“Although considerable effort has been put into advancing
our understanding of computational thinking, there are still challenges to
address, particularly in terms of bringing computational thinking into
schools. These challenges included
defining a learning progression and curriculum assessing student achievement,
preparing teachers, and ensuring equitable access.” (Weintrop et al, 130)
It is intuitive for me to see the relationship between
mathematical thinking and CT. The same proficiencies that make a student a
successful mathematician are what Weintrop and company describe as their CT
practices. One of my readings for a Math Ed class this week describes the “Strands
of Mathematical Proficiency” which include conceptual understanding, procedural
fluency, strategic competence, adaptive reasoning, and productive disposition (Kilpatrick,
J. pg. 116) Conceptual understanding
according Kilpatrick is a kissing cousin to Weintrop’s Modeling and Systems Thinking Practices. Both require understanding
the entirety of the problem, and restructuring the problem to make sense. Adaptive reasoning and Strategic competence for Kilpatrick are
related to Weintrop’s Systems thinking
and Problem solving practices because
they both require thinking in levels, choosing appropriate tools, and managing
complexity.
While there is tremendous overlap in the skills that make
someone a successful Math or CS student, there is a stark contrast between what
is expected when entering a K-12 math classroom and a CS classroom. We have been teaching mathematics in almost
the same way for 200 years, and computational devices have changed a great deal
in the last 15. If we can all agree that the skills are related and mostly
transferrable, why hasn’t there been more change in the Math classroom?
I agree that computational thinking (CT) is clearly a good
thing, but while Dr. Wing’s Computational
Thinking has been written for 10 years, and other writers have been arguing
for their versions of CT for much longer, there is little practical information
on how to implement CT education into schools.
What does a classroom environment supporting CT look like, and how is
that different from the arguably backwards, “back-woods” classrooms I attended
in the rural farming communities of Oklahoma?
It has to be more than just “a computer for every child.”
As a related question, what does it mean for a child to be thinking
“computationally” and how are we, as educators, supposed to design practices
and assessments to test for it? The adage
of “Don’t expect what you don’t inspect” rings true here. If we say we want
children to be increasing their problem solving skills and thinking computationally,
we must teach the educators how to recognize and test for that.
I think you bring up a good point about the lack of change in classrooms. It reminds me of an article I'm reading in my Analysis of Teaching class (which I recommend to anyone). It addresses a frustration many have about education - reform movements have not reformed schools. In Developing Practice, Developing Practitioners, David Cohn explains: "Although a good deal of money is spent on staff development in the United States, most is spent on sessions and workshops that are often intellectually superficial, disconnected from deep issues of curriculum and learning, fragmented, and noncumulative." (1999) This resonated with our common struggles in programing. Policies and ideals do not change what happens in the classroom. All except one of my professional development, PD, experiences have been to disseminate ideas or tricks. It is rare teachers participate in PD that leads to a transformation rather than an update of the teacher's practices.
ReplyDeleteThe questions you pose here are the very same ones that were running through my own mind as I read through these and the other articles. I agree with the theoretical ideas proposed by Wing and the other intelligent people we have been discussing in class. However I have been wondering, how can these theories be applied in a practice. How should I design my classroom to support this type of high level thinking in a way that does not require me to bring my kids to the computer lab every period, and still supports the already assessed curriculum standard. I also agree that the first step is educating teachers on how to properly promote this type of thinking and learning. Unfortunately in the education community professional development is rarely taken seriously or done effectively. I think it is extremely important that before we try to shift instructional practices to encourage this type of thinking, we ensure teachers are trained and confident in their ability to support their students in this new cognition.
ReplyDelete