Achieving this goal requires the sup-port of a diverse set of stakeholders to be successful.

We seethree main benefits for the approach of embedding com-putational thinking in these contexts: (1) it builds on thereciprocal relationship for learning between computationalthinking and mathematics and science domains, (2) itaddresses practical concerns of reaching all students, andhaving proficient teachers, and (3) it brings science andmathematics education more in line with current profes-sional practices in these fields.

Process followed to create the CT in Mathematics and Science Practices taxonom

We primarily drew onthree resources for creation and validation of our taxon-omy: (1) exemplary educational activities involving com-putational thinking in mathematics and science, (2)existing concept inventories and standards documents, and(3) interviews with mathematicians and scientists

Many researchers have made the argument that theability to effectively use computer simulations and inter-active visualizations is an important aspect of computa-tional thinking, particularly as it relates to the STEM fields(NRC 2011b)

Another notable approach to bringing computationalthinking into K-12 classrooms is the use of online com-putational resources to enable learning experiences that areotherwise not possible

For progress to be made in these areas, it will benecessary to break computational thinking down into a setof well-defined and measurable skills, concepts, and/orpractices

By providing a clear definition of what compu-tational thinking in scientific and mathematical contextsincludes, this taxonomy can be used as a resource forassessment developers who are tasked with creating theitems that will measure these practices

The taxonomy consists of four main categories: datapractices, modeling and simulation practices, computationalproblem solving practices, and systems thinking practices.

For teachers, ourtaxonomy is meant to provide a concrete, clearly delineatedset of practices to guide classroom implementation andcurriculum development.

A final motivation for bringing computational thinkinginto mathematics and science classrooms is to reach thewidest possible audience and address longstanding issuesof the underrepresentation of women and minorities incomputational fields

Further, the varied and applied use ofcomputational thinking by experts in the field provides aroadmap for what computational thinking instructionshould include in the classroom.From a pedagogical perspective, the thoughtful use ofcomputational tools and skillsets can deepen learning ofmathematics and science content

A primary motivation for introducing computationalthinking practices into science and mathematics classroomsis the rapidly changing nature of these disciplines as theyare practiced in the professional world

However, in a program where all participants were Latinx, nearlyall families experienced challenges representing themselves andelements of their stories. While provided assets could help get themstarted or even inspire them, families could not recognize theirbodies, their language, their environments, and other importantcultural features within the provided image assets of ScratchJr.

Many families faced challenges in representing themselvesand their stories and became invisibilized along race, language,cultural norms, and other important features to their family. Onecommon challenge was representing their racial and ethnic identi-ties.

Ourfindings are broadly categorized into moments where (1) interac-tions with ScratchJr supported their storytelling and may have evenbrought their stories into new directions, and (2) challenges andlimitations that families encountered as they tried to represent theirstories.

All authors participated as participant observers and facilitatorsin these workshops. They played various roles that included sup-porting families in creating projects, providing language supportfor parents, and introducing ScratchJr.

In this article, we build on other forms of culturallyresponsive approaches in computing, which aim for more open-ended design experiences rather than engaging people in tools thatsituate computing within specific practices.

Today, youth both consumemedia (when browsing the Internet and sharing information on social net-working sites) and produce content (when contributing to blogs and design-ing animations, graphics, and video productions).

This move from the digi-tal divide (having access to computers) to the participation gap (knowinghow to make things on the computer) has become the driving force towardto what we call computational participation.

What initially was an issue of a lackof women in computing expanded to an issue of a lack of people fromminority and then lower-income groups, addressing equity issues in com-puting on an increasingly widening scale.

Despite this history of inequity, the disparity in how children learn byengaging with computers has only recently been recognized as a widersociocultural problem

When computation is thought of in terms of participation and not justthinking, it becomes clear that there is a tremendous discrepancy in who

If programming is promoted solely as a more effective way to think(and not as an effective way to communicate logically and creatively), thenwe will again fail to understand what teaching and learning code can affordus in a networked age.

In short, computational thinking has become therallying cry for those who study what youth need to know about computerscience and what it means to think systematically about solving all types ofproblems, big and small.

Computational thinking is often associatedsolely with computer science

to consume commercialmedia.

DIY