Computational Thinking – The Evolving Definition

Author(s):

Andrew Paul Csizmadia(presenting / submitting)Helen Boulton(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

03. Curriculum Innovation

Format:

Paper

Session Information

03 SES 06 A, School Curriculum and the Integration of 21st Century Skills

Paper Session

Time:

2015-09-09

15:30-17:00

Room:

415.Oktatóterem [C]

Chair:

Jan Berkvens

Contribution

Computational Thinking is regarding as a gift from Computer Science to other discipline areas, a digital literacy skill and a cornerstone of the Computing Programme of Study to be delivered as part of the National Curriculum in English Schools from September 2014 (DfE 2013). Since Wing’s (2006) seminal article was published with a clear and concise call to embed Computational Thinking in all subject areas, the impact of and influence of Computational Thinking can be seen worldwide. This is evident in the ubiquitous and pervasive nature of computing, the engagement and interactive with big data in a range of disciplines and the development of computer science curriculum in countries worldwide. However, there is continuing discussion and debate (Brennon & Resnick 2012) regarding the need for a robust distinct definition of the term “Computational Thinking”, as at present there is no collective consensus definition for this term.

In this paper, the authors seek to contribute to this ongoing discussion by presenting the findings of a desk-based academic literature review relating to Computational Thinking whichutilisedboth Influential Literature Analysis (Hoepner & McMillian 2009) and Citation Analysis (Harzing 2010) to identify relevant key text. These key texts were then analysed to identify the most frequent occurring items (i.e. terms, descriptions and meanings) and coded using appropriate synonyms.

Criteria are proposed for the objectives of a definition of Computational Thinking, in accordance with the findings presented in the literature review. The criteria were then used as a theoretical framework together with the items identified from the literature review as the vocabulary to propose a definition of the term Computational Thinking. The proposed definition was then evaluated against definitions proposed by other computer science education researchers (Grover & Pea 2013; Selby 2013; Brennon & Resnick 2012) to determine its effectiveness.

Method

A selection of relevant and appropriate academic literature was identified by conducting a desk-based academic literature review relating to Computational Thinking and its associated terms which utilised both Influential Literature Analysis (Hoepner & McMillian 2009) and Citation Analysis (Harzing 2010) to identify relevant key text. These key texts were then analysed to identify the most frequent occurring items (i.e. terms, descriptions and meanings) and coded using appropriate synonyms. All relevant identified texts, with either titles or abstracts indicating a focus on computational thinking, were individually inspected. In addition, the ACM Digital Library and Educational Resource Information Cleaninghouse (ERIC) were searched using the term “Computational Thinking”. The articles were filtered according to the abstract/introduction text. In an attempt to contribute to the development of a definition, the publications were analysed in chronological order to discern the development, over time, of the phrase Computational Thinking and where possible individual academic’s deliberations regarding the phrase Computation Thinking were critically evaluated, for example Wing. Descriptions and proposed definitions of Computational Thinking were identified in each publication, recorded and coded. Common terminology across descriptions and suggested definitions was collated. Where equivalences and synonyms allowed, similar terms were grouped together. The most frequently occurring individual terms and groups are presented in the following sections. From this basic collection of terms, a definition of Computational Thinking was formulated, proposed and offered for consideration by the professional academic community. Justification for the inclusion or exclusion of terms within the proposed definition is presented on a term-by-term basis. This justification is based on consistency of individual term’s usage and consistency of their interpretation across the identified literature. The proposed definition reflects much of the consensus found in the literature whilst removing the less well-defined terms.

Expected Outcomes

The literature reviewed indicates that a tension exists as some authors assert that a precise definition of computational thinking is not required (Guzdial 2011; Hu 2011), whilst others indicated that a precise definition is required (Brennon & Resnick 2012; Dede et al 2014). However, the discussion presented in this paper is driven by a perceived need to support practising computer science educators. This need for a definition is supported in the literature (Barr & Stephenson 2011; Guzdial 2011; National Research Council 2011; National Research Council 2010). Guzdial (2011) suggested that a very broad definition is acceptable; shifting the focus to how computational thinking should be taught which is supported by Hu (2011). The intent of this paper is to contribute to the continuing academic discussions and discourse that attempt to evolve a definition of Computational Thinking. The objectives for such a definition, are: to define more narrowly, not more broadly; to bring an order to the criteria not necessarily to accommodate all viewpoints; to refine the definition to facilitate assessment; to retain the validity of work that has been done previously, such as the development of curriculums; to separate a definition from those activities that might promote acquisition of Computational Thinking skills; and to separate a definition from those artefacts and activities that evidence the use of Computational Thinking skills. The resulting definition retains the consensus found in the literature whilst removing the less well-defined terms. This proposed definition should not only facilitate the development of a computer science curriculum which is constructed upon a bedrock of Computational Thinking but in line with Wing’s original vision that Computational Thinking should permute and support all subject areas (2006). The definition should ensure that the computer science curriculums will not become just a collection of interesting resources presented at teachers’ discretions.

References

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, 48-54. Brennon, K. and Resnick, M., 2012. New frameworks for the studying and assessing the development of computational thinking [online]. Available at: http://web.media.mit.edu/~kbrennan/files/Brennan_Resnick_AERA2012_CT.pdf [Accessed: 20th December 2013]. Dede, C., Mishra, P., & Voogt, J., 2013. Working Group 6: Advancing computational thinking in 21st century learning [online]. Available at: http://www.edusummit.nl/fileadmin/contentelementen/kennisnet/EDUSummIT/Documenten/2013/Advancing_computational_thinking_in_21st_century_learning.pdf [Accessed: 20 January 2014]. DfE [Department for Education], 2013. National Curriculum in England: Computing programmes of study - key stages 3 and 4 [online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239067/SECONDARY_national_curriculum_-_Computing.pdf [Accessed: 20 December 2013]. Gal-Ezer, J., Beeri, C., Harel, D. & Yehudai, A. 1995. A high school program in computer science. Computer, 28, 73-80. Grover, S. and R. Pea, Computational Thinking in K-12: A Review of the State of the Field. Educational Researcher, 2013. 42(1): p. 38-43. Guzdial, M. 2011. A Definition of Computational Thinking from Jeannette Wing. Computing Education Blog [Online]. Available from: [Accessed 22-03-11]. Guzdial, M. 2008. Education: Paving the way for computational thinking. Commun. ACM, 51, 25-27. Harzing, A.W. (2010b). The Publish or Perish Book: Your guide to effective and responsible cita-tion analysis, Melbourne: Tarma Software Research. Hoepner, A. G., & McMillan, D. G. 2009. Research On'Responsible Investment': An Influential Literature Analysis Comprising A Rating, Characterisation, Categorisation and Investigation. Characterisation, Categorisation and Investigation (August 14, 2009). HU, C. 2011. COMPUTATIONAL THINKING: WHAT IT MIGHT MEAN AND WHAT WE MIGHT DO ABOUT IT. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 16TH ANNUAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY IN COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION. DARMSTADT, GERMANY: ACM. National Research Council. 2011. Report of a Workshop of Pedagogical Aspects of Computational Thinking. Available: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13170 [Accessed 10-10-2011]. National Research Council. 2010. Report of a Workshop on the Scope and Nature of Computational Thinking. Available: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12840 [Accessed 10-05-2011]. Selby, C., Computational Thinking: The Developing Definition, in 19th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 2013: Canterbury, Great Britain. p. 6pp Wing, J. 2006. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM, 49, 33-35.

Author Information

Andrew Paul Csizmadia (presenting / submitting)

Newman University, United Kingdom

Helen Boulton (presenting)

Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.