From classroom lessons to exploratory learning progressions: mathematics plus computational thinking

被引:36
作者
Israel, Maya [1 ]
Lash, Todd [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Florida, Sch Teaching & Learning, Dept Educ Technol, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
[2] Univ Illinois, Dept Special Educ, Champaign, IL 61820 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Elementary school computer science; integrated curriculum; computer science lesson planning; computer science learning progressions; elementary mathematics; SCIENCE;
D O I
10.1080/10494820.2019.1674879
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
This paper presents findings from a two-year qualitative study examining integration of computer science (CS) and computational thinking (CT) into elementary mathematics instruction. Integrated units were developed by elementary teachers and CS/CT coaches with support from university faculty with expertise in CS/CT and elementary mathematics. CS/CT instruction primarily relied on the Scratch environment, although some lessons made use of Code.org materials. This research primarily relied on two theories of integration (i.e. Kiray, 2012. A new model for the integration of science and mathematics: The balance model. Energy Education Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies, 4(3), 1181?1196) that provided insight into the level of interconnection between the disciplines and the relative amount of instructional time spent within each discipline. Findings revealed that cross-grade CS/CT concepts included sequencing, looping, and conditional logic. Within each category: (a) concepts were taught with increasing complexity across the grades, (b) the mathematics was dominant and CS/CT was important but secondary, and (c) three types of lessons emerged: No integration, partial integration, and full integration. Lastly, lessons generally included a transition from less integrated to more integrated activities with an initial focus on discipline-specific conceptual understanding prior to integrated activities.
引用
收藏
页码:362 / 382
页数:21
相关论文
共 42 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2003, HDB MIXED METHODS SO
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2019, Standards for Mathematical Practices
[3]  
Begel A., 1996, LOGOBLOCKS GRAPHICAL, P62
[4]   Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method [J].
Bowen, Glenn A. .
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH JOURNAL, 2009, 9 (02) :27-+
[5]  
Brennan K., 2012, P 2012 ANN M AM ED R, P25
[6]  
Bryan LA, 2016, STEM ROAD MAP: A FRAMEWORK FOR INTEGRATED STEM EDUCATION, P23
[7]  
Burns M., 1994, GREEDY TRIANGLE
[8]  
Clements D.H., 2004, MATH THINK LEARN, V6, P81, DOI [10.1207/s15327833mtl0602_1, DOI 10.1207/S15327833MTL0602_1]
[9]   A COEFFICIENT OF AGREEMENT FOR NOMINAL SCALES [J].
COHEN, J .
EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1960, 20 (01) :37-46
[10]  
Computer Science Teachers Association, 2017, STAND COMP SCI TEACH