Examining the Building and Coding Tasks Developed by Pre-service Mathematics Teachers in Terms of Curriculum Integration

Year 2023, Volume: 7 Issue: 14, 272 - 286, 31.07.2023

Eyüp Sevimli , Emin Aydın , Ahmet Şükrü Özdemir , Gökhan Derin

https://doi.org/10.31458/iejes.1238441

Abstract

Interdisciplinary approach recommended for use in the teaching mathematics in the last decade, the related literature shows that limited study focused on the reflection of the interdisciplinary approach in teaching practice. The aim of this study is to evaluate pre-service mathematics teachers’ task development processes on interdisciplinary approaches through building and coding tasks. Research was conducted with 28 pre-service mathematics teachers studying at a mathematics education department in Turkey. Data were gathered from the analysis of lesson plans and semi-structured interviews. The findings that were obtained through the lesson plans of the participants indicated that participants were able to associate building tasks more with numbers content domain and mathematical modeling skills, and coding tasks with geometry content domain and algorithmic thinking skills. The participants stated that tasks involving coding in their lesson plans would be more useful in terms of teaching mathematics and listed the factors limiting the use of building tasks as technical knowledge and cost.

Keywords

Building task, Coding task, curriculum integration, teacher education

Supporting Institution

Marmara University Scientific Research Project Committee

Project Number

Project Number: EGTB-170118-0027

References

• Anderson, J. (2003). Teachers’ choice of tasks: A window into beliefs about the role of problem solving in learning mathematics. In L. Bragg, C. Campbell, G. Herbert, & J. Mousley (Eds.), Mathematics education research: Innovation, networking, opportunity. Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 72-79). Sydney, Australia: MERGA.
• Aslan-Tutak, F., Akaygün, S., & Tezsezen, S. (2017). Collaboratively learning to teach STEM: change in participating preservice teachers’ awareness of STEM. Journal of Education, 32(4), 794-816.
• Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators [AMTE] (2017). Standards for preparing teachers of mathematics. Retrieved from http://amte.net/standards.
• Aydın, E., Sevimli, E., Özdemir, A. Ş., & Derin, G. (2019). Matematik eğitimi ve kodlama (Mathematics education and coding). In A.K. Kirkiç, & E. Aydin (Eds). Merhaba STEM: Yenilikçi bir öğretim yaklaşımı [Hello STEM: An innovative teaching approach] (pp. 114-125). Konya: Eğitim Yayınevi.
• Balanskat, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2014). Computing our future: Computer programming and coding - Priorities, school curricula and initiatives across Europe. European Schoolnet. Retrieved from http://www.eun.org/resources/detail?publicationID=481
• Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effect of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 12, 23-37.
• Blum, W., & Ferri, R. B. (2009). Mathematical modeling: Can it be taught and learnt? Journal of Mathematical Modeling and Applications, 1(1), 45-58.
• Bracey, G., & Brooks, M., (2013). Teachers’ training: Building formal STEM teaching efficacy through informal science teaching experience. ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda Conference, Grand Valley State University, Michigan.
• Bråting, K. & Kilhamn, C. (2022). The integration of programming in Swedish school mathematics: investigating elementary mathematics textbooks. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66(4), 594-609. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2021.1897879 Calao, L. A., Moreno-León, J., Correa, H. E., & Robles, G. (2015). Developing mathematical thinking with Scratch. An experiment with 6th grade students. In: G. Conole, T, Klobučar, C. Rensing, J. Konert, E. Lavoué (Eds). Design for teaching and learning in a networked world, (pp. 17-27). Springer: Cham.
• Chapman, O. (2013). Mathematical-task knowledge for teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-013-9234-7
• Çınar, S. Pırasa, N., Uzun, N., & Erenler, S. (2016). The effect of STEM education on pre-service science teachers’ perception of interdisciplinary education. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13, 118-142.
• Clarke, D., & Roche, A. (2010). Teachers' extent of the use of particular task types in mathematics and choices behind that use. Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
• Çorlu, M. S. (2017). STEM: Bütünleşik öğretmenlik çerçevesi (STEM: Integrated Teaching Framework). In M. S. Corlu & E. Çallı (Eds.), STEM Kuram ve Uygulamaları [STEM Theory and Applications] (pp. 1–10). İstanbul: Pusula.
• Çorlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M., & Çorlu, M. A. (2015). Investigating the mental readiness of pre-service teachers for integrated teaching. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(1), 17-28.
• English, L. D. (2015). STEM: Challenges and opportunities for mathematics education. In K. Beswick, T. Muir, & J. Wells (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol.1, pp. 3–18). Hobart, Australia: PME.
• Forsström, S. E., & Kaufmann, O. T., (2018). A literature review exploring the use of programming in mathematics education. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 17 (12), 18-32.
• Francis, K., & Davis, B. (2018). Coding robots as a source of instantiations for arithmetic. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 4, 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-018-0042-7
• Gadanidis, G. (2015). Coding as a trojan horse for mathematics education reform. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 34(2), 155-173.
• Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43.
• Hubwieser, P., Giannakos, M., Berges, M., Brinda, T., Diethelm, I., Magenheim, J., Pal, Y. Jackova, J., & Jasute, E. (2015). A global snapshot of computer science education in k-12 schools. Proceedings of the 2015 ITiCSE on Working Group Reports.
• Jacobs, H. H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Leung, A., & Bolite-Frant, J. (2015). Designing mathematics tasks: The role of tools, In A. Watson & M.Ohtani (Eds.) Task Design in Mathematics Education (pp. 191-227). Springer: Cham.
• Lewis, C. M., & Shah, N. (2012). Building upon and enriching grade four mathematics standards with programming curriculum. Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education, (pp. 57-62). North Carolina University: USA.
• Michael, K. A., & Omoloye, E. A. (2014). Improving structural designs with computer programming in building construction. IOSR Journal of Computer Engineering, 16(3), 10-16.
• Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2018). Matematik dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) [Primary and middle school 1st-8th grades mathematics curriculum]. Ankara: MEB.
• Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS Inter. Study Center.
• Nadelson, L. D., Seifert A., Moll, A. J., & Coat, B. (2012). I-STEM summer institute: An integrated approach to teacher professional development in STEM. Journal of STEM Education, 13(2), 69-83.
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (1991). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics, Reston, VA: Author.
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (2020). Standards for the preparation of middle level mathematics teachers, Reston, VA: Author.
• Ostler, E. (2012). 21st century STEM education: a tactical model for long-range success. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 2(1), 28-33.
• Özdemir, A. Ş., Sevimli, E., Aydın, E., & Derin, G. (2018, November). Examining the opinions of mathematics teacher candidates on the effectiveness of coding activities in the teaching-learning process. Paper presented at (10th November 2018) British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics (BSRLM), King’s College, London, UK.
• Pinnell, M., Rowley, J., Preiss, S., Franco, S., Blust, R., & Beach, R. (2013). Bridging the gap between engineering design and K-12 curriculum development through the use of the STEM education quality framework. Journal of STEM Education, 14(4), 28-35.
• Sayın, Z., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2016, February). Yeni bir 21. yüzyıl becerisi olarak kodlama eğitimi ve kodlamanın eğitim politikalarına etkisi (Coding education as a new 21st century skill and its effect on education policies). Akademik Bilişim Konferansı, 3-5 Şubat 2016, Adnan Menderes University, Aydın.
• Sevimli, E., & Ünal, E. (2021). Is the STEM approach useful in teaching mathematics? Evaluating the views of mathematics teachers. European Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/11775
• Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: Analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 455- 488.
• Taylor, M., Harlow, A., & Forret, M. (2010). Using a computer programming environment and an interactive whiteboard to investigate some mathematical thinking. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 561–570.
• Topçu, M. S., & Gökçe, A. (2018). STEM ve mühendislik (STEM and engineering). A.K. Kırkıç & E Aydın (Eds.), Merhaba STEM: Yenilikçi Bir Öğretim Yaklaşımı [Hello STEM: An innovative teaching approach] (ss.79-94). Konya: Eğitim Yayınevi.
• Yıldırım, B. (2018). Teoriden pratiğe STEM eğitimi [STEM education from theory to practice]. Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
• Yıldırım, B., & Altun, Y. (2015). Investigating the effect of STEM education and engineering applications on science laboratory lectures. El-Jezeri Journal of Science and Engineering, 2(2), 28-40.