See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/247924673

Bringing computational thinking to K-12: what is Involved and what is the role
of the computer science education community?

Article  in  ACM Inroads · March 2011

DOI: 10.1145/1929887.1929905

CITATIONS READS

1,336 26,031

2 authors, including:

Valerie Barr
Bard College
55 PUBLICATIONS   1,828 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Verification and Validation of NLP Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Valerie Barr on 07 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Bringing Computational Thinking to K-12: What is
Involved and What is the Role of the Computer
Science Education Community?
VALERIE BARR
Union College

and
CHRIS STEPHENSON
Computer Science Teachers Association
Do Not Cite Without Permission

The process of increasing student exposure to computational thinking in K-12 is complex, requiring
systemic change, teacher engagement, and development of significant resources. Collaboration
with the computer science education community is vital to this effort.

T
Categories and Subject Descriptors: K.3.2 [Computer and Information Science Education]:
Computer Science Education; K.3.1 [Computer Uses in Education]: General
General Terms: Education, Curriculum
AF
1. INTRODUCTION
When Jeanette Wing [13] launched a discussion regarding the role of “computa-
tional thinking” across all disciplines, she ignited a profound engagement with the
core questions of what computer science is and what it might contribute to solving
DR

problems across the spectrum of human inquiry. Wing argued that advances in
computing allow researchers across all disciplines to envision new problem-solving
se

strategies and to test new solutions in both the virtual and real world. Computing
has made possible profound leaps of innovation and imagination as it facilitates our
U

efforts to solve pressing problems (for example, the prevention or cure of diseases,
the elimination of world hunger), and expands our understanding of ourselves as
biological systems and our relationship to the world around us. These advances, in
turn, drive the need for educated individuals who can bring the power of computing-
al

supported problem solving to an increasingly expanded field of endeavors.

It is no longer sufficient to wait until students are in college to introduce these
rn

Author’s address: V.Barr, Computer Science Department, Union College, 807 Union Street, Sch-
enectady, NY 12308
te

C.Stephenson, Computer Science Teachers Association, 2 Penn Plaza, Suite 701, New York, NY
10121-00701
Permission to make digital/hard copy of all or part of this material without fee for personal
In

or classroom use provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial
advantage, the ACM copyright/server notice, the title of the publication, and its date appear, and
notice is given that copying is by permission of the ACM, Inc. To copy otherwise, to republish,
to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
c 20x ACM 1529-3785/20x/0700-0111 $5.00

ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, Vol. x, No. x, x 20x, Pages 111–0??.

 112 · Barr and Stephenson

concepts. All of today’s students will go on to live a life heavily influenced by

computing, and many will work in fields that involve or are influenced by com-
puting. They must begin to work with algorithmic problem solving and compu-
tational methods and tools in K-12. The successful embedding of computational
thinking concepts into the K-12 curriculum requires efforts in two directions. Ed-
ucational policy must be changed, overcoming significant infrastructure hurdles,
and K-12 teachers need resources, starting with a cogent definition and relevant
age-appropriate examples. In this paper we report on the first part of a multiphase
project aimed at developing an operational definition of computational thinking for
K-12 along with suitable resources for policy and curricular change. In addition
to explaining the issues involved in the K-12 arena, this paper, following Ezer and
Stephenson [11], is intended to help bridge the gap between the K-12 and the CS
Do Not Cite Without Permission

education communities.
The computer science education community can play an important role in high-
lighting algorithmic problem solving practices and applications of computing across
disciplines, and help integrate the application of computational methods and tools
across diverse areas of learning. At the same time, CS educators must understand

T
the complexities of the K-12 educational setting, incorporating that knowledge into
their outreach activities and their support for K-12 changes.
Developing a definition of or approach to computational thinking that is suit-
AF
able for K-12 is especially challenging in light of the fact that there is, as yet, no
widely agreed upon definition of computational thinking. Certainly K-12 students
already learn how to think and problem solve, but computer scientists can help
teachers understand these processes as algorithmic, and identify where actual com-
putation and manipulation of data with a computer may fit in. Many disciplines
require, promote, and teach problem solving skills, logical thinking, or algorithmic
thinking. Computer scientists can promote understanding of how to bring compu-
DR

tational processes to bear on problems in other fields and on problems that lie at
the intersection of disciplines. For example, bioinformatics and computational bi-
se

ology are different, but both benefit from the combination of biology and computer
science. The former involves collecting and analyzing biological information. The
U

latter involves simulating biological systems and processes. Presenting both bioin-
formatics and computational biology in algorithmic form helps scientists exchange
information [5].
al

2. MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND COMPUTATIONAL

THINKING
rn

Questions of the nature and educational value of computer science are as old as the
discipline itself. In 1985, Abelson and Sussman argued that computer science is “a
te

discipline of constructing appropriate descriptive languages” [1]. Denning [2], how-

ever, posited that computer science consists of mechanics (computation, commu-
nication, coordination, automation, and recollection), design principles (simplicity,
In

performance, reliability, evolvability, and security) and practices (programming, en-

gineering systems, modeling and validation, innovating, and applying). The ACM
Model Curriculum for K-12 Computer Science [12] provides a definition of com-
puter science specifically for K-12 educators. Computer science, it argues, is nei-
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, Vol. x, No. x, x 20x.
 Bringing Computational Thinking to K-12 · 113

ther programming nor computer literacy. Rather, it is “the study of computers

and algorithmic processes including their principles, their hardware and software
design, their applications, and their impact on society” (pg.1). Computer science
therefore includes:
—programming,
—hardware design,
—networks,
—graphics,
—databases and information retrieval,
—computer security,
Do Not Cite Without Permission

—software design,
—programming languages,
—logic,
—programming paradigms,

T
—translation between levels of abstraction,
—artificial intelligence,
—the limits of computations (what computers cannot do),
AF
—applications in information technology and information systems, and
—social issues (Internet security, privacy, intellectual property, etc.).
More recently, Felleisen and Krishnamurthy [3] have argued that “imaginative pro-
gramming” is the most crucial element of computing because it closely aligns math-
ematics with computing and in this way brings mathematics to life.
In framing the conceptual and educational importance of computational think-
DR

ing, as distinct from computer science, Wing [13] suggested that computational
thinking includes: seeking algorithmic approaches to problem domains; a readiness
se

to move between differing levels of abstraction and representation; familiarity with

decomposition; separation of concerns; and modularity. More recently, Isbell et
al. [6] have argued for “computationalist thinking”, a focus on providing services,
U

interfaces, and behaviors that involves a more central role for modeling as a means
of formulating relationships and identifying relevant agencies that are sources of
change.
al

As the ITEST Working Group on Computational Thinking [8] pointed out, how-
ever, computational thinking “shares elements with various other types of thinking
rn

such as algorithmic thinking, engineering thinking, and mathematical thinking”.

Perkovic et al. [9] similarly focus on the intellectual skills necessary to “apply
computational techniques or computer applications to ... problems and projects”
te

in any discipline. Hemmendinger [4] notes that we must be aware of the risks of
arrogance and overreaching when discussing the role of computational thinking, es-
pecially across disciplines. He argues that the elements of computational thinking
In

that computer scientists tend to claim for their own (constructing models, finding
and correcting errors, creating representations, and analyzing) are shared across
many disciplines and that the appearance of grand territorial claims risks provok-
ing adverse reactions. Hemmendinger concludes that the ultimate goal should not
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, Vol. x, No. x, x 20x.
 114 · Barr and Stephenson

be to teach everyone to think like a computer scientist, but rather to teach them to
apply these common elements to solve problems and discover new questions that
can be explored within and across all disciplines.

3. CREATING A DEFINITION FOR COMPUTATIONAL THINKING IN K-12

K-12 education today is a highly complex, highly-politicized environment where
multiple competing priorities, ideologies, pedagogies, and ontologies all vie for dom-
inance. It is simultaneously subject to wildly diverse expectations, intense scrutiny,
and diminishing resources. Any effort to achieve systemic change in this environ-
ment requires a deep understanding of the realities of the system. Passionate debate
about the nature of computer science or computational thinking may provide intel-
lectual stimulation for those in the computing fields. However, embedding compu-
Do Not Cite Without Permission

tational thinking in K-12 requires a practical approach, grounded in an operational

definition. It requires that we begin with a set of questions focused specifically on
K-12 implementation:
—What would computational thinking look like in the classroom?

T
—What are the skills that students would demonstrate?
—What would a teacher need in order to put computational thinking into practice?
—What are teachers already doing that could be modified and extended?
AF
To be useful, a definition must ultimately be coupled with examples that demon-
strate how computational thinking can be incorporated in the classroom. Research
regarding the implementation of computational thinking skills in informal educa-
tion also provides valuable insights. Lee [7] for example, points to several successful
projects that use simulation and modeling, robotics, and computer game design to
teach abstraction, automation, and analysis. As the ITEST Working Group on
DR

Computational Thinking notes, these kinds of activities also involve an iterative

design, refinement, and reflection process that Resnick [10] argues is central to
se

creative as well as computational thinking.

In the summer of 2009, the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) and
U

the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) began a multi-phase

project aimed at developing an operational definition of computational thinking for
K-12. These two organizations (see Appendix A for more information about CSTA
and ISTE) were particularly suited for this undertaking because of their extensive
al

involvement in K-12 and their expertise in developing educational standards, cur-

riculum materials, and professional development for educators. This project would
rn

bring together computational thinking and K-12 curriculum thought leaders com-
mitted to focusing on definitions and implementation of computational thinking in
the context of real K-12 curriculum outcomes, standards, and artifacts. The project
te

began with the selection of a small steering committee that met to:
—identify criteria for and names of potential invitees for a Thought Leaders meet-
In

ing; and
—develop an agenda for a two-day Thought Leaders meeting designed to create
a framework/lexicon to better facilitate discussions of key elements of computa-
tional thinking across diverse disciplines.
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, Vol. x, No. x, x 20x.
 Bringing Computational Thinking to K-12 · 115

The steering committee identified a group of educators and administrators who

—had clearly demonstrated interest in computational thinking for K-12 or expertise

in curriculum development and implementation
—would provide representation from a broad spectrum of backgrounds and perspec-
tives (higher education faculty and researchers, K-12 professional associations,
school-based leaders, teachers, the corporate community),
—had experience with or demonstrated interest in K-12 issues, and
—demonstrated leadership, particularly in STEM discipline areas.
The steering committee eventually selected 26 Thought Leaders and charged
them with developing a shared vision and set of strategies for embedding compu-
Do Not Cite Without Permission

tational thinking across the K-12 curriculum, most especially in the STEM subject
areas. The purpose of the meeting, held over two days in April 2010, was not to
craft a formal or definitive definition of computational thinking to be debated by
academics. Rather, the goal of the meeting was to reach a consensus of what com-
putational thinking means in K-12, as well as explain the particularities of K-12

T
education to the CS education representatives. Specifically, for any K-16 collabora-
tion to be successful, college faculty must understand the complexities of teaching
in and making changes in the K-12 setting. The computer scientists participating,
AF
in particular, noted that educational change was considerably more complex than
they suspected and that working with educators from multiple diverse disciplines
meant learning to “disconnect computational thinking from computer science”.

4. WAYS OF ENVISIONING COMPUTATIONAL THINKING IN K-12 CLASSROOM

The participants identified many ideas about what computational thinking is and
DR

what it could be in classrooms. When challenged with the task of describing what
makes computational thinking unique from other kinds of thinking, participants
se

tended to focus on the centrality of the computer and a set of concepts that com-
putational thinking and doing encompass:
U

CT is an approach to solving problems in a way that can be implemented

with a computer. Students become not merely tool users but tool builders.
They use a set of concepts, such as abstraction, recursion, and iteration,
to process and analyze data, and to create real and virtual artifacts. CT
al

is a problem solving methodology that can be automated and transferred

and applied across subjects.
rn

and its generation from, and potential use in, a wide variety of disciplines: The
power of computational thinking is that it applies to every other type of reasoning. It
te

enables all kinds of things to get done: quantum physics, advanced biology, human-
computer systems, development of useful computational tools.
The participants envisioned computational thinking manifesting in the classroom
In

through active problem-solving. They saw students: “enngaged in using tools to

solve problems”, “comfortable with trial and error”, and working in “an atmo-
sphere of figuring things out together”. They also saw students using key concepts,
so that “you will hear them talk about sequences, inputs, outputs, saved value,
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, Vol. x, No. x, x 20x.
 116 · Barr and Stephenson

how complex the solution is”. The meeting participants also predicted that stu-
dents whose learning abounded with opportunities for “computational doing” would
evidence a more fluid kind of problem solving. These students would understand
that “problems can be solved in multiple ways”, have “a tolerance for ambiguity
and flexibility” and have “reasonable expectations about the prospect of producing
a working solution”.
Do Not Cite Without Permission

T
AF
DR
U se
al
rn
te
In

One structured model that emerged focused on identifying core computational

thinking concepts and capabilities and providing examples of how they might be
embedded in activities across multiple disciplines. Table 1 shows the results of these
efforts.
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, Vol. x, No. x, x 20x.
 Bringing Computational Thinking to K-12 · 117

CT Concept, CS Math Science Social Studies Language Arts

Capability
data collection find a data source source for a prob- collect data from study battle do linguistic anal-
for a problem lem area doing an experiment statistics, or ysis of sentences
area probability exer- population data
cises, for exam-
ple, flipping coins
or throwing dice
data analysis write a program count # occur- analyze data from identify trends in identify patterns
to do basic statis- rences of flips, an experiment the data from the for different sen-
tical calculations dice throws and statistics tence types
on a set of data analyzing results
Data representa- use data struc- use a histogram, summarize data summarize and represent pat-
Do Not Cite Without Permission

tion and analysis tures such as pie chart, bar from an experi- represent the terns of different
array, linked list, chart, etc. to ment trends sentence types
stack, queue, represent data;
graph, hash use sets, lists,
table, etc. graphs, etc. to
contain data

T
abstraction use procedures to use variables in build a model of a summarize facts; use of simile and
encapsulate a set Algebra; identify- physical entity deuced con- metaphor
of often repeated ing essential facts clusions from
commands that in a word problem facts
AF
perform a func-
tion
analysis and validate random curve fitting validate that the
model validation number generator model is correct
automation use tools such use Prove ware use Excel use a spell
as: Geometer checker
Sketch Pad; Star
Logo; Python
DR

code snippets
testing and verifi- debug a program; do guess and validate and clean
se

cation write unit tests; check data

formal program
verification
U

algorithms & pro- study classic do long division, do an experimen- write instructions
cedures algorithms; factoring; do tal procedure
implement an carries in addi-
algorithm for a tion/subtraction
al

problem area
problem decom- define objects apply order of op- do a species clas- write an outline
position and methods; erations in an ex- sification
rn

define main and pression

functions
control structures use conditionals, study functions in write a story with
loops, recursion, algebra compared branches
te

etc. to functions in
programming;
use iteration
In

to solve word
problems
parallelization threading, solve linear sys-
run experiments
pipelining, di- tems; do matrix simultaneously
viding up data multiplication with different
or task in ACM
such Transactions on Computational
parameters
Logic, Vol. x, No. x, x 20x.
a way to be
processed in
parallel
simulation algorithm anima- graph a function simulate move- play Age of Em- do a re-enactment
tion, parameter in a Cartesian ment of the solar pires; Oregon from a story
sweeping plane and modify system Trail
values of the
variables
 118 · Barr and Stephenson

Participants also discussed the core concepts in the context of capabilities, dispo-
sitions and pre-dispositions, and classroom culture. In many ways the capabilities
category is a reiteration of the core concepts, focused on what students would ac-
tually do. These capabilities include:
—Design solutions to problems (using abstraction, automation, creating algorithms,
data collection and analysis);
—Implement designs (programming as appropriate);
—Test and debug;
—Model, run simulations, do systems analysis;
—Reflect on practice and communicating;
—Use the vocabulary;
Do Not Cite Without Permission

—Recognize abstractions and move between levels of abstractions;

—Innovation, exploration, and creativity across disciplines;
—Group problem solving; and

T
—Employ diverse learning strategies.
The dispositions and pre-dispositions category arose from an attempt to capture
the “areas of values, motivations, feelings, stereotypes and attitudes” applicable to
AF
computational thinking. These included:
—Confidence in dealing with complexity,
—Persistence in working with difficult problems,
—The ability to handle ambiguity,
—The ability to deal with open-ended problems,
DR

—Setting aside differences to work with others to achieve a common goal or solution,
and
—Knowing one’s strengths and weaknesses when working with others.
se

In attempting to define a classroom culture that would be most conducive to

computational thinking, the participants identified strategies or characteristics that
U

could be considered broadly beneficial to any learning experience. These included:

—Increased use by both teachers and students of computational vocabulary where
al

appropriate to describe problems and solutions;

—Acceptance by both teachers and students of failed solution attempts, recognizing
that early failure can often put you on the path to a successful outcome;
rn

—Team work by students, with explicit use of:

—decomposition - breaking problems down into smaller parts that may be more
te

easily solved,
—abstraction - simplifying from the concrete to the general as solutions are
developed,
In

—negotiation - groups within the team working together to merge parts of the
solution into the whole, and
—consensus building - working to build group solidarity behind one idea or so-
lution.
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, Vol. x, No. x, x 20x.
 Bringing Computational Thinking to K-12 · 119

While further detail and synthesis work is clearly required (and planned for in
the next phase of the project) these models provide a way to begin embedding
computational thinking within K-12 formal education. This counters the potential
claim that computational thinking can only be addressed in informal education ex-
periences where discipline based-learning and classroom constraints are not major
encumbrances. However, there are still considerable barriers that must be consid-
ered in any attempt at systemic and sustained change.

5. STRATEGIES FOR ACHIEVING SYSTEMIC CHANGE

The kind of systemic and sustained educational change proposed necessitates two
sets of resources. The first is resources that will help inform educational policy
makers about the nature and importance of computational thinking, its connec-
Do Not Cite Without Permission

tions to learning goals that may have already been set for students (for example
national and state standards), and ways it can best be integrated within the larger
framework for student learning and success. The second set of resources are those
that teachers need to most appropriately and effectively integrate these new con-

T
cepts, first into their own sphere of content and pedagogical knowledge and then
into their classroom content and practice.
In order to articulate and expand on these two set of resources, the Thought
Leaders identified several strategic areas that would have to be addressed in order
AF
to successfully embed computational thinking within K-12. For each strategic area
they developed a set of requirements and suggestions that would support that
element of systemic and sustained change.

5.1 Educational policies that include computational thinking as a part of every stu-
dent’s education:
DR

—Present a single message at federal, state, and local levels about the importance
of computational thinking in K-12 education.
se

—Encourage computer science professional organizations to advocate at the federal

and state levels and work with groups that are active on state K-12 standards.
U

—Incorporate computational thinking throughout the entire K-12 experience with

outcomes that demonstrate incremental steps.
—Attach computational thinking, where possible, to existing policies. For example,
al

it could be included as an explicit outcome of state level technology tests.

—Include in all teacher pre-service preparation programs a class on computational
rn

thinking across disciplines.

5.2 Shared Vision and Common Language

te

—Improve the relationships and communication between K-12 educators (faculty

and administrators), college CS faculty, computer science professionals, and oth-
In

ers in industry. Develop a clear statement of computational thinking as a core

competency in K-12. Demystify terminology about computational thinking, give
clear examples of ways it applies to and can be integrated into a range of curric-
ular areas.
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, Vol. x, No. x, x 20x.
 120 · Barr and Stephenson

5.3 School and District Level Leadership Inspired to Change

—Provide materials that will help school administrators understand computational
thinking so that they can see why this knowledge and skills are important for
today’s students. The larger CS community can help by providing suitable ma-
terials and taking advantage of opportunities to work with K-12 administrators.
5.4 Inspiring and Preparing Teachers to Change
—Professional development is critical to successful educational change. CS faculty
can help by providing summer institutes, demonstrating the role of computational
thinking in non-CS disciplines and providing relevant curricular materials.
—Encourage school administrators to provide incentives for K-12 teachers to change
courses and curricula. The NSF RET grants awarded to CPATH grantees are one
Do Not Cite Without Permission

model that provides incentives for K-12 teachers to adopt curricular or pedagogic
changes that have been piloted first at the college level.
—Provide teachers with resources to support change, including curricular materials,
models and simulations, model activities, and web sites for independent student

T
activities.
—Provide teachers with professional development and support in the form of learn-
ing communities, summer institutes, peer learning offered by teachers with com-
AF
putational thinking experience, exposure to industry applications where CT skills
are utilized, and help identifying where computational thinking is already in-
cluded in teaching.
—Make available to school districts open-source tools (blogs, wikis, forums) and
web-based social networks and content delivery systems for use by teachers and
students (vetted so that districts are not likely to block them).
—Encourage current professional education associations to show how computa-
DR

tional thinking fits into their current standards/work.

—Ask professional education associations to include a focus on computational
se

thinking in their conferences, workshops, and professional development events.

These represent strategic areas that would support the long-term goal of embed-
U

ding computational thinking in K-12. They clearly demonstrate the myriad issues
and obstacles involved when trying to achieve educational change in K-12. They
also illustrate the critical importance of engaging knowledgeable K-12 educators
al

in projects that purport to improve student learning, and the extent to which a
successful effort will require the expertise, resources, and dedication of educators
rn

and policy makers at all educational levels.

6. NEXT STEPS
te

The next phase of this project will involve a Practitioners Workshop that will
begin to develop the resources and strategies identified in the Thought Leaders
meeting. The challenge will be to determine the best possible artifacts to promote
In

the implementation of computational thinking concepts in K-12. We expect that

the Practitioners Workshop will therefore include development of various resource
sets. For example, a toolkit might be developed to guide high level policy work
(e.g school, district, state). It might include items such as press releases, executive
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, Vol. x, No. x, x 20x.
 Bringing Computational Thinking to K-12 · 121

summaries, and definitions for school boards. A second toolkit might consist of
materials for classroom teachers, such as concept maps or a flow chart to guide
planning based on existing or model curricula. While the precise set of resources
and their content have not yet been determined, it is clear that the Practitioners
Workshop will be focused on formulating new materials both for implementing CT
concepts into the curriculum and for advocating for computational thinking as a
key educational component for all students. Given efforts already under way at the
college level, including the development of new curricula and resources, we expect
the computer science education community will have much to contribute to this
effort.

Appendix A
Do Not Cite Without Permission

CSTA is a membership organization of more than 7000 computing educators at the

K-12 and post-secondary level. Its mission is to support and promote the teaching
of computer science and other computing disciplines at the K-12 level by providing
opportunities for teachers and students to better understand the computing disci-
plines and to more successfully prepare themselves to teach and to learn. Since its

T
inception five years ago, CSTA has become the primary voice for K-12 computer
science education, advocating for the importance of computer science as part of
the educational canon and its centrality to all of the STEM (science, technology,
AF
engineering, mathematics) disciplines. Through its development and publication of
the ACM Model Curriculum for K-12 Computer Science and supporting curriculum
implementation documents, CSTA has provided the de facto national standards for
computer science in K-12. CSTA also conducts ground-breaking research and has
published several germinal white papers on key computer science education issues.
It provides multiple levels of professional development (through workshops and an-
nual conferences) that have helped educators improve their technical knowledge
DR

and pedagogical skills.

ISTE is recognized for its leadership to improve learning and teaching through
se

effective integration of technology across the curriculum and throughout the edu-
cation enterprise. ISTE’s commitment to educational transformation is best rep-
U

resented by its work to develop the National Educational Technology Standards

(NETS) for Students, Teachers, and Administrators. By convening K-12 educa-
tors, teacher educators, curriculum and education associations, government, busi-
ness, and private foundations, ISTE built consensus for the framework and momen-
al

tum for using the standards. ISTE is a also a leader in convening educators and
school leaders, best illustrated by its annual conference which showcases emerging
rn

technology and innovative and effective use of technology in the K-12 classroom.
REFERENCES
te

H. Abelson and G. Sussman. Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1985.
P. Denning. Great principles of computing. Communications of the ACM, 46(11):15–20, 2003.
In

M. Felleisen and S. Krishnamurthi. Viewpoint - why computer science doesn’t matter. Com-
munications of the ACM, 52(7):37, 2009.
D. Hemmendinger. A Plea for Modesty. ACM Inroads, 1(2):4–7, 2010.
T. Hey, S. Tansley, and K. Tolle, editors. The Fourth Paradigm: Data-Intensive Scientific
Discovery. Microsoft Research, Redmond,WA, 2009.
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, Vol. x, No. x, x 20x.
 122 · Barr and Stephenson

C. Isbell, A. Stein, R. Cutler, J. Forber, L. Fraser, J. Impagliazzo, V. Proulx, S. Russ,

R. Thomas, and Y. Xu. (re)defining computing curricula by (re)defining computing. ACM
SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(4):195–207, 2009.
I. Lee. don’t know yet. waiting for information, 2010.
I. W. G. on Computational Thinking. Computational thinking for youth. Technical report,
Education Development Center, Inc., Newton, MA, May 2010.
L. Perkovic, A. Settle, sungsoon Hwang, and J. Jones. A Framework for Computational Think-
ing across the Curriculum. In ITiCSE 2010 Conference Proceedings, pages 123–127. ACM,
June 2010.
M. Resnick. All i really need to know (about creative thinking) i learned (by studying how
children learn (in kindergarten). In ACM Creativity and Cognition Conference, Washington,
DC, 2007.
J. G.-E. . C. Stephenson. Computer science teacher preparation is critical. ACM Inroads,
1(1):61–66, 2010.
Do Not Cite Without Permission

A. Tucker, D. McCowan, F. Deek, C. Stephenson, J. Jones, and A. Verno. A model curriculum

for k-12 computer science: Report of the acm k-12 task force computer science curriculum
committee. Technical report, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2006.
J. Wing. Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3):33–35, 2006.

T
AF
DR
U se
al
rn
te
In

View publication stats

ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, Vol. x, No. x, x 20x.