Conceptualising, Analysing and Training in Adults in the Knowledge Society

Journal title SOCIOLOGIA DEL LAVORO
Author/s Tatiana Iñiguez-Berrozpe, Francesco Marcaletti, Carmen Elboj-Saso, Emma Garavaglia
Publishing Year 2020 Issue 2020/156 Language English
Pages 27 P. 143-169 File size 341 KB
DOI 10.3280/SL2020-156007
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

In this article, the authors argue that, within the framework of the current information society and the development of Industry 4.0, a revolution hinges on a stock of skills on which adults in general - and adult workers in particular - need to be trained in order to be prepared for the change and improve their employability. Within these skills, we find computational and critical thinking (CCT) as two key skills for workers which are not being developed in adult education. In this contribution, we propose a conceptualisation of both kinds of thinking, associating them with the Problem Solving in Technology Rich Environments variable of the OECD PIAAC survey. This allows us to propose a CCT training methodology for adults based on Vanek’s (2017) work and to measure and analyse this relevant skill, making it easier to promote CCT teaching-learning in adult education courses.

Keywords: Computational thinking, critical thinking, adult education, knowledge society

  1. Grover S., Pea R. (2013). Computational Thinking in K–12. A Review of the State of the Field. Educational Researcher, 42(38): 38-43. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X12463051
  2. Green A.J.K., Gillhooly K. (2005). Problem solving. In: Braisby N., Gelatly A., eds., Cognitive Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  3. Fraillon J., Ainley J., Schulz W., Duckworth D., Friedman T. (2019). Computational thinking framework. In: IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 Assessment Framework. London: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-19389-8_3
  4. Flecha R., Soler-Gallart M., Sordé T. (2015). Social impact: Europe must fund social sciences. Nature, 528:193.
  5. Farris A.V., Sengupta P. (2014). Perspectival computational thinking for learning physics: A case study of collaborative agent-based modeling. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS 2014).
  6. Evancho R.S. (2000). Critical thinking skills and dispositions of the undergraduate Baccalaureate nursing student. Connecticut: Southern Connecticut State University.
  7. European Commission (2019). The Computational Thinking Study. -- Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/computational-thinking.
  8. European Commission (2016). New Skills Agenda for Europe. -- Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1223.
  9. Deschryver M.D., Yadav A. (2015). Creative and computational thinking in the context of new literacies: Working with teachers to scaffold complex technology-mediated approaches to teaching and learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(3): 411-431.
  10. Denning P. (2009). The profession of IT beyond computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 52(6): 28-30. DOI: 10.1145/1516046.1516054
  11. Davies M. (2015). A Model of Critical Thinking in Higher Education. In: Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. Cham: Springer.
  12. Cooper S., Pérez L., Rainey D. (2010). K-12 computational learning. Communications of the ACM, 53(11): 27-29. DOI: 10.1145/1839676.1839686
  13. Charters P., Lee M.J., Ko A.J., Loksa D. (2014). Challenging stereotypes and changing attitudes: the effect of a brief programming encounter on adults’ attitudes toward programming. SIGCSE '14 Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, 653-658.
  14. Care E., Griffin G., Wilson, M., eds. (2018). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. New York: Springer.
  15. Callahan J.S., Kiker D.S., Cross T. (2003). Does Method Matter? A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Training Method on Older Learner Training Performance. Journal of Management, 29(5): 663-680. DOI: 10.1016/S0149-2063_03_00029-1
  16. Brookfield S.D. (2011). Teaching for critical thinking: Tools and techniques to help students question their assumptions. London: John Wiley and Sons.
  17. Boeren E. (2016). Lifelong learning participation in a changing policy context: an interdisciplinary theory. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.
  18. Boehm S.A., Schröder H.S., Kunze F. (2013). Comparative Age Management: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Implications. In: Field J., Burke R. J., Cooper C. L., eds., The SAGE Handbook of Aging, Work and Society. London: SAGE, 211-237. DOI: 10.4135/9781446269916
  19. Birren J.E., Fisher L.M. (1995). Aging and Speed of Behavior: Possible Consequences for Psychological Functioning. Annual Review of Psychology, 46(1): 329-353.
  20. Belbin E., Belbin R.M. (1972). Problems in Adult Retraining. London: Heinemann.
  21. Rich P.J., Egan, G., Ellsworth, J. (2019). A Framework for Decomposition in Computational Thinking. ITiCSE ’19, July 15–17, 2019, Aberdeen, Scotland Uk.
  22. Selby C., Woollard, J. (2014). Refining an understanding of computational thinking. -- Retrieved from http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/372410.
  23. Soler M. (2017). Achieving social impact: sociology in the public sphere. London: Springer.
  24. Standl B. (2016). A case study on cooperative problem-solving processes in small 9th grade student groups. IEEE global engineering education conference (EDUCON), Abu Dhabi.
  25. Sterns H.L., Deverspike D. (1988). Training and developing the older worker: Implications for Human Resource Management. In: Dennis H., ed., Fourteen steps in managing an aging work force. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books, 97-110.
  26. Ten Dam G., Volman M. (2004). Critical thinking as a citizenship competence: teaching strategies. Learning and instruction, 14(4): 359-379.
  27. Trawick A.R. (2017). Using the PIAAC Literacy Framework to Guide Instruction: An Introduction for Adult Educators. PIAAC: Washington, DC.
  28. Vanek J. (2017). Using the PIAAC Framework for Problem Solving in Technology-Rich Environments to Guide Instruction: An Introduction for Adult Educators. PIAAC: Washington, DC.
  29. Voskoglou M.G., Buckley S. (2012). Problem solving and computational thinking in a learning environment. Egyptian Computer Science Journal (ECS), 36(4): 28-46.
  30. Weintrop D., Beheshti E., Horn M., Orton K., Jona K., Trouille L. (2015). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1): 127-147.
  31. Wing J. (2006). Computational Thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3): 33-35.
  32. Wing J. (2011) Computational thinking: What and why? Carnegie Melon School of Computer Science Discussion Papers. Retrieved from www.cs.cmu.edu/~Comp Think/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf.
  33. Yadav A., Good, J., Voogt, J., Fisser, P. (2017). Computational Thinking as an Emerging Competence Domain. In: Mulder M., ed., Competence-based Vocational and Professional Education, Switzerland: Springer.
  34. Živkovic S. (2016). A Model of Critical Thinking as an Important Attribute for Success in the 21st Century. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232: 102-108.
  35. 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.
  36. Ater-Kranov A., Bryant R., Orr G., Wallace S., Zhang M. (2010). Developing a community definition and teaching modules for computational thinking: Accomplishments and challenges. Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on information technology education. ACM.
  37. Al-Fedaghi S., Alkhaldi A. (2019). Thinking for Computational Thinking. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 10(2): 620-629.
  38. Akcaoglu M., Koehler M.J. (2014). Cognitive outcomes from the Game-Design and Learning (GDL) after-school program. Computers and Education, 75: 72-81.
  39. Abrami P.C., Bernard R.M., Borokhovski E., Waddington D.I., Wade C.A. Persson T. (2015). Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(2): 275-314.
  40. Halpern D.F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American psychologist, 53(4): 449.
  41. Hämäläinen R., De Wever B., Nissinen K., Cincinnato S. (2017). Understanding adults’ strong problem-solving skills based on PIAAC. Journal of Workplace Learning, 29 (7/8): 537-553. DOI: 10.1108/JWL-05-2016-0032
  42. Holford J., Spolar V.A.M. (2012). Neoliberal and inclusive themes in European lifelong learning policy. In: Riddell S., Markowitsch, J., Weedon E., eds., Lifelong learning in Europe: equity and efficiency in the balance. Bristol: Policy Press.
  43. Hu C. (2011). Computational thinking: What it might mean and what we might do about it. In: Proceedings of the 16th annual joint conference on innovation and technology in computer science education. ACM.
  44. Iñiguez-Berrozpe T., Boeren E. (2019). 21st Century Skills for All: Adults and Problem Solving in Technology Rich Environments. Techonology, Knowledge and Learning (online).
  45. Iñiguez-Berrozpe T., Marcaletti F. (2017). Más allá de las TIC. Aprendizaje Permanente para una Sociedad de la Información Inclusiva. EnTERA2.0, 5: 39-53.
  46. Katai Z. (2014). The challenge of promoting algorithmic thinking of both sciences and humanities oriented learners. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(4): 287-299.
  47. Knowles M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Connecticut: Association Press.
  48. Korkmaz Ö. Çakir R., Özden M. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72: 558-569.
  49. Kules B. (2016). Computational Thinking is Critical Thinking: Connecting to University Discourse, Goals, and Learning Outcomes. ASIST 2016, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  50. Larson L.C., Northern Miller T. (2011). 21st Century Skills: Prepare Students for the Future, 21st Century. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(3): 121-123. DOI: 10.1080/00228958.2011.10516575
  51. Lee C.H., Garcia A.D. (2014). “I want them to feel the fear…” Leveraging critical computational literacies for English Language Arts success. In: Ferdig R.E., Pytash K.E., eds., Exploring multimodal composition and digital writing. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
  52. Lee C.H., Soep E. (2016). None But Ourselves Can Free Our Minds: Critical Computational Literacy as a Pedagogy of Resistance. Journal Equity and Excellence in Education, 49: 480-492.
  53. Lishinski A., Yadav A., Enbody R., Good J. (2016). The influence of problem-solving abilities on students’ Performance on Different Assessment Tasks in CS1. In: Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education. New York: ACM.
  54. Maharani S., Kholid M.N., Pradana L.N., Nusantara T. (2019). Problem solving in the context of computational thinking. Infinity, 8(2): 109-116.
  55. OECD PIAAC Expert Group in Problem Solving in Technology Rich Environments (2009). PIAAC Problem Solving in Technology-Rich Environments: A Conceptual Framework, OECD Education Working Papers, 36, Paris: OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/220262483674
  56. OECD (2013). OECD skills outlook 2013: first results from the survey of adult skills. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  57. OECD (2016). Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC). -- Retrieved from https://goo.gl/cpb3fQ.
  58. Reale E. et al. (2017). A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research. Research Evaluation, rvx025.

Tatiana Iñiguez-Berrozpe, Francesco Marcaletti, Carmen Elboj-Saso, Emma Garavaglia, Conceptualising, Analysing and Training in Adults in the Knowledge Society in "SOCIOLOGIA DEL LAVORO " 156/2020, pp 143-169, DOI: 10.3280/SL2020-156007