CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES AND STUDIES

This chapter presents the various related literature's and related studies

critically reviewed by the researcher in the course of conducting this study

following this Sequence

2.1 Related Literature

2.1.1 Computational Thinking in K-12

Computational thinking is a 21st-century skill that should be a part of all

K-12 students' analytical abilities, and it is now seen as imperative skills in

many areas (Kalelioğlu, Gülbahar, & Kukul, 2016). The ability to read, share,

and express ideas in a way that computing devices can interpret and execute is

a fundamental skill for everyone in the 21st century (DisSessa,2000). As

Janette Wing put it in the subtitle of an article that sparked recent debates, CT

"represents a universally applicable attitude and skill set everyone, not just

computer scientists, would be eager to learn and use" (Wing, 2006, p. 33).In the

last years, the idea of computational thinking was first to coin by Papert,

arguing that young learners should learn to program so that they can

communicate ideas in other fields of learning such as Mathematics. Papert

(1980) projected that computational ideas in any field would change the way

young learners think. In recent years. Wing (2006) defines computational

thinking as is a thought process that allows us to break a complex problem,

consider the problem, and build potential solutions. We can then present these

solutions in a way that can be understood by a computer, a human, or both. She

also added that CT is a crucial skill that should be an integral part of every

child's education.
 Although the definition of computational thinking remains controversial,

CT has been widely recognized as a competence associated with

problem-solving. For instance, CT is described as involving problem-solving

drawing knowledge, concepts, techniques, and perspectives form computer

science(Lye and Koh 2014).Moreover, the definition of CT and its concepts is

usually associated with data representation, problem solving or reformulation,

algorithmic thinking, automating solutions, and simulations (Barr &

Stephenson, 2011; Brennan & Resnick, 2012 ;Grover & Pea, 2013; Lye & Koh,

2014).

The immaturity of computational thinking results in ambiguity when

looking at education. Teachers are generally unaware of CT and consider it was

challenging to apply computational thinking to their existing curricula (Shute et

al., 2017). This fact leads to a little consensus about whether computational

thinking can be implemented into the educational process.A recent research

showed that very few teachers already have the knowledge and understanding

about how computational thinking skills should be practiced in their classrooms

(Lye and Koh 2014; Sands, Yadav, & Good, 2018 ). As a result, various

researchers that make the development of CT consequently lead to studies

where measurements vary significantly across studies, making the results less

convincing and undoubtedly difficult to compare (Shute et al., 2017).

In this regard, to constitute an operational framework of computational

thinking that can be used in a k-12 setting, CT components should be delimited.

According to Wing (2006), computational thinking is more complicated than

programming, and programming requires computational thinking and is often

employed to achieve it. Thus, Román-González et al. (2017) considered

languages, which aim to measure the acquisition of computational thinking

development in the subject. Consequently, various computational thinking

concepts were taken into consideration: basic sequences, loops, iteration,

conditionals, functions & variables. This study refers to the CT framework

proposed by Brennan & Resnick, (2012), who categorized CT into three areas:

concepts, practices, and perspectives, specifically to the dimension of CT

concepts, therefore, this study explored CT acquisition with a game-based

learning environment, the primary purpose of which is to teach the student basic

CT concepts, like basic sequences, loops, iteration, conditionals, functions &

variables. In this environment (Scratch: more details below ), students need to

program to solve challenges. It has been shown that programming and

computational thinking are intertwined and programming is considered a

productive context for teaching-learning computational thinking and learning

mathematical concepts in the mathematics classroom (Lye and Koh, 2014;

Hickmott et al. 2018).

2.1.2 Programming in k-12

During the last decade, the research community has embraced the used of

programming languages in teaching computational thinking in mathematics.

Through programming, children can use their creativity to command computers

to solve problems. When learning to program, young learners are not "just

learning to code; they are coding to learn" (Resnick, 2013). In fact , the first

programming language used with educational aims was LOGO programming,

which Seymour Papert developed to teach children mathematics by

programming . Papert(1990) believed that the programming experience of the

help transform the way you speak and learn about math and write the

connection between them. For example ,the study conducted by Fessakis, Gouli,

& Mavroudi (2013) on kindergarten students who successfully used a logo

based environment on a interactive whiteboard to work on problem solving

strategies and different mathematical skills related to numbers and geometry.

However, programming in mathematics classrooms does not necessarily

lead to expected results. Misfeldt and Ejsing-Duun (2015) recall the

disappointing outcome of the mainstream implementation of LOGO

programming in the 80s and 90s in school, where the students easily

overlooked nuggets of mathematical knowledge , making their work in the

micro-world non-mathematical.

Subsequently, after Logo's disappearance, there was not extensive reporting

of programming languages for teaching computational thinking skills in K-12.

Nevertheless, a growing range of programming languages have begun to appear

in recent years to lead programming languages in k-12, including Scratch,

Greenfoot, and Alice (Utting, Cooper, Kölling, Maloney, & Resnick 2010).

Among the three programming languages, Scratch is one of the most popular

programming languages taught in secondary education ( Zhang and Nouri,

2019). This visual programming language allow learners to engage playful

learning activities creating digital artifacts like game, animation, and interactive

stories. This kind of programming language help students express themselves,

develop learning and creative thinking skills, and cooperate and collaborate

with their peers (Brennan, Balch, & Chung, 2014).Scratch is a visual

programming languages that helps the learners to focus on activities ,creating

scratch have typically explored the program's benefits in promoting

mathematics education; for example, Calder (2010) used scratch programming

to design games that can improve young children's mathematical knowledge

and skills. The study of Hickmott et al. ( 2018) also found that learners

unintentionally or deliberately learn mathematics such as numbers, operation,

algebra, functions etc.during the process of learning CT knowledge by scratch

programming.

However,recent CT research focusing on visual programming languages

had been implemented in after-school activities and suggested that future CT

studies must investigate learning topics in naturalistic classroom settings(Lye

and Koh , 2014) .To respond to these research challenges, this study used

scratch programming language to deliver CT instruction in a regular

mathematics class at an secondary level ( rather that isolated instruction).

2.1.3 Definition of Creativity and Assessing Creativity

Creativity is a key competency within different frameworks for twenty-first

century education (Dede, 2010; Voogt & Roblin, 2012) and is considered a

competency-enabling way to succeed in an increasingly complex world.

Newton & Newton, (2014) suggest that creativity is the solution to global

problems. Thus, teacher are encourage to promote collaborative activities

through creative learning, conversation, or developing product for learning.

Such activities will boost the ability of children to work as a team

and enhance the creativity as they have discovered by teaching technology.

Literature reveals that there are different forms to describe and define creat

ivity.Some people relate creativity to a different kind of thinking, whereas other

process of developing ideas that are original and of value.Also, Laycock (1970)

described mathematical creativity as an ability to analyze a given problem from

different perspective, see patterns, differences and similarities, generate

multiple ideas and choose a proper method to deal with unfamiliar

mathematical situations (cited in Idris & Nor, 2010). Torrance (1974) defines

creativity in terms of a creative process and of becoming sensitive to

problems.Torrance described four components by which students creativity can

be assessed, such as Fluency, Flexibility, Elaboration, and Originality.

According to him, creativity has three essential components which should be

integrated: the products that contain the creative ideas, the persons who

conceived those ideas and the processes the persons involved used to do so

(Simonton, 2000)

2.1.4 Scratch as a tool for Fostering creativity in Mathematics classroom

In mathematics, creativity helps the students make sense of the world.Yet

students are taught as if mathematics is all about rules and procedures. In

traditional math classes, teacher display problems on board and solve them

while giving detailed explanation.After modelling problem solving process,

the teacher put the students to work following the same methods to solve

parallel problems. Mathematics instruction of this style could be a departure

from prevailing dominant learning theories and practices. Students should be

provided opportunities to engage in struggling to solve mathematics problems

which are ill-posed and/or open ended. Solving such challenging mathematics

problems has led students to experience creativity in mathematics and doing

mathematics and also try to reflect on their own ideas. According to

activities since the nature of mathematics is appropriate to be used to foster

creativity, thus, the task of a mathematics educator is to provide students

activities that can enhance and developed their creativity.

One approach to enrich students creativity in the classroom is through the

aid of technology. Technology can empower and provide students all the

tools necessary for promoting creativity. The integration of technology into

mathematics instruction and creativity has been notably discussed, pointing to

the inevitable interest and impact of technology on creativity in

mathematics.Yushau, Mji & Wessels, (2005) support the use of technology,

especially computers, to help learners develop their creativity. The

technology can create an environment in which mathematical abilities can be

expanded beyond the ability to measure or replicate problems and allow

students to examine, analyze, and interpret issues at hand. The authors also

added that the learners could solve mathematical problems with computers,

leading to conjectures, pattern finding, example, and counterexamples using

experimental approaches. When used effectively, computational aids can help

learners develop their intellectual skills and, therefore, mathematical

achievement while fostering creativity that is not found in the traditional

approach.

The same idea that Idris and Nor (2010) believe that the use of

technology in the classroom can adapt individual needs creating a room for

students to foster creativity. The use of computers can empower student to

be creative and critical thinkers and better problem solvers since students

nowadays are living and working in an era dominated by computers.