Developing preschool children’s computational thinking and executive functions: unplugged vs. robot programming activities
Zhang, X., Chen, Y., Hu, L., Hwang, G. J., & Tu, Y. F. · 2025
grade Crctunclearunreplicated
Sample
198 preschoolers aged 5-6 across three arms
Population
Chinese kindergarten children.
Design
A three-arm randomised trial — robot programming against unplugged programming against conventional kindergarten — measured at baseline, six weeks and twelve weeks with linear mixed-effects models. It is the closest thing in the literature to a design with a genuine active alternative and it is therefore the strongest available pro-transfer design. Weaknesses: no follow-up past end of treatment, no academic outcome, preschool executive-function measures, a single site, and an "active control" that is itself a programming intervention — so the contrast is programming against programming rather than programming against an equally engaging non-programming activity, leaving novelty and engagement uncontrolled.
Key findings
Robot programming beat unplugged programming on computational thinking (estimate 1.39, t = 4.31) and on all three executive functions at twelve weeks: inhibition (0.05, t = 2.23, p < .05), working memory (0.33, t = 2.27, p < .05) and cognitive flexibility (1.05, t = 2.61, p < .01). Only the robot arm improved significantly within-group on any executive function. Unplugged programming beat conventional kindergarten on computational thinking (2.06, t = 6.37) but on NO executive function. Note the internal structure: the marginal R-squared for the fixed factors is 0.29 for computational thinking and only 0.04-0.08 for the executive functions — the model explains the trained construct well and the transfer constructs barely.
Genetic confound
Low. Randomised assignment to three arms.
Replication notes
No replication located. Its executive-function results are in tension with the two randomised trials that used validated computational-thinking instruments and found nothing on the transfer side.
DOI / URL
10.1186/s40594-024-00525-z
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Computational thinking, robot programming versus conventional kindergarten | mixed-effects estimate | 3.45, t = 10.68, p < .001 across 12 weeks | researcher-designed | 12 weeks | business-as-usual | end-of-treatment | domain-skill |
| Computational thinking, robot versus unplugged programming | mixed-effects estimate | 1.39, t = 4.31, p < .001 | researcher-designed | 12 weeks | active-alternative | end-of-treatment | domain-skill |
| Inhibition, robot versus unplugged programming | mixed-effects estimate | 0.05, t = 2.23, p < .05 | standardized | 12 weeks | active-alternative | end-of-treatment | far-transfer |
| Working memory, robot versus unplugged programming | mixed-effects estimate | 0.33, t = 2.27, p < .05 | standardized | 12 weeks | active-alternative | end-of-treatment | far-transfer |
| Cognitive flexibility, robot versus unplugged programming | mixed-effects estimate | 1.05, t = 2.61, p < .01 | standardized | 12 weeks | active-alternative | end-of-treatment | far-transfer |
| Executive functions, unplugged programming versus conventional kindergarten | within-group F | no significant improvement on inhibition, working memory or flexibility | standardized | 12 weeks | business-as-usual | end-of-treatment | far-transfer |
Cited by
- Does learning to code improve general thinking?no effectconf: mediumgc: low