Posts tagged ‘computing education’
There was interest in our slides from the 2017 SIGCSE Panel, “The Role of CS Departments in The US President’s “CS for All” Initiative.” They are linked above, and summarized below.
In January 2016, US President Barack Obama started an initiative to provide CS for All – with the goal that all school students should have access to computing education. Computing departments in higher education have a particularly important role to play in this initiative. It’s in our best interest to get involved, since the effort can potentially improve the quality of our incoming students. CS Departments have unique insights as subject-matter experts to inform the development of standards. We can provide leadership to inform and influence education policy. In this session, we will present a variety of ways in which departments and faculty can support CS for All and will answer audience questions about the initiative. Our goal is to provide concrete positive actions for faculty.
Barbara Ericson spoke on influencing our incoming students and using outreach to improve the number and diversity of students and to improve the number and quality of teachers.
Rick Adrion spoke on CS faculty providing subject-matter expertise to standards efforts. A key role for CS faculty is to help teachers, administrators, and public policy makers to understand what CS is.
Megean Garvin spoke on how CS faculty can provide a leadership role. Faculty have a particular privileged position to draw together diverse stakeholders to advance CS Education.
There is a ton of CS Ed at SXSWEdu March 6-9. An entire list has been posted here: http://tinyurl.com/CSatSxSWedu
Aman Yadav and Steve Cooper have the CACM Viewpoints Education column this month. They raise the questions of how learning computing can lead to greater creativity, and how we can design computing education experiences to draw students in to greater depth.
Computing has the potential to provide users opportunities to extend their creative expression to solve problems, create computational artifacts, and develop new knowledge. The pervasive nature of computing and accessibility of digital tools is also transforming K-12 education as students move from being mere consumers of content to engaging in the subject matter by creating computational artifacts. Take Scratch, for example, which is one of the many tools designed to teach kids to code, and comes with varying levels of support for educators implementing them in both formal and informal learning settings. Scratch provides students with an opportunity to express their creativity through stories, games, and animations. While Scratch has the potential to be a powerful tool, it is often used as little more than a presentation tool in the classroom. Studies of Scratch users show that few projects use variables or control flow data structures. While the Scratch environment provides a ‘low floor, high ceiling’ that allows beginners to dive into the environment without frustration, many students do not advance to a higher level. Tools like Scratch can empower students to showcase their creativity like never before; however, the way these tools are taught by teachers and used by students significantly influences whether students move along the creativity continuum. While Scratch is widely used, we know little about how it influences students’ creative thinking.
Julie Flapan and Jane Margolis had a piece last month in Education Week saying that the Trump administration should support CS education. Their piece starts with an argument that we should not scapegoat immigrants, and given the recent immigrant ban, seems amazingly prescient.
Julie and Jane point out that CS education is important to the values of the new administration. It’s good to see that the House is re-affirming the importance of STEM education in their new priority statement. We need to make the argument that computing education is not a previous adminstration issue, but is instead about bipartisan issues and values.
Computer science isn’t just about operating a computer or a cellphone. It’s about reimagining how computers are a part of what we do every day. Rather than being passive users of technology, students need to learn how to be responsible creators of it. Computer science teaches algorithmic thinking, problem-solving, and creativity as students learn how to build apps, design a web page, and understand how the internet actually works.
Beyond jobs, this past year revealed other reasons why learning computer science is important in a democracy. Whether it be through thinking critically to distinguish fake news from real news, understanding algorithms that are used to target its users, considering cybersecurity and the role it played in email scandals, or amplifying marginalized voices through social media, we can see the power of technology in our everyday lives. Becoming digitally literate, critical, and constructive thinkers about how to use technology responsibly should be required learning for everyone.
With the uncertainty of President Donald Trump’s education agenda and the future policy decisions under the Every Student Succeeds Act, one thing is clear: We need to continue to support public education and the inclusion of computer science as part of the new law’s call for a “well-rounded education.”
We encourage the new administration to continue to support the former administration’s national agenda to promote computer science for all, which prioritizes the needs of students underrepresented in computer science, including girls, low-income students, and students of color. Many education leaders support this national initiative at the local level.
Note that this is not the framework — standards are the curriculum specifications which can be based on a framework. These are designed to align the K-12 CS Framework.
Go to the page linked below to find the links which will lead you to the standards specific to various grade levels.
The public review period for the revised K-12 Computer Science (CS) Standards is now open! In revising the K-12 CS Standards toward a more final form, the taskforce took specific steps to closely align its work with that of the K-12 CS Framework. This alignment will strengthen the value of both resources as tools to communicate the CS concepts and practices critical to student educational experiences today. The Computer Science Teachers Association invites teachers, curriculum supervisors, administrators, business leaders, the broad education and business communities to review the standards and offer feedback. The public review process is now open and ends Wednesday, February 15 at 11:59 PM PST.
California is now starting a process of developing computer science standards for K-12, explicitly using the new K-12 CS Framework. California is huge and has a huge influence on the rest of the country’s education policy and practice. This will likely be one of the most important outcomes of the K-12 CS Framework process.
Computer Science Content Standards Development
The CDE, Instructional Quality Commission, and State Board of Education (SBE) are commencing the process for developing new California computer science content standards. Per California Education Code. Section 60605.4, “on or before July 31, 2019, the Instructional Quality Commission shall consider developing and recommending to the SBE computer science content standards for kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, pursuant to recommendations developed by a group of computer science experts.” Information and updates concerning the development of computer science content standards for California public schools will be posted here.
Turkle and Papert’s paper on epistemological pluralisms is one of my favorite by Seymour (which I talked about here). This is the first paper I’ve read about how to encourage them.
I remember a math teacher I once had. He would ask students to go up to the board and explain how they solved the problem. But he wouldn’t stop there. He would then ask if someone else had a different way of solving the problem and allow the different approaches to be shared with the class. This validated that there were multiple ways a problem can be solved, and that it was not enough to know just one way… It also meant no one remained in doubt about whether their (different) approach was “incorrect” (there was room to clear up misconceptions, for example). It’s not as deep as epistemology, but it’s a start. A start to plurality of the “how”, but we should consider maybe also the plurality of the “what” and “why” (because which questions we choose to pursue for learning and why they matter to us are deep ontological and epistemological questions).