Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, and Lately, Coding

Posted by samzenpus on from the show-and-tell dept.

theodp (442580) writes "The NY Times reports that the national educational movement in computer coding instruction is growing at Internet speeds. 'There's never been a move this fast in education,' said Elliot Soloway, a professor of education and computer science at the Univ. of Michigan. But, cautions the NY Times' Matt Richtel, it is not clear that teaching basic computer science in grade school will beget future jobs or foster broader creativity and logical thinking, as some champions of the movement are projecting. And particularly for younger children, the activity is more like a video game — better than simulated gunplay, but not likely to impart actual programming skills. 'Some educators worry about the industry's heavy role,' adds Richtel. 'Major tech companies and their founders, including Bill Gates and Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, have put up about $10 million for Code.org,' which recently announced its CS programs will be rolled out to more than 2 million students — nearly 5% of all U.S. K-12 students — at 30 school districts this fall. Among the 20,000 teachers who Code.org says have signed on is Alana Aaron, a fifth-grade math and science teacher who, with her principal's permission, swapped a two-month earth sciences lesson she was going to teach on land masses for the Code.org curriculum. 'Computer science is big right now — in our country, the world,' she said. 'If my kids aren't exposed to things like that, they could miss out on potential opportunities and careers.'"

27 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. Computer science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Once again, another ignoramus has the false idea that coding is all there is to computer science. I don't expect the actual 'education' to be all that great, as usual.

    1. Re:Computer science? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Coding" is nothing more than translating what computer science created into what a computer understands. Equating computer science with coding is like equating architecture with putting down bricks to build the house.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Computer science? by nbauman · · Score: 2

      Once again, another ignoramus has the false idea that coding is all there is to computer science. I don't expect the actual 'education' to be all that great, as usual.

      The problem is that we have billionaires leading our education system into the latest fads rather than having educators and scientists leading our education system using what has been proven to work (and avoiding what has been proven to fail).

    3. Re:Computer science? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Coding" is nothing more than translating what computer science created into what a computer understands.

      You are using a very narrow definition of "coding". Decades ago, a "computer scientist" would design an algorithm and perhaps draw a flowchart, then a "programmer" would implement it with pen and paper in a language such as FORTRAN, then a "key-punch operator" would key in the program and print the Hollerith cards. Today, nobody does it that way. Algorithms are designed directly into a high level language, and typed directly into the computer, by a single person. When people like Bill Gates talk about "coding" they are encompassing the entire process of algorithm design, implementation, and testing.

    4. Re:Computer science? by Zmobie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Coding is necessary to competently use a computer to solve problems.

      I have to strongly disagree here. I work as a software engineer and I have seen both sides of this coin. I have seen multiple people working as software engineers that could model and create respectable algorithms that couldn't use a computer beyond that to save their lives. CS =/= IT. I have also seen people that couldn't write "Hello World" if I gave them Eclipse and had it auto-create and format the shell for them, but they could do stuff with Excel and other pieces of software that I was unaware that software even had those features.

      I am all for this movement of we need more software developers, because we have tons to be done and no where near enough people (course this kind of works in my favor, but that is neither here nor there), but bottom line is software development is not some elementary skill that you should teach every kid in the world. Some people are just not geared to do it. That doesn't mean that software developers are inherently better or something, just different. There are still plenty of things these people can do. I just feel like we should make sure the opportunity is there (which in a lot of cases it is not right now), not try to cram it down everyone's throat (like what some of these movements are doing, and in many cases they seem to only have a rudimentary understanding of what they are trying to do).

      Code.org specifically I am on the fence about still, but there are quite a number of these other movements that are just plain hogwash ("learn to code in a year, in your spare time!" yea, right).

    5. Re:Computer science? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      having educators and scientists leading our education system using what has been proven to work

      Where is the "proof" that what we are doing works? I live in California, and the three big things the "educators" are pushing are 1) Common Core, 2) Credentialed Teachers, and 3) Smaller classes. Here is the number of controlled studies that I have seen that show that that "Common Core" is effective: 0. Teachers with education credentials have been found to be LESS effective than teachers with degrees in other subjects. Teachers with advanced degrees in education, have found to have NO improvement over teachers with bachelors degrees in education (both are inferior). Lastly, there is astonishingly little evidence to show that smaller classes improve student performance, considering the billions spent on implementing them. Smaller class sizes have been shown to be beneficial in only narrow circumstances, specifically poorly performing students in lower grades. And in even then, there is some evidence that the real benefit is quieter classrooms rather than smaller classes. For brighter kids, the smaller classes often reduce performance, because they are more likely to be compelled to follow along with the class, rather than read ahead. So please tell us, where is the evidence that educators are using what has been "proven to work"?

    6. Re:Computer science? by nbauman · · Score: 4, Informative

      having educators and scientists leading our education system using what has been proven to work

      Where is the "proof" that what we are doing works? I live in California, and the three big things the "educators" are pushing are 1) Common Core, 2) Credentialed Teachers, and 3) Smaller classes. Here is the number of controlled studies that I have seen that show that that "Common Core" is effective: 0. Teachers with education credentials have been found to be LESS effective than teachers with degrees in other subjects. Teachers with advanced degrees in education, have found to have NO improvement over teachers with bachelors degrees in education (both are inferior). Lastly, there is astonishingly little evidence to show that smaller classes improve student performance, considering the billions spent on implementing them. Smaller class sizes have been shown to be beneficial in only narrow circumstances, specifically poorly performing students in lower grades. And in even then, there is some evidence that the real benefit is quieter classrooms rather than smaller classes. For brighter kids, the smaller classes often reduce performance, because they are more likely to be compelled to follow along with the class, rather than read ahead. So please tell us, where is the evidence that educators are using what has been "proven to work"?

      I didn't say all educators and scientists were using what was proven to work, I said they should lead with what was proven to work. Some educators and scientists are doing that.

      My major sources of information that has proven reliable over the years are:

      (1) Science magazine. They regularly publish evidence-based reviews of what works in science education and education generally. I subscribe and most of it is paywalled, unfortunately.

      One of the things that works in science is organizing students into study groups. That may seem obvious but most teachers don't do that and a lot of students aren't in study groups. Science had two special issues on minorities in education and they published the research on what works and doesn't work in science education.

      They also reported on the studies of preschool, which does seem to work, although it has to be done carefully. One thing that doesn't work is teaching kids to read (which George W Bush thought was the purpose of preschool). The benefit of preschool seems to be teaching kids how to socialize, so that when they do learn to read they won't be discipline problems. By the time kids are in Kindergarten and first grade, most of the damage has already been done.

      Science also examined high-stakes testing, and everyone agreed that the tests in No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top were not validated and so they're not showing student progress the way they're supposed to. For one thing, they're only valid for large populations, not for individual teachers. It's like firing teachers by throwing dice.

      (2) Diane Ravitch, who used to be assistant secretary of education in both the GHW Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration. She used to write op-eds on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and the WSJ loved her, because she was a conservative and came out for high standards, high-stakes testing, against unions, etc.

      Then she said that after she reviewed the data, the evidence didn't support NCLB and RTTT. She said the one factor that was most strongly associated with academic achievement was family income. So if you want to judge teachers by their results, you should bring everybody up to the starting line and increase their income.

      Second, she said, high-stakes testing didn't work. It didn't reflect the teacher's teaching ability. It merely reflected the student's family income.

      Third, she said, charter schools didn't work. When the data came in, they were doing worse, on the whole, than the matched public schools and unionized schools they were intended to replace.

      Fourth, she said, community scho

    7. Re:Computer science? by Guy+Harris · · Score: 2

      If you look at the original post, the AC was disparaging the article for focusing on coding over the 'rest' of computer science

      My intent was to point out that coding involves a set of skills that have a wider general application than just focusing on computer science, which could be likened to training a person for a trade

      I thought that I was being clear

      One thing you said was "Teaching people to rack servers and install operating systems becomes for focused and resembles learning a trade." "Teaching people to rack servers and install operating systems" is, of course, not part of computer science at all; it's also not part of coding, so its relevance to a discussion of coding and/or computer science is, at best, unclear.

      (Presumably you're not saying something completely insane, such as likening teaching computer science to teaching people to rack servers and install operating systems. Anybody who "gets" that is completely delusional or completely ignorant of computer science.)

    8. Re:Computer science? by gweihir · · Score: 2

      I have more than a decade of CS education (including a PhD). In all that time, I had about 20 hours of "coding education". That gives a realistic perspective of how important coding is in CS. Sure, you need to know how to do it, but it is about in the level of being able to read and write, i.e. you must have it, you must be good at it, but it gains you nothing.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re:Computer science? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah. And as astonishing as it may sound, "journalist", "writer", "photo reporter", "editor", "typesetter", "lector" and "printer" used to be different people instead of one.

      Time changes. Automatism does away with jobs, either eliminating them or offering enough automatism that it can be handled by someone who doesn't have 3+ years of training in it.

      Works in all kinds of trades.

      We're still far from when bricklayers may design houses because static has become trivial.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. Add it to math curriculum? by Hussman32 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems to me if you add coding to math curriculum, it would enhance both. In my high school during the '80's, boolean logic was not discussed at all, nor were principles like recursion, numerical approximation, and general algorithms. If those were added to algebra, geometry, and shown how computers help solve normally unsolvable problems (e.g. the simple pendulum without the law of sines approximation), the students understanding of both math and computer science would synergistically increase.

    --
    "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    1. Re:Add it to math curriculum? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      It seems to me if you add coding to math curriculum, it would enhance both. In my high school during the '80's, boolean logic was not discussed at all, nor were principles like recursion, numerical approximation, and general algorithms.

      Coding isn't math. Nor is it boolean logic, recursion, numerical approximation, or algorithms. Coding is writing a program and that program may or may not include those things.

  3. Re:Curriculum by nbauman · · Score: 2

    Curricula should be designed by science teachers and scientists. They shouldn't be designed by billionaires pushing their latest fad.

    FTA: "swapped a two-month earth sciences lesson she was going to teach on land masses for the Code.org curriculum."

    Coding is nice (although it's only a part of computer science). But what are you going to take out of the curriculum to make room for "coding"?

  4. Silicon Snake Oil by nbauman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejou...

    Stoll re-emphasizes his belief that the most comprehensive educational programming and technology systems could never replace a quality teacher. He recalls his own experience in a graduate physics class. The professor is discussing radiative transfer as Stoll is daydreaming in the back of the classroom. The professor realizes that Stoll isn't quite following the lecture and pauses to ask Stoll a few questions. Caught off-guard, Stoll has to think quickly and come up with a valid response. Fumbling through his first few questions, Stoll is skillfully led to the answer by a talented professor, using the only educational tool available; the Socratic method. Stoll states that there are plenty of computer programs that calculate radiative transfer, and even admits to writing some of them. However he believes that there are no software programs which could have taught him "as effectively as goofing off in Professor Marty Tomasko's class did" (p. 120).

    1. Re:Silicon Snake Oil by Zmobie · · Score: 2

      There is always a way to game the system. In my own anecdotal experience I agree that the professor makes a massive difference. In both CS and non-CS courses I understood subject material so much better when I had an engaging professor. Hell when I took data structures the concepts that I was shaky on from discrete math became substantially clearer thanks to the instructor I had (and he was just a teaching fellow!). I can program and automate a lot, but a proper teaching program? I believe there are way too many cases to make it truly effective without some crazy break-through in something like adaptive AI and human simulation.

    2. Re:Silicon Snake Oil by nbauman · · Score: 2

      Yeah, so? Is it your contention that adding programming to the curriculum will lower the quality of instruction for some reason?

      No, it's my contention that good teachers know how to teach and can introduce programming (or not) into the curriculum in ways that will contribute to the educational process.

      It is my contention that when programming (or anything else) is introduced to the curriculum by billionaires who are handing out money for the latest untested fad, it will lower the quality of instruction.

      It is my contention that Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg don't know much about education, aren't qualified to decide what belongs in the curriculum, and shouldn't set priorities like this.

  5. Re:If You Add... by PRMan · · Score: 2

    My daughter is taking this right now and she showed it to me. Basically, then start by moving a character. Then they have to automate the moving of the character. Then, they have to make if thens and loops to move the character. I was actually pleasantly surprised.

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  6. Wrong skills, too early by petes_PoV · · Score: 3, Insightful

    miss out on potential opportunities and careers

    If you teach a 10 year old to write "code", that won't help them in 8 or 10 years time when they try to apply for a job. The "code" technology will have moved on in that time, so the stuff they learned a decade ago will be obsolete. The knowledge that a professional programmer has, has a half-life of a few years: maybe as long as 5 years in some areas - possibly as a short as 1 or 2 in rapidly developing fields of work.

    Since nobody can tell what skills will be needed in the next decade, learning a particular coding language, the "learning to code" is almost certainly teaching the wrong language to children. It would be far better to teach them basic maths, basic logic and how to think in abstract terms - rather than focusing on tangible, here and now, stuff that will produce children who can blink an LED on a Raspberry Pi today, but will have no clue about hw to deal with the "AI on a chip" they might be faced with when they start their professional careers.

    When I started my first job after graduating, the job description didn't even exist when I started my university course. So what is the chance that teaching 5 or 10 year children a specific computing skill will be relevant to their career prospects in 10-15 years time?

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Wrong skills, too early by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I didn't put knowing my multiplication tables on my resume. Stuff you learn when you are 10 isn't supposed to get you job security, its part of a learning process that will include more stuff in the future (Like vector calculus, and 20 other programming languages).

      I was taught coding when I was ~8 or so. Sure that language didn't end up as one of the ~20 programming languages on my resume when I graduated, but it really helped get me started thinking in logically robust ways, and learning other languages. Also, my coding was the main driver behind my learning: symbolic algebra (you need that for coding) trigonometry and geometry (you need that for games), numerical integration and further calculus (you need that for programming motion) linear algebra (that's needed for physics, graphics and more) and lots of other things. Learning to code young is plenty useful. In addition to giving you ways to apply your knowledge from other fields, it helps you think logically, and if you are interested can get you started learning other useful things, be them computer science related or others. Its not hard, and I see no reason not to provide the opportunity.

      If everyone knew basic coding, physics and math classes could be structured to take advantage of it. Knowing to code really helps emphasize whats important: If you need to solve a class of geometry problems (say you get some parameters for a triangle and need to compute the others) coding up an application to do this can make sure you know about all the different cases, and when you are done you have something pretty useful. Coding is great for calculus (numerical methods) and physics. My advanced physics class in high-school got a bit into coding to do some simulation which was a great project, but would have been trivial to do if everyone new very basic coding concepts (they are language independent). I haven't done much chemistry, but I can basic coding being useful there too.

      There is a reason that I got an intro to coding from 6 departments at my university (Statistics, Math, Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Applied Mathematics and Physics): Its so useful that even non computer science related fields covered it since it aided their teaching and the ability of the students enough to be worth it. If everyone has a basic coding background, those classes wouldn't have spent half the time on coding just so they could use it. Getting that over with once in middle school or highschool (or earlier) would allow these advantages to be available for much more of peoples education.

    2. Re:Wrong skills, too early by Your.Master · · Score: 2

      Your problem is that you're thinking that coding is an end unto itself.

      That's a possible use of education, but this discussion is about programming as a tool to be used in math and science classes. And I have news for you -- it already is. In University science classes, you need to code, right from the first year. Maybe you use Matlab rather than a "serious, production-quality" language, but Matlab is still coding.

      Even in high school, it was often most effective to use a spreadsheet, and that's what we were encouraged to do even back in 2000 -- that's not exactly coding but it's not exactly unrelated either.

      For math it's even more stark -- a computer is basically a souped-up calculator. For analytic courses, you don't need either (though at the University level, Maple or Mathematica are quite useful for analytics...). For numerical courses, if you deny the use of at least a simple calculator once you're beyond teaching simple long division, then you're a bit of a dinosaur.

      So why is there a startling disconnected between first year University and final year high school in terms of programming? One of those things has to be wrong. I suggest that it's the high school that's wrong. If you don't teach kids to code, then there is a world of exploration and experimentation that is either unavailable to students or put behind arbitrary barriers, and it also doesn't give a realistic insight into how science is done in the modern age.

      As for it being a fad -- where I grew up, I learned to code with logo in elementary school. Can't remember the exact age I was but I think I was 8 when it was introduced, which would have been 1992. Things like Hyperstudio etc. encouraged us to seek out computers and make simple programs of them on our own time. The first "real programming" was when it got optional, and started at age 15 with C. I'm kind of stunned at how people expect so much less than I got in a rural middle-of-nowhere town, even now in 2014.

  7. Early exposure to programming by dthirteen · · Score: 2

    My school district provided early exposure via apple II computers. They showed up one summer with an extracurricular summer workshop and then one to two per classroom, and a computer lab in Jr. High. And while there was an Atari computer at home, I basically had all of my meaningful early exposure to programming via the school district, and the teachers who were willing to spend extra time learning about and then sharing how to use them. Starting at probably age 8 or 9, I used basic and then later logo. The logo continuing off and on until 8th grade when I was using functions/procedures, getting user input, redrawing the screen, etc. By 8th grade my programming was beyond the scope of the curriculum or programming knowledge of the teacher. These skills then lay dormant for 4-5 years resurfacing in college with the first two years of CS course work. Which then led to computer support employment and then high end systems/networking employment.

    It is impossible to attribute my skills to nature v. nurture, but I believe that any meaningful early exposure to computer languages, problem solving, or independent exploration of programming to solve a problem or provide something new is a worthwhile investment.

  8. Re:Math is hard! by mysidia · · Score: 2

    ..for average high school teachers.

    This is because they have education degrees, not Engineering or Mathematics degrees.

    You don't really need to know math to get your Education degree. You just need to B*S* and/or cheat your way through one or two math courses.

  9. Re:Math is hard! by Zmobie · · Score: 2

    To be fair, unless you actually GET a STEM degree, that is pretty much what everyone does. It was rather pathetic when I took my math placement test for college, out of the entire probably 300ish people that were taking it during my introduction block/week, about 2 maybe 3 of us (I know because the lab tech told me) tested out to Cal 1 which was the highest you could get (Me and another guy were from the same high school class and both took our AB Calc exams, already had credit). 70% tested either college algebra or one class higher. When reviewing other course catalogs, there was not hardly ANY requirement to get to Cal 1 unless you were doing a STEM degree.

    Hell, when I did digital logic, half the class was fucking horrible at boolean arithmetic of any form and they WERE engineering students. I quickly discovered most of them were cheating off of the handful of us that actually understood how to do it.

  10. reading writing arithmetic & CHESS by johnrpenner · · Score: 2, Interesting

    what would really help prepare children better than writing code is playing chess — it will help them learn how to think logically and consistently — if they learn it in chess first — learning all the various changing semantics of languages that may come and go will be trivial — if they got a good grounding in thinking properly through chess. a couple years of chess for grades 5-10 should be mandatory in every school curriculum.

    chess is even more important than learning to how to code — because to get anywhere with code, you have to immerse yourself in a language, an API, an IDE, and a way of thinking that is large, legacy, and arcane. by contrast, chess gets it down to the critical skills in a pretty efficient way.

    teach chess, then code later will be a piece of cake — because chess teaches the essential skills of grasping clear thoughts/moves in a facile way with the mind — and this mind muscle can be brought to higher level of logical consistency and clarity of thought with chess. something that is simple, yet lends itself to the greatest sophistication.

    another reason to teach chess is science standards — lack of critical thinking in regards to science is a reflection of a nation that has lost its ability to think clearly upon basic subjects. chess is the remedy for a lack of clear and lucid thinking on many subjects.

    one must work the mind, or it becomes weak, and unable to judge things very well — and then tends to be easily manipulated by political and emotional cues.

    2cents

  11. Logic and Critical thinking by Kittenman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This topic comes up once a quarter, or so. I agree with the gent above suggesting 'Chess' but in a different way. Teach the original abstract, not the implementation. If we've time and room in the curriculum, teach the kids logic. This will let them code, play chess, think, reason and analyze no matter what the end up doing for a crust in later life.

    And 'Critical thinking' - which someone had taught me that at Scumbag High. I had to work a lot of it out myself in later life. With Critical thinking around, we'd have a lot less homeopaths, psychics, spiritualists, gamblers...

    --
    "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
  12. Need Logic by mx+b · · Score: 2

    I think some have pointed out that coding develops logic skills, but I think that's reversing the "real" direction -- that logic skills help develop coding (and numerous other technical skills! and even just plain mathematics understanding). And yet, I have not seen any discussion about logic in our rush to improve education. AFAIK, Common Core doesn't even mention logic ( I browsed through the standards once for a couple hours but I don't recall ever seeing it).

    Basic propositional/symbolic logic should be taught and reinforced over and over in high school, particularly your last few years. I'm not an expert on childhood brain development, but I have the suspicion our middle school kids could do it fine too.

    At university, I was appalled by how many students were completely dumbfounded in a basic logic class. We're talking problems understanding if-then statements, and why affirming the consequent is bad. We didn't even get to symbolic logic that much, it was mostly analyzing simple sentences. I'm sure everyone could, and ultimately did, learn it, but you shouldn't even be able to get into a university without knowing logic. And that isn't all the students' fault -- that's the failure of the adults for not pushing for appropriate curricula. After that class, I became pretty convinced that its not that our kids are bad at math per se, but that they have a really hard time following logic arguments and therefore, mathematical arguments.

  13. Re: No kidding by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually, judging from the proportion of people who can't do it (even among those who claim they can), being able to write computer programs does make me special. But you could say the same for wiring a light switch or installing a faucet. Most people have no technical skill at all.