Peter J. Rich
ABSTRACT
Computational Thinking has become an important cognitive skill to develop in all areas of education. Despite its increasing popularity, the construct itself is only partially understood. There are few measures currently in place that advance our understanding of computational thinking and its subconstructs. In this article, we analyze existing measures of computational thinking (CT), looking specifically at their measures of decomposition. Decomposition is defined as the process of breaking down a problem into its sub-components. Even though most definitions of computational thinking include decomposition, fewbreak down the decompositional process beyond a basic definition. As one of the first steps in the computational thinking process, it is important to better understand the various manners in which decomposition occurs, which methods are most effective, and under what conditions. To better understand the decompositional process, we analyze evidence of decompositional process in a variety of disciplines. We then present a framework for decomposition in computational thinking. We demonstrate how this framework may help educators to better prepare students to break down complex problems, as well as provide guidance for how decompositional ability might be measured.
- A Avolio. 1980. Multi-branched model of the human arterial system. Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing (1980), 709--718.Google Scholar
- P. J. Blanco, J. S. Leiva, R. A. Feijoo, and G. C. Buscaglia. 2010. Black-box decomposition approach for computational hemodynamics: One-dimensional models. Computational Methods for Applied Mechanical Engineering (2010), 1385--1405.Google Scholar
- CSTA. 2017. K-12 Computer Science Standards, Revised 2017 .CSTeachers.org.Google Scholar
- J. Cuny, L. Snyder, and J. M. Wing. 2010. Demystifying computational thinking for non-computer scientists. Unpublished manuscdript in progress (2010).Google Scholar
- R. Davis and R. G. Smith. 1983. Negotiation as a metaphor for distributed problem solving. Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 20, 1 (1983), 63--109.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Du Boulay, T. O'Shea, and J. Monk. 1981. The black box inside the glass box: presenting computing concepts to novices. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 14, 3 (1981), 237--249.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D Fried, A. Legay, J. Ouaknine, and M. Y. Vardi. 2018. Sequential relational decomposition. ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (2018), 432--441. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shuchi Grover and Roy Pea. 2013. Computational Thinking in K--12: A Review of the State of the Field. Educational Researcher, Vol. 42, 1 (2013), 38--43.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M Heidegger. 1927. Neomarius Verlag. In Sein und Zeit, , J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson (Eds.). Harper & Row, New York, 41--311.Google Scholar
- C. Ho. 2014. Some phenomena of problem decomposition strategy for design thinking. Design Studies, Vol. 22, 1 (2014), 27--45.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Leygue and E. Verron. 2010. A first step towards the use of proper general decomposition method for structural optimization. Springer Link, Vol. 17, 4 (2010), 465--472.Google Scholar
- N. A. M. Maiden and A. G. Sutcliffe. 1996. A computational mechanism for parallel problem decomposition during requirements engineering. IEEE (1996), 159--163. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. A. Mattson and C. D. Sorenseon. 2017. Fundamentals of Product Development . Vol. 5th ed.Springer.Google Scholar
- Seymour Papert. 1980. Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books, Inc., New York, NY: USA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A Potesta. 2016. The fragility of the present and the task of thinking: Heidegger, thinker of the future. Philosophy Today, Vol. 60, 4 (2016), 911--925.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Noa Ragonis and Päivi Kinnunen (Eds.). 2015. Concepts in K-9 Computer Science Education. Vol. the 2015 ITiCSE. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marcos Román-González, Juan-Carlos Pérez-González, and Carmen Jiménez-Fernández. 2017. Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 72 (2017), 678--691. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mark Sherman and Fred Martin. 2015. The assessment of mobile computational thinking. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, Vol. 30, 6 (2015), 53--59. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Valerie J. Shute, Chen Sun, and Jodi Asbell-Clarke. 2017. Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review (2017).Google Scholar
- Beth Simon, Alison Clear, and Quintin Cutts (Eds.). 2013. Modeling the learning progressions of computational thinking of primary grade students. Vol. the ninth annual international ACM conference. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- James Spradley. 1979. The ethnographic interview .Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. College Publishers, Fort Worth, Texas: USA.Google Scholar
- James Spradley. 1980. Participant observation .Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, NY: USA.Google Scholar
- A. Tarlecki, R. M. Burstall, and J. A. Goguen. 1991. Some fundamental algebraic tools for the semantics of computation: Part 3. Indexed Categories. Theoretical Computer Science (1991), 239--264. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. L. Thomasson. 2008. Existence questions. Springer Science & Business Media (2008), 63--78.Google Scholar
- Jeannette M Wing. 2006. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM, Vol. 49, 3 (2006), 33--35. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- A Framework for Decomposition in Computational Thinking
Recommendations
A framework for computational thinking across the curriculum
ITiCSE '10: Proceedings of the fifteenth annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science educationWe describe a framework for implementing computational thinking in a broad variety of general education courses. The framework is designed to be used by faculty without formal training in information technology in order to understand and integrate ...
Teaching how to teach computational thinking
ITiCSE 2018: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science EducationComputational Thinking is argued to be an essential skill for the workforce of the 21st century. As a skill, Computational Thinking should be taught in all schools, employing computational ideas integrated into other disciplines. Up until now, questions ...
Computational thinking is critical thinking: connecting to university discourse, goals, and learning outcomes
ASIST '16: Proceedings of the 79th ASIS&T Annual Meeting: Creating Knowledge, Enhancing Lives through Information & TechnologyComputational thinking complements critical thinking as a way of reasoning to solve problems, make decisions and interact with our world. It draws concepts and techniques such as abstraction, decomposition, algorithmic design, generalization, evaluation ...
Comments