Science for Education Today, 2022, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 72–89
UDC: 
001.8+008+514.8+378

Precise thinking tools and the impact of computer science on professional practice

Trofimov V. M. 1 (Krasnodar, Russian Federation)
1 Kuban State Technological University
Abstract: 

Introduction. The main intellectual competence of IT professionals includes culture of thinking, the ability to generalize, analyze, and perceive information. But what do we mean by the culture of thinking today? If it is based on consistency and creativity, as leading IT-companies require from university graduates, it immediately indicates the complexity and even inconsistency of the requirements for the expected qualities of thinking from newly-qualified professionals. Because, on the one hand, they need to be able to systematize the available data into a certain structure; on the other hand, they have to abandon the existing one and achieve a fundamentally different solution.
The purpose of this article is to identify the core of thinking tools in professional practice and describe precisely them using set-theoretical analysis.
Materials and Methods. We proceed from the fact that thinking, as a part of the nature of reality, reaches the level required for professional practice when it satisfies at least three conditions: stability, accuracy and completeness of the description of a particular system or process. Since we cannot extract thinking from historical and cultural way of cognition, which is sometimes called an episteme, it is necessary, first of all, to rely on examples of such a context as the evolution of the linguistic state of the human population and the evolution of the architecture of the design of distributed systems in the information space. The mathematical basis is taken from the experience of teaching and using the set-theoretical method in mathematics disciplines within computer fields of study.
Results. Within the framework of the proposed methodology, some important tools of professional thinking are formulated in the precise language of computer science. The structures of stable retention of objective thinking, the accuracy of retention of meaning, the minimum completeness of the system, bricolage and the option of the basic figure of creativity visualization are described. This methodology allows to see the logic of branching in the evolution of different languages, as well as the logic of the evolution of software systems.
Conclusions. The set-theoretical tools of thinking reveal the logic within the development of distributed systems in the modern information environment and, apparently, significantly affect the tools of thinking in various fields of knowledge.

Keywords: 

Culture of thinking; Methodology of professional practice; Computational thinking; Computer science; Sustainable development; Linguistic evolution; Information education; Distributed systems.

For citation:
Trofimov V. M. Precise thinking tools and the impact of computer science on professional practice. Science for Education Today, 2022, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 72–89. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2205.05
References: 
  1. Aho A. V. Computation and Computational Thinking. The Computer Journal, 2012, vol. 55 (7), pp. 832–835. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxs074
  2. Anderson N. D. A call for computational thinking in undergraduate psychology. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 2016, vol. 15, pp. 226–234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725716659252  URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Call-for-Computational-Thinking-in-Undergraduate-Anderson/5071423a0c5fe811a8dba6fd7a9ca6301f2aa54d        
  3. Bers M. U., Flannery L., Kazakoff E. R., Sullivan A. Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 2014, vol. 72, pp. 145–157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020
  4. Chaipidech P., Srisawasdi N., Kajornmanee T., Chaipah K. A personalized learning system-supported professional training model for teachers' TPACK development. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2022, vol. 3, pp. 100064. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100064
  5. Çoban E., Korkmaz Öz. An alternative approach for measuring computational thinking: Performance-based platform. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2021, vol. 42, pp. 100929. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100929
  6. Denning P. J. Remaining Trouble Spots with Computational Thinking. Communications of the ACM, 2017, vol. 60 (6), pp. 33–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2998438 
  7. Gerendai I., Halász B. Asymmetry of the neuroendocrine system. Physiology, 2001, vol. 16 (2), pp. 92–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1152/physiologyonline.2001.16.2.92  
  8. Johnson S., Ramadas G. Disruptions in the process of engineering education – a curriculum design perspective. Procedia Computer Science, 2020, vol. 172, pp. 277–282. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.05.044
  9. Kim J.-H., Nguyen N. T. T., Campbell R. C., Yoo S., Taraban R., Reible D. D. Developing reflective engineers through an arts-incorporated graduate course: A curriculum inquiry. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2021, vol. 42, pp. 100909.  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100909
  10. Meneses L. F. S. Thinking critically through controversial issues on digital media: Dispositions and key criteria for content evaluation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2021, vol. 42, pp. 100927. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100927 
  11. Nilsson M., Griggs D., Visbeck M. Policy: Map the interactions between sustainable development goals. Nature, 2016, vol. 534, pp. 320–322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/534320a
  12. Richardson J. Book Review: Antifragile: Things that Gain from Disorder, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. World Futures Review, 2013, vol. 5 (2), pp. 219–221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1946756713491391 URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Book-Review%3A-Antifragile%3A-Things-that-Gain-from-by-Richardson/6118e6373e7e07a24e9097f3f5aeb2ed9a1da784
  13. Sallati C., de Andrade Bertazzi J., Schützer K. Professional skills in the Product Development Process: the contribution of learning environments to professional skills in the Industry 4.0 scenario. Procedia CIRP, 2019, vol. 84, pp. 203–208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2019.03.214
  14. Schipper T., Goei S. L., de Vries S., van Veen K. Professional growth in adaptive teaching competence as a result of lesson study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2017, vol. 68, pp. 289–303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.09.015
  15. Taleb N. N. On the statistical differences between binary forecasts and real-world payoffs. International Journal of Forecasting, 2020, vol. 36 (4), pp. 1228–1240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2019.12.004
  16. Taylor L. A., Oostdam R., Fukkink R. G. Standardising coaching of preservice teachers in the classroom: Development and trial of the synchronous online feedback tool (SOFT). Teaching and Teacher Education, 2022, vol. 117, pp. 103780. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103780
  17. Wing J. M. Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 2006, vol. 49 (3), pp. 33–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
  18. Zizka L., McGunagle D. M., Clark P. J. Sustainability in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) programs: Authentic engagement through a community-based approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021, vol. 279, pp. 123715. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123715
  19. Altshuller G. R. To find Idea: Introduction in TRIZ – Theory of solution of invention tasks. Moscow, Alpina Publisher Publ., 2008, 402 p. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=22330007  
  20. Zhafyarov A. Z. Criteria for studying dependent and independent samples in the field of education. Science for Education Today, 2022, vol. 12 (3), pp. 69–91. (In Russian) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2203.04 URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=48762161
  21. Pushkarev Y. V., Pushkareva E. A. Reflexive principles of personal development in the changing information content. Science for Education Today, 2019, vol. 9 (2), pp. 52–66. (In Russian) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.1902.04 URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=38191464
  22. Pushkarev Y. V., Pushkareva E. A. Specifics of information and communication developments in education: Analysis of value changes before and after 2020 (A critical review). Science for Education Today, 2021, vol. 11 (6), pp. 96–119. (In Russian) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2106.06  URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=47447640
  23. Trofimov V. M. About the mathematical nature of acumen. Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2017, vol. 7 (4), pp. 151–170. (In Russian) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2226-3365.1704.10 URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=29962703
  24. Trofimov V. M. What is the exact knowledge and how it is prodused in the cognitive processes. Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2018, vol. 8 (4), pp. 141–157. (In Russian) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2226-3365.1804.09 URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=35605575
  25. Trofimov V. M. On the nature of the sustainability of the process in time. Science for Education Today, 2021, vol. 11 (5), pp. 27–42. (In Russian) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2105.02 URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=47136057
Date of the publication 30.10.2022