In an earlier post, I proposed a type of debate considering whether Coding or Argumentation would be the best addition to the K-12 curriculum. Using some of the core ideas of argumentation, I proposed that I would take on this challenge using the approach of identifying what might be the reasons, evidence, and counter-arguments for each position. I have found it relatively easy to identify reasons for either curricular emphasis, but it is more difficult than one might think identifying the evidence for popular reasons.
I have begun working on the evidence for the reasons offered by supporters of coding. Certain reasons are not that challenging – yes there seems to be evidence that there are job opportunities as computer scientists. However, the “coding for all movement” would seem to require something more. The notion of computational thinking as a way to approach a wide variety of life issues might be one such reason. To offer this as a sound reason or to refute it, I would assume one should be able to point to solid research. The “more needs to be done” thing just does not cut it for me. I think you should generate evidence first and then argue for changes to the curriculum. If this is not the approach, you end up chasing one fad after another.
I have been attempting to identify research that would offer support. For example, the following paper has generated some attention (I recognize the authors so the findings would have some credibility for me).
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational Thinking in K–12: A Review of the State of the Field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43.
I did not find much. I abstracted the one paragraph that would seem to bear on the specific thing I was looking for.
Cognitive aspects of children and novices learning computational concepts were studied extensively in the 1980s—issues such as development of thinking skills (Kurland, Pea, Clement, & Mawby, 1986); debugging (Pea, Soloway, & Spohrer, 1987); problems with transfer (Clements & Gullo, 1984; Pea & Kurland, 1984); use of appropriate scaffolds for successful transfer (Klahr & Carver, 1988), to name a few. That body of literature should be brought to bear on 21st-century CT research.
I have read the studies cited here. In fact, I use several in writing my own analysis. This may sound like sour grapes, but I was annoyed when a previous edition of my textbook was criticized for referencing work that was dated. I pride myself on the work I invest in researching the topics I write about and I thought this was the type of criticism offered by those who look at dates and are not that well informed regarding the actual research. This issue aside, I continue to argue that the research on the transfer value from research on K-12 students learning LOGO is still the best available and does not make a strong case for the type of experiences students were experiencing.
Still searching for a solid body of work justifying the concept of computational thinking.