Before I get to the readings, I want to reflect a little on our last class. I feel like up to this point, I have been trying to find out the "true" definition of computational thinking. Last class helped me realize that computational thinking is just a name that several groups of people have appropriated to describe perhaps overlapping, but largely different, constructs. That means there is not an objective, pure, or real version of computational thinking. Instead, we should prioritize 1) what we think kids need and 2) how computers or computataional thinking can be leveraged to get them there.
From my lens, I hope that computational thinking/literacy could be defined along the lines of diSessa's computational literacy. DiSessa sees computers as valuable tools that can be leveraged for problem solving. He does not describe the concepts or strategies of computer science as inherently or intrinsically valuable - they are just useful because in today's world, they can help us solve a range of problems faster, access some ideas earlier (developmentally), and organize data. Computational literacy isn't the answer to all problems, but it can make kids better able to participate in a lot of communities (from journalism to modeling).
I think this perspective is helpful because it zooms us out of focusing on a checklist of skills or standards (Grover and Pea's version, or maybe Wilensky) and keeps the broad purpose of computational literacy in mind. It also envisions that kids become fluent in this technology, rather than just using it for problems of interest to them (Kafai's version).
More specifically, I hope that computational literacy extends to students in low income, underserved schools. I think that the tool of computational literacy opens a lot of doors for those students, because they could leverage this literacy as adults, but also because this literacy can provide them with new strategies for making sense of typical school content.
Would love to hear where other people left Monday's discussion - it seemed like a lot of people had more to say and to reflect on.
In terms of the readings:
DiSessa provided a concrete example of what his version of computataional literacy could look like in a school. He emphasized that computational literacy doesn't need to be a big deal for students - in fact, if they are truly "literate" their literacy becomes invisible. This is an interesting though, since computataional thinking is such a buzz word now. Maybe we will know that we are there when we stop treating it as something special, but rather as a form of expression, as Resnick advocated in his TED talk. Resnick and Brennan's three types of computataional thinking (concepts, practices and perspectives) echo diSessa's three pillars of literacy in some ways, but also bridges those big ideas with some of the more fine-grained "standards" types of ideas in Grover and Pea (loops, operators, data, abstraction, modularizing, debugging, remixing). I most appreciated the assessment section here - I think this is the first time we have seen something that really pulls apart how we could begin to think about measuring computational thinking. Wolz et al.'s perspective aligns with diSessa and Resnick in that they emphasize computational thinking as a tool for consuming and expressing information. It was interesting to hear about this in the context of teacher training - we have talked a lot about how getting teachers on board would be really difficult, and this seems like a great way to help them build skill and understanding of the importance of computataional thinking. I also appreciated that this helped underrepresented groups engage with computataional thinking. However, I would have appreciated more detail about what kids were able to do with their programs, or how well these skills transfer to other types of projects.
From my lens, I hope that computational thinking/literacy could be defined along the lines of diSessa's computational literacy. DiSessa sees computers as valuable tools that can be leveraged for problem solving. He does not describe the concepts or strategies of computer science as inherently or intrinsically valuable - they are just useful because in today's world, they can help us solve a range of problems faster, access some ideas earlier (developmentally), and organize data. Computational literacy isn't the answer to all problems, but it can make kids better able to participate in a lot of communities (from journalism to modeling).
I think this perspective is helpful because it zooms us out of focusing on a checklist of skills or standards (Grover and Pea's version, or maybe Wilensky) and keeps the broad purpose of computational literacy in mind. It also envisions that kids become fluent in this technology, rather than just using it for problems of interest to them (Kafai's version).
More specifically, I hope that computational literacy extends to students in low income, underserved schools. I think that the tool of computational literacy opens a lot of doors for those students, because they could leverage this literacy as adults, but also because this literacy can provide them with new strategies for making sense of typical school content.
Would love to hear where other people left Monday's discussion - it seemed like a lot of people had more to say and to reflect on.
In terms of the readings:
DiSessa provided a concrete example of what his version of computataional literacy could look like in a school. He emphasized that computational literacy doesn't need to be a big deal for students - in fact, if they are truly "literate" their literacy becomes invisible. This is an interesting though, since computataional thinking is such a buzz word now. Maybe we will know that we are there when we stop treating it as something special, but rather as a form of expression, as Resnick advocated in his TED talk. Resnick and Brennan's three types of computataional thinking (concepts, practices and perspectives) echo diSessa's three pillars of literacy in some ways, but also bridges those big ideas with some of the more fine-grained "standards" types of ideas in Grover and Pea (loops, operators, data, abstraction, modularizing, debugging, remixing). I most appreciated the assessment section here - I think this is the first time we have seen something that really pulls apart how we could begin to think about measuring computational thinking. Wolz et al.'s perspective aligns with diSessa and Resnick in that they emphasize computational thinking as a tool for consuming and expressing information. It was interesting to hear about this in the context of teacher training - we have talked a lot about how getting teachers on board would be really difficult, and this seems like a great way to help them build skill and understanding of the importance of computataional thinking. I also appreciated that this helped underrepresented groups engage with computataional thinking. However, I would have appreciated more detail about what kids were able to do with their programs, or how well these skills transfer to other types of projects.
I would also appreciate some more information about how this can transfer to teacher training. Unfortunately in our education system we rarely effectively roll out new educational ideas or reforms. Generally a new idea will inspire those in the education field, but due to poor professional development and a shortage of experts to support teachers in this new skill, the change turns from a positive opportunity to a series of negative outcomes. Computational thinking and those activities that support it is not a new idea, but the vague nature of how to measure student's progress has prevented it from being widely used schools. I am not sure if anyone has a clear idea of how to combat this issue yet, but I was excited to see Resnick try.
ReplyDelete"we should prioritize 1) what we think kids need and 2) how computers or computational thinking can be leveraged to get them there." This would probably be a positive way to focus on in terms of our goals, but isn't this aversion of what computational thinking is too? Also, I am just wondering, about the importance of awareness about what computers can and cannot do, in terms of helping kids learn what they need. If teachers aren't aware of the resources they have, they how will they be able to leverage it enhance learning?
ReplyDelete