Advertisement

Digital Technologies and Numeracy—Synergy or Discord?

  • Kevin LarkinEmail author
  • Jodie Miller
Chapter
  • 50 Downloads

Abstract

Engaging young learners in STEM practices such as robotics and coding gives students the opportunity to use new and emerging technologies to solve problems while extending their own knowledge and understanding of mathematics. In Australia, a digital technologies curriculum was introduced in 2014 to assist with making connections between Technology and areas such as mathematics. Drawing on examples from Australia, British Columbia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, this chapter examines how the introduction of a new curriculum intersects with existing curricula. As an example of an authentic activity that successfully combines elements of both curricula to support STEM learning, findings of a research project that has been conducted with Year 2 students (n = 153) from two Australian primary schools are presented. It appears as young students engage in robotics and coding (Technology) to learn mathematics concepts, they demonstrate learning that moves beyond their curriculum year level, creating a possible conflict between the digital technologies and mathematics curricula with their tightly prescribed sequence of content.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support from the schools, teachers and students involved in the study. Aspects of the teaching experiment component of this article were presented at a MERGA conference; however, this article is a substantive development of this earlier work.

References

  1. Australian Academy of Science. (2016). The mathematical sciences in Australia: A vision for 2025. Canberra: Retrieved from https://www.science.org.au/files/userfiles/support/reports-and-plans/2016/mathematics-decade-plan-2016-vision-for-2025.pdf.
  2. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2016a). The Australian curriculum: Digital technologies. Canberra: ACARA.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2016b). The Australian curriculum: Mathematics. Canberra: ACARA.Google Scholar
  4. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2019). My school. Retrieved from https://www.myschool.edu.au/.
  5. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-017-0028-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. British Columbia Government. (2016). Applied design, skills and technologies. Retrieved from https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum/applied-design-skills-and-technologies/introduction.
  7. Calder, N. (2012). The layering of mathematical interpretations through digital media. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(1–2), 269–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clements, D. H., Battista, M. T., & Sarama, J. (2001). Logo and geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Monograph, 10, 1–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2014). Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Department for Education. (2013). National curriculum in England: Computing programmes of study. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study.
  11. DevTech Research Group, Lifelong Kindergarten Group, & Playful Invention Company. (undated). ScratchJr [Coding for young children]. https://www.scratchjr.org/.
  12. English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(3).  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1.
  13. Finkel, A. (2017). Plenary address. 40 years on: We are still learning. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Melbourne: MERGA.Google Scholar
  14. Francis, K., Khan, S., & Davis, B. (2016). Enactivism, spatial reasoning and coding. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 2(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Highfield, K. (2010). Robotic toys as a catalyst for mathematical problem solving. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 15(2), 22–27.Google Scholar
  16. Larkin, K., & Jorgensen, R. (2016). ‘I Hate Maths: Why Do We Need to Do Maths?’ Using iPad video diaries to investigate attitudes and emotions towards mathematics in year 3 and year 6 students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 925–944.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9621-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lesh, R., & Lehrer, R. (2000). Iterative refinement cycles for videotape analyses of conceptual change. In R. Lesh & A. Kelly (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 665–708). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Lewis, C. M., & Shah, N. (2012). Building upon and enriching grade four mathematics standards with programming curriculum. Proceedings of the 43rd Association of Computing Machinery Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 57–62). ACM.Google Scholar
  19. Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miller, J. (2015). Young Indigenous students’ engagement with growing pattern tasks: A semiotic perspective. In M. Marshman, V. Geiger, & A. Bennison (Eds.), Mathematics education in the margins. Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Sunshine Coast: MERGA.Google Scholar
  21. Miller, J. & Larkin, K. (2017). Using coding to promote mathematical thinking with year 2 students: Alignment with the Australian curriculum. 40 Years on: We are still learning. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Melbourne: MERGA.Google Scholar
  22. Moomaw, S., & Davis, J. (2010). STEM comes to preschool. Young Children, 65(5), 12–14.Google Scholar
  23. Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings: Learning cultures and computers. London: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Office of Chief Scientist. (2014). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Australia’s future. Canberra. Retrieved from http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/STEM_AustraliasFuture_Sept2014_Web.pdf.
  25. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  26. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., et al. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Savard, A., & Highfield, K. (2015). Teachers’ talk about robotics: Where is the mathematics? In M. Marshman, V. Geiger, & A. Bennison (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Sunshine Coast: MERGA.Google Scholar
  28. Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In R. Lesh & A. E. Kelly (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267–307). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  29. Warren, E., & Cooper, T. (2008). Patterns that support early algebraic thinking in the elementary school. In C. Greenes & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), Algebra and algebraic thinking in school mathematics: Seventieth Yearbook (pp. 113–126). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  30. Watson, J. (2017). Linking science and statistics: Curriculum expectations in three countries. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(6), 1057–1073.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9673-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Watson, J., & Neal, D. (2012). Preparing students for decision-making in the 21st century- statistics and probability in the Australian curriculum: Mathematics. In B. Atweh, M. Goos, R. Jorgensen & D. Siemon (Eds.), Engaging the Australian national curriculum: Mathematics—Perspectives from the field. Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 89–113).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Griffith UniversityGold CoastAustralia
  2. 2.University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations