There is a lot of buzz around computer science education these days, and that is a good thing. However, as we see more and more demand for computer science curriculum in our classrooms, it is important to remember that not all computer science curricula are created equal.
Idit Harel recently wrote an interesting article lamenting what he refers to as “pop computing.” Harel discusses the emphasis on teaching all students computer science, but goes on to say that this teaching cannot take place in a watered-down curriculum. In order for students to truly understand computer science, they must move beyond a surface level understanding of computer science and computational thinking. Harel believes that much of the curriculum currently available today does not engage students in a meaningful way, and instead just focus on the “light and fluffy version” of computer science.
Harel is correct in much of what he points out about the current state of computer science education, and his arguments are not new to education. Mark Guzdial, professor in the School of Interactive Computing at Georgia Institute of Technology, makes a similar argument here.
Many subjects, whether they be math, reading, science, etc., can fall victim to a curriculum that is focused on individual lessons and activities. This phenomenon, creating a curriculum that is an inch wide and a mile deep, is something that schools try to combat through creating a vertically aligned curriculum, where what students learn in one lesson or course prepares them for the next lesson or course. However, vertical alignment is not something that’s being done in a lot of the computer science curriculums that are available today.
And, even a smartly designed curriculum that is vertically aligned is not enough. Teachers who lack sufficient content knowledge will not require students to think deeply about their subject matter. Instead, they will just give students the answer, or skip the activities that ask students to move beyond a surface level understanding.
Focusing a computer science curriculum on both structure and function, and providing teachers the necessary professional development, is an essential first step in ensuring a quality computer science curriculum.
In a structured computer science curriculum, both students and teachers receive the guidance they need to be successful in the classroom. Materials are designed to ensure students are devoting time to the most important concepts, and to prompt students to think about and apply content in meaningful ways.
Providing teachers with the necessary professional development means providing more than just content knowledge. Teachers must be prepared to shift to a learner-centered way of teaching that places students in control of their learning. This is no small shift, and to truly be successful, it requires training in pedagogical practices, as well as on-going teacher support while the curriculum is being implemented.
Student are introduced to how source code controls the appearance and functions of a webpage. They are then asked to apply what they know about reading source code to find and change the username and password for accessing a webpage. During a subsequent activity, students will not be able to use the hardcoded password. They are then introduced to encryption as a method of protecting sensitive information.
Throughout this lesson, students learn how programmers use code to create the interfaces, websites, and other media that users typically think of when considering the Internet. Knowing how to read code and to program is a powerful skill that can allow someone to create awesome things like websites, applications, and other media. But, students also learn that these skills can also be used for selfish purposes that risk harm to what others have created. Therefore, students are also introduced to the ethical considerations that come into play in the world of computer science.
However, this is just a first step. Harel begins his article discussing the need for qualified candidates for computer science jobs in the near future. While this might be true, it’s not an effective message for young students as they begin to study computer science. To spark the desire to pursue a career in computer science, students must see how it’s relevant to them. Schools cannot equate relevancy with “this will get you a great job in the future.” Instead, students need to see computer science as something they can, and want, to do.
On top of that, professional development for teachers must continue to grow. Content knowledge is a necessary first step, but teachers need to have conversations about effective techniques and activities when teaching computer science, just like they do with every other subject.
Harel’s article is a great reminder of what we don’t want to settle for in computer science education. It is also a reminder of how far we still need to go before we get to where we need to be.
If you’re interested in providing students with a structured, research-based computer science or robotics curriculum, which also provides teachers with the training, resources, and support they need to be successful, check out our IDEAS (computer science) and TREC (robotics) programs. Learn more here.
Jason McKenna, Robomatter’s Director of Global Educational Strategy, is an accomplished educational practitioner and strategist with 20 years of classroom experience and success implementing STEM programs and Robotics competitions for students at all levels.