Many advanced countries are recognizing more and more the importance of teaching computing, in some cases even as early as in primary school. "Computational thinking" is the term often used to denote the conceptual core of computer science or "the way a computer scientist thinks", as Wing put it. Such term -given also the lack of a widely accepted definition -has become a "buzzword" meaning different things to different people. We investigated the Italian primary school teachers' conceptions about computational thinking by analyzing the results of a survey (N=972) conducted in the context of "Programma il Futuro" project. Teachers have been asked to provide a definition of computational thinking and to answer three additional related closed-ended questions. The analysis shows that, while almost half of teachers (43.4%) have included in their definitions some fundamental elements of computational thinking, very few (10.8%) have been able to provide an acceptably complete definition. On a more positive note, the majority is aware that computational thinking is not characterized by coding or by the use of information technology.

The pervasiveness of Computer Science (CS) in today’s digital society and the extensive use of computational methods in other sciences call for its introduction in the school curriculum. Hence, Computer Science Education is becoming more and more relevant. In CS K-12 education, computational thinking (CT) is one of the abused buzzwords: different stakeholders (media, educators, politicians) give it different meanings, some more oriented to CS, others more linked to its interdisciplinary value. The expression was introduced by two leading researchers, Jeannette Wing (in 2006) and Seymour Papert (much early, in 1980), each of them stressing different aspects of a common theme. This paper will use a historical approach to review, discuss, and put in context these first two educational and epistemological approaches to CT. We will relate them to today’s context and evaluate what aspects are still relevant for CS K-12 education. Of the two, particular interest is devoted to “Papert’s CT,” which is the lesser-known and the lesser-studied. We will conclude that “Wing’s CT” and “Papert’s CT,” when correctly understood, are both relevant to today’s computer science education. From Wing, we should retain computer science’s centrality, CT being the (scientific and cultural) substratum of the technical competencies. Under this interpretation, CT is a lens and a set of categories for understanding the algorithmic fabric of today’s world. From Papert, we should retain the constructionist idea that only a social and affective involvement of students into the technical content will make programming an interdisciplinary tool for learning (also) other disciplines. We will also discuss the often quoted (and often unverified) claim that CT automatically “transfers” to other broad 21st century skills. Our analysis will be relevant for educators and scholars to recognize and avoid misconceptions and build on the two core roots of CT.

No abstract

In this paper, we reviewed many definitions of computational thinking, finding they share a lot of common elements, of very different nature. We classified them in mental processes, methods, practices, and transversal skills. Many of these elements seem to be shared with other disciplines and resonate with the current narrative on the importance of 21st-century skills. Our classification helps on shedding light on the misconceptions related to each of the four categories, showing that, not to dilute the concept, elements of computational thinking should be intended inside the discipline of Informatics, being its “disciplinary way of thinking”.

In this paper the rst two years of activities of "Programma il Futuro" project are described. Its goal is to disseminate among teachers in Italian primary and secondary schools a be er awareness of informatics as the scienti c basis of digital technologies. e project has adapted Code.org learning material and has introduced it to Italian schools with the support of a dedicated web site. Response has been enthusiastic in terms of participation: in two years more than one million students have been engaged and have completed a total of 10 million hours of informatics in schools. Almost all students found the material useful and were interested, teachers have reported. ey have also declared to have experienced high satisfaction and a low level of di culty. A detailed analysis of quantitative and qualitative data about the project is presented and areas for improvement are identi ed. One of the most interesting observations appears to corroborate the hypothesis that an exposure to informatics since the early age is important to a ract students independently from their gender.

No abstract

In order to bring informatics, its ideas and ways of thinking of major educational value to all primary and secondary school students, the Italian Inter-universities Consortium for Informatics (CINI), in collaboration with the academic associations who gather together researchers in informatics (GRIN) and computer engineering (GII), has recently proposed a core informatics curriculum for all the levels of compulsory school. This paper summarizes the proposed curriculum, highlights the key underlying motivations, and outlines a possible strategy to ensure that its implementation in schools can be effective.

This paper reports the results of an investigation involving almost a thousand primary school teachers in Italy, to explore their views on the terms "coding" and "programming", and how they are related to their ideas on "computational thinking". When directly asked "if coding is different from writing programs", roughly 2 out of 3 teachers answered "no". Among the teachers who answered "yes", almost 160 tried to motivate the difference: a few of them gave admissible explanations, while the others showed various misunderstandings, which we classify and discuss. By contrast, when asked about their idea of "what coding is", only 4 out of 10 of the teachers explicitly linked coding to programming, but an additional 2 out of 10 cited an information processing agent executing instructions. The remaining part of the sample did not provide explicit or implicit links between coding and programming. Our investigation shows that untrained teachers hold misconceptions regarding CS and its related terms. Given the general public and media attention on "coding" in schools, currently taught by existing teachers -mostly not appropriately trained, professional development actions focusing on CS scientific principles and methods are therefore a top priority for the effectiveness of CS education in schools.