Abstract
This study investigates how young children master, construct and understand intelligent rule-based robot behaviors, focusing on their strategies in gradually meeting the tasks’ complexity. The wider aim is to provide a comprehensive map of the kinds of transitions and learning that take place in constructing simple emergent behaviors, particularly for young children. Six kindergarten children participated individually in the study along five sessions. Regarding modes of engagement, it was found that the children conducted intensive and extended playful investigations of the robot’s behaviors, interacting with it in a variety of ways; it was also found that their constructions were planful and anticipatory, as they could simulate how the behaviors play out even prior to running their programs. Three kinds of transitions were found in the children’s comprehension of the system: one involved adaptation to the formal language; the second, coordination of multiple spatial perspectives; and the third involved a shift from viewing rules as one-time events to their view as recurring and continual descriptions of a process. Finally, it was found that the children employed two strategies to reduce the amount of information in the system: “pruning” involved ignoring part of the logical structure and focusing on another; “fusing” involved coalescing several rules or functions into one. These results are discussed with respect to previous literature on children’s programming and with regards to understanding and supporting young children’s learning through their construction of adaptive autonomous behaviors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The operational definition of rule-base configuration is the number of pairs of condition-action couples (If… Then… couples). One robot control rule consists of a pair of complementary condition-action couples (If true … Then…; If false… Then …).
References
Ackermann, E. (1996). Perspective-taking and object construction. In Y. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.), Constuctionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world (pp. 25–37). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Carr, M. (2000). Technological affordance, social practice and learning narratives in early childhood setting. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 61–79.
Fleer, M. (1999). The science of technology: Young children working technologically. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9, 269–291.
Kull, J. (1986). Learning and logo. In P. Campbell & G. Fein (Eds.), Young children and microcomputers (pp. 103–130). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kurland, D., & Pea, R. (1985). Children’s mental models of recursive logo programs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1(2), 235–243.
Levy, S., & Mioduser, D. (2008). Does it “want” or “was it programmed to …”? Kindergarten children’s explanations of an autonomous robot’s adaptive functioning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(3), 337–359.
Linn, M., & Clancy, M. (1992). The case for case studies of programming problems. Communications of the ACM, 35(3), 121–132.
Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?—The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.
McNerney, T. (2004). From turtles to tangible programming bricks. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8(5), 326–337.
Mioduser, D., & Levy, S. T. (2010). Making sense by building sense (I): Kindergarten children’s construction and understanding of adaptive robot behaviors (submitted).
Mioduser, D., Levy, S. T., & Talis, V. (2009). Episodes to scripts to rules: Concrete-abstractions in kindergarten children’s explanations of a robot’s behaviors. Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(1), 15–36.
Montemayor, J., Druin, A., Simms, S., Churaman, W., & D’Armour, A. (2001). Physical programming: designing tools for children to create physical interactive environments. CHI 2002, ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. CHI Letters, 4(1), 299–306.
Morgado, L. (2005). Framework for computer programming in preschool and kindergarten. Doctoral dissertation, Universidade de Trans-os-Montes e Alto Duro, retrieved at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24041133/Framework-for-Computer-Programming-in-Preschool-and-Kindergarten#stats.
Morgado, L., Cruz, M., Bulas, G., & Kahn, K. (2003). Taking programming into kindergartens: Exploratory research activities using toontalk. In Cnotinfor Lda (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th European Logo Conference Eurologo 2003, August 27–30, Porto, Portugal.
Morgado, L., Cruz, M., & Kahn, K. (2006). Radia Perlman—A pioneer of young children computer programming. In A. Méndez-Vilas, A. Solano Martín, J. A. Mesa González, & J. Mesa González (Eds.), Current developments in technology-assisted education (Vol. III). Badajoz, Spain: Formatex.
Papert, S. (1980, 1993). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas, 1st edn. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.
Pea, R. (1987). Programming and problem-solving: Children’s experiences with Logo. In T. O’Shea & E. Scanlon (Eds.), Educational computing (an Open University reader). London: Wiley.
Perlman, R. (1974). TORTIS—Toddler’s own recursive turtle interpreter system. MIT AI Memo No. 311/Logo Memo No. 9. Cambridge, MA: MIT AI Lab.
Perlman, R. (1976). Using computer technology to provide a creative learning environment for preschool children. MIT AI Lab Memo No. 360/Logo Memo No. 24, Cambridge, MA: MIT AI Lab.
Raffle, H., Parkes, A., & Ishii, H. (2004). Topobo: A constructive assembly system with kinetic memory. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computer systems. Vienna, Austria: ACM.
Resnick, M., Martin, F., Berg, R., Borovoy, R., Colella, V, Kramer, K., et al. (1998). Digital manipulatives: New toys to think with. In Proceedings of the CHI’98 conference on human factors in computing systems. Los Angeles, California: ACM.
Scweikardt, E., & Gross, M. (2006). roBlocks: A robotic construction kit for mathematics and science education. In Proceedings of ICMI 06. Alberta, Canada: ACM.
Singh, J. (1992). Cognitive effects of programming in Logo: A review of literature and synthesis of strategies for research. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(1), 88–104.
Sleeman, D., Putnam, R., Baxter, J., & Kuspa, L. (1988). An introductory pascal class: A case study of students’ errors. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Teaching and learning computer programming (pp. 237–256). Hilssdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Talis, V., Levy, S. T., & Mioduser, D. (1998). RoboGAN: Interface for programming a robot with rules for young children. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University.
Wyeth, P., & Purchase, H. (2000). Programming without a computer: A new interface for children under eight. In Proceedings of first australasian user interface conference.
Zuckerman, O., Arida, S., & Resnick, M. (2005). Extending tangible interfaces for education: Digital montessori-inspired manipulatives. In Proceedings of CHI 2005. Portland, OR: ACM.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully thank Dr. Vadim Talis, who collaborated with us in designing the RoboGan environment and in conducting the research with the children.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Levy, S.T., Mioduser, D. Approaching Complexity Through Planful Play: Kindergarten Children’s Strategies in Constructing an Autonomous Robot’s Behavior. Int J Comput Math Learning 15, 21–43 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-010-9159-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-010-9159-5