Abstract

Abstract In this paper we investigate students’ computational thinking in mathematics education. Specifically, through the analysis of teaching experiments conducted as qualitative case studies, we explore aspects of constructionism and problem solving. In different learning scenarios, pairs of elementary school and undergraduate students explored coding puzzles in order to complete a posed computational-mathematical task. From a constructionist point of view, the results indicate that the learning experience involved a problem solving spiral of description, execution, reflection and debugging. In the case of the experience of the undergraduate students, we also identified specific characteristics of computational thinking related to heuristic processes such as exploration, planning, analysis, and verification.

Highlights

  • The genesis of the very notion of computational thinking is directly related to problem solving, which is integral to mathematics doing and learning

  • In this paper we focus on on-screen programming, often referred to as coding, and we are especially interested in the role coding plays in problem solving when the same task is explored at different school levels, that is, how an open-ended mathematics/coding task offers ways to engage elementary school and undergraduate students in heuristics processes of learning mathematics

  • As an initial strategy to built our theoretical framework, we explore the very notion of networking of theories (Artigue & Mariotti, 2014; Bikner-Ahsbahs & Prediger, 2010), because we seek to elaborate connections between computational thinking, constructionism, problem solving, and heuristics

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The genesis of the very notion of computational thinking is directly related to problem solving, which is integral to mathematics doing and learning. According to Wing (2008), Computational thinking is a kind of analytical thinking It shares with mathematical thinking in the general ways in which we might approach solving a problem. It shares with engineering thinking in the general ways in which we might approach designing and evaluating a large, complex system that operates within the constraints of the real world. It shares with scientific thinking in the general ways in which we might approach understanding computability, intelligence, the mind and human behaviour. It shares with scientific thinking in the general ways in which we might approach understanding computability, intelligence, the mind and human behaviour. (p. 3717)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call