In Japan, programming education will be introduced in the Courses of Study for Elementary School from FY2020. Although various studies have been conducted on this topic, very few have examined Japanese elementary school computational thinking in terms of the developmental stages of elementary school children. Thus, we developed programming learning materials using concrete objects that can be understood by lower-elementary students. Specifically, we divided program-oriented thinking into three steps: concrete, logical, and abstract thinking; we then made the pupils carry out work in this order to encourage them to think of the sequence of actions necessary to implement the intended act, which involved the measurement and control of an illumination system. Furthermore, we discuss the validity of the proposed material based on questionnaire results of student participants and their parents of a workshop.

1. [1] Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, “Courses of Study for Elementary School (Public Notice in 2017),” Toyokan Publishing Co., Ltd., 2018 (in Japanese).
2. [2] Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, “Junior High School Courses of Study (Public Notice in 2008),” Higashiyama Shobo Co., Ltd., 2008 (in Japanese).
3. [3] Y. Ohnishi, K. Honda, R. Nishioka, S. Mori, and K. Kawada, “Robotics Programming Learning for Elementary and Junior High School Students,” J. Robot. Mechatron., Vol.29, No.6, pp. 992-998, 2017.
4. [4] T. Noguchi, H. Kajiwara, K. Chida, and S. Inamori, “Development of a Programming Teaching-Aid Robot with Intuitive Motion Instruction Set,” J. Robot. Mechatron., Vol.29, No.6, pp. 980-991, 2017.
5. [5] T. Yamamoto, T. Hatogai, K. Hironaka, and M. Satou, “Proposed Program of Learning in Elementary School using Scratch and WeDo,” Educational Information Research, Vol.30, No.2, pp. 21-29, 2014 (in Japanese).
6. [6] Y. Oomori, M. Isobe, T. Ueno, Y. Ozaki, and S. Yamazaki, “A Study of Attainment Targets and Curriculum Management Related to Pupils’ Physical and Mental Developmental Standard Levels in Elementary School Programming Education,” Bulletin of Joetsu University of Education, Vol.37, No.1, pp. 205-215, 2017 (in Japanese).
7. [7] J. W. Santrock, “A Topical Approach to Life-Span Development,” McGraw-Hill, pp. 211-216, 2008.
8. [8] J. Piaget, H. E. Gruber, and J. J. Voneche, “The Essential Piaget,” Basic Books, 1977.
9. [9] C. J. Brainerd, “Learning research and Piagetian theory,” L. S. Siegel and C. J. Brainerd (Eds.), “Alternatives to Piaget: Critical Essays on the Theory,” Academic Press, 1978.
10. [10] J. M. Broughton, “Not beyond formal operations but beyond Piaget,” M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, and C. Armon (Eds.), “Beyond formal operations: Vol.1. Late adolescent and adult cognitive development,” pp. 395-411, Praeger, 1984.
11. [11] J. H. Flavell, “The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget,” Van Nostrand, 1963.
12. [12] M. Chapman, “Constructive Evolution: Origins and Development of Piaget’s Thought,” Cambridge University Press, 1988.
13. [13] Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, “Courses of Study for Elementary School (Public Notice in 2008),” Tokyo Shoseki Co., Ltd., 2009 (in Japanese).
14. [14] M. Montessori, “The Montessori method,” Wilder Publications, 2008.
15. [15] K. J. Carbonneau, S. C. Marley, and J. P. Seli, “A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Teaching Mathematics With Concrete Manipulatives,” J. of Educational Psychology, Vol.105, No.2, pp. 380-400, 2013.