Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-3
Enhancing Computational Thinking,Spatial Reasoning,and Executive Function Skills: The Impact of Tangible Programming Tools in Early Childhood and Across Different Learner Stages
Tangible programming tools (TPTs) are promising teaching aids in programming courses due to their interactivity and ability to enhance early childhood students’ computational thinking, spatial reasoning, and executive function skills. However, it remains unclear whether TPTs support these skills simultaneously. This study examines the impact of TPTs on enhancing cognitive thinking skills among students at different developmental stages, with a focus on early childhood education. A quasi-experimental study with pre- and post-tests was conducted involving 82 preschoolers aged 5-7. Participants were categorized into three developmental stages (beginner, intermediate, advanced) based on their prior programming experience. A TPT called “Bee-bot Brushing Challenge: A Computational Adventure” was employed during a STEM summer camp program. The findings revealed significant improvements in students’ abstract thinking, problem decomposition, and spatial reasoning skills, particularly among beginners. Participants at intermediate levels showed notable improvement in algorithm design and efficiency. Results also indicate significant differences in cognitive flexibility and inhibitory control between groups, with advanced students outperforming beginners and intermediates while working memory remained unaffected. This research provides important evidence supporting the inclusion of TPTs in early childhood curricula to foster comprehensive cognitive development. It offers valuable insights for educators and policymakers in designing similar learning environments.
AcostaY.AlsinaÁ.PincheiraN. (2024). Computational thinking and repetition patterns in early childhood education: Longitudinal analysis of representation and justification. Education and Information Technologies, 29(6), 7633–7658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12051-6
2.
ArthurL.BeecherB.DeathE.DockettS.FarmerS. (2007). Programming and planning in early childhood settings. Cengage Learning Australia.
3.
AslanD.DağaynasıS.CeylanM. (2024). Technology and geometry: Fostering young children's geometrical concepts through a research-based robotic coding program. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12747-3
4.
BaşaranM.MetinŞ.VuralÖ. F. (2024). Meta-thematic synthesis of research on early childhood coding education: A comprehensive review. Education and Information Technologies, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12675-2
5.
BersM. U. (2020). Coding as a playground: Programming and computational thinking in the early childhood classroom. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003022602
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.): Academic Press.
8.
DagienėV.SentanceS. (2016). It is computational thinking! Bebras tasks in the curriculum. In BrodnikA.TortF. (Eds.), Informatics in schools: Improvement of informatics knowledge and perception: 9th international conference on informatics in schools: Situation, evolution, and perspectives (pp. 28–39). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46747-4_3
GibbR.CoelhoL.Van RootselaarN. A.HalliwellC.MacKinnonM.PlompI.GonzalezC. L. (2021). Promoting executive function skills in preschoolers using a play-based program. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 720225. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.720225
11.
GongX.XuW.YuS.MaJ.QiaoA. (2024). Enhancing computational thinking and spatial reasoning skills in gamification programming learning: A comparative study of tangible, block, and paper-and-pencil tools. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13482
12.
González-GonzálezC. S.Guzmán-FrancoM. D.Infante-MoroA. (2019). Tangible technologies for childhood education: A systematic review. Sustainability, 11(10), 2910. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102910
13.
HamamcıB.AcarI. H.UyanikG. (2021). Association between performance-based and ratings of Turkish children’s executive function. Current Psychology, 42(12), 10053–10062. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02307-0
14.
KarlsenA. B.AkerbækT. M.StigbergS. K. (2022). Towards a metaphor-Based tangible toolkit for learning programming concepts. Lecture notes in computer science, 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05657-4_6
15.
KimS.-J.LeeS.-M.ChunS.-J.SeoJ.-H. (2023). Tangible programming learning system (tpls) for programming class with visually impaired and sighted students. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 13(6), 988–992. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2023.13.6.1896
16.
KozlowskiJ.ShumwayJ.Moyer-PackenhamP.Clarke-MiduraJ.LeeV. (2024). Children’s mathematical engagement is based on their awareness of coding toy design features. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2024.2371513
17.
LaiR. P. Y. (2022). Beyond programming: A computer-based assessment of computational thinking competency. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 22(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3486598
18.
LeeJ.YunusS.LeeJ.O. (2023). Investigating children's programming skills through play with robots (KIBO). Early Childhood Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-023-01563-y
19.
LevinsonT.BersM. (2024). Robotics in universal prekindergarten classrooms. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-024-09905-6
20.
LiuT. (2024). Relationships between executive functions and computational thinking. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 07356331241242435. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241242435
21.
McMillanJ. H.SchumacherS. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th Edition): Pearson.
22.
MisirliA.KomisV. (2023). Computational thinking in early childhood education: The impact of programming a tangible robot on developing debugging knowledge. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 65, 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2023.05.014
23.
PapavlasopoulouS.GiannakosM. N.JaccheriL. (2017). Reviewing the affordances of tangible programming languages: Implications for design and practice. IEEE Xplore. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2017.7943096
24.
PellasN. (2024). Assessing computational thinking, motivation and grit of undergraduate students using educational robots. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(2), 620–644. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231210946
25.
Pérez-VázquezE.LorenzoG.Lorenzo-LledóA.LledóA. (2024). Analysis of the application of the Bee-Bot robot for the development of social reciprocity skills in students with autism spectrum disorder. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-024-01099-0
26.
PugnaliA.SullivanA.BersM. U. (2017). The impact of user interface on young children’s computational thinking. Journal of Information Technology Education. Innovations in Practice, 16, 171–193. https://doi.org/10.28945/3768
27.
QuaigrainK.ArhinA. K. (2017). Using reliability and item analysis to evaluate a teacher-developed test in educational measurement and evaluation. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1301013. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1301013
28.
RamfulA.LowrieT.LoganT. (2016). Measurement of spatial ability: Construction and validation of the spatial reasoning instrument for middle school students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35(7), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916659207
29.
RichP. J.BartholomewS.DanielD.DinsmoorK.NielsenM.ReynoldsC.SwansonM.WinwardE.YauneyJ. (2024). Trends in tools used to teach computational thinking through elementary coding. Journal of research on technology in education, 56(3), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2022.2121345
30.
RodićL. D.GranićA. (2021). Tangible interfaces in early years’ education: A systematic review. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-021-01556-x
31.
SchäferJ.ReuterT.LeuchterM.KarbachJ. (2024). Executive functions and problem-solving—the contribution of inhibition, working memory, and cognitive flexibility to science problem-solving performance in elementary school students. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 244, 105962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2024.105962
32.
SchwartzL.MaquilV.JohannsenL.MollC.HermenJ. (2024). Teaching computational thinking with a tangible development platform: An exploratory field study at school with Kniwwelino. Education and Information Technologies, 29(4), 4935–4967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11983-3
33.
SeckelM. J.SalinasC.FontV.Sala-SebastiaG. (2023). Guidelines to develop computational thinking using the Bee-bot robot from literature. Education and Information Technologies, 28(12), 16127–16151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11843-0
34.
StrawhackerA.BersM. U. (2014). “I want my robot to look for food”: Comparing Kindergartner’s programming comprehension using tangible, graphic, and hybrid user interfaces. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(3), 293–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9287-7
35.
TselegkaridisS.SapounidisT.StamovlasisD. (2024). Teaching electric circuits using tangible and graphical user interfaces: A meta-analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 29(7), 8647–8671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12164-y
36.
WangD.WangT.LiuZ. (2014). A tangible programming tool for children to cultivate computational thinking. The Scientific World Journal, 2014, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/428080
37.
WangX.XingQ.JinQ.WangD. (2023). “Be a Lighting Programmer”: Supporting children collaborative learning through tangible programming system. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2163783
38.
WeiY.WangL.TangY.SuJ.LeiY.PengW. (2024). Influence of programming education modalities on the computational thinking in young children: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13038
39.
WilloughbyM. T.KuhnL. J.BlairC. B.SamekA.ListJ. A. (2016). The test-retest reliability of the latent construct of executive function depends on whether tasks are represented as formative or reflective indicators. Child Neuropsychology, 23(7), 822–837. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2016.1205009
40.
WilloughbyM. T.PekJ.BlairC. B. (2013). Measuring executive function in early childhood: A focus on maximal reliability and the derivation of short forms. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 664–670. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031747
ZhangY.WongG. K. (2024). Exploring the interplay of computational thinking and mathematics in early childhood education: A systematic review. In 2024 IEEE global engineering education conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1–10). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON60312.2024.10578653
43.
ZurnaciB.TuranZ. (2024). Educational robotics or unplugged coding activities in kindergartens? Comparison of the effects on pre-school children's computational thinking and executive function skills. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 101576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101576
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
