Teacher Candidates’ Key Understandings about Computational Thinking in Mathematics and Science 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
With the increasing advocacy for CT integration in K-12 education, it is important to consider how teacher education programs could better prepare teacher candidates (TCs). At the Faculty of Education at Western University, CT has been included in the curriculum as part of the teacher education program through the course Computational Thinking in Mathematics and Science Education, oriented to Intermediate/Senior (Grades 7 to 12) preservice teachers. In this paper, we describe the case study of the 2017 cohort of the CT course. We aimed to answer the question: What key understandings about CT did teacher candidates develop through their participation in the course? We found that TCs in our course developed a better understanding of: (1) CT connections to the real world, as well as lesson ideas and pedagogical examples to integrate CT in the context of mathematics and science; (2) the different affordances of CT integration; (3) the use of several technologies to implement CT integration; and (4) what CT is, as well as the set of skills that contribute to its development.
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 | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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