This article really resonnated with me as a woman of color trying to enter the tech-space, and my desire to enter the field of tech and computer science education in the future. Moreover, it caused me to reflect on parallels between Turing's pedagogical method, and what I learned working in Next Generation Learning.
The future of learning - both k-12 and adult learning - is student-centered. It automatically creates a more welcoming learning environments, which is one of the aspects to Harvey Mudd's approach. I also see a theme of building community and a network in order to uniliaterally increase chances of sucess. I was happy to see that the initiative was faculty-led, likely allowing their effort to be more agile, responding to what isn't working.
Framing Computer Science as creative problem solving not only seems valid, but effective, and would have 100% grabbed me as a freshman when instead I was intimidated to take CS classes. I'm excited to see this approach scaled nationally, and hope that it catches on quickly.
Cheating in Computer Science
I found this article to offer a valuable perspective. Coming from the field of "next generation learning" I'm familiar with the idea of competency based learning and think that this is what the author is getting at. Moreover, I was reminded of something educator Tony Wagner wrote as referenced in "A More Beautiful Question" - that knowledge is at our finger-tips, it is no longer valuable or unique simply to know something thanks to google and other search engines, we need to focus instead on innovation, and instead of teaching facts we should be teaching how to innovate, how to solve problems. Does the definition of cheating need to change? Does the 'how' of learning need to change?