Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Development of Attentional Inhibition Through Coding and Robotics: Associating Between Tinkering, Creating, and Problem Solving in a Group Setting

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A global trend towards integrating coding and robotics into school curricula has been lately taking place. Integrating coding and robotics into school curricula is an essential element for the development of computational thinking for and skills of the twenty-first century. Moreover, it could help developing cognitive skills and precisely attentional inhibition which is a component of the executive functions. Children (N = 35) aged between 9 and 11 years old completed a protocol of twelve coding and robotics sessions at a rate of three sessions per week, in groups of five. The sessions presented in an enjoyable and motivating environment gave the children the opportunity to play, tinker, create and solve problems while collaborating with each other. A repeated measures plan was used and the progress in attentional inhibition was measured by psychometric tests and by structured observations. After training phase, children exhibited a better performance (p value equal to 0.003) in attentional inhibition than after control phase (p value equal to 0.041). The significant progress revealed promising results towards the development of attentional inhibition through coding and robotics group sessions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data sets generated analyzed during the current study are available upon request.

Notes

  1. 32% of the students in Lebanon are enrolled in public schools and 95% of children in Lebanon go to schools (The Center for Educational Research and Development in Lebanon, 2020).

References

  1. UNESCO (2019) L'UNESCO prépare les enseignants et les apprenants aux défis du XXIe siècle (Online). https://fr.unesco.org/news/lunesco-prepare-enseignants-apprenants-aux-defis-du-xxie-siecle. Accessed 31 March 2020

  2. Ministry of Education and Higher Education in Quebec (2020) Programme de formation de l'école québécoise mathématique science et technologie au primaire (Online). http://www.education.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/site_web/documents/education/jeunes/pfeq/PFEQ_science-technologie-primaire.pdf. Accessed 6 December 2020

  3. Office of Educational Technology, Department of Education, Government of USA (2016) Future ready learning reimagining the role of technology in education (Online). https://tech.ed.gov/files/2015/12/NETP16.pdf. Accessed 6 December 2020

  4. UAE Ministry of Education (2017) Design Technology (Online). https://www.moe.gov.ae/Ar/ImportantLinks/Assessment/Documents/Courses/DT-%20Term%20plan.pdf. Accessed 6 December 2020

  5. Eguchi A (2014) Educational robotics theories and practice: tips for how to do it right. In: Robotics: concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications, vol 193. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp 193–223

  6. Duris O (2018) Le robot nao comme support relationnel et de dynamique groupale auprès d’enfants porteurs de troubles du spectre autistique. In: Et si Alzheimer(s) et Autisme(s) avaient un lien, Toulouse, Érès, pp 225–232

  7. Angel-Fernandez JM, Vincze M (2018) Towards a formal definition of educational robotics. In: Proceedings of the Austrian Robotics Workshop 2018, Innsbruck

  8. Denis B (2000) Vingt ans de robotique pédagogique. Sciences et techniques éducatives 7(1):195–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Papert S (1980) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bugmann J, Karsenti T (2018) Apprendre à programmer un robot humanoïde: impacts sur des élèves de l’adaptation scolaire. Formation et profession 26(1):26–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Alimisis D, Moro M, Menegatti E (2016) Educational robotics in the makers era, vol 560. Springer, Warsaw

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wing J (2006) Computational thinking. Commun ACM 49(3):33–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ambrosio AP, Almeida LDS, Macedo J, Franco A (2014) Exploring core cognitive skills of computational thinking. In: PPIG 2014 - 25th Annual Workshop, Sussex

  14. Labusch A, Eickelmann B, Vennemann M (2019) Computational thinking processes and their congruence with problem-solving and information processing. In: Computational thinking education. Springer, Singapore, pp 65–78

  15. Komis V, Misrili A (2011) Robotique pédagogique et concepts préliminaires de la programmation à l’école maternelle: une étude de cas basée sur le jouet programmable Bee-Bot. In: Colloque International DIDAPRO, Patras (2011)

  16. Scaradozzi D, Screpanti L, Cesaretti L (2019) Towards a definition of educational robotics: a classification of tools, experiences and assessments. In: Smart learning with educational robotics: using robots to scaffold learning outcomes. Springer, Cham, pp 63–92

  17. Di Lieto MC, Inguaggiato E, Castro E, Cecchi F, Cioni G, Dell’Omo M, Laschi C, Pecini C, Santerini G, Sgandurra G, Dario P (2017) Educational robotics intervention on executive functions in preschool children: a pilot study. Comput Hum Behav 71:16–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Arfé B, Vardanega T, Montuori C, Lavanga M (2019) Coding in primary grades boosts children’s executive functions. Front Psychol 10:2713–2731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rijike WJ, Bollen L, Eysink TH (2018) Computational thinking in primary school: an examination of abstraction and decomposition in different age groups. Inf Educ 17(1):77–92

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sáez-López J-M, Román-González M, Vázquez-Cano E (2016) Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: a two year case study using “Scratch” in five schools. Comput Educ 1:129–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Athanasiou L, Topali P, Mikropoulos TA (2017) The use of robotics in introductory programming for elementary students. In: Educational robotics in the makers era. Springer, Cham, pp 183–192

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Gandolfi E, Viterbori P, Traverso L, Usai MC (2014) Inhibitory processes in toddlers: a latent variable approach. Front Psychol 5(381):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kane MJ, Meier ME, Smeekens BA, Gross GM, Chunn CA, Silvia PJ, Kwapil TR (2016) Individual differences in the executive control of attention, memory, and thought, and their associations with schizotypy. J Exp Psychol 145(8):1017–1048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nigg JT (2017) Annual research review: on the relations among self- regulation, self-control, executive functioning, effortful control, cognitive control, impulsivity, risk-taking, and inhibition for developmental psychopathology. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 58:361–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Driver J (2001) A selective review of selective attention research from the past century. Br J Psychol 92:53–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. James W (1890) The principles of psychology, vol 1. Henry Holt and Company, New York, p 404

    Google Scholar 

  27. Carrasco M (2018) Spatial covert attention: perceptual modulation. In: The Oxford handbook of attention. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 183–230

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lachaux JP (2018) Qu’est ce que l’attention. In: Le cerveau et les apprentissages. Nathan, Paris, pp 129–156

    Google Scholar 

  29. Houdé O, Borst G (2015) Evidence for an inhibitory-control theory of the reasoning brain. Front Hum Neurosci 9(148):1–5

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gajewski PD, Thönes S, Falkenstein M, Wascher E, Getzmann S (2020) Multidomain cognitive training transfers to attentional and executive functions in healthy older adults. Front Hum Neurosci 14:487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. García-Madruga JA, Gómez-Veiga I, Villa JÓ (2016) Executive Functions and the Improvement of Thinking Abilities: The Intervention in Reading Comprehension. Front Psychol 7(58):58

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sala G, Gobet F (2017) Working memory training in typically developing children: a meta-analysis of the available evidence. Dev Psychol 53:671–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Johann VE, Karbach J (2020) Effects of game-based and standard executive control training on cognitive and academic abilities in elementary school children. Dev Sci 23(4):e12866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kalelioğlu F (2018) Characteristics of studies conducted on computational thinking: a content analysis. In: Computational thinking in the STEM Disciplines. Springer, Singapore, pp 10–29

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hunsaker E (2018) Understanding computational thinking. Brigham Young University, Provo

    Google Scholar 

  36. Zaharin NL, Mariappan M (2018) Computational thinking: a strategy for developing problem solving skills and higher order thinking skills. Int J Acad Res Bus Soc Sci 8(10):1265–1278

    Google Scholar 

  37. Shell DF, Hazley MP, Soh LK, Miller LD, Chiriacescu V, Ingraham E (2014) Improving learning of computational thinking using computational creativity exercises in a college CSI computer science course for engineers. In: Frontiers in education conference, Madrid

  38. Turchi T, Fogli D, Malizia A (2019) Fostering computational thinking through collaborative game-based learning. Multimed Tools Appl 78:13649–13673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kongs SK, Thompson LL, Iverson GL, Heaton RK (2000) Wisconsin card sorting test - 64 Card Version: Professional Manuel, Florida: Par

  40. Eriksen BA, Eriksen CW (1974) Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Percept Psychophys 16:143–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Marshall C, Rossman GB (2016) Designing qualitative research, 6ème édition ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks

  42. Jaillet A, Larose F (2009) Le numérique dans l’enseignement et la formation: Analyses, traces et usages. Sciences et Société ed. L'Harmattan, Paris

  43. Leavy P (2017) Research design. The Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  44. Saldaña J (2014) Coding and analysis strategies. In: The Oxford handbook of qualitative research. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 581–605

    Google Scholar 

  45. Borst G, Cachia A (2018) La méthode expérimentale. In: Les méthodes en psychologie. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, pp 61–89

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. Creswell JW, Creswell DJ (2018) Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches, 5ème édition ed. Sage, Los Angeleles

  47. Lindh J, Holgerssonb T (2007) Does lego training stimulate pupils’ ability to solve logical problems? Comput Educ 49(4):1097–1111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. King FJ, Goodson L, Rohani F (2012) Higher order thinking skills. Center for Advancement of Learning and Assessment, Florida

  49. Borst G, Cachia A (2018) Les méthodes descriptives. In: Les méthodes en psychologie. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, pp 17–39

  50. Borst G (2018) Les fonctions executives. In: Le cerveau et les apprentissages. Nathan, Paris, pp 183–205

    Google Scholar 

  51. Diamond A (2013) Executive functions. Annu Rev Psychol 64:135–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Diamond A, Ling DS (2016) Conclusions about interventions, programs, and approaches for improving executive functions that appear justified and those that, despite much hype, do not. Dev Cogn Neurosci 18:34–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Mazeau M (2008) Conduite du bilan neuropsychologique chez l’enfant, 2nd edn. Elsevier Masson SAS, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  54. Zanto TP, Gazzaley A (2014) Attention and ageing. In: The Oxford Handbook of attention. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 927–971

    Google Scholar 

  55. Lavie N, Dalton P (2018) Load theory of attention and cognitive control. In: The Oxford handbook of attention. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 56–75

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CIRNEF (EA 7454) Université Rouen Normandie, Rue Lavoisier, 76841, Mont-Saint-Aignan, France

    Karen Abou Assi

Authors
  1. Karen Abou Assi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen Abou Assi.

Ethics declarations

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from legal guardians to publish the results of the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abou Assi, K. The Development of Attentional Inhibition Through Coding and Robotics: Associating Between Tinkering, Creating, and Problem Solving in a Group Setting. Int J of Soc Robotics 14, 1883–1892 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-022-00916-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-022-00916-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation