Archive for July 12, 2010

New vs News: The Medium Is the Medium

David Brooks’ most recent op-ed piece for the NYTimes reminded me of Alan Kay’s comment about what’s truly New vs. what’s News.  Brooks is arguing that books are more powerful than the Internet for real educational gains.  Of course, empirical studies of the Internet today can only measure the Internet as it is today.  The potential (as I’m suggesting in my mini-post today about the iPad) is much greater.

This study, along with many others, illustrates the tremendous power of books. We already knew, from research in 27 countries, that kids who grow up in a home with 500 books stay in school longer and do better. This new study suggests that introducing books into homes that may not have them also produces significant educational gains.

Recently, Internet mavens got some bad news. Jacob Vigdor and Helen Ladd of Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy examined computer use among a half-million 5th through 8th graders in North Carolina. They found that the spread of home computers and high-speed Internet access was associated with significant declines in math and reading scores.

via Op-Ed Columnist – The Medium Is the Medium – NYTimes.com.

July 12, 2010 at 11:54 am Leave a comment

The Utilitarian CS Ed Imperative and HyperCard on the Web

I just discovered TileStack, which is HyperCard on the Web.  Very cool, but the first comment on the introductory stack is something I heard a good bit these last few weeks at my workshops:

Python, for instance, is very easy to pick up.  You might make the argument that it’s much easier to learn Speak [the HyperCard-like language in TileStack], but even if it takes twice as long to learn Python to do the equivalent of making a Stack with Speak, you can at least apply what you learned in many other places other than tilestack.com.  Just seems pointless for people to waste their time learning something that only applies to a single website when they could learn something that they could use for many other applications.

via TileStack – Intro To TileStack – Start Here!.

Based on my experience, most computer science teachers (much more at the undergraduate faculty level than at the high school level!) believe that they only things worth learning in computer science are those that can be used to make applications.

  • As soon as I started teaching about JES and Jython, a set of faculty in every workshop I taught this summer (five workshops, all pretty much full!) asked me, “But how do I build applications?” or “How can I run this outside of JES?”  I explained that this was all possible, but that we don’t teach in the first semester how to build standalone applications.  Several faculty insisted that I show them how to run Jython with our media libraries separate from JES, and were frankly not interested in listening to anything more I had to say unless they could be convinced that what I was showing them could lead to building standalone applications.
  • Several faculty asked me, “But this isn’t Python 3.0, is it?  When will you be covering Python 3.0?”  That one particularly got my goat.  I started responding, “I’m barely covering Python 1.0 in here!  I’m trying to teach computer science with the minimum language features, much less whatever special features are in the latest version of a language!”  That response seemed to carry some weight.

I was really surprised about that.  I hear people regularly decrying the fact that computer science in most states is classified under vocational education.  But it’s certainly the case that many university faculty buy into that model!  I regularly was told by faculty at these workshops that computer science is only worth learning if it leads to job skills and application-building capabilities.  CS education is purely utilitarian, in this model.

Why do we teach people the difference between mitosis and meiosis, or about evolution, or that planets orbit the sun?  None of those are job skills, and they certainly won’t lead to building marketable products.  Isn’t knowing about computer science and one’s virtual world at least as important as understanding this level of detail about the natural world?  I’m going to bet that, if someone were to do a survey, most university faculty don’t really believe in computational thinking, that knowing about computing at some beyond-applications level is important for everyone.

Grumble, grumble…

July 12, 2010 at 11:25 am 4 comments

The iPad for Academics — and Computer Scientists?

I agree with this blog, that the iPad is a great paper replacement.  I prefer reading on my iPad to paper, book, or newspaper now.  It’s better than my Kindle, too.  The part that I’m wondering about is whether the iPad is just remediation — it is a better medium for what we did with paper.  Or can it go beyond paper, for academics?  I’m really enjoying reading Time on the iPad.  The Time app, with its powerful images, interesting navigation, and embedded videos, is better than the magazine.  Can we create a more powerful educational medium with the iPad, where simulations, interpreters, and social learning situations are embedded in the “Paper”?

Where the iPad does shine is as a paper replacement. The iPad is the long, long awaited portable PDF reader that we have hoped for. Finally, we have a device that preserves formatting and displays images, charts, and diagrams. After decades of squinting at minuscule columns of photocopied type we can now zoom in on the articles we are reading and perfectly adjust the text to the width of the screen. You can even highlight and annotate documents and then send the annotations back as notes to your computer.

via Views: The iPad for Academics – Inside Higher Ed.

July 12, 2010 at 10:46 am 11 comments


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

Join 9,004 other followers

Feeds

Recent Posts

Blog Stats

  • 1,875,390 hits
July 2010
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

CS Teaching Tips