Excite Kids To Code By Focusing Less On Coding

the agent man writes "The Hour of Code event taking place December 9-15 has produced a number of tutorials with the goal to excite 10 millions kids to code. It's really interesting to contrast the different pedagogical approaches behind the roughly 30 tutorials. The University of Colorado's 'Make a 3D Game' tutorial wants to excite kids to code by focusing less on coding. This pedagogy is based on the idea that coding alone, without non-coding creativity, has a hard time attracting kids who are skeptical of computer science, including a high percentage of girls who think 'programming is hard and boring.' Instead, the 'Make a 3D Game' activity has the kids create sharable 3D shapes and 3D worlds in their browsers, which they then want to bring to life — through coding. There is evidence that this strategy works. The article talks about the research exploring how kids get excited through game design, and how they can later leverage coding skills acquired to make science simulations. You can try the activity by yourself or with your kids, if you're curious."

Comments

The Solution

[Frosty Piss]

A better way to promote programming to kids:

https://www.google.com/search?q=booth+babes&source=lnms&tbm=isch

Re:The Solution

[JMJimmy]

Dear Daughter,

Be inspired to code by dressing really slutty and letting a bunch of geeks you'd never go out with ogle you.

Your Loving Father

Re:The Solution

[Half-pint HAL]

Yes, that's the "politically correct" response.

The realist response might involve the fact that most females have no interest in programming. MOST.

That's not "realist", that's fatalist -- "girls aren't interested in our misogynistically dominated profession, so let's just appeal to misogynists instead."

Or we could just be less misogynistic.

Girls are completely wrong.

[Brett Buck]

Coding for it's own sake is *easy* and boring.

Re:Girls are completely wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

They like it better when it's hard—it's easier to take it all in.

Re:Girls are completely wrong.

[rtb61]

The best way of teaching coding is firstly in the manipulation of interesting simulations, firstly where the manipulation of inputs into the simulations alters the outcomes and then reviewing the underlying algorithms and how changes there further alter the outcomes. This provides access to much more complicated programs that in total are out of the intellectual reach of learning students but far more interesting, so while the whole program is far to complex, elements of it are within reach and draw the students to programming and the problem solving that can be achieved with programs.

Complex stuff, like weather modelling, which would allow a range of subjects to be taught simultaneously (programming, weather, physics, maths etc), can be very worthwhile simulation teaching exercises. Flight modelling also provides similar simultaneous learning opportunities. So rather than focus on boring coding, focus on problem solving than can be achieved by coding in complex detailed simulations, from social dynamics in city building to space launch and the human body and health, there are a range of interesting outcomes and many solutions that come together to achieve them.

Re:Girls are completely wrong.

[Half-pint HAL]

Coding above a certain, very low competency level, is not a skill you can train people for.

Either that "low" level is a lot higher than you think, or our world is doomed. Coding is a matter of process-thinking, and any large company runs on process thinking. Getting people to code early as a core skill, rather than as a specialism, would have knock-on effects in all organisations employing more than a few dozen people.

Re:Girls are completely wrong.

[swillden]

Coding is a matter of process-thinking

It's a lot more than that. Coding is very different from the sort of process thinking you use to build processes executed by people, because computers are completely incapable of filling in any gaps or exercising any initiative. If you build company processes the way you write code, they'll be very ineffective, and if you write code the way you build company processes, your code will rarely work.

In addition, outside of code that defines business rules, coding involves huge numbers of details and abstractions of those details which are different from anything we encounter in the "real" world.

Getting people to code early as a core skill, rather than as a specialism, would have knock-on effects in all organisations employing more than a few dozen people.

If that were true, then former programmers would make outstanding managers and executives. I do know some software engineers who are outstanding managers or executives, and I know plenty who were great coders but lousy at management and leadership. Further, in my experience the correlation between coding effectiveness and managerial effectiveness is negative, though close to zero.

For loops and printfs aren't fun

[MrEricSir]

If you want people to get interested in programming, you have to show them something interesting they can do with it? *gasp*

Personally I didn't get interested in programming because someone showed me how to do a for loop. I got interested because I could build games in ZZT or add my own cheat codes to gorillas.bas. (Those damn gorillas didn't stand a chance against my nuclear bananas.)

Re:For loops and printfs aren't fun

[Tablizer]

I got into programming because my friend talked me into taking an elective class in high-school. I was reluctant at first. But after I saw what it was all about, I realized how potentially powerful programming was: a wide variety of ideas that I could conceive I could turn into a "device" and shape it to my vision: the computer was a blank canvas and the programming language was a rack full of shiny new paints and brushes.......and it was fun and liberating, until the boss made me paint the corporate equivalent of velvet Elvises all day.

Maybe kids should just be forced to take a course until it clicks what programming is about. Some things just take getting over an initial hump of ignorance and confusion.

Since when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Was programming ever not hard or boring?

Me thinks some little kiddies are in for a rude awakening when they realize their favourite games are comprised of nothing but hundreds of thousands of lines of "code". The real world doesn't hide C or C++ behind a pretty sugar coated UI. If they're not interested in programming, then they're not interested in programming. I don't understand why there seems to be this excessive push to force programming on younglings these days. It's definitely not for everyone, and the last thing we need right now is more dis-interested programmers who write crummy code because they're just there for the cash.

Re:Since when...

[Anonymous Coward]

The push is to get young girls into programming. Because if young girls can't do what a grown man can, that would imply that grown man are superior to young girl in at least one thing. And that would get the feminists mad. So keep pushing kids into stuff that do not interest them, because you go girl! Nothing is more important then proving men are inferior.

Re:Since when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Programming was never "boring" to the right kids. We don't need the other kids.

Re:Since when...

[doctor woot]

Programming was never "boring" to the "right" kids because those kids were creative and had the ability to imagine the possibilities provided by computers and the motivation to see them through. But with the outright failure of the American (and possibly elsewhere) educational system, it's not absurd to suggest that maybe we ought to foster this sort of creativity and innovative behavior in more people through different approaches to educating children. As it stands, academic subjects are taught as horrible distortions of their actual selves and not at all accurate representations of what the subjects are actually like. For example, my "computer science" classes in high school involved typing up code in HTML and learning how to send emails. If I hadn't known any better I would've dropped computers altogether. Same goes for math, physical science, etc.

  Even if we don't convince all too many kids to pursue academic careers, with a stronger social understanding and appreciation of the sciences we might just end up with, at the very least, slightly lessened pressure on scientists who are starving for research grants.

Re:Since when...

[VortexCortex]

It's definitely not for everyone, and the last thing we need right now is more dis-interested programmers who write crummy code because they're just there for the cash.

While I agree that just being in it for the cash is the wrong approach, I also vehemently disagree that programming is the last thing kids need. Kids need programming with their mathematics. Consider a Sigma symbol -- That's a fucking for loop you twit. Now, if we had just taught the kids how to do mathematics on computers instead of shitty little calculators then they could control the primary IO they have with the digital world: HTML and JavaScript.

Once you realize that programming is essentially applied algebra, then you must ask yourself why it the hell would you even consider depriving the kids of a meaningful way to utilize the mathematics you're trying to teach them? Don't you WANT to extinct that question, "Meh, When will I ever use this in the real world?" and the associated boredom?

Human. You are a damned tool using creature. Your younglings will naturally find intriguing useless concepts that they have no way of directly leveraging. I have trained children who are flunking out of mathematics to be A+ students by simply teaching them a bit of JavaScript and game design. It is the teachers that are FAILING like fools to hand out the tools. Someone must break the cycle. Every human with a computer that doesn't know how to tell it what they want it to do is hindering your progress as a species. In the Age of Information this is like not teaching them how to read and write.

Are you a scientist? I don't think you are. If you were you would realize you can't just say shit like "the last thing we need is ___" without testing the damned hypothesis first. Go suck a tailpipe, you are hindering your herd.

Re:Since when...

[DarkOx]

Exactly This ^^^

You want to motivate someone to really learn something show them the power of the thing. If you try to teach programming or math by showing kinds "hey you make 3d animations" many are not going to be interesting; because many won't see value in the application. On the other hand convey this can open endless possibilities its a tool that you can use to accomplish YOUR OWN goals, and kids will take interest.

For one student that might be animating their favorite comic book character, but for another it might be reading in a bunch of statistics and optimizing a fantasy football lineup. So you do need to show them some applications in the real world, but a truly great teacher might let some of the students define what that application is, because that would prove to them and all the others, that isn't about calculating how many swimming pools you can fill in hour with a 3" diameter water pipe, and some given pressure. Its about being empowered to do what you want to get done.

Programming IS hard and boring

[kervin]

I love to code and have been ever since I owned my first computer, but the kids are right. Programming is hard and boring compared to a lot of things they could be doing. So may we can try to help them understand why this hard and boring task is still worth their time. Instead of try to put lipstick on that particular pig.

Re:Programming IS hard and boring

[cascadingstylesheet]

I love to code and have been ever since I owned my first computer, but the kids are right. Programming is hard and boring compared to a lot of things they could be doing. So may we can try to help them understand why this hard and boring task is still worth their time. Instead of try to put lipstick on that particular pig.

Most things worth doing have their hard and boring stretches ... but when that program works, or that music plays beautifully, or whatever it is just comes together, there is a lot of satisfaction.

Re:Programming IS hard and boring

[RightwingNutjob]

You know, any task done well should logically have this property, but for some reason you never hear about the years of kitchen catastrophes that go into making an innovative world-class chef, or years of grinding practice that make a gold-medal figure-skating or gymnastics routine. Maybe there really is an image problem that's bigger than we'd like to admit.

Not just kids

[Wonko the Sane]

I've never learned any language for it's own sake, and I've always been interested in programming as long as I can remember.

Every time I've tried to learn a language just to know it, it's about as successful as pushing a string. As soon as I have some goal I'm excited about where not knowing a certain language is getting in my way of achieving it, I learn virtually effortlessly.

Re:Wants me to use Chrome

[MikeBabcock]

Chrome has a full application interface for writing apps in it, much like Android or iOS. Feel free to hit https://chrome.google.com/webstore and have a look at some.

Programming is a dead-end job

[Tablizer]

Why the hell the push to force more women into programming? Programming is a dead-end job. The stats and personal experience show a good percent move on to something else. Burnout, RSI, ageism, long-hours, etc. are real issues in programming. Women want stability because they often end up being the primary care-givers of families for good or bad, and programming is NOT stability.

If you like programming, that's fine, but don't expect to be able to stay in it for more than 15 or so years. Have a Plan B.

I'm just the messenger.

Re:Programming is a dead-end job

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If you like programming, that's fine, but don't expect to be able to stay in it for more than 15 or so years.

I think you've just identified the reason. If the supply of programmers is burning out that fast, we've got to shove as many replacements in as we can, lest we face having to do something really drastic, like pay them more...

Why there are so many sucky programmers

[ulatekh]

Kids can easily teach themselves to program well? Then why do a grand majority of programmers suck at it completely?

In my experience, sucky programmers are the way they are because...they didn't learn to program as kids.

I did, and was shocked when I entered college (late 1980s) to find that the vast majority of my peers in the CS program had never touched a computer before going to college. They majored in CS because they thought they could get a good job and make a whole lot of money. Love for the craft (or any actual aptitude for programming or engineering) was never part of it.

The next problem is that, when they get out of college and enter the workforce, they bristle at the idea that there's anything else to learn. After all, they went to college, and they know everything. I'll never understand that...I have to learn constantly just to stay relevant. But most industry programmers developed lots of false confidence by bashing around toy problems in college, and try to be just as sloppy and short-sighted in their paid work.

Finally...because bad code is not a life-or-death thing like bad work in other fields is. Can you imagine chemists as sloppy and incompetent as the average industry computer programmer? They'd either poison themselves, blow themselves up, or dissolve themselves before long. Oh, how I wished I had stayed with chemistry.

Re:Why there are so many sucky programmers

[JMJimmy]

And even when you do, you can't get a job because everyone wants a rockstar developer who can do it all when in reality it'd take a team of 6 specialists to do what they expect 1 person to be able to know/execute perfectly and quickly.

Re:Why there are so many sucky programmers

[mlts]

When I was running through CS (graduated in 2008), the students knew they would have to fight tooth and nail for positions. They had to be better than the offshore coding houses, and/or the H-1Bs.

So, a lot of them not just did well in class, but went off on internships, both paid and unpaid, as well as went and got their name on some OSS project.

The people that went through CS were the die-hards... there were no illusions about getting some cushy ABAP job. Instead the students focused on trying to actually be usable pieces in a dev team puzzle. The people who were not that dedicated switched their majors to general business.

Re:'programming is hard and boring.'

[Decker-Mage]

Simple answer? The best people at that kind of work are puzzle-people. The only differences I have detected over the last forty-five years is what knowledge domain they are best suited for solving problems in this manner. When they decide to enter the field, computer science or engineering or programming (coding), they face a curriculum that is seriously disconnected with their passion around reasoning out and solving problems. It's a one size fits all curriculum that winnows the wheat rather than the chaff.

As with your example, I started when I was ten. My personal computer occupied the entire first floor of the Science building at the university. Everyone thought it was "cute" that someone so young was picking it up quickly. By the time I was 14 I was a teaching assistant and doing consulting. Back then, it was all about solving problems. That changed rather quickly over the next few years as the computer science, then computer engineering, even the set of courses within various departments were seriously over-subscribed. Then the curbs were brought in to reduce the number of successful candidates and to winnow out anyone except those who would tough it out. You also see this in pre-med and pre-law programs for the same reason.

There's no easy fix either. They can yell up and down about a shortage of STEM graduates but until the systemic restrictions are centered about actually selecting people that are "the best and brightest," it isn't going to change. Meanwhile, "our global competitors" are about getting people through to the job market with what they need to know rather than equipped with knowledge that is useless in real-world problems.

Re:'programming is hard and boring.'

[Half-pint HAL]

Yeah, it's so hard that children can easily teach themselves.

Kids can easily teach themselves to program well? Then why do a grand majority of programmers suck at it completely? They're incompetent and don't have a deep understanding of any of the concepts.

Valid point. Self-teaching is a very hit-and-miss experience. Some self-teachers fail to identify important things and hence never learn them.

The prevalence of the (partially) self-taught programmer in the workplace basically points to one simple problem: a lack of school teachers who are capable of teaching programming. We've not developed enough of a teaching culture, so even good programmers find it difficult to put themselves in the learner's position and so they don't make good teachers.

Re:Yep.

[Half-pint HAL]

All these kids that these programs reach will think programming is fun at first, and as soon as the educational emphasis shifts to real computer science, most of them will just switch majors.

Is that a problem? Why should programming be the sole preserve of CS grads? (grad (en_UK) = major (en_US)

The guys who get the interesting programming jobs usually have another specialism anyway, like my friend who studied astrophysics and now programs space craft maneouvering routines...