Draft for Special Issues on Foundations and Novel Domains for

Computational Thinking (CT)

(1) your definitions and notable history of computational thinking (2 paragraphs)

1) About “Computational Thinking (CT)”

Learning to The learning of how to design specialized software and computer programsming for K-
12 can be traced back to the 1968 when the Logo programming language was first introduced as a
potential framework for teaching mathematics (Feurzeig & Papert, 2011; Hayes & Games, 2008).
However, programming is more than just coding. It requires students to solve problems through
computational thinking (CT), which involves computer science conceptscomprises various concepts
of computer science like abstraction and decomposition. The term of “computational thinking” (CT)
wasis first mentioned by Wing in 2006, and three key constructs of computational thinking were
proposed, which involves including Algorithms, Abstraction, and Automation. In 2011, Computer
Science Teachers Association (CSTA) and the International Society for Technology in Education
(ISTE) proposeddeveloped an operational definition of CT and developedprovided a framework for
K–12 educators. After some years of implementation in schools, a “step-by-step cognitive strategy”
for teaching computer programming with CT in secondary schools (Brannon, 2016) was proposed:
Decomposition, Pattern recognition, Abstraction, and Algorithms. In practice, CT involves breaking
downtaking a complex problem and breaking it into its basic parts, more manageable
problemssmaller yet more manageable parts (Decomposition). Each of these smaller problems can
then be found order to something and analyzed (follow) the pattern to the logical answerEach of
the smaller parts are then analyzed in order to find out a pattern for solving the problem logically
(Pattern Recognition). Abstraction is also important, because it is as it enables students not only to
teaching students to double checkverify the information; it’s but also teaching them to focus only
solely on the important details, while ignoring irrelevant information (Abstraction). Next, simple
steps or rules can be designed to solve each of the smaller problems can be designedparts of the
problem (Algorithms). Finally, these simple steps or rules arewill be used in programming and help
to solve the complex problem.

2) Thinking computationally
The main reason for introducing CT in most countriesmost countries to have CT introduced is to
foster the 21st century skills necessary to adapt into the digital worldthe skills required for
adapting into the digital world of the 21st century (Wing, 2006). In the US, ISTE & CSTA provides Formatted: Superscript
plenty of resources for “CT in K-12 Education” , (e.g. teacher resources, CT workshops, and relevant
academic activities(; CSTA & ISTE, 2017). In Europe, a survey conducted by Ministries of Education
revealed that 13 countries aim to develop students’ logical thinking skills and problem-solving
skills through CT (Mannila et al., 2014). In Asian countries, CT becomes an emerging subject
forissue from researches, pedagogical practices and politics in Asia (Wong et al., 2015). However,
framing computational thinking solely around concepts is insufficientrequires more than concepts.
Attention should be given to cComputational practices which put emphasis on the process of
thinking and learning should be concerned (Brennan & Resnick, 2012). Through practice, students
are able to develop their thinking skills as their natural abilities. A deep comprehensive approach
brings togethershould combine motivation and learning strategies. Among the three elements of
thinking dispositions, two of them are similar to the approach (Meanings to be determined from the
original text), thinking dispositions combine three elements, two of which are similar to those in
the deep approach. An effective deployment of a particular pattern of thinking requires “(1)
alertness to occasions, (2) a positive attitude towards its potential relevance, and of course (3)
possession of it and the ability to apply it” (Perkins, 2008, p. 9). In practice, both Brennan & Resnick
(2012) and Lye & Koh (2014) mentioned about three dimensions into cultivatinge and evaluatinge
students’ CT skills, which include computational concepts (e.g. variables, loops, etc.), computational
practices (e.g. problem-solving practices) and computational perspectives (e.g. students’
understandings of themselves, and the technological world around them).

(2) what do you think is important in computational thinking (2 paragraphs)

This special issue focuses on the latest developments of CT including, itsthe empirical and
theoretical foundations, its pedagogical use or integration, and even new methodologies for
measuring CT measurement.
1) “The Sscientific and theoretical basis of CT”:
Tthis topic focuses on the empirical and theoretical foundations for further cultivating students’
CT abilities. IWing in 2006, Wing proposed three key constructs for CT abilities; later, ISTE & CSTA
structured nine operational definitions for CT; and through practice, other frameworks were
continuously proposed for CT through practice (e.g. Brannon, 2016). Thus, the discussion for the
scientific and theoretical basis of CT is still ongoing are still in discussion. Their relatedevant
learning theories (e.g. constructivism or others), the definitions and key conceptual constructs,
relevant pedagogical approaches (e.g. problem-solving learning), and potential theoretical
framework based on the cognitive science will be interests for the further investigation.the focus of
future investigation.
2) P“The pedagogical applicationuse or its integration
”: Mmost of the current pedagogical use of CT is in the field of computer science subject.
Programming and coding classes are the major forms of applicationto achieve. However, the
development of scientific and systematic curriculum development still needs to exploreexploration;
relevant applications and integrations of CT in practice need to investigateare developing;
moreover, relevant teachers’ development programs and both students’ and teachers’ adaptations
on CT integratedrelevant learning and teaching activities are important to be discussed in-depth.
3) Methodologies or instruments to for measuringe CT
A: although some researchers proposed a number of frameworks and methods to evaluate the
outcomes of CT outcomes (e.g. Brennan & Resnick, 2012; Lye & Koh, 2014), a conclusion has not
been made for the most effective instruments and the relevant methodologies need to investigate.
In fact, there are numbers of methodsCurrently, the methods to evaluate the outcomesCT outcomes
include: e.g. Fairy Performance Assessment (Werner et al., 2012), Computer game-based Coding
Category Method (Denner et al., 2012), Digital Ink for Cognitive Assessment (Ambrósio et al., 2014)
and, or Bebras test (Dagienė & Stupurienė, 2015). , etc. There are still questions for these methods
such asQuestions are stilled occurred from various methods: “Wwhat are the effective and
validated methods to measure CT?” and “Aare there any other scientific methods supporting the CT
measurementthat support the measurement of CT?”

As mentioned above, some important issues for Computational Thinking (CT) may suggest in
bellowingare summarized as follows:
1) “The sScientific and theoretical basis of CT”: e.g. foundations on cognitive science, relevant
learning theories, definitions and key conceptual constructs, relevant pedagogical
approaches, etc.;
2) “The pPedagogical applicationuse or integration”: e.g., the curriculum development, the
application and integration of CT in practice, and the teacher development;
3) Methodologies or instruments forto measuringe CT: e.g. dynamic methods, hybrid models,
semi-quantitative models, quantitative methods, or qualitative methods, etc.;
 4) Integration of CT into different educational domains, especially onin particular, STEM
education;
5) Students’ and teachers’ adaptation on the CT relevant learning and teaching activities
integrated with CT..

References
Ambrósio, A. P., Xavier, C., & Georges, F. (2014). Digital ink for cognitive assessment of
computational thinking. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2014 IEEE, (pp. 1-7). IEEE.
Brannon. (2016). What is Computational Thinking and Why is It Important? Retrieved on (Date?)
December,. 2017, from Ohio Department of Education website:
https://education.ohio.gov/Media/Extra-Credit-Blog/November-2016/GUEST-BLOG-What-is-
Computational-Thinking-and-Why
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of
computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Vancouver, Canada, (pp. 1-25).
Dagiene, V., & Stupuriene, G. (2016). Bebras-a sustainable community building model for the
concept based learning of informatics and computational thinking. Informatics in
Education, 15(1), 25.
Denner, J., Werner, L., & Ortiz, E. (2012). Computer games created by middle school girls: Can they
be used to measure understanding of computer science concepts? Computers &
Education, 58(1), 240-249.
Feurzeig, W., Papert, S. A., & Lawler, B. (2011). Programming-languages as a conceptual framework
for teaching mathematics. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(5), 487-501.
Hayes, E. R., & Games, I. A. (2008). Making computer games and design thinking: A review of current
software and strategies. Games and Culture, 3(3-4), 309-332.
ISTE & CSTA. (2014). Computational thinking for all. Retrieved (Date?) on December. 2017, from
ISTE website:
https://www.iste.org/explore/articleDetail?articleid=152&category=Solutions&article=Computati Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.25"
onal-thinking-for-all
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through
programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51-61.
Mannila, L., Dagiene, V., Demo, B., Grgurina, N., Mirolo, C., Rolandsson, L., & Settle, A. (2014, June).
Computational thinking in K-9 education. In Proceedings of the working group reports of the
2014 on innovation & technology in computer science education conference, (pp. 1-29). ACM.
Perkins, D. (2008). Smart schools: From training memories to educating minds. New York: Simon and
Schuster. p.9.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
Wong, K., CHING, C. C., MARK, K. P., Tang, J. K., Lei, C. U., CHEUNG, H. Y., & CHUI, H. L. (2015). Impact
of computational thinking through coding in K-12 education: A pilot study in Hong
Kong. General Studies, 85(88.01), 2-08.
Werner, L., Denner, J., Campe, S., & Kawamoto, D. C. (2012, February). The fairy performance
assessment: measuring computational thinking in middle school. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM
technical symposium on Computer Science Education, (pp. 215-220.). ACM.