Elementary

Computational thinking (CT) is central to computer science, yet there is a gap in the literature on how CT emerges and develops in early childhood especially for children from historically marginalized communities. Yet, lack of access to computational materials and effective instruction can create inequities that have lasting effects on young children (Chaudry, et al., 2017). To alleviate the pervasiveness of such inequities and remedy the “pedagogical dominance of Whiteness” (Baines et al., 2018, p.

Computational thinking (CT) is central to computer science, yet there is a gap in the literature on the best ways to implement CT in early childhood classrooms. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore how early childhood teachers enacted asset-based pedagogies while implementing CT in their classrooms. We followed a group of 28 early childhood educators who began with a summer institute and then participated in multiple professional learning activities over one year.

This chapter features intersections of art, literacy, and creative computing. As a component of STEAM, creative computing augments story creation, or storymaking (Buganza et al., 2023; Compton & Thompson, 2018), prompting learners to explore expressive meaning making as collective interactions with texts. To signify a way of teaching that supports such learning activities, we propose expressive STEM as a design principle, illustrated here with examples from an elementary school and a preservice art education program in Texas, USA.

Teach mathematics and science using materials for the weather-focused Community Collaborative Rain, Hail, & Snow Network project.

This article portrays how citizen science (CS) projects can be integrated into elementary classrooms to enhance students’ sensemaking skills and connect to real-world science problems. For the last several years, we have been involved in a study, Teacher Learning for Effective School-Based Citizen Science (TL4CS), that developed materials for elementary school teachers to engage their students in data collection, analysis, and interpretation for two existing CS projects: Community Collaborative Rain, Hail, and Snow Network (CoCoRaHS) and the Lost Ladybug Project (LLP).

This conceptual paper presents a framework for supporting multilingual students’ mathematical discourse through teacher professional development grounded in design-based research (DBR). Drawing on sociocultural learning theory, the Integrated Language and Mathematics Project (ILMP) was co-developed with elementary educators to promote integrated instruction that simultaneously advances students’ mathematical understanding, language development, and cultural identity.

The Language, Culture, and Knowledge-building through Science (LaCuKnoS) project tests and refines a model of science teaching and learning that brings together current research on the role of language in science communication, the role of cultural and community connections in science engagement, and the ways people apply science knowledge to their daily decision making. One key component of the model brings families together as co-learners and co-teachers through family learning experiences.

We extend research that connects teacher noticing expertise and instructional quality by providing rich illustrations of these connections at three levels of noticing expertise. Grounded in a vision of teaching that is responsive to children’s mathematical thinking, we investigated connections between teachers’ expertise in noticing children’s thinking and their centering of children’s thinking in whole-class discussions. We showcase three upper elementary school teachers as focal teachers, each with a different level of noticing expertise.

We present findings from an analysis of tests of teacher mathematical knowledge identified over a 20-year period of mathematics education literature. This analysis is part of a larger project aimed at developing a repository of instruments and their associated validity evidence for use in mathematics education. We report on how these tests are discussed in the literature, with a focus on validity arguments and evidence. A key finding is that these tests are often presented in ways that do not support their use by the mathematics education community.