Vviewpoints
DOI: 10.1145/2998438
Viewpoint
Remaining Trouble Spots
with Computational
Thinking
Addressing unresolved questions concerning computational thinking.
COMPUTATIONAL THINKING HAS been a hallmark of computer science since the 1950s. So also was the no- tion 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 prem-
ises: that computational thinking will
better prepare every child for living in
an increasingly digitalized world, and
that computational thinkers will be su-
perior problem solvers in all fields.
Since 2006 hundreds of educators
have participated in workshops, stud-
ies, committees, surveys, new courses,
and public evaluations to define com-
putational thinking for “CS for all” cur-
ricula. The Computer Science Teachers
Association issued an operational defi-
nition in 2011 (see Box 1), the Comput-
ing 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 I M
A
G
E
B
Y
O
M
E
L
C
H
E
N
K
O
