High-quality strategies for supporting children’s problem-solving skills: a study on coding toy activities in Norwegian ECECs

ABSTRACT

Recent studies have shown that playing with coding toys enhances children’s skills in STEM- subjects, especially problem-solving abilities. However, there is limited knowledge of early childhood education and care (ECEC) teachers’ roles in facilitating children’s problem-solving through coding-toy play activities and the high-quality pedagogical strategies and approaches they utilize. This study explored how ECEC teachers formed and guided pedagogical practices and influenced learning quality through digital play. The data are based on video observations of five teachers and six groups of children aged 3–5 years (three to four children per group), who each played with a coding toy for 30–60 min. Drawing on the sustained shared thinking theory, this study analyzed how teachers supported children’s problem-solving processes. The results reveal that the teachers employed several pedagogical strategies and approaches, including those for nurturing children’s curiosity, encouraging questioning, fostering investigation, and promoting conceptual exploration.

KEYWORDS:

• Early childhood education
• teachers’ pedagogical strategies and approaches
• problem solving
• coding toys
• Norwegian early childhood teachers
• STEM

Introduction

Research has increased its focus on the integration of programming and coding with the development of twenty-first-century competencies, such as problem solving (Louka 2023), in early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings. Studies have shown that coding toys can be used to support different skills, such as cognitive abilities and dispositions (Pollarolo et al., 2024), problem solving, and critical thinking, all central skills in Science, Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM).

In the Nordic ECEC tradition, play is paramount in children’s learning and is integrated into all activities, including those involving digital technology. In the Norwegian ECEC, digital technology is considered an important tool along with traditional working methods across learning areas (NMER 2023).

The Norwegian ECEC curriculum guidelines (NMER 2017) emphasized teachers’ roles in the application of new technologies (Erdoğmuş 2020) to foster problem solving, perseverance, and motivation. The quality of a learning environment necessitates teachers’ possession of a diverse set of skills and knowledge that can be integrated into their teaching practices (Undheim 2020). Thus, a lack of such knowledge affects teachers’ use of new technologies (Fagerholt et al. 2019).

While studies have highlighted teachers’ roles in proposing learning activities for children via coding toys, there is a lack of research on high-quality pedagogical strategies and approaches that ECEC teachers can use to support this. The present study aimed to address this gap.

Previous research on coding toys and the role of ECEC teachers

ECEC teachers should understand new technologies, such as coding toys, to enhance children’s problem solving and learning (Fridberg et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2021). Tang et al. (2022) emphasized the significance of exploring teaching strategies that incorporate digital technology products into educational curricula. Liu et al. (2013) noted that strategies, such as providing guidance or asking questions, can develop children’s ability to identify and solve problems while playing with coding toys. Bers, González-González, and Armas-Torres (2019) stated that when children lack proper guidance and objectives during such play, they may fail to acquire the associated knowledge or problem-solving skills. Teachers’ scaffolding strategies can also increase children’s engagement during play with coding toys (Nam, Kim, and Lee 2019). Although previous research has investigated ECEC teachers’ role in supporting children’s learning during play with coding toys (Granone and Reikerås 2023; Shumway et al. 2021), their strategies and approaches to support children’s problem solving have not been adequately investigated. Several researchers have explored preschool children’s use of coding toys, and how coding activities can support the development of important skills such as problem solving (Heljakka and Ihamäki 2019; Shumway et al. 2019; Turan and Aydoğdu 2020). Other studies have explored teachers’ perceptions on using programming and coding toys in classrooms (Ortega-Ruipérez and Lázaro Alcalde 2022; Papadakis 2022). Since ECEC teachers’ use of technology influences their ability to pedagogically utilize it to enhance children’s learning (Shumway et al. 2021), they play a critical role in making children good problem solvers (Clements 2002; Merjovaara et al. 2020). Therefore, teachers’ technological skills must be enhanced to improve learning quality when using technology to enhance children’s problem-solving abilities.

ECEC teachers’ roles in facilitating play with coding toy

ECEC teachers are pivotal in integrating coding toys into ECEC, as highlighted by Pollarolo et al. (2024). The principles of sustained shared thinking (SST) can help examine high-quality pedagogical strategies and approaches utilized by these teachers to support children’s problem-solving during play with coding toys. SST defines an interaction as ‘an episode in which two or more individuals “work together” in an intellectual way to solve a problem […]. Both parties must contribute to the thinking and it must develop and extend thinking’ (Sylva et al. 2004, 36). From the sociocultural perspective, SST concerns ‘a process where an educator supports children’s learning within their zone of proximal development (ZPD)’ (Siraj-Blatchford 2009, 77). ZPD represents ‘the gap between a child’s current problem-solving ability and their potential ability when guided by an adult or more capable peer’ (Vygotsky 1978, 86). In this context, ECEC teachers support children’s use of coding toys within their ZPD using problem-solving strategies, such as problem reformation, systematic testing, and debugging (Wang et al. 2021).

Plowman and Stephen (2007) expanded this theory by emphasizing the need for guided interactions during children’s engagement with digital technology. Specifically, they distinguished between distal and proximal guided interactions as indirect influences on learning versus direct face-to-face interactions between adults and children.

Embedded within Broström's dynamic learning concept, ECEC teacher’ role involves establishing a play environment that fosters open-ended exploration, encourages collaboration, and nurtures children's problem-solving abilities (Broström 2017). This study draws inspiration from Dewey’s ([1934] 1980) experiential learning theory (ELT) further refined by Kolb (2014). ELT finds significant application in early STEM education (Thiel, Severina, and Perry 2020). Kolb’s learning cycle, encompassing concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation, establishes a continuous learning loop, focusing on the STEM approach (Kolb 2014).

The study employed coding toys to demonstrate collaboration, communication, and problem-solving skills rooted in SST principles, guided interactions, and ELT. These toys serve as integral tools within STEM educational framework by offering practical experiences that enhance problem-solving abilities and basic programming knowledge.

Extensive research has highlighted the potential of coding toys to enrich diverse interactions and enhance children’s play experiences (Kewalramani et al. 2020; Nam, Kim, and Lee 2019). However, it has mostly focused on children and their coding toy activities and neglected the pivotal role of teachers. To address this gap, this study sought to uncover teachers’ use of advanced pedagogical strategies during children’s play with coding toys, to emphasize their vital contributions to interaction quality in ECEC settings. This study addresses the following research question: What high-quality pedagogical strategies and approaches are used by ECEC teachers to support children’s problem-solving skills during play activities with coding toys?

Methods

Dicote project

This case study forms part of the DiCoTe¹ project, which aimed to increase professional digital competence in early childhood teacher education, with a focus on enriching and supporting children’s play with coding toys.

Participants

Five ECEC teachers (four female, one male) from three Norwegian centers, with an interest in digital competence and coding toys, participated in the study. Each had over eight years of experience in ECEC, but only three had prior experience with coding toys. Additionally, 22 children (11 girls, 11 boys), aged 3–4 or 5, were involved. They were divided into six groups of three to four children, organized based on the daily responsibilities of the teachers, leading to one teacher overseeing two groups.

Ethics

Approval was obtained from the ECEC teachers and childrens’ parents following the evaluation of the study by the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (SIKT). This study followed the guidelines of the National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH 2022) and EECERA’s Ethical Code (Bertram et al. 2015). Participants’ confidentiality was ensured through anonymization. The parents could withdraw their consents at any time in the project, and the children could also orally refuse to participate. The teachers consented to video observations, and all data were stored securely on the University of Oslo’s Services for Sensitive Data Server. Exclusive access was restricted to DiCoTe project researchers, and the recordings were designated solely for the use of the DiCoTe project. Throughout the video observations, the authors ensured children’s active participation and reaffirmed their consent alongside parental approval.

Materials and methods of data collection

This study adopted a qualitative multiple case study approach, focusing on observable contemporary interactions between teachers and children in their play with coding toys (Yin 2014). Six case studies are included, each consisting of one ECEC teacher and a group of 3–4 children. Video-based observation facilitates the examination of central pedagogical practices and the identification of verbal and non-verbal interactions (Cowan 2014; Schmidt 2019).

Teachers and children used the KUBO coding toy robot in play activities. KUBO is a screen-free toy that introduces children to coding and early STEM concepts, including problem solving (Kritzer and Green 2021). It employs the TagTile programming language and uses interlocking puzzle pieces (Figure 1) to create instructions. These pieces can be combined to command KUBO and the robot can also learn and execute commands from specific TagTiles without requiring physical pieces.

Figure 1. KUBO and TagTiles. Source: Authors’ photograph.

KUBO provides coding experiences for teachers and children, featuring various maps and TagTiles for creating problem-solving tasks like navigating or finding alternate routes.

Using problem solving as the focus during the activities, this study observed and highlighted the different components of the approaches used (Granone et al. 2023) during the analysis of vignettes of these activities.

Material for analysis

This study used the Sustained Shared Thinking and Emotional Well-Being (SSTEW) scale for 2- to 5-year-olds (Siraj-Blatchford, Denise, and Edward 2015) as a tool and guidance for structuring observations. The validated scale (Howard et al. 2018) was used to assess the learning environment and the quality of teacher–child interactions, with an emphasis on the former’s engagement and practices. Literature has described an exploratory factor analysis for SSTEW subscale (Morris, Melhuish, and Gardiner 2017). The factor analysis is a statistical method used to identify latent variables which explain correlation among observed variables. We found the factors of ‘communication’ and ‘activities’ for the item considered in the referred study.

The scale covers two developmental domains: social-emotional development (building trust, confidence, independence, and well-being) and cognitive development (enhancing language, communication, learning, critical thinking, and assessment). This study concentrates on the cognitive aspects, with plans to discuss the socioemotional domain in a future article.

The SSTEW scale ranges from 1 (inadequate) to 7 (excellent). Observations started at level 1, progressing through all levels. Scores were assigned based on the presence or absence of indicators at each level, with a score of 1 for any ‘YES’ at Level 1, and higher scores up to 7 depending on ‘NO’ and ‘YES’ combinations at levels 1, 3, 5, and 7. This article emphasizes high-quality strategies, presenting those rated as ‘score ≥ 5’ on the scale.

The ‘Supporting Learning and Critical Thinking’ SSTEW subscale was used to evaluate teachers’ strategies when supporting children’s cognitive development, comprising three items: Item 9 on fostering curiosity and problem-solving, Item 11 on promoting SST during investigation, and Item 12 on enhancing concept development and higher-order thinking. For example, ‘A teacher challenges and supports problem solving by posing small everyday problems or by inviting children to solve these.’ This selection was based on its relevance to teacher–child interactions and learning stimulation, especially observed during play with coding toys. Item 10, focused on storytelling and other activities, was excluded due to its limited application in the study's context.

Data collection

ECEC teachers autonomously facilitated children’s play activities during observations. Discreet filming by the third author and an assistant captured the activities. The first author used the SSTEW scale, its subscale, and field notes to assess teachers’ methods. Six video observations, each 30–60 min long (totaling 4.5 h) over three days, were conducted. The first and second authors then chose the most representative vignettes showcasing the pedagogical strategies for the final analysis.

Data analysis

Data were derived from transcribed video recordings. The first author coded teachers’ strategies using three SSTEW subscale items (Siraj-Blatchford, Denise, and Edward 2015), focusing on supporting children's curiosity, problem-solving, concept development, higher-order thinking, and SST encouragement during exploration. After manual transcription by the first author, the second author reviewed for quality assurance. A content-based analysis (Denscombe 2017) of these transcripts then explored the strategies and approaches in relation to the SSTEW subscale items.

The first step was segmenting video data to record teachers’ behaviors, interactions with children, and the children's experiences with coding toys. The authors manually transcribed these segments, noting actions, gestures, sounds, and words, and reviewed them in line with the research question. To examine teacher–child interaction quality, the study specifically coded instances of excellence by referring to Levels 5–7 of the SSTEW scale.

After observing 270 min of video, the authors thoroughly examined the diverse coded examples and revisited the observation field notes. The selected examples represented the ECEC teachers’ high-quality practices and demonstrated a rich array of high-quality pedagogical strategies.

Results, analysis, and discussion

Vignette 1 shows Teacher 1 interacting with 5-year-olds Child 1 and Child 2, part of a four-child group, building a labyrinth with magnetic blocks where the challenge was to guide KUBO through the labyrinth by coding KUBO using TagTiles. While seated on the floor, the children and Teacher 1 discussed their initial route (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Animation of a typical scene from the study. Illustrated by Tilde Hoel Torkildsen.

Vignette 1

Teacher 1:

If we place KUBO here [places KUBO on a TagTile], what does the robot need to do first?

Child 1:

It should go here, then there! [Traces the route with their finger using TagTiles].

Teacher 1:

Exactly. What is the first step? [Points ahead with index finger].

Child 2:

One forward.

Teacher 1:

One forward.

Child 2:

And turn right!

Teacher 1:

But take one step at a time … one forward.

Child 2:

[Places the ‘moving forward’ tile in front of the robot].

Teacher 1:

That is one forward! Great! That was the first step.

Vignette 1 illustrates the use of guided problem decomposition, a strategy teachers used to decompose a problem into its components (Granone et al. 2023). Programming KUBO’s route required a precise number of commands. Teacher 1, who had knowledge of code patterns, chose to challenge the children by instructing them to execute one subtask at a time. The teacher categorized the challenge into manageable components by aligning it with the engineering aspect of STEM (Priemer et al. 2020). Children developed solutions by assembling smaller parts; decomposition is an element of problem solving (Granone et al. 2023) that teachers use to scaffold children in their problem-solving challenges. Teacher 1 started the decomposition by asking ‘What does the robot need to do first?’ When Teacher 1 did not receive the correct answer, he questioned the children’s understanding by first describing what the children’s answer meant and then asking about the first step. These dialog patterns can be understood in terms of SST (Siraj-Blatchford, Denise, and Edward 2015), where a teacher asks children to think through what they are doing and build on it through instructions (‘Take one step at a time’) and open-ended questions (‘What is the first step?’). Instructions can be understood as a form of proximal guided interactions, through which teachers provide specific instructions to children to guide them through tasks step-by-step (Plowman and Stephen 2007). In this vignette, Teacher 1 was interested in the children’s responses and showed respect for their exploration and investigation processes. Through feedback, such as confirmation and encouraging the children’s efforts, Teacher 1 offered proximal support through guided interactions (Plowman and Stephen 2007).

Kolb's Learning Cycle (Kolb 2014) is evident in this vignette as the children go through the concrete experience of physically interacting with KUBO and the TagTiles. The reflective observation phase is observed as Teacher 1 prompts Child 2 to think of the first step and take it one at a time. Child 2's response demonstrates the active experimentation phase, as the ‘moving forward’ tile is placed in front of the robot.

Vignette 2 depicts Teacher 2 working with 3- to 4-year-old children (Child 1, Child 2, Child 3) on a problem-solving task using TagTiles and a KUBO map to navigate KUBO to the playground.

Vignette 2

Teacher 2:

Shall we try now?

Child 1:

Yes.

Teacher 2:

Imagine that the robot goes straight ahead [points at the ‘moving forward’ tile while maintaining eye contact with the children] and then reaches this point [points at the ‘turning right’ tile]. Where can the robot turn next?

Child 1:

[Traces a path with a finger that directs the robot to go left].

Teacher 2:

Do you think he can turn there? (…) Then, we need to try and see how the robot goes. What do you think will happen? [asks Child 2] Do you think the robot will reach the destination?

Child 2:

[Points to the destination on the map].

Teacher 2:

Then we try again.

Child 1:

[Places KUBO on play]. KUBO moves five steps forward and then turns to the right.

Child 1:

[Lifts KUBO up and looks surprised at the tiles].

Teacher 2:

What happened? Did you see what happened? He turned (…) but turned (…)?

Child 1:

Over there! [Points at the right side of the map].

Teacher 2:

Yes!

Child 1:

Oh no, it was a mistake!

Teacher 2:

Maybe it was a mistake? Was it the wrong arrow? [In a neutral tone].

Child 1:

I will use the orange one instead [replaces the previous tile with an orange ‘turning left’ tile].

Teacher 2:

Let us try the orange one … See if the robot turns the other way now. Do you believe the robot will take the correct turn? [asks Child 3].

Child 3:

[Nods in agreement].

Teacher 2 supported the children by inviting them to solving problems, which conforms to the findings of Siraj-Blatchford, Denise, and Edward (2015) and focused on expanding their thoughts by asking them to contemplate potential outcomes after planning the required steps for each route. There was no judgment or rushing from Teacher 2, even though she knew difficulties. Heikkilä and Mannila (2018) emphasized that coding-toy programming consists of learning by doing and that errors are integral to the learning process. Teacher 2 fully listened to the children. The children sat on the floor close to Teacher 2, with one of them leaning on the teacher. As the physical presence can be understood in terms of supporting proximal guided interactions (Plowman and Stephen 2007), the authors interpreted Teacher 2’s physical proximity as their support for children and valuation of their participation. Moreover, Teacher 2 turned Child 1’s exclamation of ‘It was a mistake!’ into ‘Maybe it was a mistake?’ to avoid final draft conversations. Jansen et al. (2020) invented this strategy type as rough-draft talk, which relates to the concept of guided interactions, where the learning process rather than the achievement of a task is focused (Plowman and Stephen 2007). Teacher 2’s non-evaluative stance empowered children to implement a new solution to the problem, even when they were unsuccessful. Warshauer (2015) terms this as a supporting productive struggle strategy. This involves a teacher allowing children to navigate their challenges through failures without intervening prematurely or excessively, thereby preserving their intellectual engagement (Warshauer 2015). Such a strategy is integral to the process of learning and applying mathematical concepts as a previous study demonstrates (Permatasari 2016). In Vignette 2, the children engaged both verbally and non-verbally with Teacher 2’s open-ended questions. This corresponds with the reflective observation phase in Kolb's Learning Cycle (Kolb 2014), wherein children engage in thoughtful contemplation of the robot's movements while evaluating the effectiveness of their selected actions. The teacher's strategic questions prompted the children to delve into spatial relationships, stimulating predictions and nurturing their mathematical reasoning skills. This integration of STEM elements enhances the overall learning experience, fostering a more connected and fluid educational process.

Vignette 3 presents a scenario where Teacher 1 and 5-year-old Child 1 encounter a problem during a KUBO and magnetic blocks activity. Their chosen program causes KUBO to hit a labyrinth wall, preventing it from reaching its destination.

Vignette 3

Teacher 1:

Why does the robot move forward? I am wondering about … the robot went into the wall now. Did you see that? Let us try it once more.

Child 1:

Ok!

Teacher 1:

Now, let us track the robot’s moves as it goes through the labyrinth. In this manner, we can determine the location of the error. [The teacher indicates each tile in the program while KUBO navigates the labyrinth]. One forward, one forward, one to the side, one forward, and another moving forward, followed by a turn. I see it turn in the opposite direction but wait … it still goes forward. There is something red here [the red light indicates a problem]. What was the mistake?

Child 1:

[Points to the ‘turn left’ tile].

In this vignette, Teacher 1 adeptly identified Child 1’s mistake in a collaborative problem-solving manner. Following KUBO’s steps and program analysis, they demonstrated analytical thinking by employing the think-aloud strategy, which involves explicit cognitive sharing while addressing problems (Björn et al. 2019). Children can benefit from exposure to this metacognitive approach, as it aids complex reasoning (Ramachandran et al. 2018). Teacher 1 invited Child 1 to participate in their cognitive process analysis by thinking aloud while solving the problem, as seen in proximal guided interactions (Plowman and Stephen 2007). They used the ‘I am wondering about … ’ statement, which Siraj-Blatchford, Denise, and Edward (2015) highlighted as an approach that supports children’s metacognition. Teacher 1 also shared his problem-solving thought process by posing questions and offering children insight into his thought processes (Aydogan Yenmez et al. 2018). Plowman and Stephen (2007, 28) asserted that modeling is central to guided interactions.

The questioning and thinking-aloud strategies exemplify how teachers directed children’s engagement with technology using the proximal dimension. This approach fosters reflection and concurs with the modeling objective outlined by Plowman and Stephen (2007). Reflecting on the effectiveness of design choices and potential improvements can be aligned with Kolb’s (2014) emphasis on reviewing and analyzing experiences.

In vignette 4 Teacher 1 and four 5-year-old children work together to design a KUBO labyrinth using magnetic blocks. They created various obstacles to challenge KUBO, with a reward for successfully completing the labyrinth.

Vignette 4

Teacher 1:

Building a labyrinth requires blocks [provides a box of magnetic tiles). As there are four of you, agreement is key. Where should the walls be? Where should KUBO go? He cannot only go straight, that would be too easy! But the route … maybe you could begin there?

Child 1:

It begins here [assembles magnetic blocks and creates a wall for the labyrinth].

Teacher 1:

Here is the start [inspects the wall].

Child 2:

Yes!

Teacher 1:

Great! [Steps back to observe the children’s involvement in the building].

Child 1:

We seal it here [points to the floor] by adding a magnetic block [builds continuously].

Child 3:

No, not closing here.

Child 4:

We are closing here [adds a magnetic block].

Child 1:

Like this [supports the walls with their hands]. Close here plus one magnetic block [builds continuously].

Child 2:

More magnetic blocks needed! [Offers more blocks].

Child 1:

And these too [receives magnetic blocks from Child 2 and continues to build].

Child 2:

Not there!

Child 1:

This fits here then [corrects the path].

Child 3:

Adjust it like this! [Shapes the blocks into a wall]. The labyrinth is set.

Teacher 1:

[Descends to the children’s level] We might not need anything more complex than this.

Child 3:

No, we like it this way!

Teacher 1:

Remember KUBO, he is precise when moving forward [points ahead] and turning right angles [turns hand 90°]. If the walls are not straight, he can bump into them [the teacher’s hand hits the wall], so straight walls are vital.

In the above vignette, Teacher 1 created a collaborative working environment with children, provided them with magnetic blocks, and encouraged them to plan how to build a route by asking open-ended questions (‘Where should the walls be? Where should KUBO go?’). These questions encourage critical thinking and planning as in the initial stage of Kolb's Learning Cycle (Kolb 2014). Teacher 1 also set clear expectations and goals. Teachers can use goal-setting instructions to enable children to self-regulate their problem solving (Palmer and Wehmeyer 2003). Teacher 1 initially provided prompts and guidance by repeating what Child 1 said and acknowledging Child 2. However, once the children began building walls and engaging in the task, the teacher stepped back and observed them without further prompts or support.

Teacher 1 interpreted the children’s need for support and faded out to facilitate children’s actions and support their competence, as seen in distal guided interactions (Plowman and Stephen 2007). Through the fading process, teachers’ roles in problem-solving diminish, as they transfer this responsibility to the children (Heikkilä and Mannila 2018). In a problem-solving context, children should be encouraged to develop their cognitive abilities and explore diverse strategies. Thus, teachers’ guidance should channel children’s cognition toward meaningful learning outcomes (Liu et al. 2013). The children in our study engaged in STEM skills, utilizing spatial reasoning and geometrical skills when determining where to place walls and how to create turns for KUBO. Fundamental mathematical concepts, such as angles, distances, and symmetry, became relevant as they constructed and refined the maze. Teachers who carefully observe children’s collaborative work provide guidance and feedback when a solution is reached (e.g. in Vignette 4, when the labyrinth was built). Research has shown that teachers’ visual attention and intentions interact to scaffold students’ problem-solving processes (Haataja et al. 2019). Moreover, careful watching fosters shared thinking during investigation and exploration (Siraj-Blatchford, Denise, and Edward 2015). In Vignette 4, Teacher 1 reassumed responsibility while explaining the concept by turning his hand 90°.

Collaborative work with a teacher, who provides guidance and feedback, can result in better performance in problem-solving tasks (Van Leeuwen and Janssen 2019). Teacher 1 integrated proximal and distal support, as outlined in guided interactions (Plowman and Stephen 2007). Proximal support encompasses instruction, explanation, and feedback, while distal support includes provisions, such as magnetic blocks and careful observation, which collectively establish an optimal learning environment.

Vignette 5 shows Teacher 3 working with four 5-year-old children in a KUBO programming activity. They sat on the floor, with the children working in pairs and Teacher 3 guiding the pair of Child 1 and Child 2.

Vignette 5

Teacher 3:

What are you both building? [Touches Child 1 briefly and leans in]. Can I join?

Child 1:

Nods.

Teacher 3:

I think I want to make … Do you remember we built a stairway last time? How did we do it? We had to use those here as well, did we not? [Points to the ‘turn right’ tile]. Like that … [takes the ‘turn right’ tile and places it under the ‘go forward’ tile]. I am trying to remember … Was it like that? [Adds ‘go forward tile’]. What are we going to do next?

Child 2:

[Adds a ‘turn left’ tile].

Teacher 3:

And here [adds ‘go forward’ tile] … then the stairs. What is required? [Points to the last tile].

Child 1:

[Adds a ‘turn right’ tile].

Teacher 3:

Yes, good! [Children continue the pattern].

Teacher 3 engaged in the activity and sought children’s guidance regarding the route construction. Questions like ‘What are you both building?’ and ‘Can I join?’ underscored Teacher 3’s authentic involvement and co-player role. This conforms to Synodi’s (2010) assertion about the role of teachers as a co-payer.

The vignette shows that Teacher 3 adopted a co-player’s role – the essence of Kolb's (2014) Learning Cycle – by revisiting prior experiences, fostering shared attention, and employing strategies, such as reminders and open-ended questions, to stimulate reflective observation and abstract conceptualization among the children. Teacher 3’s verbal and nonverbal communication when guiding the interaction signified that they had established joint attention with the children, which follows SST (Sylva et al. 2004). They adeptly fostered SST by revisiting a prior activity, inquiring how it was constructed, and highlighting a ‘turn right’ tile as a potential clue. Reminders and open-ended questions are strategies that support children’s SST (Siraj-Blatchford, Denise, and Edward 2015). They also referred to their prior experience by stating ‘I am trying to remember,’ and modeled the use of analogy in problem solving by adding the ‘go forward’ tile. To conclude, Teacher 3 applauded children’s efforts by saying ‘Yes, good!’. This conforms to the argument of Rodríguez, González, and Fernández (2023) about the importance of feedback.

Proximal guided interactions, characterized by joint attention, open-ended questions, modeling, and prompt feedback, create a supportive learning environment for children’s play. In all the vignettes, teachers skillfully employed SST and guided interactions during coding activities. They actively engaged children through questions, instructions, modeling, and collaborative problem-solving. This SST-driven environment facilitated cognitive development and problem-solving skills, creating an optimal learning experience for children. Our findings conform to those in previous studies that employed similar STEM-focused learning in early education, incorporating coding toys (Kewalramani et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2021). Conforming to Palmér’s (2017) notions, this study found that teachers struck a balance between adults’ direction and children’s initiative through open questions, guidance and feedback or the adoption of co-players’ or facilitators’ role. According to Kolb’s (2014) learning cycle, this approach can enhance children’s skills of reflective observation and critical thinking, which are described as relevant in the Norwegian Framework plan (NMER 2017).

Supportive productive struggle is aligned with learning, in which approaches evident in play activities involving programming are chosen (Erdoğmuş 2020; Heikkilä and Mannila 2018; Kewalramani et al. 2020). Teachers in our study allowed children to navigate their challenges through failures, without intervening prematurely or excessively. This approach encouraged resilience and promoted a positive attitude towards problem-solving. This process was cyclic as teachers helped children identify tasks or goals and plan with them the way of the coding toy’s movement. According to Kolb’s (2014) cycle, teachers encouraged reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation with solving problems. Similar cycle of investigation was evident in play activities involving coding toys as tools for early learning in STEM (Highfield 2014). Play is a relevant approach for children’s learning in ECEC, which is highlighted in the Norwegian context (Storli and Sandseter 2019).

The data analysis highlighted teachers’ crucial roles in ensuring the quality of the play with coding toy activities for children, by employing high-quality pedagogical strategies and approaches as key factors. Appendix (Table A1–A3) shows all instances where these levels were achieved from the utilized items and higher-quality pedagogical strategies. The absence of some levels are related to areas in which more extensive effort is demanded, including collaborating with parents, planning activities that support learning progression, and linking concepts to real-life experiences, with data focusing on coding activities that did not involve parents.

Conclusion, limitations, and implications

This study identified ECEC teachers’ high-quality strategies and approaches to support children’s problem-solving during coding toy play activities. These strategies are aligned closely with those identified earlier to support children’s SST (Siraj-Blatchford 2005) and comprise the proximal dimension of guided interactions – asking open-ended questions, instructions, modeling, and inviting children to elaborate. Sometimes, teachers use strategies and approaches in the form of distal guided interactions, such as fading, careful watching, and allowing children to identify and correct errors in their programming tasks through trial and error, without immediate intervention. Contrary to the findings of other studies (Plowman and Stephen 2007), this study found that teachers used an engaged approach and adopted both distal and proximal forms of guided interactions.

Our study is significant in the Norwegian context because it emphasizes ECEC teachers’ high level of strategies to support children’s learning during play activities with coding toys. This shows that being engaged in a project that supports teachers’ learning about technology and subject content can enhance their use of technology in ECEC. Conforming to the finding of Fagerholt et al. (2019) and Fjørtoft, Thun, and Buvik (2019) that a substantial percentage of ECEC staff have shown a lack of competence in integrating digital tools into pedagogical settings, the present study offers perspectives for a possible change. As digitalization continues to reshape educational landscapes, development of teachers’ professional digital competence, especially concerning the use of technology in conjunction with children, has been recognized (Alvestad and Jernes 2014; Børhaug et al. 2018). Our study specifically addresses this issue by investigating high-quality strategies for supporting children’s problem-solving skills through coding toy activities in Norwegian ECECs. By examining the efficacy of such activities, we aimed to offer valuable insights into how ECEC teachers can harness digital tools to foster problem-solving skills in young learners, ultimately bridging the gap in previous studies. The focus on coding toys is aligned with the broader call for enhanced digital competence, while providing recommendations for teachers to navigate and utilize these tools in the Norwegian ECEC context.

This study provides valuable insights into enriching and supporting children’s problem-solving skills during play with coding toys. However, it only examined a small group of Norwegian ECEC teachers. Therefore, the findings may not capture the diversity of ECEC teachers’ approaches and strategies in Norway. Additionally, our reliance on volunteer teachers familiar with KUBO could narrow the applicability of its conclusions. Therefore, disseminating this knowledge more broadly is crucial for a thorough understanding. Nevertheless, this study responds to the call for further research on teacher–child interactions, using new technology in the classroom context. To further enrich the understanding of these interactions and strategies, teacher interviews and reflective discussions should be incorporated into future studies.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all the children and their teachers who participated in this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

Due to the nature of the research, supporting data is not available.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by The Research Council of Norway under Grant [326667].

Notes

1 https://www.uis.no/en/research/dicote-increasing-professional-digital-competence-in-ecte-with-focus-on-enriching-and.

Appendix

Table A1. Supporting curiosity and problem solving (Item 9).

Good/excellent levels in the SSTEW scale	Examples of teachers’ pedagogical strategies and approaches	Higher-level pedagogical strategies and approaches
5.1 New resources, activities, or challenges are regularly established and linked to the current theme, time of year, or children’s interests or schemas.	Teacher provides new resources: ‘Building a labyrinth requires blocks [provides a box of magnetic blocks].’ Teacher creates a challenge: ‘Where should KUBO go? He cannot only go straight, that would be too easy!’ Teacher creates a new resource: A map based on theme animals:	Links activities employing KUBO with children's interests (for example, building a labyrinth for KUBO using magnetic blocks is inspired by the Norwegian children's game show called ‘Labyrint’). Teacher gets creative by making their maps for KUBO based on children’s interests or current themes.
5.2 Teacher models, supports, and extends children’s learning in all areas of the setting, moving from one area to the next as appropriate.	Teacher asks ‘Do you think KUBO can turn there? We need to try and see how the robot goes. What do you think happens next? Do you think that the robot gets to the destination? What do you think will happen if the robot goes straight ahead? Where do you think the robot will turn then?’	Teacher expands children’s learning by encouraging them to think beyond the immediate situation and consider different possibilities.
5.3 Teacher challenges and supports problem solving by posing small everyday problems or by inviting children to solve problems as they arise.	Teacher supports problem solving by saying ‘Take one step at a time.’ Teacher asks: ‘What is the first step that KUBO needs to take?’	Teacher provides guided problem decomposition, in which they break down a complex problem into smaller, more manageable sub-problems. This involves identifying the different components of the problem and analyzing how they are related to one another. Teacher checks each step/scaffolding.
7.3 Teacher supports children’s curiosity by hiding unexpected objects and/or using treasure boxes to be discovered during play.	Teacher hides a special treasure for children to discover at the end of the labyrinth, if KUBO successfully completes the challenge.	Using labyrinth and coding, the robot can discover hidden objects placed at the end of the route. Correct programming enables children to discover unexpected objects.
7.4 Teacher supports children’s metacognition by talking aloud to model their thinking and problem-solving processes. They support children in planning and undertaking the activities, and then reviewing them.	Teacher: ‘So, we need to follow the robot’s steps while he moves, so we can see where the mistake is [points to each tile in the program while KUBO goes through the labyrinth]. One forward, one forward, one to the side, one forward, and another moving forward, followed by a turn. I see it turns in the opposite way but wait … it still goes forward. There is something red here [the red light indicates a problem]. What was the mistake?’	Teacher demonstrates the think-aloud strategy, where they share their thought process while solving a problem.

Table A2. Encouraging SST in investigation and exploration (Item 11).

Good/excellent levels in the SSTEW scale	Examples of teachers’ pedagogical strategies and approaches	Higher-level pedagogical strategies and approaches
5.1 Teacher encourages the children to use their imagination and creativity to explore and experiment.	Teacher stands up, takes a step back, and observes children’s involvement in the building process.	Fading: Teacher interprets children’s needs for support and fades out the amount and intensity to suit their actions and competence.
5.2 Teacher models exploration, excitement, and wonder for children to watch and then engage with.	Teacher models exploration and wonder by pointing to each tile in the program while KUBO goes through the labyrinth, and saying: ‘One forward, one forward, one to the side, one forward, and another moving forward, followed by a turn. I see it turns in the opposite way but wait … it still goes forward. There is something red here [the red light indicates a problem]. What was the mistake?’	Modeling: Teacher demonstrates a specific skill or behavior to the children, allowing them to observe and understand the process.
5.3 Teacher points out, shares, and explains the actions and interests of the children as they occur. They introduce simple scientific and explanatory concepts.	Teacher explains the concept of a 90° angle and the importance of precision and accuracy when navigating through a labyrinth. ‘Remember KUBO, he is precise at moving forward [points ahead] and at right angles [turns hand 90°]. If the walls are not straight, he can bump into them [the teacher’s hand hits the wall], so straight walls are vital.’	Teacher introduces explanatory concepts, by presenting and explaining a new idea or concept to the children, who may not be familiar with it.
5.4 Science/math activities are organized so that they build upon previous activities and explorations.	Teacher asks the children: ‘Do you remember we built a stairway last time? How did we do it? We had to use those here as well, did we not?’	Teacher uses analogy: Retrieves a useful source from memory.
7.1 Teacher models scientific/problem-solving approaches for the children to watch. They support careful watching, prediction, anticipation, and evaluation through talk and action.	Teacher observes children’s involvement in the building process.	Careful watching: Teacher pays close attention to children thoughtfully and deliberately. Teacher observes with a keen eye and a focused mind.

Table A3. Supporting children’s concept development and higher-order thinking (Item 12).

Good/excellent levels in the SSTEW scale	Examples of teachers’ pedagogical strategies and approaches	Higher-level pedagogical strategies and approaches
5.1 Teacher supports the children in thinking through what they are doing and extends it through modeling, asking simple open and closed questions, and providing additional resources.	Teacher asks: ‘What do you think will happen if the robot goes straight forward?’ ‘What do you think will happen then?’ Rough-draft talk	Open-ended questions: Teacher asks questions that allow for a wide range of responses and do not have specific answers or sets of answers (open-ended questions often begin with words such as ‘what,’ ‘how,’ ‘why,’ or ‘tell me about’). Teacher uses a non-evaluative stance to turn a child’s utterance of ‘it was a mistake’ into a question: ‘was it a mistake?’
7.1 Children are encouraged to plan their own learning. Adults may help them to gather materials, resources, produce lists, use photos, brainstorm, or create mind maps for an activity.	Teacher asks: ‘Building a labyrinth requires blocks [provides a box of magnetic blocks]. Since there are four of you, agreement is key. Where should the walls be? Where is he (KUBO) going to go?’	Teacher encourages children to plan their learning by guiding them through questions and prompts and to help them think critically and creatively.
7.2 Children are encouraged to evaluate their activities and play through adult questioning.	Teacher asks: ‘Where was the mistake?’ ‘Was it a mistake?’ Teacher asks: ‘What would you do differently next time you build the labyrinth?’ ‘What was the most challenging part of that activity?’ Teacher asks: ‘How did you feel when KUBO finally arrived at the destination?’	Teacher encourages the children to evaluate their play through rough-draft talk, by supporting their productive struggle. They help the children to manage their struggles through failure by not stepping in too soon or helping too much, to avoid taking the intellectual work away from the children. Teacher asks questions that can help the children reflect on what went wrong and how they can improve their performance in the future. They ask these questions in a non-judgmental and supportive way so that children feel comfortable with sharing their thoughts and feelings about their experiences.