the Stanford material back on edX, OSSU should return to this high quality offering.

Resolves ossu#718
Resolves ossu#709

* Change chat from Gitter to Discord

* Add 'Discussion' header to Core Math and Core Systems

* Re-add newsletter link

* Remove unnecessary coursework from Advanced Systems.

Resolves ossu#772

* Delete reference to cohorts repo.

Cohorts repo was closed after an RFC.
Resolves ossu#780

* Removed redundant note from Advanced Systems

The note was referring to Electricity & Magnetism classes, which were removed.

* Update HELP.md

A server admin will have to enable the discord widget in the settings for the discord server

* Update help.md

[#173862703]

Authored-by: Waciuma Wanjohi <[email protected]>

* Replaced FutureLearn pre-calculus with Khan Academy

- To be more consistent with our Khan Academy recommendation elsewhere in the curriculum
- also some students expressed confusion with the FutureLearn course

* Added link to Interactive Exercises from Kurose-Ross textbook website

* Update FAQ language and order

[#173862703]

Authored-by: Waciuma Wanjohi <[email protected]>

* Use Discord Widget

[#173862703]

Authored-by: Waciuma Wanjohi <[email protected]>

* Update math prereq columns

* Changed Py4E hours of effort to match OSSU expected weekly effort levels

* Removed errant submodule added on prior commit

* Prerequisite section mention of high school math links to FAQ

* Remove dead link.

Resolves ossu#795

* Move the Missing Semester later in curriculum

Resolves ossu#778

* Clarify that OSSU is not working in partnership with any org to offer degrees.

* Fixed Advanced Systems dead links

* Match recommended calc to course listed prereqs

https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-to-probability

'Familiarity with U.S. high school level algebra concepts; Single-variable calculus: familiarity with matrices, derivatives and integrals.'

* replace dead link

Fix for [computer-science/issues/825](ossu#825)

* Update Newsletter Address

* Add link to completion estimate chart

Discord user crokei26#1613 created an initial version of this great resource. A huge thanks to them!

* Removed Formal Concept Analysis (fixes ossu#818)

- fixes ossu#818
- removed `CUDA` and `GPU programming` from topics (left over from before)

* Direct Py4E students directly to the lessons

* Switch Math for CS from OCW to OLL

Implement ossu#832

* add two new books on systems

* Add section to FAQ about alts

* Sharpen FAQ answer language

* Remove direct link to issues

We often get issues opened that are empty, with no text or description of a problem. This may be because learners follow the link from the Community section, and post in order to interact. By removing the link (but keeping the link to the contributing instructions) we can hopefully direct new learners in how to interact productively.

* Move CS50 to Courses/Extras

Resolves ossu#833

* Remove prereq not mentioned by course creators

* Remove topic that is not covered in the section

* changed the discord invites 

Changed the 2 invite links (one inside the svg) to direct to the #welcome discord channel. Also changed some relevant language.

* Update Game Design specialization

Bump to new version

* Include edX financial aid information

* feat: Change order of database courses

* Update issue templates

* Changed link to Effective Thinking Through Mathematics course in extras (issue ossu#870) (ossu#871)

* Changed link to Effective Thinking Through Mathematics course in extras

* Delete .DS_Store

Co-authored-by: Jonathan Hustad <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: waciumawanjohi <[email protected]>

* updated Prolog link, added PDF version (fixes ossu#868) (ossu#873)

* updated Prolog link, added PDF version

* updated Prolog link, added PDF version

- removed `Text` column, added footnote instead

* updated Prolog link, added PDF version

- parentheses

* updated Prolog link, added PDF version

- added link to book source code

* Updated links to both HtC Simple and Complex Data

* Added alt link to ocw version of 6.002 in extra courses (ossu#885)

* added OCW alt link for 6.002 in extra courses

* fixed parenthesis

* Update books' editions

* Updated the links for books that have a newer edition. I have included the authors' home page for the book where possible.
* Updated some titles to reflect the linked edition. I have maintained the original format (``2e`` for the books in the ``Programming`` section ``(2nd Edition)`` for the books in the other sections). Unifying the format could be something to consider.

* More realistic estimate for OS course

Hi,

I am currently taking this course and I am about half way into it. I already have a CS degree and I've been working as a developer for ~8 years.

The course is very interesting and comprehensive.
If you want to do this course properly, I think 6 hours per week for this course is bare minimum:
- There are ~3 hours of lectures each week
- The original course is split into 14 weeks
- Each chapter has homework at the end of it
- Homeworks are not very difficult, but some of them require significant amount of work
- Projects require significant amount of work

* Update other_curricula.md

Add new curriculum (writing started Summer 2019)
See more: https://github.com/functionalCS

* Reflects locked down CS Timeline Spreadsheet

* Spreadsheet link prompts users to make a personal copy

* Remove course that is no longer offered

Resolves ossu#907

* Make Calculus Required

closes ossu#841

* Change calculus recommendation to OLL and OCW

Resolves ossu#838, ossu#886

* Change Networking course to Kurose-Ross

Resolves ossu#887

* Evaluation section update

Change language to encourage students to be proactive in seeking feedback for projects.

* Advanced Applications subsumed by Project

Clarifies that the advanced application list is a subset of a larger, unspecified, set of adequate options.
Advanced Applications was listed as a precursor and possible replacement for the final project. This merges the two and specifies that students may choose another avenue for creating a capstone project.

Resolves ossu#830

* Update core math blurb

Resolves ossu#921

* Removed Project with Dead Link

1. Removed Binary Machine project as repository link results is dead.
2. Fixed link to applications block.

* Update Team

* extras/courses: Add Introduction to Computational Thinking by MIT

As noted here ossu#912 adding this course to The Math section

* Add Algorithms by Sedgewick

Add Algorithms by Robert Sedgewick on the basis that it's a freely available book from a reputable institution (it's the textbook for the Princeton Coursera courses). That being said, I haven't had the chance of reading the book so I can't personally comment on its quality.

* Commit for RFC at issue ossu#933 (ossu#945)

* Commit for RFC at issue ossu#933

Added by error

Co-authored-by: Harsh <[email protected]>

* Add The Linux Command Line book to Tools section in extra readings

* Switch 3b1b Linear Algebra from pre to corequisite (ossu#927)

Switch 3b1b Essence of Linear Algebra from prerequisite of MIT Linear Algebra to corequisite

* Add interesting/useful reading resources (ossu#941)

* fix: updated Computation Structures 1,2 & 3 links (ossu#953)

* Add books, fix formatting

* Add Ethics Course

Ethics being a very important education in field of computer science. CS 2013 Says, while technical issues are central to the computing curriculum, they do not constitute a complete educational program in the field. Students must also be exposed to the larger societal context of computing to develop an understanding of the relevant social, ethical, legal and professional issues. This need to incorporate the study of these non-technical issues into the ACM curriculum was formally recognized in 1991.

* Update README.md

* Update Ethics Course Discord Links

* Fix link formatting

* fix some links

* extras/books recommends Linear Algebra for Everyone

closes ossu#910

* Add puzzles-practice to extras

Closes ossu#783

* Added Intro to Numerical Analysis

Added Introduction to Numerical Analysis by HSE, a CS2013 Elective Course.

* Added alternative to Intro to NumAnalysis.

Added MIT18-335J as an alternative to Introduction to Numerical Analysis.

* Swapped Core security and Core applications links in the curriculum index to reflect the order of the page. Added a link for Core ethics to the index. Updated some capitalization.

* Add answer on finding courses

* Add cs-video-courses

* Add link to goodreads in FAQ

* Remove alternate course that is no longer offered.

* Update README.md

* Fixes typos

* Update full stack open hours/week

https://studies.cs.helsinki.fi/stats/courses/fullstackopen
According to the course stats, every part takes at least 15 hours to finish on average.

* update MathForCS dead alternate link

* Remove note on provisional status

Having closed the [RFC: Add Security Courses](ossu#639), it is time to remove the provisional label from the Core Security section.

* Replace Numerical Analysis Course

Resolves ossu#1006

* Typo fix

* Fix typo

* Math for CS 2010, 2015/2019 solutions

* Add DSA Textbook to Extras

Thank you to @hamzakat

Closes ossu#994

* alternate links for Computation Structures

* alternate links for Computation Structures

improved formatting

* added OSTEP course page

* added OSTEP course page

fixed typo

* added OSTEP course page

fixed typos, removed/updated links

* added OSTEP course page

updated prerequisites on README

* Replace discontinued Intro Sec Course

[Information Security: Context and Introduction](https://www.coursera.org/learn/information-security-data) has been discontinued.
Replacing with [Cybersecurity Fundamentals](https://www.edx.org/course/cybersecurity-fundamentals)
Resolves ossu#1041

* Update README.md

* Update README.md

* Add information security link to table of contents

* hints and tips for OSTEP Project 2A

* Rename intro file in directory to README.md

Users browsing the directory structure will better understand
which file to read first.

* Fix typo

Small typo fix

* Update PROJECTS.md

Reword the top description of PROJECTS.md to make it more clear what this section is about.

* Swap Intro CS from edX to OpenCourseWare

* change Logic course

* Update LICENSE copyright year

Signed-off-by: Ariston Lorenzo <[email protected]>

* Improve links

From a suggestion by @Alaharon123 here:
ossu#1078 (comment)

* Update exercism url to point to the current url

* Add 2011 Berkeley SICP in Scheme to extras

Since the Scheme version remains arguably as/more popular

* Update PROJECTS.md

* Update PROJECTS.md

* update How to Design Programs textbook link

* Update courses.md

* Update courses.md

* Update courses.md

* Update courses.md

* added resource explaining xv6 code for OSTEP

* added resource explaining xv6 code for OSTEP

fixed typo

* Clarify OSTEP Options

Direct most students to read OSTEP and complete homework.
Direct only students specializing in systems to undertake
the course projects

Resolves ossu#1083

Co-authored-by: Waciuma Wanjohi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: spamegg <[email protected]>

* Clarify OSTEP: add missing link, fix prerequisite

* Add structure to links

* Update FAQ.md

* Update CONTRIBUTING.md

* Changed course for Theory of Computation to the one in openMIT (ossu#1125)

Resolves ossu#1096

* Reduce time estimate for Probability

* Correct link to resources below (ossu#1133)

* fix core applications machine learning (ossu#1143)

* Fix machine learning in core applications

The machine learning course is only 3 weeks long, not 11. Further, it's a very gentle introductory course. Even the prerequisite of Basic coding is stretching it, but it is as listed on the course page.

* Fix machine learning 

Machine learning should link to the entire specialization. The specialization is 11 weeks in all I believe, and they suggest 9 hours per week although that could be scaled down to 4-6 hours if you're just auditing. Also, the prerequisite should be basic coding, linear algebra is not necessary.

Closes ossu#1118

* Add a new project from a student (ossu#1130)

* Added a PR template for projects. (ossu#1136)

* Update CURRICULAR_GUIDELINES.md

Reference the upcoming CS2023

* Update LICENSE copyright years (ossu#1152)

* Update course link

Effective Thinking Through Mathematics

* Census Announcement

* Move census link to top of page

* Correct the CS50 alt URL

https://cs50.harvard.edu/ just redirects to Edx. The course is available at https://cs50.harvard.edu/x/

* Remove 2023 Census link

* Add better link for How to Code courses

Add the Systematic Program Design course (which consists of both parts of How to Code) as the main link and move How to Code to to alt.

* Add backt the HTDP book

* Add intro-programming course page (ossu#1177)

* Create intro-programming course page (incomplete)

* Complete the intro-prgramming page

* Add intro-programming course page to the README file

* Fix spellings

* Fix the name of the Py4E course

* Add alt for Computer Graphics

Resolves ossu#1140

* Update Process

Mention taking courses in parallel.

Resolves ossu#1139

* Fix CS50P pset links

* Changed typo 'strucked' to 'stucked'

* fix typos

* Create CNAME

* Update CNAME

* Delete CNAME

* Create CNAME

* Delete CNAME

* Create CNAME

* update Software Engineering: Introduction course

* Add whitespace

May address ossu#1191

* Use full word rather than abbreviation for accessibility (ossu#1194)

* Hopefully fix some confusions regarding alt courses

Mention the full word "alternative" instead of the short form "alt" which may cause confusion to non-native speakers. Also change "/" to "," for the two parts of HTC course.

* Fixed the missing "alt"

* Replace deleted course with its video playlist

* Adding a new URL course for Git and GitHub because the old link invalid (ossu#1204)

* Adding discussions channels

* Remove mentions of outdated materials and add warning about them (ossu#1212)

* Remove mentions of outdated materials and add warning about them

* Remove the new warning blockquote syntax

Seems like github pages don't support the new warning blockquote syntax

* Update README.md with suggestion from @waciumawanjohi (1)

Co-authored-by: Lenox Waciuma Wanjohi <[email protected]>

* Update README.md with suggestion from @waciumawanjohi (2)

Co-authored-by: Lenox Waciuma Wanjohi <[email protected]>

* Update README.md with suggestion from @waciumawanjohi (3)

Co-authored-by: Lenox Waciuma Wanjohi <[email protected]>

---------

Co-authored-by: Lenox Waciuma Wanjohi <[email protected]>

* add final project into PROJECTS.md

* Move space between badges out of link text

* fix: quick stupid case corrections for Discord

can I brag about having contributed to ossu yet? :^)

* Mark the Py4E course link as link

The Py4E course link in the intro cs coursepage was not marked as link. While GitHub renders it as link, the GitHub pages website don't. This PR fixes that.

The PR also fixes the CS50P discord invite link, which was expired. This time, I have made a link that never expires, and can be used an unlimited number of times.

* Update page to use CSS for center alignment

Uses mozilla recommended CSS for centering:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/web/html/element/center

* Align with div attribute

Github homepage does not respect the CSS centering

* Add Intro CS coursepage and replace the OCW version with an archived version on Edx (ossu#1224)

* Create README.md

* Add link to Intro CS course page

* Update README.md

* Update courses.md

This change is adding the interactive, open-source, community-led SICP version that was adapted into JavaScript. 

This addition seems worthwhile because JavaScript may be a more appealing language to go through SICP with than the original Scheme. In addition, this JavaScript version of SICP was created with the apparent goal of being as close to the original Scheme version as possible:
https://sourceacademy.org/sicpjs/prefaces03

* Add SPD coursepage (ossu#1225)

* Create README.md

* Add files via upload

* Update README.md

* Add files via upload

* Update README.md

* Update README.md

* Update readings.md

* Update README.md

* Update README.md

* Delete coursepages/spd/HTC2X.zip

* Delete coursepages/spd/htc-simple.zip

* Delete coursepages/spd/space-invaders-starter.rkt

* Delete coursepages/spd/ta-solver-starter.rkt

* Update README.md

* Add files via upload

* Add info about eabling automatic parentheses, square brackets and quotes

* Remove the newsletter link

The newsletter link does not work anymore. Also, AFAIK, it was not in active use anyway.

* Remove Projects.md

* Move interactive textbook from courses to readings

---------

Signed-off-by: Ariston Lorenzo <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Waciuma Wanjohi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: waciumawanjohi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: spamegg <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Aaron Hooper <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Manuel Esparza <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: aryzach <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: riceeatingmachine <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: spamegg <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Travis Brackett <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Cybermise <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Cybermise <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Josh Hanson <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: attackgnome <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: bradleygrant <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: silential <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Uniminin <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Alaharon123 <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Silent <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Tyler Miller <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Tanya Nevskaya <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Hanqiu Jiang <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: licjon <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Jonathan Hustad <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Henrick Kakutalua <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Elahi-cs <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Josip Ćavar <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Kye Davey <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dody2 <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Harsh <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: azzsal <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Rodi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: NadaTElwazane <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Guilherme Marz Vazzolla <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: aayushsinha0706 <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Nico Schlömer <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dion Rigatos <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Matt Rieke <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Nick Roma <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Ethan Deng <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Mikhail Loginov <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Eero Pomell <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Justin Kim <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Ariston Lorenzo <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Maheshkumar P <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Roman Bird <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: martin <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: anantav51 <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Choubs01 <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Thái Hữu Trí <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Rob <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Ariston Lorenzo <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Pulkit Krishna <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: zkv <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Avishek Sen <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Budi_Ubuntu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Karim Safan <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: karim1safan <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Pablo Colturi Esteve <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Yukai Chou <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Maru <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: mgg143 <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants