I wrote a couple of tweets this morning critical of the “hour of code”. In doing so, I violated a personal rule. Twitter is a poor tool for explanation or deep thinking so it is best to avoid it if you want to communicate effectively.
I am not against programming and have benefitted greatly because I had the background necessary to develop the software necessary to do my research.
Here is a way to understand what I think is wrong with educator interest in the “hour of code”.
Take elementary or middle school “STEM” initiatives as an example. The concern being addressed is that younger students and certain categories of students do not see themselves in STEM careers. As a consequence, they do not take the coursework necessary to prepare for STEM majors at the college level or do not take secondary preparatory courses seriously enough should they enroll. Many STEM activities attempt to change such perspectives. Such activities might be described as “teasers” intended to create interest and a sense of personal relevance.
Here is what is different with programming. Many K-12 districts do not offer programming courses and most states do not recognize programming courses that are available as satisfying a science or math requirement. The “hour of code” is a tease without the opportunity for follow through.
We have considerable experience evaluating limited programming experience (from the wave of interest in LOGO). What the research suggests is that most limited experiences develop little expertise and little evidence of transfer (some now would label this as computational thinking).
So, if you (administrators or teachers) are really interested in the value of programming start with what matters. Does your institution offer a programming course? Does your state “count” the credits earned from taking such a course?
An hour of code might matter if it generated enthusiasm for what could come next.
My content resources for coding and computational thinking
