Month: February 2014

Old folks are supposedly famous for reacting to their younger peers by responding to their new ideas claiming “we already tried that and it did not work”. Sorry if some of my comments seem to fit this description. However, …..

The limited time available within the school day is limited and interested parties seem to be arguing that their content be given a larger portion of the pie. I accept the value of advocacy and I consider myself relatively neutral. I become critical when it seems to me the positions taken go beyond what I think can actually be delivered. I agree that not everyone really needs what everyone gets and, that when practical financially, greater flexibility be provided. However, when it comes to innovation, two positions that cause me to react with skepticism claim a) all students need this new experience, and b) this new experience develops general skills/knowledge in ways not now accomplished by the existing curriculum. Here is where I want to see some evidence so education does not given in to the fad of the year.

Presently, there seems to be interest in something called “computational thinking.” I have no idea if this is really new or a rebranding of an earlier idea. I remember reading Papert years ago and he proposed a computational way of understanding geometry. I admit when I first thought of the way he proposed understanding “circle” I thought there was something unique about his perspective. Of course, I knew the definition of circle – a closed, plane figure consisting of all points equidistant from a point, but being able to generate this definition was not really understanding. Now, if you imagine yourself as the LOGO turtle standing on a point and you walk forward a given number of turtle steps, lower your pen and walk one more step, raise the pen, then backup the given number of steps +1, you have created a point at a given distance from a point. Turn right one unit, repeat, turn right one unit, etc. You have a circle.

I admit this is my one example. However,  the difference between my ability to offer the definition of a circle and create a circle via coding has influenced my understanding of understanding. Is this reaction unique to programing or is the capacity to execute a construct through action a more general way to achieve understanding? I understand what I can do.

Flash forward to the present and recognize that computational thinking has experienced a renaissance. What I mean by this is that some in education are again promoting the value of learning to program, but also proposing more general benefits for these experiences. Clearly, those of us who have developed programming skills (now sometimes called coding) have experienced vocational advantages. Programming seems a skill for the 21st century based on the larger role digital devices play in all aspects of our lives. While I agree with the value of this particular skill as important in multiple vocations, I balk at the argument that it is a skill for all or that what students might learn through programming courses goes beyond the skill of programming.

My concern is that those in various disciplines argue too broadly for the benefits of their discipline. If a particular discipline happens to be in favor for one reason or another (STEM seems to be the in thing at the moment), there seems a tendency to embellish a bit and to argue that a skill is more than just a skill.

So, just to make a point, I think I can make the same case for several disciplines not typically considered as being broadly beneficial. For example, consider what could be learned from history. Yes, yes, I understand about important names and dates, knowing where we came from, and not repeating mistakes. However, historians should argue there is the potential to teach far more. What historians do is not what you likely learned from taking history courses. You learn what historians learned, but you do not learn how they learned it. Historians piece together accounts from multiple, primary sources. Since sources were generated by individuals with different perspectives, i.e., biases, piecing together an account of what likely happened is a great exercise in critical thinking. There is also great value in appreciating that individuals experience history from different perspectives and with different personal outcomes so the consequences of historical events is complex and multifaceted. Anyway, when explained in this manner, there is the potential here to develop very important higher order cognitive skills and such skills are exactly what reformers contend are missing as a consequence of typical educational experiences. Think like a historian.

I do promote a given activity both as useful for all and as a way to develop thinking capabilities more generally. My personal recommendation for an alteration of typical practice would be to place a greater emphasis on writing. Yes, students are taught to write, but I think they should write more as part of all classes they take. There are limits when you learn to write by writing to practice writing. Beyond the basics, you learn to write by writing to communicate. Students should write for their parents and they should write for their peers. They should write for themselves. Mostly, they should write about they learn. This seems more purposeful than writing about an arbitrary topic assigned in English class. The effort in putting something down on paper leaves far less room for the assumption of understanding than does just studying. There is something about that blank sheet of paper or monitor screen that challenges the illusion of knowing. Call it “Writing to learn” or “Writing across the curriculum”, the flexibility of writing would be my recommendation for an activity required of all and offering higher order advantages.