Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday September 18 2020, @06:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the apple/raspberry-pi-a-day dept.

https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/international-computing-curriculum-metrecc-research-seminar/

Around the world, formal education systems are bringing computing knowledge to learners. But what exactly is set down in different countries' computing curricula, and what are classroom educators teaching? This was the topic of the first in the autumn series of our Raspberry Pi research seminars on Tuesday 8 September.

[...] Examples of mismatches include lower numbers of primary school teachers reporting that they taught visual or symbolic programming, even though the topic did appear on their curriculum.

A table listing computer science topics.

This table shows computer science topic the METRECC tool asks teachers about, and what percentage of respondents in the pilot study stated that they teach these to their students.

[...] If you missed the seminar, you can find the presentation slides and a recording of the researchers' talk on our seminars page.

In our next seminar on Tuesday 6 October at 17:00–18:30 BST / 12:00–13:30 EDT / 9:00–10:30 PT / 18:00–19:30 CEST, we'll welcome Shuchi Grover, a prominent researcher in the area of computational thinking and formative assessment. The title of Shuchi's seminar is Assessments to improve student learning in introductory CS classrooms.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by ledow on Friday September 18 2020, @12:19PM (4 children)

    by ledow (5567) on Friday September 18 2020, @12:19PM (#1052688) Homepage

    Yes, computing should be taught to all people. Like arithmetic.

    But IT lessons should not be computing-only lessons. The same way we don't just stop doing Maths lessons once they can add two and two.

    The reason is: Maths is hard for many people, it becomes optional not long after, and the stuff that is taught is beyond those who have no interest in maths.

    Computer Science should be the same. It's not.

    What we teach is computing, what we then expect is "everyone can code", what we then push is that everyone should be doing CS on the basis that they can type.

    And what we end up with is a generation of teachers who are baffled by an HDMI cable, and think the kid who knows which way up it goes should study CS because of that.

    Computing should be a core-skill. Same as numeracy and literacy. It's just basic 21st Century digital literacy. Teach to everyone and don't treat it as something special. You need it to file your taxes, check your bank account, pay your bills, order goods, and (not long now) vote or whatever else.

    Computer science is the add-on lesson that, age 14/15/whatever, when kids are pitching towards their favoured educational path / career, they choose and which then features little to no "computing". It's theory. It's coding. It's electronics. It's the specialist parts.

    It's not like that. CS is seen as "we can use a computer". Then advanced stuff is pushed to all kids (in the US/UK at least) above their level. Hell, not even all the programmers I meet can actually code worth a damn, for sure the guy who's going to end up working as a painter/decorator isn't ever going to be a good coder just because we shoved it in some of his lessons when he was a kid.

    I don't see any multinational push for "Every child a differentiator of a 3rd order integral". You do not "Every kid a coder".

    Separate them out. Treat child with poor computing the same as those with poor arithmetic or literacy. Of course you cover arithmetic in maths at some point but you can't hope to be good at algebra and calculus if you can't add up. And any teacher can/should/must know how to add and read and write to do their job, hence they should all know how to *operate* a computer just the same.

    Treat CS as the option for the kids that have talent, choose to go that way, and don't expect every teacher to have an understanding of CS in order to teach their own, or even a cover lesson, unless they are literally teaching a CS class.

    But they should be able to plug in a cable, check their email, and have a vague grasp of what a spreadsheet is.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Freeman on Friday September 18 2020, @03:00PM (1 child)

    by Freeman (732) on Friday September 18 2020, @03:00PM (#1052788) Journal

    Part of the idea of teaching kids to code is that it gets kids excited about something other than just consuming technology. I.E. thinking about creating, instead of just playing games, etc. Also, how are you supposed to know that you love coding, if you never get a chance. Sure, you can always push the envelope yourself, but part of a robust curriculum is dipping your toes in everything. Otherwise, why bother teaching the average person how to write a research paper? Who cares? I've certainly not written any research papers since I left college.

    --
    Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 18 2020, @09:37PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 18 2020, @09:37PM (#1053029)

      > ... why bother teaching the average person how to write a research paper?

      At a well known tech school, I nearly managed to graduate without being exposed to writing a research paper (mostly by taking drama classes for "humanities" requirements). Luckily, I finally took a history class in senior year where I clicked well enough with the prof that I got a clue about writing. After that, if you asked me about doing any more writing, I would have scoffed at you.

      40+ years later, I'm co-author of several books and have written a number of technical papers. The difference, at least as best I can tell, was the availability of word processing. Writing longhand is physically painful for me (reasons), and once I could type and edit (without retyping) on a screen, all of a sudden I turned into an acceptable technical writer.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 19 2020, @01:37PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 19 2020, @01:37PM (#1053443)

    How much will it cost to give poor children the opportunity to develop computational abilities? Many wealthier school districts are outfitting students with iPads and Chromebooks, but many of lower classes never see a non-touch computer at all outside of a "lab" in school. You really want your future robot techs and cable wranglers to have proper digital hygiene.

    • (Score: 2) by ledow on Saturday September 19 2020, @04:57PM

      by ledow (5567) on Saturday September 19 2020, @04:57PM (#1053561) Homepage

      The problem is neither expense nor availability of commodity hardware.

      I've worked in some of the poorest area, in schools under "special measures" (i.e. about to be shut down, they were so bad), with deprived children, etc.

      In a developed country almost nobody "doesn't have a computer". In fact, I'd say that I've never seen a household in the age-group of parents of a school-age child that didn't.

      The problem is that those computers are for entertainment only. Smartphones, games consoles, etc. In terms of programmable computers, there is a dearth because people would not buy them of their own accord.

      The Raspberry Pi and OLPC projects were supposed to solve this (and to some extent the microBit but that's a waste of time). But they completely fluffed integration with schools. They just threw hardware at people and expected them to use it. That's not how the education sector has worked in the UK or US for many decades. For schools and teachers, a computer that doesn't do what they expect is a broken computer, in their eyes. There is a dearth of skilled teachers, and those teachers could teach computing with an abacus and pen and paper. The unskilled ones can't teach computing even with £1000 laptops and unbelievable amounts of infrastructure.

      It's a skills problem, not a hardware problem. £35 per child would give them all a Raspberry Pi that would plug into any TV, connect to the Internet, work with Bluetooth and wireless, allow them to do electronic integration, etc. The schools don't buy them or issue them because they don't know how to use them. That's why schools spend £500 per child instead and give them Chromebooks and apps that make the TEACHER'S life easy. Then those same teachers complain that the apps on iTunes don't work on Chromebook because "they're what I've based on my lessons on".

      The problem to solve computer literacy, the same as the way to solve actual literacy, is not to just throw free computers/books at people. Sure, that's nice. But if there's nobody there to teach you to read, then you're not going to read them. Similarly, computers will be used to play games (of little educational value generally, it has to be said) - and they'll put ten times more effort into getting them to play games and do stupid things than they ever will to learn programming or even basic computer literacy. This is the era of the copy/paste coder/hacker who doesn't even understand what the code does, let alone how.

      It's a skills shortage. And you solve those by training. And we don't train people. The hardware is literally lost in the noise of providing even their basic stationery if you wanted to do it properly. The problem is that it's nothing compared to what they have at home, and they won't use either to build even basic computing skills, let along more advanced ones.

      To be honest, having worked in both state and private - state schools are way ahead in technology. Private schools tend to stick to the old-fashioned methods of teaching and don't like their nice properties littered with wireless access points and the like. If anything, private schools are playing catch-up. The difference is... they teach. Both teachers in both sectors are woefully underskilled.