Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stephen Wolfram Reveals Ambitious Plan to Teach Computational Thinking (stephenwolfram.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the try-my-language dept.

Can we teach future generations how to solve their problems with computers? Slashdot reader mirandakatz writes: Doctors, lawyers, teachers, farmers -- whatever the profession, it'll soon be full of computational thinking. Mathematica and Wolfram Alpha creator Stephen Wolfram argues on Backchannel that it's essential we start teaching kids to talk to computers today to ensure their success in the future -- and he's got a comprehensive lesson plan.
Arguing that Wikipedia popularized "a more direct style of presenting information," Wolfram writes that computer-assisted education continues the trend, "taking things which could only be talked around, and turning them into things that can be shown through computation directly and explicitly." Wolfram's 11,000-word essay adds that "with all the knowledge and automation that we've built into the Wolfram Language we're finally now to the point where we have the technology to be able to directly teach broad computational thinking, even to kids.." (And without having to start off with loops and conditionals...)

9 of 76 comments (clear)

  1. If only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    This were how learning occurrs. Sigh. The tech sector just will never get it. Computational thinking is actually the *problem* we are currently having, it is absolutely the wrong way to teach. I would put the energy and money into tech literacy, instead. It is astonishing to me how people like this miss the mark again, and again, and again. We are already starting to reap what we've sown with a generation that is incapable of critical and abstract thinking. We are not robots, and life is not an algorithm. Disappointing.

    1. Re:If only by iggymanz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Tech literacy? That is not a source of critical and abstract thinking skills. We should be putting most our money into literacy, speaking, writing, debate and learning history. All those things a typical tech education leaves behind, and also people who use social media as their main information source leave those things behind.

      Tech? those that like it can it, most tech jobs are droid jobs anyway.

    2. Re:If only by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This were how learning occurrs. Sigh. The tech sector just will never get it. Computational thinking is actually the *problem* we are currently having, it is absolutely the wrong way to teach. I would put the energy and money into tech literacy, instead. It is astonishing to me how people like this miss the mark again, and again, and again. We are already starting to reap what we've sown with a generation that is incapable of critical and abstract thinking. We are not robots, and life is not an algorithm. Disappointing.

      substitute 'computational thinking' with 'poetic thinking' and see how much sense it makes. The whole idea of 'making sure every kid leaves school able to code' makes as much sense as 'making sure every kid leaves school able to write poetry'.

      Sure, put kids in contact with coding, along with wood work, metal working, cooking, etc. Let the kids find out for themselves which they enjoy and which interests them and then give them opportunities to take them further.

      But don't force kids to all leave school with a bunch of compulsory vocations.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    3. Re:If only by RabidReindeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, what we really need is people who hire coders intelligently.

      It once was said that "Computers Don't Make Mistakes". Now, instead it's "Have you tried turning if off and back on again?".

      When computers were expensive and programmers cheap by comparison, software errors were considered something to be exterminated. Now they're considered to be inevitable.

      Because when we got cheap computers, we expected cheap programmers. We no longer accept that reliable (and secure) software takes time and money to produce and expect everything to be fast and cheap. We're less critical of software quality than we are of bags of pet food from Wal-Mart.

      Start by educating people that "IT Doesn't Matter" is as much a myth as trickle-down wealth, and that if you want to avoid hearing that all your company's critical data ended up in Bulgaria on the nightly news you'll need to make realistic resource budgets for your IT no matter how much you "know" that it could never really be that hard.

      That might prompt you to want to hire people with actual skills beyond Always the Low Price, which in turn might make a career in IT attractive to talented workers again. Spend the money educating just one decision-maker, and you could easily end up motivating a dozen rank-and-file to educate themselves.

  2. Re:Links by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

    Making Apple pay taxes requires a lot of computational thinking.

  3. Building too by Max_W · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Roads, street signs, traffic signs, elevators, locks, stairs, and so on and so forth should be standardized all over the world to make them suitable for machines.

    As it is now, it is easier to send a robot to Mars that to a local supermarket.

    Even plates and glasses, - it would free from hard manual labor millions of people who prepare plates for dishwashers in cafes and resaurants.

  4. That's nice, but... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    How about we teach critical thinking skills first.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  5. Maths, Stats, Logic, Computation, Science, Eng. by John+Allsup · · Score: 2

    There are seven disciplines medicine needs to learn much from: maths, stats, logic, computation, science, engineering, psychology.

    Medical doctors can't be experts in all these, but the current climate requires them to be, or else fall prey to being persuaded by clever marketing. How one gets from a clinical trial to the 'one-on-one doctor-patient' scenario is a major case in point: how one adds back the significance of all salient features not selected for in the clinical trial is a matter which most doctors look blankly at when pointed out. (This is simple Bayesian statistics: what is the probability that treatment X works, or is most effective, given only that the patient has diagnostic label D? What if they have label D and are between ages of 20 and 40? What if they have diagnosis D and are between ages of 20 and 40 and are a Buddhist who meditates daily? What if they have label D and are between the ages of 20 and 40, are overweight, don't exercise, and eat junk food? and so on. What matters is how the 'best' decision changes as we limit towards a precise description of the patient in front of the clinician, and if that decision can change, the sensible clinician will realise they need more information to make a reliable decision.)

    --
    John_Chalisque
  6. Odd how all the reporting on this always misses .. by quax · · Score: 2

    ... on crucial adjective the proprietary Wolfram Language.