Understanding

Computational Thinking
Badge Guide

Enoch Hunsaker
Brigham Young University
2018
 1

Badge Introduction 3
Recommended Prior Knowledge 3
International Standards Alignment 3
ISTE Standards for Educators 3
ISTE Standards for Students 3
Intended Learning Outcomes 3
Acknowledgements 4

Requirement 1: CT Conceptual Quiz 5

What is Computational Thinking 5
Components of Computational Thinking 7
Decomposition 8
Pattern Recognition 8
Abstraction 9
Algorithm Design 10
Evaluation 10
Confident 11
Communicative 11
Flexible 11
Tinkering 11
Creating 11
Debugging 12
Persevering 12
Collaborating 12
What Computational Thinking Is Not 12

Requirement 2: Guided Computational Thinking 14

Sample CT Problem: A Model 15
Answering Questions in Sub-Requirements 2.1-2.5 19

Requirement 3: Open Computational Thinking Project 21

Requirement 3.1: Formulating a CT Problem 21
Choosing a Suitable Problem 21
Framing the Problem Computationally 22
Ideas for Classroom Computational Problems 23
Requirement 3.2: Solving a CT Problem 24
Requirement 3.3: Reporting your CT Process 24

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 2

Requirement 4: Reflections 25
Requirement 4.1: Computational Thinking Attitudes & Approaches 25
Requirement 4.2: Computational Thinking Rationale 25
Computational Thinking as a 21st Century Literacy 25
Attitudes and Trends in regard to Computational Thinking 26

References 28

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 3

Badge Introduction
Computational Thinking (CT), considered a fundamental literacy of the 21st Century, is
increasingly gaining traction with educational associations and school systems around
the world. Earners of this badge demonstrate ability to apply skills, attitudes, and
approaches associated with CT in their own problem-solving process as well as an
understanding of the rationale for teaching CT to 21st-Century students.

It is estimated that this badge will take approximately 2 hours to complete.

Recommended Prior Knowledge

This is a beginner-level badge. No prior knowledge is necessary.

International Standards Alignment

ISTE Standards for Educators

● Learner Standard 1a: ​Set professional learning goals to explore and apply
pedagogical approaches made possible by technology and reflect on their
effectiveness.

ISTE Standards for Students

● Computational Thinking Standard 5: S

​ tudents develop and employ strategies
for understanding and solving problems in ways that leverage the power of
technological methods to develop and test solutions.

Intended Learning Outcomes

1. Define computational thinking (CT) and basic terms associated with it.
2. Apply basic CT principles in a variety of problem-solving contexts.
3. Articulate rationale for teaching computational thinking.

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 4

Acknowledgements

Some of the following content is adapted from ​Integrating Computational Thinking

(Hunsaker, n.d.), a chapter in the open educational textbook ​K-12 Technology
Integration​ published on Pressbooks. Special thanks to Peter Rich for invaluable
insights and contributions.

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 5

Requirement 1: CT Conceptual Quiz

After learning about Computational Thinking (e.g., from this Badge Guide), take
the quiz below. Y​ ou are allowed to take the quiz only once, ​and you will need to
login to your Google account to do it. If you achieve a score of 90% (24/26) or
greater, simply take a screenshot that includes your name and your score and
attach it to your submission form.

If your score is less than 90% (23 or lower), review your responses and the Badge
Guide, determine the correct answers, and do one of the following:

● Access the email sent to you by “BYU Instructor” that contains a Google
sheet with your score and a space to write corrections for any questions
you missed. Enter your corrections and paste the URL of the sheet onto
your submission form (​make sure anyone with a link can view​).

● If you find it easier (or if you do not receive the email from BYU Instructor),
create a screen recording of your quiz results in which you pause on each
question you missed and verbally explain the correct answer. Upload this
video to YouTube, ​make sure anyone with a link can view​ it, and paste the
URL onto your submission form.

Understanding Computational Thinking - Quiz

What is Computational Thinking

In order to pass the above quiz, you will need to understand computational thinking (CT)
and several of the skills, attitudes, and approaches commonly associated with it.

The term ​computational thinking​ was introduced by Seymour Papert in 1980, but it was
used in a slightly different sense than is currently accepted (Standl, 2017). In 2006,
Jeannette Wing reintroduced, redefined, and reinvigorated computational thinking. Her
article (see references) is only three pages and well worth reading, but for the purposes
of this badge, it will do to understand the following points:

Abridged Digest of ​Computational Thinking​ (Wing, 2006)

The following are direct quotes from Wing’s article.

● “Computational thinking builds on the power and limits of computing

processes, whether they are executed by a human or by a machine.”

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 6

● “Computational thinking confronts the riddle of machine intelligence: What can

humans do better than computers? And what can computers do better than
humans?”

● “Computational thinking is a fundamental skill for everyone, not just for

computer scientists. To reading, writing, and arithmetic, we should add
computational thinking to every child’s analytical ability.”

● “We have witnessed the influence of computational thinking on other

disciplines. For example, machine learning has transformed statistics.
Statistical learning is being used for problems on a scale, in terms of both data
size and dimension, unimaginable only a few years ago. . . . Computational
biology is changing the way biologists think. Similarly, computational game
theory is changing the way economists think; nanocomputing, the way
chemists think; and quantum computing, the way physicists think.”

● “Computational thinking thus has the following characteristics:

○ Conceptualizing, not programming
○ Fundamental, not rote skill
○ A way that humans, not computers think
○ Complements and combines mathematical and engineering thinking
○ Ideas, not artifacts
○ For everyone, everywhere”

Wing’s article started a movement that continues to grow in popularity. In 2011, the
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and the Computer Science
Teachers Association (CSTA) cooperated to create a 1-page ​Operational Definition of
Computational Thinking for K-12 Education​. Please read this definition thoroughly.

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 7

You may also find it helpful to watch this video created by the International Society for
Technology in Education (ISTE):

Video 1. ​Computational Thinking: A Digital Age Skill for Everyone.​ ​Click, copy, or type this link into your
browser to view: h
​ ttps://youtu.be/VFcUgSYyRPg​. N ​ ote: T
​ his video is copyrighted by ISTE under
Standard YouTube Licence and is therefore not included in the CC-BY license of the rest of this
document.

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 8

Components of Computational Thinking

While the ISTE/CSTA definition is thorough, it is also useful for teachers to be familiar
with a handful of key terms that they can keep in mind when planning lessons, guiding
discussions, commenting on student work, etc. The following table is derived from the
documentation of various organizations that seek to define and categorize CT in a
useful way for educators (CAS Barefoot, 2014b; Google, n.d.b; ISTE, 2014). This is not
intended to be comprehensive, but it does provide a reasonably complete snapshot of
the most crucial components of CT.

These components or characteristics of computational thinking are a double-edged

sword: possessing these skills, attitudes, and attributes enhances one’s ability to think
computationally; a
​ nd​ practicing computational thinking can enhance these attitudes
and skills.

Components of Computational Thinking

Skills Attitudes Approaches

● Decomposition​: Breaking down ● Confident: ● Tinkering:

data, processes, or problems into Believing in one’s Experimenting
smaller, manageable parts. own ability to and playing.
● Pattern Recognition:​ Observing solve problems. ● Creating:
patterns, trends, and regularities in ● Communicative: Designing and
data. Willing and able making.
● Abstraction: C​ reating a visual to communicate ● Debugging:
model or simulation of a problem effectively with Finding and
that incorporates only the most others. fixing errors.
important details. ● Flexible:​ Able to ● Persevering:
● Algorithm Design: ​Developing the deal with change Keeping going.
step by step instructions for solving and open-ended ● Collaborating:
this and similar problems. problems. Working
● Evaluation:​ Ensuring that your together.
solution is a good one.

Table 1. ​Components of Computational Thinking

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 9

Decomposition

Decomposition is “breaking down data, processes, or problems into smaller,

manageable parts” (Google, n.d.b). Watch this 2-minute video to better understand this
principle:

Video 2. ​Introduction to Decomposition.​ ​Click, copy, or type this link into your browser to view:
https://youtu.be/rxsYpP2-omg​. N ​ ote: T ​ his video is copyrighted by Robotics Academy under
Standard YouTube Licence and is therefore not included in the CC-BY license of the rest of this
document.

Pattern Recognition

Pattern recognition is “observing patterns, trends, and regularities in data” (Google,

n.d.b). To see how this principle is particularly relevant in computer science, watch this
2.5-minute video:

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 10

Video 3. ​Pattern Recognition - Introduction.​ ​Click, copy, or type this link into your browser to view:
https://youtu.be/cbZUnuyxcVs​. ​Note: ​This video is copyrighted by Computer Science Education
Research Group under Standard YouTube Licence and is therefore not included in the CC-BY license of
the rest of this document.

Abstraction

Abstraction is creating a visual model or simulation of a problem that incorporates only

the most important details. Watch this 2.5-minute video for more detail:

Video 4. ​Abstraction - Computational Thinking.​ C

​ lick, copy, or type this link into your browser to view:
https://youtu.be/jV-7Hy-PF2Q​. N ​ ote: T
​ his video is copyrighted by Robotics Academy under
Standard YouTube Licence and is therefore not included in the CC-BY license of the rest of this
document.

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 11

Algorithm Design

Algorithm design is “developing the step by step instructions for solving” the problem at
hand as well as other problems that may be similar (Google, n.d.b). This 2-minute video
may help you better visualize this concept:

Video 5. ​Algorithms. Click, copy, or type this link into your browser to view:
https://youtu.be/ROUV90QmqUA​. N ​ ote: T​ his video is copyrighted by Robotics Academy under
Standard YouTube Licence and is therefore not included in the CC-BY license of the rest of this
document.

Evaluation

Evaluation is an important step in a computational thinking problem-solving task

because it helps ensure that the algorithmic solution is both functional under a wide
variety of circumstances and suitable for accomplishing the task at hand.

Evaluation is not included as a step in Google’s definition of CT skills, but ​CAS Barefoot
(2014b) describes evaluation as follows:

CAS Barefoot Definition of E

​ valuation

“In computer science, evaluation is systematic and rigorous; it is about judging the
quality, effectiveness and efficiency of solutions, systems, products and processes.

Evaluation checks that solutions do the job they are designed to do and are fit for
purpose.

One approach to systematic evaluation could be to use:

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 12

● specific criteria (for example a design goal or specification)

● user needs (considering who the users are and what they need from the final
design)”

Confident

For the purposes of this badge, c

​ onfident​ is defined as “believing in one’s own ability to
solve problems.” Confidence is central to CT because its problems are usually
open-ended and ill-defined.

Communicative

For the purposes of this badge, c

​ ommunicative ​is being “willing and able to
communicate effectively with others.” CT problems often involve communicating with
others in order to effectively find and implement a solution.

Flexible

For the purposes of this badge, f​ lexible​ means “able to deal with change and
open-ended problems.” Problems that lend themselves to computational solutions are
often, to the naked eye, overwhelmingly large and ill-defined. Solutions often need to be
adjusted or “debugged,” and sometimes the data we get from our computational
methods may even cause us to adjust our perception of the problem itself. Being
adaptable to these changes contributes the persistence needed to solve these types of
problems.

Tinkering

Tinkering is defined as “experimenting and playing” (CAS Barefoot, 2014b). It should be

“fun, free, creative and full of questions and surprises” (CAS Barefoot, 2014f). Tinkering
is also linked with the fostering of perseverance (another key CT approach) and logical
reasoning. Computational methods are well-suited to tinkering because computers can
execute commands and provide feedback in a matter of nanoseconds, making it natural
and easy to try something out, see its effect, and adjust quickly.

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 13

Creating

Creating (“designing and making”) (CAS Barefoot, 2014b) is fundamental to

computational thinking. The product of the creative process of CT is an algorithm—a
step by step process that both humans and machines can understand. Ultimately, this
algorithm powers a solution that leverages the power of computational automation.

Debugging

Debugging is defined as “finding and fixing errors” (CAS Barefoot, 2014b). “Errors in
algorithms and code are called ‘bugs,’ and the process of finding and fixing these is
called ‘debugging’. Debugging can often take much longer than writing the code in the
first place” (CAS Barefoot, 2014c). Computers are very good at executing commands,
but very bad at interpreting what the algorithm designer actually m
​ eant​.

Persevering

Persevering means “keeping going” (CAS Barefoot, 2014b). Solving CT problems

professionals tackle can often take months or even years. Even shorter student
projects can sometimes be arduous and boring (especially during the debugging
stages). Computational thinkers need to have “a tolerance for confusion” (CAS
Barefoot, 2014e) and be able to continue their process in the face of that confusion.

Collaborating

Collaborating is, very simply, “working together” (CAS Barefoot, 2014b). While
computational thinking doesn’t necessitate working with someone else every minute,
there are many opportunities for collaboration throughout the CT process, and taking
advantage of these opportunities can help produce a better solution. For example,
during decomposition, a problem might not only be broken into its component parts, but
those component parts might also be assigned out to different members of a team.
People designing and debugging algorithms might improve their design or get out of a
rut by bouncing ideas off someone else (CAS Barefoot, 2014a). And evaluations of
computational solutions almost always need to involve others.

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 14

What Computational Thinking Is Not

In addition to understanding what computational thinking is, there are at least a couple
common misconceptions of CT that you need to understand as well:

● Computational thinking is not thinking like a computer; it is not something

computers do. Rather, it is something that humans do in order to leverage the
power of computers. Thinking like a computer would be more accurately
described by the term “machine learning,” which is associated with advances in
artificial intelligence, or the ability of computers to change their behavior without
being explicitly programmed to do so.
● Computational thinking is not the same as coding. CT does have its origins in
coding; it is essentially the observed process of computer programmers. Coding
itself, however, is essentially one form of ​algorithm design (​ a part of CT, but not
the whole)​.​ Learning and teaching code has its own merits, and it is certainly a
great way to help students learn to think computationally. But there are also ways
to practice computational thinking--and even create algorithms--that do not
involve extensive knowledge of programming languages. Thus, while all coders
use CT, not everyone who uses CT needs to become an expert coder.
● Computational thinking is not the only way of solving a problem. Other
approaches (such as, for example, the scientific method or design thinking) are
equally viable ways of approaching a problem. Some problems are particularly
suited to a primarily CT approach; some problems may be better served by a
primary focus on a different problem-solving method, but may still benefit from
thinking about the problem computationally as well; and some problems may not
be suited for computational solutions at all. There will be more on this issue
later.
● Teaching computational thinking is not the same as teaching technological
literacy or digital citizenship. Whereas technological literacy or citizenship
involves wise and responsible use of technology, social networks, and all forms
of media, computational thinking is more concerned about how we leverage
these technologies to solve problems. Both are necessary and important topics
for students, but they are also distinct, and one should not be conflated with the
other.

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 15

Requirement 2: Guided Computational Thinking

Note: ​ Your submission form contains a guide that will help you through all
sub-steps of this requirement. It also contains hints that will likely prove useful
to you.

Task

Use computational thinking to analyze the problem described below, create an

algorithm that helps solve the problem, and then evaluate how well your solution
works.

Instructions

1. Read the problem description carefully.

2. Use the spaces provided on the submission form to type thorough,
thoughtful responses to each question posed.

Problem Statement

As an educator in the 21st Century, you recognize that what you know is less
important than your ability to learn and retain information. What is current,
accepted, state-of-the-art or best practice in both pedagogy and your subject area
may be quite different next year than they are today. As a conscientious educator,
you feel that it is vital to stay abreast of new developments in your field.

You know that the Internet can be a great way to stay in touch with these
developments, but it is difficult to find the time to sift through the web of
available information to find the golden nuggets you’re looking for. In the bustle
of teaching, it can be difficult even to remember to try. And when you do find the
time, it is easy to get sidetracked by information that does not matter.

Questions in Sub-Requirements

1. What are the components of this problem?

2. What do you anticipate being the component parts of the solution?
3. What repeating patterns do you see in the information provided or the data
gathered?
4. Write, draw, or otherwise represent an abstraction of this problem.
5. What automated systems might be useful in solving this problem?
6. Write ordered steps that would enable a human, a computer, or (more likely)
some combination of the two to carry out the solution. Indicate the agent
(who or what) that will carry out each step.

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 16

7. List each problem component you identified in step 1 and evaluate whether
your solution addresses that problem or not. Also, identify any future
issues (bugs) you foresee that may need be resolved in the algorithm to
make it better.
8. How does the algorithm above leverage the power of computers and
automation? In what ways might it leverage these capacities more?

This requirement is designed to guide you through a CT problem in a scaffolded way

and prepare you to better formulate and solve CT problems on your own. The
submission form contains valuable hints that will nudge you in a certain direction to
make sure that you are solving the problem in a computational way. Before you
complete this requirement, however, it may be helpful to see a completed model of a
similar problem.

(As a teacher, it may interest to you that the teaching strategy employed in this
progression is the g
​ radual release of responsibility​ model, which is a research-based
best practice for integrating computational thinking (and a great many other things) into
your classroom [Hunsaker, n.d.]).

Sample CT Problem: A Model

This problem is not the same one you see in requirement 2, but you may find it useful to
have a complete model to refer to. The form you see below ​is​ very similar to the form
you will be using on your submission in requirement 2. Think of the information in each
entry field as what a teacher might say to his or her class while modeling CT problem
solving for students.

Solving a CT Problem: A Model

This Model is courtesy of Peter Rich, a professor of Instructional Psychology & Technology at Brigham
Young University, who specializes in Computational Thinking.

Task

Use computational thinking to analyze the problem described below, create an algorithm that helps
solve the problem, and then evaluate how well your solution works.

Instructions

1. Read the problem description carefully.

2. Use the spaces below to type thorough, thoughtful responses to each question posed.

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 17

Problem Statement

As a teacher, you send out a newsletter to students' parents each week with class updates—goals,
challenges, successes, homework, etc. You love to personalize these letters so that parents can see
what and how their own child is doing in the classroom, and so that you can issue a personal challenge
based on each student's individual weekly goals. Parents love it, too, and have expressed how much
they appreciate the personal touch and feedback. The problem is that it takes so much time to create a
personalized letter for 30 students each week. If you don't find a better solution, you may have to start
sending out a more generic letter.

Decomposition:
Breaking down data, processes, or problems into smaller, manageable parts

1. What are the component parts of this problem?

You look at the problem and realize there are several parts to this:
1. collecting individual student data
2. updating the newsletter with class-level info,
3. customizing specific parts of the letter, and
4. sending each letter out to the correct parent(s)/guardians.
Pattern Recognition
Observing patterns, trends, and regularities in data

2. What repeating patterns do you see in the information provided or the data gathered?
There are specific parts to the letter that you realize repeat. For example, each
week, you report on goals, challenges, and successes for individuals as well as the
class. You also report on upcoming homework, which is the same for everyone.

Abstraction
Creating a visual model or simulation of a problem that incorporates only the most important details.

3. Write, draw, or otherwise represent an abstraction of this problem.

Even though your letters are personalized, they follow a specific formula. In fact,
your letter is replete with variables where you simply replace one students' name,
parents, goals, etc. with another's. You realize your entire newsletter looks
something like this:

Dear {{Parent Title}} {{Parent Last Name}},

This week in our 8th Grade English class, we learned about.... Our learning goal
was to .... This was difficult because .... Ultimately, though, we ...

Some of the challenges {{Student Name}} faced in particular were {{Description of

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 18

Student Challenges}}. {{Student Name}} was able to overcome these challenges

and meet {{Student Possessive Pronoun}} goal of {{Last Week Student Goal}}. In
particular, {{Student Name}} was able to {{Description of Student
Success/Achievement}}

For this coming week, {{Student Name}}’s new goal is to {{This Week Student
Goal}}. This is a great goal that we agreed on together, and I would encourage you
to support {{Student Direct Object Pronoun}} as you see fit.

Next week, we will be learning about ... I have asked the student to come prepared
by ....

Thank you for all you do as a parent. I enjoy having {{Student Name}} in my class!

Sincerely,
Mr. H.

Algorithm Design
Developing the step by step instructions for solving this and similar problems

4. What automated systems might be useful in solving this problem?

You may not be a tech pro, but you remember in your awesome teaching with tech
course at BYU that you learned about spreadsheets and mail merges. A mail
merge allows you to craft a message and to replace certain variables with
information stored in a google sheet. You can't remember how to do the merge
off-hand, but you Google it and find the "​Mail Merge with Attachments​" free
add-on. You use this to create a personalized letter that, when you export, will
automatically be sent to the address you have in your spreadsheet for each parent.

5. Write ordered steps that would enable a human, a computer, or (more likely) some combination
of the two to carry out the solution. Indicate the agent (who or what) that will carry out each
step.

# Step Description Agent

1 Install the Mail Merge with Attachments add-on to Teacher (1

Google Sheets. (See ​instructions​) time)

2 Create a mail merge template, which is a Google Teacher (1

spreadsheet that will feed into the mail merge. The time)
template should have the following columns:
● Parent Title (Mr./Mrs./etc.)
● Parent Last Name

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 19

● Parent Email Address

● Student Name
● Student Possessive Pronoun
● Student Direct Object Pronoun
● Description of Student Challenges
● Last Week Student Goal
● Description of Student Success/Achievement
● This Week Student Goal

3 Populate the following columns on each spreadsheet Teacher (1

row with corresponding data from class rolls: time)
● Parent Title (Mr./Mrs./etc.)
● Parent Last Name
● Parent Email Address
● Student Name
● Student Possessive Pronoun
● Student Direct Object Pronoun

4 Copy and paste the Sample email in the Abstraction field Teacher (1
above into a Gmail Draft. time)

5 Interview students to collect data for the following Teacher

columns and input that data into the mail merge template (weekly)
spreadsheet:
● Description of Student Challenges
● Last Week Student Goal
● Description of Student Success/Achievement
● This Week Student Goal

6 Configure the mail merge. Choose the draft copied into Teacher
Gmail in step 4. Update the subject line and first and (weekly)
second-to-last paragraphs with the information relevant
for the week.

7 Push “Run Mail Merge” Teacher

(weekly)

8 Send a personalized email newsletter to each parent. Mail Merge

add-on

Evaluation
Ensuring that your solution is a good one.

6. List each problem component you identified in step 1 and evaluate whether your solution
addresses that problem or not. Also, identify any future issues (bugs) you foresee that may
need to be resolved in the algorithm to make it better.

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 20

Problem Component Evaluation/Possible Bugs

Collecting Individual This component is met in step 5, where the

Student Data teacher gathers student information.

Updating the newsletter This component is met in step 6, where the

with class-level info teacher configures the mail merge.

Customizing specific This component is completed in steps 4 and 5

parts of the letter with the newsletter draft and when the teacher
adds the data into the spreadsheet. There
may be some bugs that need to be worked
out here, such as making sure that the static
wording in the letter and the customized
wording from the mail merge meld into each
other well for a seamless letter.

Sending each letter out to This component is completed in step 6 by the

the correct Mail Merge add-on. There may be some
parent(s)/guardians debugging that needs to happen if parents
change email addresses, students drop the
class, etc.

7. How does the algorithm above leverage the power of computers and automation? In what
ways might it leverage these capacities more?

After sending out the letters, you wonder why you didn't approach things
computationally earlier. You now have a more personalized letter and it takes 1/3
the time (or less) than it used to. What's more, automating this solution has given
you more time to work on the interpersonal aspects of teaching. You realize you
can take it a step further, though; you've been entering students' goals into the
spreadsheet from your personal discussions with them. Instead, you realize that
you can send a google form to students, and automatically merge their answers
from the spreadsheet that reports the form data. So, each week on Thursday, you
now have students write a brief reflection (reporting their email and name, so they
can get credit and you can connect it to your data). You merge this data with the
rest of your spreadsheet data and create an even more customized letter without
increasing your overhead. You may even have time to catch a show this weekend!

Answering Questions in Sub-Requirements 2.1-2.5

The questions in these sub-requirements are intended to guide you down a path that will
help you to see a computational solution for the problem posed. P
​ ay special attention

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 21

to the notes in italics after each question on the submission form.​ They should be
especially useful.

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 22

Requirement 3: Open Computational Thinking Project

Using the work you did in requirement 1.2 as a guide, complete the following
steps.

3.1 Formulate
On your submission form, describe a real-world educational problem you are
facing. It can be local (e.g., I need a better way to communicate with parents),
global (e.g., standardized tests do not accurately assess some important
21st-Century Skills.), or anything in between. Formulate the problem in a way
that facilitates the leveraging of computational methods to solve it. Determine
what information you need, and gather what is necessary to inform your
problem-solving process.

3.2 Solve
Use the skills of decomposition, pattern recognition, abstraction, algorithm
design, and evaluation to produce an automated set of steps that addresses (or at
least partially addresses) the problem you formulated. Record your algorithm on
your submission form.

3.3 Report
On your submission form, write a brief report in which you document how you
utilized CT skills (i.e., decomposition, pattern recognition, abstraction, algorithm
design, evaluation) to solve your problem. Include any relevant artifacts (for
example, the image of an abstraction you created in your problem-solving
process)

Requirement 3.1: Formulating a CT Problem

When formulating a problem to solve with computational thinking, whether for yourself
or for your students, it is important to follow some guiding principles:

Choosing a Suitable Problem

CT is not the only way of approaching problems, and it is not always the best either.
Generally speaking, CT is very well-suited for problems that involve repetitive,
predictable tasks. Computers can usually perform these tasks much more quickly,
efficiently, and accurately than can humans.

That said, don’t take everything at face value. There are many problems that may not
seem suited for computational methods at the outset, but for which a computational
Enoch Hunsaker, BYU
 23

thinking may yield at least a partial solution. Looking at problems consistently through
only one problem-solving lens can lead to blind spots. For example, can you imagine
trying to solve the mail-merge problem (see ​Sample CT Problem: A Model​ section
above) with the scientific method? You could probably approach the problem that way,
but you would end up with a very different kind of solution, and it probably wouldn’t be
as effective. Similarly, CT might not be the best approach to take if you’re trying to
decide how to help your students remain engaged during class time; although,
computational thinking might yield you a partial solution that would free up time for you
to focus on this highly interpersonal aspect of teaching.

In thinking about different types of problems, problem-solving methods, and how to

identify a problem that is well-suited for CT, the following video may prove useful:

Video 6. ​What is Computational Thinking? Click, copy, or type this link into your browser to view:
https://youtu.be/JbpZDu4Mjss​. ​Note: T​ his video is copyrighted by McKay Perkins under a
Standard YouTube Licence and is therefore not included in the CC-BY license of the rest of this
document.

Framing the Problem Computationally

Sometimes how we word or frame a problem is just as important as what the problem
is. The ISTE/CSTA Operational Definition (2011) suggests this idea as the first
characteristic of CT: “Formulating problems in a way that enables us to use a computer
and other tools to help solve them.”

One thing to consider is the idea of where you “slice the pie” so to speak. Every problem
has a lot of aspects and complexity to it. A classroom, for example, is a complex

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 24

system, and every part of how you run it affects every other part. The Mail Merge
example (see a
​ bove​) is really only a portion of the overall system of the classroom. CT
can’t be applied to every aspect of classroom management, but it does provide a really
good solution for part of it. If the problem had been formulated differently to include
other aspects of classroom management, the solution would likely have been different,
or maybe not even a computational solution at all. This is one reason why effective
decomposition is so vital to computational thinking.

Ideas for Classroom Computational Problems

If you’re stumped about where to begin formulating your open CT problem, consider the
following ideas. These aren’t fully-formulated, but they can get you started on the right
foot:

● Trying to understand student performance trends.

● Item analysis on a recent test (use CT to create an algorithm to automate the
reporting of each item, identify problematic items, and improve the test).
● Collecting and displaying examples of student work over time.
● Regularly gathering, filtering, and sorting current events related to specific units
so that your materials are relevant and up-to-date.
● Documenting your preschool students' work across the year.
● Writing reminder emails ahead of time that they can be sent out to help students
with upcoming assignments and tests (see Google Boomerang add-on).
● Making randomized group assignments to put students into teams, but making
sure that everyone gets to work with everyone else at least once throughout the
year.
● Providing students with practice tests/quizzes that pull from a bank of items so
that the quiz is dynamically generated each time.
● Setting up a classroom point system that will alert you and the students where
the class is at and what is lacking in order to reach the goal.
● Keeping your online materials synced with your personal computer (Think cloud
storage solutions).
● Collecting, analyzing, and displaying the results of a weekly survey so that you
can do "just-in-time" teaching and know what to focus on in class that day.
● Many things that can be solved using IF This Then That (IFTTT) software. Check
it out at ​http://www.appsinclass.com/ifttt.html

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 25

Requirement 3.2: Solving a CT Problem

What you’re ultimately trying to produce with the process of CT is a solid, functioning
algorithm that can give a computer instructions for automating a task. For this
requirement, you need only record your solution--that is, your algorithm. You will have a
chance to comment on it in the next requirement.

One important thing to keep in mind as you complete this process is the difference
between an algorithm and a heuristic. There is a lot of overlap, and people without a lot
of exposure to computer science may naturally end up producing a heuristic rather than
an algorithm as they complete the CT process. You won’t necessarily be marked down
if your solution contains some characteristics of a heuristic, but try to keep your
solution as close to a true algorithm as possible. Read this ​short article​ to understand
the difference between the two.

Requirement 3.3: Reporting your CT Process

For this requirement, you need to document how you used the CT process to approach
your problem and produce and evaluate your algorithm. This may consist of copying
and pasting the same form you used in requirement 2 and filling it out for requirement 3.
You may also choose to simply write a few sentences about each of the 5 CT skills
emphasized in the badge: decomposition, pattern recognition, abstraction, algorithm
design, and evaluation. If you feel it would help your badge reviewer better grasp your
CT process and skill, you may also choose to include artifacts you produced along the
way, such as your abstraction, or preliminary algorithms you produced, but then
adjusted or discarded during your evaluation phase. How you present your work is up to
you; just make sure that it demonstrates your grasp of what CT is and how you can use
it to solve everyday problems.

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 26

Requirement 4: Reflections
4.1: Attitudes & Approaches Reflection
Write 1-2 paragraphs in which you respond thoroughly to each of the following
prompts:
● Write about at least three (3) attitudes (e.g., confidence,
communicativeness, flexibility) and/or approaches (e.g., tinkering, creating,
debugging, persevering, collaborating) that you utilized (or should have
utilized) during your CT Projects (requirements 1.2-1.3 of this badge).
● How have CT skills, attitudes, and approaches played a role in your
problem-solving habits and processes of the past?
● Which CT skills, attitudes, or approaches would you like to more fully
integrate into your future problem-solving habits and processes?

4.2: Computational Thinking Rationale

Write 2-3 paragraphs in which you respond to the following prompts:
● Why do many feel that computational thinking (CT) should be considered a
fundamental literacy of the 21st Century? (Cite 1-2 sources).
● In your opinion: How will current attitudes and trends in regard to CT affect
education in general as well as your future teaching career specifically?
● In your opinion: As an educator, what role (if any) do you have in
teaching/supporting CT in the classroom?

Requirement 4.1: Computational Thinking Attitudes & Approaches

If you need help understanding the attitudes and approaches listed in this step, refer to
the ​Components of Computational Thinking​ section above.

Requirement 4.2: Computational Thinking Rationale

Computational Thinking as a 21st Century Literacy

To answer this question, you may refer to any scholarly article, blog article, video or
other digital or non-digital resource you wish. You are encouraged to explore a variety
of opinions on this matter, but you can also complete this requirement by simply
referring to the resources in the ​What Is Computational Thinking​ section above.

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 27

Attitudes and Trends in regard to Computational Thinking

To answer this question, you are encouraged to do your own online (or offline) research,
but you may also simply consider the following information, taken from the introduction
of a chapter on C
​ omputational Thinking​ in Royce Kimmons’ K-12 Technology
Integration open textbook on Pressbooks (Hunsaker, n.d.).

Why Integrate Computational Thinking

Direct Quote from Hunsaker, E. (n.d.), which is under CC-BY-SA license

More than ever, we live in a world that is informed and inundated by computer
technology. This fact may conjure thoughts of smartphones and personal computers,
but increasingly, many everyday and traditionally non-digital objects are being
designed to operate via a computer program. Some of these objects include
streetlights, car engines, watches, roads, car tires, shoes, and even cereal boxes
(Hartigan, 2013).

As computer programs become more widespread, computer programming becomes

an increasingly relevant skill, and many political bodies are recognizing this fact.
Support for teaching computing in K-12 schools is growing in the U.S. and abroad.
Several countries, including England, Finland, South Korea, and Australia, require that
children learn computing or computational thinking (Rich, Jones, Belikov, Yoshikawa,
and Perkins, 2017). Several U.S. states and districts have similar requirements
(Partovi, 2017; EdSurge, 2016). The United States has not yet officially adopted such
measures, but appears to be moving in that direction. For example, in 2017 the Trump
administration announced a yearly investment of $200 million dollars into STEM
education, noting that “the nature of our workforce has increasingly shifted to jobs
requiring a different skill set, specifically in coding and computer science” (CNN Wire,
2017, emphasis added). Amazon, Facebook, and other major tech companies have
committed a sum of over $300 million (over the period of five years) to the new
initiative (Romm, 2017). Thus, increasing attention, interest, and enthusiasm are paid
to the role that computer science education should have in our schools (Bers,
Flannery, Kazakoff, and Sullivan, 2014; Rich et al., 2017; Sullivan and Bers, 2016;
Yadav et al., 2016; Yadav et al., 2017).

But before computer programming—or coding, as it is sometimes called—many

believe that today’s youth (and adults) need computational thinking (CT) to better
solve the problems of the 21st century. CT may be considered a precursor to learning
actual coding or computer programming skills. And while this is certainly true, it can
also have a much broader application. The skills, attitudes, and approaches that
make up CT are fundamental, universal, transferrable, and particularly appropriate and
useful for the computer age. So, while a future computer programmer certainly needs
CT, it is not necessarily true that everyone who learns CT should go on to learn
coding. Rather, as computer technology becomes more embedded into the fabric of

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 28

every industry, professionals in every industry need to be able to think in ways that
leverage those computers to solve the problems of the future.

Learning computational thinking can benefit students both economically and

academically. Each year there are far more computing jobs added than there are
computer science graduates, with significant job growth projected for the foreseeable
future (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018). Furthermore, studies have linked a host of
academic benefits to learning CT, including improvement in student engagement,
motivation, confidence, problem-solving, communication, and STEM learning and
performance (Rich et al., 2017; Yadav et al., 2017).

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 29

References
CAS Barefoot (2014a). C
​ ollaborating.​ Retrieved from
https://barefootcas.org.uk/barefoot-primary-computing-resources/computationa
l-thinking-approaches/collaborating/

CAS Barefoot (2014b). C

​ omputational thinking.​ Retrieved from
https://barefootcas.org.uk/barefoot-primary-computing-resources/concepts/co
mputational-thinking

CAS Barefoot (2014c) D

​ ebugging.​ Retrieved from
https://barefootcas.org.uk/barefoot-primary-computing-resources/computationa
l-thinking-approaches/debugging/

CAS Barefoot (2014d) ​Evaluation.​ Retrieved from

https://barefootcas.org.uk/barefoot-primary-computing-resources/concepts/eva
luation/

CAS Barefoot (2014e) P

​ ersevering.​ Retrieved from
https://barefootcas.org.uk/barefoot-primary-computing-resources/computationa
l-thinking-approaches/persevering/

CAS Barefoot (2014f) ​Tinkering.​ Retrieved from

https://barefootcas.org.uk/barefoot-primary-computing-resources/computationa
l-thinking-approaches/tinkering/

Hunsaker, E. (n.d.). Integrating computational thinking. In R. Kimmons (Ed.) ​K-12

technology integration.​ Pressbooks. Retrieved from
https://k12techintegration.pressbooks.com/chapter/integrating-computational-t
hinking/

ISTE, & CSTA. (2011). O ​ perational definition of computational thinking for K-12
education.​ Retrieved from
http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/computational-thinking-operational-defi
nition-flyer.pdf

ISTE (2014, September 11). C

​ omputational thinking for all.​ Retrieved from
https://www.iste.org/explore/articledetail?articleid=152

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU

 30

Google (n.d.b). ​What is computational thinking?​ Retrieved from

https://computationalthinkingcourse.withgoogle.com/unit?lesson=8&unit=1

Standl, B. (2017). Solving everyday challenges in a computational way of thinking. In V.

Dagien & A. Hellas (Eds.), ​Informatics in schools: Focus on learning programming
(pp. 180–191). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. C

​ ommunications of the ACM​, 4
​ 9​(3), 33–35.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215

Enoch Hunsaker, BYU