“I want my robot to look for food”: Comparing Kindergartner’s programming comprehension using tangible, graphic, and hybrid user interfaces



In recent years, educational robotics has become an increasingly popular research area. However, limited studies have focused on differentiated learning outcomes based on type of programming interface. This study aims to explore how successfully young children master foundational programming concepts based on the robotics user interface (tangible, graphical, hybrid) taught in their curriculum. Thirty-five Kindergarten students participated in a 9-week robotics curriculum using the LEGO WeDo robotics construction kit and the Creative Hybrid Environment for Robotic Programming (CHERP) programming language. A mixed methods data collection approach was employed, including qualitative observational data from the classrooms, as well as quantitative mid- and post-test assessments of students’ programming knowledge using CHERP. The findings show little association between user interface and programming comprehension, although there may be an order-affect when introducing user interfaces. Implications for best practices when introducing programming in early childhood settings are discussed.


User interfaces for education Tangible programming Kindergarten Robotics Early childhood education 



This research was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF Grant DRL- 111897). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors would like to extend many thanks to the wonderful and creative teachers of the East Boston Early Education Center who welcomed us to teach in their classrooms for this study, and to their principal for embracing a new venture into classroom technology. We also thank the members of the Developmental Technologies Research Group who contributed to this research: Ellen Gage, for assisting in the development of the Solve It assessment; Natasha Link, for assisting with data analysis; and the many Tufts graduate and undergraduate students who assisted in the classrooms.


  1. Ackermann, E. (1996). Perspective-taking and object construction. In Y. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.), Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world (pp. 107–123). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Africano, D., Berg, S., Lindbergh, K., Lundholm, P., Nilbrink, F., & Persson, A. (2004). Designing tangible interfaces for children’s collaboration. In CHI’04: CHI’04 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 853–868). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  3. Bers, M. (2008). Blocks to robots: Learning with technology in the early childhood classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 12(2). http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v12n2/bers.html.
  5. Bers, M. U. (2012). Designing digital experiences for positive youth development: From playpen to playground. Cary, NC: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bers, M., & Horn, M. (2010). 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 (pp. 49–70). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Cheng, L. K., Der, C. S., Sidhu, M. S., & Omar, R. (2011). GUI versus TUI: Engagement for children with no prior computing experience. Electronic Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology (eJCSIT), 3(1), 31–39.Google Scholar
  9. Clements, D. H. & Samara, J. (2009). Effects of a preschool mathematics curriculum: Summative research on the building blocks project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 136–163. http://gse.buffalo.edu/fas/clements/files/clements_bb_jrme.pdf.
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research and design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Frei, P., Su, V., Mikhak, B., & Ishii, H. (2000). Curlybot: Designing a new class of computational toys. T. Turner & G. Szwillus, Conference Editors. In SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  12. Friedlander, B. Z., Jacobs, A. C., Davis, B. B., & Wetstone, H. S. (1972). Time-sampling analysis of infants’ natural language environments in the home. Child Development, 43(3), 730–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Froebel, F. (1826). On the Education of Man (Die Menschenerziehung), Keilhau/Leipzig: Wienbrach.Google Scholar
  14. Horn, M. S., Crouser, J. R., & Bers, M. U. (2012). Tangible interaction and learning: the case for a hybrid approach. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(4), 379–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kazakoff, E. R., Sullivan, A. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kim, M. J., & Maher, M. L. (2006). Comparison of designers using a tangible user interface and a graphical user interface and the impact on spatial cognition (Doctoral dissertation). Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, University of Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  17. Kostelnik, M. J., & Grady, M. L. (2009). Getting it right from the start: The principal’s guide to early childhood education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  18. Manches, A., & Price, S. (2011). Designing learning representations around physical manipulation: Hands and objects. In 10th international conference on interaction design and children, Ann Arbor, MI, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  19. Marshall, P. (2007). Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? In First international conference on tangible and embodied interaction, Baton Rouge, LA.Google Scholar
  20. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MA DOE) (2011). Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for Mathematics, Grades Pre-Kindergarten to 12. Malden, MA: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/math/0311.pdf.
  21. Montessori, M., & Gutek, G. L. (2004). The Montessori method: The origins of an educational innovation: including an abridged and annotated edition of Maria Montessori’s the Montessori method. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Moskal, B. M. (2000). Scoring rubrics: What, when and how? Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(3). http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=3.
  23. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Piaget, J. (1959). The language and thought of the child (3d ed.). New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  25. Ploderer, B. (2005). Tangible User Interfaces: Potentials Inherent in Tangible User Interfaces for Simplified Handling of Computer Applications (Master’s thesis). Graz, Austria: University of Applied Sciences FH JOANNEUM.Google Scholar
  26. Quarles, J., Lampotang, S., Fischler, I., Fishwick, P., & Lok, B. (2008). Tangible user interfaces compensate for low spatial cognition. In IEEE symposium on 3D user interfaces, Reno, Nevada.Google Scholar
  27. Raffle, H. S., Parkes, A. J., & Ishii, H. (2004). Topobo: a constructive assembly system with kinetic memory. In SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. Vienna, Austria: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  28. Repp, A. C., Roberts, D. M., Slack, D. J., Repp, C. F., & Berkler, M. S. (1976). A comparison of frequency, interval, and time-sampling methods of data collection. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 9(4), 501–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Resnick, M., Martin, F., Berg, R., Borovoy, R., Colella, V., & Kramer, K. et al. (1998). Digital manipulatives: New toys to think with. M. E. Atwood, C. Karat, A. Lund, J. Coutaz, & J. Karat, Conference Editors. In SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  30. Sehyun, A. (2006). Hybrid user interfaces: design guidelines and implementation examples (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from DSpace@MIT. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/34382.
  31. 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) (pp. 309–312). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  32. 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. http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol12/JITEv12IIPp203-219Sullivan1257.pdf.
  33. Suzuki, H., & Kato, H. (1995). Interaction-level support for collaborative learning: AlgoBlock—an open programming language. John L. Schnase and Edward L. Cunnius, Conference Editors. In First international conference on computer support for collaborative learning (CSCL ‘95) L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  34. Tsong, C. K., Chong, T. S., & Sumsudin, Z. (2012). Tangible multimedia: A case study for bringing tangibility into multimedia learning. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET), 11(4), 442–450. http://www.tojet.net/articles/v11i4/11445.pdf.
  35. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Gauvain & M. Cole (Eds.), Mind and Society (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Wyeth, P. (2008). How young children learn to program with sensor, action, and logic blocks. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(4), 517–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Xie, L., Antle, A. N., & Motamedi, N. (2008). Are tangibles more fun? Comparing children’s enjoyment and engagement using physical, graphical, and tangible user interfaces. Second International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction. Bonn, Germany, Feb 18–20.Google Scholar
  38. Xu, D. (2005) Tangible user interface for children—an overview. In Sixth Conference in the Department of Computing, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.Google Scholar
  39. Zuckerman, O., Arida, S., & Resnick, M. (2005). Extending Tangible Interfaces for Education: Digital Montessori-inspired Manipulatives. In ACM CHI 2005 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Oregon, US.Google Scholar
  40. Zuckerman O., & Resnick M. (2003). System blocks: A physical interface for system dynamics learning. In The 21st International System Dynamics Conference. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The DevTech Research GroupTufts UniversityMedfordUSA

Personalised recommendations