Exploring parents' perceptions of computational thinking and its role in children's television

Abstract

The rise in children's media use and the prioritization of STEM learning has led to the development of new STEM‐related apps, TV shows, and other media for young children, with several recent examples focused on computational thinking (CT). Learning CT at a young age can be beneficial to children's analytical and problem solving skills. Positive effects of educational media are best realized when the learning is scaffolded by a caregiver, but the ability of parents to scaffold CT lessons is understudied. This study explores parents' perceptions, understanding, and recognition of the CT cues embedded in a new television show for preschoolers. Qualitative semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 30 parents who, together with their children (ages 4–6), viewed two episodes of a new series. Interviews were transcribed and coded using thematic analysis. Most participants had never heard of CT before. When asked to define it, many parents highlighted aspects of CT in their definitions; however, their examples illustrated limited understanding of how CT might be taught to young children. Although some parents had reservations regarding the abstractness and age‐appropriateness of the topic, parents believed CT was an important topic for their children to learn. Research has shown that scaffolding can be beneficial to promoting CT learning in young children. Therefore, for creators of CT‐focused content, it is important that the curricular focus and learning goals are made very clear so that parents and caregivers can scaffold the material in a way that effectively supports their children's learning.

INTRODUCTION

The rise in children's media use (Rideout & Robb, 2020) and the prioritization of STEM learning (Fayer et al., 2017) has led to the development of new STEM-related apps, TV shows, and other media for young children. For example, Ada Twist Scientist and Earth to Luna are children's television series with a science focus. PEG + CAT and Ready Jet Go are examples of children's educational programming with a math and science focus, respectively, funded by the U.S. Department of Education. Recently, a new television series, Work It Out Wombats!, was created to teach preschool viewers computational thinking (CT) skills. It was also created to facilitate broader, more positive, more inclusive, interest, participation, and attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) learning and specifically toward CT. This study explores parents' perceptions, understanding, and recognition of the CT cues embedded in this television show for preschoolers.

Importance of STEM and diversity in STEM fields

STEM education is a priority in the United States. Employment in STEM occupations grew over 10% between 2009 and 2019, while growth in non-STEM occupations was just over 5% (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022a, 2022b). Between 2019 and 2029, STEM occupations are projected to grow by 8%, which would add about 556,000 new jobs (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022b). However, children's science and math achievement in the United States still lags behind that of their peers around the world (National Science Board, 2018). Internationally, there are two assessments administered to children, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). In the most recent assessment of the PISA in 2018, the United States ranked 36th in math and 13th in science out of the 79 participating countries (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). For the TIMSS, the most recent assessment in 2019 found that the United States ranked 30th in fourth-grade math, 11th in fourth-grade science, 20th in eighth-grade math, and 11th in eighth-grade science out of the 58 participating countries (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). These assessment results show that much more investment needs to be made in order to improve science and math achievement for children in the United States.

To address this gap and the growth in STEM occupations, policy makers have significantly invested in improvements for STEM programs in K-12 education, identified key initiatives to engage youth in STEM outside of school settings, and improve the reach of informal STEM experiences, especially in underserved communities (Handelsman & Smith, 2016). For example, the National Science Foundation has funded programs such as the Advancing Informal STEM Learning and the Innovative Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers programs. These programs focus on increasing informal STEM learning experiences and boosting K-12 students' interest in STEM careers. In addition, research has shown that afterschool programs and informal learning experiences are supportive of children's STEM learning (Alexandre et al., 2022; Mallett Moore et al., 2022). Policymakers have also emphasized the importance of STEM in early childhood education, where STEM learning has been generally underrepresented (Ginsburg & Golbeck, 2004). Research in this area has shown that young children can learn STEM concepts at an early age and that it is beneficial for long-term learning outcomes (Ginsburg et al., 2008; Greenfield et al., 2009; Jordan et al., 2009; Lucas et al., 2014). Despite these federal investments, American children's interest in STEM learning remains low (Stoet & Geary, 2018).

Research shows socioeconomic gaps in children's science abilities and achievement starting in preschool and kindergarten (Greenfield et al., 2009), and these gaps persist as children grow older (Morgan et al., 2016). Children from higher socioeconomic backgrounds tend to have more opportunities to engage in science at their preschools, for example, a science and nature area or a sand and water table in their classroom, and as a result are more likely to engage in science activities (Sackes et al., 2009). Young children from low socioeconomic backgrounds enter kindergarten with lower readiness scores in science than in seven other academic domains (Greenfield et al., 2009). By the start of elementary school, kindergarten students living in poverty display less science knowledge than wealthier children. These gaps in science-related knowledge persist (Sackes et al., 2009) and widen as children reach high school (Morgan et al., 2016). Therefore, if children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are exposed to science learning early, it can help reduce the income gap in science education (Sackes et al., 2009).

Similar income gaps have also been found in early mathematics education. Early mathematics achievement is a strong predictor of later school achievement. It becomes very difficult for young children who fall behind in mathematics to catch up to their more mathematically proficient classmates when it comes to high-school graduation rates, college readiness, and income as adults (Claessens et al., 2009; Duncan et al., 2007; NAEYC & NCTM, 2010). Clearly, providing young children access to STEM activities can not only help narrow socioeconomic gaps but can also help improve student perceptions of STEM (Bagiati et al., 2010; Bybee & Fuchs, 2006). Given that these disparities start so young, one potential way to address these issues is through young children's educational media.

Learning from STEM media

Although children's media use is spreading across devices, television still remains the most popular form of screen time for children under 83-years-old (Rideout & Robb, 2020). About 68 percent of children between zero and 8 years old are watching television every day, averaging just under 2 hours per day, and educational television programs are popular among this age group (Rideout, 2014; Rideout & Robb, 2020). Research-based educational television programs have had positive effects on children's learning across many domains, such as literacy and math (Fisch et al., 1999; Piotrowski, 2018).

Recent studies on media properties funded by the U.S. Department of Education's Ready To Learn (RTL) Initiative, have shown that STEM-focused educational television can have positive effects on preschool-aged children. In 2013, McCarthy, Lee, Atienza, Sexton, and Tiu investigated the effects of four transmedia suites (The Cat in the Hat, Curious George, Dinosaur Train, and Sid the Science Kid) developed by Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) Kids, the children's content production arm of the PBS. These transmedia suites focused on children's mathematics knowledge, specifically numbers and operations, measurement and data, sorting and patterns, and geometry and spatial sense. Transmedia means the use of familiar characters, settings, and narrative themes or stories across different media formats, such as digital video, interactive online games, and interactive whiteboard applications, so transmedia suites would be comprised of thematic content presented across different media platforms. The authors found significant improvement in 3-year-olds’ performance on the Child Math Assessment after viewing episodes of science and math shows and completing related at-home activities with their parents over the course of 10 weeks.

A 2014 study looked at engagement with and learning from episodes and interactive games from PEG + CAT, another PBS Kids transmedia property designed to teach early mathematics and problem solving (Moorthy et al., 2014). The pre–post experimental study took place in preschool classrooms over a 10-week period and focused on mathematics skills such as counting, number recognition and subitizing, shapes, and patterns. Researchers found that children's understanding of specific mathematics concepts significantly improved on program-specific assessments as well as a standardized math assessment.

Another study conducted in 2015 also examined math learning from another set of PBS transmedia and found that all the first and second graders in both the treatment and control groups significantly improved their math skills (measurement, addition, skip counting, and shapes). The treatment group showed significantly greater improvement than the control group in one of those four skills (Michael Cohen Group, 2015). Another PEG + CAT transmedia study focusing on math learning from PEG + CAT in the home, was conducted in 2015 and the authors also found that children significantly improved their mathematics skills over the 12-week intervention (Pasnik et al., 2015).

Research has also been conducted on science-based transmedia properties through the RTL Initiative. In 2019, Grindal and colleagues investigated the effects of The Cat in the Hat Knows a Lot About That!, another PBS transmedia property consisting of videos and interactive games. The study took place over 8 weeks and the participants were randomly assigned to a treatment or control group. Researchers found that exposure to these transmedia had positive impacts on children's physical science knowledge and their ability to engage in science and engineering practices. Specifically, they found that children's understanding of matter and forces, strength and length, texture, and forces in structural ability and movement down and incline. Researchers also found through their parent survey that these transmedia increased children's interest and engagement in science. These studies show that educational media can be beneficial for young children's engagement with early STEM concepts.

Computational thinking

One topic of STEM learning that is gaining popularity is CT. Researchers refer to CT as an approach to problem solving based in computer science (Barr et al., 2011) rather than the specific act of coding or programming (Shute et al., 2017; Wing, 2006). CT can involve concepts such as sequencing, algorithmic thinking, debugging, or collecting, analyzing and representing data (Grover & Pea, 2013). In early childhood education, researchers have defined CT as problem-solving skills that focus on systematic design and analysis (M. Bers, 2010; M. U. Bers, 2019). Since then, Bers and colleagues have expanded their definition to include algorithms, decomposition of problems, representation, and debugging (M. Bers et al., 2022). Researchers have come up with varying conceptualizations of CT, however, research has shown that CT is beneficial skillset for children (Saidin et al., 2021; Wong & Jiang, 2018).

Research has shown that young children can benefit from CT experiences (X. Wang et al., 2024). For example, Relkin et al. (2021) examined changes in CT skills in first and second graders using a coding curriculum that spanned 7 weeks and involved the KIBO robot to engage students in learning. This study found that young children were able to learn CT skills through the use of this curriculum (Relkin et al., 2021). Research has also shown that coding apps can support young children's learning of CT (Papadakis, 2021). Further research suggests that learning CT at a young age can be beneficial to children's analytical skills and provides them with new approaches to problem solving (M. U. Bers, 2018, 2020; Botički et al., 2018).

Teaching CT is not without its challenges (Jacob et al., 2018). One of the main challenges teachers face is defining CT (Yadav et al., 2018). One research study conducted by Sands et al. (2018) examined teacher perceptions of CT. They found that teachers agreed that CT involved concepts such as problem solving and algorithmic thinking. However, they also found that teachers had some incorrect perceptions of CT, such as doing mathematics, knowing how to use a computer, and playing online games. A study by Bower et al. (2017) showed that teachers' CT understanding, pedological capabilities, and confidence improved after a targeted professional development intervention.

For young children especially, much of early learning happens at home with parents and caregivers. Indeed, parents are typically their children's first teachers, and studies have shown that educational television is most effective when on-screen lessons are scaffolded and reinforced by a parent or caregiver (Morgenlander, 2010; Neuman et al., 2014). Given that trained educators have been shown to struggle to understand and define CT, parents and at-home caregivers may have a very difficult time grasping the concept. It is important to learn what parents understand about this topic in order to maximize the benefit that CT-focused educational television might have. Without some basic understanding of what CT means, parents are likely to miss the CT cues presented in the television show, which would eliminate any possibility of scaffolding and reinforcement of the lesson.

Research questions

For this study, parents watched two episodes of Work It Out Wombats!—a new animated television show that premiered in 2023 and was designed to teach CT to children ages 3–6—and were interviewed about their impressions, understanding, and recognition of the CT cues. The interviews were developed from the following research questions:

• What do parents know about CT?

• To what extent do parents recognize that the program teaches CT and/or STEM-related concepts? What CT cues do parents notice while watching the program?

• What impressions do parents have about CT? Do parents think CT is an important subject for their children to learn?

METHOD

This qualitative interview study was conducted in person and completed in a university research space or community center in western and central Michigan. This study is part of a larger study examining parents' and children's perceptions, understanding, and recognition of culture and inclusion cues (reported elsewhere) and CT cues (the focus of this paper).

Recruitment

Participants were recruited through a university listserv for parents and caregivers and through a local community center in western and central Michigan. Those interested in participating completed an online screening questionnaire that collected basic demographics (gender, race-ethnicity, child age) and contact information. To be eligible for participation, participants had to be a primary parent or caregiver of at least one child between 4 and 6 years old and be comfortable being interviewed in English. Once a potential participant completed the screening process and was eligible for the study, an appointment was scheduled for the parent to come in together with their 4–6-year-old child for the interview. In order to ensure that our sample was roughly reflective of U.S. parents in terms of race/ethnicity, we prioritized scheduling participants who self-identified as persons of color. Participants were compensated $50 for their time.

Participants in context

A total of 30 parents/caregivers (83% mothers, M = 39.4, SD = 5.8) participated in the study. While any primary caregiver was allowed to participate, all participants identified as either a mother or father, and therefore we refer to our participants as parents throughout this paper. Participating parents reported their race/ethnicity as 67% White, 18% Black or African American, 12% Hispanic or Latino/a, and 3% American Indian, Native American, or Alaskan Native.

Due to the recruitment of some participants through a university listserv, the sample did skew toward more highly educated parents (57% had a postgraduate degree). Household income ranged from $25,000 to more than $200,000, with an average income of $50,000 to $99,999. Twenty percent of parents reported that languages other than English were spoken at home, and 16% of parents reported that a grandparent or other adult relative lives at home with the family. See Table 1 for all demographic information.

TABLE 1 Participant demographics.

Demographics	Parent
n	%
Gender
Female	25	83.33
Male	4	13.33
Non-binary	1	3.33
Race
White or Caucasian	23	67.65
Black, African American, or African origin	6	17.65
Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish origin	4	11.76
Asian or Southeast Asian	0	0
American Indian, Native American, or Alaskan Native	1	2.94
Middle Eastern or North African	0	0
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander	0	0
Other	0	0
Household income last year
Less than $10,000	0	0
$10,000 to $14,999	0	0
$15,000 to $24,999	0	0
$25,000 to $49,999	6	20.00
$50,000 to $99,999	7	23.33
$100,000 to $149,999	10	33.33
$150,000 to $199,999	4	13.33
$200,000 or more	3	10.00
Parent education
Less than high school	0	0.00
High school diploma or GED	1	3.33
Some college/vocational school	6	20.00
Associate degree	1	3.33
Bachelor's degree	5	16.67
Master's degree	12	40.00
Advanced graduate/professional degree (e.g., JD, MD, PhD)	5	16.67
Partner education
Less than high school	0	0.00
High school diploma or GED	3	10.00
Some college/vocational school	1	3.33
Associate degree	1	3.33
Bachelor's degree	11	36.67
Master's degree	3	10.00
Advanced graduate/professional degree (e.g., JD, MD, PhD)	5	16.67

Procedure

Interview

The interviews were conducted in-person in either a university research lab or a quiet office space in a community center. Two members of the research team were present for each interview. One researcher led the interview while the other observed, provided technological support, and helped entertain the child if they got bored while their parent was answering questions. Length of interviews ranged from an hour to an hour and a half, with most lasting about 1 hour and 15 min. All interviews were video and audio recorded.

At the beginning of the interview session, the research team explained the goals and process of the study and received consent to proceed. Parents then completed an online demographics survey administered via Qualtrics on a small laptop or tablet provided by the research team. The survey gathered age, race, and gender for the participating parents and any children living at home as well as the family's household income, the participant's highest level of education, spouse/partner's highest level of education, and information about the participating child's typical media use. See Table 1 for all demographic information reported by the parents.

After the demographics survey was completed, researchers gave a brief overview of the characters and the setting of the television show to provide context before watching the episodes. Participants together with their children (ages 4–6) watched two episodes of the show, each lasting about 11 minutes. The order of episodes was randomized across participants to account for any potential order effects. We chose to have parents watch together with a child in the show's target age group in order to better simulate a realistic home viewing experience. Parents rarely watch preschool television on their own. With this design, parents were able to see how their children reacted to the stories and characters in real time and were able to talk with their children as they might do while watching together at home.

After watching the first episode, the core of the interview began. A semi-structured interview protocol served as a guide, but researchers allowed the conversation to flow as much as possible. The interview was broken up into three parts. The first two parts of the interview contained questions specific to each episode. The last part of the interview contained questions on their general thoughts on the show.

For the first two interview sections, which followed each episode, questions included overall impressions about the episode, the storyline, and the characters, things they liked or disliked about the episode, their thoughts on the main takeaway message of the episode and other lessons their child may have learned while watching. During the last part of the interview, participants were asked questions regarding their general impressions about the show followed by CT-specific questions. We asked for their thoughts on how the show compared to other shows their child watches, whether they would encourage their child to watch the show at home (and why or why not), and if they thought their child would learn anything from watching the show regularly. Then, parents were asked questions regarding CT. Parents were first asked if they had ever heard of CT and what they think it means. If they had not heard the term before, we asked them to take their best guess on what it might mean. They were then given the following definition of CT to review:

The show defines computational thinking as “a creative way of thinking that enables children to solve problems in systematic ways. CT helps children identify and analyze problems, and brainstorm and generate step-by-step solutions that can be communicated to and followed by others.” Some of the topics include sequencing, patterns, debugging, abstraction, representation, algorithms, and problem decomposition.

After reviewing the definition, parents were asked to share their thoughts on it. Specifically, they were asked:

Considering that definition, are there any specific examples from the episodes that you feel directly reflect computational thinking skills?

Were there any aspects of the computational thinking definition that you did not feel came through in the episodes?

Do you think that computational thinking is an important subject for your child to learn at this age?

Stimulus. Participants watched two-minute Work It Out Wombats! episodes: A Super Recipe and Special Delivery. These two episodes were chosen from a subset of episodes that were in “fine cut” stage (i.e., almost finished animation but had no music or sound effects) by the time of interview preparation (i.e., the first batch of episodes developed for Season 1). The official episode descriptions from the PBS website are as follows:

A Super Recipe. The Wombats are making cornbread for Super as a thank you for fixing Zeke's stuffie Snout. But when they lose the recipe, they must figure out what makes cornbread “cornbready” to perfect their tasty treat. The Wombats notice and describe key attributes of cornbread: it's sweet, yellow and crunchy. They then try to create cornbread that has these three key attributes, using different ingredients. After talking to Treeborhood community members about the special ingredients they add to their cornbread, the Wombats realize that cornbread can also be cheesy or spicy!

Special Delivery. Malik really wants to bring ice cream to his sick friend, Sammy. There are two sets of ordered steps that Malik can follow, and both get Malik to Sammy's house. One set of steps gets Malik there in a complicated way, requiring more time and effort; the other set gets Malik there more quickly and simply.

Coding and analysis

All interviews were transcribed verbatim using , a crowd-sourced human transcription service. All identifying information was removed or anonymized before the research team engaged with the data. The core research team comprised one faculty member and one lead graduate research assistant (GRA), and four additional students (three graduate and one undergraduate) were involved in data collection and/or coding. Findings presented here were analyzed by the faculty member and lead GRA, who are the authors of this paper.

Prior to coding, the research team drafted a codebook based on our experience conducting the interviews. Then, we did close reads of the transcripts and completed practice rounds of coding working off the same transcript, but blind to each other's codes. After each practice round, the research team met to discuss our codes and work through any discrepancies or challenges. The final codebook covers themes and topics such as CT (problem solving, problem decomposition, etc.) and general impressions (overall impressions, favorite characters, takeaway messages, etc.). During the coding process, research team members would also write memos to take notes on themes that were not fully covered by the codebook or to describe any patterns or larger themes that emerged.

After all the transcripts were coded, data analysis began. The analysis of these interviews was guided by a mix of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2012) and qualitative content analysis, which allows for systematic approach to analyzing qualitative data (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Schreier, 2012).

RESULTS

Parents' knowledge of CT

To answer our first research question, “What do parents know about CT?”, we asked parents if they have ever heard of the term “computational thinking.” A majority of parents (N = 16) said they had never heard the term before participating in the study. One parent shared,

Researcher: Have you heard of that term before and have any thoughts about what it might mean for someone his age?

Parent: Computation thinking. No. I mean, we talk about computational science, dealing with big data and understanding how they describe phenomena and predict phenomena. But I think computational thinking is new to me.

This parent does have some familiarity about computer science, an academic discipline; however, they do not have any familiarity with CT. This particular quote is interesting because even with their familiarity with this STEM field, they have never heard of CT. If parents that have familiarity with STEM fields have never heard of CT, there is a possibility that parents without this familiarity with STEM fields also have not heard of CT. Other parents said that it sounded familiar, but they were not sure what it meant, and only a few parents mentioned that they had heard of CT.

As a follow-up question, we asked parents to define or give their best guess as to the meaning of CT. In their responses, many of the parents did have aspects of CT in their definitions, such as problem solving, sequencing, and breaking things down. Examples included:

• -

  “Compute, break it down. To compute, to try to figure out in a step by step process.”

• -

  “Processes and just really assessing a situation.”

• -

  “I have never heard of [it]. I'm going to just say problem solving, trial and error.”

All the parent definitions above include aspects of CT. “Break it down” is a part of problem decomposition. “Figure out in a step by step process” is a part of sequencing. CT is a problem-solving approach. In their attempt to come up with a definition, a few parents would mention that they think of computers and some parents would mention what they viewed during the episodes:

• -

  CT? I mean this episode, at least to have the focus on steps, like step one, step two…So maybe it has to do with thinking through things through [sic] in steps.

• -

  I mean, in general I think of data, computers, trying to calculate something, math… It was more clear in the second one where there's six steps versus two steps.

Asking parents to try to provide a definition was an attempt to gain insight into parents' current understanding of CT. Given that the majority of the parents had never heard of CT, hearing their guesses contain educational aspects of the episodes shows that the parents are recognizing these CT cues prior to being given a definition. However, their examples also show that parents do not have a full and complete understanding of the CT curriculum.

We also asked parents what school subject they think is associated with CT. About a third of parents (N = 9) associated CT with STEM subjects, such as science and math. Other school subjects or topics mentioned were language, social emotional learning, psychology, and self-regulation. Examples included:

• -

  I mean, guess it seems like a psychology thing, but I'm sure math and engineering probably have some aspect of that, too.

• -

  Math and computer science. But I don't know if they do computer science in school.

• -

  Probably a few. Certainly science and math. Gosh, I'm thinking back to episode one like that, calculating the length of the route, what's more efficient and the options and for the cornbread, what goes into it, right? Definitely that and a little language involved there too, because when you're calculating things and you're using terms, you're figuring out measurements, you know, have to understand those units, and you have to be able to communicate around those.

• -

  I mean, I could see it fitting into math. I could see it fitting into science in terms of trying something new and not working like an experiment or something. And then, are we talking like K through 12? Because I would also see it fitting into a social emotional learning type category.

This was another attempt to gain insight into parents' current understanding of CT. When taught in schools, some schools position CT in computing/computer science courses, while others position it across different subject areas (Voogt et al., 2015). Researchers have argued that CT skills could be taught in math, science, social studies, and language arts classes (Lu & Fletcher, 2009). Parent responses to this question included almost all of these subjects even before they had viewed a definition of CT.

Parents' recognition of CT

Our second research question involved parents' recognition of CT. During the interview, parents were given a piece of paper with the following explanation of CT to read to themselves:

The show defines CT as “a creative way of thinking that enables children to solve problems in systematic ways. CT helps children identify and analyze problems, and brainstorm and generate step-by-step solutions that can be communicated to and followed by others.” Some of the topics covered include sequencing, patterns, debugging, abstraction, representation, algorithms, and problem decomposition.

This definition was taken from the show's curriculum approach and rationale. After providing parents with a definition of CT, parents were able to recall many aspects of CT from the two stories they viewed. Examples included:

• -

  Counting the steps to get to the kid's house and then figuring out that the other way was less steps.

• -

  Representation would be the maps. And then debugging, maybe this seems like a really long way to go. Let's see if there's a better way or whatever.

• -

  When they found the cornbread that was all dried, they decided to try to come up with solutions…. They were going to follow a recipe, which would've been better, but then they lost the recipe book…

• -

  Yeah, I mean the step by step part in the second story where they map out his process of getting there. Same thing with the recipe in the first story, the brainstorming thing. In The first story they go, well it's all of these things, so what can we do to try and approximate that?

• -

  Yeah, debugging, right? Figuring out what part of the process is broken and pulling it out. So yeah, I think they match a lot of this.

These responses show that parents were able to recognize some of the CT cues in the episodes but also show that the parents did not fully recognize the CT cues in the show. Parents recognized problem solving; however, parents only recalled aspects of CT provided in the definition which suggest that they did not have a full and complete understanding of the CT curriculum. Parents' ability to recognize these cues is important because if they are not recognizing the cues, they may not be able to help support their children's learning from television.

Parents’ impressions of CT

After reading the provided definition of CT, parents were asked questions regarding their impressions of the topic, which was our third research question. When asked about their initial thoughts on the definition, some parents responded:

• -

  I guess it should be something that our kids should be more exposed to in shows.

• -

  It's very high-level, but it seems like an interesting and probably very productive way to try to teach children to problem-solve, because I think, as all people, we get overwhelmed really quickly with problems and then get really emotional about them. So being able to identify and analyze the steps is crucial, I think, as you grow and into adulthood, so yeah.

• -

  I think this is awesome, because I feel like the more and more I think about the Ways that I work at a school. So we're always thinking about getting kids to ask the right questions and become problem solvers. I love this idea of visualizing thinking and I saw that they were doing that with the maps and drawing.

As shown in the above quotes, many parents shared positive reflections on the definition and brought up, even before being prompted, that it was a topic their children should learn.

After asking parents about their initial thoughts, we also explicitly asked parents if CT was a topic their young child should learn. Many parents thought that CT is a topic their young child should learn:

• -

  Oh, it's never too early to start.

• -

  There's no downside to that. I think especially in this world where it can be very easy to get overwhelmed. Showing and modeling in a positive way, how you tackle something that's tough in a very step by step, bite size, approachable way. Yes.

• -

  I don't think it's a bad thing. Especially because being able to problem solve and think outside the box when things don't go the way that you plan, is something that people need to know how to do.

• -

  Kids are the best experiment builders because they're experimenting all the time because they have no knowledge of the world. I mean he's 4 years old. So I definitely think that it's something that needs to be addressed early.

• -

  Oh yeah. I mean, think this…. Problem solving, I think is one of the most important things for children to learn, because …I don't think a child would be as successful in the actual math, science and things like that if they didn't know how to problem solve first.

• -

  Yeah, I think it helps give her more experience outside of school to have those thoughts and think on her own versus feeling like she's in an area where she's being challenged to think about it. It's something that happens more naturally. So I like that idea. I feel like they're hitting on a subject that is just not something we see for their age group that makes sense.

A common theme across these last two sets of quotes is problem solving. Parents seem to appreciate CT because it is another way of teaching their children to solve problems in their everyday lives.

Although the majority of parents' responses about CT were very positive, some parents had reservations about CT being taught to their young children. A few parents felt that there was a possibility that their children would not be able to fully comprehend CT. For example:

• -

  It's a heavy definition for a kid's show.

• -

  I thought it was good. I thought there were obviously the numbers. They're reinforcing the counting and the steps. I think for her she might be still a little too young to understand the true problem-solving nature…of what was happening. Probably just more of the fun.

• -

  Yeah, I mean, it's very high-level, but it seems like an interesting and probably very productive way to try to teach children to problem-solve, because I think, as all people, we get overwhelmed really quickly with problems and then get really emotional about them. So being able to identify and analyze the steps is crucial, I think, as you grow and into adulthood, so yeah.

• -

  I wonder if it's the right place in the kid's education to focus on it, though…. Yeah. I mean it … just feels a little abstract to pull it all apart like that, but maybe I'm wrong. You can totally try I guess, see if it works out.

In the above quotes, parents mentioned that even though they felt positive about CT, it is a topic area that is abstract and may be difficult for young children.

Other parents appreciated the idea of their young children learning this topic, but felt that the lessons in the show seemed to be too hidden:

• -

  So when I think about this show and other shows, other education shows that our kids have watched, the lessons in this, and maybe it's by design, the lessons, I felt like, were still a little hidden or wasn't as out front; they're just kind of going through their day and whatnot. But I do think it's a good lesson to learn.

• -

  Yeah, I like the idea and I think that it's not out of her area of being able to comprehend. Yeah. It's nice too… This is a good idea, but I think it was, at the end, you could wrap it up and actually say how the episode fits into this because it is very abstract and this is… It's a lot to infer from just that message. You'd have to really come back to it and think about it in this framework and be like, "Okay, I see what they're doing there." So maybe a little more help with that.

In the first quote, this parent would have preferred if the CT cues were more explicit in the episodes they had watched. In the second quote, this parent felt that the CT cues included in the episode required a lot of inferring and it would help to have something to summarize or reinforce these cues. Parents want their children to recognize CT cues and feel that making the cues more explicit would be beneficial to their young children's learning.

DISCUSSION

The participants in our study shared rich and valuable insights about the Wombats! episodes they watched and the CT lessons that were presented in the episodes. All the parents in our study said that they would encourage their children to watch Work it Out Wombats! given the CT focus and nearly all parents agreed that CT is an important topic for their children to learn. Understanding parent impressions is important because parents help decide what their young children watch (Nikken & Schols, 2015). Parents have a role in how their children experience television. Parents' views on the media, whether positive or negative, has an impact on parental mediation (M. Wang et al., 2023). Parental mediation examines the different ways in which parental activity may play a role in how much children incorporate the attitudes and beliefs that are presented in the media (Sasson & Mesch, 2019). Research in this area has shown that parents set limits, model, and select media for their children (Domoff et al., 2017; Nikken & Schols, 2015; Plowman et al., 2008). It is important to understand what parents think about their children's television content because of how active a role some parents may play in choosing that content.

Parents were asked about CT, given that is the main goal of the show. A majority of parents never heard of CT. When asked to try and define CT, many parents did have aspects of CT in their definitions, such as problem solving, sequencing, and breaking things down; however, their examples show that they did not have a full and complete understanding of the CT curriculum. Parents came up with a variety of school subjects when asked what school subjects they associate with CT. However, once they were given a definition of CT and had a better understanding of its meaning, they recognized and recalled many examples from the stories that showcased CT learning goals.

Parents' knowledge and recognition of CT is important because learning from educational media works best when parents co-view media with their children and are able to actively scaffold the learning material (Morgenlander, 2010; Neuman et al., 2014). Prior research studies have shown that when it comes to coding concepts, parents report concerns about their lack of knowledge to provide help to their children (Yu et al., 2020). Under Vygotsky's zone of proximal development, to support young children's learning, parents or caregivers would need to have the knowledge to support their children. Prior research studies have also shown that there is the potential of supporting parental understanding of CT if they have learning materials available to them (Lavigne et al., 2023). If parents know what CT is and can recognize it, they will be better able to support their children.

Practical implications

Given the applied nature of this research study, it is important to discuss practical takeaways. Research suggests that learning CT at a young age can be beneficial to children's analytical and problem solving skills (M. U. Bers, 2018, 2020; Botički et al., 2018). Research has also shown that scaffolding can be beneficial to promoting CT learning in young children (X. Wang et al., 2024). Therefore, for creators of CT-focused content, it is important that the curricular focus and learning goals are made very clear to parents and caregivers. In order to scaffold the material in a way that effectively supports their children's learning, parents need a clear and concrete understanding of the learning goals. For example, the learning goals could be made clear in the show through the story, the characters, or through an interstitial aimed directly at the parents. Parent resources and parent-child activities that accompany the episodes on a companion website are additional examples of where the learning goals can be made available for parents. Providing materials to parents would help them better support their children's learning.

Another takeaway for content creators would be to highlight the educational cues within the show. In this study, we specifically looked at CT cues. Some parents had concerns that the cues for CT were too subtle and their child may not understand them. It is important to explicitly highlight these cues so that both parents and children understand the cues being shown to them. Using repetition is an example of how these cues can be highlighted in the show.

Limitations and future research

This sample of parents was from the midwest region of the United States, specifically the state of Michigan. Although there was a concerted effort to have a diverse sample, the sample did skew more heavily toward parents with relatively high levels of education and income and, therefore, may not be generalizable to a wider population of parents. Future research in this area might aim to have a nationally representative sample and might also examine the unique experiences of minoritized parents and parents from different international contexts.

Future research should examine the current state of STEM media for young children, especially CT. The most recent content analysis examining young children's STEM television was conducted in 2020 (Aladé et al., 2021). New STEM television has been created since then. Television should not be the only medium examined. Other media, such as mobile apps, should also be examined.

Additionally, future research should examine formal and informal learning environments for young children's CT. Research has been conducted on young children's CT using educational robots or ScratchJr (X. Wang et al., 2024). Other learning environments, such as the home, should be examined as well. A nationally representative survey could allow for the opinions of different racial/ethnic groups as well as geographies to be more generalizable compared to the interview data provided in this study. Previous research studies have examined parents' perceptions and reported use of science-related media (Silander et al., 2018); however, given the rise in CT related media for children, it is important to understand parents' perceptions and preferences in this area. This television show is an opportunity for parents to informally engage with CT with their children at home. Future research should examine learning outcomes to understand the potential for television to support young children's CT learning at home.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Breniel Lemley: Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; project administration; resources; software; supervision; validation; visualization; writing - original draft; writing - review & editing. Fashina Aladé: Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; funding acquisition; investigation; methodology; project administration; resources; software; supervision; validation; visualization; writing - original draft; writing - review & editing

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was funded in part by the GBH Educational Foundation and by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (Award Number: 2234667). We would like express our deepest thanks to the members of our research team: T.J. Mesyn, Anissa Eddie, Sophia Aparicio, and Loren Aguilar. We would also like to thank the Work it Out Wombats! team at GBH and the parents that participated in this research.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest for this study.

ETHICS STATEMENT

This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at Michigan State University, STUDY00007481, and the Institutional Review Board at Northwestern University, STU00217232.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

Aladé, F., Lauricella, A., Kumar, Y., & Wartella, E. (2021). Who’s modeling STEM for kids? A character analysis of children’s STEM‐focused television in the US. Journal of Children and Media, 15(3), 338–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2020.1810087

Alexandre, S., Xu, Y., Washington‐Nortey, M., & Chen, C. (2022). Informal STEM learning for young children: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14), 8299. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148299

Bagiati, A., Yoon, S. Y., Evangelou, D., & Ngambeki, I. (2010). Engineering curricula in early education: Describing the landscape of open resources. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(2), n2.

Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning and Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20–23.

Bers, M. (2010). The TangibleK robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(2), 1–20. https://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v12n2/bers.html

Bers, M., Strawhacker, A., & Sullivan, A. (2022). The state of the field of computational thinking in early childhood education. OECD Education Working Papers 274; OECD Education Working Papers, 274. https://doi.org/10.1787/3354387a‐en

Bers, M. U. (2018). Coding and computational thinking in early childhood: The impact of ScratchJr in europe. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/3868

Bers, M. U. (2019). Coding as another language: A pedagogical approach for teaching computer science in early childhood. Journal of Computers in Education, 6(4), 499–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692‐019‐00147‐3

Bers, M. U. (2020). Coding as a playground: Programming and computational thinking in the early childhood classroom. Routledge.

Botički, I., Kovačević, P., Pivalica, D., & Seow, P. (2018). Identifying patterns in computational thinking problem solving in early primary education. In J. C. Yang, M. Chang, L.‐H. Wong, & M. M. T. Rodrigo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Computers in Education. Asia‐Pacific Society for Computers in Education. https://apsce.net/icce/icce2018/wp‐content/uploads/2018/12/C4‐15.pdf

Bower, M., Wood, L., Lai, J., Howe, C., Lister, R., Mason, R., Highfield, K., & Veal, J. (2017). Improving the computational thinking pedagogical capabilities of school teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2017v42n3.4

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. American Psychological Association.

Bybee, R. W., & Fuchs, B. (2006). Preparing the 21st century workforce: A new reform in science and technology education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 349–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20147

Claessens, A., Duncan, G., & Engel, M. (2009). Kindergarten skills and fifth‐grade achievement: Evidence from the ECLS‐K. Economics of Education Review, 28(4), 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2008.09.003

Domoff, S. E., Miller, A. L., Khalatbari, N., Pesch, M. H., Harrison, K., Rosenblum, K., & Lumeng, J. C. (2017). Maternal beliefs about television and parental mediation in a low‐income United States sample. Journal of Children and Media, 11(3), 278–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2017.1339102

Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., Pagani, L. S., Feinstein, L., Engel, M., Brooks‐Gunn, J., Sexton, H., & Duckworth, K. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428–1446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012‐1649.43.6.1428

Fayer, S., Lacey, A., & Watson, A. (2017). STEM occupations: Past, present, and future. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Fisch, S. M., Truglio, R. T., & Cole, C. F. (1999). The impact of sesame street on preschool children: A review and synthesis of 30 Years’ research. Media Psychology, 1(2), 165–190. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0102_5

Ginsburg, H. P., & Golbeck, S. L. (2004). Thoughts on the future of research on mathematics and science learning and education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1), 190–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.01.013

Ginsburg, H. P., Lee, J. S., & Boyd, J. S. (2008). Mathematics education for young children: What it is and how to promote it. Social Policy Report, 22(1), 1–24. Society for Research in Child Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2379‐3988.2008.tb00054.x

Greenfield, D. B., Jirout, J., Dominguez, X., Greenberg, A., Maier, M., & Fuccillo, J. (2009). Science in the preschool classroom: A programmatic research agenda to improve science readiness. Early Education & Development, 20(2), 238–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280802595441

Grindal, T., Silander, M., Gerard, S., Maxon, T., Garcia, E., Hupert, N., Vahey, P., & Pasnik, S. (2019). Early science and engineering: The impact of the Cat in the Hat knows a lot about that! On learning. Education Development Center, Inc. & SRI.

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051

Handelsman, J., & Smith, M. (2016). STEM for all. Whitehouse.Gov. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/02/11/stem‐all

Hsieh, H.‐F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

Jacob, S. R., Nguyen, H. M., Tofel‐Grehl, C., Richardson, D. J., & Warschauer, M. (2018). Teaching computational thinking to English learners.

Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Ramineni, C., & Locuniak, M. N. (2009). Early math matters: Kindergarten number competence and later mathematics outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 850–867. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014939

Lavigne, H. J., Presser, A. L., Rosenfeld, D., Cuellar, L., Vidiksis, R., Ferguson, C., Wolsky, M., & Andrews, J. (2023). Computational thinking with families: Studying an at‐home media intervention to promote joint media engagement between preschoolers and their parents. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 65, 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2023.05.009

Lu, J. J., & Fletcher, G. H. L. (2009). Thinking about computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 260–264).

Lucas, C. G., Bridgers, S., Griffiths, T. L., & Gopnik, A. (2014). When children are better (or at least more open‐minded) learners than adults: Developmental differences in learning the forms of causal relationships. Cognition, 131(2), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.010

Mallett Moore, E., Hock, A., Bevan, B., & Taylor, K. H. (2022). Measuring STEM learning in after‐school summer programs: Review of the literature. Journal of Youth Development, 17(2), 75–105. https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2022.1131

McCarthy, B., Li, L., Atienza, S., Ed, M., Sexton, U., Tiu, M., & Ed, M. (2013). PBS kids mathematics transmedia suites in preschool families and communities: A report to the cpb‐PBS Ready to learn initiative. WestEd.

Michael Cohen Group. (2015). Effect of the UMIGO transmedia property on first and second grade students’ math ability summative evaluation B: Randomized controlled trial (RCT) study – year 4 & 5. Michael Cohen Group.

Moorthy, S., Hupert, N., Llorente, C., & Pasnik, S. (2014). PEG+CAT content study: Report to CPB‐PBS the Ready to learn initiative. SRI Education & Education Development Center.

Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M., & Maczuga, S. (2016). Science achievement gaps begin very early, persist, and are largely explained by modifiable factors. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16633182

Morgenlander, M. (2010). Adult‐child co‐viewing of educational television: Enhancing preschoolers’ understanding of mathematics shown on "Sesame Street". Columbia University.

NAEYCNCTM. (2010). Early childhood mathematics: Promoting good beginnings. National Association for the Education of Young Children & National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

National Science Board. (2018). Our nation’s future competitiveness relies on building a STEM‐capable U.S. Workforce: A policy companion statement to science and engineering indicators 2018. National Science Foundation.

Neuman, S. B., Kaefer, T., Pinkham, A., & Strouse, G. (2014). Can babies learn to read? A randomized trial of baby media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 815–830. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035937

Nikken, P., & Schols, M. (2015). How and why parents guide the media use of young children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(11), 3423–3435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826‐015‐0144‐4

Papadakis, S. (2021). The impact of coding apps to support young children in computational thinking and computational fluency. A literature review. Frontiers in Education, 6, 657895. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.657895

Pasnik, S., Moorthy, S., Llorente, C., Hupert, N., Dominguez, X., & Silander, M. (2015). Supporting parent‐child experiences with PEG+CAT early math concepts: Report to the CPB‐PBS Ready to learn initiative. Education Development Center, Inc. & SRI International.

Piotrowski, J. T. (2018). Is educational media an oxymoron? In N. A. Jennings & S. R. Mazzarella (Eds.), 20 questions about youth and the media (revised edition). Peter Lang Inc., International Academic Publishers.

Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen, C. (2008). Just picking it up? Young children learning with technology at home. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(3), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640802287564

Relkin, E., De Ruiter, L. E., & Bers, M. U. (2021). Learning to code and the acquisition of computational thinking by young children. Computers & Education, 169, 104222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104222

Rideout, V. (2014). Learning at home: Families’ educational media use in America. Joan Ganz Cooney Center.

Rideout, V., & Robb, M. (2020). The Common Sense census: Media use by kids age zero to eight. Common Sense Media.

Sackes, M., Trundle, K. C., & Flevares, L. M. (2009). Using children’s literature to teach standard‐based science concepts in early years. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(5), 415–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643‐009‐0304‐5

Saidin, N. D., Khalid, F., Martin, R., Kuppusamy, Y., & Munusamy, N. A. (2021). Benefits and challenges of applying computational thinking in education. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 11(5), 248–254. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2021.11.5.1519

Sands, P., Yadav, A., & Good, J. (2018). Computational thinking in K‐12: In‐service teacher perceptions of computational thinking. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Computational thinking in the STEM disciplines (pp. 151–164). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐319‐93566‐9_8

Sasson, H., & Mesch, G. S. (2019). Parental mediation. In R. Hobbs & P. Mihailidis (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of media literacy (1st ed., pp. 1–6). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118978238.ieml0177

Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage publications.

Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell‐Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003

Silander, M., Grindal, T., Hupert, N., Garcia, E., Anderson, K., Vahey, P., & Pasnik, S. (2018). What parents talk about when they talk about learning: A national survey about young children and science. Education Development Center, Inc. & SRI.

Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender‐equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022a). Occupational employment and wage Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/oes/

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022b). Occupational outlook handbook. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/

U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Highlights of U.S. PISA 2018 results web report (NCES 2020‐166 and NCES 2020‐072). Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2018/index.asp

U.S. Department of Education. (2019). TIMSS 2019 U.S. Highlights web report (NCES 2021‐021). Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/timss/results19/index.asp

Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639‐015‐9412‐6

Wang, M., Lwin, M. O., Cayabyab, Y. M. T. M., Hou, G., & You, Z. (2023). A meta‐analysis of factors predicting parental mediation of children’s media use based on studies published between 1992–2019. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 32(5), 1249–1260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826‐022‐02459‐y

Wang, X., Chan, K. K., Li, Q., & Leung, S. O. (2024). Do 3–8 Years old children benefit from computational thinking development? A meta‐analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241236744

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215

Wong, G. K. W., & Jiang, S. (2018). Computational thinking education for children: Algorithmic thinking and debugging. In 2018 IEEE international conference on teaching, assessment, and learning for engineering (TALE) (pp. 328–334). https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE.2018.8615232

Yadav, A., Krist, C., Good, J., & Caeli, E. N. (2018). Computational thinking in elementary classrooms: Measuring teacher understanding of computational ideas for teaching science. Computer Science Education, 28(4), 371–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2018.1560550

Yu, J., Bai, C., & Roque, R. (2020). Considering parents in coding kit design: Understanding parents’ perspectives and roles. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–14). https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376130