From: Ludwik Kowalski <kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu>
Date: Sun Dec 14, 2003 13:41:38 US/Pacific
To: Forum for Physics Educators <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Subject: pedagogical versus technological
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>
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.