Several days ago a computer science teacher at my school posted an
article about possible conflicts between "technological" and
"pedagogical." Her message is shown below. Those interested in the
topic are likely to appreciate what Clive Thompson wrote on page 88 of
The New York Times Magazine today (12/14/03). The title of his piece is
"Power Point Makes you Dumb." The main point is that turning
"everything into a sales pitch" is not desirable. Is it a legitimate
concern? How serious is the issue?
Ludwik Kowalski
Hi, This article is from the Communications of the ACM (Association
for Computing Machinery), a prestigious journal of the ACM. The ACM
founded in 1947 advances the art, science, engineering, and application
of information technology.
Dorothy
<image.tiff>
Communications of the ACM
Volume 46, Number 12 (2003), Pages 11-13
<image.tiff>
<image.tiff>
<image.tiff> Keep the Pedagogical Ahead of the Technological
I found Erickson's and Siau's article "E-ducation" (Sept. 2003) an
eloquent but alas typical example of the inadequacy of many
technological approaches to education. Nothing I've read in the
technical literature has dared ask whether education needs computer
technology to begin with or if it does what role it might usefully
play. The general attitude is of technological primacy; because
technology exists it must be used, and educators must find ways to use
whatever we offer. The technological imperative is stronger than the
pedagogical.
IT vendors see an appealing modus operandi, not only for the equipment
and software they sell to schools but, mainly, for the prospect of
creating generations of lucrative techno-enthusiasts unable to take an
intellectual step without a computer's help.
The only obligation of educational institutions should be toward their
students; we are here to help give them a foundation for rich and
rewarding intellectual lives. Teaching them a job is not our primary
goal. Transforming them into techno-addicts is the antithesis of one.
The authors cited a decade as a likely time horizon for dramatic
changes in the classroom. A decade is indeed a long time for a computer
vendor whose product life cycle is likely less than five years. But
educational institutions teach teenagers and young adults mental habits
that will accompany them the rest of their lives. The time horizon of
what educators do is closer to 50 years than to five.
The authors concluded by saying the next 10 years "should be extremely
exciting and fast-paced for educators." The myth of fast-paced changes
and of the struggle to keep up is rooted in industry, though even
there, its social consequences can be dire. No attempt was made to
justify technology's haphazard application to education.
The article also reflected a cavalier attitude toward the prevailing
commercial influence on education. Though it included a "real-world
caveat" to educators, overall, it accepted the idea that public funding
of education is destined to decrease and that the presence of
"commercial partners" in education will be with us for a long time to
come.
All this still leaves us with the question of the computer's role in
education. Computers are valid technical instruments for encyclopedic
information searches with a solid place in any school library
(including a librarian, of course). Whether a computer belongs in the
classroom—apart from special job-training classrooms—is debatable.
While some children respond well to computers, like some children to
the violin, I know of no school boards pressuring schools to put a
violin in every classroom.
Computers can be useful instruments, even in schools, as long as the
impetus for their use comes from the needs of educators, not from
pressure to use technology. An excessive fixation on them (often driven
by commercialism) and on the silliness of e-education will result, I'm
afraid, only in the creation of a lot of gullible e-diots.
Simone Santini
La Jolla, CA
<image.tiff> Minds Over Math
It seems to me that if "Why CS Students Need Math" is worthy of being
the main theme of a special section of Communications (Sept. 2003),
then the underlying question must be the topic of some debate in the
community. Consequently, if it is a worthy topic of debate, does it not
seem reasonable to make some attempt to cover both sides?
In a world where more and more people use computational devices in ever
more different contexts, let me ask a simple question: Of the
following, which is the more significant insofar as computers are
concerned?
• Declining literacy in math on the part of CS students, or
• General illiteracy of computing professionals in the human aspects
of computing?
We live in a world where, despite the real human and cultural
implications of ubiquitous computing, virtually no university with a CS
degree program requires (in order to graduate) its students to write a
program that is to be used by another human being.
Let me beg to differ with guest editor Keith Devlin. CS is not
"entirely about abstractions." Responsible CS is as much about people
as it is about machines, code, or abstractions.
The historian of technology Melvin Kranzberg spoke of three laws:
• Technology is not good;
• Technology is not bad; and
• Technology is not neutral.
It is more important for a computer scientist to understand their
implications (especially of the third) than it is to know the Peano
Postulates.
Yes, the ability for abstract thought is important. So is a basic
foundation in math. But like all components of the curriculum, they
must be balanced with other aspects of the discipline. Ultimately, CS
is about people and the effect our profession has on them. This is not
an abstraction but a simple truth. It is time our profession reflected
it.
Bill Buxton
Toronto
I fully agree with Keith Devlin and Kim Bruce et al. (Sept. 2003)
arguing that universities should provide foundations rather than
specific techniques. But, following the same logic, why is writing
neglected in many CS programs?
While many institutions require three or more semesters of math, few
require more than one of writing beyond the first-year composition
courses many students test out of. This is despite research
consistently indicating that engineering graduates entering the work
force are surprised to discover the central role of writing in their
careers. Survey after survey suggests employers rank communication
among the top skills needed by their employees—and is an area where CS
and other engineering majors are most lacking.
If the goal is to focus on fundamentals rather than specific techniques
that can be taught on the job, why not require CS students to take a
technical writing class designed to prepare them for the communication
demands they will inevitably face, no matter where their careers take
them?
Joanna Wolfe
Louisville, KY
<image.tiff>
Please address all Forum correspondence to the Editor, Communications,
1515 Broadway, New York, NY 10036; email: crawfordd@acm.org.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work
for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that
copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage
and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first
page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to
redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.