Should K-12 CS Education Be About Belonging in CS

I’ve been rather wrapped up in moving the last few weeks so haven’t been thinking about high school, or K-12, computer science education as I intended since my last blog post. Mark Gurdial thought has been doing some thinking. Check out School teachers don’t need to recruit students into CS: An alternative model for K-12 computing education for his latest post.

Mark has also been looking at the effort to rewrite the CSTA standards which I have been ignoring. Perhaps I should be paying more attention. Anyway, Mark argues that “Sense of Belonging in CS” should not be in the list of goals. When I read that line in Mark’s post I wondered what “sense of belonging in CS” actually means. Does it mean that students should see themselves as future computer scientists or software professionals or CS majors in university? All of that seems like over much to ask.

I’ve said for a long time that we don’t teach physics in high school to turn out more physicists (And similar analogies) Do we expect students to feel like they belong in physics? I don’t think so. We do want students to understand something about how physics impacts the world around them. And if they develop an interest in studying more physics that is great but its not a goal.

We do want students to exit high school knowing something about computer science. We want them to see how it impacts the world around them. I think we also want them comfortable with the idea that they cab do something with computers and computing. Helping them to see how computing relates to what their major interests are is great. Belonging in CS? Maybe a bridge to far.

Visit Mike Zamansky’s take here https://cestlaz.zamansky.net/posts/cs-for-all-or-all-for-cs/

Rethinking High School Computer Science

I love programming. I took a computer science course as an undergraduate and really fell in love with programming.While I made my living writing code for many years, my wife once wondered if I would have been happier with coding as an avocation rather than a vocation. That’s a bias I have no doubt taken in my teaching career. But is it the right bias for developing high school CS curriculum? I’m starting to wonder about that.

I’ve said in a number of ways that we don’t teach high school physics because we need for physicists. We teach HS physics to help students understand the world they live in. The same needs to be true for high school computer science.

A recent blog post by Mark Guzdial brought that into focus. (CS doesn’t have a monopoly on computing education: Programming is for everyone) The key line in that post was this: Computing education for non-CS majors is different than what we teach CS majors.

Now we talk a lot about computer science for all and that teaching high school computer science should not be about vocational training or just preparing students to be CS majors. But is that how we are developing our curriculum and our ideas about what students should be taught?

Note: The rest of this post is based on a comment I left on Mark’s blog post BTW.

Often we're lucky to have any CS courses even with improvements in recent years. SO having a variety of courses for different types of students seems impractical. High schools don't have the resources that universities do. Actually, small colleges and universities don't have the resources that schools like Michigan does!

But circling back to high schools which is my focus, what should we be teaching? For the most part, high school CS is largely still preparation for CS majors in university or for vocational preparation. The growth in cybersecurity courses in indicative of the vocational focus, for example.

Some schools do have the ability to offer multiple courses. It takes a larger CS program to do that though. The high school I retired from did adopt a course teaching Python largely at the request of the Physics department, for example. R is a big language in many university majors but we don’t see much R in high schools. Should we? I am not sure. Many schools will be limited to one or two courses that have to prepare everyone in any case.

Advanced Placement Computer Science Principles is probably the closest course available for computing education for meeting multiple computing paths. It's still controversial in HS CS with its perception in some circles as a watered-down CS course. It may just be the course we should be paying the most attention to though.

Writing requirements for HS CS is going to remain difficult though. Getting people to give up or even depreciate loops is going to be impossible. (Reading the Guzdial post makes that last line more understandable. Not all programming requires loops.)

Ultimately, high school computer science is all over the map from schools that offer little to none with few taking CS to schools offering multiple options and requiring all students to take some. Universities cannot expect students to have even a base level of CS. Some students are going to have huge advantages. And that makes me sad.

Writing Directions Is Hard

I finished assembling a new bed frame yesterday. I seems solid with good quality materials and seems well designed. The directions on the other hand left something to be desired.  Some things were unclear and resulted in some errors on my part. The “steps” were diagrams that usually clearly showed where all the pieces should go. It was not clear in what order things should be attached leaving the assembler to  make assumptions which sometimes resulted in things being more difficult than they might have been. In at least one place, it would have been helpful to say something like “leave some slack here until step x” where step X involved pieces that had to fit in with the pieces in that step.

And finally, saying that a piece goes on the left or right is less helpful if the instructions are unclear about if left is based on facing the headboard or facing the foot board.

So what does this have to do with computing? Well, I kept thinking about how a robot AI would assemble from these directions. I decided that a robot AI would require a lot more in the way of direction. Software, even so called artificial intelligence software, does not handle ambiguity well. Even things that are obvious to humans need to be spelled out for software.

We’re probably a long way from having general purpose robot assembling household furniture but even if the hardware was ready I don’t think we’re ready for giving it instructions.

We’ve joked about a “do what I mean” instruction for decades but even humans struggle with interpreting ambiguous instructions. We’ve all heard someone say “just do what I mean” expecting people to understand jargon or figures of speech. Those things require a knowledge of context and individuals ways of speaking that are often culturally dependent. Can we program all that into an AI? Maybe one day though I expect that AIs will have to work with people for a while to really get solid understanding. Each person may have to train the AI individually.

Circling back to directions. Today’s AIs like ChatGPT and others are given prompts. It often takes several iterations of prompts to get the results that users want from the tool. I have actually seen course descriptions that include learning how to properly give prompts. Yes, it seems that humans have to be taught how to talk to artificial intelligences. It seems to me that learning to program may be helpful here.

Programming is writing directions for the computer.  It involves taking very human prompts and writing directions that interpret what the user actually wants in terms that the computer understands. It involves removing ambiguity. Programming, and computer science more generally, help people understand the world of computing. That is becoming ever more important in understanding the world we live in every day.

I’ve been saying for a long time that we should not be focusing computer science in education as a career subject. We should be focused on helping students understand the world they live in. That is why everyone needs to learn some computer science.

CSTA Ends Free Membership

I suppose it was inevitable. In the beginning, CSTA only had a free membership. The organization was originally funded by outside sponsors. An NSF grant covered membership for the first six years. This was probably never really sustainable. After a few years, the CSTA Board, I was a board member at the time, started talking about paid memberships. Going totally paid, as most professional membership organizations seem to be, seemed like a big jump. Eventually, two tiers were developed. A free membership and a paid membership that had additional benefits. CSTA+ was born.

It was something of a struggle to define benefits to make a paid membership seem worthwhile but the differentiation grew over time. For many CSTA members, including myself, the fact that a paid membership was a positive financial support for the organization was really enough.

Things change over time and CSTA recently announced that the Plus was going away and there would only be paid CSTA membership. The benefits of a free membership, like the category itself, are going away. Joining a local chapter will require a paid membership. Participation in most chapter events will be limited to paid members. Local chapters can still hold events open to non (paid) members but there will not be support from the national organization for them.

Like many members, I am disappointed in the change. I am sure it makes some financial sense for the organization but it feels like they (I almost said “we”) are abandoning a lot of now former members. This is especially true of the many teachers who don’t self identify as computer science teachers. Many see themselves are math teachers or science teachers or elementary school teachers or , well, you get the picture, rather than computer science teachers. Many of these teachers are already paying members of organizations they identify more strongly with. Will they spend more money to join CSTA? Often, I fear, not.

Unlike many companies and some universities, K-12 schools don’t often pay for professional memberships. Some programs, like Amazon Future Engineers, will offer scholarships with some attendant hoops and commitments. Some teachers will get memberships through CSTA Conference registration which many districts will pay for in part. A lot of teachers will question the value. Sure it’s “only” $50 but we have a lot of underpaid teachers who are already spending out of pocket to support their classrooms.

We’ll see where CSTA membership is a year from now. Personally, I’m retired and I’m making a lot of decisions about my discretionary spending. I just renewed my ACM membership – paid. I don’t know if I will do so next year. I love the magazines and I download a lot of SIGCSE papers to read. They are not as relevant to me as a retired teacher but I love keeping up. For now at least.

I have loved being a CSTA member since the very beginning. It feels like my tribe. It has always been a highly inclusive organization. I’m still a CSTA+ member, or just member now, until this summer I believe. I will decide then about continuing or not.