An Empirical Study of the Effect of Robot Programming Education on the Computational Thinking of Young Children: The Role of Flowcharts
There is an increasing interest in introducing computational thinking at an early age. Computational thinking, like mathematical thinking, engineering thinking, and scientific thinking, is a kind of analytical thinking. Learning computational thinking skills is not only to improve technological literacy, but also allows learners to equip with practicable skills such as problem-solving skills. As people realize the importance of computational thinking, the field of educational technology faces a problem: how to choose appropriate tools and activities to help students develop computational thinking skills. Robots are gradually becoming a popular teaching tool, as robots provide a tangible way for young children to access to technology, and controlling a robot through programming offers them opportunities to engage in developing computational thinking. This study explores whether the introduction of flowcharts into the robotics programming courses can help children convert natural language into a programming language more easily, and then to better cultivate their computational thinking skills. An experimental study was adopted with a sample of children ages six to seven (N = 16) participated, and a one-meter-tall humanoid robot was used as the teaching tool. Results show that children can master basic programming concepts through robotic courses. Children's computational thinking has been significantly improved. Besides, results suggest that flowcharts do have an impact on young children’s computational thinking skills development, but it only has a significant effect on the "sequencing" and "correspondence" skills. Overall, the study demonstrates that the humanoid robot and flowcharts have qualities that foster young children to learn programming and develop computational thinking skills.Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 448
 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.
 Wong, G. K. W., & Cheung, H. Y. (2020). Exploring children's perceptions of developing twenty-first century skills through computational thinking and programming. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(4), 438-450.
 Guzdial, M. (2008). Education: Paving the way for computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 51(8), 25-27.
 Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. Children, computers and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
 Bers, M. U. (2008). Blocks, robots and computers: Learning about technology in early childhood. Teacher’s College Press.
 Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
 Wing, J. M. (2011). Computational Thinking: What and Why. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf
 Bers, M. U., Ponte, I., Juelich, K., Viera, A., & Schenker, J. (2002). Teachers as designers: Integrating robotics into early childhood education. Information Technology in Childhood Education, 123-145.
 Kazakoff, E., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. (2012). 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.
 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.
 Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2010). Teaching with computers in early childhood education: strategies and professional development. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 23(3), 215-226.
 Xu, Y. (2011). Break through the difficulty of programming teaching by using the role experience of little turtles. Journal of Fujian Education Institute, 9, 125-126. (In Chinese)
 Carlisle, M. C., Wilson, T. A., Humphries, J. W., & Hadfield, S. M. (2004). Raptor: introducing programming to non-majors with flowcharts. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 19(4), 52-60.
 Liang, Y., Zou, H., & Dai, J. (2018). Application of flow chart in programming language teaching, Education Teaching Forum, 386(44), 186-187. (In Chinese)
 Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: a taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys, 37(2), 83-137.
 Shaer, O., & Hornecker, E. (2009). Tangible user interfaces: past, present, and future directions. Human-Computer Interaction, 3(1-2), 1-137.
 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.
 Clements, D. H., & Meredith, J. S. (1992). Research on logo: Effects and efficacy. http://el.media.mit.edu/logo-foundation/pubs/papers/research_logo.html.
 Ioannou, A., Andreou, E., & Christofi, M. (2015). Pre-schoolers’ interest and caring behaviour around a humanoid robot. Techtrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 59(2), 23–26.
 Pugnali, A., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2017). The impact of user interface on young children’s computational thinking. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 16, 171-193.
 Zhang, J. (2018). Mind mapping: Explore new ways for children to learn Scratch programming. Survey of Education, 7(16), 36-38. (In Chinese)
 Wei, T., & Qian, Y. (2019). Flowcharts help elementary school students develop their problem-solving skills in Scratch programming learning. China Information Technology Education, 9, 54-56. (In Chinese)
 Sapounidis, T., Demetriadis, S., Papadopoulos, P. M., & Stamovlasis, D. (2018). Tangible and graphical programming with experienced children: a mixed methods analysis. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 19, 67-78.