June 2016 – Learning Aloud

Coding vs argumentation – final segment

This is the final segment of my exploration of the argument contrasting the value of teaching coding vs. teaching argumentation in K12 classrooms.

Reasons to support argumentation

First, to review, the following were my proposed reasons to support the “teach argumentation” position.

Capacity to analyze reasons and evidence essential when information sources must be evaluated
Process of science involves reasoning from evidence
Argumentation is a productive social process increasing understanding when positions differ

There is a large body of research exploring argumentation skills, whether educational interventions can develop these skills, and whether specific techniques are successful in developing argumentation skills. The reasons I have offered in support of argumentation would require that evidence of this type exist, but would also require that the general skill of argumentation be applied in specific areas to specific ends. I would regard the demonstration that these skills can be developed as equivalent to the reasons that there are jobs for computer programmers. If you value the outcome, then the development of the skill is important.

Support is easy to find.

Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K., & Shaenfield, D. (2008). Arguing on the Computer: A Microgenetic Study of Developing Argument Skills in a Computer-Supported Environment. Child Development, 79(5), 1310-1328.

Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2016). Argue with Me: Argument as a Path to Developing Students’ Thinking and Writing.

Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44, 46-53.

Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, Richard C., & Kuo, L. J. (2007). Teaching and Learning Argumentation. The Elementary School Journal, 107(5), 449-472.

What about source evaluation as an outcome? Think of this as being able to evaluate the information arguments we encounter daily.

Lin, T.-J., Horng, R.-Y., & Anderson, R. C. (2014). Effects of Argument Scaffolding and Source Credibility on Science Text Comprehension. Journal of Experimental Education, 82(2), 264-282.

Importance of argumentation in STEM areas – the process of science involves the key processes of argumentation hence the development of argumentation skill is important in appreciating science or taking a scientific perspective.

Lin, T.-J., Horng, R.-Y., & Anderson, R. C. (2014). Effects of Argument Scaffolding and Source Credibility on Science Text Comprehension. Journal of Experimental Education, 82(2), 264-282.

Lee, H.-S., Liu, O. L., Pallant, A., Roohr, K. C., Pryputniewicz, S., & Buck, Z. E. (2014). Assessment of uncertainty-infused scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 581-605.

Some thoughts on counter arguments.

Since the requirements for near and far transfer were surfaced as part of the evaluation of the coding research and the amount of time required for transfer of coding to other cognitive skill areas was considered, I think it relevant to note the amount of time invested in some of the argumentation research. For example, the Kuhn research (e.g., her book) involved studies of classroom programs that spanned two years. The practical implications here would seem similar to concerns raised regarding “hour of code” and other short-term efforts to develop computational thinking. A lesson on argumentation here or there is not what the research tends to evaluate.
I am also not certain I would argue that argumentation research assumes the goal is to demonstrate the far transfer expected of coding research (computer programming problem solving to other problem-solving tasks). The identification of reasons and reason related evidence or the capacity to identify these same factors in the positions taken by others might be more a near transfer task when applied in different areas (science, social issues, etc).

Evidence for coding

This post continues my coding vs argumentation prioritization debate. Here I am providing what I propose as evidence in support of the reasons I generated to support classroom coding.

Just as a reminder, my reasons include the following:

Programming is an important vocational skill
Coding is a way to gain greater insight into how technology works
Computational thinking transfers

While I have made a significant effort to locate quality data in support of these reasons, I must say that the task was not easy and this to me indicates a problem. As I provide the data I have located, I have decided to offer related comments and some counter arguments. In the system I am using, a counter argument weakens an argument. The intent in argumentation is both to offer arguments with sound evidence and to weaken the arguments of a competing position with solid reasons and/or evidence.

Coding is an important vocational skill

The Bureau of Labor Statistics – Occupational Outlook Handbook (http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/home.htm) provides the following information.

Employment of computer and information technology occupations is projected to grow 12 percent from 2014 to 2024, faster than the average for all occupations. These occupations are expected to add about 488,500 new jobs, from about 3.9 million jobs to about 4.4 million jobs from 2014 to 2024, in part due to a greater emphasis on cloud computing, the collection and storage of big data, more everyday items becoming connected to the Internet in what is commonly referred to as the “Internet of things,” and the continued demand for mobile computing.

Thoughts on counter-arguments. The qualify of this evidence might depend on a couple of factors – a) what level of training is necessary to obtain such employment and b) what employment options would there be with a comparable level of training. Coding in the classroom can mean so many different things that relate to these factors. What training opportunities are available in schools (note that the short elementary and middle school experiences generate little progress toward the level of training that is necessary)? Do secondary schools offer CS courses?

Coding is a way to gain greater insight into how technology works

The benefits of coding for what used to be called computer literacy might be expected to be evidence rich. Again, work on making this connection (say in contrast to direct instruction of computer literacy topics) is difficult to locate. The topic seems close to some subtopics in the area Lye, et al (2014) call computational perspectives (one of three dimensions these authors argue make up computational thinking). The one example Lye offers to address this dimension is the observation that students can use some of the specialized coding environments to tell stories. To be fair, the focus was on the use of coding and not the insights coding might provide about issues such as privacy, the vulnerabilities inherent in code, etc. Counter argument – the issue of efficiency would seem relevant here. The use of software or learning about issues such as ethical practices or online vulnerabilities may not require that one have an appreciation of the code making online activities possible. If this were possible, it is then relevant to consider the level of coding proficiency that would be necessary for such insights.

Computational thinking

The long-standing debate regarding computational thinking (this is a newer term but the notion has at least a 20+ year history) seems to generate the most buzz. I suppose that unlike coding as a professional development investment, computational thinking promises a benefit for all. The interpretation of this vague term is important and varies a bit with theorists. I would point interested parties to Lye and Koh. (2014) for a nice summary. Since Papert in the 1980s, I have described the position as supporting debugging and problem solving. If you have ever attacked a substantial goal as a programmer, the notion of solving a problem should make some sense. One definition of problem solving can be translated as the situation in which the present situation is not the desired situation. Clearly, this is the case when beginning the process of taking on a programming challenge. The key issue here can be interpreted as one of transfer – does solving programming problems make it more likely someone with programming skills can better solve other types of problems?

Again, I must say that I was unable to locate much in the way of recent work substantiating this claim. I provide the best of what I was able to locate summarizing recent work. Reading of these summaries provides very little in the way of recent work (I provide citations for these reviews below and invite your own contributions if you think my search has been incomplete). One review, pretty much substantiates my own position that the best work in this area was completed in the past.

Cognitive aspects of children and novices learning computational concepts were studied extensively in the 1980s—issues such as development of thinking skills (Kurland, Pea, Clement, & Mawby, 1986); debugging (Pea, Soloway, & Spohrer, 1987); problems with transfer (Clements & Gullo, 1984; Pea & Kurland, 1984); use of appropriate scaffolds for successful transfer (Klahr & Carver, 1988), to name a few. That body of literature should be brought to bear on 21st-century CT research. [from Grover and Pea, 2013).

To be complete, Lye and Koh (2014) cite a study by Kazakoff and Bers (2012) indicate that experience programming a robot does develop improved sequencing skill that can be demonstrated in a very different type of task.

I do believe there is some support for transfer from extended programming experiences. I believe Salomon and Perkins (1987) best summarizes the original research. As a counter argument to the “hour of code” approach that is so widely supported, I would also point to this same review. This summary pretty much says that short term coding experiences accomplish little. Transfer comes either from a) substantial programming time applied to a variety of programming challenges or b) purposeful approaches that identify the skills involved in programming and how they also are involved in other problem solving tasks. Are educators willing to get behind either or these approaches? Do those involving students in coding tasks have the background and experience necessary to take the more direct instruction approach? How does efficiency apply the development of the skills that may transfer – variables, sequencing, debugging, modularization, etc.

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational Thinking in K–12: A Review of the State of the Field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43.

Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51-61.

Kazakoff, E., & Bers, M. (2012). Programming in a robotics context in the kindergarten classroom: the impact on sequencing skills. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 21, 371+.

Older work on programming and transfer

Palumbo, D. B. (1990). Programming language/problem-solving research: A review of relevant issues. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 65-89.

Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (1987). Transfer of cognitive skills from programming? When and how? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3 (2), 149–169.

Evidence is the hard part

This is the continuation of my coding vs. argumentation debate. Argumentation requires that those involved consider more than their own positions. The capacity to recognize the reasons and rationale for competing positions is required and represents a developmental advance in reasoning/critical thinking.

Argumentation requires that those involved consider more than their own positions. The capacity to recognize the reasons and rationale for competing positions is required and represents a developmental advance in reasoning/critical thinking.

Reasons:

Reasons to support coding

Programming is an important vocational skill
Coding is a way to gain greater insight into how technology works
Computational thinking transfers

Reasons to support argumentation

Capacity to analyze reasons and evidence essential when multiple information sources must be evaluated
Process of science involves reasoning from evidence
Argumentation is a productive social process increasing understanding when positions differ

The identification of reasons is just the beginning. While reasons are not always identified, the validity of a reason must be established.

As my example advances and I try to do my best to take both competing positions, things get even more challenging. This would not typically be a requirement of a classroom exercise, but I am taking on this challenge to provide a more realistic example. I do have a personal opinion regarding the strength of these two positions (given my challenge that schools take on one addition to the curriculum or the other). I would certainly welcome additions if you feel your own position has been slighted.

What must be established:

Is there evidence to support a reason? What is the evidence?

When is one reason superior to another? What can be claimed to dispute the weight of a reason?

More to come.

Arguing about arguing

Indulge me in an intellectual exercise. Begin by assuming there is room in the curriculum for an addition – a different course or at least a learning activity requiring a significant commitment of time. Ignore the typical reaction of “we already have far too much to do”. Without taking on the issue of time, just assume that it is useful to be open to considering priorities as they exist and to consider the possibility of how best to spend whatever time is available.

The task I am proposing to evaluate the value of adding either coding vs argumentation.

I am not certain I know what the outcome of this choice should be. I do think I know enough to know that a sound case can be made for both alternatives and that others should at least recognize this same point before assuming they can promote either of the alternatives. In the circles I most commonly frequent, I assume that most would be willing to promote coding. However, this is because coding is the option most think they understand. Without intending to offend anyone, I would propose that most coding promoters are not actually coders themselves and most are nearly unaware of argumentation.

Let me quickly provide a brief description of argumentation. I would describe argumentation as the processes involved in taking and defending a position. It requires the capacity to explain a position, offer reasons for this position, and offer evidence in favor of this position. It requires the recognition that others may not share this same position, the ability to recognize the reasons and evidence offered in support of this alternate position and the ability to compare and contrast the reasons and evidence for these opposing positions. Developmentally, we know that argumentation skills are acquired slowly and that the more advanced skills of analyzing the rationale offered by others is late to show up if this capacity develops at all. I hope this brief description allows a connection of what are likely more well known concepts such as critical thinking, persuasion, deep reading, and scientific reasoning.

It might even be possible to return to my initial challenge and use it as a “meta” example of argumentation – arguing about arguing. Having taken one position or the other, what are the reasons and evidence likely to be advanced in support of each alternative and what are the likely counters to these reasons and the supporting evidence.

I will give you some time to think before I offer my own analysis.

Potential of iBook Author

Hardware is or perhaps already has become a commodity. Nearly any device produced – laptop, tablet, phone – is capable of reaching the online services provided by multiple providers and more than meets the needs of a very high proportion of users. The money put into such devices brings a dismissing return. Once you get past $300-400, a larger investment adds little to what you can accomplish. This reality is reflected in the diminished interest in these same devices. If it were not for difficulties with the wired-in batteries, most of us could extend our replacement cycle by several years. The speed of a connection is far more important than the speed of the CPU, drive, or bus.

The trend I describe here is not a reflection of the use of this technology. We might have moved more of our attention to mobile, but we have not diminished the focus of our attention on digital content.

These trends make it difficult for companies that are focused primarily on hardware. The multiple companies involved in generating hardware assure reasonable value for money spent. I use mostly Apple devices, but I understand that I am purchasing this hardware at a premium and for little advantage when it comes to my work. I am worried about the future of Apple hardware.

It seems Apple already realizes the challenges I have identified and are making every attempt to diversify. My frustration is that Apple fancies itself a design and hardware company and ignores the potential in content (with the exception of music) and online social. I wish that Apple would challenge Amazon in the ebook market. iBook Author is a great tool but largely ignored as a development environment because Apple refuses to make the necessary investments to take the content generated cross platform. Anyone writing for group adoptions (e.g., textbooks) cannot make a commitment to developing in iBook Author. Instructors making book decisions cannot put students in the situation of having to own the hardware from a specific company.

My complaints with the Amazon model beyond the general objection to the lack of competition is the simple format of the content that must be prepared for the Kindle. Generating content for the Kindle is not easy and the commitment of Amazon to its own low end devices limits the use of multimedia in the content created. I understand that Amazon is moving toward a more diversified textbook authoring platform, but derivations of pdfs are not what I find impressive. The Kindle devices are simply not suited to video or to integrating web and book content.

So Apple, you have the money to create a presence in the content environment. You will soon be out of the education market if you focus only on hardware.

Newsela adds “paired texts”

Newsela has not been around for long, but the company has become quite popular as a way for educators to meet the literacy needs of classrooms serving a wide range of reading levels. The service offers the same “news” stories written at multiple reading levels.

Newsela now offers an additional approach that meets the challenges of what some have described as a “new literacy”. Most of us increasing turn to online resources to meet our information needs and we locate this information using search. What search returns are multiple hits and we tend to fashion an understanding from a review of several of these sources. In keeping with this notion that we build a personal understanding by combining information from multiple sources, Newsela now provides a resource called Paired Texts. Two articles that address a common theme are provided. Students are provided a writing prompt that is best addressed by combining information from the two resources.

As far as I can tell, the articles are selected to provide different information and not contradictory perspectives. This would seem to be the next step – what do you do when a search provides information that is not consistent and you are asked to take a position?