Robotics in the early childhood classroom: learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade

  • Amanda SullivanEmail author
  • Marina Umaschi Bers


In recent years there has been an increasing focus on the missing “T” of technology and “E” of engineering in early childhood STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) curricula. Robotics offers a playful and tangible way for children to engage with both T and E concepts during their foundational early childhood years. This study looks at N = 60 children in pre-kindergarten through second grade who completed an 8-week robotics curriculum in their classrooms using the KIWI robotics kit combined with a tangible programming language. Children were assessed on their knowledge of foundational robotics and programming concepts upon completion of the curriculum. Results show that beginning in pre-kindergarten, children were able to master basic robotics and programming skills, while the older children were able to master increasingly complex concepts using the same robotics kit in the same amount of time. Implications for developmentally appropriate design of technology, as well as structure and pace of robotics curricula for young children are addressed.


Robotics Programming Engineering Education Early childhood 


  1. Abreu, P., Conway, A., & Gathercole, S. (2010). Working memory and fluid intelligence in young children. Intelligence, 38(2010), 552–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics. (2003). Prevention of pediatric overweight and obesity: Policy statement. Pediatrics, 112, 424–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barlow, S. E., & the Expert Committee. (2007). Expert committee recommendations regarding the prevention, assessment, and treatment of child and adolescent overweight and obesity: Summary report. Pediatrics, 120, S164–S192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.Google Scholar
  6. Bers, M. (2008). Blocks to robots: Learning with technology in the early childhood classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bers, M., & 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). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Bers, M., Ponte, I., Juelich, K., Viera, A., & Schenker, J. (2002). Teachers as designers: Integrating robotics in early childhood education. Information Technology in Childhood Education AACE, pp. 123–145.Google Scholar
  9. Bers, M. U., Seddighin, S., & Sullivan, A. (2013). Ready for robotics: Bringing together the T and E of STEM in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 21(3), 355–377.Google Scholar
  10. Brosterman, N. (1997). Inventing kindergarten. New York: H.N. Abrams.Google Scholar
  11. Cejka, E., Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2006). Kindergarten robotics: using robotics to motivate math, science, and engineering literacy in elementary school. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(4), 711–722.Google Scholar
  12. Clements, D. H. (1999). Young children and technology. In G. D. Nelson (Ed.), Dialogue on early childhood science, mathematics, and technology education. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  13. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual-differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). NETS for students 2007 profiles. Washington, DC: ISTE. Retrieved from
  15. International Society for Technology in Education and The Computer Science Teachers Association. (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12 thinking. International Society for Technology in Education and The Computer Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  16. Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., et al. (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads, 2(1), 32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee, K., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). Collaboration by design: Using robotics to foster social interaction in kindergarten. Computers in the Schools, 30(3), 271–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Markert, L. R. (1996). Gender related to success in science and technology. The Journal of Technology Studies, 22(2), 21–29.Google Scholar
  20. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MA DOE). (2013). Enrollment data. Malden, MA: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved from
  21. 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: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. NAEYC & Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media. (2012). Technology and interactive media as tools in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8.” Joint position statement. Washington, DC: NAEYC; Latrobe, PA: Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning at Saint Vincent College. Retrieved from
  23. Perlman, R. (1976). Using computer technology to provide a creative learning environment for preschool children. Logo memo No. 24, Cambridge, MA: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Publications, 260 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Resnick, M., Martin, F., Berg, R., Borovoy, R., Colella, V., Kramer, K. et al. (1998). Digital manipulatives. Proceedings of the CHI ‘98 conference, Los Angeles, April 1998.Google Scholar
  25. Resnick, M. (2013). Learn to Code, Code to Learn. EdSurge, May 2013.Google Scholar
  26. Sesame Workshop. (2009). Sesame workshop and the PNC Foundation join White House effort on STEM education. Retrieved from
  27. Siu, K., & Lam, M. (2003). Technology education in Hong Kong: International implications for implementing the “Eight Cs” in the early childhood curriculum. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(2), 143–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Strawhacker & Bers (2014). “I want my robot to look for food”: Comparing children’s programming comprehension using tangible, graphical, and hybrid user interfaces. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Advance online publication. doi:  10.1007/s10798-014-9287-7
  30. Strawhacker, A., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). TUI, GUI, HUI: Is a bimodal interface truly worth the sum of its parts? Proceedings of the 12th international conference on interaction design and children (IDC ‘13) (pp. 309–312). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sullivan, A., Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The wheels on the bot go round and round: Robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 12, pp. 203–219. Retrieved from
  32. U.K. Department for Education. (2013). The national curriculum in England curriculum framework document.Google Scholar
  33. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
  34. White House. (2011). Educate to innovate. Retrieved from:
  35. Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wyeth, P. (2008). How young children learn to program with sensor, action, and logic blocks. International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(4), 517–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DevTech Research Group, Eliot Pearson Department of Child Study and Human DevelopmentTufts UniversityMedfordUSA

Personalised recommendations