View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Computational Transformations of Early Childhood Education: Pathways toward Child-Centred Computing in Two Educational Change Projects

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Computational Transformations of Early Childhood Education: Pathways toward Child-Centred Computing in Two Educational Change Projects
Language: English
Authors: Robin Samuelsson (ORCID 0000-0002-8110-6506)
Source: British Journal of Educational Technology. 2025 56(4):1573-1592.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Preschool Education
Descriptors: Computer Science Education, Play, Early Childhood Education, Technology Integration, Teaching Methods, Inclusion, Learning Processes, Programming, Preschool Education, Student Centered Learning
DOI: 10.1111/bjet.13536
ISSN: 0007-1013
1467-8535
Abstract: Programming is becoming a key subject in early education globally, with surging problems of how computer science can become a subject for children of all ages and backgrounds. Problems of implementing new technologies in the old curricula have long been noted, and lately, concern over computer science education goals is often too narrow and skills-based without concerns for the critical educational potential. This study follows the change process of two case preschool departments implementing programming with a floor robot across a seven-month design process. Mixed analytical techniques based on activity theory are used to examine the tensions, conflicts and development of pedagogical alternatives. The studies show the strenuous change processes involving local transformations toward a child-centred, inclusive early computer science education and development of projects centring making, children's exploration, tinkering and play as key parts of the learning process. It discusses how the considerable change processes enabled pedagogical solutions coherent with important concepts in computer programming and how computing education can build on child-centred pedagogies through local adaptations and age-appropriate designs.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1473805
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHpLQRYJnIydwYOdHSh4_vNAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDB7B5MKV615p5IzvWAIBEICBm6uY_iEJI5OkBs67aOV4Zll8hShCxSpD1lFxLS9ZdvJCQXuuDjLvbxIpzI9kMKR77r0k3yFos5nkweoO5gsTj0Kl2lydNO9W3rPrRFylnpahCD-oLDXTcenq3WZayBoI378bSc8l8XgV1YMt1Df8ZezdTzfiQvuL8u9njwn-BfCo9W9nExihZdNLl95YRQTx-oCMC40LYuAqtCf5
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0185939050;58i01jul.25;2025Jun17.02:14;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0185939050-1">Computational transformations of early childhood education: Pathways toward child‐centred computing in two educational change projects </title> <p>Programming is becoming a key subject in early education globally, with surging problems of how computer science can become a subject for children of all ages and backgrounds. Problems of implementing new technologies in the old curricula have long been noted, and lately, concern over computer science education goals is often too narrow and skills‐based without concerns for the critical educational potential. This study follows the change process of two case preschool departments implementing programming with a floor robot across a seven‐month design process. Mixed analytical techniques based on activity theory are used to examine the tensions, conflicts and development of pedagogical alternatives. The studies show the strenuous change processes involving local transformations toward a child‐centred, inclusive early computer science education and development of projects centring making, children's exploration, tinkering and play as key parts of the learning process. It discusses how the considerable change processes enabled pedagogical solutions coherent with important concepts in computer programming and how computing education can build on child‐centred pedagogies through local adaptations and age‐appropriate designs. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topic Computer science and programming are becoming part of early education worldwide.Less is known about how to implement computing with ever‐younger age groups, especially for those under three.That technological change can be a strenuous change process building on societal, historical and educational tensions, requiring individual learning and organisational change.What this paper adds Two cases of change designing computing education for 1–2‐ and 3–5‐year‐olds.Design processes raising critical questions about current standard childhood programming materials being resolved to enable a child‐centred computing education.Challenges and potentials specific to early childhood in adopting computer science education.Implications for practice and/or policy Computing education challenges pedagogical notions, such as the role of failure in education.Computing education can be developed for very young children. However, there are considerable critical challenges to resolve in developing a child‐centred approach.Childhood fundamentals such as play‐based pedagogy can work synergistically with computer science activities, providing educational potential, also relevant for computer science education at large.</p> <p>Keywords: activity theory; computer science education; digital transformation; early childhood education; educational change</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Recently, the importance of understanding how computers and programming have been forwarded as an important area for early childhood education (ECE). The realisation that programming can be introduced into early childhood awakens the underlying questions of why children should learn about computation and how this should be done in an age‐appropriate way (Bati, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref1">4</reflink>]). Recently, there has been a call for "engaging with computer science ideas and a more equitable, inclusive version of computing education" (Tissenbaum et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref2">36</reflink>], p. 1166) and an influx of non‐screen based educational technologies to promote this, tailored for young children's hands‐on engagement (Samuelsson, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref3">28</reflink>]). However, questions of how to design education for young children remain (see Bati, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>]; Su & Yang, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref5">34</reflink>]), and for children younger than three, it is mostly unexplored.</p> <p>Introducing programming, for example, through hands‐on robotics kits tailored for young children to engage with (Bakala et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref6">2</reflink>]), also introduces particular challenges to constructing this education and possible pedagogical potential. With the rise of computer science (CS) across educational settings, concerns regarding the underlying values of a computer science education (CSE) and its'endpoints', Tissenbaum et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref7">36</reflink>]) suggest the need for diverse outcomes of CSE, as more than just a skill, but something that can empower children and youth. In the context of early education, this means creating education for all based on more than the presumption that children growing up today may become computer programmers in their future professions. This broader vision for CSE and the critical role of understanding computer programming for children growing up to become fully‐fledged actors in a world where computation, AI and algorithms afford ways of acting, and can be introduced through early computing activities (Samuelsson, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref8">27</reflink>]). In short, how can a child‐centred computing education be designed to include young nursery children? Here, open pedagogical challenges, such as creating playful and child‐friendly computing activities and projects, are used to embed the subject into current ECE pedagogies better.</p> <p>A key challenge is how a wide notion of CSE can develop in early childhood education and how subjects and technologies fit with current practices. Hakkarainen ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref9">16</reflink>]) points out that adding new technologies to educational practices often entails a transformational shift. Such shifts can pose educational boundaries that, if overcome, hold pedagogical potential (Akkerman & Bakker, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref10">1</reflink>]). This conundrum takes new forms today, as CSE is moving into increasingly younger age groups. In this study's context, in Sweden, preschools and nurseries are merged with a single curriculum encompassing children from 1–5 years of age. This presents specific challenges regarding how a play‐based and child‐centred pedagogy can be integrated with new technologies.</p> <p>This study examines the change processes of two cases in a project implementing programming in a preschool in Stockholm, Sweden, with children aged 1–2 and 3–5. The study follows iterative development and pedagogical transformation over seven months, detailing tensions and critical transformations toward child‐centred early computing education that the projects stimulated in the two cases. The study thus follows the amounting investigations of computational activities in ECE (see Bati, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref11">4</reflink>]). However, as Su and Yang ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref12">34</reflink>]) point out, most studies in the area are quantitative studies measuring effectiveness in learning computational thinking skills, problem‐solving and collaboration. This study focuses on the qualitative aspects of educational change infused with computational technologies in ECE and the pedagogical opportunities and challenges emerging in this process.</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-3">PERSPECTIVES ON COMPUTER SCIENCE FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION</hd> <p>The role of programming has come to the forefront of educational agendas and lately accelerated by the push and hype around AI systems (Nemorin et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref13">23</reflink>]). Understanding computers is a key skill for acting in the world and critical for relating to our increasingly computerised environments. Wing's ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref14">38</reflink>]) call to turn computational thinking into a matter for early education has today been embraced in curricula worldwide (Su & Yang, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref15">33</reflink>]). However, how this can be realised in ECE is still being managed. Su and Yang ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref16">34</reflink>], p. 10) accentuate that most research has been in school contexts that may not be directly transferrable to ECE and point to how future research needs to investigate how to "design meaningful and developmentally appropriate projects" for young children. This study explores how this can be developed in a play‐based Swedish ECE context.</p> <p>Moreover, there is an increased understanding of the critical implications of programming education (Selwyn, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref17">30</reflink>]). Not least, there is a growing worry about teaching coding as a mere skill, decoupled from the larger aims of CSE and the ethical implications of computation (O'Neill, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref18">24</reflink>]). Researchers have thus turned to conveying human values inherent in a broad coding education (Bers, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref19">6</reflink>]). In their call for a more humanistic CSE, Lee et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref20">21</reflink>]) proposed a multifaceted view, including the personal, cultural and societal dimensions. Tissenbaum et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref21">36</reflink>]) forwarded the notion of endpoints of programming education, emboldening CSE for children as a critical undertaking, potentially empowering diverse outcomes children and youth want through their developing computational understanding. As a CSE for early childhood emerges, it is important that these discussions are incorporated and appropriated for the ECE context into what this study terms a <emph>child‐centred computing education</emph>.</p> <p>Regarding ECE, play‐based learning has been identified as a key practice for learning basic programming. Building on the metaphors of playgrounds versus playpens, Bers ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref22">5</reflink>]) points to the openness of playgrounds as a metaphor for early childhood programming. Moreover, Tissenbaum et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref23">36</reflink>], p. 1066) exerts that "as learners' age, CS instruction becomes increasingly narrow with an explicit prioritisation for college and career readiness." In this sense, studying how programming is approached in ECE can be broadly informative for CSE, by being entwined with the perspectives and mindsets coherent with programming, such as perseverance and trial‐and‐error forms of play (Brennan & Resnick, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref24">7</reflink>]) seen in children's tinkering play (Samuelsson, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref25">26</reflink>]). For example, in activities such as debugging, productive failure is inherent in the learning process (Bers, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref26">6</reflink>]; Fields et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref27">15</reflink>]). However, for this to function, Kapur and Bielaczyc ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref28">19</reflink>]) have shown that learning environments have to be geared toward productive failure. Several ECE programs are based on computational thinking and basic programming developed for school‐aged practices (eg, Shute et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref29">31</reflink>]); however, as Su and Yang ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref30">34</reflink>]) point out, there may be an overlooked difference when transferring these to ECE. Thus, there is a potential synergy between early education initiatives and CSE that is currently untapped. This study moves CSE into ECE territory in relatively understudied age groups encompassing children as young as 1 to understand better how educational and play‐based designs can be developed in child‐centred ways for the youngest.</p> <p>However, the nature of trial‐and‐error and making pedagogies goes against some of the core underlying values of education, where activities often aim to get to the right answer. Digital technologies can possibly cause tensions in ECE environments, even between children and teachers (Lagerlöf, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref31">20</reflink>]). Developing a child‐centred computing education can thus bring new perspectives, ways of thinking, and expression to what a CSE can entail (Brennan & Resnick, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref32">7</reflink>]; Papert, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref33">25</reflink>]; Zeng et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref34">39</reflink>]). This, however, requires changes beyond the superficial implementation of new technologies onto traditional curricula (Fawns, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref35">14</reflink>]) toward a critical development of local practices (Selwyn, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref36">30</reflink>]). A child‐centred computing education entails significant pedagogical shifts coherent with the CS subject's technological tools and nature. To study this change process, we turn to Activity Theory, a framework aptly used to study critical transformations of social and educational practices.</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-4">ACTIVITY THEORY AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE</hd> <p>Activity theory, or Cultural‐Historial Activity Theory (CHAT), is a framework of learning and development that has been used and iteratively formed throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. Stemming from the ideas of Vygotsky ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref37">37</reflink>]) and Leontiev ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref38">22</reflink>]), culture is put in the middle of learning and development—extended through mediating tools between the subject and object (see Cole, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref39">8</reflink>]). Engeström ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref40">11</reflink>]) illustrated the activity system through interlocking triangles, shown in Figure 1, where the classic triangle formation from Vygotsky is complemented with rules, community and division of labour.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01jul25/bjet13536-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13536-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 The expanded activity system from Engeström ([11])." /> </p> <p></p> <p>A key consideration in the formation after Engeström ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref41">11</reflink>]) has been the cultural‐historical tensions leading to development and change, stemming from how internal contradictions in activity systems can underpin development. In CHAT, learning is a collective process that includes individual change and change in the practices people participate. Notably, in activity systems, learners do not simply learn in and from a cultural setting but are part of transforming cultural activities in their own and the practices' developmental process. Engeström and Sannino ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref42">13</reflink>], p. 2) further explicate: "Learners learn something that is not yet there. In other words, the learners construct a new object and concept for their collective activity, and implement this new object and concept in practice." This future‐generating concept is fundamental for the change process of this study's cases, where teachers and children develop activities and practice with technology and subject matter new to them. In this rendition of CHAT, conflicts or contradictions in activity systems lead to tensions "[which] are historically accumulating structural tensions within and between activity systems" (Engeström, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref43">12</reflink>], p. 137).</p> <p>Contradictions are often conflicts of motives, "double‐bind" (Bateson, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref44">3</reflink>]) dilemmas that participants face where tensions provide stimulus, leading to new motives and change. Participants can use external tools to empower change, leading to expansive learning where the object of activity is transformed to manage the inherent contradictions. In technological terms, this is captured by Kaptelinin and Nardi ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref45">18</reflink>], p. 11) in "the ability to grow and change with technology," and the framework of CHAT shows the often complex process that underlies such change.</p> <p>Expansive learning, captured by change in activity systems, enables transformative agency, a step in the learning process where "Learning expansively requires breaking away from the given frame of action and taking the initiative to transform it" (Sannino et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref46">29</reflink>], p. 603). In learning systems undergoing change, radical changes to the activity system are often required (cf. Engeström & Sannino, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref47">13</reflink>]). Learning in a change process often does not follow a straight linear path, as the object of learning during change is often ridden with conflicts of interest. Next, we follow up on the tension leading into the current educational context.</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-6">Scales of expansive learning: The Swedish preschool context and the current project</hd> <p>Figure 2 captures the scales of cultural‐historical change underlying the project and illustrates the scales of developing contradictions and tensions.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01jul25/bjet13536-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13536-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Cultural‐historical transformational cycles are relevant to the project's tensions." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185939050-8">Macrocycle</hd> <p>This cultural‐historical level of change is where contradictions start to emerge as "historically evolving tensions that can be detected and dealt with in real activity systems" (Engeström & Sannino, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref48">13</reflink>], p. 4). Here, the cultural‐historical transformation, where digitalisation and computational devices have become the forefront of societal and educational needs in the knowledge society (Stephen & Edwards, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref49">32</reflink>]), undergirding a need for computing education, not only as a skill but also as a tool for children's critical agency (cf. Tissenbaum et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref50">36</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-9">Intermediary levels of technological transformation</hd> <p>In Sweden, the preschool is a combined nursery and preschool where children from 12 months to 5 years enrol in a general curriculum encompassing all age groups. Traditionally, the preschool has long worked with play‐based, outdoor education, crafts and children's stories and is strongly influenced by child‐centred pedagogies such as Reggio Emilia.</p> <p>The 2018 curriculum revision introduced significant shifts due to the need for children to develop technological skills. Also, 'instruction' was used to prescribe teaching efforts, causing considerable debate in the profession (Swedish National Agency for Education, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref51">35</reflink>]). Following that, new educational tools entered the Swedish ECE centres (see Samuelsson, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref52">28</reflink>]; Diáz et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref53">9</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-10">Mini‐ and microcycles</hd> <p>When the preschool of this study entered the project, teachers were completely new to programming; however, they were motivated to develop as professionals and keep the preschool updated with the curriculum. As such, the two cases are activity systems where "in periods of acute disturbance or intensive change, no one actually quite masters the work activity as a whole" (Engeström, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref54">11</reflink>], pp. 113–114), as the preschool infused new pedagogical situations and concepts in a relatively brief period. Tensions and developments during the seven‐month intervention are detailed in this study's two cases, thus capturing the need addressed by Hamilton et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref55">17</reflink>], p. 222) in how "early computational seeds of learning manifest themselves and how educators can continue to nurture these seeds as children grow and develop," as two age groups, with particular sets of tensions and pedagogical problems, are addressed.</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-11">METHODS AND MATERIALS</hd> <p>The study is a co‐design implementation program using a programmable floor robot called the Blue‐Bot. The researcher created educational designs cooperatively with practitioners during a seven‐month project. Teachers and learners were at the centre of this process, and the researcher's role has continually been spurring critical discussions during the co‐design. Crucial for this is formative sessions (Sannino et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref56">29</reflink>]), raising critical discussions regarding programming in a focus group setting with head teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-12">Data collection</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185939050-13">Formative interventions</hd> <p>The formative sessions (FS) during the project occurred bi‐weekly to monthly, gathering the headteachers (HT) from the two participating departments, and in most sessions a teacher assistant (TA) working with the project. FS's raised practical concerns, such as details on implementing materials and integrating the Blue‐Bot with the preschool projects. Sessions were a tool of double stimulation (Sannino et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref57">29</reflink>]), advancing critical discussions about technology, children, and society, informative for how programming could be conceived in the particular context of the Swedish preschool, specific circumstances of the preschool, and the two age groups the teachers were working with.</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-14">Ethnography of the change process</hd> <p>Video and multimodal ethnography (cf. Dicks et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref58">10</reflink>]) have been the main tools for data collection of activities during the project, including video of project‐related activities and multimodal data such as photographs of artefacts and field notes. Programming activities were recorded using two cameras, one hand‐held camera capturing children's actions and one wall‐mounted camera for overview. Formative sessions were video‐recorded using one stationary camera. Supplementary ethnographical material was collected during the project. The collected data has been summarised in Table 1.</p> <p>1 TABLE Overview of project data.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Project data</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Case description</th><th align="left">Video recordings</th><th align="left">Ethnography data</th><th align="left">Formative sessions</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Case 1:22 3–5‐year‐olds1 head teacher2 assistant teachers</td><td align="left">11 hours</td><td align="left">17 days of ethnographical field notes</td><td align="left">Start‐up session</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4 formative focus group sessions</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Informal talks during project activities</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Case 2:14 1–2‐year‐olds1 head teacher2 assistant teachers</td><td align="left">14 hours</td><td align="left">15 days of ethnographical field notes</td><td align="left">Start‐up session</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4 formative focus group sessions (with case 1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1 individual formative session</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Informal talks during project activities</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="left">25 hours</td><td align="left">32 field days</td><td align="left">5–6 formative session total per group</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0185939050-15">Analytical procedures</hd> <p>The analysis builds on the activity theoretical concepts where cultural, historically and locally developing tensions lead to practice resolutions and developments. In the previous section, Figure 2 introduced these tensions that are analytically traced in the preschool's activity systems.</p> <p>Figure 3 continues from Figure 2 with an overview of the analytical foci for the two cases. The analysis aims to identify tensions and contradictions stemming from the new technology and subject leading to developments. Two key techniques are used to trace mini‐ and microcycles of evolving tensions and how they evolved into transformational change during the project, with the formative sessions as formational events during the process.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01jul25/bjet13536-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13536-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Overview of the analytical units and approach." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185939050-17">Analysis of tensions in the activity system</hd> <p>Transcriptions of formative sessions have been coded in MAXQDA using the key concepts from CHAT. The transcribed FT's were coded at the discourse level, for tensions in the activity system. From this, a map emerged with patterns of tension across the project. For example, a discussion of difficulties creating joyful materials for children was coded as tension in subjects (the children) and artefacts (the Blue‐Bot and materials).</p> <p>The results present the numerical quantities of tensions in a model inspired by the Engeström ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref59">11</reflink>]) triangle. Moreover, a networked analysis supplements the classic triangle based on the mapped interrelations of coded tensions in MAXQDA. Additionally, qualitative descriptions of the project's major themes of tensions are outlined alongside the quantitative results.</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-18">Technological pedagogical transformation</hd> <p>The analysis of activity system tensions revealed microcycles of interventions and solutions in the two cases, that is how identified contradictions and critical discussions in formative sessions lead to new activities and pedagogical solutions. For this, ethnographical data, session summaries, and field notes were used to trace the identified tensions of the coded FT's and link them to pedagogical transformations documented in the ethnography. In Excel, descriptions and codes of activities, field notes and summaries of FT's were used to map the patterns of change, such as designing pedagogical materials and deliberately changing their pedagogical approach toward a child‐centred approach.</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-19">RESULTS</hd> <p>The project became a transformational process for the two departments in shifting ways. Later in the project, one HT described it as 'continuous somersaults for the mind' (FS3). This encapsulates the fundamental change process, reflecting the often tumultuous change involved, typical for when an activity system is expanded and transformed (cf. Sannino et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref60">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>The results detail the major tensions and shifts for the two departments separately, showing the identified patterns of tensions arising, participants' voices during the project, the major pedagogical shifts and activities that emerged.</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-20">Case 1: The making of educational designs for tinkering pedagogies</hd> <p>The major transformation of this department was undergirded by dissatisfaction with ready‐made materials and approaches to programming supplemented with the Blue‐Bot. Figure 4 displays the project's tensions, highlighting significant tensions between children as agentive subjects, the traditional child‐centred rules normally allowing this agency, and how the ready‐made materials and educational designs created tensions in this system.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01jul25/bjet13536-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13536-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 The tensions of Case 1." /> </p> <p></p> <p>This considerably affected the learning systems' main object of activity, where the pre‐packaged materials and advised activities lent themselves to simple programming training, limiting child agency.</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-22">Emerging early tensions</hd> <p>Early in the project, this department of 3–5‐year‐olds developed an outspokenly critical stance on computing educational goals, stemming from a worry associated with computational thinking and programming. In the first formative session, the head teacher (HT) voiced that</p> <p>HT: "it felt a bit scary, that we like, program the children into computational thinking" (FS1)</p> <p>Raising the underlying tensions between the preschool's pedagogical values and the goals of programming education, a reason for significant tensions in this preschool's activity system, as the values of play‐based and child‐centred pedagogies still underlie pedagogical choices. Teachers were conflicted by the changes brought on, simultaneously understanding the values of teaching a new subject while missing the power of agentive children:</p> <p>HT: "When we had a goal, many of the children were disappointed when they couldn't reach it (.) so now we [disregard the materials and] just use the arrows" (FS1)</p> <p>Significant tensions arising were between artefacts supplemented with the robotics kit, pre‐designed instructional materials (see Figure 5a) and the children as subjects. After learning the basics of robot movement, children became more interactionally playful toward the robot and educational materials.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01jul25/bjet13536-fig-0005.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13536-fig-0005.jpg" title="5 Activities from the project." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185939050-24">Beginning transformations</hd> <p>The tensions arising in the project instilled significant pedagogical developments. The problems arising from materials were solved by the creation of educational materials compatible with the Blue‐Bot but based on their ongoing projects coherent with their pedagogical values.</p> <p>HT: "we thought it was a bit boring when it was too locked (.) we thought it would be fun to make it ourselves (.) we like creativity" (FS2)</p> <p>In this way, the crafts and maker‐oriented preschool could integrate with the programming project. Figure 5b shows the preschool's project on a children's tale, <emph>The Mitten</emph>, and how the story was used to create a board for the Blue‐Bot. Here, the children moved according to the story, using debugging when necessary. Figure 5c shows later when the robot was dressed up as an "owl‐bot" to integrate with a nature project on Swedish owls. Here, the owl‐dressed robot helps children draw owl‐heads. The playful, maker‐oriented and project‐based activities were used to reawaken children's joy of using the robot in a more relatable manner.</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-25">Upheaving deep‐rooted pedagogical tensions</hd> <p>While the new pedagogical activities eased tensions and developed the project in line with the preschool's values and activities, they also spurred new tensions in the activity system. For example, the board in Figure 5b, made as a legged table, caused the robot to fall off more violently than the ready‐made mats, making it clear when a child made the incorrect move. This created an educational tension with the preschool that previously had downplayed "right and wrong" in favour of child‐centred pedagogies:</p> <p>HT: "to not tell the kids they're wrong (.) then they lose the joy of it" (FS1)</p> <p>However, in the context of the new curriculum promoting instruction and new technologies, this activity was simultaneously accordant with current curricular guidance, creating a double‐bind situation for the teachers. This accentuated the need for an encompassing activity system transformation, including the object of activity.</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-26">Creating a computer science educational ethos</hd> <p>Working with these issues, teachers began developing a balanced approach, including instructional elements, while also promoting child agency, such as allowing children to bring the robot into other playrooms. An example is shown in 5(d).</p> <p>HT: "We use the arrows [referring to the instructional cards] (.) then a kid might say 'I want to do as I wish now' (.) then I think that this is part of the goal too (.) to promote the freedom of thought as well" (FS2)</p> <p>The increased creativity and maker‐style pedagogy brought new forms of tension to the transforming activity system. It became clear the preschool had to re‐align its pedagogical values. Discussions in a formative session (FS2) concluded that such pedagogical change would also be concordant with a programming mindset, as the trial‐and‐error and tinkering play fit well with activities such as debugging.</p> <p>The department deliberately created a pedagogical approach designed to encourage doing wrong, shifting the community mindset toward promoting productive failure. However, this was a significant challenge, best illustrated by one of the first sessions of this phase on debugging, where the teacher assistant had planned to deliberately make the wrong move using the board and then debug it. However, when put to the test, the TA showed the right sequence.</p> <p>TA: "I tried to do wrong (.) but (.) I just couldn't" (Informal talk & FS3)</p> <p>The technological change process entailed a significant activity systemic shift. The preschool had to foster a new culture where doing wrong is a necessary step in the learning process, where productive failure and open‐ended activity structures came to the forefront. The preschool designed both open activities and let children tinker independently. Figure 5d shows a child building mazes for the Blue‐Bot using Duplo pieces, figuring out how many pieces are needed for one standard 15 cm move.</p> <p>The transformational agency of this change process opened creative wiggle‐room for children in the project where "out‐of‐the‐box" solutions could be made; for example, children could move diagonally on the board in Figure 5b. A teacher referring to how children use diagonal moves to solve problems (with the robot that turns 90°):</p> <p>HT: "that they move it a bit so it shortcuts (.) it is lovely that they are free to solve it in a different way" (FS3)</p> <p>The transformational agency opened spaces for learning. Notably, the goals and rules of the project's initial activity system could not contain this educational activity. It was enabled through a significant transformation.</p> <p>HT: "we developed a more balanced approach (.) the older children think it's okay that the young just trial (.) back when we started, this would be seen as failure" (FS3)</p> <p>This radical transformation of the activity system resulted in new ways of working, new activities, and new interactions, allowing productive failure and thus fostering a tinkering ethos consistent with the child‐centred preschool's fundamental values.</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-27">Case 2: Creating an inclusive, play‐based, computer science education</hd> <p>The major tensions during the project are displayed in Figure 6. Tensions critically evolved between the children as playful subjects, the new curriculum, and technological artefacts, which forced the object of learning in unsustainable directions.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01jul25/bjet13536-fig-0006.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13536-fig-0006.jpg" title="6 Tension and developments of Case 2." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Under the new curriculum's notion of instruction, the new technology subject created an instructional climate atypical for Swedish preschools, where teachers directly instructed children in programming using ready‐made materials. The HT described it as educationally challenging, "I have to re‐think the ways that I communicate when I teach this" (Informal talk & FS1). The subject matter was new and challenging, and the educational design created an instructional setting teachers were uncomfortable with.</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-29">Early tension between technology and children</hd> <p>Early in the project, a major contradiction emerged between subjects and artefacts, most dramatically in that two 1‐year‐olds were scared of the robot. Consequently, the new instructional agenda created a problematic situation where not all children could approach robot programming activities, making these factors conspire to exclude these children. Early on, it was envisioned that instructional activities should be made more approachable:</p> <p>HT: "they [children] think that they have to perform (.) these are children that blossom when no one is watching (.) If we would just place it somewhere, maybe they would approach it" (FS1)</p> <p>This too‐controlled instructional setting was causing teachers uncertainty and possibly excluding children in a tense instructional situation. Moreover, teachers perceived that the instructional design limited the joy of programming children started out with, creating major challenges between children as playful subjects, the division of labour limiting children's playful exploration, and the resulting object of learning based on narrow skill training. While teachers saw a need for repetition, too much instruction made the subject joyless:</p> <p>HT: "with the young we have to repeat instructions (.) but that's not the purpose here, right" (FS2)</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-30">Playful transformation from instructional contradictions</hd> <p>Teachers envisioned a more playful pedagogy was needed to maintain the initially observed joy for programming. The growing critical tensions were expressed in a focus group session, where the HT posed a critical question about the underlying goals imposed by the instructional agenda:</p> <p>HT: "Do we just train them to press the right buttons?" (FS2)</p> <p>Re‐voicing the early discussions regarding wider goals of children's programming, not simply creating future programmers, but providing children with the joy toward becoming critical agents in a computerised world (FT1).</p> <p>The project had come to a breaking point where the instructional, goal‐led activities were disbanded for a new play‐based approach. Feeling lost in the goal‐bound and instructional activities, the HT discussed the goal of programming for this young age group:</p> <p>HT: "one type of digital competence [a phrase used in the curriculum] is even to dare to press it (.) right?" (FS2)</p> <p>The department started loosening the instructional agenda and began using the robot more playfully, removing goal‐directed materials, for example mats and cards displayed in Figure 7a and moving the robot into the playroom.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01jul25/bjet13536-fig-0007.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13536-fig-0007.jpg" title="7 Examples of activities from the project." /> </p> <p></p> <p>This was, however, a difficult move. The preschool department had to resolve tensions between children as playful subjects and the division of labour. For this to transpire, teachers had to loosen their instructional efforts, and ultimately transform the object of learning, causing critical reflections:</p> <p>HT: "I feel that they should just explore and feel that it is fun (.) they come to preschool to learn about life (.) so it is important that they are given the chance to try things through play (.) personally, I want to steer more, but it's fun to see what happens as well" (FS 2.1)</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-32">Embracing a pedagogical system on uncertain ground</hd> <p>The re‐shift in pedagogical goals from the initial performance and goal‐directed foci, was described as a pedagogical "letting go" (FS3). Transforming the activity system, teachers had to give up instructional control, putting the project on curricular uncertain ground. The HT later referred to this re‐direction as a 'mindwarp' (FS3), as the new technological subject caused critical re‐evaluations of the pedagogical values underlying their educational efforts.</p> <p>The play‐based activities opened new forms of activity. Children were now often leading the sessions, open‐form activities, and rules of engagement emerged. Figure 7c shows two children engaging with robots during peer play in the playroom, a type of interaction that was not represented during the instructional activities. Figure 7d shows exploratory play with a robot, where the child tries out the robot's abilities inside a circular window.</p> <p>The transformed activity system had shifted toward openness and play‐based activities. Talking about a guided play session, shown in Figure 7b, building towers for the Blue‐Bot to knock over, the HT contended that:</p> <p>HT: "now we get to freestyle a bit (.) and that was the intention (.) if they reached the tower, they did (.) when it fails it just spurs them to continue (.) in the end there is not so much right or wrong" (FS 2.1)</p> <p>The departments had to re‐evaluate their pedagogical values and roles as preschool teachers to move from pedagogical letting go toward a play‐based and child‐centred computing activity.</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-33">Epilogue: Sustaining joy through child‐centred computing education</hd> <p>A common thread in both cases was an intense local adoption of CSE, which included the age‐appropriating of CS activities to maintain the joy of programming. Exploration and play with the youngest children were also discussed as crucial precursors for the tinkering ethos developed with older children in Case 1. Similarly, for the young Case 2 group, this called for a fundamental shift in the activity system, captured in a dialogue between the two HT's reflecting on the project:</p> <p>HT Case 2: "we started with so large goals for the project (.) instead we have moved downward but learnt more on the journey"</p> <p>HT Case 1: "yes, but the important is that they venture (.) that they dare explore the technology (.) they get further than us through exploration" (FS3)</p> <p>By lessening the short‐sighted instructional pressure at the beginning of the program, the preschool created a pedagogical climate fostering playful programming approaches. The preschool navigated how to make programming part of its pedagogical values, which also produced insight into how early childhood programming can be conceptualised.</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-34">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>Programming is steadily becoming a key subject, heralded as a 21st‐century skill for children. Educational efforts are being made today on how to implement coding at increasingly earlier ages (Su & Yang, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref61">33</reflink>]). Meanwhile, commentators have positioned the importance of understanding humanistic values of CSE (eg, Bers, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref62">6</reflink>]; Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref63">21</reflink>]). The study has detailed the change process in early CSE. Both cases had, in different ways, to re‐align their overall activity systems, including their object of learning, showcasing the transformational effort required to reorient toward a child‐centred computing education. New technologies, subjects, and knowledge are not things to be easily superimposed on current curricula. Rather, technologies and new educational matters carry radical change (Stephen & Edwards, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref64">32</reflink>]), but they must be appropriated to age and educational context, as illustrated by this program.</p> <p>In Case 1, a group of 3–5‐year‐old children, the transformation forced reflection on practices, and instilled the development consistent with pedagogical values held, fostering playful, maker‐oriented CSE practices. Moreover, this playful change attuned to programming, such as the perseverance needed in debugging, well‐known characteristics of computer programming (cf. Brennan & Resnick, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref65">7</reflink>]). Activity system transformation is a future‐generating change process (Engeström & Sannino, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref66">13</reflink>]), where the case departments had to create solutions both through material design and critical investigation of pedagogical values to find programming activities attuned to their particular challenges, projects and interests. This included providing an educational climate where productive failure and doing wrong were integrated into the educational process (Fields et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref67">15</reflink>]; Kapur & Bielaczyc, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref68">19</reflink>]). However, the activity system had to be transformed to enable this level of educational agency. These adaptations to the local context and children's interests made programming relevant by engaging children in projects, storytelling, and maker‐oriented educational alternatives.</p> <p>For the youngest children in case 2, the transformation included developing playful and exploratory CSE aligned with young children's learning. The transformation emerged from critical reflection and design, resulting in an instructional stepping‐back to prioritise child‐driven activities to create an inclusive learning environment for all children and to maintain children's joy and interest. The balance between instructionally introducing new educational technologies and maintaining children's interests is critical for CS as a diverse subject (Tissenbaum et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref69">36</reflink>]), today, including children of all ages and differing interests. Crucially, it was not that the early instructional efforts were ineffective in Case 2 that drove reflection and change. However, long‐term sustainable interest in the subject became an object for the transformed activity system, where short‐term instructional goals were abandoned for a playful CSE approach.</p> <p>As CS is becoming a subject that concerns all children, CSE must be developed to enable different potential "endpoints" (Tissenbaum et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref70">36</reflink>]) and create age‐appropriated educational solutions (cf. Su & Yang, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref71">34</reflink>]), illustrated by the child‐centred development of this study's two cases. Furthermore, this discussion should increasingly include children of all ages, in this paper exemplified by the potential of explorative and play‐based approaches for young children as one dimension of a more wide‐ranging CSE. While other studies of young children's programming have championed play‐based approaches (Bers, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref72">5</reflink>]; Papert, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref73">25</reflink>]), the case shows, also concordant with Bati ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref74">4</reflink>]), the deep‐rooted difficulties of implementing this and the strenuous change process that encompasses re‐configurations of whole systems of activity (cf. Engeström, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref75">11</reflink>]) in how a computing education can be disruptive but also displaying the educational potentials of locally adapting and child‐centering CSE.</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-35">Insights for a child‐centred childhood computing education</hd> <p>The change processes in these two cases show how a child‐centred computing education can be informative for a broader CSE. There are resonant themes between a play‐based, child‐centred pedagogy and the subject highlighted as successful in the computational thinking literature (Bers, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref76">5</reflink>]). The project shows how the play‐based, explorative approach concords with programming values (Brennan & Resnick, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref77">7</reflink>]). For example, tinkering and trial‐and‐error play fit fruitfully with programming (Bers, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref78">6</reflink>]). In Case 1, the preschool crafted materials aligned with the preschool pedagogies, values and projects. Such materials also stimulate new forms of practice, where debugging comes as a natural part of the process. However, preschools may have to change their pedagogical mindsets to fully embrace debugging and productive failure as part of the learning process (cf. Fields et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref79">15</reflink>]; Kapur & Bielaczyc, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref80">19</reflink>]). While it is important to design effective robotics kits that enhance children's computational thinking, this study shows the potential of the making‐style pedagogical alternatives and the importance of instructional stepping‐back to enable playful and exploratory approaches, in particular if we want to make a CSE more widely available for children of all ages and backgrounds.</p> <p>CSE can powerfully be locally and age‐appropriately adapted. For very young children, keeping CS playful and exploratory is a key concern. While CSE is steadily entering younger and more diverse groups, the study in Case 2 suggests tensions between eagerly instructing children toward computational basics and maintaining children's joy for programming. This is a critical question that should not be overlooked when examining the effectiveness of the next computational gadget designed for young children.</p> <p>One potential here is guided play that could work as a balance of instruction and play for young children's early CSE (see Samuelsson, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref81">28</reflink>]). Further studies should examine this and go beyond mere measures of effectiveness toward also examining the duration of children's joy and interest in CS. Moreover, open‐ended play‐based and maker‐oriented activities offer new venues for programming with robots in challenging open‐world scenarios. As a widened CSE for children is developed for future childhood education, there is considerable room for reflection and creative approaches.</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-36">Limitations and future directions for research</hd> <p>By its design, the study is limited in terms of generalisability, encompassing two cases of technological change in the same demographic. Simultaneously, it provides in‐depth considerations for educational technology, design, and future research.</p> <p>Considerable research effort in CSE for children is studying how to effectively increase children's understanding, often in short‐term designs with ready‐made training materials. There is now a multitude of promising technologies appropriate for ECE (eg, Hamilton et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref82">17</reflink>]). It is important that children's development of CS is measured and developed. Meanwhile, we need to research how to go beyond the ready‐made solutions to investigate how new educational designs and making pedagogies can be locally adapted according to children's varying ages, backgrounds and interests. Further research can draw inspiration for the solutions of Case 1 for 3–5‐year‐old children.</p> <p>The forms of open scenarios developed in the study offer new pedagogical activities, that may be more playful, and also attuned to young children's learning (cf. Author, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref83">28</reflink>]; Hamilton et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref84">17</reflink>]). Simultaneously, they address important questions in computing and AI regarding how to program robots in open‐world scenarios, a hard problem in CS, and thus offer not only pedagogical potential not only for ECE but also far beyond.</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-37">CONCLUSIONS</hd> <p>As computing becomes a matter for all children and increasingly younger and diverse groups, child‐centred approaches must be developed. This study has forayed into two examples of how this can be achieved. The study point to how computer science cannot simply be added as a silo of skills and understanding but entails a radical change to many current pedagogies. Even for the play‐based Swedish context examined in this study, this involved considerable pedagogical change and challenge to core assumptions of the learning process. This change may, however, be necessary to create a CSE that empowers children beyond mere skill training. Early childhood educational initiatives have a major potential to inform computing education at large that wishes to develop a child‐centred approach, building on the exploratory, playful, and active pedagogical potentials of childhood learning.</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-38">FUNDING INFORMATION</hd> <p>None.</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-39">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-40">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>Data is available to share upon reasonable request. Data is not made openly available due to ethical restrictions.</p> <hd id="AN0185939050-41">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>The National Swedish Ethics Review Authority [2021‐05725‐01] has ethically reviewed and approved the project for research on humans, including children.</p> <ref id="AN0185939050-42"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref10" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81 (2), 132 – 169. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311404435</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref6" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bakala, E., Gerosa, A., Hourcade, J. P., & Tejera, G. (2021). Preschool children, robots, and computational thinking: A systematic review. International Journal of Child‐Computer Interaction, 29, 100337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100337</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref44" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Ballantine.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref1" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bati, K. (2021). A systematic literature review regarding computational thinking and programming in early childhood education. Education and Information Technologies. 27, 2059 – 2082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639‐021‐10700‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref22" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bers, M. U. (2018). Coding as a playground: Programming and computational thinking in the early childhood classroom. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref19" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bers, M. U. (2022). Beyond coding: How children learn human values through programming. MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref24" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April 13–17). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vol. 1, Vancouver.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref39" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref53" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Díaz, B., Nussbaum, M., Greiff, S., & Santana, M. (2024). The Role of Technology in Reading Literacy: Is Sweden Going Back or Moving Forward by Returning to Paper‐Based Reading? Computers & Education, 213, 105014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dicks, B., Soyinka, B., & Coffey, A. (2006). Multimodal ethnography. Qualitative Research, 6 (1), 77 – 96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058876</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity‐theoretical approach to developmental research [Dissertation]. University of Helsinki.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14 (1), 133 – 156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5 (1), 1 – 24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fawns, T. (2022). An entangled pedagogy: Looking beyond the pedagogy—Technology dichotomy. Postdigital Science and Education, 4 (3), 711 – 728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438‐022‐00302‐7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fields, D. A., Kafai, Y. B., Morales‐Navarro, L., & Walker, J. T. (2021). Debugging by design: A constructionist approach to high school students' crafting and coding of electronic textiles as failure artefacts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52 (3), 1078 – 1092. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13079</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hakkarainen, K. (2009). A knowledge‐practice perspective on technology‐mediated learning. International Journal of Computer‐Supported Collaborative Learning, 4 (2), 213 – 231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412‐009‐9064‐x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamilton, M., Clarke‐Midura, J., Shumway, J. F., & Lee, V. R. (2020). An emerging technology report on computational toys in early childhood. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25 (1), 213 – 224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758‐019‐09423‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21 (1), 45 – 83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.591717</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lagerlöf, P. (2024). 'Children say playing and adults say working': Children negotiating regulations on digital media in a Swedish preschool. Children & Society, 1 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12904</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, V. R., Wilkerson, M. H., & Lanouette, K. (2021). A call for a humanistic stance toward K–12 data science education. Educational Researcher, 50 (9), 664 – 672. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211048810</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Prentice‐Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nemorin, S., Vlachidis, A., Ayerakwa, H. M., & Andriotis, P. (2023). AI hyped? A horizon scan of discourse on artificial intelligence in education (AIED) and development. Learning, Media and Technology, 48 (1), 38 – 51. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2022.2095568</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Neill, D. K. (2016). 21st Century Bunkum: What do we value about kids learning to code, and why? Teacher Learning and Professional Development, 1 (2), 2. https://journals.sfu.ca/tlpd/index.php/tlpd/article/view/14</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas (2nd ed.). Harvester Wheatsheaf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Samuelsson, R. (2023a). Leveraging Play for Learning and Development: Incorporating Cultural‐Evolutionary Insights into Early Educational Practices. Mind, Brain, and Education, 17 (2), 75 – 85. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12347</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Samuelsson, R. (2023b). A Shape of Play to Come: Exploring Children's Play and Imaginaries with Robots and AI. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100173</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Samuelsson, R. (2024). Learning Beyond Instructionist/Constructionist Divides: A Mixed Methods Exploration of Three Learning Designs for 1‐2‐Year‐Old Children. Computers & Education, 218, 105089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105089</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sannino, A., Engeström, Y., & Lemos, M. (2016). Formative interventions for expansive learning and transformative agency. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25 (4), 599 – 633. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1204547</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26 (1), 65 – 73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2729.2009.00338.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell‐Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142 – 158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stephen, C., & Edwards, S. (2018). Young children playing and learning in a digital age: A cultural and critical perspective. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Su, J., & Yang, W. (2023a). Digital competence in early childhood education: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies. 29, 4885 – 4933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639‐023‐11972‐6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Su, J., & Yang, W. (2023b). A systematic review of integrating computational thinking in early childhood education. Computers and Education Open, 4, 100122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100122</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swedish National Agency for Education. (2019). Curriculum for the preschool: Lpfö 18. Skolverket.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tissenbaum, M., Weintrop, D., Holbert, N., & Clegg, T. (2021). The case for alternative endpoints in computing education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52 (3), 1164 – 1177. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13072</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366 (1881), 3717 – 3725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeng, Y., Yang, W., & Bautista, A. (2023). Computational thinking in early childhood education: Reviewing the literature and redeveloping the three‐dimensional framework. Educational Research Review, 39, 100520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100520</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Robin Samuelsson</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref58"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1473805
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Computational Transformations of Early Childhood Education: Pathways toward Child-Centred Computing in Two Educational Change Projects
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Robin+Samuelsson%22">Robin Samuelsson</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8110-6506">0000-0002-8110-6506</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Educational+Technology%22"><i>British Journal of Educational Technology</i></searchLink>. 2025 56(4):1573-1592.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Science+Education%22">Computer Science Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Play%22">Play</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Integration%22">Technology Integration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inclusion%22">Inclusion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Processes%22">Learning Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Programming%22">Programming</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Centered+Learning%22">Student Centered Learning</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/bjet.13536
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0007-1013<br />1467-8535
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Programming is becoming a key subject in early education globally, with surging problems of how computer science can become a subject for children of all ages and backgrounds. Problems of implementing new technologies in the old curricula have long been noted, and lately, concern over computer science education goals is often too narrow and skills-based without concerns for the critical educational potential. This study follows the change process of two case preschool departments implementing programming with a floor robot across a seven-month design process. Mixed analytical techniques based on activity theory are used to examine the tensions, conflicts and development of pedagogical alternatives. The studies show the strenuous change processes involving local transformations toward a child-centred, inclusive early computer science education and development of projects centring making, children's exploration, tinkering and play as key parts of the learning process. It discusses how the considerable change processes enabled pedagogical solutions coherent with important concepts in computer programming and how computing education can build on child-centred pedagogies through local adaptations and age-appropriate designs.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1473805
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1473805
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/bjet.13536
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 1573
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Computer Science Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Play
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Integration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inclusion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Programming
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Centered Learning
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Computational Transformations of Early Childhood Education: Pathways toward Child-Centred Computing in Two Educational Change Projects
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Robin Samuelsson
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0007-1013
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1467-8535
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 56
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Educational Technology
              Type: main
ResultId 1