Informatical Thinking

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”.

How do thinking styles and STEM attitudes have effects on computational thinking? A structural equation modeling analysis

“…2.1 | CT and its possible predictors Papert (1980) introduced CT to describe young students' specific thinking processes (ways of thinking) in learning mathematics through programming more than 40 years ago (Lodi, 2020;Stephens & Kadijevich, 2020). Later, Wing (2006) renewed the concept and referred to it as individuals' thought processes when they solve problems by utilizing core ideas of computer science (CS; Wing, 2006Wing, , 2008.…”

“…There are two major reasons for selecting these two factors. First, the nature of CT can be regarded as a way of thinking (Lodi, 2020), which indicates thinking styles may powerfully predict CT. In fact, Durak and Saritepeci's (2018) found that the effect of thinking styles on CT skills was "realized at the highest level in comparison to the other variables" (p. 200).…”

“…In the digital age, tremendous attention has been paid to CT across different domains (Butler & Leahy, 2021). Based on Wing's (2006, 2008) work, CT has also been defined, interpreted, and conceptualized through different approaches (e.g., K‐12 Computer Science Framework Steering Committee, 2016; Lai & Ellefson, 2023; Li et al, 2020a, 2020b; Lodi, 2020; Shute et al, 2017; Tikva & Tambouris, 2021). For instance, Korkmaz et al (2017) proposed that CT included five sub‐dimensions: creativity (expressing oneself and using mind and imagination), algorithmic thinking (thinking and understanding algorithms, applying, evaluating, and producing), critical thinking (using cognitive skills or strategies to increase the possibility of the intended behaviors), problem‐solving (gathering and using the strategies necessary for the solution of the problem), and cooperativity (helping each other for a common purpose in small sets; Korkmaz et al, 2017).…”

On Using Real-Time and Post-Contest Data to Improve the Contest Organization, Technical/Scientific Procedures and Build an Efficient Contestant Preparation Strategy

“…In recent years, there has been valuable research and applications of analytical methods and Machine Learning techniques to predict the contestant performance (Alnahhas and Mourtada, 2020) and analysis of the task difficulty (Fantozzi and Laura, 2020;Vegt and Schrijvers, 2019;Pankov and Kenzhaliyev, 2020). Some specialists have provided valuable pedagogical analysis of the key factors that may lead to contestant's success (Tsvetkova and Kiryukhin, 2020;Lodi, 2020). There have also been ideas on platform-based automatic analysis of the contestant activities in competitions and e-learning systems (Kostadinov et al, 2018).…”

A Necessity-Driven Ride on the Abstraction Rollercoaster of CS1 Programming

“…For a historical and epistemological review and a discussion on the fundamental elements of an "informatical way of thinking", see andLodi (2020).…”