Daily, Keith. I tend to be fairly extreme when I am first learning
things. By understanding edge cases, I first start to build the shape of the
new idea, and then, over time fill in the middle with relevant details. Perhaps
that is why I am so frustrated by the readings. I cannot answer the prompt,
because I do not understand what is meant by “computational thinking.”
Dr. Wing spent three pages of her work coining the phrase “Computational
Thinking” by stringing together metaphors on what it is and isn’t. (Wing, 2006)
It’s not programming. It’s not artifacts. It’s about people, not computers. It’s
about “abstractions,” but I can’t seem to understand what she means by that
term either (Wing, 2008). Dr. Vee wrote
her paper about computational literacy, and tried to systematize what
conditions would make something a literacy (Vee, 2013). It’s incredibly frustrating,
and somewhat ironic considering the precision with which computers “read”, that
we are discussing literacy and computers with such fluid and imprecise
language. After reflection, I think I can agree with the authors that computers
are all around us, and that being able to read/write/speak computer is shortly going
to be a discriminator of who will be successful and who will be excluded. I
also agree with them than using computers can be beneficial in places other
than the domain of the computer scientist. However, that’s as far as I’m
willing to concede.
I enjoyed reading Dr. Vee’s article most because she seemed
the most concerned with defining her terms. Also, with only a selection of
reading under my belt, I agree that “literacy” is beginning to be a
watered-down term. I wish the authors were more explicit with what they were advocating. I think they were trying to describe the role of computers, or maybe where computer science education should go from here? I just didn't understand it enough to draw my own conclusions.
What is the goal of education? Are we trying to grant “transformative
access” to/with computers, creating skills in future generations to prevent
them from being marginalized? (Vee. 2013) Or are we trying to create a new way
of thinking, wherein the future generations are better able to break down
complex ideas into computable pieces, and then model and manipulate them
through the Wing definition of a computer: a machine, a man, a man-machine combination,
or a network of machines?
The idealist and dreamer in me says “Both!” but I believe
these ideas are two sides of the same coin, and so are mutually exclusive.
Either we teach children how to think like a computer, or we teach them how to
get computers to think like people.
Please, tell me where I’ve missed something. I
welcome your input. 
No comments:
Post a Comment