Computational Thinking and Educational Technology Betul C. Czerkawski, PhD. The University of Arizona South
[email protected]
Li Xu, PhD. The University of Arizona South
[email protected]
Abstract: The latest National Educational Technology Standards (NETS, 2011) put forward a new set of resources on computational thinking (CT) and pointed out computer science teachers’ changing roles in the classrooms. According to the ISTE website (2012), computational thinking is not only for computer science teachers but anybody who like to use a new set of problem solving strategies to tackle issues and problems of the digital age. This paper will start with a literature review on computational thinking and then discuss possible contributions of the educational technology field to the teaching of CT skills. A sample activity plan for educational technology will also be provided.
Introduction Computational thinking or as commonly referred to, CT, is a strategy for algorithmically solving complex problems. In computational thinking, the learners use computing strategies as well as critical thinking skills to understand digital age problems and propose solutions to them. Computer scientists approach issues as problem solving activities and use certain procedures (algorithmic or heuristic) while performing their tasks. The interaction between computers and the human brain is a critical matter in CT. While the CT strategies originated in the computer science field, today, computational thinking is expanding its scope to all subject areas and is becoming a multidisciplinary thinking skill. Therefore, CT is no longer exclusively a computer science or technology technique but a thinking skill that needs to be cultivated in all subject areas and fields. Henderson (2009) argues that “computing education has been too slow moving from the computing = programming model to a more general and understandable model that captures the essence of the discipline for everyone.” (p.100). In the complexity of today’s world, there is a big need for understanding how computing professionals utilize pattern identification, abstraction of concepts and algorithmic instructions and translating this into everyday life skills. At the K-12 level, an operational definition of CT has been introduced by International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) as “problem-solving process that includes (but is not limited to) the following characteristics: • • • • • •
Formulating problems in a way that enables us to use a computer and other tools to help solve them, Logically organizing and analyzing data, Representing data through abstractions such as models and simulations, Automating solutions through algorithmic thinking, Identifying, analyzing, and implementing possible solutions with the goal of achieving the most efficient and effective combination of steps and resources, Generalizing and transferring this problem-solving process to a wide variety of problems” (ISTE, 2011).
- 2607 -
In addition to an operational definition, ISTE also determined a set of dispositions and characteristics for computational thinking, such as “confidence in dealing with complexity; persistence in working with difficult problems; tolerance for ambiguity; the ability to deal with open-ended problems; and the ability to communicate and work with others to achieve a common goal or solution” (ISTE, 2011). The more specific implications of this are a breakdown of CT skills by ISTE, so students at every level can develop these in accordance with their cognitive and emotional development.
Why is computational thinking now? While some still see CT as a computer science strategy, there is a new tendency to view it as a way of thinking with technology. “Computational thinking in this view involves finding the right technology for a problem and applying the technology to resolve the problem. This might require learning how to use the appropriate technology, debugging the solution, and communicating the outcome” (NRC, 2010, p. 26). While computers here are the enabling tools, it’s the thinking and reasoning process that develops the solutions. In this sense, computational thinking can be applied to any field. According to a report written at DePaul University (2009) application of CT in other fields has always been implicit and CT reasoning process has been used in other fields for a long time. “What is different about recent attention on computational thinking is the emphasis on explicitly defining what it is and explicitly using it to gain insights into problems in fields outside of computer science” (p.2). Wing (2006) goes one step further and defines CT as a “fundamental skill for everyone, not just for computer scientists. To reading, writing, and arithmetic, we should add computational thinking to every child’s analytical ability” (p.33). She argues that it is not the computer scientists that should be the model here but the process of abstraction that they use. Digital age problems usually require using multiple levels of abstractions when attacking complex issues and this is a very critical skill that every child needs to learn. In a report written by National Research Council (2011) it is stated that the reasons for recent emphasis on computational thinking include “succeeding in a technological society, increasing interest in the information technology professions, maintaining and enhancing U.S. economic competitiveness, supporting inquiry in other disciplines, and enabling personal empowerment” (p. 4). ISTE’s recent efforts to build a knowledge base for CT in education can be attributed to these reasons and needs.
How can Educational Technology contribute to teaching of CT? Most ISTE resources on CT are related to teaching and leading activities. In CT Toolkit for Teachers (2011) it’s emphasized that CT is a “cross-curricular initiative, making all teachers responsible for introducing, reinforcing, and assessing CT skills in their students” (p.3). If this is the case, how can we conceptualize the role of educational technology as a field in this process? Following paragraphs address this question. Computational thinking skills can be broken down into nine levels: data collection, data analysis; data representation; problem decomposition; abstraction; algorithms and procedures; automation, simulation and parallelization. Teaching of CT skills requires a step by step approach that addresses all of these nine levels. Educational Technology, on the other hand, is defined as “the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (AECT, 2007). In other words, educational technology is also a cross-curricular field similar to CT because its main function, facilitating learning, applies to teaching and learning of any skill at any level. At the more specific level, educational technology practices can help teachers develop quality teaching materials for their students. Educational technology practitioners as well as students and faculty of Educational Technology programs can help raising awareness for CT in K-12 schools and higher education. Another role of educational technology to CT might be to help organizing professional development materials and presentations to teach CT to teachers and educational leaders. In regard to learning environments where CT is taught, visualization and simulations can provide invaluable context and educational technology can help build this context. Last but not least, educational technology can bridge a gap between computer science and the education field and create an environment where major concepts and ideas are clearly communicated to educators who are in the position of leading and teaching CT initiatives. Educational change theories provide guidelines for dealing and leading change efforts in educational institutions through technology therefore is an important conceptual framework for educational technology. It is highly expected that most educational technologists will serve as change agents and early adopters of teaching CT skills.
- 2608 -
At the implementation level, ISTE documents lack any mention of educational technology, while all other school personnel are given specific tasks. Therefore, some of the implementation strategies for educational technology (especially programs at Higher Education level) are provided below: • • • • • • •
Raise awareness in Schools/Colleges of Education or Education Departments for teaching CT, Use technology that incorporates CT skills across teaching education and STEM fields, Develop CT curriculum materials, apply best practices of instructional design to these materials and test them, Create and lead teaching teams that incorporates teaching CT skills Develop and deliver workshop and professional development activities for CT, Build relationships between K-12 schools, universities and teacher education, STEM, computer science and educational technology programs. Help build national standards for CT.
Figure I: A Sample Activity Plan for incorporating CT in College Educational Technology Programs •
•
•
•
•
•
Formulating problems in a way that enables us to use a computer and other tools to help solve them, Use of blended and online learning environments to create problem-based learning scenarios, Complete course projects that require mastering authoring skills with technology, Convert textual information to multimedia projects, Logically organizing and analyzing data, Design and develop research instruments to test hypothesis, Produce and read data charts, Indentify trends and patterns in complex data, Representing data through abstractions such as models and simulations, Use of specific case studies that help students start from specific and go to general, Write of research reports or literature review papers where students use specific examples to reach bigger conclusions, Identify bigger conceptual ideas for specific applications and tools, Automating solutions through algorithmic thinking, Create a mobile or computer application for a repetitive real world life event or situation, Use reflective assessments to cumulatively evaluate one’s performance, Use self assessment or peer assessment instruments for evaluating one’s ability, Identifying, analyzing, and implementing possible solutions with the goal of achieving the most efficient and effective combination of steps and resources, Use multimedia technologies to represent data differently, Use games and simulations to visualize textual data, Create a computer-based tutorial that will help resolve an everyday problem, Generalizing and transferring the problem-solving process to a wide variety of problems, Use projects where students apply what they have learned in the classroom to their workplace, Create action plans to common problems with technology, Propose solutions that can help simultaneously solve issues in multiple disciplines.
While above ideas are some specific suggestions for people in educational technology field, as Henderson put (2009), all educators should “consider identifying and trying innovative ways to introduce computational thinking to the next generation of students” (p.102).
References AECT (2007). The definition of educational technology. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~molpage/Definition%20of%20ET_classS05.pdf.
- 2609 -
DePaul University (2009). Computational thinking across the curriculum: A conceptual framework. Retrieved from http://compthink.cs.depaul.edu/Framework.pdf. ISTE (2011). Computational thinking teacher resources. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/learn/computationalthinking/computational-thinking_toolkit.aspx. Henderson, J.B. (2009) Ubiquitous computational thinking. Computer, 42(10). pp.100-102. IEEE Computer Society. National Research Council of the National Academies (2010). Report of workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. National Research Council of the National Academies (2011). Report of workshop of pedagogical aspects of computational thinking. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press Wing, J. M. (2006, March). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM. 49(3). pp. 33-35.
- 2610 -
