Jeannette Wing in 2006 published the seminal call to arms Computational Thinking Viewpoint in the March issue of Communications. Wing argued then that computational methods, concepts and tools could be embedded in all K-12 classrooms to develop computation skills and literacy in all students. Recent writing by Wing and Stanzionne (2016) focused on the potential of computational thinking to be a third pillar of the scientific method, its use in simulation of complex systems and use by academic and STEM educators as a fundamental tool of education.
Computational thinking is the “thought processes involved in formulating problems and their solutions so that the solutions are represented in a form that can be effectively carried out by an information processing agent” (Czerkawski & Lyman, 2010). It involves the use of logic, algorithmic thinking, recursive thinking, abstraction, parallel thinking, pattern-matching and other related processes. The College Board (2016) identifies seven big ideas related to computer science: Creativity, Abstraction, Data and Information, Algorithms, Programming, The Internet, and Global Impact.
How is computational thinking related to I-STEM Education? Should use of computers dominate our discussions and work in technology and engineering? Is computational thinking compatible with technological literacy? These questions continue to be raised by educators in our field as efforts are underway to promote computational thinking as our new focus and an equally determined group of educators wanting to keep computers as subservient to the greater goals of technological literacy. It is clear that to include technological literacy in computer science coursework at the K-12 level would be a lot harder to implement than including computational thinking in Technology and Engineering coursework.
In these tabs, ITEEA will provide best practice examples on how to include computational thinking in your program, courses and lesson plans in a way that promotes technological literacy, and the hands-on, mind-on practices we are known for.
Czerkawski, B., & Lyman, E. (2015). Exploring issues about computational thinking in higher education. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 59(2), 57-65.
The College Board (2016) AP computer science principles: Course and exam descriptions. Princeton, NJ: Author.
Wing, J., & Stanzione, D. (2016). Progress in computational thinking, and expanding the HPC community. Communications of the ACM, 59(7), 10-11.
If you are unable to login, you may need to update your Profile.
Go here for more information on how to update your profile to access your account in EbD-BUZZ.
If you are still unable to access your account after following these directions, contact
If you are not currently an EbD-Network School and need more information,
contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org
for a Network Agreement and any associated costs.