Misar- Continuing the comparison between the definitions of computational thinking

Brennan & Resnick Breaks it down similar to Grover & Pea- re-categorized the elements they mentioned. Grover & Pea also does not include perspectives.

“We have developed a definition of computational thinking that involves thee key dimensions: computational concepts (the concepts designers employ as they program), computational practices (the practices designers develop as they program), and computational perspectives (the perspectives designers form about the world around them and about themselves” P. 3 Grover & Pea “The following elements are now widely accepted as comprising CT and form the basis of curricula that aim to support its learning as well as assess its development: - abstractions and pattern generalizations (including models and simulations) - systematic processing of information - symbol systems and representations - algorithmic notions of flow of control - structured problem decomposition (modularizing) - iterative, recursive, and parallel thinking - conditional logic - efficiency and performance constraints - debugging and systematic error detection” (p. 39-40) Brennan & Resnick Computational concepts: “sequences, loops, parallelism, events, conditionals, operators, and data” p.3 Computational thinking practices: “being incremental and iterative, testing and debugging, reusing and remixing, and abstracting and modularizing” p.7 Computational perspectives: expressing, connecting, and questioning p. 10-11

Wolz et. al Similar to Wing 2006 & 2008 about computational thinkingà problem solving, abstraction, decomposition, algorithms, parallel processing, debugging, redundancy Also similar to Kafai & Peppler about the role that computational thinking can play in civic engagement Weintrop & Wilensky associate computational thinking with math and science, while Wolz et. al link it to language arts and social studies

“We view computational thinking as a mode of problem solving that emphasizes the processes necessary to express a computing-intensive solution in a structured, dynamic way. The required skill set includes how to define and analyze a problem and implement and test the solution [NRC 2010; Wing 2010}.” p. 9:2 “As reported in the NRC “Report of a Workshop on the Scope and Nature of Computational Thinking” (NRC, 2010), computational thinking requires confidence in oneself as a creative innovator. Computational thinking is a higher-order skill, not a content area, thus teaching explicit concepts such as “iteration” should be subsumed within experimental skill development. Computational thinking requires students to become creators rather than consumers of technology.” p. 9:5 Computational thinking ….. is essential for understanding information access, aggregation, privacy and security….Skills in computational thinking, that is, in algorithm design, knowledge representation, abstraction from fixed cases, induction, and scale are crucial for information gathering, analysis, and synthesis…Computational thinking is thus essential to both producers and consumers of civic media.” p. 9:6

Above is a copy of the notes that I took as I was reading each article. I pulled back out my notes from the articles we have previously read and found that Wolz et al is more aligned with Wing’s first definition, and has a similar viewpoint about the predicted impact computational thinking will have on civil engagement and participation as Kafai & Peppler. I find it interesting that like Weintrop & Wilensky, Wolz is trying to apply computational thinking to what students are already doing; though he is associating it with language arts and social studies instead of science and mathematics. On the other hand, Brennan and Resnick provide a more concrete definition similar to the one provided by Grover and Pea- with a list of particular items that make up computational thinking. In the chart, I created a side by side comparison of the two definitions and underlined the concrete elements of computational thinking have in common.

When I think back to our last class, I remember our frustration over not having a clear definition nor a consensus about what computational thinking is, how do we enact it into our curriculum, and how can we create constructionist and collaborative environment to encourage students to enhance their computational knowledge and thinking. Looking at these definitions, I am seeing the researchers fall in line about computational thinking being something we can do without a computer and that it is already something we are doing. I disagree. I don’t think computational thinking is so broad. I think it can be embedded into several subject areas because of its flexibility, however, it does have distinct concrete elements that set it apart from higher-order thinking and problem solving. I disagree with Brennan & Resnick; while I think expressing, connecting, and questioning are important skills in developing computational thinking, I do not think that they are a part of it. I am interested in reading more articles similar to Grover & Pea and Brennan & Resnick to see if there is more of a consensus on their side on the elements making up computational thinking.