Global Tech Women: "Voices" Speaks Again

Have you heard about the "Voices" conference? Voices is presented by Global Tech Women and is unique in several ways. For starters, the conference is virtual - you can participate from anywhere on the planet if you have access to an internet connection. Second, the conference is global. It takes place not from one location but from many locations. Third, Voices will circumnavigate the globe for 35 hours. The first session will come from Australia and subsequent sessions will follow the rising sun. The final session will take place in Silicon Valley.

It's high quality stuff and it isn't going to break the bank.

Voices debuted earlier this year on International Women's Day and no one quite knew how it would all go. It turned out to be an incredible grassroots community building and empowerment event. Technical women who had never had the opportunity to participate in a gathering of their peers were able to do so. It was a great way to meet technical women from different cultures, to compare and share ideas and experiences, and to learn from the expertise and perspective of others. People participated and presented from every continent; the topics ranged from the technically nitty gritty to balancing the personal and professional. In my own opinion, the greatest result of the conference was the many lasting relationships that were established.

Therefore, Global Tech Women is putting together the Voices conference again for 2014.

Although International Women's Day is a long way off (March 8th), conference content planning is well under way and the call for participation closes November 1st. This is where you come in and the reason I'm whipping up this post now.

You don't have to be "someone important" to present - in fact, toss that silly phrase right out the window.

Curious? Interested? Have something to share with other technical women? Hopefully, I got your attention and you want more detail about the Voices conference and how to be part of it. Go Here to find out.

Introducing Global Tech Women: Are You a Technical Woman?

Technical Women are Leaving

It is a well known fact that there are not as many women in technology careers as men, and equally well documented that numbers are declining rather than increasing - unlike in most other science and engineering disciplines. The problem doesn't stop there - reliable data show that many women who complete a technical degree choose not to pursue a technical career. To cap it off, women in technical careers around the globe leave those careers at an alarming rate. The whole situation is completely crazy when you consider that lucrative computing jobs are increasing by leaps and bounds and many companies (not just in the US) have difficulty finding people to hire.

As many of you know, there are excellent organizations around the globe that have set their sights on addressing one aspect or another, one facet or another, of this incredibly complex problem. But...

I'm going to hazard a guess that many of you don't know about Global Tech Women. Global Tech Women (GTW for short here) is different. This organization, the brainchild of Deanna Kosaraju who you may know from her previous role as Vice President of Programs at the Anita Borg Institute, takes a holistic approach to the problem. In other words it is about the technology but it's not only about the technology. It's far more than that. As Deanna puts it, GTW wants to support technical women in becoming "connected, inspired and self-actualized".

This vision leads to a different approach than many other organizations, starting with an important definition:

What is a technical woman?

Answer: You get to decide. Yes, you.

If you self-identify as a technical woman, then you are a technical woman. Period. 

Why should someone else tell you if you "are" or "are not" technical?

Not everyone takes the same trajectory into a technical career. We know this, yet at the same time there are people who apply an exclusive "definition". i.e. you must have a technical degree, or you must work for an established big-name corporation or... If you don't, then you are excluded either explicitly or implicitly. When I write it out it sounds ludicrous to my ears, but some people/organizations will exclude from their definition, and hence exclude from support, someone, and often this means women, who take unconventional routes to achieving their technical and life goals. Global Tech Women starts from a position of inclusiveness and empowerment.

As Deanna pointed out in one of our recent conversations, technology can be truly interdisciplinary. Technology cuts across disciplines. For example, Deanna told me about a woman she met who has a graduate degree in Sociology and is now developing apps in a developing country. Here is the key take home point - this woman did not "leave" Sociology. She incorporates her training into her work as a technical woman helping people in Africa. There are a lot of women out there like her. Who is to tell them they aren't really technical?

If you choose to identify yourself as a technical woman, Global Tech Women wants to be there to support you in defining success for yourself, and in connecting you with resources to make that easier. GTW may be a fairly new organization but Deanna Kosaraju brings years of executive experience in the technology world and in non-profit organizational management to this endeavor. She has already established some impressive partnerships and more are in the wings; (see the GTW website); in addition she is in the process of forming a consortium of technical women's groups around the world to talk about best practices.

So - what can Global Tech Women do for you? I thought you might ask. In the next post, I'll dive more deeply into Global Tech Women's ongoing activities.

Gross National Happiness - Putting It First

Synchronicity or coincidence or karma, call it what you will: international examples of computing being adjusted to support societal values (as opposed to the other way around) are presenting themselves.

One of the first cases I ever learned about turned traditional software engineering on its head and inspired me to write my book on socially beneficial computing. The story was about a team of computing professionals from New Zealand and Peru who collaborated on an Andean poverty alleviation project. The way in which they creatively conducted requirements gathering and specification development was a stunning example of respecting traditional cultural values yet raising living standards, addressing environmental problems and seamlessly integrating modern computing technology.

The Peruvian project was a localized example of adaptive software engineering; an article in the most recent Communications of the ACM (CACM)* takes the idea national, discussing how an entire country (Bhutan) is demonstrating that exploitation of people and the environment is not an inevitable result of technological development.

As author Richard Heeks, Director of the Centre for Informatics Development at the University of Manchester (UK) explains, Bhutan is successfully placing "Gross National Happiness" ahead of "Gross National Product". Even though I have just finished reading a book on different economic value systems and even wrote about it (see my last post) it took me a few minutes to wrap my head around this concept (Gross National Happiness? Meaning...?). Fortunately, Heeks anticipates my Western mindset-produced difficulties and starts at the beginning. He discusses the concept of happiness, how it relates to economic development and in particular to 21st Century digital communications.

Putting happiness first is not easy, but it doesn't appear to be any harder than putting other things first (e.g. short term financial profit). It is all about where a society is coming from and what it chooses to encourage and discourage. It doesn't mean a society can't be a vibrant part of the 21st Century global community. Although Heeks only mentions it in passing, perhaps because it would distract from the points he is trying to make, the underpinnings of Bhutan society are Bhuddist (Mahayana, for those familiar with the branches). Heeks avoids a religious discussion and focuses on historical background and current implementation of modern digital technology initiatives.

Whatever your range of interest, there are several truly fascinating aspects to what is happening in modern Bhutan. If you want concrete examples of a growing, competitive society that puts human and environmental welfare first, here they are. If you want to ponder how the Buddhist religion can interact with computing, you have food for thought. (So intriguing; I'm pondering the idea of writing a post on the subject). If you want to learn about a very different model of progress in the developing world, here is your opportunity. Interested in Eastern society and computing beyond what has been written about well known countries such as Japan, China and India? Want some fresh ideas about development (in all its meanings), technological infrastructure, 21st Century global technology? Looking for a research project?

One short article; one small country. A lot of food for thought and ideas about positive directions we can go with computing.


*"Emerging Markets: Information Technology and Gross National Happiness" Communications of the ACM, April 2012, Voll 55, No. 4, pp 24 - 26

Ada Lovelace Day: Thank You Nell Dale

Today is Ada Lovelace Day, and there was a call put out to write about someone who has made a difference in your life. After thinking it over, I decided that I want to write about someone who through a act of kindness, trust and a willingness to take a risk completely changed the course of my career.

I'm speaking of Nell Dale, who is well known to almost everyone in the ACM SIGCSE community and many people beyond it.

In the 1990s I was working full time as a computer science instructor at a wonderful community college - Chemeketa Community College in Salem, Oregon. I was in charge of all aspects of the transfer program. The position was wonderful, exciting and stimulating, with significant responsibilities - in some ways a dream job.  I was developing all the transfer courses and teaching all of them, I was running around the state of Oregon creating articulation agreements with the Universities, I was doing....many things. I could see the direct results of my work on students' lives. I had an inkling that I was interested in research so I just started doing it by the seat of my pants. I certainly had no formal training in it at that time. It was exciting.

However, as not only the only woman in the department, but the only CS faculty member who had a formal computing background (I'm pretty sure) and the only one interested in research as well as in teaching, it was sometimes a bit lonely.

Along the way I heard about the ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) and I joined the listserv and conversations. It was wonderful to have others to exchange ideas with.

Somehow, through that channel Nell, who was on the computer science faculty at The University of Texas at Austin, learned of my existence. One day I received an invitation to be a member of a panel she was putting together for the next SIGCSE conference. I had no idea Nell was so well known and highly regarded or that she was right smack in the center of everything SIGCSE. I had no idea that SIGCSE was a conference loaded with people who I would eventually come to think of as family. All I knew was that I received this invitation from a complete stranger, asking if I'd like to be on a conference panel and I said Yes. The panel was accepted, and the next thing you know I went to San Jose and met Nell Dale in person shortly before we gave our presentation!

I was in the "wow wow wow" stage, and showing my newbieness by trying to get my hands on every free textbook that I could and stuff them into my exploding suitcase. During one of the conference lunches, Nell and I were talking and I said something about my interest in conducting research. Nell said: "You should come to Austin. The University of Texas at Austin has a computer science education research group". I didn't know much about UT and I knew nothing about Austin - or Texas for that matter. Both are now places very dear to my heart. During and after that lunch I thought about Nell's comment. Long story short, a few years later I picked up and went back to school for my doctorate, where Nell indeed was leading a wonderful group of people all interested in computer science education. Participating in that group was a wonderful experience, full of synergy, exciting ideas, passion. I had found a home. One thing led to another and I eventually created an interdisciplinary dissertation and coursework that spanned computer science, psychology, science education and math education. My education and the supportive relationships I formed in those almost-7 years were incredible.

None of this would have happened, the snowball would never have started rolling, if Nell hadn't reached out one day over a listserv to a complete stranger and asked if she wanted to join a panel. I have always remembered those acts of generosity to a newbie and have tried to emulate her actions in my own.

Thanks Nell.

IFF Computing == Cabbage

I am periodically asked "what is it like to write a book?" If you have written a book you may be having a small laugh to yourself all of a sudden. A sort of evil chuckle. Because you know, .... well, I don't need to tell you. It takes you over in strange and wonderful and unexpected ways.

You probably also know that no matter what you say it may not convince the conversant that conceiving cognitively comprehensible and convivial concepts takes considered concentration. Even if you say "it is Computer Science!" (people often assume fiction for reasons I know not why) there is ofttimes a clinging to the concept that you must spend much of your time continuously cavorting. Come again? If we waited to compose for when we felt suitably inspired by The Muse ... my Editor could conceivably consider calling out the Costa Nostra (uh, just kidding...right, Randi and John?)

Perhaps my more-often-than-usual far away look, prompted not by my new glasses so much as by a looming deadline, brings on the question with greater frequency lately. However, I find myself contemplating a different question: "How do you know when you are really and truly becoming one with interdisciplinary computing?" (with which topic my book most certainly is concerned).

I have the answer. It came to me this evening as I took a break and sat looking out over a neighborhood canyon just breathing calmly. Even in stillness, everywhere I looked I saw things that reminded me of a computer. "Canyon - how lovely...oh, Canyon starts with the same letter as Computer." "Critter poo on the sidewalk leading up to the bench....Critter reminds me of Computer". "I Cannot see the stars because there are Clouds in the sky. Clouds? Computer!" "Concentrate on your breathing ...Concentrate. Concentrate. Computer Computer Computer".

A Colleague gave me a red Cabbage from their garden. Oh my gosh that was good - a fresh Cabbage tastes like Candy Compared to Cabbage from the grocery store". Candy? Compared? More "C" words! Cabbage. Is an excellent source of Vitamin C and beta-Carotene. Consuming large amounts of Cabbage reduces the Chances of getting Colon Cancer because it Contains Chemicals that protect Cells against free radicals. All those words Commence with the same letter as COMPUTER! Perhaps I have passed the threshold and am now officially (Crazy?) Coalescing with interdisciplinary Computing and Computer science and Computational thinking.

The Cabbage Convinced me. Computers are truly everywhere. All you have to do is Consider it.

An Ideal Environment for Interdisciplinary Computing

After discussing the benefits of engaging in interdisciplinary computing and the challenges we face we considered what an ideal climate for fostering interdisciplinary computing efforts might look like. If you recall from the earlier posts about this meeting, these conversations took place our first morning, as a sort of "lay it all out on the table" exercise. The intent at this stage was not to eliminate ideas that might be arguably "impossible or impractical", nor to come to a consensus or final list.

I found it very productive to go beyond the initial benefits and challenges conversations to a discussion that drew upon those ideas. This was where some real sizzle came into the conversation. By this point people were ready to rock and roll* with their visions. Some ideas were familiar and some were not; sometimes one idea might appear to contradict another idea. But it was all material to sink one's teeth into.

I'd like to share some of these brainstormed ideas; they provide food for thought and are a pre-requisite to the inevitable "what next and how do we get there" questions.

Hopefully they will pique your imagination as they did mine.

- The vertical school based system is eliminated i.e. topics are not rigidly identified as belonging in a specific year.
-  Coursework at the college level is not limited to people who already have "the background" (this phrase is in quotes because defining it is a very interesting discussion in itself!)
- There exists a highly supportive environment for people to build bridges between disciplines, share perspectives and talk. This will produce greater trust, competence and value.
- At the college level each department creates two endowed chairs whose focus is on the support and development of interdisciplinary computer science / computing.
- Budgets include a guaranteed line item dedicated to interdisciplinary computer science / computing.
- People on campus who are dedicated to interdisciplinary efforts are actively located and supported at all levels (administration, staff, faculty).
- We locate other models outside of computer science where interdisciplinary collaborations already work, we study and learn from them.
- Colleges and universities reward interdisciplinary work with tenure.
- Recognition that the issues and focus are different at the K-12 (pre-college) and college level.
- Recognition that there is more to computer science than programming and we model that recognition in the classroom.
- We include more visualization (through any of a number of mechanisms) in computer science coursework.
- Vertical communication within a university is smooth.
- Peer reviewed journals that cross disciplinary boundaries are highly valued.
- Workload assignments recognize that interdisciplinary computer science / computing teaching and research may take extra time and workloads are adjusted accordingly.
- There exist more social venues for informal but critically important interactions in interdisciplinary computer science / computing work - conferences, workshops. Increase those  "water cooler conversations".

- Intellectual content from all represented fields are equally present. This point came up often, in various guises, during the two days we met.

Having intellectual content from each discipline is critical if we want to avoid the perception that interdisciplinary computer science is the application of computing to another field and nothing more.


* We were staying at the Hard Rock Hotel, which in addition to providing all the meeting facilities and services of a more traditional hotel, was another "think outside the box" experience.

Interdisciplinary Computing: Bumps and Holes in the Road

There are of course setbacks and challenges to implementing interdisciplinary computing and our group discussed those as well (if you haven't read the previous two posts, this is the third in the thread). As we had people with backgrounds past and present in biology, computer science, math, physics, music - performance and theory, architecture (not the computer kind), healthcare, there were lots of angles.

In our first morning discussion of these challenges, some themes popped out, just as they had with our discussion of positive experiences. Here is some of what arose for consideration:

Lack of common vocabulary. Specialties have their own lingo, buzzwords, abbreviations, and sometimes the words are the same words used by another field but with different meanings. Engaging in conversation with a specialist in another field can be an instant reminder about how much we have internalized and take for granted when we talk among ourselves.

Different perspectives on appropriate methodologies for research, assessment, reporting, project development. This is a huge topic. Simple to explain and discuss (but not necessarily resolve): is first person or third person expected in a formal write up? Not at all simple to resolve: is statistical or qualitative research desired or valid...what type of statistical or qualitative...how is rigor agreed upon? Really difficult: what does the other field actually *do* when they design and implement a program or project and can it be (should it be) fully understood by the participant from another discipline who works on the project?

Application level skill issues. This point follows up on the last point in the previous paragraph. One example: Discipline X wants to use software A; Discipline Y wants to use software B. Both have their well supported reasons. How to resolve the question to everyone's satisfaction? Similarly, programming and programming language issues can be "exhausting" as one person put it so well. What to use, how many to use, does it have to be a specific language? You know, we have these conversations even within computing; we exhaust ourselves talking about languages. When interdisciplinary teams tackle the language questions the discussion increases in complexity several orders of magnitude.

Trust. This is perhaps one of the biggies. Perhaps the biggest. People related experiences about the need to build trust between disciplines, between people at different levels of an organization, between people with different responsibilities.

Even when there is abundant goodwill on all sides trust has to be earned. It cannot be taken for granted or else some innocent blunder may set back or seriously damage a project. Sometimes, there are large silos that people work in and these have to be bridged. Note: lots of words were used, and I'm not sure which I prefer - bridging seems to convey the positive intentions of everyone in the meeting.

What is computing and/or computer science anyway? This is another topic where even within our own computing discipline(s) we do not always agree. Exhausting. Another exhausting topic. Members of our meeting related experiences about perceptions and mis-perceptions of what "it" is, and in particular how the word "technology" fits in. Similar stories have appeared on the SIGCSE list and many other forums.

I'm intentionally not repeating specific examples of the setbacks we discussed because I don't want to unintentionally embarrass anyone nor imo is it relevant for this post that is trying (with questionable success) to stay manageable in length. I want to focus on the high level issues.

A few summative related issues that lead to setbacks for interdisciplinary initiatives: the tension b/w tools and theory; specialists vs. generalists vs. interdisciplinarians (blogger thinks that is not a word... how timely!); pure vs. applied;  student majors vs. student non-majors. And the notable point that silos can occur within a department - not just between departments.

Challenges that were phrased as questions included:

How to help people in a partner discipline continue to use mutually agreed upon / developed concepts as their students move up within their curriculum? Problematic.

How to keep an interdisciplinary course from turning "light and fluffy" or just an exercise in tool use? If students don't have a quantitative background for example, how do you give them that background sufficiently to proceed with the course? Just adding a prerequisite or two or three doesn't address the problem head on.

Computer science as a discipline has our set of "big ideas". We can abstract them, but how do we then help other people to understand and want to work with them? (this harks back to the vocabulary, method and perspective challenges)

And to end on a LARGE note: there are a whole set of different challenges for the interdisciplinary team that is starting a program from the ground up vs. the team that is working within existing programs and major fields of study. Even more so when the collaborators consist of computer scientists and experts from the non sciences.

phew! Much of the above will not be news if you have been involved in interdisciplinary efforts. However! that is one reason why I chose to start the conversation several posts ago with the upbeat and positive side of this work. No problem is impossible to address in one way or another. But to do so we had to first lay them out and lay them out we did!

Interdisciplinary Computing: Finding Common Ground, Experiencing Joy, Tangible Benefits

I spent the day meeting with a group of 15 dynamic people from around the country from academia and industry, who are all passionate about and actively involved in some way with interdisciplinary computing. At the helm of our 2 day meeting: Boots Cassel from  Villanova University Computing Sciences and Ursula Wolz from The College of New Jersey Computer Science. This was the first of several meetings and we were there to begin an ongoing conversation about how to support interdisciplinary computing education. This was our "why are we here and where are we going" meeting. Day 1.

Boots made a comment early on that stuck with me: "We need to give as much as we get".  That phrase reflected the tenor of our conversation even as we wrestled with definitions, perspectives, categories, labels, experiences and visions. 

I previewed the question of what interdisciplinary computing is last week - imagine that conversation magnified, expanded and fueled by 15 never shy, highly experienced practitioners.

That is where the fun started, and continued...Around more delicious food than I can begin to describe (we'll see in a few days if I can still walk upright) we started off by  working to establish common ground and perspectives. Almost immediately we were directed into small breakout groups for sharing our best experiences with interdisciplinary computing, the setbacks we experienced, and what an ideal climate for interdisciplinary computing education would look like. 

It is always nice to start out on a high note, and considering that overall, the day was one big high note (I don't think I'm out on a limb by making that generalization) I'll share this post on part of our pre-lunch breakout conversation - the process of discussing some of our best experiences with interdisciplinary computing. 

Besides, I need to keep my head from exploding with the effort of trying to say too much in too small a space. 

Finding Common Ground. People shared their satisfaction and joy when faculty from different disciplines reached out to successfully work together, overcoming hurdles (different topic) and creating something - a class, a curriculum, a project, an internship, research, a job - that neither could have done without the expertise of the other - as equals.  1 + 1 != 2 Rather, 1 + 1 > 2  (I hope my tired colleagues don't take that literally and think all the food has addled my brain)

Finding Common Ground.  Between combinations (pick any) of universities, K-12, industry, disciplines, departments, various sciences, humanities. It is a cultural issue as well as a content issue.

There is clearly something wonderful that happens when people from across disciplines and associated cultures work successfully together. Aside from the practical point that it "looks good", it feels good, judging by the way people were telling their stories. A few of us did a little bit of hopping around in our seats and there was the occasional gesticulating of limbs.

Not only students, but faculty are able to view the world in a new way when a computing person and another disciplinary person successfully collaborate and break new ground. One approach, discussed particularly enthusiastically and with many examples by Bob Panoff from the non-profit Shodor, was the power of harnessing computing technology to find common ways to describe the world through modeling and bringing phenomena to life. Stories form in people's minds and the world takes on new meaning.

Someone pointed out that in these collaborations, we are forced to address issues, details and concepts we never would have thought of otherwise. 

Personally, I would prefer to say that I am "privileged" to address issues, details and concepts I would not have thought of or encountered otherwise. To me,  interdisciplinary computing, especially when it improves people's lives in some way, however small, is a constant exciting exploration and adventure.

Tangible Benefits to Students. Industry jobs are often (always?) interdisciplinary in some way so employers like students who have these skill sets through direct experience. For example, they work better on teams and can more easily shift to new areas within their company. 

Many new terms were tossed up for consideration just within this part of the conversation: convergence; intertwining, cross-disciplinary, multi-disciplinary, inclusiveness. 

A lot of good things to think hard and deeply about.

"You Can Do Whatever You Want, But You Can't"

That is what a high school student told me yesterday. I was sitting in a room speaking with a few of the students attending Coleman Tech Charter High School, which I first reported on last August. At that time, the walls were just up, the cables had only recently disappeared into the ceiling, and the technology infused curriculum was new and shiny and ready to be tested. Students were being recruited and excitement was in the air. Nearing the end of their first term, I decided it was time to see how things were going. So I made a visit to Coleman Tech and spent half a day watching class, speaking to Vice Principal Neil McCurdy ("Dr. McCurdy" to the students) and several of the teachers. And of course the students.

The consistent message I heard from everyone was that the school was special; it provided a personalization uncommon for a public school and everyone had a story to tell to prove it.

The student who made the statement above was summing up several stories about why he likes the school. He says that the teachers and administrators (who overlap, as the qualified administrators also teach) really are open to new ideas and suggestions and pay attention to what students have to say. He feels like a person, not a kid afloat in a mass of bodies. That is the "You can do whatever you want" part. Another student concurred, stating that the school she would have attended has a class size of 60. 60??? Not sure I believed I had heard correctly, I asked for confirmation and she said, yes, really, 60. Eek. This student, who had zero background in computing, is blossoming at Coleman Tech, taking among other things, Computing 2, and doing "extra things" at home with her laptop.

The "But you can't" referred to the way in which discipline and enforcement of respectful behavior are handled. One story, told by another student, illustrates this point. This student felt bullied by a classmate. In that student's old school, said the student, the approach to dealing with the situation would have been for the teacher to make a public display of disciplining the student. Here at Coleman Tech, the student related, nothing happened that instant (note that the situation was not endangering in any way) but over the next few days the perpetrator began to act increasingly respectful. So, the student inferred, something had occurred outside of class. The long term effect was that the student relating the story felt more comfortable and a "scene" had been avoided.

Beyond agreeing with the student's assessment that someone had spoken to the misbehaving student outside of class, I also inferred that one of the reasons that this approach was successful over the long term was because the perpetrator had not been publicly humiliated, which can lead to increased behavioral problems and possible retaliation in other settings. The student who felt threatened was not forced to deal with whatever his peers thought of him - which in high school is a very big deal.

Coleman Tech Charter School has attracted students from all over the region. Some students come from "North County" which is outside of San Diego city proper, whereas other students come from inner city areas in the heart of San Diego. The students are a good representative of San Diego: multi-racial, economically diverse, and, close to 50-50 gender split (the girls slightly outnumber the boys in this tech high school!). I watched an incident unfold that demonstrated another way that Coleman Tech is unique and personal. Everyone, students and teachers, eat lunch together in one large room. At one point an altercation almost broke out and Neil McCurdy, as Vice Principal, stepped in. It turned out that one student came from a background where the response to a perceived provocation was to become overtly aggressive. The other student, from a different background, felt that increased provocation was appropriate. When Neil stepped in, it became an opportunity not only to enforce discipline, but to discuss why each student's approach was not going to get the student what they wanted. Nearby students also heard the discussion. Neil told me later that part of what they try to do at Coleman Tech is consciously teach students about cultural differences among each other and to learn how to successfully interact with people from different backgrounds.

Ok...where is the computing? Everywhere. Every student, as promised, has their own laptop and every class uses the interactive white boards. One teacher in a non math/science discipline at first told me that he didn't really use technology in his class, but moments later was describing how the final project for his class was to create a digital movie! In addition, every 9th grader (approximately age 14) must take Computing 1, which is a programming based class using, guess what, Alice (the same system used in the APCS Principles class that I have been following all fall). There is also Computing 2, 3, 4 and 5. Currently two sections of Computing 2 are running and students are focusing on 3D graphics and animation although when I sat in, one section was discussing how the internet works at the level of IP addresses, packets and routing. Students were fascinated to see live, via a "ping" that a message sent from their school to UCSD a few miles up the road, was routed through Los Angeles. It made for fascinating conversation.

The other section of Computing 2 was engaged in analysis and debate of the WikiLeaks controversy - one group was "the western nations" and the other was WikiLeaks; they each had to decide what technical measures they would take to both attack the opposition and defend themselves. Although the ideas started off with some (to be expected) adolescent suggestions such as bribing North Korea to nuke the United States and its allies, the conversation began to become more serious as the students realized the serious flaws in this kind of argument. Unfortunately class ended just as things started to get really interesting and I wasn't able to hear how it all turned out - or rather will turn out, as this will be a multi-day exercise. I noticed that even amid the joyful chaos of a group of 9th and 10th graders throwing out ideas at random, students were constantly experiencing the "lightbulb effect". I saw several students, girls and boys, saying things like "oh! could that actually happen to my program?" "does the internet really work that way?" "you mean that they can do THAT to my computer???". Minds were engaged.

Contextualized Computing Taken to the Next Level

Something that is clear to me about The Nature of Computing perhaps needs to be tossed out there for wider consideration. Maybe you (being direct here for a minute) haven't thought about it the way I'm about to propose. After all, modern learning theories are all about how people perceive the world differently from one another! I'm talking about that Big Question: "what IS computing?"

If you are like me, sometimes you hear this topic come up and want to sneak out of the room quietly. Stay with me for a minute ok?

As I was writing my last post about the arguments for and against contextualized courses, I was thinking wouldn't it be great if all computing classes from CS1 up through the most advanced theoretical coursework were contextualized? Grounded in exciting real world use?

Then I started thinking about that question concerning "what computing IS". (don't touch that browser button just yet!)

I started mentally playing with the words "contextualize" "interdisciplinary" "integrated", all words I have used in recent posts - words used by different people in different...contexts (sorry, couldn't help that).

What do "contextualize" "interdisciplinary" "integrated" all have in common?

They have to do with making connections. Making connections between content and ... something. Something concrete, something "real", something (by my extension) interesting. Something beyond the abstract interestingness that many computer scientists and computing educators see in the raw content for its own sake.

Making connections throughout the curriculum. I like the sound of that as a catch phrase. That would be a productive way to think about making computing interesting to many more students (parents, legislators?). We know that computing underlies (or overlays!) so much in the world around us. Well, by making connections to it, we can  walk the talk in and outside of class.  Students, the public in general, don't have to take our word for it. From Day 1 it is just there. And it does NOT mean watering down our content or lowering our standards. That is a straw man argument. Really.

Consider: the redesign of a computing curriculum such that every class incorporates making connections to an outside world context.

Consider: that making connections is viewed as integral as any other aspect of the course.

What if a course that does not make significant real world  connections is considered a poorly designed course both from computing and pedagogical perspectives?

Take the above three suggestions as non negotiable givens. Suddenly everything looks different doesn't it? Radical idea?