Throughout Nersessian’s article a few of the NGSS seem
prominent. First, developing and using models was most evident, as this was
practiced throughout the case study. The scientists observed during the study
obtainined, evaluated and communicated information with one another, a practice
also listed in the NGSS. Throughout the development and use of models and the
obtaining, evaluating and communicating information the models in use were
continued to be revised amongst the scientists in the study. I’m curious where
NGSS would categorize revision in their practices? Certainly the specific
revision of models would fall under the development and use of models, but how
about revision as a practice of asking questions, revision of planning
investigations and revision of engaging in argument from evidence?
diSessa says of computational literacy, “Programming turns
analysis into experience and allows a connection between analytic forms and
their experiential implications that algebra and even calculus can’t touch,” on
page 40. I interpreted Nersessian’s ideas about scientific modeling as such: to
create a model so that we are able to accurately predict a phenomenon. This is
best summarized when she says, “The primary investigative practice in many
areas is constructing physical models that adequately exemplify the phenomena
of interest so as to be able to conduct controlled experiments with the models
and transfer outcomes to in vivo phenomena,” on page 21. While these statements
between the two authors are not explicitly similar, I think that the ideas
share an inquiry thought. Comparing to our in-class experiences with ViMAP,
computational literacy includes an analytical experience that incudes making a
model to predict a phenomenon. Programming is a critical but not inclusive part
of computational literacy. As discussed in class, programming involves inquiry
thought and problem solving, which is also a critical part of effective and
efficient scientific modeling.
I am caught up on your sentence about computational literacy: “Programming is a critical but not inclusive part of computational literacy.” Is your argument that one does not need to be able to program in order to be computationally literate, but that being able to would enhance one’s literacy? I would argue that programming is a cornerstone of computational literacy. Programming comes in many forms, but knowing how to give a computer instructions in order to have it follow your line of reasoning seems to be the whole point of computational literacy. Perhaps I misconstrued your point, but either way I would like to hear more about your thoughts on the matter.
ReplyDeleteI agree that inquiry is definitely a key part of how both Nersessian and diSessa view modeling. I think what David was trying to say (correct me if I am wrong) is that programming is an important part of computer literacy, but it is not the end all be all of computational literacy (more goes into it). I think you brought up a good way to look at it Dan, that one does not need to be able to program (as in write original code) in order to be computationally literate, but being able would enhance one’s literacy. For example, programming might come in the form of ViMAP, where we program a turtle to do something by dragging and dropping boxes in a certain order and position. However, we can be considered computationally literate in ViMAP without knowing how to write the code “under the hood”. I have no idea how to write binary code or how the creators of ViMAP got the boxes to mean what they mean to the computer, but I can still get that turtle to move at a constant rate. I think “programming comes in many forms” is the key to this discussion and perhaps we have been thinking differently when reading the word “programming”.
ReplyDeleteMy original point was that programming is not synonymous with computational literacy. Computers are vastly resourceful machines; there are many different ways to effectively use them. I would hesitate to say that successful programmers know everything there is about using a computer. My general outlook upon education is that there is always something to learn and gain from an experience. I feel that there could be a scenario where a successful programmer could learn something about a computer from a new experience. However, most of the time successful programmers are going to have a excellent computational literacy.
ReplyDelete