In need of a Base Case
Comments about coding, research and life

Mark recently posted a blog about using visualizations to teach computer science.

This is reflective of the difference between the way that experts and novices organize information. An expert in a field will be more likely to have a complex organizational structure, organizing the information in patterns around big ideas in the subject, while novices will demonstrate a much simpler structure. The algorithmic visualizations can help contribute to those complex structures, but perhaps are overload for novices in CS who are still trying to understand the static visual representation of the data structure (array, etc.) before trying to put an algorithm into the mix.

It would be interesting to see at exactly which point the visualization becomes a useful tool. Is it when the students can identify the underlying structure (yes that is an array and those are the indexes and the data), is it when they could produce the starting state themselves before the visualization takes place (here is the array I have drawn with data and indexes), or is it when they understand the pieces of the algorithm on the data structure (this is a swap in an array - switching two values and here is the code that would produce it - now I can look at algorithms that do swaps and be able to generalize that procedure without having the cognitive load of thinking through those small parts in addition to the whole).

Interesting

Its not often that a report aimed at the government gives you an emotional response. This one did. Rising above the Gathering Storm is a book by the national academies press, however I just read the executive summary which you can download for free.

The biographies of the committee are impressive with the Chairman of the Board for Intel, president of RPI, Deputy directory for science and technology at Lawrence Livermore National Labs and former senior vice president at Bell Labs, and many others. The focus of the report was what is happening in our country in regards to technology, science and engineering. And oh boy is it not good.

On pages 11 through 13 there are some indicators and quotes that lead me to run to my computer to make this post. Here are some of the most astounding:

“The United States today is a net importer of high-technology products. Its trade balance in high-technology manufactured goods shifted from plus $54 Billion in 1990 to negative $50 billion in 2001.”

“IBM recently sold its personal computer business to an entity in China”

“Some economists estimate that about half of US economic growth since World War II has been the result of technological innovation”

“During 2004, China overtook the US to become the leading exporter of information technology products according to the OECD”

“The US ranks only 12th among OCED countries in the number of broadband connections per 100 inhabitants”

“About 1/3 of US students intending to major in engineering switch majors before graduating”

“If you want good manufacturing jobs, one thing you could do is graduate more engineers. We had more sports exercise majors graduate than electrical engineering grads last year. - Jeffery R. Immelt, Chairman and CEO General Electric”

We have become a nation where science and technology is given lip service, but unfortunately students are choosing to study other careers. How are we failing? Why are we failing? and what will it cost us in the not so distant future?

Section V of the report is Common Goals and Metrics. This section talks about the goals of the STEM initiative as well as how they will be measured for success.

The K-12 Education National Goal for Student Learning is “Prepare all students with the science, technology, engineering and math skills needed to succeed in the 21st century technological economy, whether in postsecondary education or the workforce; and graduate students with the capability and motivation to become STEM professionals, educators, and leaders.” Now, normally as a critic of what the government is doing I really do love this goal.

My issue however is in the implementation. Notice the word “all” contained within the goal. Not just those students who have the desire or aptitude. We should be educating all students in these topics so that they can make an informed choice of what to do next. However the metrics used for measurement focus on mathematics and the physical sciences already being taught. If such a large percentage of our students are entering college and the workforce unprepared for it, can we state that all of them simply had bad teachers? Isnt the case more likely that they did what they were supposed to to pass their classes, but through no fault of their own or the teachers, that the curriculum was inappropriate for our goals?

Money - would you believe that NSF funds more at the K12 level in STEM programs than the department of education? (NSF = 242 million, DOE = 239 million) On the flip side, the DOE funds more STEM programs at the undergraduate level than NSF? (NSF = 351 million, DOE = 437 million) Why is it that undergraduate level funding by the DOE is almost double that of K12? Perhaps this inequity is also leading to students ENTERING college unprepared for the rigors of the work, and also unwilling to see the urgency in STEM.

What can we do to make this better? I am not sure. But the start of any reform is knowledge and I am trying to share mine as I acquire it.

So, in researching what “STEM” really means to our government in an effort to understand what initiatives are currently in place and what is being funded, I read this report (which can be found here: http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/competitiveness/acc-mathscience/index.html) and decided to record my comments here so they could be searchable for me later. Please forgive if they appear to jump around, this is just my stream of thought as I was reading.

In the opening quote of the document, given by George W. Bush announcing the ACI (American Competitiveness Initiative) in 2006, he states that “NCLB is helping to ensure that every student receives a high-quality education.” I’m not sure I agree with that. How do we measure high quality? And by ensuring that every student meets a common educational standard, aren’t we instead ensuring that every student is getting an adequate education? What is the difference between high quality and adequate? and should we strive for universal high quality?

The document at least provided a definition of STEM (pg. 11) as: “Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics education programs are defined as those primarily intended to provide support for, or to strengthen, science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) education at the elementary and secondary through postgraduate levels, including adult education.”

Throughout the introduction to the document it was continually referenced that there is an extreme lack of instructional support to achieve desired outcomes in STEM education. The council defined success for itself in a number of ways, one bullet point was (pg. 10) “Set outcome oriented goals for their STEM programs” in reference to what other agencies will do. Creating outcome oriented goals without also supporting the necessary development of curriculum and instructional practices and assessments that measure ALL parts of STEM is irresponsible and reinforces the current climate where teachers reach out for whatever is available vs. what has been proven to work.

One of the stated initiative components of ACI(American Competitiveness Initiative) was to expand the “DoE’s AP Initiative program in order to prepare more teachers to teach AP and IB mathematics, science, and critical foreign language courses”. First of all does CS count as a part of this initiative? and secondly this is contrary to the certification processes that we are seeing across the country where experienced teachers are being squeezed out of teaching APCS due to changing certification requirements.

Pg. 6 - “In recent decades, the federal government has established and supported numerous programs designed to improve student learning, reform instructional delivery, and update curricula and facilities to meet the rapidly changing needs of the knowledge based economy. Yet it is unclear which programs or activities are effective in generating positive outcomes”. Continually the government refers to the knowledge based economy and the ability to solve complex problems using technology, and yet NONE of the assessments that are used to measure student success actually measure these goals.

These are my comments from parts I. through IV. More to come later.