Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

School and Community Practices of Computational Thinking in Mathematics Education through Diverse Perspectives

Hatice Beyza Sezer 1 * ,
Immaculate Kizito Namukasa 1
1 Western University* Corresponding Author
Download PDF
Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Volume 6, Issue SI, June 2023, pp. 137-160
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 342 DOWNLOADS: 373 Publication date: 15 Jun 2023
ABSTRACT
In the 21st century, computational thinking (CT) has emerged as a fundamental skill. Building on this momentum and recognizing the importance of exploring the use of computational thinking (CT) concepts and tools in teaching and learning, this study conducted a qualitative content analysis to investigate online resources for school and community outreach practices related to integrating CT and coding into mathematics education. The data set was selected from sample websites hosting a community of practice and interpreted through Kafai et al.’s (2020) framings of CT and a combination of three theories of learning and teaching (i.e., constructionism, social constructivism, and critical literacy). The study found that in mathematics, more attention is given to the cognitive approach of CT, which focuses on acquiring CT skills and concepts, rather than the situated approach that emphasizes participation during learning. Additionally, there is not enough emphasis on the critical framing of CT, which examines how learning reflects values and power structures. The study’s significance is grounded in enhancing the perspectives of researchers, educators, and policymakers by providing insights into the wide affordances of CT which meet and exceed the expectations of curriculum content and skills. In light of the recent attention paid to adding coding to the new mathematics curriculum, this study contributes to the literature, practice, and curriculum development on the integration of CT into school mathematics and serves as a basis for future research in the field.
KEYWORDS
Computational thinking, Coding, Mathematics Education, Cognitive, Situated, Critical
CITATION (APA)
Sezer, H. B., & Namukasa, I. K. (2023). School and Community Practices of Computational Thinking in Mathematics Education through Diverse Perspectives. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6(SI), 137-160. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.617SI
REFERENCES
  1. Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20–23. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ918910
  2. Buteau, C & Muller, E. (2017). Coding + Math at University: Just like Mathematicians do it. Math+Code ‘Zine, 2(3). https://researchideas.ca/mc/just-like-mathematicians-do-it/
  3. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (n.d.). Global competencies.
  4. https://www.cmec.ca/682/Global_Competencies.html
  5. Ctmath.ca. (2016-18). CT in kindergarten. http://ctmath.ca/projects/ct-in-kindergarten/
  6. diSessa, A. A. (2018). Computational literacy and “the big picture” concerning computers in mathematics education.
  7. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 20(1), 3-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2018.1403544 diSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. MIT Press.
  8. Edwards, K.E., & Jones, K. (2009). Putting my man face on: A grounded theory of college men’s gender identity development. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 210 - 228. http://hdl.handle.net/1903/6862
  9. Eguchi, A. (2014). Educational robotics for promoting 21st century skills. Journal of Automation, Mobile Robotics & Intelligent Systems, 8(1), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.14313/JAMRIS_1-2014/1
  10. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1993.tb00605.x
  11. Feurzeig, W., & Papert, S. A. (2011). Programming languages as a conceptual framework for teaching mathematics. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(5), 487-501. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820903520040
  12. Gadanidis, G. (2017). Five affordances of computational thinking to support elementary mathematics. Education Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 36(2), 143-151. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1154750
  13. Gadanidis, G., Brodie, I., Minniti, L., & Silver, B. (2017). Computer coding in the K-8 mathematics curriculum? What Works? Research into Practice: Research Monograph#69. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/Computer_Coding_K8_en.pdf
  14. Gadanidis, G., & Caswell, B. (2018). Computational modelling in elementary mathematics education: Making sense of coding in elementary classrooms. KNAER Mathematics Knowledge Network, White Paper. http://mkn- rcm.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/MKN-white-paper2-May- 2018.pdf
  15. Gadanidis, G., Cendros, R., Floyd, L., & Namukasa, I. (2017). Computational thinking in mathematics teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 458-477. https://citejournal.org/volume-17/issue-4-17/mathematics/computational-thinking-in-mathematics-teacher- education
  16. Gadanidis, G., & Cummings, J. (2018). Integrated mathematics + computer studies: Reforming secondary school mathematics education. KNAER Mathematics Knowledge Network. http://mkn-rcm.ca/wp- content/uploads/2018/04/MKN-white-paper-April-2018.pdf
  17. Gadanidis, G., Floyd, S., Hughes, J.M., Namukasa, I.K., & Scucuglia, R. (2021). Coding in the Ontario mathematics curriculum, 1-8: Might it be transformational? Math Knowledge Network. http://mknrcm.ca/coding-in-the- ontario-mathematicscurriculum-1-8- might-it-be-transformational/
  18. Gannon, S. & Buteau, C. (2018). Integration of computational thinking in Canadian provinces. In
  19. Online Proceedings of the Computational Thinking in Mathematics Education Symposium, UOIT (Scarborough). http://ctmath.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Symposium_CanadaMap_Gannon-Buteau.pdf
  20. Ghosh, J. (2019). Some opportunities for computational thinking in the mathematics classroom. In Proceedings of the 24th Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics. Leshan Vocational and Technical College, Leshan, China.
  21. Gretter, S., & Yadav, A. (2016). Computational thinking and media & information literacy: An integrated approach to teaching twenty-first-century skills. TechTrends, 60, 510-516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0098-4
  22. Haduong, P. (2019). I like computers. I hate coding: a portrait of two teens’ experiences. Information and Learning Sciences, 120(5/6), 349-365. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-05-2018-0037
  23. Hostetler, A, Sengupta, P, & Hollett, T. (2018). Unsilencing critical conversations in social-studies teacher education using agent-based modeling. Cognition & Instruction, 36(2), 139 – 170. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2017.1420653
  24. Iyioke, I. C. (2020). Cognitive vs. social constructivist learning for research and training on the Angoff method. In Ş. Orakcı (Eds.), Paradigm shifts in 21st century teaching and learning (pp. 181-201). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-3146-4.ch012
  25. Kafai, Y. B. (2016). Education from computational thinking to computational participation in K-12 education: Seeking to reframe computational thinking as computational participation. Communications of the ACM, 59(8), 26-27. https://doi.org/10.1145/2955114
  26. Kafai Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2013). Computer programming goes back to school. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(1). 61-65. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171309500111
  27. Kafai, Y. B., Proctor, C., & Lui, D. (2020). From theory bias to theory dialogue: embracing cognitive, situated, and critical framings of computational thinking in K-12 CS education.ACMInroads,11(1). https://doi.org/10.1145/3381887
  28. Lavigne, H. J., Lewis-Presser, A., & Rosenfeld, D. (2020). An exploratory approach for investigating the integration of computational thinking and mathematics for preschool children. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 36(1), 63-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1693940
  29. Lee, C. H., & Garcia, A. D. (2014). I Want Them to Feel the Fear…: Critical computational literacy as the new multimodal composition. In Ferdig, R. E., & Pytash, K. E. (Ed.), Exploring multimodal composition and digital writing (pp. 364-378). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4345-1.ch022
  30. Lee, C. H., & Soep, E. (2018). Beyond coding: using critical computational literacy to transform tech. Texas Education Review, 6(1). http://hdl.handle.net/2152/64975
  31. Lee, I., & Malyn-Smith, J. (2020). Computational thinking integration patterns along the framework defining computational thinking from a disciplinary perspective. Journal of Science Education and Technology,29, 9-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09802-x
  32. Mathematics Knowledge Network (MKN). (2016-17). Math + Coding in Wellington CDSB. http://mkn- rcm.ca/wcdsb1/
  33. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). https://www.qualitative- research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2386
  34. Meyers, E.M. (2019). Learning to code, coding to learn: Youth and computational thinking "Guest editorial",
  35. Information and Learning Sciences, 120(5/6), 254-265. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-05-2019-139
  36. Ontario Ministry of Education (2016). 21st century competencies: Foundation document for discussion (Ontario Ministry of Education. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
  37. Ontario Ministry of Education (2020). The Ontario curriculum Grades 1–8 mathematics curriculum context.
  38. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
  39. Ontario Ministry of Education (2021). The Ontario curriculum: Mathematics, Grade 9. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Education (2020-22). Transferable skills. Queen’s Printer for
  40. Ontario.https://www.dcp.edu.gov.on.ca/en/transferable-skills/introduction Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
  41. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (pp. 169-186). SAGE Publications.
  42. Proctor, C., & Blikstein, P. (2019). Unfold studio: Supporting critical literacies of text and code. Information and Learning Sciences, 120(5/6), 285-307. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-05-2018-0039
  43. Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., & Farris, A.V. (2018). Toward a Phenomenology of Computational Thinking in STEM. In: Khine, M. (eds) Computational Thinking in the STEM Disciplines. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93566-9_4
  44. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13 https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X027002004
  45. Stevens, L. P., & Bean, T. W. (2007). Redefining literacy. In critical literacy: Context, research, and practice in the K-12 classroom (pp. 1-14). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://www-doi- org.proxy1.lib.uwo.ca/10.4135/9781452204062.n1
  46. Strauss A. L., & Corbin J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.), SAGE Publications.
  47. Tissenbaum, M., Sheldon, J., & Abelson, H. (2019). From computational thinking to computational action.
  48. Communications of the ACM, 62(3), 34-36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3265747
  49. Veeragoudar-Harrell, S. (2009). Second chance at first life: Fostering the mathematical and computational agency of at-risk youth. [Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley].
  50. Weidler-Lewis, J., DuBow, W., Kaminsky, A., & Weston, T. (2019). Supporting women’s persistence in computing and technology: A case for compulsory critical coding? Information and Learning Sciences, 120(5/6), 366- 382. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-08-2018-0083
  51. Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K. Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal Science Education and Technology, 25, 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
  52. Wong, G. K. W., & Cheung, H. Y. (2020). Exploring children’s perceptions of developing twenty-first-century skills through computational thinking and programming. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(4), 438– 50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1534245
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.