TITLE: Quick Thoughts on "Computational Thinking"
AUTHOR: Eugene Wallingford
DATE: September 07, 2010  4:53 PM
DESC: 
-----
BODY:

When Mark Guzdial posted his article
<A HREF="http://computinged.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/go-to-the-data-two-stories-of-really-computational-thinking/">
   Go to the Data</A>,
offering "two stories of (really) computational thinking",
I thought for sure that I'd write something on the topic
soon.  Over four and a half weeks have passed, and I have
not written yet.  That's because, despite thinking about
it on and off ever since, I still don't have anything
deep or detailed to say.  I'm as confused as Mark says
he and Barb are, I guess.

Still, I can't seem to shake these two simple thoughts:
<UL>
<LI> Whatever else else it may be, "computational thinking"
     has to involve, well, um, <EM>computation</EM>.  As
     several commenters on his piece point out, lots of
     scientists collect and analyze data.  Computer science
     connects data and algorithm in a way that other
     disciplines don't.  </LI>
<BR/>
<LI> If a bunch of smart, well-informed people can discuss
     a name like "computational thinking" for several years
     and still be confused, maybe the problem is with the
     name.  Maybe it really is just another name for a kind
     of computer science, generalized so that we can speak
     meaningfully of non-CS types and non-programmers doing
     it.  I believe strongly that computing offers a new
     medium for expressing and creating ideas but, as for
     the term computational thinking, maybe there's no there
     there.  </LI>
</UL>

I do agree with Mark that we runners can learn a lot by
looking back at our running logs!  An occasional short
program can often expose truths that elude the naked eye.
-----