When introducing young engineers to STEM, it’s tempting to offer explicit instructions to ensure they get it right. However, deep understanding and critical thinking emerge when children have the space to figure things out for themselves through unstructured, hands-on exploration (otherwise known as tinkering). Embracing curiosity, iteration, failure and risk-taking lets young engineers gain confidence in their own problem-solving abilities.
This constructionist approach comes to life during a computer science unit I teach, in which kindergarteners are exposed to different kinds of robotics. During play-based center rotations, groups of children explore different coding languages using Sphero Indi, LEGO Coding Express and BeeBot. They first have to figure out how to get each robot working. They learn that success comes when they are willing to voice their ideas, curiosities and questions; conduct investigations; and push past failures.
During small-group instruction, the engineers are introduced to KIBO, a screen-free robot that they program using sequences of wooden coding blocks and a barcode scanner. As they gather around the robot, their eyes light up. Excitement buzzes as small hands dart forward, eager to press buttons, twist wheels and test each attachment. They ask questions: “What does this do?” “Can we try this one?” “What happens if you press this?”
My job is not to provide answers but rather to help the students learn to think and act like scientists and engineers. I guide them by asking strategic questions and then labeling the scientific practices and/or engineering skills they demonstrate in their responses.
Teacher: How do you think we get it to move?
Student: Push it!
Teacher: What a great idea! Let’s test that idea.
[Student tries pushing it and it fails.]
Teacher: Hmm. That didn’t work. What else could we try?
A key part of this process is modeling failure. I intentionally try out ideas that don’t work while modeling positive self-talk along the way. “Oops, when I scanned that, the light went red, so there must be a bug, or a mistake, in my code. I’m gonna take a deep breath, because mistakes are okay, and try again.” This approach helps students work past frustration and see that mistakes are part of learning. A culture of experimentation and persistence also reduces students’ anxiety about needing the “right” answers immediately.
My youngest learners often need help learning the scientific practice of applying critical thought and constructing explanations. Some students struggle with the idea of slowing down enough to make logical guesses. They are the students who will try adding an attachment to their robot because it “looks cool.” Others have mastered the art of using critical thinking to make logical guesses, but cannot yet explain their thinking without scaffolding. For both sets of students, it can be beneficial to lean into any moment when a student makes a logical guess:
Teacher: What makes you say we should try the blue block to make the KIBO move?
Student: I saw the arrow.
Teacher: Does the arrow mean something to you?
Student: It means go.
Teacher: Why do you think that?
Student: ‘Cause the BeeBot.
Teacher: So you used your critical thinking. You thought about what you already know about other robots, and you used that to make a guess or hypothesis about what will work with KIBO. That’s exactly what good engineers and scientists do!
Celebrating this student’s effort, not just their results, makes the classroom a safe space for exploration and risk-taking — key ingredients in developing lifelong, resilient learners.
Learner outcomes
This constructionist approach takes more time than some more traditional, direct-instruction computer science curricula, but the learner outcomes are noticeable. In the first year that we made the shift, the number of kindergarten students who self-identified as engineers increased from 76% to 95%. Additionally, the complexity of code that students are able to produce has changed. Whereas our old curriculum would see kindergarten students struggling to create algorithms with three to five steps, a large majority of our kindergarten students now create five-step algorithms within their first day of play-based centers.
For example, during free choice play, Ian, 5, was able to create a 9-step algorithm, including conditionals and loops. He programmed his robot to continually move forward until the distance sensor was near an object, then turn around and continue moving. Or take Elise, 5, who not only successfully navigated a number of coding mazes, but also taught the rest of her group how to debug errors so they could find the same success. Or Chloe, 5, a Deaf student with a suspected cognitive delay, who was able to successfully put together a five-step sequence without any adult support! These students are not outliers, but are representative of most kindergarten students’ experiences in our makerspace classroom.
Students are not just learning computer science; they are developing the mindset of scientists and engineers. By embracing failure as a natural part of tinkering, students build grit, learning to push forward until they discover solutions. Carrying out collaborative investigations, constructing explanations and applying critical thinking are skills that extend far beyond the makerspace classroom.
Opinions expressed by SmartBrief contributors are their own.
Subscribe to SmartBrief’s FREE email newsletter to see the latest hot topics on edtech. It’s among SmartBrief’s more than 250 industry-focused newsletters.