Author Archives: Liza Loop

Girls, Coding and History

Whirlwind Computer, 1951 with 3 men and 1 woman

Whirlwind Computer, 1951

The article,

Innovators Assemble: Ada Lovelace, Walter Isaacson, and the Superheroines of Computing

featured in the latest online issue of the Communications of the ACM got me to thinking…

What’s keeping girls out of computing today?

I invite you to consider two differences between the social circumstances under which the historical female programmers/operators in the article got into computing and the path we are encouraging girls to follow today. Although Lovelace is an exception, most of the war-years computer women had already left school before they started to work with machines. They may have demonstrated math or mechanical ability earlier but they received their computer training on the job. There were no computer classes in high schools, colleges or universities. (Lovelace was tutored privately so she, too, did not learn math in a crowded classroom).

Fast forward to today and our campaigns to get girls into coding. To qualify for a job in this field, girls will have had to brave co-ed classrooms with cliques of boys who pick on geeky girls and cliques of non-geeky girls who are likely to be even more punishing. The pressure against geekiness was even present, although probably less harsh, during my own personal experience in an all girls private high-school.

10 kids, about 2nd grade, in modern computer classroom.

Boys still on one side, girls on the other

At the 1979 computer literacy project, ComputerTownUSA!, initiated by Bob Albrecht and Ramon Zamora, we found that we had to plan “girls only” events to keep the boys from crowding the girls away from the keyboard. This says nothing about aptitude for the task but does suggest that some “affirmative action” is necessary to create an environment in which most girls will be willing to learn computing.

A second difference in social context is the war effort during the 1940s. Then, women moved into many male-dominated occupations and were considered patriots because the boys were at the front.

It was an era of full-employment when all hands (and minds) were needed regardless of gender. Today’s climate of unemployment and downward wage pressure amplifies competition which sometime emerges as sexist rationale. Those who dominate a field, in this case, white males, are likely to use any excuse to make the classroom and workplace inhospitable to competitors. Highlighting historic women technologists and contemporary female role models can go a long way toward encouraging today’s girls to aspire to STEM careers. In addition, we need to create work environments where boys and men, who are still brought up with an ethic that they should be bringing home the bacon, are not moved or permitted to harass girls and women in order to protect their own status.

Poster of 1940's woman in red bandana using an electric drill

Patriots.

 

Of course, this essay doesn’t solve the problem. But we do an injustice to young women if we use historical figures to encourage them to enter the fray and don’t point out that they face some significantly different challenges from their forebears.

I’d like to hear your ideas about how we can get more girls and women involved in the creative side of computing and even whether you think this is a good idea. The form below will help continue the conversation.

 

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Educational Computing, Women & Girls

Rules/Goals for education – Response to Joel

Joel Josephson is a member of the Learning without Frontiers Group on LinkedIn. He describes himself as follows:

“an uneducated educator, he never went to university but today is involved in initiating European Union education projects that are targeted at creating learning systems and methodologies for the future education of children.”

In April 2013 he spoke at a TedX on education. (“Joel’s talk” )

In late July he posted on the LinkedIn group: “8 rules for education

Joel lists:

1. Autonomy
2. Personal relevance
3. Collaboration
4. Self-criticism
5. Autodidacts
6. Creative and emotional
7. No stress
8. Parents

I replied: Nice set of goals, Joel. I look forward to visiting you other postings to see whether you address how to implement these. I have a number of suggestions in case you are looking for more ideas. Please let me know.

Also, perhaps one more goal would be helpful to add to your list for young learners: being aware of one’s own learning modality strengths and weaknesses. By this I mean that even 4, 5 and 6 year olds can become conscious of whether they acquire information faster and retain it longer by looking at still pictures, videos (with or without audio), audio only or spoken live. The same type of differentiation can be explored within the medium of text as soon as they learn to read. When learning a motor skill children can understand whether they prefer to watch a demonstration first or jump right in to the activity. They also can pace themselves in terms of how far to break a task down into small steps. With mastery of these parameters of their own learning in hand youngsters can more effectively decrease their stress and become the autodidacts you admire.

–     –     –    –     –     –

I find social media to be a good screening device for locating people who have interests similar to mine. But I’m always disappointed by the difficulty of having a serious discussion using these communication tools. Joel’s comments are tantalizing but lack the detail I look for to understand how his ideas might be implemented in real world schools. Of course, he has given us links to his TED talk and his blog. Still, I want dialog, no, I want multilog.  I want to put my ideas together with those of other people so we can generate a document or product that someone can use after we’ve hashed out the details.

Wikis were designed to do just this kind of collaborative work. Sadly, even though the platform is quite flexible, my experience is that very few people are willing to engage on a wiki and the ones I start end up more like blogs — I write a lot and occasionally someone adds a brief comment.

Perhaps I’m seeing the result of not enough of Joel’s #3 and a little too much of his #4. Is there a better collaborative platform out there that I’ve missed?

 

 

For more on Joel, see: https://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=3141501&type=member&item=5903577365379837952&qid=47f489e3-292f-46e8-b356-415c38d03f0b&trk=groups_most_recent-0-b-ttl&goback=.gde_3141501_member_22653084.gmr_3141501

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

I love open source people!

I just had two awesome conversations with folks who work with CiviCRM, an open-source, constituency relations management platform.  Each of these young gentlemen was knowledgeable, cordial, helpful and imaginative.  Of course they would be — they donate a portion of their work time and know-how to support free software used by nonprofit organizations world-wide.

The challenge of the “open” movement is how to generously participate in the “sharing economy” without starving in a world dominated by “the dismal science” (economics – meaning a money economy).  The fundamental assumption of economic theory is “scarcity” — that to have economic value there must be a shortage or limited supply of something.  Economic theories do not apply in a context of abundance and we modern folks have forgotten that  economic value is not the only kind.  We live in an abundant place and time in human history — we have mental and physical energy to spare.  Most of us are so blind to this that we tend to hoard our goods and services. Even if abundance threatens we create artificial shortages.  If I give away the surplus zucchini my garden produces the local grocer will complain that I’m destroying the market that creates his livelihood.  He’s right.  Moving away from scarcity economics will require major adjustments in the way we think about wealth and interact as a society.

Curiously, it’s the folks at the top and the bottom of the money economy spectrum who are most likely to discover the non-economic, sharing economy.  Those at the bottom don’t have any money so they can’t participate fully in the market system and must find other ways of surviving.  Those at the top often discover that they can’t take their accumulated wealth with them and their kids are already sated so they’d better start sharing.

Luckily there are a growing number of people in the middle who are waking up to the idea that openly giving away goods and services, sharing, bartering and exchanging freely, enriches their lives in ways that money can’t. I just met two of them. Eventually I’ll pay them for some of their services.  But the bedrock of our relationships will be the knowledge that giving freely of their surplus energy is likely to generate more rewards than holding out for a higher bidder.  I’ll be richer for my collaboration with them and you can bet I’ll make sure they are too.

 

 

 

Comments Off on I love open source people!

Filed under Uncategorized