Posts tagged ‘teachers’

More Teachers, Fewer 3D Printers: How to Improve K–12 Computer Science Education 

A nice summary of where we’re at with CS Ed in the United States, where additional funding and effort should go, and where it shouldn’t.

Addressing the teacher shortage should be the number one use for the new funds allocated by the Trump administration, says Mark Stehlik, a computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon University. A lack of qualified teachers is the biggest barrier to CS education in the U.S., he says, and he thinks the problem is going to get worse. An earlier generation of CS educators has started to retire, and he says younger CS graduates “aren’t going into education because they can make twice or more working in the software industry.”

One solution could be to expand the reach of each CS educator through online classes. But “online curricula aren’t going to save the day, especially for elementary and high school,” Stehlik says. “A motivated teacher who can inspire students and provide tailored feedback to them is the coin of the realm here.”

Where the money should not be spent? On hardware and equipment. Laptops, robots, and 3D printers are important, says Code.org’s Yongpradit, “but they don’t make a CS class. A trained teacher makes a CS class. So money should be focused on training teachers and offering robust curriculum.”

Source: More Teachers, Fewer 3D Printers: How to Improve K–12 Computer Science Education – IEEE Spectrum

October 18, 2017 at 7:00 am 7 comments

Disrupt This!: MOOCs and the Promises of Technology by Karen Head

Over the summer, I read the latest book from my Georgia Tech colleague, Karen Head. Karen taught a MOOC in 2013 to teach freshman composition, as part of a project funded by the Gates Foundation. They wanted to see if MOOCs could be used to meet general education requirements. Karen wrote a terrific series or articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education about the experience (you can see my blog post on her last article in the series here). Her experience is the basis for her new book Disrupt This! (link to Amazon page here). There is an interview with her at Inside Higher Education that I also recommend (see link here).

In Disrupt This!, Karen critiques the movement to “disrupt education” with a unique lens. I’m an education researcher, so I tend to argue with MOOC advocates with data (e.g., my blog post in May about how MOOCs don’t serve to decrease income inequality). Karen is an expert in rhetoric. She analyzes two of the books at the heart of the education disruption literature: Clayton Christensen and Henry Eyring’s The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out and Richard DeMillo’s Abelard to Apple: The Fate of American Colleges and Universities. She critiques these two books from the perspective of how they argue — what they say, what they don’t say, and how the choice of each of those is designed to influence the audience. For example, she considers why we like the notion of “disruption.”

Disruption appeals to the audience’s desire to be in the vanguard. It is the antidote to complacency, and no one whose career revolves around the objectives of critical thinking and originality—the pillars of scholarship—wants to be accused of that…Discussions of disruptive innovation frequently conflate “is” (or “will be”) and “ought.” In spite of these distinctions, however, writers often shift from making dire warnings to an apparently gleeful endorsement of disruption. This is not unrelated to the frequent use of millenarian or religiously toned language, which often warns against a coming apocalypse and embraces disruption as a cleansing force.

Karen is not a luddite. She volunteered to create the Composition MOOC because she wanted to understand the technology. She has high standards and is critical of the technology when it doesn’t meet those standards. She does not suffer gladly the fools who declare the technology or the disruption as “inevitable.”

The need for radical change in today’s universities—even if it is accepted that such change is desirable—does not imply that change will inevitably occur. To imply that because the church should have embraced the widespread publication of scripture, modern universities should also embrace the use of MOOCs is simply a weak analogy.

Her strongest critique focuses on who these authors are. She argues that the people who are promoting change in education should (at least) have expertise in education. Her book mostly equates expertise with experience. My colleagues and I work to teach faculty about education, to develop their expertise before they enter the classroom (as in this post). I suspect Karen would agree with me about different paths to develop expertise, but she particularly values getting to know students face-to-face. She’s angry that the authors promoting education disruption do not know students.

It is a travesty that the conversation about the reform or disruption of higher education is being driven by a small group of individuals who are buffered from exposure to a wide range of students, but who still claim to speak on their behalf and in their interests.

Disrupt This! gave me a new way to think about MOOCs and the hype around disruptive technologies in education. I often think in terms of data. Karen shows how to critique the rhetoric — the data are less important if the argument they are supporting is already broken.

October 6, 2017 at 7:00 am 2 comments

Preparing Tomorrow’s Faculty to Address Challenges in Teaching Computer Science

I’ve blogged here when we have opened registration for the New Computing Faculty workshops (e.g., here), but I haven’t really explained why we’re doing them.  We took a lot of grief on Twitter for the workshops in the Spring, and 120 characters just isn’t enough to explain the whole story. We (Leo Porter, Cynthia Lee, Beth Simon, and me) wrote an article that appeared in the May CACM explaining the rationale.  If you don’t have ACM Digital Library access, you can grab the paper from my Guzdial Papers page here in the blog.

The new challenges compound existing teaching-related challenges for the field. We still need to broaden participation in our field, with the lowest percentage of women majors in all of STEM. The economic rewards of a computing career make it even more important to bridge the digital divide. If there are more students than faculty can teach effectively, they may be inclined to lean on a pessimistic belief that success is dependent on “brilliance” and innate ability where only a subset of students can succeed. If CS faculty feel there is little they can do to change students’ outcomes in their individual classrooms, it will be true. Research shows that more CS faculty hold this mistaken and unproductive view of students than faculty in other STEM disciplines.

Source: Preparing Tomorrow’s Faculty to Address Challenges in Teaching Computer Science | May 2017 | Communications of the ACM

October 2, 2017 at 7:00 am Leave a comment

Leslie Lamport tells Computer Scientists to go create ebooks (and other new media)

Yes! Exactly!  That’s why we’re trying to figure out new media for expressing, learning, and talking about computing.

“If you succeed in attaining a position that allows you to do something great, if you do something that really is great, and if you realize that it’s great, there’s still one more hurdle: You have to convince others that it’s great,” he told the graduates. “This will require writing.”

He exhorted graduates in biological physics; chemistry; computational linguistics; computer science; language and linguistics; mathematics and physics to find new modes of communication.

“There must be wonderful ways in which a writer can interact with the reader that no one has thought of yet, ways that will convey ideas better and will make reading fun,” Lamport said. “I want you to go out and invent them.”

Source: Computer scientist Leslie Lamport to grads: If you can’t write, it won’t compute | BrandeisNOW

August 11, 2017 at 7:00 am Leave a comment

Michigan is phasing out its computer science teaching endorsement

I’d heard that this was happening, but couldn’t believe it, until I saw the news reports.  While other states are ramping up computer science teacher certifications or endorsements, and schools are starting to offer programs for those certifications, Michigan is actually phasing it out.

Teachers who currently hold the endorsements will continue to see them displayed on their certificates and may continue to teach in those areas. However, starting in 2017-18, administrators will have discretion in assigning a teacher in those endorsement areas. For example, a teacher with a computer science endorsement may be assigned to teach computer science, or a district may employ a teacher without the endorsement who displays strong computer science skills.

Source: Some Teaching Endorsements Phasing Out – Michigan Education Association

August 4, 2017 at 7:00 am 9 comments

CS Curricula, Standards, and Frameworks will Need to Change: Larry Cuban and Coding as Vocationalism

I just wrote a blog@CACM post (see link) below on a series of essays that Stanford educational historian Larry Cuban has written on “Coding as the New Vocationalism.”  His points are well-taken.  Schools have often been swayed by the needs of industry, and he sees the current “CS for All” effort as mostly being industry-driven.  The questions that he keeps returning to in his posts are, “What are schools for? How does real reform happen?”

It’s the latter set of insights that I think are missing from our current “CS for All” efforts.  I quote Cuban at the bottom of this post with his summary for how reforms succeed. Top-down edicts on what ought to be taught rarely work.  Remember the U. Chicago’s Outlier group research on the landscape of CS education from 2014?  Most professional development is requested by the school or district,  but in CS Ed, professional development mostly sent in by NSF, Google, and Universities (and today, likely, Code.org).  CS education will have to change to achieve the goal of being driven by district and teacher needs.

The most successful reform efforts are those that achieve the top-down goals in a process of mutual adaptation with teachers, an idea developed at Northwestern by a team of learning scientists led by Brian Reiser.

Whatever our curriculum, frameworks, and standards are today, they will change before we achieve CS for All.

Standards change in response to what teachers know, what we can actually teach them (at scale), and what they will actually teach (a process that has already happened in Georgia). We certainly can’t get the curriculum right yet — we’re decades away from reaching 100% of schools in any US state, with many, many teachers to prepare and to work with in a process of mutual adaptation.  I’m not opposed to defining curriculum, frameworks, and standards.  I’m opposed to thinking that we’re going to get it right — not today, when we have such a long road ahead of us.

The lessons that have to be learned time and again from earlier generations of school reformers are straightforward.

  • Build teacher capabilities in content and skills since both determine to what degree, if any, a policy gets past the classroom door.

  • With or without enhanced capabilities and expertise, teachers will adapt policies aimed at altering how and what they teach to the contours of the classrooms in which they teach. If policymakers hate teacher fingerprints over innovations, if they seek fidelity in putting desired reforms into practice, they wish for the impossible.

  • Ignoring both of the above lessons ends up with incomplete implementation of desired policies and sorely disappointed school reformers.

Source: Coding in Schools as New Vocationalism: Larry Cuban on What Schools are For | blog@CACM | Communications of the ACM

July 24, 2017 at 7:00 am 2 comments

Registration open for New Computing Faculty Workshops in Summer 2017

Beth, Cynthia, Leo, and I are running our workshop for new CS faculty again this summer.  Registration is open. Please do pass on word!

The third New Computing Faculty Workshop will be held August 6-8, 2017 in San Diego. The goal of the workshop is to help computing faculty at research intensive universities to be better and more efficient teachers.  By learning a little about teaching, we will help new faculty (a) make their teaching more efficient and effective (e.g., students learn more with less input time from faculty) and (b) make their teaching more enjoyable. The workshops were described in Communications of the ACM in the May 2017 issue (see article here). The workshop will be run by Beth Simon (UCSD), Cynthia Bailey Lee (Stanford), Leo Porter (UCSD), and Mark Guzdial (Georgia Tech).

Source: New Computing Faculty Workshops in Summer 2017 – CRA

June 16, 2017 at 1:00 am 1 comment

Older Posts


Recent Posts

October 2017
M T W T F S S
« Sep    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Feeds

Blog Stats

  • 1,436,882 hits

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

Join 5,153 other followers

CS Teaching Tips