In her article, Modeling
Practices in Conceptual Innovation, Nersessian focuses on the understanding
of scientific concepts as dynamic, continually changing through “model-based
reasoning,” the formation of new concepts from various domains, and the role of
these scientific ideas in the active process of investigation (2). Nersessian discusses a novel and innovative
study of hers in the field of ethnographic research, where the researchers sought
to “recreate the brain,” therefore creating the dish-model system, which
involved a neuron culture and the simple networking characteristics of the
brain, to further understand the interactions between neurons when learning is
taking place. This study was a huge step
in neurological research and understanding because it took what was unavailable
for scientists to study, enabled them to make a simplistic model, and used the
data collected to further understanding, make necessary changes, and add
further complexity to the model.
In her book, Changing
Minds, diSessa discusses the various meanings of the word, literacy and how
they have changed over time. She makes
an important distinction between computation literacy, “an intelligence
achieved cooperatively with external materials” and computer literacy, which
alludes to the simple ability to work with a computer (6). She begins by describing her three pillars of
literacy: material (physical representations), cognitive (the mental component
that is necessary alongside the material), and social, using the development of
calculus to show the influence of this third component to change this
mathematical literacy from merely a "pleasurable success for a few” to an
“infrastructural assumption,” something that is necessary to drive the
educational process (13). Finally,
diSessa uses the example of Galileo and his concept of uniform motion to show
the extent to which literacy, specifically mathematical literacies, are
infrastructural, breaking it down into the material, cognitive, and social
components.
Both authors incorporated various components of the 8
practices outlined by NGSS as critical for student success in the science and
engineering classroom. In the Neressian
article, all 8 practices, from asking questions to constructing explanations,
were used. This is so mainly because it
was a novel study that was conducted and there was a lot of room for
investigation, explanation, and revision.
First, they started out with a question regarding the communication
between neurons when learning takes place.
Then they developed the dish-model system and carried out a four year
investigation. Throughout those four
years data was continually collected and additional computational models were
created. This was evident with the
“bursting” component of their study, which prevented the detection of learning,
which was critical for data to be collected.
Thus, the scientists had to come up with a way to prevent bursting
(designing solutions and constructing explanations) and included one researcher
creating a computational model of the system to promote progress and
understanding of the neurons and their interaction. Throughout the whole process, positive and
productive argumentation took place from the obstacles they hit to the data
that was collected. While this study was
new in its field, the information collected from this study has made a huge
innovative step towards further understanding neurons and their interaction
when learning.
In the diSessa article, there was
less emphasis on the experimental components of the 8 practices, such as
developing and using models, planning and carrying out investigations, and
analyzing and interpreting data, and more on using mathematical and
computational thinking and communicating information. Her emphasis on mathematical literacy is
evident in the beginning of her book where she discusses the three pillars of
literacy and their importance. She also
makes note to distinguish between computer literacy and computational literacy,
deeming the latter to be more complex, involving the collaboration between
mental ability and outside materials. To
me, her view that this literacy is incredibly important comes from her use of
the word “infrastructural,” the idea that something is critical for the success
of, in this case, the educational process (5).
Thus, mathematical and computational literacy is critical, or will be
infrastructural, in the educational process.
While she does discuss the models of Galileo and Newton and their
importance, diSessa does so in a way that focuses or emphasizes the importance
of communication and clarity. This is primarily
evident in the Newton-Leibnitz debacle where, while Newton came up with the
same concepts, his notation was clearer and therefore readily accepted. It is what distinguishes
something from being merely fun and pleasurable to necessary and infrastructural.
No comments:
Post a Comment