[wrote this as postscript for some studies - following the intuition that the common experience of ICT as web 2.0 may eclipse some crucial understandings of classic IT, water down the content of computer science in schools] :
Sitting on a train, after a day wrestling with a research proposal, an interesting synchronicity unfolds. Passengers cram in; opposite one starts a crossword puzzle. Adjacent, one opens a laptop and starts programming. A few minutes layer another passenger gets on, sits opposite, and starts a sudoku. A moment later the sudoku solver and the programmer recognise each other; obviously know each other a little; but don’t talk for long, and settle back to their tasks. I’ve been glancing at the programming beside me; its in a terminal window and is full of test cases and assertions. I guess it might be a test harness for an electronic board.
After a while I notice the approach the sudoku player is taking, systematically listing, in small script at the top of each cell, the candidate possibilities for each square, identifying the most constrained cells first – then reducing elements out other cells once one is determined. I find myself thinking of procedures I could use to program that - looping through each column, and row, with an array attached to each cell; - maybe with colour if one just wanted to hint at productive cells…. I glance back at the programmers screen –and it suddenly seems like that is exactly what he is programming - he flicks a window and I see its called sudoku.py.
My sudden conjecture is that there might be coworkers, since they did recognise each other … even though the common link of sudoku algorithms seems like improbable work .. so I break the convention of commuting silence and start a conversation. It turns out their common focus is not these little numerical puzzles - they actually did a computer science course some years ago; the manual sudoku solver now works in a bank; as a systems designer; the programmer works for a stockbroker, programming automated trading systems – both are tackling the sudokus for distraction.
We chat, and I talk about this research, and Sherry Turkle’s reservations on today’s notion of IT– around the that fact that 20 years ago many kids programmed computers for fun – we all agree on that - but today kids are more likely to be on MySpace or World of Warcraft. I mention my suspicion that the lack of a 'BASIC' – the simple, pre-installed language we learnt with, might contribute to this. I’m interested in their opinions. The stockbroker programmer indicates, wryly, he is happy with the lack of competition coming through from junior programmers. The sudoko banker rebukes him, and warns that below a critical mass that whole sector of the IT industry will be outsourced to India. Working in a large bank, he sees it already; there are no local programmers below the system designers. He also seems bit conflicted about ICT in schools; since he has fond memories of the control he felt in teaching himself programming language, and spending hours trying to make games, on a Commodore 64; but isn’t sure there is a future in it now. The stockbroker programmer disagrees – loves the technical work and sees it as a good career option for students.
I feel like I should interview these two, incarnations of the concerns I’ve been reading over for two days; early dialogue in an outcome space.. after they leave at the little satellite town, I travel on, feeling I might be on to something - that the historical tensions around how IT is conceived corresponds to real and current issues, and the strength of this little debate tells me the issue goes beyond schools - and the idea of visual schematics to examine the tensions might work.
many in education seem set on cheerleading the '21st century ict' ='web 2.0' =transformation' theme - lots of syrupy youtube videos on that theme - but not everyone agrees, or at least not without reservations about what is missing in that equation. Some have even stepped away from the spin and grappled with an historical context that is surprisingly absent from all the discussion of ICT in schools. Its quite stabilising to have some sense of the real historical trajectory of educational computing - the popular idea that its all progressed ignores some of the real history.
Sounds like a productive train trip!
I left a long recent comment about the whole web2.0 issue this on John Connell’s blog
teaching at the crossroads
Comment 10 (Mark) and comment 18 (my longer comment) are the critical comments
What I found out from talking to John (at my blog - more web2.0 evangelism ) was that he is aware of the history - just as you found out that Stephen Heppell was aware of the history. I think that is strange, that people aware of the history leave it out during their presentations and blog posts - it’s almost as though they have been caught up in something that they want to keep “simple” and not challenge their audiences with complicating factors. Although I think teachers sometimes have to employ the KISS principle in their classrooms, that ought not to be done by keynote speakers.
Comment by Bill Kerr — May 30, 2008 @ 1:44 am
I think that both you and Bill makes a good point here, and one we all need to consider when we bring these issues to disparate audiences. Often, of course, time is the simple issue at hand, but that should not be an excuse for missing important aspects of the background to the issues being raised. Often too, we fall into the trap of thinking we are speaking to the converted - rarely actually the case, and usually a mistake to start from that assumption.
And, no, Bill - using a term like ‘converted’ does not make me an evangelist
My core vade mecum is still ‘doubt everything’!
Comment by John Connell — May 30, 2008 @ 3:39 pm