Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What is the Problem? A Situated Account of Computational Thinking as Problem-Solving in Two Danish Preschools

  • Technical Contribution
  • Published:
KI - Künstliche Intelligenz Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents a case study of in situ activities in two Danish preschools. In the activities, learning computational thinking (CT) plays a central part. The participating 4- to 5-year-old children are invited by an external educator to employ tangibles, such as robots, for structured problem-solving tasks within an overall narrative framing. In accordance with elaborations on CT as a problem-solving strategy, it is examined how the children engage in CT as problem-solving. The activities are part of a municipal initiative that involves preschools in a larger Danish city. The aim of this municipal initiative is to support young children’s understanding of technologies, coding and robotics as an element of twenty-first century skills. Based on video observations, the study provides a situated account of how the children engage in problem-solving in the observed activities. In empirical terms, the study shows how problem-solving tasks, such as programming a robot to move from A to B, merge with complex endeavors of engaging meaningfully with things and people in social situations. These empirical findings are analyzed by employing theoretical conceptualizations of problem-solving from a sociocultural perspective. This leads to a critical discussion regarding the relevance, potentials and pitfalls of introducing CT through problem-solving tasks with tangible tools in Danish preschool settings.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

Data is not readily available but can be made available upon request.

Code availability

None

References

  1. Bakala E, Gerosa A, Hourcade JP, Tejera G (2021) Preschool children, robots, and computational thinking: a systematic review. Int J Child-Comput Interact 29:100337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barr D, Harrison J, Conery L (2011) Computational thinking: a digital age skill for everyone. Learn Lead Technol 38(6):20–23

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bers MU (2018) Coding as a playground: programming and computational thinking in the early childhood classroom. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bers MU (2019) Coding as another language: a pedagogical approach for teaching computer science in early childhood. J Comput Educ 6(4):499–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00147-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bers MU, Flannery L, Kazakoff ER, Sullivan A (2014) Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Comput Educ 72:145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bruner J (1996) The culture of education. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Clarke V, Braun V (2017) Thematic analysis. J Posit Psychol 12(3):297–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Denning PJ, Tedre M (2019) Computational thinking. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Derry SJ, Pea RD, Barron B, Engle RA, Erickson F, Goldman R, Sherin BL et al (2010) Conducting video research in the learning sciences: guidance on selection, analysis, technology and ethics. J Learn Sci 19(1):3–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. di Sessa A (2018) Computational literacy and “The Big Picture”. Concerning computers in mathematics education. Math Think Learn 20(1):3–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2018.1403544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dockett S, Perry B (2011) Researching with young children: seeking assent. Child Indic Res 4(2):231–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-010-9084-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dreyfus HL (1992) What computers still can’t do: a critique of artificial reason. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  13. Georgiou K, Angeli C (2019) Developing preschool children's computational thinking with educational robotics: The role of cognitive differences and scaffolding. In: Paper presented at the International Association for Development of the Information Society (IADIS) International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in the Digital Age (CELDA) (16th, Cagliari, Italy, Nov 7–9, 2019). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED608699&site=ehost-live

  14. Goodyear P (2005) Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design practice. Austr J Educ Technol 21:1. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Grover S, Pea R (2018) Computational thinking: a competency whose time has come. In: Sentance S, Barendsen E, Schulte C (eds) Computer science education: perspectives on teaching and learning in school. Bloomsbury, London, pp 19–32

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the wild. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kafai YB, Burke Q (2017) Computational participation: teaching kids to create and connect through code. In: Rich P, Hodges CB (eds) Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking. Springer International Publishing, Berlin, pp 393–405

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Lave J (1988) Cognition in practice: mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Linell P (2014) Interactivities, intersubjectivities and language: on dialogism and phenomenology. Lang Dialogue 4(2):165–193. https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.4.2.01lin

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lodi M, Martini S (2021) Computational thinking. Between Papert and Wing. Sci Educ 30(4):883–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00202-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mahn H (2012) Vygotsky’s analysis of children’s meaning making processes. Int J Educ Psychol 1(2):100–126

    Google Scholar 

  22. Manches A, Plowman L (2017) Computing education in children’s early years: a call for debate. Br J Edu Technol 48(1):191–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Molin L, Lantz-Andersson A (2016) Significant structuring resources in the reading practices of a digital classroom. J Inf Technol Educ Res 15:131–156

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mørch A, Mifsud L, Eie S (2019) Developing a model of collaborative learning with Minecraft for social studies classrooms using role-play theory and practice. In: Proceedings of CSCL 2019, Vol. 1, pp 272–279. International Society of the Learning Sciences

  25. Newell A, Simon HA (1972) Human problem-solving. Prentice-Hall, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  26. Palmér H (2017) Programming in preschool: with a focus on learning mathematics. Int Res Early Childhood Educ 8(1):75–87

    Google Scholar 

  27. Papadakis S, Kalogiannakis M, Zaranis N (2016) Developing fundamental programming concepts and computational thinking with ScratchJr in preschool education: a case study. Int J Mobile Learn Org 10(3):187–202. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2016.077867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Papert S (1980) Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  29. Popper K (1999) All life is problem-solving. Routledge, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  30. Relkin E, de Ruiter LE, Bers MU (2021) Learning to code and the acquisition of computational thinking by young children. Comput Educ 169:104222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Resnick M (2017) Lifelong kindergarten: cultivating creativity through projects, passion, peers and play. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Rogoff B (1990) Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  33. Selwyn N (2008) From state-of-the-art to state-of-the-actual? Introduction to a special issue. Technol Pedagog Educ 17(2):83–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390802098573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Shute VJ, Sun C, Asbell-Clarke J (2017) Demystifying computational thinking. Educ Res Rev 22:142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Simon HA (1986) The sciences of the artificial. The MIT press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  36. Smith DE (2005) Institutional Ethnography: a sociology for people. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  37. Smith DE (ed) (2006) Institutional ethnography as practice. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  38. Stetsenko A (2016) The transformative mind: Expanding Vygotsky’s approach to development and education. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  39. Strawhacker A, Bers MU (2019) What they learn when they learn coding: Investigating cognitive domains and computer programming knowledge in young children. Educ Tech Res Dev 67(3):541–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9622-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Säljö R (2009) Learning, theories of learning, and units of analysis in research. Educ Psychol 44(3):202–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903029030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Tang X, Yin Y, Lin Q, Hadad R, Zhai X (2020) Assessing computational thinking: a systematic review of empirical studies. Comput Educ 148:103798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Vuorikari R, Punie Y, Carretero Gomez S, Van den Brande G (2016) DigComp 2.0: the digital competence framework for citizens. Update phase 1: the conceptual reference model. Publications Office of the European Union; JRC101254. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC101254

  43. Vygotsky (1978) Mind in society. Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  44. Vygotsky LS, Rieber RW, Carton AS, Wollock J (eds) (1987) The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1: problems of general psychology. Including the volume thinking and speech. Plenum Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  45. Wertsch J (1991) Voices of the mind. A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  46. Wertsch J (1998) Mind as action. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  47. Wertsch J (2007) Mediation. In: Daniels H, Cole M, Wertsch J (eds) The cambridge companion to Vygotsky. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 178–192

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  48. Wertsch J, Del Río P, Alvarez A (1995) Sociocultural studies of mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  49. Wing JM (2006) Computational thinking—it represents a universally applicable attitude and skill set everyone, not just computer scientists, would be eager to learn and use. Commun ACM 49(3):33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Wing JM (2008) Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philos Trans R Soc 316:3717–3725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  51. Wing JM (2010) Computational thinking: what and why? https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf

  52. Wing JM (2011) Research notebook: computational thinking—what and why? Link Mag 6:20–23

    Google Scholar 

  53. Wing JM (2014) Computational thinking benefits society. In: 40th anniversary blog of social issues in computing, p 26. http://socialissues.cs.toronto.edu/index.html%3Fp=279.html

  54. Wood D, Bruner JS, Ross G (1976) The role of tutoring in problem solving. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 17(2):89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Zhang L, Nouri J (2019) A systematic review of learning computational thinking through Scratch in K-9. Comput Educ 141:103607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103607

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was funded by a grant from the Independent Research Fund Denmark (IRFD).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Design and Communication, University of Southern Denmark, Kolding, Denmark

    Ane Bjerre Odgaard

Authors
  1. Ane Bjerre Odgaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ane Bjerre Odgaard.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

The study conforms to the Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: https://ufm.dk/publikationer/2014/the-danish-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity. The study was approved by University of Southern Denmark, Notification number 11.245.

Consent to participate

Informed consent for participation was obtained from all participating professionals as well as from the children’s parents/caregivers in accordance with GDPR.

Consent for publication

Informed consent for pseudomised publication was obtained from all participating professionals and from the children’s parents/caregivers in accordance with GDPR. The publication is single-authored.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Odgaard, A.B. What is the Problem? A Situated Account of Computational Thinking as Problem-Solving in Two Danish Preschools. Künstl Intell 36, 47–57 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-021-00752-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-021-00752-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation