I think the higher order thinking and the mastery of the medium, nitty gritty detail cannot really be separated<br><br>Maybe they can be separated to an extent in some subjects (eg. maths) but not in computing and not in the real world, life
<br><br>Perhaps this is more than just a common sense argument but that it goes deeply in terms of our epistemology<br><br>Rodney Brooks had to fight v. hard to put situatedness and embodiment onto the AI agenda. In the end he won because it was found to be impossible / impractical to model the world internally in an AI machine. That to factor in the interaction with sensors was the way to go.
<br>Brooks, Intelligence without Reason<br><a href="http://people.csail.mit.edu/brooks/papers/AIM-1293.pdf">http://people.csail.mit.edu/brooks/papers/AIM-1293.pdf</a><br><br>What it means to be human cannot be separated from our ways of interacting with the world, eg. the hand, our senses, and our modern day extensions of that (internet, mobile phone).
<br><br>Our brains do fall out when the internet is down and that will become more true in the future. (and so it follows that EDs are dumbing everyone down when they introduce censor-ware)<br><br>So, I agree with Paul that teaching the "basics" of computing in the best way possible is v. important. But it's not basics really, its lifeblood. That is where VELS has it wrong, regarding English as lifeblood and computing as "interdisciplinary".
<br><br>In practical terms I think computing teachers would agree that we have to do a lot of skilling in order for our students to be able to do higher order stuff. It's hard to do a creative design if you don't have the skills to make the bits and pieces that go into that design.
<br><br>The bit I was torn about (or one of the bits) was how computers / AI appear to do human higher order thinking (play chess well, solve hard calculus problems) - but I'm thinking now that the way computers do that is v. different from the way humans do those things. eg. in chess its really about a number crunching approach not some sort of superior positional judgement algorithm.
<br><br>I remember writing last year that some of my year 12s reported that they were thinking much harder in my subject (game programming) which was *not* classified as uni entrance standard because it was more "hands on" than in other subjects (physics, english) which were classified as uni entrance standard. They felt that the latter subjects were basically read the book and regurgitate whereas to program a game they would have to immerse themselves in hard problems and they were doing this for long hours on the weekends.
<br>Full account here:<br><a href="http://billkerr.blogspot.com/2005/10/engagement-hands-on-higher-order.html">http://billkerr.blogspot.com/2005/10/engagement-hands-on-higher-order.html</a><br><br>-- <br>Bill Kerr<br><a href="http://billkerr.blogspot.com/">
http://billkerr.blogspot.com/</a><br><a href="http://beam.to/billkerr">http://beam.to/billkerr</a><br>skype: billkerr2006<br><br><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/11/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Dr Paul Chandler
</b> <<a href="mailto:paul.chandler@yvg.vic.edu.au">paul.chandler@yvg.vic.edu.au</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Like Bill, I am torn. Because I well know that the messy idiosyncratic detail of the user interface and its operations are essential. But I believe that 'somewhere along the way' learners are 'putting it all together' and building some conceptual understandings of what they are working with. What I am arguing for is that we need to have our eye on what conceptual understandings they really need to develop. Now, at what point do you stop with the idiosyncratic detail and start teaching the concept explicitly - that's where I'm torn.
<br><br>The business of higher order thinking in teaching computing is an interesting one (and it seems to be the source of Bill's quandry). My thinking here is basically this: if you've got a concept (be it conservation of matter, how to score a goal in AFL, or what constitutes a paragraph in word, or the similarity between layers in PSP and the side master in PowerPoint) then it has the possibility of lending itself to some higher order thinking. Conversely, one way to sharpen our thinking about whether we are dealing with a concept or just a whole bunch of skills is to ask 'what higher order thinking could apply to xxxxxx'. If we can answer the question, it's possible that we are thinking conceptually about the topic. So the _possibility_ of higher order thinking might be one tool to help us identify the important concepts.
<br><br>That is not to deny the merit of introducing higher-order thinking into teaching about computers. There may well be benefit in asking students to 'write a song to illustrate, to a beginning user, when to double-click and when to single-click'. But, in a sense, that this secondary to identifying the concept in the first place. Having said that, if we were to believe that the concept of the computer's filing system is so vital so as to be worth spending 10 lessons on it rather than 2 (I'm picking numbers out of the air), then it is pretty likely the time in those 10 lessons would need to dedicated to higher order thinking; otherwise our learners become bored and we actually need the higher-order thinking to reinforce and embed the central concept in the learner's thinking.
<br><br>Regards<br><br><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: <a href="mailto:yr7-10it-bounces@edulists.com.au">yr7-10it-bounces@edulists.com.au</a> on behalf of Bill Kerr<br>Sent: Sun 6/11/2006 1:25 AM<br>To: Year 7 - 10 Information Technology Teachers' Mailing List
<br>Subject: Re: [Yr7-10it] VELS and IT<br><br>I am v. torn by this discussion<br><br>on the one hand I also would like to take the "high ground" of advocating<br>for higher order thinking, the importance of abstraction - I can see an
<br>argument for that<br><br>on the other hand I can see that learning the messy idiosyncratic detail of<br>the user interface of its day and becoming fluent in its operation is simply<br>essential<br><br>Alan Kay once wrote, "user interface is worth 100 IQ points". It sounds like
<br>a crude reductionism but Alan Kaye is not that sort of guy.<br><br>Could it be that computers and AI research (Minsky, Brookes) will lead us to<br>rethinking Blooms taxonomy? Computers can beat Kasparov at chess but they
<br>can't yet do "simple" things like make a mud pie.<br><br>--<br>Bill Kerr<br><a href="http://billkerr.blogspot.com/">http://billkerr.blogspot.com/</a><br><a href="http://beam.to/billkerr">http://beam.to/billkerr
</a><br>skype: billkerr2006<br><br><br>On 6/10/06, Tony Forster <<a href="mailto:forster@ozonline.com.au">forster@ozonline.com.au</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> > I'm teaching "about IT", I find it _really_ hard to move beyond
<br>> knowledge.<br>> > To do things such as summarize, describe, interpret, apply, demonstrate,<br>> > calculate, analyze, separate, order, explain, connect, classify,<br>> combine,<br>> > integrate, modify, rearrange, substitute, assess, decide, rank, grade,
<br>> > test,<br>> > measure, or recommend ... All the "higher order" skills is just so hard.<br>> > I'd suggest that this is because we are too bothered with ensuring that<br>> > the<br>
> > students have "the skills" rather than "the concepts". If we were<br>> > orientated towards "concepts", then then higher order stuff would come<br>> > easier.<br>><br>
> Imagine that its 1986, you are learning Wordstar on DOS or CPM. With the<br>> wisdom of hindsight, what are the generalised, higher order skills which<br>> will still be useful in 2006? More importantly, how would you have
<br>> recognised them back in 1986? If you can answer that, then you are on the<br>> way to knowing what is important to teach now.<br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> <a href="http://www.edulists.com.au">
http://www.edulists.com.au</a> - FAQ, resources, subscribe, unsubscribe<br>> Year 7 - 10 IT Mailing List kindly supported by<br>> <a href="http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au">http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au</a> - Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority
<br>> and<br>> <a href="http://www.vitta.org.au">http://www.vitta.org.au</a> - VITTA Victorian Information Technology Teachers<br>> Association Inc<br>><br><br><br>DISCLAIMER:<br>This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom they are addressed.
<br><br>If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and then delete this message.<br><br>Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Yarra Valley Grammar.
<br><br><br>YVG Mail security - Checked<br></blockquote></div><br>