Hi Everyone,
In addition to my formal degree, I have a certificate in
Computer Science, but that didn’t help me enjoy this article one bit. I found it to be a frustrating read with all
the core ideas left in the abstract.
There were lots of big words and long sentences, but the end result felt
like not much had been said at all. I
got the big picture: we should prime K-12 students to collect, analyze, and
present data with computers. This point
could have been brought forth in a fraction of the space. The table on “Core Computational Thinking
Concepts and Capabilities” did present some solid examples of their fuzzy theoretical
arguments, such as “Use Excel” or “Do Matrix Multiplication.” Most of the items in the table are already
used in schools -- I know most of my teachers have used them. However, I don’t see how the “increased use by
both teachers and students of computational vocabulary” (p.52) will necessarily
help students learn them any better. It
seems like Valerie Barr and Chris Stephenson, as Computer Science advocates,
are trying to pawn off “computational thinking” as a brilliant new-fangled
idea. Okay, now I’ll get off my soap box
J
Melissa
Hey,
ReplyDeleteI already find the idea of computational thinking a bit confusing as is. This article not only made it more difficult for me to understand it was overwhelming with he amount of information it threw in my face. I did, however like how it laid out examples of how to implement computational thinking in the classroom. When we were doing Scratch in class I had a difficult time imagining how I would use that tool in my classroom. I wasn't sure if it is because I wish to teach elementary school or not but I really could not see the usefulness of the tool in my classroom. It still seems to be a little over the heads of most elementary students but the article was able to go further in detail of how computational thinking could look in the classroom.
Thanks,
Brooke Gerrard
Melissa,
ReplyDeleteI pretty much completely agree with you analysis of the information in the article you read. It seems like the authors are beating a dead horse. I mean, a lot of kids are technologically advanced as it is -- why is computational thinking being presented like it's some new idea? It's almost as if kids today develop computational intuition and a kind of "technological 6th sense" as it is. I think that computational thinking is just an innate part of education now, and I don't see the point of discussing the vocabulary associated with it, since it is already well established. I see the point in doing that with adults who did not grow up with technology. But even those kids without computers are becoming less and less, and one day it truly will be a normal household item. Even more than it is now!
Thanks for the information. Good work!
Marina Skendzic