The study addresses an important topic, but a few concerns need clarification. The small sample size (n=13) raises questions about generalizability; could the authors elaborate on its representativeness? The reduction of computational thinking facets from six to four without explanation affects the analysis’ robustness; can this decision be clarified? Lastly, some conclusions, especially on professional development, seem to extend beyond the data; could the authors provide further substantiation? A response to these points would strengthen the study.
Okay, so I read through the paper carefully, and yeah, there’s definitely an issue that could mess with their whole study. It’s kind of like they’re trying to design a toy for toddlers but asking parents of preschoolers what they think; close, but not quite the right fit.
Here’s the problem: The researchers built Scratch activities specifically aligned with Kindergarten, First, and Second Grade (K–2) math standards for teaching place value. That’s clear from their table and the whole premise—they’re focusing on early elementary kids who are just starting to wrap their heads around ones, tens, and how numbers work.
But then, when it comes to testing these activities, they include four teachers who teach Third Grade out of their 13 participants. Now, third grade is different. By then, students are supposed to have already mastered those basic place value concepts. They’re moving on to bigger numbers, addition with regrouping, all that.
So why does this matter?
Well, the whole point of the study was to get feedback from teachers on how they’d use or adapt these Scratch programs in their own classrooms. But a third-grade teacher isn’t thinking about how to introduce the idea of “ten ones make one ten”—they’re past that. Their students might find the activity too simple or babyish. So when these teachers give suggestions, like making the program handle up to 99 ones, they’re coming from a slightly older student context. That feedback might not actually help improve the tool for K–2 learners.
It gets worse when you look at the results. Some teachers suggested adding features to show regrouping during addition and subtraction—which is more of a first- and second-grade skill—but others wanted ways to manage large inputs (like 86 ones), which shows they’re thinking about efficiency and conceptual depth. That’s great, but again, is that really what a kindergarten teacher needs? Probably not.
The authors don’t mention this mismatch anywhere—not in the limitations, not in the methods. They treat all “elementary” teachers as interchangeable, but pedagogically, grades K–2 vs. grade 3 are totally different worlds. This means some of the feedback used to redesign the program might be based on classroom realities that don’t match the target age group.
In short: they designed a tool for young beginners, but let older-kid teachers influence its development. That throws off the validity of their findings, especially when they claim the activity supports K–2 standards. If the people giving feedback aren’t actually teaching those standards, can we really trust the redesign suggestions?
It’s a pretty big oversight for a study that’s all about aligning CT with specific math content. Kinda undermines the whole “teachers in the loop” idea if the loop includes teachers whose experience doesn’t quite match the goal.