In recent years, there has been a rising interest in bringing Computational Thinking (CT) into school curricula (Heintz, Mannila, & Farnqvist, 2016) with the intention of fostering students’ 21st century skills. Norway has followed suit, introducing CT in the curriculum from 2020 (Directorate of Education, 2020). The term CT is not new in an educational context, originating with Papert (1980), it did not gain foothold then. Resnick et al. (2009) argue that the reasons for  the lack of inclusion was due to teachers’ struggle to provide guidance when things went wrong, and the difficulty of use of early programming languages. Wing’s (2006) definition has sparked a renewed interest in CT. Her focal argument is that CT represents “a universally applicable attitude and skill set everyone, not just computer scientists would be eager to learn and use” (p. 33).

The increase in the inclusion of CT in curricula has raised questions about how CT should be integrated, and some schools have integrated CT in current subjects as mathematics and science. Specific definitions of the use of computational thinking in a curricular context is still being debated (Brennan & Resnick, 2012; Grover & Pea, 2013; Shute, Sun, & Asbell-Clarke, 2017; Weintrop et al., 2016), and contributes to a confusion around educators trying to implement CT (Sands, Yadav, & Good, 2018). In addition, there are few detailed descriptions of how CT is integrated into core subjects in elementary classrooms (Rich, Yadav, & Larimore, 2020).

Despite the clear connection of CT and mathematics in the aspects of problem solving (Weintrop et al., 2016), this connection is not incorporated into teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of teaching (Sands et al., 2018). Teachers use multiple forms of knowledge when they plan and implement instruction, including content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and curricular knowledge (Shulman, 1986). Teaching with technology introduces yet another aspect in teachers’ knowledge, with the need to understand the interaction between technological knowledge and content knowledge, also called technological content knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Benton, Saunders, Kalas, Hoyles, and Noss (2018) argue that introducing CT in school mathematics curricula challenges teachers, and are increasing their demands towards the knowledge needed to teach mathematics as well as including skills as computer science skills. An issue that can be raised is how teachers are managing to connect the technological part as a computer scientist, and present this technological knowledge to influence and help teaching mathematics.

Most of the research embedding CT and mathematics in primary school teaching is conducted around interventions in which the teacher is given a limited role (authors, under review). In addition, it seems that it is a challenge to create teaching plans where both mathematics and CT are equally represented (Israel & Lash, 2020). Therefore, there is a need for research based on how CT is introduced, understood and incorporated in primary teachers mathematical knowledge. The purpose of this study is to provide a better understanding of teachers’ perception of CT and mathematics teaching. This can help guide and secure future efforts towards designing professional development programs of CT. I raise the following questions

• How do primary school teachers conceptualize CT in primary school mathematics?

• What upskilling opportunities have been offered to teachers in terms of CT and mathematics?

Data were collected through online interviews with four female primary teachers (1-10 years of teaching experience) from three different schools (grade 1 – 4) from Eastern Norway. The four participants were chosen through convenience sampling, and do not have any computer science in their educational background. The interviews were conducted by the author through online audio recording and then transcribed. Each interview lasted 30 minutes with 11 prepared questions about upskilling opportunities, how they understand the term CT, which resources they are using in the teaching and how they link and plan the lessons in terms of teaching mathematics and CT. The interviews focused on teachers' perception and use of CT in the planning and implementation in the mathematics teaching. To analyse teachers' perceptions in the interviews, the framework for studies in teacher knowledge for technology integration, called technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) (Koehler & Mishra, 2009) will be applied. The framework consists “the relationship between content (the subject matter that is to be learned and taught, pedagogy (the process and practice or methods of teaching and learning), and technology (both commonplace, like chalkboards, and advanced, such as digital computers)” (Koehler & Mishra, 2009 p. 1025). In the analysis of the interviews, I categorize my findings in relation to content, pedagogy and technology, with the aim of discussing them as interdependent and in relation against each other. This will help to guide the analysis towards teachers' knowledge and how to inform the debate on what teachers need to know in the relationship of CT and mathematics, and how they might develop it.

A preliminary analysis of the data suggests that the teachers struggle to understand how they should implement CT in the mathematics teaching. In relation to mathematical content, it appears that the teachers have a hard time answering which mathematical content they can teach with CT stating “I know so little about it, that I don't know which mathematical knowledge that is needed”. Contents as functions and numbers are mentioned but tempered with insecure utterances “or does it not?”. From the pedagogical aspect, only one of the teachers had experience in teaching CT in mathematics as an unplugged activity following instructions in a book. The other three had not practiced it yet. However, some of the teachers outlined some resources the school had available (BeeBots), but the lack of knowledge stopped them from using these. This makes the ability to apply CT in a pedagogical context difficult. With regards to technology, the teacher reported a lack of upskilling initiatives in CT: One of the participating schools allotted two hours over a three-day seminar for programming, and one of the teachers at another school took a course paid at her own expense. These courses were mainly about learning how to program as a technological skill, and the inclusion in different subjects was up to the teachers to discuss. The results indicate that it is up to the teachers to take the initiative to understand how to implement CT into mathematics teaching. The findings also suggest that there is a difference in upskilling support in the schools, and that the discussion of how to integrate and understand CT in mathematics is absent and as such compartmentalising programming out of the relationship between content and pedagogy.

Benton, L., Saunders, P., Kalas, I., Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2018). Designing for learning mathematics through programming: A case study of pupils engaging with place value. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 16, 68. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.12.004 Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American educational research association, Vancouver, Canada. Directorate of Education. (2020). Læreplanverket. Retrieved from https://www.udir.no/laring-og-trivsel/lareplanverket/ Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational researcher, 42(1), 38-43. Heintz, F., Mannila, L., & Farnqvist, T. (2016). A review of models for introducing computational thinking, computer science and computing in K-12 education. In (Vol. 2016-). Israel, M., & Lash, T. (2020). From Classroom Lessons to Exploratory Learning Progressions: Mathematics + Computational Thinking. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(3), 362-382. Retrieved from https://login.ezproxy.oslomet.no/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1252915&site=ehost-live&scope=site Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 9(1), 60-70. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas Basic Books. Inc. New York, NY. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., . . . Silverman, B. (2009). Scratch: programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67. Rich, K. M., Yadav, A., & Larimore, R. A. (2020). Teacher Implementation Profiles for Integrating Computational Thinking into Elementary Mathematics and Science Instruction. Education and Information Technologies, 25(4), 3161-3188. Retrieved from https://login.ezproxy.oslomet.no/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1258903&site=ehost-live&scope=site Sands, P., Yadav, A., & Good, J. (2018). Computational thinking in K-12: In-service teacher perceptions of computational thinking. In Computational thinking in the STEM disciplines (pp. 151-164): Springer. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003 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. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.