Early Childhood Education Journal

, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp 245–255 | Cite as

The Effect of a Classroom-Based Intensive Robotics and Programming Workshop on Sequencing Ability in Early Childhood

  • Elizabeth R. Kazakoff
  • Amanda Sullivan
  • Marina U. Bers
Article

Abstract

This paper examines the impact of programming robots on sequencing ability during a 1-week intensive robotics workshop at an early childhood STEM magnet school in the Harlem area of New York City. Children participated in computer programming activities using a developmentally appropriate tangible programming language CHERP, specifically designed to program a robot’s behaviors. The study assessed 27 participants’ sequencing skills before and after the programming and robotics curricular intervention using a picture-story sequencing task and compared those skills to a control group. Pre-test and post-test scores were compared using a paired sample t test. The group of children who participated in the 1-week robotics and programming workshop experienced significant increases in post-test compared to pre-test sequencing scores.

Keywords

Computer programming Early childhood Kindergarten Robotics Sequencing STEM 

References

  1. American Library Association (ALA). (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. Chicago, IL: The Association of College and Research Libraries. Retrieved from: http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/standards/standards.pdf.
  2. Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1986). Mechanical, behavioural and Intentional understanding of picture stories in autistic children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4, 113–125.Google Scholar
  3. Barron, B., Cayton-Hodges, G., Bofferding, L., Copple, C., Darling-Hammond, L., & Levine, M. (2011). Take a giant step: A blueprint for teaching children in a digital age. New York, NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.Google Scholar
  4. Bers, M. (2008). Blocks to robots: Learning with technology in the early childhood classroom. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(2). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v12n2/bers.html.
  6. Bers, M., & Horn, M. (2010). Tangible programming in early childhood: Revisiting developmental assumptions through new technologies. In I. Berson & M. Berson (Eds.), High-tech tots: Childhood in a digital world (pp. 49–70). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Bers, M. U., Ponte, I., Juelich, K., Viera, A., & Schenker, J. (2002). Teachers as designers: Integrating robotics into early childhood education. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 14, 123–145.Google Scholar
  8. Brennan, K., Monroy-Hernandez, A., & Resnick, M. (2010). Making projects, making friends: Online community as catalyst for interactive media creation. New Directions for Youth Development, 128, 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brosterman, N. (1997). Inventing kindergarten. New York, NY: H.N. Abrams.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, A. L., & French, L. A. (1976). Construction and regeneration of logical sequences using causes or consequences as the point of departure. Child Development, 47(4), 930–940.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, A. L., & Murphy, M. D. (1975). Reconstruction of arbitrary versus logical sequences by preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20, 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clements, D. H. (1987). Longitudinal study of the effects of logo programming on cognitive abilities and achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, 73–94.Google Scholar
  13. Clements, D. H. (1999). The future of educational computing research: The case of computer programming. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 147–179.Google Scholar
  14. Clements, D. H., Battista, M. T., & Sarama, J. (2001). Logo and geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph Series, 10.Google Scholar
  15. Cunha, F., & Heckman, J. (2007). The technology of skill formation. American Economic Review, 97(2), 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davidson, C. N. (2011). Now you see it: How the brain science of attention will transform the way we live, work, and learn. New York, NY: Viking.Google Scholar
  17. FCC. (2010). National broadband plan. Retrieved from http://www.broadband.gov/download-plan/.
  18. Fivush, R., & Mandler, J. M. (1985). Developmental changes in the understanding of temporal sequence. Child Development, 56(6), 1437–1446.Google Scholar
  19. Gee, J. P. (2008). Getting over the slump: Innovation strategies to promote children’s learning. New York, NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.Google Scholar
  20. Goldstein, I., & Papert, S. (1977). Artificial intelligence, language, and the study of knowledge. Cognitive Science, 1(1), 84–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gutnick, A. L., Robb, M., Takeuchi, L., & Kotler, J. (2010). Always connected: The new digital media habits of young children. New York, NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.Google Scholar
  22. Horn, M. S., Crouser, R. J., & Bers, M. U. (2011). Tangible interaction and learning: The case for a hybrid approach. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(4), 379–389.Google Scholar
  23. ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). (2007). NETS for students 2007 profiles. Washington, DC: ISTE. Retrieved from www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students/nets-for-students-2007-profiles.aspx#PK-2.
  24. Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago, IL: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved from http://digitallearning.macfound.Google Scholar
  25. Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2011). The impact of computer programming on sequencing ability in early childhood. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference (AERA), Louisiana: New Orleans.Google Scholar
  26. Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. (in press). Programming in a robotics context in the kindergarten classroom: The impact on sequencing skills. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia.Google Scholar
  27. Liao, Y.-K., & Bright, G. (1991). Effects of computer-assisted instruction and computer programming on cognitive outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(3), 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Linebarger, D. L., & Piotrowski, J. T. (2009). TV as storyteller: How exposure to television narratives impacts at-risk preschoolers’ story knowledge and narrative skills. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27, 47–69.Google Scholar
  29. Madill, H., Campbell, R. G., Cullen, D. M., Armour, M. A., Einsiedel, A. A., Ciccocioppo, A. L., et al. (2007). Developing career commitment in STEM-related fields: myth versus reality. In R. Burke, M. Mattis, & E. Elgar (Eds.), Women and minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Upping the numbers (pp. 210–244). Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Peppler, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2008). Media designs with Scratch: What urban youth can learn about programming in a computer clubhouse. In Proceedings of ICLS’08: The 8th international conference for the learning sciences, vol. 3 (81–82). Utrecht, The Netherlands: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  31. Markert, L. R. (1996). Gender related to success in science and technology. The Journal of Technology Studies, 22(2), 21–29.Google Scholar
  32. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MA DOE). (2008). Kindergarten learning experiences. Malden, MA: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/ess/reports/0408kle.pdf.
  33. Meadowcroft, J. M., & Reeves, B. (1989). Influence of story schema development on children’s attention to television. Communication Research, 16(3), 352–374.Google Scholar
  34. 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). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. Mioduser, D., & Levy, S. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mioduser, D., Levy, S., & Talis, V. (2009). Episodes to scripts to rules: Concrete-abstractions in kindergarten children’s explanations of a robot’s behaviors. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(1), 15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) & Fred Rogers Center. (2012). Technology and interactive media as tools in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/PS_technology_WEB2.pdf.
  38. Nickerson, R. S. (1982). Computer programming as a vehicle for teaching thinking skills. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 4, 42–48.Google Scholar
  39. O’Connell, B. G., & Gerard, A. B. (1985). Scripts & scraps: The development of sequential understanding. Child Development, 56(3), 671–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  41. Paris, A. H., & Paris, S. G. (2003). Assessing narrative comprehension in young children. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 36–76.Google Scholar
  42. Pea, R. D., & Kurland, D. M. (1984). On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming. New Ideas in Psychology, 2, 137–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Piaget, J. (1969). The child’s conception of time. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  44. Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York, NY: Orion Press.Google Scholar
  45. Resnick, M. (2006). Computer as paintbrush: Technology, play, and the creative society. In D. Singer, R. Golikoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play = learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Resnick, M., Flanagan, M., Kelleher, C., MacLaurin, M., Ohsima, Y., Perlin, K., Torres, R. (2009a). Growing up programming: Democratizing the creation of dynamic interactive media. In Proceedings of the CHI (Computer-Human Interaction) 2009 conference. Boston, Massachusetts. Retrieved from http://web.media.mit.edu/~mres/papers/CHI-programming-panel.pdf.
  47. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernandez, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., et al. (2009b). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM Education, 5(3–4), 14–28.Google Scholar
  50. Rushkoff, D. (2010). Program or be programmed: Ten commands for a digital age. New York, NY: O/R Books.Google Scholar
  51. Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2003). Building blocks of early childhood mathematics. Teaching Children Mathematics, 9(8), 480–484.Google Scholar
  52. Snow, C. E., Tabors, P. O., Nicholson, P., & Kurland, B. (1994). SHELL: Oral language and early literacy skills in kindergarten and first grade children. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 10, 37–48.Google Scholar
  53. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Takanishi, R. (2010). PreK-third grade: A paradigm shift. In J. Andrews & V. Washington (Eds.), Children of 2020: Creating a better tomorrow (pp. 28–31). Washington, DC: Council for Professional Recognition.Google Scholar
  55. Thoman, E., & Jolls, T. (2003). Literacy for the 21st century: An overview & orientation guide to media literacy education. Malibu, CA: Center for Media Literacy. Retrieved from: http://www.medialit.org/sites/default/files/mlk/01_MLKorientation.pdf.
  56. U.S. Department of Education. (2010a). Educate to innovate. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/educate-innovate.
  57. U.S. Department of Education. (2010b). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Retrieved from: http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010.
  58. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Entering kindergarten: Findings from the condition of education 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001035.pdf.
  59. Zelazo, P. D., Carter, A., Reznick, J. S., & Frye, D. (1997). Early development of executive function: A problem-solving framework. Review of General Psychology, 1(2), 198–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth R. Kazakoff
    • 1
  • Amanda Sullivan
    • 1
  • Marina U. Bers
    • 1
  1. 1.Tufts UniversityMedfordUSA

Personalised recommendations