Authors’ Response: Concepts of Computing in “Mind-Size Bites”

Dagienė, Valentina; Futschek, Gerald; Stupurienė, Gabrielė

Volume 14 · Number 3 · Pages 413–415

< Previous Paper · Next Paper >

Authors’ Response: Concepts of Computing in “Mind-Size Bites”

Valentina Dagienė, Gerald Futschek & Gabrielė Stupurienė

Abstract

Abstract: The small size of tasks can be viewed as a contradiction to constructionist learning principles like problem-based learning, learning by exploring, freedom and creativity. We argue that mind-size bites of learning can be small and if properly designed can still be called constructionist. The commentaries provide questions and insights that help us rethink how short Bebras-like tasks serve as scaffolding to engage children in computing (informatics. They help us to consider, in greater depth, computing concepts that need to be experienced by children in various ways - the solving of short tasks being one of them.

Citation

Dagienė V., Futschek G. & Stupurienė G. (2019) Authors’ response: Concepts of computing in “mind-size bites”. Constructivist Foundations 14(3): 413–415. https://constructivist.info/14/3/413

Export article citation data: Plain Text · BibTex · EndNote · Reference Manager (RIS)

References

Bell T., Tymann P. & Yehudai A. (2018) The big ideas in computer science for K-12 curricula. Bulletin of EATCS 124. http://bulletin.eatcs.org/index.php/beatcs/article/view/521

Boytchev P. (2015) Constructionism and deconstructionism. Constructivist Foundations 10(3): 355–363 https://constructivist.info/10/3/355

Clements D. H. & Sarama J. (2011) Early childhood mathematics intervention. Science 333(6045): 968–970. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Dweck S. C. (2016) Mindset: The new psychology of success. Ballantine Books, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Gibson J. P. (2012) Teaching graph algorithms to children of all ages. In: Lapidot T., Gal-Ezer J., Caspersen M. E. & Haz-zan O. (eds.) Proceedings of the 17th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’12) ACM, New York: 34–39. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Hromkovič J. (2016) Homo informaticus: Why computer science fundamentals are an unavoidable part of human culture and how to teach them. Olympiads in Informatics 10: 99–109. https://ioinformatics.org/journal/v10_2016_99_109.pdf

Papert S. (1980) Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Selby C. C. & Woollard J. (2013) Computational thinking: The developing definition. Project report, University of Southampton. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/356481

Stacey K. (2015) Mathematical thinking for classroom decision making. In: Inprasitha M., Isoda M., Wang-Iverson P. & Yeap B. H. (eds.) Lesson study: Challenges in mathematics education. World Scientific, Singapore: 11–26. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Tedre M. & Sutinen E. (2008) Three traditions of computing: What educators should know. Computer Science Education 18(3): 153–170. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Comments: 0

To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.

LATEST ISSUES

FOLLOW US

Abstract

Citation

References

Comments: 0