,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Originally, Jeannette sold Computational Thinking as "If you learn CT, you learn things that you can apply in your everyday life." I don't think many of us believe that anymore.
Now, we say that "You can learn by using computation in ways different and more powerful than without computation." That's what @LorenaABarba was saying here quite powerfully, and I think most of us agree with that. lorenabarba.com/blog/computati…
But why do we say "CT" instead of computation, or coding, or programming, or even computer science? Is the real reason that people are afraid of the word "programming," and are still unsure that we can teach programming to everyone?
That's a valid concern, that we don't yet know how to teach everyone to use programming as a literacy. But if that's what we really want, doesn't the use of the "CT" term just keep us further from the goal? It allows us to keep saying "But we don't have to do programming."
How do you teach computational ideas without words for those ideas? That's what code is. @yadavaman, how do you teach "debugging" in a computational sense without talking about algorithms or programs? Don't you need *something* to debug? Isn't it harder *not* to have code?
Returning to the exchange with @shuchig and #DoesComputationalThinkingEvenExist. Can we teach thinking with computation without a notation for those computational ideas (code)? Papert didn't think so. Logo was invented to make computational ideas accessible.
