Notable Swiss child development theorist, Jean Piaget, explained learning as a continual process of achieving equilibrium, or balance, in our state of “knowing”…Then that balance is challenged when we encounter new stimuli, resulting in disequilibrium. When this happens, we try to apply our existing schemas (knowledge or ways of knowing) to the new stimuli (assimilation). We also seek and adopt entirely new schemas (accommodation). We tinker with all of this until we achieve that state of balance, or equilibrium once again. (Until the next time we encounter new stimuli…)
Disequilibrium, also known as cognitive dissonance, is not a very comfortable state to be in. It can feel frustrating, and challenging. It can cause fear, anxiety, and even panic. It is, however, necessary for true learning to take place. If we never encounter anything that challenges our current ways of thinking or knowing, then we never move forward. We never get smarter, more adept, more diverse, more eclectic, and that seems like such a dull place to be!
Since I started learning how to code, I’ve been thinking a lot about disequilibrium. Continue reading →
Frances and David Hawkins were a husband and wife team of teacher and educational philosopher, whose work transcends time and place. She was a teacher, deeply observant of children’s learning processes. He drew upon her observations and writing to develop a philosophy of education, ranging from the specifics of the adult/child learning relationship to the higher domains of public education policy. Together, their writings informed a generation of education professionals, and programs, worldwide.
The ways children learn have not changed since Frances and David wrote during the latter half of the 20th century. Because their teaching approaches and theories are independent of transient technologies, they remain as cogent and universally applicable today as when they were written.
David began his career as a scientist and philosopher. Following his position as official historian of the Manhattan Project, (which developed the atomic bomb), he became extremely concerned with the forces that scientists had unleashed, and turned to education as a means of humanizing society. Among his intentions was to provide a framework in which children could develop sustained curiosity and excitement about nature and science.
David based much of his writing on a few central tenets: that children learn most deeply when they are following their natural curiosities; that teachers are best able to engage in the child’s curiosity-based learning when they too have engaged in like experiences; that children are naturally prepared for early science and math learning regardless of social class advantages, and that early literacy in science and math is the gateway both to most other subjects, and to an ethic of lifelong learning. His works are passionate proposals for curiosity-based learning, how adults can engage in it with children, and why educational systems should support it.
Hawkins Centers of Learning is an organization dedicated to extending the work David and Frances (who are now passed away), and bringing their work into the twenty-first century. The work of these two important educators has been hugely influential in my teaching (and learning) career, and I would like to dedicate space to sharing some of their big ideas and examining how their thinking can impact learning to code.
Messing About is a three-phase cycle of teaching and learning proposed by David in his 1965 essay “Messing About with Science”, which I highly recommend, and can be found here. The three phases are:
Circle Phase:A time for unguided exploratory play and exploration of materials and ideas. The hands-on component is important here. For example, to learn about gravity, leaners might be offered a variety of ramps, tubes, balls, and wheels, and encouraged to explore the properties freely.
Triangle Phase: In this phase, a direction is chosen and explored more in-depth. For example, learners might create a goal of building a ramp that a ball can roll down continuously, but contains curvature so the ball’s path can end directly underneath where it started.
Square phase: In this phase, the ideas explored can be unpacked and discussed. For example, learners who explored rolling can reflect on challenges they faced and successes they experienced. They can discuss the scientific principles encountered and make plans for further explorations.
When I started my personal project to learn to code almost five months ago, I wrote a blog post titled Why Coding? Why Now?, dated October 6, 2014. I listed out my main motivations for wanting to learn to code, and I want to revisit one of them today: To dissect what “pre-coding” is. I want to spend some time processing what I have learned about coding since this project began, and to pull out some thoughts about what types of skills, ways of thinking, and mindsets precede understanding computer programming. I want to use this blog to continue to explore these ideas, but first I want to look back to October 2014 and revisit my words surrounding this topic:
What is Pre-Coding? (Written in October, 2014)
In 2013, I attended a conference in Chicago entitled “Technology in the Early Years”, hosted byThe Erikson Institute andColumbia Collegein Chicago. We got to visit an amazing school called theCatherine Cook School. This school really embraces utilizing technological tools to enhance children’s learning. A conversation with a preschool teacher at this school was a pivotal moment in motivating me to learn to code. The teacher explained why using a visually linear calendar with children (depicts months as a single line of days, rather than blocked into a rectangle of weeks) provided support for “pre-coding” skills.
This was really interesting to me, because I had heard of linear calendars, but never discussed in this way. Some prekindergarten classrooms at Boulder Journey School (The school at which I work) use them. For preschoolers who are just beginning to learn about time, it is often more logical to present days visually as a single line rather than in seven-day blocks. This does not mean you never get to the traditional blocked, stacked weeks calendar, but it is a more natural progression of learning. However, at this moment in 2013 I was simply amazed to hear someone make a connection between a single line of symbols and supporting a child’s ability to understand computer code later in life.
A slight diversion for those of you who don’t know: “pre-” is what preschool teachers do (and it’s REALLY important!) Preschool teachers do not deliver formal reading instruction. They incorporate pre-literacy skills into what they teach. For example, understanding that letters have sounds, groups of letters are words, words have meaning, words can be grouped together to make sentences, etc. Children need to know all kinds of things about reading before they actually learn to read, and that is one thing preschool is for. Research shows that if children do not have opportunities to learn all this stuff, it is much harder for them to learn to read and is likely to make school harder for the rest of their lives. Pre-math skills are just as important.Continue reading →
With one Hour of Code experience under my belt, I invited two more friends to code with me. I had explored only minimally in preparation for my previous experience, and was able to follow and support a fairly open-ended exploration by 10 year old Z. I was feeling much more brave before this second time, and was interested what it would be like to work with two children at the same time.
I invited two siblings, L and Q, to code with me. They both attend a public neighborhood school near their house in the Denver Metro Area. Their school employs a fairly traditional approach to education, incorporating computers and other technology as learning tools, balanced with common methods of teaching al subject matter. Here’s a little bit more about them as individuals:
L is a ten year boy in fourth grade:
He lists his favorite subjects as P.E. and reading.
He is caring, thoughtful, and has been known to win awards at school for character and citizenship.
He is active and loves football.
He loves the rain and Seattle, aspiring to live there when he grows up.
He has a great sense of style, from mohawks to hipster glasses.
Q is an eight year old girl in second grade:
She lists her favorite subjects as reading, math, and art.
She loves all things creative, and is an avid crafter.
Has a natural and powerful connection with animals. She is a loving caretaker to many furry creatures at her home.
Is naturally social and enjoys getting to know all kinds of different people.
Her last two Halloween costumes were “Cleopatra” and “movie star”…with the big personality to pull them off.
I recently completed with my first Hour of Code experiment with a young friend. I intentionally did not explore too much beforehand, wanting to experience the learning process alongside the girl (I will call her Z). I was curious what I would learn by watching a young digital native engage with coding.
Z is 10 years old, and currently a fourth grader at a Waldorf school. Waldorf schools discourage children’s use of technology at school and home. Her family takes an inspiring approach to this recommendation. They choose to not completely swear off technology, but rather to have regular conversations about when and why technology can be appropriate. Thus, Z does not use computers or watch media at school, but she engages in these things very minimally and very mindfully at home. This provides an interesting context for coding with her: She is technically a digital native, but does not actually engage with digital media herself very often. Here’s a little bit more about her:
She loves animals, and wants to be a vet when she grows up.
She is endlessly creative and self-motivated, loves art, theater and making all different types of things.
She insists on solving real world math problems in her head when they present themselves (before adults can tell her the answer).
She is compassionate and thoughtful. As long as I’ve known her, she has used gift-getting holidays as opportunities to raise money for animal charities.
She loves reading, and has been known to read a novel per day.
We began by watching the Hour of Code Video Introduction together, which got her excited about being one of “10 million” students to try “An Hour of Code” (and the number is currently much higher).
As the 2014 Hour of Code challenge offered by Code.org draws near (Dec. 8-12), I wanted to spend a little time with the history of what has gotten us to the place we are in today. To many educators, the ideas of edtech and coding in schools still seems far off and mysterious. However, the innovators who embrace these ideas are incorporating them into learning experiences and seeing children become inspired and motivated by code.
From 1980 to 2003, technology moved forward, but what moved backward? Examined through the lens of two thinkers: Seymour Papert and Why the Lucky Stiff
Papert and _why are indeed very different types of thinkers. Papert was a scholar, rooted in academia and with time logged collaborating with constructivist learning theorist Jean Piaget. _why was a self-proclaimed “freelance professor”, who created art, code, and everything in between as tools for social provocation and advocacy. I refer to them both in the past tense because while both are still alive, neither are actively engaged in the contemporary public conversation. Their work and legacies are what live on and serve as inspiration.
In 2003, _why wrote an essay titled: The Little Coder’s Predicament, specifically calling to task all the companies who have systematically been adding layers of features, regulation and security to their technology. These anti-piracy measures had resulted in a societal distancing from the understanding of code, and a lack of ability to access actual code.
…I’m thinking a toy language for consoles and desktops alike could be monumental…
…You’ve got to be able to write a single line of code and see a result. We need some instant results to give absolute beginners confidence…
…Tinkering with hardware is learning. Lobotomizing and renovating is meaningful, magical. On behalf of those who prefer to code, I make these wishes. Not to take away jobs from the Phillips screwdriver…. (2003 essay)
In my post on the Logo, I share that Papert advocated for his dream of children being able to program. He called for easy and accessible tools almost 20 years before _why’s plea. In his essay, _why reminisced about the era of being able to program directly from your Commodore 64, or Atari 800 (which was the very same era that Papert was working on Logo with his MIT team). So what happened between Papert’s call for accessibility in 1980 and _why’s call for accessibility in 2003?
Advancement. Piracy. Fear.
Innovation has driven a more user-friendly experience. However, the more user-friendly the experience, the deeper the code becomes buried. Companies are creating better and better tools, and protecting them more and more fiercely. The more protections, the harder the code is to access. Everything in technology has gotten faster, better, closer, more useable, more understandable…except the code. In the 2003 environment in which _why wrote his article, there were many barriers to children getting involved in coding because it was so hard to get to the code and be able to play with it.