Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Introducing fundamental object-oriented programming concepts in preschool education within the context of physical science courses

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objects are everywhere. People deal with them from the beginning of their lives. From babyhood, they start to recognise them and, progressively, learn to define their attributes and designate the actions related to them. Although the basis of object-oriented programming is translating real-world objects into the object-oriented code, learning object-oriented programming is still a difficult task. To overcome this difficulty, we have to specify the right starting point of teaching basic object-oriented concepts and mark out the appropriate educational tools. In this paper, trying to answer the above questions, we present a research proposal on how fundamental object-oriented programming concepts could be introduced to children in early childhood education when physical science courses take place. The backbone of our research is the digital environment PhysGramming, through which children turn into creators, according to the theory of constructivism. The innovative aspect of PhysGramming is that children create their own games while studying physical science, in a way that provides familiarity with the basic principles of object-oriented programming and computational thinking, even though no specific reference is made to these principles.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akman, B., & Özgül, S. G. (2015). Role of play in teaching science in the early childhood years. In Research in early childhood science education (pp. 237–258). Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? Acm Inroads, 2(1), 48–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK Robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 12(2), n2 http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v12n2/bers.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, A. P. (2013). Object-oriented programming: some history, and challenges for the next fifty years. Information and Computation, 231, 3–20.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and “making” in education: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of machines, makers, and inventors (pp. 1–21). Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalal, N., Kak, S., & Sohoni, S. (2012). Rapid digital game creation for learning object-oriented concepts. In Proceedings of Informing Science and IT Education Conference (pp. 22–27). Montreal, Canada.

  • Darejeh, A., & Singh, D. (2013). A review on user interface design principles to increase software usability for users with less computer literacy. Journal of Computer Science, 9(11), 1443–1450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudley, J. P. (1998). Reports of carnivory by the common hippo Hippopotamus Amphibius. South African Journal of Wildlife Research-24-month delayed open access, 28(2), 58–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eshach, H., & Fried, M. N. (2005). Should science be taught in early childhood? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3), 315–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari, A., Poggi, A., & Tomaiuolo, M. (2016). Object oriented puzzle programming. Didattica Informatica-Didamatica, 2016, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education, 63, 87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flannery, L. P., Silverman, B., Kazakoff, E. R., Bers, M. U., Bontá, P., & Resnick, M. (2013). Designing ScratchJr: Support for early childhood learning through computer programming. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 1–10). New York, NY, USA.

  • French, L. (2004). Science as the center of a coherent, integrated early childhood curriculum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1), 138–149.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fruth, J., Schulze, C., Rohde, M., & Dittmann, J. (2013). E-learning of IT security threats: A game prototype for children. In IFIP international conference on communications and multimedia security (pp. 162–172). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Futschek, G. (2006a). Algorithmic thinking: The key for understanding computer science. In International conference on informatics in secondary schools-evolution and perspectives (pp. 159–168). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Futschek, G. (2006b). Algorithmic thinking: The key for understanding computer science. In R. Mittermeir (Ed.), Informatics education – the bridge between using and understanding computers (Vol. 4226, pp. 159–168). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gal-Ezer, J., & Stephenson, C. (2014). A tale of two countries: Successes and challenges in K-12 computer science education in Israel and the United States. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(2), 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaubke, C. R. (2007). The effects of interactive media on preschoolers’ learning: A review of the research and recommendations for the future. Oakland: Children Now. http://s78640.gridserver.com/uploads/documents/prek_interactive_learning_2007.pdf Accessed 1 Oct 2017.

  • Grammenos, D., Paramythis, A., & Stephanidis, C. (2000). Designing the user interface of an interactive learning environment for children. In C. Stephanidis (Ed.), Proceedings of the ERCIM WG UI4ALL one-day joint workshop with i3 Spring Days 2000 on “Interactive Learning Environments for Children”, Athens, Greece, 3 March (22 pages).

  • Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12 a review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haden, P., & Mann, S. (2003). The trouble with teaching programming. Proceedings of the NACCQ, Palmerston North, New Zealand, pp. 63–70.

  • Hailpern, B., & Santhanam, P. (2002). Software debugging, testing, and verification. IBM Systems Journal, 41(1), 4–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillar, G. C. (2015). Learning Object-oriented programming. Packt Publishing Ltd.

  • Hirumi, A., Appelman, B., Rieber, L., & Van Eck, R. (2010). Preparing instructional designers for game-based learning: Part 1. TechTrends, 54(3), 27–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holvikivi, J. (2010). Conditions for successful learning of programming skills. In N. Reynolds & M. Turcsányi-Szabó (Eds.), Key competencies in the knowledge society (Vol. 324, pp. 155–164). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, M. S., Crouser, R. J., & Bers, M. U. (2012). Tangible interaction and learning: The case for a hybrid approach. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(4), 379–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janke, E., Brune, P., & Wagner, S. (2015). Does outside-in teaching improve the learning of object-oriented programming?. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering-Volume 2 (pp. 408–417). Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE Press.

  • Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jona, K., Wilensky, U., Trouille, L., Horn, M. S., Orton, K., Weintrop, D., & Beheshti, E. (2014). Embedding computational thinking in science, technology, engineering, and math (CT-STEM). In future directions in computer science education summit meeting, Orlando, FL.

  • Kalogiannakis, M., & Zaranis, N. (2012). Preschool science education with the use of ICT: A case study. In Proceedings of the ESERA 2011 Conference, Science learning and Citizenship, Part 4: ICT and other resources for teaching/learning science (P. Marzin and J. Lavonen, Co-editors for Part 4), (pp. 56-62). Lyon, France. European Science Education Research Association. ISBN: 978-9963-700-44-8.

  • Kalogiannakis, M., Rekoumi, C., & Antipa, E. (2012). Planning educational activities for natural sciences using ICT tools: Teaching volcanoes in early childhood. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computer Based Learning in Science (CBLIS) 2012, Learning Science in the Society of Computers, Barcelone, Centre for Research in Science and Mathematics Education (CRECIM), 26-29 June 2012, (pp. 272–278). Barcelone, Spain.

  • Kazakoff, E. R., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The effect of a classroom-based intensive robotics and programming workshop on sequencing ability in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(4), 245–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kölling, M. (1999). The problem of teaching object-oriented programming, Part 1: Languages. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming, 11(8), 8–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraleva, R. (2017). Designing an interface for a mobile application based on children’s opinion. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 11(1), 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, J., & Hazzan, O. (2006). The role of abstraction in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Software engineering (pp. 1017–1018). ACM.

  • Lahtinen, E., Ala-Mutka, K., & Järvinen, H. M. (2005). A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. In Acm Sigcse Bulletin 37(3), 14-18. New York: ACM.

  • Lamagna, E. A. (2015). Algorithmic thinking unplugged. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 30(6), 45–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., Malyn-Smith, J., & Werner, L. (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. Acm Inroads, 2(1), 32–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., Macgill, A. R., Evans, C., & Vitak, J. (2008). Teens, video games, and civics: Teens’ gaming experiences are diverse and include significant social interaction and civic engagement. Pew Internet and American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/2008/09/16/teens-video-games-and-civics/. Accessed 2 Sept 2017.

  • Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mannila, L., Dagiene, V., Demo, B., Grgurina, N., Mirolo, C., Rolandsson, L., & Settle, A. (2014). Computational thinking in K-9 education. In Proceedings of the working group reports of the 2014 on innovation and technology in computer science education conference (pp. 1–29). New York, NY, USA. ACM.

  • Mateo, C., Brunete, A., Gambao, E., & Hernando, M. (2014). Hammer: An Android based application for end-user industrial robot programming. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mechatronic and Embedded Systems and Applications (MESA), 2014 IEEE/ASME (pp. 1–6). Senigallia, Italy.

  • McClure, E. R., Guernsey, L., Clements, D. H., Bales, S. N., Nichols, J., Kendall-Taylor, N., & Levine, M. H. (2017). STEM starts early: Grounding science, technology, engineering, and math education in early childhood. In Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. 1900 Broadway, New York, NY 10023.

  • McManis, L. D., & Gunnewig, S. B. (2012). Finding the education in educational technology with early learners. YC Young Children, 67(3), 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • McManis, L. D., & Parks, J. (2011). Evaluating technology for early learners. E-book and toolkit. Winston-Salem: Hatch Early Learning. http://info.novadesk.com/Portals/84375/docs/evaluatingtechnology_ebook_toolkit.pdf. Accessed 2 Nov 2017.

  • Miller, G. A., & Hristea, F. (2006). WordNet nouns: Classes and instances. Computational Linguistics, 32(1), 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohapatra, S., & Mohanty, R. (2017). Adopting MOOCs for affordable quality education. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2027–2053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nam, H. (2010). Designing user experiences for children. https://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2010/05/designing-user-experiences-for-children.php. Accessed 23 Nov 2017.

  • Nielsen, J. (2010). Children’s websites: Usability issues in designing for kids. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/childrens-websites-usability-issues/. Accessed 9 Nov 2017.

  • 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), 187–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. (2008). Students as designers and creators of educational computer games: Who else? British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1004–1019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radich, J. (2013). Technology and interactive media as tools in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Every Child, 19(4), 1–15.

  • Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J., Silverman, B., & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 5(3), 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sehnalová, V. (2014). Using ICT in education of preschool children. Journal of Technology and Information Education, 6(1), 4–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 351–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slany, W. (2014). Tinkering with Pocket Code, a Scratch-like programming app for your smartphone. In Proceedings of Constructionism 2014. Vienna, Austria.

  • Sorva, J., & Seppälä, O. (2014). Research-based design of the first weeks of CS1, In Proceedings of the 14th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research 2014 (pp. 71-80). Finland: ACM. Koli.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Trundle, K. C. (2015). The inclusion of science in early childhood classrooms. In Research in early childhood science education (pp. 1–6). Netherlands: Springer.

  • Tuomi, P., Multisilta, J., Saarikoski, P., & Suominen, J. (2017). Coding skills as a success factor for a society. Education and Information Technologies, 1–16.

  • Uçar, S. (2015). The use of technology in teaching science to young children. In Research in early childhood science education (pp. 167–184). Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 715–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, F., Kinzie, M. B., McGuire, P., & Pan, E. (2010). Applying technology to inquiry-based learning in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(5), 381–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegner, P. (1987). Dimensions of object-based design, In Proceedings of the International Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications (pp. 168–182). New York: ACM.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U., Brady, C. E., & Horn, M. S. (2014). Fostering computational literacy in science classrooms. Communications of the ACM, 57(8), 24–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, V. (2014). Research methods: Triangulation. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 9(1), 74–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. In Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J. (2007). Thinking object-oriented. Retrieved November 27, 2017 from http://jacwright.com/19/thinking-object-oriented.

  • Yang, Y. T. C., & Chang, C. H. (2013). Empowering students through digital game authorship: Enhancing concentration, critical thinking, and academic achievement. Computers & Education, 68, 334–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaranis, N., Kalogiannakis, M., & Papadakis, S. (2013). Using mobile devices for teaching realistic mathematics in kindergarten education. Creative Education, 4(7), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Dr Dimitrios Grammenos, Principal Researcher of the Institute of Computer Science (ICS) of the Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) in Crete, Greece, whose contribution was significant towards the improvement of the user-interface and the functionality of PhysGramming. We also thank Sofia Moulaki, who undertook the text revision of this article. Finally, we are especially indebted to the Special Account of Research of the University of Crete, which financially supports our research effort, KA 4713, PsysGramming (Physical Science Programming): An innovative game-based educational framework for the development of computational thinking in early childhood education within the context of physical science study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Department of Preschool Education, University of Crete, University Campus, Gallos, P.C. 74100, Rethymno, Crete, Greece

    Kalliopi Kanaki & Michail Kalogiannakis

Authors
  1. Kalliopi Kanaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michail Kalogiannakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michail Kalogiannakis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kanaki, K., Kalogiannakis, M. Introducing fundamental object-oriented programming concepts in preschool education within the context of physical science courses. Educ Inf Technol 23, 2673–2698 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9736-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9736-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation