DOCSLIB.ORG

Viewpoint Do We Really Need Computational Thinking?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Viewpoint Do We Really Need Computational Thinking? viewpoints VDOI:10.1145/3231587 Enrico Nardelli Viewpoint Do We Really Need Computational Thinking? Considering the expression “computational thinking” as an entry point to understand why the fundamental contribution of computing to science is the shift from solving problems to having problems solved. CONFESS UPFRONT, the title of this Viewpoint is meant to attract readers’ attention. As a com- puter scientist, I am convinced we need the concept of compu- Itational thinking, interpreted as “being able to think like a computer scientist and being able to apply this competence to every field of human endeavor.” The focus of this Viewpoint is to dis- cuss to what extent we need the expres- sion “computational thinking” (CT). The term was already known through the work of Seymour Papert,13 many com- putational scientists,5 and a recent pa- per15 clarifies both its historical devel- opment and intellectual roots. After the widely cited Communications Viewpoint by Jeannette Wing,19 and thanks to her role at NSF,6 an extensive discussion opened with hundreds of subsequent papers dissecting the expression. There is not yet a commonly agreed definition of CT—what I consider in this View- Wing discussed CT to argue it is im- Forsythe, a former ACM president and point is whether we really need a defini- portant every student is taught “how one of the founding fathers of computer tion and for which goal. a computer scientist thinks,”19 which science education in academia, in 1968 To anticipate the conclusion, we I interpret to mean it is important to wrote: “The most valuable acquisition probably need the expression as an in- teach computer science to every stu- in a scientific or technical education are strument, as a shorthand reference to dent. From this perspective, what is the general-purpose mental tools which a well-structured concept, but it might important is stressing the educational remain serviceable for a lifetime. I rate be dangerous to insist too much on it value of informatics for all students— natural language and mathematics as and to try to precisely characterize it. Wing was in line with what other well- the most important of these tools, and It should serve just as a brief explana- known scientists had said earlier; I computer science as a third.”9 Even if tion of why computer science (or infor- mention several here. both citations are not relative to a school matics, or computing: I will use these Donald Knuth, well known by math- education context, in my view they clearly terms interchangeably) is a novel and ematicians and computer scientists, in support the importance of teaching com- independent scientific subject and to 1974 wrote: “Actually, a person does not puter science in schools to all students. argue for the need of teaching infor- really understand something until he However, the wide popularity gained 10 matics in schools. can teach it to a computer.” George by CT after Wing’s Communications IMAGE BY VALLIA 32 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM | FEBRUARY 2019 | VOL. 62 | NO. 2 viewpoints viewpoints Viewpoint risks spoiling the original jor countries. Here, I discuss the three a different way of thinking, called CT” aim. Increasingly, people are consider- most relevant ones. and “learning about programming is a ing CT a new subject, somehow different In England, the national computing way to discover the rudiments of CT.” or distinct from computer science. In programmes of study,a published by the It emerges, from these three ex- the quest to identify the definition that Department of Education in September amples, that CT is not a new subject Wing did not provide, people are stress- 2013 and mandatory since school year to teach and what should be taught in ing one or other aspect (abstraction, 2014–2015, uses CT in the presented school is informatics. recursivity, problem solving, …) and in sense of what one gets by the study and But on the other side, the high num- doing so they obscure its meaning. See practice of computing. In fact, it uses it ber of papers published with CT in their V 2 5 Armoni and Denning for clear and illu- in the opening statement “A high-qual- title or abstract (the ACM Digital Library minating discussions of this issue. ity computing education equips pupils alone contains more than 400) indi- This situation becomes even more to use CT and creativity to understand cates a lot of people seem to argue (and garbled when it comes to education. and change the world” and then just even Wing seemed to agree21) that CT Speaking about teaching CT is a very two more times, in goals for Key Stage is something new and different. Some risky attitude: philosophers, rightly, ask 3 “understand several key algorithms even say “coding” (which they consider what we mean by “teaching thinking”; that reflect CT” and KS4 “develop and different from “programming”) is all mathematicians appropriately observe apply their analytic, problem-solving, you need to learn it! A discussion of that many characteristics of CT (such as design, and CT skills.” The curricu- risks related to this approach and other abstraction, recursivity, problem solv- lum never defines the term. delicate issues regarding CT appeared ing, …) are also proper of mathematics In the U.S., the “Every Student Suc- in a recent Communications column.8 (which they do not call “mathematical ceeds Act” (ESSA), approved by Congress I am convinced that considering thinking”); pedagogues ask how we can in 2015 with bipartisan support, has in- CT as something new and different is be sure CT is really effective in educa- troduced computer science among the misleading: in the long run it will do tion; teachers want to know which are “well rounded educational subjects” more harm than benefit to informatics. the methods and the tools for teaching that needs to be taught in schools “with After all, they do not teach “linguistic this new discipline and how they can the purpose of providing all students thinking” or “mathematical thinking” learn to teach it; and parents are alter- access to an enriched curriculum and in schools and they do not have “body nately happy because it appears school educational experience,” and does not of knowledge” or “assessment meth- has finally started to align itself to the contain at all the term “computational ods” for these subjects. They just teach digital society while they are also con- thinking.” In January 2016, President (and assess competences in) “English”b cerned about what will happen to their Obama launched the initiative “CS and “Mathematics.” Subsequently, the children in the future if they just learn For All” whose goal is “to empower all various linguistic (resp. mathematical) to code with the language of today. American students from kindergarten competences gained by study of Eng- I think a large part of the commu- through high school to learn computer lish (resp. Mathematics), beyond be- nity of computing scientists and edu- science and be equipped with the CT ing used in themselves, find additional cators is convinced the original Com- skills they need …”. Once again, CT is uses in other disciplines. Between CT munications Viewpoint by Wing was what you get when you have learned and computing there exists the same aiming at “start rolling the ball” and computer science. relation. Therefore, we should discuss what needs to be done is teaching in- In France, the Académie des Scienc- what to teach and how to evaluate com- formatics in schools, possibly begin- es—the highest institution represent- petences regarding informatics in pri- ning at an early age. Moreover, I am ing French scientists—published in mary/middle/secondary schools, and convinced the same people are fully May 2013 the report “L’enseignement forget about teaching and evaluating able to understand the meaning of de l’informatique en France. Il est ur- competences in CT. Wing’s expression “to think like a com- gent de ne plus attendre,” (“Teaching In summary, speaking about CT puter scientist” without the need of ex- computer science in France. Tomorrow helps people understand that: we are actly explaining it. Or, if it is absolutely can’t wait.”) recommending—for what focusing on scientific and cultural as- needed, they might agree with the regard the teaching of computer science pects of computing; we are not dealing self-referential sentence “CT is the set (“informatique”)—“teaching should with system and tools, but with principles of mental and cognitive competences start at the primary level, through ex- and methods; we are focusing on the obtained by the study and practice of posure to the notions of computer sci- core scientific concepts of computing, computer science”: the “tacit knowl- ence and algorithms, … <and> should on its conceptual kernel.11 Different from edge” defined by Polanyi.14 be further developed in middle and sec- what happens with language and math, Already in 1974 Knuth warned, in ondary school.” Analyzing their use of we are forced to explicit this distinction discussing computer science, that CT (“pensée informatique”), it is clear since computers are what embodies “the underlying concepts are much that in their vision the term denotes the informatics for most of people. In addi- more important than the name.”10 It is specific habits of thinking developed by tion, we do not think the “computer sci- much more so, I think, for CT. What re- learning computer science. Just a cou- entists’ way of thinking” is better than ally counts is the fact that computing is ple of examples: “computing … leads to others, just that it offers a complemen- taught early in schools. This is actually the path being followed by some ma- a See https://bit.ly/1f7PIFU b Or the relevant native language.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Siu-Cheung Kong Harold Abelson Editors
    Siu-Cheung Kong Harold Abelson Editors Computational Thinking Education Computational Thinking Education Siu-Cheung Kong • Harold Abelson Editors Computational Thinking Education Editors Siu-Cheung Kong Harold Abelson Department of Mathematics Computer Science and Artificial and Information Technology Intelligence Laboratory The Education University of Hong Kong Massachusetts Institute of Technology Hong Kong, Hong Kong Cambridge, MA, USA ISBN 978-981-13-6527-0 ISBN 978-981-13-6528-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6528-7 Library of Congress Control Number: 2019931527 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019. This book is an open access publication. Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adap- tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publi- cation does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
    [Show full text]
  • Computational Thinking: a Disciplinary Perspective
    Informatics in Education, 2021, Vol. 20, No. 1, 361–390 361 © 2021 Vilnius University, ETH Zürich DOI: 10.15388/infedu.2021.21 Computational Thinking: A Disciplinary Perspective Peter J. DENNING1, Matti TEDRE2 1Naval Postgraduate School, USA 2University of Eastern Finland, Finland e-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Received: May 2021 Abstract. Over its short disciplinary history, computing has seen a stunning number of descrip- tions of the field’s characteristic ways of thinking and practicing, under a large number of differ- ent labels. One of the more recent variants, notably in the context of K-12 education, is “compu- tational thinking”, which became popular in the early 2000s, and which has given rise to many competing views of the essential character of CT. This article analyzes CT from the perspective of computing’s disciplinary ways of thinking and practicing, as expressed in writings of com- puting’s pioneers. The article describes six windows into CT from a computing perspective: its intellectual origins and justification, its aims, and the central concepts, techniques, and ways of thinking in CT that arise from those different origins. The article also presents a way of analyzing CT over different dimensions, such as in terms of breadth vs. depth, specialization vs. generaliza- tion, and in terms of skill progression from beginner to expert. Those different views have differ- ent aims, theoretical references, conceptual frameworks, and origin stories, and they justify their intellectual essence in different ways. Keywords: computational thinking, CT, computing as a discipline, history, professionals, ad- vanced, perspectives. 1. Introduction We are in a computer revolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Introducing Computational Thinking in K-12 Education: Historical, Epistemological, Pedagogical, Cognitive, and Affective Aspects Michael Lodi
    Introducing Computational Thinking in K-12 Education: Historical, Epistemological, Pedagogical, Cognitive, and Affective Aspects Michael Lodi To cite this version: Michael Lodi. Introducing Computational Thinking in K-12 Education: Historical, Epistemological, Pedagogical, Cognitive, and Affective Aspects. Computers and Society [cs.CY]. Dipartimento diIn- formatica - Scienza e Ingegneria, Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna, 2020. English. tel-02981951 HAL Id: tel-02981951 https://hal.inria.fr/tel-02981951 Submitted on 28 Oct 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Copyright Alma Mater Studiorum · Universit`adi Bologna PhD program in COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INTRODUCING COMPUTATIONAL THINKING IN K-12 EDUCATION: HISTORICAL, EPISTEMOLOGICAL, PEDAGOGICAL, COGNITIVE, AND AFFECTIVE ASPECTS Presented by: MICHAEL LODI Dep. of Computer Science and Engineering INRIA Focus team PhD program coordinator: Supervisor: Prof. DAVIDE SANGIORGI Prof.SIMONE MARTINI © Michael Lodi, 2020 Licence: Unless otherwise authorized by the author, the thesis may be freely consulted and a copy may be saved and printed for strictly personal study, research and teaching purposes, with express prohibition of any direct or indirect commercial use. All other rights on the material are reserved. This is an authors' pre-print version of the work.
    [Show full text]
  • Computational Thinking, Between Papert and Wing
    Computational thinking, between Papert and Wing Michael Lodi + and Simone Martini +,* + Alma Mater Studiorum – Università di Bologna, Italia, and Inria Sophia Antipolis, France * S. Martini: Research partially conducted while on sabbatical leave at the Collegium—Lyon Institute for Advanced Studies, 2018–2019 February 2021 ABSTRACT The pervasiveness of Computer Science (CS) in today’s digital society and the extensive use of computational methods in other sciences calls for its introduction in the school curriculum. Hence, Computer Science Education is becoming more and more relevant. In CS K-12 education, Computational thinking (CT) is one of the abused buzzwords: different stakeholders (media, educators, politicians) give it different meanings, some more oriented to CS, others more linked to its interdisciplinary value. The expression was introduced by two leading researchers, Jeannette Wing (in 2006) and Seymour Papert (much early, in 1980), each of them stressing (when more, when less explicitly) different aspects of a common theme. This paper will use a historical approach to review, discuss, and put in context these first two educational and epistemological approaches to CT. We will relate them to today’s context and evaluate what aspects are still relevant for CS K-12 education. Of the two, particular interest is devoted to “Papert’s CT,” which is the lesser-known and the lesser-studied. We will conclude that “Wing’s CT” and “Papert’s CT,” when correctly understood, are both relevant to today’s computer science education. From Wing, we should retain computer science’s centrality, CT being the (scientific and cultural) substratum of the technical competencies. Under this interpretation, CT is a lens and a set of categories for understanding the algorithmic fabric of today’s world.
    [Show full text]
  • A System for Introductory Computer Science Education with A
    Genost: A System for Introductory Computer Science Education with a Focus on Computational Thinking by Garret Walliman A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Masters of Science Approved April 2015 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee: Robert Atkinson, Co-Chair Yinong Chen, Co-Chair Yann-Hang Lee ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY May 2015 ABSTRACT Computational thinking, the creative thought process behind algorithmic design and programming, is a crucial introductory skill for both computer scientists and the population in general. In this thesis I perform an investigation into introductory computer science education in the United States and find that computational thinking is not effectively taught at either the high school or the college level. To remedy this, I present a new educational system intended to teach computational thinking called Genost. Genost consists of a software tool and a curriculum based on teaching computational thinking through fundamental programming structures and algorithm design. Genost’s software design is informed by a review of eight major computer science educational software systems. Genost’s curriculum is informed by a review of major literature on computational thinking. In two educational tests of Genost utilizing both college and high school students, Genost was shown to significantly increase computational thinking ability with a large effect size. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special thanks to the following individuals: My thesis advisors Dr. Yinong Chen, Dr. Robert Atkinson, and Dr. Yann-Hang Lee for opening many doors and providing an enormous amount of feedback. Active Capstone team members Rizwan Ahmad, Garth Bjerk, Tracey Heath, David Humphries, Corey Jallen, Ian Plumley, Stephen Pluta, Randy Queen, and Matt Rechia, for helping to create both the Genost design and the Genost software and robot.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Logo
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Previously Published Works Title History of Logo Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1623m1p3 Journal Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, 4(HOPL) ISSN 2475-1421 Authors Solomon, C Harvey, B Kahn, K et al. Publication Date 2020-06-12 DOI 10.1145/3386329 License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California History of Logo CYNTHIA SOLOMON, Cynthia Solomon Consulting, USA BRIAN HARVEY, University of California, Berkeley, USA KEN KAHN, University of Oxford, UK HENRY LIEBERMAN, MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL), USA MARK L. MILLER, Learningtech.org, USA MARGARET MINSKY, New York University-Shanghai, China ARTEMIS PAPERT, Independent artist, Canada BRIAN SILVERMAN, Playful Invention Co., Canada Shepherd: Tomas Petricek, University of Kent, UK Logo is more than a programming language. It is a learning environment where children explore mathematical ideas and create projects of their own design. Logo, the first programming language explicitly designed for children, was invented by Seymour Papert, Wallace Feurzeig, Daniel Bobrow, and Cynthia Solomon in 1966 at Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc. (BBN). Logo’s design drew upon two theoretical frameworks: Jean Piaget’s constructivism and Marvin Minsky’s artificial intelligence research at MIT. One of Logo’s foundational ideas was that children shouldhavea powerful programming environment. Early Lisp served as a model with its symbolic computation, recursive functions, operations on linked lists, and dynamic scoping of variables. Logo became a symbol for change in elementary mathematics education and in the nature of school itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Introducing Computational Thinking in K-12 Education: Historical, Epistemological, Pedagogical, Cognitive, and Affective Aspects
    Alma Mater Studiorum · Universit`adi Bologna Dottorato di Ricerca in COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING Ciclo XXXII Settore Concorsuale: 01/B1 INFORMATICA Settore Scientifico Disciplinare: INF/01 INFORMATICA INTRODUCING COMPUTATIONAL THINKING IN K-12 EDUCATION: HISTORICAL, EPISTEMOLOGICAL, PEDAGOGICAL, COGNITIVE, AND AFFECTIVE ASPECTS Presentata da: MICHAEL LODI Coordinatore Dottorato: Supervisore: Chiar.mo Prof. Chiar.mo Prof. DAVIDE SANGIORGI SIMONE MARTINI Esame finale anno 2020 Contents Contents i Abstract vii Publications by the Author ix Terminology xiii Introduction1 I Literature Review 15 1 CS in K-12 Education 17 1.1 The Importance of CS in Society and in Schools................ 17 1.2 CS in School Curricula............................. 19 1.3 Other Initiatives................................. 20 1.3.1 Code.org................................. 21 1.4 The Situation in Italy.............................. 21 1.4.1 The Italian School System....................... 21 1.4.2 CS in the Curriculum.......................... 22 1.4.3 Teacher Training............................ 23 1.4.4 Recent Developments.......................... 23 1.4.5 The \Programma il Futuro" Project.................. 24 1.5 Conclusions................................... 25 2 Computational Thinking and Coding 27 2.1 Computational Thinking............................. 27 2.2 Five Definitions of CT.............................. 28 2.2.1 Common Aspects............................ 30 2.3 Misconceptions about CT definitions...................... 33 2.4 Coding.....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Outline of Thought
    Outline of thought • computer (see § Machine thought below) – general purpose device that can be pro- grammed to carry out a set of arithmetic or logical operations automatically. Since a se- quence of operations (an algorithm) can be readily changed, the computer can solve more than one kind of problem. • An activity of intelligence – intellectual capacity, which is characterized by perception, consciousness, self-awareness, and volition. Through their intel- ligence, humans possess the cognitive abilities to learn, form concepts, understand, apply logic, and A chimpanzee thinking. reason, including the capacities to recognize pat- terns, comprehend ideas, plan, problem solve, make The following outline is provided as an overview of and decisions, retaining, and use language to communi- topical guide to thought (thinking): cate. Intelligence enables humans to experience and think. Thought (also called thinking) – the mental process in which beings form psychological associations and models • A type of mental process – something that in- of the world. Thinking is manipulating information, dividuals can do with their minds. Mental pro- as when we form concepts, engage in problem solving, cesses include perception, memory, thinking, reason and make decisions. Thought, the act of thinking, volition, and emotion. Sometimes the term produces thoughts. A thought may be an idea, an image, cognitive function is used instead. a sound or even an emotional feeling that arises from the • [3] brain. Thought as a biological adaptation mechanism 2 Types of thoughts 1 Nature of thought • Concept Thought (or thinking) can be described as all of the fol- lowing: • Abstract concept • Concrete concept • An activity taking place in a: • Conjecture • brain – organ that serves as the center of the • Decision (see § Decision-making below) nervous system in all vertebrate and most in- • vertebrate animals (only a few invertebrates Definition such as sponges, jellyfish, adult sea squirts and • Explanation starfish do not have a brain).
    [Show full text]