The Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈A:수학교육)

Korean Society of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Unveiling the synergistic nexus: AI-driven coding integration in mathematics education for enhanced computational thinking and problem-solving

  • Ipek Saralar-Aras (National Education Expert, Ministry of National Education) ;
  • Yasemin Cicek Schoenberg (National Education Expert, Ministry of National Education)
  • Received : 2023.12.04
  • Accepted : 2024.04.12
  • Published : 2024.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper delves into the symbiotic integration of coding and mathematics education, aimed at cultivating computational thinking and enriching mathematical problem-solving proficiencies. We have identified a corpus of scholarly articles (n=38) disseminated within the preceding two decades, subsequently culling a portion thereof, ultimately engendering a contemplative analysis of the extant remnants. In a swiftly evolving society driven by the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the ascendancy of Artificial Intelligence (AI), understanding the synergy between these domains has become paramount. Mathematics education stands at the crossroads of this transformation, witnessing a profound influence of AI. This paper explores the evolving landscape of mathematical cognition propelled by AI, accentuating how AI empowers advanced analytical and problem-solving capabilities, particularly in the realm of big data-driven scenarios. Given this shifting paradigm, it becomes imperative to investigate and assess AI's impact on mathematics education, a pivotal endeavor in forging an education system aligned with the future. The symbiosis of AI and human cognition doesn't merely amplify AI-centric thinking but also fosters personalized cognitive processes by facilitating interaction with AI and encouraging critical contemplation of AI's algorithmic underpinnings. This necessitates a broader conception of educational tools, encompassing AI as a catalyst for mathematical cognition, transcending conventional linguistic and symbolic instruments.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the JKSMEA by waiving the fee for the special issue.

References

  1. Abid, A., Farooq, M. S., & Farooq, U. (2015). A strategy for the design of introductory computer programming course in high school. Journal of Elementary Education, 25(1), 145-165. 
  2. Acar, I. G., & Ovez, F. D. (2022). The effect of block-based game development activities on the geometry achievement, computational thinking skills and opinions of seventh-grade students. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 5(4), 1106-1121. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1151170 
  3. Ackerman, R. (2023). Bird's-eye view of cue integration: Exposing instructional and task design factors which bias problem solvers. Educational Psychology Review, 35(2), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09771-z 
  4. Adanir, G. A., Delen, I., & Gulbahar, Y. (2023). Research trends in K-5 computational thinking education: A bibliometric analysis and ideas to move forward. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 3589-3614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11974-4 
  5. Akpinar, Y., & Aslan, u. (2015). Supporting children's learning of probability through video game programming. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(2), 228-259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115598492 
  6. Al-Yakoob, S. M., & Sherali, H. D. (2015). Mathematical models and algorithms for a high school timetabling problem. Computers & Operations Research, 61, 56-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2015.02.011 
  7. Amuko, S., Miheso, M., & Ndeuthi, S. (2015). Opportunities and challenges: Integration of ICT in teaching and learning mathematics in secondary schools, Nairobi, Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(24), 1-6. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1078869  1078869
  8. Ardito, G., Mosley, P., & Scollins, L. (2014). We, robot: Using robotics to promote collaborative and mathematics learning in a middle school classroom. Middle Grades Research Journal, 9(3), 73-88. https://www.infoagepub.com/products/middle-grades-research-journal-9-3 
  9. Benton, L., Saunders, P., Kalas, I., Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2018). Designing for learning mathematics through programming: A case study of pupils engaging with place value. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 16, 68-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.12.004 
  10. Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020 
  11. Bers, M. U., Gonzalez-Gonzalez, C., & Armas-Torres, M. B. (2019). Coding as a playground: Promoting positive learning experiences in childhood classrooms. Computers & Education, 138, 130-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.013 
  12. Borg, A., Fahlgren, M., & Ruthven, K. (2020). Programming as a mathematical instrument : the implementation of an analytic framework. In A. Donevska-Todorova, E. Faggiano, J. Trgalova, Z. Lavicza, R. Weinhandl, A. Clark-Wilson, & H. G. Weigand (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th ERME Topic Conference on Mathematics Education in the Digital Age (MEDA) (pp. 435-442). Linz, Austria: University of Linz. https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-80187 
  13. Brancaccio, A., Marchisio, M., Palumbo, C., Pardini, C., Patrucco, A., & Zich, R. (2015). Problem posing and solving: Strategic Italian key action to enhance teaching and learning mathematics and informatics in the high school. In 2015 IEEE 39th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 845-850). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC.2015.126 
  14. Brating, K., & Kilhamn, C. (2021). 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 
  15. Brating, K., Kilhamn, C., & Rolandsson, L. (2020). Integrating programming in Swedish school mathematics: Description of a research project. In Y. Liljekvist, L. B. Boistrup, J. Haggstrom, L. Mattsson, O. Olande, & Hanna Palmer (Eds.), Proceedings of MADIF12: The twelfth research seminar of the Swedish Society for Research in Mathematics Education, 14-15 Jan 2020, Linnaeus University, Vaxjo, Sweden (pp. 101-110). https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1432043/FULLTEXT01.pdf 
  16. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032 
  17. Bulut, M., & Ferri, R. B. (2023). A systematic literature review on augmented reality in mathematics education. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(3), 556-572. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/13124 
  18. Calder, N. S. (2018). Using scratch to facilitate mathematical thinking. Waikato Journal of Education, 23(2), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.15663/wje.v23i2.654 
  19. Cam, E., & Kiyici, M. (2022). The impact of robotics-assisted programming education on academic success, problem solving skills and motivation. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 5(1), 47-65. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1028825 
  20. Chan, S. W., Looi, C. K., Ho, W. K., Huang, W., Seow, P., Wu, L., & Kim, M. S. (2020, November). Computational thinking activities in number patterns: A study in a Singapore secondary school. In H. J. So, (Ed.), Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computers in Education (Vol. 1, pp. 171-176). Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education. https://apsce.net/icce/icce2020/proceedings/paper_146.pdf 
  21. Chan, S. W., Looi, C. K., Ho, W. K., & Kim, M. S. (2023). Tools and approaches for integrating computational thinking and mathematics: A scoping review of current empirical studies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(8), 2036-2080. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221098793 
  22. Chung, C. C., Cartwright, C., & Cole, M. (2014). Assessing the impact of an autonomous robotics competition for STEM education. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 15(2), 24-34. 
  23. Ciftci, S., & Bildiren, A. (2020). The effect of coding courses on the cognitive abilities and problem-solving skills of preschool children. Computer Science Education, 30(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1696169 
  24. Daher, W. (2022). Students' motivation to learn mathematics in the robotics environment. Computers in the Schools, 39(3), 230-251. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2022.2071227 
  25. Darmawansah, D., Hwang, G. J., Chen, M. R. A., & Liang, J. C. (2023). Trends and research foci of robotics-based STEM education: A systematic review from diverse angles based on the technology-based learning model. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00400-3 
  26. de Azevedo Cysneiros Filho, G. A., da Silva, N. C., & Morais, B. S. (2021). A review of papers about block programming from the workshop on computing at school. In M. Carmo (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on Educational and New Development (END 2021) (pp. 111-115). inScience Press. https://doi.org/10.36315/2021end024 
  27. Deeva, G., Bogdanova, D., Serral, E., Snoeck, M., & De Weerdt, J. (2021). A review of automated feedback systems for learners: Classification framework, challenges and opportunities. Computers & Education, 162, 104094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104094 
  28. DeJarnette, A. F. (2018). Students' conceptions of sine and cosine functions when representing periodic motion in a visual programming environment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 49(4), 390-423. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.49.4.0390 
  29. Dickson, B. A., Kotsopoulos, D. & Harris, L. (2022). The use of coding clubs to develop middle-school students' spatial reasoning abilities. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 8(1), 50-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-022-00099-x 
  30. diSessa, A. A. (2018). Computational literacy and "the big picture" concerning computers in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 20(1), 3-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2018.1403544 
  31. Dohn, N. B. (2020). Students' interest in Scratch coding in lower secondary mathematics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 71-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12759 
  32. Duncan, C., & Bell, T. (2015, November). A pilot computer science and programming course for primary school students. In Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 39-48). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818314.2818328 
  33. Eglash, R., Bennett, A., Drazan, J., Lachney, M., & Babbitt, W. (2017). A mathematical tool kit for generative justice. ETDEducacao Tematica Digital, 19(3), 761-785. https://doi.org/10.20396/etd.v19i3.8648374 
  34. Eisenberg, M., Basman, A., & Hsi, S. (2014). Math on a sphere: Making use of public displays in mathematics and programming education. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 6(2), 140-155. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2014.06.010 
  35. Fagerlund, J., Hakkinen, P., Vesisenaho, M., & Viiri, J. (2021). Computational thinking in programming with Scratch in primary schools: A systematic review. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 12-28. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22255 
  36. Felicia, A., & Sharif, S. (2014). A review on educational robotics as assistive tools for learning mathematics and science. International Journal of Computer Science Trends and Technology, 2(2), 62-84. https://www.ijcstjournal.org/volume-2/issue-2/IJCST-V2I2P15.pdf 
  37. Fields, D., Vasudevan, V., & Kafai, Y. B. (2015). The programmers' collective: Fostering participatory culture by making music videos in a high school Scratch coding workshop. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(5), 613-633. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1065892 
  38. Foerster, K. T. (2016). Integrating programming into the mathematics curriculum: Combining scratch and geometry in grades 6 and 7. In Proceedings of the 17th annual conference on information technology education (pp. 91-96). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2978192.2978222 
  39. Fofang, J. S., Weintrop, D., Walton, M., Elby, A., & Walkoe, J. (2020). Mutually supportive mathematics and computational thinking in a fourth-grade classroom. In M. Gresalfi, & I. S. Horn (Eds.), The Interdisciplinarity of the Learning Sciences, 14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2020, Volume 3 (pp. 1389-1396). Nashville, Tennessee: International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://repository.isls.org//handle/1/6341 
  40. Forsstrom, 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. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.17.12.2 
  41. 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 
  42. Francis, K., Khan, S., & Davis, B. (2016). Enactivism, spatial reasoning and coding. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 2, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-015-0010-4 
  43. Gadanidis, G., Clements, E., & Yiu, C. (2018). Group theory, computational thinking, and young mathematicians. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 20(1), 32-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2018.1403542 
  44. Grover, S., Dominguez, X., Leones, T., Kamdar, D., Vahey, P., & Gracely, S. (2022). Strengthening early STEM learning by integrating CT into science and math activities at home. In A. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, & P. Yadav (Eds.), Computational thinking in preK-5: Empirical Evidence for Integration and Future Directions (pp. 72-84). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3507951.3519290 
  45. Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 199-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2015.1033142 
  46. Han, B., Bae, Y., & Park, J. (2016). The effect of mathematics achievement variables on scratch programming activities of elementary school students. International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, 10(12), 21-30. https://www.earticle.net/Article/A297536 
  47. Hava, K., & Cakir, H. (2017). A systematic review of literature on students as educational computer game designers. In J. Johnston (Ed.), Proceedings of EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 407-419). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/178342/ 
  48. Hickmott, D., Prieto-Rodriguez, E., & Holmes, K. (2018). A scoping review of studies on computational thinking in K-12 mathematics classrooms. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 4(1), 48-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-017-0038-8 
  49. Hill, C., Dwyer, H. A., Martinez, T., Harlow, D., & Franklin, D. (2015, February). Floors and Flexibility: Designing a programming environment for 4th-6th grade classrooms. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 546-551). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2676723.2677275 
  50. Hsu, Y. C., Baldwin, S., & Ching, Y. H. (2017). Learning through making and maker education. TechTrends, 61(6), 589-594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0172-6 
  51. Huang, W., & Looi, C. K. (2021). A critical review of literature on "unplugged" pedagogies in K-12 computer science and computational thinking education. Computer Science Education, 31(1), 83-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1789411 
  52. Hudson, M. A., Baek, Y., Ching, Y., & Rice, K. (2020) Using a multifaceted robotics-based intervention to increase student interest in STEM subjects and careers. Journal for STEM Education Research, 3(3), 295-316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00032-0 
  53. Israel, M., & Lash, T. (2020). From classroom lessons to exploratory learning progressions: Mathematics+ computational thinking. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(3), 362-382. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1674879 
  54. Jiang, H., Turnbull, D., Wang, X., Chugh, R., Dou, Y., & Chen, S. (2022). How do mathematics interest and self-efficacy influence coding interest and self-efficacy? A structural equation modeling analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 115, 102058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.102058 
  55. Kado, K. (2022). A teaching and learning the fundamental of calculus through Python-based coding. International Journal of Didactical Studies, 3(1), 15006. https://doi.org/10.33902/IJODS.202215006 
  56. Kampylis, P., Dagiene, V., Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Engelhardt, K., Stupuriene, G., & Earp, J. (2023). Integrating computational thinking into primary and lower secondary education. Educational Technology & Society, 26(2), 99-117. https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202304_26(2).0008 
  57. Ke, F. (2014). An implementation of design-based learning through creating educational computer games: A case study on mathematics learning during design and computing. Computers & Education, 73, 26-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.010 
  58. Kilhamn, C., Brating, K., Helenius, O., & Mason, J. (2022). Variables in early algebra: exploring didactic potentials in programming activities. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 54(6), 1273-1288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-022-01384-0 
  59. Kim, S., & Lee, C. (2016). Effects of robot for teaching geometry to fourth graders. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 24(2), 52-70. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/229407673.pdf 
  60. Kim, S. W., & Lee, Y. (2016). The analysis on research trends in programming based STEAM education in Korea. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(24), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i24/96102 
  61. Kordaki, M., & Kakavas, P. (2017). Digital tools used for the development of computational thinking in primary education: a ten year systematic literature review. In L. Gomez Chova, A. Lopez Martinez, & I. Candel Torres (Eds.), Proceedings of EDULEARN 17 (pp. 6346-6356). IATED Academy. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2017.2437 
  62. Krishnamoorthy, S. P., & Kapila, V. (2016, October). Using a visual programming environment and custom robots to learn c programming and K-12 stem concepts. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education (pp. 41-48). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3003397.3003403 
  63. Lavigne, H. J., Lewis-Presser, A., & Rosenfeld, D. (2020). An exploratory approach for investigating the integration of computational thinking and mathematics for preschool children. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 36(1), 63-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1693940 
  64. Leon, J. M., Robles, G., & Roman-Gonzalez, M. (2016). Code to learn: Where does it belong in the K-12 curriculum? Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 15, 283-303. https://doi.org/10.28945/3521 
  65. Leung, H. Y. H. (2021). Systematic literature review of integrating computational thinking into mathematics education. US-China Education Review, 11(4), 152-163. https://doi.org/10.17265/2161-623X/2021.04.002 
  66. Lin, C. F., Yeh, Y. C., Hung, Y. H., & Chang, R. I. (2013). Data mining for providing a personalized learning path in creativity: An application of decision trees. Computers & Education, 68, 199-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.009 
  67. Liu, J., Feenstra, W., Saenz Otero, A., & Magrane, K. (2014, April). STEM education: Students touch space through free robotics programming competition. In S. Zvcek, M. Teresa Restivo, J. Uhomoibhi, & M. Helfert (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education-Volume 3 (pp. 270-274). SciTePress. https://doi.org/10.5220/0004944802700274 
  68. Liu, J., Sun, M., Dong, Y., Xu, F., Sun, X., & Zhou, Y. (2022). The mediating effect of creativity on the relationship between mathematic achievement and programming self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 772093. https:///doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.772093 
  69. Luo, T., Reynolds, J., & Muljana, P. S. (2022). Elementary students learning computer programming: An investigation of their knowledge retention, motivation, and perceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(3), 783-806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10112-0 
  70. Mari, E., Millon Faure, K., & Assude, T. (2022). Programmable floor robots and spatial knowledge with 6-7-year-old students. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 87-95. 
  71. Martin, F., Bacak, J., Polly, D., & Dymes, L. (2023). A systematic review of research on K12 online teaching and learning: Comparison of research from two decades 2000 to 2019. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 55(2), 190-209. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1940396 
  72. Miller, J. (2019). STEM education in the primary years to support mathematical thinking: Using coding to identify mathematical structures and patterns. ZDM, 51(6), 915-927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01096-y 
  73. Misfeldt, M., & Ejsing-Duun, S. (2015, February). Learning mathematics through programming: An instrumental approach to potentials and pitfalls. In K. Krainer & N. Vondrova (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME 9) (pp. 2524-2530). Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Education and ERME. https://hal.science/hal-01289367/ 
  74. Mohamadou, Y., Halidou, A., & Kapen, P. T. (2020). A review of mathematical modeling, artificial intelligence and datasets used in the study, prediction and management of COVID-19. Applied Intelligence, 50(11), 3913-3925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-020-01770-9 
  75. Monga, M. (2019). Problem posing and programming as a general approach to foster the learning of mathematics. Constructivist Foundations, 14(3), 335-337. https://constructivist.info/14/3/335 
  76. Montiel, H., & Gomez-Zermeno, M. G. (2021). Educational challenges for computational thinking in K-12 education: A systematic literature review of "scratch" as an innovative programming tool. Computers, 10(6), 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers10060069 
  77. Moore, J. A., & Chow, J. C. (2021). Recent progress and applications of gold nanotechnology in medical biophysics using artificial intelligence and mathematical modeling. Nano Express, 2(2), 022001. https://doi.org/10.1088/2632-959X/abddd3 
  78. Nemiro, J., Larriva, C., & Jawaharlal, M. (2017). Developing creative behavior in elementary school students with robotics. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(1), 70-90. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.87Citations 
  79. Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M. N., & Jaccheri, L. (2017). Empirical studies on the Maker Movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review. Entertainment Computing, 18, 57-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2016.09.002 
  80. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2018.1403543 
  81. Pellas, N., Mystakidis, S., & Christopoulos, A. (2021). A systematic literature review on the user experience design for game-based interventions via 3D virtual worlds in K-12 education. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 5(6), 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti5060028 
  82. Perez, A. (2018). A framework for computational thinking dispositions in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 49(4), 424-461. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.49.4.0424 
  83. Phan, H. P., Ngu, B. H., & Yeung, A. S. (2017). Achieving optimal best: Instructional efficiency and the use of cognitive load theory in mathematical problem solving. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 667-692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9373-3 
  84. Popat, S., & Starkey, L. (2019). Learning to code or coding to learn? A systematic review. Computers & Education, 128, 365-376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.005 
  85. Psycharis, S., & Kallia, M. (2017). The effects of computer programming on high school students' reasoning skills and mathematical self-efficacy and problem solving. Instructional Science, 45(5), 583-602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9421-5 
  86. Qian, Y., & Lehman, J. (2017). Students' misconceptions and other difficulties in introductory programming: A literature review. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 18(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3077618 
  87. Qian, Y., & Lehman, J. D. (2017). Correlates of success in introductory programming: A study with middle school students. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(2), 73-83. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v5n2p73 
  88. Radev, V. (2021). Design of educational computer game in second grade mathematics with the help of scratch. In L. Gomez Chova, A. Lopez Martinez, & I. Candel Torres (Eds.), Proceedings of EDULEARN 21 (pp. 939-948). IATED Academy. https://doi.org/0.21125/edulearn.2021.0248 
  89. Raiyn, J. (2016). Developing a mathematics lesson plan based on visual learning technology. International Journal of Education and Management Engineering, 6(4), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.5815/ijeme.2016.04.01 
  90. Rich, K. M., Spaepen, E., Strickland, C., & Moran, C. (2020). Synergies and differences in mathematical and computational thinking: Implications for integrated instruction. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(3), 272-283. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-25040-001 
  91. Rich, P. J., Bly, N., & Leatham, K. R. (2014). Beyond cognitive increase: Investigating the influence of computer programming on perception and application of mathematical skills. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 33(1), 103-128. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/41965/ 
  92. Saez-Lopez, J. M., Sevillano-Garcia, M. L., & Vazquez-Cano, E. (2019). The effect of programming on primary school students' mathematical and scientific understanding: Educational use of mBot. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(6), 1405-1425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09648-5 
  93. Saralar-Aras, I. (2021). Artificial intelligence applications in mathematics lessons [Oral Presentation]. The 1st National Conference of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Education, Harran University, Sanliurfa, Turkiye. 
  94. Saralar-Aras, I., Erkol, E. D., & Akan, R. (2023). Matematik ogretiminde yapay zeka egitim uygulamalari [Artificial intelligence education practices for teaching mathematics]. In I. Saralar-Aras (Ed.) Maths of artificial Intelligence: Theory and practices (pp. 49-72). Nobel Publications. 
  95. Shute, V. J., & Rahimi, S. (2017). Review of computer-based assessment for learning in elementary and secondary education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12172 
  96. Smith, C. P., & Neumann, M. D. (2014). Scratch it out! Enhancing geometrical understanding. Teaching Children Mathematics, 21(3), 185-188. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.21.3.0185 
  97. Steffe, L. P., & Gale, J. E. (1995). Constructivism in education. Psychology Press. 
  98. Sumen, O. O. (2022). Teaching the order of operations topic to fourth-graders using code. org. Milli Egitim Dergisi, 51(236), 3593-3616. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.970167 
  99. Sun, L., Guo, Z., & Hu, L. (2021). Educational games promote the development of students' computational thinking: A meta-analytic review. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1931891 
  100. Sun, L., Hu, L., & Zhou, D. (2021). Improving 7th-graders' computational thinking skills through unplugged programming activities: A study on the influence of multiple factors. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42, 100926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100926 
  101. Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In J. P. Mestre & B. H. Ross (Eds.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 37-76). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8 
  102. Tian, Y., Xiao, J., Jiang, J., Wang, H., & Yuan, Y. (2017). The research on programming education in elementary schools from five countries. International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments, 5(3), 181-190. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSMILE.2017.087946 
  103. Troelstra, A. S., & Van Dalen, D. (2014). Constructivism in mathematics (Vol 2). Elsevier.
  104. Wang, H. Y., Huang, I., & Hwang, G. J. (2014). Effects of an integrated Scratch and project-based learning approach on the learning achievements of gifted students in computer courses. In 2014 IIAI 3rd International Conference on Advanced Applied Informatics (pp. 382-387). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IIAI-AAI.2014.85 
  105. Wang, H. Y., Huang, I., & Hwang, G. J. (2016). Comparison of the effects of project-based computer programming activities between mathematics-gifted students and average students. Journal of Computers in Education, 3, 33-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-015-0047-9 
  106. 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, 127-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5 
  107. Wilson, B. G., & Myers, K. M. (2000). Situated cognition in theoretical and practical context. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 57-88). Lawrence Erlbaum. 
  108. Ye, H., Liang, B., Ng, O. L., & Chai, C. S. (2023). Integration of computational thinking in K-12 mathematics education: A systematic review on CT-based mathematics instruction and student learning. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00396-w 
  109. Zhang, L., & Nouri, J. (2019). A systematic review of learning computational thinking through Scratch in K-9. Computers & Education, 141, 103607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103607 
  110. Zhang, Y., Luo, R., Zhu, Y., & Yin, Y. (2021). Educational robots improve K-12 students' computational thinking and STEM attitudes: Systematic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(7), 1450-1481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633121994070 
  111. Zhang, Y., Ng, O. L., & Leung, S. (2023). Researching computational thinking in early childhood STE(A)M education context: A descriptive review on the state of research and future directions. Journal for STEM Education Research, 6, 427-455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-023-00097-7