"Education is not the filling of a bucket, but the lighting of a fire." W.B. Yeats

A Conversation About Computers in Education
By Ian Varley

Why do you want to teach kids about computers?

I don't want to teach kids about computers because I think they’re so good – especially the computers of today. I want to teach kids about computers for two reasons. First and foremost, I see computers as a means to an end – that end being the encouragement and development of intellectual curiosity. Second, there's a practical dimension; computers represent a unique stage in the development of human cognition that has only begun to blossom, and that (quite frankly) we are not ready for. When today's kids are adults, it will be their understanding of computers that shapes our social mores, our laws, and our reactions to challenges we can't even imagine today.

At base, I really just want to ignite a spark of curiosity. I want to help transform kids into active, excited learners. If I do that with computers, I've got a couple advantages over trying to do it in other ways. First, I know a lot about computers. I've been working with computers professionally for several years, and it has been my driving force during that time to learn everything I possibly can about them. Second, I really believe that there are some distinct advantages inherent in computers that move me closer to my stated goal: they're exciting, current, in demand, and (sometimes) more fun than traditional forms of learning.

Aren't there other things they should be learning instead? Memorizing poetry or reading Orwell or something?

There most certainly are other things that are worthwhile to take their time ... possibly even more worthwhile. This is especially true if the content of computer instruction is geared specifically towards existing software applications. I really believe that instructional time spent on learning, for example, Microsoft Word, would much better be spent learning something that is worthwhile in and of itself. Not to pick on Microsoft Word, but a word processing application has no deeper lessons for us to learn; it teaches us nothing about the human condition, except perhaps indirectly. Most of the software programs we use are commercial products, created by a company with product managers, salespeople, advertisers, and programmers, designed to be sold. Children are far better off spending their time learning things that are worthy to be learned (and there is certainly no shortage of these things – though there may well be a shortage of teachers prepared to teach them).

But how will they be prepared to get jobs and be productive adults?

Think about that realistically. A fifth grader today will graduate from college and enter the workforce in 12 years. I dare you to find a single software program we use today (other than the kernels of operating systems perhaps) that has been around for 12 years. Five years, for that matter. Job preparation, in its vocational education sense, is certainly not what we should shoot for in an ideal education. As the quote says, "You give a man a fish, and he can eat for one day; you teach him how to fish, and he can eat for a lifetime." In the same sense, we should not teach our children how to use software, but rather how to learn software as they need to.

That really gets at the heart of what I would like to teach. Not the specifics of this technology or that application, but the general underpinnings of all technology. What is a computer? How does it work? What can do? How can I control it? What does it mean?

As far as I've seen, having computers in the classroom can actually be counterproductive to learning. Why put that extra strain on resources?

The actual presence of computers in setting where computer concepts are being taught it is, in my opinion, a necessary evil. The computers of today are a terrible burden in the classroom setting; they break, they are slow, they are unreliable, they take expensive resources (both in terms of people and equipment), and they are distracting. What is worse, is that they de-focus attention; in other words, rather than sitting in a group looking at each other and talking to each other, children face away from each other and look only at their own personal screen. This removal of the human component of education, if it progresses unchecked, will have very negative consequences for basic interpersonal skills, and the ability to work together with other people towards a common goal.

However, if computer concepts specifically are being taught, it wouldn't really make sense not to have any computers. Computers are required to run the programs that students write and use, and they do give the students feedback in that specific sense -- feedback towards developing an interactive understanding of what computers are doing. A certain amount of it will only be learned hands-on use; the reason I de-emphasize this, however, is that I don't think it's all that important to "teach" that part. Students will learn, if only they have their hands on the computers.

There are actually lots of things you can teach in Computer Science without computers.

Only one kid in fifty will ever program a computer. Is it worth teaching programming?

It is a well taken point that computer programming, as we know it, is fairly arcane. The syntax of many languages stems back to historical problems, the legacy of earlier languages still controlling us today. Most computer languages, in fact, are far from purely logical. However, the core product, the the mode of thinking logically, is not only useful but critical to all students. Concepts that can be gleaned from learning some computer programming include: sequence, boolean logic, abstraction, modularity, rigor, and communication. These are fundamental thinking skills; it just happens that computer programming is an excellent way to gain mastery of them.

That said, there are some idiosyncratic facets of working with computers that are less desirable -- for example, the mind numbing effect of three hours doing nothing but sitting in a chair and staring at CRT, jamming your fingers against small plastic buttons on a keyboard. My personal belief is that these "trappings" of present-day computers will fall away quite rapidly in the coming years. However, for the time being they certainly are part of our reality and can't be ignored. That isn't really for everyone.

I like to think that we are not "training" our students for a career in any one discipline, be it CS or fashion. Rather, I'd like to teach them to be independent, thoughtful people. Programming, IMO, is a fantastic gateway to this (for some kids) because it lets them work within a consistent, logical framework that simultaneously lets them measure up against explicit external goals, and also gives them leeway to solve abstract problems in creative ways. It's only one piece of a full education, of course, but it's a valuable one.

The fact remains, however, that some students are more receptive than others. Should we waste our time looking for ways to garner the attention of the non-apt? Using examples in fashion design, dating games, etc. Is it worth the effort?

Imagine this. Those "nerds" who are good with computers ... they still have to go to gym class, right? If they're like me, they hate gym class because they've got less aptitude; they're left out, picked last, and teased. Because of that, many of them probably grow up with no appreciation of how physical wellness fits in to a happy, healthy life; they lose out. Now instead, imagine a "kinder, gentler" gym class that really teaches these non-athletic kids about the neglected kinesthetic side of themselves, in ways they grasp. I know, "fat chance", but it sure would be great, right?

Now transfer that to the kids who don't hit it off with programming in the usual left-brain way. Because of their lack of traditional aptitude, they'll be left out of a prime means of learning powerful ideas like abstraction, algorithms, logic, recursion, composition, formal grammars, complex emergence, etc. etc.Ê Those are ideas worth learning (in varying degrees) just as much as Poe or the war of 1812. We just need to figure out ways to make a "kinder, gentler" CS class that isn't so foreboding to the athletes, the girls, the drama geeks (said with affection, of course), etc.

I don't want to make my students into professional programmers. I'd like to expand their (and our) horizons a little bit, about what thought and problem solving are really about. That's one heck of a lofty goal, I realize. But the point is valid. Computers and programming have so much to offer, not just today but 5, 10, 20 years from now; and only 1% of the population ever sees the joy of it.Ê Let's get them into it!

So how will it work, practially? Like, what is your ideal computer classroom?

My ideal classroom would look very much like a non-computer classroom of today. Students grouped around tables, able to see me and each other. However, just under the surface of each seat at each table is a monitor; and hidden under the lip of the table, at each place, a keyboard. As the teacher, I can project my screen onto all of their screens, or select one of their screens to show the class; or I can make all the screens disappear when I need their attention. The computers would be highly networked, running open source software, in a crash-proof, child-proof OS.

Sound like a dream? Every one of these technologies is available (or close) today. How long must we wait until these are standard issue in classrooms?

Where’s it all heading?

Sherry Turkle, a professor of the sociology of science at MIT and a longtime observer of children's use of computers, once said, "The possibilities of using this thing poorly so outweigh the chance of using it well, it makes people like us, who are fundamentally optimistic about computers, very reticent."¹

A lot has to change for computers to blossom into the amazing thing they could be in schools, and the dangers are very present. I see my job as cutting the stones – the projects, the classes, the students – while always envisioning the cathedral.

Footnotes:

¹ Quoted from “Changing Minds” by Andy DiSessa.

Last updated: 7/1/02