Volume 14 · Number 3 · Pages 314–315
Describing Sustained Constructionist Activity

Chronis Kynigos

Log in download the full text in PDF

> Citation > Similar > References > Add Comment

Abstract

Open peer commentary on the article “Roles and Demands in Constructionist Teaching of Computational Thinking in University Mathematics” by Chantal Buteau, Ana Isabel Sacristán & Eric Muller. Abstract: Buteau, Sacristán and Muller’s target article raises the pertinent issue of how to describe a sustained undergraduate course on computational thinking and programming for mathematical learning. There is so little work on this issue that it is worthwhile to reflect on this study and to raise questions regarding the options and tools available or needed to understand sustained constructionist activity. Here, I focus on questions regarding how to understand the instructor’s craft knowledge in practice and what constructionist mathematical learning may look like when programming is at the service of engagement with mathematical concepts.

Citation

Kynigos C. (2019) Describing sustained constructionist activity. Constructivist Foundations 14(3): 314–315. https://constructivist.info/14/3/314

Export article citation data: Plain Text · BibTex · EndNote · Reference Manager (RIS)

References

Benton L., Hoyles C., Kalas I. & Noss R. (2017) Bridging primary programming and mathematics: Some findings of design research in England. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education 3(2): 115–138. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40751–017–0028-x
Grover S. & Pea R. (2018) Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come. In: Sentance S., Barendsen E. & Schulte C. (eds.) Computer science education: Perspectives on teaching and learning. Bloomsbury, London: 19–38. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Lagrange J. B. & Kynigos C. (2014) Digital technologies to teach and learn mathematics: Context and re-contextualization. Educational Studies in Mathematics 85(3): 381–403. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Lakatos I. (1976) Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge University Press, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Mishra P. & Koehler M. J. (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record 108(6): 1017–1054. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Noss R. (1985) Creating a mathematical environment through programming. Chelsea College, London. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Papert S. (1972) Teaching children to be mathematicians versus teaching about mathematics. Journal of Mathematics in Science and Technology 31: 249–262. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Ruthven K. (2007) Teachers, technologies and the structures of schooling. In: Pitta-Pantazi D. & George Philippou G. (eds.) Proceedings of the fifth congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. University of Cyprus, Nicosia: 52–67. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Ruthven K. (2009) Towards a naturalistic conceptualization of technology integration in classroom practice. Education & Didactique 3(1): 131–149. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Ruthven K. (2014) Frameworks for analysing the expertise that underpins successful integration of digital technologies into everyday teaching practice. In: Clark-Wilson A., Robutti O. & Sinclair N.(eds.) The mathematics teacher in the digital era. Springer, Dordrecht: 373–393. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Sinclair K. & Moon D. (1991) The philosophy of LISP. Communications of the ACM 34(9): 40–47. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Trouche L. (2005) Instrumental genesis, individual and social aspects. In: Guin D., Ruthven K. & Trouche L. (eds.) The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators. Springer, New York: 197–230. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Yadav A., Stephenson C. & Hong H. (2017) Computational thinking for teacher education. Communications of the ACM 60(4): 55–62. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Comments: 0

To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.