Abstract
One characteristic of high-quality mathematics teaching is supporting students in engaging in tasks of high cognitive demand. In this paper, we explore relationships between two elementary teachers’ efforts to integrate computational thinking (CT) practices—abstraction, debugging, and decomposition—into their mathematics instruction and their development of high-level tasks. Teachers engaged in professional development sessions about CT. Using their mathematics curriculum materials as a starting point, teachers then planned mathematics lessons to incorporate attention to at least one CT practice. Researchers transcribed their conversations and qualitatively coded the transcripts using an established framework for assessing the cognitive demand of tasks posed to students. Analyses of the planning conversations suggested that encouraging these teachers to examine their mathematics curriculum materials through the lens of CT practices supported them in adapting tasks from their curriculum materials in ways that raised the cognitive demand. Implications for the use of CT in elementary mathematics teacher education are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and material
Not applicable.
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
Amador, J. M. (2016). Teachers ’ considerations of students’ thinking during mathematics lesson design. School Science and Mathematics, 116(5), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12175
Boston, M. (2012). Assessing instructional quality in mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 113(1), 76–104. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.). Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–36 Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203884645
Brown, Q., & Mongan, W., & Kusic, D., & Garbarine, E., & Fromm, E., & Fontecchio, A. (2008, June), Computer Aided Instruction As A Vehicle For Problem Solving: Scratch Boards In The Middle Years Classroom. Paper presented at 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition, https://peer.asee.org/3826
Choppin, J. (2011). Learned adaptations: Teachers’ understanding and use of curriculum resources. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(5), 331–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-011-9170-3
Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/
Curzon, P., Bell, T., Waite, J., & Dorling, M. (2019). Computational thinking. In S. A. Fincher & A. V. Robins (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of computing education research (pp. 513–546). Cambridge University Press.
Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034003003
Denning, P. J. (2017). Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998438
Drake, C., Land, T. J., Bartell, T. G., Aguirre, J. M., Foote, M. Q., McDuffie, A. R., & Turner, E. E. (2015). Three strategies for opening curriculum spaces. Teaching Children Mathematics, 21(6), 346–353. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.21.6.0346
Duncan, C., Bell, T., & Atlas, J. (2017). What do the teachers think ? Introducing computational thinking in the primary school curriculum. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp. 65–74). https://doi.org/10.1145/3013499.3013506
Fuson, K. (2012). Math expressions. Houghton-Mifflin Harcourt.
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.
Gadanidis, G., Cendros, R., Floyd, L., & Namukasa, I. (2017). Computational thinking in mathematics teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 458–477.
Grant, T. J., Kline, K., Crumbaugh, C., Kim, O.-K., & Cengiz, N. (2009). How can curriculum materials support teachers in pursuing student thinking during whole-group discussions? In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 103–117). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203884645
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
Israel, M., Pearson, J. N., Tapia, T., Wherfel, Q. M., & Reese, G. (2015). Supporting all learners in school-wide computational thinking: A cross-case qualitative analysis. Computers and Education, 82, 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.022
Kallia, M., van Borkulo, S. P., Drijvers, P., Barendsen, E., & Tolboom, J. (2021). Characterising computational thinking in mathematics education: A literature-informed Delphi study. Research in Mathematics Education, 23(2), 159–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2020.1852104
Lampert, M., Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A. C., Beasley, H., & Crowe, K. (2013). Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 226–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112473837
Land, T. J., Bartell, T. G., Drake, C., Foote, M. Q., Roth McDuffie, A., Turner, E. E., & Aguirre, J. M. (2019). Curriculum spaces for connecting to children’s multiple mathematical knowledge bases. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(4), 471–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1428365
Maxwell, J. A. (2015). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Los Angeles: SAGE.
McGee, J. R., Wang, C., & Polly, D. (2013). Guiding teachers in the use of a standards-based mathematics curriculum: Teacher perceptions and subsequent instructional practices after an intensive professional development program. School Science and Mathematics, 113(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00172.x
Moore, T. J., Brophy, S. P., Tank, K. M., Lopez, R. D., Johnston, A. C., Hynes, M. M., & Gajdzik, E. (2020). Multiple representations in computational thinking tasks: A clinical study of second-grade students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09812-0
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors. http://www.corestandards.org/Math/
National Research Council. (2011). Report of a workshop on the pedagogical aspects of computational thinking. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13170.
Nordby, S. K., Bjerke, A. H., & Mifsud, L. (2022). Computational thinking in the primary mathematics classroom: A systematic review. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 8(1), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-022-00102-5
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books Inc.
Pérez, A. (2018). A framework for computational thinking dispositions in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 49(4), 424–461. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.49.4.0424
Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211
Remillard, J. T. (2012). Modes of engagement: Understanding teachers’ transactions with mathematics curriculum resources. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to “lived” resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development (pp. 105–122). Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1966-8
Rich, K. M., Spaepen, E., Strickland, C., & Moran, C. (2020). Synergies and differences in mathematical and computational thinking: Implications for integrated instruction. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(3), 272–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1612445
Rich, K. M., & Yadav, A. (2020). Applying levels of abstraction to mathematics word problems. TechTrends. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00479-3
Rich, K. M., Yadav, A., & Schwarz, C. V. (2019). Computational thinking, mathematics, and science: Elementary teachers’ perspectives on integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 27(2), 165–205.
Rich, K. M., Yadav, A., & Zhu, M. (2019). Levels of abstraction in students’ mathematics strategies: What can applying computer science ideas about abstraction bring to elementary mathematics? Journal of Computer in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 38(3), 267–298.
Sherin, M. G., & Drake, C. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: Investigating patterns in teachers’ use of a reform-based elementary mathematics curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(4), 467–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270802696115
Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (1998). Selecting and creating mathematical tasks: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(5), 344–350. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTMS.3.5.0344
Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312033002455
Stein, M. K., & Kaufman, J. H. (2010). Selecting and supporting the use of mathematics curricula at scale. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 663–693. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209361210
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 12–17.
Taylor, M. W. (2016). From effective curricula toward effective curriculum use. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 47(5), 440–453. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.47.5.0440
Tekkumru Kisa, M., & Stein, M. K. (2015). Learning to see teaching in new ways: A foundation for maintaining cognitive demand. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 105–136. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214549452
Teong, S. K. (2003). The effect of metacognitive training on mathematical word-problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 46–55.
Vahrenhold, J., Cutts, Q., & Falkner, K. (2019). Schools (K-12). In S. A. Fincher & A. V. Robins (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research (pp. 547–583). Cambridge University Press.
Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
Yadav, A., Ocak, C., & Oliver, A. (2022). Computational Thinking and Metacognition. TechTrends. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00695-z
Yadav, A., Stephenson, C., & Hong, H. (2017). Computational thinking for teacher education. Communications of the ACM, 60(4), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/2994591
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage Publications.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Corey Drake for her comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
Funding
This study is supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number 1738677. Any opinions, findings, or recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Ethics approval
The Institutional review board at the university at which this study was conducted approved the study.
Consent to participate
Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Rich, K.M., Yadav, A. & Fessler, C.J. Computational thinking practices as tools for creating high cognitive demand mathematics instruction. J Math Teacher Educ 27, 235–255 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-022-09562-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-022-09562-3