STEM Integration and Coding

What sticks out to you in this photo? For my daughter that loves design it is probably the lamp (and its designer) or three little jars. My husband, the techie, could probably identify the make/model of the laptop on quick glance. For me, the book-nerd, my eyes immediately go to the framed quote. I read the words and test myself on my knowing the author. 

I think it is human tendency to categorize, as I have just outlined with the example of this photo and some of my family member's probable reactions to it. This tendency is what make so many believe that school subjects should be kept separate and distinct. However, when I think of my dream of being a writer, I think of how likely this laptop is to meet my writing needs. I also think of how exactly I would describe the glass vase that is downplayed by its beautiful pink contents. As you can see, my job as a writer requires me to cross the imaginary lines of my craft. So, too, should my job as an English teacher. I wholeheartedly believe that if any profession should know other professions it is that of the writers. I also hope that those not inclined to the words in the poster would at least take a peek and try to understand.

I may never be able to program a computer like my husband, but it sure is cool when I understand the gist of what he is doing at work every day. However, as an English teacher, when it comes to doing multidisciplinary teaching, it requires a lot more than being able to teach my students that C# is a language they will never use like they will their English. The buzzword right now in education and technology is "computational thinking." The term was coined in 2006 by Jeannette Wing and has grown in popularity since. Wing's theory is that it's not just that we need to mix learning genres, it's that the computational thinking that is required for coders will be beneficial to all learners/doers.

In the article, "Playing Beowulf: Bridging computational thinking, arts and literature through game-making" by de Paula, Bruno Henrique; Burn, Andrew; Noss, Richard; and Valente, José Armando from the International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction June 2018 16:39-46

[ EBSCO Host link ]  the authors say:

the ultimate goal [of CT] is not to teach everyone to think like a computer scientist, but rather to teach them to apply these common elements to solve problems and discover new questions that can be explored within and across all disciplines

In layman's terms, let's talk about RoboTurtles. My husband, a huge STEM enthusiast, bought this game  to play with our kids. It's supposed to teach the very beginning logic of computer programming. When playing the game, everyone has turtles that they are trying to maneuver through the mine to get the winning gem first. Using basic programmming commands, the players have to move their turtles around boxes, and use the same boxes to hopefully block their components. Playing RoboTurtles is computational thinking at its most basic. My kids were better at the game than I was. I played only offensively while their young brains played both offensively and defensively.

Answering  how RoboTurtles will imporev their English will also answer how computational thinking will make them better at English. I think the real question is how will RoboTurtles NOT make them better with English. They say that children who learn to play an instrument are intellectually advanced over their music-starved counterparts. Well, studies are proving that the same goes for computational thinking. In fact, I would argue that the computational thinking required for  RoboTurtles is the same kind of thinking required to play the piano: both of which I do with mediocrity. Writing code is a lot like writing plot. Writing code is a lot like writing characters. Writing code is a lot like writing sentences. They both take logic, analysis, organization, sorting, changing, and computing. They both are writing!

As a teacher, I am always on the search for the magic difference-makers. What are the exact secrets to my students' success? If I could answer that question, I could make as much money as Bill Gates does. Bill Gates makes one think about the value of  computational thinking, doesn't he? The same kind of thinking used by Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, and all of the great writers of the canon. I think it is as simple at three letters. WHY? HOW? That is what we want our students to learn. They learn that in many ways and across all subject matters, but they learn it faster with computational thinking.

So, yes, I may just bring RoboTurtles to class one day and use it as a basic lesson in computational thinking. I may have my students spend a unit programming a robot to recite Keats. They may use a kindle to look up unknown vocabulary as they read. I may even have them using computers more than their CTE teachers do.  I might even have them using JAVA for basic blogging. In all of these cases, you can't hardly argue that I won't be pumping out students who are way more prepared for the globally digital world that awaits them then an 85-year-old teacher that is reading from paperback and writing with pencils and papers.

Yes, integration is not just possible. It's necessary.