flickr photo shared by mrkrndvs under a Creative Commons ( BY-NC-SA ) license

A few years ago, when every second student was reading one of the books from the Hunger Games series, I was asked by a student whether I had read them. I explained that I hadn’t. Shocked, the student questioned how I, an English teacher, couldn’t have read them. I asked the student whether he had read Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. Confused, he said no. I asked him, why, even though it was considered a classic text of the Western Canon, he had not read it? Surprise to say, the irony was lost on him and the conversation did not go much further. With a feeling of shame, I subsequently went off and read the whole series.

In many ways, I think that the debate over coding in the curriculum follows the same lines. Many call for its inclusion with little explanation why. Another thing to add to an essentialist curriculum. Often the debate is about what is being done and whether staff are adequately prepared, rather than clarifying why coding is even being taught and how we should actually go about it. The first conversation that we need to have though before all this is surely what constitutes coding.

For some coding signifies a bunch of characters used to make the web, others it is about making things happen, for some it is all about the app culture associated with going mobile, while for others it is deeply connected with the formulas, flows and algorithms associated with computational thinking. The reality is that coding means different things for different people in different contexts.

In a recent episode of the #2regularteachers podcast, John Pearce suggests taking our understanding of coding beyond the tool or application, instead considering it as a ‘way of thinking’. For example, rather than seeing a Raspberry Pi as a mini computer which allows you to play Minecraft, we need to consider the affordances that it allows, such as programming a camera to capture an experiment at regular intervals or detecting wifi signal to map free internet points around Australia.

For years when I taught robotics with Lego Mindstorm, I would spend weeks getting students to learn the intricacies of NXT before exploring the possibilities of making. This year I decided to skip the weeks of instruction and instead focus on just making. It was not long before students realised their limitations and dug into the possibilities associated with programming in order to improve their designs. With a purpose, they worked their own way through the various tutorials provided.

The challenge to me is to go beyond the question of instruction and understanding of different languages. Beyond debates about fitting it within an already crowded curriculum. Instead the focus should be on creating the conditions in which students are able to take action and create new possibilities. Maybe this involves Minecraft, Ozobot or Spheros, maybe it doesn’t. Most importantly it involves going beyond worrying about training or competency, as Ian Chunn would have it, and instead embracing the world of making by leading the learning.

So what about you, what does coding mean to you? What have been your experiences? Positive and negative. What do you see as the biggest challenge moving forward? As always comments are welcome.


If you enjoy what you read here, feel free to sign up for my monthly newsletter to catch up on all things learning, edtech and storytelling.

Did Someone Say Coding? by Aaron Davis is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

14 thoughts on “Did Someone Say Coding?

  1. An interesting read. I have used bee bots in my early years (and actually upper primary for different purposes) and although programmable, the learning intentions weren’t about coding or programming or the bee bots at all. They were just the medium utilised for the collaboration, critical thinking, maths, problem solving, science, fine motor skills and more that were engaged.

    If I didn’t have beebots I would have used something else. So does this demonstrate the importance of coding? Some argued that the reasons above are the reasons to code, but those aren’t exclusive to coding so I struggle why there is such a strong emphasis on coding and not on the things we are seeking to develop in our learners, with coding as one possible medium or process. Maybe it is just how it is being articulated?

    • Great point Steve. It raises the question does our ‘intention’ always have to be coding? When my students program their Lego robots, the intention is not explicitly to code. My interest like you is to problem solve and reflect on their steps.
      I remember working with the ATC21s team from University of Melbourne a few years back in the exploration of collaborative problem solving. One of the things that I noticed at the time was that it was more than often a by-product or not the focus of what was being done. I think that ‘coding’ is similar to this. It may not be our focus, but it is a means to an end.
      For example, my students developed their own blogs this year. As a part of the process, they started developing into different things that they could embed within their blog. To do so they had to learn where to find the code and how to add it. Was coding their focus, no. However, they needed to engage with it in order to achieve their intended outcome.

  2. Great insight Aaron. When we were rejigging our Multimedia curriculum using Richard’s canvas, a colleague and I had a really robust discussion around including coding in the curriculum. His plan was to build the curriculum around coding and programming and I asked what’s the point? Why do they need to learn to code? It all comes down to purpose and necessity. I’m stuck at this point (just like your kids with NXT) and I need this to bridge the gap. The medium is merely the path chosen. The important part is the motivation that drives the learning.

  3. John Philpin unpacks the question, should everyone learn to code? His response is nuanced. He suggests that learn to code if you have a love and interest, but do not feel that it is an occupation that is guaranteed to make a lot of money. Instead, choose something that you are passionate about, understanding that appreciating how technology works is an important part of any business.

    You wouldn’t think about running a business if you didn’t have the fundamental understanding of law and accounting, why would you assume that it is ok not to understand technology.

    For me this comes back to Douglas Rushkoff’s message: program or be programmed.

    Rushkoff’s discussion is broken down into ten modern day commandments:

    Time and the push to be ever present.

    Place and the disconnection with the local.

    Choice and the pressure to forever choose.

    Complexity and the ignorance of nuance.

    Scale and the demand of the global spread.

    Identity and the digital self.

    Social and contact as king.

    Facts and the demand to tell the truth.

    Openness and the importance of sharing.

    Purpose and the power of programming.

    This reminds me of something I wrote a few years ago:

    The challenge to me is to go beyond the question of instruction and understanding of different languages. Beyond debates about fitting it within an already crowded curriculum. Instead the focus should be on creating the conditions in which students are able to take action and create new possibilities. Maybe this involves Minecraft, Ozobot or Spheros, maybe it doesn’t. Most importantly it involves going beyond worrying about training or competency, as Ian Chunn would have it, and instead embracing the world of making by leading the learning.


  • Aaron Davis
  • Aaron Davis
  • Aaron Davis
  • Aaron Davis
  • Aaron Davis
  • Aaron Davis
  • Aaron Davis
  • Aaron Davis
  • Aaron Davis

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.