本研究指在探討結構式、引導式和開放式三種探究教學方法對幼兒編程學習的影響，以及是否實施編程課程對幼兒計算思維遷移能力的影響。本研究採用準實驗研究，對6個班級的5-6歲的大班幼兒進行8次編程課程的實驗干預，6個班級兩兩組合為三個實驗組，分別實施開放式探究、引導式探究和結構式探究教學。另外還有兩個班級為控制組，不進行任何編程課程干預。研究結果發現，5-6歲的幼兒對編程學習存在很大興趣，並且可以出色地掌握基本編程概念。相比較而言，開放探究組幼兒的編程學習興趣顯著高於引導和結構探究組；引導探究組編程成就顯著高於開放和結構組；開放組和引導組幼兒的PTD能力顯著優於結構組；實驗組幼兒在計算思維遷移能力上顯著優於控制組；而三個實驗組在機器人零件任務、程序塊測試、計算思維及計算思維遷移能力上無顯著差異。

This study aims to explore the influence of structured, guided and open inquiry-based teaching methods on children's programming learning, as well as the influence of the implementation of programming courses on children's computational thinking transfer ability. In this study, quasi- experimental study was adopted to conduct experimental intervention of programming courses for 8 times for large class children aged 5-6 years in 6 classes, and the other two classes were control groups without any curriculum intervention. The results showed that children aged 5-6 showed great interest in programming learning and could master basic programming concepts excellently. In comparison, the interest of children in programming learning in the open inquiry group was significantly higher than that in the guided and structured inquiry group. The programming achievement of guided inquiry group was significantly higher than that of open and structured group. The PTD ability of children in the open group and the guided group was significantly better than that in the structured group. The children in the experimental group were significantly better than the control group in the ability of computational thinking transfer. However, the three experimental groups showed no significant differences in Robot Parts, programming blocks, computational thinking and computational thinking transfer ability.

中國國務院（2017）。新一代人工智能發展規劃。
世界教育創新峰會（2016）。面向未來的教育：培養 21 世紀核心素養的全球經驗。取自http://www.wiseqatar.org/sites/default/files/wise_research21st_century_skills_chinese. Pdf
白佩宜、許瑛玿（2011）。探討不同探究式教學法對高一生科學探究能力與學習環境觀感之影響。課程與教學季刊，14（3），123-156。
吳樎椒（2014）。探究教學與幼兒數概念學習。教育研究月刊，244，82-100。
張清濱（2018）。教學理論與方法。臺北市：心理。
教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要（總綱）。 取自https://www.naer.edu.tw/files/15-1000-7944,c639-1.php?Lang=zh-tw。
教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要技術型高級中等學校：科技領域。取自https://www.naer.edu.tw/files/15-1000-14113,c639-1.php?Lang=zh-tw。
教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中學暨普通型高級中等學校：科技領域。取自https://www.naer.edu.tw/files/15-1000-14113,c639-1.php?Lang=zh-tw。
楊秀停、王國華（2007）。實施引導式探究教學對於國小學童學習成效之影響。科學教育學刊，15（4），439-459。
顧炳宏、陳瓊森、溫媺純（2011）。從學生的表現與觀點探討引導發現式 教學作為發展探究教學之折衷方案角色的成效：以密度概念為例。科學教育學刊，19（3），257-282。
Akben, N. (2015). Improving Science Process Skills in Science and Technology Course Activities Using the Inquiry Method. Education and Science, 40(179), 111-132.
Alimisis, D. (2012). Robotics in Education & Education in Robotics: Shifting Focus from Technology to Pedagogy. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Robotics in Education (pp. 7-14), Prague: Czech Republic.
American Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Health Association, National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early Education (2011). Caring for our children: National health and safety performance standards; Guidelines for early care and education programs (3rd ed). Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.
Angeli, C., Voogt, J., Fluck, A. Webb, M., Cox, M., Malyn-Smith, J., & Zagami, J. (2016). A K-6 computational thinking curriculum framework: Implications for teacher knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 19 (3), 47-57.
Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2009). Identifying meta-clusters of students’ interest in science and their change with age. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 999-1022.
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (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.
Basu, S., Kinnebrew, J. S., & Biswas, G. (2014). Assessing student performance in a computational-thinking based science learning environment. In S. Trausan-Matu, K. E. Boyer, M. Crosby, & K. Panourgia (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems, 8474, 476-481.
Beecher, K. (2017). Computational thinking: A beginner’s guide to problem-solving and programming. Swindon. UK: BCS Learning & Development.
Bell, T., Witten, I. H., & Fellows, M. (2016). CS unplugged. An enrichment and extension programme for primary-aged students. New Zealand: University of Canterbury. CS Education Research Group Version 3.2.2.
Bell, T., Witten, I. H., & Fellows, M. R. (1998). Computer science unplugged: Off-line activities and games for all ages. Retrieved from https://classic.csunplugged.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/unplugged-book-v1.pdf
Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers and Education, 58, 978-988.
Bers, M. U. (2006). The role of new technologies to foster positive youth development. Applied Developmental Science, 10(4), 200-219.
Bers, M. U. (2008). Blocks, robots and computers: learning about technology in early childhood. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Bers, M. U. (2010a). The TangibleK Robotics Program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 12(2). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ910910.pdf
Bers, M. U. (2010b). Beyond computer literacy: Supporting youth’s positive development through technology. New Directions for Youth Development, 128, 13-23.
Bers, M. U. (2012). Designing digital experiences for positive youth development: From playpen to playground. Oxford University Press.
Bers, M. U. (2017). The Seymour test: Powerful ideas in early childhood education. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 14, 10-14.
Bers, M. U. (2018a). Coding and computational thinking in early childhood: The impact of ScratchJr in Europe. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(3) , 1-13.
Bers, M. U. (2018b). Coding, Playgrounds and Literacy in Early Childhood Education: The Development of KIBO Robotics and ScratchJr. IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2100.
Bers, M. U. (2018c). Coding as a Playground: Programming and Computational Thinking in the Early Childhood Classroom. New York, NY: Routledge press.
Bers, M. U., & Ettinger, A. B. (2012). Programming robots in kindergarten to express identity: An ethnographic analysis. In B. Barker, G. Nugent, N. Grandgenett, & V. Adamchuk (Eds.), Robots in K-12 Education: A New Technology for Learning (pp. 168-184). doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-0182-6.ch008
Bers, M. U., & Horn, M. S. (2009). Tangible programming in early childhood: Revisiting developmental assumptions through new technologies. In I. R. Berson, & M. J. Berson (Eds.), High-tech tots: Childhood in a digital world Greenwich (pp. 1-32). CT: Information Age Publishing.
Bers, M. U., Flannery, L.P., Kazakoff, E.R., & Sullivan, A. (2014) Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145-157.
Bers, M. U., Matas, J., & Libman, N. (2013). Livnot u’lehibanot, to build and to be built: Making robots in kindergarten to explore jewish identity. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education: Studies of Migration, Integration, Equity, and Cultural Survival, 7(3), 164-179.
Bers, M. U., Seddighin, S., & Sullivan, A. (2013). Ready for robotics: Bringing together the T and E of STEM in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 21(3), 355-377.
Blikstein, P. (2015). Computationally enhanced toolkits for children: Historical review and a framework for future design. Foundations and Trends® in Human-Computer Interaction, 9(1), 1-68.
Bluck, E., Carter, A., & Consulting, G. S. (2016). The e-Skills Manifesto. Retrieved from http://www.eun.org/zh_TW/resources/detail?publicationID=902
Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., & Earp, J. (2018). The Nordic approach to introducing Computational Thinking and programming in compulsory education. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.17471/54007
Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Dettori, G., Ferrari, A., Engelhardt, K., Kampylis, P. & Punie, Y. (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education. European Commission, JRC Science for Policy Report. Retrieved from http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC104188/jrc104188_computhinkreport.pdf
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Annual American Educational Research Association meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Bruder, R., & Prescott, A. (2013). Research evidence on the benefits of IBL. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45, 811-822.
Buchanan, S., Harlan, M. A., Bruce, C., & Edwards, S. (2016). Inquiry based learning models, information literacy, and student engagement: A literature review. School Libraries Worldwide, 22(2), 23-39.
Bunterm, T., Lee, K., Ng Lan Kong, J., Srikoon, S., Vangpoomyai, P., Rattanavongsa, J., & Rachahoon, G. (2014). Do different levels of inquiry lead to different learning outcomes? A com- parison between guided and structured inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 36 (12), 1937-1959.
Cairns, D., & Areepattamannil, S. (2017). Exploring the relations of inquiry-based teaching to science achievement and dispositions in 54 countries. Research in Science Education, 1-23.
Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, Alliance for Childhood, & Teachers Resisting Unhealthy Children’s Entertainment (2012). Facing the screen dilemma: Young children, technology and early education. Boston, MA: Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood; New York, NY: Alliance for Childhood.
Cejka, E., Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2006). Kindergarten robotics: Using robotics to motivate math, science, and engineering literacy in elementary school. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(4), 711-722.
Chalmers, C. (2018). Robotics and computational thinking in primary school. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 17, 93-100.
Chase, C., & Gibson, H. L. (2002). Longitudinal impact of inquiry-based science program on middle school students’ attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86(5), 693-705.
Chatterjee, S., Williamson, V. M., McCann, K., & Peck, M. L. (2009). Surveying Students' Attitudes and Perceptions toward Guided-Inquiry and Open-Inquiry Laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 86(12), 1427-1432.
Clements, D. H. (1986). Effects of Logo and CAI environments on cognition and creativity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 309-318.
Clements, D. H. (1999a). Young children and technology. In Dialogue on early childhood science, mathematics, and technology education. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Clements, D. H. (1999b). The future of educational computing research: The case of computer programming. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1, 147-179.
Clements, D. H., & Gullo, F. (1984). Effects of computer programming on young children's cognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1051-1058.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2002). The role of technology in early childhood learning. Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6), 340¬-343.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2003). Strip mining for gold: Research and policy in educational technology: a response to 「fool’s gold」. Assoc Adv Comput Educ J, 11(1), 7-69.
Clements, D. H., Battista, M. T., & Sarama, J. (2001). Logo and geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Monograph Series, 10.
Cordes, C., & Miller, E. (2000). Fool’s gold: A critical look at computers in childhood. Retrieved from http://waste.informatik.huberlin.de/diplom/DieGelbeKurbel/pdf/foolsgold.pdf
Cuieford, J. P. (1965). Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Educatipn, 4th (Ed.), N. Y. McGraw-Hill.
Cunha, F., & Heckman, J. (2007). The technology of skill formation. American Economic Review, 97(2), 31-47.
Department for Education (2014). The national curriculum in England: Key stages 1 and 2 framework document. Reference DFE-00178-2013. London: Department for Education.
Elkin, M., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2014). Implementing a robotics curriculum in an early childhood Montessori classroom. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 13, 153-169.
Elkin, M., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Programming with the KIBO Robotics Kit in Preschool Classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 33(3), 169-186.
Elkin, M., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2018). Books, Butterflies, and ‘Bots: Integrating Engineering and Robotics into Early Childhood Curricula. Early Engineering Learning. In L. English and T. Moore (eds.), Early Engineering Learning (pp. 225-248). Singapore: Springer.
European Schoolnet. (2015). Computing our Future: Computer Programming and Coding Priorities, School Curricula, and Initiatives across Europe. Retrieved from http://www.eun.org/resources/detail?publicationID=661
Fang, S. C., Hsu, Y. S., Chang, H.Y., Chang, W. H., Wu, H. K., & Chen, C. M. (2016). Investigating the effects of structured and guided inquiry on students’ development of conceptual knowledge and inquiry abilities: a case study in Taiwan, International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 1945-1971.
Fayer, S., Lacey, A., & Watson, A. (2017). STEM occupations: Past, present, and future. Spotlight on Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2017/science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem-occupations-past-present-and-future/pdf/science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem-occupations-past-present-and-future.pdf
Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5-6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education, 63, 87-97.
Flannery, L. P., Kazakoff, E. R., Bontá, P., Silverman, B., Bers, M. U., & Resnick, M. (2013). Designing ScratchJr: Support for early childhood learning through computer programming. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1-10. DOI: 10.1145/2485760.2485785
Flannery, L.P., & Bers, M. U. (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.
Frei, P., Su, V., Mikhak, B., & Ishii, H. (2000). curlybot: Designing a new class of computational toys. In T. Turner & G. Szwillus (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 129-136). New York: ACM Press.
García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Mendes, A. J. (2018). Exploring the computational thinking effects in pre-university education. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 407-411.
Geist. E. (2016). Robots, programming and coding, Oh my! Childhood Education, 92(4), 298-304. DOI: 10.1080/00094056.2016.1208008.
Gillespie, C. W., & Beisser, S. (2011). Developmentally appropriate LOGO computer programming with young children. Information Technology in Childhood Education, 2001, 229-245.
Gomes, T., Falcão, T., & Tedesco, P. (2018). Exploring an approach based on digital games for teaching programming concepts to young children. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 16, 77-84.
Gouws, L. A., Bradshaw, K., & Wentworth, P. (2013). Computational thinking in educational activities: An evaluation of the educational game light-bot. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education, ITiCSE '13 (pp. 10-15). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Grasha, A. F., & Riechmann-Hruska, S. (1996). Teaching style survey. Retrieved from http://longleaf.net/ teachingstyle.html.
Heikkilä, M., & Mannila, L. (2018). Debugging in Programming as a multimodal practice in early childhood education settings. Multimodal Technologies Interact, 2(3), 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti2030042
Hemmendinger, D. (2010). A plea for modesty. ACM Inroads 1(2). 4-7.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The Four-Phase Model of Interest Development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.
Horn, M. S., & Jacob, R. J. K. (2007). Designing tangible programming languages for classroom use. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction (pp. 159-162), New York.
Horn, M. S., Crouser, R. J., & Bers, M. U. (2011). Tangible interaction and learning: The case for a hybrid approach. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(4), 379-389.
Horn, M. S., Solovey, E. T., Crouser, R. J., & Jacob, R. J. K. (2009). Comparing the use of tangible and graphical programming interfaces for informal science education. In Proceedings CHI 2009 (pp. 975-984). Boston: ACM Press.
Horn, R. V. (2005). Marvelous toys and educational robots. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(5), 408-409.
Hull, D. M. (2018). Teacher-Led Math Inquiry: A Cluster Randomized Trial in Belize. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(3), 336-358.
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) & the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA). (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12. Retrieved from https://id.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/computational-thinking-operational-definition-flyer.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Jiang, F., & McComas, W. F. (2015). The Effects of Inquiry Teaching on Student Science Achievement and Attitudes: Evidence from Propensity Score Analysis of PISA Data. International Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 554-576.
Jun, S., Han, S., Kim, H., & Lee, W. (2014). Assessing the computational literacy of elementary students on a national level in Korea. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26(4), 319-332.
Jung, S., & Won, E. (2018). Systematic review of research trends in robotics education for young children. Sustainability, 10(4), 905.
Jung, Y. Ju., Zimmerman H. T., & Land, S. M. (2018). Emerging and developing situational interest during children’s tablet‐mediated biology learning activities at a nature center. Science Education, 103, 900-922.
Kang, J., & Keinonen, T. (2017). The effect of student-centered approaches on students’ interest and achievement in science: Relevant topic-based, open and guided inquiry-based, and discussion-based approaches. Research in Science Education, 48(4), 865-885.
Karadeniz, S., Samur, Y., & Ozden, M.Y. (2014). Playing with algorithms to learn programming: A case study on 5 years old children. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Technology and Applications, Sydney, Australia.
Kazakoff, E., & Bers, M. U. (2012). Programming in a robotics context in the kindergarten classroom: The impact on sequencing skills. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 21(4), 371-391.
Kazakoff, E., & Bers, M. U. (2014). Put your robot in, Put your robot out: Sequencing through programming robots in early childhood. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(4).
Kazakoff, E., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (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.
Klahr, D., & Carver, S. (1988). Cognitive objectives in a LOGO debugging curriculum: instruction, learning, and transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 362-404.
Koh, K. H., Basawapatna, A., Bennett, V. & Reppening, A. (2010). Towards the automatic recognition of computational thinking for adaptive visual language learning. In 2010 IEEE symposium on visual languages and human centric computing (pp. 59-66). New York, NY: IEEE.
Kremer, A., & Schlu ̈ter, K. (2006). Analyse von Gruppensituationen beim forschend-entdeckenden Lernen. Ergebnisse einer ersten Studie. Erkenntnisweg Biologiedidaktik, 5, 145-156.
Kwon, D. Y., Kim, H. S., Shim, J. K., & Lee, W. G. (2012). Algorithmic Bricks: A tangible robot programming tool for elementary school students. IEEE Transactions on Education, 55(4), 474-479.
Lee, K., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). Collaboration by design: Using robotics to foster social interaction in Kindergarten. Computers in the Schools, 30(3), 271-281.
Lerner, R. M., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., & Lerner, J. V. (2005). Positive youth development: A view of the issues. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 10-16.
Liao, Y-K., & Bright, G. (1991). Effects of computer-assisted instruction and computer programming on cognitive outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7, 251-268.
Lieto, M. C. D., Inguaggiato, E., Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Cioni, G., Dell’Omo, M., Laschi, C., Pecini, C., Santerini, G., Sgandurra, G., & Dario, Paolo. (2017). Educational robotics intervention on executive functions in preschool children: A pilot study. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 16-23.
Lindberg, R. S. N., & Laine, T. H. (2018). Formative evaluation of an adaptive game for engaging learners of programming concepts in K-12. International Journal of Serious Games, 5(2), 3-26.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 19(2), 119-137.
Lupetti, M. L., & Yao, Y., Mi, H., & Germak, C. (2017). Design for children’s playful learning with robots. Future Internet, 9(3), 52.
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51-61.
Manches, A., & Plowman, L. (2017). Computing education in children’s early years: A call for debate. British Jourrnal of Educational Technology, 48(1), 191-201.
McConney, A., Oliver, M. C., Woods-McConney, A., Schibeci, R., & Maor, D. (2014). Inquiry, engagement, and literacy in science: a retrospective, cross-national analysis using PISA 2006. Science Education, 98(6), 963-980.
McNerney, T. S. (2004). From turtles to tangible programming bricks: explorations in physical language design. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8(5), 326-337.
Mishra, P. & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Moreno-Leon, J., & Robles, G. (2015). Dr. Scratch: A web tool to automatically evaluate scratch projects. In Proceedings of the workshop in primary and secondary computing education, WiPSCE '15 (London, United Kingdom, November 9-11, 2015) (pp. 132-133). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Morgado, L., Cruz, M., & Kahn, K. (2010). Preschool cookbook of computer programming topics. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 309-326.
NAEYC & Fred Rogers Center. (2012). Technology and interactive media as tools in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Retrieved from https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globallyshared/downloads/PDFs/resources/topics/PS_technology_WEB.pdf
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf
National Research Council, NRC. (2010). Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council, NRC. (2011). Report of a workshop on the pedagogical aspects of computational thinking. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council, NRC. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Neitzel, Carin., Alexander, J. M., & Johnson, K. E. (2016). Young Children’s Interest-Oriented Activity and Later Academic Self-Regulation Strategies in Kindergarten, Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 30(4), 474-493.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005). Definition and selection of key competencies: Executive summary. Retrieved from http://deseco.ch/bfs/deseco/en/index/02.parsys.43469.downloadList.2296.Download File.tmp/2005.dskcexecutivesummary.en.pdf
Palmér, H. (2017). Programming in preschool: with a focus on learning mathematics. International Research in Early Childhood Education, 8(1), 75-87.
Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Zaranis, N. (2016). Developing fundamental programming concepts and computational thinking with ScratchJr in preschool education: A case study. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 10(3), 187-202.
Papavlasopoulou, S., Sharma, K., & Giannakos, M. N. (2018). How do you feel about learning to code: Investigating the effect of children’s attitudes towards coding using eye-tracking. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 17, 50-60.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Papert, S. (2000). What’s the big idea: Towards a pedagogy of idea power. IBM Systems Journal, 39(3-4), 720-729.
Partnership for 21st century learning. (2007). Framework for 21st learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework
Pea, R. D., & Kurland, D. M. (1984). On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming. New Ideas in Psychology, 2(2), 137-168.
Perlman, R. (1976). Using computer technology to provide a creative learning environment for preschool children. Logo Memo 24, Cambridge, MA: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Publications 360.
Pöntinen, S., Kärkkäinen, S., Pihlainen, K., & Räty-Záborszky, S. (2019). Pupil-Generated Questions in a Collaborative Open Inquiry. Education Sciences, 9(156).
Portelance, D. J. & Bers, M.U. (2015). Code and tell: assessing young children’s learning of computational thinking using peer video interviews with ScratchJr. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ’15), ACM, Boston, MA, USA.
Portelance, D. J., Strawhacker, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Constructing the ScratchJr programming language in the early childhood classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26, 489-504.
Pugnali, A., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2017) The impact of user interface on young children’s computational thinking. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 16, 171-193.
Read, J. C. (2008). Validating the Fun Toolkit: An instrument for measuring children’s opinions of technology. Cogn Tech Work, 10, 119-128.
Read, J. C., & MacFarlane, S. (2006). Using the Fun Toolkit and other survey methods to gather opinions in child computer interaction. In Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Interaction design and children. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262406050_Using_the_fun_toolkit_and_other_survey_methods_to_gather_opinions_in_Child_Computer_Interaction
Read, J. C., & Markopoulos, P. (2013). Child-computer interaction. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 1, 2-6.
Read, J. C., MacFarlane, S., & Casey, C. (2002). Endurability, engagement and expectations: Measuring children’s fun. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228870976_Endurability_Engagement_and_Expectations_Measuring_Childrenaposs_Fun
Relkin, E. (2018). Assessing young children’s computational thinking abilities (Unpublished master thesis). Tufts University, Boston.
Resnick, M., & Silverman, B. (2005). Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids. In Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 117-122). New York: ACM. Retrieved from http://waste.informatik.huberlin.de/diplom/DieGelbeKurbel/pdf/foolsgold.pdf
Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 137-172.
Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM Education, 5(3-4), 17-28.
Rose, S. P., Habgood, J. M. P., & Jay, T. (2017). An exploration of the role of visual programming tools in the development of young children’s computational thinking. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 15(4), 297-309.
Rushkoff, D. (2010). Program or be programmed: Ten commands for a digital age. New York, NY: O/R Books.
Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2009). The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry setting: A comparison to guided inquiry setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1137-1160.
Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2012). Which type of inquiry project do high school biology students prefer: Open or guided? Research in Science Education, 42(5), 831-848.
Sapounidis, T., & Demetriadis, S. N. (2013). Tangible versus graphical user interfaces for robot programming: Exploring cross-age children’s preferences. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17, 1775-1786.
Sapounidis, T., Demetriadis, S. N., & Stamelos, I. (2014). Evaluating children performance with graphical and tangible robot programming tools. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 19, 225-237.
Selby, C. C. (2013) Computational thinking: The developing definition. ITiCSE Conference 2013, University of Kent, Canterbury: England. Retrieved from http://people.cs.vt.edu/~kafura/CS6604/Papers/CT-Developing-Definition.pdf
Shrager, J., & Klahr, D. (1986). Instructionless learning about a complex device: The paradigm and observations. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 25(2), 153-189.
Smith, A. (2007). Using magnets in physical blocks that behave as programming objects. In Proceedings First International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, TEI’07 (pp. 147-150). Baton Rouge, LA: ACM Press.
Strawhacker, A. L., & Bers, M. U. (2015). 「I want my robot to look for food」: Comparing children's programming comprehension using tangible, graphical, and hybrid user interfaces. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(3), 293-319.
Strawhacker, A. L., Lee, M.S.C., & Bers, M. U. (2018). Teaching tools, teacher’s rules: Exploring the impact of teaching styles on young children’s programming knowledge in ScratchJr. The International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 347-376.
Strawhacker, A., & Bers, M. U. (2018). What they learn when they learn coding: Investigating cognitive development and computer programming in young children. Educational Technology Research and Development. Online First. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9622-x
Strawhacker, A., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). TUI, GUI, HUI: Is a bimodal interface truly worth the sum of its parts? In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 309-312.
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). Gender differences in kindergarteners’ robotics and programming achievement. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23 (3), 691-702.
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016a). 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.
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016b). Girls, boys, and bots: Gender differences in young children’s performance on robotics and programming tasks. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 15, 145- 165.
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2018a). The impact of teacher gender on girls’ performance on programming tasks in early elementary school. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 17, 153-162.
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2018b). Investigating the use of robotics to increase girls’ interest in engineering during early elementary school. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Online First. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9483-y
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2018c). Dancing robots: Integrating art, music, and robotics in Singapore’s early childhood centers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 325-346.
Sullivan, A., Bers, M. U., & Mihm, C. (2017). Imagining, playing, & coding with KIBO: Using KIBO robotics to foster computational thinking in young children. In the proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Thinking Education, 2017. Wanchai, Hong Kong.
Sullivan, A., Elkin, M., & Bers, M. U. (2015). KIBO Robot Demo: Engaging young children in programming and engineering. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ’15). ACM, Boston, MA, USA.
Sullivan, A., Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The wheels on the bot go round and round: Robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 12, 203-219.
Sullivan, A., Strawhacker, A., & Bers, M. U. (2017). Dancing, drawing, and dramatic robots: Integrating robotics and the arts to teach foundational STEAM concepts to young children. In Khine, M.S. (Eds.) Robotics in STEM Education: Redesigning the Learning Experience. Springer Publishing.
Suryani, D. I. (2017). Implementation of open inquiry and guided inquiry learning models toward the junior high school students’ collaborative attitude. Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA, 3(1), 22-31.
Suzuki, H., & Kato, H. (1993). AlgoBlock: A tangible programming language, a tool for collaborative learning. In Proceedings of 4th European Logo Conference (pp. 297-303), Athens.
Suzuki, H., & Kato, H. (1995). Interaction-level support for collaborative learning: AlgoBlock an open programming language. In Proceedings Computer Support for Collaborative Learning CSCL’95 (pp. 349-355), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Swirski, H., Baram-Tsabari, A. & Yarden, A. (2018) Does interest have an expiration date? An analysis of students’ questions as resources for context-based learning. International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1136-1153.
Teig N., Scherer R., Nilsen, T. (2018). More isn’t always better: The curvilinear relationship between inquiry-based teaching and student achievement in science. Learning and Instruction, 56, 20-29.
Tran, Y. (2019). Computational Thinking Equity in Elementary Classrooms: What Third-Grade Students Know and Can Do. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(1), 3-31.
U.K. Department for Education. (2014). The national curriculum in England: framework document. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/21041/4/national_framework_with_draft_ks4_science.pdf
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). Computer and information technology occupations. Retrieved from www.bls.gov/ooh/computerandinformationtechnology/home.htm
U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf
Wang, D., Zhang, Y., & Chen, S. Y. (2013). E-Block: A tangible programming tool with graphical blocks. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 1-10. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/598547
Werner, L., Denner, J., Campe, S., & Kawamoto, D. C. (2012). The fairy performance assessment: Measuring computational thinking in middle school. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on computer science education, SIGCSE '12 (pp. 215-220). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
White House. (2016a). Computer science for all. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/01/30/computer-science-all
White House. (2016b). Fact sheet: Advancing active STEM education for our youngest learners. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/04/21/fact-sheet-advancing-active-stem-education-our-youngest-learners
Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–36.
Wing, J. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical transactions of the royal society of London A: mathematical, physical and engineering sciences, 366(1881), 3717-3725.
Wing, J. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking-what and why? The Link Magazine, Spring. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. Retrieved from https://www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebook-computational-thinking-what-and-why
Wing, J. (2014). Computational thinking benefits society. Retrieved from http://socialissues.cs.toronto.edu/index.html%3Fp=279.html
Witherspoon, E., Higashi, R., Schunn, C., Baehr, E., & Shoop, R. (2017). Developing computational thinking through a virtual robotics programming curriculum. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 18(1), 1-20.
Wolf, S. J., & Fraser, B. J. (2007). Learning environment, attitudes and achievement among middle-school science students using Inquiry-based laboratory activities. Research in Science Education 38(3), 321-341. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-007-9052-y
Wyeth, P. (2008). How young children learn to program with sensor, action, and logic blocks. International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(4), 517-550.
Wyeth, P., & Purchase, H. (2002). Designing technology for children: Moving from the computer into the physical world with Electronic Blocks. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1, 219-244.
Zhong, B., Wang, Q., Chen, J., & Li, Y. (2016). An exploration of three-dimensional integrated assessment for computational thinking. Journal of Educational Computing, 53(4) 562-590.
Zion, M., & Mendelovici, R. (2012). Moving from structured to open inquiry: Challenges and limits. Science Education International, 23(4), 383-399.
Zuckerman, O., & Gal-Oz, A. (2013). To TUI or not to TUI: Evaluating performance and preference in tangible vs. graphical user interfaces. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 71, 803-820.