Primary 2 coding vocabulary gives young learners the words they need to understand algorithms, sequencing, debugging, loops, inputs, outputs and computational thinking. This Top 100 Primary 2 Vocabulary List is written for worldwide Grade 2 and second-grade learners who need child-friendly meanings, examples and practical ways to use computer science vocabulary in reading, speaking, writing and unplugged problem solving.
Searches for 2nd grade coding vocabulary, computer science vocabulary for kids, algorithm vocabulary, coding words for beginners, computational thinking vocabulary, debugging vocabulary and Grade 2 STEM words commonly lead to a small core: algorithm, sequence, program, loop, input, output, bug and debug. This longform keeps that high-utility language at the centre, then builds the surrounding words needed to explain what a program is supposed to do, what actually happens and how a learner can repair a mistake.
Maren, Iona and Leonie are fictional SETC learning characters used consistently in this new eduKateSingapore Primary 2 collection. Maren organises instructions and explanations, Iona checks what the code or text actually supports, and Leonie manages execution and recovery when the first attempt fails. This is a world-facing learning resource rather than an official syllabus for every country, and it does not require a particular device, app or programming language.
Why coding vocabulary belongs in Primary 2 English
Coding is full of language decisions. An algorithm must be ordered clearly enough for another person or machine to follow. A debugging explanation must distinguish what was expected from what occurred. A conditional depends on the exact meaning of a rule. A loop compresses repeated instructions. These are computer-science ideas, but they also train sequencing, cause and effect, precision, explanation and revision.
For young learners, unplugged examples are often enough to establish meaning. A child can write instructions for moving a counter across a paper grid, debug a mixed-up morning routine, repeat a clap pattern, classify cards with an if–then rule or trace a pretend robot route. Digital tools can then provide another context. The concept should remain understandable when the brand or device changes.
Algorithms and instructions: ten Primary 2 coding words
This group develops algorithms and instructions. Maren first says what the learner is trying to make happen. Iona reads the instructions literally and checks whether each claim matches the visible steps. Leonie executes one step at a time and stops at the first mismatch. That three-part routine prevents a common problem: changing several things at once before anyone knows which change repaired the program.
001. Algorithm. In beginner coding, algorithm is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses algorithm while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use algorithm in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A algorithm does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
002. Instruction. In beginner coding, instruction is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses instruction while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use instruction in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A instruction does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
003. Step. In beginner coding, step is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses step while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use step in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A step does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
004. Sequence. In beginner coding, sequence is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses sequence while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use sequence in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A sequence does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
005. Order. In beginner coding, order is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses order while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use order in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A order does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
006. Start. In beginner coding, start is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses start while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use start in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A start does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
007. Finish. In beginner coding, finish is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses finish while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use finish in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A finish does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
008. Goal. In beginner coding, goal is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses goal while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use goal in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A goal does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
009. Process. In beginner coding, process is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses process while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use process in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A process does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
010. Procedure. In beginner coding, procedure is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses procedure while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use procedure in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A procedure does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
Algorithms and instructions workshop: read, run, explain and repair
Workshop 1. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 2. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 3. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 4. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 5. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Programs and people: ten Primary 2 coding words
This group develops programs and people. Maren first says what the learner is trying to make happen. Iona reads the instructions literally and checks whether each claim matches the visible steps. Leonie executes one step at a time and stops at the first mismatch. That three-part routine prevents a common problem: changing several things at once before anyone knows which change repaired the program.
011. Program. In beginner coding, program is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses program while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use program in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A program does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
012. Code. In beginner coding, code is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses code while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use code in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A code does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
013. Coding. In beginner coding, coding is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses coding while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use coding in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A coding does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
014. Programmer. In beginner coding, programmer is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses programmer while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use programmer in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A programmer does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
015. Computer. In beginner coding, computer is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses computer while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use computer in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A computer does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
016. Device. In beginner coding, device is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses device while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use device in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A device does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
017. Screen. In beginner coding, screen is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses screen while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use screen in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A screen does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
018. Block. In beginner coding, block is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses block while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use block in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A block does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
019. Command. In beginner coding, command is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses command while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use command in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A command does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
020. Language. In beginner coding, language is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses language while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use language in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A language does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
Programs and people workshop: read, run, explain and repair
Workshop 1. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 2. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 3. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 4. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 5. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Movement and position: ten Primary 2 coding words
This group develops movement and position. Maren first says what the learner is trying to make happen. Iona reads the instructions literally and checks whether each claim matches the visible steps. Leonie executes one step at a time and stops at the first mismatch. That three-part routine prevents a common problem: changing several things at once before anyone knows which change repaired the program.
021. Forward. In beginner coding, forward is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses forward while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use forward in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A forward does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
022. Backward. In beginner coding, backward is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses backward while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use backward in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A backward does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
023. Left. In beginner coding, left is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses left while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use left in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A left does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
024. Right. In beginner coding, right is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses right while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use right in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A right does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
025. Turn. In beginner coding, turn is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses turn while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use turn in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A turn does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
026. Move. In beginner coding, move is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses move while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use move in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A move does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
027. Position. In beginner coding, position is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses position while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use position in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A position does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
028. Direction. In beginner coding, direction is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses direction while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use direction in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A direction does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
029. Path. In beginner coding, path is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses path while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use path in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A path does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
030. Grid. In beginner coding, grid is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses grid while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use grid in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A grid does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
Movement and position workshop: read, run, explain and repair
Workshop 1. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 2. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 3. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 4. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 5. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Inputs and outputs: ten Primary 2 coding words
This group develops inputs and outputs. Maren first says what the learner is trying to make happen. Iona reads the instructions literally and checks whether each claim matches the visible steps. Leonie executes one step at a time and stops at the first mismatch. That three-part routine prevents a common problem: changing several things at once before anyone knows which change repaired the program.
031. Input. In beginner coding, input is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses input while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use input in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A input does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
032. Output. In beginner coding, output is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses output while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use output in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A output does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
033. Button. In beginner coding, button is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses button while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use button in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A button does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
034. Key. In beginner coding, key is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses key while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use key in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A key does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
035. Click. In beginner coding, click is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses click while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use click in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A click does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
036. Tap. In beginner coding, tap is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses tap while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use tap in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A tap does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
037. Sensor. In beginner coding, sensor is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses sensor while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use sensor in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A sensor does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
038. Signal. In beginner coding, signal is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses signal while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use signal in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A signal does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
039. Response. In beginner coding, response is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses response while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use response in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A response does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
040. Display. In beginner coding, display is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses display while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use display in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A display does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
Inputs and outputs workshop: read, run, explain and repair
Workshop 1. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 2. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 3. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 4. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 5. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Events and rules: ten Primary 2 coding words
This group develops events and rules. Maren first says what the learner is trying to make happen. Iona reads the instructions literally and checks whether each claim matches the visible steps. Leonie executes one step at a time and stops at the first mismatch. That three-part routine prevents a common problem: changing several things at once before anyone knows which change repaired the program.
041. Event. In beginner coding, event is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses event while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use event in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A event does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
042. Trigger. In beginner coding, trigger is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses trigger while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use trigger in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A trigger does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
043. Rule. In beginner coding, rule is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses rule while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use rule in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A rule does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
044. If. In beginner coding, if is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses if while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use if in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A if does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
045. Then. In beginner coding, then is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses then while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use then in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A then does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
046. Condition. In beginner coding, condition is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses condition while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use condition in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A condition does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
047. True. In beginner coding, true is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses true while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use true in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A true does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
048. False. In beginner coding, false is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses false while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use false in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A false does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
049. Choice. In beginner coding, choice is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses choice while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use choice in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A choice does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
050. Branch. In beginner coding, branch is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses branch while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use branch in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A branch does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
Events and rules workshop: read, run, explain and repair
Workshop 1. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 2. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 3. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 4. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 5. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Patterns and repetition: ten Primary 2 coding words
This group develops patterns and repetition. Maren first says what the learner is trying to make happen. Iona reads the instructions literally and checks whether each claim matches the visible steps. Leonie executes one step at a time and stops at the first mismatch. That three-part routine prevents a common problem: changing several things at once before anyone knows which change repaired the program.
051. Pattern. In beginner coding, pattern is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses pattern while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use pattern in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A pattern does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
052. Repeat. In beginner coding, repeat is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses repeat while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use repeat in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A repeat does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
053. Loop. In beginner coding, loop is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses loop while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use loop in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A loop does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
054. Cycle. In beginner coding, cycle is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses cycle while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use cycle in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A cycle does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
055. Again. In beginner coding, again is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses again while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use again in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A again does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
056. Count. In beginner coding, count is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses count while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use count in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A count does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
057. Times. In beginner coding, times is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses times while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use times in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A times does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
058. Forever. In beginner coding, forever is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses forever while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use forever in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A forever does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
059. Stop. In beginner coding, stop is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses stop while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use stop in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A stop does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
060. Iteration. In beginner coding, iteration is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses iteration while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use iteration in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A iteration does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
Patterns and repetition workshop: read, run, explain and repair
Workshop 1. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 2. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 3. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 4. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 5. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Problems and debugging: ten Primary 2 coding words
This group develops problems and debugging. Maren first says what the learner is trying to make happen. Iona reads the instructions literally and checks whether each claim matches the visible steps. Leonie executes one step at a time and stops at the first mismatch. That three-part routine prevents a common problem: changing several things at once before anyone knows which change repaired the program.
061. Bug. In beginner coding, bug is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses bug while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use bug in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A bug does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
062. Error. In beginner coding, error is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses error while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use error in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A error does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
063. Debug. In beginner coding, debug is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses debug while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use debug in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A debug does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
064. Debugging. In beginner coding, debugging is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses debugging while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use debugging in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A debugging does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
065. Test. In beginner coding, test is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses test while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use test in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A test does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
066. Trace. In beginner coding, trace is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses trace while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use trace in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A trace does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
067. Check. In beginner coding, check is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses check while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use check in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A check does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
068. Fix. In beginner coding, fix is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses fix while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use fix in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A fix does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
069. Change. In beginner coding, change is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses change while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use change in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A change does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
070. Retry. In beginner coding, retry is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses retry while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use retry in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A retry does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
Problems and debugging workshop: read, run, explain and repair
Workshop 1. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 2. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 3. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 4. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 5. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Computational thinking: ten Primary 2 coding words
This group develops computational thinking. Maren first says what the learner is trying to make happen. Iona reads the instructions literally and checks whether each claim matches the visible steps. Leonie executes one step at a time and stops at the first mismatch. That three-part routine prevents a common problem: changing several things at once before anyone knows which change repaired the program.
071. Problem. In beginner coding, problem is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses problem while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use problem in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A problem does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
072. Decompose. In beginner coding, decompose is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses decompose while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use decompose in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A decompose does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
073. Decomposition. In beginner coding, decomposition is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses decomposition while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use decomposition in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A decomposition does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
074. Part. In beginner coding, part is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses part while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use part in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A part does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
075. Smaller. In beginner coding, smaller is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses smaller while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use smaller in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A smaller does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
076. Abstraction. In beginner coding, abstraction is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses abstraction while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use abstraction in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A abstraction does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
077. Detail. In beginner coding, detail is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses detail while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use detail in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A detail does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
078. Important. In beginner coding, important is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses important while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use important in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A important does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
079. Pattern recognition. In beginner coding, pattern recognition is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses pattern recognition while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use pattern recognition in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A pattern recognition does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
080. Solution. In beginner coding, solution is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses solution while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use solution in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A solution does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
Computational thinking workshop: read, run, explain and repair
Workshop 1. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 2. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 3. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 4. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 5. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Data and representation: ten Primary 2 coding words
This group develops data and representation. Maren first says what the learner is trying to make happen. Iona reads the instructions literally and checks whether each claim matches the visible steps. Leonie executes one step at a time and stops at the first mismatch. That three-part routine prevents a common problem: changing several things at once before anyone knows which change repaired the program.
081. Data. In beginner coding, data is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses data while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use data in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A data does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
082. Information. In beginner coding, information is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses information while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use information in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A information does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
083. Value. In beginner coding, value is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses value while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use value in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A value does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
084. Variable. In beginner coding, variable is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses variable while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use variable in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A variable does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
085. Name. In beginner coding, name is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses name while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use name in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A name does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
086. Store. In beginner coding, store is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses store while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use store in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A store does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
087. Symbol. In beginner coding, symbol is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses symbol while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use symbol in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A symbol does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
088. Image. In beginner coding, image is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses image while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use image in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A image does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
089. Representation. In beginner coding, representation is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses representation while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use representation in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A representation does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
090. State. In beginner coding, state is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses state while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use state in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A state does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
Data and representation workshop: read, run, explain and repair
Workshop 1. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 2. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 3. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 4. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 5. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Creating and improving: ten Primary 2 coding words
This group develops creating and improving. Maren first says what the learner is trying to make happen. Iona reads the instructions literally and checks whether each claim matches the visible steps. Leonie executes one step at a time and stops at the first mismatch. That three-part routine prevents a common problem: changing several things at once before anyone knows which change repaired the program.
091. Design. In beginner coding, design is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses design while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use design in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A design does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
092. Plan. In beginner coding, plan is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses plan while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use plan in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A plan does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
093. Create. In beginner coding, create is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses create while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use create in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A create does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
094. Build. In beginner coding, build is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses build while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use build in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A build does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
095. Predict. In beginner coding, predict is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses predict while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use predict in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A predict does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
096. Compare. In beginner coding, compare is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses compare while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use compare in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A compare does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
097. Evaluate. In beginner coding, evaluate is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses evaluate while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use evaluate in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A evaluate does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
098. Feedback. In beginner coding, feedback is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses feedback while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use feedback in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A feedback does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
099. Improve. In beginner coding, improve is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses improve while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use improve in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A improve does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
100. Explain. In beginner coding, explain is a high-utility word for describing how instructions, information or actions are organised. Child-facing example: Maren uses explain while writing a short paper-robot challenge; Iona checks exactly what the word refers to; Leonie follows the instruction and reports what actually happens. Meaning check: the learner should be able to explain the word in ordinary language, point to an example and say what would make the word a poor choice. Transfer: use explain in a new situation involving a route, picture, pattern, story sequence or simple block program. A technically impressive sentence is not the goal; a precise relationship between the word and the task is.
Now fence the meaning. Ask, “What is this word not telling us?” A explain does not automatically prove that a program is correct, useful or efficient. Those judgements require the relevant test or evidence. Next, remove the original example and ask for a fresh one after a delay. If the learner can only repeat the sentence above, recognition has not yet become flexible vocabulary. If the learner can explain the same idea with a different route or routine, the word is beginning to transfer.
Creating and improving workshop: read, run, explain and repair
Workshop 1. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 2. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 3. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 4. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Workshop 5. Put a counter on a five-by-five paper grid and give it a fictional task. Maren writes a short set of instructions using three words from this section. Iona reads the instructions without guessing what Maren “probably meant”. Leonie executes them exactly. If the counter reaches the wrong square, the group does not immediately rewrite everything. They identify the first point where expected and observed behaviour differ, explain the mismatch in plain English, and make one controlled change.
A second version changes the representation rather than the underlying task. Replace written directions with arrows, coloured cards or simple blocks. Ask which ideas stayed the same. This matters because computational thinking should survive a change of notation. The learner who understands sequence only when one app uses one colour has learned a platform cue; the learner who can reconstruct the sequence from arrows, words and blocks has a more portable concept.
For writing transfer, use four sentences: goal → instructions → observed result → repair. The child might write, “The goal was to reach the star. My instructions turned left too early. The counter stopped beside the star. I moved the turn command after the second forward step.” Iona checks whether the report matches the route. Leonie then runs the revised version. Maren improves the explanation only after the logic is clear.
Twenty retrieval questions with explained answer rules
1. Choose two words from different sections and connect them in one new coding situation. Do not copy the original sentence. Answer rule: a sound response keeps both meanings distinct, states a plausible goal and explains the relationship. For example, an event may trigger a sequence; a loop may repeat a command; an input may change a variable; a test may reveal a bug; decomposition may split a large problem into smaller parts. Different examples are acceptable when the logic is clear.
2. Choose two words from different sections and connect them in one new coding situation. Do not copy the original sentence. Answer rule: a sound response keeps both meanings distinct, states a plausible goal and explains the relationship. For example, an event may trigger a sequence; a loop may repeat a command; an input may change a variable; a test may reveal a bug; decomposition may split a large problem into smaller parts. Different examples are acceptable when the logic is clear.
3. Choose two words from different sections and connect them in one new coding situation. Do not copy the original sentence. Answer rule: a sound response keeps both meanings distinct, states a plausible goal and explains the relationship. For example, an event may trigger a sequence; a loop may repeat a command; an input may change a variable; a test may reveal a bug; decomposition may split a large problem into smaller parts. Different examples are acceptable when the logic is clear.
4. Choose two words from different sections and connect them in one new coding situation. Do not copy the original sentence. Answer rule: a sound response keeps both meanings distinct, states a plausible goal and explains the relationship. For example, an event may trigger a sequence; a loop may repeat a command; an input may change a variable; a test may reveal a bug; decomposition may split a large problem into smaller parts. Different examples are acceptable when the logic is clear.
5. Choose two words from different sections and connect them in one new coding situation. Do not copy the original sentence. Answer rule: a sound response keeps both meanings distinct, states a plausible goal and explains the relationship. For example, an event may trigger a sequence; a loop may repeat a command; an input may change a variable; a test may reveal a bug; decomposition may split a large problem into smaller parts. Different examples are acceptable when the logic is clear.
6. Choose two words from different sections and connect them in one new coding situation. Do not copy the original sentence. Answer rule: a sound response keeps both meanings distinct, states a plausible goal and explains the relationship. For example, an event may trigger a sequence; a loop may repeat a command; an input may change a variable; a test may reveal a bug; decomposition may split a large problem into smaller parts. Different examples are acceptable when the logic is clear.
7. Choose two words from different sections and connect them in one new coding situation. Do not copy the original sentence. Answer rule: a sound response keeps both meanings distinct, states a plausible goal and explains the relationship. For example, an event may trigger a sequence; a loop may repeat a command; an input may change a variable; a test may reveal a bug; decomposition may split a large problem into smaller parts. Different examples are acceptable when the logic is clear.
8. Choose two words from different sections and connect them in one new coding situation. Do not copy the original sentence. Answer rule: a sound response keeps both meanings distinct, states a plausible goal and explains the relationship. For example, an event may trigger a sequence; a loop may repeat a command; an input may change a variable; a test may reveal a bug; decomposition may split a large problem into smaller parts. Different examples are acceptable when the logic is clear.
9. Choose two words from different sections and connect them in one new coding situation. Do not copy the original sentence. Answer rule: a sound response keeps both meanings distinct, states a plausible goal and explains the relationship. For example, an event may trigger a sequence; a loop may repeat a command; an input may change a variable; a test may reveal a bug; decomposition may split a large problem into smaller parts. Different examples are acceptable when the logic is clear.
10. Choose two words from different sections and connect them in one new coding situation. Do not copy the original sentence. Answer rule: a sound response keeps both meanings distinct, states a plausible goal and explains the relationship. For example, an event may trigger a sequence; a loop may repeat a command; an input may change a variable; a test may reveal a bug; decomposition may split a large problem into smaller parts. Different examples are acceptable when the logic is clear.
11. Choose two words from different sections and connect them in one new coding situation. Do not copy the original sentence. Answer rule: a sound response keeps both meanings distinct, states a plausible goal and explains the relationship. For example, an event may trigger a sequence; a loop may repeat a command; an input may change a variable; a test may reveal a bug; decomposition may split a large problem into smaller parts. Different examples are acceptable when the logic is clear.
12. Choose two words from different sections and connect them in one new coding situation. Do not copy the original sentence. Answer rule: a sound response keeps both meanings distinct, states a plausible goal and explains the relationship. For example, an event may trigger a sequence; a loop may repeat a command; an input may change a variable; a test may reveal a bug; decomposition may split a large problem into smaller parts. Different examples are acceptable when the logic is clear.
13. Choose two words from different sections and connect them in one new coding situation. Do not copy the original sentence. Answer rule: a sound response keeps both meanings distinct, states a plausible goal and explains the relationship. For example, an event may trigger a sequence; a loop may repeat a command; an input may change a variable; a test may reveal a bug; decomposition may split a large problem into smaller parts. Different examples are acceptable when the logic is clear.
14. Choose two words from different sections and connect them in one new coding situation. Do not copy the original sentence. Answer rule: a sound response keeps both meanings distinct, states a plausible goal and explains the relationship. For example, an event may trigger a sequence; a loop may repeat a command; an input may change a variable; a test may reveal a bug; decomposition may split a large problem into smaller parts. Different examples are acceptable when the logic is clear.
15. Choose two words from different sections and connect them in one new coding situation. Do not copy the original sentence. Answer rule: a sound response keeps both meanings distinct, states a plausible goal and explains the relationship. For example, an event may trigger a sequence; a loop may repeat a command; an input may change a variable; a test may reveal a bug; decomposition may split a large problem into smaller parts. Different examples are acceptable when the logic is clear.
16. Choose two words from different sections and connect them in one new coding situation. Do not copy the original sentence. Answer rule: a sound response keeps both meanings distinct, states a plausible goal and explains the relationship. For example, an event may trigger a sequence; a loop may repeat a command; an input may change a variable; a test may reveal a bug; decomposition may split a large problem into smaller parts. Different examples are acceptable when the logic is clear.
17. Choose two words from different sections and connect them in one new coding situation. Do not copy the original sentence. Answer rule: a sound response keeps both meanings distinct, states a plausible goal and explains the relationship. For example, an event may trigger a sequence; a loop may repeat a command; an input may change a variable; a test may reveal a bug; decomposition may split a large problem into smaller parts. Different examples are acceptable when the logic is clear.
18. Choose two words from different sections and connect them in one new coding situation. Do not copy the original sentence. Answer rule: a sound response keeps both meanings distinct, states a plausible goal and explains the relationship. For example, an event may trigger a sequence; a loop may repeat a command; an input may change a variable; a test may reveal a bug; decomposition may split a large problem into smaller parts. Different examples are acceptable when the logic is clear.
19. Choose two words from different sections and connect them in one new coding situation. Do not copy the original sentence. Answer rule: a sound response keeps both meanings distinct, states a plausible goal and explains the relationship. For example, an event may trigger a sequence; a loop may repeat a command; an input may change a variable; a test may reveal a bug; decomposition may split a large problem into smaller parts. Different examples are acceptable when the logic is clear.
20. Choose two words from different sections and connect them in one new coding situation. Do not copy the original sentence. Answer rule: a sound response keeps both meanings distinct, states a plausible goal and explains the relationship. For example, an event may trigger a sequence; a loop may repeat a command; an input may change a variable; a test may reveal a bug; decomposition may split a large problem into smaller parts. Different examples are acceptable when the logic is clear.
A four-week teaching plan
Week 1. Select five words, not twenty-five. First bind each word to a concrete unplugged example. Next compare it with a nearby idea: algorithm versus program, error versus bug, sequence versus loop, input versus output, condition versus event, data versus representation. On the third encounter, hide the list and retrieve the words. On the fourth, use them while tracing a new route or routine. Finish with a short explanation that another learner can follow. At the start of the next week, retrieve two older words before adding new ones.
Week 2. Select five words, not twenty-five. First bind each word to a concrete unplugged example. Next compare it with a nearby idea: algorithm versus program, error versus bug, sequence versus loop, input versus output, condition versus event, data versus representation. On the third encounter, hide the list and retrieve the words. On the fourth, use them while tracing a new route or routine. Finish with a short explanation that another learner can follow. At the start of the next week, retrieve two older words before adding new ones.
Week 3. Select five words, not twenty-five. First bind each word to a concrete unplugged example. Next compare it with a nearby idea: algorithm versus program, error versus bug, sequence versus loop, input versus output, condition versus event, data versus representation. On the third encounter, hide the list and retrieve the words. On the fourth, use them while tracing a new route or routine. Finish with a short explanation that another learner can follow. At the start of the next week, retrieve two older words before adding new ones.
Week 4. Select five words, not twenty-five. First bind each word to a concrete unplugged example. Next compare it with a nearby idea: algorithm versus program, error versus bug, sequence versus loop, input versus output, condition versus event, data versus representation. On the third encounter, hide the list and retrieve the words. On the fourth, use them while tracing a new route or routine. Finish with a short explanation that another learner can follow. At the start of the next week, retrieve two older words before adding new ones.
Algorithm laboratory: everyday routines
An algorithm is useful beyond a computer screen because it makes hidden assumptions visible. Ask a learner to write instructions for arranging three books from smallest to largest. Another person follows the words literally. If the instruction says “put them in order” without defining the intended order, the ambiguity becomes visible. The repair is not to blame the follower; it is to improve the instruction.
Maren rewrites the routine as small actions. Iona asks whether any step depends on information the follower has not been given. Leonie tests the new version with a different set of books. The learner then explains why the revised algorithm is more reusable. This is vocabulary transfer: algorithm, sequence, instruction, test and debug become parts of one coherent account.
Loop laboratory: compress repetition without losing meaning
Write “move forward” four times. Then replace the repeated sequence with “repeat move forward four times”. Ask what changed. The route may be identical, but the representation is shorter. Now change the number to three and predict the new endpoint before executing it. A loop is useful because one controlled change can alter repeated behaviour.
Do not teach “loop means faster”. A loop is a structure for repetition. Whether a program runs faster depends on the system and implementation, which is outside this beginner task. The Primary 2 distinction is simpler and more important: repeated instructions can sometimes be represented as a repeated block or rule.
Debugging laboratory: an error is information
Give the learner a route that should end on a star but ends one square away. First state the expected outcome. Next trace every command and mark the first divergence. Then change one instruction and rerun the route. This turns debugging into an evidence process rather than random editing.
Leonie’s recovery rule is especially useful: when confused, reduce the program. Test the smallest section that can reproduce the problem. Iona protects answer scope by refusing to claim that every later step is wrong simply because the final result is wrong. Maren records the repair in language another learner can understand.
Conditionals laboratory: if, then and the danger of hidden rules
Sort picture cards with a rule such as “if the card shows an animal, place it on the left; otherwise place it on the right.” The condition can be checked for each card. Change the rule and observe how the same input can produce a different branch. The activity makes condition, true, false, choice and branch concrete without requiring text-based programming.
A useful comprehension question asks what happens when the condition is false. Learners often focus only on the exciting true branch. Reading code, like reading prose, requires attending to all stated possibilities. If no alternative is specified, do not invent one; explain that the instructions do not yet say what should happen.
Inputs, outputs and state
Use a paper “machine” with a slot. A number card goes in as input. A stated rule adds one. The new number comes out as output. Now record the current value on a small state card. Change the input and run the rule again. This separates what enters the process, what the process remembers and what it produces.
The model is deliberately simple. Real computers have many layers and forms of input, output and stored state. Primary 2 learners do not need a false picture that every computer is literally a box performing one arithmetic rule. The paper machine is an analogy for one relationship, and the teacher should name that boundary.
Computational thinking: decomposition, patterns and abstraction
A large task such as “make an interactive story” can feel vague. Decomposition breaks it into smaller jobs: choose characters, decide the first event, write a sequence, add a choice, test each path and revise. Pattern recognition notices structures that recur. Abstraction decides which details matter to the present problem and which can be ignored for now.
These terms should not become slogans. Ask the learner to show the decomposition, name the repeated pattern or identify the detail being left out. Evidence makes the vocabulary meaningful. “I used abstraction” is weaker than “I ignored the colour of the counter because only its position affects this route.”
Sources and scope
The BBC micro:bit digital flashcards unit is aimed at ages 7–8 and explicitly develops algorithms, abstraction, sequence, programming, testing and evaluation. Boston College’s Coding as Another Language KIBO Grade 2 curriculum uses algorithm, program, programmer and debugging vocabulary with second-grade learners. These are useful external reference points, not endorsements of this exact eduKateSingapore list.
For broader computational-thinking framing, research literature commonly discusses concepts such as sequences, loops, events, conditionals, data, testing, debugging, abstraction and decomposition. The exact boundaries of “computational thinking” vary across frameworks, so this article keeps claims modest and focuses on beginner concepts that can be demonstrated through clear tasks.
Continue through the eduKate vocabulary ecosystem
Use the Primary 2 engineering design vocabulary volume when the learner needs criteria, constraints, prototypes, testing and redesign. Use the paper-engineering volume for a concrete making context. Return to the Vocabulary Article Directory or eduKate Vocabulary Learning System for broader routes.
Vocabulary routes: English Vocabulary Lists.
