Computational Thinking: What Went Wrong?

Abstract

The recent focus upon Computational Thinking and suggestions that Computational Thinking (CT) should be included in preK-12 education as well as teacher education brings back memories of earlier times in the area of technology in teacher education. Looking back at the history of our field, some of us remember an early (1980’s) emphasis on CT. Although most did not call it CT at the time, many of the early leaders and followers in the Logo movement were interested and inspired by the possibilities of the computer as “an object to think with” and an environment where children could learn important problem solving skills in an active, student centered way. As Glen Bull, Joe Garfalo, and Rich Nguyen mention in their article in this issue: “Thinking About Computational Thinking: Origins of Computational Thinking in Educational Computing,” Seymour Papert provided a clear vision for using technology to provide problem solving environments where children could develop skills that we now call CT. Papert’s visions for technology use in schools were clearly articulated in Mindstorms (1980) and these visions motivated many of us to begin to define and explore uses of computers in classrooms. Much of this early work involved designing environments for using the Logo language in classrooms. More than 40 years have passed since this early work with Logo and much of the early enthusiasm for Logo as a tool for classroom teachers waned after the initial excitement over Papert’s vision. In fact, younger researchers and educators may view the current emphasis on CT as a new area of emphasis for technology in teacher education rather than the reemergence of a significant piece of our history. Honoring, understanding and using the history of Logo and Papert’s visions for computer use in classrooms needs to be an important part of the current work in CT and the “Thinking about Computational Thinking” article in this issue should be a required read for those working on CT research and development today. Forty years ago Papert presented a clear vision of the importance of CT in schools and specific ideas for how to incorporate CT in classrooms. After initial enthusiasm for Papert’s approach, however, classroom use of computers turned toward using computers to augment and enhance existing curriculum and methods. It is important to understand what happened to the early efforts to incorporate CT in schools and the use of the computer as “an object to think with.” Looking back, we suggest there are four major reasons that our initial uses of computers in schools focused upon integrating computers into existing curriculum and methods and not on creating environments for learning CT.