Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Survey: Artificial Intelligence, Computational Thinking and Learning

  • Technical Contribution
  • Published:
KI - Künstliche Intelligenz Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Learning is central to both artificial intelligence and human intelligence, the former focused on understanding how machines learn, the latter concerned with how humans learn. With the growing relevance of computational thinking, these two efforts have become more closely connected. This survey examines these connections and points to the need for educating the general public to understand the challenges which the increasing integration of AI in human lives pose. We describe three different framings of computational thinking: cognitive, situated, and critical. Each framing offers valuable, but different insights into what computational thinking can and should be. The differences between the three framings also concern the views of learning that they embody. We combine the three framings into one framework which emphasizes that (1) computational thinking activities involve engagement with algorithmic processes, and (2) the mere use of a digital artifact for an activity is not sufficient to count as computational thinking. We further present a set of approaches to learning computational thinking. We argue for the significance of computational thinking as regards artificial intelligence on three counts: (i) Human developers use computational thinking to create and develop artificial intelligence systems, (ii) understanding how humans learn can enrich artificial intelligence systems, and (iii) such enriched systems will be explainable. We conclude with an introduction of the articles included in the Special Issue, focusing on how they call upon and develop the themes of this survey.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of Data and Material

Not applicable.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Notes

  1. https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/ai-and-interpretability-policy-briefing_creative_commons.pdf.

  2. https://commonsensereasoning.org/problem_page.html.

  3. https://www.darpa.mil/program/machine-common-sense.

References

  1. Newell A, Shaw JC, Simon HA (1963) Empirical explorations with the logic theory machine: A case study in heuristics. In: Feigenbaum EA, Feldman J (eds) Computers and thought. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sayre KM, Crosson FJ (1963) The modeling of mind. Notre Dame University Press, South Bend, Indiana

    Google Scholar 

  3. Newell A (1973) Artificial intelligence and the concept of mind. In: Schank RC, Colby KM (eds) Computer models of thought and language. Freeman, San Francisco, California

    Google Scholar 

  4. Russell S, Norvig P (2010) Artificial intelligence: a modern approach, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall (in English), Upper Saddle River, NJ 

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Papert S (1980) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  6. Goldstein I, Papert S (1977) Artificial intelligence, language, and the study of knowledge. Cogn Sci 1(1):84–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wong GKW, Ma X, Dillenbourg P, Huan J (2020) Broadening artificial intelligence education in K-12: where to start? ACM Inroads 11(1):20–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3381884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wing J (2006) Computational thinking. Commun ACM 49(3):33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wing J (2011) Research notebook: computational thinking—what and why?, The Link Magazine, p. N/A. [Online]. Available: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebook-computational-thinking-what-and-why

  10. N. B. Dohn, "Computational thinking - indplacering i et landskab af it-begreber," in Computational thinking - teoretiske, empiriske og didaktiske perspektiver, N. B. Dohn, R. Mitchell, and R. Chongtay Eds. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur, 2021, pp. 31–60.

  11. van Wynsberghe A (2021) Sustainable AI: AI for sustainability and the sustainability of AI. AI and Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00043-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Goebel R et al (2018) Explainable AI: The New 42? In: Holzinger A, Kieseberg P, Tjoa AM, Weippl E (eds) Machine learning and knowledge extraction CD-Make 2018 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 11015). Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 295–303

    Google Scholar 

  13. Grover S, Pea R (2013) Computational thinking in K-12: a review of the state of the field. Educ Res 42(1):38–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. di Sessa AA (2000) Changing minds: computers, learning, and literacy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kafai YB, Burke Q (2014) Connected code: why children need to learn programming (MacArthur foundation series on digital media and learning). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p 2014

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Rode JA et al (2015) From computational thinking to computational making, presented at the Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, Osaka, Japan. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2804261

  17. Tissenbaum M, Sheldon J, Abelson H (2019) From computational thinking to computational action. Commun ACM 62(3):34–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3265747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p xiv

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kafai YB (2016) From computational thinking to computational participation in K–12 education. Commun ACM 59(8):26–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/2955114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Resnick M et al (2009) Scratch: programming for all. Commun ACM 52(11):60–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the wild (no, nr. 1995). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  22. di Sessa AA (2018) Computational literacy and “the big picture” concerning computers in mathematics education (in English). Math Thinking Learning 20(1):3–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2018.1403544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Williamson B (2016) Political computational thinking: policy networks, digital governance and “learning to code.” Critic Policy Stud 10(1):39–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2015.1052003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pariser E (2011) The filter bubble: what the internet is hiding from you. Penguin Books Limited, London

    Google Scholar 

  25. Noble SU (2018) Algorithms of oppression: how search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Eubanks V (2018) Automating inequality: how high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor, 1st edn. St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  27. Larson J, Mattu S, Kirchner L, Angwin J (2021) How we analyzed the COMPAS recidivism algorithm. ProPublica. [Online]. Available: https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-analyzed-the-compas-recidivism-algorithm, Accessed 15 July 2021

  28. Sfard A (1998) On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educ Res 27(2):4–13. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Dohn NB (2016) Explaining the significance of participationist approaches for understanding students’ knowledge acquisition. Educ Psychologist 51(2):188–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1160321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Greeno JG (2011) A situative perspective on cognition and learning in interaction. In: Koschmann T (ed) Theories of learning and studies of instructional practice (Explorations in the learning sciences, instructional systems and performance technologies), vol 1. Springer, New York, pp 41–71

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Greeno JG, Gresalfi MS (2008) Opportunities to learn in practice and identity. In: Moss PA, Pullin DC, Gee JP, Haertel EH, Young LJ (eds) Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 170–199

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Biesta G (2005) Against learning. Reclaiming a language for education in an age of learning. Nordic Stud Educ 25(1):54–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fox S (2005) An actor-network critique of community in higher education: implications for networked learning. Stud High Educ 30(1):95–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507052000307821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Caeli EN, Yadav A (2020) Unplugged approaches to computational thinking: a historical perspective. TechTrends 64(1):29–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00410-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lu JJ, Fletcher GHL (2009) Thinking about computational thinking. SIGCSE bulletin 41(1):260–264. https://doi.org/10.1145/1539024.1508959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kafai Y, Fields D, Searle K (2014) Electronic textiles as disruptive designs: supporting and challenging maker activities in schools. Harv Educ Rev 84(4):532–556. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.46m7372370214783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gerdes A (2021) Algoritmisk dannelse. In: Dohn NB, Mitchell R, Chongtay R (eds) Computational thinking - teoretiske, empiriske og didaktiske perspektiver. Frederiksberg, Samfundslitteratur, pp 209–230

    Google Scholar 

  38. Buckingham D (2008) Defining Digital literacy - what do young people need to know about digital media? In: Lankshear C, Knobel M (eds) Digital literacies: concepts, policies and practices. Peter Lang, New York, pp 73–90

    Google Scholar 

  39. Jenkins H, Purutshotma R, Weigel M, Clinton K, Robison AJ (2009) Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: media education for the 21st century. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  40. Shulman LS (1986) Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educ Res 15(2):4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Chongtay R, Robering K (2016) Computational literacy: a layered approach for the humanities. In 9th annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, Seville, IATED Academy, pp 551–561

  42. Lee I et al (2011) Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads 2(1):32–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Resnick M (2014) Give P’s a chance: projects, peers, passion, play. In Proceedings of Constructionism and Creativity Conference, Vienna, Austria

  44. Eisenberg M (1995) Programmable applications: interpreter meets interface. SIGCHI Bull 27(2):68–93. https://doi.org/10.1145/202511.202528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Resnick M, Berg R, Eisenberg M (2000) Beyond black boxes: bringing transparency and aesthetics back to scientific investigation. J Learn Sci 9(1):7–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Resnick M, Rosenbaum E (2013) Designing for tinkerability. In: Honey M, Kanter DE (eds) Design, make, play: growing the next generation of STEM innovators. Routledge, New York, pp 163–181

    Google Scholar 

  47. Tomlinson B (2008) SUSTAINABLY OURS A call for pro-environmental conspicuous consumption in the online world. Interactions 15(6):42–45. https://doi.org/10.1145/1409040.1409051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Sheridan KM, Halverson ER, Litts BK, Brahms L, Jacobs-Priebe L, Owens T (2014) Learning in the making: a comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harv Educ Rev 84(4):505–531. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Skåland G, Arnseth HC, Pierroux P (2020) Doing inventing in the library. Analyzing the narrative framing of making in a public library context. Educ Sci 10(6):158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Baek Y, Min E, Yun S (2020) Mining educational implications of minecraft. Comput Sch 37(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2020.1719802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sheffield R, Koul R, Blackley S, Maynard N (2017) Makerspace in STEM for girls: a physical space to develop twenty-first-century skills. Educ Media Int 54(2):148–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2017.1362812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lui D, Kafai Y, Litts B, Walker J, Widman S (2020) Pair physical computing: high school students’ practices and perceptions of collaborative coding and crafting with electronic textiles. Comput Sci Educ 30(1):72–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1682378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Brennan K, Resnick M (2012) New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In The 2012 annual meeting of the American educational research association, Vancouver, Canada. vol. 1, p 25

  54. Basawapatna AR, Repenning A, Lewis CH (2013) The simulation creation toolkit: an initial exploration into making programming accessible while preserving computational thinking. In The 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, Denver, Colorado, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, pp 501–506, https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445346

  55. Mørch AI (2020) Two 3D virtual worlds as domain-oriented design environments: closing the educational gap with the action-breakdown-repair model. Int J Info Learning Technol 37(5):295–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Basawapatna A, Koh KH, Repenning A, Webb DC, Marshall KS (2011)Recognizing computational thinking patterns. In The 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, Dallas, TX, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, pp 245–250, https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953241

  57. Fischer G (1994) Domain-oriented design environments. Automated Softw Eng 1(2):177–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00872289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Fields DA, Giang M, Kafai Y (2014) Programming in the wild: trends in youth computational participation in the online scratch community. In the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE '14), New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery, pp 2–11, https://doi.org/10.1145/2670757.2670768

  59. Dasgupta S, Hill BM (2017) Scratch community blocks: supporting children as data scientists. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 3620–3631

  60. Hautea S, Dasgupta S, Hill B (2017) Youth perspectives on critical data literacies. In CHI '17, vol. 2017-, no. Conference Proceedings, New York, NY: ACM, pp 919–930, doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025823

  61. McCarthy J, Hayes PJ (1981) Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In: Webber BL, Nilsson NJ (eds) Readings in Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, pp 431–450

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  62. Levesque HJ (2017) Common sense, the Turing Test, and the quest for real AI. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  63. Ragni M (2020) Artificial intelligence and high-level cognition. In: Marquis P, Papini O, Prade H (eds) A guided tour of artificial intelligence research. Springer Nature, Cham, pp 457–486

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  64. European Schoolnet (2014) Computing our future—priorities, school curricula and initiatives across Europe. Brussels. [Online]. Available: http://www.eun.org/publications/detail?publicationID=481

  65. Muggleton SH, Schmid U, Zeller C, Tamaddoni-Nezhad A, Besold T (2018) Ultra-strong machine learning: comprehensibility of programs learned with ILP. Mach Learn 107(7):1119–1140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-018-5707-3

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  66. Anderson JR (2007) How can the human mind occur in the physical universe? Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  67. Johnson-Laird PN (2006) How we reason. Oxford University Press, New York; Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  68. Shneiderman B (2020) Human-centered artificial intelligence: reliable, safe & trustworthy. Int J Hum Comput Interaction 36(6):495–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1741118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Fischer G (2021) End-user development: Empowering stakeholders with artificial intelligence, meta-design, and cultures of participation. In: Fogli D, Tetteroo D, Barricelli BR, Borsci S, Markopoulos P, Papadopoulos GA (eds) International Symposium on End-User Development. Cham, Springer International Publishing, pp 3–16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  70. Khemlani SS, Mackiewicz R, Bucciarelli M, Johnson-Laird PN (2013) Kinematic mental simulations in abduction and deduction. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(42):16766–16771. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1316275110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Michie D (1972) Programmer's gambit. New Scientist pp 329–332

Download references

Funding

Research for this article was partly funded by Independent Research Fund Denmark, Grant No. 9130-00006B.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Design and Communication, University of Southern Denmark, Kolding, Denmark

    Nina Bonderup Dohn

  2. Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Yasmin Kafai

  3. Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Anders Mørch

  4. Institute of Psychology, Technical University Chemnitz, Chemnitz, Germany

    Marco Ragni

Authors
  1. Nina Bonderup Dohn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yasmin Kafai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anders Mørch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marco Ragni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nina Bonderup Dohn.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dohn, N.B., Kafai, Y., Mørch, A. et al. Survey: Artificial Intelligence, Computational Thinking and Learning. Künstl Intell 36, 5–16 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-021-00751-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-021-00751-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation