Computer Science in Education

I never realized how much effort has been put into computer intervention in education over the last 100 years. It's implementation seemingly was never designed to automate knowledge or take anything away from the natural progression of learning. Many skeptics of a more "modern" form of education may say how computers will make students lazy or how it is dangerous to rely too much on computers. In reality, we have been using computers for years and continue to grow in our understanding of their power. This power is not meant to perform the tasks of the human brain, but is simply a different way to present ideas and problem solve. There has always been criticism involving this convergence of technology in education. Papert's writings explore the true goals of computer/programming implementation into education. These pieces were written in 1970s/80s. Therefore, Papert's representation of computers is not necessarily the same representation that we would have of computers today. In other words, people see computer science in the light of artificial intelligence, iphones and app design, or virtual reality (For more examples, I recommend watching any episode of Black Mirror on Netflix. The show seems to identify the dangers of accelerated growth of technology.). Papert identifies computer science applications as a means for enhancing the learning process. Our education system clearly has its issues in multiple facets but one of the main issues is that students are not be taught how to think. Alternatively, students are taught to be either right or wrong. John Dewey stressed the belief that intellectual growth is rooted in experience. However, schools do not use student's experience to their advantage. This experience does not necessarily have to involve a field trip or have students share their culture (although these things should be encouraged as well!), but experience can be expressed through the problem solving process. Each student is going to approach a solution in a unique way. Harnessing that experience, sharing with others, working with others and adjusting their work flow can be incredibly valuable. This idea relates strongly with programming. No code will be exactly the same as the next. Programming requires specific instruction that is provided by the students. Essentially, the student is the one that has to teach the computer program, when the common misconception is that the computer is doing everything for the student. If a student is able to teach it, is there any better way to know that a student fully understands the topic? Papert mentions computers "universality" and its power to simulate. Regarding experience, the computer allows students to simulate certain experiences which could be equally as powerful as real ones. The ability for a student to program and use the computer effectively demonstrates a deeper relationship with technology that can be used to explore math, science, and the arts. One of the most frustrating things to hear a student say is, "Oh-I'm not a computer person" or "Math is not my thing". This happened in the 70s and it still happens today. Instead of simply identifying deficiencies in subject areas, students will succomb to classifying themselves. Not only does this subconsciously force them to not pursue the topic in depth, but it could also lead to insecurities. Perhaps with the use of computers and programming, we can start to help students to learn these topics in different ways. Instead of being "wrong", a computer program will force a student to "debug" and, therefore, explicitly identify the areas where he/she struggles. An ability to master computers opens the opportunity to change the way a person can learn. Programming is a form of active learning, utilizing trial and error and research in order to solve a problem. Papert mentioned Sesame Street as a popular way for young students to learn. Sesame Street may update their information and explanations but students will only get so much from listening to lectures on TV, in the classroom, or by their parents. Papert proceeds to predict that children's toys of the future will have as much computer power as IBM computers (Little did Papert know that IBM would no longer be the market leader in computers.). While I do not believe kids had these kind of toys by the end of the century, they certainly have such "toys" now. I see kids as young as two years old playing on iPads and iPhones. Initially, I thought that this was a bad thing. Along with the critics, I felt that we "know little about cogntiive psychology" and that technology would ultimately damage mental health. However, I realize that children will have an even deeper relationship with technology at a younger age. This, in turn, will allow for greater advancements to occur in the future. People seem to always protect their ideologies that they grew up with. Walking 5 miles to school in the snow, or working 3 jobs with no vacation made a person "tough". The QWERTY keyboard is another concept that, quite frankly, does not make any sense. The keyboard has become more of a cultural device as opposed to an optimized device. I feel that this keyboard relates to our resistance to change and our loyalty to our past. Embracing technology and policy is what allows societies to change for the better. Our society, certainly, is not even close to its optimal condition and there is an abundance of progress to be made. Regarding mental health, while I do think kids use the internet in harmful ways such as through cyberbullying, I think that computers allow students to develop stronger relationships with people by communicating in more ways. It is unfortunate that the discussion of technology in education is made to be political. "Not only do good educational ideas sit on the shelves, but the process of invention is itself stymied". Our conservative model in education is the reason that the field progresses so slowly. Students still do not enjoy school and are not practicing effective learning strategies. The kids have a powerful relationship with technology, and we should be leveraging this in any way possible. For those of you that are frustrated with the education system, I implore you not to give up. For the education system to change, we need innovators at the forefront. Education from 100 years ago does not have to be the education of today. I, personally, did not like school from the academics point of view. We never designed, created, or worked on projects that I felt actually mattered. Harnessing computers into education is more than just providing improved technology to students. It allows our framework of teaching and learning to change entirely.