Tangible programming in early childhood: Revisiting developmental assumptions through new technologies: Childhood in a digital world

This chapter explores the idea that when given appropriate tools, young children can actively engage in computer programming and robotics activities in a way that is consistent with developmentally appropriate practice. In particular, this project proposes the use of emerging tangible user interface (TUI) technology to fundamentally re-envision the way in which children program computers. In short, rather than using a mouse or keyboard to write programs to control robots, children instead construct physical computer programs by connecting interlocking, “smart” wooden blocks. In this chapter we will describe our development efforts both in terms of curriculum and technology. We will also share results from a two-year design-based research study conducted in three kindergarten classrooms. Tangible Programming 3 Tangible Programming in Early Childhood: Revisiting Developmental Assumptions through New Technologies We are surrounded by technology. From pens and pencils to cell phones and digital cameras, technology permeates our existence. Yet, in the early grades, children learn very little about this. For decades early childhood curriculum has focused on literacy and numeracy, with some attention paid to science, in particular to the natural world—insects, volcanoes, plants, and the Arctic. And, while understanding the natural world is important, developing children’s knowledge of the surrounding man-made world is also important (Bers, 2008). This is the realm of technology and engineering, which focus on the development and application of tools, machines, materials, and processes to help solve human problems. Early childhood education hasn’t ignored this; it is common to see young children using cardboard or recycled materials to build cities and bridges. However, what is unique to our manmade world today is the fusion of electronics with mechanical structures. We go to the bathroom to wash our hands, and the faucets “know” when to start dispensing water. The elevator “knows” when someone’s little hands are in between the doors and shouldn’t close. Our cell phones “know” how to take pictures, send emails, and behave as alarm clocks. Even our cars “know” where we want to go and can take us there without getting lost. We live in a world in which bits and atoms are increasingly integrated (Gershenfeld, 2000); however, we do not teach our young children about this. In the early schooling experiences, we teach children about polar bears and cacti, which are probably more remote from their everyday experience than smart faucets and cellular phones. There are several reasons for the lack of focus on technologies in early childhood, but two of the most common claims are that young children are not developmentally Tangible Programming 4 ready to understand such complex and abstract phenomena, and that there is a lack of technology with age-appropriate interfaces that allow children to develop their own technologically-rich projects. In this chapter we address both of these claims by presenting research to evaluate young children’s ability to build, program, and understand their own robotic creations through the use of a novel programming interface designed specifically for young children Background Our work is rooted in notions of developmentally appropriate practice (DAP), a perspective within early childhood education concerned with creating learning environments sensitive to children's social, emotional, physical, and cognitive development. DAP is a framework produced by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009) that outlines practice that promotes young children’s optimal learning and development. DAP is based on theories of child development, the strengths and weaknesses of individual children uncovered through authentic assessment, and individual children’s cultural background as defined by community and family (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). DAP is built upon the theory of developmental stages introduced by Jean Piaget, which suggests that children enter the concrete operational stage at age six or seven. According to Piaget, at this age, a child gains the ability to perform mental operations in his/her head and also to reverse those operations. As a result, a concrete operational child has a more sophisticated understanding of number, can imagine the world from different perspectives, can systematically compare, sort, and classify objects, and can understand notions of time and causality (Richardson, 1998). Based on this developmental model, one might make the argument that a child’s ability to program a computer might be predicted by his or her general developmental Tangible Programming 5 level, and, that by extension, a pre-operational kindergartener (typically five years old) may be too young to benefit from or understand computer programming. However, since its introduction, various problems and inconsistencies have been identified with Piaget’s stage model. For example, studies have shown that when a task and its context are made clear to children, they exhibit logical thought and understanding well before the ages that Piaget suggested as a lower limit (Richardson, 1998). In the early days of personal computing, there was lively debate over the developmental appropriateness of computer technology use in early elementary classrooms (Clements & Sarama, 2003). Today, however, the pressing question in no longer whether but how we should introduce computer technology in early elementary school (Clements & Sarama, 2002). For example, a 1992 study found that elementary school children exposed to exploratory software showed gains in self-esteem, non-verbal skills, long-term memory, manual dexterity, and structural knowledge. When combined with other non-computer activities, these students also showed improvements in verbal skills, abstraction, problem solving, and conceptual skills (Haugland, 1992). Other studies have demonstrated that computer use can serve as a catalyst for positive social interaction and collaboration (Clements & Sarama, 2002; Wang & Ching, 2003). Of course, the developmental appropriateness of the technology used by young children depends on the context. What software is being used? And how is it integrated with and supported by the broader classroom curriculum? Fortunately, we live in an advantageous time for introducing technology in early childhood. Given the increasing mandate to make early childhood programs Tangible Programming 6 more academically challenging, technology can provide a playful bridge to integrate academic demands with personally meaningful projects (Bers, 2008). Robotics and Computer Programming in Early Childhood Education “Computer technology” is a broad term that can mean many things, especially in the context of a classroom. We believe that robotics is one type of educational technology that holds special potential for early childhood classrooms where children engage in cognitive as well as motor and social skills development. Furthermore, in early childhood content areas tend not to be isolated, but integrated more broadly into classroom curriculum that encompasses different content and skills; learning can be project-driven and open-ended; and student work does not have to fit into an hour-long class period. Thus, robotics can be a good integrator of curricular content (Bers, Ponte, Juelich, Viera, & Schenker, 2002). Robotics provides opportunities for young children to learn about sensors, motors, and the digital domain in a playful way by building their own projects, such as cars that follow a light, elevators that work with touch sensors, and puppets that can play music. Young children can become engineers by playing with gears, levers, motors, sensors, and programming loops, as well as storytellers by creating their own meaningful projects that move in response to their environment (Bers, 2008; Wang & Ching, 2003). Robotics can also be a gateway for children to learn about applied mathematical concepts, the scientific method of inquiry, and problem solving (Rogers & Portsmore, 2004). Moreover, robotic manipulatives invite children to participate in social interactions and negotiations while playing to learn and learning to play (Resnick, 2003). 1 As of 2006, thirty-seven states have included engineering/technology standards in their educational frameworks. Tangible Programming 7 Robotics, however, is about more than just creating physical artifacts. In order to bring robots to “life” children must also create computer programs—digital artifacts that allow robots to move, blink, sing, and respond to their environment. Previous research has shown that children as young as four years old can understand the basic concepts of computer programming and can build and program simple robotics projects (Bers, 2008; Cejka, Rogers, & Portsmore, 2006; Bers, Rogers, Beals, Portsmore, Staszowski, Cejka, Carberry, Gravel, Anderson, & Barnett, 2006). Furthermore, early studies with the text-based language, Logo, have shown that computer programming, when introduced in a structured way, can help young children with variety of cognitive skills, including basic number sense, language skills, and visual memory (Clements, 1999). Nonetheless, computer programming is difficult for novices of any age. Kelleher and Pausch (2005) offer a taxonomy containing well over 50 novice programming systems, a great number of which aim to ease or eliminate the process of learning language syntax, perhaps the most often cited source of novice frustration. Beyond syntax, there are many specific conceptual hurdles faced by novice programmers as well as fundamental misconceptions about the nature of computers and computer programming. Ben-Ari (1998) points out that unlike the beginning physics student who at least has a naïve understanding of the physical world, beginning programmers have no effective model of a computer upon which to build new knowledge. Worse,