"If someone tells you “coding is the new literacy” because “computers are everywhere today,” ask them how fuel injection works. By teaching low-level coding, I worry that we are effectively teaching our children the art of automobile repair."
I think this article misses the point that "fuel injection" and other vocational skills are nowhere near as prolific and impactful as code on daily life.
Every single person at my office regularly run into problems where they could save a bunch of time if they felt comfortable with automating things by writing a short script or two. The same is not true for electric wiring.
We shouldn't encourage everybody to become programmers, just like we shouldn't encourage everybody to become authors. We should encourage everybody to learn how to program, just like we encourage everybody to learn how to write well.
I'm surprised a person as knowledgeable about the field as Mr. Atwood would write a column that seemingly endorses the notion that Computer Science == Coding/Programming. The public already has a large misunderstanding regarding this point (not to mention the difference between IT and CS). And I think politicians are under the impression that teaching students to code is the same as teaching them computer science. I'm disappointed to say the least that Mr. Atwood would further encourage this misconception that does serious damage to public discourse. We can't discuss a subject when we don't understand its terms/definition.
Agreed completely! Similarly, most states' math curricula is stuck in an era when it was expected that the primary reason to learn math in high school was to be prepared for a science/engineering discipline in college. A curriculum more focused on number theory, logic, probability, and statistics would be far more useful to a greater number of students than one centered on trigonometry and calculus. Adding Computer Science to such a curriculum would only have an additive effect, I think.
IT refers to Information Technology. CS refers to Computer Science. IT is an applied technical discipline concerned with using available technologies to manipulate data for organizational operations. In its pure form, CS is a theoretical field concerned with using computational tools to solve problems on top of a mathematical foundation.
Of course there is a vague line between certain branches of applied computer science and theoretical information technology where the terms become nebulous. Wikipedia has decent definitions of both if you're so interested.
Whew. Title made me disagree. Then I read "There’s nothing wrong with basic exposure to computer science. But it should not come at the expense of fundamental skills such as reading, writing and mathematics" and "We shouldn’t be teaching kids “computer science.” Instead, we should provide them plenty of structured opportunities to play with hardware and software. "
Agreed. Coding is a means to an end. Although I must say, 'coding' in Scratch is very helpful for my kids to better understand logic flow in their minds and think in a structured manner. It's means to an end of building something. At the end of the day, I still want them to get outside and experience the world rather that sitting in front of a computer all day. Moderation is key here.
Yes, lots of people go through college with poor reading skills, but more or less hours of English class, or language class, or whatever is called in US is not going to improve that.
In my country is the same thing: everytime an international study like PISA shows that we are very low in reading and math skills, politicians promise more hours of reading and math classes per week. Selling that it's easier than changing how these classes are teached.
I think this article misses the point that "fuel injection" and other vocational skills are nowhere near as prolific and impactful as code on daily life.