Fostering computational thinking and environmental awareness via robotics in early childhood education: A scoping review

Kalliopi  Kanaki; Michail  Kalogiannakis

doi:10.55976/rppe.12023217739-50

Home /

Archives /

Special Issue: The continuity of preschool and primary school setting and student's transition from one grade to another /

Review

Fostering computational thinking and environmental awareness via robotics in early childhood education: A scoping review

Kalliopi Kanaki ¹ , Michail Kalogiannakis ²

1. Department of Preschool Education, University of Crete, Greece
2. Department of Special Education, University of Thessaly, Greece

Correspondence: kalkanaki@uoc.gr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.55976/rppe.12023217739-50

Received

01 May 2023
Revised

25 July 2023
Accepted

31 July 2023
Published

11 August 2023

Computational thinking Environmental awareness Early childhood education Robotics

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has been proven to be an important vector in humanity's behavioral reshaping, reflecting on people's value systems regarding sustainable consumption, and environmental awareness. At the same time, the inevitable lockdown brought out the demand for designing innovative educational and assessment strategies, oriented toward digital technology. However, even before the COVID-19 pandemic, digital technology had already been infused in contemporary educational settings, while its undeniable effect on the future of the forthcoming generations had already entailed the necessity of developing today's students' digital competencies and computational thinking (CT) skills in order to equip them for a new reality in the job arena. Especially in early childhood, implementing interdisciplinary education, exploiting state-of-the-art technological tools, and adopting engaging educational practices, like robotics, support the cultivation of core 21st-century skills, such as CT and environmental awareness. Directly responding to these considerations, we provide the results of a scoping review conducted in April of 2023, following the PRISMA statement, aiming at bringing out studies regarding educational practices in early childhood education that concurrently cultivate CT and environmental awareness via robotics. The findings of the literature indicate that this field remains direly underinvestigated.

<h5>Introduction</h5>
Nowadays, CT is considered a valuable set of skills for all citizens in modern societies, since it is applicable to everyday solving activities (Hsu et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2020). It involves defining problems, providing solutions to difficult or complicated issues, and exercising scientific reasoning (Wing, 2006). It is also a metacognitive process that combines skills and dispositions for regulating complex problem-solving and modeling unobservable phenomena (Dwyer et al., 2014). The value of cultivating CT, even from kindergarten, has already been recognized worldwide, considering its inclusion in contemporary curricula, implemented in formal educational settings (Buitrago-Flórez et al., 2021), or in after-school programs (Yang et al., 2021). Robotics is an excellent way to cultivate CT skills, especially in early childhood education (Yang et al., 2020), since it involves hands-on tools and activities that trigger curiosity, and motivate children to get involved and feel in control of the learning process (Witt & Kimple, 2008).
In the broader context of supporting scientific schooling during early childhood, which involves formal and informal education provided to children from birth up to the age of eight (Kalogiannakis & Kanaki, 2022), exploiting robotics promotes the development of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education (Chaldi & Mantzanidou, 2021). Besides the so-called core sciences (e.g. mathematics and physics), there are STEM branches, such as Environmental Science and Technology (Glänzel & Schubert, 2003), that are crucial to be introduced in compulsory education, starting from the early years (Cruz et al., 2021). Indeed, well-designed environmental education creates environmental literal citizens that do not distinguish themselves from nature (Quinn & Cohen, 2021), and are capable to establish environmental and resource sustainability (Ardoin & Bowers, 2020). Well-designed robotics activities provide unique learning experiences, engaging young children in STEM fields in novel ways that target environmental issue awareness (Phamduy et al., 2015). Indicatively, we refer to the Interactive Robotic Fish, a tool for boosting informal science learning and environmental awareness (Phamduy et al., 2015), and the robotics system "Smart Trashcan Brothers" that empowers the environmental consciousness of young children attending primary school (Arnett et al., 2021). At this point, it is important to discuss the absence of a generally accepted definition for environmental awareness, although the concept is intuitively clear to most people. Nevertheless, it can be broadly defined as the attitude regarding the environmental consequences of human behavior (Ham et al., 2016). It is a part of social awareness concerning an aspect of an individual’s system of values and beliefs, and the predisposition to confront environmental issues in a specific way (Ham et al., 2016).
The case of the concurrent cultivation of CT and environmental awareness in early childhood settings has recently been addressed, exploiting a novel programming schema of visual and text-based programming techniques (Kanaki & Kalogiannakis, 2022a, 2022b; Kanaki et al., 2022a, 2022b). We applaud this innovative idea of the contemporaneous development of 21st-century competencies, such as CT and environmental awareness, since they are necessary for the upcoming generation to confront current challenges. We endorse the cultivation of CT as a requisite set of skills in all facets of work and life (Wei et al., 2021), not in unilateral technical contexts, but in educational environments that encourage the cultural and aesthetic development of young students (Aryabkina et al., 2021). We support moving away from raising technocrats that are unenlightened of crucial global socio-environmental issues, with the main goal of improving humanity's attitude towards nature and, thus, preserving the future of the planet (Boluda et al., 2021). We focus on early childhood as a formative period of developing attitudes and establishing a connection to nature (Beery et al., 2020).
Triggered from the availability of contemporary teaching and learning contexts, such as robotics, that could serve the parallel enhancement of CT skills and the boosting of environmental awareness in early childhood education, we undertook a scoping review in order to bring out relevant educational approaches. More precisely, this research study aims to conduct a preliminary assessment of the potential size and scope of the available research literature (Grant & Booth, 2009). This way, we address state-of-the-art teaching and learning practices that support the novel idea of concurrently cultivating environmental awareness and CT in early childhood education, via a very promising, appealing, and engaging technological teaching and learning tool i.e., robotics. The findings about the body of evidence on this particular topic highlight the relevant research gap and indicate the emerging need of conducting pertinent empirical research (Grant & Booth, 2009). As far as the uniqueness of this study is concerned, it lies in the absence of scoping reviews on the subject under consideration.  
<h5>Theoretical framework and relevant research fields</h5>
Researchers and scholars have already highlighted the many-faceted benefits of cultivating CT skills (Tzagkaraki et al., 2021), and developing environmental literacy (Ardoin & Bowers, 2020) in early childhood education. Capitalizing on young children's natural tendency to explore STEM challenges (Foti, 2021), developmentally appropriate STEM educational activities are employed in order to foster CT (Chevalier et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022), and improve students' environmental awareness (Helvaci & Helvaci, 2019). Robotics, with its multi-disciplinary character, is considered a valuable tool in STEM education (Barker et al., 2012) that enhances CT skills (Chevalier et al., 2020), supports students to understand scientific and nonscientific disciplines (Khanlari, 2013), and develops mathematical literacy and social competences (Smyrnova-Trybulska et al., 2016).
Environmental education
In the Anthropocene epoch (Laurance, 2019), people exercise intense pressure against planetary boundaries in ways that could indelibly influence sustaining life on Earth (Ardoin et al., 2020). The cultivation and enhancement of developmental-friendly attitudes, values, knowledge, and skills are unidirectional and demand flourishing environmental education, preparing people to take informed and responsible actions to improve and protect the environment (Ardoin et al., 2020). Towards this end, environmental education addresses wicked problems (Lönngren & Van Poeck, 2021), such as climate change and biodiversity loss, focusing on cultivating prosocial and environmental norms, in order to establish environmental awareness, and develop action-related skills on meaningful issues, foregrounding attitudes, dispositions and behaviors at individual, societal and ecosystem level (Ardoin et al., 2020).
The verifiable advantages of providing infants and children with environmental education impelled researchers and practitioners to define early childhood as the starting point for developing environmental literacy (Ardoin & Bowers, 2020). Engaging young children in meaningful environmental learning experiences and applying effective play-based nature-rich pedagogical approaches cultivate ecologically literate individuals, and, at the same time, advocate their cognitive development, social and emotional development, social interaction, physical development, and language and literacy development (Ardoin & Bowers, 2020).
Computational thinking
In 2006, Wing defined CT as a process that encompasses providing solutions to problems posed, designing systems, and comprehending human behavior, based on the core concepts of informatics (Wing, 2006). In the modern digital era, CT is seen as a set of competencies that are essential for the productive citizenry (Hsu et al., 2018), as it is estimated that by the end of the century, it will have evolved into a fundamental set of skills, such as reading, writing, and arithmetic (Wing, 2006). At the same time, CT skills are critical for successfully operating in contemporary complex technology-driven societies (Kale et al., 2018). The undeniable impact that technology will have on the future of today’s students arouses the interest in introducing CT as soon as possible in compulsory education in order to equip posterity with 21st-century skills and prepare it for a new reality regarding the job market (Kanaki & Kalogiannakis, 2022a, 2022b; Kanaki et al., 2022a, 2022b; Silva et al., 2021).
Until recently, CT skills were typically being cultivated in Computer Science contexts or via out-of-school activities (Lytle et al., 2019). Nevertheless, the multi-facet nature of CT transcends programming and computer science (Li et al., 2020), since it does not exclusively focus on creating future scientists or engineers. On the contrary, CT is a model of thinking that is important to every student (Li et al., 2020). It supports the development of a plethora of cognitive and intellectual skills, such as spatial ability, reasoning ability, problem-solving ability, and creative thinking (Román-González et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2022), facilitating people to deal with everyday problems (Kanaki & Kalogiannakis, 2022a, 2022b; Kanaki et al., 2022a, 2022b; Wei et al. 2021).
Nowadays, there is an emerging trend of integrating computing and, thus, CT into disciplinary education, especially in STEM fields (Lee et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020). Blending CT with creative STEM activities can empower students' STEM learning, because of the dominant role of computation in modern STEM disciplines (Wang et al., 2022). At the same time, infusing CT in STEM education might reduce potential inequities in terms of CT learning, since STEM courses are more widely offered and are more likely to be compulsory than computer science courses (Wang et al., 2022; Weintrop et al., 2014).
Robotics
The technological revolution remodeled the educational scene, and introduced modern learning opportunities, by employing state-of-the-art technological tools such as robots (García-Valcárcel-Muñoz-Repiso & Caballero-González, 2019; López-Belmonte et al., 2021). Nevertheless, the advent of technology in education is not a panacea. On the contrary, it has to be carefully infused in teaching and learning processes, towards their enhancement (López-Belmonte et al., 2021). Robotics is one of the most appealing and effective educational practices that is appearing at an increasing rate in modern curricula, especially in developed countries (López-Belmonte et al., 2021). Educational robotics exploit contemporary technology, achieving the cultivation of various cognitive skills, the comprehension of complex scientific concepts, the advancement of social and communication skills (Caballero-Gonzalez et al., 2019; Chaldi & Mantzanidou, 2021; Kubilinskienė et al., 2017), and the development of literacy and CT skills (Caballero-Gonzalez et al., 2019; Chaldi & Mantzanidou, 2021; Papadakis, 2020).
Educational robot kits have physical artifacts that make learning less abstract but more direct (Benitti, 2012; Eteokleous, 2019), and advocate the motivational aspect for children to engage with STEM activities, even from kindergarten (Sullivan & Bers, 2016). The integration of robotics in early childhood education takes advantage of the fact that, in this period, the generation of new ideas and the acquisition of knowledge are based mainly on experiences and concepts previously learned (García-Valcárcel-Muñoz-Repiso & Caballero-González, 2019). Hence, learning arises when children, employing information gathered with their senses, exchange ideas, test their limits, and obtain feedback. In these actions, imagination and creativity have a key role in producing new knowledge (Buitrago et al., 2017). However, the proper introduction of robotics is a complicated task that should be accompanied by developmentally appropriate techniques and approaches, that would capture the attention of preschoolers (Papadakis, 2020).
Early childhood education
Experiencing high-quality early childhood education and care has multiple benefits both at a personal and societal level. In fact, the years from birth to age five are considered a pivotal period for establishing the basis for thinking, behaving, and emotional well-being (Bakken et al., 2017). During these sensitive years, children develop linguistic, cognitive, social, emotional, and regulatory skills that predict their later functioning in many domains (Bakken et al., 2017; McCoy et al., 2017).
Early childhood education and care services need to be child-centered. Indeed, children learn best in engaging environments that are based on their participation and interest in learning. High-quality early learning settings follow children's interests, enhance their well-being and seek to meet the unique needs and potential of each individual child, including those with special needs or in a vulnerable or disadvantaged situation (The Council of the European Union, 2019).
<h5>Method</h5>
Scoping review design
The process and methodology adopted to conduct the present scoping review is the internationally recognized PRISMA model (Moher et al., 2009; PRISMA, 2023). The steps followed were (Kitchenham, 2004):
<ul>
<li>Stating the research questions</li>
<li>Searching on databases</li>
<li>Specifying inclusion/exclusion criteria</li>
<li>Selecting studies</li>
<li>Extracting and analyzing data</li>
<li>Summarizing and interpreting findings</li>
<li>Writing the review report</li>
</ul>
Research questions
To examine the literature on the synergistic cultivation of CT and environmental awareness via robotics in early childhood education, we set up seven research questions (RQ), organized around three axes (Table 1):
(a) The conceptual framework toward the synergistic cultivation of CT and environmental awareness via robotics in early childhood education (RQ1, RQ2).
(b) The documentary framework i.e., the research methodologies employed, the sample size used, the publication details, and the active countries in conducting relevant research (RQ3, RQ4, RQ5).
(c) The pedagogical framework i.e., the areas of knowledge, the grade levels involved, and the didactic tools employed (RQ6, RQ7).
Table 1. Research questions
<img src="https://file.luminescience.cn/64e31c2fd01a31692605487" width="690" height="222" />
Concepts employed in searching on databases
The databases searched were Science Direct, Eric, Wiley Online Library, SpringerLink, Sage Journals, Taylor & Francis Online, and JSTOR. We also searched Google Scholar, as the currently most comprehensive academic search engine (Gusenbauer, 2019).
The core search terms used were: (a) Computational thinking, (b) Environmental awareness, (c) Robotics, and (d) Early childhood education. In order to maximize the amount of information gathered when conducting the present scoping review (Cronin et al., 2008), we identified alternative search terms from the database thesaurus, constructing four search terms sets (Table 2), that correspond to each one of the core search terms. The four search terms sets were included in the final search string. The search terms within each set were separated by the operator "OR" and the four search term sets were combined using the operator "AND" (Cronin et al., 2008).
Table 2. Core concepts and synonyms – relevant terms
<img src="https://file.luminescience.cn/64d5ec705debf1691741296" width="790" height="197" />
The search string we ended up with was: "computational thinking" AND ("robotics" OR "robotic") AND ("early childhood education" OR "preschool education" OR "nursery school education" OR "infant school education" OR "preprimary education" OR "primary education") AND ("environmental awareness" OR "environmental problems" OR "environmental challenges" OR "environmental concerns" OR "environmental issues" OR "environmentally conscious" OR "environmentally aware" OR "environmentally responsible" OR "ecological challenges" OR "ecological issues" OR "ecological problems" OR "going green" OR "green issues").
In the case of Science Direct and JSTOR, which have restrictions in the Boolean connectors (max 8), and the number of characters in the search string (200 characters max), we ended up with the search string: "computational thinking" AND "robotics" AND ("early childhood education" OR "preschool education" OR "primary education") AND ("environmental awareness" OR "ecological challenges").
In the case of Google Scholar, which has a 256-character limit for searches, we conducted three search rounds. The first search was conducted with the search string: ”computational thinking" AND ("robotics" OR "robotic") AND ("early childhood education" OR "preschool education") AND ("environmental awareness" OR "environmental challenges" OR "ecological challenges " OR "green issues"). The second search was conducted with the search string: "computational thinking" AND ("robotics" OR "robotic") AND ("early childhood education" OR "preschool education") AND ( "environmental problems" OR "environmental concerns" OR "environmental issues" OR "environmentally responsible"). The search string of the third search was: "computational thinking" AND ("robotics" OR "robotic") AND ("early childhood education" OR "preschool education" OR "primary education") AND ("environmentally conscious" OR "environmentally aware" OR "ecological issues" OR "ecological problems" OR "going green").
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
We searched for studies without setting time criteria, since the concurrent cultivation of CT skills and environmental awareness is a novel area of research interest (Kanaki & Kalogiannakis, 2022a, 2022b; Kanaki et al., 2022a, 2022b), and, thus, it was expected that a manageable amount of articles would emerge. Besides this, we adopted the following inclusion and exclusion criteria:
Inclusion criteria
1. The study was conducted in early childhood educational settings.
2. The study was related to cultivating and/or assessing CT skills.
3. The study was related to cultivating and/or assessing environmental awareness.
4. Robotics tools and educational techniques were exploited.
5. The article was a peer-reviewed or a conference paper.
Exclusion criteria
1. The study was not written in English.
2. The study was listed in another database.
3. The study was only published as an abstract.
Review process
The outcome of the initial search in all databases was 89 findings, of which 69 findings (Table 3). Following the PRISMA review process, we excluded 10 records in the identification stage, and 66 records in the screening stage for the reasons listed in Figure 1. The remaining 13 articles were thoroughly reviewed regarding their research objectives and the educational tools/approaches employed. Each author studied the articles separately and the information gathered was compared and discussed.
Table 3. The outcomes of the search in all databases
<img src="https://file.luminescience.cn/64d5f618441771691743768" alt="" width="530" height="298" />
<img src="https://file.luminescience.cn/64d5ec821065d1691741314" alt="" width="500" height="393" />
Figure 1. PRISMA review process
Extracting and analyzing data
In order to provide validity and credibility to the data extracted in the context of the present scoping review, the investigator triangulation process was adopted, according to which the authors documented their observations and conclusions (Carter et al., 2014). At first, a thorough review and analysis of the trends of the relevant studies, theories, methodologies, and purposes were conducted. Thence, to ensure the convergence and verification of the findings, we proceeded to document analysis, completing the triangulation process (Bowen, 2009).
In line with the research questions of the study, the attributes coded and analyzed were:
a) The main axes of the objectives of the research studies used in the current scoping review.
b) The conceptual approach to cultivating environmental awareness.
c) The research methodology (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methodology).
d) The sample size.
e) The year of publication.
f) The journal/proceedings in which the studies were published.
g) The areas of knowledge.
h) The grade levels.
i) The didactic tools.
Findings
In Table 4, we provide evidence regarding the conceptual framework of the articles included in the scoping review, documenting if its main axes are included in each one of them. Thus, we answer the RQ1 for the dataset reviewed.
Table 4. The conceptual framework of the articles included in the present scoping review
<img src="https://file.luminescience.cn/64d5ec98ce7c61691741336" width="700" height="96" />
Maintaining the enumeration of the articles in Table 4, in order to answer RQ2, we list the conceptual approach to cultivating environmental awareness for each study (Table 5).
Table 5. The conceptual approach to cultivating environmental awareness
<img src="https://file.luminescience.cn/64d5ecaa1c62e1691741354" width="600" height="83" />
Answering the research questions RQ3, RQ4, and RQ5, Table 6 provides evidence regarding the documentary framework of the articles reviewed i.e., the research methodologies employed, the sample size of the participants, the year of publication, the journal/proceedings in which the study was published, and the county in which each study was conducted.
Table 6. The documentary framework of the articles included in the present scoping review
<img src="https://file.luminescience.cn/64d5ecb83aa851691741368" width="750" height="108" />
In Table 7, we provide evidence regarding the pedagogical framework of the articles reviewed, answering the research questions RQ6 and RQ7, the areas of knowledge employed, the grade levels involved, and the didactic tools employed.
Table 7. The pedagogical framework of the articles included in the present scoping review
<img src="https://file.luminescience.cn/64d5ecc8707191691741384" width="750" height="164" />
<h5>Discussion</h5>
Studying the results of the present scoping review, we realize that the field of the parallel cultivation of CT skills and environmental awareness via robotics in early childhood education is underinvestigated. Moreover, both articles that provide evidence of relevant studies were published in 2022, signifying the novelty of the field.   
Silvis et al. (2022) presented a study that was implemented in the context of an early childhood coding curriculum designed to support CT in kindergarten, and, at the same time, establish forms of responsibility for technology. Towards this end, they exploited a robot called Cubetto, aiming at developing a notion of a technological ethic of care, located in children’s early coding experiences. The qualitative research methodology was adopted, and, thus, no assessment tools were employed in order to measure the cultivation of CT skills and the advancement of children's technological ethic of care.
Elaborating further on the study of Silvis et al. (2022), we should mention that although the technological ethic of care is not directly related to environmental awareness, since these concepts are distinct in their focus, they overlap and intersect in certain contexts. An ethic of care exists wherever humans’ actions denote caring for their objects and environments, fostering their maintenance (Puig de la Bellacasa, 2017). Embracing care and maintenance for computer technologies in early learning settings is of the essence in today’s complicated socio-ecological contexts, since it assists in bridging frameworks for child–computer interactions with perspectives on nature-culture relations (Bers, 2020; Silvis et al., 2022). Silvis et al. (2022) examined how children cared for materials like coding robots since keeping technologies in working order pertains to cultivating a "maintenance mindset" (Vinsel & Russell, 2020), and forms a social structure between children and the material world in which they live (Denis & Pontille, 2015).
Tan-a-ram et al. (2022) presented the use and design of KidBright and demonstrated its effectiveness in the context of software and hardware through empirical investigations. In the abstract, they mentioned that "coding is regarded as a gateway to computational thinking". Nevertheless, no evidence was provided about the cultivation of CT skills via educational activities that exploited KidBright. Furthermore, no evidence was provided regarding the achievement of environmental awareness via the activity they proposed i.e., the construction of the dust-monitoring device. Finally, no information was available regarding the sample size of the participants or their age. Tan-a-ram et al. (2022) reported the suitability of KidBright for elementary and high school students, although they were not specific regarding the age of the target group of the activities recorded in the article. Nevertheless, from 2018 to 2020, the KidBright team distributed 200,000 KidBright boards to more than 3200 elementary and high schools in Thailand and supported relevant educational activities, within the context of the Coding at School project (Tan-a-ram et al., 2022). Since the first and second grade of elementary education is included in early childhood education, and Tan-a-ram et al. (2022) did not provide evidence that they excluded these grades from their target group, we assume that KidBright was used in early childhood settings in order to promote coding education.
An important issue that has to be discussed regarding the study of Tan-a-ram et al. (2022) is that the authors did not explicitly mention the role of KidBright activities in cultivating environmental awareness. However, they claimed that the firmware and the hardware extension paradigm of KidBright promote the concept of sustainability, while the KidBright software framework supports open-source and sustainability goals. At this point, it has to be clarified that the word sustainability refers to the utilization of resources in a way that will not cause their depletion (Cogut et al., 2019). Individuals that adopt the culture of sustainability are aware of major environmental (and social/economic) challenges, are behaving in sustainable ways, and are committed to a sustainable lifestyle for both the present and future (Marans et al., 2015, p. 170). Thus, sustainability and environmental awareness are distinct, but overlapping concepts in specific contexts.
<h5>Limitations and foresight</h5>
A restriction of this study is the limited access to the articles resulting from the research in the selected databases. Another limitation is that the databases searched were only Science Direct, Eric, Wiley Online Library, SpringerLink, Sage Journals, Taylor & Francis Online, and JSTOR. Finally, only articles and conference papers were reviewed. Thus, books, theses, etc., were excluded from the reviewing process.
As far as our next research steps, we have already designed a research study that remains to be implemented, exploiting educational robotics in order to enhance environmental awareness and CT skills in early childhood settings.
<h5>Conclusions</h5>
In early childhood education, learning occurs when children, using information captured by their senses, share ideas, test their limits and receive feedback. In these actions, imagination and creativity play an important role in the production of new knowledge (García-Valcárcel-Muñoz-Repiso & Caballero-González, 2019). In this context, robotics is an excellent way to motivate learning (Witt & Kimple, 2008) and promote fundamental 21-st century skills, such as CT (Caballero-Gonzalez et al., 2019; Papadakis, 2020) and environmental awareness (Teixeira et al., 2018).
Orienting education toward environmental awareness and sustainability cultivates individual and collective environmental and health consciousness (Cruz et al., 2021). Towards this end, Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) have already set out several environmental issues, such as the role of water in earth's surface processes, human impacts on earth systems, and global climate change, as disciplinary core ideas of science. NGSS also include the influence of engineering, technology and science on society, and the natural world in the list of proposed crosscutting concepts (Next Generation Science Standards, 2023). Since high-quality early childhood education and care lays the foundations for later success in life in terms of education, well-being, employability, and social integration (European Commission), it is important to cultivate young students' 21-century skills as soon as possible.
The present scoping review regarding the parallel cultivation of CT skills and environmental awareness via robotics in early childhood education was conducted in order to assess the extent of the available evidence and to highlight potential research gaps. Indeed, it revealed that this particular topic remains underinvestigated, although the importance of the acquisition of these skills is well-documented, as well as the educational effectiveness of robotics.
<h5>Conflict of interest</h5>
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
<h5>Authors' contribution</h5>
Both authors contributed equally to this scoping review.

References

[1]Ardoin, N. M., & Bowers, A. W. (2020). Early childhood environmental education: A systematic review of the research literature. Educational Research Review, 31, 100353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100353.

[2]Ardoin, N. M., Bowers, A. W., & Gaillard, E. (2020). Environmental education outcomes for conservation: A systematic review. Biological Conservation, 241, 108224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108224.

[3]Arnett, M., Mahmud, S., Sourave, R. H., & Kim, J. H. (2021, December). Smart Trashcan Brothers: Early Childhood Environmental Education Through Green Robotics. In International Conference on Intelligent Human Computer Interaction (pp. 313-324). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98404-5_30.

[4]Aryabkina, I., Kudashova, T., Bulynin, A., Aliphanova, F., & Silantyeva, E. (2021). Cultural and aesthetic development of elementary school students in environmental education as a current pedagogical problem. Amazonia Investiga, 10(41), 151-159. https://doi.org/10.34069/ai/2021.41.05.15.

[5]Bakken, L., Brown, N., & Downing, B. (2017). Early childhood education: The long-term benefits. Journal of research in Childhood Education, 31(2), 255-269. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2016.1273285.

[6]Barker, B. S., Nugent, G., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. I. (Eds.). (2012). Robots in K-12 Education: A New Technology for Learning. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-0182-6.

[7]Beery, T., Chawla, L., & Levin, P. (2020). Being and Becoming in Nature: Defining and Measuring Connection to Nature in Young Children. International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 7(3), 3-22.

[8]Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978-988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006.

[9]Bers, M. U. (2020). Coding as a playground: Programming and computational thinking in the early childhood classroom. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003022602.

[10]Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/qrj0902027.

[11]Buitrago Flórez, F., Casallas, R., Hernández, M., Reyes, A., Restrepo, S., & Danies, G. (2017). Changing a generation’s way of thinking: Teaching computational thinking through programming. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 834-860. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317710096.

[12]Buitrago-Flórez, F., Danies, G., Restrepo, S., & Hernández, C. (2021). Fostering 21st Century Competences through Computational Thinking and Active Learning: A Mixed Method Study. International Journal of Instruction, 14(3), 737-754. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14343a.

[13]Caballero-Gonzalez, Y. A., Muñoz-Repiso, A. G. V., & García-Holgado, A. (2019, October). Learning computational thinking and social skills development in young children through problem solving with educational robotics. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference on technological ecosystems for enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 19-23). https://doi.org/10.1145/3362789.3362874.

[14]Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The Use of Triangulation in Qualitative Research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545–547. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.onf.545-547.

[15]Chaldi, D., & Mantzanidou, G. (2021). Educational robotics and STEAM in early childhood education. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 1(2), 72-81. https://doi.org/10.25082/AMLER.2021.02.003.

[16]Chevalier, M., Giang, C., Piatti, A., & Mondada, F. (2020). Fostering computational thinking through educational robotics: A model for creative computational problem solving. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00238-z.

[17]Cogut, G., Webster, N. J., Marans, R. W., & Callewaert, J. (2019). Links between sustainability-related awareness and behavior: The moderating role of engagement. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20(7), 1240-1257. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-09-2018-0161.

[18]Cronin, P., Ryan, F., & Coughlan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British journal of nursing, 17(1), 38-43. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2008.17.1.28059.

[19]Cruz, T. L., Pinto, P. I. M., & Ferreira, A. H. J. (2021). Environmental education as a tool to improve sustainability and promote global health: Lessons from the COVID-19 to avoid other pandemics. In COVID-19: Paving the Way for a More Sustainable World (pp. 331-347). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69284-1_17.

[20]Denis, J., & Pontille, D. (2015). Material ordering and the care of things. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40(3), 338-367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243914553129.

[21]Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2014). An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking skills and Creativity, 12, 43-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.12.004.

[22]Eteokleous, N. (2019). Robotics and programming integration as cognitive-learning tools. In Advanced methodologies and technologies in artificial intelligence, computer simulation, and human-computer interaction (pp. 1085-1099). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2255-3.ch594.

[23]European Commission. Early childhood education and care. Early childhood education and care initiatives | European Education Area (europa.eu)

[24]Foti, P. E. (2021). Exploring kindergarten teachers’ views on STEAM education and educational robotics: Dilemmas, possibilities, limitations. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 1(2), 82-95. https://doi.org/10.25082/AMLER.2021.02.004

[25]García-Valcárcel-Muñoz-Repiso, A., & Caballero-González, Y.-A. (2019). Robotics to develop computational thinking in early Childhood Education. Comunicar, 27(59), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.3916/c59-2019-06.

[26]Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56(3), 357-367. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022378804087.

[27]Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health information & libraries journal, 26(2), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

[28]Gusenbauer, M. (2019). Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases. Scientometrics, 118(1), 177-214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2958-5.

[29]Ham, M., Mrčela, D., & Horvat, M. (2016). Insights for measuring environmental awareness. Ekonomski vjesnik: Review of Contemporary Entrepreneurship, Business, and Economic Issues, 29(1), 159-176.

[30]Helvaci, S. C., & Helvaci, I. (2019). An Interdisciplinary Environmental Education Approach: Determining the Effects of E-STEM Activity on Environmental Awareness. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(2), 337-346. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.070205.

[31]Hsu, T. C., Chang, S. C., & Hung, Y. T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004.

[32]Kale, U., Akcaoglu, M., Cullen, T., Goh, D., Devine, L., Calvert, N., & Grise, K. (2018). Computational what? Relating computational thinking to teaching. TechTrends, 62, 574-584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0290-9.

[33]Kanaki, K., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2022a). Assessing algorithmic thinking skills in relation to age in early childhood STEM education. Education Sciences, 12(6), 380. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12060380.

[34]Kanaki, K., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2022b). Assessing Algorithmic Thinking Skills in Relation to Gender in Early Childhood. Educational Process: International Journal, 11(2), 44-59. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2022.112.3.

[35]Kanaki, K., Kalogiannakis, M., Poulakis, E., & Politis, P. (2022a). Employing Mobile Technologies to Investigate the Association Between Abstraction Skills and Performance in Environmental Studies in Early Primary School. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 16(6). https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i06.28391.

[36]Kanaki, K., Kalogiannakis, M., Poulakis, E., & Politis, P. (2022b). Investigating the Association between Algorithmic Thinking and Performance in Environmental Study. Sustainability, 14(17), 10672. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710672.

[37]Kalogiannakis, M., & Kanaki, K. (2022). Introducing computational thinking unplugged in early childhood education within the context of physical and natural science courses: A pilot study in Greece. In Research Anthology on Computational Thinking, Programming, and Robotics in the Classroom (pp. 197-222). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-2411-7.ch010.

[38]Khanlari, A. (2013, December). Effects of educational robots on learning STEM and on students' attitude toward STEM. In 2013 IEEE 5th conference on engineering education (ICEED) (pp. 62-66). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/iceed.2013.6908304.

[39]Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele, UK, Keele University, 33(2004), 1-26.

[40]Kubilinskienė, S., Žilinskienė, I., Dagienė, V., & Sinkevičius, V. (2017). Applying robotics in school education: A systematic review. Baltic journal of modern computing, 5(1), 50-69.

[41]Laurance, W. F. (2019). The anthropocene. Current Biology, 29(19), R953-R954.

[42]Lee, I., Grover, S., Martin, F., Pillai, S., & Malyn-Smith, J. (2020). Computational thinking from a disciplinary perspective: Integrating computational thinking in K-12 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09803-w.

[43]Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2020). On computational thinking and STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 3, 147-166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00044-w.

[44]Lönngren, J., & Van Poeck, K. (2021). Wicked problems: A mapping review of the literature. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(6), 481-502. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1859415.

[45]López-Belmonte, J., Segura-Robles, A., Moreno-Guerrero, A. J., & Parra-González, M. E. (2021). Robotics in education: a scientific mapping of the literature in Web of Science. Electronics, 10(3), 291. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10030291.

[46]Lytle, N., Cateté, V., Boulden, D., Dong, Y., Houchins, J., Milliken, A., ... & Barnes, T. (2019, July). Use, modify, create: Comparing computational thinking lesson progressions for stem classes. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 395-401). https://doi.org/10.1145/3304221.3319786.

[47]Marans, R.W., Callewaert, J. and Shriberg, M. (2015), “Enhancing and monitoring sustainability culture at the university of MI”, in Filho, W.L., Muthu, N., Edwin, G. and Sima, M., (Eds), Implementing Campus Greening Initiatives: Approaches, Methods and Perspectives, Springer International Publishing, New York, NY, pp. 165-179. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08837-2_12.

[48]McCoy, D. C., Yoshikawa, H., Ziol-Guest, K. M., Duncan, G. J., Schindler, H. S., Magnuson, K., ... & Shonkoff, J. P. (2017). Impacts of early childhood education on medium-and long-term educational outcomes. Educational Researcher, 46(8), 474-487. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x17737739.

[49]Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group*, T. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine, 151(4), 264-269.

[50]Next Generation Science Standards (2023). Retrieved from https://www.nextgenscience.org/.

[51]Papadakis, S. (2020). Robots and Robotics Kits for Early Childhood and First School Age. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 14(18), pp. 34–56. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v14i18.16631

[52]Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2017). Matters of care: speculative ethics in more than human worlds. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

[53]Boluda, I. M., Patitsas, E., & McMahan, P. (2021). What do Computer Scientists Know About Conflict Minerals?. In Workshop on Computing within Limits. https://doi.org/10.21428/bf6fb269.64063bd7.

[54]Phamduy, P., Milne, C., Leou, M., & Porfiri, M. (2015). Interactive robotic fish: A tool for informal science learning and environmental awareness. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 22(4), 90-95. https://doi.org/10.1109/mra.2015.2443991.

[55]PRISMA. TRANSPARENT REPORTING of SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS and META-ANALYSES (2023) http://www.prisma-statement.org/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

[56]Quinn, C. E., & Cohen, M. (2021). Using COVID-19 to Teach Sustainability Futures Thinking. In COVID-19: Paving the Way for a More Sustainable World (pp. 411-426). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69284-1_21.

[57]Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J. C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Computers in human behavior, 72, 678-691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.047.

[58]Severo, E. A., De Guimarães, J. C. F., & Dellarmelin, M. L. (2021). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on environmental awareness, sustainable consumption and social responsibility: Evidence from generations in Brazil and Portugal. Journal of cleaner production, 286, 124947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124947.

[59]Silva, E. F., Dembogurski, B. J., & Semaan, G. S. (2021). A systematic review of computational thinking in early ages. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.10275.

[60]Silvis, D., Clarke-Midura, J., Shumway, J. F., Lee, V. R., & Mullen, S. (2022). Children caring for robots: Expanding computational thinking frameworks to include a technological ethic of care. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 33, 100491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100491.

[61]Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes from an 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.

[62]Smyrnova-Trybulska, E., Morze, N., Kommers, P., Zuziak, W., & Gladun, M. (2016). Educational Robots in Primary School Teachers' and Students' Opinion about STEM Education for Young Learners. In International Conferences ITS, ICEduTech and STE 2016 (pp. 197-204). LADIS Press.

[63]Tan-a-ram, S., Leelayuttho, A., Kittipiyakul, S., Pornsukjantra, W., Sereevoravitgul, T., Intarapanich, A., ... & Treeumnuk, D. (2022). KidBright: An Open-Source Embedded Programming Platform with a Dedicated Software Framework in Support of Ecosystems for Learning to Code. Sustainability, 14(21), 14528. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114528.

[64]Teixeira, G., Bremm, L., & dos Santos Roque, A. (2018, November). Educational robotics insertion in high schools to promote environmental awareness about E-Waste. In 2018 Latin American Robotic Symposium, 2018 Brazilian Symposium on Robotics (SBR) and 2018 Workshop on Robotics in Education (WRE) (pp. 591-597). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/lars/sbr/wre.2018.00107.

[65]The Council of the European Union. Council Recommendation of 22 May 2019 on High-Quality Early Childhood Education and Care Systems (2019/C 189/02). Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019H0605(01)&rid=4

[66]Triangulation, D. S. (2014, September). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. In Oncol Nurs Forum (Vol. 41, No. 5, pp. 545-7).

[67]Tzagkaraki, E., Papadakis, S., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2021, February). Exploring the Use of Educational Robotics in primary school and its possible place in the curricula. In Educational Robotics International Conference (pp. 216-229). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77022-8_19.

[68]Vinsel, L., & Russell, A. L. (2020). The innovation delusion: How our obsession with the new has disrupted the work that matters most. Currency. https://doi.org/10.17723/0360-9081-84.2.545.

[69]Wang, C., Shen, J., & Chao, J. (2022). Integrating computational thinking in STEM education: A literature review. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(8), 1949-1972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10227-5.

[70]Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215.

[71]Wei, X., Lin, L., Meng, N., Tan, W., & Kong, S. C. (2021). The effectiveness of partial pair programming on elementary school students’ computational thinking skills and self-efficacy. Computers & education, 160, 104023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104023.

[72]Witt, S. D., & Kimple, K. P. (2008). ‘How does your garden grow?’ Teaching preschool children about the environment. Early Child Development and Care, 178(1), 41-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430600601156.

[73]Xu, W., Geng, F., & Wang, L. (2022). Relations of computational thinking to reasoning ability and creative thinking in young children: Mediating role of arithmetic fluency. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 44, 101041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101041.

[74]Yang, K., Liu, X., & Chen, G. (2020). The influence of robots on students‟ computational thinking: A literature review. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 10(8), 627-631. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2020.10.8.1435.

[75]Yang, D., Baek, Y., Ching, Y.-H., Swanson, S., Chittoori, B., & Wang, S. (2021). Infusing Computational Thinking in an Integrated STEM Curriculum: User Reactions and Lessons Learned. European Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 04. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/9560 .

Download PDF

Download XML

How to Cite

Kanaki, K., & Kalogiannakis, M. . (2023). Fostering computational thinking and environmental awareness via robotics in early childhood education: A scoping review. Research on Preschool and Primary Education, 1(2), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.55976/rppe.12023217739-50

Download Citation

Issue

Special Issue: The continuity of preschool and primary school setting and student's transition from one grade to another

Section

Review

License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright licenses detail the rights for publication, distribution, and use of research. Open Access articles published by Luminescience do not require transfer of copyright, as the copyright remains with the author. In opting for open access, the author(s) should agree to publish the article under the CC BY license (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License). The CC BY license allows for maximum dissemination and re-use of open access materials and is preferred by many research funding bodies. Under this license, users are free to share (copy, distribute and transmit) and remix (adapt) the contribution, including for commercial purposes, providing they attribute the contribution in the manner specified by the author or licensor.

Home /

Archives /

Special Issue: The continuity of preschool and primary school setting and student's transition from one grade to another /

Review

Fostering computational thinking and environmental awareness via robotics in early childhood education: A scoping review

Abstract

How to Cite

Issue

Section

License

Follow Luminescience

Further Information

Home / Archives / Special Issue: The continuity of preschool and primary school setting and student's transition from one grade to another / Review

Fostering computational thinking and environmental awareness via robotics in early childhood education: A scoping review

Abstract

How to Cite

Issue

Section

License

Follow Luminescience

Further Information

Home /

Archives /

Special Issue: The continuity of preschool and primary school setting and student's transition from one grade to another /

Review