Coding as another language: a pedagogical approach for teaching computer science in early childhood

Abstract

Computer programming is an essential skill in the 21st century and new policies and frameworks aim at preparing students for computer science-related professions. Today, the development of new interfaces and block-programming languages facilitates the teaching of coding and computational thinking starting in kindergarten. However, as new programming languages that are developmentally appropriate emerge, there is a need to explicitly conceptualize pedagogical approaches for teaching computer science in the early years that embrace the maturational stages of children by inviting play and discovery, socialization, and creativity. Thus, it is not enough to copy models developed for older children, which mostly grew out of traditional Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) disciplines and instructional practices. This paper describes a pedagogical approach for early childhood computer science called “Coding as Another Language” (CAL), as well as six coding stages, or learning trajectories, that young children go through when exposed to CAL curriculum. CAL is grounded on the principle that learning to program involves learning how to use a new language (a symbolic system of representation) for communicative and expressive functions. This paper proposes that, due to the critical foundational role of language and literacy in the early years, the teaching of computer science can be augmented by models of literacy instruction. CAL supports young children in transitioning through different six coding stages. Case studies of young children using either the KIBO robot or the ScratchJr app will be used to characterize each coding stage and to illustrate the instructional practices of CAL curriculum.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Abelson, H., & DiSessa, A. (1981). Turtle geometry: The computer as a medium for exploring mathematics (The mit press series in artificial intelligence). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alexander, R. J. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Cambridge: Dialogos.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Allamanis, M., Barr, E. T., Devanbu, P., & Sutton, C. (2018). A survey of machine learning for big code and naturalness. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 51(4), 81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barrouillet, P., & Lecas, J. (1999). Mental models in conditional reasoning and working memory. Thinking & Reasoning, 5(4), 289–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bers, M. (2008). Blocks to robots: Learning with technology in the early childhood classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bers, M. (2012). Designing Digital experiences for positive youth development: from playpen to playground. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Bers, M. (2018a). Coding as a playground: Computational thinking and programming in early childhood. London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bers, M. U. (2018b). Coding, playgrounds and literacy in early childhood education: The development of KIBO Robotics and ScratchJr. In 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2100.

  9. Bers, M. (2019). Coding as another language: Why computer science in early childhood should not be stem. In Key Issues in Technology and Early Childhood (Editor Chip Donohue). NY: Routledge.

  10. Bers, M., & Resnick, M. (2015). The official ScratchJr Book: Help your kids learn to code. San Francisco, CA: No Starch Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bialystok, E. (1991). Letters, sounds, and symbols: Changes in children’s understands of written language. Applied Psycholinguistics., 12, 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bredekamp, S. (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood pro- grams serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E., Tarver, S., & Jungjohann, K. (2006). Teaching struggling and at-risk readers: A direct instruction approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Clarke, S., Resnick, L. B., & Rosé, C. P. (2015). Dialogic instruction: A new frontier (3rd ed., pp. 378–389). New York: Handbook of Educational Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Clements, D. H. (2007). Curriculum research: Toward a framework for research-basedCu rricula. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(1), 35–70.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2004). Learning trajectories in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6, 81–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Code.org. (2018). 2018 annual report. Seattle, WA. Retrieved from https://code.org/files/annual-report-2018.pdf.

  19. Code.org. (2019). https://code.org/.

  20. Cunha, F., & Heckman, J. (2007). The technology of skill formation. American Economic Review, 97(2), 31–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dalbey, J., & Linn, M. C. (1985). The demands and requirements of computer programming: A literature review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1(3), 253–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dehaene, S. (2010). Reading in the Brain: The new science of how we read. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  23. de Strulle, A., & Shen, C. (n.d.). STEM + Computing K-12 Education (STEM + C). National Science Foundation. Retrieved from https://wwwnsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=505006.

  24. Duke, N., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. Farstrup & S. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about readinginstruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Elkin, M., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Programming with the KIBO robotics kit in preschool classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 33(3), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2016.1216251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fayer, S., Lacey, A., & Watson, A. (2017). BLS spotlight on statistics: STEM occupations-past, present, and future. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Fedorenko, E., Ivanova, A., Dhamala, R., & Bers, M. U. (In press). The language of programming: A cognitive perspective. Trends in Cognitive Development.

  28. Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1982). Literacy before schooling. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Floyd, B., Santander, T., & Weimer, W. (2017). Decoding the representation of code in the brain: An fMRI study of code review and expertise. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 175–186). IEEE Press.

  30. Fox, B., & Saracho, O. (1990). Emergent writing: Young children solving the written language puzzle. Early Child Development and Care., 56, 81–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gadanidis, G. (2017). Five affordances of computational thinking to support elementary mathematics education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 36(2), 143–151.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Guzdial, M. (2008). Education: Paving the way for computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 51(8), 25–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/1378704.1378713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Guzdial, M., & Morrison, B. (2016). Seeking to making computing education as available as mathematics or science education. Communications of the ACM, 59(11), 31–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Heckman, J., & Masterov, D. (2007). The productivity argument for investing in young children. Review of Agricultural Economics, 29(3), 446–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hubwieser, P., Armoni, M., Giannakos, M. N., & Mittermeir, R. T. (2014). Perspectives and visions of computer science education in primary and secondary (K-12) schools. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 14(2), 7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Janveau-Brennan, G., & Markovits, H. (1999). The development of reasoning with causal conditionals. Developmental Psychology, 35(4), 904–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jenkins, T. (2002). On the difficulty of learning to program. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual. Conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences (pp. 53–58). Leeds, UK. Retrieved from http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/localed/jenkins.html.

  39. K-12 Computer Science Framework Steering Committee. (2016). K–12 computer science framework. Retrieved from https://k12cs.org.

  40. Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Littleton, K., & Howe, C. (2010). Educational dialogues: understanding and promoting productive interaction. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Lockwood, J., & Mooney, A. (2018). Computational thinking in education: Where does it fit? A systematic literary review. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 2(1), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v2i1.26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lonigan, C. J., Schatschneider, C., & Westberg, L. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Identification of children’s skills and abilities linked to later outcomes in reading, writing, and spelling (pp. 55–106).

  44. 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. J. Burke, M. C. 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 

  45. Markert, L. R. (1996). Gender related to success in science and technology. The Journal of Technology Studies, 22(2), 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC.

  47. National Research Council. (2011). Report of a workshop of pedagogical aspects of computational thinking. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual framework for new K-12 science education standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  49. National Research Council Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy, Bowman, B., Donovan, S., & Burns, M. (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Norman, K. L. (2017). Cyberpsychology: An introduction to human-computer interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  51. Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  53. Papert S. (1987). Computer criticism vs. technocentric thinking Educational Researcher (Vol. 16, No. I) January/February 1987.

  54. Pea, R. D., & Kurland, D. M. (1984). On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming. New Ideas in Psychology, 2, 137–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Pearson, P. D. (2004). The reading wars. Educational policy, 18(1), 216–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Pei, C., Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2018). Cultivating computational thinking practices and mathematical habits of mind in lattice land. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 20(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2018.1403543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Perlis, A. J. (1962). The computer in the university. In M. Greenberger (Ed.), Computers and the world of the future (pp. 180–219). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (Vol. 8, p. 18). New York: International Universities Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  59. Puranik, C., & Lonigan, C. (2011). From scribbles to scrabble: Preschool children’s developing knowledge of written language. Reading and Writing, 24(5), 567–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  61. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., et al. (2009). Scratch: programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In D. Preiss & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching and human development (pp. 163–194). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Resnick, M., & Siegel, D. (2015). A different approach to coding. International Journal of People-Oriented Programming, 4(1), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Ryan, M. (2011). The encyclopedia of literary and cultural theory. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N., Pearson, D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: ies practice guide. NCEE 2010-4038. What Works Clearinghouse.

  66. Shonkoff, J., Phillips, D., & National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early child development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

  67. Siegmund, J., Kästner, C., Apel, S., Parnin, C., Bethmann, A., Leich, T., & Brechmann, A. (2014). Understanding source code with functional magnetic resonance imaging. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 378–389). ACM.

  68. STEM Education Act of 2015, House of Representatives 1020, 114th Congress. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1020.

  69. Strawhacker, A. L., & Bers, M. U. (2015). 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, 25(3), 293–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Sulzby, E. (1989). Assessment of writing and of children’s language while writing. In L. Morrow & J. Smith (Eds.), The role of assessment and measurement in early literacy instruction (pp. 83–109). Prentice-Hal: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Sulzby, E., & Teale, W. (1991). Emergent literacy. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 727–758). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Tolchinsky, L. (2003). The cradle of culture and what children know about writing and numbers before being taught. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  73. Vee, A. (2013). Understanding computer programming as a literacy. Literacy in Composition Studies, 1(2), 42–64. https://doi.org/10.21623/1.1.2.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Vizner, M. Z. (2017). Big robots for little kids: Investigating the role of sale in early childhood robotics kits (Master’s thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 10622097).

  75. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Whitehurst, G., & Lonigan, C. (2001). Emergent literacy: Development from prereaders to readers. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickensen (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 11–29). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Wilson, C., Sudol, L. A., Stephenson, C., & Stehlik, M. (2010). Running on empty: The failure to teach K-12 computer science in the digital age. New York, NY: The Association for Computing Machinery and the Computer Science Teachers Association.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Wing, J. (2006a). Computational thinking. Communications of Advancing Computing Machinery, 49(3), 33–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Wing, J. M. (2006b). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Wing, J. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking—What and why? The link magazine, Spring. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. Retrieved from https://www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebookcomputational-thinking-what-and-why.

  81. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1997). Philosophical Investigations. Trans. G.E.M. Anscombe (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Blackwell. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Wolf, M., & Stoodley, C. J. (2007). Proust and the squid: The story and science of the reading brain (1st ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author is deeply thankful to members of the DevTech research group at Tufts University, and to Ziva Hassenfeld for discussions of these materials, Amanda Strawhacker and Anne Drescher for help with manuscript editing, and Riva Dhamala for help with table and formatting.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marina Umaschi Bers.

Additional information

Publisher's

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Coding
  • Young children
  • Early childhood
  • Literacy