Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A literature review on the empirical studies of the integration of mathematics and computational thinking

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In K-12 education, Computational Thinking (CT) has been a trendy issue in mathematics education, but the approach and results of CT + Math are not yet clear enough. This paper systematically reviewed 22 SSCI journal papers from three perspectives: the current status, outcomes, and implications of mathematics and CT integration. Results indicate that: (1) The empirical studies were more inclined to be carried out in primary school; (2) The sample size inversely proportional to the duration, the same as the duration and the learning phase; (3) the integration of mathematics and CT were gradually emerging in kindergartens, while the empirical studies in junior and senior high schools still needs to be improved; (4) The experimental type prioritizes case studies and lacks mixed research; (5) Most research designs employ a variety of measuring instruments but limited in multimodal data; (6) Through the teaching model of plug-in programming, the integration of mathematics and CT was centred on the field of geometry and number operations; and (7) The CT skills involved are mainly Problem decomposition, Pattern recognition, Abstraction, Algorithm design and Debugging. The limitations and future directions are also discussed in this paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as the datasets generated during the current study are proprietary of Web of Science. However, the general information of the 22 papers as well as their study design and major findings are presented in the Supplementary material.

References

  • Allsop, Y. (2019). Assessing computational thinking process using a multiple evaluation approach. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 19, 30–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abdul Hanid, M. F., Mohamad Said, M. N. H., Yahaya, N., & Abdullah, Z. (2022). Effects of augmented reality application integration with computational thinking in geometry topics. Education and Information Technologies, 1–37.

  • Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American educational research association, Vancouver, Canada (Vol. 1, p. 25).

  • Barcelos, T. S., Muñoz-Soto, R., Villarroel, R., Merino, E., & Silveira, I. F. (2018). Mathematics Learning through Computational thinking activities: a systematic literature review. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 24(7), 815–845.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: what is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W., Niedenthal, P. M., Barbey, A. K., & Ruppert, J. A. (2003). Social embodiment.

  • Bell, T., & Vahrenhold, J. (2018). CS unplugged—how is it used, and does it work?. Adventures between lower bounds and higher altitudes (pp. 497–521). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benton, L., Saunders, P., Kalas, I., Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2017). Designing for learning mathematics through programming: a case study of pupils engaging with place value. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 16, 68–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, H. R. (2013). Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage.

  • Bortz, W. W., Gautam, A., Tatar, D., & Lipscomb, K. (2020). Missing in measurement: why identifying learning in integrated domains is so hard. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 121–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benton, L., Saunders, P., Kalas, I., Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2018). Designing for learning mathematics through programming: A case study of pupils engaging with place value. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 16, 68-76.

  • Chaabi, H., Azmani, A., & Dodero, J. M. (2019, October). Analysis of the relationship between computational thinking and mathematical abstraction in primary education. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 981–986). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3362789.3362881

  • Chan, S. W., Looi, C. K., Ho, W. K., & Kim, M. S. (2022). Tools and approaches for integrating computational thinking and mathematics: A scoping review of current empirical studies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 07356331221098793.

  • Chan, S. W., Looi, C. K., Ho, W. K., Huang, W., Seow, P., & Wu, L. (2021). Learning number patterns through computational thinking activities: a rasch model analysis.Heliyon, 7(9), e07922.

  • Costa, E. J. F., Campos, L. M. R. S., & Guerrero, D. D. S. (2017). Computational thinking in mathematics education: A joint approach to encourage problem-solving ability. In 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1–8). IEEE.

  • Csizmadia, A., Curzon, P., Dorling, M., Humphreys, S., Ng, T., Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2015). Computational thinking-A Guide for Teachers. Retrieved from: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/424545/1/150818_Computational_Thinking_1_.pdf

  • Cui, Z., & Ng, O. L. (2021). The interplay between mathematical and computational thinking in primary school students’ mathematical problem-solving within a programming environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(5), 988–1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English, L. (2018). On MTL’s second milestone: exploring computational thinking and mathematics learning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 20(1), 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Echeverría, L., Cobos, R., Morales, M., Moreno, F., & Negrete, V. (2019). Promoting computational thinking skills in primary school students to improve learning of geometry. In Proceedings of 2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 424–429). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2019.8725088

  • Gadanidis, G., Clements, E., & Yiu, C. (2018). Group theory, computational thinking, and young mathematicians. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 20(1), 32–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M. (2010). Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(4), 586–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: a review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hickmott, D., Prieto-Rodriguez, E., & Holmes, K. (2018). A scoping review of studies on computational thinking in K–12 mathematics classrooms. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 4(1), 48–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, T. C., & Hu, H. C. (2017). Application of the four phases of computational thinking and integration of blocky programming in a sixth-grade mathematics course. In Proceedings of International Conference on Computational Thinking Education (pp. 73–76).

  • Hooshyar, D., Malva, L., Yang, Y., Pedaste, M., Wang, M., & Lim, H. (2021). An adaptive educational computer game: Effects on students’ knowledge and learning attitude in computational thinking. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 106575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J., Gadanidis, G., & Yiu, C. (2017). Digital making in elementary mathematics education. Digital experiences in mathematics education, 3(2), 139-153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchenham, B., Brereton, O. P., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., & Linkman, S. (2009). Systematic literature reviews in software engineering–a systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 51(1), 7–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KONG, S. C., & KWOK, W. Y. (2021, November). From mathematical thinking to computational thinking: Use scratch programming to teach concepts of prime and composite numbers. In Proceedings of 29th International Conference on Computers in Education Conference (pp. 549–558). Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education. Retrieved from: https://icce2021.apsce.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/ICCE2021-Vol.I-PP.-549-558.pdf

  • Lei, H., Chiu, M. M., Li, F., Wang, X., & Geng, Y. J. (2020). Computational thinking and academic achievement: a meta-analysis among students. Children and Youth Services Review, 118, 105439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lishinski, A., Yadav, A., Enbody, R., & Good, J. (2016, February). The influence of problem solving abilities on students’ performance on different assessment tasks in CS1. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (pp. 329–334). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844596

  • Luo, F., Israel, M., & Gane, B. (2022). Elementary Computational Thinking Instruction and Assessment: A Learning Trajectory Perspective. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 22(2), 1-26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. (2019). STEM education in the primary years to support mathematical thinking: using coding to identify mathematical structures and patterns. Zdm Mathematics Education, 51(6), 915–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olatoye, R. A., Akintunde, S. O., & Yakasi, M. I. (2010). Emotional intelligence, creativity and academic achievement of business administration students. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8(21), 763–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2018). PISA 2021 Mathematics Framework (draft) [Electronic version]. PISA.

  • Pei, C., Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2018). Cultivating computational thinking practices and mathematical habits of mind in lattice land. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 20(1), 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rich, K. M., Spaepen, E., Strickland, C., & Moran, C. (2020). Synergies and differences in mathematical and computational thinking: implications for integrated instruction. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(3), 272–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Martínez, J. A., González-Calero, J. A., & Sáez-López, J. M. (2020). Computational thinking and mathematics using Scratch: an experiment with sixth-grade students. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(3), 316-327.

  • Rodríguez-Martínez, J. A., González-Calero, J. A., & Sáez-López, J. M. (2020). Computational thinking and mathematics using Scratch: an experiment with sixth-grade students. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(3), 316-327.

  • Sáez-López, J. M., Sevillano-García, M. L., & Vazquez-Cano, E. (2019). The effect of programming on primary school students’ mathematical and scientific understanding: educational use of mBot. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(6), 1405–1425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seehorn, D., Carey, S., Fuschetto, B., Lee, I., Moix, D., O’Grady-Cunniff, D., & Verno, A. (2011). CSTA K–12 computer Science Standards: revised 2011. ACM.

  • Shumway, J. F., Welch, L. E., Kozlowski, J. S., Clarke-Midura, J., & Lee, V. R. (2021). Kindergarten students’ mathematics knowledge at work: the mathematics for programming robot toys.Mathematical Thinking and Learning,1–29.

  • Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sneider, C., Stephenson, C., Schafer, B., & Flick, L. (2014). Exploring the science framework and NGSS: computational thinking in the science classroom. Science Scope, 38(3), 10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strawhacker, A., & Bers, M. U. (2015). “I want my robot to look for food”: comparing Kindergartner’s programming comprehension using tangible, graphic, and hybrid user interfaces. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(3), 293–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sung, W., & Black, J. B. (2020). Factors to consider when designing effective learning: infusing computational thinking in mathematics to support thinking-doing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 53(4), 404–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sung, W., Ahn, J., & Black, J. B. (2017). Introducing computational thinking to young learners: practicing computational perspectives through embodiment in mathematics education. Technology Knowledge and Learning, 22(3), 443–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabesh, Y. (2017). Computational thinking: a 21st century skill. Olympiads in Informatics, 11(2), 65–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, C. W., Yu, P. D., Lin, L., Fung, C. K., Lai, C. K., & Cheng, Y. (2017). Teaching computational thinking by gamification of k-12 mathematics: Mobile app math games in mathematics and computer science tournament. In Proceedings of 2017 International Conference on Computational Thinking Education (pp. 55–59). Retrieved from: https://www.eduhk.hk/cte2017/doc/CTE2017%20Proceedings.pdf#page=66

  • Valovičová, Ľ., Ondruška, J., Zelenický, Ľ., Chytrý, V., & Medová, J. (2020). Enhancing computational thinking through interdisciplinary STEAM activities using tablets. Mathematics, 8(12), 2128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, A. D., & Golonka, S. (2013). Embodied cognition is not what you think it is. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wohlin, C. (2014). Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (pp. 1–10). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2601248.2601268

  • Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of science education and technology, 25(1), 127–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., Zhang, Y., Hung, C. Y., Wang, Q., & Zheng, Y. (2022). Exploring the characteristics of an optimal design of non-programming plugged learning for developing primary school students’ computational thinking in mathematics. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10093-0.

  • Xia L., Zhong B. (2018).A systematic review on teaching and learning robotics content knowledge in K-12. Computers & Education, 127, 267-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.007

  • Zhong B., Wang Q., Chen J., & Li Y. (2016). An exploration of three-dimensional integrated assessment for computational thinking. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(4), 562-590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115608444

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Guangdong Province Graduate Education Innovation Important Project “4 C teaching model for postgraduate’s interdisciplinary creativity cultivation” (2022JGXM_48), and the Major Project of China Education Technology Association “Collaborative innovation mechanism for STEM education among Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area” (G021).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Technology in Education, South China Normal University, No.55, West of Zhongshan Avenue, 510631, Guangzhou, China

    Lin Lv, Baichang Zhong & Xiaofan Liu

Authors
  1. Lin Lv
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Baichang Zhong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaofan Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Baichang Zhong.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lv, L., Zhong, B. & Liu, X. A literature review on the empirical studies of the integration of mathematics and computational thinking. Educ Inf Technol 28, 8171–8193 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11518-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11518-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation