Archive for November 18, 2009

Latest: GaDoEd says Science Yes, Math No

We just got word that the Georgia Department of Education will count AP CS as a science credit towards high school graduation, but not as a math. The University System of Georgia, however, will count AP CS as either a math or science towards admissions requirements. No word on why the difference, or even how the decision was made, but at least we’re no worse off than we were — and maybe even a bit better.

November 18, 2009 at 7:06 pm Leave a comment

More farmers for the fields: More computing ed experiments!

I’ve been thinking for several days about Doug Holton’s blog post about the critiques of cognitive load theory.  The critiques are well taken.  I find the “intrinsic, extraneous, and germane” kinds of cognitive load confusing and not particularly useful.  Cognitive load is clearly a hard thing to measure.  Doug’s critique that it’s “unfalsifiable” is important.  It’s an important goal to figure out how to measure these factors and to develop good experimental evidence.

However, the critique doesn’t change my mind about the need to explore reducing cognitive load in computing education.  There are lots of ideas in education that are problematic and hard-to-measure. Yesterday, in my educational technology class, we read papers by Alan Collins.  I challenged the class to wonder, “How would you test cognitive apprenticeship?”  What evidence do we have that cognitive apprenticeship is a good method? Is it falsifiable? Measurable?

I built my dissertation work around cognitive apprenticeship and constructionism, and I still think that these are promising educational ideas.  The available evidence convinces me that these are ideas worth exploring, even if we still have problems measuring these things or developing clinical trials that demonstrate  the value of these ideas.   The reality is that we need many more experiments.  I look around and see very few computing  education efforts exploring education ideas like worked examples, cognitive load theory, and the modality effect. TeachScheme does a good job with respect to issues of cognitive load (e.g., in their directions to students on how to analyze data and then how to write code for processing that data, thus allowing students to focus on one aspect of learning at a time), but that’s just one experiment.  Where are others?

In Alan Kay’s foreword to the “White” Squeak book, he wrote:

In fact, Squeak is primed to be the engine of its own replacement…We not only give permission for you to do this, we urge you to try! Why? Because our field is still a long way from a reasonable state, and we cannot allow bad defacto standards (mostly controlled by vendors) to hold back progress.

Alan is right — we need people trying to do better than other projects, building on others’ works, trying good ideas with different languages and different approaches. We need a lot more experiments.  We need more farmers tilling the fields.

Are we doing so very well at computing education that we should just replicate the same practices everywhere?  It’s a problem that so many classes look nearly the same, that a small number of textbooks cover the vast majority of courses, and that we have so few languages used in intro courses.  We should be trying out all the good ideas that we can.  Yes, cognitive load theory is problematic, but the evidence is strong enough that I think we ought to try that, too.  Let’s get more good ideas out there.


November 18, 2009 at 3:28 pm 2 comments

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 9,057 other followers


Recent Posts

Blog Stats

  • 2,038,047 hits
November 2009

CS Teaching Tips