Mark Guzdial and his colleagues do top-notch research on computing education—that's "teaching people computing", not "using computers to teach people", though for obvious reasons, the two frequently overlap. He recently wrote three blog posts that I think everyon pushing for more computing in the classroom should read. In them, he describes the results of Daniel Caballero's PhD research, in which he compared first-year physics students doing a traditional course with ones doing an equivalent course which included a large programming component. His findings were:
Guzdial summarizes this work by saying:
We need to produce STEM graduates who can model us[ing] computers and who positive attitudes about computational modeling. The challenge for computing education researchers is that...we don't nkow how to do that yet. Our tools are wrong (e.g., the VPython errors get...in the way), and our instructional practices are wrong (e.g.,...students are more negative about computational modeling after instruction than before).
These are sobering conclusions, particularly for someone who has spent a year or more building material to teach computing to scientists. Caballero's research may not tell us what we should do (though Mark's comments about the value of live coding have got me thinking once again), but knowing that we're doing it wrong right now is a necessary first step.
Originally posted 2011-08-04 by Greg Wilson in Education.
comments powered by Disqus