Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Pre-Service Teacher’s Use of Block-Based Programming and Computational Thinking to Teach Elementary Mathematics

  • Published:
Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As block-based programming grows in popularity within education, the integration of its application within teacher education programs needs to be investigated. This article examines block-based programming as a viable tool to teach elementary mathematics conceptually drawing on the connections pre-service teachers made between computational thinking and mathematics. This cross-comparative case study that includes a convergent, mixed-methods design examines how block-based coding and computational thinking for conceptual mathematics (B2C3Math) facilitated ten pre-service teachers’ connections made at a large southeastern US university. Connections between computational thinking and mathematics concepts were investigated while the pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards block-based programming as a conceptual mathematics teaching tool were queried. A focus is not placed on interactive games or simulations made using block-based programming to teach mathematics, but rather on pre-service teachers’ ability to design a lesson teaching mathematics conceptually through the programming process. Descriptive analysis reveals changes in pre-service teachers’ attitudes of the proposed teaching strategy following the implementation of B2C3Math. Pre-service teachers’ reflections and lesson designs provide insight into the quality of the connections made between computational thinking and mathematics for the purpose of conceptual mathematics teaching. Three critical cases are identified to illustrate the spectrum of all ten participants in relation to the major findings. Implications for research and practices using block-based programming for teacher education are discussed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmadzadeh, M., Elliman, D., & Higgins, C. (2005). An analysis of patterns of debugging among novice computer science students. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(3), 84–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakos, S., & Thibault, M. (2018). Affordances and tensions in teaching both computational thinking and mathematics. In E. Bergqvist, M. Österholm, C. Granberg, & L. Sumpter (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd conference of the International Group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 107–114). Umeå: PME.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D., Hill, H., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American Educator, 29(1), 14–17 20–22; 43–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D., Thames, M., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.

    Article  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 

  • Benedict, A., Holdheide, L., Brownell, M. & Foley, A. (2016). Learning to teach: Practice-based preparation in teacher education. (https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED570144.pdf). Accessed 21 Aug 2018.

  • Bennett, S., Lockyer, L., & Agostinho, S. (2004). Investigating how learning designs can be used as a framework to incorporate learning objects. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Donas-Dwyer, & R. Phillips (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE conference (pp. 116–122). Perth: Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benton, L., Hoyles, C., Kalas, I., & Noss, R. (2017). Bridging primary programming and mathematics: Some findings of design research in England. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 3(2), 115–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, M., Bhumiratana, B., Crawford, R., & Levitt, K. (2004). How to sanitize data? In Proceedings of the 13th IEEE international workshops on enabling technologies: Infrastructure for collaborative enterprises (pp. 217–222). Los Alamitos: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Computer Society.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boaler, J. (2015). Fluency without fear: Research evidence on the best ways to learn math facts. Reflections, 40(2), 7–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower, M., & Falkner, K. (2015). Computational thinking, the notional machine, pre-service teachers, and research opportunities. In D. D’Souza & K. Falkner (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Australasian computing education conference (pp. 37–46). Sydney: Australian Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, K. & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 1–25). Vancouver, BC.

  • Burke, Q. (2012). The markings of a new pencil: Introducing programming-as-writing in the middle school classroom. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 4(2), 121–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calder, N. (2010). Using Scratch: An integrated problem-solving approach to mathematical thinking. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 15(4), 9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, L., & Campbell, C. (2013). The case for using learning designs with pre-service teachers. The Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(6), 35–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1990). Classrooms as learning environments for teachers and researchers. In R. Davis, C. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 125–146). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2008). Learning and leading with habits of mind: 16 essential characteristics for success. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engage NY (2012). Pedagogical shifts demanded by the Common Core State Standards. (https://www.engageny.org/resource/common-core-shifts). Accessed 14 Oct 2018.

  • Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education, 63, 87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, K., & Davis, B. (2018). Coding robots as a source of instantiations for arithmetic. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 4(2–3), 71–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadanidis, G., Hughes, J., Minniti, L., & White, B. (2017). Computational thinking, grade 1 students and the binomial theorem. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 3(2), 77–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleasman, C. & Kim, C. (2018). Use of block-based coding in teaching conceptual mathematics. Paper presented at Association for Educational Communications and Technology Conference. Kansas City, MO.

  • Greene, J. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgia Department of Education. (2016). Georgia standards of excellence. Retrieved September 5, 2017, from https://www.georgiastandards.org/Georgia-Standards/Documents/Grade-K-5-Mathematics-Standards.pdf. Accessed 5 Sept 2017.

  • Grover, S., & Basu, S. (2017). Measuring student learning in introductory block-based programming. In M. Caspersen, S. Edwards, T. Barnes, & D. Garcia (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 267–272). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrusch, S., Hoffmann, C., Korb, J., Haugan, M., & Hosking, A. (2009). A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harel, I. (1990). Children as software designers: A constructionist approach for learning mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 9(1), 3–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hohensee, C. (2014). Backward transfer: An investigation of the influence of quadratic functions instruction on students’ prior ways of reasoning about linear functions. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(2), 135–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K12CS (2016). K–12 computer science framework. (http://www.k12cs.org). Accessed 14 Oct 2018.

  • Kim, C., Kim, M., Lee, C., Spector, M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. (2015). Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers’ STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers & Education, 91, 14–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, E., Oliver, J. & Jackson, D. (2016). Connecting the imperatives of STEM, NGSS, deep learning and assessment: A conceptual paper. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Baltimore, MD.

  • Kim, C., Yuan, J., Vasconcelos, L., Shin, M., & Hill, R. (2018). Debugging during block-based programming. Instructional Science, 46(5), 767–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewandowski, G., Bouvier, D., McCartney, R., Sanders, K., & Simon, B. (2007). Commonsense computing (episode 3): Concurrency and concert tickets. In Proceedings of the third international workshop on computing education research (pp. 133–144). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, L. (2010). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The Scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, and B. Findell (Eds.). Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

  • NCTM. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSC. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academics Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings: Learning cultures and computers. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R., & Kurland, D. (1984). On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming. New Ideas in Psychology, 2(2), 137–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, V., Pitsolantis, N., & Osana, H. (2009). Mathematics anxiety in preservice teachers: Its relationship to their conceptual and procedural knowledge of fractions. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 21(3), 60–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M. (1999). Decentralized modeling and decentralized thinking. In W. Feurzeig & N. Roberts (Eds.), Modeling and simulation in science and mathematics education (pp. 114–137). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., & Star, J. (2015). Not a one-way street: Bidirectional relations between procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 587–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruona, W. (2005). Analyzing qualitative data. In R. Swanson & E. Holton (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 233–263). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schanzer, E. (2015). Algebraic functions, computer programming, and the challenge of transfer. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge: Harvard University (https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/16461037). Accessed 2 Dec 2018.

  • Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stohlmann, M., Moore, T., Cramer, K., & Maiorca, C. (2015). Changing pre-service elementary teachers’ beliefs about mathematical knowledge. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 16(2), 4–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thanheiser, E., Browning, C., Moss, M., Watanabe, T. & Garza-Kling, G. (2010). Developing mathematical content knowledge for teaching elementary school mathematics. Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers, 1. (http://www.k-12prep.math.ttu.edu/journal/1.contentknowledge/thanheiser01/article.pdf). Accessed 2 Dec 2018.

  • Tømte, C., Enochsson, A., Buskqvist, U., & Kårstein, A. (2015). Educating online student teachers to master professional digital competence: The TPACK-framework goes online. Computers & Education, 84, 26–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in classroom practice: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Boxtel, J. (2016). Reason: A self-instruction strategy for twice-exceptional learners struggling with common-core mathematics. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49(1), 66–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and meta-cognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, A., Zhou, N., Mayfield, C., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. (2011). Introducing computational thinking in education courses. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 465–470). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is partially supported by grant 1712286 from the National Science Foundation (USA) to PI ChanMin Kim. Any opinions, findings, or conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent official positions of NSF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tennessee Tech University, Bartoo Hall, 820 Quadrangle, Room 313, Cookeville, TN, 38505, USA

    Cory Gleasman

  2. Penn State University, 314D Keller Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    ChanMin Kim

Authors
  1. Cory Gleasman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. ChanMin Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cory Gleasman.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 258 kb)

ESM 2

(PDF 442 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gleasman, C., Kim, C. Pre-Service Teacher’s Use of Block-Based Programming and Computational Thinking to Teach Elementary Mathematics. Digit Exp Math Educ 6, 52–90 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-019-00056-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-019-00056-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation