Developing Network Thinking: Making Foundational Reasoning Visible at the University of Professional Studies, Accra
During the Second Semester of the 2025/2026 academic year, students studying Networking Development and Management at the University of Professional Studies, Accra (UPSA) followed a practice-oriented learning pathway. Guided technical instruction was connected to analytical activities, self-paced courses on the Cisco Networking Academy platform, practical activities and mentorship. Project-oriented tasks were embedded within semester activities and assignments, while later learning included selected engagements with institutional and telecommunications network environments.
The paper-based work discussed here was an early conceptual activity within that sequence. In subsequent weeks, related networking concepts were encountered through Cisco Networking Academy learning, practical tasks and exposure to operational network environments. During Week 2, while studying Network Architecture and Models, students worked in their project groups with paper-based network components and structured diagrams. They classified concepts, organised relationships, constructed models and explained the technical logic of their choices. The value of the activity lay in making students' reasoning about abstract network systems visible for examination and refinement.
Why Abstract Technical Knowledge Needs Visible Reasoning
Computer Networking relies extensively on abstraction. Layered communication, protocol hierarchies, peer-layer interaction, services, interfaces, encapsulation, decapsulation and host-to-host communication describe functions and processes distributed across hosts, intermediary devices and transmission media. Practical engagement can illuminate these concepts, as later course activities did, but foundational learning also depends on coherent mental models of how network functions are separated, related and coordinated.
Knowing that TCP operates at the transport layer is different from reasoning about transport-layer functions and their relationship to application processes. Recognising DNS is different from explaining its role in name resolution. Network knowledge gains coherence when concepts are connected through function, architectural position and system behaviour.
Cognitive learning theory helps explain the value of making such relationships external. Seymour Papert's constructionism emphasises the development of ideas through the creation of meaningful, shareable artefacts. Computing education offers a related example in CS Unplugged, where carefully designed physical activities provide routes into abstract computing concepts without making a computer the compulsory starting point. In a networking context, an external model can make relationships among layers, protocols, services and communication processes available for direct inspection. The value lies in the reasoning the representation requires and exposes.
This is particularly relevant to Computer Networking, a discipline that routinely uses protocol stacks, architectural diagrams, packet formats and communication flows to represent complex interactions. A carefully designed visible representation can place selected relationships within a shared visual space. Students can classify components, inspect boundaries, compare architectural positions and explain connections while the model remains open to review.
The cognitive value emerges from the decisions required to construct the model. Classification demands distinction, arrangement draws attention to structure, and modelling requires relational coherence. Explanation makes the learner's interpretation explicit, while revision allows the underlying conceptual model to be reconsidered. The constructed artefact can therefore function as a cognitive tool for disciplined reasoning about abstract technical relationships.
Turning the Computer Networking Classroom into a Reasoning Studio
The Week 2 activity turned the classroom into a reasoning studio: a space for modelling, questioning and improving technical understanding. Its design followed the reasoning demands of Network Architecture and Models.
The topic brings together distinct but connected forms of technical reasoning. Protocols, services, devices and layer functions call for precise classification. The five-layer architecture, OSI reference model and TCP/IP architecture involve hierarchical organisation and cross-model comparison. Services, interfaces and protocols invite relational reasoning because they are connected while performing different architectural roles. Encapsulation and decapsulation involve changes in the representation and processing of data across protocol layers. Host-to-host communication calls for systems thinking because communication depends on coordinated functions across multiple components and layers.
The activity translated these knowledge structures into observable decisions. Students classified concepts, positioned components according to architectural roles and relationships, and assembled models in which isolated networking terms had to form coherent communication structures. They explained the rationale for their choices and responded to questions about the models they had produced.
The resulting artefacts made students' developing conceptual models inspectable. A protocol placed at an inappropriate layer revealed a classification difficulty. Treating a service and a protocol as equivalent made an architectural distinction visible for clarification. Representing encapsulation as simple movement, rather than processing across protocol layers with relevant control information added, highlighted an incomplete communication model. Externalising these relationships allowed them to be addressed while learning was taking place.
The constructed models became a shared reasoning space. Students accounted for placement, relationships, communication flow and architectural logic, allowing technical understanding to be reviewed and improved as part of the activity.
The intellectual work resided in the decisions students made: what they classified, where they positioned it, how they connected it and how clearly they could explain those choices. The learning medium followed the cognitive structure of the topic.
From Visible Reasoning to Broader Technical Learning
As the course progressed, the early conceptual work connected with broader technical learning. Self-paced courses on the Cisco Networking Academy platform and related practical tasks extended students' engagement with networking concepts, while later infrastructure and professional learning contexts provided opportunities to interpret network systems beyond the initial classroom models. The Week 2 activity organised foundational relationships at an early stage of that progression.
In class and during subsequent engagements, students were observed connecting technical explanations and questions to concepts they had already modelled and discussed. The significance of this observation lies in the continuity of learning across contexts. Earlier conceptual work provided a vocabulary and relational structure through which later practical and professional experiences could be interpreted.
Different technical learning problems require different environments. Self-paced Cisco Networking Academy courses and related practical tasks support structured engagement with network concepts and behaviour. Infrastructure exposure enables students to interpret operational systems in context. Where the immediate learning demand concerns classification, hierarchy, architectural relationships and conceptual transformation, a carefully designed external model can provide an appropriate reasoning environment.
The sophistication of a learning activity should not be judged only by the technology it uses. It should be judged by the quality of reasoning it requires from students. In Computer Networking, where many system behaviours are understood through abstractions and relationships, making reasoning visible can support progression from recognition of terms to explanation of structure, interpretation of behaviour and justification of technical decisions.
The Week 2 experience at the University of Professional Studies, Accra illustrates a broader principle for technical education: the medium should follow the cognitive demand of the knowledge being learned. When a representation is deliberately aligned with the structure of a technical concept, simple materials can support rigorous classification, modelling and technical explanation. The enduring contribution of the activity is the network reasoning students learn to organise, make visible and carry into more complex technical contexts.
Dr. Augustina Dede Agor, PhD (Computer Science), is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Information Technology Studies at the University of Professional Studies, Accra (UPSA), with over a decade of experience in computing education, research and tertiary instruction. She has supervised and examined undergraduate and postgraduate research across universities in Ghana in Computer Science, Information Technology, Information Systems, interdisciplinary computing and Business Management Studies. Her teaching spans diploma, undergraduate and postgraduate levels in Ghana and Europe, with experience in programming, design and analysis of algorithms, systems analysis and design, data structures, databases, mobile computing, online education strategies and related computing disciplines. Her research, published in international peer-reviewed journals, spans artificial intelligence, optimisation and metaheuristics, computer networks and communications, biometrics and automated fingerprint identification systems, neural architectures, cybersecurity, and algorithmic design and analysis. She is Patron of the UPSA Developers Hub, an academic initiative advancing supervised system development, engineering capability and structured academic-industry engagement. Alongside her scholarly research, she contributes to national discourse through media writing on computing education, software engineering capability and the transformation of university computing project education in the AI era.
Disclaimer: "The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect ModernGhana official position. ModernGhana will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements in the contributions or columns here."