Cómo citar este artículo:
Bers, M. U. (2021). Coding, robotics and socio-emotional learning: developing a palette of virtues
[Codificación, robótica y aprendizaje socioemocional: cómo desarrollar una
combinación de habilidades]. Pixel-Bit.
Revista de Medios y Educación, 62, 309-322 https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.90537
ABSTRACT
This paper describes a pedagogical approach, Coding as Another language (CAL) to teach programming and computational thinking in early childhood. The CAL curriculum connects powerful ideas from the discipline of computer science
with ideas from literacy in a way that is developmentally
appropriate for children 4-8 years of age. CAL is
free and can be used with two widely available
programming environments for young children:
the free on-screen ScratchJr app and the KIBO robotics kit that doesnt require
keyboards or screens. Through 24 lessons centered on books, CAL emphasizes
creative play and self-expression by positioning the learning of programming
as the mastering of a new symbolic language. In addition, CAL provides opportunities for socio-emotional development in the context of a collaborative
play-based learning environment, a coding playground, in which there is purposeful
exploration of ethical and moral values and intentional promotion of positive behaviors and chrachter strenghs.
RESUMEN
Este artículo describe un enfoque pedagógico, Codificacion en otro lenguaje (CAL), para enseñar programación y pensamiento computacional en la primera infancia.
El plan de estudios CAL conecta
ideas importantes de la disciplina
de la informática con ideas de la alfabetización
de una manera apropiada
para el desarrollo de los niños de 4 a 8 años
de edad. CAL es gratuito y puede utilizarse con dos entornos de programación disponibles para los niños más pequeños: la aplicación gratuita ScratchJr y el kit de robótica KIBO, que no requiere teclados ni pantallas.
A través de 24 lecciones centradas en libros,
CAL hace hincapié en el juego
creativo y la autoexpresión,
situando el aprendizaje de la programación como el dominio
de un nuevo lenguaje simbólico.
Además, CAL proporciona oportunidades para el desarrollo socio-emocional en el contexto
de un entorno de aprendizaje
basado en el juego colaborativo,
un juego de codificación, en el que hay una exploración intencional de los valores éticos y morales y la promoción intencional de comportamientos positivos y sus fortalezas.
KEYWORDS · PALABRAS CLAVES
Science Teaching; Cell biology; Technology of the information
and communication; Capacity
building
Enseñanza de las
Ciencias; Biología celular; Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación;
Desarrollo de capacidades
1. Introduction
The teaching of computer science has been growing in popularity all over the world, with a special focus on starting in the early years. In parallel, there is growing research and increasing interest in how to integrate computational thinking (CT) not only into computer science classes, but also througout all areas of learning. While there are multiple definitions of CT, there is agreement that CT is a set of cognitive processes typically exercised in computer sceince (computer programming), but is also applicable to other disciplines (Wing, 2006; Chen, et al., 2017; Lye & Koh, 2014; Tang, et al., 2020; Zhang & Nouri, 2019). Little is known about the factors that influence learning and development of this important skill set in young children or how to suppprt it. However, the learning environment, the technology and the curriculum used, all play an imporant role in the development of CT.
In the United States,
women and certain minority groups are under-represented among those who choose
to pursue a degree in Computer Science (CS) (National Center for Women and Informational
Technology, 2020; Google & Gallup, 2016) and stereotypes regarding who is good
at CT and at coding, and who
is not, start
to show early
in life (Özyurt & Özyurt, 2015; Sullivan & Bers,
2016; Cheng, 2019). In addition, access
to technology may vary as a function
of race, socio-economic status and other factors (Google & Gallup,
2016). A 2021 international study
found that students from lower
SES have lower level CT skills on a task-based assessment than those from economically
advantaged backgrounds (Karpiński, et al., 2021). Little is
currently known about whether and how these and other
factors influence the acquisition of CT skills in young children. However, research shows that both
from an economic
and a developmental standpoint,
educational interventions that begin in early
childhood have lower costs and durable effects (Cunha & Heckman,
2007). This paper presents a pedagogical approach, Coding as Another Language (CAL), that has been succesfully
used to introduce creative computer programming and to promote the development
of CT in early childhood. CAL is unique as it understands
the aquisition of CT and CS skills as a new literacy of the
XXIst century.
The CAL curriculum connects powerful ideas from the discipline of CS with ideas from literacy in a way that is
developmentally appropriate
for children 4-8 years of age.
CAL is free and can be used
with two widely available programming environments for young children:
the free ScratchJr app and the KIBO robotics kit (Bers, 2018).
The CAL curriculum not only focuses
on CS, but offers oppprtunities to promote a growth
mindset through the practice of
coding. Dweck (2006) defined a growth mindset as the belief that talents
can be developed, through hard work, good
strategies, and input from others. CAL takes this idea forward. The ultimate goal is
not only to promote computational
talents and skills, but also virtues
and values. That is, CAL is a vehicle
for building character, and to develop social relationships and emotional strengths.
2. The Coding as Another
Language curriculum
The CAL Curriculum was developed by
the DevTech Research Group at Tufts University and is freely available
here:
https://sites.tufts.edu/codingasanotherlanguage/.
This curriculum is designed to
teach coding through developmentally apropriate tools such as KIBO robotics and ScratchJr, and integrates the teaching of
creative coding skills and CT with literacy skills (Hassenfeld et al., 2020). This pedagogical approach emphasizes creative play and self-expression by positioning the learning of
programming as the mastering of a symbolic language to communicate (Bers, 2018; 2019). In addition,
CAL provides opportunities for socio-emotional development in the context of a collaborative
play-based learning environment: a coding playground (Bers, 2018).
The coding playground engages children in both on-screen and off-screen activities. When programming, children put together a sequence of logical
instructions and translate those instructions into a symbolic system of representation
that the computer or the
robot can understand: a programming
language. Thus, programming positions the child as an agent,
as someone who can make things happen,
and as someone with a voice (Resnick & Siegel, 2015). As the
child codes, she develops technical
skills and CT. She can problem-solve and deal with abstraction; she can sequence, understand patterns and use variables and conditionals.
Each unit contains 24 45 minutes lessons, centered on coding
projects about books, both fiction
and non-fiction. For example, fictional storybooks include Where the Wild Things Are by Maurice Sendak or There
Was an Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly by Simms
Taback; non-fiction books tell the
story of a pioneer woman in computer science, such as Ada Lovelace or Grace
Hopper. Teachers are encouraged
to substitute any of these
books with their own favorite
books, as long as they have a clear
sequencing of events. Children create their own
endings for their books and learn how to
re-tell the stories in creative ways using either
KIBO robotics or ScratchJr animations.
The CAL curriculum is organized around
a scope and sequence of seven powerful
ideas from computer science that are age-appropriate and that promote CT (Bers, 2019; 2018):
hardware/software systems, algorithms,
modularity, control structures,
representation, debugging,
and design process (Table 1).
Table 1.
The seven
powerful ideas, associated concepts, and examples from the CAL-KIBO curriculum
Powerful Idea |
Associated Concepts |
Example from CAL-KIBO Curriculum |
Algorithms |
Sequencing/order,
logical organization |
Child
learns to program KIBO in a specific sequence to dance the “Hokey Pokey” |
Modularity |
Breaking
up larger task into smaller parts, instructions |
Students
break up the “If You're Wild and You Know It” song into smaller components
that KIBO can be programmed to perform |
Control
Structures |
Recognizing
patterns and repetition, cause and effect |
Children
learn to trigger sound sensors using “wait for clap” command |
Representation |
symbolic
representation, models |
Child
learns that each programming block translates into a unique KIBO action. |
Hardware/Software |
Smart
objects are not magical, objects are human engineered |
Children
play a game about what is and isn't a robot and learn that you must give the
KIBO robot a program in order for it to perform |
Design
Process |
Problem
solving, perseverance, editing/revision |
Children
are tasked with creating a final “Wild Rumpus” KIBO project in which they
plan, code, test and revise with peer sharing and feedback |
Debugging |
Identifying
problems, problem solving, perseverance |
Children
identify problems in either hardware or software of KIBO and brainstorm
solutions to fix it |
The CAL
curriculum is designed to be flexible. The timing can be adjusted to make
lessons longer or shorter to better suit the curricular needs of different
schools. Each lesson follows a similar structure: warm up games to playfully
introduce computational ideas, coding activities to solidify skills, structured
challenges to practice, creative explorations to tinker and expand skills,
off-screen unplugged games to promote social interactions and movement, reading
and writing activities, and technology circles to share and reflect (Sullivan
& Bers, 2017; 2015). The curriculum is comprised of individual, small group
and whole classroom activities.
While the content
is organized in terms of the seven powerful ideas of computer science (e.g.
algorithms, design process, representation, debugging, control structures,
modularity, and hardware/software systems), explicit connections are made in
each of the units to early childhood literacy (e.g. the writing process,
recalling, summarizing and sequencing, using illustrative and descriptive
language, recognizing literary devices such as repetition and foreshadowing,
and using reading strategies such as predicting, summarizing, and evaluating).
Furthermore, low-tech games or unplugged activities aimed at promoting
computational thinking and alphabetical literacy are also incorporated (Bers,
2018).
Throughout the
CAL lessons, one curricular domain is used to leverage the other (Strawhacker
& Bers, 2019). For example, when children encounter algorithmic thinking
they also explore sequencing and storytelling, when they engage in the design
process, active connections to the writing process are made, and when they set
to debug their ill-functioning programs, they tap into revising strategies that
share similarities with the systematic editing of their writing.
There are
significant differences between using programming languages and natural
languages for expressing ourselves (Fedorenko et al, 2019). CAL doesn’t ignore
these. However, as an integrated curriculum, the focus is on shared practices
(Hassenfeld et al, 2020; Hassenfeld & Bers, 2020): the creation of
projects, either through coding or through writing, the creative design process
involved in making these projects, the need to revise and fix them at each step
of the way, and the sharing of final products with others as a way to express
our individuality, our interests, passions and identities.
At its simplest
level, computer programming is the activity of putting together a sequence of
instructions. In the process of making this sequence, the programmer engages in
abstract, logical thinking (Kazakoff & Bers, 2014). Thinking is facilitated
by language. As Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1978) wrote: “Thought
development is determined by language, i.e., by the linguistic tools of thought.”
Thus, early childhood educators strive to help children develop one of the most
powerful tools for thinking: natural written languages.
CAL positions the
teaching and learning of programming as the study of a socially situated
symbolic system of representation with communicative and expressive functions
to promote human encounters. It proposes that programming, as a new literacy of
the 21st century, engages new ways of thinking, communicating and expressing
ideas -- not only new ways of problem-solving. The goal of literacy is to
master the syntax and grammar of a language, but also the meanings and uses of
the systems of representation (Vee, 2017). A literate person knows that reading
and writing are tools for interpretation and, in time, tools of power. (Bruner,
1983; Wolf, 2007) Echoing Brazilian educator Paulo Freire, literacy is a tool
for critical comprehension, for understanding the world and for actively
changing it. This is the same with coding.
The CAL
curriculum also supports socio-emotional development. Children work hard
individually and in teams, and are proud to share their projects with others in
the community. They develop gratefulness to their peers and teachers for
providing help and support during the hard process of learning to code. They
understand the need of determination, persistence and patience to complete
their work. They are honest with themselves and choose to keep problem-solving
when a project is not exactly what they hoped for. They also learn to forgive
themselves for being slow and for not getting it right all the time. They
understand that coding involves a constant process of iteration and revision in
which flexibility and open-mindedness are needed. The CAL curriculum helps
create an environment for practicing human values through learning how to use a
programming language; for understanding that our actions, like the actions of
anyone who creates, have consequences.
2.1. The KIBO robot
The KIBO robotics
kit utlized in the CAL-KIBO
curriculum was developed by the
DevTech research group at Tufts University with funded by the
National Science Foundation (grant # NSF
DRL-1118897) and is commercially
available by KinderLab Robotics.
KIBO is programmed using
tangible wooden programming
blocks (Figure 1). The child
creates a sequence of instructions (a program) using the wooden blocks and KIBO reads the barcodes
with an embedded
scanner. With the press of a button
children watch the robot come alive. The KIBO programming language contains unique blocks, sensors and actuators leading to endless creative
possibilities.
Each wooden block represents an action
that the robot performs when read
by the scanner embedded on the
robot. The combination of KIBO's blocks, sensors, modules, and art platforms
gives children a unique opportunity to not only
explore programming concepts
but also to use their creativity
to create personally meaningful projects.
A decade of research
has been conducted on KIBO, involving thousands of children,
teachers and families from schools around
the US and the world (Albo-Canals et al., 2018; Bers
2018, 2019a, 2019b, 2020; Elkin, Sullivan, & Bers,
2016, 2018; Govind & Bers,
2020; Strawhacker & Bers,
2018; Sullivan, Bers, & Mihm,
2017; Sullivan, Elkin, & Bers, 2015). This research has found that KIBO supports learning of computational thinking skills such as sequencing, iterative design, debugging, and more (Bers, 2019a,
2020; Kazakoff & Bers,
2012). Further, this learning has been demonstrated in children from a range of
backgrounds and in various learning settings, including: PreK-2nd graders in US
classroom settings (Bers 2019b, 2020; Elkin, Sullivan, & Bers, 2016); international early childhood students in countries such as Singapore (Bers, 2020; Elkin, Sullivan, & Bers,
2018), Argentina (Bers, 2020), and Denmark (Strawhacker & Bers, 2018); children in informal
settings like makerspaces, libraries, and family centers (Govind & Bers, 2020; Strawhacker & Bers, 2018); and children on the Autism
spectrum (Albo-Canals et al., 2018). In addition, the learning
of discipline-specific content learning in foundational areas of math and literacy
can be supported through
KIBO (Bers, 2019a, 2020; Kazakoff
& Bers, 2012).
Figure 1.
KIBO robotics
In one of the earliest studies of KIBO and its
coding language (“CHERP”), a controlled experimental trial involving 54
Kindergarten children from 2 schools, results showed that programming with
KIBO’s tangible blocks was linked to significant improvements in children’s
story-based sequencing skills, a critical component of foundational literacy
education (Kazakoff & Bers, 2012). The same study
called for more research into teacher’s STEM preparation, and another study
responded to this call by exploring professional development with the KIBO
prototype (originally called “KIWI”) (Bers, Seddighin,
& Sullivan, 2013). This research involved 32 early childhood educators who
participated in an intensive three-day professional development (PD) workshop.
Results showed a statistically significant increase in the teachers’ level of
knowledge about robotics, programming, and engineering after the PD, as well as
significant increases in several aspects of technology self-efficacy and
attitudes toward technology (Bers, Seddighin, &
Sullivan, 2013). These successful PD practices are still used today, in the
Early Childhood Technology (ECT) graduate certificate program at Tufts
University. A quasi-experimental longitudinal study carried
out in multiple schools in a Virginia school district found that the CAL-KIBO
curriculum significantly improved coding and CT skills in young children
(Relkin et al., 2020; Hassenfeld et al., 2020; Relkin et al., 2021). As part of
this study, participating teachers received intense professional development,
completed surveys about their teaching experience and CS background and took an
assessment specific to the KIBO robotics platform that evaluates coding/ CT
skills (Relkin, 2018; Relkin & Bers, 2019).
KIBO is designed to match the following criteria:
1) robotics parts are physically and intuitively easy to connect, 2)
programming the robot requires minimal computer equipment, and 3) children can
attach a variety of crafts and recycled materials to the core robotic parts
(Sullivan, Elkin, & Bers, 2015). Throughout development and after
commercialization, KIBO has remained screen-free, in line with research
conducted at DevTech that found tangible interfaces
may be more beneficial for engaging young children in early coding experiences
(e.g. Pugnali, Sullivan,
& Bers, 2017; Strawhacker, Sullivan, & Bers, 2013). This screen-free
approach has made KIBO accessible U.S. K-2 classroom, and a range of other
audiences as well. KIBO’s design was informed by a theoretical framework that
promotes positive uses of technology in the context of playful learning
environments: Positive Technological Development.
3. Positive
Technological Development: an applied theoretical framework
The Positive
Technological Development (PTD) framework (Bers, 2012) is inspired by the field
of Positive Youth Development (Lerner, 2007) and provides a theoretical lens to
capture psychosocial behaviors in the context of using technology. As an
applied research framework that aims to help those interested in educational
interventions, PTD provides guidelines for designing and evaluating
technological programs to promote character strengths through six positive behaviors:
·
Content Creation: The act of coding involves using an
artificial language to create. In this journey, the child engages in a series
of interrelated steps that might or might not be linear: the design process. To
create her own project, she learns to ask questions, identify a goal, formulate
an action plan, make an initial attempt, test, evaluate, and revise her ideas
by assessing what went wrong and what could be done better. At the end of the
creation process, she has a sharable project.
·
Creativity: The ability to transcend traditional strategies
to imagine and create original projects supports personally meaningful
expression. A creative child can frame problems in innovative ways and find
divergent approaches and solutions. However, creativity requires training and
hard work (Resnick, 2017). Contradicting some popular myths, the creative child
is not necessarily the one who wakes up one morning saying “Eureka!” but the
one who is disciplined in her work, takes risks and can find new connections.
·
Choices of Conduct: Anytime we do something, we make choices
and must assume consequences. This process, when authentic, builds character.
On the one hand, our character strengths inform the choices we make. On the
other hand, those choices have an impact on our character. We are surrounded by
news about people choosing to use their coding skills in positive or negative
ways, to help or to harm society. Coding is a tool and, like any other tool,
can be used for good or bad. Like a hammer, it can build or destroy.
·
Communication: Language socialization plays a key role in
cognitive development, as well as personal, social and emotional growth.
Children engage in conversations, with either themselves or with others, to
externalize ideas and thoughts. However, most programming languages do not have
a built-in feature to promote communication. Thus, the curriculum must provides
explicit communication mechanisms and strategies to support the formation and
sustainment of positive bonds through coding.
·
Collaboration: Two or more people working on a team is not
the same as collaboration. For collaboration to happen, there is a need for a
shared goal and cooperation on a common task. This can be challenging in early
childhood; for a typically developing young child, the turn-taking,
self-control, and self-regulation required to effectively collaborate on a
project is difficult, thus the curriculum must suppprt this.
·
Community Building: The establishment and sustainment of
social relationships in the learning environment is crucial and can be achieved
by putting together mechanisms for giving back to others, and contributing to
our communities. For example, open houses and family coding nights in which
children demo their coding projects are an authentic opportunity to share and
celebrate the processes and products of learning with parents, family and
friends.
These six
behaviors, the 6 C’s, are value neutral. We can create a video game to practice
shooting skills or to learn the ABC’s, we can communicate in dysfunctional ways
to harm others or to praise, or we can choose to include others in our teams or
exclude them. Thus, a coding playground needs guiding values, and not only
behaviors. While different cultural contexts might have a diversity of values,
programming in a culture in which the act of creative production is rewarded,
lends itself to values such as curiosity, determination and persistence. Next,
I will describe the most salient values, or virtues, that can be found in a
coding playground.
Positive Technological
Development (PTD) Framework
Source: Bers
(2018)
3.1.
Values in the coding playground
The PTD framework described above can
guide the design of a learning environment that promotes both cogntive and
socio emotional development: a coding playground. The CAL curriculum was
designed upon this framework and pays special attention to the operationalization
of the last C, Choices of Conduct. CAL invites teachers to create a coding
playground in which children can make behavioral choices based upon a palette
of virtues consisting of: Curiosity, perseverance, patience, open-mindedness,
optimism, honesty, fairness, generosity, gratitude, and forgiveness.
The term palette of virtues
refers to the metaphor of the color palette used by the artist. She chooses
colors and creates her own palette. She mixes and matches. She adds new colors.
There is no absolute right and wrong; it depends on the context of how the
colors are used and their relationships. This flexibility reflects the
intentionality of working with values in the coding playground. CAL proposes a
palette of virtues so the codign playground can serve as another educational
space to promote character development and positive behaviors.
For instance, while some teachers
might focus on turn-taking, taking care of materials, and learning how to work
collaboratively with others, others might pay attention to learning how to be
patient when trying to problem-solve or how to help others debug. Some might
use mindfulness for helping children work through the frustration of trying to
debug with little success, and others might use thank you cards to acknowledge
the generous spirit of helping each other problem-solve.
Mitch Resnick uses the imagery of the
paintbrush for describing the activity of coding. In 2006, he wrote: “In my
view, computers will not live up to their potential until we start to think of
them less like televisions and more like paintbrushes.” (Resnick, 2006). He was
referring to the creative and expressive potential of paintbrushes. I am
extending the metaphor. The paintbrush by itself is not enough. It needs
colors. In the coding playground, the child is the artist who learns to code.
The paintbrush is the programming language that supports creativity. The colors
are the values the child learns and expresses while coding.
The coding playground becomes an art
studio for practicing a palette of virtues while developing problem solving,
computational thinking and technical skills. Children learn by doing, by
experimenting, by trial and error, by collaborating with others and solving
social conflicts, by feeling overwhelmed with the challenge ahead, and by
learning how to manage frustration. In the social interactions, character
strengths are developed, and values are put to practice. In the coding
playground, socio-emotional development does not take the back seat. Creative
programming is a pathway for character development. Understanding coding as
another language facilitates this process. When we learn a new language, we
also must learn how to use it in responsible ways. Languages can create and can
destroy.
4. Final
thoughts
While programmers
have been around for a century, philosophers have existed long before
programmers. Amongst other things, their work was concerned with how to
translate human language into a structured argument with consistent logic in
its premises and conclusions. My work, by focusing on learning to code as
learning another language, embraces this. As an heir to Aristotle’s logical
systems, programming can serve as a gateway to critical thinking, not only
about technical problems, but also about societal issues.
Today, more than
ever, we need a critical mindset. The rapid acceleration of new discoveries and
technological innovations, coupled with the unparalleled access to information
“anytime, anywhere” through the Internet, has created new sets of problems
(Resnick & Rusk, 2020). The intellectual tools to think about these
problems have been around since the days of Socrates and Aristotle:
understanding the structure of an argument, and translating human language into
the premises and conclusions that make up the basis for logical analysis. These
intellectual tools allow us to judge information, to evaluate evidence, and to
make decisions by applying formal rules. Coding adds the ability to create new
realities through novel systems and processes.
Programming is a
verb. It involves actions, and not only thinking. Will the determination of a
child who keeps debugging her program, even when outside recess is called,
apply grit in every aspect of her life? Can the generosity of a child who
chooses to slow down and help another, instead of programming his own robot,
translate outside the coding playground? Can the creative ways in which
children debug while coding, transfer to solving social problems that impact
equity and justice in the world? How about a child who chooses to share his
KIBO robot with a child who has none, instead of using it by himself? Will this
child also display positive choices of conduct when faced with more complex
decisions?
Although most
grade schools do not teach formal logic, its practical application in the form
of structured thinking through an artificial language, that is computer
programming, is being learned by more students today than ever before. However,
if we limit its application to the growth of a STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering and Math) career, we will be missing the great opportunity
envisioned by the early philosophers of ancient Greece: to form the ethical
character of future citizens who can grow as autonomous individuals capable of
thinking systematically and independently, problem-solve when needed, and act
towards the good of self and society.
Willingly or
unwillingly, everyone who teaches, teaches values. That is part of the hidden
curriculum. The coding playground makes values visible by offering an initial
palette of virtues to work with. Most of these values and characteristics are
usually displayed by successful programmers and cultures of innovation.
Different traditions, societies and groups might want to add or remove some of
them. Others might want to mix and match or prioritize some values and
character strengths over others. The intentional teacher makes her own palette,
with universal and particular elements. In the coding playground, by
understanding coding as another language -- that is, by situating the activity
of programming as a vehicle for expression and communication -- children can
experience values and practice virtues in the context of forming human
relationships. They can develop ways of thinking and behaving associated with
the discipline of computer science: Problem-solving, persistence, and
open-mindedness are required to break a complex problem into simple processes;
the disposition to work with others is necessary because programming involves
working with a system created by another human being. The coding playground is
an opportunity to put to use the values in our palette and further develop
them.
Today, there is a
growing push for STEM in schools all over the world. The focus is mostly on
technical knowledge and skills. While those are important, cultivating
character virtues alongside is crucial. The Coding as Another Language approach
involves much more than preparing students for STEM careers. It is about new
ways of thinking, relating, and behaving. It highlights creative expression,
communication and problem-solving. It underscores that coding, when conceived
as a language, situates us in the social world of relationships: with
ourselves, with others and with the world.
Note
This article includes excerpts
from the upcoming book “Beyond Coding: How to Teach Human Values through
Programming” by Marina Bers to be published by The MIT Press in Spring 2022.
References
Albo-Canals, J., Barco, A., Relkin, E., Hannon, D., Heerink, M., Heinemann, M., Leidl,
K., & Bers, M. (2018). A Pilot
Study of the KIBO Robot in Children with Severe ASD. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(3), 371-383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0479-2
Bers,
M. U. (2012). Designing Digital Experiences
for Positive Youth Development: From Playpen to Playground. Routledge.
Bers, M. (2018). Coding as a Playground:
Programming and Computational Thinking in the Early Childhood Classroom. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315398945
Bers, M. U. (2018). The Seymour test: Powerful ideas in early childhood education. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 14, 10-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.06.004
Bers,
M. U. (2019). Coding as another language: a pedagogical approach for teaching
computer science in early childhood. Journal of Computers in Education,
6, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00147-3
Bers, M.
U. (2019). Coding as another language In C. Donohue (Ed.), Exploring key issues in early childhood and technology: Evolving perspectives and innovative approaches (pp.
63–70). Routledge.
Bers,
M. U. (2020). Coding as a playground: Computational thinking and
programming in early childhood. Routledge.
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.
Bruner,
J. (1983). Child's Talk: Learning to Use Language. W. W. Norton
& Company.
Chen,
G. & Shen, J. & Barth-Cohen, L. & Jiang, S., Huang, X. & Eltoukhy, M. (2017). Assessing elementary students’
computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers
& Education, 109, 162-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.001
Cheng, G. (2019). Exploring
factors influencing the acceptance of visual programming environment among boys and girls in primary schools. Computers in Human Behavior,
92, 361-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.043
Cunha, F. & James,
H. (2007). The Technology of Skill
Formation. American Economic Review, 97(2), 31-47.
Dweck,
C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
Elkin,
M., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Programming with the KIBO Robotics
Kit in Preschool Classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 33(3), 169-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2016.1216251
Elkin, M., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2018). Books,
Butterflies, and ‘Bots: Integrating Engineering and Robotics into Early
Childhood Curricula. In L.
English and T. Moore (Eds.), Early Engineering Learning (pp.
225-248). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8621-2_11
Fedorenko,
E., Ivanova, A., Dhamala, R., & Bers, M. U. (2019). The language of
programming: A cognitive perspective. Trends in cognitive
sciences, 23(7), 525-528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.04.010
Google Inc. & Gallup Inc. (2016). Trends in the State
of Computer Science in U.S. K-12 Schools. http://goo.gl/j291E0
Govind, M., Relkin, E., & Bers, M. U.
(2020). Engaging Children and Parents
to Code Together
Using the ScratchJr App. Visitor Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2020.1732184
Hassenfeld,
Z. R., Govind, M., de Ruiter, L. E., & Bers, M. U. (2020). If You Can
Program, You Can Write: Learning Introductory Programming Across Literacy
Levels. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 19,
65-85. https://doi.org/10.28945/4509
Hassenfeld,
Z. R., & Bers, M. U. (2020). Debugging the Writing Process: Lessons From a Comparison of Students’ Coding and Writing
Practices. The Reading Teacher, 73(6), 735-746. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1885
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.
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).
https://doi.org/10.2190%2FEC.50.4.f
Karpiński,
Z., Di Pietro, G., & Biagi, F. (2021). Computational thinking, socioeconomic gaps, and policy implications. IEA Compass: Briefs in Education Series (12). https://bit.ly/3wWbA2M
Lerner,
R. (2007). The Good Teen. Three Rivers Press.
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
National
Center for Women and Information Technology. (2020). NCWIT's women in IT: By the numbers.
https://bit.ly/3rtp44S
Özyurt, Ö.,
& Özyurt, H. (2015). A study
for determining computer programming students' attitudes towards programming and their programming self-efficacy. Journal of Theory and Practice
in Education, 11(1), 51–67.
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, 172-193.
Relkin, E.
(2018). Assessing young
children’s computational thinking abilities [Master’s tesis]. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
10813994)
Relkin, E.
& Bers, M. U. (2019). Designing an Assessment of Computational
Thinking Abilities for Young Children. In L.E. Cohen & S. Waite-Stupiansky (Eds.), STEM for
Early Childhood Learners: How Science,
Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics Strengthen Learning (pp. 85-98). Routledge.
Relkin,
E., de Ruiter., L., & Bers,
M.U. (2020). TechCheck: Development
and Validation of an Unplugged Assessment
of Computational Thinking in Early Childhood Education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29, 482–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09831-x
Relkin,
E., de Ruiter, L.E., Bers,
M.U. (2021). Learning to Code
and the Acquisition of Computational Thinking by Young Children. Computers & Education,
169, 104222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104222
Resnick, M. (2006). Computer as Paintbrush: Technology, Play, and
the Creative Society. In D. Singer, R. Golikoff, R. & K. Hirsh-Pasek (eds.), Play = Learning: How play
motivates and enhances children's cognitive and social-emotional growth (pp. 1-16). Oxford University Press.
Resnick, M., & Siegel, D. (2015). A Different Approach to Coding. International
Journal of People-Oriented Programming, 4(1),
1-4.
Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2020). Coding at a Crossroads, Communications of
the ACM, vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 120-127.
Resnick,
M. (2017). Lifelong
Kindergarten: Cultivating Creativity through Projects, Passions, Peers, and
Play. MIT Press.
Sullivan,
A., & Bers, M. U. (2017). Dancing robots: Integrating art, music, and
robotics in Singapore's early childhood centers. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education, 28, 325-346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9397-0
Sullivan, A. & Bers,
M. U. (2016). Girls, boys, and bots: Gender differences in young children’s performance on robotics and programming tasks. Journal
of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 15, 145-165.
Sullivan,
A., & Bers, M. U. (2015). Robotics in the early childhood classroom:
Learning outcomes from and 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten
through second grade. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education 26, 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9304-5
Sullivan, A., Bers,
M.U., Mihm, C. (2017). Imagining, Playing,
& Coding with KIBO: Using KIBO Robotics to Foster Computational Thinking in Young Children: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Thinking Education. Wanchai, Hong Kong.
Sullivan, A., Elkin, M., & Bers, M. U. (2015). KIBO Robot Demo: Engaging young children in programming and engineering: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference
on Interaction Design and Children (IDC
’15), Medford, MA, June 21-25. ACM.
Strawhacker, A.
and Bers, M. U. (2018). Promoting Positive Technological
Development in a Kindergarten Makerspace:
A Qualitative Case Study. European
Journal of STEM Education, 3(3) 09. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/3869
Strawhacker,
A., & Bers, M. U. (2019). What they learn when they learn coding:
investigating cognitive domains and computer programming knowledge in young
children. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(3),
541-575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9622-x
Strawhacker,
A., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M.U. (2013). TUI, GUI, HUI: Is a bimodal interface truly worth the
sum of its parts?: Proceedings
of the 12th International Conference on Interaction
Design and Children (IDC
’13) (pp. 309-312). ACM.
Tang, X., Yin, Y., Lin, Q., Hadad, R.,
& Zhai, X. (2020). Assessing
computational thinking: a systematic review of empirical studies.
Computers & Education,
148, 103798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103798.
Vee, A. (2017). Coding
Literacy: How Computer Programming is Changing Writing. The MIT Press.
Vygotsky,
L.S. (1978) Mind in society: The Development of Higher Psychological
Processes. Harvard University Press.
Wing, J.
(2006). Computational Thinking.
CACM, 49(3), 33-36. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Wolf,
M. (2007). Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain.
Harper Collins.
Zhang, L., & Nouri, J. (2019). A systematic review of learning computational
thinking through Scratch in
K-9. Computers & Education,
141, 103607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103607.