Despite this disparity, I think I still gained a lot of value out of having a technology-minded parent because I was able to observe and model his behaviors towards technology. When I did express initiated interest in engineering and computer science later, his role shifted to that of a resource provider (driving) and encouragement to continue pursuing my interest. The study did leave me wondering how much sooner I could have pursued computer science and what societal factors lead parents to be more inclined to introduce boys to technology.

The article Digital Fabrication and ‘Making’ in Education: The Democratization of Invention also made me curious to know more about how people develop “maker” identities, and how strongly this impacts first-time users of a makerspace.

My main takeaway from my visit to Barron Park was that the teacher is the key component of a successful maker space. Ms. Kolhatkar has identified the needs of her students and develops projects that will interest them, not always necessarily using the flashiest and newest technology. The Margolis, Goode, and Chapman article mentions that the “secret sauce” of success is “passionate, creative teachers who are interested in the problem solving of computer science, with a variety of secondary subject credentials.” The issue of access to these teachers is vital to the success of the Maker Space movement.

Most of the children interviewed in the Barron, Martin, Takeuchi, and Fithian don’t even need to make it to school to learn about computer science–they have parents that are well-connected in the technology industry. For instance, we have stories of Alex’s father expressing his colleagues’ interest in reviewing his son’s code or the parent who paid his daughter $25 to debug his software. Only in the wealthy enclaves of Silicon Valley could these kind of experiences be viewed as a possibility.

What about all the other kids? How can the fantastic learning opportunities of students with fantastic maker space instructors and tech savvy parents be made available across the economic spectrum? I saw that Marc also posted this excellent video: https://vimeo.com/110616469. Leah Buechley’s talk really gets at the heart of the issue–it is up to the Maker Movement’s leaders (who are mainly teachers themselves) to expand access. Perhaps its an unfair burden to ask of overtaxed educators, but without a true step towards equality in representation, the Maker Movement will fail precisely because of its success with wealthy engineers. This group has effectively blocked others from joining.

]]> https://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/week-9-response-3/feed/ 0 https://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/i-didnt-know-what-engineering-was/ https://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/i-didnt-know-what-engineering-was/#respond Thu, 03 Mar 2016 05:46:10 +0000 http://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/?p=1587 When I was in high school I had a vague idea of what an engineer did. They built things. Usually with their hands I thought. Bridges and buildings and stuff. I didn’t think I wanted to be an engineer. I wanted to be a math major. My best friend wanted to be a chemistry major. Looking back now I wonder how two people with a passion for Math and Science did not explore the possibility of pursuing the E or T in STEM. Now at a place like Stanford I can’t imagine not understanding how much the world requires engineers and computer scientists. And yet, I didn’t think that way not too long ago. It is amazing to me the lack of exposure I had to engineering and that it took me an entire year to enroll in a Computer Science class at Stanford (only to realize how much I loved it). I think that my Stanford experience would have been very different if I had exposure to computer science and engineering in high school. I think the state of our world requires early access to computer science. I think students, regardless of socio-economic background, should walk into college with at least a minor understanding of what programming is. I know I wish I did.

Devlin proposes that we utilize video games to do so, which I believe is a great step. However, I wonder…in what way can we utilize technology (in the broader sense) to create a new way of representing math? Symbols seem to be a way that we’ve optimized the representation of math for paper. What new medium in the future will be utilized?

Response:

The Williams et. al. reading really got me thinking about the video games I played when I was little. It notes how characters in video games are predominantly male and white. I personally never saw representation as a problem until I got to Stanford. A lot of the problems, I’ve learned, affect children. The reading specifically discusses how underrepresented children can be disenchanted and “may have less interest in technology and its opportunities for class advancement.” This caused me to explore why I, although being a minority, was not affected by this since I am still exploring a career in technology. One of my theories was that I played a lot of video games where the main characters were aliens and creatures that weren’t real. Another theory was that my family had a large influence in my affinity for technology. Overall, this reading made me appreciate the potential of video games more. They’re a fun activity, that if utilized correctly, can be really beneficial for underrepresented children.

“What will happen if children grow up interacting with robots as peers and even friends because of the robots’ sociality, but also objectifying if not dominating the robots because the children understand that the robots are a human technological creation? Imagine, for example, if an 8-year-old’sbest friend is a social robot. The child plays with the robot everyday and goes to it for comfort and companionship. The robot always does what the child wants and the child never needs to accommodate to the social interests and needs of the robot. Does that situation put into motion a master–servant relationshipthat we would not want to reify”

I was taken back to the film “Her” and the reality that it is very possible that we will get to a point where the line between robot and human is so blurred that the effects of a child treating a robot as less than human could effect the way said child interacts with humans. A truly fascinating idea and a terrifying one because it is very likely that such a possibility will not stop technological developers from developing the technology that could lead to such a phenomenon. So I guess I am pointing out a question that we keep confronting- technology is changing and sometimes not for the better, how do we keep up and prevent the detrimental effects from harming children in the process?