Unplugged programming in an early primary technology classroom: What conditions for learning are created?

Astrid Berg; Cecilia Axell; Inger Eriksson

doi:10.31129/LUMAT.13.1.2777

Authors

Astrid Berg Linköping University, Sweden https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3632-2397
Cecilia Axell Linköping University, Sweden https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5721-7719
Inger Eriksson Stockholm University, Sweden https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0764-5728

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.13.1.2777

Keywords:

unplugged programming, primary school, variation theory

Abstract

Although using computers is the most common strategy to teach programming, “unplugged programming” (UP) has gained in popularity within educational settings. UP refers to the act of programming without a computer. However, research on UP has mainly focused on upper primary, middle-and high school students. The limited number of studies on UP in early primary school are, in addition, mainly quantitative effect studies. In this case study, we focused on the UP-classroom practice in early primary school during one lesson in technology (grade 1, 6-7-year-old students). The programming content, or the object of learning, that was in focus during the lesson was students’ capability to understand the idea of sequencing commands. The aim of the study was to explore what aspects of the object of learning emerge as critical in the UP classroom. Our analysis revealed that the students, to be able to understand the idea of sequencing commands, needed to discern several rather detailed aspects. Importantly, one can’t take for granted that these are aspects they discern when observing or interacting with programmable artefacts out of school. Rather, the results imply that it is a content that needs to be explicitly dealt with in the primary technology classroom.

References

Ahmed, G., Nouri, J., Zhang, L., & Norén, E. (2020). Didactic methods of integrating programming in mathematics in primary chool: Findings from a Swedish national project. Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 261–267. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366839 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366839

Aranda, G., & Ferguson, J. P. (2018). Unplugged programming: The future of teaching computational thinking? Pedagogika, 68(3). https://doi.org/10.14712/23362189.2018.859 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/23362189.2018.859

Battal, A., Afacan Adanır, G., & Gülbahar, Y. (2021). Computer science unplugged: A systematic literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 50(1), 24–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395211018801 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395211018801

Bell, T., Alexander, J., Freeman, I., & Grimley, M. (2009). Computer science unplugged: School students doing real computing without computers. The New Zealand Journal of Applied Computing and Information Technology, 13.

Bell, T., & Lodi, M. (2019). Constructing computational thinking without using computers. Constructivist Foundations, 14(3), 342–351.

Bell, T., & Vahrenhold, J. (2018). CS unplugged—How is it used, and does It work? In H.-J. Böckenhauer, D. Komm, & W. Unger (Eds.), Adventures Between Lower Bounds and Higher Altitudes (Vol. 11011, pp. 497–521). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98355-4_29 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98355-4_29

Berg, A., & Axell, C. (2023). Introducing programming in an early primary technology classroom: The distinction between human and robot (pp. 271–290). https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004687912_013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004687912_013

Bergqvist, E. (2021, June 1). An inquiry of different interpretations of programming in conjunction with mathematics teaching. The ninth Nordic Conference on Mathematics Education (NORMA 20), Oslo, Norway.

Brackmann, C. P., Román-González, M., Robles, G., Moreno-León, J., Casali, A., & Barone, D. (2017). Development of computational thinking skills through unplugged activities in primary school. Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Primary and Secondary Computing Education, 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1145/3137065.3137069 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3137065.3137069

Brown, A. L., & Murphy, M. D. (1975). Reconstruction of arbitrary versus logical sequences by preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20(2), 307–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(75)90106-X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(75)90106-X

Burke, Q., & Kafai, Y. B. (2012). The writers’ workshop for youth programmers: Digital storytelling with scratch in middle school classrooms. Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 433–438. https://doi.org/10.1145/2157136.2157264 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2157136.2157264

Campbell, C., & Walsh, C. (2017). Introducing the “new” digital literacy of coding in the early years. Practical Literacy: The Early and Primary Years, 22(3), 10–12. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.087120531638806

Chen, P., Yang, D., Metwally, A. H. S., Lavonen, J., & Wang, X. (2023). Fostering computational thinking through unplugged activities: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00434-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00434-7

Curzon, P., McOwan, P. W., Cutts, Q. I., & Bell, T. (2009). Enthusing & inspiring with reusable kinaesthetic activities. Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 94–98. https://doi.org/10.1145/1562877.1562911 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1562877.1562911

del Olmo-Muñoz, J., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., & González-Calero, J. A. (2020). Computational thinking through unplugged activities in early years of Primary Education. Computers & Education, 150, 103832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103832 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103832

Faber, H., Wierdsma, M., Doornbos, R. P., van der Ven, J. S., & de Vette, K. (2017). Teaching computational thinking to primary school students via unplugged programming lessons. Journal of the European Teacher Education Network, 12, 13–24.

Fadjo, C. L. (2012). Developing computational thinking through grounded embodied cognition. In ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC.

Fivush, R., & Mandler, J. M. (1985). Developmental changes in the understanding of temporal sequence. Child Development, 56(6), 1437. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130463 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1130463

Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Chapter 4: Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23(1), 119–169. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X023001119 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X023001119

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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051

Huang, W., & Looi, C.-K. (2021). A critical review of literature on “unplugged” pedagogies in K-12 computer science and computational thinking education. Computer Science Education, 31(1), 83–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1789411 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1789411

Humble, N., Mozelius, P., & Sällvin, L. (2019). On the role of unplugged programming in K-12 education. https://doi.org/10.34190/EEL.19.049 DOI: https://doi.org/10.34190/EEL.19.049

Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2014). Put your robot in, put your robot out: Sequencing through programming robots in early childhood. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(4), 553–573. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.50.4.f DOI: https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.50.4.f

Kullberg, A. (2010). What is taught and what is learned. Professional insights gained and shared by teachers of mathematics. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17823.76967

Kullberg, A., Ingerman, Å., & Marton, F. (2024). Planning and analyzing teaching: Using the variation theory of learning (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003194903 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003194903-1

Lee, J., & Junoh, J. (2019). Implementing unplugged coding activities in early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47(6), 709–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-00967-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-00967-z

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012

Manches, A., & Plowman, L. (2017). Computing education in children’s early years: A call for debate. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(1), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12355 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12355

Mannila, L., & Heintz, F. (2023). Introducing programming and computational thinking in Grades 1–9: Sweden in an international context (pp. 60–88). https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004687912_004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004687912_004

Marton, F. (2014). Necessary conditions of learning (0 ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315816876 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315816876

Marton, F., & Fung-Lo, M. L. (2007). Learning from “The Learning Study.” Tidskrif Foer Laerarutbildning Och Forskning [Journal of Research in Teacher Education], 2007(1), 31–44.

Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (Moti). (2010). Learning computer science concepts with scratch. Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Computing Education Research, 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1145/1839594.1839607 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1839594.1839607

Pea, R. D. (1986). Language-independent conceptual “bugs” in novice programming. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.2190/689T-1R2A-X4W4-29J2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2190/689T-1R2A-X4W4-29J2

Rich, K. M., Strickland, C., Binkowski, T. A., Moran, C., & Franklin, D. (2017). K-8 learning trajectories derived from research literature: Sequence, repetition, conditionals. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, 182–190. https://doi.org/10.1145/3105726.3106166 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3105726.3106166

Runesson, U. (2017). Variationsteori som redskap för att analysera lärande och designa undervisning. Undervisningsutvecklande Forskning, 45–60.

Sentance, S., & Csizmadia, A. (2015). Teachers’ perspectives on successful strategies for teaching Computing in school.

Sentance, S., Waite, J., & Kallia, M. (2019). Teaching computer programming with PRIMM: A sociocultural perspective. Computer Science Education, 29(2–3), 136–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1608781 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1608781

Shute, V., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003

Sivilotti, P. A. G., & Laugel, S. A. (2008). Scratching the surface of advanced topics in software engineering: A workshop module for middle school students. Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 291–295. https://doi.org/10.1145/1352135.1352235 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1352135.1352235

Skolverket. (2024). Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet 2022 (Upplaga 2). Utbildningsdepartementet.

Spektor-Precel, K., & Mioduser, D. (2015a). 5-7 year old Children’s conceptions of behaving artifacts and the influence of constructing their behavior on the development of theory of mind (ToM) and theory of artificial mind (ToAM). Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Skills and Lifelong Learning, 11, 329–345. https://doi.org/10.28945/2332 DOI: https://doi.org/10.28945/2332

Spektor-Precel, K., & Mioduser, D. (2015b). The influence of constructing robot’s behavior on the development of theory of mind (ToM) and theory of artificial mind (ToAM) in young children (p. 314). https://doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771904 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771904

Sun, L., Liu, J., & Liu, Y. (2024). Comparative experiment of the effects of unplugged and plugged-in programming on computational thinking in primary school students: A perspective of multiple influential factors. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 52, 101542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101542 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101542

Sung, W., Ahn, J., & Black, J. B. (2017). Introducing computational thinking to young learners: Practicing computational perspectives through embodiment in mathematics education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(3), 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9328-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9328-x

Wainewright, M. (2016). Lär dig koda: Grunderna i programmering - steg för steg.

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Commun. ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215

Wing, J. M. (2011, March 6). Research notebook: Computational thinking - what and why? Carnegie Mellon School of Computer Science. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebook-computational-thinking-what-and-why

Wohl, B., Porter, B., & Clinch, S. (2015). Teaching computer science to 5-7 year-olds: An initial study with Scratch, Cubelets and unplugged computing. Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, 55–60. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818314.2818340 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2818314.2818340

Zelazo, P. D., Carter, A., Reznick, J. S., & Frye, D. (1997). Early development of executive function: A problem-solving framework. Review of General Psychology, 1(2), 198–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.1.2.198 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//1089-2680.1.2.198

Zhang, L., & Nouri, J. (2019). A systematic review of learning computational thinking through Scratch in K-9. Computers & Education, https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1ZIfP1HucdHyVb, 103607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103607 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103607