Slashdot Mirror
Steve Furber On Why Kids Are Turned Off To Computing Classes
nk497 writes "UK computing legend Steve Furber — co-founder of Acorn and ARM designer — believes students are avoiding computing classes because they teach nothing but the boring basics. Currently studying why the number of students signing up for computing has halved in the past eight years, Furber said schools focus too much on teaching kids how to use spreadsheets, word processors and PowerPoint, rather than teaching more challenging areas such as programming. 'What schools are presenting as ICT as an academic subject is very mundane compared with what students know they can do,' he said. 'It's as if maths was just arithmetic or English was taught as just spelling. It's not unimportant that you can do arithmetic or you can spell, but it certainly doesn't open up the whole world of interest and challenge, if that's all you do.'"
They can't teach anything else, most "computer science" teach I had in highschool was almost computer iliterate, shit, I even had a programming teacher in college who was typing with 2 fingers.
About 15 years ago.
I did basic on my C64, and various other things on other machines we had at home. Then we had school computing class which taught us how to size and colour a font, put together a spreadsheet and other such guff.
Later I got a programmable casio calculator and programmed that. Somehow it didn't occur to me to actually go into computers until I was 18. No thanks at all to the school.
...and the students learn absolutely dreadful sentence construction besides!
Honestly, your point is very well taken, if I understand it correctly.
The certs you would have to go through to officially teach programming in the schools are so demeaning and outdated, that no programmer would do it -- and I've never met a teacher, even in the hard sciences or tech, who even knew what 'programming a computer' was: they were downright suspicious of the practice, because they couldn't distinguish it from 'hacking'.
They're certified to teach to the test, which means basic MS user skills, and maybe swapping boards in PCs and re-installing...you got it: windows.
The best thing you could do to really educate kids about computing, and not just train them on windows apps is to get them started with 8-bit computers. Yes, BASIC is awful for real development, but it was designed for education and it does this quite well. Removing all the layers of abstraction from modern PCs forces you to really understand what the computer is doing. While the skills aren't directly transferable to modern PCs, the concepts are, and that's what education is all about.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I dunno - I'm with the OP here. A big part of why most computing classes suck is that they aren't focusing on the fun and exciting things that can be done with programming.
Example.
I work in a US DoD agency that has a ton of civilian Engineers in it. I work with people who have MS degrees in Engineering, and tens of years of experience. Really. Friggin. Smart. People.
Not a one of them has taken a programming language that's even still used. Not even the newest Engineer, who has his Masters, and is only 26 years old. He didn't even have to TAKE a programming class. All the older engineers of my age (mid 30s) had to at least take a programming class, but it was Pascal (SERIOUSLY????) or FORTRAN.
Now - granted, FORTRAN is still used in a lot of the models we run, but I digress.
None have heard of Python, Groovy, etc. None have ever touched an object oriented language. But every one of them comes to me to write code for them where they could probably do it themselves if they had the training. I'm talking about silly stuff - data manipulation that takes 30-100 lines of code and a half day at most.
Don't get me wrong - I love my job, but ffs. If they had to take an object oriented language - even C++, but better C# or Java, they could much better interact with we programmers writing their apps for them.
Sometimes classes are outright outdated. I had a course around 1999 which was supposedly about computer programming. We spent the first few weeks with only lectures and an incredibly outdated textbook. The teacher (an otherwise okay math teacher) was clearly well behind the times. He lectured about microcomputers, minicomputers and had no idea that most servers by then were basically souped up versions of typical desktop computers.
The language was Pascal, which I suppose is a decent learning language, but we barely scratched the surface of programming ability. For a high-school level class, it was tediously outdated and slow. I truly hope that by now the instruction has moved along and kids are doing more interesting things. There were other interesting courses offered in things like graphic design, web design, etc. but the core programming class had neither much CS theory nor interesting applications. Worst, if you didn't know any better the content in the course would actually mislead you about the state of computing.
All subjects have the "boring basics". The key is the instructor; a good instructor can make the basics of a field really interesting. Unfortunately, being a good programming instructor is hard, and at the K-12 level it is really hard.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
Do you know there is a spelling difference between the words "tech" and "teach", right? If you would learn this it would make deciphering your posts much easier. Second on your list should be about splitting your thoughts into multiple sentences instead of one long run-on sentence that meanders.
Computer science was new and wonderful twenty, perhaps thirty years ago. You could learn a large area of the field even in high school. There were things to discover, things to do, things to share.
Then the commodity computer came and software behemoth companies. For almost anything now there are commercial apps which can do whatever you do faster better and at a level of generality you would never imagine. Wanna write a program plot a graph? There's Mathematica which does it in color.
It's very hard to teach anything interesting if the home computer can do it better and faster. The iPhone programming craze did get people interested in programming again, but I guess that's over now.
Computer science has to realize they are now living in reality like other sciences, low attendance, low interest, and students who either get it or don't. I found when I was teaching college math that freshman calc was the worst possible thing to teach. Anybody interested in math would skip it because they got it long ago. So it will be in Computer science.
They know computing skills are a dead-end pursuit in the first world.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
More like, if maths were just learning to use a calculator. Learning to use a spreadsheet or word processor isn't even about computing. If that passes for computing, then driver's ed could replace physics, and home economics chemistry. It's like they thing that if a computer is involved, it has something to do with computer science. But computers are in almost everything these days.
The was a great CPU simulator programs on the BBCs and you could step through machine code. We had to write a small assembly program to add some numbers or similar. Of course we also had the office apps lessons with database/spreadsheet/wordproc stuff, mostly using clarisworks.
We also had atari sts in Art and Music departments, and the maths department had BBC micros for things like graphing and simulations on occassion. This was all during the 90's, even my primary school in the 80's had a BBC A and B for things like Funschool etc..
Bring back the educational BBC TV programmes on computing/programming.
Heck, just do reruns and bring back the old BBC Model B. Kids will learn far more from that than they ever will at schools today.
I have never taken any computing subject at school because of how boring they are. I learnt a lot just by experimenting by myself, buying books, magazines and watching TV. Once upon a time, one used to be able to get great information from magazines and terrestrial television but nowadays, they don't get any more technical than discussing font size and if a case mod with LEDs will make the computer perform better. Pioneering stuff was done years ago on TV, like encouraging people to hack their TVs and pipe the audio to the cassette audio-in on their home computers to try to download a program. It was fun stuff.
Not doing any computing classes at school didn't put a crimp in my career... except perhaps that I never learned to touch-type properly.
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
I am the IT director of a school in the US. I can see first hand that the only thing the "educators" are interested in is training students to use application software. Not only that, it must be the absolute latest version of a certain company's office package. It's so the students will get "real world" training. WTF?
While it indeed is important for students to learn to use these tools, by the time some of these students make it into the workforce, the software that students are trained on (and cost so much money to 'license') is 'obsolete.'
What happened to the concept of teaching concepts? How to produce a document using a word processor and not Microsoft Word 2007? I learned word processing with AppleWorks on an Apple //e. I can churn out a basic document in minutes with any word processor I use. How many kids 'trained' in the exclusive world of Microsoft software will ever be able to do this?
I'm very lucky. The administration in the school I work at is not like this. The administration mostly use Windows machines, but the students and teachers all use a mix of Linux thin clients (LTSP!) and Macs. The office package we use is Open Office.
In fact, when I was forced to go to school I tried to avoid all classes because they all taught nothing but the boring basics.
Yes. How horrible that kids were going to school when they were young instead of working in coal mines and getting permanent disabilities before 10. Golly gee, I can't wait to go back to such a world!
There is no "IT personnel shortage" until salaries go up.
As I point out occasionally, "Information Technology" is taking the same path that "stationary engineering" did almost exactly a century century ago. In the 1880s, it was a really big deal if you were the one who could get a steam engine and generator to work together and light up a factory, business, or town. By 1910 or so, it was a routine job. Today, there are still about 25,000 stationary engineers in the United States. It's a good union job. There are electrical engineers designing new equipment, but they're nowhere near the user and have completely different training than the people who install and run the stuff.
That's where IT is going, and it's almost there. Don't worry about it. Just use your iPhone like a good little consumer, and buy your software from Microsoft.
As a sysadmin who has to program from time to time: yes, spreadsheets and word processors are completely unimportant in many regards. They're different, the skills migrate pretty easily, and the likelihood of having to use the same spreadsheet in 3-5 years is negligible.
Basic spreadsheet computations, or Access stuff? Sure, I suppose. Just please don't use a horrible Microsoft Press book: crammed full of "click here" goodness bullshit, they're mind numbing. They're worse than New Math.
Basic programming is, for a beginner, very satisfying - whether it's shell, perl, or VB. "Look what I made" is very horizon opening, regardless of whether it's a crayon drawing, an ash try, a clock, or a highly advanced artificial intelligence. :)
The problem there is that any AI written by a high schooler is likely to be several hundred iterations more complex than the average school teacher, "computer" teachers included.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I had pre-CompSci in 7th and 8th grade, taught by an old mainframer.
He gave us challenging computer science problems. We turned them out on C64s.
When the work was done, out came the joysticks..
Thanks, Barry!
In this regard anyway. I remember I avoided PC classes all through school. Why waste elective credits on stuff I already knew and listen to a teacher, who can't progam their own VCR, try to tell me how a PC Functions or tell me the way I type is wrong?
Nothing agianst the treachers but in most cases they barely grasp what they themselves are teaching and its going to be a generation or two before this changes because the technology is new and still in a very rapid state of change.
I remember I didn't take a computer class until high school when they started offering A+ and CCNA and such as elective credits. I took keyboarding because it was a prerequesit, they wouln't waive it. The teacher knew nothing about what he was doing and was infurated with me because he gave me what he was sure was a whole periods worth of work to anybody, and I finished it in 5 minutes. I finaly got kicked out of his class when he sent me to the principals office because I would not respond when he called me "BOY!" It was one of those southren types where everyone in his class was either "BOY!" or "Sugar" He wrote me up for being disrespectful because I pointed out I had no idea he was talking to me because there were about 12 other boys in his class.
Luckily the principal realised how stupid it was and waived the requirement since I obviously could already type faster than I could talk.
You could say the same about cellular biology, chemistry, quantum mechanics, calculus, and music taught at the high school level. Most people won't professionally develop those skills, but they're better off for having been exposed to the fundamentals. Any maybe out of the breadth of subjects you throw at a young student, they'll find their passion and stick with it. Why exclude programming from that mix?
pffft, I type with my dick. The only problem is that balls keep pushing the space-bar.
You can't handle the truth.
Yeah. Why teach the applications practical to 95% of white collar jobs instead of programming, which most kids won't be interested in, fewer will 'get' and hardly any will ever do professionally?
These are kids we're talking about, not job trainees. I agree that programming is probably useless to teach if you were trying to teach them a professional skill, but it's more about teaching them how to use their brain. I was never taught spreadsheets, word processing, or Power Point, yet I did all of these things on a daily basis once I graduated. I was taught how to USE a computer, how to think like a software developer, and most importantly how to teach myself new things using the resources around me.
If I were teaching the class, I'd give them all the necessary tools to learn. And for the final exam, I'd make them perform a few basic tasks in a program they've never seen before. THAT is how I determine if someone knows how to use a computer. Not how good they are at making spreadsheets. Anyways, these are the rambling thoughts of someone that has to train people everyday on software they were supposed to know when they were hired....
Because we're discussing general education, not trade school?
At the very least, the foundation in logical thought required for programming would be a boon to general education.
Personally, I think students should receive instruction in both programming, and in business applications. They are two very different subjects, and I don't think it should be an either/or situation.
The kind of literary analysis I did in high school wasn't doing anything productive, either -- but the critical analysis skills I developed doing those exercises were very important for me to learn. Just as ancillary skills to programming (logic, etc) are very important for people to learn.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
What language can be written entirely with only the bottom row of the keyboard?
In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
Probably a majority of US students dislike math and science classes because they are viewed as "hard". Since they are usually college entrance requirements and computer science usually is not, they are less avoidable in practice.
Whitespace.
Brainfuck.
You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
"how to use spreadsheets, word processors and PowerPoint" are not Computing classes or computing skills. They are examples of office skills and should be classified as Business Courses.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
\For almost anything now there are commercial apps which can do whatever you do faster better and at a level of generality you would never imagine.\
That's such BS, there are tons of tools (even commercial tools) which REQUIRE programming ability to make the most of. Take matlab, yes, most of it's features are technically available through the GUI, but if you want to do anything at all interesting with it (like, let's say, multivariate analysis of fMRI data), I think you'd be hard pressed (it would be impossible) to do it without writing a program to do it.
It seems to me that you attitude is the real problem, yeah I could do it in excel with clicky buttons, or I could write a python script that does 10 times more 10 times faster. Not to mention that if someone learns how to program, learning baby stuff like excel and power point won't even require classes.
I recently tought a bunch of psych kids how to write some matlab to run their experiments and analyze their data (see sassy fMRI comment above) and It seems ridiculous that anyone could hope to be any sort of exciting scientist without the ability to at least to some simple data handling in a scripting language.
Ze Atomic Device! It iz Ztolen!
2005: I would start with Ruby, then most people would never need to learn another language. A small minority would want to learn C, but those would be specialists.
2002: I would start with PHP, then most people would never need to learn another language. A small minority would want to learn C, but those would be specialists.
1999: I would start with Perl, then most people would never need to learn another language. A small minority would want to learn C, but those would be specialists.
The problem of educational technique is only 1/2 the problem, at best. The real problem, just like in the rest of the sciences, is working conditions. As long as it's OK to call people "geek" to their face and pay them shite, most smart kids will continue to gravitate towards business degrees because that's where the money and respect are to be found. No hard science job pays as much as the manager that they answer to, as long as that situation remains so will low enrollment.
Computers were fun back when the reward was worth the effort. Poking data into the display buffer, writing short bits of code in machine language to open the door of CD drive -- the direct connection between software and hardware -- that's what I liked.
Today the best way to do that is probably to build a robot or some other sort of embedded system. Watching your Lego-bot roll around the floor and respond to input according to your rules is a lot more engaging than calling Qt to put up a button or OpenGL to draw a square.
It's obvious pretty quickly that 'Hello World' isn't exactly the door to Narnia.
1997: I would start with Java, then most people would never need to learn another language. A small minority would want to learn C, but those would be specialists.
1990: I would start with VB, then most people would never need to learn another language. A small minority would want to learn C, but those would be specialists.
1985: I would start with Pascal, then most people would never need to learn another language. A small minority would want to learn C, but those would be specialists.
1980: I would start with BASIC, then most people would never need to learn another language. A small minority would want to learn C, but those would be specialists.
1975: I would start with Fortran, then most people would never need to learn another language. A small minority would want to learn C, but those would be specialists.
1970: I would start with Fortran, then most people would never need to learn another language. A small minority would want to learn PL/1, but those would be specialists.
1965: I would start with COBOL, then most people would never need to learn another language. A small minority would want to learn ALGOL, but those would be specialists.
1960: I would start with LISP.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I recently guest-taught a class at the local high school for kids who might be interested in computers.
It was a bit rushed, but in 45 minutes I taught them basic binary counting and how to do XOR. They learned how to flip pennies to create a one-time-pad and transmit unbreakable encrypted messages. The bell rang just after they started decoding, but they walked out of the class still working the logic on their sheet of paper, so I think they were into it. CS can be fun as long as theory is only a tool to enable an application.
Materials: whiteboard, scraps of paper, a handful of pennies.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
In french we have Informatique and Bureautique.
The first one being Comp. Sci.... the Second one being secretary work.
School usually don't teach the first one and think that kids learning the latest very specific version of whatever Microsoft released must be good.
What a shame!
I actually took a 1-credit "How to use a Macintosh" course at Stanford. Of course, this was in 1984, when that was a big deal.
(The 128K Macintosh, with one floppy and no hard drive, wasn't very impressive. It's worth remembering that it was a commercial flop. "A machine for the intensive study of wait icons", someone wrote at the time. Not until the Mac was built up to 512K or so and had a working hard drive was it actually useful.)