SOL: Your
interest in teaching and developing the next generation
of engineers?
JW: I think
there are two things to your question. One is, how do we
get children at the K through 12 level interested in
science and engineering? How do we get them to study
math and science in high school? Whether they continue
on studying science or engineering or mathematics in
college or not, it's basically ensuring a minimum level
of mathematical sophistication by our society. And I
don't see that in the United States. I don't even see
that much of an effort to encourage children to stick to
math and science. And I think it is a cultural problem
that we all understand, and presumably school boards are
aware of the problem and do their best to address it.
But a lot of it has to do with parents, peers. It takes
a collective effort to really stress the importance of
math and science. And I'm not talking about everyone
having to become scientists, I'm just talking about
everyone having a minimum level of sophistication in
math and science. And when you have people dropping out
of math by eighth grade, you're going to have a pretty
minimal level of sophistication, in contrast to, say,
India and China, where you see incredibly high levels of
sophistication among all grade school and high school
students in math and science.
The difference is quite noticeable. So that's the
first problem. And that is something that an individual
as a teacher can't solve alone. But if enough of us
collectively, like IEEE Spectrum and IEEE in general,
and other professional organizations that support
science and engineering and mathematics, get the word
out and speak up about the importance of studying math
and science at the grade school and high school level,
then maybe we could change the culture. I don't know,
maybe not in our lifetimes. But that's one of the
problems, and maybe our society will never solve that
problem. Certainly not when intelligent design is being
taught now in high schools.
So the second problem is something a bit more specific
to your question, which is my own education in education
and teaching. I think that's probably just a given for
any academic. I've always loved to teach. In fact, I
probably knew I wanted to be a teacher before anything
else. I didn't even know what I was going to teach, I
just knew that I liked to teach. So of course I have an
interest in teaching. As far as education goes, more
broadly, I'm always thinking about two things. One is
keeping curricula fresh and up-to-date and relevant, and
the other is ensuring that people get their
fundamentals, their foundations, because again, if you
have strong foundations then you can almost do or learn
anything. And there's always a balance in any kind of
educational program between fundamentals and
applications, if you will, or practical,
state-of-the-art. You really do need to keep a balance.
"My vision is that computational thinking will be
a fundamental skill used by everyone in the world by the
middle of the 21st century. And if there’s one thing you
want to put in crazy bold letters attached to this
Q&A, it’s that particular vision."
I would just emphasize that right now I have a grand
vision for the world. And that is perhaps partly biased,
because I'm coming from computer science. But my grand
vision for the world is to have everyone be able to
think computationally. Let me back up. My vision is that
computational thinking will be a fundamental skill used
by everyone in the world by the middle of the 21st
century. And if there's one thing you want to put in
crazy bold letters attached to this Q&Amp;A, it's
that particular vision. And the boldness of the vision
is that, imagine every child, in addition to reading,
writing, and arithmetic, knowing and using computational
thinking. And we already have seen evidence of
computational thinking influencing other sciences and
engineering. It's revolutionized statistics, through
machine learning, which is computational thinking. I
think our interest by society today in computational
biology is really an ambition from the computer science
side of things to say that computational thinking can
inform biology. And I think we're going to see this in
nanocomputing and even quantum computing, when you want
to think about computational thinking influencing
physicists.
But the boldness of the vision is not that
computational thinking influences just scientists, but
it's everyone, So that, not perhaps in my generation but
maybe in our children's generation, we will start seeing
the prevalence of teaching at the grade school or high
school level of ways to think like a computer scientist.
And I really do think of this as a way of thinking, and
a way of solving problems, and a way of defining
systems, and a way, in fact, of understanding human
behavior that's very, very different from any of the
other kinds of ways of thinking that we know today or
that children learn today. So that's quite a grand
vision I have, but that's completely consistent with the
complaint I told you before about ensuring and
encouraging children to stick to studying math and
science, and how if we can do that we can elevate the
overall analytical skills and abilities of our
population. We need to do that if we're going to retain
an edge, if you will, in science and technology. That's
why I plant this vision in people's heads today.