Teaching Computational Reasoning Through Construals
Обучение вычислительному мышлению используя интерпретации (Construals)

Errol Thompson, Aston University, Birmingham, UK
2018 Obrazovanie i Samorazvitie  
can construals be used to teach computational reasoning? This paper outlines some of the issues of teaching computational reasoning and then endeavours to show how it might be possible, through using the principles of variation theory to design teaching sequences and consequently construals that open the learner up to the computational reasoning ideas being considered. Аннотация могут ли интерпретации быть использованы для обучения вычислительному мышлению? Эта статья рассматривает некоторые
more » ... росы формирования вычислительного мышления и демонстрирует, как использование принципов теории вариаций, а следовательно и интерпретаций, для разработки последовательности обучения может раскрыть ученику идеи вычислительного мышления. ключевые слова: интерпретация, вычислительное мышление, инвариант, ним. 41 Образование и саморазвитие. Том 13, № 3, 2018 тип лицензирования авторов -лицензия творческого сообщества cc-BY simply the conclusion of the process (i.e. the invariant). This is in line with the process as content approach to curriculum development (costa & liebmann, 1996). from exploring these games, we seek to draw some conclusions about what makes a good construal and the features that are appropriate. We also seek to explore what should be observable and how this impacts the variations that we should use to explore a phenomenon such as computational reasoning. Computational reasoning The common terminology when talking about the fundamental skill of computer science is computational thinking. However, there is no clear agreement about what this term actually means. aho (2011, p 7) argues that "Computation is a process that is defined in terms of an underlying model of computation and computational thinking is the thought processes involved in formulating problems so their solutions can be represented as computational steps and algorithms". Wing (2006, p 33) had previously argued that "Computational thinking involves solving problems, designing systems, and understanding human behaviour, by drawing on the concepts fundamental to computer science. Computational thinking includes a range of mental tools that reflect the breadth of the field of computer science." Both of these definitions are based on developing computational solutions although Wing accepts the possibility that there might be generic skills used to solve a wider range of problems. an alternative perspective is provided by Kowalski (2011) who uses computational logic to review human instructions and to examine backward and forward reasoning. His argument is that applying computational logic can help us as humans to understand the reasoning process and to improve our approach to reasoning. does the same apply to computational thinking or reasoning or are we talking about understanding more generic thinking skills and utilising a wider range of thinking skills? it is Kowalski's perspective that has influenced our use of the terminology computational reasoning as opposed to computational thinking. We are arguing that computational thinking that produces a computational model is inadequate and that we need to foster an ability to reason about problems in such a way that we can verify the logic that helped us arrive at our solution. many of the problems (i.e. tower of Hanoi, nim, tic-tac-toe, mazes, ...) that we use in computer science have solutions that are readily accessible to learners. The issue is not whether they can find these solutions but whether they can apply the process that discovered these solutions. We use our problems not to teach solutions but to teach processes or the reasoning that helps create these solutions. The skill being taught should be the problem solving process (computational reasoning). The techniques (computational thinking) form part of the tool kit to aid the computational reasoning process. The objective of our construals should be to endeavour to help the learner understand why these games have the outcomes that they do and not simply to be able to find or implement solutions. That is the learner should be able to reason about their solution and the problem space. Variation Theory according to variation theory, for the learner to perceive the required object of learning, the learner needs to be able to discern it from the background of other objects and to be able to discern its internal characteristics. This means that the critical aspects of the object must become visible to the learner. it is what is made visible that is possible to be learnt and not what is believed to be taught. a possible sequence for achieving this is: instantiation -contrast -Generalisation -fusion (marton, 2015, pp. 53-54, 220)
doi:10.26907/esd13.3.05 fatcat:pki2jwglsnhp7lvj5lwmxvg3pa