There's a lively discussion going on over at Ben Grey's joint related to whether programming should be something students are required to encounter during their time at school. This discussion started at the Constructing Modern Knowledge Summer Institute (CMK09)- which I was lucky enough to attend. Several speakers at the conference stated that programming is something that all students should do. I tend to disagree with this1 , but for me it quickly raised a larger question.
This larger question came up during discussion with participants at CMK09 when discussing our views on mandating students experience some programming in the classroom. There is no doubt that programming can help students learn many valuable things (see Alec & ColleenK's comments, for example) and that including it as part of a school's regular curriculum isn't outlandish. However, many of the valuable aspects (collaboration, authentic engagement with math, creativity, usefulness in real life, etc.) might also be gained from students taking a woodworking class. Why should programming be mandatory when woodworking isn't? This then led to: How do schools decide which subjects are necessary and which aren't?
This question almost seemed silly to me at first. "Schools teach classes that meet the state standards, duh."
Wait. a. minute. The more I thought about this the deeper down the rabbit hole I went:
"How are state standards determined? What is their view of the purpose of education? How does that purpose affect the standards that are chosen?"
And then: "What purpose do the standards themselves serve? How does having predetermined standards affect the education of our students?"
Your local state board of education would probably say that standards are used to make sure that every student in the state gets the same quality of education. I'd argue that standards do more to prevent real learning from occurring- especially experiences that might help students learn to become better learners.
During both my junior and senior years in college, I was required to do research on a topic that interested me in geomorphology and structural geology. This was not supposed to be the type of research where you read a bunch of articles and report back what the articles say. I was supposed to generate new knowledge, not simply reorganize old knowledge. I actively struggled with this. In my experience as a student thus far, I had been expected to show that I knew what the standards said I should know. Brian Silverman at CMK09 noted that he marveled at the attitude of his professors toward their research. The professors got excited when their experimentation told them that what they thought was happening was wrong. It meant there was something new to learn that hadn't been discovered as of yet.
State standards make learning a checklist. In my experience as a student, I was good at figuring out how to check items off that list. However, I was a bad scientist (and a bad learner). I was uncomfortable when asked questions that might not have neat and tidy answers. I had yet to learn how to be a true learner.
How can we mesh standards with helping students become life-long learners? Can standards be made flexible enough for students to be able to engage in activities that might take them (and their teachers) down unforeseen and unpredictable paths? I don't have the answers here. I just know that standards-based assessments in areas like science, programming, or wordworking won't create students who think like scientists, programmers, or master woodworkers. Students who are instead given a challenging task (i.e., discover what food ants like best, program a kitty door to snap a picture everytime it is opened, or build a chest of drawers) and the support to help them figure things out as they go seem much more likely to have a love of learning- all the while gaining knowledge in the content area.
[UPDATE: Read Part 2 of this post]
_
- I'll save my comments specifically on this topic for Ben Grey's post since the conversation's well established over there [↩]
nice thinking. programming is good - but for all? so what is for all? i don't see how we can help kids in learning how to learn if it's all boxed up. like you say - we're just teaching them how to check off their list or take a test.
i love alan november's short video - who owns the learner http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XuaxukNAZ8&feature=related
i've been kicking the standards notion around a lot. i think it is huge to how we drive ed.
so how do we assess?
well - for one - i think we expect kids to assess themselves frequently and we get them good at that by modeling it.
some specific ways to assess - (would love feedback on these):
1) what you find when you google a kid (this would encourage projects that live on rather than getting trashed after they are graded)
2) what kinds of questions the kid asks, directions they could take an idea
3) how everyone else is doing. we know we learn more when we teach - so how are the others in this kid's community (in class and/or online) doing. define success by how well a kid has brought others along
4) how the others view him/her. of the things this kid publishes - how many hits does he/she get. etc...
it's a huge shift. but our kids need it. i think we've taken up too much of their time to date.
I think I used my fair share of comment space over at Ben's blog so I'll just add a few more thoughts about programming here. One point that was made at Ben's and again here by Monika is the idea that programming isn't for everyone and, therefore, shouldn't be required. When I think of programming and kids, I envision environments like the Logo Turtle, Microworlds, and Scratch. Over the past 12 years, I've done programming projects with several hundred students from a wide variety of backgrounds. I can only recall a few students who did not want to participate. Every other student had a very positive, enriching experience. Sure, it was easier for some students than for others. However, once we connected students with projects that had meaning for them, they really wanted to learn, and as a result, produced very significant work.
I disagree that programming is just another skill, like woodworking. Yes, woodworking is creative and has a real world connection but those qualities differ greatly from the more compelling advantages of programming. The process of trial and error is a very powerful learning experience. It is the foundation of most true learning, from science and math to writing and design. When programming, feedback is instantaneous which means there's almost constant trial and error activity. While this can be found in other activities, it does not occur to the extent that it does in programming. The process of trying something, observing the outcome, and revising might take place 50-100 times in a single class period. When programming, students engage in a tremendous amount of mental activity over a relatively short amount of time. I believe this is what truly sets programming apart from other learning activities.
I'm glad this topic was brought up at CMK09 and continues to be discussed on blogs. There's nothing I'm more passionate about than kids and programming. I'm looking forward to reading Part 2.
.-= colleenk´s last blog ..Resolved! =-.