Educational Robotics Program Impacts in Early Childhood: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Gisele Ragusa
,
Lilian Leung

Engaging educational programs that involve science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) with young children are of critical importance because such a curriculum is often underdeveloped in early childhood education. Robotics education remains relatively sparse for the youngest of learners; however, several robotics programs have been implemented in school settings, and research is emerging measuring their effectiveness and impact.

  • early robotics
  • coding education
  • computer career aspirations
  • robotics learning

1. Introduction

Engaging educational programs that involve science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) with young children are of critical importance because such a curriculum is often underdeveloped in early childhood education [1]. Research has determined that incorporating educational robotics into young children’s educational experiences leads to significant improvement in their engineering and technological conceptual understanding and assists them in engaging in computational thinking and in developing their technology understanding. Robotics in particular also helps young learners to engage in problem solving [2][3][4][5].

2. The Importance of Integrating Educational Robotics into Early Childhood Education

Integrating educational robotics into early education is not only an engaging and entertaining way to incorporate STEM into education, robotics education has also demonstrated significant impacts on children’s computational thinking and their ability to identify and solve problems [2][4][5]. Computational thinking is most often measured in three dimensions, all of which correspond to components of robotics education, especially when programming is included: sequence, action instruction correspondence, and debugging. More specifically, sequences test if students can respond to a challenge through programming activities; action–instruction correspondence determines if children can relate the instruction provided in robotics education to the performance of the robots they are programming; and debugging is the ability that students have to identify problems and to correct programming errors (a proxy for problem-solving) [4]. Robotics educational programs can demonstrate that young children are able to develop the skills and capacity to problem solve using programming languages and the fundamentals of computational science. Educational robotics can provide a means for “leveling” the playing field in early STEM education that is both engaging and meaningful for diverse children with varying experiences, resources, and backgrounds. Educational robotics provides a variety of learning opportunities and experiences in STEM and increases children’s confidence in their abilities to apply computational skills and participate in a rapidly changing technological world [5]. Furthermore, robotics education enables students to develop abstract thinking and a positive attitude toward STEM learning and future STEM career aspirations at an early age. It also facilitates children’s ability to express themselves using technological tools, think critically, and design innovatively. Through robotics, students are able to experiment, design, identify, and solve problems (correct errors) through active learning pedagogies which facilitate constructionist learning [2][6]. Such educational programs create opportunities for children to explore basic technical concepts, experiment with technology, and design and build robots to solve problems. Educational robotics programs also promote teamwork and active communication between peers and their teachers. Through back-and-forth dialogue and bouncing ideas off of one another, students are able to reflect on and communicate their shared understanding of the role of technology in problem-solving. Accordingly, project and inquiry-based pedagogy, which is most commonly applied in educational robotics, not only facilitates children’s problem-solving practices but also provides students with early opportunities to engage in innovation and engineering design practices.

3. Educational Robotics Program Impacts in Early Childhood

Robotics education remains relatively sparse for the youngest of learners; however, several robotics programs have been recently implemented in school settings, and research is emerging measuring their effectiveness and impact. There are some programs, however, with a focus on improving children’s understanding of robotics and coding in pre-college education. One such robotics and coding educational program is the Bee-Bots program, which enables young students to program and control the movements of bee-shaped robots by programming them using directional commands. Cubelets devices, used in this particular educational robotics program, encourage students to build a sensored robot and utilize applications from cube-shaped magnetic robotic blocks.
Similarly, Muñoz-Repiso and Caballero-González studied the impact of this program on 131 children (ages 3–6) at a Spanish school in Salamanca [5]. The program, entitled TangibleK, used the described Bee-Bot robotics kit to engage students in experimentation, design learning, and error correction through active learning. Muñoz-Repiso and Caballero-González sought to determine if it was possible to develop computational thinking in young children through robotic activities while simultaneously improving children’s ability to sequence actions and correct programming errors [5]. These researchers determined that the children involved in the TangibleK intervention program were able to think computationally and engage in programming sequencing. The learning gains for those involved in the program were significantly higher than for those not participating in the program.
In a related program, Castro and colleagues studied the impact of early educational robotics through a program called RoboticsEd [4]. This particular robotics program used a range of developmentally designed robots. The researchers sought to test the impact of the program across age levels with children ages 7–14 using a pre–post comparison approach. The results of this research indicated significant improvement in each age group assessed between the pre- and post-program periods (p = 0.000 across age groups). Furthermore, there were no gender differences in performance on the pre–post assessment tasks (7–9 years old: p = 0.307, 9–11 years old: p = 0.842, and 11–14 years old: p = 0.219) for the research.
In a study conducted by Zviel-Girshin, Luria, and Shaham, 83 kindergarteners and 113 first-graders participated in an early robotics education program designed to foster the integration of robotics as part of science and technology courses to allow children to construct, program, and play with robots [6]. The authors sought to determine if there were gender and age differences in the children’s beliefs about their ability to construct a new and/or complex robotic model as well as to determine the children’s ongoing understanding of the basic principles of robotics, usage of sensors, programming, and problem-solving after engaging in an educational robotics program. The results of this study revealed that 59% of boys versus 46% of girls and 58% of kindergarten children versus 48% of elementary school children demonstrated more confidence when constructing a new and complex robotic model. Such understanding of robotics skills was found to persist beyond the scope of the robotics education program.
Children with special needs have also been studied comparatively in educational robotics programs. In a study conducted by Warren and colleagues, young children with autism spectrum disorder completed an intervention in which they interacted with a humanoid robot and a human social partner to complete a series of motor movements. Warren and colleagues sought to test out the hypothesis that children with autism spectrum disorder would demonstrate increased attention to the robot during the sessions compared to a human counterpart by assessing the children’s imitation skills [7]. These researchers used sensor data and gesture recognition while children with autism spectrum disorder raised one or two hands, waved, or reached their arms out to the side and compared the percentage of time they engaged in looking at a human versus a humanoid robot. The results of this study indicated that children with autism spectrum disorder demonstrated higher imitation performance with the humanoid robot than they did with the human administrator (38%). This study demonstrates the relatively universal keen interest that children have in robots.

4. Coding and Its Impact on Child Learning

Although coding has been traditionally taught in higher education, educational programs have begun to integrate coding into K-12 over the last decade. This, however, is more sparsely applied to the education of children under the age of eight. Many countries, especially in Europe, have begun to offer coding to young children as early as kindergarten (ages 5–6). Although the United States is progressing in providing coding in the K-12 curriculum as a requirement, such structures are not yet universally in place in the U.S. K-12 curriculum. There are, however, kindergarten and elementary school teachers who voluntarily implement coding and programming curricula in their classrooms. One of the challenges in teaching coding in the U.S. is the teachers’ limited coding knowledge in addition to their limits in coding education resources. More than 75% of U.S. teachers who educate children under the age of ten have little or no experience in coding before integrating coding into their classrooms [8]. Although teachers often do not have high confidence in their coding abilities, they make brave attempts to incorporate it into their curriculum as they consider coding a gateway to better future career opportunities for their students. Furthermore, some teachers view coding education as a means of developing their students’ learning mindsets, resilience, confidence, and motivation. They also recognize that coding may enhance children’s ability to problem solve, engage in logical thinking, and practice analytical reasoning.

5. Programming Languages across Grade Levels

One of the most common programming languages that is currently taught to young children globally is Scratch, which is followed by Blocky, Python, and JavaScript. Scratch is typically introduced at the lower primary grade levels in K-12 education as a “drag-and-drop” opportunity for young learners. Developmentally, it is often transitioned to practice with Python and JavaScript for secondary grade children. This developmental transition of learning programming languages enables young children to progress from visual to textual language as they learn to code and prevents them from relying solely on block-based computing language. As an example of this, in a study by Price and Price -Mohr which focused on teaching text-based language (Java), children were taught programming language between ages three and six by having them write and code an animated story [9]. These researchers evaluated how children compose their code and observed their purposeful code corrections. Using text-based coding language, the children in the study demonstrated the importance of syntax and made better use of various programming functions at higher cognitive levels.
Bers purports that coding as another language, an increasingly common way to teach computer coding to young children, can be used as an impactful pedagogical approach to teaching coding [10]. The coding as another language perspective views teaching coding as a way of expanding children’s literacy (and in this case computer literacy), by teaching a variety of languages, such as programming language, while enhancing children’s skills in explanation, argumentation, and open-ended interpretation in computer science. The goal of coding as another language pedagogy is to facilitate a successful transition through the six coding stages: emergent, coding and decoding, fluency, new knowledge, multiple perspectives, and purposefulness. The six coding stages are adapted from traditional literacy education and repurposed for computer programming. Using this pedagogical approach, at the emergent level, children are offered the opportunity to explore hardware (a tablet) and software (ScratchJr app, Version 3), observe and identify different basic elements of coding from teachers’ demonstrations, and create simple programming designs. Just as they are with traditional literacy instruction, children are given a storybook to look at and practice reading. At the coding and decoding stage in coding as another language instruction, children learn about syntax and the correlation between their choices of codes and the impact on technology (robots and other tech.) They begin to engage in problem-solving and debugging while expressing themselves by creating their personal story [10]. Chevalier and colleagues underscore [11] these efforts in their discussion of computational thinking-related pedagogical approaches. Similar to when children begin to learn how to read and write traditionally, children are given the opportunity to read and analyze the “story”. As they move along the coding “ladder”, children are not only learning to code, but they are also coding to learn. Through trial and error, they apply their emergent coding knowledge in sequencing and algorithmic thinking as a means of learning new mathematical skills. They discover and gain new knowledge and perspectives about coding as a language. Similar to how children gradually learn more difficult words and interpret texts differently as they are exposed to more books (especially in informational text), their coding understanding and use progress developmentally. The pathway of stages of coding as another language is non-linear. In other words, students go back and forth to develop and master coding knowledge. Coding as another language pedagogy acknowledges that the strategies used in traditional literacy education can be applied to teaching students coding language, skills, and strategies. It allows young children to practice their sense-making, self-expression, and communication in computer science in early childhood just as they do with traditional language and literacy development, using a developmental approach.
An advantage of teaching coding to young children is that it can easily be integrated into different subjects such as mathematics, science, engineering, and language arts. As previously described, the most common programming application for young children, ScratchJr, integrates coding into literacy through a story-writing–coding approach. Children learn to use the concepts of abstraction, decomposition, logical thinking, and patterning in both their story writing and their coding processes [9]. It also enhances skills in explanation, argumentation, and open-ended interpretation in computer science [10]. There are several educational applications that are designed to enable students to learn coding and develop literacy simultaneously. Applications such as ScratchJr. And Kodable encourage children to express themselves by creating a story and animating it through coding [12][13]. Some coding applications are developed to enable children to learn sequencing and if-then commands. Integrating applications allow students to see that visual programming language, enhances computational thinking, and encourages students to practice logic, reasoning, and problem-solving, in addition to literacy concepts such as decomposition, abstraction, narrative schemas, logical thinking, and patterning. These practices underscore that when coding as another language teaching pedagogy is personal and relevant to children, it provides purposes and motivations to learn about coding and to use it.
Robotics and coding learning tools such as Code-a-pillar, Bee-Bot, Kibo, Kubo, Makey Makey, and Scratch can be easily implemented in the classroom for robotics paired with learning to code as these opportunities are intuitive, subject-agnostic, and open-ended. Children can explore and master the basic programming functions independently or with sparse assistance. Rather than teaching coding as a separate subject in early education, these opportunities enable teachers of young children to integrate coding into the existing curriculum using their existing curricular standards. These hands-on learning opportunities encourage children to explore, discover, and experiment as they become learners, thinkers, and future innovators [14].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/s23239335

References

  1. Cherniak, S.; Lee, K.; Cho, E.; Jung, S.E. Child-identified problems and their robotic solutions. J. Early Child. Res. 2019, 17, 347–360.
  2. Bers, M. The TangibleK robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Child. Res. Pract. 2010, 12, n2.
  3. Muñoz-Repiso, A.; Caballero-González, Y.A. Robotics to develop computational thinking in early childhood education. Comunicar 2019, 27, 63–72.
  4. Castro, E.; Cecchi, F.; Valente, M.; Buselli, E.; Salvini, P.; Dario, P. Can educational robotics introduce young children to robotics and how can we measure it? Comput. Assist. Learn. 2018, 34, 970–977.
  5. Zviel-Girshin, R.; Luria, A.; Shaham, C. Robotics as a tool to enhance technological thinking in early childhood. J. Sci. Educ. Technol 2020, 29, 294–302.
  6. Cho, E.; Lee, K.; Cherniak, S.; Jung, S.E. Heterogeneous associations of second-graders’ learning in robotics class. Tech. Know. Learn. 2017, 22, 465–483.
  7. Warren, A.; Zheng, Z.; Das, S.; Young, E.M.; Swanson, A.; Weitlauf, A.; Sarkar, N. Brief report: Development of a robotic intervention platform for young children with ASD. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2014, 45, 3870–3876.
  8. Rich, P.J.; Browning, S.F.; Perkins, M.; Shoop, T.; Yoshikawa, E.; Belikov, O.M. Coding in K-8: International trends in teaching elementary/primary computing. Tech. Trends 2018, 63, 311–329.
  9. Price, C.B.; Price-Mohr, R.M. An evaluation of primary school children coding using a text-based language (Java). Comput. Sch. 2018, 35, 284–301.
  10. Bers, M.U. Coding as another language: A pedagogical approach for teaching computer science in early childhood. J. Comput. Educ. 2019, 6, 499–528.
  11. Chevalier, M.; Giang, C.; Piatti, A.; Mondada, F. Fostering computational thinking through educational robotics: A model for creative computational problem solving. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2020, 7, 39.
  12. Hutchison, A.; Nadolny, L.; Estapa, A. Using coding apps to support literacy instruction and develop coding literacy. Read. Teach. 2016, 69, 493–503.
  13. Papadakis, S. Apps to promote computational thinking and coding skills to young children: A pedagogical challenge for the 21st century learners. EDUPIJ 2022, 11, 7–13.
  14. Kritzer, K.L.; Green, L. Playing with code: An innovative way to teach numeracy and early math concepts to young DHH children in the 21st century. Am. Ann. Deaf. 2021, 166, 409–423.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback