Exploring Control in Early Computing Education

  • Ivan KalasEmail author
  • Andrej Blaho
  • Milan Moravcik
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11169)


In the paper we reflect on how our design research approach in the current development allows us to study the increasing cognitive complexity of different levels of control which pupils conduct when they program Emil, a virtual character on the screen. In our earlier work we outlined conceptual framework for primary programming, which recognised three different levels of control: (a) direct manipulation, (b) direct control and (c) computational control (i.e. programming) an actor. In the present research we managed to get deeper into the complexity of control by identifying four instead of three of its levels. Based on our close collaboration with three design schools we have also found that it is more productive to project and analyse learning progression of pupils connected with control within two-dimensional grid, where the first dimension is control itself and the second explores the way how the control is represented. Along this dimension we have identified five distinct levels of representation: (a) none, (b) as internal record, (c) as external record, (d) as internal plan for future behaviour, and finally (e) as external plan for future behaviour. In our paper we explain the grid of control by presenting selected tasks from different environments of Emil, our new approach to educational programming for Year 3 pupils.


Primary programming Program as record Program as plan Levels of control Control/representation grid of cognitive demand 



The authors would like to thank Indicia, non-for-profit organisation funding our project, all the teachers and pupils from our design schools for their invaluable contributions to the design and development of Emil intervention, and Celia Hoyles, Richard Noss and James Clayson for exciting discussions about the issue of control in educational programming.


  1. 1.
    Ackermann, E.: Programming for the natives: what is it? What’s in it for the kids? In: Proceedings of Constructionism: Theory, Practice and Impact, Athens, 10 p. (2012). [CD-ROM]Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brennan, K., Resnick, M.: New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In: Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada, (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kalas, I., Benton, L.: Defining procedures in early computing education. In: Tatnall, A., Webb, M. (eds.) WCCE 2017. IAICT, vol. 515, pp. 567–578. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benton, L., Hoyles, C., Kalas, I., Noss, R.: Bridging primary programming and mathematics: some findings of design research in England. Digit. Exp. Math. Educ. 3(2), 115–138 (2017). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Papert, S.: Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books, Inc., New York (1980)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blackwell, A.F.: What is programming? In: 14th Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, pp. 204–218 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clayson, J.: A Computational Eye: Visual Modelling with Python. Deep Springs College, Bishop (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kalas, I.: On the road to sustainable primary programming. In: Proceedings of the Constructionism in Action: Constructionism, pp. 184–191. Suksapattana Foundation, Bangkok, (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kalas, I.: Recognizing the potential of ICT in early childhood education. Analytical survey, 148 p. UNESCO IITE, Moscow (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moravcik, M., Pekarova, J., Kalas, I. Digital technologies at preschool: class scenarios. In: Proceedings of 9th WCCE: IFIP World Conference on Computers in Education, Bento Goncalves, 10 p. (2009). [CD-ROM]Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kalas, I.: Programming in lower primary years: design principles and powerful ideas. Submitted to Constructionism, Vilnius, (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Benton, L., Saunders, P., Kalas, I., Hoyles, C., Noss, R.: Designing for learning mathematics through programming: a case study of pupils engaging with place value. Int. J. Child Comput. Interact. 16, 68–76 (2018). Scholar
  13. 13.
    diSessa, A.A., Cobb, P.: Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. J. Learn. Sci. 13, 77–103 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nieveen, N., Folmer, E.: Formative evaluation in educational design research. In: Plomp, T., Nieveen, N. (eds.) Educational Design Research, pp. 152–169. SLO – Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moravcik, M., Kalas, I.: Developing software for early childhood education. In: Addressing educational challenges: the role of ICT. In: IFIP Working Conference, Manchester, 12 p. MMU (2012). [CD-ROM]Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shneiderman, B.: Direct manipulation: a step beyond programming languages. Computer 16(8), 57–69 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sherugar, S.M., Budiu, R.: Direct manipulation: definition. NN/g (2016). Accessed 31 May 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Comenius UniversityBratislavaSlovakia
  2. 2.EdixBratislavaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations