In high school the only provincially recognized curriculum is Computer Studies 11 and Computer Science 12. These curricula are largely dedicated to the development of programming skills. The programming language specified is Pascal with most schools using Turbo Pascal or Think Pascal on a Mac or IBM platform. The problem, as I see it, is “Can you produce a useful product in a 100 hour class?” One hundred hours is the approximate length of a high school class once you account for holidays, exams, and other interruptions. The planned length of a high school class should be between 110 and 135 hours. Talking to several people I know in the commercial computer field, 110 hours is nothing in a programming project.
One person told me that their team can spend 1000 hours on a device driver! I do not suggest that schools should be creating programs like Windows, Excel or Wordperfect but their it little purpose in teaching students to create a program that prints their name 10 times. Such an example used to be the norm in the bad old days of Basic. The result of any curriculum should be to product a learning experience that is useful. If that is an acceptable criteria, what about programming. Given the time constraints that I have mentioned, it is questionable that you can create a useful experience in Pascal programming. The alternatives are many. First, there are other programming systems that give you more power with roughly the same learning curve. These packages include several Object Oriented packages and their associated libraries, mostly variations of C. These systems are designed to give you the basic tools of programming without having to design all the sub procedures from scratch. They also give the novice programmer the ability to produce windows (Mac or MS) programs that give a presentation that most people are used to. If this is the solution there are a couple of other changes that need to be instituted. Programming has to be dealt with as a class project and emulate a programming team. You design the project, break into sub-groups, and work on your module that will eventually be fitted into the final product. That is logically the way programs are created today. The only problem is that it goes against the nature of the school system.
If all the students in the class produce one product how can you justify giving them different grades. Giving the whole class the same grade would drive most principals up the nearest flag pole. Even if you carried it to the sub-group level there would only be three to five sets of students. The only saving grace of this system would be the use of self- and peer-evaluation. While a valuable tool most parents, principals, and some students would balk at this alternative. In short, if there is to be a continuation of programming with the newer languages there must be a change in the way computer classes work. The second alternative is to use the many authoring tools that are available. In the Apple environment they are well established in Hypercard, Supercard, and HyperStudio. Similar tools are becoming more accepted in the IBM environment. There must be compatible tools on both major platforms because curriculum has to be platform independent to avoid excluding a large percentage of districts of schools. The use of authoring tools changes the focus of the task. Programming has always been viewed as a nuts and bolts view of the computer. The use of authoring tools removes the students from the nuts and bolts a little too far for most programming purists. This leads me to ask what the underlying reason for doing a “programming” exercise at all. If programming is intended to give students a nuts and bolts look at the machine then clearly authoring tools don’t do this. I would question whether any programming language currently in use would accomplish this. Programming libraries have removed the nuts and bolts from even the professional programmers life.
The following is part of my current research for my Thesis. Flames, barbs, bouquets, etc. are excepted in the form they are offered.
The curriculum for computers in the high school setting has not changed significantly since the introduction of microcomputers in the late seventies or early eighties. Computer curriculum still follows the pattern that saw computing as something that was done in a white air conditioned room in the basement. The idea that curriculum is something that changes slowly is nothing new. The fact that new technology takes years to be integrated does not shock anyone anymore. I would like to present the following additional concern for your consideration. The issue is equity.
In recent years equity has become a fashionable topic for discussion. It normally is followed by knowing nods of agreement and mutters of “of course we believe in equality”. Equity can be a term that is thrown out in many instances. I use equity to address the situation where educational opportunities are available to those that have the technology to access them.
The computer as a tool and a technology is the most powerful to join the educational system in recent years. The question we should be asking ourselves is, now that the initial euphoria has ended, what will computers in schools look like in the next five to ten years. As I mentioned before, the curriculum of computers in high school has followed an industrial model that no longer exists. It comes from a time when most computer users had pocket protectors, multicolour pens, and talked in a language that mixed binary, hexadecimal, and English in roughly equal amounts. Take a look at where the computers are the average school. Computer Rooms are areas with two locks and only a “computer teacher” will ever access it. Computer labs are the goal of most administrators and school architects. By segregating the computers within the school you ration their use. If computers are only used for “computer classes” this practice might be acceptable.
Students and teachers use computers in all ways they can be used. Look at English essays, Social Studies reports, and the Science projects. How many teachers look at the nice laser printed documents and compare them to the handwritten pages? By limiting the ways in which the computer is used in schools you open a rift between the students that have access to one at home and those that don’t. Before you parents who bought a computer for your children feel too happy think about this; does your son or daughter have access to systems like Dialog, CompuServe, Genie, or America Online? How can you compare the research that can be done on those platforms to that of your son or daughter who is using an encyclopedia at home? I don’t even mention the vast content of cyberspace available through the Internet. Internet allows me to asks friends in Kentucky and Prince George to proof this article by interconnecting many computer networks. (For those of you that are not familiar with Internet I suggest Michael Scott’s column in the weekend magazine of the Vancouver Sun).
Inequities on the basis of family resources are hardly new. When some parents started buying magazine subscriptions and encyclopedias, their children had an advantage also. The difference between encyclopedias and computers is that the school could easily even the field by stocking the library with dozens of encyclopaedias and hundreds of magazines. The schools do not have the money or the mandate to provide the volume of computer resources that would level this field. This is what I mean when I talk of equity.
I don’t believe that schools can address all the inequities in society but the education system should strive to minimize the results of inequities. We can’t buy computers for every student. The school system should move to have computers as part of the regular course of studies. In the same way that businesses no longer have separate computer departments and only the computer people can use the equipment, schools should use computers as part of all the subjects of study. If English classes have access to computers for typing then the laser printer at home doesn’t matter as much. If the libraries at schools have CD-ROM, and telecommunications facilities then the modem at home doesn’t have as big an effect. The development of multimedia tools and more highly developed network systems could provide the opportunity for schools to take the technological advantage back. Teachers, students, and parents need to look at this problem and make their own judgments.
Bill Kempthorne is a high school science and math teacher currently completing a Master’s Degree in Computer Science Education at UBC. Comments are requested by e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org or on the First Class Systems at Apples B.C. or Sunshine.