Social discussion of CS in K-12

["Wolske, Martin B" <mwolske AT illinois.edu>]

Wonderful discussion! I look forward to Tuesday's meeting!! I am not an expert within the K-12 school environment by any means, so please take this with a grain of salt. But I do wonder if maintaining the innovative character of computational thinking necessitates
 all participants, student, teacher, parent, administrator, University faculty and staff, business leader, etc. to be researchers? Dewey and others argue for the teacher-student / student-teacher paradigm where all contribute unique knowledge and all participate
 in reflection/discussion that leads to a new cycle of inquiry. That is certainly not research as Maya is contributing, but it is critical research to maintain the innovative character. I appreciate the term innovation-in-use as proposed by Chip Bruce, Andee
 Rubin, and Junghyun An in their paper on situated evaluation.

I think it can be quite valuable for all, in ways appropriate to different audiences, to hear stories that are inspirational and cautionary from past reform efforts. I think as important is to develop at least a basic understanding of alternative methods and theories to education and evaluation, again in ways appropriate for each different audience. I was pleased this summer, for instance, when junior and young senior high students came back from our mission trip in East St. Louis and remembered an example I gave of a sociotechnical system using my smartphone. I asked a student to make a call on it while I was driving and someone in the back said "remember, it's not a smartphone but Martin's smartphone, so it'll be weird like he is." They practiced situated evaluation of an innovation-in-use. How do we find the right age- and role-appropriate ways to change the lens of those with whom we intersect so that we can all participate in the innovative character of what we're doing?

-- Martin

On Aug 18, 2014, at 9:05 AM, George Reese <reese AT ILLINOIS.EDU> wrote:

Hi Todd,

 

That’s a really good point, I think. What went before, as I read it was not “mistakes”, but a set of paths taken in the context of schools at those times and in those places. By reading about them, we do two things:

1.       We acknowledge that their work has been done and that we have learned lessons from them. We should be able to recognize and cite literature when we see what has happened before starting to happen again. In my own case, I am worried about computational thinking becoming another school topic and thus losing its innovative character. The literature we’re looking at documents that happening in the UK with LOGO. It’s an important history to know.

2.       We are adding to that body of knowledge with our own experience. That’s why Maya’s work is essential. We MUST document and share in as systematic a way as possible.

 

Our experience may be new and unique, but it is not in a vacuum. We will fail to know all the aspects of the history, but as a community, we’ll be able to remind each other of it so that we are moving forward in some sense and not just following a known path to a predictable outcome.

 

Practitioners are researchers, unfortunately. I say “unfortunately” because I wish that it wasn’t true. Teachers are too busy to be researchers.  I wish they could be consumers of research results that are handed to them as a mechanism for improvement the way new medicines are given to doctors to prescribe. A doctor could be critical, but the pill is essentially ready to go.  But, the fact is that as reflective practitioners (Schon) and transformative intellectuals (Giroux), teachers are constantly engaged in ongoing research and can’t be simply consumers of research results.

 

I’m still puzzling about this though.

MHO

George

 

From: Todd Lash [mailto:lashtodd@champaignschools.org] 
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 7:42 AM
To: George Reese; ctrl-shift AT lists.mste.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: [Ctrl-Shift] FW: [New post] Tissue Paper Reforms: Coding for Kindergartners

 

George,

I think that one of my questions for Tuesday will be whether or not it is necessary for the practitioners involved in our "redefining the school experience" to have read some of this work?  Its fine for us all to be aware of it and discuss it, but to what degree to the implementers need that same awareness of the mistakes made before them?  

Have a great day,

Todd

​

Todd Lash

Magnet Teaching Specialist/Instructional Coach

Kenwood Elementary School

1001 Stratford Dr. 

Champaign, IL 61821

217.351.3815

Twitter:  @Todd_Lash

The Kenwood Tech Story

 

"If we teach today's students as we taught yesterday's, we rob them of tomorrow."  -John Dewey

 

#daretoshare

---

From: George Reese <reese AT illinois.edu>
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 10:11 AM
To: Todd Lash; ctrl-shift AT lists.mste.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: [Ctrl-Shift] FW: [New post] Tissue Paper Reforms: Coding for Kindergartners

 

I want to say something here as it occurs to me. 
The question about whether school is environment in which genuine innovation is possible is one that could be considered answered by LOGO. And the answer is “no”. To verify this we can read Larry Cuban, Papert himself, and the study of Agilianos and colleagues (Agalianos, A., Noss, R., & Whitty, G. (2001). Logo in mainstream schools: The struggle over the soul of an educational innovation. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(4).)

 

But we are trying to revise that answer to “yes” not because we are denying the validity of that experience, and certainly not because we haven’t read Cuban, Papert, and Agalianos et al.,  but because we are trying to redefine the school experience and the communities that support that experience.

 

George

 

From: Todd Lash [mailto:lashtodd@champaignschools.org] 
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2014 10:10 AM
To: George Reese; ctrl-shift AT lists.mste.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: [Ctrl-Shift] FW: [New post] Tissue Paper Reforms: Coding for Kindergartners

 

​Wow, talk about synchronicity!  I have that paper open in one tab and Papert's "Why School Reform is Impossible" open in another tab.  I would love to have a discussion of these two readings this Tuesday if anyone is interested.

Thanks George,

Todd

 

Todd Lash

Magnet Teaching Specialist/Instructional Coach

Kenwood Elementary School

1001 Stratford Dr. 

Champaign, IL 61821

217.351.3815

Twitter:  @Todd_Lash

The Kenwood Tech Story

 

"If we teach today's students as we taught yesterday's, we rob them of tomorrow."  -John Dewey

 

#daretoshare

---

From: ctrl-shift-bounces+lashtodd=champaignschools.org AT lists.mste.illinois.edu <ctrl-shift-bounces+lashtodd=champaignschools.org AT lists.mste.illinois.edu> on behalf of George Reese <reese AT illinois.edu>
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2014 9:38 AM
To: ctrl-shift AT lists.mste.illinois.edu
Subject: [Ctrl-Shift] FW: [New post] Tissue Paper Reforms: Coding for Kindergartners

 

This is similar the technology-skepticism that Cuban has articulated in previous posts.

He’s a good researcher and if we ever write a reply, his literature review is the place to start.

George

 

From: Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice [mailto:comment-reply AT wordpress.com] 
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2014 3:14 AM
To: reese AT illinois.edu
Subject: [New post] Tissue Paper Reforms: Coding for Kindergartners

 

larrycuban posted: "Some school reforms are like rebar that have lasted for more than a century. Examples? The age-graded school and the kindergarten. Some school reforms are like industrial-strength plastic-covered packages which cover new toys, computer cables and gifts"

Respond to this post by replying above this line

 

 

New post on Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice

<~WRD000.jpg>

 

<image001.jpg>

Tissue Paper Reforms: Coding for Kindergartners by larrycuban

Some school reforms are like rebar that have lasted for more than a century. Examples? The age-graded school and the kindergarten.

Some school reforms are like industrial-strength plastic-covered packages which cover new toys, computer cables and gifts. After the plastic sheath is pried open, it can be recycled and appears later as fabrics, fencing, and benches. Examples?  The New Math, New Science, New Social Studies of the 1960s and 1970s lasting for a decade or so then are recycled years later to reappear later as the New New Math, etc. ,etc.

Some school reforms are like tissue paper that, after one or two uses, shreds and is tossed away. Examples?  Coding for kindergartners.

<~WRD000.jpg>

Why is coding for kindergarteners neither rebar nor unbreakable plastic but flimsy tissue paper?

Coding as a Tissue Paper Reform

Teaching young children to code (which may or may not be learning to program) reminds me of how Logo--an earlier tissue paper innovation--became nearly extinct in less than a decade except beyond a few schools where children continued to program using Logo-derived languages. Instructional reforms like Logo then and coding now for young children--to switch metaphors--are like those boutique shops that move in and out of malls.

Why is coding now, a way of implementing a program language like Logo then, a tissue-paper reform?

The reasons are instructive to current enthusiasts for coding:

1. While the overall national context now clearly favors technological expertise, Big Data, and 21st century skills like programming, the history of Logo showed clearly, that the national context for schools and what was happening inside schools have a lot to do with a reform being put into practice and becoming rebar, plastic, or tissue paper.

Consider the Logo experience. Over forty years ago, Seymour Papert and his MIT team wanted to restore progressive ways of teaching and learning so that students could construct their own meaning of ideas and their experiences. Learning to move “turtles” around on a screen was a way for students to think logically and computationally. These MIT scientists wanted to dismantle institutional barriers that schools had erected over time–the rules, traditions, and culture– because they retarded student learning, especially acquiring thinking skills. Logo, then, would be a vehicle for transforming teacher-centered schools into student-centered, mindful ones.

For Logo activists, however, their timing was bad. The national mood for educational experimentation and equity for poor and minority families was shifting. The idealistic and experimental years in public schools during the mid-1960s to early 1970s had ebbed just as  reformers began piloting Logo05 in a few elementary schools. In just a few years, Logo became a boutique offering because a “back to basics” reform had seized civic and political leaders and the window for new ventures, anchored in the work of Jean Piaget and John Dewey, had closed. Traditional forms of schooling and teaching were back in vogue.

Shortly afterwards, the Nation at Risk report (1983) warned leaders that unless schools became more effective–the U.S. would languish economically and other nations would leapfrog over America to capture global markets.  By the late-1980s, states had raised their graduation standards, created more rigorous curriculum frameworks,. and began testing regimes. Not a welcoming climate for Logo-driven reformers like Papert and his colleagues. In a few years, traditional age-graded schools adapted to the changing national context in both curriculum and instruction.

But now the climate for anything smelling like high-tech, computer science, and new devices has so permeated the culture and the national context for standards, accountability and testing remain firmly entrenched that the idea of coding is one whose time has arrived. Given the history of Logo and how it was implemented suggest to me that coding is tissue-paper thin or at best, recycled plastic.

2. Then and now, schools eager to teach coding, for the most part, catered to mostly middle- and upper-middle class students.  Articles (see here and here) illustrate the demand for family teaching it to children, in- and after-school coding programs, and expensive summer camps (see here and here). Yes, there are efforts by leaders in teaching coding to include low-income students (here  and here) but by and large the primary users are children from middle- and upper middle white and minority families.

<~WRD000.jpg>

3. Then and now, most teachers were uninvolved in teaching Logo and had little incentive or interest in doing so. Ditto for coding. Sure there are exceptions (see here) but the exception is the one that makes it into the media precisely because it is novel.

4. Then and now, Logo and coding depend upon the principle of transfer of learning coding to conceptual and critical thinking with applications to other domains of knowledge and skills. The research supporting such confidence is lacking among cognitive psychologists and educators who see from daily experience that students find it hard to apply concepts and skills learned in one arena to what is being learned now.

Those reform-minded policymakers and practitioners who believe that the past can be instructive to the present and who are passionate about young school children learning either programming or coding (or both) should take a serious look at Logo and draw both inspiration and lessons from that earlier reform. Chances are, however, the hullabaloo over coding for young children will quiet down and another reform will shred like tissue paper.

larrycuban | August 16, 2014 at 1:10 am | Tags: school reform, technology | Categories: school reform policies,technology | URL: http://wp.me/pBm7c-2ej

Comment

See all comments

 

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: 
http://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/tissue-paper-reforms-coding-for-kindergartners/

 

 

Thanks for flying with <image002.jpg>WordPress.com

<image003.jpg>

_______________________________________________
Ctrl-Shift mailing list
Ctrl-Shift AT lists.mste.illinois.edu
https://lists.mste.illinois.edu/listinfo/ctrl-shift