Coding + Math: Strengthen K–5 Math Skills With Computer Science

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) innovations continue to be important factors in the growth and development of economies around the world. STEM initiatives, including an increase in the implementation of a range of computer science (CS) programs in K–5 classrooms, such as Code.org, Code Club, CoderDojo, and Learn to Code, are on the rise. Under these initiatives, CS education often includes what is considered basic coding, computer programming, and computational thinking. For this reason, the term coding is used more frequently in K–5 classrooms to refer to computer-science- and computer-programming-related activities. However, in this book the term coding is used to identify the basic entry into CS, while the term computer science (CS) is used to encompass that deeper level of thinking desired from K–5 students in a rapidly evolving technological society. The line between the two is often blurred, but understanding the baseline definition and practices of both is essential for the appropriate integration of CS in mathematics.

Researchers have suggested that students benefit from motivational factors related to coding; however, little is known about the potential impact of programming and computational thinking on elementary-aged students’ achievement (Howard, 2018). Regardless, there is an emerging consensus about the importance of teaching coding in elementary grades. We are witnessing international efforts to expand coding programs to include more students. Expanding access to coding potentially means an earlier introduction to the deeper lessons taught through CS and programming into elementary classrooms. Such an expansion helps to increase the quality and quantity of students in the STEM pipeline (Tran, 2018). Furthermore, the current trajectory remains as an engaged digital era in which more CS, programming, and software engineering mindsets will be in demand; therefore, there is an increased need for K–5 educators to prepare to integrate CS into their current instruction with fidelity. In doing so, we recognize that there are obvious benefits to selecting visual-based over text-based programming as an ideal entry point to CS for elementary grade levels (Figure 0.1).

Figure 0.1 Hello World: program comparison of a visual-based vs. text-based programming language (photo credit: Emily de la Pena).

According to de la Pena (2017), visual-based programming is more readable, easier to use with limited technical knowledge, and requires less typing than text-based programming. We encourage the approach of using visual-based programming in elementary settings, and we also support the idea of providing a high ceiling to create opportunities for students to explore further. Additionally, we recognize that leveraging CS interest and engagement to teach mathematics offers young learners an opportunity to make real-world connections between CS and math, while potentially increasing mathematics achievement gains. For example, elementary students may be asked in an integrated CS and math lesson to write code to construct shapes in order to evaluate their geometric reasoning. Instead of the CS activity occurring as a separate activity, the elementary students are immersed in the CS experience through a core content area. The CS and math lesson would engage students, but more importantly, educators would have an opportunity to introduce integrated lessons aligned to standards that prepare elementary students for future classes.

What’s in This Book?

Throughout subsequent chapters, we will juxtapose visual-based and text-based activities through research-based project examples to demonstrate how to differentiate instruction in order to ensure young learners are exposed to both forms of programming before reaching secondary grade levels. The projects will demonstrate alignment with Common Core Mathematics Principles and Standards, CSTA K–12 Standards, and the K–12 Computer Science Framework. At the same time, persistent and substantial learning differentials call for additional strategies to fill the gap between the adoption of standards and the enactment of practices, programs, and actions required for the successful implementation of those standards (NCTM, 2014). Therefore, we will also outline the four practices in Brennan and Resnick’s Computational Thinking Framework and the importance of seeking Mission Clarity when choosing the right curriculum path for students.

With this in mind, chapters in this book will include the following:

• Current research related to the inclusion of CS in K–5 classrooms

• Recommendations on how to incorporate CS to support strengthening math skills

• Practical programming examples that encourage Getting Out the Blocks

• Mission Clarity reminders to further support the decision-making process for CS integration in your own classroom

Throughout the book, you will see references to the ISTE Computer Science Standards for Educators. The ISTE Standards are a framework designed to support CS educators with the purposeful integration of technology. Although the CS Standards are not the primary focus of this book, it is imperative that consideration be given to the call for continued professional learning and the inclusion of each strand when designing projects for students.

Who Is This Book For?

This book is designed to reflect the contributions of faculty and K–12 leaders seeking to ensure that our approaches to incorporating coding in K–5 classrooms are informed by a clear understanding of its purpose. In addition to enhancing learning across different subject areas, coding can be the foundation for more in-depth CS studies later in the K–12 continuum, as well as for professional pursuit of CS-related careers. Some CS initiatives are explicitly designed to facilitate self-expression and develop social support channels, while others take the long view of providing conceptual and skill-based knowledge that can make the burgeoning field of CS more accessible to students underrepresented in the field. We seek to provide insight, research, and recommendations to assist educators in making curriculum-approach decisions that are in the best interests of their students.

Best,

Nicol and Keith

This chapter gives an overview of computer science in elementary settings, including information on how computing was first taught, how it has evolved to what we see today, and what we can expect to see in coming years.

Also included in this chapter:

• Research on the effectiveness of block coding

• Exploration of computational thinking concepts and practices

• Feature: Involving Parents in Coding Success by Veronica Godinez

• Resources to get started

Some form of computer science in elementary school settings has become more of an expectation for all students than an innovative rendezvous for privileged and fortunate school districts and schools. A brief history of computing’s origins in the elementary classroom will contextualize the kinds of computing prevalent in K–5 settings today and provide some insights into the major influences on the thinking that has shaped our instructional approaches to learning with computers. As personal computers first started to gain a foothold in schools in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Seymour Papert’s Logo programming language, written for teaching children to program via activities with a digital or robotic turtle, was a central component in harnessing the power of computers to help young children develop mathematical ideas and understanding. Papert, a South African born mathematician, computer scientist, and a protégé of Jean Piaget, was inspired by the role that his love of gears as a young child played in his own subsequent love of abstract ideas in mathematics. He relied heavily on Piaget’s cognitive view of learning in natural settings without actually being taught, though he extended the concept to include affective influences that impact learning as well (Papert, 1980; 1993).

Papert believed that CS, through computer programming, could enable young children to acquire important mathematical ideas unencumbered by the math-phobic culture he saw as prevalent in the U.S. and Europe. Just as his connection to physical gears gave him an object to think with, he believed his Turtle Geometry, using a specific language called Turtle Talk, provided students an object with which to think through geometric concepts. Although the early years witnessed millions of students learning to program using LOGO or Basic (another programming language designed to teach the basic tenets of programming to beginners), the use of computers in school to teach programming waned in subsequent years. This has been attributed to difficult programming languages (at that time) and activities that lacked meaningful connection to students, lives (Resnick et al., 2009). Papert lamented the prominent use of computers in school to program the children rather than allowing the children to program the computer (Papert, 1993) and viewed traditional classroom instruction as an inefficient learning environment. He criticized the academics who began to conduct experiments to determine whether Logo could, in and of itself, cause changes in children’s thinking. He viewed Logo more as a tool that would make such changes possible. He opined that computers might allow us to create alternative learning spaces outside the classroom wherein children could learn without organized instruction. He acknowledged that his views implied that schools as we knew them might have no place in the future, giving way to a setting more conducive to a less formalized instructional approach (p. 9).

Block Coding: Meaningful Programming or Just Scratching the Surface?

Computer science and programming have seen resurgence in K–5 classrooms in recent years thanks, in large part, to Papert’s colleagues at the MIT Media Lab he helped to create. In 2007, they launched the Scratch website aimed at helping kids