4 ms·

This article does not really address for me the biggest point: is there any reason not to teach children computational thinking? I would say there is no such re

This article does not really address for me the biggest point: is there any reason not to teach children computational thinking? I would say there is no such reason. We should teach children many ways of thinking so that they can be versatile thinkers. I do not see how an argument beyond that point is needed.

rntz 9y ago
Is there any reason not to teach children religious thinking? I would say there is no such reason. We should teach children many ways of thinking so that they can be versatile thinkers. I do not see how an argument beyond that point is needed. Or, substitute for "religious" anything you dislike - "superstitious", "homeopathic", "racist", "left-wing", "right-wing". Or more fairly, as the article suggests, compare teaching "computational thinking" to teaching Latin. Clearly there is at least some reason you think "computational thinking" is worthwhile. What is it? We cannot, after all, teach children everything. There is simply too much it is possible to learn.
- williamscales 9y ago
  I certainly learned such thinking in school - it's called studying literature. One must understand something to truly reject it.
MarcScott 9y ago
From the article: > Finally, it is worth noting that educators have long promoted a large number of different kinds of thinking: engineering thinking, science thinking, economics thinking, systems thinking, logical thinking, rational thinking, network thinking, ethical thinking, design thinking, critical thinking, and more. As a former teacher, which do I prioritise? There are a set number of hours in a school day, and I still need to teach the basic facts such as: glucose + oxygen --> carbon dioxide + water and: Bonjour == Hello Why would I waste time teaching "Computational thinking" if it's unproven whether or not it only actually benefits programmers?
- williamscales 9y ago
  But that's the point! You don't need to teach glucose + oxygen. Why would you waste time teaching "glucose + oxygen" when it's not proven to benefit anyone but biologists and chemists? You just need to teach them to think in many ways and they will figure the rest out. I believe a lot of the problems we have are because we don't have enough faith in our children.
dahart 9y ago
> This article does not really address for the the biggest point: is there any reason not to teach children computational thinking? I feel like the article addressed that point head-on with the paragraph below. If computational thinking benefits only future computer programmers, and does not benefit anyone else, then that is a reason not to teach computational thinking to all children, isn't it? If this isn't addressing for you whether there is a reason not to, what would a reason not to teach computational thinking need to look like for you? Would it have to do active harm before it becomes a reason not to? "The boldest claim of all is that computational thinking enhances general cognitive skills that will transfer to other domains where they will manifest as superior problem-solving skills. Many education researchers have searched for supporting evidence but have not found any. One of the most notable studies, by Pea and Kurland in 1984, found little evidence that learning programming in Logo helped students' math or general cognitive abilities. In 1997, Koschmann weighed in with more of the same doubts and debunked a new claim that learning programming is good for children just as learning Latin once was. (There was never any evidence that learning Latin helped children improve life skills.) Mark Guzdial reviewed all the evidence available by 2015 and reaffirmed there is no evidence to support the claim."

rntz 9y ago

Is there any reason not to teach children religious thinking? I would say there is no such reason. We should teach children many ways of thinking so that they can be versatile thinkers. I do not see how an argument beyond that point is needed. Or, substitute for "religious" anything you dislike - "superstitious", "homeopathic", "racist", "left-wing", "right-wing". Or more fairly, as the article suggests, compare teaching "computational thinking" to teaching Latin. Clearly there is at least some reason you think "computational thinking" is worthwhile. What is it? We cannot, after all, teach children everything. There is simply too much it is possible to learn.

williamscales 9y ago
I certainly learned such thinking in school - it's called studying literature. One must understand something to truly reject it.

MarcScott 9y ago

From the article: > Finally, it is worth noting that educators have long promoted a large number of different kinds of thinking: engineering thinking, science thinking, economics thinking, systems thinking, logical thinking, rational thinking, network thinking, ethical thinking, design thinking, critical thinking, and more. As a former teacher, which do I prioritise? There are a set number of hours in a school day, and I still need to teach the basic facts such as: glucose + oxygen --> carbon dioxide + water and: Bonjour == Hello Why would I waste time teaching "Computational thinking" if it's unproven whether or not it only actually benefits programmers?

williamscales 9y ago
But that's the point! You don't need to teach glucose + oxygen. Why would you waste time teaching "glucose + oxygen" when it's not proven to benefit anyone but biologists and chemists? You just need to teach them to think in many ways and they will figure the rest out. I believe a lot of the problems we have are because we don't have enough faith in our children.

dahart 9y ago

> This article does not really address for the the biggest point: is there any reason not to teach children computational thinking? I feel like the article addressed that point head-on with the paragraph below. If computational thinking benefits only future computer programmers, and does not benefit anyone else, then that is a reason not to teach computational thinking to all children, isn't it? If this isn't addressing for you whether there is a reason not to, what would a reason not to teach computational thinking need to look like for you? Would it have to do active harm before it becomes a reason not to? "The boldest claim of all is that computational thinking enhances general cognitive skills that will transfer to other domains where they will manifest as superior problem-solving skills. Many education researchers have searched for supporting evidence but have not found any. One of the most notable studies, by Pea and Kurland in 1984, found little evidence that learning programming in Logo helped students' math or general cognitive abilities. In 1997, Koschmann weighed in with more of the same doubts and debunked a new claim that learning programming is good for children just as learning Latin once was. (There was never any evidence that learning Latin helped children improve life skills.) Mark Guzdial reviewed all the evidence available by 2015 and reaffirmed there is no evidence to support the claim."