Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A systematic literature review regarding computational thinking and programming in early childhood education

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

Abstract

This research was aimed at summarizing experimental evidence regarding computational thinking and programming conducted in early childhood education in terms of the variables of plugged-in versus unplugged, age, and gender. For this purpose, the WoS, Scopus, and Eric databases were scanned, and studies determined to be within the scope of the systematic scanning criteria were selected for review. In the current study findings, it was shown that age was an important factor in learning computational thinking in early childhood. In addition, it was found that girls and boys performed similarly in programming and computational thinking. Finally, although there was concrete evidence that both plugged-in and unplugged applications improved children's computational thinking skills, it appeared that unplugged applications were one step ahead, considering the power of having concrete experiences.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Academy of Pediatrics. (2003). Prevention of pediatric overweight and obesity: Policy statement. Pediatrics, 112(2), 424–430. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.112.2.424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2020). Developing young children’s computational thinking with educational robotics: An interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 105954.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appel, M., Kronberger, N., & Aronson, J. (2011). Stereotype threat impairs ability building: Effects on test preparation among women in science and technology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 904–913.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arfé, B., Vardanega, T., Montuori, C., & Lavanga, M. (2019). Coding in primary grades boosts children’s executive functions. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics & Autonomous Systems, 75, 661–670.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bers, M. U. (2008). Blocks to robots: Learning with technology in the early childhood classroom. Teacher’s College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bers, M. U., & Horn, M. (2010). Tangible programming in early childhood: Revisiting developmental assumptions through new technologies. In I. R. Berson & M. J. Berson (Eds.), High-tech tots: Childhood in a digital world (pp. 49–70). Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(2), 1–20. https://www.ecrp.uiuc.eduv12n2/bers.html

  • Bers, M. U. (2018a). Coding and computational thinking in early childhood: The impact of ScratchJr in Europe. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 8. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/3868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bers, M. U. (2018b). Coding as a playground: Programming and computational thinking in the early childhood classroom. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315398945

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bers, M. U., & Portsmore, M. (2005). Teaching partnerships: Early childhood and engineering student teaching math and science through robotics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), 59–73.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 130–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botički, I., Pivalica, D., & Seow, P. (2018, June 14-16). The use of computational thinking concepts in early primary school. [Conference Presentation].  International Conference on Computational Thinking Education. Hong Kong. https://www.eduhk.hk/cte2018/https://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/930955.CTE2018-Boticki_Pivalica_Seow_final_camera_ready.pdf

  • Campbell, C., & Walsh, C. (2017). Introducing the “new” digital literacy of coding in the early years. Practical Literacy: THe Early and Primary Years, 22(3), 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Çetin, M., & Demircan, H. Ö. (2018). Empowering technology and engineering for STEM education through programming robots: A systematic literature review. Early Child Development and Care, 190(9), 1323–1335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Compton-Lilly, C., Rogers, R., & Lewis, T. (2012). Analyzing epistemological considerations related to diversity: An integrative critical literature review of family literacy scholarship. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 33–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J., Mengersen, K., Bennett, S., & Mazerolle, L. (2014). Viewing systematic reviews and meta-analysis in social research through different lenses. SpringerPlus, 3(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-511

  • Di Lieto, M. C., Inguaggiato, E., Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Cioni, G., Dell’Omo, M., & Dario, P. (2017). Educational robotics intervention on executive functions in preschool children: A pilot study. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 16–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doube, W., & Lang, C. (2012). Gender and stereotypes in motivation to study computer programming for careers in multimedia. Computer Science Education, 22, 63–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du, J., & Wimmer, H. (2019). Hour of code: A study of gender differences in computing. Information Systems Education Journal, 17(4), 91–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 153–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkin, M., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Programming with the KIBO robotics kit in preschool classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 33(3), 169–186.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.016

  • Flannery, L. P., & Bers, M. U. (2013). Let’s dance the “robot hokey-pokey!” children’s programming approaches and achievement throughout early cognitive development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(1), 81–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flórez, B. F., Casallas, R., Hernández, M., Reyes, A., Restrepo, S., & Danies, G. (2017). Changing a generation’s way of thinking: Teaching computational thinking through programming. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 834–860.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fujita, M., Kitano, H., & Doi, T. T. (2000). Robot entertainment. In A. Druin & J. Hendler (Eds.), Robots for kids: Exploring new technologies for learning (pp. 37–72). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz-Repiso, A. G. V., & Caballero-González, Y. A. (2019). Robotics to develop computational thinking in early childhood education. Comunicar. Media Education Research Journal, 27(59), 63–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geist, E. (2016). Robots, programming and coding, Oh my! Childhood Education, 92(4), 298–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2016.1208008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, M., Rivera, E., Ackermann, E., & Breazeal, C. (2015). Designing a relational social robot toolkit for preschool children to explore computational concepts. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC '15). 355–358. https://doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771915

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2018). Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come. In S. Sentance, S. Carsten, & E. Barendsen (Eds.), Computer science education: Perspectives on teaching and learning. Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Güneş, G., & Şahin, V. (2020). Preschoolers’ thoughts on the concept of time. The Journal of Genetic Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2020.1753645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Highfield, K. (2010). Robotic toys as a catalyst for mathematical problem solving. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 15(2), 22–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Highfield, K. & Mulligan, J. (2008, July 6-13). Young children's engagement with technological tools: the impact on mathematics learning. [Conference Presentation]. International Congress of Mathematics Education, Mexico. https://www.researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/young-childrens-engagement-with-technological-tools-the-impact-on

  • Highfield, K., & Mulligan, J. (2009, July 19-24). Young children's embodied action in problem-solving tasks using robotic toys. [Conference presentation]. Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education Thessaloniki, Greece https://www.researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/young-childrens-embodied-action-in-problem-solving-tasks-using-ro

  • Horn, M. S. (2018). Tangible interaction and cultural forms: Supporting learning in informal environments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(4), 632–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, M., Crouser, R., & Bers, M. U. (2011). Tangible interaction and learning: The case for a hybrid approach. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(4), 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0404-2 Special Issue on Tangibles and Children.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2016). ISTE standards for students. Retrieved June 7, 2020 from https://www.iste.org/standards/for-students

  • Kalelioğlu, F. (2015). A new way of teaching programming skills to K-12 students: Code.org. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 200–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2014). Put your robot in, put your robot out: Sequencing through programming robots in early childhood. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(4), 553–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazakoff, E., & Bers, M. (2012). Programming in a robotics context in the pre-primary classroom: The impact on sequencing skills. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 21(4), 371–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelleher, C., Paushc, R., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Storytelling Alice motivates middle school girls to learn computer programming. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1455–1464. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240844

  • Kitchenham, B., Brereton, O. P., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., & Linkman, S. (2009). Systematic literature reviews in software engineering–a systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 51(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2010.03.006

  • Komis, V., & Misirli, A. (2016). The environments of educational robotics in early childhood education: Towards a didactical analysis. Educational Journal of the University of Patras UNESCO Chair, 3(2), 238–246.

  • Larson, L. C., & Miller, T. N. (2011). 21st century skills: Prepare students for the future. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(3), 121–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. M., Jung, Y. J., & Park, H. K. (2017). Gender differences in computational thinking, creativity, and academic interest on elementary SW education. Journal of the Korean Association of Information Education, 21(4), 381–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., & Junoh, J. (2019). Implementing unplugged coding activities in early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47(6), 709–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, S. T., & 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(4), 337–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, S. T., & Mioduser, D. (2010). Approaching complexity through planful play: Kindergarten children’s strategies in constructing an autonomous robot’s behavior. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(1), 21–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manches, A., & Plowman, L. (2017). Computing education in children’s early years: A call for debate. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(1), 191–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, C., Gomez, M. J., & Benotti, L. (2015). A comparison of preschool and elementary school children learning computer science concepts through a multilanguage robot programming platform. Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 159–164. https://doi.org/10.1145/2729094.2742599

  • McGlone, M. S. (2006). Stereotype threat and the gender gap in political knowledge. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 392–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messer, D., Thomas, L., Holliman, A., & Kucirkova, N. (2018). Evaluating the effectiveness of an educational programming intervention on children’s mathematics skills, spatial awareness and working memory. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2879–2888.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metin, S. (2020). Activity-based unplugged coding during the preschool period. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09616-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metz, S. S. (2007). Attracting the engineering of 2020 today. In R. Burke, M. Mattis, & E. Elgar (Eds.), Women and minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Upping the numbers (pp. 184–209). Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mioduser, D., & Levy, S. T. (2010). Making sense by building sense: Kindergarten children’s construction and understanding of adaptive robot behaviors. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(2), 99–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mioduser, D., Levy, S. T., & Talis, V. (2009). Episodes to scripts to rules: Concrete-abstractions in kindergarten children’s explanations of a robot’s behavior. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(1), 15–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Misirli A., Komis V. (2014). Robotics and programming concepts in early childhood education: A conceptual framework for designing educational scenarios.  Karagiannidis C., Politis P., Karasavvidis I. (eds) Research on e-Learning and ICT in Education. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6501-0_8

  • Montemayor, J., Druin, A., & Hendler, J. (2000). PETS: A personal electronic teller of stories. In A. Druin & J. Hendler (Eds.), Robots for kids: Exploring new technologies for learning (pp. 73–110). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgado, L., Cruz, M., & Kahn, K. (2010). Preschool cookbook of computer programming topics. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nam, K. W., Kim, H. J., & Lee, S. (2019). Connecting plans to action: The effects of a card-coded robotics curriculum and activities on Korean kindergartners. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28(5), 387–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M., & Gough, D. (2020). Systematic reviews in educational research methodology, perspectives, and application. In O. Zawacki-Richter, M. Kerres, S. Bedenlier, M. Bond, & K. Buntins (Eds.), Systematic reviews in educational research (pp. 3–22). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nouri, J., Zhang, L., Mannila, L., & Norén, E. (2020). Development of computational thinking, digital competence and 21st century skills when learning programming in K-9. Education Inquiry, 11(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olgan, R. (2015). Influences on Turkish early childhood teachers’ science teaching practices and the science content covered in the early years. Early Child Development and Care, 185(6), 926–942.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms-children, computers, and powerful ideas (2nd ed.). Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1973). The child and reality: Problems of genetic psychology. Grossman.

  • Portelance, D. J., Strawhacker, A. L., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Constructing the ScratchJr programming language in the early childhood classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(4), 489–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugnali, A., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2017). The impact of user interface on young children’s computational thinking. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 16, 171–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, M. (2013). The kindergarten coders. New Scientist, 2927, 21–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M., Martin, F., Sargent, R., & Silverman, B. (1996). Programmable bricks: Toys to think with. IBM Systems Journal, 35(3–4), 443–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Ou, S. R., Arteaga, I. A., & White, B. A. B. (2011). School-based early childhood education and age-28 well-being: Effects by timing, dosage, and subgroups. Science, 333(6040), 360–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, B., Kennicutt, S., Rader, C., & Camp, T. (2017). Assessing computational thinking in CS unplugged activities. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 501–506. https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017779

  • Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM Education, 5(3/4), 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Román-González, M., Perez-González, J. C., & Jimenez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the computational thinking test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678–691.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saxena, A., Lo, C. K., Hew, K. F., & Wong, G. K. W. (2020). Designing unplugged and plugged activities to cultivate computational thinking: An exploratory study in early childhood education. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(1), 55–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selby, C. C. (2012). Promoting computational thinking with programming. Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, 74–77. https://doi.org/10.1145/2481449.2481466

  • 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 (Working Paper No. 11). Retrieved June 15, 2020 from https://www.developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/building-the-brains-air-traffic-control-system-how-early-experiences-shape-the-development-of-executive-function/

  • So, H. J., Kim, D., & Ryoo, D. (2020). Trajectories of developing computational thinking competencies: Case portraits of Korean gifted girls. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(1), 85–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strawhacker, A., & Bers, M. U. (2015). “I want my robot to look for food”: Comparing Kindergartner’s programming comprehension using tangible, graphic, and hybrid user interfaces. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(3), 293–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2018a). The impact of teacher gender on girls’ performance on programming tasks in early elementary school. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 17(1), 153–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). Gender differences in kindergarteners’ robotics and programming achievement. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 691–702.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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), 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2018b). Dancing robots: Integrating art, music, and robotics in Singapore’s early childhood centers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 325–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2019). Computer science education in early childhood: The case of ScratchJr. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 18, 113–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, A., Elkin, M., & Bers, M. U. (2015). KIBO robot demo: Engaging young children in programming and engineering. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 418–421. https://doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771868

  • Tiedemann, J. (2000). Parents’ gender stereotypes and teachers’ beliefs as predictors of children’s concept of their mathematical ability in elementary school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 144–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toh, L. P. E., Causo, A., Tzuo, P. W., Chen, I. M., & Yeo, S. H. (2016). A review on the use of robots in education and young children. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 148–163.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society a: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wohlin, C. (2014). Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/2601248.2601268

  • Wyeth, P., & Wyeth, G. (2008). Robot building for preschoolers. In R. Goevel, J. Siekmann, & W. Wahlster (Eds.), Lecture notes in artificial intelligence (pp. 124–135). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, A., Zhou, N., Mayfield, C., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2011). Introducing computational thinking in education courses. Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 465–470. https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953297

  • Yücel, Y., & Rızvanoğlu, K. (2019). Battling gender stereotypes: A user study of a code-learning game, “Code Combat”, with middle school children. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 352–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zan, B. (2016). Introduction: Why STEM? Why early childhood? Why now? STEM learning with young children: Inquiry teaching with ramps and pathways (pp. 1–9). Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Hacettepe University, Beytepe Campus, Ankara, Turkey

    Kaan Bati

Authors
  1. Kaan Bati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kaan Bati.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bati, K. A systematic literature review regarding computational thinking and programming in early childhood education. Educ Inf Technol 27, 2059–2082 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10700-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10700-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation