You are here:

Coding as a playground: Promoting positive learning experiences in childhood classrooms
ARTICLE

, Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Study and Human Development. Computer Science Department. Tufts University, United States ; , , Department of Computer Engineering and Systems, Spain

Computers & Education Volume 138, Number 1, ISSN 0360-1315 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a push to introduce coding and computational thinking in early childhood education, and robotics is an excellent tool to achieve this. However, the integration of these fundamental skills into formal and official curriculums is still a challenge and educators needs pedagogical perspectives to properly integrate robotics, coding and computational thinking concepts into their classrooms. Thus, this study evaluates a “coding as a playground” experience in keeping with the Positive Technological Development (PTD) framework with the KIBO robotics kit, specially designed for young children. The research was conducted with preschool children aged 3–5 years old (N = 172) from three Spanish early childhood centers with different socio-economic characteristics and teachers of 16 classes. Results confirm that it is possible to start teaching this new literacy very early (at 3 years old). Furthermore, the results show that the strategies used promoted communication, collaboration and creativity in the classroom settings. The teachers also exhibited autonomy and confidence to integrate coding and computational thinking into their formal curricular activities, connecting concepts with art, music and social studies. Through the evidence found in this study, this research contributes with examples of effective strategies to introduce robotics, coding and computational thinking into early childhood classrooms.

Citation

Bers, M.U., González-González, C. & Armas–Torres, M.B. (2019). Coding as a playground: Promoting positive learning experiences in childhood classrooms. Computers & Education, 138(1), 130-145. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved February 1, 2023 from .

This record was imported from Computers & Education on June 3, 2019. Computers & Education is a publication of Elsevier.

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.013

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. l'Académie des sciences (2012). L’enseignement de l’informatique en France - il est urgent de ne plus attendre.
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics (2003). Prevention of pediatric overweight and obesity: Policy statement. Pediatrics, 112, pp. 424-430.
  3. Balanskat, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2015). Computing our future: Computer programming and coding. Priorities, school curricula and initiatives across Europe.
  4. Bannan, B. (2009). The integrative learning design framework: An illustrated example from the domain of instructional technology. Introd. Educ. Des Res., pp. 53-73.
  5. Benitti, F.B.V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), pp. 978-988.
  6. Bers, M.U. (2008). Blocks, robots and computers: Learning about technology in early childhood. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
  7. Bers, M.U. (2010). Beyond computer literacy: Supporting youth's positive development through technology. New Directions for Youth Development, 128, pp. 13-23.
  8. Bers, M.U. (2012). Designing digital experiences for positive youth development: From playpen to playground. Cary, NC: Oxford.
  9. Bers, M.U. (2018). Coding as a playground: Programming and Computational thinking in the Early Childhood Classroom. New York, NY: Routledge press.
  10. Bers, M.U., Seddighin, S., & Sullivan, A. (2013). Ready for robotics: Bringing together the T and E of STEM in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 21(3), pp. 355-377.
  11. Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Dettori, G., Ferrari, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education - implications for policy and practice. JRC science for policy report. Developing computational thinking in compulsory education - implications for policy and practice. JRC science for policy report.
  12. Brannen, J. (2017). Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research.
  13. Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American educational research association, Vancouver, Canada Available online: http://web.media.mit.edu/%7Ekbrennan/files/Brennan_Resnick_AERA2012_CT.pdf.
  14. Burlson, W., Harlow, D.B., Nilsen, K.J., Perlin, K., Freed, N., Jensen, C.,., (2017). Active learning environments with robotic tangibles: Children's physical and virtual spatial programming experiences.
  15. Cejka, E., Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2006). Kindergarten robotics: Using robotics to motivate math, science, and engineering literacy in elementary school. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(4), pp. 711-722.
  16. Chen, G., Shen, J., Barth-Cohen, L., Jiang, S., Huang, X., & Eltoukhy, M. (2017). Assessing elementary students' computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers & Education, 109, pp. 162-175.
  17. Ching, Y.H., Hsu, Y.C., & Baldwin, S. (2018). Developing Computational thinking with educational technologies for young learners.
  18. Creswell, J.W., & Clark, V.L.P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
  19. Cunha, F., & Heckman, J. (2007). The technology of skill formation. The American Economic Review, 97(2), pp. 31-47.
  20. Di Lieto, M.C., Inguaggiato, E., Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Cioni, G., Dell'Omo, M.,., (2017). Educational robotics intervention on executive functions in preschool children: A pilot study. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, pp. 16-23.
  21. Digital News Asia (2015). IDA launches S$1.5m pilot to roll out tech toys for preschoolers.
  22. Elkin, M., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M.U. (2014). Implementing a robotics curriculum in an early childhood Montessori classroom. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 13, pp. 153-169.
  23. Furber, S. (2012). Shut down or restart? The way forward for computing in UK schools. London: The Royal Society.
  24. Gander, W., Petit, A., Berry, G., Demo, G., Vahrenhold, J., & McGettrick, A. (2013). Informatics education: Europe cannot afford to miss the boat (2012).
  25. García-Peñalvo, F.J. (2017). Pensamiento computacional en los estudios preuniversitarios. El enfoque de TACCLE3.
  26. Guanhua, C., Ji, S., Lauren, B.-C., Shiyan, J., Xiaoting, H., & Moataz, E. (2017). Assessing elementary students' computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers & Education, 109, pp. 162-175. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.001.
  27. Hill, N.R., Hanks, B.B., Wagner, H.H., & Portrie-Bethke, T. (2016). Early Childhood: Physical and Cognitive Development. Human growth and development across the lifespan: Applications for counselors., p. 177.
  28. International Society for Technology in Education (2007). National educational technology standards for students. ISTE (Interntl Soc Tech Educ.
  29. Jung, S.E., & Won, E.S. (2018). Systematic review of research trends in robotics education for young children. Sustainability, 10(4), p. 905.
  30. Kandlhofer, M., & Steinbauer, G. (2016). Evaluating the impact of educational robotics on pupils' technical-and social-skills and science related attitudes. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, pp. 679-685.
  31. Koh, J.H.L., Chai, C.S., & Tay, L.Y. (2014). TPACK-in-Action: Unpacking the contextual influences of teachers' construction of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 78, pp. 20-29.
  32. Lee, K., Sullivan, A., & Authors, M.U. (2013). Collaboration by design: Using robotics to foster social interaction in Kindergarten. Computers in the Schools, 30(3), pp. 271-281.
  33. Madill, H., Campbell, R.G., Cullen, D.M., Armour, M.A., Einsiedel, A.A., & Ciccocioppo, A.L. (2007). Developing career commitment in STEM-related fields: Myth versus reality. Women and minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Upping the numbers, pp. 210-244. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  34. Manches, A., & Plowman, L. (2017). Computing education in children's early years: A call for debate. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(1), pp. 191-201.
  35. Markert, L.R. (1996). Gender related to success in science and technology. Journal of Technology Studies, 22(2), pp. 21-29.
  36. Meseguer, P., Moreno, J., Moreno, J., Olco, K., Pimentel, E., & Toro, M. (2015). Ensenanza de la informática en primaria, secundaria y bachillerato: Estado español, 2015.
  37. Metz, S.S. (2007). Attracting the engineering of 2020 today. Women and minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Upping the numbers, pp. 184-209. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  38. Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2015). The Europe code week (CodeEU) initiative: Shaping the skills of future engineers. 2015 IEEE global engineering education conference (EDUCON), pp. 561-566.
  39. Öztürk, H.T., & Calingasan, L. (2018). Robotics in early childhood education: A case study for the best practices. Teaching computational thinking in primary education, pp. 182-200. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  40. Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Zaranis, N. (2016). Developing fundamental programming concepts and computational thinking with ScratchJr in preschool education: A case study. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 10(3), pp. 187-202.
  41. Portelance, D.J., Strawhacker, A., & Bers, M.U. (2015). Constructing the ScratchJr programming language in the early childhood classroom. International journal of technology and design education, pp. 1-16.
  42. Pretz, K. (2014). Computer science classes for kids becoming mandatory.
  43. Resnick, M. (2006). Computer as paint brush: Technology, play, and the creative society. Play= learning: How play motivates and enhances children's cognitive and social-emotional growth.
  44. Resnick, M., Martin, F., Berg, R., Borovoy, R., Colella, V., & Kramer, K. (1998). Digital manipulatives. Proceedings of the CHI ‘98 conference, Los Angeles.
  45. Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) (2013). Rhode Island early learning and development standards. Available online: http://www.ride.ri.gov/InstructionAsses-sment/EarlyChildhoodEducation/EarlyLearningandDevelopmentStandards.aspx#1669797-literacy-l.
  46. Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J.C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the computational thinking test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, pp. 678-691.
  47. Serholt, S. (2018). Breakdowns in children's interactions with a robotic tutor: A longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, pp. 250-264.
  48. Shonkoff, J.P., Duncan, G.J., Fisher, P.A., Magnuson, K., & Raver, C. (2011). Building the brain's “air traffic control” system: How early experiences shape the development of executive function. Contract, 11.
  49. Siu, K.W.M., & Lam, M.S. (2005). Early childhood technology education: A sociocultural perspective. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(6), pp. 353-358.
  50. Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports (2018). Programación, robótica y pensamiento computacional en el aula. Situación en España. Available online: http://code.educalab.es/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Pensamiento-Computacional-Fase-%201-Informe-sobre-la-situaci%C3%B3n-en-Espa%C3%B1a.pdf.
  51. Strawhacker, A.L., & Bers, M.U. (2015). “I want my robot to look for food”: Comparing children's programming comprehension using tangible, graphical, and hybrid user interfaces. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(3), pp. 293-319.
  52. Strawhacker, A., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M.U. (2013). TUI, GUI, HUI: Is a bimodal interface truly worth the sum of its parts?. Proceedings from IDC ‘13: The 12th international conference on interaction design and children New York, NY: ACM.
  53. Sullivan, A., & Bers, M.U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), pp. 3-20.
  54. Sullivan, A., & Bers, M.U. (2017). Dancing robots: Integrating art, music, and robotics in Singapore's early childhood centers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education.
  55. Twining, P., Heller, R.S., Nussbaum, M., & Tsai, C.C. (2017). Some guidance on conducting and reporting qualitative studies. Computers & Education, 106, pp. A1-A9. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.002.
  56. U.K. Department for Education. (2013). The National Curriculum in England: Framework document. London: The Stationery Office.
  57. Van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. Design approaches and tools in education and training, pp. 1-14. Dordrecht: Springer.
  58. Van den Akker, J. (2007). Curriculum design research. An introduction to educational design research. Curriculum design research. An introduction to educational design research, Vol.37.
  59. Wing, J.M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), pp. 33-35.
  60. Wyeth, P. (2008). How young children learn to program with sensor, action, and logic blocks. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(4), pp. 517-550.
  61. Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2015). Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections