Slashdot Mirror
Why Coding Is Not the New Literacy
An anonymous reader writes: There has been a furious effort over the past few years to bring the teaching of programming into the core academic curricula. Enthusiasts have been quick to take up the motto: "Coding is the new literacy!" But long-time developer Chris Granger argues that this is not the case: "When we say that coding is the new literacy, we're arguing that wielding a pencil and paper is the old one. Coding, like writing, is a mechanical act. All we've done is upgrade the storage medium. ... Reading and writing gave us external and distributable storage. Coding gives us external and distributable computation. It allows us to offload the thinking we have to do in order to execute some process. To achieve this, it seems like all we need is to show people how to give the computer instructions, but that's teaching people how to put words on the page. We need the equivalent of composition, the skill that allows us to think about how things are computed."
He further suggests that if anything, the "new" literacy should be modeling — the ability to create a representation of a system that can be explored or used. "Defining a system or process requires breaking it down into pieces and defining those, which can then be broken down further. It is a process that helps acknowledge and remove ambiguity and it is the most important aspect of teaching people to model. In breaking parts down we can take something overwhelmingly complex and frame it in terms that we understand and actions we know how to do."
He further suggests that if anything, the "new" literacy should be modeling — the ability to create a representation of a system that can be explored or used. "Defining a system or process requires breaking it down into pieces and defining those, which can then be broken down further. It is a process that helps acknowledge and remove ambiguity and it is the most important aspect of teaching people to model. In breaking parts down we can take something overwhelmingly complex and frame it in terms that we understand and actions we know how to do."
It's been this way whenever a new technology became normalized in the public eye.
I had a chat with my late grandfather about this in the mid-90s. I told him about when I was a kid and there was a big push in making children "computer literate". So much so, in fact, that I took a class in 3rd grade or 4th grade in LOGO on a VIC-20.
My grandfather said that reminded him of when he was a boy in the 1930s. In his time people thought EVERYTHING would be mechanized and learning how machines work and how to fix them would be required to be literate in the future. So, he actually took classes in engine design (!) and maintenance in the mid-30s, and it wasn't a vocational school.
As we all know, the deep knowledge required to design a car or an oven similar machine is held by specialists and baked into the products we buy.
Similarly, the deep knowledge required to program a computer to do useful work SHOULD be baked into the products we buy.
Think of it this way: who needs to read the manual when they get a new car? You just figure it out because it is largely intuitive. A TON of non-intuitive thought went into making the car easy to use.
I think it is our responsibility (those of us here who are engineers) to work towards putting that level of ease of use to work. This is the real reason Apple is popular. Their stuff is easier to use than most other products and people are HUNGRY for that.
We don't need to teach every kid to program. We just need better programs.
For once, a car analogy that makes sense!
I believe basic "coding" should be a part of general education. The kind you would do in BASIC or a spreadsheet. Everybody has a computer, they could be using them more effectively if they knew how to automate stuff.
In my office, I sometimes get called in to split CSV files of addresses into street and streetnumbers; everybody should be able to do that in any spreadsheet. Nobody should have to call in a professional developer for such tasks.
Heck, just learning how to make complex iTunes and Google searches would be a huge time-saver for most people.
In that respect I agree with TFA's notion that modeling (breaking down a problem) is the core requirement, not some random programming language's syntax.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
No, it's not. (Thinking is a learned skill, after all.) That sort of egomaniacal nonsense is why so many programming communities are cesspits. Get over yourself.
Most people don't even truly come to understand mathematics, even though we attempt to teach it everywhere. I don't see any good reason to believe they could have the sort of critical thinking skills required to become truly great programmers, or truly outstanding when it comes to anything. I just don't see any evidence that leads to this. I see people who act like mindless robots when it comes to politics, fail to understand mathematics, believe in magical sky daddies for which there is no evidence, and do all sorts of other tremendously illogical and irrational things despite the education we attempt to give them; that makes me conclude that most people are hopeless.
I see no evidence that they'd be geniuses or very smart if they just worked harder, so at the moment, I simply lack a belief in that being true.
Is it because you're actually insecure and want to believe that those you admire for their talent are "just lucky"? Is it that you'd rather believe that it's not your fault that you're not as accomplished as you'd like to be? Isn't it far more empowering to accept that you're skilled because you put in effort and that you can continue to improve?
Do you believe what you do because you're frustrated that you're not as good as you'd like to be, so you fool yourself into believing that anyone can become truly great through hard work?
If that doesn't sound accurate, it probably isn't. Trying to psychoanalyze other people over the Internet just makes you look like an idiot in my eyes. It isn't even relevant to the conversation.