from computational thinking to systems thinking sme/papers/2014/easterbrook-ict4s-2014.pdf ·...

Download From Computational Thinking to Systems Thinking sme/papers/2014/Easterbrook-ICT4S-2014.pdf · From Computational Thinking to Systems Thinking: ... (ICT) are to bring about ... Computer scientists tend to approach problems in a par-

Post on 04-Feb-2018

220 views

Category:

Documents

2 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • From Computational Thinking to Systems Thinking:A conceptual toolkit for sustainability computing

    Steve EasterbrookDept of Computer Science

    University of Toronto140 St George Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Email: sme@cs.toronto.edu

    AbstractIf information and communication technologies(ICT) are to bring about a transformational change to a sustain-able society, then we need to transform our thinking. Computerprofessionals already have a conceptual toolkit for problemsolving, sometimes known as computational thinking. However,computational thinking tends to see the world in terms a seriesof problems (or problem types) that have computational solutions(or solution types). Sustainability, on the other hand, demandsa more systemic approach, to avoid technological solutionism,and to acknowledge that technology, human behaviour andenvironmental impacts are tightly inter-related. In this paper,I argue that systems thinking provides the necessary bridge fromcomputational thinking to sustainability practice, as it provides adomain ontology for reasoning about sustainability, a conceptualbasis for reasoning about transformational change, and a set ofmethods for critical thinking about the social and environmentalimpacts of technology. I end the paper with a set of suggestionsfor how to build these ideas into the undergraduate curriculumfor computer and information sciences.

    Index TermsComputers and Society, Computer Science Ed-ucation, Computational Sustainability.

    I. INTRODUCTION

    The remarkable growth of information and communicationstechnology (ICT) over the past two decades poses manyserious dilemmas for sustainability practitioners. On the onehand, ICT has grown to become a significant fraction of hu-manitys environmental footprint, through demand for energy,particularly the embodied energy of manufacture [1], demandfor scarce or critical metals and minerals [2], and the growingproblem of disposal of e-waste [3]. On the other hand, ICTsare frequently cited as a key part of the solution, as theyoffer new opportunities to monitor and analyze human activityto guide us to low impact choices, and to replace resource-intensive activities (e.g. movement of people and goods) withalternatives (e.g. teleconferencing and virtualization) [4].

    Unfortunately, not only is western society a long wayfrom sustainability, analysis shows that we cannot achievesustainability merely by improving energy efficiency wewill need a dramatic reduction in resource consumption [5].Paradoxically, ICTs are part of the drive to ever growingconsumption, as the combined effects of Moores law andbuilt-in obsolescence shorten produce lifetimes for hardware,while the desire for greater connectivity accelerates demandfor new gadgets.

    This growing consumption of ICT products is driven, inpart, by an alarming set of technology industry trends, all ofwhich push society further away from a sustainable level ofconsumption of energy and material goods. These are largelyunacknowledged in the mainstream computing literature:

    A computer industry that sells gadgets with ever shortershelf-lives, without regard to environmental and socialimpact of their manufacture, and disposal of the resultinge-waste [6].

    A tendency towards technological solutionism, whichtreats complex societal problems in a simplistic way, suchthat the solution can be the sale of a new app, new webservice, or a new device, without exploring the broaderenvironmental consequences [7].

    A tendency towards automating and optimizing existingsolutions without first exploring their social and environ-mental impacts, thus reducing resilience and locking usfurther into unsustainable ICT infrastructures [8].

    A preference for moving ever more of the internettechnology stack into proprietary software ecosystems,which prevents users from adapting or re-designing theirtechnology to suit local needs and local contexts [9], [10].

    Sustainability is an emergent phenomenon from the inter-action between (very large numbers of) people, and the waysin which we build and use technology. Innovations in ICTto improve sustainability may be counter-productive in thelong term, if they contribute to these underlying trends inconsumption. Hence, sustainability requires a whole systemsapproach [11]. I argue that such an approach must address:

    The interconnections between the grand challenges ofclimate change, food production, water management, pol-lution, environmental health, and the end of cheap energy.None of these problems can be tackled independently.

    An understanding that these represent a set of dilemmasto which we can respond, rather than problems that wecan solve, and that any attempt to solve them will giverise to further, unanticipated problems.

    The idea that unchecked growth in any one technologyis unsustainable on a finite planet, and that therefore anytechnology that becomes too successful must eventuallythreaten sustainability, due to overuse and co-dependence.

    An acknowledgement that the human activity systems in

    Steve EasterbrookAppears in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Sustainability (ICT4S2014), Stockholm, Sweden, 24-27 August, 2014. 2014. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License

  • which technology sits create their own dynamics, andit is the dynamics of these social systems that shapeour dependence on technology, and limit the independentbehaviour of human actors. As software infrastructurechannels ever more of our social behaviour, we inadver-tently create feedback loops that prevent transformationalchange and frustrate attempts by individuals to adoptmore sustainable lifestyles

    In this paper I argue that the failure to think systemically is acritical weakness in our understanding of the transformationsneeded to achieve sustainability. Many of the ways that weseek to apply ICTs as part of a solution risk falling intothis trap. I argue that such a trap arises because of how weeducate ICT professionals. I identify computational thinkingas a major limiting factor, and propose to supplement it withsystems thinking, integrated throughout the ICT curriculum. Iend the paper with some examples of how to implement thissuggestion.

    II. COMPUTATIONAL THINKINGA. What is Computational Thinking?

    Computer scientists tend to approach problems in a par-ticular way. Because programming is fundamental to com-puter science education, computer scientists tend to think likeprogrammers. That is, they look for algorithmic solutions toproblems, in terms of data manipulation and process control.In a widely cited paper in 2006, Jeanette Wing termed thiscomputational thinking [12], and argued that this practice maybe the most important contribution computer science makes tothe world, and that it should be taught to all students in alldisciplines.

    Wings original paper did not offer a succinct definition forcomputational thinking, but offered many examples of howcomputer scientists tackle common problems: When yourdaughter goes to school in the morning, she puts in herbackpack the things she needs for the day; thats prefetchingand caching. When your son loses his mittens, you suggesthe retrace his steps; thats back-tracking. [...] Which linedo you stand in at the supermarket?; thats performancemodeling for multi-server systems. [12]. Extrapolating fromthese examples, the overall message is that computer scientistshave a toolbox of methods for matching problem situationsto standard types of solution, drawn from various parts of thecomputer science curriculum, and, perhaps just as importantly,a standard terminology to describe these abstract problem-solution patterns.

    Encouraged by funding programs from the NSF, the UScomputer science community has readily adopted the termcomputational thinking, using it as a slogan to re-design exist-ing computer science curricula to make them more attractiveto students, and to develop new courses aimed at audienceswho would not otherwise be exposed to computer science. Forexample, the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA)set up a task force to explore and disseminate teaching andlearning resources related to computational thinking. Thistask force offers the following definition [13]:

    Computational thinking (CT) is a problem-solving processthat includes (but is not limited to) the following characteris-tics:

    Formulating problems in a way that enables us to use acomputer and other tools to help solve them.

    Logically organizing and analyzing data. Representing data through abstractions such as models

    and simulations. Automating solutions through algorithmic thinking (a

    series of ordered steps). Identifying, analyzing, and implementing possible solu-

    tions with the goal of achieving the most efficient andeffective combination of steps and resources.

    Generalizing and transferring this problem solving pro-cess to a wide variety of problems.

    The task force goes on to add that these skills are supportedby a set of broader attitudes, including ability to deal withcomplexity and open ended problems, tolerance for ambiguity,and ability to work with others to achieve a common goal.While other definitions have been proposed, all seem to agreethat computational thinking focusses on the application of a setof problem abstractions: Today the term has been expandedto include thinking with many levels of abstractions, use ofmathematics to develop algorithms, and examining how wella solution scales across different sizes of problems [14].

    B. Whats Wrong with Computational Thinking?Since the concept was introduced, there has been remark-

    ably little critical thinking about computational thinking. Thefew critiques that have been written tend to focus on eithert

Recommended

View more >