Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3408877.3432400acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Frame Shifting as a Challenge to Integrating Computational Thinking in Secondary Mathematics Education

Published: 05 March 2021 Publication History

Abstract

In this study, we adapted the notion of framing, a theoretical construct that refers to a person's expectations about social spaces (Goffman, 1974), to investigate whether teachers viewed computational thinking (CT) according to subject-specific frames. This case study aimed to understand how teachers make connections between CT and subjects targeted for integration. Epistemological framing contributed new insights on why teachers connected CT in different ways to different subjects: frame shifting focused teachers' attention on goals and activities specific to each subject. As teachers attended to a subject's particularities, they drew upon different epistemic resources to construct their descriptions of CT. Our participants (n=6) were teachers who taught both 7th-12th grade computing and mathematics as separate subjects. Qualitative coding of interview transcripts revealed that teachers' ideas about CT in computing were strongly influenced by computer programming while their ideas about CT in mathematics corresponded with familiar ways of teaching and learning mathematics. Instead of accepting fragmented notions of CT as the price of integration into individual subjects, we propose limiting the scope when defining CT. We explain how this non-intuitive strategy can preserve the coherence of CT and how it might be used in CT professional development (PD) for mathematics teachers.

References

[1]
Ahamed, S.I. et al. 2010. Computational thinking for the sciences: a three day workshop for high school science teachers. Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (New York, NY, USA, Mar. 2010), 42--46.
[2]
Benton, L. et al. 2017. Bridging Primary Programming and Mathematics: Some Findings of Design Research in England. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education. 3, 2 (Aug. 2017), 115--138.
[3]
Campbell, J.L. et al. 2013. Coding In-depth Semi-structured Interviews: Problems of Unitization and Intercoder Reliability and Agreement. Sociological Methods & Research. 42, 3 (2013), 294--320.
[4]
Denning, P.J. and Freeman, P.A. 2009. The profession of IT: Computing's paradigm. Communications of the ACM. 52, 12 (Dec. 2009), 28--30.
[5]
Garrison, D.R. et al. 2006. Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability. The Internet and Higher Education. 9, 1 (Jan. 2006), 1--8.
[6]
Hestness, E. et al. 2018. Professional Knowledge Building within an Elementary Teacher Professional Development Experience on Computational Think¬ing in Science Education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 26, 3 (Jul. 2018), 411--435.
[7]
Jaipal-Jamani, K. and Angeli, C. 2017. Effect of Robotics on Elementary Pre-service Teachers' Self-Efficacy, Science Learning, and Computational Thinking. Journal of science education and technology. 26, 2 (Apr. 2017), 175--192.
[8]
Ketelhut, D.J. et al. 2020. Teacher Change Following a Professional Development Experience in Integrating Computational Thinking into Elementary Sci¬ence. Journal of science education and technology. 29, 1 (Feb. 2020), 174--188.
[9]
Lee, I. and 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, 1 (Feb. 2020), 9--18.
[10]
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. 1984. Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of new methods. Sage Publications.
[11]
Morreale, P. et al. 2012. Measuring the impact of computational thinking workshops on high school teachers. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 27, 6 (Jun. 2012), 151--157.
[12]
Morrissey, E.R. 1974. Sources of Error in the Coding of Questionnaire Data. Sociological methods & research. 3, 2 (Nov. 1974), 209--232.
[13]
Pérez, A. 2018. A Framework for Computational Thinking Dispositions in Mathematics Education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 49, 4 (2018), 424--461.
[14]
Pollock, L. et al. 2017. From Professional Development to the Classroom: Findings from CS K-12 Teachers. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (New York, NY, USA, Mar. 2017), 477--482.
[15]
Rambally, G. 2015. The Synergism of Mathematical Thinking and Computational Thinking. Cases on Technology Integration in Mathematics Education. IGI Global. 416--437.
[16]
Rich, K.M. et al. 2019. Computational Thinking, Mathematics, and Science: Elementary Teachers? Perspectives on Integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 27, 2 (2019), 165--205.
[17]
van de Sande, C.C. and Greeno, J.G. 2012. Achieving Alignment of Perspectival Framings in Problem-Solving Discourse. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 21, 1 (Jan. 2012), 1--44.
[18]
Sands, P. et al. 2018. Computational Thinking in K-12: In-service Teacher Perceptions of Computational Thinking. Computational Thinking in the STEM Disciplines: Foundations and Research Highlights. M.S. Khine, ed. Springer In¬ternational Publishing. 151--164.
[19]
Weintrop, D. et al. 2016. Defining Computational Thinking for Mathematics and Science Classrooms. Journal of science education and technology. 25, 1 (Feb. 2016), 127--147.
[20]
Wing, J.M. 2010. Computational Thinking: What and Why? The Link (Carnegie Mellon University).
[21]
Yadav, A. et al. 2017. Computational thinking for teacher education. Communications of the ACM. 60, 4 (Mar. 2017), 55--62.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Professional Development in Computational Thinking: A Systematic Literature ReviewACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/364847724:2(1-24)Online publication date: 10-May-2024
  • (2023)Integration of computational thinking activities in Grade 10 mathematics learningInternational Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147- 4478)10.20525/ijrbs.v12i2.237212:2(458-471)Online publication date: 25-Mar-2023
  • (2023)Unplugging Math: Integrating Computational Thinking into Mathematics Education Through Poly-UniverseSmart Learning Ecosystems as Engines of the Green and Digital Transition10.1007/978-981-99-5540-4_15(247-263)Online publication date: 27-Sep-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Frame Shifting as a Challenge to Integrating Computational Thinking in Secondary Mathematics Education

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGCSE '21: Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
      March 2021
      1454 pages
      ISBN:9781450380621
      DOI:10.1145/3408877
      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Sponsors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 05 March 2021

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. computational thinking
      2. disciplinarity
      3. epistemic resource
      4. framing
      5. professional development
      6. secondary mathematics education
      7. teacher perspective
      8. theory

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article

      Funding Sources

      • Ministry of Education, Singapore

      Conference

      SIGCSE '21
      Sponsor:

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate 1,595 of 4,542 submissions, 35%

      Upcoming Conference

      SIGCSE TS 2025
      The 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
      February 26 - March 1, 2025
      Pittsburgh , PA , USA

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)37
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
      Reflects downloads up to 06 Jan 2025

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2024)Professional Development in Computational Thinking: A Systematic Literature ReviewACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/364847724:2(1-24)Online publication date: 10-May-2024
      • (2023)Integration of computational thinking activities in Grade 10 mathematics learningInternational Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147- 4478)10.20525/ijrbs.v12i2.237212:2(458-471)Online publication date: 25-Mar-2023
      • (2023)Unplugging Math: Integrating Computational Thinking into Mathematics Education Through Poly-UniverseSmart Learning Ecosystems as Engines of the Green and Digital Transition10.1007/978-981-99-5540-4_15(247-263)Online publication date: 27-Sep-2023
      • (2021)Designing gamification for geometry in elementary schools: insights from the designersSmart Learning Environments10.1186/s40561-021-00181-88:1Online publication date: 17-Dec-2021

      View Options

      Login options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media