Computational Conversations with Jennifer Moore
Welcome to Computational Conversations, an interview series where we talk to educators introducing computational thinking into classrooms and curricula. Whether they teach at a high school or develop programs at a university, each interviewee brings new ideas to the table on how to get students and teachers thinking computationally.
Today’s interview is with Dr. Jennifer Moore, Associate Professor at Texas Woman’s University in the School of Library and Information Studies. She’s worked in public education for 14 years, from teaching English in middle school to working as an elementary-school librarian, all the way to her current role as a faculty member at the university. She’s won five teaching awards in the past four years, and continues to iterate on her tech-based curriculum.
What’s your personal definition of computational thinking?
Computational thinking (CT) involves an ordered (or systematic) problem-solving process that is transferable from computer science and K–12 education into other facets of our lives, including college, career and everyday life issues.
What sparked your interest in computational thinking?
In 2017, I was selected as a faculty fellow for Phase II of the American Library Association-Google Libraries Ready to Code initiative. The faculty fellows were tasked with revising their youth services tech courses to incorporate CT concepts.
If computational thinking is a process, what are some of the steps involved when using it to tackle a problem?
The steps involved depend on the entity defining the term. Google identifies four or five steps: decomposition, pattern recognition, abstraction, algorithm design and, in some cases, automation. The ISTE and CSTA definition includes formulating problems, organizing and analyzing data, abstraction, automation, solving for solutions and transferring the solution to other problems. Neither process requires each step to be completed, and it’s possible that other steps could be involved. Additionally, the steps can be completed out of order — the problem really drives the process.
There’s a stereotype that libraries focus solely on books, but Google’s partnership with the American Library Association shows the growing importance of technology in libraries. Do you think it’s important for librarians to be tech-savvy?
Contrary to that stereotype, libraries are progressive institutions in myriad ways, technology being one of those. Future Ready Librarians™, formerly referred to as 21st Century Librarians, has been on the forefront of educational technology for several years now.
Youth-centric technology courses have been a required part of the curriculum in certification programs more often than not for a few decades. Library programs provide access to devices and the internet that youth may not otherwise have in their classrooms or at home. School librarians also teach how to use these devices, how to navigate through information and how to use apps and browser-based programs. It is not uncommon for school librarians to also serve as the campus tech specialist.
I frequently attend various library conferences — ALA, TLA, AASL — and quite a few sessions are technology-in-the-library-specific. TCEA even holds a librarian academy each year because technology has become so ubiquitous in library programs.
What value does computational thinking hold within your discipline?
I prepare current teachers to be school librarians. The library is the largest classroom in the school, and the school librarian has the opportunity to work with every student in the building. Additionally, school librarians teach technology but also co-teach any curriculum area. CT is a problem-solving process applicable to any curricular area and also everyday life issues. Thus, school librarians are afforded the flexibility and [are] positioned to teach CT to hundreds, if not thousands, of students within the context of myriad issues.
For you, how does computational thinking connect with the field of library science? How does it relate to librarians’ skill sets, particularly to those working in youth services?
We want our students to be critical thinkers and problem solvers in myriad arenas, obviously in the classroom but also beyond. By developing computational thinking skills, our students are equipped with a holistic skill set applicable to multiple curricular areas, to career readiness and to personal issues, all of which library programs address.
While it is true school library programs supplement the school curriculum, the provided resources and services should transcend curricular needs. School library programs should also be meeting the personal needs of their youth patrons, and students require problem-solving skills in their personal lives too. School librarians should be engaging in instructional partnerships with teachers on their campuses, co-teaching a variety of subject areas.
When applying computational thinking to various subject areas, librarians facilitate the development of this problem-solving process. School librarians — or rather, school library programs — are afforded a unique flexibility to work with so many curricular areas plus address students’ personal needs. School libraries are uniquely positioned to foster the development of this critical literacy because of their access to so many students and so many ways.
How have students responded to your computational thinking–focused lessons and activities?
Overall, the feedback has been positive. I design the course CT project to be flexible, so my students (graduate level) can use the process to work through any problem. It can be work-related, personal or imaginative. Students report enjoying the assignment and learning about the process.
What’s your biggest computational thinking success story?
My first semester teaching CT, a student emailed me expressing concern that she must be doing something wrong because the process seemed too easy. She had used it previously, not knowing it had a name, to diagnose a previously undiagnosable medical problem. She then shared the information with her doctor, who concluded her diagnosis was correct. Of course, I am not proposing CT should replace a doctor’s advice or services.
It’s interesting that a student would assume that computational thinking shouldn’t be “easy.” Do you find that many students feel that way, and if so, why do you think that’s the case?
Overall, my students do not seem to struggle with CT. Their CT-related assessments in my technology course are quite impressive. When aligned with the student learning outcomes, students clearly demonstrate a mastery applying the process to a variety of problems. As a holistic piece, their CT projects are quite creative too — several students each semester have reported a genuine enjoyment of the project. This evidence suggests that the process isn’t as difficult as perhaps it might initially seem.
I can only speculate why they may perceive it as difficult: multiple definitions exist, so perhaps inconsistency generates confusion; the language used tends to be specific to computer science and research, which may or may not be a bit daunting; and the perception that we are training people to solve problems using a computerized process also could contribute to the assumption.
What’s been the most challenging part of introducing computational thinking into your curriculum?
There are two challenges:
1. Defining it, as no one cohesive definition exists. I introduce students to four different definitions (Jeanette Wing, Google, ISTE/CSTA and ALA’s Office for Information Technology Policy), and then create my own definition using content analysis.
2. The initial course redesign to focus on CT concepts was quite challenging. Prior to the redesign, the course primarily focused on pedagogy, so I had to examine course content and thus assignments through a different lens. Additionally, adding the CT components within the context of the existing course description and student learning outcomes (state standards) proved challenging.
Despite these challenges, I’m satisfied with the results.
Any advice for educators looking to add more computational thinking into their lessons?
Read up on the subject. A multitude of definitions and resources exist. If one definition and/or set of resources doesn’t fit your style, explore another. Consider your students’ ability levels and interests, and determine which CT concepts could be explored through those channels. After having students make personal connections, embed it into content-specific work. Mainly, though, have fun with it.
Thanks to Jennifer for sharing her experiences and advice! She can be reached via email and through Twitter. Her faculty page can be viewed on the TWU website.
If you’d like to learn more about computational thinking and explore some browser-based activities from a variety of disciplines, you can also check out the Computational Thinking Initiatives page or explore previous posts from our archives.
Doing something cool with computational thinking in your classes and want to be featured in the next installment of Computational Conversations? Want to share your story via a post on the Tech-Based Teaching blog? Get in touch via edutech@wolfram.com.
About the blogger:
Jesika Brooks
Jesika Brooks is an editor and bookworm with a Master of Library and Information Science degree. She works in the field of higher education as an educational technology librarian, assisting with everything from setting up Learning Management Systems to teaching students how to use edtech tools. A lifelong learner herself, she has always been fascinated by the intersection of education and technology. She edits the Tech-Based Teaching blog (and always wants to hear from new voices!).
