Recently, computational thinking has attracted much research attention, especially within primary and secondary education settings. However, incorporating computational thinking (CT) in mathematics or other disciplines is not a straightforward process and introduces many challenges concerning the way disciplines are organised and taught in school. The aim of this paper is to identify what characterises CT in mathematics education and which CT aspects can be addressed within mathematics education. First, we present a systematic literature review that identifies characteristics of computational thinking that have been explored in mathematics education research. Second, we present the results of a Delphi study conducted to capture the collective opinion of 25 experts in both the fields of mathematics education and computer science regarding the opportunities for addressing computational thinking in mathematics education. The results of the Delphi study, which corroborate the findings of the literature review, highlight three important aspects of computational thinking to be addressed in mathematics education: problem solving, cognitive processes, and transposition.
Despite a growing effort to implement computational thinking (CT) skills in primary schools, little research is reported about what CT skills to teach at what age. Therefore, the research questions that guide this study read: (1) How is age related to students' success in computational thinking tasks? (2) How are computational thinking tasks perceived by students? (3) How do students' experience learning with respect to computational thinking? 200 primary school students between the age of 6 and 12 participated in this study. These students got introduced to two CT subjects: abstraction and decomposition. We found that age seems to be related with these concepts, with an interaction effect for gender in the abstraction task. No differences found between young and older students in the constructs perceived difficulty, cognitive load, and flow indicate that young primary school students can engage in learning these CT skills.
Cognitive interviewing (CI) provides a method of systematically collecting validity evidence of response processes for questionnaire items. CI involves a range of techniques for prompting individuals to verbalise their responses to items. One such technique is concurrent verbalisation, as developed in Think Aloud Protocol (TAP). This article investigates the value of the technique for validating questionnaire items administered to young people in international surveys. To date, the literature on TAP has focused on allaying concerns about reactivitywhether response processes are affected by thinking aloud. This article investigates another concern, namely the completeness of concurrent verbalisations the extent to which respondents verbalise their response processes. An independent, exploratory validation of the PISA assessment of student self-efficacy in mathematics by a small international team of researchers using CI with concurrent verbalisation in four education systems (England, Estonia, Hong Kong, and the Netherlands) provided the basis for this investigation. The researchers found that students generally thought aloud in response to each of the items, thereby providing validity evidence of responses processes varying within and between the education systems, but that practical steps could be taken to increase the completeness of concurrent verbalisations in future validations.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.