Theoretical essay explores the evolution of computational talent and thinking across three stages in computer science, suggesting new conceptual frameworks.
Recent theoretical work has conceptualized computational thinking (CT) was presented as a dynamic psychological construct that evolves in parallel with Computer Science (CS). From this perspective, a 3-stage CT framework has been proposed to reflect how the construct has evolved and is being expanded due to recent advancements in the CS field. More specifically, this extended framework comprises the following stages: ‘rule-based’ CT (1.0), linked to procedural programming and deterministic logic; ‘data-driven’ CT (2.0), influenced by advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) and incorporating inductive logic and probabilistic reasoning; and ‘quantum’ CT (3.0), the emerging stage, associated with quantum computing (QC) and embracing a holistic philosophical paradigm. Withing this boader perspective, the related psychological construct, namely computational talent, has been defined as the ability to progress from ‘visual block-based’ procedural programming environments to ‘text-based’ ones. Building on this framework, the present theoretical essay pursues two main objectives: (i) to delve deeper into the 3-stage CT framework, using a tripartite distinction between computational concepts, practices, and perspectives as its integrative analytical criterion; and (ii) to update the conception of computational talent by extending its definition from the ‘rule-based’ to the ‘data-driven’ and ‘quantum’ stages, distinguishing talent from mere proficiency at each stage through a triple criterion—quantitative, qualitative, and social. As a conceptual contribution, this essay aims to provoke reflection and discussion within the field, leaving its empirical validation for future research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Román-González et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: