Mathematics Education Reform and Assessment

This assignment delves into the complex relationship between standardized test scores and educational reform in mathematics classrooms. Students are tasked with conducting a case study to examine how schools have responded to pressure from standardized testing, analyzing its influence on curriculum design, teaching methods, and student learning outcomes. The analysis should consider various perspectives, including teachers, administrators, and students, to provide a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities presented by this reform context.

Running head: MATHEMATICS
Mathematics
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

2
Abstract-
Mathematics is a combination of skills of calculation and reasoning and it can be further
classified as a person’s mathematical understanding. It is a process that is fixed to a specific
person or a topic or an idea or environment. The mathematics educational reform passed on
several stages in order to be more effective and efficient. This study explores the nature of
engagement of the learners with their parents on computational and mathematics thinking
activities, and to investigate the ways, students and their parents interact during computational
and mathematics thinking activities as well as to discover the role of parents when they interact
with their children. With the same, investigations are also made on the benefits and challenges of
parent’s engagement with their children during these activities. Furthermore, the workshops are
going to be based on these computational and mathematics thinking activities, designed by
Namukasa and Gadanidis (2017).
1. Introduction
Mathematics was originated as a necessity for the cultural, societal and technological
growth or leisure. The principles and procedures of mathematics have always been the
predominant building blocks of most of human inventions and discoveries. It is an
interdisciplinary human language, developed as a unique tool for modeling and formulating most
of the qualitative and the quantitative phenomena as well as the different processes of the world
and surroundings (Livio, 2011). Also, Davis, Hersh & Marchisotto (2011) have stated that
mathematics is a human activity, which is for everybody. However, everyone is a mathematician.
Everyone is able enough to do mathematics operations consciously, for example, trading,
measuring, decorating and doing patterns are all parts of mathematics. Livio (2011) has

3
described that mathematics is a universal language with unique syntax, characters, and complex
combinations of several rules and principles.
1.1 Background
Unfortunately, school mathematics is a quite difficult and boring subject for many of the
students of different grades in school (Zakaria, Chin & Daud, 2010). Most of the time it is
considered as difficult and less interesting to the students, and it has been documented in
research (Zakaria, Chin &Daud, 2010). Usually it is because of the style of teaching and the style
of learning. Several efforts are made in order to reform both the curriculum and instructions of
mathematics (Smith, 2000). In addition, Reid et al., (2014) stated that in the past, the educators
have been considered that changing of the curriculum could be used as an effective method to
change classroom practice and to have an impact on the learning of the students. Also, they
pointed out that the curriculum has been called as a change factor for the educational reforms.
Furthermore, they have stated that “school mathematics curriculum remains a central issue in our
efforts to improve students’ learning”. While it is true that the EQAO results (2017), for both
Primary and Junior mathematics assessment of English Language learners’ has dropped between
2013 and 2017 by about 5%. Furthermore, OSSTF (2018) explains that the drop-in students’
level in mathematics since 2012/2013 is not only related to the change in the curriculum but also
to the tests. The OECD (2015) also indicates that Canada performs relatively well at
Mathematics on the PISA mathematics tests. Canada, nonetheless, has had its results dropping
since 2003. Thus, educators should consider the curriculum and teaching methods to develop and
reform. In the news GTA (2016), it has been pointed out from an international study that about
70 per cent of the students from grade 4 and 8 in the province are above the average level in
mathematics and science.

4
Teaching and learning of mathematics have always been the focus point of mathematics
teachers, mathematics educators, mathematics education researchers, and the other
mathematicians. They always strive to redefine and discover instructional and effective teaching
approaches to make mathematics more interesting, less intimidating and more accessible to the
learners as well as to help the learners achieve more comfort, higher grades, and productive
learning skills through mathematics. One of these newly developed approaches is the integration
of “Computational Thinking in teaching school mathematics”.
1.2 The Topic
Computational thinking is a recently developed set of skills. Wing (2006) claims that it is
going to be one of the basic skills that are used by the students in the middle of the 21st Century.
Aho (2012) further states “we consider computational thinking to be the thought processes
involved in formulating problems so their solutions can be represented as computational steps
and algorithms. An important part of this process is finding appropriate models of computation
with which to formulate the problem and derive its solutions” (p. 832). Furthermore, the
researchers such as Gadanidis, Minniti & White (2017) are exploring the integration of
computational thinking and mathematics thinking in K-8 classrooms. These researchers have
observed that computational thinking tools, activities, and processes promises to make the
mathematics learning experiences of the students more interesting, helpful, productive and easy
to learn more advanced mathematics. Gadanidis (2017) argues that not only is computational
thinking similar to mathematics thinking, but also computational thinking offers many
affordances such as agency, access, abstraction, automation and audience. Working as a research
assistant on computational thinking projects in schools, integrating computational and
mathematics thinking is a fresh and new portray of mathematics for both students and their

5
parents. Integrating computational thinking activities in mathematics lessons is not only a novel
mathematic learning process but it also offer several affordances such as those noted by
Gadanidis (2017). Such an approach can offer a deep actualization and more versatile
mathematical thinking to the students (Namukasa, Patel & Miller 2017). Namukasa et al. (2017)
also study students and teachers in the context of schools.
Wenglinsky (1998) maintains that using digital technologies, such as computational
thinking technologies in teaching methods contributes to changing conventional teaching and
learning methods and as a result it promises to lead an improved student achievement, interest
and enjoyment in the learning process. Gadanidis (2015) observes that there is a relation in
between coding (computational thinking) and mathematics that reforms the mathematics
education, and he adds that the children have the ability to learn complex and abstract concepts.
The general research question is:
What is the nature of engagement of learners with their parents on computational and
mathematics thinking activities?
The specific research questions are:
1. In what ways do students and their parents act and interact during computational and
mathematics thinking activities?
2. For instance, what is the role of parents when they are interacting with their children during
computational and mathematics thinking activities?
3. What are the benefits and challenges of parent’s engagement with their children during
computational and mathematics thinking activities?

6
4. What is the feedback of both students and parents after engagement during computational and
mathematics thinking activities?
1.3 The Purpose
The purpose of this research is to explore the nature of engagement of learners with their
parents on computational and mathematics thinking activities, and to investigate the ways in
which the students and their parents act and interact during computational and mathematics
thinking activities. With the same, it also aims to discover the role of parents when they are
interacting with their children during computational and mathematics thinking activities.
Furthermore, it will also investigate the benefits and challenges of parent’s engagement with
their children during these thinking activities. Finally, several feedbacks are gathered of both
students and parents after their engagement during the computational and mathematics thinking
activities.
1.4 The Significance of the Study
The core focus of this research is to explore the learning process by using computational
thinking in schools in contexts where the children participate with their parents. This research
seeks to contribute to this exploration on the integration of computational thinking and
mathematics thinking for students and parents at either school or an after-school learning
organization. This study is unique as it is going to focus not only on the children but on their
parents as well. This research involves conducting workshops for elementary students working
with their parents and researching the experiences of the students and their parents. The
workshops will be based on computational and mathematics thinking activities designed by
Namukasa and Gadanidis.

7
Conducting mathematics workshops for students and their parents are positively
associated with the student achievements and they makes the learning process of mathematics
compelling, and more enjoyable (Marshal & Swan, 2010). At the same time, workshops can help
the parents to support their children, and thereby increase their abilities and performance in the
subject of mathematics (Marshal and Swan, 2010).
In addition, this study will shed light on the need of using computational thinking
activities as one of the parts of the theory of teaching mathematics. Weintrop et al., (2016)
pointed out about the importance of existence of computation in mathematics. Also, they indicate
that in the near future, there will be an urgency of challenge of defining the computational
thinking and providing a theoretical foundation for the method that should be used in school for
the mathematics classes. This research shall also shed light on how computational thinking tools
such as computational modeling environments can have a productive role in endeavouring and
benefiting both the students and their parents, as they both are the significant elements of
educating young learners. Exposing such aspect of mathematics can increase engagement and
contribution of parents to their children learning process.
Theoretical framework
Computational thinking researchers trace back the theory behind computational thinking
for the children and youth in the work of Papert (1980). Papert has developed the theory of
learning and he referred that to as the constructionism. He considers that the constructionism is
based on the idea of “learning by making”. He defines that the learning process is a process of
reconstruction instead of a process by which knowledge is transferred, and that the learning is
more effective when the learners are able to create a meaningful product as a part of their

8
activities. Constructionism is related to the principles of knowledge, experiences and active
learning (Bruner, 2001). In addition, Bruner (2001) theoretical framework is dependent on the
theme that learners develop new ideas and concepts depending upon the existing knowledge.
Whereby, Bruner is one of the major founding fathers of the constructivist theory. The work of
Piaget is regarded as the starting point and the studies point for the work of Brunner. Brunner's
theory of learning is emphasized on knowledge of how this thing has happened. Therefore, the
focus will be on different skills, directions and instructions, more than focusing on the
information and facts. Thereby, Bruner (2001) indicates that the learning is an active process that
includes selection and transformation of information, decision making, generating hypotheses,
and making meaning from information and experiences.
This research has adopted the framework of social constructivism. Social constructivism
emphasizes learning in social environments. Kotsopoulos et al., (2017) have discussed about
constructivism and constructions as CT. They explained that CT includes four pedagogical
experiences and they are, “unplugged”, “tinkering”, “making”, and “remixing”. They further
explained about these four experiences. They states that Unplugged experiences applies on
activities without using the computers, while the tinkering experiences include activities that
needs engagements and adjustments to produce the outcomes. On the other hand, the making
experiences contain activities to create new objects and, remixing take in multiple experiences
that makes uses of other for the purpose. These experiences are necessary for the students to
fully experience the CT. In addition, Curzon et al., (2014) states that there are many countries
(e.g., they did not mention the names of the countries) that have introduced the computing
syllabuses in order to make the computational thinking an essential component.

9
According to Arvidson (1997), there are many differences in the academic achievement
of the students who are in reform programs and the students who belongs to in traditional
programs. He stated that “a renewed emphasis on teacher education based on the NCTM
standards, time for collaboration among teachers, and a ‘call’ for ongoing professional
development in reform practices” (p. 9.) The NCTM or the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics recommends for the K-12curriculum some teaching, and assessment (Hiebert,
1999). Therefore, ICMI Study 24 (2017) is highly recommended in the school mathematics
reforms and have taken a large place as a whole in today’s educational system. Also, ICMI Study
24 (2017) indicates that technology has also helped in reforming mathematics curriculum and
that have brought calls for the unified standards of mathematics in the school.
Besides, Brennan & Resnick (2012) states that the computational thinking has been
considered in the past years as well, but it still lacks strategies to assess the development.
Furthermore, Lee et al., (2011) recommended that in order to support the development of CT
skills among the children and youth several things are required and they are enriched learning
environment, developed teachers’ skills to facilitate using CT in classroom, and more research
on computational thinking. In addition, Barr, Harrison and Conery (2011) highly recommends
that in the future, all the students are given opportunity to learn about computational thinking
skills, and use it in different problems and contexts. Subsequently, the goal of this research is
aimed at such aspects of mathematics. The theme of this research is framed around
“computational thinking” in schools. It will demonstrate the students and their parents how
learning and practicing mathematical computations can be developed in a critical and analytical
fashion instead of being a haphazard set of numerical operations.

10
In addition, the traditional style of teaching makes mathematics boring for the students.
They find it difficult, as most of the mathematical concepts are abstract. However, educators
cannot consider the old-fashioned of teaching is a bad way, but they should improve teaching
style that is called reforming. Reforming mathematics instruction requires changing the materials
as well as changing the way of applying them. Marion (2010) explains that the educational
reform allows designers of curriculum to create unique curriculum for achieving the
requirements they should reach. Nowadays, educators need to skip the time of boredom in
mathematics class and the difficulties that students faced in mathematical concepts. Skipping
these problems could be ensured by reforming mathematics curriculum and implementing
instructions to create new styles of teaching and new styles of learning.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Integration of computational thinking activities in teaching mathematics.
It is very important for the educators to find a proper environment in order to improve
and develop the educational process as well as to lead the students towards the best outcomes by
making use of new strategies and methods. Computational thinking contributes to change the
old-fashioned teaching and learning methods. In this criterion, this research would like to shed
light of the benefits of using computational thinking in mathematics curriculum. Also, to indicate
that computational thinking is one of the important strategies that the educators should apply in
the curriculum. The literature on integrating computational thinking addresses the following
aspects: Definition/frameworks, importance of CT, integration of CT, educational technology,
the benefits and activities of computational thinking, and challenge to CT.
Definition/frameworks of CT.

11
Wing (2006) defines that “Computational Thinking is the processes that is involved in
formulating a problem and expressing its solution in a way that a computer—human or machine
—can effectively carry out” p7. In addition, Sanford & Naidu (2016) states that “Recent
literature discusses the importance of adding ‘computational thinking’ as a core ability that every
child must learn”. Also, Sanford & Naidu (2016) adds to the point that nowadays, using the
digital computers for mathematical modeling is all related to expanding knowledge boundaries.
They also indicated clearly that the” knowledge-based” world needs all of us to understand how
to use computational technology for everyday activities.
Importance of CT.
Sanford & Naidu (2016) define this era as the Digital Age, and they believe that the
computational thinking concepts should be available in our daily life in order to enrich the
quality of our life in modern society. In addition to this, from the grand vision of Wing (2011),
he declares that “Computational thinking will be a fundamental skill that is used by everyone in
the world from the era of 21st Century”. Thus, Sanford & Naidu (2016) goes beyond the limited
applications of computational activities in classrooms and suggested that such activities can be
used not only by the students but also by the parents as well. They use these activities for
computational needs such as mortgages and handling accounts. Furthermore, Portelance
(2015) pointed out how the computing devices that are all structured are based on computations
around us. Such integration of computations makes it simple to bring it into learning
environment as well. In addition, Wing (2006) labels the computational thinking as a technique
that includes solving of problems, design systems, and understand human behavior depending on
the concepts that are essential to computer science.

12
Integration of CT
Farris and Sengupta (2014), described how the computational aspects of mathematics
nowadays are becoming integral and core part of presentation for both mathematics and science
in K-12 programs. Whereby, they presented a unique aspect of integration of computational
techniques with basic principles of physics such velocity, acceleration, energy, etc. for crafting
dynamic learning activities. In addition, Bienkowski et al., (2015), rightly pointed out how
integrating computational thinking in pre-college curriculum requires an interactive integration
of different subjects and concepts in order to construct a grounded approach for computational
thinking. Furthermore, Lu and Fletcher (2009) represented the teaching of computational
thinking (CT) as an important skill on balance with reading, writing, and mathematics in the
category of fundamental knowledge. Therefore, Ortiz, Bos and Smith (2015) have discussed the
application of the abstract concepts in real world. They have indicated that use of integrated
science, engineering, technology and mathematics helps the students to get engage with the real
world.
Educational Technology
Barr and Stephenson (2011) believe that the fundamental changes in traditional
instructional setting require thorough dissection of integration of math and computer science,
which can lead to generating a reliable teaching technique based on the computational thinking.
Also, Hooper and Rieber (1995) distinguished between the concept of educational technology
and the concept of technology in education. Technology in education is often apparent of how
the computers or technological devices are used to support the traditional classroom activities,
but educational technology contains applying ideas from several sources to generate the best

13
learning environments possible for students. In addition, Rieber (1995) adds that the educational
technology means that the curriculum also requires changing that is to encounter the
opportunities that the technology may offer. Furthermore, Portelance (2015) demonstrates a
unique technique for how computational thinking “coding” can be infused into mathematical
concepts by examining and activity called “Code and Tell activity” for primary grades students.
The benefits and Activities of Computational Thinking
In Brennan and Resnick (2012) research article, they review and examine various
interactive media designed that are based on the computational thinking and concluded that how
effectively such interactive media can have enhanced the learning of students comparing to a
student that are taught in a conventional instructional setting. Also, Bienkowski et al., (2015)
considered that designing interactive models with artefacts is one of the main approaches to
computational thinking. Caspersen and Nowack (2013), suggested that based on their
experiences with Danish high school system, presenting computational activities using platforms
and social media such as Facebook, iTunes, GPS based navigation systems, email, health care
systems, etc. makes the activities more relevant to the daily life of student, and consequently
such activities are more compelling than the other themes. According to Yadav, Hong and
Stephenson (2016), the curriculum in 21st century must focus on the computational thinking
concepts for (K-12). Enriching the coding skills would result in having a new generation of real
world problem solvers. Moreover, they recommended for infusing computational thinking into
the curriculum for every subjects, and they suggested, “Moving students from merely being
technology-literate to using computational tools to solve problems”.
Challenges to CT

14
Bienkowski et al., (2015) explored how generating computational based mathematics
knowledge and skill can improve assessment tasks among the students. Atmatzidou and
Demetriadis (2016) designed different activities based on computational thinking and they
noticed that it was not so easy to connect students’ minds to computational thinking activities.
However, as time passed by and students engaged in more diverse activities, they gradually
become more comfortable and familiar with the nature of such activities. In fact, Lu and Fletcher
(2009) faced some pedagogical challenges. Whereby, the puzzling issue is the role of
programming, and whether we can separate it from teaching basic computer science, and how
much programming should be required for CT proficiency. They believe that to expand
successfully contribution in computer science, efforts should be needed for satisfying the
foundations of CT before students apply the first programming language. Recently, Angeli et al
(2016) shed light on the challenges that the educators are currently facing when computational
thinking is a part of the curriculum. The first, the frame of the curriculum based on a general
computational thinking outline. This challenge was debated with a perspective of designing the
computational thinking curriculum and focused on real world problems. Second challenge was
focused on the teachers. It points out the need of knowledge that the teachers must possess in
order to teach computational thinking curriculum by finding a framework of technological
pedagogical, and how they apply the ideas of computational thinking in schools. In addition, they
indicated that there is a shortage of ample experimental evidences in terms of effectiveness of the
context of computational thinking curriculum.
Summary
Overall, Angeli et al (2016) expected that the computational thinking curriculum will be
applied all over the school curriculum in the coming years. As the world is changing rapidly, the

15
use of computational thinking got a great attention by the educators all over the world, as it
positively changes the educational process by prompting the abstract and concept of the real
world. According to Resnick (1995), computational thinking “can significantly influence not
only what people do with computers, but also how they think about and make sense of the
world”.
2.2 Contribution and Involvement of Parents
“Parents are the real teachers”. The very first teacher a child can have is his parents.
Parents educate their children before they enter into the school life. They promote the best early
development learning and health of their children by supporting them, encouraging them and
engaging with them in their activities. The literature on contribution and involvement of parents
addresses various aspects. They include the role of parents to teach their children, the benefits of
contribution and involvement of parents, the importance of parent’s involvement, and the
workshop models.
The Role of Parents in teaching their Children
According to Civil et al. (2008), parents always teach their children in the manner in
which they themselves were learned at their times. They think that this is not good, as they will
face new educational strategies that will be unfamiliar to them. This is because, the learning
process changes with the change in time. Also, Liang (2013) mentions that the study examines
ways in which Chinese immigrant families are involved in mathematics educational process with
their children. Liang (2013) mainly focuses on how diverse natures of families’ have an
influence on their children's mathematics education. Therefore, Liang (2013) observes how
different types of families use cultural, social and economic capital to influence their children's

16
mathematics education. Also, Civil et al. (2008) explain that the immigrant families face a gap
between their expectations for their children’s education and their experiences, because they
have often a cultural difference, social gap and different language. Additionally, Kibasan and
Singson (2016) state “education is the process of facilitating learning or the acquisition of
knowledge, skills, values, beliefs and habits”. Abusively, most of the values, beliefs and habits
for children become from family or parents especially in early years. In addition, in the study of
Anisiobi (2014), he has shown that the families of high-achieving students, which are linked in
more than one language at home and, they teach their children with high-achievement mindset
from early years of their lives. Hence, successful learning process depends on how parents
communicate with their children at home.
The Benefits of Contribution and Involvement of Parents
According to Van Voorhis, Maier, Epstein, & Lloyd (2013), the involvement of family
are into four categories. They help in various ways. For example, focusing on the Learning tasks
for children doing at home with their parents promote math skills outside school. Also, the
actions and interactions of parents in the school building promote children awareness. The role
of school awareness the engagement of families including the strategies that staff of school are
used to encourage engagement of families, and make them feel welcome, and boost the parent’s
activities including relationship and home environment, rule-setting, and caring behaviors. As
well, they concentrate on parents’ engagement in learning process. Also, Civil et al. (2008)
suggested that the engagement of parents with their children in community is promoting the
mathematical concepts in house. Furthermore, Liang (2013) argues that the mathematics
education can be enhanced without direct connections to schools or teachers. He states parents
can provide tutors for their children, but that depends on the incomes of the families. Also, Liang

17
(2013) supposes that teachers can assign additional exercises for students to improve
mathematics education, and students can stay long time after school to do more mathematical
problems, but that needs double effort or more from students. In addition, he adds parents can
use social media to contact with teachers, but educators cannot ignore who does not use social
media as a contact way with school. Furthermore, Anisiobi (2014) maintains that engagement
with co-ethnic adults at community centers provided support which promoted social-emotional
development in the teenagers.
The Importance of Involvement Parents
Epstein (1987) observes that the recent studies of importance of parents’ involvements
were shown from research findings that are gathered over two decades that shows that children
have an advantage in school, when their parents inspire and support them. In addition, Hartog,
Diamantis and Brosnan (1998) declared that there are numerous sources that are provided to
parents with games and activities that allow children to involve in mathematical thinking and
problem solving, and at the same time, increase the self-confidence of children in mathematics.
The sample of this kind of source is the book named, ‘Helping Your Child Learn Math’. Also,
the government of Canada, ON, in education declares that when parents engage with their
children and support them, the children enjoys exploring the world of mathematics. As well as,
the government of Canada, ON, in education mentions that the most support is coming from
families, which they offer to increase their children’s learning and do well in school, and parents
help their children in educational progress and continue with their education.
Workshop Models

18
To improve the achievement of children in a better way, educators should seek on the
track to improve the design and conduct workshops for children and their parents. Epstein (1987)
indicates that the involvement of parents is one of the main standards in educational process.
Thus, Xiao, Namukasa, and Zhang (2016) present a workshop model for engaging children and
their parents in mathematical activities. Similarly, Paz (2011) conducts a school family night
workshops for children and their parents to investigate the rapport between student achievement
and parents’ contribution, where that helps students to satisfy a higher academic achievement,
when their parents involve that workshops. Also, Xiao, Namukasa, & Zhang (2016) conclude
that the parents appreciated workshops because they learned about how mathematics is currently
taught in schools, and appreciated the opportunities to interact with their children in the
workshops. In the same time, Xiao, Namukasa, & Zhang (2016) observe that the children
enjoyed dealing with their parents in workshop session and learning mathematics concept. In
addition, Scott (2014) sees that the student mathematics achievement was getting higher when
he/ she was conducting workshop in mathematics and involving parents with them. As well,
Scott (2014) notices that the students whose parents joined math workshops their level in
mathematics became more better than students whose parents did not joined math workshops.
Summary
Van Voorhis et al., (2013) sum up the key findings of involvement of parents with their
children. The key findings include, Family participation is an important for young children
especially in math skills; Parents with varied experiences can become more engaged with their
children and when parents are more engaged, children tend to do well. However, educators can
design something systematic and non-profit project. This should do not depend on the income of
families, and by this project parents can know the ability of their children, when they work

19
together in workshops. At the same time, they can have fun together. These findings may be
useful to direct parent involvement and increase their overall effectiveness.
2.3 Reform in Mathematics Education
Traditionally, the mathematics classrooms were the place where students used to listen
quietly to their teacher’s lecture on how to solve the mathematics problems in a proper way. By
means of continuous independent practices in recalling and memorizing the basic facts and the
word problems, the pedagogical goal was that the students would develop automaticity and
proficiency in the skills that are being taught. The Students who were encountered by the
difficulties used to receive additional help and practices in order to increase the accuracy and
speed of their computations. For reforming the mathematics instructions by changing the
mathematics curriculum and the teaching styles, the various literature on reform mathematics
education address the following aspects: the beginning of reform, the challenges of reform, the
benefits of reform and the reform in mathematics education and its purpose.
The Beginning of Reform
According to Lawson and Suurtamm (2006), in the year 1989, the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) was one of the leaders in pushing the mathematical reforms in
response to the research indicating that most of the students were learning the different
procedures in mathematics without conceptual understanding. With the same, in the year 1997,
the provincial government of Ontario decided to revamp the Kindergarten through Grade 8 (K-8)
mathematics program and thus, developing a new curriculum, provincial large-scale assessment
and report card. Furthermore, Haeck, Lefebvre and Merrigan (2011) stated that the education of
early 2000s reform is implemented in most of schools, both public and private, in some of the

20
provinces in Canada in both primary and secondary schools. They further stated that most of the
students of the age of 15 do not possess such skills in order to be successful in the 21st century,
and therefore, the educators plans to reform the curriculum. Lawson and Suurtamm (2006)
explains that this change will offer a more proper and accurate assessment to the students’ ability
in the subject of mathematics, and will support the new curriculum reform such as EQAO.
Furthermore, according to Suurtamm, Koch and Arden (2010), over the last decade in Ontario,
the teachers were been prompted by the educational policy, the teacher journals as well as the
professional development initiatives in order to incorporate the new assessment ideas to
implement in their classroom practices. They suggested focusing on the assessment for
supporting the learning and the importance of using variety of assessment strategies.
They further said that using a range of assessment strategies is very important in
developing the students' mathematical understanding and for providing teachers with the
opportunities to gain the insight into the students’ mathematical thinking. According to them, a
great variety of assessment methods are being used to gather a sense of students' understanding
in comparison to the purpose of determining the report card marks. Ross, McDougall and
Hogaboam-Gray (2002) explains that assessment in the reform class is very authentic and is
integrated into day to day learning versus at the end of the unit. Recently, in the year 2017,
Vallera and Bodzin suggested that combining the technology with authentic project based
learning challenges using real-world examples can help the students with enhanced
understandings of the complex and abstract concepts. With the same, the Project-based learning
encourages the students to investigate about the problems and challenges by raising their
curiosity for finding out the solutions. Providing them with authentic and project-based
performance tasks, which are encountered by the scientists, engineers, technologists or the

21
mathematicians in their lives could inspire the critical thinking, creativity, communication and
the collaboration as well as will get the students excited about mathematics learning by making
the content-based learning process more interactive.
Reform in Mathematics Education and its Purpose
According to Suurtamm, Koch and Arden (2010), the central aim of the mathematics
education reform is to help teachers develop a classroom environment, which can support the
development of mathematical reasoning by collaborative problem solving method. Haeck,
Lefebvre and Merrigan (2011) further described that the purpose of the reform is to improve the
performance of the low-achieving or the average students to bridge the gap in between high
achieving students and the low-skilled students as well as to increase the overall performance
and reduce the rate of high school dropout.
According to them the reform in the mathematics education value the mathematical
inquiry as a method to engage the learners with mathematical ideas and strengthen their
understanding of mathematical concepts as well as, encouraging the problem solving approach to
teach mathematics to the students.
According to Haeck, Lefebvre and Merrigan (2011), the reform schools have inquiry-
based activities such as asking questions, finding alternative solution, discussing to make
connections, and involving the hands on learning and active participation. They spend more time
by working on the projects, conducting and doing researches and solving problems that are based
on their interests and concerns. Lawson and Suurtamm (2006) said that the author of the
curriculum suggest that the teachers use problem solving in every strands as the foundation of
new curriculum, by which problem solving can be embedded into each lesson. The purpose of

22
curriculum is to help students to think and works like a mathematician for making the new
conjectures, justifying their answers as well as evaluating the solutions of others. They further
stated that the focus should be on encouraging the students to share their ideas, discuss and
debate them rather than just sitting and listening to the class lectures. Furthermore, Ross,
McDougall and Hogaboam-Gray (2002) stated that classroom must be organized in a group or
pair to encourage the student-student interactions among them. A reform class is more dynamic
and ever-changing and not just a fixed body of knowledge.
The Challenges of Reform
According to Ross, McDougall and Hogaboam-Gray (2002), the reform does not entirely
relate with the mandated tests, which measure the computational speed as well as accuracy and it
does not meet the expectations of the parents about how mathematics should be taught to their
children and how it is being tested. Reform makes it more difficult for the students and the
teachers to cover the whole curriculum, as it takes longer time.
Suurtamm, Koch & Arden (2010) further declared that the approach emphasizes on using
the challenging problem for students to construct various solution methods, discussions and
defense of the mathematical ideas. According to them, one of the most challenging
implementations is the student discussions on mathematical reasoning, finding out the balance as
well as encouraging this construction without leaving them floundering.
With the same, in the comprehensive school reform or the CSR in United States, the
students learn and discover the concepts through the process of reasoning and discussions and
this provides no explicit opportunities for reviewing or practicing the mathematical concept.
The Benefits of Reform

23
According to Haeck, Lefebvre and Merrigan (2011), School has moved away from the
traditional or academic approaches of drills, memorization, and activity books, to a more
comprehensive approach that is focused on learning in contextual setting in which the children
are expected to find the answers for themselves. Children should get the opportunity to
investigate as well as to explore mathematic problems with their teacher assistance. It is very
important to start with what a child already knows, and by activating his prior knowledge.
According to them, reform in mathematics education encourage the problem solving
approach to teach mathematics. The teachers who participated in the case studies have used
mathematics journals, in-class assignments, homework, performance tasks, observation record
sheets, independent study projects, quizzes as well as questioning and listening at the time of
problem-solving activities as a part of their classroom practices.
Ross, McDougall and Hogaboam-Gray (2002) further stated that the chief characteristics
of math education reform are Broader scope, use manipulatives or mathematical tools to support
learning, and use of complex and open-ended problems that are embedded in the real-life
contexts. Construction of mathematical ideas through the students discussion, the role of teachers
as a co-learner instead of sole knowledge expert are also two of the chief characteristics.
They also stated that from their case studies, they have analyzed that students solves
more complex problems, use more advanced strategies when they get confronted with the
obstacles and they gain deeper understanding as well. Reform also enables them to describe their
thinking, and adapt procedures in response to the problem requirements.
Summary

24
The teachers along with the parents need to assist the children in speaking about their
mathematical ideas and knowledge as well as they must encourage them to explain how they
have arrived to their answers. The more practice the students do in explaining why they are
doing math, rather than just following the rules of math, the easier time they will have in meeting
the high verbal, social, and cognitive expectations and challenges that reform-based instruction
presents.
3. Methodology
3.1 Data Analysis Method
Data analysis method can be of two types- quantitative and qualitative analysis. This
research shall rely on the qualitative data analysis because it is most suitable when a research
problem need to be addressed and explored. Through qualitative data analysis, the researchers
gets an opportunity to learn more about their participants, and can further gain a deeper
understanding and knowledge about the research object and its complexity (Creswell, 2012).
Particularly, this research shall use instrumental case study. The case study research helps the
researcher to intensively investigate the case in-depth as well as to discover the rich data and to
understand its complexity by long-term involvement and with various instructional methods
(Yin, 2009). Therefore, case study methods allow the researchers to gain holistic and more
meaningful characteristics of the real-life events like international relations, individual life
cycles, school performance, etc.
According to Stake (1995), the case study can be classified into three categories and they
are instrumental case, intrinsic case, and the collective case study. In case of intrinsic case study,
the researchers are guided by their own interest in the case itself, for example, a particular child,

25
clinic or conference or curriculum rather than in the extension of the theory or the generalization
across cases. The instrumental case study focuses on a particular issue and develops theory. The
case study serves as an important tool for better understanding of the similar situation. In case of
collective case study, there are multiple cases that are described and are compared in order to
provide an insight to a particular issue (Stake, 1995). According to those differences, the
research is planned in order to conduct the instrumental case study for examining the applied
computational thinking activities in mathematics workshop with the students and their parents.
In mathematics workshops, the program in computational thinking activities can clearly
observe the interaction of students with their parents. Thus, it has documented the impact of
mathematics workshops. It can be observed that there is a positive interaction between students
and their parents in mathematical activities and this means that they try to improve their attitude
towards mathematics, which leads to improve their achievement, understanding, learning,
thinking, and confidence of mathematics through mathematics workshops. The case study is
about groups of students, parents and teachers. Researchers have observed them as a whole.
Site and participants
In order to conduct this research, data has been gathered from the Al-Tawqa Academy
(London, Ontario). Children of grades 3 to 6 along with their parents have participated in a series
of coding and mathematical activity workshops (3 to 5 sessions) in Al-Taqwa Academy. Data
will be gathered from bservation, photos, videos records, photocopies, reflection forms from
students and parents, templates, and interviews. The mathematics program will be designed,
implemented and evaluated by the researchers. Research data will be collected about the effects
of these activities on the participants, i.e., children and their parents. The data collection methods

26
includs observation from the children and their participating family members. Semi-structured
interviews will also be conducted with the children and their family member(s). Moreover, the
data will be conducted by focusing on the group of teachers to obtain their feedback.
Research Materials
In computational and mathematics thinking workshops, the research will avoid the
traditional teaching style. New styles of teaching will be enabled by integrating the
computational thinking activities in teaching style with students and their parents. These styles
include making sense for students of the math concepts, and allow for more understanding for
students to get in explanation why they are studying math, rather than just following the
rulebooks of math. In addition, students will spend easier time they will have in meeting the high
social oral and mental hopes and challenges that reform-based instruction presents.
These new styles of teaching contemplate the involvement of parents in their children
learning task, and attraction of the parents toward “computational thinking” is inseparable
feature of the program. This will allow parents to know about new pedagogical mathematical
concepts.
Research Instruments
To conduct the computational activities workshops with students and their parent, some
kind of devices such as numerous of Sphero, tablets, chrome, that are connected by internet will
be used.
3.2 Data Collection Method

27
Observations data: Observations of students, parents, and environment in mathematics
workshop. I am going to collect data by observation and I am going to fill a form (see Appendix
A)- during the workshop or after that depends on the note I have taken during the observation. I
am going to concentrate on how students engage with their parent during computational thinking
activities by taking notes video records- if I can-, photos. Also, I going to concentrate on parents
and hoe they are doing with their children and with computational activities.
Interview Data: I plan to conduct a conversational interview with the students, parents
and researchers- if I can-. Also, teacher’s attitude is important to me to give the nature and
background of students in normal schooldays. (See Appendix…) by using open-ended questions
and yes or no questions. Also, I will conduct interviews for parents with to determine their level
of commitment, willingness to participate, etc. I try to do it before workshops and after workshop
by two forms (see Appendix …). About students I am going to ask them about their work and
personal experiences in computational thinking activities also before and after. After workshop, I
have to give both students and parents feedback form to fill (see Appendix…)
Document analysis: The document analysis will focus on the presence of the research questions,
and make sure that is data I collected by observations, interviews and feedback for both students
and parents are sufficient to cover and answer my research questions.
4. Research Ethics
Participants, such as parents and students, would not be randomly selected, but will give
the agreement to be as a volunteer in interviews. A letter will be sent to the principles of Al-
Taqwa academy, by email or hand-on, from my supervisor for allowing the researchers to start
collecting data in the school. If any picture has taken by accidents, the faces of the participants

28
will be blurred and private information that is related to them. The Audio records shall be free
from names and their private information. All data collected will be kept confidential and will be
available only to the investigators of the study. The potential risk in this study is really low or
non-existent. The students, parents, classroom teacher and principle would not be asked any
private information related to them. Confidentiality of the respondents will be maintained
throughout the research. Their responses and identity will be kept confidential. This will help in
getting a fair and actual responses from the staff members.
5. Research Analysis and narrative
The research will point out the benefits of involvement of parents with their children in
preview section. It will manifest how these workshops can be beneficial for children and parents
together. Children enjoy learning math more when working with their parents, and parents can
observe their children’s attitude with their friends, teachers, and so on, and can enhance their
parenthood skills as well. Moreover, parents can learn the new teaching styles and can then apply
them upon their children. While conducting a research, every researcher faces limitations with
regard to the research conducted. In the present research, the limitations are limited period of
time and man-power.
This research shall conduct the majority of the data analysis myself. This research is
planned to transcribe the interviews data overtime, “optically scanning material, typing up field
notes, cataloguing visual material, sorting and arranging the data into different... sources”.
Hence, there is no use of lot of transliterating and data analysis in this research.
6. Validity and Trustworthiness of the Study

29
According to Creswell (2014), there are total of eight strategies for convincing the
readers of the study’s validity and reliability like, member checking, triangulation, clarification
of any bias (researcher’s), thick descriptive data, present negative or contradictory evidence,
external auditor (review entire manuscript), data collected over a prolonged period of time and
peer debriefing. The research report will be full of clarity that will keep the evidence and the
interpretations separate from each other in the paper to will add credibility to the paper that will
clearly present the data with supporting evidence. The research is conducted based on detailed
record of the events directly from the field notes, transcribed audio and/or video recordings.
Throughout the paper it will refer to the literature and theoretical framework that supports the
findings.
7. Limitations
As it is mentioned above, the study interested in computational thinking activities in
mathematics workshops. It means that workshop depends on activities that they will be applied
through workshops. So, teachers need tools, materials, and devises to facilitate the educational
process and conduct the workshop’s lessons. In general, workshop needs members to continue
and to complete its purpose, so it needs teachers to conduct these kinds of workshops. Also,
sometimes parents are not available to attend workshop programs. However, researchers can skip
some of these limitations by finding volunteers to conduct the program, and they can encourage
students with their parent to attend these workshops by doing fun. In addition, researchers can do
the awareness of parents to distinguish the benefits of mathematics workshop in computational
thinking activities. In addition, there are Some Logistic Limitation:
1. Limited number of Sphero/ tablets/iPads/chrome

30
2. Connectivity challenges between Sphero and iPad/tablets especially when there are more than
one Sphero in the area
3. Sphero Charging Problems (Sphero went out of charge)
4. Sensitive devices that may be broken or suddenly stop working
However, with all these challenges, the students will enjoy during the lessons, fully
engaged and they will try to complete all tasks we need.
Summary
In conclusion, it can be said that, to enhance the students’ achievements, understanding,
thinking, and confidence, parents should be engaged in educational process then researchers can
achieve the validity. Parents can help their children in many ways, but the best way is to engage
with them in their activities in systematic design such as computational thinking activity- coding-
in mathematics workshop programs. Parents can attend coding and mathematics workshop to
support and work with their children, which will allow them to discover their children’s abilities
and they can know the modern pedagogical strategies of mathematics concepts. Mathematics and
coding workshops achieve the most suitable involvement of parents with their children. In future,
the workshops design could be improved by repeating the same program many times and
increasing the number of families (sample size) who are involved in workshops. Also, the
research plan to share parents’ experiences and suggestions to improve the workshop programs.

31
References
Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832-
835.
Angeli, C., Voogt, J., Fluck, A., Webb, M., Cox, M., Malyn-Smith, J., & Zagami, J. (2016). A K-
6 computational thinking curriculum framework: Implications for teacher knowledge.
Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 47-57.
Anisiobi, K. N. (2014). Family involvement strategies of asian american students with high
achievement in middle-school mathematics: A phenomenological narrative study (Order No.
3670868). Available From ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global: Social Sciences.
Arvidson, M. L. (1997). Reform-based instruction in mathematics: An inquiry into the
relationship among student achievement, teacher attitudes and reform practices (Order No.
9805046). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills
through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and
Autonomous Systems, 75, 661-670.
Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for
everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20-23.
Bienkowski, M., Snow, E., Rutstein, D. W., & Grover, S. (2015). Assessment design patterns for
computational thinking practices in secondary computer science: A First Look. SRI
International2015. Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12:

32
what is Involved and what is the role of the computer science education community?. Acm
Inroads, 2(1), 48-54.
Bono, M. (2002). Reform in mathematics education: rethinking the curriculum. CONCEPT, 26.
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April). New frameworks for studying and assessing the
development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada (pp. 1-25).
Bruner, J. (2001). Constructivist theory. Retrieved May, 10, 2001.
Caspersen, M. E., & Nowack, P. (2013, January). Computational thinking and practice: A
generic approach to computing in Danish high schools. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth
Australasian Computing Education Conference-Volume 136(pp. 137-143). Australian Computer
Society, Inc..
Civil, M., D’\iez-Palomar, J., Menéndez, J. M., & Acosta-Iriqui, J. (2008). Parents’ Interactions
with Their Children When Doing Mathematics. Adults Learning Mathematics, 3(n2a), 41–58.
Curzon, P., McOwan, P. W., Plant, N., & Meagher, L. R. (2014, November). Introducing
teachers to computational thinking using unplugged storytelling. In Proceedings of the 9th
workshop in primary and secondary computing education (pp. 89-92). ACM.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.

33
Davis, P., Hersh, R., & Marchisotto, E. A. (2011). The mathematical experience. Springer
Science & Business Media.
Dion, N. (2014). Emphasizing numeracy as an essential skill. Higher Education Quality Council
of Ontario.
Epstein, J. L. (1987). Parent involvement: What research says to administrators. Education and
urban society, 19(2), 119-136.
Farris, A. V., & Sengupta, P. (2014). Perspectival computational thinking for learning physics: A
case study of collaborative agent-based modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1403.3790.
Gadanidis, G. (2015). Coding as a trojan horse for mathematics education reform. The Journal of
Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 34(2), 155.
Gadanidis, G. (2017). Five affordances of computational thinking to support elementary
mathematics education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 36(2), 143-
151.
Gadanidis, G., Hughes, J. M., Minniti, L., & White, B. J. (2017). Computational thinking, grade
1 students and the binomial theorem. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 3(2), 77-96.
HAECK, C., LEFEBVRE, P., & MERRIGAN, P. (2011). All students left behind: An ambitious
provincial school reform in canada, but poor math achievements from grade 2 to 10. St. Louis:
Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis.
Hancock, D. R., & Algozzine, B. (2016). Doing case study research: A practical guide for
beginning researchers. Teachers College Press.

34
Hartog, M. D., Diamantis, M., & Brosnan, P. (1998). Doing mathematics with your child.
Teaching Children Mathematics, 4(6), 326.
Hiebert, J. (1999). Relationships between research and the NCTM standards. Journal for research
in mathematics education, 3-19.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V, Walker, J. M. T., Jones, K. P., & Reed, R. P. (2002). Teachers
involving parents (TIP): Results of an in-service teacher education program for enhancing
parental involvement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 843–867.
IPC (2017). International Commission on Mathematical Instruction. ICMI Study 24 Discussion
Document: SCHOOL MATHEMATICS CURRICULUM REFORMS: CHALLENGES,
CHANGES AND OPPORTUNITIES. Available at
https://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/ICMI/ICMI%20studies/ICMI%20STUDY
%2024%20Discussion%20Document%20FINAL%2015%20Dec%202017.pdf
Kibasan, J. I. I. A., & Singson, E. C. (2016). Culture and Education: A Study on LearningStyle
of Libyan College Students in Tripoli, Libya. Education, 6(1), 17–24.
Kotsopoulos, D., Floyd, L., Khan, S., Namukasa, I. K., Somanath, S., Weber, J., & Yiu, C.
(2017). A Pedagogical Framework for Computational Thinking. Digital Experiences in
Mathematics Education, 1-18.
Lawson, A., & Suurtamm, C (2006). The Challenges Aligning Large-scale Testing with
Mathematical Reform: The Case of Ontario.
Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., ... & Werner, L. (2011).
Computational thinking for youth in practice. Acm Inroads, 2(1), 32-37.

35
Liang, S. (2013). Family involvement in children’s mathematics education experiences: Voices
of immigrant Chinese American students and their parents.
Livio, M. (2011). Why math works. The BEST WRITING on MATHEMATICS, 1.
Lu, J. J., & Fletcher, G. H. (2009). Thinking about computational thinking. ACM SIGCSE
Bulletin, 41(1), 260-264.
Marion, C. (2010). An exploration of teachers' attitudes and beliefs about the reform of an
eighth grade math curriculum from an integrated math curriculum to a core math curriculum
Available from ERIC; ERIC.
Marshal, L., & Swan, P. (2010). Parents as participating partners. Australian Primary
Mathematics Classroom, 15(3), 25.
Namukasa, K. I., & Patel, M. (2017). Tools for Integrating Computational Thinking and
Mathematics in the Middle Grades. Issues, 1(1).
Ortiz, A. M., Bos, B., & Smith, S. (2015). The power of educational robotics as an integrated
STEM learning experience in teacher preparation programs. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 44(5), 42-47.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc.
Paz, N. (2011). The relationship between parental involvement and student achievement in
reading and mathematics on the florida comprehensive assessment test: A quantitative approach
(Order No. 3487761).

36
Portelance, D. J. (2015). Code and Tell: An Exploration of Peer Interviews and Computational
Thinking With ScratchJr in the Early Childhood Classroom (Doctoral dissertation, Tufts
University).
Reid, D. A., Anderson, A., Thom, J., Suurtamm, C., Mamolo, A., Kieran, C., ... & Chapman, O.
MATHEMATICS EDUCATION IN CANADA PME 2014 NATIONAL PRESENTATION. In
Cite as: Liljedahl, P., Nicol, C., Oesterle, S., & Allan, D.(Eds.).(2014). Proceedings of the 38th
Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education and the
36th Conference of the North American Chapter of the Psychology of Mathematics Education
(Vol. 1). Vancouver, Canada: PME. (p. 263).
Resnick, M. (1995). New paradigms for computing, new paradigms for thinking. In Computers
and exploratory learning (pp. 31-43). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Robson, F. M. (2002). ‘Yes!—A chance to tell my side of the story’: a case study of a male
partner of a woman undergoing termination of pregnancy for foetal abnormality. Journal of
Health Psychology, 7(2), 183-193.
Ross, u., McDougall, D. & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (2002). Research on reform in mathematics
education, 1993-2000. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 48(2), 122-138.
Sanford, J. F., & Naidu, J. T. (2016). Computational thinking concepts for grade
school. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (Online), 9(1), 23.
Scott, S. M. (2014). The effects of math tutoring sessions for parents on eighth grade students'
mathematics achievement and anxiety (Order No. 3619094).

37
Smith, M. S. (2000). Balancing old and new: An experienced middle school teacher's learning in
the context of mathematics instructional reform. The Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 351-
375.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In N.K. Denzin &Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (2nd ed., pp.435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Suurtamm, C., Koch, M., & Arden, A. (2010). Teachers' assessment practices in mathematics:
Classrooms in the context of reform. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice,
17(4), 399-417.
THE FIXATION ON STANDARDIZED TEST SCORES. (2018). Update, 45(1), 4. Available at
http://www.osstf.on.ca/publications/update/2017-2018/45-01/fixation-on-standardized-test-
scores.aspx
Vallera, F. L., & Bodzin, A. M. (2017). Agricultural Literacy, Integrated STEM, and Innovative
Technology: An Engaging Combination. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 89(5), 25.
Van Voorhis, F. L., Maier, M. F., Epstein, J. L., & Lloyd, C. M. (2013). The Impact of Family
Involvement on the Education of Children Ages 3 to 8: A Focus on Literacy and Math
Achievement Outcomes and Social-Emotional Skills. MDRC.
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.

38
Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and
student achievement in mathematics.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
Wing, J. M. (2011, March). Computational thinking. In VL/HCC (p. 3).
Xiao, L., Namukasa, I., & Zhang, Y. (2016). Design-based mathematics workshops. New
Library World, 117(3/4), 138–157.
Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational thinking for all: Pedagogical
approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends:
Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 60(6), 565-568.
Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative science quarterly, 26(1),
58-65.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and Methods. SAGE publications. Thousand
oaks.
Zakara, E., Chin, L. C., & Daud, M. Y. (2010). The effects of cooperative learning on students’
mathematics achievement and attitude towards mathematics. Journal of social sciences, 6(2),
272-275.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/11/30/ontario-math-scores-for-10-year-olds-lag-behind-
27-other-countries.html
http://www.oecd.org/canada/pisa-2015-canada.htm

39
Title.http://www.eqao.com/en/about_eqao/media_room/facts_and_figures/Pages/infographic-
2017-elementary-results.aspx
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/parentGuideNumEn.pdf