Artificial intelligence, computational thinking, and mathematics education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI), computational thinking (CT), and mathematics education (ME) for young students (K-8). Specifically, it focuses on three key elements that are common to AI, CT and ME: agency, modeling of phenomena and abstracting concepts beyond specific instances. Design/methodology/approach The theoretical framework of this paper adopts a sociocultural perspective where knowledge is constructed in interactions with others (Vygotsky, 1978). Others also refers to the multiplicity of technologies that surround us, including both the digital artefacts of our new media world, and the human methods and specialized processes acting in the world. Technology is not simply a tool for human intention. It is an actor in the cognitive ecology of immersive humans-with-technology environments (Levy, 1993, 1998) that supports but also disrupts and reorganizes human thinking (Borba and Villarreal, 2005). Findings There is fruitful overlap between AI, CT and ME that is of value to consider in mathematics education. Originality/value Seeing ME through the lenses of other disciplines and recognizing that there is a significant overlap of key elements reinforces the importance of agency, modeling and abstraction in ME and provides new contexts and tools for incorporating them in classroom practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it