The practices presented in the NGSS standards are intended
to represent the cycle of authentic practice in contemporary science
laboratories. In Nercessian’s
article, we see each of the NGSS practices at work in the neural engineering
lab studied, which confirms these practices as authentic and also as valuable
to discovery. While each of the
steps is included in Nercessian’s depiction of the lab, she focuses on
modeling, interpreting data, computational thinking, and communication most
prominently. Each of these
practices supports her thesis that discovery is a dynamic process, as the lab
went through multiple revisions of their model, changed their interpretation of
burst patterns, and utilized computational thinking to better more effectively
abstract and see the significant inputs to the system, all while communicating
and arguing for different hypotheses, ultimately producing a discovery that was
the product of many brains working and communicating together.
diSessa
argues that computational literacy can provide the literate with a toolset that
can facilitate more advanced results.
In Nercessian’s sample lab, D11 exemplified diSessa’s computational
literacy by creating a computer model to more effectively abstract and
understand what was going on in the physical model. Before the computational model, the lab understood the
bursts as noise, but when the bursts also occurred on the computational model,
it was clear that they were not random and instead were the result of some
combination of conditions inherent to the system. Because computational modeling allowed for the more precise
isolation of stimulants, D11 and company were able to make greater strides with
their physical model and ultimately make a discovery about learning that may
not have been possible without the computational model. I think it is also important to note
that computational thinking does not act in isolation, but rather supports the
process of modeling and is just one of many tools scientists can, and should,
use to get the best understanding of what is happening in the actual system.
I agree that computational literacy is not only beneficial by itself or for understanding an idea, but it is also beneficial for, as named in the Nersessian paper, innovation throughout scientific thinking. Computational literacy was needed in order for the researchers to create, improve, and analyze the study. I would like to know if computational literacy would still be a necessary tool for people who do not depend on simulations for studying something, or for people who do not deal with computation in their daily lives?
ReplyDelete