Google: Poor Kids Might Grasp Macbeth If They Code Like Kids At $43K/Yr School

theodp writes: While the CollegeBoard warned against drawing a causal link between learning computer science and improved learning in other subjects, Google has no such qualms. "CS is much more than computer programming and coding," writes the Google for Education blog in a post announcing a new gateway for Google's CS education opportunities. "It's a gateway to creativity and innovation not just in technology but in fields as diverse as music, sports, the arts, and health." Among the technology showcased at the gateway is Pencil Code, a programming tool for beginning coders that Google boasts is already helping kids attending the $43K-a-year Beaver Country Day School to brush up their Shakespeare by having students create interactive chatbots that play the part of characters like Lady Macbeth. "After completing this code I knew more and understood more of the play," begins one student's featured testimonial. "It allowed me to interpret Macbeth in a new way that I had never thought of before. I really enjoyed using Pencil Code because it made coding simpler for me and helped me try something new." Elsewhere on its CS gateway, Google laments that a new Google-Gallup Research Study shows that 'Blacks and low-income are less likely to have access' to such computer science opportunities.

Comments

Re:WRONG!

[Crashmarik]

I'd put any form of sociology or psychology down as being considerably less scientific. To be completely fair software engineering is undoubtedly the least scientific of the engineering disciplines but seems to generate the greatest amount of dunning kreuger with regard to perceived competence in the sciences.

Underestimating

[jblues]

I often find myself under-estimating children's abilities. In this case TFA child's programming, empathy and literature skills are impressive, but their ability to speak such fluent 'customer testimonial' at a young age is simply astounding.

Re:Underestimating

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, learning such a testimonial by heart is certainly less work than learning the part of Lady MacBeth for a class play, and the language is more akin to the sentence fragments school kids communicate with these days than Early Modern English, too.

At any rate: stereotypical behavior patterns/roles are only remotely connected to stereotypical speech patterns, so I don't really see how chat bots play into understanding MacBeth.

To me that seems like a lot of hogwash intended to impress computer illiterate people in order to make them less adverse to computer fadism in education.

Re:Underestimating

[jblues]

Er, exactly. I was making a joke (maybe not actually funny) about how the testimonial sounded a lot like recited performance and not an improvisation.

If I spent 43k/year on a kids education

[Crashmarik]

I'd expect a simply better educational experience all around code or no code.

Coding or merely time with Macbeth?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't doubt that learning to code can train a child to think logically and be creative, but I would put the increase of knowledge of the play down to merely spending more time with the play, rather than coding itself. The conclusion of the study seems to be very self-serving.

Re: Coding or merely time with Macbeth?

[GrantRobertson]

Agreed. The fact that they had to cite such an obviously flawed anecdotal example indicates to me that they have no real evidence to offer. It also gives me reason to doubt their motives. Learning to code does have obvious advantages in logical thinking, which people today could definitely stand more of. But the coding skills don't, in and of themselves, increase ability to learn or understand the humanities any more than writing skills do. It is only the fact that most writing assignments require students to write ABOUT the humanities that learning writing increases "ability to learn" about the humanities. If all writing assignments were about computer games, then the students would learn about computer games instead of the humanities. (Disregarding the fact that computer games will one day be considered a form of literature and the study of their literary and sociological impact will fall under the humanities.)

So I, too, believe there are profit motives in all of this push for more CS in the classroom. The corporations pushing this agenda may think it will create an army of cheap programmers. But did shop class (which we also need more of) create an army of cheap plummers? Instead, as another /.er has mentioned, it will only show that, even with training, there are only a certain proportion of people who will have the innate abilities and deep interest to become truly good (not even necessarily great) programmers. So let Google, et al create their education programs. It can only have the positive effect of exposing more girls and minorities to programming, thus bringing diversity to an industry that desperately needs it.

However, it is the second profit motive that has me concerned. Creating educational material and selling it to the states is a total cash cow for the educational content industry. The amount of money school districts funnel to these corporations for mediocre and unnecessary materials (in addition to textbooks) is staggering (sorry, I have no citations). If Google, et al, are trying to siphon even more of that money away from teacher's salaries and into their corporate pockets, then we have to fight against that. It is entirely possible to croudsource good educational content and provide it for free to everyone.

Free content and more money to pay teacher's qualified to teach CS, will get us all the good things Google, et al, claim we can get from teaching more CS in schools while eliminating or naturally avoiding all the bad things many /.ers are wailing about.

Correlation != Cause

[msobkow]

All of these articles about CS lately confuse correlation with cause.

The simple fact of the matter is that kids who enjoy the "challenge" of programming are more likely to be logical, analytical thinkers than their peers, and are therefore likely to do better at all subjects that require those skills. Taking a CS course is not "causing" them to be better at those other subjects -- their ability is innate.

Forcing someone to take a class they neither enjoy nor are good at is not going to magically make them better students. It will expand their experience with different subjects, but it's not going to make them good at it.

Re:Correlation != Cause

[gstoddart]

You know, a good quality education, and engaged parents can probably go a long way to fostering both ability and aptitude.

From what I can see, kids are like sponges. All things being equal, give them opportunities and teach them, and they'll just get better.

But pretending like CS is some mag bullet which makes all kids smarter and excel at all things is just plain fantasy.

The one and only time in school I was sufficiently afraid of failing an exam than I intended to cheat, I spent a bunch of hours reviewing it, summarizing it, making tiny little notes I could use for cheating ... and found myself in the class realizing that, quite shockingly, I understood the material.

I don't think it's the magic of creating a chatbot which made these kids understand Macbeth. I think it's the fact that they spent time studying and interacting with it on a level other than simply reading through the play.

I'm all for giving kids access to computers and encouraging them. But I think it's a complete crock to claim that the act of learning to code improved their understanding of Macbeth. The act of studying Macbeth in a personal way improved their understanding of Macbeth.

Re:Correlation != Cause

[bluefoxlucid]

The simple fact of the matter, as you say, is everyone making blunt, complex observations. The results are all inefficient: teach people to code and hope the exercise forces them to magic up how to "think logically". Throw kids into $43k/year schools, when the worst performing schools consume $20k+ per student-year, and the best performing schools moderately cluster around the lowest cost (8 of the top 10 school districts consume under $9k/year, and two are the lowest-funded school districts in the country; one of the best is also like the third highest-funded school system in the country, and one of the worst ones is one of the lowest funded districts in the country). Excessive time, effort, and money all around to achieve simple results.

Poor kids come from an environment which doesn't train executive function as well as middle-class environments; I am a strong proponent of early-life executive function training because EF training *is* a silver bullet for a lot of things. Cognitive Therapy for depression is EF training (the therapist also attempts to identify and specifically draw your attention to your own distorted thinking), and 4 months of CT remains twice as effective at the 24 month mark as 24 months of continuous drug therapy in treating severe depression. EF training of people with ADHD minimizes the effect of ADHD, and synergizes well with drug therapy (and allows you to lower the dose). EF training in adults makes them markedly more capable of accomplishing any and all tasks. EF training in children not only dramatically improves their academic performance, but also reduces the impact of ADHD and depression, as well as improving risk behavior--they take more controlled risks, but control risks better--thus has a high probability of reducing both teen suicide and teen social problems (gangs, teen pregnancy, etc.), an impact I'd love to see some real studies on.

People talk about how programming teaches "logical thinking"--a term they use to simultaneously mean "problem solving" and "undistorted thinking"--and yet we can easily train these things directly. Learning to use your response-inhibition system properly is like learning to walk: it's the single skill that allows your brain to run, jump, play sports, and engage in martial combat. Nobody bothers using the broad body of literature and research into executive function training to develop first-graders in public school systems so they can use that prefrontal cortex of theirs, instead of going directly and exclusively for whatever most captures their interest at any given time. They're all daft.

Re:Correlation != Cause

[bluefoxlucid]

You know, a good quality education, and engaged parents can probably go a long way

Your parents should be married...

Re:This is just propaganda to get cheaper labour

[gAdrev]

Exactly. Every time I see some article like "Why You Should Teach Your Kids How To Code" or "How Can Coding Can Make the World a Better Place", you can always find some executive that all really wants is more, MORE cheap labor, higher margins, whatever that costs the profession. Seriously, fuck the "why everyone can code -- and should!" initiatives.

Similar results are possible with any subject

[Required Snark]

It's not about teaching computer programming because software is "special". It's about coming in with extra resources and teaching anything with a high degree of rigor. This could be done with math, English, Latin, Biology, even gardening. (I worked people who were involved with what became the charter school movement, and they used a school yard garden to coordinate teaching biology, math and other subjects. Yes, grades went up in all subjects.)

So surprise, surprise, a company with a big stake in software finds the coding is the key subject. If this were being done in Nevada, the magic subject might be probability and statistics...

Oh bullshit

[argStyopa]

Just another example of the classically American naive conceit that "poverty happens" to people randomly, like a strike of lightning from the blue, and not (mostly) from a series of really bad life choices, something which is plausibly heritable.

My point isn't that poor people can't enjoy Macbeth, but teaching them to code isn't going to make a person like something they didn't enjoy before,, either.

Re:Oh bullshit

[asylumx]

What poor life choices do you suppose grade school students made that landed them in poverty?

Re:Oh bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, their parents are poor which means they obviously made poor life choices [citation needed]. And since poor choice making is clearly hereditary [citation needed], even if the kids haven't made poor choices YET they likely would have if the ball had been in their court [citation needed]. So it hardly matters from an ethical perspective.

Re:Oh bullshit

[hattig]

Those are an effect of being in poverty.

Sure, a few rich idiots fall down into poverty each year, but we're talking about multi-generational poverty here.

No "life choice" at all here.

Your parents are poor. You are born. You miss out of toys, learning, experience all through your young life. A parent becomes ill but without insurance or money you have to quit school to look after them. Or your dad is an alcoholic and you have to leave home... basically, you're fucked already and you aren't even an adult yet.

Re:Oh bullshit

[luis_a_espinal]

In more civilized countries, the effect on your chances to secure an education matching your leanings and abilities is pronouncedly less

Really? Where are these "civilized countries" of which you speak?

You need to get the fuck out of whatever bubble you live in and travel the world a little. Really, go to Germany, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Luxembourg, Finland, the Czech Republic, Taiwan. Go travel and talk to people. See how they live. It will fucking blow your mind.

pay your f**king taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe if google paid their taxes you wouldnt have this problem, you have to admire their chutzpa though,
they want to get involved in public education but dont want to pay for it at all,
meantime your schools have to beg for pencils http://www.donorschoose.org/

you should be running them out of all education/government contracts

Re:This is just propaganda to get cheaper labour

[LaurenCates]

Yep. And how about things like:

"How to appreciate learning"
"How to think logically"
"How to negotiate a better salary"
"How to be self-reliant"
"How to deal with your emotions as a teenager when your hormones are running wild (aka: You're not the first one to ever have that problem)"

Seems like when there's a hot subject, we push for kids to learn that, when really, it should be more like things that kids can practically use and apply everywhere.

Re:This old geek could never grasp Macbeth

[Anonymous Coward]

So what the fuck is so hot about grasping that "to be or not tobe" thingy?

I'm pretty sure that's Hamlet.

Re:This old geek could never grasp Macbeth

[hawguy]

So what the fuck is so hot about grasping that "to be or not tobe" thingy?

2B | ~2B = FF is simple binary arithmetic, if you can't grasp that maybe you shouldn't be a developer.