Playful Computational Thinking Learning in and Beyond Early Childhood Classrooms: Insights from Collaborative Action Research of Two Teacher-Researchers

Abstract

Blending child-led exploration with purposeful teacher guidance and clearly defined learning goals, playful learning has been promoted as a promising approach for introducing computational thinking (CT) in early childhood education (ECE). However, there is a lack of practical guidance for teachers on how to design and implement playful CT learning effectively. To address this gap, we conducted a collaborative action research project and asked these two questions: (1) How can teachers effectively prepare and design a playful learning CT program using tangible CT toys? (2) How do teachers facilitate playful learning in the CT program? Through iterative cycles of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting, the first and second authors (teacher-researchers) designed and implemented their CT programs in a preschool classroom and an afterschool program respectively, and collected data including video recordings of sessions, participant-generated artifacts, program documentation, and anecdotal reflection notes. Based on our thematic analysis of the data, we identified practical principles for selecting CT toys, three key themes for CT program design and preparation—interest, ownership, and application, and two forms of teacher scaffolding during implementation: embodied approach and storytelling as scaffolding and assessment. The findings highlight practical ways that teachers can enhance children’s engagement, problem-solving skills, and conceptual understanding of CT, while also promoting autonomy and creativity through coding and storytelling.

1. Introduction

In line with the “CS for all” initiative (Chapman, 2017) and K-12 Computer Science Framework Steering Committee (2016), the United States has been promoting 21st-century skills through the introduction of computational thinking (CT). Defined as the systematic analysis, exploration, and testing of solutions to open-ended and often complex problems (Wing, 2011), CT serves as a critical literacy to help children become creative and systematic problem solvers in a digital society (Kaup et al., 2023; Lee et al., 2023). This growing emphasis on CT has extended to early childhood education (ECE) (Bers, 2019; Yang et al., 2024), where it holds potential to spark children’s interest in computing, reduce participation barriers, and support social, emotional, and cognitive development (Bers, 2018; Clements & Gullo, 1984; Yu et al., 2020).

Within this context, playful learning has emerged as a developmentally appropriate approach for introducing CT in ECE. Blending child-led exploration with purposeful teacher guidance and clearly defined learning goals (Zosh et al., 2018, 2022), playful learning has proven to be effective in promoting CT learning by boosting student engagement and enjoyment (Pasupuleti & Kangas, 2024). Frequently implemented alongside unplugged activities and tangible CT toys within an embodied cognition framework, playful CT learning provides hands-on, physical experiences that help children internalize abstract computational concepts (Bers, 2019; Hu et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2023a). Unplugged activities leverage everyday materials (e.g., paper, tape, building blocks) and children’s kinesthetic experiences to concretize abstract ideas without reliance on computers (Hu et al., 2024), while tangible CT toys provide immediate, iterative feedback that reinforces conceptual understanding, collaboration, and motivation (Bers, 2019; Wang et al., 2023b; Yu & Roque, 2019). Moreover, embodied cognition highlights how sensorimotor experiences deepen children’s knowledge acquisition, facilitating the enactment and internalization of abstract computational ideas (Abrahamson & Lindgren, 2014; Sung et al., 2017). Together, these approaches inform the design and scaffolding of playful CT learning experiences.

Research highlights the crucial role of teachers in fostering playful learning environments by designing, facilitating, and guiding activities that balance children’s curiosity with intentional curricular goals (Li & Kangas, 2024). This facilitation is especially important in CT contexts, where activities must be simultaneously purposeful and sufficiently open-ended to nurture core CT concepts and mindsets (Kaup et al., 2023). Despite mounting evidence of teachers’ importance, practical guidance for early childhood educators on how to prepare, design or scaffold playful CT learning experiences remains limited. While the literature has profiled existing CT toys and affirmed the benefits of playful learning (Martins et al., 2023; Su & Yang, 2023), fewer studies offer actionable strategies for how to (a) select appropriate materials and smart toys, (b) design playful CT programs tailored to specific classroom needs, or (c) implement these programs in real-world settings. Importantly, the successful integration of playful learning requires educators to thoughtfully align activities with students’ interests, lived experiences, and curricular standards (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2020). However, many teachers struggle to embed CT meaningfully into their daily instruction, often due to limited knowledge, low confidence, and a lack of developmentally appropriate pedagogical strategies and training (Espinal et al., 2024; Kotsopoulos et al., 2022; Sundtjønn et al., 2024).

To address these needs, we conducted a collaborative action research project in different contexts—a preschool classroom and an afterschool program. The aim was to provide early childhood educators with practical suggestions, design ideas, and reflective insights to inform the creation of meaningful, playful CT learning experiences. Specifically, the study is guided by the following research questions:

• How can teachers effectively prepare and design a playful learning CT program using tangible CT toys?
• How do teachers facilitate playful learning in the CT program?

Drawing on findings from qualitative analysis of data including video recordings, participant-generated artifacts, program design documentation, anecdotal reflection notes, this paper offers practical guidelines for implementing playful CT learning in early childhood settings. Ultimately, it argues that CT need not be relegated to a technological “buzzword,” but rather as a powerful tool for fostering creativity, collaboration, and problem-solving in ECE when combined with playful learning. By sharing the findings of this action research, the authors hope to inspire and equip educators, even those in resource-limited settings, to embrace and adapt CT instruction in playful, purposeful ways.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Playful Learning in CT Context

Play can be viewed along a spectrum ranging from free play (or self-directed play) to guided play (with strategic teacher facilitation), games, playful instruction, and direct instruction (Bergen, 1988; Zosh et al., 2018). When this concept is applied to learning contexts, playful learning emerges as a structured environment in which children acquire knowledge through various forms of play while tapping into their innate curiosity and drive to experiment. More specifically, playful learning is a pedagogical framework that balances child-led exploration with purposeful teacher guidance and clearly defined learning goals (Zosh et al., 2018, 2022). Although the term “play” is often used broadly, playful learning is distinctive in its intentional structure and outcomes: it focuses on channeling children’s natural curiosity to foster cognitive, social, and emotional skills (Kaup et al., 2023). Scholars have identified six key characteristics under which children learn most effectively in a playful context: being active, engaged, immersed in meaningful tasks, socially interactive, iterative, and joyful (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2020). Playful learning (like tinkering) creates opportunities for children to collaborate, experiment, and iterate on their thinking in meaningful contexts (Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013; Vossoughi et al., 2013).

When applied to CT context, playful learning allows young children to engage with abstract problem-solving processes through tangible, accessible, and socially interactive activities (Bers, 2019; Murcia & Tang, 2019). In such settings, educators carefully design experiences that embed CT concepts (e.g., sequencing, loops, conditionals) into meaningful tasks. For instance, children might explore algorithmic logic by programming a toy robot to navigate a maze—child exploration, while the teacher provides hints or poses questions—purposeful guidance, toward a stated goal of debugging and sequencing commands—clearly defined learning objectives.

The existing literature on playful CT learning in ECE also demonstrates that children exhibit improved problem-solving, collaboration, and metacognition when CT concepts are introduced through playful, hands-on activities rather than purely didactic instruction (Apostolellis et al., 2014; Kaup et al., 2023). Although many studies do not explicitly brand their approaches as “playful learning,” they align with its core structure of balancing child agency, adult scaffolding, and well-defined objectives. In a narrative review, Kaup et al. (2023) further contend that play can make CT more accessible for young learners, suggesting that CT activities be intentionally designed as evolving, playful experiences. Moreover, our analysis indicates that playful CT learning rarely occurs in isolation, often integrating unplugged activities, tangible CT toys, and embodied cognition to deepen children’s engagement and understanding of CT.

2.2. Unplugged Activities and Tangible CT Toy with Embodied Cognition

Learning is more effective when learners physically interact with materials, making connections between their physical experiences and cognitive understanding (Zhong et al., 2021). In many early childhood settings, both developmental needs and resource constraints have led educators to adopt unplugged and embodied approaches for introducing CT concepts (Kopcha et al., 2021; Webb et al., 2017). Unplugged activities allow children to draw on bodily interactions, gestures, and kinesthetic experiences to concretize abstract ideas, such as sequences, conditionals, and debugging, without a reliance on computers or expensive programming devices (Hu et al., 2024). These activities often leverage everyday materials (e.g., paper, tape, building blocks) and kinesthetic experiences of young children to focus on the essential logic of computational tasks rather than device-specific skills (Lee et al., 2023). Moreover, studies suggest that unplugged programming can enrich CT skills through embodied learning, reducing cognitive load and reinforcing concepts via concrete analogies (Otterborn et al., 2020).

Complementary to unplugged strategies, tangible CT toys (e.g., Bee-Bot, RoboTito) and other interactive programmable devices also help to solidify children’s understanding of CT concepts by providing immediate, visual feedback that allows children to refine their thinking iteratively (Bers, 2019; Yang et al., 2024). These tools invite a natural cycle of trial-and-error process, closely aligning with playful learning principles, as children remain active, engaged, and iteratively refine their thinking (Gerosa et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2021). Research indicates that the physical manipulation of coding commands and the immediate visibility of outcomes can deepen children’s conceptual understanding, foster collaborative problem-solving, and increase motivation, particularly when these activities are conducted in group settings (Roque, 2016; Wang et al., 2023b).

Despite a growing body of literature reviewing current CT toys in terms of their categorization, affordances, technological features, and learning goals (e.g., Komis et al., 2021; Yu & Roque, 2019), educators still lack practical guidance on how to choose appropriate CT toys or how to integrate them effectively in classroom practice. To address this gap, our collaborative action research begins to answer the first research question by sharing our firsthand experience and reflections on selecting CT toys, providing a set of practical principles that can be applied in broader educational contexts.

Closely tied to these approaches is the theory of embodied cognition, which posits that knowledge arises from sensorimotor experiences and the body’s interactions with the surrounding environment (Barsalou, 2008; Wilson, 2002). In early childhood, this approach can be particularly powerful since young learners naturally rely on physical, hands-on interaction with the environment to make sense of new knowledge (Abrahamson & Lindgren, 2014; Sung et al., 2017). Teachers can amplify this learning by prompting children to physically enact algorithms (e.g., stepping forward, turning left) or use gestures to represent loops (Hu et al., 2024; Nguyen & Larson, 2015). Such activities bridge mental and physical representations, creating inclusive, developmentally appropriate entry points to CT.

Embodiment can take two forms (Fadjo, 2012): direct embodiment, where children physically perform each step of a solution, and surrogate embodiment, where they manipulate an external object (such as a robot or coding card) without moving their own bodies. Both forms support learning, with physical artifacts like coding cards or a coding toy also serving as external memory aids to help children manage working memory demands (Angeli & Valanides, 2020; Wang et al., 2023a). In addition, collaborative coding, whether among peers or in adult-child pairs, has been shown to enhance CT skills, motivation, and engagement (Wang et al., 2023b; Roque, 2016). Together, unplugged activities, tangible CT toys, and embodied cognition inform the design and scaffold of playful CT learning experiences and shape how we approached two research questions in our study.

2.3. Teacher’s Role in Playful CT Learning

The effective application of playful learning must be thoughtfully adapted by educators to align with students’ interests, lived experiences, and the academic standards of their educational context (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2020). Research highlights the crucial role of teachers in fostering playful learning environments by designing, facilitating, and guiding activities that balance children’s curiosity with intentional curricular goals (Li & Kangas, 2024). In playful settings, teachers assume multiple responsibilities: they select and decide on tools and materials, facilitate and scaffold students’ learning, trigger their motivation, spark their thinking, and evaluate the learning process (Kangas et al., 2017). Teachers’ facilitation is especially crucial in CT contexts, where activities need to be purposeful yet open enough to nurture core CT concepts and mindsets (Kaup et al., 2023). Even in unplugged free-play contexts, teachers must remain vigilant in identifying and nurturing moments of potential CT learning (Curzon, 2013). By engaging in dialogue, prompting reflection, and modeling metacognitive strategies, teachers help children internalize computational concepts (Bers, 2018; Hu et al., 2024). In addition, due to the social and communicative nature of playful learning, teachers’ roles thus extend to co-creating a collaborative environment, nurturing mutuality, and guiding children’s meaning-making (Garbett & Ovens, 2017), which resonates with Bers’ (2018) metaphor of a “playground” for CT, where children select from various coding activities and bring their imaginations to tasks they find meaningful.

Despite mounting evidence of teachers’ importance, practical guidance for early childhood educators on how to design or scaffold playful CT learning experience remains limited. Many studies call for or design low-cost, accessible CT tools but offer limited guidance on how teachers can choose and integrate these resources effectively suited to specific classroom contexts (Hamilton et al., 2020; Kopcha et al., 2021). While Lee et al.’s (2023) conceptual paper presented examples of early childhood classroom activities to support children’s CT development, we know less about how teachers themselves adapt, implement, or iterate on playful CT programs. Educators often need robust, context-specific examples to move beyond viewing CT as a “buzzword” toward implementing it in everyday practice (Kaup et al., 2023; Wilkerson et al., 2020). Consequently, many educators still lack knowledge, confidence, and pedagogical strategies about how to effectively embed CT into their daily practice (Kotsopoulos et al., 2022). A recent literature review on CT in teacher education further underscores this gap, revealing that many studies focus on teachers’ conceptual understanding but do not examine how they design learning activities or how these efforts translate into classroom practice (Espinal et al., 2024). Additionally, although second-order pedagogical approaches—such as using school-relevant technologies or encouraging preservice teachers to reflect on CT—are frequently discussed, few studies explore how educators learn to teach CT effectively (Sundtjønn et al., 2024).

While Wang et al. (2023a) illustrate how teachers employ diverse scaffolding strategies, including problem reformation, decomposition, systematic testing, and debugging to strengthen CT practices and perspectives in a small group of preschoolers using an interactive programmable toy, the broader literature still lacks practical, context-specific examples that can help teachers design and employ playful CT learning. These gaps underscore the need for ongoing reflective pedagogical practice, where teachers can design, trial, and refine playful CT experiences in ways that meaningfully enrich young learners’ CT.

3. Materials and Methods

This study employs an action research design (Sagor & Williams, 2016) aligned with collaborative action research (Erickson, 2006), allowing the researchers to actively engage with educational settings while adopting dual roles as both educators and researchers. Action research is a collaborative and iterative process that involves working closely with an organization and following a spiral cycle of four phases: (1) Planning—Designing CT sessions tailored to specific learning contexts and selecting appropriate materials and activities; (2) Acting—Implementing the CT sessions in real classroom or community settings; (3) Observing—Documenting and analyzing children’s engagement and interactions using video recordings; and (4) Reflecting—Synthesizing insights to identify effective strategies for future educators. This cycle is repeated with findings continuously informing subsequent iterations.

3.1. Two Teacher–Researchers-Led CT Programs

The two teacher–researchers, Grace (the first author) and Alice (the second author), with different teaching experiences and backgrounds, collaboratively designed and conducted two parallel CT programs in two different educational contexts. Grace is an international student with two years of experience as a preschool teacher in the United States. She first encountered the concept of computational thinking when she entered her doctoral program by working on a dataset on teaching CT in a preschool group using Code-a-Pillar (Wang et al., 2021) and a series of CT literature. In 2023, Grace designed and implemented a six-week, nine-session CT program named Learn CT Together at a local community center serving a low-SES population aiming for children aged 5–10 years old. The program aimed to promote CT co-learning among parents and children with no prior coding background. The primary data sources include video recordings of each session for individual families (ranging from 45 to 90 mins each, around 16 hours total), weekly lesson plan design, and participant-created artifacts (e.g., photo of their coding, drawing).

Alice is a doctoral student and teacher–researcher with 10 years of experience teaching at a university-affiliated lab preschool. She first began implementing lessons focused on CT in preschool settings in 2018, utilizing Code-a-Pillar (Wang et al., 2021). In 2023, Alice conducted a four-week CT program with a group of five young children (4–5 years old) at the university-affiliated lab preschool where she teaches. She designed the lessons to align with the play-based nature of the lab preschool where she implemented lessons twice weekly with students in small groups of two and three students. Student participants were identified based on their enrollment schedules during the summer session at the school. The implemented program Stop and Look was designed to explore CT skills through guided play activities in collaborative groups.

During the planning phase, Grace and Alice discussed their choices for toys and curriculum outlines. In the implementation phase, they exchanged experiences and identified challenges as sessions progressed, prompting both authors to adjust their lesson plans to meet practical needs and session dynamics (for example, Grace incorporated some embodied games to engage children). Both authors video-recorded all sessions and collected participant-generated artifacts (e.g., coding sequences) as well as wrote anecdotal reflection notes. After this phase, the two authors convened to discuss the opportunities and challenges that emerged from their programs, summarizing common themes along with reflections and implications. Finally, after completing the action research cycles, they synthesized their insights to reflect on shared themes and best practices that can inform future educators about integrating unplugged, embodied, and playful CT strategies into early childhood learning environments. The third author served as a supervisor and advisor throughout the process, providing guidance, ensuring the rigor of the research design and analysis, and supporting the articulation of broader implications for the field.

3.2. Participants

Learn CT Together: Two child–parent dyads participated in the study: one bi-racial family with one White mother with two adopted African-American siblings, May and Kay, aged 5 and 6, and another Asian family with one father with one daughter, Lana, aged 9. All participants had no experience related to coding.

Stop and Look: A group of five young children (4–5 years old) at the university-affiliated lab preschool. Two male Caucasian students, Adam (5) and Steve (5). Three Female Caucasian students, Eva (4), Ella (4), and Ophelia (5). Students were selected according to days of attendance at the summer pre-K program. No students had experience related to coding.

Written consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study, including permission to videorecord the sessions and to use video recordings for publications and conference presentations. The confidentiality of all participants was maintained throughout the research process.

3.3. Data Analysis

We employed a deductive thematic analysis, guided by existing theoretical frameworks and the specific aims of our research questions (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). We began by identifying core concepts from the literature, such as six key characteristics of sustaining “playful” learning: being active, engaged, immersed in meaningful tasks, socially interactive, iterative, and joyful (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2020), teacher planning, and scaffolding strategies. These concepts served as prior codes, shaping our initial coding schema. We then systematically examined our data (e.g., transcripts, field notes, and artifacts) against these established categories, grouping and refining codes to ensure clarity and consistency. Applying this analysis process, we first analyzed how our planning and toy selection impacted the ways we used playful learning to engage students in CT, as the unplugged CT toys impacted teaching strategies. We then grouped the identified moments of playful learning and embodied CT into three principal coding schemas: (1) “playful elements,” comprising interest, ownership, and practices; (2) “embodied elements,” encompassing embodied design, embodied illustration, and embodied thinking; (3) “storytelling,” including ways of engaging, scaffolding, and assessment. Subsequently, we organized these themes into two overarching strands: teacher planning and teacher practice, as shown in Figure 1. We found that storytelling played a role in both the planning and practice process, although with varying emphasis, which we elaborate on in the findings section.

4. Findings and Discussions

We organize the findings to correspond to our research questions. To answer the first research question—How can teachers effectively prepare and design a playful learning CT program using tangible CT toys?—we first reflected on our planning process for selecting, designing, and incorporating materials into our lessons in Section 4.1 and then discussed how three principles guide our curriculum design: interest, ownership, and application and their impact on children’s engagement in Section 4.2. To address the second research question—How do teachers facilitate playful learning in the CT program?—we use specific video clips with artifacts children made to illustrate two key strategies—the embodied approach to introducing orientation and coding cards and the use of narrative as scaffolding/assessment—and discuss how these strategies support students’ learning and engagement with CT in Section 4.3 and Section 4.4.

4.1. Selection of CT Toys

With many CT toys available on the market, our primary goal was to find ones that could capture children’s attention and spark their interest as a natural hook for engagement. Rather than using the toys in isolation, we aimed to seamlessly integrate our curriculum design into the interaction, allowing learning to unfold through play. To identify the most suitable options, we conducted a comprehensive review of CT toys and selected those that best align with the needs of young learners based on the following criteria: (1) age-appropriateness, ensuring that the toys provide accessible and developmentally suitable scaffolding; (2) engaging elements, such as interactive features, tangible components, and narrative-driven play to sustain children’s interest; (3) opportunities for children’s ownership and collaboration, allowing for personalization, creative exploration, and problem-solving; and (4) alignment with program needs, considering the specific objectives and target age groups in our respective learning contexts.

Taking into account the target age group and program characteristics within our respective contexts, we ultimately selected three toys that best support early CT learning; please see

Table 1. Choice of CT toys.

Tale-Bot	Qobo	Thames and Kosmos Coding and Robotics (tkcr) Toy

. These selections prioritize both structured guidance and exploratory play, ensuring a balance between scaffolded instruction and child-led discovery.

Through the exploration of Qobo, Tale-Bot, and the Thames & Kosmos Coding and Robotics (TKCR) kit, we identified both strengths and challenges in supporting young learners’ CT development. These selections prioritize both structured guidance and exploratory play, ensuring a balance between scaffolded instruction and child-led discovery. All three toys provide accessible and developmentally suitable scaffolding through tangible coding components that help children grasp foundational CT concepts. Qobo’s directional cards, Tale-Bot’s color-coded buttons, and TKCR’s story-driven coding cards introduce sequencing, loops, and conditionals in an intuitive way. Notably, TKCR stands out for its co-learning design, fostering meaningful parent–child interaction and accommodating diverse learners through guided storytelling and hands-on manipulation.

Each toy incorporates interactive features that sustain children’s interest. Qobo’s snail-shaped design, touch-sensitive mouth, and LEGO compatibility add a playful, creative element. Tale-Bot captivates learners with customizable accessories, voice recording, and flashing lights, offering sensory engagement. Meanwhile, TKCR’s interactive narratives and customizable characters deepen engagement by encouraging families to collaborate on CT challenges. The hands-on nature of each toy ensures that learning remains immersive and enjoyable, striking a balance between guided activities and open-ended exploration.

These tools are also selected for their abilities to encourage personalization, creative exploration, and problem-solving. Qobo allows learners to experiment with different sequences, while Tale-Bot supports increasingly complex programming with up to 256 commands. TKCR further strengthens collaboration by encouraging parents and children to work together, reinforcing both computational thinking and social interaction. Although the TKCR kit requires scanning each step—making error correction time-consuming—this process ultimately supports reflection and analysis, which are valuable skills for deeper learning. By allowing children to take ownership of problem-solving while also providing structured support, these toys help foster both independent exploration and guided learning experiences.

Each toy presents unique advantages and challenges in meeting specific learning objectives. Qobo effectively supports the Stop and Look program by providing a structured yet playful introduction to coding. Tale-Bot’s flexible learning model suits both guided and open-ended exploration, making it adaptable to different instructional settings. TKCR’s multi-level challenges allow children to progress at their own pace, ensuring sustained engagement. However, some practical concerns arise—Qobo’s single-sided map and lack of an expansion pack, Tale-Bot’s limited front-light reflection of only eight commands, and TKCR’s complexity in organizing materials and navigating the guidebook. Fortunately, these challenges can often be mitigated through instructional strategies such as teacher scaffolding, hands-on guidance, and structured learning sessions.

Reflecting on the process of selecting appropriate CT toys, we found that the biggest challenge was identifying which toy best met our participants’ needs. We had several initial concerns: Would the children find the toy engaging? Was the coding interface intuitive? Would they understand directional commands? For example, Code-a-Pillar interprets a turn command as “move forward, then turn,” while Tale-Bot treats it as a single rotation—differences that can confuse young learners. However, after trying out three different CT toys, we realized that these concerns were best addressed through hands-on trials. Rather than relying solely on idealized expectations, incorporating playful elements, active teaching strategies, and direct interaction with the toys themselves proved to be the most effective approach in ensuring successful CT learning experiences.

4.2. Design and Preparation of Materials

As our literature review highlights, playful learning in CT is fundamentally a collaborative process. From a design perspective, scaffolding and the negotiation of meaning are essential in shaping both learning and play. To design an effective playful learning experience, we identified three key elements: interest, ownership, and application.

Interest serves as the initial driving force behind young children’s learning. It plays a crucial role in introducing new concepts and drawing children into the learning process. When children find an activity engaging, learning occurs naturally. However, interest alone may not be sufficient to sustain long-term engagement. This is where ownership becomes essential—it allows children to connect their learning experiences to their own lives and stories, fostering deeper investment in the process. Finally, playful learning extends beyond mere play; it must also involve meaningful assessment. To ensure that learning is both engaging and effective, we introduce application as a means of assessment. By integrating real-world applications, we provide children with opportunities to demonstrate their understanding in authentic and meaningful ways, reinforcing their learning through active participation. The following paragraph introduces the specific ways we design based on these three principles and the reflections on their impact on learning.

4.2.1. Interest as Foundation

Audiovisual

Both Alice and Grace incorporated similar games to enhance engagement in their classes. However, the level of engagement varied across different groups. Upon reflection, we identified two key foundations for fostering interest: connecting learning to children’s own experiences and incorporating embodied learning, as young children naturally explore the world through movement and play. Specifically, the activities utilized a combination of videos, embodied games, and daily life experiences to introduce computational thinking concepts.

Using audiovisual as a starting point, Grace selected a repetitive “brainwashing” video to introduce loops (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWjiJIoG3nQ, accessed on 3 February 2025) in Learn CT Together. The video repeatedly stated, “Loops are instructions that repeat,” and used a robot animation to demonstrate looping through Scratch Jr. blocks, see Figure 2a. While this approach worked well for a 9-year-old girl, Lana, it was less effective for a family with two younger siblings, May and Kay (ages 5 and 6), as they lost focus within a minute and struggled to grasp the concept through passive video-watching alone.

In contrast, Alice introduced sequence using a familiar chant and real-life context—a song on making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich (https://youtu.be/klDHM_sxYxs, accessed on 3 February 2025) in Stop and Think. The engaging song, “Peanut, peanut butter, and jelly,” paired with dance moves related to the song lyrics, see Figure 2b, made the concept of sequencing tangible for the PreK group, who eagerly sang and danced along with the audio song. To introduce more abstract computational thinking concepts, such as programmers and commands, Alice leveraged embodied learning through movement. She used a popular preschool dance, “Tooty Ta” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXvh08Mnork, accessed on 3 February 2025), framing the singer as the programmer and the dance moves as commands to follow—see Figure 2c. This approach effectively engaged young children by allowing them to physically enact computational concepts in a way that was both intuitive and enjoyable, aligning with perception-action loops (Abrahamson & Lindgren, 2014).

Reflecting on these practices highlights the critical role of embodied cognition in early childhood education (Barsalou, 2008; Wilson, 2002). While video-based tools—such as Grace’s “brainwashing” video—can be effective for some learners, younger children benefit most from hands-on enactment, combining audio with embodied movement to deepen interest and understanding. By incorporating movement, dance, and familiar contexts, educators can transform abstract CT concepts into playful, tangible experiences, fostering deeper and more meaningful learning in early childhood settings.

Daily activity

At the start of both curricula, we incorporated daily activities to introduce basic CT concepts while also breaking the ice between participants and the facilitator. These activities were designed to be interactive and relatable, helping children connect abstract ideas to familiar routines. In the first session of Learn CT together, Grace allowed families to physically plan, make, and eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Children were encouraged to verbally outline the steps to their parents, write them down to reinforce sequencing skills, and revise their writing after making the sandwich. In Stop and Think, Alice, working within the constraints of a classroom setting, designed activity cards where children arranged and adjusted the sequence of steps to illustrate how they brush their teeth.

To our surprise, both activities received positive feedback and even led to creative modifications beyond our original designs. As shown in Figure 3a,b, in the making sandwich session, the younger cousins, May and Kay, together mapped out just five basic steps, ending with “eat it.” In contrast, Lana expanded her sequence to 13 steps, concluding with “wash the dish.” Notably, three aspects stood out in Lana’s written artifact (see Figure 3b): (1) the child provided an impressively detailed breakdown of actions and procedures, (2) she added steps she forgot initially, such as washing hands and using the butter knife, and (3) she even wrote “use hands” as a distinct step, emphasizing the tactile nature of sandwich-making. At the bottom right corner of her paper, she also drew a labeled diagram to illustrate the sandwich layers. Similarly, in Alice’s case, she initially provided a simple four-step sequence for brushing teeth (toothpaste on, open mouth, brush teeth, spit). However, the children spontaneously added additional details and steps (water on, rinse, see Figure 3c), expanding on the original structure and demonstrating their ability to critically think through and refine sequences based on their own lived experiences. Both cases illustrate how incorporating everyday activities into a program can encourage children to engage in deeper reflection and elaboration. Furthermore, these observations underscore the significance of fostering a sense of ownership in children’s learning, a concept we will explore further in the next section.

4.2.2. Prioritizing Learner’s Ownership

Ownership reflects learners’ sense of agency and personal connection to their learning, empowering children in play by fostering confidence, engagement, collaborative problem-solving, and deeper social and emotional connections (Canning, 2020). To cultivate a sense of ownership and enhance student engagement, we encouraged learners to name the robots and personalize them throughout the learning process. This practice aligns with research on student-centered learning, which suggests that personalization fosters deeper connection, motivation, and investment in the educational experience. By allowing students to name the robots, the activity made the learning process more meaningful and interactive.

Learn CT Together allows families to build characters, much like assembling LEGO structures, and provides a playful yet structured way to debrief CT concepts. This activity naturally incorporates key CT principles, such as sequencing, abstraction, debugging, and interactive problem-solving, while also serving as a collaborative experience between parents and children. Observing how families engage in this activity offers valuable insights into their collaborative dynamics, problem-solving strategies, and communication styles, which helps Grace refine and adjust her own roles in future learning sessions. As children follow a sequence to assemble their characters, they practice the foundational skill of structuring and organizing steps. Moving from instructions to hands-on assembly encourages abstraction, helping them translate conceptual understanding into practice. Inevitably, errors arise, prompting debugging, where children and parents work together to identify mistakes, retrace steps, and refine their approach—mirroring the iterative nature of programming.

For Stop and Look, the naming of Qobo and Tale-Bot was a collaborative effort among all five student participants. Students proposed potential names and voted to determine the final choices, ultimately selecting “Calia Steele” for Tale-Bot and “Timmy Jean” for Qobo. From that point forward, both students and the teacher consistently used these names, fostering a sense of ownership and continuity. As the project progressed, each group developed a unique character for Tale-Bot and was given the opportunity to rename it, further deepening their engagement and personal connection to the learning experience.

In Lesson 7, each student group had the opportunity to transform Tale-Bot into a unique character, fostering creativity and personalization. This collaborative process allowed students to develop a deeper sense of ownership over their robots. Group 1 chose to enhance “Calia Steele” with a darker, superhero-like mask and blue arms, as shown in Figure 4a. They decided to keep the original name from Lesson 1, as it held personal significance—Stanley had first suggested it, and Ophelia strongly favored it. Group 2 created “Chicken Bunny,” taking advantage of the “masks” offered in the Tale-Bot expansion pack, rather than creating a new face for Tale-Bot and adding blue arms, as shown in Figure 4b. This character was inspired by Emilia’s connection to her chickens at home and Emerson’s love of animals and the color pink. These personalized adaptations allowed students to connect more meaningfully with their projects while encouraging creative expression.

Personalization was a key factor in fostering student ownership and creating continuity between lessons. By naming and customizing their robots, students developed a sense of agency, reinforcing their roles as collaborators and creators. This seemingly simple practice had a profound impact, as students remained deeply engaged, taking pride in their work and demonstrating sustained investment in their learning. The process of personalization not only strengthened their connection to CT activities but also encouraged creativity, problem-solving, and a more meaningful learning experience.

4.2.3. Application Through Coding Challenges

Playful learning extends beyond mere “play” by incorporating applications that allow educators to assess students’ understanding better. In Learn CT Together, new characters (e.g., finger puppy toys; other assembled characters) were introduced in coding challenges to boost motivation. By requiring characters to “visit a friend” or navigate to designated locations (e.g., see Figure 5a), these challenges reinforce logical sequencing, spatial reasoning, and social engagement. From the perspective of ego syntonicity, children internalize the robot’s goal as their own (Wang et al., 2023b), strengthening their sense of agency in the coding process. Introducing these characters also supports embodied coding by allowing children or parents to model coding sequences with character pieces before execution, thereby turning abstract coding into visible, tangible movement (see Figure 5b). This bridging of abstract concepts and concrete actions makes coding more tangible, and collaboratively experimenting with commands fosters an intuitive, hands-on approach to learning.

In Stop and Look, an immersive narrative “hook” was integrated through Tale-Bot to further enhance engagement. Students were first presented with an example Tale-Bot story featuring a written narrative and a structured program. Unlike Qobo’s linear execution, Tale-Bot allowed for open-ended sequencing, prompting students to experiment with different sequences to meet the same narrative goal.

In one zoo-themed example (see Figure 6), Tale-Bot demonstrated a zoo-themed narrative after students placed it on the instruction icon. Once the program ran independently, students observed the sequence before being tasked with recreating the same narrative using “code” mode. Each step of the story presented a narrative function card. For example, when the students reached the elephant, Tale-Bot produced an elephant sound. If the program failed to reach all destinations, Tale-Bot responded with “oh no” and prompted students to return to the previous destination to correct their sequence.

Students deconstructed the story steps modeled by the robot’s instruction mode into smaller increments, engaging in iterative and intentional problem-solving. Tale-Bot’s feedback system, including the “oops” response for errors, framed mistakes as a natural part of the learning process, reducing frustration and encouraging a growth mindset. This immediate feedback loop played a crucial role in sustaining engagement, as students could instantly see the impact of their coding decisions and make real-time adjustments. The interactive sound effects (e.g., exciting noises) tied to “applause” reinforced successful actions and made the learning process feel rewarding and playful. This gamified approach helped maintain students’ attention and motivation, as they eagerly refined their sequences to hear the positive reinforcement from the toy. By providing instant, tangible feedback, Tale-Bot transformed debugging into an interactive and engaging process, making computational thinking concepts more accessible and enjoyable for young learners. When executing their programs, the students could reformulate coding sequences to navigate the map and reach the desired destinations, and reinforce their process through narrative storytelling.

4.3. Embodied Approach to Introducing Orientation and Coding Cards

One of the most engaging and effective embodied learning activities we both identified is “I Am/You are the Robot,” a game that transforms children into robots navigating a taped floor grid (see Figure 7a). This hands-on activity enables children to first plan their movements by assembling coding cards from toy kits. They then physically enact the coding sequences they created, testing their code in real-time and engaging in a trial-and-error debugging process. This iterative approach encourages problem-solving and reinforces computational thinking concepts through active learning. By stepping through each command, young children learn to think sequentially: programming one step at a time, managing data, and debugging as needed. A critical component of this game is ensuring children fully grasp the precise meaning of each coding card. For instance, understanding that a “turn” command only changes direction without moving forward mirrors real-world coding processes with programmable robots. Additionally, children must start from a designated point with a specific orientation, reinforcing foundational computational thinking skills.

As part of Stop and Look curriculum, this activity was introduced in Lesson 3 under the name You Are the Robot (see Figure 7b). Students moved through a floor grid that directly corresponded to the “maps” introduced in Lesson 1. In this exercise, one child played the role of the “robot,” while another acted as the “programmer,” creating a sequence of instructions. This role-based interaction ensured that every child actively contributed to the task, collaboratively navigating the “robot” from the chosen start to the final destination. By modeling the movement of the Qobo Robot through their own bodies, students developed a more intuitive understanding of sequencing and spatial reasoning.

The teacher played a crucial role in guiding this process, using gestures, pointing, and physically helping students orient themselves within the grid (as illustrated in Figure 7b,c). The teacher encouraged students to design movement paths by drawing them with their fingers, reinforcing directional changes and logical sequences. Once a student successfully navigated the grid, the class recorded the sequence on a whiteboard, bridging the embodied game with core computational thinking concepts such as sequencing, data management, and iterative problem-solving.

Building on this embodied approach, we extended the activity to programming the physical robot itself, using the same floor grid to solidify spatial reasoning and coding comprehension. This transition allowed students to apply what they had practiced through movement to actual programming tasks. The multimodal nature of this approach—integrating physical movement, visual representation, and hands-on problem-solving—made abstract coding concepts more tangible. It also fostered an engaging, exploratory learning environment where children naturally experimented, refined their understanding of commands, and gained confidence in their computational thinking abilities.

4.4. Storytelling as Scaffolding/Assessment

Storytelling served as both a scaffolding tool and an assessment strategy, helping children engage with CT concepts while allowing teachers to evaluate their learning. As discussed in Section 4.2.3, narratives were initially used to guide students through structured, story-based challenges. In this section, we explore how teachers gradually released control, empowering students to create and develop their own stories while applying CT skills. Both curricula introduced storytelling through an intentional progression: students first observed and followed teacher demonstrations (I do), then participated in guided group coding (we do), before independently planning and programming their own narratives (you do). This approach ensured that by the end of the sessions, students could tell their own stories using coding principles, providing a meaningful way to assess their learning and understanding.

4.4.1. Scaffolding Computational Thinking Through Storytelling

As discussed in the previous section, Learn CT Together used storytelling as a scaffolding tool, providing structured narratives to support students’ understanding. In follow-up lessons on functions, the curriculum continued to incorporate storytelling to help students grasp the concept of a function: a set of steps that can be used again and again in a larger program. To make this abstract idea more accessible, Grace designed different colored shapes to represent different functions and then encouraged participants to create their own functions.

As illustrated in Figure 8, the second row showcases a sample function designed by Grace. She integrated this approach with the I Am a Robot game, allowing children to “code” their parents by placing function cards along their programming sequence. When encountering a function card, the parent had to execute the designated action, reinforcing the concept of reusable steps in a playful and interactive way. The first row highlights a creation from Lana (9-year-old), who combined the function figures with embodied actions to illustrate movement, demonstrating both creativity and humor. One particularly amusing function, represented by a red circle, instructed participants to “ruffle your hair once.” However, when her bald father encountered this function, he had to pretend to perform the action, leading to laughter and further engagement. By transforming a simple action into a context-specific illustration embedded within a playful narrative, Lana enriched the learning experience. This activity not only enhanced students’ understanding of functions and their underlying logic in TKCR toys but also made learning engaging and memorable through interactive, hands-on experiences.

Similarly, in Stop and Look, the Qobo robot served as a foundational tool for ensuring students had solidified key CT skills before progressing to the more abstract features of Tale-Bot. To assess their grasp of these skills, students were given the opportunity to create their own stories using Qobo. Through storytelling, they applied sequencing, logical thinking, and debugging in an engaging and meaningful way. This approach allowed teachers to evaluate their ability to structure coherent sequences of events and effectively translate computational thinking into a narrative format.

For example, as shown in Figure 9a, Group 2 designed their story, “Get to the Cookie Shop!”, by mapping out a sequence that incorporated key destinations while avoiding obstacles. This narrative framework provided a meaningful context for students to apply sequencing, logic, and debugging skills in an engaging way. The story structure helped break down the complex task of programming into manageable steps, reinforcing computational concepts in a way that felt intuitive and purposeful. Their final program consisted of a 12-step sequence guiding their character past locations such as the chicken shop, beach, and a pet shop before reaching the cookie shop. The storyline not only motivated students to complete the task but also provided a clear pathway for them to understand the logic behind their coding choices. Throughout the process (see Figure 9b,c), the teacher played an essential role in scaffolding learning by facilitating collaboration, ensuring students stay on track with their planned destinations, and reminding them of available direction cards. By working within a structured narrative, students iteratively refined their sequences through trial and error, strengthening their problem-solving skills while reinforcing persistence and logical reasoning. The successful completion of this task demonstrated that storytelling not only enhanced engagement but also provided the necessary support for students to build a strong CT foundation, preparing them for the more complex and open-ended programming challenges they would encounter with Tale-Bot.

4.4.2. Storytelling as a Way of Assessment

Both curricula followed a gradual release of instruction, progressively shifting responsibility from the teacher to the students. In Stop and Look, Qobo’s structured, path-based coding provided a solid foundation before students transitioned to Tale-Bot, which introduced more flexible sequencing, function stickers, and loops. Similarly, Learn CT Together supported students in developing CT skills by first relying on the instructor or parental scaffolding while working with TKCR. Over time, students progressively learned sequencing, loops, functions, and conditionals in a step-by-step manner, gradually building independence as they applied previously acquired knowledge and skills in each session.

During the final two sessions, both curricula encouraged students to create their own stories, applying the knowledge they had learned while incorporating the characters of their choice. This stage marked the full transfer of control, empowering students to independently plan, program, and refine their narratives. The instructors provided minimal guidance, assisting with sequence tracking and fostering collaborative problem-solving, ensuring that students remained fully engaged in both the creative and computational aspects of storytelling. To illustrate the effectiveness of storytelling as an assessment tool, representative examples from each curriculum were selected. These examples demonstrate how storytelling not only serves as a means to evaluate learning but also enhances engagement, fosters creativity, and reinforces the application of computational thinking skills in an interactive and meaningful way.

4.4.3. Creative Storytelling Through Computational Thinking

In Learn CT Together, both May (5 years old) and Lana (9 years old) demonstrated their understanding of CT concepts, including abstraction, sequencing, functions, and algorithms, while also showcasing creativity and humor, as illustrated in Figure 10 and Figure 11.

May’s approach was highly hands-on and exploratory. She combined two sets of TCKR toy kits to create her own story, designing two robot characters and mapping out two distinct routes for them to navigate (see Figure 10a,b). Her story about “two robots stay together and play” was developed through the process of demonstration of coding while she saw how robots interact with each other. A key challenge she encountered was coordinating both robots on a shared path to prevent collisions. Through experimentation and minimal guidance from the instructor, she independently figured out a solution: counting the robots’ steps and adjusting the timing so that one robot followed the other without interference. This demonstrated her ability to troubleshoot problems, refine her coding logic, and apply sequencing in a dynamic, interactive way. During the final presentation, her mother expressed immense pride, while May radiated a sense of achievement, reinforced by positive feedback from her sibling and instructor.

Lana took a more structured approach, starting with a clear narrative plan. She mapped out the layout of the map cards (T shape, see Figure 11a) and titled her story theme R.I.P. She explained that her story was about a robot named Sammy whose friend, Bunny, had passed away. Sammy needed to attend Bunny’s funeral, and Lana’s task was to help navigate him there. She then carefully arranged the map cards and designed the corresponding coding sequences (see Figure 11b,c). Her thoughtful storytelling and planning demonstrated her ability to integrate CT with narrative structure, making the coding process both meaningful and emotionally engaging. Although it was initially unclear whether this theme reflected a personal experience, it soon became evident that Lana selected it based on her personality and distinctive sense of humor. She did not perceive the topic as heavy or emotional; rather, she approached it with a sense of playfulness, finding humor in the concise way she structured the map and coding combined with functions she chose to integrate (e.g., repeating sounds like crying for 18 times). Her ability to frame the story in a lighthearted way while maintaining logical sequencing and problem-solving showcased her abstract thinking skills and confidence in applying CT concepts.

Looking at both children’s coding projects, event-based programming was a common feature in their stories, as it allowed them to freely determine what actions the robot could take. They were particularly fascinated by the function that enabled the robots to spin a wheel to make a bird fly or make a funny sound multiple times, incorporating this element into their narratives. While both students successfully applied CT skills, their approaches differed. May’s storytelling emerged organically through exploration and problem-solving, whereas Lana planned her story in advance, focusing on structure and humor. These contrasting approaches highlight how storytelling as an assessment tool allows children to express their unique problem-solving styles while deepening their understanding of computational thinking in a creative and meaningful way.

4.4.4. Transition to Tale-Bot: Advancing to Open-Ended Programming

In Stop and Look, the structured, path-based nature of Qobo provided students with a controlled environment to practice coding concepts before they transitioned to Tale-Bot, which introduced broader functions such as loops, function stickers, and more flexible sequencing. As students became comfortable with Tale-Bot’s movement and orientation, they were encouraged to integrate these advanced programming concepts into their own stories.

As the final presentation of their story as shown in Figure 12a,b, Group 2 created “Chicken Bunny’s Journey to Pick Up Her Pet,” incorporating voice recording, dancing commands, and function stickers to enrich their story. The students began by designing a 19-step sequence, placing function stickers at key points in the story to trigger character reactions. Their story followed Chicken Bunny as she set out to pick up her pet pig. Along the way, she stopped to dance and play, enjoyed a donut and milk, visited a fire station, and eventually reached her pet pig. At one point, she pretended to get lost before celebrating her successful adventure.

Throughout this process, the teacher provided minimal but strategic support, asking guiding questions and reinforcing the sequencing of commands. As students iterated on their program, they modified their story, omitting some elements while adding new ones, such as a celebratory ending. Although students chose not to use loops, they effectively applied function stickers and interactive commands, demonstrating creativity and adaptability through trial and error.

The progression from Qobo to Tale-Bot exemplifies how storytelling can serve as both an engaging learning experience and an assessment tool. Initially, students worked within structured constraints, following predefined paths with Qobo to reinforce sequencing and problem-solving. As they gained confidence, they transitioned to Tale-Bot, where they exercised greater independence in designing their own interactive narratives. By structuring the curriculum as a gradual release of control—from observing examples to guided practice to independent programming—students developed both confidence and competence in computational thinking. The transition from Qobo to Tale-Bot ensured that students had a solid foundation before tackling more complex, abstract programming challenges. This scaffolded approach allowed them to take ownership of their learning in a way that was both meaningful and engaging.

5. Conclusions

This collaborative action research study examined the planning and facilitation of a playful CT program for young children, focusing on two key aspects: teacher planning and teacher scaffolding. We specifically examined (a) how teachers prepare and design a playful CT curriculum that employs tangible CT toys, and (b) how they facilitate and scaffold playful CT learning. Through iterative curriculum development and classroom observations, this study identified principles and instructional strategies that support young learners in engaging with CT concepts through unplugged and embodied approaches.

For RQ1, the findings highlight that effective curriculum design and planning are anchored in the principles of interest, ownership, and application, ensuring that learning activities are both meaningful and developmentally appropriate. These principles fostered sustained curiosity, personal relevance, and authentic problem-solving opportunities for young learners. For RQ2, the findings highlight the critical role of teacher facilitation in shaping playful learning experiences. Embodied demonstrations supported children’s understanding of spatial orientation, sequencing, and debugging prior to their use of coding cards, and further facilitated an iterative coding process with CT toys. Additionally, storytelling served as both a scaffold and assessment tool, allowing teachers to monitor understanding while sustaining engagement through storytelling. Together with a carefully structured gradual release of responsibility, these strategies collectively promoted learner autonomy.

By integrating these design and pedagogical strategies, our study demonstrates that a structured yet flexible playful approach can make computational thinking accessible and intuitive for young learners. However, several limitations should be acknowledged when interpreting these findings. First, the researchers’ dual roles as co-teachers during the program may have influenced instructional decisions and shaped children’s responses, potentially affecting the generalizability of the results. Second, learning outcomes were assessed through immediate performance indicators and observational field notes, leaving questions about retention and transfer of learning over time unaddressed. Third, although children’s engagement was well documented, their conceptual growth in CT was not systematically measured, as pre- and post-assessments fell outside the project’s scope.

Despite these limitations, the study provides concrete, practice-based evidence for early childhood educators seeking to integrate CT through playful, unplugged, and embodied activities. Building on these contributions, future research should investigate the long-term impacts of such approaches on children’s CT competence and attitudes, assess the adaptability of design principles and scaffolding strategies across diverse socio-cultural and resource environments, and explore how partnerships with families and communities can extend playful CT learning beyond the classroom. Additionally, employing methods such as behavioral observations, portfolio assessments, or longitudinal tracking could offer deeper insights into children’s CT development over time. Finally, incorporating playful CT design principles into national or local curriculum frameworks may further enhance young children’s engagement and offer practical guidance for teachers to meaningfully embed computational thinking into early childhood education settings.