Computational literacy share several ideas with Grover and Pea's definition of computataional thinking. DiSessa's idea of "information factoring" in boxer sounds a lot like abstraction (though he is way of too much abstraction, as he explained with his examples about d = t*s and the many other conceptual relationships with that structure). His emphasis on programming languages aligns with Grover and Pea's "symbol systems and representations" and he explicitly includes "detecting patterns and making discoveries" which parallels Grover and Pea's pattern generalization.
The main difference is that while Grover and Pea seem to focus on skills, most of which are not emphasized in Changing Minds (algorithms, flow control, iterative/recursive thinking, etc.), diSessa emphasizes the social aspect of computational literacy. This seems more in line with the Kafai/Peppler perspective on computational participation that it does with computataional thinking as defined by Grover and Pea. It also seems like diSessa has a more pedagogical approach, as he addresses issues like making learning experiential.
DiSessa's definition of literacy is: Literacy is a socially widespread patterned deployment of skills and capabilities in a context of material support (that is, it is an exercise of material intelligence) to achieve valued intellectual ends. Though I imagine Grover and Pea value computational thinking for the outputs it can produce over the skills in isolation, their list seems more like a check-list of skills, whereas diSessa sees computational literacy as a way to get to intellectual ends. So while Grover and Pea risk getting attached to demonstrating mastery in these 9 categories, if new or different tools or strategies were created, I think diSessa would be on board with adopting a different type of literacy - he wouldn't place intrinsic value on computataional thinking.
It is also interesting that diSessa makes a kind of distributed-cognition argument about humans and tools like computers. I thought that was more of a sociocultural perspective, and that diSessa was more of a cognitive person. Yet, he describes a shared cognition between humans and the tools they are using.
The main difference is that while Grover and Pea seem to focus on skills, most of which are not emphasized in Changing Minds (algorithms, flow control, iterative/recursive thinking, etc.), diSessa emphasizes the social aspect of computational literacy. This seems more in line with the Kafai/Peppler perspective on computational participation that it does with computataional thinking as defined by Grover and Pea. It also seems like diSessa has a more pedagogical approach, as he addresses issues like making learning experiential.
DiSessa's definition of literacy is: Literacy is a socially widespread patterned deployment of skills and capabilities in a context of material support (that is, it is an exercise of material intelligence) to achieve valued intellectual ends. Though I imagine Grover and Pea value computational thinking for the outputs it can produce over the skills in isolation, their list seems more like a check-list of skills, whereas diSessa sees computational literacy as a way to get to intellectual ends. So while Grover and Pea risk getting attached to demonstrating mastery in these 9 categories, if new or different tools or strategies were created, I think diSessa would be on board with adopting a different type of literacy - he wouldn't place intrinsic value on computataional thinking.
It is also interesting that diSessa makes a kind of distributed-cognition argument about humans and tools like computers. I thought that was more of a sociocultural perspective, and that diSessa was more of a cognitive person. Yet, he describes a shared cognition between humans and the tools they are using.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Grover and Pea value computational thinking for the outputs it can produce over the skills in isolation, their list seems more like a check-list of skills, whereas diSessa sees computational literacy as a way to get to intellectual ends. " - I like this comparison that you make between the two authors, one thing that I am interested in is how this dichotomy is reflected in the education system. In respect to our common core standards, some teachers or administrators misconstrue them as a checklist of things that must be completed whereas their true purpose is to facilitate high level thinking to achieve intellectual gains. My comparison might be a stretch but just something that I was thinking about. : )
ReplyDelete