Research in Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈D:수학교육연구)

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

DOI QR Code

Effect of coding integrated mathematics program on affective mathematics engagement

  • Yujin Lee (Department of Mathematics Education, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Ali Bicer (School of Teacher Education, University of Wyoming) ;
  • Ji Hyun Park (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation)
  • Received : 2024.05.03
  • Accepted : 2024.06.22
  • Published : 2024.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The integration of coding and mathematics education, known as coding-integrated mathematics education, has received much attention due to the strength of Artificial Intelligence-based Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (AI-based STEAM) education in improving students' affective domain. The present study investigated the effectiveness of coding-integrated mathematics education on students' development of affective mathematics engagement. Participants in this study were 86 middle and high school students who attended the coding-integrated mathematics program. Surveys of students' affective mathematics engagement were administered before and after the intervention period. The results showed that students' affective mathematics engagement was statistically significantly improved through coding-integrated mathematics education. In particular, students exhibited increased positive affective mathematics engagement in terms of mathematical attitude, emotion, and value. These findings indicate the positive influence of coding-integrated mathematics education on students' learning in mathematics.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by 2023 Research Grant from Kangwon National University.

References

  1. Boaler, J., & Greeno, J. G. (2000). Identity, agency, and knowing in mathematics worlds. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning, (pp. 171-200). Greenwood Publishing Group.
  2. Bong, M., Cho, C., Ahn, H. S., & Kim, H. J. (2012). Comparison of self-beliefs for predicting student motivation and achievement. Journal of Education Research, 105(5), 336-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.627401
  3. Capraro, R. M., Bicer, A., Lee, Y., & Vela, K. (2019). Putting the quantitative pieces together to maximize the possibilities for a successful project. In K. Leatham (Ed.), Designing, conducting, and publishing research in mathematics education (pp. 97-110). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23505-5_7
  4. Chang, K. Y. (2017). A feasibility study on integrating computational thinking into school mathematics. School Mathematics, 19(3), 533-570.
  5. Choe, S., Kim, J., Park, S., Oh, E., & Kim, J. (2013). Strategies for improving the affective characteristics of Korean students based on the results of PISA and TIMSS (Research Report RRE 2013-8). Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
  6. Craft, A. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2017). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics project-based learning: Merging rigor and relevance to increase student engagement. Electronic International Journal of Education, Arts, and Science, 3(6), 140-158.
  7. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
  8. Cumming, G., & Finch, S. (2005). Inference by eye: Confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist, 60(2), 170-180. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.60.2.170
  9. DeBellis, V. A. (1997). The affective domain in mathematical problem solving. In E. Pehkonen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st annual conference of PME (Vol. 2, pp. 209-216). University of Helsinki Dept. of Teacher Education.
  10. DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (2006). Affect and meta-affect in mathematical problem solving: A representational perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(2), 131-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9026-4
  11. Dossey, J. A., Mullis, I. V. S. Lindquist, M. M., & Chambers, D. L. (1988). The mathematics report card: Are we measuring up? Trends and achievement based on the 1986 national assessment. Educational Testing Service.
  12. Epstein, Y. M., Goldin, G. A., Schorr, R. Y., Capraro, R., Capraro, M. M., & Warner, L. B. (2010, April 30-May 4). Measuring engagement structures in middle-grades urban mathematics classrooms [Paper presentation]. The 2010 American Educational Research Association (AERA) Conference, Denver, Colorado.
  13. Furinghetti, F., & Morselli, F. (2009). Every unsuccessful problem solver is unsuccessful in his or her own way: affective and cognitive factors in proving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 71-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9134-4
  14. Gellert, U. (2004). Didactic material confronted with the concept of mathematical literacy. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 55(1), 163-179. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDUC.0000017693.32454.01
  15. Goldin, G. A., Epstein, Y. M., Schorr, R. Y., & Warner, L. B. (2011). Beliefs and engagement structures: Behind the affective dimension of mathematical learning. ZDM, 43(4), 547-560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0348-z
  16. Graham, M. J., Frederick, J., Byars-Winston, A., Hunter, A. B., & Handelsman, J. (2013). Increasing persistence of college students in STEM. Science, 341(6153), 1455-1456. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240487
  17. Grootenboer, P., & Marshman, M. (2016). Mathematics, affect and learning: Middle school students' beliefs and attitudes about mathematics education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-679-9
  18. Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151-179. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070002151
  19. Im, K. H., & Lim. W. (2007). Educational psychology. Hakjisa.
  20. Jung, Y., Han, H., Kim, J., Park, E., Byun, H., Lee, I., Kim, S., Ahn, S., Song, J., & Parl, N. (2016). A study on strengthening sequential, integrated learning through building achievement standards of coding system according to 2015 revised national curriculum (Research Report CRC 2016-5). Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
  21. Kamii, C. (1985). Young children reinvent arithmetic: Implications of Piaget's theory. Teachers College Press.
  22. Kauchak, D., & Eggen, P. D. (2010). Introduction to teaching: Becoming a professional, student value edition. Prentice Hall.
  23. Keren, G., & Fridin, M. (2014). Kindergarten Social Assistive Robot (KindSAR) for children's geometric thinking and metacognitive development in preschool education: A pilot study. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 400-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.009
  24. Ketelhut, D. J., Nelson, B. C., Clarke, J. E., & Dede, C. (2010). A multi-user virtual environment for building and assessing higher order inquiry skills in science. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 56-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01036.x
  25. Kim A. Y. (2010). Academic motivation: Theory, research, and application. Hakjisa.
  26. Kim, S. I., Yoon, M. S., & So, Y. H. (2008). Academic interests of Korean students: Description, diagnosis, & prescription. Korean Psychological Journal of Culture and Social Issues, 14(1). 187-221.
  27. Kim, S. I., & Yoon, M. S. (2004). Designing a learning environment to enhance learner's interest and intrinsic motivation to learn. The Korean Journal of Educational Methodology Studies, 16(1), 39-66.
  28. Kim, S., Kim. K., Song. M., Shin, J., Lim, H., Park, J., Dong, H., Lee, I., Ok, H., Kim, M. (2013). Analysis of the characteristics Korean students' mathematics achievement by linking national and international assessment of educational achievement (Research Report RRE 2013-23). Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
  29. Kim, S., Kim, M., Kim, I., & Lee, S. (2023). OECD international student assessment study: PISA 2022 results report (Research Report RRE 2023-10). Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
  30. Kwon, H., Capraro, R. M., Lee, Y., & Williams, S. (2024). Fostering growth: The impact of STEM PBL on students' self-regulation and motivation. Research in Mathematical Education, 27(1) 111-127. https://doi.org/10.7468/jksmed.2024.27.1.111
  31. Kwon, J. R. (2017). Exploring a possibility of adopting coding in elementary mathematics education. Proceedings of the 2017 Spring Conference of the Korean Society of Mathematical Education, 2017(1), 111-115.
  32. Lee, Y., Capraro, R. M., & Bicer, A. (2019). Affective mathematics engagement: A comparison of STEM PBL versus Non-STEM PBL instruction. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 19(3), 270-289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-019-00050-0
  33. Liu, C. C., Cheng, Y. B., & Huang, C. W. (2011). The effect of simulation games on the learning of computational problem solving. Computers and Education, 57(3), 1907-1918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.002
  34. McLeod, D. B. (1988). Affective issues in mathematical problem solving: Some theoretical considerations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(2), 134-141. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.19.2.0134
  35. Ministry of Education (1987). Elementary school curriculum. Notification of the Ministry of Education. No. 87-9.
  36. Ministry of Education (2015). Mathematics curriculum. Notification of the Ministry of Education. No. 2015-74 [Vol. 8].
  37. Ministry of Education (2022). Mathematics curriculum. Notification of the Ministry of Education. No. 2022-33 [Vol. 8].
  38. Ministry of Education, & Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity (2016). Medium and long-term plan/proposal of STEAM education.
  39. Mueller, M., Yankelewitz, D., & Maher, C. (2011). Sense making as motivation in doing mathematics: Results from two studies. The Mathematics Educator, 20(2), 33-43.
  40. National Council for Teachers in Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Author.
  41. National Council for Teachers in Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Author.
  42. National Council for Teachers in Mathematics (2018). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Retrieved August 10, 2018, from https://www.nctm.org/ccssm
  43. National Research Council. (1994). National science education standards. National Academy Press.
  44. Park, I., Lee, G, Lim, H., Seo, M., Kim, B., & Jeon, K. (2016). Study on development of national norms and indicators for mathematics affective domains of NAEA (Research Report RRE 2016-14). Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
  45. Park, J. H., & Sang K. A. (2017). Changes of Korean students' affective mathematics characteristics in program for international student assessment. Proceedings of the 2017 Spring Conference of the Korean Society of Mathematical Education, 2017(1), 119-122.
  46. Rodriguez-Martinez, J. A., Gonzalez-Calero, J. A., & Saez-Lopez, J. M. (2020). Computational thinking and mathematics using Scratch: an experiment with sixth-grade students. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(3), 316-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1612448
  47. Seo, M., Kim, C., Lee, D., & Han, S. (2023). Trends and characteristics of changes in affective attitudes towards mathematics and science based on TIMSS over the past 20 years (Issue paper ORM 2023-30-24). Korea Institute for Curriculum and Instruction.
  48. Sinclair, K. E. (1985). Students affective characteristics and classroom behavior. In T. Husen, & N. Postlerhwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 4881-4886). Pergamon Press Ltd.
  49. Song, J. B. (2017). Effects of learning through scratch-based game programming on students' interest in and perceived value of mathematics curriculum. Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education, 21(2), 209-217.
  50. Stefan, M. A. (2017). Using constructivist theory in e-learning effectively. In Proceedings of the 13th International Scientific Conference eLearning and Software for Education (Vol. 1, p. 244-249). "Carol I" National Defence University.
  51. Tyson, W., Lee, R., Borman, K. M., & Hanson, M. A. (2007). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pathways: High school science and math coursework and postsecondary degree attainment. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(3), 243-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824660701601266
  52. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Socio mathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458-477. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.27.4.0458
  53. Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2014). Staying engaged: Knowledge and research needs in student engagement. Child Development Perspectives, 8(3), 137-143. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12073
  54. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
  55. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215