, Volume 62, Issue 6, pp 563–573 | Cite as

Developing Computational Thinking with Educational Technologies for Young Learners

  • Yu-Hui Ching
  • Yu-Chang Hsu
  • Sally Baldwin
Original Paper


The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the opportunities for developing computational thinking in young learners. It includes a review of empirical studies on the educational technologies used to develop computational thinking in young learners, and analyses and descriptions of a selection of commercially available technologies for developing computational thinking in young learners. The challenges and implications of using these technologies also are discussed.


Computational thinking Educational technology Problem solving Programming Coding Young learners STEM 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic Review. Computers & Education, 58, 978–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bers, M. (2008). Blocks to robots: Learning with technology in the early childhood classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bers, M. U., Flannery, L. P., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bers, M., Ponte, I., Juelich, K., Viera, A., & Schenker, J. (2002). Teachers as designers: Integrating robotics in early childhood education [Electronic version]. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2002(1), 123–145.Google Scholar
  5. Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Paper presented at Annual American Educational Research Association meeting. BC, Canada: Vancouver.Google Scholar
  6. Burke, Q., & Kafai, Y. B. (2013). A decade of game-making for learning: From tools to communities. In H. Agius & M. C. Angelides (Eds.), The handbook on digital games (pp. 689–709). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  7. Child Trends. (2015). Home computer access and Internet use. Retrieved from
  8. Elkin, M., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2014). Implementing a robotics curriculum in an early childhood Montessori classroom [Electronic version]. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 13, 153–169. Retrieved September 27, 2017, from
  9. Falloon, G. W. (2015). What’s the difference? Learning collaboratively using iPads in conventional classrooms. Computers & Education, 84, 62–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Falloon, G. W. (2016). An analysis of young students’ thinking when completing basic coding tasks using Scratch Jnr. on the iPad. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32, 576–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gordon, M., Ackermann, E., & Breazeal, C. (2015, March). Social robot toolkit: Tangible programming for young children. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts (pp. 67–68). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  14. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12, a review of the state of the field [Electronic version]. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hayes, E. R., & Games, I. A. (2008). Making computer games and design thinking: A review of current software and strategies. Games and Culture, 3, 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Horn, M. S., AlSulaiman, S., & Koh, J. (2013, June). Translating Roberto to Omar: Computational literacy, stickerbooks, and cultural forms. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 120–127). New York, NY: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Horn, M. S., Crouser, R. J., & Bers, M. U. (2012). Tangible interaction and learning: The case for a hybrid approach [Electronic version]. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(4), 379–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Israel, M., Pearson, J. N., Tapia, T., Wherfel, Q. M., & Reese, G. (2015). Supporting all learners in school-wide computational thinking: A cross-case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education, 82, 263–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ISTE & CSTA (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12 education. Retrieved September 27, 2017, from
  20. Kabali, H. K., Irigoyen, M. M., Nunez-Davis, R., Budacki, J. G., Mohanty, S. H., Leister, K. P., & Bonner, R. L. (2015). Exposure and use of mobile media devices by young children [Electronic version]. Pediatrics, 136(6), 1044–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2015). Constructionist gaming: Understanding the benefits of making games for learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 313–334. Scholar
  23. Kafai, Y. B., & Peppler, K. A. (2011). Youth, technology, and DIY: Developing participatory competencies in creative media production. Review of Research in Education, 35(1), 89–119. Scholar
  24. Kalelioglu, F. (2015). A new way of teaching programming skills to K-12 students: Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 200–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lu, J. J., & Fletcher, G. H. (2009). Thinking about computational thinking. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 260–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Madill, H., Campbell, R. G., Cullen, D. M., Armour, M. A., Einsiedel, A. A., Ciccocioppo, A. L....Coffin, W. L. (2007). Developing career commitment in STEM-related fields: Myth versus reality. In R. J. Burke, M. C. Mattis, & E. Elgar (Eds.), Women and minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Upping the numbers (pp. 210–244). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Markert, L. R. (1996). Gender related to success in science and technology [Electronic version]. The Journal of Technology Studies, 22(2), 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 159–164). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  30. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MDESE). (2016). Massachusetts digital literacy and computer science (DLCS) curriculum framework. Malden, MA: Author Retrieved from Scholar
  31. Metz, S. S. (2007). Attracting the engineering of 2020 today. In R. Burke & M. Mattis (Eds.), Women and minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Upping the numbers (pp. 184–209). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Morgado, L., Cruz, M., & Kahn, K. (2010). Preschool cookbook of computer programming topics. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nash, J. (2017). Coding in the classroom with real-world learning. Retrieved September 27, 2017, from
  34. National Research Council. (2010). Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  35. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc..Google Scholar
  36. Perlman, R. (1974). TORTIS (Toddler's Own Recursive Turtle Interpreter System). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology A.I. Laboratory Retrieved September 27, 2017, from Scholar
  37. Petre, M., & Price, B. (2004). Using robotics to motivate “back door” learning [Electronic version]. Education and Information Technologies, 9(2), 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Repenning, A., Basawapatna, A. R., & Escherle, N. A. (2017). Principles of computational thinking tools. In P. J. Rich & C. B. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking, educational communications, and technology: Issues and innovations (pp. 291–305). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Resnick, M. (2002). Rethinking learning in the digital age. In G. Kirkman (Ed.), The global information technology report: Readiness for the networked world (pp. 32–37). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. 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 (pp. 192–208). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Resnick, M. (2013). Learn to code, code to learn. In EdSurge Retrieved September 27, 2017, from Scholar
  42. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernandez, 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 Retrieved September 27, 2017, from Scholar
  43. Saez-Lopez, J., Roman-Gonzaez, M., & Vazquez-Cano, E. (2016). Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two-year case study using “Scratch” in five schools. Computers & Education, 97, 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sanford, K., & Madill, L. (2007). Understanding the power of new literacies through video game play and design. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne de l'éducation, 30(2), 432–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shifrin, D., Brown, A., Hill, D., Jana, L., & Flinn, S. K. (2015). Growing up digital: Media research symposium. American Academy of Pediatrics, 1, 1–7.Google Scholar
  46. Smith, M. (2016). Computer science for all. Washington, DC: Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President Retrieved from Scholar
  47. 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 [Electronic version]. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sullivan, A., Elkin, M., & Bers, M. U. (2015, June). KIBO robot demo: Engaging young children in programming and engineering. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 418–421). New York, NY: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sykora, C. (2014). Computational thinking for all. Retrieved September 27, 2017, from
  50. Toy Industry Association, Inc. (2016, February 14). Top toy trends of 2016 announced by Toy Industry Association (TIA), the official voice of the Toy Fair. Retrieved September 27, 2017, from
  51. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wyeth, P. (2008). How young children learn to program with sensor, action, and logic blocks [Electronic version]. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(4), 517–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wyeth, P., & Wyeth, G. F. (2001). Electronic blocks: Tangible programming elements for preschoolers. In M. Hilrose (Ed.), IFIP TC13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 496–503). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOC Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational TechnologyBoise State UniversityBoiseUSA

Personalised recommendations