Playing,tinkering,and problem solving: Understanding early computational thinking in libraries and museums

Abstract

Computational thinking (CT) has emerged as an important method in the United States for helping children learn to solve complex problems and develop skills necessary for coding and other computer science-related endeavors. Research has revealed that CT can be encouraged with children as young as 3–4 years of age. While some preschools and schools are incorporating CT into their curriculum for young children, ages 0–8 years, it is important to understand how environments outside of schools are using CT with young children, particularly given that, in the United States, a large percent of young children, ages 0–5 years, are not in formal school settings. This study provides insight into this area through 20 interviews with educators in libraries and museums to understand how they incorporate CT into their work with young children, ages 0–8 years, and their families. The interviews reveal that library and museum educators are using a variety of developmentally-appropriate approaches, such as play, experimentation, and narrative, to design and offer a diverse array of engaging, hands-on CT activities that allow young children to practice CT in child-centered, meaningful ways.

Keywords

coding computational thinking libraries museums play tinkering unplugged computational thinking

Introduction

Amidst a growing emphasis in the United States on the teaching of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) in both formal school- and informal out-of-school learning spaces, there has been increased attention on how to connect children with the skills, mindset, and resources they need to eventually learn how to code and program computers, robots, and other digital devices. This emphasis on preparing children to eventually learn to code is connected to the changing skills young people need as they move into a workforce and society in the United States that are increasingly centered on computers and other digital tools. Computational thinking (CT) has emerged as a way to provide the skills needed for learning how to code. While there is no universal definition of CT, it can be thought of as a process for solving complex problems. Scholars suggest that even children as young as three and four can participate in CT activities (Bers, 2020), because engaging with CT and CT skills (Table 1) can offer children a way to evolve from being users of digital tools to eventually building their own tools (Barr and Stephenson, 2011).

Table 1.

Common CT skills.

CT skill	Description
Abstraction	Removing unnecessary details in the problem-solving process
Algorithm design	Identifying and organizing steps needed for solving a problem
Debugging	Identifying errors/mistakes in the problem-solving process
Decomposition	Breaking down problems into smaller pieces
Evaluation	Determining the success of the problem-solving solution
Logic	The act of using rules or reasoning to solve problems
Pattern recognition	Identifying similarities, differences, and connections in the problem-solving process

Much of the existing research has looked at CT programming in formal learning environments such as schools (Macrides et al., 2021). Yet, research has shown that children spend more time outside of formal school environments (Hadani and Rood, 2018); so by looking at the ways in which they are learning outside of school, it is possible to examine children’s continuous learning experiences with CT. Because of this, a need exists to understand how informal learning environments, or learning environments outside of school, support CT for young children. Furthermore, since families typically accompany children to libraries, museums, and other informal learning environments (Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education, 2016; Lopez et al., 2016), these environments can engage families in CT activities and help them with supporting CT for their children. While some libraries and museums are offering regular CT activities for young children and their families (Campana et al., 2020; Cohen and Waite-Stupiansky, 2019), only limited research has been completed and has mostly focused on specific activities/curriculum designed and implemented by external researchers (Ehsan et al., 2021). Because libraries and museum educators are designing their own CT activities for young children and their families, it is important to understand how these environments are supporting CT for children and families to allow other libraries and museums to learn from them. This study described in this article uses interviews with 20 library and museum educators to provide initial understanding into how libraries and museums in the United States are supporting CT for young children, ages 0–8 years, and their families.

International context

Even though this article focuses on CT practices being used with young children in the United States, the findings described here have international implications. Countries across the world are increasingly using digital tools and devices as central pieces of their daily lives. Because of this, many countries, including the United States, are incorporating computer science-related curriculum, concepts, and skills into their education for children (Bers et al., 2022; European Commission et al., 2022). Furthermore, following a study focused on the incorporation of the CT in education across 22 EU Member States and 8 non-EU countries, the European Commission recommended that countries should “integrate CT in a continuum from [the early years of] primary school until the end of compulsory education in an age-appropriate way” (European Commission et al., 2022: 86). In an OECD Education Working Paper, Bers et al. (2022) also emphasizes the role of informal education spaces with supporting CT for young children, ages 3–8 years, and their caregivers. Both of these reports suggest that there is a need internationally to understand how to support CT for young children in age-appropriate ways. This article begins to address this need by providing insight into how CT skills can be encouraged and supported with young children.

Literature review

Computational thinking (CT), a foundational skill in the process of learning how to code, can be understood in a number of ways: as an approach to solving problems that can be implemented using a computer (Barr and Stephenson, 2011); even more abstractly, as the thought process itself that enables problem solving (Wing, 2006); or, to combine both problem solving and creativity, “an expressive or creative process that helps children and adults create solutions to a problem or complete a task in a manner that could be replicated by others” (Campana et al., 2020: 46). There are a variety of skills that contribute to CT (see Table 1). These CT skills can help children build the foundation needed for a creative, problem-solving mindset, provided the approach and materials are age- and developmentally-appropriate (Flannery and Bers, 2013). In addition to CT skills, children can also develop CT dispositions, or character attributes that contribute to CT, such as communication, persistence, and creativity, through CT–based activities (CSTE & ISTA, 2011).

Developmentally-appropriate methods for supporting CT in formal learning environments with young children, 0–8, have been studied in a variety of ways. Research has explored using solely digital materials (i.e. iPads, robots, coding toys, coding software, and circuits/engineering tools) to support CT with young children, like using ScratchJr to learn block coding (Bers, 2018) or building and programming robots in preschool (Kazakoff et al., 2013). Mixing digital and analog methods, such as using whole-body coding games combined with ScratchJr coding activities in early elementary school mathematics education, have also been used to introduce CT for young children (Sung et al., 2017). Finally, others have taken a more accessible approach to supporting CT and used only analog methods (i.e. tinkering and making with craft or building materials or programming cards or games) to effectively support CT for early years primary students (del Olmo-Muñoz et al., 2020). While a variety of methods, tools, and materials have been used to successfully support CT for young children, it is crucial that the appropriateness of the methods, tools, and materials be considered in relation to the young children’s specific developmental stages (Wang et al., 2021), perhaps demonstrating the importance of emphasizing CT skill-building (Macrides et al., 2021) rather than the tools and materials themselves.

However, it is not enough to simply offer digital and analog materials and provide a variety of activities for children and families to engage with CT. Research has shown that the educator plays a crucial role in fostering and supporting CT skills for young children and their families (Fessakis et al., 2013). The educator’s role is composed of different approaches that support learning through play-based CT experiences. These approaches include providing an open-ended structure with multiple possible problem-solving solutions (Baroutsis et al., 2019) and considering the surrounding learning environment, the learners themselves, and the CT learning outcomes for children (Bers, 2007).

Furthermore, research has not yet fully explored the variety and range of CT activities taking place in informal learning environments for young children. This is particularly true for libraries and museums, where learning opportunities and curriculum can follow a more individualized and flexible approach and are often implemented by professionals who must learn on the job. The American Library Association’s Libraries Ready to Code Initiative offers resources and professional development for library professionals looking to implement CT in their libraries; but these resources mostly focus on CT for older youth (American Library Association, 2018). Thus, there is a gap in understanding what educators in museums and libraries are doing to engage young children (ages 0–8 years) and their families with CT skills and dispositions. Obtaining deeper insight into these educators’ goals, approaches, and engagement efforts with young children and families, can help the library and museum fields, and other informal learning environments (i.e. home, community centers, afterschool environments, etc.), better understand how to engage young children, ages 0–8 years, with CT skills, dispositions, and overall problem solving activities. This understanding should help inform, strengthen, and increase CT activities for young children across the range of informal learning environments and even in formal learning environments. Through the data from 20 interviews with library and museum educators, this study addresses these gaps and details the types of CT activities and approaches library and museum educators are offering to support CT for young children and their families.

Methods

This qualitative study was guided by the following overarching research question and sub-questions:

How are museum and library educators supporting computational thinking for young children, ages 0–8 years?

RQ1: What types of activities and approaches are museum and library educators using to support computational thinking for young children?

RQ2: What are museum and library educators’ goals for incorporating computational thinking into their work with young children?

Participants

To answer these questions, semi-structured interviews were conducted with educators at 10 libraries and 10 museums across the United States. Participants were recruited using a mixture of purposive sampling and snowball sampling. Researchers recruited educators who they knew were incorporating CT into their work with young children, ages 0–8 years, and their families, and then asked them to recommend other educators doing similar work. The participants held a range of positions, but all of them worked with young children and their families directly. The library positions included children’s librarian, youth services manager, and STEM supervisor, among others. The museum positions included early childhood education manager, makerspace manager, and education specialist and the educators came from science museums (30%) and children’s museums (70%). Finally, the libraries and museums were in communities of all sizes (Table 2) that were relatively evenly spread across four regions of the United States. Twenty-five percent of participants were in the Northeast, 25% in the Southeast, 25% in the West, and 20% in the Midwest. The Southwest was underrepresented with 5% of the participants.

Table 2.

Sizes of the libraries and museums’ communities.

Community size	Libraries	Museums
Small (0–200,000)	9	4
Medium (200,001–500,000)	0	1
Large (more than 500,000)	1	5

Data collection and analysis

Semi-structured interviews were used for this initial study of how museum and library educators are supporting CT for young children, ages 0–8 years, and their families. Interviews were chosen to allow the participants to talk freely and deeply about their own CT work with young children and families and about their own experiences with using and learning about CT. The semi-structured format was used to allow for exploration of unanticipated lines of inquiry related to CT and young children. While the interview protocol included 18 main questions on topics related to how libraries and museums are supporting CT for young children and their families, this article focuses specifically on the CT activities and approaches these educators are using with young children and their goals for those efforts. Two different researchers conducted the interviews between June 2021 and January 2022 and used the same protocol to maintain a similar structure across all interviews. The interviews were audio-recorded for transcription purposes and the transcripts were used in the analysis.

The interview transcripts were analyzed using a multi-cycle coding process to provide insight into the common themes that emerged under each research question. The coding was done across the two environments—libraries and museums—rather than within each group. This was done to understand more broadly how informal learning environments are supporting CT for young children and families rather than comparing the two different environments, because, as informal learning environments, libraries and museums often occupy a similar position in a young child’s life. For the initial coding cycle, one researcher engaged in structural coding (Saldaña, 2016) by reading through the transcripts and assigning codes for the broad themes that aligned with the research questions. Then a second researcher reviewed the transcripts and codes and made refinements to the codes after discussions with the first researcher to ensure agreement on the codes (see Table 3 for the codes and descriptions).

Table 3.

Codes from first coding cycle.

Code	Description
Activities	Structured and unstructured programs that incorporate skills and practices of CT
Approaches	Ways that the educators go about delivering their CT activities
CT dispositions	Broader character attributes that contribute to CT
CT skills	Specific skills related to the CT process
Goals	Broad expectations and hopes that guide educators’ development and delivery of CT activities and inform their approaches

For the second round of coding, the second researcher read through the coded segments under each broad code in Table 3 and developed subcodes to identify common themes within each broad code. A mixture of in vivo and concept coding (Saldaña, 2016) was used to develop the subcodes. In vivo coding was used for the activity and the goal subcodes. Concept coding was used to develop the approaches, skills, and dispositions subcodes and was guided by the educators’ language as well as related literature. These subcodes were then reviewed and refined based on discussions with the first researcher. Table 4 details the subcodes for the educators’ approaches to CT, while the CT skills subcodes are described in Table 1 in the Introduction. The other subcodes are not detailed here because they are detailed in the results section or are already commonly known concepts like the CT dispositions.

Table 4.

Broad approaches guiding CT activities.

Approach subcodes	Subcode description
Digital	Using solely digital materials in activities
Embodied learning	Incorporating children’s motor movements into CT activities
Experimentation	Encouraging children to try different ideas and materials while tinkering, building, or coding and continue trying if the ideas or materials did not work
Mixed	Using a mixture of analog and digital materials in activities
Narrative	Using stories to provide context for CT activities
Normalizing failure	Celebrating failure to help children accept it as a normal part of life
Open exploration	Providing a variety of materials and allowing children to interact and create with them based on their own interests
Play	Incorporating principles of play into CT activities (i.e. child-directed, fun, and interactive)
Process over product	Placing an emphasis on the process of creating, and what is gained from it, rather than the final product
Unplugged	Using solely analog materials in activities

Results

The results reveal that these museum and library educators are incorporating CT into their work with young children in a variety of ways and with a variety of different goals. It is important to note that, while the researchers set out to understand how museum and library educators support CT for young children, ages 0–8 years, it became clear that these efforts do not often include very young children, particularly those ages 0–2 years. Only one library talked about intentionally working to support CT for young children, ages 0–2 years. Most of the participants described offering CT activities for children, ages 3–8 years (see Table 5).

Table 5.

Target ages for CT activities.

Age group (years)	Number of libraries	Number of museums
0–2	1	0
3–4	9	8
5–6	8	9
7–8	4	8

Types of activities

The interviews revealed that both library and museum educators are supporting CT for young children and their families through a variety of activities. They incorporated these activities through five main methods: in-person and virtual CT-focused programs, CT-focused camps, kits of CT-related tools and resources, CT activities in programs with a different primary focus, and drop-in CT activities in library and museum spaces. Some of these methods were used in both environments, while others were used exclusively in one of the environments. All of the library and museum participants were offering in-person CT-focused programs, with 25% of participants also offering virtual programs. Thirty-five percent of participants also reported offering CT-focused camps, which were longer, more immersive experiences for older children in the 0–8 years age range. Distributing kits of CT-related tools and resources to families and schools/preschools was another method for supporting CT for young children (20% of educators). The final two methods were each exclusively offered by one environment. Fifty percent of the library participants (25% of total participants) shared that they were incorporating CT activities into existing programs, like storytime, as a secondary focus. Eighty percent of the museum participants (40% of total participants) reported offering drop-in CT activities in their spaces, including exhibit halls and tinker or makerspaces.

Within the five methods described above, there were several common types of activities that educators were using to support CT, including precoding (both digital and unplugged), tinkering, engineering, circuits, and art (Table 6). Both library and museum participants described offering both digital (80%) and unplugged (35%) precoding activities. Tinkering activities were also common with 65% of participants offering them. Engineering activities emerged as another method for supporting CT skills for young children with 45% of participants offering them. Engineering activities were similar to tinkering activities in that children were making and building, but the engineering programs had specific problem-solving objectives rather than being open-ended. A smaller number of participants also talked about using art activities and circuit-building activities to support CT.

Table 6.

Types of CT activities.

Type of CT activity	Percentage of educators (%)	Example
Digital precoding	80	A museum educator shared that they use Scratch/ScratchJr as an activity. The children have to figure out how to control the sprites on the screen and think about the different steps required to make things happen with their sprite.
Tinkering	65	A museum educator shared that their tinkering programs are set up with rich materials so when the children walk into the room, they feel like they are tinkerers. The goal is for them to make things out of a variety of common objects, but they get to take the lead on designing what they want it to be.
Engineering	45	A museum educator detailed a drop-in program where families participated on their own schedule. They prompted the families to use big boxes, smaller boxes, and scrap cardboard to build a city. In the end, the families created a cardboard city that had a library, ice cream shop, roadways, and more. According to the educator, “It was world-building in this really unique way, but there were also structural problems for the children to tackle, like making sure the boxes were standing up, where to put doors and windows, and how to combine boxes to make a bigger structure."
Non-digital precoding	35	A library shared that they made binary coding bracelets, where each bead and the color of the bead equals a binary code letter, so the children can make their name on the bracelet using the beads.
Art	25	A library educator discussed using craft-based activities where the children had to create patterns. In one, they made a caterpillar and they had to make him with a color pattern and a number pattern.
Circuits	20	A library shared about when they did squishy circuits and how they decided to test different things–from a rock, to a basketball, and even a cup of hot cocoa–to see if they had conductivity.

Types of approaches

During the interviews, it became clear that the educators also had specific approaches that they used to guide their CT efforts (Table 7). The approach of using digital materials versus analog materials or a mix of both was one of the most frequently discussed. Most participants were offering both programs that used only analog materials (80%) and programs that used only digital materials (75%). In addition, 45% of participants offered activities that mixed analog and digital materials. The remaining approaches revealed interesting insights into the ways the educators structure the CT activities. Making the activities play-based was mentioned by 55% of participants. They discussed the importance of making it fun, interactive, and child directed. The use of narrative (45% of participants) or stories in the activities was also described as important for engaging these younger children. For example, a museum educator shared, “Having that narrative gets the children more engaged because they are like, ‘oh, I'm trying to help this specific character that I read about’ instead of it just being a random, unrelated activity where they build a tower.”

Table 7.

Broad approaches guiding the CT work.

Approach	Percentage of educators (%)	Example
Unplugged	80	A museum educator shared about a challenge where children were given UV-sensitive beads that changed color in UV light and a pipe cleaner to make a caterpillar. They had to build a house for the caterpillar so that it wouldn't get a sunburn. They used recycled materials to build the house and were given a UV flashlight to shine on it. If the beads stayed white, their caterpillar was safe, but if the beads turned purple, then they had to try a new idea and build it a safer house.
Digital	75	One library educator created a program called Tech-tacular, which is like a petting zoo with different coding games and toys, such as Bee-bots and Cubetto. They put these digital items out and let the children experiment with them in self-directed ways.
Mixed	45	One museum educator shared a Scratch coding program where they encouraged children to draw a character on paper, take a photo of it, and import the photo into Scratch and build a story around the character.
Experimentation	65	A library educator offered a program related to wind where they had a wind tunnel and the children were prompted to make a vehicle that would go in the wind. When they tested their vehicles with the wind tunnel, if they didn’t work, the educator was there to help the children think about why it didn’t work and what they could change. The children could then make some modifications and try again.
Play	55	A library educator shared that they offered open play in the form of a big play structure and toys, along with purposeful, intentional play patterns to support CT, like stacking, sorting, puzzle solving.
Narrative	45	A museum educator designed a program around the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. The educator asked the children how they would solve the problem in the story of Goldilocks breaking Baby Bear’s chair. The children were prompted to bring a bear from home and make a chair for it that wouldn’t break. The children first designed on paper to understand the steps involved in making their chair. They then used cardboard and hot glue to make the chair and tested it with their bears.
Normalizing failure	45	One library educator on normalizing failure: “For many children, if they don’t get it right the first time, it’s over. They feel like they are a failure. And I have to say, ‘ No, this is the first time you’re seeing this. No one’s going to expect you to get this right the first time.’ . . .The library is perfect for experiencing failure because there’s nothing at stake. There’s no tests, there’s no report cards. So you can mess it up a thousand times and no one’s going to judge you.”
Open exploration	40	A museum educator shared about an exhibit in their museum that includes iPads with coding games, 3D printers, and an AR sandbox, all of which enable families to play with a variety of materials in self-directed ways, as educators are not usually there guiding them.
Embodied learning	35	For Halloween, a library educator created a big spiderweb on the floor using tape and put questions on the wall nearby that asked children what kind of pattern they could make as they moved through the spiderweb. In this way, children used their own body to navigate the codes.
Process over product	30	A museum educator shared the following insight regarding an emphasis on process over product: “[I] support the small victories, and help [them] think through [the problem]. What is the core element of what they're trying to achieve? What is the minimum achievable goal, and how can we get there? We just want to support [children] and show them that, ‘Hey, this is possible. It is just the very first time you've tried this.’”

Participants (45%) also talked about using the activities to normalize failure; as one participant put it, “We try to get across the idea that failures are necessary in order for us to get the right answer.” They described encouraging the children to work as independently as possible and then making sure to celebrate the small successes and the failures. Almost half of the participants (40%) also mentioned open exploration as an important approach for CT and young children. They described using a wide variety of materials with limited structure on what to create to allow children to get experience with different tools and materials while following their interests and experimenting with their own ideas. Embodied learning, a developmentally-appropriate approach for young children that incorporates whole body movement into the learning process (Kontra et al., 2012), emerged as an important approach for encouraging CT in early childhood in 35% of the interviews. Finally, 30% of the participants talked about the greater emphasis they place on the process of creating and experimenting over the final product. This was closely aligned with the approach of normalizing failure because the educators would point out to the children that it was important to fail so that they could improve. As one participant said, “You're creating, you're testing, you're improving. So go ahead and make it. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, try something else."

Goals

During the interviews, participants were asked about the goals that they had for their CT efforts with young children and their families. A number of common themes emerged in their responses, including problem-solving practice, self-efficacy, increasing interest in STEM careers, and supporting specific CT skills and dispositions. The most prevalent theme for both library and museum participants was that they wanted the children to have opportunities to practice problem solving. As one library participant commented, “Our focus is encouraging that freedom to think, tinker, and take risks in a safe environment; figure things out; and help the parents help their children without giving the [children] the answer.” Another common theme that emerged was that they wanted to help children see themselves as capable of doing these different things, whether it is solving problems, coding, or building something. One museum participant shared, “Our specific goals are to introduce these ideas so [children] can get more familiar and comfortable working with technology and looking at it not as magic but more like, hey, this is something I can do. I would say that we try to incorporate CT to help normalize it.” Participants also went a step further and described wanting children to begin to see STEM as a potential career option, saying things like, “My goal is for the children to begin to see this as a career they can pursue, that it is a field that they want to be in, that they want to change and explore.”

Goals: CT skills and dispositions

When discussing goals for their CT efforts, the educators also mentioned different CT skills and dispositions they were intentionally trying to support (Tables 8 and 9 respectively). With CT skills, the educators most often focused on pattern recognition, algorithm design, and decomposition (60%, 60%, and 55%, respectively). A smaller number of participants also mentioned trying to support logic, abstraction, debugging, and evaluation.

Table 8.

Percentage of participants using specific CT skills in their efforts.

CT skill	Percentage of educators (%)	Example
Algorithm design	60	A museum educator shared that they do an activity in which the children design a process and give instructions to a robot to make a sandwich. The children need to think about all the specifics involved in this task, including how to hold the knife, how to get the jelly out of the jar, etc.
Pattern recognition	60	A museum educator shared how they present opportunities for pattern recognition using natural elements like acorns and leaves and sticks. The children can find patterns in these materials as well as make their own patterns using these objects.
Decomposition	55	A museum educator used a complex task–opening a door–to encourage children to think about how to identify the smaller components of that larger task. “You have to grab the handle, and you have to turn it, but the way that you turn it or push it might be different based on the handle.” In this way, children can begin to understand that any whole is made up of parts.
Logic	30	A library educator uses the familiar activity of building a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to help children think through their logical thinking. The children need to think like a computer scientist and come up with a logical flow to build a sandwich.
Abstraction	20	One library educator focuses on helping children look at information and remove a piece of that information because it doesn’t work. This helps the children to realize they don’t have to use everything in front of them and they can manipulate their environment and think in an abstract manner.
Debugging	20	A library educator emphasizes debugging by purposely setting up an incorrect set of code and then asking children to see if they can find the problem.
Evaluation	5	One museum educator shared that they define success in terms of “trying, planning your ideas, testing them out. So even if you don’t quite specifically beat the exact challenge, you were still successful if you tried more than one idea and you could see the progression of getting closer to beat the challenge.”

Participants also shared about dispositions or attitudes related to CT that they were trying to support (Table 9). Persistence was the most common disposition, followed by creativity, collaboration, and confidence. Regarding persistence, one educator said, “We try to provide opportunities that let them experience productive frustration, not letting them get so annoyed that they're going to give up, but letting them struggle and persist, and maybe they find something awesome.” Some participants also identified inquisitiveness, communication, dealing with ambiguity, growth mindset, and independence as other dispositions they were trying to support. With inquisitiveness, one participant shared, “We encourage the children to question everything and be curious about how the world works. We want them to try to figure things out for themselves and not just accept things as they’re presented.”

Table 9.

Percentage of participants using specific CT dispositions.

CT Disposition	Percentage of educators (%)
Persistence	75
Creativity	50
Collaboration	45
Confidence	45
Inquisitiveness	40
Communication	30
Tolerance for ambiguity	25
Growth mindset	20
Independence	15

Discussion

The goal of this initial study was to understand how library and museum educators are supporting CT for young children through their regular institutional efforts. This was done by exploring the types of activities and approaches they were using, the CT skills and dispositions they were trying to support, and their broad goals for these efforts. In terms of the types of activities, the interviews revealed that these educators are supporting CT for young children through five main types of activities: precoding (digital and unplugged), tinkering, engineering, art, and circuits. These different types are important because they appeal to a wide range of learners and interests and are child-centered by allowing the child to lead the process of creating and completing the activity. The open-ended nature and flexibility of the activities—particularly tinkering, engineering, and art—also allow the child to incorporate their own ideas and creativity, potentially offering a valuable learning experience for the children (Piscitelli and Penfold, 2015).

The interviews also revealed several approaches that educators were using for these efforts. The different types of materials that educators used in their activities were particularly important given that 80% of participants used unplugged materials to support CT. To date, research has placed a larger focus on using digital materials (Bers, 2018; Macrides et al., 2021) but it is important to have a thorough understanding of how to support CT through unplugged materials because it offers more accessible ways for schools, organizations, and families of all means to engage in CT activities with their young children. The activities where educators intentionally used a mix of digital and unplugged constructive and creative materials also offered valuable experiences for young children as the mix creates a low-tech environment, which can offer a variety of benefits, including the novelty of digital materials combined with the hands-on, collaborative and creative nature associated with the unplugged materials (Campana & Agarwal, 2019).

The other approaches were significant as well, particularly the focus on play, experimentation, normalizing failure, and narrative. The play approach was important because countless research studies have demonstrated the benefits of play for young children’s learning (Burriss and Tsao, 2002; UNICEF, 2018). By having some of the activities be child-directed and open-ended and flexible to the children’s interests, the educators are allowing the children to engage with these skills and concepts in ways that they want and that are more meaningful for them. The focus on experimentation and normalizing failure was also notable. While children naturally experiment during play, having an environment and scaffolding that intentionally support repeated attempts at figuring things out can help to sustain the children’s problem-solving process through potential unsuccessful attempts (Martinez, 1998). This environment designed around experimentation combined with intentional educator support also helps to normalize failure for the children and is the key to building a growth mindset, which can help children be confident, active learners in the future (Dweck, 2016). Finally, the approach of positioning these activities in stories or narratives was key for engaging young children as it situates these new CT concepts and/or activities in something, like a story, that can be familiar for young children and is a developmentally appropriate practice for working with young children (UNICEF, 2018).

The goals that educators identified for their CT efforts also provide insight into this work and CT in early childhood more broadly. The educators most frequently discussed problem-solving practice as what they were trying to provide for young children through the CT activities. Given that problem solving is a crucial part of daily life for people of all ages (Martinez, 1998), the practice provided by these activities can offer significant benefits for the children throughout their lives. The ways in which the educators discussed the CT skills and dispositions they were trying to support provides insight into the nature of CT in early childhood. Many of the educators demonstrated that they understand the concept of CT when they discussed trying to support skills that have been identified as essential pieces of the CT process (Barr et al., 2011). However, several of the educators seem to place a bigger emphasis on supporting computational dispositions over the skills, which is possibly due to the children’s younger age, along with the focus on the “whole child” in early learning (Semmel, 2012).

Overall, it is important that informal learning environments offer these CT opportunities alongside schools, as informal learning environments focus on interest-driven, open-ended experiences that allow children to follow their own interests and direct their own learning process (Falk and Dierking, 2002). In addition, since caregivers often accompany their young children to libraries and museums (Campana, 2021; Wolf and Wood, 2012), the use of accessible materials and approachable CT activities can help families understand how they can incorporate CT into their home environments. Finally, these opportunities help to increase access to CT experiences for young children, particularly for those ages 0–5 years, given that a large percentage of them are not in a formal school environment (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2020). Ultimately these CT activities in libraries and museums are helping to expose young children to the skills and abilities they need to dive deeper into these topics in the future along with helping to build their interest and confidence in STEM-related areas, which should be beneficial for the children and our society as a whole, as we continue to evolve even further into a fully digital society (Dufva and Dufva, 2019).

Limitations

This study has two main limitations. First, the data set is a small sample of libraries and museums across the United States and therefore may not be broadly representative of the practices, activities, and goals of all such institutions. However, participants were selected from various geographical areas around the country and from varied population densities to provide a diverse array of perspectives. Secondly, the information gathered in this study is self-reported by the educators, without in-person observations to corroborate these responses. This provides a fertile area for future research to use the findings detailed here to develop protocols for observation and coding of CT behaviors in informal learning environments.

Conclusion

The initial study reveals that library and museum educators are designing and offering a variety of engaging, hands-on activities that allow children to practice CT in a developmentally appropriate manner. The approaches that educators were using for these activities provide interesting insight into how CT can be supported for young children and the educators’ goals for their CT efforts offer additional understanding into the nature of CT in early childhood. While these findings provide valuable initial information on these efforts, additional research is needed into the learning environment and experiences provided by these activities through observations and research with the children and families themselves. In addition, the results of this study could be used to inform quantitative studies with larger sample sizes on supporting CT for young children in informal learning environments. The caregivers’ experiences also warrant exploration, particularly what they learn through these activities and whether that transfers into the home environment. Finally, research could also focus on the longitudinal effect of continued participation in these CT activities, looking at the impact it has on a child’s progress with CT skills but also with the dispositions, given their importance throughout all aspects of life.

Footnotes

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Kathleen Campana

J Elizabeth Mills

References

American Library Association (2018) Libraries ready to code: Resources. Available at https://www.ala.org/tools/readytocode/resources (accessed 28 January 2022).

The Annie E. Casey Foundation (2020) Young children not in school in the United States. Available at: www.datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/9010-young-children-not-in-school#detailed/1/any/false/1757,1687,1652,1564,1491,1443,1218,1049,995,932/any/17975,17976 (accessed 4 February 2022).

Baroutsis

White

Ferdinands

, et al. (2019) Computational thinking as a foundation for coding: Developing student engagement and learning. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom 24(2): 10–15.

Barr

Harrison

Conery

(2011) Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology 38(6): 20–23.

Barr

Stephenson

(2011) Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads 2(1): 48–54.

Bers

(2007) Project InterActions: A multigenerational robotic learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology 16(6): 537–552.

Bers

(2018) Coding and computational thinking in early childhood: The impact of ScratchJr in Europe. European Journal of STEM Education 3(3): 1–13.

Bers

(2020) Coding as a Playground: Programming and Computational Thinking in the Early Childhood Classroom. New York: Routledge.

Bers

Strawhacker

Sullivan

(2022) The state of the field of computational thinking in early childhood education. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 274. Paris: OECD Publishing.

10.

Burriss

Tsao

(2002) Review of research: How much do we know about the importance of play in child development? Childhood Education 78(4): 230–233.

11.

Campana

(2021) Characterizing an information environment for supporting learning. Information and Learning Sciences 12(5/6): 341–359.

12.

Campana

Agarwal

(2019) The landscape of research on learning in low-tech environments. Information and Learning Sciences 120(11/12): 687–703.

13.

Campana

Haines

Kociubuk

Langsam

(2020). Making the connection: Computational thinking and early learning for young children and their families. Public Libraries 59(4): 44–56.

14.

Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (2016) Family learning in museums. Available at: www.informalscience.org/news-views/family-learning-museums (accessed 10 August 2021).

15.

Cohen

Waite-Stupiansky

(eds) (2019) STEM in early childhood education: How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics strengthen learning. New York: Routledge.

16.

CSTE & ISTA (2011) Operational Definition of Computational Thinking for K–12 Education. Available at: https://cdn.iste.org/www-root/Computational_Thinking_Operational_Definition_ISTE.pdf (accessed 10 August 2021).

17.

del Olmo-Muñoz

Cózar-Gutiérrez

González-Calero

(2020) Computational thinking through unplugged activities in early years of primary education. Computers & Education 150: 103832.

18.

Dufva

(2019) Grasping the future of the digital society. Futures 107: 17–28.

19.

Dweck

(2016) What having a “growth mindset” actually means. Harvard Business Review 13: 213–226.

20.

Ehsan

Rehmat

Cardella

(2021) Computational thinking embedded in engineering design: capturing computational thinking of children in an informal engineering design activity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 31(3): 441–464.

21.

European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Bocconi

, et al. (2022) Reviewing computational thinking in compulsory education : state of play and practices from computing education. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/126955

22.

Falk

Dierking

(2002) Lessons Without Limit: How Free-Choice Learning is Transforming Education. Lanham: AltaMira Press.

23.

Fessakis

Gouli

Mavroudi

(2013) Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education 63: 87–97.

24.

Flannery

Bers

(2013) Let’s dance the “robot hokey-pokey!”: Children’s programming approaches and achievement throughout early cognitive development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 46(1): 81–101.

25.

Hadani

Rood

(2018) The roots of STEM success: Changing early learning experiences to build lifelong thinking skills. Available at: https://newtheme2018.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Roots_Of_STEM_Paper_WORKING_v2.pdf (accessed 10 August 2021).

26.

Kazakoff

Sullivan

Bers

(2013) The effect of a classroom-based intensive robotics and programming workshop on sequencing ability in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal 41(4): 245–255.

27.

Kontra

Goldin-Meadow

Beilock

(2012) Embodied learning across the life span. Topics in Cognitive Science 4(4): 731–739.

28.

Lopez

Caspe

McWilliams

(2016) Public libraries: A vital space for family engagement. Available at: www.ala.org/pla/sites/ala.org.pla/files/content/initiatives/familyengagement/Public-Libraries-A-Vital-Space-for-Family-Engagement_HFRP-PLA_August-2-2016.pdf (accessed 10 August 2021).

29.

Macrides

Miliou

Charoula

(2021) Programming in early childhood education: A systematic review. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 32: 100396.

30.

Martinez

(1998) What is problem solving?. The Phi Delta Kappan 79(8): 605–609.

31.

Piscitelli

Penfold

(2015) Child-centered practice in museums: Experiential learning through creative play at the Ipswich Art Gallery. Curator: The Museum Journal 58(3): 263–280.

32.

Saldaña

(2016) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Los Angeles: Sage.

33.

Semmel

(2012) An opportune moment: Museums in the national conversation on early learning. Journal of Museum Education 37(1): 17–28.

34.

Sung

Ahn

Black

(2017) Introducing computational thinking to young learners: Practicing computational perspectives through embodiment in mathematics education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning 22(3): 443–463.

35.

UNICEF (2018) Learning through play: Strengthening learning through play in early childhood education programmes. Available at: www.unicef.org/sites/default/files/2018-12/UNICEF-Lego-Foundation-Learning-through-Play.pdf (accessed 1 February 2022)

36.

Wang

Choi

Benson

, et al. (2021) Teacher’s role in fostering preschoolers’ computational thinking: An exploratory case study. Early Education and Development 32(1): 26–48.

37.

Wing

(2006) Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM 49(3): 33–35.

38.

Wolf

Wood

(2012) Integrating scaffolding experiences for the youngest visitors in museums. Journal of Museum Education 37(1): 29–37.s