[Yr7-10it] Year 7-10 IT structures

[Costello, Rob R]

making the parallel with English / computer literacy is suggesting that
"digital native" status does not mean we necessarily abandon attempts to
build on kids skills in a concentrated way 

what are the ideas that computer literacy opens to us? 

Well, what is software? 
It is medium in which we carve and express ideas. It provides a milieu
in which we increasingly communicate. It is an increasingly dominant
substrate in our culture. It is mirror in which we see ourselves -
watching my 5 year old snap himself on the web cam. 

there is a plasticity in software, that means it can morph into every
domain - can be video editing, email, spreadsheets, game design,
blogging, CAD etc

and teaching kids how to work with it, be creative with it, in whatever
form or context, can be valuable 

sometimes the very diversity of forms works against seeing what the
deeper ideas are

Also can lead to the "ICT is just a tool, lets not focus on the
technology" - "its teachers who make sure its used in meaningful
contexts" sort of thing 

and I broadly agree with the sentiment, in many cases

Yet given the plasticity of the software, it would also be nice to let
kids experience how to work with that - to take control at that deeper
level, to have some ideas of how to write it, not just read (experience)
it  (=literacy)

Its harder, but potentially it goes further than mastering applications
- valuable as that is 

Kay says that putting a piano in a classroom is not going to make
musicians - the teacher, and the music (software) are the key elements -
the music is also the expression

the discipline of performing music is "hard", takes years of training to
reach higher levels 
and it builds in complexity as it goes - builds on previous skills 

Systems thinking, object orientation, etc, is possibly as hard to
master, just as useful and adaptable when mastered  - and accessible at
earlier stages with the right tools 

Agree we don't have a clear sense of what these big ideas are - too
taken with the range of apps (=music appreciation, reading?) 

though playing with them does also give some measure of the ideas,
indirectly- and may payoff in other ways (the communication or
expressive or analytical power of the tool) - and may be appropriate in
many cases, classes etc 

PS here's one spinoff of tinkering with software at school age -
wouldn't have occurred if I'd been left to the apps of the day - a
little induction into BASIC started the accessibility of constructing 

www.brainshapes.com 
experimental, may change, copyright, incompletely documented etc  
cheers 
Rob  

PS lots of disciplines are making some sort of extended "literacy" claim
- not just ICT (financial literacy, ethical literacy, scientific
literacy - the multi-literacy grab-bag) 


> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:17:10 +1000
> From: "Bill Kerr" <billkerr at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Yr7-10it] Year 7-10 IT structures
> To: "Year 7 - 10 Information Technology Teachers' Mailing List"
> 	<yr7-10it at edulists.com.au>
> Message-ID:
> 	<5d2dce520710151717x5d8d6618h6708ca82433b91bc at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I'm interested in this argument about the "information age" and "IT is
> equivalent to English", which has come up before on these lists
> 
> The term "information age" is too vague now IMO. The "information age"
did
> not start with the computer - it started with the printing press.
> ...  
> 
> The argument that "we can all read and write" implies that IT is
another
> form of literacy (equivalent to reading and writing) and so deserves
an
> equal place in the curriculum to English
> 
> That argument might turn out to be correct, eg. we could argue that
> students
> could learn to program the computer to represent dynamic systems (eg.
the
> spread of AIDS or a traffic jam simulation or global warming) and that
> this
> systems theory knowledge is a new form of literacy required by the
modern
> citizen. If we understood systems theory better then society would
have
> picked up on global warming earlier or developed other perspectives on
> global warming to our current ones (ie. panic)
> 
> But it's wrong to equate the ability to read and write English with
the
> ability to learn basic computer skills.
> 
> The English curriculum does not or should not justify itself in
secondary
> school on the basis of learning to read and write. It might justify
itself
> on the basis that the study of Shakespeare for example provides
students
> with new insights into the human condition.
> 
> "Computer science" (which is perhaps not a real science yet) could
only
> justify itself on this sort of basis - that it provides new unique
> insights
> into the human condition.
> 
> Integration of computers into the rest of the curriculum (and
computing
> being phased out as a stand alone subject in the middle years) is
> proceeding
> on the basis that all computing has to offer is basic (computer)
literacy
> skills and that the "digital natives" will pick that up anyway. The
> comparison here is with oral literacy. Humans learn to talk without
formal
> teaching. They don't learn to read and write without formal teaching.
That
> process is meant to happen in primary school and is the major focus of
> primary school. The ability to read and write then opens doors to the
> collected wisdom of humanity, be it through books or the web.
> 
> So, what is the argument that computer skills are somehow equivalent
to
> English - the subject which provides the underlying basis for all of
> modern
> human knowledge, post Enlightenment?
> 
> Maybe there is such an argument. But the fact that IT teachers haven't
> developed it coherently is the underlying reason why they are losing
their
> subject.
> 
> --
> Bill Kerr
> http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/
> 
> 

Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.