From classroom lessons to exploratory learning progressions: mathematics + computational thinking

References

• Begel, A. (1996). Logoblocks: A graphical programming language for interacting with the world (pp. 62–64). Boston, MA: Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department, MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, BC (Vol. 1, p. 25).
   Google Scholar
• Bryan, L. A., Moore, T. J., Johnson, C. C., & Roehrig, G. H. (2015). Integrated STEM education. In C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton, & T. J. Moore (Eds.), STEM road map (pp. 23–37). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Burns, M. (1994). The greedy triangle. New York, NY: Scholastic.
   Google Scholar
• Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2004). Mathematical thinking and learning trajectories in mathematics education learning trajectories in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 81–89.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Computer Science Teachers Association. (2017). CSTA K-12 computer science standards, revised 2017. Retrieved from https://www.csteachers.org/page/standards
   Google Scholar
• Confrey, J., Maloney, A. P., & Corley, A. K. (2014, October). Learning trajectories: A framework for connecting standards with curriculum. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46(5), 719–733. doi: 10.1007/s11858-014-0598-7
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Cuoco, A., Goldenberg, E. P., & Mark, J. (1996). Habits of mind: An organizing principle for mathematics curricula. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15(4), 375–402.
   Google Scholar
• Daro, P., Mosher, F. A., & Corcoran, T. B. (2011). Learning trajectories in mathematics: A foundation for standards, curriculum, assessment, and instruction (CPRE Research Reports). Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=cpre_researchreports
   Google Scholar
• Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8 (Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 163–166). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school stem education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 5–24.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrini-Mundy, J., & Martin, W. G. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM).
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Grounded theory: The discovery of grounded theory. Sociology, the Journal of the British Sociological Society, 12, 27–49.
   Google Scholar
• Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harden, R. M. (1999). What is a spiral curriculum? Medical Teacher, 21(2), 141–143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–32.
   Google Scholar
• Jona, K., Wilensky, U., Trouille, L., Horn, M., Orton, K., Weintrop, D., & Beheshti, E. (2014). Embedding computational thinking in science, technology, engineering, and math (CT-STEM). Future directions in computer science education summit meeting, Orlando, FL.
   Google Scholar
• Kiray, S. A. (2012). A new model for the integration of science and mathematics: The balance model. Energy Education Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies, 4(3), 1181–1196.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, I., Martin, F., & Apone, K. (2014). Integrating computational thinking across the K-8 curriculum. ACM Inroads, 5(4), 64–71.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., … Werner, L. (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads, 2(1), 32–37.
   Google Scholar
• Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4), 1–15. doi: 10.1145/1868358.1868363
   Google Scholar
• Masters, G. (2016). Policy insights: Five challenges in Australian school education. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=policyinsights
   Google Scholar
• Mateas, V. (2016). Debunking myths about the standards for mathematical practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 22(2), 92–99.
   Google Scholar
• Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1 (2), Art. 20. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2385#gcit.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2005). On evaluating curricular effectiveness: Judging the quality of K–12 mathematics evaluations. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 397–430). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Papert, S. (2006). Afterword: After How comes what. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 581–586). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pei, C., Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2018). Cultivating computational thinking practices and mathematical habits of mind in lattice land. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 20(1), 75–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K.,  …  Kafai, Y. B. (2009). Scratch: programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rich, K. M., Strickland, C., Binkowski, T. A., Moran, C., & Franklin, D. (2017, August 18–20). K-8 learning trajectories derived from research literature: Sequence, repetition, conditionals. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on International Computing Education Research, Tacoma, WA (pp. 182–190). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Schanzer, E., Fisler, K., Krishnamurthi, S., & Felleisen, M. (2015, March 4–7). Transferring skills at solving word problems from computing to Algebra through bootstrap. Proceedings of the 46th ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education, Kansas City, MO (pp. 616–621). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Sneider, C., Stephenson, C., Schafer, B., & Flick, L. (2014). Teacher's toolkit: Exploring the science framework and NGSS: Computational thinking in the science classroom. Science Scope, 38(3), 10.
   Google Scholar
• Standards for Mathematical Practice. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2019). Retrieved October 11, 2019, from Corestandards.org website: http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Practice/
   Google Scholar
• Vasquez, J. A. (2015). STEM—Beyond the Acronym. Educational Leadership, 72(4), 10–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vasquez, J. A., Comer, M., & Sneider, C. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3–8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.
   Google Scholar
• Waterman, K., Goldsmith, L., Pasquale, M., Goldenberg, E. P., Malyn-Smith, J., DeMallie, A., & Lee, I. A. (2018). Integrating computational thinking into elementary mathematics and science curriculum materials and instruction. Pixel (Ed.), Conference proceedings: The Future of Education 2018. Florence: Libreria Universitaria Edizioni.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weintrop, D., & Holbert, N. (2017, March 8–11). From blocks to text and back: Programming patterns in a dual-modality environment. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education, Seattle, WA (pp. 633–638). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar