Exploring Interactions Between Computational and Critical Thinking in Model-Eliciting Activities Through Epistemic Network Analysis.
Exploring Interactions Between Computational and Critical Thinking in Model-Eliciting Activities Through Epistemic Network Analysis.
复制标题
通过认知网络分析探索模型引发活动中计算思维和批判性思维之间的相互作用。
DOI：
10.1007/978-3-030-93859-8_23
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Carmona, G.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Carmona, G.
在这项探索性研究中，我们使用认知网络分析（ENA）作为分析工具，以帮助我们更好地理解计算思维和批判性思维之间可能的相互作用和结构联系，这是在一个开放式的真实问题解决任务中引发的。我们发现，尽管学生的最终解决方案和解决过程在质量上有所不同，但在ENA中发现的结构联系在所有团队中非常相似。我们认为，这直接反映了任务的性质，任务是复杂的和无限期的，因此，可以有多种可能的解决办法。然而，底层结构似乎是稳定的，这有助于验证活动的有目的的设计，以引发计算思维的构建。此外，我们观察到，在协作解决方案的过程中，所有团队都在批判性思维和计算性思维的要素之间建立了密切的联系。由ENA生成的图形显示了学生思维的多样性，以及在模型引发活动的解决方案中类似的认知结构。批判性思维和计算性思维之间的相互作用是显而易见的，尽管这些结构的组成部分在每个团队的解决方案中以不同的方式引出。
In this exploratory study, we used Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA) as an analytic tool to help us better understand the possible interactions and structural connections between computational thinking and critical thinking as elicited in an open-ended authentic problem-solving task that was solved collaboratively. We found that, although students’ final solutions and solving processes were qualitatively different, the structural connections found in ENA are quite similar among all teams. We interpret this as a direct reflection of the nature of the task, which is complex and open-ended, and therefore, allows for multiple possible solutions. However, the underlying structure appears to be stable, which contributes to validating the purposeful design of the activity to elicit the construct of computational thinking. Moreover, we observed that during the collaborative solution process, all teams made strong connections between elements of critical thinking and computational thinking that evolved over time. Graphs that were generated by ENA display the diversity in student thinking, as well as a similar epistemic structure in the solution of the model-eliciting activities. The interactions between critical thinking and computational thinking are evident, although components of these constructs were elicited in different ways in each team’s solution.