This weeks’ readings delved more philosophically into the
concepts of modeling and literacy.
Nersessian’s article intended to uncover the process through which a
concept is discovered. Following a
neuroscience lab over the course of 5 years, Nersessian and her lab used
ethnographic observation and interview strategies to understand the dynamics of
social and cognitive modeling which ultimately lead to discovery when “the
information was always there.” (20)
Andrea
diSessa’s chapter seeks to define and understand the process and defining
elements of literacy, ultimately as it pertains to informing the creation of a
new computational literacy.
diSessa highlights three pillars of literacy- material, mental, and
social- and analyzes both their history and their future potential
optimization. diSessa uses
Galileo’s classic theory that distance is proportional to rate and time as a
parable for obtaining new literacy, highlighting the critical difference
between the theoretical form of its original presentation and the abstracted
algebraic equation we know today, d=rt, arguing that once “new principles
become fundamental and old ones become obvious. Entire new terrain becomes
accessible.” (22) He concludes by addressing the cultural implications of
literacy and the influence culture will have on future literacy.
Across
both pieces, I was especially struck by the emphasis on community and dynamic
building of concepts as critical to the discovery and comprehension
processes. I think that history
all too often highlights discovery as both individual and revelatory, when in
reality it is more often a realization given many other pieces of knowledge and
contribution. This idea is
supported by Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development in which the individual’s
potential is enhanced by others. diSessa
looks to extend this principle to the material realm as well (we can achieve
more with proper materials), making an exciting argument for the potential role
of computers in enhancing our thought processes and literacy. Both pieces also spoke to a certain
clarity once the discovery had been made, which I think is a really beautiful
testament to the humbling pursuit of science as explanatory—the information was
always there, the phenomenon has always existed, but we are just now coming to
understand it.
In
reading these two works, a few questions persist for me:
- How much can we really derive from anecdotal analyses like
Nersessian’s? Are these
experiences necessarily universal to the creation of new concepts?
- What will computational literacy look like for our
students and how do we incorporate it into the science classroom? Especially considering we may not be as
literate or intuitive as our students who have been raised on technology?
- Whose values are at play in our current definition of scientific
literacy? Whose values will be
represented in computational literacy?
Is there any way to achieve a definition of literacy without confounding
biases? (socio-economic, etc)
I like what you point out about discoveries being the result of many people and not individual. Though there is the individual component to them, science has come so far because of the 'shoulders of giants' effect but also the equalizing force of new literacies. In the Galileo example, algebraic literacy has made previously complex issues accessible to far more people, and that exposure has no doubt resulted in many more discoveries than would have occurred without all those people being able to think in algebraic terms.
ReplyDeleteI wonder about your claim that we are not as tech literate as the younger generations. I have had anecdotal experience to suggest the opposite is true and I'm very interested in what the actual case is. I think to some extent those who grew up when tech was less user-friendly have a better sense of what is under the hood of computers etc, and I wonder if that is part of the literacy that diSessa is talking about. Or, maybe the user-friendliness of tech now just allows the newer generation to go farther with the same tech. Not sure.
I think you are right Steve, that many students have a better understanding of interface than back-end, but that was no less true when we were in high school. I think that the relative population of young people interested in coding and computational literacy is higher today and I also think that the increased interaction with interfaces will help the remaining students engage with computational theory because they have user experience and interest.
ReplyDeleteI am also interested to better understand diSessa's literacy, and what that means for the science classroom. I think it would be very valuable for students to engage in the practice of coding as it relates to science and statistics, through programs like R, etc, which are increasingly critical in active science labs. Im not certain, however, what broader computational literacy looks like and if it deserves its own course or not. (I guess that means I am not computationally literate myself)
Laura, I was also struck by the emphasis on community and dynamic building of concepts as critical to discovery and comprehension. You also make a very good connection to Vygotsky and the Zone of Proximal Development. Thinking about the vastly different backgrounds of the scientists and how they came together so well to collaborate and build individually as well as a group really highlights how teamwork is used in the scientific community.
ReplyDeleteI think the discussion about who is more tech literate between us or the younger generation is an interesting one. I do not know much about writing code at all, but I do recognize that it would be much less intimidating if I took a course about it before attempting to use it in my classroom. Just like most things, I wouldn’t expect to be knowledgeable in a certain area without having some personal experience in it first.
Joey I think you touch upon a good point. I liked how in the Nersessian article she talks about domain crosscutting and how important it is to realize that "novel concepts" as she terms them are oftentimes created from working with many domains. I feel like in our own, at least in my experience, the disciplinaries are isolated and not seen as connected, leading to a lack of potential higher level thinking.
ReplyDeleteLaura you ask the good question regarding how we will be tech literate or at least enough to enable productive learning inside the classroom. Its hard to come up with a good answer. Teachers could go to workshops and learn together but then again technology is constantly changing so how can they realistically keep up? This would be a great question to bring up in class!