Computational Thinking for Youth and Adults Education: model, principles, activities and lessons learned

Autores

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5753/rbie.2021.2338

Palavras-chave:

Computational Thinking, Informatics in Education, Digital Culture, Digital Divide, Digital Inclusion

Resumo

Computational Thinking (CT) is considered one of the most needed abilities of the 21st Century as the usage of digital resources has become more and more frequent. Research on CT teaching has been growing over the last decade and Brazilian initiatives have focused on Elementary and High School students while less privileged audiences, such as non-literate citizens, are rarely addressed. The lack of literacy affects more than communication, but autonomy for economic, cultural and educational development, social interaction, and also the experience with information and communication technology. Non-literate citizens represent more than 11 million people in Brazil, and Youth and Adults Education (YAE) is an educational modality offered to these citizens. In this article, we present the main results from a Master's research that investigated CT as a means to reduce YAE's students' rejection and fear of technology, aware of their characteristics, contexts, and particularities. In our research, we consider that through the practice of CT people can comprehend how technology works and how it can be used, favoring familiarity, and reducing rejection and fear of technology. Grounded on Computing and Education literature, we conceived a model to plan and conduct initiatives for YAE, applying and studying our model in a case study conducted inside a Brazilian public school during 8 workshops with 17 participants. For the case study, 9 principles to support the practice with YAE students were identified and used to inform 12 activities created/adapted for practicing CT throughout the workshops. A research overview is presented, along with its theoretical grounds to the main results from the case study and lessons learned. Results show the model as promising to inform practices to exercise CT abilities, sensitive to the audience's context.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Referências

Baranauskas, M. C. C. (2014). Social awareness in HCI. Interactions, 21(4), 66-69. doi: 10.1145/2621933 [GS Search]

Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community?. Acm Inroads, 2(1), 48-54. doi: 10.1145/1929887.1929905 [GS Search]

Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (2016). Research in education. Pearson Education India. [GS Search]

Carbajal, M. L., & Baranauskas, C. (2019). Involving Users and Creating Symbols for Tangible Programming: A Case Study with TaPrEC. Journal on Computational Thinking (JCThink), 3(1), 65. doi: 10.14210/jcthink.v3.n1.p65 [GS Search]

Costa, B. V. B. (2014). Pensamento computacional na Educação de Jovens e Adultos: um estudo de caso utilizando dispositivos móveis. Monografia. Universidade de Brasília, Instituto de Exatas, Departamento de Ciência da Computação. Brasília/DF. [GS Search]

DiSalvo, B., Yip, J., Bonsignore, E., & Carl, D. (2017). Participatory design for learning (pp. 3-6). Routledge. [GS Search]

Feitosa, S. C. S. (1999). Método Paulo Freire-Princípios e Práticas de uma Concepção Popular de Educação. Universidade de São Paulo - Faculdade de Educação. [GS Search]

Freire, P. (1997). Pedagogia da autonomia: Saberes necessários à prática educativa. Paz e Terra

Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2020). Computational thinking is more about thinking than computing. Journal for STEM Education Research,3, 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s41979-020-00030-2 [GS Search]

Mendoza, Y. L. M., & Baranauskas, M. C. C. (2020). Evaluating the Socioenactive Experience with a Tangible Tabletop Installation: A Case Study. In Iberoamerican Workshop on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 126-135). Springer, Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-66919-5_13 [GS Search]

Moreira, E. A., Dos Reis, J. C., & Baranauskas, M. C. C. (2019). Artefatos Tangíveis e a Avaliação de Estados Afetivos por Crianças. Revista Brasileira de Informática na Educação, 27(01), 58. doi: 10.5753/rbie.2019.27.01.58 [GS Search]

Nardelli, E. (2019). Do we really need computational thinking?. Communications of the ACM, 62(2), 32-35. doi: 10.1145/3231587 [GS Search]

Neri, M. (2009). Motivos da evasão escolar.Brasília: Fundação Getúlio Vargas, 1–34.

Nicastro, F., Baranauskas, M. C. C., & da Silva Torres, R. (2018). A Methodology to Conduct Computational Thinking Activities in Children's Educational Context. In CSEDU (2) (pp. 309-316). doi: 10.5220/0006808803090316 [GS Search]

Ortiz, J. S. B., & Raabe, A. (2016). Pensamento computacional na educação de jovens e adultos: Lições aprendidas. In Anais dos Workshops do Congresso Brasileiro de Informática na Educação (Vol. 5, p. 1087). doi: 10.5753/cbie.wcbie.2016.1087 [GS Search]

Ortiz, J. S. B. (2019). Pensamento Computacional e Educação de Jovens e Adultos: na direção de um modelo socialmente consciente. Dissertação. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Informática - Universidade Federal do Paraná, UFPR. Curitiba/PR. [GS Search]

Ortiz, J. S. B., Oliveira, C. M., & Pereira, R. (2019). Teaching computational thinking: are we considering students’ socio-cultural context. Journal on Computational Thinking-(JCThink), 3(1), 3-18. doi: 10.14210/jcthink.v3.n1.p3 [GS Search]

Ortiz, J. S. B., & Pereira, R. (2019). Atuando na Educação de Jovens e Adultos: nove princípios para guiar a prática. In Anais dos Workshops do Congresso Brasileiro de Informática na Educação (Vol. 8, p. 437). doi: 10.5753/cbie.wcbie.2019.437 [GS Search]

Ortiz, J. S. B., & Pereira, R. (2019). Ten years of initiatives to promote computational thinking: A systematic mapping study. Journal on Computational Thinking-(JCThink), 3(1), 95-110. doi: 10.14210/jcthink.v3.n1.p95 [GS Search]

Ortiz, J. S. B., & Pereira, R. (2020). Computational Thinking for Youth and Adults Education: Towards a Socially Aware Model. In Anais dos Workshops do IX Congresso Brasileiro de Informática na Educação (pp. 52-61). doi: 10.5753/cbie.wcbie.2020.52 [GS Search]

Panaggio, B. Z., Carbajal, M. L., & Baranauskas, M. C. C. (2019). Programação Tangível no Mundo Físico: TaPrEC+ Sphero. Revista Brasileira de Informática na Educação, 27(03), 32-51. doi: 10.5753/rbie.2019.27.03.32 [GS Search]

Raabe, A. L. A., Brackmann, C. P., & Campos, F. R. (2018). Currículo de referência em tecnologia e computação: da educação infantil ao ensino fundamental. Centro de Inovação para a Educação Básica-CIEB. [GS Search]

Schultz, E., Ortiz, J. S. B., García, L. S., & Pereira, R. (2018). Teaching game design and basic computing concepts: a democratic experiment in a socioeconomically vulnerable community. In Simpósio Brasileiro de Informática na Educação-SBIE (Vol. 29, p 1103). doi: 10.5753/cbie.sbie.2018.1103 [GS Search]

Sparling, J., & Chong, I. (2011). Natural observation. In S. Goldstein & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Encyclopedia of child behavior and development (pp. 992–993). Springer US. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_1916 [GS Search]

Tissenbaum, M., Sheldon, J., & Abelson, H. (2019). From computational thinking to computational action. Communications of the ACM, 62(3), 34-36. doi: 10.1145/3265747 [GS Search]

Vieira Pinto, A. (2013). Sete lições sobre educação de adultos. Edição 2013. Cortez

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. doi: 10.1145/1118178.1118215 [GS Search]

Arquivos adicionais

Publicado

2021-11-17

Como Citar

Ortiz, J. dos S. B., & Pereira, R. (2021). Computational Thinking for Youth and Adults Education: model, principles, activities and lessons learned. Revista Brasileira De Informática Na Educação, 29, 1312–1336. https://doi.org/10.5753/rbie.2021.2338

Edição

Seção

Artigos Premiados