(2020 ID: 1525) Unpacking the Notion of Computational Thinking in Teacher Education: One Example from the Norwegian Online Course “Programming in School”

This paper discusses the notion of computational thinking and presents one example from an online course in programming to illustrate how computational thinking is approached in one teacher education institution. Computational thinking was first coined by Papert as the relationship between programming and thinking skills (Papert, 1996). Wing further developed the concept and defined computational thinking as “solving problems, designing systems, and understanding human behavior, by drawing on the concepts fundamental to computer science” (2006, p. 33).

 Zhang & Nouri (2019) present computational thinking as a 21st century skill that future generations must develop. Despite a lack of general consensus on what computational thinking entails (Shute et al 2017, Brennan & Resnick, 2012), the approach taken in Nordic countries is that computational thinking is more than just programming, and encompasses key 21 century skills like problem solving, logical thinking and creativity (Bocconi et al, 2018). This connection between computational thinking, problem-solving and 21 century skills can be interpreted as a pointer to the value and relevance of the concept computational thinking. This is visible in revival of computational thinking in both policy documents and national curricula in several countries. Heinz, Mannila and Färnqvist’s (2016) review how 10 different countries (Australia, England, Estonia, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, South Korea, Poland and USA) have approached introducing computer science into their K– 12 education, where they conclude that the trend is to introduce computing, programming and digital competencies in primary education.   

 Within the last few years, the Nordic countries have all introduced computational thinking in their curricula, and the different countries interpret and implement the notion of computational thinking in different ways (Bocconi et. al 2018). Mainly there are two different angles of how the different countries integrate computational thinking into school curricula: 1) integrating computational thinking as part of a specific subject or 2) having computational thinking as its own subject. The revised Norwegian curriculum (2020) introduces computational thinking in Mathematics, Natural Science, Music and Arts and Crafts. This introduction in the curriculum calls for a response from teacher education. This paper addresses following research question: How is computational thinking defined and how is it approached in teacher education in Norway?

The general trend in primary education is to introduce computing, often in the form of what is termed computational thinking, but this term is rarely used explicit, however the ideas are included in some form (Carlborg, et. al, 2019), which appears to be the case in the Norwegian curriculum (2020).  Computational thinking is a concept used by many researchers and in policy documents, but few define and describe it. Garcia-Penalvo & Mendes (2018) state that “computational thinking is not coding, but computational thinking may be the outcome of a good planned programming practice”.

 In the new Norwegian curriculum of 2020 computational thinking has been divided into two main aspects: key concepts and working methods. Key concepts are: logic (analyze and predict), algorithms (rules and step-by-step), decomposition (breaking down into smaller parts), patterns (spotting and using similarities), abstraction (remove unnecessary details) and evaluation (making judgements). Working methods are: Tinkering (experimenting and playing), creating (designing and making), debugging (finding and fixing errors), persevering (keep going) and collaborating (working together) (Directorate of Education, 2019).

 However, there are some dilemmas connected to the notion of computational thinking and how to teach it in schools. Although computational thinking has been introduced in subjects at school it is still unclear how computational thinking should be taught in high school (Musaeus & Musaeus, 2019).

We have approached our study from an action research perspective in order to reflect on our own practice, as well as to intervene and to further develop our practice. Through action research teaching is investigated and learning is approached, through reflecting on our own practice. This resembles what Ulvik, Riese & Roness (2016) term as “practical action research”, where the participants’ voice is a natural part of the evolvement. Our data entails detailed descriptions of the course and the assignments. The course is an online programming course (15 ECTs) for in-service teachers named “Programming in School”. It is aimed at in-service teachers teaching at primary or secondary school levels. The course is not framed within any particular subject and does not require any previous knowledge of programming. Three core elements are emphasized in the course: computational thinking, development of basic programming skills and programming didactics. The students learn two programming languages: Micro:bit (a block-based programming language) and JavaScript (a text-based programming language). The course has 73 students enrolled. The course is evaluated and revised at mid-term and at the end of the course. The teaching methods in the course build on video lectures and feedback to the in-service teachers on their course work is given as video feedback. The course has a duration of 12 weeks over two semesters. The course is divided into three parts, each lasting four weeks: 1) computational thinking and programming in the new curriculum, 2) introduction to programming and 3) various programming resources suitable for a school context. Course work focused on the value of introducing programming for pupils, and on how teachers can facilitate programming to get a transfer value beyond being able to create programs. The course is completed with an examination and followed by a course evaluation. The use of Micro:bit and MakeCode as programming tools was done in order to lower the threshold, as Micro:Bit is a tangible artifact, implying that it is easy to see the result of the code one has created.

Our understanding of computational thinking follows along the lines of Wing (2006) emphasizing that it is a problem-solving process. This impacted how we designed our online program and is materialized through two mandatory assignments the student teachers need to deliver. The first assignment asks the students to reflect upon the value of introducing programming in school for the pupils and how to facilitate that they learn more than just programming, but also computational thinking as a problem-solving process. In the second assignment the students are expected to design a prototype of a “useless” robot, in which they are expected to deliver both code, float diagram and pseudocode. Our overarching idea is that the students through delivering these elements, will document their process of building the robot and thereby develop computational thinking skills as a problem-solving process. Our experience is that text-based programming should not be introduced before second semester. Using a block-based programming language, has a lower threshold for learning, as it consists of predefined blocks of code the learner can connect, which in total generates the code. In JavaScript, a text-based programming language, the learner must create the code by themselves by writing it manually. The online programming course emphasized teaching in-service teachers what is meant by computational thinking in a programming context, and to learn two specific programming languages to see how computational thinking can be fostered through doing programming (in either a block-based or text-based programming language). Preliminary analysis indicates that in the course described above, focus is twofold: a) on programming in which the teacher has to create the link to the subject on his/her own b) on developing computational thinking skills through solving the assignment of creating a prototype of a robot and documenting the process.

Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., & Earp, J. (2018). The Nordic approach to introducing Computational Thinking and programming in compulsory education. Report prepared for the Nordic@ BETT2018 Steering Group. doi: https://doi. Org/10.17471/54007. Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American educational research association, Vancouver, Canada (Vol. 1, p. 25). Carlborg, N., Tyren, M., Heath, C., & Eriksson, E. (2019). The scope of autonomy when teaching computational thinking in primary school. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 21, 130-139. Directorate of Education (2019, sist endret 27.03.2019). Algoritmisk tenkning. https://www.udir.no/kvalitet-og-kompetanse/profesjonsfaglig-digital-kompetanse/algoritmisk-tenkning/ García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Mendes, A. J. (2018). Exploring the computational thinking effects in pre-university education.Computers in Human Behavior, 2018, Vol.80, p.407-411 Heintz, F., Mannila, L., & Färnqvist, T. (2016, October). A review of models for introducing computational thinking, computer science and computing in K-12 education. In 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education conference (FIE) (pp. 1-9). IEEE. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2018). Conducting Educational Design Research. Oxon: Routledge. Papert, S. (1996). An exploration in the space of mathematics educations. IJ Computers for Math. Learning, 1(1), 95-123. Retrieved from http://www.papert.org/articles/AnExplorationintheSpaceofMathematicsEducations.html Musaeus, L. H., & Musaeus, P. (2019, February). Computational Thinking in the Danish High School: Learning Coding, Modeling, and Content Knowledge with NetLogo. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 913-919). ACM. Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142-158. Ulvik, M., Riese, H. & Roness, D. (2016). Å forske på egen praksis. Aksjonsforskning og andre tilnærminger til profesjonell utvikling i utdanningsfeltet. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. Zhang, L., & Nouri, J. (2019). A systematic review of learning computational thinking through Scratch in K-9. Computers & Education, 141, 103607.