Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3501712.3529745acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesidcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Design Factors Affecting the Social Use of Programmable Robots to Learn Computational Thinking in Kindergarten

Published: 27 June 2022 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Programmable robots designed for preliterate children are one of the options being explored and put into practice for teaching computational thinking skills to children in preschool and kindergarten. Classroom use of these robots may involve use by groups of children due to cost, logistical, and pedagogical reasons. To understand design factors affecting the social use of these robots, we explored the use of three programmable robots with distinctive design characteristics in a kindergarten classroom. Our findings suggest that programmable robot designs that may work well for use by individual children may cause difficulties when shared by groups of children if not all children in the group are able to easily perceive the input (program), output (robot actions), or program state. Based on these design factors we provide recommendations for the design of programmable robots, their evaluation for social use, and for addressing design limitations with support by adult facilitators.

    References

    [1]
    2022. Plobot. Retrieved April 29, 2022 from https://plobot.com/
    [2]
    Lúcia Abreu, Ana Cristina Pires, and Tiago Guerreiro. 2020. TACTOPI: A Playful Approach to Promote Computational Thinking for Visually Impaired Children. In The 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(ASSETS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3373625.3418003 event-place: Virtual Event, Greece.
    [3]
    Charoula Angeli and Nicos Valanides. 2020. Developing young children’s computational thinking with educational robotics: An interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Computers in Human Behavior 105 (April 2020), 105954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.018
    [4]
    Ewelina Bakala, Anaclara Gerosa, Juan Pablo Hourcade, and Gonzalo Tejera. 2021. Preschool children, robots, and computational thinking: A systematic review. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 29 (Sept. 2021), 100337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100337
    [5]
    Ewelina Bakala, Jorge Visca, Gonzalo Tejera, Andrés Seré, Guillermo Amorin, and Leonel Gómez-Sena. 2019. Designing child-robot interaction with Robotito. In 2019 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 1–6.
    [6]
    Marina Umaschi Bers. 2017. Coding as a playground: Programming and computational thinking in the early childhood classroom. Routledge.
    [7]
    Stefania Bocconi, Augusto Chioccariello, Giuliana Dettori, Anusca Ferrari, Katja Engelhardt, and others. 2016. Developing computational thinking in compulsory education-Implications for policy and practice. Technical Report. Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    [8]
    Yen-Air Caballero-Gonzalez, Ana García-Valcárcel Muñoz-Repiso, and Alicia García-Holgado. 2019. Learning Computational Thinking and Social Skills Development in Young Children through Problem Solving with Educational Robotics. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality(TEEM’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3362789.3362874 event-place: León, Spain.
    [9]
    Kunal Chawla, Megan Chiou, Alfredo Sandes, and Paulo Blikstein. 2013. Dr. Wagon: A ’stretchable’ Toolkit for Tangible Computer Programming. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children(IDC ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 561–564. https://doi.org/10.1145/2485760.2485865 event-place: New York, New York, USA.
    [10]
    Yu-Hui Ching, Yu-Chang Hsu, and Sally Baldwin. 2018. Developing Computational Thinking with Educational Technologies for Young Learners. TechTrends 62, 6 (Nov. 2018), 563–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0292-7
    [11]
    Clementoni. 2022. Robot Mind Designer. Retrieved April 29, 2022 from https://www.clementoni.com/pl-en/50534-robot-mind-designer/
    [12]
    Maria Chiara Di Lieto, Emanuela Inguaggiato, Emanuela Castro, Francesca Cecchi, Giovanni Cioni, Marta Dell’Omo, Cecilia Laschi, Chiara Pecini, Giacomo Santerini, Giuseppina Sgandurra, and others. 2017. Educational Robotics intervention on Executive Functions in preschool children: A pilot study. Computers in human behavior 71 (2017), 16–23. Publisher: Elsevier.
    [13]
    Laura M Fernández-Méndez, María José Contreras, and M Rosa Elosúa. 2018. From what age is mental rotation training effective? Differences in preschool age but not in sex. Frontiers in Psychology 9 (2018), 753. Publisher: Frontiers.
    [14]
    G. Fessakis, E. Gouli, and E. Mavroudi. 2013. Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education 63 (April 2013), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.016
    [15]
    Andrea Frick, Melissa A Hansen, and Nora S Newcombe. 2013. Development of mental rotation in 3-to 5-year-old children. Cognitive Development 28, 4 (2013), 386–399. Publisher: Elsevier.
    [16]
    Kyriakoula Georgiou and Charoula Angeli. 2019. Developing Preschool Children’s Computational Thinking with Educational Robotics: The Role of Cognitive Differences and Scaffolding. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA 2019). IADIS Press, 101–108. https://doi.org/10.33965/celda2019_201911L013
    [17]
    Google. 2022. Google Jamboard. Retrieved April 29, 2022 from https://jamboard.google.com/
    [18]
    WEU-Do Helsinki. 2013. World medical association declaration of Helsinki. Fortaleza, Brazil (2013).
    [19]
    Michael S. Horn, Erin Treacy Solovey, R. Jordan Crouser, and Robert J.K. Jacob. 2009. Comparing the Use of Tangible and Graphical Programming Languages for Informal Science Education. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 975–984. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518851 event-place: Boston, MA, USA.
    [20]
    Michael S. Horn, Erin Treacy Solovey, and Robert J. K. Jacob. 2008. Tangible Programming and Informal Science Learning: Making TUIs Work for Museums. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children(IDC ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 194–201. https://doi.org/10.1145/1463689.1463756 event-place: Chicago, Illinois.
    [21]
    Juan Pablo Hourcade. 2015. Child-Computer Interaction. Self, Iowa City, Iowa.
    [22]
    Hsiu-Fang Hsieh and Sarah E. Shannon. 2005. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15, 9 (Nov. 2005), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.
    [23]
    Walter J Koetke. 1973. Supertoys, A New Approach to Learning Mathematics.
    [24]
    KUBO. 2022. Discover how easy it can be to teach computer science | KUBO. Retrieved April 29, 2022 from https://kubo.education/
    [25]
    Kenneth T. H. Lee, Amanda Sullivan, and Marina U. Bers. 2013. Collaboration by Design: Using Robotics to Foster Social Interaction in Kindergarten. Computers in the Schools 30, 3 (July 2013), 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2013.805676 Publisher: Routledge.
    [26]
    Lucid. 2022. Intelligent Diagramming. Retrieved April 29, 2022 from https://www.lucidchart.com
    [27]
    makeblock. 2022. mTiny - An Early Childhood Education Robot for Kids. Retrieved April 29, 2022 from https://www.makeblock.com/mtiny
    [28]
    Garyfalia Mantzanidou. 2019. Educational robotics in kindergarten, a case study. In International Conference on Robotics in Education (RiE). Springer, 52–58.
    [29]
    Matatalab. 2022. Home | matatalab. Retrieved April 29, 2022 from https://matatalab.com/en
    [30]
    Kate I. McCormick and Jacob A. Hall. 2021. Computational thinking learning experiences, outcomes, and research in preschool settings: a scoping review of literature. Education and Information Technologies (Oct. 2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10765-z
    [31]
    Jaime Montemayor, Allison Druin, Gene Chipman, Allison Farber, and Mona Leigh Guha. 2004. Tools for Children to Create Physical Interactive Storyrooms. Comput. Entertain. 2, 1 (Jan. 2004), 12–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/973801.973821
    [32]
    Karen Janette Murcia and Kok-Sing Tang. 2019. Exploring the multimodality of young children’s coding. Australian Educational Computing 34, 1 (2019).
    [33]
    Ana Muñoz-Repiso and Yen-Air Caballero-González. 2019. Robotics to develop computational thinking in early Childhood Education. Comunicar 27, 59 (April 2019), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.3916/C59-2019-06
    [34]
    Don Norman. 2013. The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic books.
    [35]
    Donald A Norman. 1988. The psychology of everyday things.Basic books.
    [36]
    obotics. 2022. Robot Kits For Kids | KIBO | KinderLab Robotics. Retrieved April 29, 2022 from https://kinderlabrobotics.com/kibo/
    [37]
    Stamatios Papadakis. 2020. Robots and Robotics Kits for Early Childhood and First School Age. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) 14, 18 (Nov. 2020), 34. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v14i18.16631
    [38]
    Stamatis Papadakis. 2021. The Impact of Coding Apps to Support Young Children in Computational Thinking and Computational Fluency. A Literature Review. Frontiers in Education 6(2021), 183. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.657895
    [39]
    Ana Cristina Pires, Filipa Rocha, Antonio José de Barros Neto, Hugo Simão, Hugo Nicolau, and Tiago Guerreiro. 2020. Exploring Accessible Programming with Educators and Visually Impaired Children. In Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children Conference(IDC ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 148–160. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392063.3394437 event-place: London, United Kingdom.
    [40]
    Primo. 2022. Meet Cubetto - Primo Toys Cubetto: A toy robot teaching kids code & computer programming. Retrieved April 29, 2022 from https://www.primotoys.com/
    [41]
    Learning Resources. 2022. Botley. Retrieved April 29, 2022 from https://www.learningresources.com/botleyr-the-coding-robot-activity-set
    [42]
    Learning Resources. 2022. Code & Go. Retrieved April 29, 2022 from https://www.learningresources.com/code-gor-robot-mouse-activity-set
    [43]
    Robobloq. 2022. Qobo - Robobloq Co. Ltd.Retrieved April 29, 2022 from https://www.robobloq.com/product/Qobo
    [44]
    Filipa Rocha, Guilherme Guimarães, David Gonçalves, Ana Cristina Pires, Lúcia Verónica Abreu, and Tiago Guerreiro. 2021. Fostering Collaboration with Asymmetric Roles in Accessible Programming Environments for Children with Mixed-Visual-Abilities. In The 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3441852.3476553
    [45]
    Evgenia Roussou and Maria Rangoussi. 2019. On the use of robotics for the development of computational thinking in kindergarten: Educational intervention and evaluation. In International Conference on Robotics in Education (RiE). Springer, 31–44.
    [46]
    Anika Saxena, Chung Kwan Lo, Khe Foon Hew, and Gary Ka Wai Wong. 2020. Designing Unplugged and Plugged Activities to Cultivate Computational Thinking: An Exploratory Study in Early Childhood Education. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 29, 1 (Feb. 2020), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00478-w
    [47]
    Florian Scharf, Thomas Winkler, Claudia Hahn, Christian Wolters, and Michael Herczeg. 2012. Tangicons 3.0: An Educational Non-Competitive Collaborative Game. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children(IDC ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1145/2307096.2307113 event-place: Bremen, Germany.
    [48]
    Florian Scharf, Thomas Winkler, and Michael Herczeg. 2008. Tangicons: Algorithmic Reasoning in a Collaborative Game for Children in Kindergarten and First Class. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children(IDC ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 242–249. https://doi.org/10.1145/1463689.1463762 event-place: Chicago, Illinois.
    [49]
    Edelberto Franco Silva, Bruno José Dembogurski, and Gustavo Silva Semaan. 2021. A Systematic Review of Computational Thinking in Early Ages. arXiv:2106.10275 [cs] (June 2021). http://arxiv.org/abs/2106.10275 arXiv:2106.10275.
    [50]
    Arnan Sipitakiat and Nusarin Nusen. 2012. Robo-Blocks: Designing Debugging Abilities in a Tangible Programming System for Early Primary School Children. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children(IDC ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 98–105. https://doi.org/10.1145/2307096.2307108 event-place: Bremen, Germany.
    [51]
    Sphero. 2022. Screenless Programming & Learning Robot for Kids | Sphero indi. Retrieved April 29, 2022 from https://sphero.com/pages/sphero-indi
    [52]
    Amanda Sullivan, Marina Bers, and Alex Pugnali. 2017. The impact of user interface on young children’s computational thinking. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice 16, 1(2017), 171–193. Publisher: Informing Science Institute.
    [53]
    Gonzalo Tejera, Guillermo Amorin, Andrés Sere, Nicolás Capricho, Pablo Margenat, and Jorge Visca. 2019. Robotito: programming robots from preschool to undergraduate school level. In 2019 19th International Conference on Advanced Robotics (ICAR). IEEE, 296–301.
    [54]
    TTS. 2022. Bee-Bot. Retrieved April 29, 2022 from https://www.tts-international.com/bee-bot-programmable-floor-robot/1015268.html?cgid=Primary-Computing_--_ICT-Bee-Bot_Blue-Bot_--_Pro-Bot
    [55]
    TTS. 2022. Blue-Bot. Retrieved April 29, 2022 from https://www.tts-international.com/blue-bot-bluetooth-programmable-floor-robot/1015269.html
    [56]
    TTS. 2022. Pro-Bot. Retrieved April 29, 2022 from https://www.tts-international.com/pro-bot-floor-robot-starter-pack/1010501.html?cgid=Primary-Computing_--_ICT-Bee-Bot_Blue-Bot_--_Pro-Bot
    [57]
    VEX. 2022. 123 - VEX Robotics. Retrieved April 29, 2022 from https://www.vexrobotics.com/123
    [58]
    Pia Williams, Sonja Sheridan, Heidi Harju-Luukkainen, and Ingrid Pramling Samuelsson. 2015. Does group size matter in preschool teacher’s work? The skills teachers emphasise for children in preschool groups of different size. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research 4, 2 (2015), 93–108. Publisher: Suomen varhaiskasvatus.
    [59]
    Jeanette Wing. 2011. Research notebook: Computational thinking—What and why. The link magazine 6(2011), 20–23.
    [60]
    Jeannette M Wing. 2006. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 49, 3 (2006), 33–35. Publisher: ACM New York, NY, USA.
    [61]
    Junnan Yu and Ricarose Roque. 2019. A review of computational toys and kits for young children. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 21 (Sept. 2019), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.04.001

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Writing-skill Development of Graduate Students Through a Google Jamboard Platform: A Study of Graduate Students from a Public University in BangkokInternational Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews10.60027/ijsasr.2024.36924:1(237-246)Online publication date: 18-Jan-2024
    • (2023)“It will surely fall”: Exploring Teachers’ Perspectives on Commercial Robots for PreschoolersProceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Information Technology for Social Good10.1145/3582515.3609570(477-486)Online publication date: 6-Sep-2023
    • (2023)Unravelling the underlying mechanism of computational thinking: The mediating role of attitudinal beliefs between personality and learning performanceJournal of Computer Assisted Learning10.1111/jcal.1290040:2(902-918)Online publication date: 19-Dec-2023

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    IDC '22: Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference
    June 2022
    718 pages
    ISBN:9781450391979
    DOI:10.1145/3501712
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 27 June 2022

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. computational thinking
    2. kindergarten children
    3. perception
    4. programmable robot
    5. social use

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Conference

    IDC '22
    Sponsor:
    IDC '22: Interaction Design and Children
    June 27 - 30, 2022
    Braga, Portugal

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 172 of 578 submissions, 30%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)58
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7
    Reflects downloads up to 10 Aug 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Writing-skill Development of Graduate Students Through a Google Jamboard Platform: A Study of Graduate Students from a Public University in BangkokInternational Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews10.60027/ijsasr.2024.36924:1(237-246)Online publication date: 18-Jan-2024
    • (2023)“It will surely fall”: Exploring Teachers’ Perspectives on Commercial Robots for PreschoolersProceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Information Technology for Social Good10.1145/3582515.3609570(477-486)Online publication date: 6-Sep-2023
    • (2023)Unravelling the underlying mechanism of computational thinking: The mediating role of attitudinal beliefs between personality and learning performanceJournal of Computer Assisted Learning10.1111/jcal.1290040:2(902-918)Online publication date: 19-Dec-2023

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media