Posts tagged ‘computing education’

Stanford is NOT switching from Java to JavaScript: I was mistaken

Last April, I wrote a blog post saying that Stanford was abandoning Java for JavaScript in their intro course (see post here).  The post was initiated by an article in the Stanford Daily. The post caused quite an uproar, way more than I expected. More than one Stanford faculty member reached out to me about it.  In particular, Marty Stepp told me that I was definitely wrong, that Stanford would mostly be teaching Java in a year. I promised that if I was wrong a year later, I would write another post correcting my first post.

It’s been a year, and I was wrong. Stanford is NOT abandoning Java for JavaScript.

I’m glad I was wrong, but it has nothing to do with Java or JavaScript.

I heard about the possible switch to JavaScript several months before from a Stanford faculty member.  When I saw the Stanford Daily article, I thought it was okay to talk about it. Marty told me at the time that I was wrong, and that the article was ill informed.  Still another Stanford faculty member wrote me about the tensions over this issue.

A lesson I learned from Mike Lach and others involved in the NGSS roll out is that all curricular decisions are political decisions.  A framework might be based on scientific expertise, but what is actually taught is about choice and vision — different opinions of how we interpret where we are now and what we want in the future.  If you haven’t heard about the politics of curricular choices before, I highly recommend Schoolhouse Politics.

I am not at Stanford, so I don’t know how curricular decisions have been made and were made here. I based my post on talking with some Stanford faculty and reading the Stanford Daily article.  I predicted that the forces pushing for JavaScript would end up changing the curriculum. They didn’t (or haven’t so far).  The Stanford lecturers are excellent, and they are the ones actually teaching those classes. I’m glad that they get to continue teaching the classes the way that they think is most valuable.

Below is what Marty wrote me about the courses at Stanford, and a link to the Stanford course offerings, showing that Stanford is still primarily a Java house:

This calendar year our CS1 Java course is still quite clearly the dominant course. Nick Parlante is also teaching two smaller experimental offerings of a Python class in our winter and spring quarters. There may be another experimental JavaScript and/or Python course on the books for fall, but it certainly will not be the main class; the CS1 in Java will continue to be so throughout all of the next academic year. Currently no plan is under way to change that, though we certainly are open to evolving our courses in the long term like any other school would be. I would like to note that the state of intro at Stanford is exactly as was described to you by myself and others 10 months ago.

http://explorecourses.stanford.edu/search?q=cs%20106a&view=catalog&academicYear&catalog&page=2&filter-coursestatus-Active=on&collapse

February 19, 2018 at 7:00 am 2 comments

Governor of Rhode Island explains why we should teach programming to everyone

Gina Raimondo, the governor of Rhode Island, was on Freakonomics Radio a few weeks ago. Stephen Dubner challenged their plans to offer computing education at all grade levels in every district.  She had a strong response. Dubner’s question is good. We still don’t have the empirical evidence for the value of teaching computing to everyone. We should do that research — not to figure out if Raimondo made the right bet, but to tune what we’re doing to make sure that we get the maximum benefit for the investment.

I recommend the whole interview.

DUBNER: So, I hear about this kind of thinking a lot, and I certainly understand the appeal and the resonance. But I do also wonder if there’s a proven upside of having everyone learn computer science or programming. It strikes me a little bit like the equivalent of having every student in America during the boom of the internal combustion engine learn to take apart a carburetor. And then I think, if you look at the history of economics and progress, that one of the main strengths of economic progress is the division of labor and specialization, rather than everybody chasing after the latest trends. So I’m curious what the evidence was that inspired that move of yours.

RAIMONDO: I think of it as access and exposure, and also just providing people with a basic level of essential skills. So, everyone has to take math. They may become a writer, they may become an actor, but they ought to have a certain basic level of math skills. First of all, because it’s an essential skill to function. And by the way, they might like math. I think digital skills are the same thing. No matter what job you have, you have to have some basic familiarity with computer skills and digital skills. And so it is as essential in this economy as any other skill that we teach. But also, we know — and there’s loads of data on this girls, people of color, and low-income folks are less likely to go into I.T. fields, which tend to be higher-paying. However, if they’re exposed to some computer training, they’re much more likely to go into the field and do well at it.

Source: How to Be a Modern Democrat — and Win – Freakonomics

February 16, 2018 at 7:00 am 1 comment

Finding a home for computing education in US Schools of Education: Priming the Computing Teacher Pump

Please sign up join us for an event to launch our report and share:

Priming the Computing Teacher Pump: Integrating Computing Education into Schools of Education

This report focuses on Schools of Education (rather than Departments or Colleges of Computer Science/Computing) for creating pathways for CS teacher education.

We challenge US teacher education programs to innovate and integrate a new discipline into their programs. What we propose is nothing less than a change to the American Education canon. Such enormous change will require innovating in different ways, using different models and strategies, before we find models that work. The report, Priming the Pump, will highlight examples of integration from across the United States, and provide concrete recommendations for discussion.

With the expansion of computing education in mainstream K-12 schools, the current training mechanisms for teachers quickly will fall short of supporting a sustainable pipeline of teachers for the scale many cities and states have committed to.

Location: Microsoft Times Square – 11 Times Square, New York, NY

Date + Time: Thursday, April 12th, 2018; 3PM – 6PM ET

www.computingteacher.org

____________________________________________________________________

Apply to Attend and for possible travel funding: Formal Invite to Follow Upon Receipt of Registration

_____________________________________________________________________

Highlights from Priming the Computer Teacher Pump

What do teachers need to know about computing? The question of what teachers need to know about computing should be at the core of developing both the structure and content of teacher preparation programs.”

Teacher Development Models for Computing Education: Currently, few models exist in the United States for the development of rigorous computing education teachers, especially focused on computer science or computational thinking, within schools of education.”

CS Education in Teacher Education: Schools of Education face a number of challenges in terms of preparing more computer science teachers. Trends over the last decade have shown a general lack interest from graduating students in pursuing a career as a teacher. In a 2016 national survey, The National Education Association reported that the number of students planning to major in education in 2014 dropped to an historic low of 4.2%.”

“Preparing Educational Leaders to Support CS Education: There is urgency around preparing administrators and other educational leaders with the knowledge and skills needed to support computer science teaching and learning for all students. To successfully do this, computer science education must be fully established within the complex and multi-layered United States school system.”

_______________________________________________________________________

Organizers/Authors

Leigh Ann DeLyser

NYC Foundation for CS Education (CSNYC)

Joanna Goode

University of Oregon

Mark Guzdial

Georgia Institute of Technology

Yasmin Kafai

University of Pennsylvania

Aman YadavMichigan State University

February 9, 2018 at 7:00 am Leave a comment

Education is About Providing Hope to Everyone: Contrasting the Lost Einsteins and Kennett, Missouri

I’ve had two articles bouncing around in my head that offer contrasting views of higher education and for me, of the purpose for computing education.

In “Lost Einsteins: The Innovations We’re Missing,” the NYTimes tells us about unequal access to opportunity in the United States.  We do not have a meritocracy. Our inventors, patent holders, and innovators overwhelmingly are male, white, and upper income. Two children of equal ability do not get the same access to opportunity, if one is poor, female, or from a minority group. That opportunity includes higher education, access to funding, and the social capital of figuring out how to file a patent or produce an invention.

Women, African-Americans, Latinos, Southerners, and low- and middle-income children are far less likely to grow up to become patent holders and inventors. Our society appears to be missing out on most potential inventors from these groups. And these groups together make up most of the American population.  The groups also span the political left and right — a reminder that Americans of different tribes have a common interest in attacking inequality.

In “A Dying Town: Here in a corner of Missouri and across America, the lack of a college education has become a public-health crisis,” the Chronicle of Higher Education tells us the story of Kennett, Missouri, a town with little hope and few college degrees.  Perhaps it’s correlation, but maybe it’s causation. Only one in 10 adults in Kennett, MO has a four-year degree.  The article points out the correlates for attaining a college degree. There are decreased mortality rates with college attendance.

It would be easy to say this is just about being poor, but people who study the phenomenon say it’s not that simple. Yes, having a job — and the paycheck and health insurance that come with it — matters. Those aren’t all that make a difference, however. Better-educated people live in less-polluted areas, trust more in science, and don’t as frequently engage in risky behaviors. Have a college degree and you’re more likely to wear a seat belt and change the batteries in your smoke alarm.

Both of them are sad stories. I’m struck by the differences in the desired goal in each.  In “Lost Einsteins,” we are told about the innovations and inventions we all are missing out on, because access to opportunity (including higher education) is so biased. In “A Dying Town,” we’re told that everyone need access to the opportunity for higher education.  In Kennett, MO, a college degree means hope, and hope means life — literally.

In “Lost Einsteins,” opportunities like higher education are about creating inventors and innovators. In “A Dying Town,” opportunities like higher education are about improving quality and length of life.  Contrast these perspectives as being like coaching a sports champion and providing public health. I made a similar contrast in my book Learner-Centered Design of Computing Education in how we think about computing education.  Many CS teachers are trying to produce innovators, inventors, champions, and Tech heroes — they want their students to go to the great Tech companies, or invent the next must-have app, or start a company that will be worth millions if not billions.  I argue that we have a much greater need to provide everyone with the computing literacy that they need to be successful in the 21st Century.  It is important to coach the champions, but not at the cost of providing the public health that everyone needs.

I’m curious about the relationship between college degrees and the health issues in Kennett, MO.  I have taught undergraduates for over 25 years.  I’ve never taught anyone to wear a seat belt or to change the batteries in their smoke alarms.  Where did they learn that?  Is it just because they’re smarter after they get the degree?  Or were they prone to do those things anyway, because they were the kind that sought out higher education?  I don’t know, but if it’s causal, we have to be careful not to lose those important side benefits of a college degree as we downsize higher education.  As we get rid of the teachers for the MOOCs, and get rid of the campus for virtual space, we might also get rid of whatever intangibles that lead a college graduate to make the right choices in life, like wearing a seat belt and having a long, healthy, and productive life.

February 5, 2018 at 7:00 am Leave a comment

Will be missing my friends at SIGCSE 2018 — Preparing for What’s Next

I am not going to SIGCSE 2018.  I haven’t missed SIGCSE in a lot of years, and I’m sorry to miss it this year.  SIGCSE is the biggest computing education conference in the world, and it’s the best place to hear what’s going on in CS classes and the United States — and to possibly influence what’s going on.  I’m particularly sorry because I owe Owen Astrachan a beer and dinner.  I lost our bet about Code.org and CSP Curricula.  I have to find another time to pay up.

I’m not going because it’s a time of change for me.  I don’t know for sure what I’m going to be doing next. This post is another in the (perhaps wearisome) series of posts where I explored what a post-full professor should do and my failure CV.

There are two forcing functions for the change:

  • My wife and research partner, Barbara Ericson, is finishing her PhD on adaptive Parsons problems.  She is going to shift her emphasis from being Director of CS Outreach to more research.
  • Our role in ECEP is ending in September.  From “Georgia Computes!” to ECEP, we have been doing work in Broadening Participation in Computing (BPC) for over a dozen years.  We want to move on. Others will carry ECEP further.  I started doing work in BPC as a natural next step from my research on making computing education for a broader audience (e.g., Media Computation).  Different kinds of research and leadership are important for the next steps of BPC Alliance work.

SIGCSE may not be as big a part of my academic life, depending on what comes next for me. I may do more Engineering Education Research in the future.  I may get more involved in preparing future CS teachers. My research directions are changing. I will continue to work towards Computing Education for All, and I’m interested in studying and developing different ways of getting there. The proposals I’m submitting these days are about doing work that looks like Bootstrap. I’d like to do more in applying computing (specifically, programming) as a notation and tool for learning in disciplines other than computer science. Venues other than SIGCSE may be the right places for this kind of work.

It’s going to be a great SIGCSE, and I’m thrilled that my student, Katie Cunningham, is co-author on a paper that will be receiving a Best Paper Award. Sorry I won’t be there to see all my SIGCSE friends this year.

 

February 2, 2018 at 7:00 am 2 comments

Should computer science fulfill a foreign language admissions requirement?

An Atlanta-area PBS station did an article at the end of last year praising Georgia’s stance allowing CS to count as a foreign language: Is Computer Science A Foreign Language? Ga. Says Yes, Sees Boost In Enrollment | 90.1 FM WABE

The GT director of admissions was interviewed about this requirement in Insider HigherEd and had a much more reasonable take:

Rick Clark, director of undergraduate admissions at Georgia Institute of Technology, said he saw value in the steps by Georgia to encourage more study of computer science in elementary and secondary school.

“I like that kids, even in eighth and ninth grade, who are planning their path through school would take these courses, because basic coding and language will set them up for opportunities upon high school graduation that they would not have otherwise,” Clark said.

In fact, he said his concern is that access to computer science is unequal in Georgia high schools. Most of those who not only take a course, but are able to take Advanced Placement in computer science, are in the metro Atlanta area, Clark said. Georgia Tech is worried about these inequities and is exploring ways to use online instruction to make sure those outside the Atlanta area have access.

At the same time, Clark said, the push for computer science should not be viewed as either/or with foreign languages. He said Georgia Tech is “looking for students who demonstrate that international vision and interest,” and that he finds many of those applicants who are taking AP computer science in high school are also pursuing foreign language instruction as advanced levels.

More than half of Georgia Tech students participate in study abroad, he noted, and 10 percent of undergraduates are from outside the United States. “We are intent upon enrolling students who in high school chose to seek out that global perspective,” he said.

Source: Should computer science fulfill a foreign language admissions requirement?

January 22, 2018 at 7:00 am 3 comments

What does it mean for Computer Science to be harder to learn than other STEM subjects?

I made an argument in my Blog@CACM Post for this month that “Learning Computer Science is Different than Learning Other STEM Disciplines,” and on Twitter, I explicitly added “It’s harder.”

In my Blog@CACM post, I thought it was a no-brainer that CS is harder:

  1. Our infrastructure for teaching CS is younger, smaller, and weaker  (CS is so new, and we don’t have the decades of experience to figure out how to do it well yet.)

  2. We don’t realize how hard learning to program is (The fact that the Rainfall problem seems easy, but it’s clearly not easy, means that CS teachers don’t know how to estimate yet what’s hard for students, so our classes are probably harder than we mean them to be.)

  3. CS is so valuable that it changes the affective components of learning (Classes that are stuffed full of both CS majors and non-majors means that issues of self-efficacy, motivation, and belonging are much bigger in CS than in other STEM disciplines.)

The push back was really interesting.  People pointed out that they took CS classes and math classes, or CS and physics, and CS seemed easy in comparison.  They may be right, but that’s self-report on introspection by people who succeeded at both classes.  My point is that we are probably flunking out (or students are giving up, or opting out) of CS at much higher rates than any other STEM subject, because of the reasons I give.  We’re really using two different measures of “harder” — harder to succeed, or harder in retrospect once succeeded.

I only have a qualitative argument for “It’s harder.” I’m not sure how one would even evaluate the point empirically.  Any suggestions?  How could we measure when one subject is harder than another?

It’s not an important question to answer which is harder, CS vs math, or CS vs physics. A much more important and supportable claim is that CS “is harder” than it needs to be.  We have a lot of extraneous complexity and cognitive load in learning CS.

January 19, 2018 at 7:00 am 17 comments

Older Posts


Recent Posts

February 2018
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728  

Feeds

Blog Stats

  • 1,477,530 hits

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

Join 5,219 other followers

CS Teaching Tips