In 2017, a task force was developed to "issue a report that details how all Illinois students will be provided the best possible K-12 computer science educational experience if these recommendations are adopted for legislation" (Alexander et al., 2017). By 2021, "Illinois Computer Science Standards were adopted with the enactment of Public Act 101-0654, which required the Illinois State Board of Education to develop rigorous learning standards for computer science [...]" (Illinois, 2022). 

The Illinois CS Standards provide the groundwork for a deeper commitment to engaging all students with computer science opportunities to reduce skill gaps and promote inclusive computing environments (Illinois CS Standards, 2022). The document can be viewed in its entirety here. Along with the standards, the authors delineate nine practices that "narrate" "how students should exhibit each practice with increasing sophistication from kindergarten to Grade 12" (Illinois CS Standards).

[...] practices of computer science describe the behaviors and ways of thinking that computationally literate students use to fully engage in today’s data-rich and interconnected world. The practices naturally integrate with one another and contain language that intentionally overlaps to illuminate the connections among them. (Illinois CS Standards)

The core practices of the CS Standards are listed below. 

Practice 1 – Fostering an inclusive computing culture.

Practice 2 – Collaborating around computing.

Practice 3 - Recognizing and defining computational problems.

Practice 4 - Developing and using abstractions.

Practice 5 - Creating computational artifacts.

Practice 6 - Testing and refining computational artifacts.

Practice 7 - Communicating about computing.

Practice 8 - Analyzing the effects of advancements in computing on one’s society, economy, and culture.

Practice 9 - Reflecting on and revising one’s computational thought processes and those of others.

(Illinois CS Standards, 2022)

A Landscape Report of K-12 Computer Science Education in Illinois (Hegeman-Davis & Sewell, 2021) reveals that although most stakeholders agree that CS standards are important for future success, there are barriers to implementation of CS standards in Illinois schools. As mentioned, Bruno & Lewis (2021) argue that there are considerable barriers to equitable implementation.

The adoption of CS standards alone are not guaranteed to increase inclusiveness, decrease skill gaps, or ensure equity in classrooms (Bruno & Lewis; Mills et al., 2021). Mills and associates (2021) assert that the integration of computational thinking (CT) across disciplines within an inclusive pedagogical framework is necessary to increase equity in k12 education regarding CS and the future of education in general.

Although the Illinois CS Standards infer computational thinking, there is a lack of direction in implementation that would help districts understand that pedagogies and curriculums already in place in their classrooms embrace computational thinking. If a deeper understanding of these connections could be fore fronted in the rollout of implementation, educators may have the chance to grapple with their own biases toward CS and allow themselves to consider the affordances of CT that will enhance their students ability to share knowledge and create new meaning.

Mills and associates (2021) emphasize, “While all fifty states have some policy in place promoting computer science, the role of computational thinking within these initiatives is ambiguous” (p. 15). While computer science is an individual academic discipline, computational thinking is a problem-solving approach that integrates across activities (Angevine et al., 2017 as cited by Mills et al., 2021). "The skills and practices requiring computational thinking are broader, leveraging concepts and skills from computer science and applying them to other contexts, such as core academic disciplines" (Mills et al., 2021, p. 10).  In her impactful essay that instigated a resurgence in dialogue around implementing CS in k12 education, Wing (2006) asserts that “[CT] is a way that humans, not computers, think. Computational thinking is a way humans solve problems; it is not trying to get humans to think like computers.”

Figure 3 illustrates elements of computational thinking that showcase CT as a semiotic resource with the potential of providing students with a variety of capacities to express meaning in various disciplines, which may challenge current perceptions about CS and who should be involved. The table suggests applications for CT across disciplines and grade levels and reveals that pedagogy that supports CT in the classroom is well within reach for all educators without adding burdensome layers of learning new technologies or requiring educators to take on new credentials.

Figure 3

CT Skills Descriptions and Applications in k12 Learning

Table showcasing CT skills along with recommendations for applications in k12 learning developed by Mills et al. (2021)

The 2017 task force set out to survey the landscape and need for increased opportunities for CS in Illinois classrooms and does include language around the concept of computational thinking (Alexander et al., 2017). However, their focus on CS and implementation is concentrated in secondary education, and zooms in on access to student experiences with AP Computer Science Courses. Bruno and Lewis (2021) have shown that access to higher level AP and Honors Computer Science courses exacerbates gender and racial gaps in participation. 

Instead, participation in secondary courses should be a culmination of a lifetime of CT opportunities from kindergarten and beyond. Mill and associates (2021) explain,

As previously stated, the success or uptake of varying computing initiatives is often measured by enrollment in AP Computer Science and/or success on the AP Computer Science exam (Code.org). These traditional motivations for CS education are largely disconnected from the lives of learners who experience marginalization. (p. 16)

Additionally, the misconception that CS standards need to focus on technology could be detrimental to school district leadership and educators. We need to continue to engage in the implementation dialogue and attempt to understand CT and its benefits for increasing equity and creating transformative learning design in early childhood classrooms. Mill and associates (2021) argue,

The push to integrate computational thinking to support disciplinary learning provides an opportunity for schools to reimagine and redefine computing education for students, especially those that have experienced exclusion, knowing these skills will equip them for success in a computational world, regardless of their career choice. (pp. 16-17)

In Figure 4, Mills and associates (2021) share pedagogical approaches across a preK-2 grade band showcasing how CT skills can be developed and applied across disciplines with using little to no technology but instead reveal how playdough, beads, music, story plotting, and various items can be faciliated to instigate collaborative, CT practices and applications in learning. 

Figure 4

Table of Pedagogical Strategies Applying CT Across Disciplines 

Mills et al., 2021, Table of examples of computing integrated into K–12 arts, ELA, math, science, and social studies in grades K-2.

Video 1 defines computational thinking and illustrates examples of computational thinking in the classroom, where students display skills in developing algorithms by programming robots, gathering and analyzing historical data in social sciences, navigating complex systems, and problem solving through simulations. Digital Promise (2018) concludes the video by reasserting that computational thinking is everywhere; it surrounds us contemporary society. Defining skills in computational thinking and addressing how these skills can be implemented in Illinois is more about challenging mindset and preconceived notions than convincing the public these skills are needed. 

Video 1 Digital Promise, (2018, Decemeber 4), Computational Thinking for a Computational World

Overall, glimpsing perceptions within Illinois CS Standards, as well as equity issues in implementation brought to light by the work of Bruno and Lewis (2021) reveal that perceptions of CS seem isolated and out of touch with the affordances that CT has the potential to provide all learners. The Illinois task force reported that "There is substantial evidence pointing to a disconnect between the perceived need for expanded K–12 CS education by Illinois principals and the expressed need by parents, school staff, and school boards" (Alexander et al., 2017). Helping school districts and communities understand CT as a semiotic resource instead of such a narrow, technical field could reshape how student's perceive their participation in CS, thereby changing the landscape of student involvement and ultimately, the workforce as a whole. 

Therefore, as we attempt to naviage the landscape of CS perceptions in education, we want to review spaces where computational thinking is found within constructivist, inclusive pedagogical practices across disciplines and ages, which may include reframing perseptions of CS among students and educators, incorporating CT across disciplines, and shifting to a landscape of pedagogy and assemsent where students show, rather than tell, their artifacts of meaning developed through computational thinking.

Given that the State of Illinois’ CS Standards (2022) First Practice of implementation within k12 learning spaces is “fostering an inclusive computing culture,” there is an assumption that CT is a shared experience and a cultural phenomena, despite perceptions of technology-based learning and CS as isolating (Bergland et al., 2009). In fact, CT paired with technology is likely to enhance diverse participation (Corkett & Benevides, 2015; Israel et al., 2015; Ludvigsen & Arnseth, 2017; Mills et al., 2021; Mills et al., 2024).

By contextualizing CT within theories of social knowledge construction, specifcally Vygotsky's constructivism and Papert's constructivism, we hope to challenge how some perceptions of CS still permeate notions of who should participate. 

According to Vygotsky, learning and therefore development, depends on access to opportunities, support, and the encouragement to continue exploration. Vygotsky’s theory of proximal development outlines that when “a more knowledgeable other” collaborates with a new learner, steps in learning pave the way for cognitive development (Vygotsky, 1978; Vygotsky, 1986; Zaretsky, 2021). Outlined below are guiding principles of Vygotsky’s social learning theory.

• Learning is an active process of meaning-making gained in and through our experience and interactions with the world

• Learning opportunities arise as people encounter cognitive conflict, challenge, or puzzlement, and through naturally occurring as well as planned problem solving activities

• Learning is a social activity involving collaboration, negotiation, and participation in authentic practices of communities

• Where possible, reflection, assessment, and feedback should be embedded “naturally” within learning activities

• Learners should take primary responsibility for their learning and “own” the process as far as possible

(Zaretsky, 2021, p. 1)

The video below outlines the zone of proximal development (ZDP) (0:56-1:20), as well as explaining how lack of exposure to the process of learning outlined in the ZDP leads to inquiry in learning (1:22-4:00).

Hable (2022) discusses how Papert's theory builds upon Vygotsky's when he explains, "Seymour Papert went one step further to say that the process of knowledge construction happens best when people create a physical or digital artifact to serve as a representation of their mental construction." Papert initiates the call for digital literacy in meaning making for children within the context of his theory of constructionism in the 1980's, and Paula Wing (2006) revived the call to action to increase computer science education by fore fronting the concept of computational thinking. 

Within this social-knowledge constructivist framework, CT becomes a semiotic tool for learners to express knowledge in digital, multimodal artifacts, ideally in collaborative settings that are not limited to computer science classrooms, but could be expressed in any discipline or interdisciplinary context. This conception of CT challenges cultural perceptions that CS is an isolated practice, performed in and by white, male-dominated fields (Gretter et al., 2019; Rankin et al., 2021).

Because meaning making is a social experience and humans use tools to create artifacts of expression of that meaning, the dependence on inclusion is not a nicety, but rather, a necessity (Papert, 1980; Vygotsky, 1987). Without the "Other," especially without another that represents a difference, "I" am unable to construct new meaning for myself or express new artifacts. Therefore, establishing cultures of computing also means establishing cultures of inclusion, highlighting and identifying difference, enhancing the perspectives of all learners. "Learning cultures are communities of learners comprised of people with different levels of experience and knowledge, working together towards a common goal" (Hable, 2022).

Video 3 defines an inclusive classroom and outlines key pedagogical approaches that address difference in processing time, questioning, and critical thinking. Ultimately, inclusive practices are anchored to the foundational concept that all students need to be intentionally included, their backgrounds and background knowledge considered, and diverse perspectives should be valued (3:00-4:45). Multiple intersections exists between practices in CT and inclusive pedagogical strategies, especially the emphasis on relating concepts to student interest, as well as real-world topics (4:00-4:45). 

Video 3. LabXChange (2023, March 23) What is an Inclusive Classroom? 

Inclusive practices in k12 classrooms are a key aspect of engaging bias toward computer science. Gretter and associates (2019) explore teacher's views on barriers to diversity in CS education in order to foster diversity in the field. After mulitple interviews with teachers, the researchers identified isolation as one of the main barriers to learning in a CS context (Gretter et al., p. 7). On the opposite end of the spectrum, creating "inclusive classrooms" and "a sense of belonging" were two key elements in fostering equitable learning spaces in k12 computer science (Gretter et al., pp. 8-9).

Creating inclusive CS classroom starts with debunking myths and misconceptions about CS and computing culture. Teachers can focus on these points through inclusive pedagogy that will transfer beyond the classroom walls to attract new students.

(Gretter et al., 2019, p. 12)

Additionally, 

A number of teachers (N = 13) brought up the need to create an inclusive environment in the computer science classroom to increase diversity. Participants stated that such welcoming environments provided students with opportunities to develop a sense of identity aligned with the computing community.

(Gretter et al., 2019, p. 8)

Inclusion and belonging as essential factors in CT pedagogical design are the transformative aspects of any pedagogical approach. These factors, and their intentionality within the learning design are what create the conditions for issues in equity to be met and overcome. Without the intentionality of inclusive practices, CS as a field and as a way forward in the 21st century will never represent all the voices of innovation that it could. Kalantzis and Cope's (2005) concept of New Learning emphasis, "Belonging is a generalised condition of learning, whether learning is endogenous to the everyday lifeworld, or whether it is by conscious design. In the case of the former, belonging usually comes easily. In the case of learning by design, belonging needs to be a conscious endeavour."

Having determined that computational thinking has its roots in Vygotsky and Papert's social knowledge philosophical theories, as well as examining the deep connection between overcome bias perceptions of CT through inclusive pedagogies, we want to consider how CT can become a semiotic tool for students to live out these theories in concrete, meaningful ways.

Dolgopolovolas and Dagiene (2022) conducted a study using interpretive methods to establish CT as a semiotic tool. They explain, "CT is a complex phenomenon that integrates human and non-human entities into one constantly evolving network" (Dolgopolovas & Dagiene, p. 5). Like Dolgopolovas & Dagiene, our work seeks to establish a "repositioning" of CT from its current "understanding as an educational and cognitive developmental tool to consider CT as a semiotic resource that mediates sociocultural relations" (p. 7).

At its very best, CT could lead to pedagogies where "students make their own decisions about learning goals and the computational tools and processes they will use to achieve them" (Mills et al., 2021, p. 33). Mills and associates suggest a scaffolded approach to educators embedding CT practices within their classrooms, where students are introduced and instructed on concepts like coding, using data, or a program and eventually have full agency within their learning experience (p. 33). As any transformative pedagogical approach, good tools must meet students within all their need and difference and provide sufficient suppor that they are able to achieve full participation and agency within learning (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005).  

Providing student-centered learning experiences, so that students are driving decisions about what tool to use, how to use it, and for what purpose, provides them with opportunities to gain experience, autonomy, and confidence in computing they can take outside of the classroom.

(Mills et al., 2021, p. 33)

Figure 5 is a graphic representation of the form of agency, a form within Cope and Kalantzis (2020) transpositional grammar. Unless students can reach a point of participation within the context of learning where they are creating meaning using a tool of their choice, it is evident that we have not reached the level of transformation or equity in public education that needs to be realized. The description of the form of agency below helps us navigate the complex factors in which every individual finds themselves within, constantly impacted by where they find themselves, expectations put upon them, their own role in determining how they will navigate exchange, and the various conditions that surround their self-determination in every moment. To consider it in this light, imagining learning for even one student seems impossible. On the other hand, the affordance of technology and reshaping understandings of what CT and these particular set of tools can do for us cognitively and culturally, it seems that anything could be possible.

Figure 5

The Form of Agency 

Cope & Kalantzis depiction of the form "Agency" within the context of transpositional grammar

The only way for students to begin stepping into their own agency and ability to create meaning is for the landscape of perceptions to change to allow for this type of condition. Within the event of transactivity that could potential occur within a classroom, the role of individuals can take a better shape. Echoing the scaffolded structure suggested by Mills et al., introducing students to enhancements like coding, programs, or access to data should lead to autonomy and then fuller participation for even greater possiblities in what can be achieved. 

It happens like this in almost every social sphere. A new person comes into the periphary of a group with caution, observing others, with a very limited ability to participate or have a role. But overtime, that learner becomes the leader. The only obstacles that would prevent this transformation are essentially intentional. These are the obstacles that create inequity and a lack of participation. 

The goal for policy makers, administrators, parents, and educators, in an ideal CS learning environment, would be for such a transformation that the agency of the learner is evidence by the artifacts they create, their participation in problem solving, and their ability to become the more knowledgeable "other".