Early Education: What Does Computing Has to Do with it, and in What Ways?

M. Armoni
{"title":"Early Education: What Does Computing Has to Do with it, and in What Ways?","authors":"M. Armoni","doi":"10.1145/2818314.2834898","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The issue of early computing education is very complex. It has connections with many other -- close and less close -- domains. In this talk I intend to touch some of these connections, to some extent. Obviously, such a light treatment, of some of the connections, and only to a certain extent cannot lead us to well-formed conclusions regarding early teaching of computing. Specifically, by the end of this talk we probably will not be able to agree on the proper age to start computing education, or on the corresponding didactic philosophy. But, there is a good chance that by the end of this talk you will become familiar with the set of the relevant connections and the domains they connect. Historically, computing education started in universities and colleges. Then came high-school computing education. In some countries this happened earlier than in others, while it is still waiting to happen in other countries. The next stage was middle school, and even below, to primary school, down to ages as young as 5. Not surprisingly, a common strategy, used in many (mainly earlier) cases, was to rely on a pedagogic approach and a curriculum of a certain level and adapt it to a lower-age level. Adaptation is for example using a simpler language, more suited to younger students, to teach the same set of knowledge units. Another example is deleting from the programs complete units, usually the most advanced ones. As most, if not all of you, already know this is not a very effective strategy. Many pedagogic methodologies that help and support learning of undergraduate students do not work (and sometimes even disturb or hinder) when it comes to learning processes of high-school students. Of course, the same holds when going down from the high-school level to the middle-school level. This is even more explicit when going down from the middle-school level to the lower levels of primary school. Obviously, this is due to students' age. Younger students probably understand the same material slower than older students. They need more help, more guidance and support. So, if we take our adapted program, but allocate more teaching hours, and perhaps even more teaching staff, will that improve students' learning? No, it will not, as probably anyone would guess. A third-grade student is not merely younger than himself or herself in 10th grade. Cognitive-wise, one can quite safely say that these are different children. During school years a child undergoes a huge cognitive development. As this process of cognitive development moves forward, the child abandons certain thinking patterns and strategies, and acquires others instead. Such a clearly different set of thinking patterns and tools calls for a different pedagogical planning. Instead of adapting a well-tested and reliable program for older students, one must start all over again, from scratch, wearing different pedagogical glasses. So, educational curricular theories that are applicable to school ages are relevant. Pedagogical knowledge regarding other schools subjects is also relevant. After all, this curricular challenge is not unique to computing. For example, this is also the case for mathematics and science. Computing has something in common with both. Can we use the knowledge acquired by the corresponding educational communities, and if so -- what parts of it? This requires deep insights into the essence of these subjects -- mathematics and physics as the borrowed subjects, and computing as the borrowing one. Such an insight is essential in order to determine which pieces of borrowed pedagogical knowledge are relevant to computing. A deep insight into the nature of computing is highly important in other contexts as well, for example, for handling the following important questions. Is a certain proposed program teaches computing, or only some subset of it that is too narrow to be called computing? What is the smallest core that still yields a program for teaching computing? This is just a taste of issues and domains I intend to look at. The younger the intended age for computing education, the more challenging is the task of computing educators. This is true even for the preliminary sub-task of determining feasibility, that is, whether learning computing is possible at a certain age.","PeriodicalId":244683,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education","volume":"199 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2818314.2834898","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The issue of early computing education is very complex. It has connections with many other -- close and less close -- domains. In this talk I intend to touch some of these connections, to some extent. Obviously, such a light treatment, of some of the connections, and only to a certain extent cannot lead us to well-formed conclusions regarding early teaching of computing. Specifically, by the end of this talk we probably will not be able to agree on the proper age to start computing education, or on the corresponding didactic philosophy. But, there is a good chance that by the end of this talk you will become familiar with the set of the relevant connections and the domains they connect. Historically, computing education started in universities and colleges. Then came high-school computing education. In some countries this happened earlier than in others, while it is still waiting to happen in other countries. The next stage was middle school, and even below, to primary school, down to ages as young as 5. Not surprisingly, a common strategy, used in many (mainly earlier) cases, was to rely on a pedagogic approach and a curriculum of a certain level and adapt it to a lower-age level. Adaptation is for example using a simpler language, more suited to younger students, to teach the same set of knowledge units. Another example is deleting from the programs complete units, usually the most advanced ones. As most, if not all of you, already know this is not a very effective strategy. Many pedagogic methodologies that help and support learning of undergraduate students do not work (and sometimes even disturb or hinder) when it comes to learning processes of high-school students. Of course, the same holds when going down from the high-school level to the middle-school level. This is even more explicit when going down from the middle-school level to the lower levels of primary school. Obviously, this is due to students' age. Younger students probably understand the same material slower than older students. They need more help, more guidance and support. So, if we take our adapted program, but allocate more teaching hours, and perhaps even more teaching staff, will that improve students' learning? No, it will not, as probably anyone would guess. A third-grade student is not merely younger than himself or herself in 10th grade. Cognitive-wise, one can quite safely say that these are different children. During school years a child undergoes a huge cognitive development. As this process of cognitive development moves forward, the child abandons certain thinking patterns and strategies, and acquires others instead. Such a clearly different set of thinking patterns and tools calls for a different pedagogical planning. Instead of adapting a well-tested and reliable program for older students, one must start all over again, from scratch, wearing different pedagogical glasses. So, educational curricular theories that are applicable to school ages are relevant. Pedagogical knowledge regarding other schools subjects is also relevant. After all, this curricular challenge is not unique to computing. For example, this is also the case for mathematics and science. Computing has something in common with both. Can we use the knowledge acquired by the corresponding educational communities, and if so -- what parts of it? This requires deep insights into the essence of these subjects -- mathematics and physics as the borrowed subjects, and computing as the borrowing one. Such an insight is essential in order to determine which pieces of borrowed pedagogical knowledge are relevant to computing. A deep insight into the nature of computing is highly important in other contexts as well, for example, for handling the following important questions. Is a certain proposed program teaches computing, or only some subset of it that is too narrow to be called computing? What is the smallest core that still yields a program for teaching computing? This is just a taste of issues and domains I intend to look at. The younger the intended age for computing education, the more challenging is the task of computing educators. This is true even for the preliminary sub-task of determining feasibility, that is, whether learning computing is possible at a certain age.
早期教育:计算机与早期教育有什么关系,以什么方式?
早期计算机教育的问题非常复杂。它与许多其他领域有联系——密切的和不那么密切的。在这次演讲中,我打算在某种程度上触及其中的一些联系。显然,这样一个简单的处理,一些联系,只是在一定程度上,不能使我们对早期的计算机教学得出良好的结论。具体地说,到这次演讲结束时,我们可能无法就开始计算机教育的合适年龄或相应的教学哲学达成一致。但是,有一个很好的机会,在这个讲座结束时,你会熟悉相关的连接和它们所连接的领域。从历史上看,计算机教育始于大学和学院。然后是高中计算机教育。在一些国家,这种情况发生得比其他国家早,而在其他国家,这种情况仍有待发生。下一个阶段是中学,甚至更低,到小学,小到5岁。毫不奇怪,在许多(主要是早期)案例中使用的一种常见策略是依靠某种教学方法和一定水平的课程,并将其适应较低的年龄水平。例如,适应是使用更简单的语言,更适合年轻的学生,来教授相同的知识单元。另一个例子是从程序中删除完整的单元,通常是最先进的单元。正如你们大多数人(如果不是全部的话)已经知道的那样,这不是一个非常有效的策略。当涉及到高中生的学习过程时,许多帮助和支持本科生学习的教学方法不起作用(有时甚至是干扰或阻碍)。当然,从高中水平下降到初中水平也是如此。从中学到小学,这一点就更加明显了。显然,这是由于学生的年龄。年轻的学生可能比年长的学生理解同样的材料要慢。他们需要更多的帮助,更多的指导和支持。所以,如果我们采用我们的改编方案,但分配更多的教学时间,甚至更多的教学人员,这会改善学生的学习吗?不,它不会,可能所有人都猜到了。一个三年级的学生不仅仅比十年级的自己年轻。在认知方面,我们可以很有把握地说,这是两个不同的孩子。在上学期间,孩子经历了巨大的认知发展。随着这个认知发展的过程向前推进,孩子放弃了某些思维模式和策略,转而获得了其他的思维模式和策略。这种明显不同的思维模式和工具要求不同的教学规划。我们必须戴着不同的教学眼镜,从零开始,重新开始,而不是为年龄较大的学生调整一个经过良好测试和可靠的计划。因此,适用于学龄阶段的教育课程理论是相关的。其他学校科目的教学知识也是相关的。毕竟,这种课程挑战并不是计算机所独有的。例如,数学和科学也是如此。计算与两者有一些共同之处。我们能否利用相应的教育团体所获得的知识,如果可以的话——其中的哪些部分?这就需要深入了解这些学科的本质——数学和物理是借来的学科,计算是借来的学科。为了确定哪些借来的教学知识与计算相关,这种洞察力是必不可少的。对计算本质的深入了解在其他上下文中也非常重要,例如,在处理以下重要问题时。是某个被提议的程序教授计算,还是只是其中的某个子集,太狭窄而不能称为计算?能产生计算机教学程序的最小核心是什么?这只是我打算研究的问题和领域的一部分。计算机教育的预期年龄越小,计算机教育者的任务就越具有挑战性。即使对于确定可行性的初步子任务也是如此,即在某个年龄是否有可能学习计算。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信