[Yr7-10it] Scratch, Gamemaker, VB.net, Python, PHP and MySQL - Programming for all levels

[Alida Bonotto]

Russell Edwards wrote:
" I believe a *basic* (pre-VCE, GameMaker-level) of programming 
experience makes them better able to understand how software works.  
Also, learning programming at any level helps to develop generic, 
transferrable cognitive skills in much the same way as the mathematics 
most students learn but will never use once they leave school. (which, 
by the way, I think is much better than explicitly trying to teach 
conscious "thinking strategies".)
So I'd say it's still worth trying to teach them programming, but don't 
stress out about externalities : "what they need to know" to get a job, 
succeed at uni, whatever."

I have problems with some of the ideas here! I agree that programming 
teaches students transferable cognitive skills (and keeps the VELS 
Thinking Processes Domain happy) but how do you sell this to students?  
I strongly believe that you need to give students sound, convincing 
reasons as to why they are required to study something - you have to 
convince them that it is worth their while. I have seen teachers give 
students the nebulous "it improves your thinking skills" argument and 
it's fallen totally flat.
I have explicitly taught thinking philosophies - and it has worked 
because I could relate them to the students' real life experiences and 
so convinced them that they were learning valuable skills. You can sell 
Habits of Mind, CoRT thinking, etc much more easily to students than the 
lofty "it improves your thinking skills" line. Students don't mind being 
trained in "how to think", as long as it is done in steps that they can 
understand, that relate to the real world, that they can achieve and see 
as being worthwhile (and it's a whole school approach - but that's 
another story).
Russell states "don't stress out about externalities : "what they need 
to know" to get a job, succeed at uni, whatever." - but that is exactly 
what many students consider. We can downplay it as much as we like, but 
they won't. So rather than shoving it under the carpet we are better off 
asking - how do we work with it so that it's in our favour?
IT still has a public nerd/geek image that is unappealing, and teenagers 
value image.
The small percentage of students who are keen programmers don't need 
convincing to take on senior IT. The declining number of senior students 
taking on IT programming indicates that there is a major PR problem - 
someone, somewhere has failed to convince these students that IT 
programming is worth pursuing. Let's be blunt, is it worth studying? 
Yes? Then what strong, compelling arguments will you offer to entice 
teenagers? What do teenagers want from IT?
Is senior IT giving teenagers what they want? Apparently not. If we want 
the subject to survive then what will we do?




> Thanks everyone for this interesting discussion I've only just got 
> around to reading.
>
> On 19/09/2007, at 8:37 AM, Kevork Krozian wrote:
>>  Outcome for students: They found it a struggle. Only the top end 
>> managed to survive due to a lack of time.
>
> I think this reflects something that was said earlier:
>
>> On 17/09/2007, at 9:23 PM, Costello, Rob R wrote:
>>> I remember reading something David Perkins said - that in his
>>> observations - circa 1985 - none of the budding student programmers he
>>> observed had arrived at any competence without a huge personal
>>> investment of time
>
> This reflects my experience, too. At uni (comp sci hons degree) there 
> was a real bimodal distribution of ability. There were those who 
> pursued programming as a hobby, skipped lectures, whipped up the work 
> in a fraction of the allocated time, and topped the class.  Then there 
> was the rest, who weren't necessarily any less intelligent but simply 
> hadn't spent all their free time for the last ten years teaching 
> themselves programming. They all struggled quite severely. There was 
> not much in the way of middle ground, students who were comfortably 
> operating at the "good" or "very good" level.
>
> The high-achieving group made up perhaps one quarter to one half of 
> the honours year cohort, so I'd guess one fifth of 3rd year comp sci 
> majors and perhaps one fifteenth of first year programming enrolments. 
> Being perhaps a little cruel but pragmatic, most of the other students 
> would never have reached a level of competence that would enable them 
> to be effective professional programmers.    Moving to high school IT 
> enrollments, in my school at least the fraction was probably zero-- 
> the curriculum was so far beneath the computer geeks that none of them 
> bothered to even do VCE IT.
>
> Now, this was in the mid-90s. If anything, with year 12 retention 
> rates and uni enrollment rates on the rise, the proportion of "not 
> suitable for programming" students can only have risen in the last 
> decade.
>
> So, why bother teaching them programming?
>
>  Well, certainly not because they are all potential professional 
> programmers---far from it!
>
>  I believe a *basic* (pre-VCE, GameMaker-level) of programming 
> experience makes them better able to understand how software works.  
> Also, learning programming at any level helps to develop generic, 
> transferrable cognitive skills in much the same way as the mathematics 
> most students learn but will never use once they leave school. (which, 
> by the way, I think is much better than explicitly trying to teach 
> conscious "thinking strategies".)
>
> So I'd say it's still worth trying to teach them programming, but 
> don't stress out about externalities : "what they need to know" to get 
> a job, succeed at uni, whatever.  Just move them forward at a 
> comfortable rate from whenever they're currently at... which brings us 
> back to constructivism!
>
> cheers
>
> Russell Edwards
> Whittlesea SC
>
>
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.edulists.com.au - FAQ, resources, subscribe, unsubscribe
> Year 7 - 10 IT Mailing List kindly supported by
> http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au - Victorian Curriculum and Assessment 
> Authority and
> http://www.vitta.org.au  - VITTA Victorian Information Technology 
> Teachers Association Inc
>
>