1175464

research-article2023
ECR0010.1177/1476718X231175464Journal of Early Childhood ResearchCampana and Mills

Article

Journal of Early Childhood Research

Playing, tinkering, and problem

2023, Vol. 21(3) 369­–383
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
solving: Understanding early sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1476718X231175464
https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X231175464
computational thinking in libraries journals.sagepub.com/home/ecr

and museums

Kathleen Campana
School of Information, Kent State University, USA

J Elizabeth Mills
OCLC, USA

Abstract
Computational thinking (CT) has emerged as an important method in the United States for helping children
learn to solve complex problems and develop skills necessary for coding and other computer science-related
endeavors. Research has revealed that CT can be encouraged with children as young as 3–4 years of age.
While some preschools and schools are incorporating CT into their curriculum for young children, ages
0–8 years, it is important to understand how environments outside of schools are using CT with young
children, particularly given that, in the United States, a large percent of young children, ages 0–5 years, are
not in formal school settings. This study provides insight into this area through 20 interviews with educators
in libraries and museums to understand how they incorporate CT into their work with young children, ages
0–8 years, and their families. The interviews reveal that library and museum educators are using a variety of
developmentally-appropriate approaches, such as play, experimentation, and narrative, to design and offer a
diverse array of engaging, hands-on CT activities that allow young children to practice CT in child-centered,
meaningful ways.

Keywords
coding, computational thinking, libraries, museums, play, tinkering, unplugged computational thinking

Introduction
Amidst a growing emphasis in the United States on the teaching of STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics) in both formal school- and informal out-of-school learning spaces,
there has been increased attention on how to connect children with the skills, mindset, and resources
they need to eventually learn how to code and program computers, robots, and other digital devices.

Corresponding author:
Kathleen Campana, School of Information, Kent State University, 800 East Summit Street, Kent, OH 44242, USA.
Email: kcampan2@kent.edu
370 Journal of Early Childhood Research 21(3)

Table 1. Common CT skills.

CT skill Description
Abstraction Removing unnecessary details in the problem-solving process
Algorithm design Identifying and organizing steps needed for solving a problem
Debugging Identifying errors/mistakes in the problem-solving process
Decomposition Breaking down problems into smaller pieces
Evaluation Determining the success of the problem-solving solution
Logic The act of using rules or reasoning to solve problems
Pattern recognition Identifying similarities, differences, and connections in the problem-solving process

This emphasis on preparing children to eventually learn to code is connected to the changing skills
young people need as they move into a workforce and society in the United States that are increas-
ingly centered on computers and other digital tools. Computational thinking (CT) has emerged as
a way to provide the skills needed for learning how to code. While there is no universal definition
of CT, it can be thought of as a process for solving complex problems. Scholars suggest that even
children as young as three and four can participate in CT activities (Bers, 2020), because engaging
with CT and CT skills (Table 1) can offer children a way to evolve from being users of digital tools
to eventually building their own tools (Barr and Stephenson, 2011).
Much of the existing research has looked at CT programming in formal learning environments
such as schools (Macrides et al., 2021). Yet, research has shown that children spend more time
outside of formal school environments (Hadani and Rood, 2018); so by looking at the ways in
which they are learning outside of school, it is possible to examine children’s continuous learning
experiences with CT. Because of this, a need exists to understand how informal learning environ-
ments, or learning environments outside of school, support CT for young children. Furthermore,
since families typically accompany children to libraries, museums, and other informal learning
environments (Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education, 2016; Lopez et al., 2016),
these environments can engage families in CT activities and help them with supporting CT for their
children. While some libraries and museums are offering regular CT activities for young children
and their families (Campana et al., 2020; Cohen and Waite-Stupiansky, 2019), only limited research
has been completed and has mostly focused on specific activities/curriculum designed and imple-
mented by external researchers (Ehsan et al., 2021). Because libraries and museum educators are
designing their own CT activities for young children and their families, it is important to under-
stand how these environments are supporting CT for children and families to allow other libraries
and museums to learn from them. This study described in this article uses interviews with 20
library and museum educators to provide initial understanding into how libraries and museums in
the United States are supporting CT for young children, ages 0–8 years, and their families.

International context
Even though this article focuses on CT practices being used with young children in the United
States, the findings described here have international implications. Countries across the world are
increasingly using digital tools and devices as central pieces of their daily lives. Because of this,
many countries, including the United States, are incorporating computer science-related curricu-
lum, concepts, and skills into their education for children (Bers et al., 2022; European Commission
et al., 2022). Furthermore, following a study focused on the incorporation of the CT in education
across 22 EU Member States and 8 non-EU countries, the European Commission recommended
Campana and Mills 371

that countries should “integrate CT in a continuum from [the early years of] primary school until
the end of compulsory education in an age-appropriate way” (European Commission et al., 2022:
86). In an OECD Education Working Paper, Bers et al. (2022) also emphasizes the role of informal
education spaces with supporting CT for young children, ages 3–8 years, and their caregivers. Both
of these reports suggest that there is a need internationally to understand how to support CT for
young children in age-appropriate ways. This article begins to address this need by providing
insight into how CT skills can be encouraged and supported with young children.

Literature review
Computational thinking (CT), a foundational skill in the process of learning how to code, can be
understood in a number of ways: as an approach to solving problems that can be implemented
using a computer (Barr and Stephenson, 2011); even more abstractly, as the thought process itself
that enables problem solving (Wing, 2006); or, to combine both problem solving and creativity, “an
expressive or creative process that helps children and adults create solutions to a problem or com-
plete a task in a manner that could be replicated by others” (Campana et al., 2020: 46). There are a
variety of skills that contribute to CT (see Table 1). These CT skills can help children build the
foundation needed for a creative, problem-solving mindset, provided the approach and materials
are age- and developmentally-appropriate (Flannery and Bers, 2013). In addition to CT skills,
children can also develop CT dispositions, or character attributes that contribute to CT, such as
communication, persistence, and creativity, through CT–based activities (CSTE & ISTA, 2011).
Developmentally-appropriate methods for supporting CT in formal learning environments with
young children, 0–8, have been studied in a variety of ways. Research has explored using solely
digital materials (i.e. iPads, robots, coding toys, coding software, and circuits/engineering tools) to
support CT with young children, like using ScratchJr to learn block coding (Bers, 2018) or building
and programming robots in preschool (Kazakoff et al., 2013). Mixing digital and analog methods,
such as using whole-body coding games combined with ScratchJr coding activities in early ele-
mentary school mathematics education, have also been used to introduce CT for young children
(Sung et al., 2017). Finally, others have taken a more accessible approach to supporting CT and
used only analog methods (i.e. tinkering and making with craft or building materials or program-
ming cards or games) to effectively support CT for early years primary students (del Olmo-Muñoz
et al., 2020). While a variety of methods, tools, and materials have been used to successfully sup-
port CT for young children, it is crucial that the appropriateness of the methods, tools, and materi-
als be considered in relation to the young children’s specific developmental stages (Wang et al.,
2021), perhaps demonstrating the importance of emphasizing CT skill-building (Macrides et al.,
2021) rather than the tools and materials themselves.
However, it is not enough to simply offer digital and analog materials and provide a variety of
activities for children and families to engage with CT. Research has shown that the educator plays
a crucial role in fostering and supporting CT skills for young children and their families (Fessakis
et al., 2013). The educator’s role is composed of different approaches that support learning through
play-based CT experiences. These approaches include providing an open-ended structure with
multiple possible problem-solving solutions (Baroutsis et al., 2019) and considering the surround-
ing learning environment, the learners themselves, and the CT learning outcomes for children
(Bers, 2007).
Furthermore, research has not yet fully explored the variety and range of CT activities taking place
in informal learning environments for young children. This is particularly true for libraries and muse-
ums, where learning opportunities and curriculum can follow a more individualized and flexible
approach and are often implemented by professionals who must learn on the job. The American
372 Journal of Early Childhood Research 21(3)

Library Association’s Libraries Ready to Code Initiative offers resources and professional develop-
ment for library professionals looking to implement CT in their libraries; but these resources mostly
focus on CT for older youth (American Library Association, 2018). Thus, there is a gap in understand-
ing what educators in museums and libraries are doing to engage young children (ages 0–8 years) and
their families with CT skills and dispositions. Obtaining deeper insight into these educators’ goals,
approaches, and engagement efforts with young children and families, can help the library and museum
fields, and other informal learning environments (i.e. home, community centers, afterschool environ-
ments, etc.), better understand how to engage young children, ages 0–8 years, with CT skills, disposi-
tions, and overall problem solving activities. This understanding should help inform, strengthen, and
increase CT activities for young children across the range of informal learning environments and even
in formal learning environments. Through the data from 20 interviews with library and museum edu-
cators, this study addresses these gaps and details the types of CT activities and approaches library and
museum educators are offering to support CT for young children and their families.

Methods
This qualitative study was guided by the following overarching research question and
sub-questions:
How are museum and library educators supporting computational thinking for young children,
ages 0–8 years?

RQ1: What types of activities and approaches are museum and library educators using to sup-
port computational thinking for young children?
RQ2: What are museum and library educators’ goals for incorporating computational thinking
into their work with young children?

Participants
To answer these questions, semi-structured interviews were conducted with educators at 10 librar-
ies and 10 museums across the United States. Participants were recruited using a mixture of purpo-
sive sampling and snowball sampling. Researchers recruited educators who they knew were
incorporating CT into their work with young children, ages 0–8 years, and their families, and then
asked them to recommend other educators doing similar work. The participants held a range of
positions, but all of them worked with young children and their families directly. The library posi-
tions included children’s librarian, youth services manager, and STEM supervisor, among others.
The museum positions included early childhood education manager, makerspace manager, and
education specialist and the educators came from science museums (30%) and children’s museums
(70%). Finally, the libraries and museums were in communities of all sizes (Table 2) that were rela-
tively evenly spread across four regions of the United States. Twenty-five percent of participants
were in the Northeast, 25% in the Southeast, 25% in the West, and 20% in the Midwest. The
Southwest was underrepresented with 5% of the participants.

Data collection and analysis

Semi-structured interviews were used for this initial study of how museum and library educators are
supporting CT for young children, ages 0–8 years, and their families. Interviews were chosen to
allow the participants to talk freely and deeply about their own CT work with young children and
Campana and Mills 373

Table 2. Sizes of the libraries and museums’ communities.

Community size Libraries Museums

Small (0–200,000) 9 4
Medium (200,001–500,000) 0 1
Large (more than 500,000) 1 5

families and about their own experiences with using and learning about CT. The semi-structured
format was used to allow for exploration of unanticipated lines of inquiry related to CT and young
children. While the interview protocol included 18 main questions on topics related to how libraries
and museums are supporting CT for young children and their families, this article focuses specifi-
cally on the CT activities and approaches these educators are using with young children and their
goals for those efforts. Two different researchers conducted the interviews between June 2021 and
January 2022 and used the same protocol to maintain a similar structure across all interviews. The
interviews were audio-recorded for transcription purposes and the transcripts were used in the
analysis.
The interview transcripts were analyzed using a multi-cycle coding process to provide insight
into the common themes that emerged under each research question. The coding was done across
the two environments—libraries and museums—rather than within each group. This was done to
understand more broadly how informal learning environments are supporting CT for young chil-
dren and families rather than comparing the two different environments, because, as informal
learning environments, libraries and museums often occupy a similar position in a young child’s
life. For the initial coding cycle, one researcher engaged in structural coding (Saldaña, 2016) by
reading through the transcripts and assigning codes for the broad themes that aligned with the
research questions. Then a second researcher reviewed the transcripts and codes and made refine-
ments to the codes after discussions with the first researcher to ensure agreement on the codes (see
Table 3 for the codes and descriptions).
For the second round of coding, the second researcher read through the coded segments under
each broad code in Table 3 and developed subcodes to identify common themes within each broad
code. A mixture of in vivo and concept coding (Saldaña, 2016) was used to develop the subcodes.
In vivo coding was used for the activity and the goal subcodes. Concept coding was used to develop
the approaches, skills, and dispositions subcodes and was guided by the educators’ language as
well as related literature. These subcodes were then reviewed and refined based on discussions
with the first researcher. Table 4 details the subcodes for the educators’ approaches to CT, while the
CT skills subcodes are described in Table 1 in the Introduction. The other subcodes are not detailed
here because they are detailed in the results section or are already commonly known concepts like
the CT dispositions.

Results
The results reveal that these museum and library educators are incorporating CT into their work
with young children in a variety of ways and with a variety of different goals. It is important to note
that, while the researchers set out to understand how museum and library educators support CT for
young children, ages 0–8 years, it became clear that these efforts do not often include very young
children, particularly those ages 0–2 years. Only one library talked about intentionally working to
support CT for young children, ages 0–2 years. Most of the participants described offering CT
activities for children, ages 3–8 years (see Table 5).
374 Journal of Early Childhood Research 21(3)

Table 3. Codes from first coding cycle.

Code Description
Activities Structured and unstructured programs that incorporate skills and practices of CT
Approaches Ways that the educators go about delivering their CT activities
CT dispositions Broader character attributes that contribute to CT
CT skills Specific skills related to the CT process
Goals Broad expectations and hopes that guide educators’ development and delivery of CT
activities and inform their approaches

Table 4. Broad approaches guiding CT activities.

Approach subcodes Subcode description

Digital Using solely digital materials in activities
Embodied learning Incorporating children’s motor movements into CT activities
Experimentation Encouraging children to try different ideas and materials while tinkering,
building, or coding and continue trying if the ideas or materials did not work
Mixed Using a mixture of analog and digital materials in activities
Narrative Using stories to provide context for CT activities
Normalizing failure Celebrating failure to help children accept it as a normal part of life
Open exploration Providing a variety of materials and allowing children to interact and create
with them based on their own interests
Play Incorporating principles of play into CT activities (i.e. child-directed, fun, and
interactive)
Process over product Placing an emphasis on the process of creating, and what is gained from it,
rather than the final product
Unplugged Using solely analog materials in activities

Table 5. Target ages for CT activities.

Age group (years) Number of libraries Number of museums

0–2 1 0
3–4 9 8
5–6 8 9
7–8 4 8

Types of activities
The interviews revealed that both library and museum educators are supporting CT for young chil-
dren and their families through a variety of activities. They incorporated these activities through five
main methods: in-person and virtual CT-focused programs, CT-focused camps, kits of CT-related
tools and resources, CT activities in programs with a different primary focus, and drop-in CT activi-
ties in library and museum spaces. Some of these methods were used in both environments, while
others were used exclusively in one of the environments. All of the library and museum participants
were offering in-person CT-focused programs, with 25% of participants also offering virtual pro-
grams. Thirty-five percent of participants also reported offering CT-focused camps, which were
Campana and Mills 375

Table 6. Types of CT activities.

Type of CT Percentage of Example

activity educators (%)
Digital precoding 80 A museum educator shared that they use Scratch/ScratchJr as an
activity. The children have to figure out how to control the sprites
on the screen and think about the different steps required to make
things happen with their sprite.
Tinkering 65 A museum educator shared that their tinkering programs are set
up with rich materials so when the children walk into the room,
they feel like they are tinkerers. The goal is for them to make
things out of a variety of common objects, but they get to take the
lead on designing what they want it to be.
Engineering 45 A museum educator detailed a drop-in program where families
participated on their own schedule. They prompted the families to
use big boxes, smaller boxes, and scrap cardboard to build a city.
In the end, the families created a cardboard city that had a library,
ice cream shop, roadways, and more. According to the educator,
“It was world-building in this really unique way, but there were
also structural problems for the children to tackle, like making sure
the boxes were standing up, where to put doors and windows, and
how to combine boxes to make a bigger structure."
Non-digital 35 A library shared that they made binary coding bracelets, where
precoding each bead and the color of the bead equals a binary code letter, so
the children can make their name on the bracelet using the beads.
Art 25 A library educator discussed using craft-based activities where the
children had to create patterns. In one, they made a caterpillar and
they had to make him with a color pattern and a number pattern.
Circuits 20 A library shared about when they did squishy circuits and how they
decided to test different things–from a rock, to a basketball, and
even a cup of hot cocoa–to see if they had conductivity.

longer, more immersive experiences for older children in the 0–8 years age range. Distributing kits
of CT-related tools and resources to families and schools/preschools was another method for sup-
porting CT for young children (20% of educators). The final two methods were each exclusively
offered by one environment. Fifty percent of the library participants (25% of total participants)
shared that they were incorporating CT activities into existing programs, like storytime, as a second-
ary focus. Eighty percent of the museum participants (40% of total participants) reported offering
drop-in CT activities in their spaces, including exhibit halls and tinker or makerspaces.
Within the five methods described above, there were several common types of activities that
educators were using to support CT, including precoding (both digital and unplugged), tinkering,
engineering, circuits, and art (Table 6). Both library and museum participants described offering
both digital (80%) and unplugged (35%) precoding activities. Tinkering activities were also com-
mon with 65% of participants offering them. Engineering activities emerged as another method for
supporting CT skills for young children with 45% of participants offering them. Engineering activ-
ities were similar to tinkering activities in that children were making and building, but the engi-
neering programs had specific problem-solving objectives rather than being open-ended. A smaller
number of participants also talked about using art activities and circuit-building activities to sup-
port CT.
376 Journal of Early Childhood Research 21(3)

Types of approaches
During the interviews, it became clear that the educators also had specific approaches that they
used to guide their CT efforts (Table 7). The approach of using digital materials versus analog
materials or a mix of both was one of the most frequently discussed. Most participants were
offering both programs that used only analog materials (80%) and programs that used only digi-
tal materials (75%). In addition, 45% of participants offered activities that mixed analog and
digital materials. The remaining approaches revealed interesting insights into the ways the edu-
cators structure the CT activities. Making the activities play-based was mentioned by 55% of
participants. They discussed the importance of making it fun, interactive, and child directed. The
use of narrative (45% of participants) or stories in the activities was also described as important
for engaging these younger children. For example, a museum educator shared, “Having that nar-
rative gets the children more engaged because they are like, ‘oh, I'm trying to help this specific
character that I read about’ instead of it just being a random, unrelated activity where they build
a tower.”
Participants (45%) also talked about using the activities to normalize failure; as one participant
put it, “We try to get across the idea that failures are necessary in order for us to get the right
answer.” They described encouraging the children to work as independently as possible and then
making sure to celebrate the small successes and the failures. Almost half of the participants (40%)
also mentioned open exploration as an important approach for CT and young children. They
described using a wide variety of materials with limited structure on what to create to allow children
to get experience with different tools and materials while following their interests and experiment-
ing with their own ideas. Embodied learning, a developmentally-appropriate approach for young
children that incorporates whole body movement into the learning process (Kontra et al., 2012),
emerged as an important approach for encouraging CT in early childhood in 35% of the interviews.
Finally, 30% of the participants talked about the greater emphasis they place on the process of creat-
ing and experimenting over the final product. This was closely aligned with the approach of normal-
izing failure because the educators would point out to the children that it was important to fail so that
they could improve. As one participant said, “You're creating, you're testing, you're improving. So
go ahead and make it. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, try something else."

Goals
During the interviews, participants were asked about the goals that they had for their CT efforts
with young children and their families. A number of common themes emerged in their responses,
including problem-solving practice, self-efficacy, increasing interest in STEM careers, and sup-
porting specific CT skills and dispositions. The most prevalent theme for both library and museum
participants was that they wanted the children to have opportunities to practice problem solving.
As one library participant commented, “Our focus is encouraging that freedom to think, tinker, and
take risks in a safe environment; figure things out; and help the parents help their children without
giving the [children] the answer.” Another common theme that emerged was that they wanted to
help children see themselves as capable of doing these different things, whether it is solving prob-
lems, coding, or building something. One museum participant shared, “Our specific goals are to
introduce these ideas so [children] can get more familiar and comfortable working with technology
and looking at it not as magic but more like, hey, this is something I can do. I would say that we try
to incorporate CT to help normalize it.” Participants also went a step further and described wanting
children to begin to see STEM as a potential career option, saying things like, “My goal is for the
children to begin to see this as a career they can pursue, that it is a field that they want to be in, that
they want to change and explore.”
Campana and Mills 377

Table 7. Broad approaches guiding the CT work.

Approach Percentage of Example

educators (%)
Unplugged 80 A museum educator shared about a challenge where children were given
UV-sensitive beads that changed color in UV light and a pipe cleaner to
make a caterpillar. They had to build a house for the caterpillar so that it
wouldn't get a sunburn. They used recycled materials to build the house
and were given a UV flashlight to shine on it. If the beads stayed white,
their caterpillar was safe, but if the beads turned purple, then they had to
try a new idea and build it a safer house.
Digital 75 One library educator created a program called Tech-tacular, which is
like a petting zoo with different coding games and toys, such as Bee-
bots and Cubetto. They put these digital items out and let the children
experiment with them in self-directed ways.
Mixed 45 One museum educator shared a Scratch coding program where they
encouraged children to draw a character on paper, take a photo of it, and
import the photo into Scratch and build a story around the character.
Experimentation 65 A library educator offered a program related to wind where they had
a wind tunnel and the children were prompted to make a vehicle that
would go in the wind. When they tested their vehicles with the wind
tunnel, if they didn’t work, the educator was there to help the children
think about why it didn’t work and what they could change. The
children could then make some modifications and try again.
Play 55 A library educator shared that they offered open play in the form of
a big play structure and toys, along with purposeful, intentional play
patterns to support CT, like stacking, sorting, puzzle solving.
Narrative 45 A museum educator designed a program around the story of Goldilocks
and the Three Bears. The educator asked the children how they would
solve the problem in the story of Goldilocks breaking Baby Bear’s chair.
The children were prompted to bring a bear from home and make a
chair for it that wouldn’t break. The children first designed on paper
to understand the steps involved in making their chair. They then used
cardboard and hot glue to make the chair and tested it with their bears.
Normalizing 45 One library educator on normalizing failure: “For many children, if they
failure don’t get it right the first time, it’s over. They feel like they are a failure.
And I have to say, ‘ No, this is the first time you’re seeing this. No one’s
going to expect you to get this right the first time.’ . . .The library is perfect
for experiencing failure because there’s nothing at stake. There’s no tests,
there’s no report cards. So you can mess it up a thousand times and no
one’s going to judge you.”
Open 40 A museum educator shared about an exhibit in their museum that
exploration includes iPads with coding games, 3D printers, and an AR sandbox, all of
which enable families to play with a variety of materials in self-directed
ways, as educators are not usually there guiding them.
Embodied 35 For Halloween, a library educator created a big spiderweb on the floor
learning using tape and put questions on the wall nearby that asked children what
kind of pattern they could make as they moved through the spiderweb. In
this way, children used their own body to navigate the codes.
Process over 30 A museum educator shared the following insight regarding an emphasis
product on process over product: “[I] support the small victories, and help [them]
think through [the problem]. What is the core element of what they're
trying to achieve? What is the minimum achievable goal, and how can we
get there? We just want to support [children] and show them that, ‘Hey,
this is possible. It is just the very first time you've tried this.’”
378 Journal of Early Childhood Research 21(3)

Goals: CT skills and dispositions

When discussing goals for their CT efforts, the educators also mentioned different CT skills and
dispositions they were intentionally trying to support (Tables 8 and 9 respectively). With CT skills,
the educators most often focused on pattern recognition, algorithm design, and decomposition
(60%, 60%, and 55%, respectively). A smaller number of participants also mentioned trying to
support logic, abstraction, debugging, and evaluation.
Participants also shared about dispositions or attitudes related to CT that they were trying to
support (Table 9). Persistence was the most common disposition, followed by creativity, collabora-
tion, and confidence. Regarding persistence, one educator said, “We try to provide opportunities
that let them experience productive frustration, not letting them get so annoyed that they're going
to give up, but letting them struggle and persist, and maybe they find something awesome.” Some
participants also identified inquisitiveness, communication, dealing with ambiguity, growth mind-
set, and independence as other dispositions they were trying to support. With inquisitiveness, one
participant shared, “We encourage the children to question everything and be curious about how
the world works. We want them to try to figure things out for themselves and not just accept things
as they’re presented.”

Discussion
The goal of this initial study was to understand how library and museum educators are supporting
CT for young children through their regular institutional efforts. This was done by exploring the
types of activities and approaches they were using, the CT skills and dispositions they were trying
to support, and their broad goals for these efforts. In terms of the types of activities, the interviews
revealed that these educators are supporting CT for young children through five main types of
activities: precoding (digital and unplugged), tinkering, engineering, art, and circuits. These differ-
ent types are important because they appeal to a wide range of learners and interests and are child-
centered by allowing the child to lead the process of creating and completing the activity. The
open-ended nature and flexibility of the activities—particularly tinkering, engineering, and art—
also allow the child to incorporate their own ideas and creativity, potentially offering a valuable
learning experience for the children (Piscitelli and Penfold, 2015).
The interviews also revealed several approaches that educators were using for these efforts. The
different types of materials that educators used in their activities were particularly important given
that 80% of participants used unplugged materials to support CT. To date, research has placed a
larger focus on using digital materials (Bers, 2018; Macrides et al., 2021) but it is important to have
a thorough understanding of how to support CT through unplugged materials because it offers
more accessible ways for schools, organizations, and families of all means to engage in CT activi-
ties with their young children. The activities where educators intentionally used a mix of digital
and unplugged constructive and creative materials also offered valuable experiences for young
children as the mix creates a low-tech environment, which can offer a variety of benefits, including
the novelty of digital materials combined with the hands-on, collaborative and creative nature
associated with the unplugged materials (Campana & Agarwal, 2019).
The other approaches were significant as well, particularly the focus on play, experimentation,
normalizing failure, and narrative. The play approach was important because countless research
studies have demonstrated the benefits of play for young children’s learning (Burriss and Tsao,
2002; UNICEF, 2018). By having some of the activities be child-directed and open-ended and flex-
ible to the children’s interests, the educators are allowing the children to engage with these skills
and concepts in ways that they want and that are more meaningful for them. The focus on
Campana and Mills 379

Table 8. Percentage of participants using specific CT skills in their efforts.

CT skill Percentage of Example

educators (%)
Algorithm 60 A museum educator shared that they do an activity in which the
design children design a process and give instructions to a robot to make a
sandwich. The children need to think about all the specifics involved in
this task, including how to hold the knife, how to get the jelly out of
the jar, etc.
Pattern 60 A museum educator shared how they present opportunities for pattern
recognition recognition using natural elements like acorns and leaves and sticks.
The children can find patterns in these materials as well as make their
own patterns using these objects.
Decomposition 55 A museum educator used a complex task–opening a door–to
encourage children to think about how to identify the smaller
components of that larger task. “You have to grab the handle, and
you have to turn it, but the way that you turn it or push it might
be different based on the handle.” In this way, children can begin to
understand that any whole is made up of parts.
Logic 30 A library educator uses the familiar activity of building a peanut butter
and jelly sandwich to help children think through their logical thinking.
The children need to think like a computer scientist and come up with
a logical flow to build a sandwich.
Abstraction 20 One library educator focuses on helping children look at information
and remove a piece of that information because it doesn’t work. This
helps the children to realize they don’t have to use everything in front
of them and they can manipulate their environment and think in an
abstract manner.
Debugging 20 A library educator emphasizes debugging by purposely setting up an
incorrect set of code and then asking children to see if they can find
the problem.
Evaluation 5 One museum educator shared that they define success in terms of
“trying, planning your ideas, testing them out. So even if you don’t quite
specifically beat the exact challenge, you were still successful if you
tried more than one idea and you could see the progression of getting
closer to beat the challenge.”

experimentation and normalizing failure was also notable. While children naturally experiment
during play, having an environment and scaffolding that intentionally support repeated attempts at
figuring things out can help to sustain the children’s problem-solving process through potential
unsuccessful attempts (Martinez, 1998). This environment designed around experimentation com-
bined with intentional educator support also helps to normalize failure for the children and is the
key to building a growth mindset, which can help children be confident, active learners in the
future (Dweck, 2016). Finally, the approach of positioning these activities in stories or narratives
was key for engaging young children as it situates these new CT concepts and/or activities in some-
thing, like a story, that can be familiar for young children and is a developmentally appropriate
practice for working with young children (UNICEF, 2018).
The goals that educators identified for their CT efforts also provide insight into this work and
CT in early childhood more broadly. The educators most frequently discussed problem-solving
practice as what they were trying to provide for young children through the CT activities. Given
380 Journal of Early Childhood Research 21(3)

Table 9. Percentage of participants using specific CT dispositions.

CT Disposition Percentage of educators (%)

Persistence 75
Creativity 50
Collaboration 45
Confidence 45
Inquisitiveness 40
Communication 30
Tolerance for ambiguity 25
Growth mindset 20
Independence 15

that problem solving is a crucial part of daily life for people of all ages (Martinez, 1998), the prac-
tice provided by these activities can offer significant benefits for the children throughout their
lives. The ways in which the educators discussed the CT skills and dispositions they were trying to
support provides insight into the nature of CT in early childhood. Many of the educators demon-
strated that they understand the concept of CT when they discussed trying to support skills that
have been identified as essential pieces of the CT process (Barr et al., 2011). However, several of
the educators seem to place a bigger emphasis on supporting computational dispositions over the
skills, which is possibly due to the children’s younger age, along with the focus on the “whole
child” in early learning (Semmel, 2012).
Overall, it is important that informal learning environments offer these CT opportunities
alongside schools, as informal learning environments focus on interest-driven, open-ended
experiences that allow children to follow their own interests and direct their own learning pro-
cess (Falk and Dierking, 2002). In addition, since caregivers often accompany their young chil-
dren to libraries and museums (Campana, 2021; Wolf and Wood, 2012), the use of accessible
materials and approachable CT activities can help families understand how they can incorporate
CT into their home environments. Finally, these opportunities help to increase access to CT
experiences for young children, particularly for those ages 0–5 years, given that a large percent-
age of them are not in a formal school environment (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2020).
Ultimately these CT activities in libraries and museums are helping to expose young children to
the skills and abilities they need to dive deeper into these topics in the future along with helping
to build their interest and confidence in STEM-related areas, which should be beneficial for the
children and our society as a whole, as we continue to evolve even further into a fully digital
society (Dufva and Dufva, 2019).

Limitations
This study has two main limitations. First, the data set is a small sample of libraries and museums
across the United States and therefore may not be broadly representative of the practices, activities,
and goals of all such institutions. However, participants were selected from various geographical
areas around the country and from varied population densities to provide a diverse array of per-
spectives. Secondly, the information gathered in this study is self-reported by the educators, with-
out in-person observations to corroborate these responses. This provides a fertile area for future
research to use the findings detailed here to develop protocols for observation and coding of CT
behaviors in informal learning environments.
Campana and Mills 381

Conclusion
The initial study reveals that library and museum educators are designing and offering a variety of
engaging, hands-on activities that allow children to practice CT in a developmentally appropriate
manner. The approaches that educators were using for these activities provide interesting insight
into how CT can be supported for young children and the educators’ goals for their CT efforts offer
additional understanding into the nature of CT in early childhood. While these findings provide
valuable initial information on these efforts, additional research is needed into the learning envi-
ronment and experiences provided by these activities through observations and research with the
children and families themselves. In addition, the results of this study could be used to inform
quantitative studies with larger sample sizes on supporting CT for young children in informal
learning environments. The caregivers’ experiences also warrant exploration, particularly what
they learn through these activities and whether that transfers into the home environment. Finally,
research could also focus on the longitudinal effect of continued participation in these CT activi-
ties, looking at the impact it has on a child’s progress with CT skills but also with the dispositions,
given their importance throughout all aspects of life.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs
Kathleen Campana https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6367-9282
J Elizabeth Mills https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2375-0894

References
American Library Association (2018) Libraries ready to code: Resources. Available at https://www.ala.org/
tools/readytocode/resources (accessed 28 January 2022).
The Annie E. Casey Foundation (2020) Young children not in school in the United States. Available at: www.
datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/9010-young-children-not-in-school#detailed/1/any/false/1757,168
7,1652,1564,1491,1443,1218,1049,995,932/any/17975,17976 (accessed 4 February 2022).
Baroutsis A, White SL, Ferdinands E, et al. (2019) Computational thinking as a foundation for coding:
Developing student engagement and learning. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom 24(2): 10–15.
Barr D, Harrison J and Conery L (2011) Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning
& Leading with Technology 38(6): 20–23.
Barr V and 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.
Bers MU (2007) Project InterActions: A multigenerational robotic learning environment. Journal of Science
Education and Technology 16(6): 537–552.
Bers MU (2018) Coding and computational thinking in early childhood: The impact of ScratchJr in Europe.
European Journal of STEM Education 3(3): 1–13.
Bers MU (2020) Coding as a Playground: Programming and Computational Thinking in the Early Childhood
Classroom. New York: Routledge.
Bers MU, Strawhacker A and Sullivan A (2022) The state of the field of computational thinking in early child-
hood education. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 274. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Burriss KG and Tsao LL (2002) Review of research: How much do we know about the importance of play in
child development? Childhood Education 78(4): 230–233.
Campana K (2021) Characterizing an information environment for supporting learning. Information and
Learning Sciences 12(5/6): 341–359.
382 Journal of Early Childhood Research 21(3)

Campana K and Agarwal N (2019) The landscape of research on learning in low-tech environments.
Information and Learning Sciences 120(11/12): 687–703.
Campana K, Haines C, Kociubuk J and Langsam P (2020). Making the connection: Computational thinking
and early learning for young children and their families. Public Libraries 59(4): 44–56.
Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (2016) Family learning in museums. Available at:
www.informalscience.org/news-views/family-learning-museums (accessed 10 August 2021).
Cohen LE and Waite-Stupiansky S (eds) (2019) STEM in early childhood education: How science, technol-
ogy, engineering, and mathematics strengthen learning. New York: Routledge.
CSTE & ISTA (2011) Operational Definition of Computational Thinking for K–12 Education. Available at:
https://cdn.iste.org/www-root/Computational_Thinking_Operational_Definition_ISTE.pdf (accessed
10 August 2021).
del Olmo-Muñoz J, Cózar-Gutiérrez R and González-Calero JA (2020) Computational thinking through
unplugged activities in early years of primary education. Computers & Education 150: 103832.
Dufva T and Dufva M (2019) Grasping the future of the digital society. Futures 107: 17–28.
Dweck C (2016) What having a “growth mindset” actually means. Harvard Business Review 13: 213–226.
Ehsan H, Rehmat AP and Cardella ME (2021) Computational thinking embedded in engineering design:
capturing computational thinking of children in an informal engineering design activity. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education 31(3): 441–464.
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Bocconi S, et al. (2022) Reviewing computational thinking in
compulsory education : state of play and practices from computing education. Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/126955
Falk JH and Dierking LD (2002) Lessons Without Limit: How Free-Choice Learning is Transforming
Education. Lanham: AltaMira Press.
Fessakis G, Gouli E and 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 LP and Bers MU (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.
Hadani H and Rood E (2018) The roots of STEM success: Changing early learning experiences to build
lifelong thinking skills. Available at: https://newtheme2018.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/
uploads/2020/04/Roots_Of_STEM_Paper_WORKING_v2.pdf (accessed 10 August 2021).
Kazakoff ER, Sullivan A and Bers MU (2013) The effect of a classroom-based intensive robotics and pro-
gramming workshop on sequencing ability in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal 41(4):
245–255.
Kontra C, Goldin-Meadow S and Beilock SL (2012) Embodied learning across the life span. Topics in
Cognitive Science 4(4): 731–739.
Lopez ME, Caspe M and McWilliams L (2016) Public libraries: A vital space for family engagement.
Available at: www.ala.org/pla/sites/ala.org.pla/files/content/initiatives/familyengagement/Public-
Libraries-A-Vital-Space-for-Family-Engagement_HFRP-PLA_August-2-2016.pdf (accessed 10 August
2021).
Macrides E, Miliou O and Charoula A (2021) Programming in early childhood education: A systematic
review. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 32: 100396.
Martinez ME (1998) What is problem solving?. The Phi Delta Kappan 79(8): 605–609.
Piscitelli B and Penfold L (2015) Child-centered practice in museums: Experiential learning through creative
play at the Ipswich Art Gallery. Curator: The Museum Journal 58(3): 263–280.
Saldaña J (2016) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Los Angeles: Sage.
Semmel ML (2012) An opportune moment: Museums in the national conversation on early learning. Journal
of Museum Education 37(1): 17–28.
Sung W, Ahn J and Black JB (2017) Introducing computational thinking to young learners: Practicing com-
putational perspectives through embodiment in mathematics education. Technology, Knowledge and
Learning 22(3): 443–463.
Campana and Mills 383

UNICEF (2018) Learning through play: Strengthening learning through play in early childhood education
programmes. Available at: www.unicef.org/sites/default/files/2018-12/UNICEF-Lego-Foundation-
Learning-through-Play.pdf (accessed 1 February 2022)
Wang XC, Choi Y, Benson K, et al. (2021) Teacher’s role in fostering preschoolers’ computational thinking:
An exploratory case study. Early Education and Development 32(1): 26–48.
Wing JM (2006) Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM 49(3): 33–35.
Wolf B and Wood E (2012) Integrating scaffolding experiences for the youngest visitors in museums. Journal
of Museum Education 37(1): 29–37.s