Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This short paper addressed an important area of early childhood learning and provided an example of an accessible and flexible learning experience easily adaptable to a range of early childhood and reception classes.

I am not very familiar with the literature and will leave it to other referees to determine whether this paper contributes substantially new material to the field. While it reads quite well, there are many issues with referencing. These include APA formatting both in the reference list and in the text, and many missing or inaccurate references.  See the list for those I picked up below. Also includes are some suggestions for improvements.

 

 

Referencing

Remove numbers in referencing for list. Many references are missing punctuation “et al., 2025”. Please check as there were too many to individually correct. APA referencing has lower case in titles except for proper nouns.

 

P 1 - DfE in full first time. Distinguish between your two references for DfE.

• Wang 2021a should be Wang, Choi et al. 2021
• Terroba et al, 2022 missing from reference list

P2-  Wang et al. (2021) does not define which Wang.

P 3 No Papert, 1991 on reference list.

• No Lee et al. 2022 on reference list.
• No Beers, 2018 on reference list
• Gomes has no date. Colon between Gomes and next reference.
• No Lee et al 2021 on reference list
• Spadafora et al., 2020 is not on list (should it be Spadafora & Downes?)

P4 – “early years’ teachers” (include possession)

• Comma needed in par 2 between challenge and Critten et al.
• Can we place fig 1 closer to the text on p. 4?
• “To address the challenge Critten et al. (2024) posited that by integrating aspects of CT with existing Early Learning Guides (ELGs) (DfE, 2023) CT can be taught through guided play activities in whole class lessons or in small group work (see Figure 1).” Confusing sentence. Break down, use fewer prepositions and links.

P 5 – “aged four-five years” replace with four to five years or 4-5 years.

• Becker et al., 2022 not on reference list.
• Siegler, 2016 not on reference list

p 6- 7 – sections are repetitive. Include details only once.

P 10 – I find the scoring for Part A confusing. If they get a score of one for every correctly identified item, and one for not selecting each of the six distractor items, should the maximum score not be 12? Reading ahead, I see that this is the case – so clarify earlier.

P 14 – Heading Task B should be on this page not 13

P 20 –  Spadafora et al., 2020 is not on list (should it be Spadafora & Downes?)

• Vygotsky should be et al., 1980.
• e. should be i.e., as in e.g., line below.

P 21. – some background on the language abilities of the children should have been included in the description of the lesson sequence and participants prior to the activities.

 

Reference on list but not in document

• Feurzieg et al.,
• Hedges 200
• DFE 2013 but why using old curriculum documents?

Did you include all the DOIs available?

 

Other notes

Swapping between maths and mathematics. I suggest mathematics. Be consistent.

P 1 – remove “but” from “robotics toys but through unplugged …”

Wonder about the quality of the pictures for children. I thought some of the images (e.g., Santa dressing and wrapping gifts) confusing. Would the children have recognised what was happening in each illustration. The physical dressing of the Father Christmas avoided this problem. Perhaps discuss?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Mostly very good. Could be more succinct  especially in the description of method.

Author Response

Icknield Article: Reviewer 1 suggestions

 

This short paper addressed an important area of early childhood learning and provided an example of an accessible and flexible learning experience easily adaptable to a range of early childhood and reception classes.

I am not very familiar with the literature and will leave it to other referees to determine whether this paper contributes substantially new material to the field. While it reads quite well, there are many issues with referencing. These include APA formatting both in the reference list and in the text, and many missing or inaccurate references.  See the list for those I picked up below. Also includes are some suggestions for improvements.

Thank you very much for all your suggestions and comments. We have marked all my amendments in blue in this text and in the manuscript to make it easier for you to see my corrections.

 

Referencing

Remove numbers in referencing for list.

We are not sure what you mean by removing the numbers in the reference list as there are none in my copy of the manuscript.  We were asked to also provide a separate reference list in the submission, perhaps they were numbered?

 

Many references are missing punctuation “et al., 2025”. Please check as there were too many to individually correct. APA referencing has lower case in titles except for proper nouns.

Thank you, We have checked through the manuscript carefully and we believe that they are now all correct.

 

P 1 - DfE in full first time. Distinguish between your two references for DfE.

We have checked all the DfE references and they are now all correctly dated.

 

• Wang 2021a should be Wang, Choi et al. 2021

This is the sentence that we think that you mean.  Choi is the second author in the list of five authors, so should be included in the ‘et al.,’

Consequently, it can be a challenge to educate children in computational thinking (CT) skills, especially when teaching the basics of Literacy and Maths are considered a priority (Wang et al., 2021a).

 

• Terroba et al, 2022 missing from reference list

We have added this reference into the reference list

Terroba, M., Ribera, J. M., Lapresa, D., & Anguera, M. T. (2022). Observational analysis of the development of computational thinking in early childhood education (5 years old) through an intervention proposal with a ground robot of programmed directionality. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 30(3), 437-455. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2022.2055102

 

P2-  Wang et al. (2021) does not define which Wang.

Thank you, this has now been corrected to: (Armoni, 2016; Wang et al, 2021a; Wing, 2006). 

 

P 3 No Papert, 1991 on reference list.

The reference has been corrected to: (Bers, 2021; Papert & Harel, 1991; Wang et al., 2021a)

• No Lee et al. 2022 on reference list.

This has been changed to: (Lee et al., 2023)

 

• No Beers, 2018 on reference list

Thank you. This has now been added to the reference list:

Bers, M. U. (2018). Coding and Computational Thinking in Early Childhood: The Impact of ScratchJr in Europe. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 08. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/3868

 

• Gomes has no date. Colon between Gomes and next reference.

Thank you.  This has now been corrected to: (Bers, 2021; Gomes et al., 2018; Fessakis et al., 2013; Hagon et al., 2020)

 

• No Lee et al 2021 on reference list

This has been corrected to: (Lee & Cho, 2021)

 

• Spadafora et al., 2020 is not on list (should it be Spadafora & Downes?)

This has been corrected to: (Spadafora & Downes, 2020)

P4 – “early years’ teachers” (include possession)

This has been corrected to: early years’ teachers

 

• Comma needed in par 2 between challenge and Critten et al.

The comma has been added and the et al., punctuation has been corrected: challenge, Critten et al., (2024)

 

• Can we place fig 1 closer to the text on p. 4?

On our manuscript, Figure 1 is on Page 4.  Our manuscript includes the abstract which is not included in the submission process.  We will include the abstract and the references on the resubmission for clarity.

 

• “To address the challenge Critten et al. (2024) posited that by integrating aspects of CT with existing Early Learning Guides (ELGs) (DfE, 2023) CT can be taught through guided play activities in whole class lessons or in small group work (see Figure 1).” Confusing sentence. Break down, use fewer prepositions and links.

This sentence has been amended to two sentences:

To address the challenge, Critten et al., (2024) posited that the Early Learning Guides (DfE, 2023) could be integrated with aspects of CT shown in Figure 1.  Guided play activities could be developed from these ideas and utilised in whole class lessons or in small group work. 

 

P 5 – “aged four-five years” replace with four to five years or 4-5 years.

APA guidelines ask for lower numbers to be written as words so this has been changed to four to five years.

• Becker et al., 2022 not on reference list.

The reference has been included:

Becker, I., Rigaud, V. M., & Epstein, A. (2023). Getting to know young children: Alternative assessments in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 51(5), 911-923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01353-y

 

• Siegler, 2016 not on reference list

The reference has now been added to the list:

Siegler, R. S. (2016). Continuity and change in the field of cognitive development and in the perspectives of one cognitive developmentalist. Child Development Perspectives, 10(2), 128-133. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12173

 

p 6- 7 – sections are repetitive. Include details only once.

This section has been deleted:

Based on the ideas of Critten et al. we developed small group, guided play activities to teach basic aspects of CT and the aims of our study were to firstly, evaluate if the activities were appropriate to use with children aged four to five years and provide opportunities for the development of CT abilities through scaffolding and secondly, to see whether, via these activities, the children would be able to demonstrate evidence of emerging CT abilities, particularly those involving critical thinking such as logical reasoning, evaluation, deconstruction, sequencing, debugging and associated language abilities (see Figure 1).

 

P 10 – I find the scoring for Part A confusing. If they get a score of one for every correctly identified item, and one for not selecting each of the six distractor items, should the maximum score not be 12? Reading ahead, I see that this is the case – so clarify earlier.

We have changed the scoring information under the heading Quantitative data analysis, but this is on Page 14.  We cannot find any information about scoring prior to this:

In Task A, each child was given a score of one for each correctly identified item and a score of one when a distractor item was not identified as relevant.  In both cases the maximum score was six, so a perfect score of Task A would be twelve. 

 

P 14 – Heading Task B should be on this page not 13

We were unable to find headings for Task A or B on pages 13 or 14.  The only headings for these sections are in the Results section.  Can you clarify?

 

P 20 –  Spadafora et al., 2020 is not on list (should it be Spadafora & Downes?)

Thank you, yes this has been corrected:

Spadafora & Downes, 2020

 

• Vygotsky should be et al., 1980.

Thank you, now corrected to:

Vygotsky et al., 1980

• e. should be i.e., as in e.g., line below.

Thank you, this has been corrected.

 

P 21. – some background on the language abilities of the children should have been included in the description of the lesson sequence and participants prior to the activities.

No information was given by the school other than the children’s first names and their dates of birth. We were given no information about the children’s ethnicity and any difficulties with language were only discovered when working with the children.  This was a new class of children to the school and it may be that as we were given consent to work with the class in the first half of the first term that the teachers/ school had not yet officially assessed the children’s language abilities.

 

Reference on list but not in document

• Feurzieg et al.,

This has been deleted from the reference list.

• Hedges 200

Deleted from the reference list.

 

• DFE 2013 but why using old curriculum documents?

The research was completed just before the 2023 documents were released.  We were using the 2013 guidelines when we were working with the school.  The school’s policy and curriculum were based on the 2013 guidelines.

 

Did you include all the DOIs available?

All the references have been checked.

 

Other notes

Swapping between maths and mathematics. I suggest mathematics. Be consistent.

We have checked the manuscript and all references to maths have been replaced by Mathematics.

 

P 1 – remove “but” from “robotics toys but through unplugged …”

‘But’ has been removed: ‘…robotics toys through unplugged play activities…’

Wonder about the quality of the pictures for children. I thought some of the images (e.g., Santa dressing and wrapping gifts) confusing. Would the children have recognised what was happening in each illustration. The physical dressing of the Father Christmas avoided this problem. Perhaps discuss?

The pictures used by the children were larger than those shown in the Figures.  Additionally, all the equipment shown in the photos were taken into school and used with and by the children.

The same wrapping paper, box and label were used in the images as well as in class with the children. 

The children in each group helped with wrapping up the presents and we went through each of the pictures on the Task B worksheets with the children to help them identify what was happening in each photo.  We are happy to include an extra photo and explanation to the manuscript if you feel it is necessary.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Mostly very good. Could be more succinct especially in the description of method.

We have attempted to rewrite the Methods section, and we have copied and pasted it here without the tables for your information. The tables are unchanged.

Materials and Activity

Each weekly guided play session followed a similar structure and the activities were designed to gradually scaffold the development of CT skills (see Tables 1 and 2).  All sessions were video-recorded by a laptop, individual interviews were recorded on a mobile phone and photographs were taken during the sessions.  The laptop and mobile phone were password-protected.  At the start of each session, there was an introduction when the children all said hello and told us their names to promote a sense of familiarity between the researchers and the group, and this was followed by Task A and Task B activities which are outlined in Table 2 and described later.  Each weekly session had a separate theme related to topics being explored in class: Wrapping a birthday present; Forest School uniform; Forest School map; Icing a biscuit; Father Christmas outfit; Wrapping a Christmas present (see Table 3). 

            Two tasks were completed each week:  Task A involved giving the children 12 pictures on a work sheet: six pictures that were relevant to an activity or task e.g., in session five, a Father Christmas outfit and six pictures that were not relevant, i.e., distractors.  For example, in the Father Christmas outfit task, session 5 (see Figure 2), the children were first shown a large picture of Father Christmas and the researchers discussed with the children the items in the picture. Then each child in the group had to circle the correct pictures: sweater, jacket, boots, hat, gloves and toy sack.  The distractors were the fairy wings, sunglasses, sandals, woolly hat, Christmas tree and bells.  Some of the children in each group were questioned about their choices to see if they understood the activity and if they could debug any errors.

            In the introduction to Task B the children were shown how to complete a sequenced activity related to that session’s theme and the items introduced in Task A, e.g., in session 6, how to wrap a Christmas present.  They were given time to see the sequence of events, and at various points were asked what would happen next.  Children were asked to join in by making suggestions or by helping with the activity.  Then the children were given a task to evaluate their knowledge and understanding. For example, in session 6, wrapping a Christmas present, six pre-cut photos of a child completing the task were provided (see Figure 3) and the children were asked to order them in an appropriate sequence by sticking the pictures into a numbered grid line of six rectangles on a A4 printed sheet.  At the end of Task B, all the children were questioned by either of the researchers, firstly to see if they understood the activity, secondly to hear the children explain their sequence and lastly to see if they sequenced the picture codes correctly.  We also wanted to find out if the children could identify and correct any errors.

08 August 2025

Date of this review

23 Aug 2025 11:50:23

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall comments:

This paper presents an innovative study exploring the use of guided play activities to train children’s computational thinking skills. The topic is interesting and addresses a meaningful research gap, and I see potential in the design of the training tasks. The introduction is clearly written, supported by updated literature, and the argument for the study’s urgency is well-articulated. However, there are substantial flaws in how the study was executed and analyzed, many of which cannot be fully resolved even with major revisions. My comments focus primarily on the methods and results sections, as outlined below:

1. (P. 5) The description of the design focuses mainly on the theoretical framework, but it should also detail the methodology.

2. (P. 6) Please clarify how the required sample size was calculated, as 24 children seems quite small for the scope of this study.
3. (P. 6) Please include the standard deviation when reporting children’s ages.
4. (P. 6) Clarify whether there were any outliers, how they were handled, whether there were dropouts, and whether all students participated in every session. Provide details on missing data for each session.
5. (P. 6) Explain the rationale for selecting the 4–5 age range. Why not younger or older preschoolers?
6. (P. 6) Please provide a literature-based rationale for why six sessions of 30 minutes each were considered sufficient for developing CT skills.
7. (P. 6) Although devices were password-protected, explain how participant confidentiality was safeguarded. Who had access to the videos, photos, and related data?
8. (P. 6) Specify how researchers were trained to conduct the sessions and whether a standardized protocol was used.
9. (P. 6-7) Explain how different CT dimensions were balanced across sessions.
10. (P. 6-7) Clarify how researchers provided feedback to children during the worksheets, both for correct and incorrect responses.
11. (P. 7) Describe how group and individual tasks were assigned. Were children equally exposed to both formats? If not, differences in exposure may have affected training effects.
12. (P. 7) When children made suggestions or comments during tasks, did researchers provide feedback or guidance?
13. (P. 7) Explain whether children received feedback during error debugging activities. How were they guided if they could not recognize or correct their errors?
14. (P. 8) The worksheet tasks appeared to confuse many children, with several circling all items arbitrarily. This indicates that the instructions were unclear. The tasks should specify the number and type of items to select, possibly with examples, to ensure children understand the expectations.
15. (P. 7-8) Clarify whether children were expected to recognize errors independently or if hints were provided. If a child could not identify or debug an error, what procedures were followed?
16. (P.9-10) Table 3 clarity: The materials and images table needs reorganization for better readability. For example, clarify whether the listed items were images, worksheets, or physical materials, as the current descriptions are confusing. Additionally, the note “see Figure 1” is confusing, as Figure 1 presents the model linking key elements of CT for developing an algorithmic code, rather than the materials referenced in the table.
17. (P.11-17) In the quantitative analysis, using Session 1 performance as a “pre-test” and Session 6 as a “post-test” is not methodologically rigorous, as Session 1 occurred after some exposure to the training. Consider using a true baseline measure or an existing validated scale for CT skills and language ability to ensure construct validity.
18. (P.11-17) In the qualitative analysis, the data from interviews are not analyzed using standardized qualitative methods. Please apply an established analytic approach.
19. (P.11-17) If task difficulty increased across sessions, explain how difficulty levels were determined.
20. (P.11-17) The reliance on descriptive statistics without inferential analyses limits the validity of the conclusions. Statistical tests are needed to determine whether observed differences are significant. Additionally, clarify how invalid responses (e.g., when children circled all items) were handled in the analysis.
21. (P. 15) Were children shown the correct sequence (“how Father Christmas gets ready”) before completing the worksheets?
22. (P.11-17) The training shows potential, but children often fail to recognize or correct errors. Instead of allowing them to persist with incorrect answers, researchers should have guided them to identify and fix errors, to ensure learning.
23. (P.11-19) The results section reads more like subjective observations rather than systematic reporting. Present quantitative and qualitative findings in a structured, objective manner.
24. (P.19) The claim regarding the tasks in the discussion section is not well-supported, as it relies solely on descriptive statistics and subjective interpretations of the interview data. Statistical evidence or more rigorous analysis is needed to substantiate these assertions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As this article was submitted to a special issue on computational thinking and programming in early childhood education, the connection should be clear.  However, computational thinking is used in a variety of ways; recommending the addition of programming/coding, and digital technology to the keywords may assist in identifying the article in keyword searches. 

Readers might benefit from an operational definition of computational thinking.  One option from the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) (2011) https://cdn.iste.org/www-root/Computational_Thinking_Operational_Definition_ISTE.pdf  which support figure 1 well.

Computational thinking (CT) is a problem-solving process that includes (but is not limited to) the following characteristics:

• Formulating problems in a way that enables us to use a computer and other tools to help solve them.
• Logically organizing and analyzing data
• Representing data through abstractions such as models and simulations
• Automating solutions through algorithmic thinking (a series of ordered steps)
• Identifying, analyzing, and implementing possible solutions with the goal of achieving the most efficient and effective combination of steps and resources
• Generalizing and transferring this problem-solving process to a wide variety of problems

Page 5, 2^nd paragraph.  Although Critten et al. (2024) is included at the end of the first paragraph, the reference to Critten et al. should include that year in the first instance in the paragraph.  

 

Curious about the change in labeling of session 3.  In Table 4, it is the Forest School Map consistent with the text up to this point, then in Table 6, it is Henry Hedgehog's route. 

Also wondering about the reference to  dungarees in the Father Christmas task.  There doesn’t appear to be one in Figures 2 and 5, yet Lee’s worksheet in Figure 6 has one in position 2. 

Note: For clarity, I recommend identifying the jumper as a sweater when it is first mentioned.

Table 9.  It would be helpful to include the pictures that were used in the icing biscuits task.  From the table descriptions, I’m assuming it involved both creating the icing (pictures 1, 2, and 3), which a child may or may not have experienced, so it would be difficult to sequence.

Author Response

Article: Reviewer 3

 

Thank you very much for all your suggestions and comments to improve the article.  We have made the amendments in orange for your information.

As this article was submitted to a special issue on computational thinking and programming in early childhood education, the connection should be clear.  However, computational thinking is used in a variety of ways; recommending the addition of programming/coding, and digital technology to the keywords may assist in identifying the article in keyword searches. 

Thank you, we have added these to the manuscript.

 

Readers might benefit from an operational definition of computational thinking.  One option from the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) (2011) https://cdn.iste.org/www-root/Computational_Thinking_Operational_Definition_ISTE.pdf which support figure 1 well.

Computational thinking (CT) is a problem-solving process that includes (but is not limited to) the following characteristics:

• Formulating problems in a way that enables us to use a computer and other tools to help solve them.
• Logically organizing and analyzing data
• Representing data through abstractions such as models and simulations
• Automating solutions through algorithmic thinking (a series of ordered steps)
• Identifying, analyzing, and implementing possible solutions with the goal of achieving the most efficient and effective combination of steps and resources
• Generalizing and transferring this problem-solving process to a wide variety of problems

Thank you for this suggestion.  We have added the following to the article: see Pages 3-4.

            One operational definition of CT comes from the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA), (2011) and is outlined as: formulating problems for use with computers and their tools; logically organizing and analysing data; representing data through abstractions; algorithmic ordering of steps; processing data to achieve the most efficient order of steps; generalising these steps to a variety of problems. Utilising the definition from ISTE and CSTA, and Hagon’s model of CT abilities (Critten et al., 2024) this diagram simplifies some of the key concepts and elements leading to the creation of algorithmic codes (see Figure 1).

We have also referenced this as:

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA). (2011). Operational Definition of Computational Thinking for K–12. Education https://cdn.iste.org/www-root/Computational_Thinking_Operational_Definition_ISTE.pdf

 

Page 5, 2^nd paragraph.  Although Critten et al. (2024) is included at the end of the first paragraph, the reference to Critten et al. should include that year in the first instance in the paragraph.  

This has been corrected.

 

Curious about the change in labeling of session 3.  In Table 4, it is the Forest School Map consistent with the text up to this point, then in Table 6, it is Henry Hedgehog's route. 

The Forest School map is Henry the Hedgehog’s route.  We have amended the Figure’s description to:

Figure 9: Forest School Map of the route for Henry the hedgehog to find a place to hibernate during the winter.  The children had to order the sequence of the landmarks in a picture code.

Also wondering about the reference to dungarees in the Father Christmas task.  There doesn’t appear to be one in Figures 2 and 5, yet Lee’s worksheet in Figure 6 has one in position 2. 

Figures 2 and 5 refer to Task A, and Figure 6 shows the result of Task B.

 

Note: For clarity, I recommend identifying the jumper as a sweater when it is first mentioned.

Thank you, this has been amended on Page 11 to:

Then each child in the group had to circle the correct pictures: jumper (sweater), jacket, boots, hat, gloves and toy sack. 

 

Table 9.  It would be helpful to include the pictures that were used in the icing biscuits task.  From the table descriptions, I’m assuming it involved both creating the icing (pictures 1, 2, and 3), which a child may or may not have experienced, so it would be difficult to sequence.

 

          

 

We designed all the activities for young children but they were tested by a young girl (Picture 1) who was 2 years older in order to check if there were any problems, and in order for them to be photographed for their use in Task B. The second photo above shows one of the groups making the icing and decorating their biscuits, all the class decorated their own biscuits before working on Task B – sequencing (correctly) the pictures as seen in the last photo. All the items shown in the photos were demonstrated by the researchers for Tasks A and B so that the children became accustomed to their appearance and function.  

The article has been amended with an extra explanation and picture in Task B Results section directly under Table 6 as follows:

 

These pictures from Session 4 (see Figure 6) are an illustration of the children’s own experience of one of the activities involving icing biscuits in which the children themselves completed the task.  The top picture shows the children making the icing and decorating the biscuits, while the second picture shows the sequence of the activity completed correctly by one of the children.

 

Figure 6: Session 4: Icing biscuits.  The top picture shows the children making icing and decorating their biscuits; the picture at the bottom shows the sequencing of the activity as a Picture Code completed by one of the children.

Please note: the pictures have not transferred to this document.  Please look on the revised manuscript.