Skip to main content

Is 'Minecraft' a Better Way to Teach Programming in the Age of AI?

1 month 1 week ago
The education-news site EdSurge published "sponsored content" from Minecraft Education this month. "Students light up when they create something meaningful," the article begins. "Self-expression fuels learning, and creativity lies at the heart of the human experience." But they also argue that "As AI rapidly reshapes software development, computer science education must move beyond syntax drills and algorithmic repetition." Students "must also learn to think systemically..." As AI automates many of the mechanical aspects of programming, the value of CS education is shifting, from writing perfect code to shaping systems, telling stories through logic and designing ethical, human-centered solutions... [I]t's critical to offer computer science experiences that foster invention, expression and design. This isn't just an education issue — it's a workforce one. Creativity now ranks among the top skills employers seek, alongside analytical thinking and AI literacy. As automation reshapes the job market, McKinsey estimates up to 375 million workers may need to change occupations by 2030. The takeaway? We need more adaptable, creative thinkers. Creative coding, where programming becomes a medium for self-expression and innovation, offers a promising solution to this disconnect. By positioning code as a creative tool, educators can tap into students' intrinsic motivation while simultaneously building computational thinking skills. This approach helps students see themselves as creators, not just consumers, of technology. It aligns with digital literacy frameworks that emphasize critical evaluation, meaningful contribution and not just technical skills. One example of creative coding comes from a curriculum that introduces computer science through game design and storytelling in Minecraft... Developed by Urban Arts in collaboration with Minecraft Education, the program offers middle school teachers professional development, ongoing coaching and a 72-session curriculum built around game-based instruction. Designed for grades 6-8, the project-based program is beginner-friendly; no prior programming experience is required for teachers or students. It blends storytelling, collaborative design and foundational programming skills with a focus on creativity and equity.... Students use Minecraft to build interactive narratives and simulations, developing computational thinking and creative design... Early results are promising: 93 percent of surveyed teachers found the Creative Coders program engaging and effective, noting gains in problem-solving, storytelling and coding, as well as growth in critical thinking, creativity and resilience. As AI tools like GitHub Copilot become standard in development workflows, the definition of programming proficiency is evolving. Skills like prompt engineering, systems thinking and ethical oversight are rising in importance, precisely what creative coding develops... As AI continues to automate routine tasks, students must be able to guide systems, understand logic and collaborate with intelligent tools. Creative coding introduces these capabilities in ways that are accessible, culturally relevant and engaging for today's learners. Some background from long-time Slashdot reader theodp: The Urban Arts and Microsoft Creative Coders program touted by EdSurge in its advertorial was funded by a $4 million Education Innovation and Research grant that was awarded to Urban Arts in 2023 by the U.S. Education Department "to create an engaging, game-based, middle school CS course using Minecraft tools" for 3,450 middle schoolers (6th-8th grades)" in New York and California (Urban Arts credited Minecraft for helping craft the winning proposal)... New York City is a Minecraft Education believer — the Mayor's Office of Media and Entertainment recently kicked off summer with the inaugural NYC Video Game Festival, which included the annual citywide Minecraft Education Battle of the Boroughs Esports Competition in partnership with NYC Public Schools.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

EditorDavid

People with Severe Type 1 Diabetes are Cured in Small Trial of New Drug

1 month 1 week ago
"A single infusion of a stem cell-based treatment may have cured 10 out of 12 people with the most severe form of Type 1 diabetes," reports the New York Times. "One year later, these 10 patients no longer need insulin. The other two patients need much lower doses." The experimental treatment, called zimislecel and made by Vertex Pharmaceuticals of Boston, involves stem cells that scientists prodded to turn into pancreatic islet cells, which regulate blood glucose levels. The new islet cells were infused and reached the pancreas, where they took up residence. The study was presented Friday evening at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association and published online by The New England Journal of Medicine... Patients in the study began to need less insulin within a few months of being infused with new islet cells, and most stopped needing the hormone altogether at about six months [said Dr. Trevor Reichman, director of the pancreas and islet transplant program at University Health Network, a hospital in Toronto, and first author of the study]. He added that patients' episodes of hypoglycemia went away within the first 90 days of treatment. If the study continues to show positive results, the company expects to submit an application to the FDA next year. "For the short term, this looks promising" for severely affected patients like those in the study," said Dr. Irl B. Hirsch, a diabetes expert at the University of Washington who was not involved in the study. But patients in the trial had to stay on drugs to prevent the immune system from destroying the new cells. Suppressing the immune system, he said, increases the risk of infections and, over the long term, can increase the risk of cancer... Patients may have to take the immunosuppressant drugs for the rest of their lives, the Vertex spokesperson said.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

EditorDavid

Why Your Car's Touchscreen Is More Dangerous Than Your Phone

1 month 1 week ago
"Modern vehicles have quietly become rolling monuments to terrible user experience, trading intuitive physical controls for flashy but dangerous touchscreen interfaces," argues the site Cars & Horsepower, decrying "an industry-wide plague of poorly designed digital dashboards that demand more attention from drivers than the road itself." The consequences are measurable and severe: studies now show touchscreen vehicles require up to four times longer to perform basic functions than their button-equipped counterparts, creating a distracted driving crisis that automakers refuse to acknowledge. A Swedish car magazine, Vi Bilägare, conducted a study [in 2022] comparing how long it takes drivers to perform basic tasks like adjusting climate controls or changing the radio station using touchscreens versus traditional physical buttons. The results showed that in the worst-performing modern car, it took drivers up to four times longer to complete these tasks compared to an older vehicle with physical controls... Even after allowing drivers time to familiarize themselves with each system, touchscreen-equipped cars consistently required more time and attention, which could translate into increased distraction and reduced safety on the road.... A seminal 2019 study from the University of Utah found drivers using touchscreens exhibited: - 30% longer reaction times to road hazards - Significantly higher cognitive workload (as measured by pupil dilation) - More frequent and longer glances away from the road The reason lies in proprioception — our body's ability to sense its position in space. Physical controls allow for muscle memory development; drivers can locate and manipulate buttons without looking. Touchscreens destroy this capability, forcing visual confirmation for every interaction. Even haptic feedback (those little vibrations mimicking physical buttons) fails to solve the problem, as demonstrated by a 2022 AAA study showing haptic systems offered no safety improvement over standard touchscreens... A study from Drexel University introduced a system called [Distract-R](), which uses cognitive modeling to simulate how drivers interact with in-vehicle interfaces. It found that multi-step touchscreen tasks increase cognitive load, diverting attention from the road more than physical buttons.... Furthermore, a systematic review on driver distraction in the context of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) and Automated Driving Systems (ADS) highlights that even with automation, drivers remain vulnerable to distraction, especially when interacting with complex interfaces... There's also software reliability issues (even before the issue of "feature paywalls"). But some manufacturers are going back, according to the article. "After receiving widespread criticism, Porsche added physical climate controls back to the Taycan's center console. Nissan's latest concepts feature prominent physical buttons for common functions..." And Mazda eliminated touch capability entirely while moving, "forcing use of a physical control knob... The system reduces glance time by 15% compared to touch interfaces while maintaining all modern infotainment functionality." The article recommends consumers prioritize physical controls when vehicle shopping, seeking out models with buttons. But there's also "aftermarket solutions," with companies like Analog Automotive "developing physical control panels that interface with popular infotainment systems, bringing back tactile operation." Another option: voice commands (like on GM's latest systems). "Ultimately, the solution requires consumer pushback against dangerous interface trends.... The road deserves our full attention, not divided focus between driving and debugging a poorly designed tablet on wheels." Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the article.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

EditorDavid