General – Page 25 – Learning Aloud

Why computational thinking?

I wish I could convey my opinion on this topic in a way that is both concise and persuasive. I just don’t think I can. Part of the problem is that the way so many educators think about computational thinking, if they think about it at all, is part of a bigger set of topics that includes coding, computer science, STEM, occupational preparation, and equity of who can eventually take advantage of the occupational opportunities of working with technology. I have different opinions about many of these topics in isolation, but too many in my opinion see the topics as tightly integrated. Second, I question what many understand computational thinking to be and exactly why they think it is valuable. How specific of a description could you provide?

I have this mental image of a fourth-grade teacher engaging her class in an hour of code activity suggesting to parents that these students are being prepared for occupations of the future and are simultaneously developing valuable computational thinking skills that are helpful in many aspects of life. It is my opinion that this educator while unable to write code herself or himself is aware that digital technology relies on code that someone has written, that someone must have the skills to write this code, and that there are many many vocational opportunities for those with the skills to write code. More important to this blog post, the notion of computational thinking is not something the educator can really describe, but this type of thinking is evidently potentially of value to the improvement of performance in other academic areas and eventually when developed in many areas of life. Somehow computational thinking, whatever it is, can be developed through learning to code and these brief activities arranging blocks representing commands that control the dancing cat on the screen are making a contribution to this learning.

I, in no way, am demeaning the capabilities of this hypothetical educator. I am attempting to describe what I think is a very common situation. I admit despite purposeful attempts to read the literature on computational thinking going back to Papert’s works and the careful research on just what students learning to program in LOGO learned and despite thousands of hours writing code myself that I find myself in a somewhat similar situation.

I can point interested parties to definitions of computational thinking and to “standards” intended to identify what must be developed to advance this capability. I will provide what I think is a nice source shortly. I think I understand what at least some of the skills and dispositions described as components of computational thinking are and I recognize the presence of examples of these components in various advanced academic domains.

So, for example, computational thinking involves developing and thinking in terms of abstract, multilayered models. These models are descriptive at one layer, but link to actions (code in the case of programming) and data at other levels. By my understanding, you see examples of these multilayered models in:

Macroeconomics

Biochemistry – Krebs cycle –

Psychology – cognitive models such as information processing theory

Education – Flower and Hayes Model of the writing process

You see methods for testing models in statistical procedures such as path analysis and structural equation modeling.

You can work through this type of exercise yourself if you are trying to understand how to see the presence of some of the components of computational thinking in other areas.

It is not that I don’t see the value in learning many of the skills and dispositions frequently described as computational thinking. It is not that I don’t see the skills and dispositions as important to coding. So, what is my hangup?

Let me start this way. I have just read a report from a group that has labeled itself as Digital Promise entitled Computational Thinking for a Computational World. This report is obviously pro computational thinking. The report goes through the traditional arguments for programming – there are lots of jobs and technology is and will increasingly play an important role in all aspects of life. Then, the authors add an argument based on computational thinking. In support of the general utility of computational thinking, the authors differentiate coding (the specific skill of programming), computer science (coding plus other issues such as ethics, social impact), and computational thinking (the thinking skills and dispositions programmers apply in programming). The present these three topics as a Venn diagram both to argue that they are interrelated, but also independent. So, the thinking skills and dispositions used by programmers have broader utility than just to be used in coding (I guess this is the intent of showing that the circles representing computational thinking and coding are not the same circle.) The leap of logic that is encouraged is that coding and computer science encourage the development of these thinking skills and dispositions that have this broader utility. As a psychologist, I am most familiar with labeling this final claim as transfer.

I will return to the question of transfer at a later point.

Perhaps I can do better than use descriptors such as thinking skills and dispositions. There are plenty of examples of other writers making the effort to be more precise in identifying these components. One of my “go to” efforts of this type is provided by the paper entitled “Demystifying computational thinking” by Shute & colleagues (2017). The authors do a nice job of describing the historical background of the effort to identify these components, points to a number of efforts to do so, and offer their own list.

The authors do one other thing I believe is helpful. Again using a Venn diagram, they identify the overlap and uniqueness of computational thinking and the thinking required in another discipline (math). It was this Venn diagram that offered a way to think about my core concern with the emphasis being placed on computational thinking. If thinking skills and dispositions transfer (a complex topic itself), what is unique about the skills involved in coding. Why is coding better than any other domain in which abstraction, model building, testing models against data (experience), modification of approaches when this match is not particularly good (debugging), etc.? For example, how is computational thinking different from whatever one would describe as the collection of skills and dispositions involved in writing? Writing has the advantage of being an important life skill and a generative activity fairly easily adapted to the processing of information and the externalization of the cognition associated with procedures involved in most content areas (writing across the curriculum). Admittedly, writing activities may not presently be implemented to these ends, but why retool to a new area of emphasis, coding to develop computational thinking, when improvements in enhanced writing opportunities, say multimedia writing to persuade, to analyze, and to explain, could offer a more efficient way to develop similar thinking skills and dispositions. Wouldn’t the professional development necessary for teachers to make more effective use of writing as writing to learn be easier to implement than the professional development necessary to prepare most teachers to use coding to learn. Maybe writing across the curriculum needs a similar catch phrase that implies similar benefits to computational thinking. Writing across the curriculum may just need a new marketing campaign.

I suppose one could argue that the overlap in skills noted by Shute and colleagues offer a different insight. Wouldn’t it follow that skills developed through coding also apply in math? Perhaps, but since math is already taught through multiple classes why add an independent and additional way to develop these core skills. Second, see the comments on transfer that follow. A preview – skills are not skills. The version of problem-solving developed through programming is not the same as the version of problem-solving developed through learning and applying math.

A few words about transfer. First, the expectation that general, higher level skills can be developed sounds great, but is very challenging to get done. Problem-solving or critical thinking in one content area do not automatically work in another area (Perkins & Salomon, 1989). It is not that skills developed in one area cannot offer an advantage when encountering what could be similar situations in another area, but that certain conditions must be met to make this transition likely. Perkins and Salomon (Salomon & Perkins, 1989; Salomon & Perkins, 1989) describe a couple of ways to accomplish this goal they label high and low road transfer. Low road transfer takes a lot of time and varied experiences likely impractical in K12 settings and high road transfer requires mediated experiences (instruction) most educators would find they were unprepared to provide. Just to be clear, the ideas advanced by Salomon and Perkins were based on their careful analysis of efforts to demonstrate transfer for students exposed to LOGO programming.

So, what is my present thinking.

First, programming is a valuable vocational skills and the opportunities to explore should be made available. There are challenges. Most programming courses are AP courses and this does not seem like it makes sense as a “coding for all” opportunity. Fitting programming courses into the curriculum in many schools is a challenge and many states do not allow a programming course to count toward math or science requirements. Then, there is the challenge of finding educators with the background to teach these courses. Given what is required for far transfer, skilled instruction is necessary. If we are serious about this area, addressing some of these challenges should be a first step.

The question of which skills and predispositions are developed by which tasks is even more complicated. At present, I don’t see a unique benefit for computational thinking as distinct from other generalizable thinking skills and dispositions that have a history of being developed in other more convenient ways. I could be convinced I am wrong, but I don’t see the research to make this case at present.

Resources:

Digital Promise (2017). Computational thinking for a computational world

Click to access dp-comp-thinking-v1r5.pdf

Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational leadership, 46(1), 22-32.

PERKINS, D., & SALOMON, G. (1989). Are Cognitive Skills Context-Bound? Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16–25.

Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanism of a neglected phenomenon. Educational psychologist, 24(2), 113-142.

Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142-158.

Low use of purchased software?

A recent analysis of K12-level software usage entitled “Towards understanding app effectiveness and cost” written by R Baker and S. Gowda offers a dismal picture of the actual commitment to purchased resources. Using data collected by the BrightBytes Learning outcomes module, analysts were able to determine the committed time and frequency of use for free and purchased apps. The researchers were also able to track gains in some areas using standardized tests administered near the beginning and end of the study. The researchers offer a complete project description in addition to the summary provided online. I have requested the complete study, but the holiday season may have meant the researchers have not yet received this request.

Highlights from this study have been circulated. The online highlights that I have read feature some attention-grabbing data. The median activation of licenses sold was 30% and only 3% of apps reached the level of activity defined as extensive use (10 hours or more during the duration of the study). The data were collected from 58 districts comprising 845 different schools so the sample was substantial.

Some of the most frequently used apps are listed below. The statistic used for comparison is the median number of days on which the app was used. I am unable to report on the exact methodology, but I assume these data require that a school make available a specific app in a given classroom. What is not provided in the overview is the number of schools/classrooms out of all possible schools/classrooms that installed a given app so the comparisons across apps are difficult to interpret. Some apps on this list are free and serve a general function (e.g. Google Drive). Some are more targeted to a specific content area and require payment.

Cengage Learning DigitalAce – 31 days
Sherpath – 19
Spanish Lessons – 13
Big Universe – 10
Zern Math – 10
Tenmarks Math – 9
Carnegie Learning – 8
Google Drive – 8

Some apps showed significant correlations between amount of use and standardized test gains. Some did not.

The data that seem to be generating the most reaction is the low level of overall use for these apps.

As I suggested, these data have encouraged a reaction from several bloggers.

Doug Johnson says that the district he represents also uses the BrightBytes tool to track usage within his district. He says that the level of usage within his district would be far higher and the reason that such data were collected in the first place is to determine what software to keep and what to replace from year to year.

Thomas Arnett offered a reaction I have seen most cited. He interpreted the results using his model of teacher “jobs”. He attempts to identify three of these jobs and explains teachers will make meaningful use of software only if it helps the teacher perform what they see as a job. Arnett also speculates that the very low “extensive” use of nearly all apps as teachers making some, but minimal use of apps as a way to meet administrator expectations.

I have my own opinion as what is going on in these data. I have written on several occasions about the pricing models associated with many applications. I wonder if some of what many might see as unexpectedly low activity is related to pricing models. Often apps are offered as a free “crippled” version, a price per class, and a price for a school. Purchasing the school level may seem easiest to implement and cost-effective, but might provide access to many educators not really committed to use. It would be interesting to know what were the expectations of those making the purchases. This situation might create a situation in which educators had access but did not and were not really required/expected to use the app. It also seems that a different usage picture would exist if educators were provided a budget and allowed to use this budget to purchase class-level access to apps.

Resurgence of RSS

I admit that I am old and perhaps subject to becoming set in my ways. I even have a blog entitled Curmudgeon Speaks which possibly explains a lot. I try to keep up on the newest thinking on technology in education and the newest relevant tools, but I still employ a workflow based in RSS and social bookmarking. The young and innovative may not even know what these services are and promote Twitter, Snapchat, etc. to keep themselves informed. Bah……

Or, maybe not. I found hope in a recent post, discovered on my RSS reader, entitled “It’s time for an RSS revival“. I am guessing this writer is half my age, but he thinks like me. Actually, his slant is a little different. In this nice review of what RSS is, he offers RSS as an alternative to social sources and algorithms. He positions RSS and the RSS reader as a way to control what you want to read.

A quick review. RSS (Really Simple Syndication) is a way to track updates to designated sites. In other words, what additions have been created since I last checked? You specify the sources – mostly blog sites for me. Software referred to as an RSS reader periodically checks these sites and identifies when something changes. The URL (web address) for the new content and some content from the change (the amount depends on what the author allows) appears in a list returned when you use the RSS reader. The reader keeps track of what you have looked at and typically removes this content from the list. Depending on the reader, there may be ways to keep the links to content you find useful. I typically keep what I find useful using another service (Evernote for me). So, to summarize – you identify websites you want the RSS reader to follow, the reader software identifies new content as it appears on these sites and creates a list for you to review, and typically when you review this list you decide to keep or ignore items from this list. Each entry on the list can be used to link to the full content from the original source.

My previous posts about RSS and RSS readers.

My recommendation – I would try Feedly. The article I link to in the body of this post contains some other recommendations.

One of the challenges in using RSS is finding good content. You select the original sources rather than follow what others recommend. This is a challenge to which each user likely has an ideal personal solution. Perhaps you have little idea what blogs relevant to your interests exist. I can offer my recommendations, but others who follow blogs probably differ in what they would recommend. It is possible to get greedy and identify far more content than you want to review. A RSS reader at least reduces this challenge to scanning post titles and snippets of content.

Here is my suggestion if you have no other idea about how you would get started. I use a personal RSS aggregator on my server. You can scroll through recent entries to see the titles of the blogs I follow and connect to these blogs. You cannot use this aggregator as your own reader because that would defeat the purpose of allowing me to eliminate the content I have viewed. You can generate a list of blogs you might find useful to add to the RSS reader you adopt.

My YouTube description of RSS and Feedly

Some ideas about protecting your privacy.

Intro comment – this is a very long post. If you are not interested in the background I provide about the online collection of personal information, skip about halfway through this post and you will find a list of specific things I describe that allow you some control over the collection of your information.

Information is becoming the currency of the future

I have been reading the book “21 lessons for the 21st century” by Yuval Harari. The book comes highly recommended by many. I find the picture of the future based on the trends of today as fairly disturbing. One of the issues that comes up again and again in this book is the topic of equality and the related concept of opportunity. It is not so much that folks in the future will not have their minimum needs met, but the likelihood that many will find themselves in situations allowing little meaningful contribution to society and in situations with factors over which individuals will have little control. In so many ways, the rich and privileged will get richer and the rest of humanity will be increasingly left behind.

Harari’s book offers a view of the future impacted by many factors, but he consistently singles out two – AI and biotechnology. The equity issue comes into play because all will not be able to use and benefit from these factors equally. And, over the years, those with greater access (families, groups, maybe countries) will separate themselves from everyone else. AI and biotechnology use data as the essential input and Harari’s reasoning leading to Harari’s conclusion that:

“If we want to prevent the concentration of all wealth and power in the hands of a small elite, the key is to regulate the ownership of data.”

I will likely write about Harari’s book again, but this post specifically addresses the topic of personal data and options for personal control of who is allowed access.

It is not so much that each of us should deny access to our personal data. So many innovations now and in the future will be dependent on access. Rather, it is that we understand the importance of the data we make available and understand and control who we allow to have access. Just to be clear, while I am concentrating on the data potentially generated by our online behavior, data are collected in many ways (e.g., credit card activity) and integrated across many sources for many uses.

Data based on your online behavior

You provide online data in many different ways. When you complete a Facebook survey about your personality or your likes and dislikes, you provide data. When you conduct a Google search, what you search for and how you respond to the results generated, you provides data. When you conduct pretty much any online activity that loads pages that involve “cookies”, you provide data. When you conduct any online activity that goes through your local ISP provider, you provide data. What you do and the frequency with which you do it probably is useful to someone who wants to know about you or at least people generically like you.

Let me start with this. I am not against the collection of personal data. The most likely reason for others to collect data based on your online behavior is to tailor the future information you are shown. Google uses data about you to offer you search results you are more likely to want to see. Many companies collect information about you to deliver ads and other information you will be interested in seeing. More generally, the benefit of providing you information likely to influence you also has value to you because it has value to those who value this information. This information has value to those “others” and they end up funding valuable services so you don’t have to. It is important to recognize that you do not pay for Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. by sending money to the companies providing you access, content, and services. You pay with your attention and your information

Ads, transparency, and control

The online situation is complicated. You want to use these services and you likely find it beneficial that you pay nothing for most. The services need to make money and selling ads is a way to generate income. Note that it is not just the intermediaries (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) who benefit because many content creators also get a cut sometimes when ads appear, but most likely when ads are pursued for additional information. The companies paying to have ads appear and now most importantly paying to have ads appear to those most likely to respond are the final party in this group of players.

I am not against ads and I doubt that blocking ads would allow the positive components of this model to continue. No ads, no free services or free content. What I find objectionable with ads is when information is shared between sites. In other words, I assume it is acceptable when the provider of a site collects information directly (this is the compensation for the service and in some cases the content provider), but not when information collected from the use of one service is shared with another service. It is the lack of transparency when information is shared across services that I think violates the assumption a user makes or at least should make when visiting a given site.

Here are all of the strategies I can think of that would allow you a greater degree of control over who sees your data and what is done with it.

Don’t send all of your data to the same providers

Use options

There are multiple search engines. You are not bound to Google. DuckDuckGo works well.

Limit your dependence on a given company for multiple services. If you use Google for search, there are other email services available. For example, those who use Apple hardware can use the Apple email system.

I also think it would be great if groups of individuals who want to communicate would consider using different services. The network effect is the challenge. This label means people use a service because the people they want to interact with use the same service. The network effect limits exploration and even the consideration of better services. Facebook and Twitter represent great examples. There are alternatives to each – e.g.. Mastodon for Twitter and Diaspora for Facebook. You don’t have to use alternatives continuously. However, those wanting to both explore technology and have a specific purpose for interacting could easily use an alternative service for this specific purpose. For example, educators wanting to engage in an EduChat could easily use Mastodon instead of Twitter for this specific activity.

Become more aware of how you are being tracked

If you use the chrome browser, consider adding the Ghostery extension. Ghostery is a powerful privacy extension. It blocks ads and stops trackers. The extension identifies the cookies that are associated with a given site and allow users to decide whether to block or allow in future visits to a given site.

Block ads that share information among providers

Again, if you are a Chrome browser user, consider the extension Disconnect Facebook™ pixel & FB™ tracking. This extension prevents Facebook from following you when you are not on Facebook.

Limit the information your ISP can collect about you (you already pay the ISP)

1.1.1.1 – This service takes a little more effort to install. 1.1.1.1 is an alternate DNS to that provided by your ISP. A DNS translates web addresses you request into the four number identifier used by servers. An ISP can use the information gleaned from DNS traffic to figure out which websites you’ve been visiting, even if you use HTTPS. By replacing the DNS of your provider with the DNS of a service that does not collect your information, you limit the information you share with your IP.

Consider a system that allows you to pay providers directly rather than pay providers with the information you allow to be collected.

Brave is a new browser now based on Chrome (this recent update is important because it allows users to install Chrome extensions). Brave blocks cookies and scripts unless a user acts to override this extension.

Brave allows a user to make a monthly contribution that is used to compensate the authors of visited sites as a way to replace potential ad revenue.

Reading is but one of several interrelated processes

The reading from paper versus device controversy is interesting, but at one level I think it misses the point. Reading is often but one of multiple, interrelated processes and a digital approach allows these processes to work together far more efficiently because information is easier to pass among processes. In many cases, we read to do something. We read as part of learning and studying. We read to be able to do something immediately or at a latter point in time. We read several things because we want to put together ideas to write or speak about a topic. Reading works best in these situations when it can be easily integrated into other activities.

I have tried to offer an example of how this works for me. What I describe is how I often write. I read multiple things – web pages, Kindle books, etc. – in preparation to write something. I cannot bridge reading into this process of information collection and authoring from memory and working within a digital environment sometimes relying on multiple technology devices because this approach offers me great efficiency.

I have created a video to describe how this process can work. In this video, I reference several resources you may want to use yourself. I will list these online resources here in case you might want to follow up after viewing the video.

Chrome extension for Diigo – this extension serves multiple purposes allowing the highlighting and annotation of web content and the storage within Diigo. Use this link to search for Diigo and add the extension to the chrome browser.

Amazon stores highlights and annotations online. Those who read Kindle books often are not aware they can locate these additions to Kindle book text online – https://read.amazon.com/kp/notebook

The new Flickr

Educators who rely on a free Flickr account need to acquaint themselves with the changes Smugmug has implemented since purchasing Flickr – see this summary from the Flickr blog.

Smugmug claims it is positioning Flickr as a social photography site not intended for backing up you images. In keeping with this claim, the company has imposed a 1000 image limit on free sites and will eliminate images over this limit – old images first. The cost for a pro account is $50 a year.

There had been some confusion regarding images designated as “commons”. Images made available under Creative Commons would be images you and I have offered with this designation. There is also a Flickr Commons which refers to a repository of images from the Library of Congress, etc. – probably not you and me. Images marked as Creative Commons before the Smugmug purchase date will not count against your free 1000 image limit. Too late if you were thinking you could now change the designation attached to old images.

Some ideas for free users.

Be aware of your number of stored images. I wish I could explain how. I tried to find the total for my account, but could find only how much of a terabyte I have used (I have long had a paid/pro account). Cull if you are close.

Use Google Photos if you need an image backup. Truthfully, for educational purposes, Google Photos is probably a better educational choice. Yes, I will continue to use both – I pay for redundancy.

Some thoughts on the Flickr/Smugmug decision. I always support paying for the online services you use. I find trying to argue this is about a social approach as disingenuous. We Flickr users pick and choose those we follow socially. Also, if you don’t want the site to be used for backup don’t allow automatic uploads.

The online business model will likely change

It is important to try to understand the perspective of others in most situations. We far too easily see things biased our own priorities and past experiences. It is too easy to see how changes will benefit us and not how such change will affect others. Trying to work through how others will see a given situation offers insights. This is what I try to do when considering the hidden relationship between Internet service providers, content creators, and content consumers.

Allow me a thought experiment

Try considering my perspective related to the content I author. I will make about $4 this year for my efforts. You are looking at some of my content this moment and it took me some time to research the issue that is the focus of this post and to write the post. As part of my expectation for your viewing my content, I have included a Google ad in the display. It is not my expectation that you will click on this ad (which would result in my receiving a few pennies), but it is my expectation that this ad will be displayed. This is the way click-through ads work. If you click an ad, you are paying me. Just by allowing the ad to be visible and not using some way to block its appearance, you have provided Google the opportunity to collect some information about your behavior that is valuable in selecting the ad you view and in allowing Google to sell the ad at a higher price than it would receive for placing some random ad on the page. If you see the ad, you provide this information about yourself whether you click the ad or not. Google does not collect revenue from you even though you benefit from free Google services.

So, it useful to consider the assumptions the multiple parties in the scenario I describe make. You hear the term “business model” thrown about. Perhaps what I describe is a way to consider such assumptions from a business perspective.

Google assumes it can sell ads if it convinces those who pay for the ads that targeted ads warrant a higher price than random ads.

Google assumes it can give viewers free access to its infrastructure and the work of its employees if it displays targeted ads.

Viewers assume that they can view the content and access the online service without having to pay beyond sharing personal information.

Viewers assume their personal information will be used in an appropriate way.

The content creator assumes that viewers will view the Google ad and a few will be interested enough to click the ad to learn about the product or service.

I think it fair to say that all of these assumptions must be met if this interaction of participations can be expected to continue.

I think this model is breaking down and it is yet unclear how the failed assumptions will change the online experience going forward. Users are finding ways to block ads. Some online services are selling personal user data in ways not understood by the users.

I think it valuable to consider your own assumptions and to acknowledge the assumptions of others involved in the present online experience. You may disagree with my appraisal, but I would ask that you consider how your assumptions differ from mine. What do you expect the future to bring? I believe some changes are occurring and others (federal intervention) will occur soon. My interest is in getting individuals to consider their role in how the new set of assumptions will produce different experiences and whether these new experiences will be an improvement or not.