Cited by 86Teaching and Learning ProgrammingEducational Robotics and EngineeringChild Development and Digital Technology

Computational thinking in early childhood education: The impact of programming a tangible robot on developing debugging knowledge

Open access
Misirli, Anastasia, Komis, Vassilis·2023·Early Childhood Research Quarterly

Abstract

The present study investigates the debugging process of 526 children in preschool (4–6 aged) when programming a tangible robot. When a child is involved in programming, it is needed to identify and correct errors, or in other words, debug a program. Debugging is a high-level thinking skill and is an essential component closely related to developing Computational Thinking in early childhood education. Though the debugging process is a cognitive function in programming investigated by many researchers in recent decades, most studies are conducted either in primary, secondary education, or higher education concerning beginners or experts in programming. Very few reviews, and some focus on preschool education. Our study set out the following objectives: 1) How do children identify the existence of error and locate it? 2) What types of errors emerge when coding? 3) What type of error is complex for novice programmers? 4) What strategies are developed by novice programmers to debug effectively? and 5) What types of knowledge do novice programmers construct by debugging the tangible robot Bee-Bot? The study follows an iterative model of a design-based research approach. It uses multiple case studies to collect qualitative and quantitative data. The programming intervention was implemented by 30 educators in their classrooms and was based on a scenario-based teaching design. The debugging process was analysed using Klahr & Craven's framework (1988): 1) test and evaluate program, 2) i…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ecresq.2023.05.014

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Misirli, A., & Komis, V.
Affiliations
University of Patras (GR)
Corresponding author
Komis, Vassilis
Venue
Early Childhood Research Quarterly
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023
Volume
65
Pages
139-158
ISSN
0885-2006 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4381888487
Cited by
86
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 3
FWCI
15.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Early Childhood Research Quarterly (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Seventh Framework Programme
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Educational Robotics and Engineering
  • Social Sciences › Education › Child Development and Digital Technology
Keywords
computational thinking, debugging, early childhood education, tangible programming, Bee-Bot, preschool children, novice programmers, error identification, error location, syntactic knowledge, semantic knowledge, scenario-based teaching

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review