Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Developing Computational Thinking in Early Childhood Education: A Focus on Algorithmic Thinking and the Role of Cognitive Differences and Scaffolding

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Balancing the Tension between Digital Technologies and Learning Sciences

Part of the book series: Cognition and Exploratory Learning in the Digital Age ((CELDA))

Abstract

Computational thinking is considered as important as reading, writing, and arithmetic. Many researchers, worldwide, have argued about the importance of integrating the teaching of computational thinking skills in school settings from an early age. However, little has been done in terms of systematically investigating the factors influencing the development of computational thinking in pre-primary education. Accordingly, the study herein investigated the development of young children’s computational thinking using robotics activities taking into consideration individual cognitive differences. One hundred and eighty children participated in the study. Participants were randomly assigned into six groups according to their cognitive type and scaffolding strategy. The findings showed that the cognitive type significantly affected children’s cognitive performance during learning with the robotics activities. In addition, the results clearly indicated that scaffolding was important for supporting children’s learning. The authors conclude with educational implications and future research directions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. Computer Journal, 55(7), 832–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2004a). Examining the effects of text-only and text-visual instructional materials on the achievement of field-dependent and field independent learners during problem-solving with modeling software. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 23–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2004b). The effect of electronic scaffolding for technology integration on perceived task effort and confidence of primary student teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 29–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2013). Using educational data mining methods to assess field-dependent and field-independent learners’ complex problem solving. Educational Technology Research & Development, 61(3), 521–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2020). Developing young children’s computational thinking with educational robotics: An interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 105954. Retrieved August 10, 2019, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563219301104?via%3Dihub

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armoni, M., & Gal-Ezer, J. (2014). Early computing education: Why? what? when? who? ACM Inroads, 5(4), 54–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astrachan, O., Hambrusch, S., Peckham, J., & Settle, A. (2009). The present and future of computational thinking. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 549–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition–implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5), 367–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 505–518). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, D. M. (2011). The computational turn: Thinking about the digital humanities. Culture Machine, 12, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bers, M. U. (2008). Blocks, robots and computers: Learning about technology in early childhood. New York: Teacher’s College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, W. C. (2010). Cognitive style: A meta-analysis of the instructional implications for various integrated computer enhanced learning environments. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canelos, J., Taylor, W. D., & Gates, R. B. (1980). The effects of three levels of visual stimulus complexity on the information processing of field-dependents and field-independents when acquiring information for performance on three types of instructional objectives. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 7(2), 65–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. S., Kao, T. C., & Sheu, J. P. (2003). A mobile learning system for scaffolding bird watching learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 347–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S. Y., & Macredie, R. D. (2004). Cognitive modeling of student learning in web-based instructional programs. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 17(3), 375–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ching, Y. H., Hsu, Y. C., & Baldwin, S. (2018). Developing computational thinking with educational technologies for young learners. TechTrends, 62(6), 563–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. K. (1991). Educational implications of field dependence independence. In S. Wapner & J. Demick (Eds.), Field dependence independence: Cognitive style across the life span (pp. 149–176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dufresne, A., & Turcotte, S. (1997). Cognitive style and its implications for navigation strategies. In B. du Boulay & R. Mizoguchi (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education knowledge and media learning system. Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, (pp. 287–293). Amsterdam, Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, C., Richardson, J. T., & Waring, M. (2013). Field independence: Reviewing the evidence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 210–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flowers, T. R., & Gossett, K. A. (2002). Teaching problem solving, computing, and information technology with robots. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 17, 45–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fluck, A., Webb, M., Cox, M., Angeli, C., Malyn-Smith, J., Voogt, J., & Zagami, J. (2016). Arguing for computer science in the school curriculum. Educational Technology and Society, 19(3), 38–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furber, S. (2012). Shut down or restart? The way forward for computing in UK schools. London: The Royal Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giannakos, M. N., Papavlasopoulou, S., & Sharma, K. (2020). Monitoring children’s learning through wearable eye-tracking: The case of a making-based coding activity. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 19(1), 10–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Kruez, R., & The Tutoring Research Group. (2000). AutoTutor: A simulation of a human tutor. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research, 1, 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2018). Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come. In S. Sentance, E. Barendsen, & S. Carsten (Eds.), Computer science education: Perspectives on teaching and learning in school (pp. 19–38). New York: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guisande, M. A., Tinajero, C., Cadaveira, F., & Páramo, M. F. (2012). Attention and visuospatial abilities: A neuropsychological approach in field-dependent and field-independent schoolchildren. Studia Psychologica, 54(2), 83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. K. (2000). Field dependence–independence and computer-based instruction in geography. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hergovich, A. (2003). Field dependence, suggestibility and belief in paranormal phenomena. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(2), 195–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Highfield, K. (2010). Robotic toys as a catalyst for mathematical problem solving. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 15(2), 22–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J. R., & Hannafin, M. J. (1997). Cognitive strategies and learning from the world wide web. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(4), 37–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howland, K., Good, J., & Nicholson, K. (2009). Language-based support for computational thinking. In IEEE symposium on visual languages and human-centric computing, (pp. 147–150). Corvallis, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janka, P. (2008). Using a programmable toy at preschool age: Why and how. In Teaching with robotics: didactic approaches and experiences. Workshop of International Conference on Simulation, Modeling and Programming Autonomous Robots (pp. 112–121).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1992). What are cognitive tools? In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Cognitive tools for learning (pp. 1–6). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karp, S. A., & Konstadt, M. (1971). Children’s embedded figures test. Washington, WA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazakoff, E., & Bers, M. (2012). Programming in a robotics context in the kindergarten classroom: The impact on sequencing skills. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 21(4), 371–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazimoglu, C., Kiernan, M., Bacon, L., & MacKinnon, L. (2012). Learning programming at the computational thinking level via digital game-play. Procedia Computer Science, 9, 522–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Land, S. M., & Greene, B. A. (2000). Project-based learning with the world wide web: A qualitative study of resource integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 45–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mashburn, A. J., Justice, L. M., Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2009). Peer effects on children’s language achievement during pre-kindergarten. Child Development, 80(3), 686–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misirli, A., & Komis, V. (2014). Robotics and programming concepts in early childhood education: A conceptual framework for designing educational scenarios. In Research on e-learning and ICT in education (pp. 99–118). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, H. (1997). Cognitive styles and classroom learning. Westport, CT: Pragerger Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myhill, D., & Warren, P. (2005). Scaffolds or straitjackets? Critical moments in classroom discourse. Educational Review, 57(1), 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (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

  • Nicolaou, A. A., & Xistouri, X. (2011). Field dependence/independence cognitive style and problem posing: An investigation with sixth grade students. Educational Psychology, 31(5), 611–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Zaranis, N. (2016). Developing fundamental programming concepts and computational thinking with ScratchJr in preschool education: A case study. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 10(3), 187–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pape, S. J., & Tchoshanov, M. A. (2001). The role of representation (s) in developing mathematical understanding. Theory Into Practice, 40(2), 118–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pithers, R. T. (2002). Cognitive learning style: A review of the field dependent-field independent approach. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 54(1), 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riding, R. J. (1997). On the nature of cognitive style. Educational Psychology, 17(1–2), 29–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riding, R. J. (2002). School learning and cognitive style. London: David Fulton Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers, E. M. (2005). Interactions that scaffold reading performance. Journal of Literacy Research, 36, 501–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J. C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the computational thinking test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saracho, O. N. (1989). Cognitive style: individual differences. Early Child Development and Care, 53(1), 75–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saracho, O. N. (2000). A framework for effective classroom teaching: Matching teachers’ and students’ cognitive styles. In R. J. Riding & S. G. Raynor (Eds.), International perspectives on individual differences (pp. 297–314). Stamford, CT: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saracho, O. N., & Spodek, B. (1981). Teachers’ cognitive styles: Educational implications. The Educational Forum, 45(2), 153–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 351–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, M., & Martin, F. (2015). The assessment of mobile computational thinking. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 30(6), 53–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snowman, J., & Biehler, R. (1993). Psychology applied to teaching (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, L., Ratcliffe, M., Woodbury, J., & Jarman, E. (2002). Learning styles and performance in the introductory programming sequence. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(1), 33–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Merriënboer, J. J., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, D. C., Ma, Y., Prejean, L., Ford, M. J., & Lai, G. (2007). Acquisition of physics content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills in a robotics summer camp. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 201–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. ETS Research Bulletin Series, 1975(2), 1–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational thinking for all: Pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends, 60(6), 565–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Revisiting the value issue in intellectual styles. In L. F. Zhang & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Perspectives on the nature of intellectual styles (pp. 63–85). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Kyriakoula Georgiou & Charoula Angeli

Authors
  1. Kyriakoula Georgiou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charoula Angeli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charoula Angeli .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Learning, Design and Technology, University of Mannheim, UNESCO Deputy Chair of Data Analytics in Higher Education Learning and Teaching Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia, Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Dirk Ifenthaler

  2. Department of Digital Systems, University of Piraeus, Piraeus, Greece

    Demetrios G. Sampson

  3. School of Information Systems & Technology Management, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Pedro Isaías

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Georgiou, K., Angeli, C. (2021). Developing Computational Thinking in Early Childhood Education: A Focus on Algorithmic Thinking and the Role of Cognitive Differences and Scaffolding. In: Ifenthaler, D., Sampson, D.G., Isaías, P. (eds) Balancing the Tension between Digital Technologies and Learning Sciences. Cognition and Exploratory Learning in the Digital Age. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65657-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65657-7_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-65656-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-65657-7

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation