Cakrawala Pendidikan
Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan
Vol. 44 No. 3, October 2025, pp. 496-509
https://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/cp/issue/view/2958
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v44i3.85086

Developing science inquiry skills in early childhood
through coding games
Muniroh Munawar*, Fenny Roshayanti, Nurina Happy, Yuris Setyoady,
Perdana Afif Luthfy
Universitas PGRI Semarang, Indonesia
*Corresponding Author: munirohmunawar@upgris.ac.id
ABSTRACT
The 21st century requires education to equip students not only with academic knowledge but also with such
as innovation, productivity, reasoning, programming, data literacy, problem-solving, and critical thinking,
to face the rapid global changes. This study aims to develop science inquiry skills from early childhood to
support children in mastering the competencies needed in the 21st century. The research employed a
descriptive qualitative design. Data were collected from 16 preschools through observations, interviews,
and documentation. NVivo was used for data management and analysis. NVivo is a software application
that assist researchers in organizing, analyzing, and visualizing qualitative data. The results reveal that
coding games can foster seven core science inquiry skills: arguing based on existing evidence, identifying
problems, analyzing and interpreting data, evaluating and communicating, planning and conducting
investigations, asking questions, and constructing explanations. This research recommends that more
preschools integrate coding games into their learning activities, as they can effectively enhance children’s
science inquiry skills, which are essential for their future academic and professional success.
Keywords: coding game, early childhood, science inquiry skill
Article history
Received:
08 May 2025

Revised:
06 July 2025

Accepted:
04 September 2025

Published:
05 October 2025

Citation (APA Style): Munawar, M., Happy, N., Roshayanti, F., Setyoady, Y., & Luthfy, P. A. (2025).
Developing science inquiry skills in early childhood through coding games. Cakrawala Pendidikan: Jurnal
Ilmiah Pendidikan, 44(3), pp.496-509. DOI https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v44i3.85086

INTRODUCTION
In education, 21st-century skills not only equip children with academic knowledge but also
encourage them to become innovative, productive, and responsible individuals, providing them
with reasoning, programming, data literacy, problem-solving, and critical thinking skills to help
them face challenges and rapid global changes (Kerdthaworn & Chaichomchuen, 2021; Lavi et
al., 2021). Educators, corporations, and governments have emphasized the need for these skills,
known as 21st-century competencies (Benbow et al., 2021; Vista, 2020), namely the 4Cs: critical
thinking, creativity, collaboration, and communication (Almerich et al., 2020; Stauffer, 2021).
Furthermore, educational systems worldwide are challenged to develop frameworks that
emphasize the cultivation of skills, knowledge, and behaviors essential for success in the 21st
century (Martinez, 2022).
A framework for visualizing the importance of educational experiences in science is
inquiry-based science education. Key features of this framework include a) active involvement of
students in the learning process with an emphasis on supporting knowledge with observations,
experiences, or credible evidence; b) authentic and problem-based learning activities; c)
consistent practice and development of systematic observation, question and answer, planning,
and recording skills to obtain credible evidence; d) participation in collaborative group work, peer
interaction, discursive argumentation, and communication with others as the main learning
process; and e) development of autonomy and self-regulation through experience as essential
objectives for learning (Constantinou et al., 2018). Inquiry-based learning combines science
496

Cakrawala Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, Vol. 44 No. 3, October 2025, pp.496-509

lessons with engaging tasks and tangible instruments, which eliminates the stiffness of
conventional education and provides an engaging learning process that can develop students’
science inquiry skills (Cheng et al., 2021). Skills that support the inquiry process are called inquiry
skills (Pedaste, et al., 2015).
Science inquiry is an ideal approach to fostering young children's scientific understanding
and research skills in discovering and applying new information to the challenges they encounter
(Bevins & Price, 2016). Educators consider inquiry learning crucial for scientific learning and
children's development (Constantinou et al., 2018) because, in learning science inquiry, there is a
change in teachers’ and students’ roles in which teaching becomes more interactive and studentcentered (Ramanathan et al., 2022; Williams et al., 2017). The objective of inquiry learning is to
assist students in creating questions, discovering answers, or solving problems that fulfill their
curiosity, as well as to help students comprehend a theory or concept about what they have studied
(Gunawan et al., 2019). An inquiry-oriented approach offers a teaching strategy where students
actively use scientific approaches for reasoning and making explanations about design,
information, and evidence (Stender et al., 2018). Students learn how to process information
scientifically, design investigations, evaluate evidence and information, and draw conclusions
(van Uum et al., 2017). In the science inquiry learning process, it is expected that young children
will not only regard inquiry as a learning method but will also gain and apply scientific knowledge
through inquiry (Arnold et al., 2014). The fact that children are naturally inclined to explore,
question, discover, analyze, create, and innovate makes it easier for them to adapt to the
challenges of the 21st century (Tutkun, 2023). Additionally, if children are equipped with
research and observation skills from preschool, they are more likely to experience high-quality
science education (Bahar & Aksüt, 2020).
A learning model that suits the 21st century not only encompasses a scientific approach but
also integrates the use of technology (Novitra et al., 2021). Inquiry-based learning that
incorporates the use of technology is becoming more popular in science curricula around the
world (Pedaste, Ma¨eots, et al., 2015). Therefore, this study employed coding games using
educational robots. This activity was carried out while the children were exploring and playing
(Dejonckheere et al., 2016), allowing them to enjoy the learning process through robotic coding
games.
Robotic coding is beneficial for children because robotic coding can enhance their
creativity, problem-solving ability, critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and decisionmaking skills (Arís & Orcos, 2019; Coşkunserçe, 2021; Guven et al., 2022). Coding encompasses
a wide range of fundamental mathematical, scientific, and communication skills (Lee, 2020).
Coding can be taught to children from an early age (Bers, 2019) to promote their conceptual and
creative skills and provide a strong foundation for critical and technical competencies (Monteiro
et al., 2021). Additionally, coding provides children with valuable intellectual structures (Su et
al., 2023).
Recent studies reveal that learning coding in early years has positive impacts on behavior,
knowledge, and skills in various areas such as problem-solving, computational thinking, and
mathematical reasoning skills (Bers et al., 2014; Çankaya et al., 2017; Somuncu & Aslan, 2022;
Sullivan & Bers, 2016). Many researchers also state that coding in early childhood is not just a
technical skill but a new form of literacy and self-expression essential for mastering 21st-century
competencies (Resnick, 2017). Thus, early childhood educators need to provide children with
authentic, engaging experiences related to coding. his can begin with familiar daily routines or
experiences, helping children develop habits of coding and independent exploration (Lee, 2020).
Therefore, in this study, the coding robots used were equipped with storybooks and themed
carpets corresponding to the stories, such as morning routines, social interactions, transportation
activities, and ecological conservation. These coding games are not only integrated with children's
daily activities but also introduce new knowledge and environmental awareness.
Morning routines typically include bathing, having breakfast, cleaning the house, and other
daily tasks. Activities in the social environment include things that should be done in playgrounds,
restaurants, malls, shops, and pharmacies. Public transportation activities include rules that must
be followed at bus terminals, buses, gas stations, airports, and train stations. Plant and
Copyright © 2025, author, e-ISSN 2442-8620, p-ISSN 0216-1370

497

Cakrawala Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, Vol. 44 No. 3, October 2025, pp.496-509

environmental conservation activities discuss plant and ecological problems and how to maintain
plant and environmental sustainability.
Although scientific inquiry has become one of the most effective methodologies for
learning science, research focusing on preschool-aged children remains limited (Zudaire et al.,
2022). In addition, Eti & Sigirtmac (2021) suggest that future research focuses on the
development of science inquiry achieved by children. Therefore, the current research addresses
this gap by examining the development of children’s scientific inquiry skills. His research differs
from previous studies that focused primarily on developing computational thinking in
preschoolers through coding games (Critten et al., 2022). Instead, this study explores how coding
games can be used to develop scientific inquiry skills, thereby supporting the formation of a
generation equipped with 21st-century competencies.

METHOD
A qualitative descriptive research design was used in this study to comprehensively explore
science inquiry skills in early childhood that are developed by using coding games. Research
respondents were selected using a purposive sampling technique. The criteria for research
respondents in this study were a) kindergarten class B children aged 5-6 years; b) located in
Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia; and c) the school was registered with the Indonesian
Kindergarten Teachers Association (IGTKI). The respondents of this research were 16
kindergarten schools, with four students and one teacher at each school. In collecting data,
researchers directly visited the research locations to observe children playing coding using robots
in class, interviewed the teachers regarding the research focus, and documented the activities. In
collecting data, code was used for each child, namely C1, C2, and so on, and for each
kindergarten, the code used was P1, P2, and so on. Before conducting the research, researchers
obtained informed consent from the principals of each kindergarten.
During the observation, researchers recorded the observation using mobile devices.
Regarding the interview, researchers used a semi-structured interview. Researchers interviewed
teachers one by one after class hours were over. For the data analysis, researchers used NVivo 12
software, a qualitative data analysis program that helps researchers organize, code, and analyze
qualitative data such as interviews, text, audio, video, and images.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Findings
This research reveals that coding games can develop seven primary science inquiry skills:
arguing based on existing evidence, identifying problems, analyzing and interpreting data,
evaluating and communicating findings, planning and conducting investigations, asking
questions, and constructing explanations.
In this coding game, children perform coding activities to predict the destination, route, and
the number of steps the robot must take to reach its destination by pressing the remote on an
Android cellphone. The teacher reads a story, and then the child moves the robot on the themed
carpet, according to the storyline read by the teacher, using the remote on the cellphone screen
(see Figure 1 & 2). If the remote is pressed once, the robot moves one step on the carpet; if the
remote is pressed twice, the robot moves two steps; if the remote is pressed three times, it moves
three steps, and so on. If the child presses the up arrow, the robot moves forward; if the down
arrow is pressed, the robot moves backward; if the right arrow is pressed, the robot turns right; if
the left arrow is pressed, the robot moves left; and if the 45-degree arrow is pressed, tilted arrow
to the right or left, the robot turns slightly in that direction.
In addition to being based on the story read by the teacher, children also get the opportunity
to operate the robot freely, exploring various destinations available on the carpet. During this
learning process, children show great enthusiasm because the use of coding robots provides
innovative, engaging, and practical learning media that connect with real-life contexts. Through
this themed robot game, children and teachers explore various daily activities, both at home and
in social environments.
Copyright © 2025, author, e-ISSN 2442-8620, p-ISSN 0216-1370

498

Cakrawala Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, Vol. 44 No. 3, October 2025, pp.496-509

Figure 1. A Child Moved the Robot by Pressing the Buttons on the Cellphone Screen,
according to the Story Read by the Teacher

Figure 2. Two Children Collaborated, Moving Robots to Explore Places on the Carpet
according to Their Own Will
Coding that children do while playing with robots in this study are: a) children learn how
to turn robots on and off; b) children learn the function of buttons on a cell phone to move the
robot; c) children learn the symbols on the carpet where the robot moves; d) children learn that
robots must do activities in sequence according to the story read by the teacher; e) children operate
the robot by pressing the remote buttons so that the robot performs activities according to the
sequence of the story, breaking down each activity into smaller steps (e.g., when the remote is
pressed once, the robot moves one step; when pressed twice, it moves two steps, and so on); f)
children learn fundamental control structures, for example cause and effect, which emerge as they
use the remote to move the robot forward, backward, right, left, and diagonally; g) children learn
specific programming instructions that are in accordance with the programming language of their
choice, namely: children move the robot to rotate at an angle (45 degrees) so that the robot moves
according to its destination; h) children build simple programs using easy cause and effect orders,
namely: children press the up arrow and the robot moves forward, children press the down arrow
and the robot moves backward, children press the right arrow and the robot turns right, children
press the left arrow and the robot moves left, children press the 45 degree tilted arrow to the right
or left and the robot turns slightly to the right and/or left; i) children make plans, execute them,
and refine those plans to ensure the robot reaches its intended goal; and j) children identify and
correct errors in their coding sequences, for instance, when children move the robot in the wrong
direction or not according to the target, then children will correct the arrow code used on the
remote. While playing this game, children's behavior shows science inquiry skills, as seen in Table
1 (Appendix 1).
Discussion
The In this study, the coding stages done by children were in line with previous research
done by Bers (2019), as seen in Table 2.
Copyright © 2025, author, e-ISSN 2442-8620, p-ISSN 0216-1370

499

Cakrawala Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, Vol. 44 No. 3, October 2025, pp.496-509

Table 2. Comparison of coding stages in this research with previous research
Coding and decoding stages for children
(Bers, 2019)
Learning interface concepts (e.g., on and
off)
Learning a limited set of symbols
(syntax) and grammar rules in a
programming language

Understanding that sequencing matters
and that different orders (symbols) put
together result in different behaviors

Learning how to do simple debugging by
trial and error

Coding that children do while playing with robots in this study
Children learn how to turn robots on and off.
Children learn the function of buttons on a cell phone to move the
robot.
Children learn the symbols on the carpet where the robot moves.
Children learn that robots must do activities in sequence according to
the story read by the teacher.
Children operate the robot by pressing the remote button so that the
robot performs activities according to the sequence of the story read
by the teacher, in which the child breaks down each activity into small
steps; if the remote is pressed once, then the robot will move one box
on the carpet; if the remote is pressed twice, then the robot will move
2 boxes on the carpet, and so on.
Children learn basic control structures, such as cause and effect, which
emerge as they use the remote to move the robot forward, backward,
right, left, and diagonally.
Children learn specific instructions for programs that are in
accordance with the programming language of their choice; namely,
children move the robot to rotate at an angle (45°) so that the robot
moves according to its destination.
Children create simple programs with simple cause-and-effect
commands; namely, children press the up arrow and the robot moves
forward, children press the down arrow and the robot moves
backward, children press the right arrow and the robot turns right,
children press the left arrow and the robot moves left, and children
press the 45-degree tilted arrow to the right or left and the robot turns
slightly to the right and/or left.
Children make plans, then run the robot according to the plans they
make, and debug errors so that the robot runs according to its purpose.
Children identify and correct grammatical errors in the code; namely,
when children move the robot in the wrong direction or not according
to the target, then children will correct the arrow code used on the
remote.

The science inquiry skills that were develop in this study are in line with previous research done
by Lou, et al. (2015) and Örnek & Alaam (2024), as seen in Table 3.
Table 3. Comparison of science inquiry skills developed in this study with previous research
Science Inquiry Skills
(Lou, et al., 2015)
Identifying questions
Planning
Collecting data
Analyzing and describing data
Explaining results and drawing
conclusions
Recognizing alternative
explanations and predictions

Science Inquiry Skills
(Örnek & Alaam, 2024)
Engaging students with questions
Answering questions using
evidence
Formulating explanations from
evidence
Connecting explanations to
scientific knowledge

Science Inquiry Skills in this
Research
Asking questions
Identifying problems

Communicating and providing
explanations

Analyzing and interpreting data

Planning and conducting
investigations
Arguing based on the existing
evidence

Evaluating and communicating
Constructing explanations

Asking questions
By posing questions, children can get the information they need from their surroundings,
select who they ask questions to, ask about invisible things, talk about abstract ideas or feelings,
and draw attention to features of the same thing (Ruggeri et al., 2021). In addition, asking
questions to seek information effectively is essential for preschoolers’ independent learning
(Ruggeri & Lombrozo, 2019). The skill of asking questions demonstrates that children’s
Copyright © 2025, author, e-ISSN 2442-8620, p-ISSN 0216-1370

500

Cakrawala Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, Vol. 44 No. 3, October 2025, pp.496-509

coordination of complex cognitive skills enables them to initiate and direct pedagogical
exchanges and serves as a stimulus for them to learn from others (Ronfard et al., 2018). This is
consistent with the findings of preschoolers in the US and UK, which highlight the importance of
children asking questions as a tool for learning from others (Ünlütabak et al., 2019).
In this study, skill in asking questions was shown by children paying attention, wondering,
and asking questions about the material when teachers gave information about robots.
Identifying problems
Through problems, students can evaluate and refine the efficacy of their understanding,
reasoning, and approach to solving problems. It is believed that when students engage in complex
and ill-defined problems, their discussions and problem-solving processes become more
sophisticated, promoting creativity, reasoning, and evidence-based solutions (Kim & Pegg, 2019).
Identifying a problem is the initial step in solving a problem. When this stage is carried out
correctly, potential and effective solutions are more likely to emerge (Kember, 2018). Problem
identification has a crucial role because it has the following functions: a) Foundation for problemsolving: identifying the problem is the foundation on which effective problem-solving is built.
Without recognizing the existence of a problem and understanding its nature, it is difficult to find
potential solutions; b) Focus and direction: Identifying a problem provides focus and direction in
the problem-solving process. It clarifies what needs to be addressed and helps individuals or teams
avoid wasting time and resources on unrelated matters; c) Prevention: identifying problems early
can prevent them from becoming large and complex; d) Efficiency: identifying problems
efficiently simplifies the problem-solving process. When the real problem is identified, it is easy
to find the most appropriate and efficient solution; e) Informed decision-making: identifying
problems facilitates making the right decisions. It allows individuals or teams to gather relevant
information, assess potential solutions, and make informed choices; f) Continuous improvement:
in many aspects of life, identifying problems is the first step towards continuous improvement; g)
Gaving time and resources: failing to identify problems can result in wasting time and resources
on ineffective solutions or even making the problem worse. Early recognition can prevent such
inefficiencies; and h) Learning opportunities: identifying problems provides valuable learning
opportunities. This encourages individuals to think critically, seek information, and engage in
problem-solving exercises, as well as encourages personal growth and development (Mustapha,
2023).
In this study, problem-identification skills were demonstrated by students being able to (a)
build structures and design solutions to address challenges in the game,, (b) recognize aspects that
required repair or improvement, (c) discuss possible solutions or ideas that could make something
work better, and (d) observe the properties of objects and materials to understand how they work
Planning and conducting investigations
Planning an investigation is considered a higher-order thinking skill that relies on students'
ability to think ahead (such as predictive reasoning) and to visualize the steps needed to solve a
problem (Macmillan Education, 2019). When students actively participate in planning and
carrying out investigations, they learn through experience which strategies are effective, and
which are not (Duschl & Bybee, 2014).
In this study, the skills of planning and conducting investigations were demonstrated by
children who can: (a) generate new ideas for exploration, (b) engage in a fearless exploration of
the environment as children move the robot around the places in the story, based on their own
will, (c) investigate through trial and error, such as children being able to change coordinates
when they feel the direction is not right, and (d) ask predictive questions such as "What will
happen if ...?"
Arguing based on existing evidence
The literature has consistently shown that children possess the ability to argue from an early
age (Rapanta et al., 2025). Argumentative skills include constructing arguments, confutation, and
counterarguments (Rapanta, 2019). These skills help students evaluate the information critically,
Copyright © 2025, author, e-ISSN 2442-8620, p-ISSN 0216-1370

501

Cakrawala Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, Vol. 44 No. 3, October 2025, pp.496-509

enabling them to make informed and evidence-based decisions (Noroozi et al., 2020; Songsil et
al., 2019). During argumentation, students are expected to present claims supported by relevant
evidence and logical reasoning (Jumadi et al., 2021; Ping et al., 2020). Furthermore,
argumentation is a fundamental component of critical thinking (Davies, 2015). When students
think critically, they provide reasoned arguments that support their beliefs or conclusions (Rosidin
et al., 2019). Critical thinking, in turn, is regarded as essential for success in modern,
technologically advanced, and information-rich societies (Murphy et al., 2016).
Analyzing and interpreting data
Understanding, identifying, and avoiding inaccurate information is essential during the
learning process. Therefore, children need to be equipped with the ability to analyze and interpret
information accurately so that they are not easily misguided (Brosseau-Liard, 2017). This aligns
with the findings of Pols et al. (2021), click or tap here to enter text. which revealed that students
require structures guidance to enhance their analytical and data interpretation of data skills, as
they often face challenges in these areas.
To effectively use data, students must be able to: a) identify variation, such as objects that
vary in size, weight, color, use, attractiveness; activities that vary according to who takes part and
what is achieved; and human characteristics such as height, opinions, and roles; b) classify
information, for example by color, function (objects with spouts are good for pouring, objects
with lids are good for storing), taste (my favorite drink is milk); shape (pencils, ballpoint pens,
markers are writing tools but have different shapes), form (triangle, square, circle), etc.; and c)
sorting information: objects are classified into stacks, plants are divided into fruiting and nonfruiting plants by stating the criteria for each (Platas, 2023).
The results of this study indicate that children’s data analysis and interpretation skills were
demonstrated when they were able to: (a) share experiences and observations with others, (b)
identify and predict changes in natural or artificial phenomena, and (c) recognize and describe
similarities and differences between objects, while also providing logical reasons or evidence to
support their observations.
Evaluating and communicating
Children are active social learners who analyze and evaluate the meaning of evidence
according to the evidence’s source (Gweon, 2021). Recent research also indicates that children
can assess the plausibility of a claim even when limited evidence is available (Butler et al., 2018).
Moreover, communication skills are a process needed to apply knowledge construction and
problem-solving in the real world successfully (Stehle & Peters-Burton, 2019). Effective
communication involves connecting ideas or products to the needs and perspectives of others
(Warin et al., 2016) and requires students to choose appropriate media and tailor their messages
according to the audience (van Laar et al., 2017).
In this study, the skill in evaluating and communicating is demonstrated by students being
able to (a) document their identification results and share information about object or materials;
(b) compare objects, structures, systems, and living things; (c) articulate similarities and
differences, such as recognizing that trees consist of different parts, namely roots, trunks,
branches, and leaves; (d) answer and ask questions; and (e) discuss their investigative findings
collaboratively.
Constructing Explanation
Children's skill in constructing explanations plays a crucial role in learning (Legare, 2014;
Legare & Gelman, 2014). Research conducted by Legare & Lombrozo (2014) shows that
explanations are an effective mechanism for supporting causal learning in early childhood, as it
directs children’s attention toward causal mechanisms and promotes the formation of
generalizations. Constructing sound scientific explanations helps students develop scientific
literacy and reasoning abilities (Moore & Wright, 2023). Developing scientific explanations
requires integrating several skills, such as generating ideas, organizing reasoning, and expressing
arguments clearly (Graham et al., 2020). The fundamental goal of a constructed scientific
Copyright © 2025, author, e-ISSN 2442-8620, p-ISSN 0216-1370

502

Cakrawala Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, Vol. 44 No. 3, October 2025, pp.496-509

explanation is to answer “why” or “how” questions (Federer et al., 2015). In this study, the skill
of constructing explanations was demonstrated when children shared ideas with their peers about
why and how certain phenomena occurred, showing their ability to reason casually and
collaboratively.

CONCLUSION
Researchers studied science inquiry skills in early childhood through coding games using
robots. This study has a positive impact on children’s scientific thinking and inquiry abilities.
Specifically, coding activities were found to develop seven core science inquiry skills, namely:
arguing based on existing evidence, identifying problems, analyzing and interpreting data,
evaluating and communicating, planning and conducting investigations, asking questions, and
building explanations. Furthermore, this study raises awareness that the integration of robotics in
coding activities not only enhances children’s inquiry-based science learning but also introduces
innovative and enjoyable learning experiences that are easily embraced by young learners. Future
research is recommended to explore other potential benefits of coding games for early childhood
development, particularly in a broader educational and developmental context.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The researchers would like to thank the school, the Indonesian Kindergarten Teachers
Association (IGTKI) of Central Java Province, and the Pena Prima research laboratory of
Universitas PGRI Semarang for their valuable assistance in this research.

REFERENCES
Almerich, G., Suárez-Rodríguez, J., Díaz-García, I., & Cebrián-Cifuentes, S. (2020). 21st-century
competences: The relation of ICT competences with higher-order thinking capacities and
teamwork competences in university students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
36(4), pp. 468–479. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12413
Arís, N., & Orcos, L. (2019). Educational robotics in the stage of secondary education: Empirical
study on motivation and STEM skills. Education Sciences, 9(2), p. 73. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9020073
Arnold, J. C., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2014). Understanding students’ experiments—What kind
of support do they need in inquiry tasks? International Journal of Science Education,
36(16), pp. 2719–2749. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.930209
Bahar, M., & Aksüt, P. (2020). Investigation on the effects of activity-based science teaching
practices in the acquisition of problem-solving skills for 5–6-year-old pre-school children.
Journal
of
Turkish
Science
Education,
17(1),
pp.
22–39.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.11
Benbow, R. J., Lee, C., & Hora, M. T. (2021). Exploring college faculty development in 21stcentury skill instruction: an analysis of teaching-focused personal networks. Journal of
Further and Higher Education, 45(6). https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2020.1826032
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). DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00147-3
Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and
tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers and
Education, 72, pp. 145–157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020
Bevins, S., & Price, G. (2016). Reconceptualising inquiry in science education. International
Journal
of
Science
Education,
38(1),
pp.
17–29.
DOI:
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1124300
Brosseau-Liard, P. E. (2017). The roots of critical thinking: Selective learning strategies in
childhood and their implications. Canadian Psychology, 58(3). DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000114
Copyright © 2025, author, e-ISSN 2442-8620, p-ISSN 0216-1370

503

Cakrawala Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, Vol. 44 No. 3, October 2025, pp.496-509

Butler, L. P., Schmidt, M. F. H., Tavassolie, N. S., & Gibbs, H. M. (2018). Children’s evaluation
of verified and unverified claims. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 176. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.07.007
Çankaya, S., Durak, G., & Yünkül, E. (2017). Robotlarla Programlama Eğitimi: Öğrencilerin
Deneyimlerinin ve Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative
Inquiry, 8(4), pp. 428–445
Cheng, M., Su, C. Y., & Kinshuk, C. Y. (2021). Integrating smartphone-controlled paper airplane
into gamified science inquiry for junior high school students. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 59(1), pp. 71–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120953598
Constantinou, C. P., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Rybska, E. (2018). What is inquiry-based science
teaching and learning? In O. Tsivitanidou, P. Gray, E. Rybska, L. Louca, & C.
Constantinou (Eds.), Professional development for inquiry-based science teaching and
learning. Contributions from Science Education Research (Vol. 5, pp. 1–23). Springer,
Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91406-0_1
Coşkunserçe, O. (2021). Implementing teacher-centered robotics activities in science lessons: The
effect on motivation, satisfaction and science skills. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 5(1),
pp. 50–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.2021067231
Critten, V., Hagon, H., & Messer, D. (2022). Can pre-school children learn programming and
coding through guided play activities? A case study in computational thinking. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 50(6). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01236-8
Davies, M. (2015). A model of critical thinking in higher education. In Higher education:
Handbook of theory and research (M.B. Paulsen, pp. 41–92). Springer. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12835-1_2
Dejonckheere, P. J. N., De Wit, N., Van de Keere, K., & Vervaet, S. (2016). Exploring the
classroom: Teaching science in early childhood. International Electronic Journal of
Elementary Education, 8(4), pp. 537–558. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.5.3.149
Duschl, R. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Planning and carrying out investigations: an entry to
learning and to teaching professional development around NGSS science and engineering
practices.
International
Journal
of
STEM
Education,
1(12).
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-014-0012-6
Eti, I., & Sigirtmac, A. (2021). Developing inquiry-based science activities in early childhood
education: An action research. International Journal of Science Education, 7(3), pp. 785–
804. DOI: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.1973
Federer, M. R., Nehm, R. H., Opfer, J. E., & Pearl, D. (2015). Using a constructed-response
instrument to explore the effects of item position and item features on the assessment of
students’ written scientific explanations. Research in Science Education, 45(4). DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9435-9
Graham, S., Kiuhara, S. A., & MacKay, M. (2020). The effects of writing on learning in science,
social studies, and mathematics: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(2).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320914744
Gunawan, Harjono, A., Hermansyah, & Herayanti, L. (2019). Guided inquiry model through
virtual laboratory to enhance students’ science process skills on heat concept. Cakrawala
Pendidikan, 38(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v38i2.23345
Guven, G., Kozcu Cakir, N., Sulun, Y., Cetin, G., & Guven, E. (2022). Arduino-assisted robotics
coding applications integrated into the 5E learning model in science teaching. Journal of
Research
on
Technology
in
Education, 54(1),
pp.
108–126.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1812136
Gweon, H. (2021). Inferential social learning: cognitive foundations of human social learning and
teaching.
In
Trends
in
Cognitive
Sciences,
25(10).
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.07.008
Jumadi, J., Perdana, R., Riwayani, & Rosana, D. (2021). The impact of problem-based learning
with argument mapping and online laboratory on scientific argumentation skill.
International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(1). DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v10i1.20593
Copyright © 2025, author, e-ISSN 2442-8620, p-ISSN 0216-1370

504

Cakrawala Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, Vol. 44 No. 3, October 2025, pp.496-509

Kember, J. (2018). Problem identification: The first important step in problem solving.
https://www.renaissance.com/2018/01/18/blog-problem-identification-the-first-importantstep-in-problem-solving/#blog-main-header-3
Kerdthaworn, P., & Chaichomchuen, S. (2021). A Learning model of STEM Education on cloud
computing technology, to promote learning and innovation skills for students practicing
teachers.
Journal
of
Physics:
Conference
Series,
1835(1).
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1835/1/012073
Kim, M., & Pegg, J. (2019). Case analysis of children’s reasoning in problem-solving process.
International Journal of Science Education, 41(6), pp. 739–758. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1579391
Lavi, R., Tal, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2021). Perceptions of STEM alumni and students on developing
21st century skills through methods of teaching and learning. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101002
Lee, J. (2020). Coding in early childhood. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 21(3), pp.
266–269. DOI: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949119846541
Legare, C. H. (2014). The contributions of explanation and exploration to children’s scientific
reasoning. Child Development Perspectives, 8(2), pp. 101–106. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12070
Legare, C. H., & Gelman, S. A. (2014). Examining explanatory biases in young children’s
biological reasoning. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), pp. 287–303. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2012.749480
Legare, C. H., & Lombrozo, T. (2014). Selective effects of explanation on learning during early
childhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 126, pp. 189–212. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.03.001
Lou, Y., Blanchard, P., & Kennedy, E. (2015). Development and validation of a science inquiry
skills
assessment.
Journal
of
Geoscience
Education,
63(1).
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5408/14-028.1
Macmillan Education. (2019). Developing planning skills in scientific enquiries.
https://www.macmillanic.com/developing-planning-skills-in-scientific-enquiries/
Martinez, C. (2022). Developing 21st century teaching skills: A case study of teaching and
learning through project-based curriculum. Cogent Education, 9(1). DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.2024936
Monteiro, A. F., Miranda-Pinto, M., & Osório, A. J. (2021). Coding as literacy in preschool: A
case
study.
Education
Sciences,
11(5),
p.
198.
DOI:
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050198
Moore, B. A., & Wright, J. (2023). Constructing written scientific explanations: a conceptual
analysis supporting diverse and exceptional middle- and high-school students in
developing science disciplinary literacy. Frontiers in Education, 8. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1305464
Murphy, P. K., Firetto, C. M., Wei, L., Li, M., & Croninger, R. M. V. (2016). What really works:
Optimizing classroom discussions to promote comprehension and critical-analytic
thinking. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), pp. 27–35. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215624215
Mustapha, A. (2023). Empowering young problem solvers: Teaching kids how to identify and
tackle challenges. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/empowering-young-problem-solversteaching-kids-how-tackle-mustapha
Noroozi, O., Dehghanzadeh, H., & Talaee, E. (2020). A systematic review on the impacts of
game-based learning on argumentation skills. In Entertainment Computing, 35. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2020.100369
Novitra, F., Festiyed, Yohandri, & Asrizal. (2021). Development of online-based inquiry learning
model to improve 21st-century skills of physics students in senior high school. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(9). DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11152

Copyright © 2025, author, e-ISSN 2442-8620, p-ISSN 0216-1370

505

Cakrawala Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, Vol. 44 No. 3, October 2025, pp.496-509

Örnek, F., & Alaam, S. (2024). Five essential features of scientific inquiry in Bahraini primary
school science textbooks and workbooks. Science & Education. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00523-1
Pedaste, M., Ma¨eots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C.
C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: definitions
and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, pp. 47–61. DOI:
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003.
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli,
C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning:
definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
Ping, I. L. L., Halim, L., & Osman, K. (2020). Explicit teaching scientific argumentation as an
approach in developing argumentation skills, science process skills and biology
understanding.
Journal
of
Baltic
Science
Education,
19(2).
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.276
Platas, L. M. (2023). What children know and need to know about data. https://prek-mathte.stanford.edu/measurement-data/what-children-know-and-need-know-about-data
Pols, C. F. J., Dekkers, P. J. J. M., & de Vries, M. J. (2021). What do they know? Investigating
students’ ability to analyse experimental data in secondary physics education. International
Journal of Science Education, 43(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1865588
Ramanathan, G., Carter, D., & Wenner, J. (2022). A framework for scientific inquiry in preschool.
Early
Childhood
Education
Journal,
50(7),
pp.
1263–1277.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01259-1
Rapanta, C. (2019). Argumentation strategies in the classroom. Vernon Press
Rapanta, C., Macagno, F., & Jenset, G. (2025). A close look at children’s and adolescents’
arguments: combining a developmental, educational, and philosophical perspective.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 40(1), p. 3. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-024-00914-6
Resnick, M. (2017). Lifelong Kindergarten: Cultivating Creativity through Projects, Passion,
Peers, and Play. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11017.001.0001
Ronfard, S., Zambrana, I. M., Hermansen, T. K., & Kelemen, D. (2018). Question-asking in
childhood: A review of the literature and a framework for understanding its development.
Developmental Review, 49, pp. 101–120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2018.05.002
Rosidin, U., Kadaritna, N., & Hasnunidah, N. (2019). Can argument-driven inquiry models have
impact on critical thinking skills for students with different personality types? Cakrawala
Pendidikan, 38(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v38i3.24725
Ruggeri, A., Walker, C. M., Lombrozo, T., & Gopnik, A. (2021). How to help young children ask
better questions? Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.586819
Ruggeri, A., Xu, F., & Lombrozo, T. (2019). Effects of explanation on children’s question asking.
Cognition, 191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.05.003
Somuncu, B., & Aslan, D. (2022). Effect of coding activities on preschool children’s
mathematical reasoning skills. Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), pp. 877–
890. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10618-9
Songsil, W., Pongsophon, P., Boonsoong, B., & Clarke, A. (2019). Developing scientific
argumentation strategies using revised argument-driven inquiry (rADI) in science
classrooms
in
Thailand.
Asia-Pacific
Science
Education,
5(1).
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41029-019-0035-x
Stauffer,
B.
(2021).
What
are
the
4
C’s
of
21st
century
skills?
https://www.icevonline.com/blog/four-cs-21st-century-skills
Stehle, S. M., & Peters-Burton, E. E. (2019). Developing student 21st-century skills in selected
exemplary inclusive STEM high schools. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(39).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0192-1
Stender, A., Schwichow, M., Zimmerman, C., & Härtig, H. (2018). Making inquiry-based science
learning visible: The influence of CVS and cognitive skills on content knowledge learning
Copyright © 2025, author, e-ISSN 2442-8620, p-ISSN 0216-1370

506

Cakrawala Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, Vol. 44 No. 3, October 2025, pp.496-509

in guided inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15). DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1504346
Su, J., Yang, W., & Li, H. (2023). A scoping review of studies on coding curriculum in early
childhood: investigating its design, implementation, and evaluation. Journal of Research
in
Childhood
Education,
37(2),
pp.
341–361.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2022.2097349
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: learning outcomes
from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), pp. 3–20. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9304-5
Tutkun, C. (2023). 21st century skills in early childhood/erken cocuklukta 21. Yuzyil becerileri.
In Education & Science (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Efe Akademik Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.59617/efepub20239
Ünlütabak, B., Nicolopoulou, A., & Aksu-Koç, A. (2019). Questions asked by Turkish
preschoolers from middle-SES and low-SES families. Cognitive Development, 52. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2019.100802
van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & de Haan, J. (2017). The relation
between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in
Human Behavior, 77, pp. 577–588. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010
van Uum, M. S. J., Verhoeff, R. P., & Peeters, M. (2017). Inquiry-based science education:
scaffolding pupils’ self-directed learning in open inquiry. International Journal of Science
Education, 39(18). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1388940
Vista, A. (2020). Data-driven identification of skills for the future: 21st-century skills for the 21stcentury workforce. SAGE Open, 10(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020915904
Warin, B., Talbi, O., Kolski, C., & Hoogstoel, F. (2016). Multi-Role Project (MRP): A New
Project-Based Learning Method for STEM. IEEE Transactions on Education, 59(2), pp.
137–146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2015.2462809
Williams, P. J., Nguyen, N., & Mangan, J. (2017). Using technology to support science inquiry
learning. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 7(1), p. 26. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.234
Zudaire, I., Buil, R., Uriz, I., & Napal, M. (2022). Mars explorers: A science inquiry-based
learning project in preschool. International Journal of Early Childhood, 54(2), pp. 297–
320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-021-00308-5

Copyright © 2025, author, e-ISSN 2442-8620, p-ISSN 0216-1370

507

Cakrawala Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, Vol. 44 No. 3, October 2025, pp.496-509

Appendix 1
Table 1. Children's behavior that deminstrates science inquiry skills while playing with
robotic coding
Science Inquiry skills,
which develop when
children learned to code
through robots in this study
Asking questions

The most frequently occurring
indicators in this study
demonstrate science inquiry
skills.
Children pay attention, show
curiosity, and ask questions about
robots when teachers give
information about the robots.

Identifying problems

Children design and build
solutions to solve problems in the
game.
Children recognize things that
need improvement or repair
Children discuss possible
solutions or ideas about what
might make something work
better.
Children observe object
properties and discover how they
work.

Planning and conducting
investigations

Children generate new ideas for
exploration.
Children engage in fearless
exploration of the environment as
they move the robot around the
places in the story, based on their
own will.
Children investigate through trial
and error as they operate buttons
on an android phone along a map.
Children ask questions such as
“What would happen if...”

Arguing based on the
existing evidence

Children recognize and articulate
observations and data.

Analyzing and interpreting
data

Evaluating and
communicating

Children identify attributes or
characteristics of
objects/materials.
Children explain ideas, make
predictions, and tell differences
about weather, animal behavior,
seasonal changes, and other
natural phenomena based on
experience or prior knowledge.
Children identify and predict
changes in things/phenomena
(natural/artificial)
Children recognize and describe
similarities and differences
between objects and can provide
reasons/evidence.
Children document their findings
and share information about
objects/materials.

Children's conversations while learning to code
through robots in this study demonstrate science
inquiry skills
C1: “What toys are those, Miss?”
C5: “Can they move?”
C6: “How to run them?”
C10: “How to stop them?”
C17: “The robots are cute. What kind of robots
are they, Miss?”
C5: “The robot is walking too far; move back.”
C4: “The forest is dirty; there is a lot of rubbish."
C22: “The river is so dirty.”
C7: “Come on, let's pick up the trash and put it in
the trash can.”
C25: “Let's go to the factory so the waste isn't
dumped into the river."
C1: “My robot won’t turn.”
C3 responds to C1’s problem while pointing to
the cellphone screen and saying, “Press this
button to turn.”
C7: “After sweeping and mopping, what's next?”
C20: “Miss, I want to play at Fluffy's house; I
want to take Fluffy to the park.
C3: “I want to move the robot back first, then I
want to go to the forest.”
C48: “…Well, it's a dead end…. I'll look for
another way... I want to go there... not here.”
C1: “If this button is pressed, what will the robot
do?
C9: “If the trash is left unattended, what will
happen to the park?
C7: “I want to go this way; it's easier."
C31: I want to take the bus; I'll buy a ticket first.”
C11: “Oh, the river is dirty because of the waste
from the factory.”
C27: “The plane's departure gate is there.”
C16: ”Don't put the towel down; there's a
clothesline. Put it there.”
C3: “Don't go past the river; you'll fall in. Just go
this way.”
C14: “The river is really dirty; poor fish, they
could die."
C32: “Why are all the trees being cut down...it's
hot."
C55: “If it's like this, it'll flood.”
C40: “Supermarkets are smaller than malls.”
C42: “Supermarkets are smaller than malls.”
C50: "If you shop at the mall, just bring a cloth
bag, because using a plastic bag can damage the
environment."

Copyright © 2025, author, e-ISSN 2442-8620, p-ISSN 0216-1370

508

Cakrawala Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, Vol. 44 No. 3, October 2025, pp.496-509

C60: “Trees have big roots, tall trunks, and lots of
leaves.”

Constructing explanation

Children compare and articulate
similarities and differences
among objects, systems, or living
things, e.g., parts of a tree such as
roots, trunks, branches, and
leaves.
Children answer and ask
questions.
Children discuss about
investigations.
Children share ideas with peers
about why and how things
happen.

C44: “Why can't it be with the yellow one?"
C33: “The river is so dirty; why is that?”
C22: “Oops, it fell in. Oops, it fell in again. It
walked on the sea?”
C15: “You know, there's a factory there; the
waste is dumped into this river. That's why the
river is dirty.”

Copyright © 2025, author, e-ISSN 2442-8620, p-ISSN 0216-1370

509