“Programming is not just for engineers” (Reas & Fry, 2006).
For me, it is. I am the person who maybe have some computational literacy but without fluency and flexibility. I use software which programmers have already designed for me to use, and I use what I can get from software. When the software cannot do what I want to make, then I will give up my original thoughts if I cannot find solutions to fit my purpose. When reading articles of this week, I felt encouraged even though I still thought that the way to reach flexibility is far away.
By self-reflecting, one reason that I cannot reach fluency and flexibility is the belief that programming is for engineers or computer professionals. Programming for me is like mission impossible because I do not believe myself in building any programs which can benefit anybody. But I think I misunderstand programming or I am too ambitious when thinking creating programs like Microsoft office. Thinking my experience in Scratch and Lilypad, I indeed programmed something! However, this belief really keeps me away programming. Another reason is “programming anxiety” (Gos, 1996). The unfamiliarity and uncertainty in programming language and system increase my rejection to programming. The anxiety and frustration build higher affection filter between me and programming.
After reading articles of this week, I indeed feel encouraged and think that how to transform my view of programming as playing with mud. Program designers try hard to make software or programming easy to adapt and make it available as many people as possible to create and use for personal use. Scratch and Processing seem to have similar characteristics and goals which provide basic formats of programming language for people to create, design and learn from the process. The idea proposed by Resnich (2004) about the integration of the digital and physical worlds is a good beginning, and I will be working on viewing programming from a different point of view as well.