Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Factors Influencing the Sustainability of Robot Supported Math Learning in Basic School

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Robot 2019: Fourth Iberian Robotics Conference (ROBOT 2019)

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 1092))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Many countries are trying to enhance math learning by bringing technology into classroom. Educational robots are frequently considered as one of such technologies with the benefits of improving math learning motivation of students and helping them to acquire abstract math concepts. However, teachers often prefer traditional teaching methods, making innovation unsustainable. In this paper we used the feedback from 133 Estonian math teachers to study the factors that influence the sustainability of robot supported math teaching. Results indicate that there are two types of problems that teachers face when conducting robot supported math lessons. First, the problems that are caused by the initially inadequate method-related skills of teachers and students. These problems are fading over times, especially when teachers are able to use the help from a school-university partnership. Secondly, there are problems that cannot be eliminated by teachers or students by themselves, for example problems caused by shared use of robots. Our analysis of the experience of participating teachers indicates that making robot supported math teaching sustainable requires an additional systematic support from school management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Description of the robotics platforms used in the study: http://bit.ly/2AvwZpB.

  2. 2.

    https://edidaktikum.ee/en/home.

  3. 3.

    Sample lesson plans (in English): http://bit.ly/2Q1n9AS.

References

  1. Schwab, K.: The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means, how to respond. World Economic Forum (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  2. The Commonwealth of Australia: Australia’s National Science Statement. https://publications.industry.gov.au/publications/nationalsciencestatement/national-science-statement.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2019

  3. European Commission: Employment and Social Developments in Europe Annual Review (2018). https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=19719&langId=en. Accessed 11 May 2019

  4. Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Loveless, T.: 20 Years of TIMSS: International Trends in Mathematics and Science Achievement, Curriculum, and Instruction. Boston College, Chestnut Hill (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  5. OECD: The Future of Education and Skills. Education 2030. OECD Publishing (2018). https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf. Accessed 11 May 2019

  6. UNESCO: School and Teaching Practices for Twenty-First Century Challenges. Lessons from the Asia-Pacific Region - Regional Synthesis Report. UNESCO Bangkok (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bacchus, A.: New Microsoft research points to the declining interest of girls in STEM, ways to close the gender gap. OnMSFT (2018). https://www.onmsft.com/news/new-microsoft-research-points-to-the-declining-interest-of-girls-in-stem-ways-to-close-the-gender-gap. Accessed 11 May 2019

  8. Elliot, D.: STEM interest declining among teens. CBS Interactive Inc. (2013). https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stem-interest-declining-among-teens/. Accessed 11 June 2019

  9. Ernst & Young Global: Research Reveals Boys’ Interest in STEM Careers Declining; Girls’ Interest Unchanged. Ernst & Young Global Ltd. (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  10. OECD: PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education. PISA. OECD Publishing, Paris (2016). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en

  11. Palu, A., Kikas, E.: Matemaatikapädevus. Kikas, E. (Toim.), Õppimine ja õpetamine kolmandas kooliastmes. Üldpädevused ja nende arendamine. Eesti Ülikoolide Kirjastus OÜ (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Willacy, H., Calder, N.: Making mathematics learning more engaging for students in health schools through the use of apps. Educ. Sci. 7(2), 48 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fielding-Wells, J., Makar, K.: Student (dis)engagement in mathematics. In: Conference Proceedings: Australian Association for Research in Education, At Brisbane, Australia (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Savard, A., Highfield, K.: Teachers’ talk about robotics: where is the mathematics? In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (2015). https://www.merga.net.au/documents/RP2015-60.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2019

  15. Gerretson, H., Howes, E., Campbell, S., Thompson, D.: Interdisciplinary mathematics and science education through robotics technology: its potential for education for sustainable development (a case study from the USA). J. Teach. Educ. Sustain. 10(1), 32–41 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Han, I.: Embodiment: a new perspective for evaluating physicality in learning. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 49(1), 41–59 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kennedy, J., Baxter, P., Belpaeme, T.: Comparing robot embodiments in a guided discovery learning interaction with children. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 7(2), 293–308 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kopcha, T.J., McGregor, J., Shin, S., Qian, Y., Choi, J., Hill, R., Mativo, J., Choi, I.: Developing an integrative STEM curriculum for robotics education through educational design research. J. Form. Des. Learn. 1(1), 31–44 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Werfel, J.: Embodied teachable agents: learning by teaching robots. In: Conference Proceedings (2014). http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jkwerfel/nrfias14.pdf. Accessed 8 Aug 2018

  20. Leoste, J., Heidmets, M.: Õpperobot matemaatikatunnis. MIKS.EE. Estonian Research Council (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rasinen, A., Virtanen, S., Endepohls-Ulpe, M., Ikonen, P., Judith Ebach, J., Stahl-von Zabern, J.: Technology education for children in primary schools in Finland and Germany: different school systems, similar problems and how to overcome them. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 19, 367 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Peters, V.: Preparing for Change and Uncertainty. The Oxford Handbook of Technology and Music Education. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Banke, J.: Technology Readiness Levels Demystified. NASA (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Arhar, J., Niesz, T., Brossmann, J., Koebley, S., O’Brien, K., Loe, D., Black, F.: Creating a ‘third space’ in the context of a university–school partnership: supporting teacher action research and the research preparation of doctoral students. Educ. Action Res. 21(2), 218–236 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Korthagen, F.: The gap between research and practice revisited. Educ. Res. Eval. 13(3), 303–310 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dimmock, C.: Conceptualising the research–practice–professional development nexus: mobilising schools as ‘research-engaged’ professional learning communities. Prof. Dev. Educ. 42(1), 36–53 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ley, T., Leoste, J., Poom-Valickis, K., Rodríguez-Triana, M. J., Gillet, D., Väljataga, T.: CEUR Workshop Proceedings (2018). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2190/CC-TEL_2018_paper_1.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2019

  28. HITSA: ProgeTiiger programmis toetuse saanud haridusasutused 2014–2018. https://www.hitsa.ee/ikt-haridus/progetiiger. Accessed 11 May 2019

  29. Lorenz, B., Kikkas, K., Laanpere, M.: The role of educational technologist in implementing new technologies at school. In: Zaphiris, P., Ioannou, A. (eds.) Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Technology-Rich Environments for Learning and Collaboration. LCT 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8524. Springer, Cham (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Statistics Estonia: Mõisted ja metoodika (2018). http://pub.stat.ee/px-web.2001/Database/RAHVASTIK/01RAHVASTIKUNAITAJAD_JA_KOOSSEIS/04RAHVAARV_JA_RAHVASTIKU_KOOSSEIS/RV_0231.htm. Accessed 15 Mar 2019

  31. Estonian Ministry of Education and Research: 2017/2018 õppeaasta arvudes. https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/2017-2018_oppeaasta_arvudes.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2019

  32. Tõnisson, A.: Matemaatika – sidur, pidur, gaas. Õpetajate leht (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Duriau, V.J., Reger, R.K., Pfarrer, M.D.: A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies: research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organ. Res. Methods 10, 5–34 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 669074.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tallinn University, 10120, Tallinn, Estonia

    Janika Leoste & Mati Heidmets

Authors
  1. Janika Leoste
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mati Heidmets
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janika Leoste .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Engineering, Polytechnic Institute of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Manuel F. Silva

  2. Department of Electrical Engineering, Polytechnic Institute of Bragança, Bragança, Portugal

    José Luís Lima

  3. Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Luís Paulo Reis

  4. UPC, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain

    Alberto Sanfeliu

  5. Centro Universitario de la Defensa (CUD), Zaragoza, Spain

    Danilo Tardioli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Leoste, J., Heidmets, M. (2020). Factors Influencing the Sustainability of Robot Supported Math Learning in Basic School. In: Silva, M., Luís Lima, J., Reis, L., Sanfeliu, A., Tardioli, D. (eds) Robot 2019: Fourth Iberian Robotics Conference. ROBOT 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 1092. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35990-4_36

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation