Search for: All records

Abstract Natural language helps express mathematical thinking and contexts. Conventional mathematical notation (CMN) best suits expressions and equations. Each is essential; each also has limitations, especially for learners. Our research studies how programming can be a advantageous third language that can also help restore mathematical connections that are hidden by topic‐centred curricula. Restoring opportunities for surprise and delight reclaims mathematics' creative nature. Studies of children's use of language in mathematics and their programming behaviours guide our iterative design/redesign of mathematical microworlds in which students, ages 7–11, use programming in their regular school lessonsas a language for learning mathematics. Though driven by mathematics, not coding, the microworlds develop the programming over time so that it continues to support children's developing mathematical ideas. This paper briefly describes microworlds EDC has tested with well over 400 7‐to‐8‐year‐olds in school, and others tested (or about to be tested) with over 200 8‐to‐11‐year‐olds. Our challenge was to satisfy schools' topical orientation and fit easily within regular classroom study but use and foreshadow other mathematical learning to remove the siloes. The design/redesign research and evaluation is exploratory, without formal methodology. We are also more formally studying effects on children's learning. That ongoing study is not reported here. Practitioner notesWhat is already knownActive learning—doing—supports learning.Collaborative learning—doingtogether—supports learning.Classroom discourse—focused, relevantdiscussion, not just listening—supports learning.Clear articulation of one's thinking, even just to oneself, helps develop that thinking.What this paper addsThe common languages we use for classroom mathematics—natural language for conveying the meaning and context of mathematical situations and for explaining our reasoning; and the formal (written) language of conventional mathematical notation, the symbols we use in mathematical expressions and equations—are both essential but each presents hurdles that necessitate the other. Yet, even together, they are insufficient especially for young learners.Programming, appropriately designed and used, can be the third language that both reduces barriers and provides the missing expressive and creative capabilities children need.Appropriate design for use in regular mathematics classrooms requires making key mathematical content obvious, strong and the ‘driver’ of the activities, and requires reducing tech ‘overhead’ to near zero.Continued usefulness across the grades requires developing children's sophistication and knowledge with the language; the powerful ways that children rapidly acquire facility with (natural) language provides guidance for ways they can learn a formal language as well.Implications for policy and/or practiceMathematics teaching can take advantage of the ways children learn through experimentation and attention to the results, and of the ways children use their language brain even for mathematics.In particular, programming—in microworlds driven by the mathematical content, designed to minimise distraction and overhead, open to exploration and discoveryen routeto focused aims, and in which childrenself‐evaluate—can allow clear articulation of thought, experimentation with immediate feedback.As it aids the mathematics, it also builds computational thinking and satisfies schools' increasing concerns to broaden access to ideas of computer science. 

Integrating programming activities into core mathematics instruction can increase children’s access to critical content. Programming gives children a language with which to express, refine, and extend their thinking. 

Abstract This article reports on an exploration of how second-graders can learn mathematics through programming. We started from the theory that a suitably designed programming language can serve children as a language for expressing and experimenting with mathematical ideas and processes in order to do mathematics and thereby, with appropriate tasks and teaching, learn and enjoy the subject. This is very different from using the computer as a teaching app or a digital medium for exploration. Children tackled genuine puzzles – problems for which they did not already have a pre-learned solution. So far, we have built four microworlds for second-graders and tested them with a diverse population of well over three hundred children. The microworlds focus on the most critical second-grade mathematical content (as mandated in state standards), let children pick up all key programming ideas in contexts that make them ‘obvious’ (to maintain focus on the mathematics) and suppress all other distractions to minimize overhead for teachers or students using the microworlds. Because children see the results of the actions they articulate (in the computer language, Snap ! ), they can evaluate their methods and solutions themselves. The feedback is purely the outcome, not happy or sad sounds from the computer. Notably, nearly all children showed intense engagement, some choosing microworlds even outside of mathematics time. Teachers spontaneously reported this as well, with special mention of children whom they found hard to engage in regular lessons. We report our experiments and observations in the spirit of sharing the ideas and promoting more research.