This article seemed to presuppose knowledge of the 7 intelligences (not to be comfused with "The Seven Samurai", "The Magnificant Seven", or the seven deadly sins). Since I was not, I was a bit confused at times, although it was interesting.

One thing which I wondered about when I read this was for what age group a lot of these activities were targeted towards. I would find it odd (and not very productive) to take a class of high school or college students, and tell them the story of Pooky, the Polymorphic Rabbit, or come up with a relativity rap. Perhaps that is because I am certainly not used to teaching techniques like this, but it seems a lot of these techniques would be much more common in elementary schools than upper level education.

Now that brings up the question of whether it really is more appropiate at the lower levels, or if that's just the only place where they are used. Thinking back to middle school and high school, it seems that most of my classmates would just snicker and consider any of these alternative teaching techniques to be a joke, but then again, we were all accostomed to the typical reading/lecture/discussion methodology.

Another question that I had was how to balance these teaching techniques. They seem to stress that a diversity of techniques is good, to reach as many students as possible. But is changing from one technique to another in a class a good way of learning? Could that confuse students, and could understanding a lesson one day but not the next be detrimental?

I would be curious to find out if any school systems have attempted to implement a wide variety of teaching techniques like these, and how much success they had with the students. Perhaps varying the learning styles would keep more students interested and eager to learn, or it may just turn them off to learning. I have no real way of knowing.

I think Jon raises a good point when he questions whether or not these teaching styles could be useful in higher arenas than elementary school. Certainly we are familiar with these other forms of education we experienced in elementary school. But now things have become "intellectual." And with this new intellectualism we must be serious and straight.

Or must we? Is this just the pattern that "higher" education has fallen into? Must things always be reading/lecture/discussion as Jon mentions? I would like to think that this is most definately not true. But would changing styles be confusing for students? Maybe it is not the teacher who must change teaching styles but the teacher who should provide outlets for different styles of learning. Instead of making students write a paper about a topic why not let them produce their response in a variety of materials? This approach would allow students to gravitate towards styles that appealed to themselves.

But surely the astute of you will say that this makes grading and evaluation that much harder on the teacher. But is education about learning or evaluation? This question could most likely spawn a debate that would never be settled, but for the sake of my philosophy let us assume that the purpose of education is learning. If providing many outlets for students to express themselves allows them to properly show what it is that they have learned, and more importantly (IMO) how it has applied to them, then I think this is a big win. For I believe a teacher would rather see this inherent honesty and truth in a student than grade an arbitrary paper in which the student may or may not be able to express themselves fully.

So what does this mean for those of us who might want to teach in the field of computer science? I am not sure. For naturally such computer science problems lend themselves to problem sets and programs. Thankfully, for some students, programs can be designed and expressed with pictures. But what can we do for students who can more aptly express themselves in other ways?

Certainly it is possible for us to say that people who like Computer Science and would like to pursue it as a field of interest should learn to express themselves in the manner that Computer Science is best expressed. But how is Computer Science best expressed? How is anything best expressed? When we look at programs must we always look at design? When we look at paintings must we always look at the brushwork?

It is obvious that many things go into any creation of a human being. Surely there are some mechanics which are mostly learned, but more than that, there are human instincts which are not. Also the human intellect and human body of emotions play into human creations as well. And more times than not the emotions of the creator are what is important. Not necessarily the technical element of the creation. If we can connect with the creator thorugh their medium than that is the real payoff of a creation. Certainly no creator creates for the technical merit. People create to share.

But what is there to share in Computer Science? I am not entirely sure. On the surface of things it seems bleak to me. But there may be something deeper. Computers in and of themselves may be mediums like canvas or paper. Perhaps instead of using computers to solve arbitrary computer problems (and as I write this I know this statement will come under attack so attack away with your clumsy broadswords) we should see how they allow the human soul to come forth. How they themselves help us understand each other and ourselves better. Maybe that is a good teaching style.

Since there is a lot to reply to here, I will limit it to the last paragraph. I believe that computer science did not orginally come into existence as a form of personal human expression. Computers were originally created in order to solve math problems, and computer science was created to study how to do that. However, the capabilities and roles of computers have changed dramatically since their conception, to the point where they are practically a different thing altogether. The social implications involved with computers is amazing. With new technology comes, as with other things, new ways to express oneself.

So computers can do amazing things, and people use computers for much more than factoring large numbers. It ranges from number crunching to creating art, and communicating your thoughts to others. (As a sidenote, talk to Dan Gould if you want to hear some interesting ideas on how computers can help people communicate and think.)

But what is the role of the computer scientist? A scientist is one who studies a field, and knows a great deal about it. Thus, a computer science program should exist to teach what a computer can (and can't) do; its limits and its capabilities. Thus, I think a computer science program really should stress ability and mastery of the knowledge. It really should take a look at the brushwork.

"But wait!" you say. "Is there no room for creativity and expression with computers? I cannot accept that!" There is plenty of room for creativity and personal expression. However, I'm not sure that computer science is the place for that. Perhaps fields of computer art (written, graphic, or other) will begin to evolve. And perhaps I'm taking too sterile a look at this. It's a personal thing.

But regardless, in any medium, it is impossible to express oneself without having an ability with the medium. You cannot express your thoughts with words if you are unfamiliar with a language; you cannot express yourself with music without being able to play an instrument. Thus, if a person is attempting to express themself with computer science, it is necessary to teach the person the basics of the tools before they can soar. This is especially true early on, so I think that some classes need to focus on facts and technique over personal expression.

Although I completely agree that The Polymorphic Rabitt is not amongst our intentions, I don't believe that we should completely discount the article and resort to lecture/homework/program style. The examples given were definitely geered towards a younger age but we could come up with examples of our own. For example, interactive explanations and group work. Creative minds can do wonders, even without Pooky.

This conversation is so....cute.

But still, the article talks about teaching in all the different intelligences, but I think it is intended for a larger audience. I beleive that it is intended for education in general...not Computer Science, nor undergraduate studies.

Still, maube that should lead us to investigate teaching in this style to younger students. We should focus on inviting all the little kids in middle school and elementary school to come and play with computers...then, once we attract them we should focus on retaining them in highschool and college. After all, computers, whether we like it or not, are the future, and thos students that do not learn to use computers at an early age are becoming more and more disadvantaged...