10 benchmarks for Good Practice Science

Our range of Labdisc dataloggers are the ideal devices for  bringing practical experimenting into the classroom. Contact us for more information. info@tyncan.com

The Gatsby Foundation published the Good Practical Science Report by Sir John Holman which aims to transform the delivery of practical science education, helping secondary schools “achieve world class science education”. The report provides a framework for good practical science through a series of ten benchmarks, drawing on the need for adequate funding, a strong supply of expert science teachers and a curriculum, assessment and accountability system that encourages good teaching. The report concedes that the benchmarks are demanding and that “most schools are falling short of achieving world-class practical science measured in this way”.

The report includes wide-ranging recommendations for school leaders and for the wider education system. The recommendations for school governors and trustees include:

  • Recruiting, retaining and deploying specialist teachers – schools should take a strategic approach to get a better proportion of science subject specialists including recruitment, retention measures and CPD.
  • Valuing science technicians – Technicians should be valued as an integral part of the science department

For further guidance on the types of challenging questions that governors might ask senior leaders on the quality and provision of science education at your school, click here

Advertisements

$200 million for computer science

Today, the White House announced a $200 million per year commitment to computer science education in America’s schools. Unlike similar proposals in previous years, today’s action delivers funding to schools, immediately. Besides expanding access to computer science in schools that previously didn’t teach it, the funds promise to increase participation by women and underrepresented minorities.

This funding will jumpstart efforts to ensure every student in every U.S. school has the opportunity to learn computer science as part of a well-rounded education. For advocates of increased access and diversity in CS, this is the culmination of years of momentum that began in classrooms, spread to entire school districts, and won the support of business leaders and elected officials globally.

At a time when computing careers are the best-paying, fastest-growing, and largest sector of new wages, impacting every industry in every state, it is no longer acceptable for our schools to limit access to this foundational subject. Our children deserve a level playing field — the opportunity to learn computer science shouldn’t be limited by the color of a student’s skin or the neighborhood she lives in.

The UK, Japan, Ireland, and a dozen other countries have announced plans to add computer science to their school curriculum, and so have many individual states in the U.S.

And today, America leads in computer science, thanks to countless supporters of this cause, starting with you: parents, students, and teachers, as well as partner organizations and corporations. Whether you signed a petition on Code.org or used our courses in your classroom, you’ve helped build a grassroots movement that is changing education, globally.

Uniting for children, in divided times

The division in our country hurts us all. Amidst the politics, students represent our hope. We all want opportunity for our children, and there’s no better way to offer them opportunity than to prepare them for the careers of the future.

This movement has supporters across the political spectrum, whether in urban, suburban, or rural communities. We may be divided by our politics, but we’re united by our dedication to our children.

Code.org has never endorsed any candidate, politician, or political party. We’ve worked closely with presidents and governors from both parties, and with international prime ministers, to advocate for opportunity. Like many others, we’re appalled by the divisiveness in today’s politics, at a time when we need collaborative solutions to the world’s problems. Given our education focus, we’re dismayed by proposed cuts to education budgets. And given our mission and focus on diversity, we unequivocally denounce the tone of racism that has entered the political sphere.

Today we have a chance to set aside politics and come together, to support opportunity for all our children, and to build the future.

This is still the beginning

For those of us who have spent years working to spread computer science, today’s announcement marks a new beginning — it’s a new opportunity for every school to expand its computer science offerings. This work is only just beginning, and the job won’t be done until every school steps up to teach high-quality computer science.

To the 600,000 Code.org teachers who have helped make computer science the fastest-spreading subject in modern education, I want to thank you for your passion.

And I encourage every educator to consider joining the computer science movement. Your students are our future. Whether you teach your students to add and subtract, to read and write, or to code, yours is the most important job in the world.

Today marks a special moment for every parent, student, teacher, or partner organization who believes in our mission, that every student in every school deserves the opportunity to learn computer science.

To all of you who have supported Code.org, today’s announcement is about something bigger than any politician or political agenda: it’s about our children and their future, and it’s about you, and the strength of our global movement for students. I hope you’ll share today’s great news.

Thank you, from the bottom of my heart.

Hadi Partovi
Code.org

The Swiss Army Knife of data logging

Labdisc General Science

8/31/2017 7:44:00 AM

For more information contact info@tyncan.com

0191 4787976

The Labdisc GenSci is an advanced science lab and data logger. It includes up to 15 wireless sensors so users can conduct a variety of science experiments right out of the box. Students can experiment with air pressure, ambient temperature, current, distance (motion), external temperature, GPS, light, microphones, pH, relative humidity, sound, universal input, and voltage.

The Labdisc is simple to use, both on its own and with GlobiLab’s free software. GlobiLab is compatible with PC, Chrome OS, Mac, iOS, and Android and connects via wireless Bluetooth or USB.

Quality and Effectiveness: The Labdisc GenSci is a well-constructed and extremely effective product for the K–12 science classroom. Because it works with a variety of platforms, it could find a home in any science teacher’s curriculum. The data logger has a 128K sample memory and 24K/second sampling rate, as well as a 150-hour charge life and large graphical LCD and GPS. All of these features, paired with the sensors and GlobiLab software, allow students and teachers to perform a variety of general science experiments in and out of the classroom in real time and longitudinally.

Ease of Use: The Labdisc GenSci is the “Swiss Army knife” of data loggers. Users simply turn it on, rotate the ring to select which sensor they’d like to use, and begin logging data. The LCD screen and keypad make it easy to select the experiment and watch the data being logged in real time. GlobiLab software features a full-color data display with a variety of meter types and easy-to-understand icons. Its multimedia features include markers and annotation functionality. Students can add text and images at key points along the graphs. Users can also manage files and export to spreadsheets, allowing for further analysis and presentation of the data.

Creative Use of Technology: The Labdisc unit is an extremely innovative use of technology. It packs a multitude of features into a lightweight, compact, and portable device. The unit’s universal sensor port can be used with third-party sensors teachers may already have from other vendors. In addition, the data that’s stored from all of the sensors is easily saved with the GlobiLab software’s file management feature. The GPS feature integrates with Google Maps so students can merge their sensor values and plot them over a Google Map. This allows students to zoom in and pan around the map to see the actual location of the data. This data can then be shared in a variety of ways with their classmates, as well as with students in other locations, to create global, collaborative, inquiry-based projects.

Suitability for Use in a School Environment: The Labdisc GenSci is a quality, purpose-built tool for the classroom. Multiple units can be purchased along with GenSci’s mobile science cart for secure charging and storage. Labdisc offers other units for environmental science, physics, biology, and chemistry that can be used as stand-alone units or mixed and matched in a cart to suit the needs of a school or district.

OVERALL RATING:

The Labdisc data logger is an excellent tool for teachers and students exploring and building upon inquiry-based learning. Labdiscs can be used in field experiments as well as in the classroom so students can have more real-world science experiences. The charger and 150-plus hours of battery life give users more than enough time to complete long-term data logging.

TOP FEATURES

● The Labdisc is an all-in-one wired/wireless science lab with 15 sensors that can be carried in one hand for use in the classroom or out in the field.
● The free GlobiLab software enables deeper analysis and presentation of the data so students can get real-world results.
● All sensors are calibrated and ready for automatic testing, requiring no setup time.

Is this the future of Education in the UK

I understand the idea behind having a school uniform but this trend is in my view totally alien to any education system I would want to be part of. I have not been so upset by what we are doing to our chikdren for a long long time. As a life long educator I am so saddened by this.

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/pupils-lined-up-in-the-rain-to-colour-match-trousers-at-sunderland-school-with-children-sent-home-if-clothes-were-from-the-wrong-shop-1-8738424

Computers do not increase grades.

Hopefully all teachers are aware of this. However living in a digital world and also needing people who can program and work with developing new technologies it is important to have experience of technology as early as possible. The main take away for me in the article is that still successive governments have failed to invest in digital training for teachers. This has been the same since 1999 and the New Oportunities Funding (NOF) fiasco endearingly referred to as NAF training. We may well have elections to change parties in power but unfortunately who ever we vote for we get a government.

The article was written by Prof. Steve Higgins Durham University @profstig

http://www.thetechedvocate.org/access-computers-wont-automatically-boost-childrens-grades/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ReviveOldPost

Remaining Trouble Spots with Computational Thinking

This is an interesting article by Peter J Denning which gives a clear history of Computational Thinking then he looks at the following

  1. What is computational thinking?
  2. How do we measure students’ computational abilities?
  3. Is computational thinking good for everyone?

And then gives some concluding remarks.

Remaining Trouble Spots with Computational Thinking, illustration

Computational thinking has been a hallmark of computer science since the 1950s. So also was the notion that people in many fields could benefit from computing knowledge. Around 2006 the promoters of the CS-for-all K-12 education movement claimed all people could benefit from thinking like computer scientists. Unfortunately, in attempts to appeal to other fields besides CS, they offered vague and confusing definitions of computational thinking. As a result today’s teachers and education researchers struggle with three main questions: What is computational thinking? How can it be assessed? Is it good for everyone? There is no need for vagueness: the meaning of computational thinking, evolved since the 1950s, is clear and supports measurement of student progress. The claims that it benefits everyone beyond computational designers are as yet unsubstantiated. This examination of computational thinking sharpens our definition of algorithm itself: an algorithm is not any sequence of steps, but a series of steps that control some abstract machine or computational model without requiring human judgment. Computational thinking includes designing the model, not just the steps to control it.

Computational thinking is loosely defined as the habits of mind developed from designing programs, software packages, and computations performed by machines. The Computer Science for All education movement, which began around 2006, is motivated by two premises: that computational thinking will better prepare every child for living in an increasingly digitalized world, and that computational thinkers will be superior problem solvers in all fields.

Since 2006 hundreds of educators have participated in workshops, studies, committees, surveys, new courses, and public evaluations to define computational thinking for “CS for all” curricula. The Computer Science Teachers Association issued an operational definition in 2011 (see Box 1), the Computing at School subdivision of the British Computer Society followed in 2015 with a more detailed definition (see Box 2), and the International Society for Technology in Education followed in 2016 with a generalized technology definition (see Box 3). There are other frameworks as well.21,27

Given all this work, I was surprised recently when some teachers and education researchers asked for my help answering three questions with which they continue to struggle:

  1. What is computational thinking?
  2. How do we measure students’ computational abilities?
  3. Is computational thinking good for everyone?

To support my answers, I reviewed many published articles. I learned that these three questions are of concern to teachers in many countries and that educators internationally continue to search for answers.21

It concerns me that teachers at the front lines of delivering computing education are still unsettled about these basic issues. How can they be effective if not sure about what they are teaching and how to assess it? In 2011, Elizabeth Jones, then a student at the University of South Carolina, warned that lack of answers to these questions could become a problem.16

I believe the root of the problem is that, in an effort to be inclusive of all fields that might use computing, the recent definitions of computational thinking made fuzzy and overreaching claims. Is it really true that any sequence of steps is an algorithm? That procedures of daily life are algorithms? That people who use computational tools will need to be computational thinkers? That people who learn computational thinking will be better problem solvers in all fields? That computational thinking is superior to other modes of thought?

My critique is aimed not at the many accomplishments of the movements to get computer science into all schools, but at the vague definitions and unsubstantiated claims promoted by enthusiasts. Unsubstantiated claims undermine the effort by overselling computer science, raising expectations that cannot be met, and leaving teachers in the awkward position of not knowing exactly what they are supposed to teach or how to assess whether they are successful.

My purpose here is to examine these questions and in the process elucidate what computational thinking really is and who is it good for.

Question 1: What Is Computational Thinking?

A good place to look for an answer is in our history. Computational thinking has a rich pedigree from the beginning of the computing field in the 1940s. As early as 1945, George Polya wrote about mental disciplines and methods that enabled the solution of mathematics problems.29 His book How to Solve It was a precursor to computational thinking.

In 1960, Alan Perlis claimed the concept of “algorithmizing” was already part of our culture.18 He argued that computers would automate and eventually transform processes in all fields and thus algorithmizing would eventually appear in all fields.

In the mid-1960s, at the time I was entering the field, the pioneers Allen Newell, Alan Perlis, and Herb Simon were defending the new field from critics who claimed there could be no computer science because computers are man-made artifacts and science is about natural phenomena.23 The three pioneers argued that sciences form around phenomena that people want to harness; computers as information transformers were a new focal phenomenon covered by no other field. They also argued that “algorithmic thinking”—a process of designing a series of machine instructions to drive a computational solution to a problem—distinguishes computer science from other fields.

In 1974, Donald Knuth said that expressing an algorithm is a form of teaching (to a dumb machine) that leads to a deep understanding of a problem; learning an algorithmic approach aids in understanding concepts of all kinds in many fields.

In 1979, Edsger Dijkstra wrote about the computational habits of mind he learned to help him program well:9separation of concerns; effective use of abstraction; design and use of notations tailored to one’s manipulative needs; and avoiding combinatorially exploding case analyses.

Seymour Papert may have been the first to use the term computational thinking in 1980, when in his book Mindstorms he described a mental skill children develop from practicing programming.24,25

In 1982, Ken Wilson received a Nobel prize in physics for developing computational models that produced startling new discoveries about phase changes in materials. He went on a campaign to win recognition and respect for computational science. He argued that all scientific disciplines had very tough problems—”grand challenges”—that would yield to massive computation.33 He and other visionaries used the term “computational science” for the emerging branches of science that used computation as their primary method. They saw computation as a new paradigm of science, complementing the traditional paradigms of theory and experiment. Some of them used the term “computational thinking” for the thought processes in doing computational science—designing, testing, and using computational models to make discoveries and advance science. They launched a political movement to secure funding for computational science research, culminating in the High Performance Communication and Computing (HPCC) Act passed in 1991 by the U.S. Congress. Computer scientists were slow to join the movement, which grew up independently of them. Easton noted that, as computational science matured, computational thinking successfully infiltrated the sciences and most sciences now study information processes in their domains.12


The search for computational models pervades all of computational science.


The current surge of interest in computational thinking began in 2006 under the leadership of Jeannette Wing.35,36,37 While an NSF assistant director for CISE, she catalyzed a discussion around computational thinking and mobilized resources to bring it into K-12 schools. Although I supported the goal of bringing computer science to more schools, I took issue with the claim of some enthusiasts that computational thinking was a new way to define computing.7 The formulations of computational thinking at the time emphasized extensions of object-oriented thinking to software development and simulation—a narrow view the field. Moreover, the term had been so widely used in science and mathematics that it no longer described something unique to the computing field.

In 2011, on the eve of Alan Turing’s 100th birthday, Al Aho wrote a significant essay on the meaning of computational thinking2 for a symposium on computation in ACM Ubiquity.5 He said: “Abstractions called computational models are at the heart of computation and computational thinking. Computation is a process that is defined in terms of an underlying model of computation and computational thinking is the thought processes involved in formulating problems so their solutions can be represented as computational steps and algorithms.”2, a

Aho emphasized at great length the importance of computational models. When we design an algorithm we are designing a way to control any machine that implements the model, in order that the machine produces a desired effect in the world. Early examples of models for computational machines were Turing machines, neural networks, and logic reduction machines, and, recently, deep earning neural networks for artificial intelligence and data analytics. However, computational models are found in all fields. The Wilson renormalization model is an example in physics, the Born-Oppenheimer approximation is an example in chemistry, and the CRISPR model is an example from biology. Aho says further, “[With new problems], we discover that we do not always have the appropriate models to devise solutions. In these cases, computational thinking becomes a research activity that includes inventing appropriate new models of computation.”2

As an example, Aho points out that in computational biology there is a big effort to find computational models for the behavior of cells and their DNA. The search for computational models pervades all of computational science. Aho’s insight that computational thinking relies on computational models is very important and has been missed by many proponents.

Aho’s term computational model is not insular to computer science—it refers to any model in any field that represents or simulates computation. I noted several examples above. Moreover, his definition captures the spirit of computational thinking expressed over 60 years of computer science and 30 years of computational science.b It also captures the spirit of computational thinking in other fields such as humanities, law, and medicine.

This short survey of history reveals two major sources of ambiguity in the post-2006 definitions of computational thinking. One is the absence of any mention of computational models. This is a mistake: we engage with abstraction, decomposition, data representation, and so forth, in order to get a model to accomplish certain work.

The other is the suggestion contained in the operational definitions that any sequence of steps constitutes an algorithm. True, an algorithm is a series of steps—but the steps are not arbitrary, they must control some computational model. A step that requires human judgment has never been considered to be an algorithmic step. Let us correct our computational thinking guidelines to accurately reflect the definition of an algorithm. Otherwise, we will mis-educate our children on this most basic idea.

Back to Top

Question 2: How Do We Measure Students’ Computational Abilities?

Most teachers and education researchers have the intuition that computational thinking is a skill rather than a particular set of applicable knowledge. The British Computer Society CAS description quoted earlier seems to recognize this when discussing what “behaviors” signal when a student is thinking computationally.3 But we have no consensus on what constitutes the skill and our current assessment methods are unreliable indicators.

A skill is an ability acquired over time with practice—not knowledge of facts or information. Most recommended approaches to assessing computational thinking assume that the body of knowledge—as outlined in Boxes 1, 2, 3—is the key driver of the skill’s development. Consequently, we test students’ knowledge, but not their competence or their sensibilities. Thus it is possible that a student who scores well on tests to explain and illustrate abstraction and decomposition can still be an incompetent or insensitive algorithm designer. Teachers sense this and wonder what they can do. The answer is, in a nutshell, to directly test for competencies.c

The realization that mastering a domain’s body of knowledge need not confer skill at performing well in the domain is not new. As early as 1958, philosopher Michael Polanyi discussed the difference between “explicit knowledge” (descriptions written down) and “tacit knowledge” (skillful actions).28 He famously said: “We know more than we can say.” He gave many examples of skilled performers being unable to say how they do what they do, and of aspirants being unable to learn a skill simply by being told about it or reading a description. Familiar examples of tacit knowledge are riding a bike, recognizing a face, or diagnosing an illness. Many mental skills fall into this category too, such programming or learning a foreign language. Every skill is a manifestation of tacit knowledge. People learn a skill only by engaging with it and practicing it.

To certify skills you need a model for skill development. One of the most famous and useful models is the framework created by Stuart and Hubert Dreyfus in the 1970s.10 They said that practitioners in any domain progress through six stages: beginner, advanced beginner, competent, proficient, expert, and master. A person’s progress takes time, practice, and experience. The person moves from rule-based behaviors as a beginner to fully embodied, intuitive, and game-changing behaviors as a master. Hubert Dreyfus gives complete descriptions of these levels in his book on the Internet.11 We need guidelines for different skill levels of computational thinking to support competency tests.

The CAS and K12CS organizations have developed frameworks for defining computational thinking that feature progressions of increasingly sophisticated learning objectives in various tracks including algorithms, programming, data, hardware, communication, and technology.d These knowledge progressions are not the same as skill acquisition progression in the Dreyfus model. The CAS framework does not discuss abilities to be acquired during the progression. The K12CS framework gets closer by proposing seven practicese—only three of which are directly related to competence at designing computations. Their notion of practice is “way of doing things” rather than an ability accompanied by sensibilities. Teachers who use these frameworks are likely to find that the associated assessment methods do not test for the abilities they are after.

Employers are turning to competency-based assessment faster than educational institutions. Many employers no longer trust transcripts and diplomas. Instead they organize interviews as rigorous problem-solving sessions with different groups in the company. An applicant will not be hired without demonstrating competence in solving the kinds of problems of interest to the employer. The idea of assessing skill by performance is actually quite common in education. In sports, music, theater, and language departments, for example, students audition for spots on the team, places in the orchestra, roles in the play, or competency certificates at a language. Although code-a-thons are becoming more prevalent and many computing courses include projects that assess skill by performance, computing education would benefit from a deep look at competency-based assessment.

Given that so much education is formulated around students acquiring knowledge, looking carefully at skill development in computational thinking is a new and challenging idea. We will benefit our students by learning to approach and assess computational thinking as a skill.

Question 3: Is Computational Thinking Good for Everyone?

The third question addresses a bundle of claims about benefits of computational thinking. Let us unpack them and see which claims are substantiated and which are not.

Wing’s vision for the computational thinking movement was that “everyone, not just those who major in computer science, can benefit from thinking like a computer scientist”36,37 At a high level it is hard to question this claim—more tools in the mental toolbox seems like a worthy goal. However, on a closer look not everyone benefits and some claims do not seem to benefit anyone. Consider the following.

There is little doubt that people who design and produce computational models and software in many fields—let’s call them computational designers—develop strong skills of computational thinking. Experienced computational designers believe they are sharper and more precise in their thinking and are better problem solvers.

Recognizing this early on, Alan Perlis was one of the first to generalize (1960): he claimed that everyone can benefit from learning computational thinking. Other luminaries have followed suit.9,18,19,24,33,35 However, this general claim has never been substantiated with empirical research.

For example, it is reasonable to question whether computational thinking is of immediate use for professionals who do not design computations—for example, physicians, surgeons, psychologists, architects, artists, lawyers, ethicists, realtors, and more. Some of these professionals may become computational designers when they modify tools, for example by adding scripts to document searchers—but not everybody. It would be useful to see some studies of how essential computational thinking is in those professions.

Another claim suggested in the operational definitions is that users of computational tools will develop computational thinking. An architect who uses a CAD (computer aided design) tool to draw blueprints of a new building and a VR (virtual reality) tool to allow users to take simulated tours in the new building can set up the CAD and VR tools without engaging in computational thinking. The architect is judged not for skill in computational thinking but for design, esthetics, reliability, safety, and usability.f Similar conclusions hold for doctors using diagnostic systems, artists drawing programs, lawyers document searchers, police virtual reality trainers, and realtors house-price maps. Have you noticed that our youthful “digital natives” are all expert users of mobile devices, apps, online commerce, and social media but yet are not computational thinkers? As far as I can tell, few people accept this claim. It would be well to amend the operational definitions to remove the suggestion.

Another claim suggested in the operational definitions is that computational thinking will help people perform everyday procedural tasks better—for example, packing a knapsack, caching needed items close by, or sorting a list of customers. There is no evidence to support this claim. Being a skilled performer of actions that could be computational does not necessarily make you a computational thinker and vice versa.13,14 This claim is related to the idea I criticized earlier, that any sequence of steps is an algorithm.

The boldest claim of all is that computational thinking enhances general cognitive skills that will transfer to other domains where they will manifest as superior problem-solving skills.3,37 Many education researchers have searched for supporting evidence but have not found any. One of the most notable studies, by Pea and Kurland in 1984, found little evidence that learning programming in Logo helped students’ math or general cognitive abilities. In 1997, Koschmann weighed in with more of the same doubts and debunked a new claim that learning programming is good for children just as learning Latin once was.20 (There was never any evidence that learning Latin helped children improve life skills.) Mark Guzdial reviewed all the evidence available by 2015 and reaffirmed there is no evidence to support the claim.14

Guzdial does note that teachers can design education programs that help students in other domains learn a small core of programming that will teach enough computational thinking to help them design tools in their own domains. They do not need to learn the competencies of software developers to be useful.


Underlying all the claims is an assumption that the goal of computational thinking is to solve problems.


Finally, it is worth noting that educators have long promoted a large number of different kinds of thinking: engineering thinking, science thinking, economics thinking, systems thinking, logical thinking, rational thinking, network thinking, ethical thinking, design thinking, critical thinking, and more. Each academic field claims its own way of thinking. What makes computational thinking better than the multitude of other kinds of thinking? I do not have an answer.

My conclusion is that computational thinking primarily benefits people who design computations and that the claims of benefit to non-designers are not substantiated.

Back to Top

Conclusion

Promoters of computer science have long believed computational thinking is good for everyone. The definition of computational thinking evolved over 60 years applies mainly to those involved in designing computations whether in computer science or in other fields. The promoters of computer-science-for-all, believing that “designing computations” is an insular computer science activity, sought a broader, more encompassing definition to fit their aspiration. The result was a vague definition that targeted not only designers but all users of computational tools, anyone engaging in step-by-step procedures, and anyone engaging in a practice that could potentially be automated. Teachers who find the vagueness confusing have asked for a more precise definition that also clarifies how to assess student learning of computational thinking.

My advice to teachers and education researchers is: use Aho’s historically well-grounded definition and use competency-based skill assessments to measure student progress. Be wary of the claim of universal value, for it has little empirical support and draws you back to the vague definitions. Focus on helping students learn to design useful and reliable computations in various domains of interest to them. Leave the more advanced levels of computational design for education in the fields that rely heavily on computing.

In the late 1990s, we in computer science (including me) believed everyone should learn object-oriented programming. We persuaded the Educational Testing Service to change the Advanced Placement curriculum to an object-oriented curriculum. It was a disaster. I am now wary of believing that what looks good to me as a computer scientist is good for everyone. The proposed curriculum for computational thinking looks a lot like an extended object-oriented curriculum. This is not a good start for a movement aiming to define something greater than programming. Early warnings that the object-oriented vision was not working came from the front-line teachers who did not understand it, did not know how to assess it, and could not articulate the benefit for their students. We are now hearing similar early concerns from our teachers. This concerns me.

Underlying all the claims is an assumption that the goal of computational thinking is to solve problems. Is everything we approach with computational thinking a problem? No. We respond to opportunities, threats, conflicts, concerns, desires, etc by designing computational methods and tools—but we do not call these responses problem-solutions. It seems overly narrow to claim that computational thinking, which supports the ultimate goal of computational design, is simply a problem-solving method.

I have investigated three remaining trouble spots with computational thinking—the definition, the assessment methods, and the claims of universal benefit. It would do all of us good to tone down the rhetoric about the universal value of computational thinking. Advocates should conduct experiments that will show the rest of us why we should accept their claims. Adopting computational thinking will happen, not from political mandates, but from making educational offers that help people learn to be more effective in their own domains through computation.

Back to Top

References

1. ACM. Computer Science Curriculum 2013; https://www.acm.org/education/CS2013-final-report.pdf

2. Aho, A. Computation and Computational Thinking, 2011; http://ubiquity.acm.org/article.cfm?id=1922682

3. Computing at School, a subdivision of the British Computer Society (BCS). 2015. Computational Thinking: A Guide for Teachers; http://community.computingatschool.org.uk/files/6695/original.pdf

4. CSTA. Operational Definition of Computational Thinking. 2011; http://www.csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/CompThinkingFlyer.pdf

5. Denning, P., Ed. Ubiquity symposium: What is computation? (Oct. 2011); http://ubiquity.acm.org/symposia2011.cfm?volume=2011

6. Denning, P. and Martell, C. Great Principles of Computing. MIT Press, 2015.

7. Denning, P. Beyond computational thinking. Commun. ACM 52, 6 (June 2009), 28–30; DOI: 10.1145/1516046.1516054

8. Denning, P. Educating a new engineer. Commun. ACM 35, 12 (Dec. 1992), 82–97; 10.1145/138859.138870

9. Dijkstra, E. My hopes for computing science. 1979; https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD07xx/EWD709.html

10. Dreyfus, S. and Dreyfus, H. A five-stage model of the mental activities involved in directed skill acquisition. Storming Media, 1980; http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA084551&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

11. Dreyfus, H. On the Internet. Routledge 2003 (2d ed. 2008).

12. Easton, T. Beyond the algorithmization of the sciences. Commun. ACM 49, 5 (May 2006), 31–33.

13. Guzdial, M. HCI and computational thinking are ideological foes? Computing Education Blog 2011, (2/23/11); https://computinged.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/hci-andcomputational-thinking-are-ideological-foes/

14. Guzdial, M. Learner-Centered Design of Computing Education: Research on Computing for Everyone. Morgan-Claypool, 2015.

15. International Society for Technology in Education. ISTE Standards for Students, 2016; http://www.iste.org/standards/standards/for-students-2016

16. Jones, E. The trouble with computational thinking, 2011; http://www.csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/JonesCTOnePager.pdf

17. Kafai, Y. From computational thinking to computational participation in K-12 education. Commun. ACM 59, 8 (Aug. 2016), 26–27.

18. Katz, D. The use of computers in engineering classroom instruction. Commun. ACM 3, 1 (Oct. 1960), 522–527.

19. Knuth, D. Computer science and its relation to mathematics. American Mathematical Monthly 81, 4 (Apr. 1974), 323–343.

20. Koschmann, T. Logo-as-Latin Redux. J. Learning Sciences 6, 4 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997.

21. Mannila, L. et al. Computational thinking in K-9 education. In Proceedings of the Working Group Reports of the 2014 on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education Conference, ITiCSE-WGR ’14 ACM, NY, 2014, 1–29.

22. National Research Council, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board. Being Fluent with Information Technology. National Academies Press, 1999.

23. Newell, A., Perlis, A.J., and Simon. Computer Science, [letter] Science 157 (3795): (Sept. 1967), 1373–1374.

24. Papert, S. Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books, 1980.

25. Papert, S. An exploration in the space of mathematics educations. Int’l Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 1, 1 (1996), 95–123; http://www.papert.org/articles/AnExplorationintheSpaceofMathematicsEducations.html

26. Pea, R. and Kurland, M. On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming. New Ideas in Psychology 2, 2 (1984), 137–168.

27. Perkovíc, L. et al. A framework for computational thinking across the curriculum. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE ’10, (2010), ACM, NY, 123–127.

28. Polanyi, M. The Tacit Dimension. University of Chicago Press, 1966.

29. Polya, G. How to Solve it (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press, 1957; https://math.berkeley.edu/~gmelvin/polya.pdf

30. Simon, H. The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed. MIT Press, 1969.

31. Sizer, T.R. Horace’s School. Houghton-Mifflin, 1992.

32. Snyder, L. Fluency with Information Technology. Pearson, 2003 (6th edition 2014).

33. Wilson, K. Grand challenges to computational science. In Future Generation Computer Systems. Elsevier, 1989, 33–35.

34. Weise, M. and Christensen, C. Hire Education. Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation, 2014; http://www.christenseninstitute.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/Hire-Education.pdf

35. Wing, J. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 49, 3 (Mar. 2006), 33–35; DOI: 10.1145/1118178.1118215

36. Wing, J. Computational thinking—What and why? Carnegie-Mellon School of Computer Science Research Notebook (Mar. 2011). https://www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebookcomputational-thinking-what-and-why.

37. Wing, J. Computational thinking, 10 years later. Microsoft Research Blog (March 23, 2016); https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/msr_er/2016/03/23/computational-thinking-10-years-later/

Back to Top

Author

Peter J. Denning (pjd@nps.edu) is Distinguished Professor of Computer Science and Director of the Cebrowski Institute for information innovation at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA, is Editor of ACM Ubiquity, and is a past president of ACM. The author’s views expressed here are not necessarily those of his employer or the U.S. federal government.

Footnotes

a. Aho’s definition Aho’s definition was noted by Wing in 201035 and is used as the definition of computational thinking by K12cs.org.

b. I was an active researcher in the computational sciences field during the 1980s and 1990s and can attest that his definition captures what the computational scientists of the day said they were doing.

c. In 1992, Ted Sizer of Brown University started a national movement for competency-based assessment in schools.31 He used the term “exhibitions” for assessment events. I gave examples for engineering schools.8According to the Christensen Institute, competency-based learning is a growing movement in schools.34 In 2016, Purdue became the first public university to fully embrace competency-based learning in an academic program in its Polytechnic Institute.

 CAS: https://community.computingatschool.org.uk/resources/2324; K12CS: https://k12cs.org

e. Fostering an inclusive and diverse computing culture, collaborating, recognizing and defining computational problems, developing and using abstractions, creating computational artifacts, testing and refining, communicating.

f. If the architect were to specify how to erect the building by assembling 3D printed parts in a precise sequence, we could say the architect thought computationally for the manufacturing aspect but not for the whole design.

I extend personal thanks to Douglas Bissonette, Mark Guzdial, Roxana Hadad, Sue Higgins, Selim Premji, Peter Neumann, Matti Tedre, Rick Snodgrass, and Chris Wiesinger for comments on previous drafts of this Viewpoint.

Back to Top

Back to Top

Back to Top


Copyright held by author.

The Digital Library is published by the Association for Computing Machinery. Copyright © 2017 ACM, Inc.