Abstract
The decision makers of educational systems in different countries have started to realize the importance of technology enhanced learning (TEL) in order to prepare students for the world of 4th Industrial Revolution. However, in the grass root level, teachers are still reluctant to implement technology into their lessons. In this paper we investigate the feedback from 134 Estonian teachers, each of whom conducted with the help of educational technologists up to 15 robot supported math lessons, in order to find out which supportive roles did educational technologists have in these lessons. The results show that educational technologist’s roles as a technical support person or a robotics teacher were more important during the first lessons, but the need for these roles faded fast. Instead, educational technologist’s role as an assistant teacher, explaining tasks and answering students’ questions, proved to have a greater importance, especially in the 3rd grade. Based on the results we suggest that in TEL lessons the subject teacher needs to be accompanied by an educational technologist who also has basic knowledge about the topic taught.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Full description of robots used in the study: http://bit.ly/2AvwZpB.
- 2.
Sample lesson plans (in English): http://bit.ly/2Q1n9AS.
References
Schwab, K.: The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means, how to respond. World Economic Forum (2016)
The Commonwealth of Australia: Australia’s National Science Statement. https://publications.industry.gov.au/publications/nationalsciencestatement/national-science-statement.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2019
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
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)
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
Halonen, N., Hietajärvi, L., Lonka, K., Salmela-Aro, K.: Sixth graders’ use of technologies in learning, technology attitudes and school well-being. EJSBS XVIII (2016)
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
Elliott, J.: Action Research for Educational Change. Open University Press, Bristol (1991)
Ernst & Young Global: Research Reveals Boys’ Interest in STEM Careers Declining; Girls’ Interest Unchanged. Ernst & Young Global Ltd (2018). https://www.ey.com/us/en/newsroom/news-releases/news-ey-research-reveals-boys-interest-in-stem-careers-declining-girls-interest-unchanged. Accessed 11 May 2019
The Star Online: Students taking up STEM subjects on decline last 10 years. Star Media Group Berhad (2018). https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/07/16/students-taking-up-stem-subjects-on-decline-last-10-years-ratio-of-science-to-arts-classes-reversed/. Accessed 11 May 2019
Grudin, J.: Innovation and Inertia: Information Technology and Education in the United States. IEEE Computer Society (2018)
OECD: Teaching for the Future. Effective Classroom Practices to Transform Education. OECD Publishing (2018). http://www.oecd.org/education/teaching-for-the-future-9789264293243-en.htm. Accessed 11 May 2019
Aypay, A., Çelik, H.C., Sever, M.: Technology acceptance in education: a study of pre-service teachers in Turkey. Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol. 11, 264–272 (2012)
Korthagen, F.: The gap between research and practice revisited. Educ. Res. Eval. 13(3), 303–310 (2007)
Miller, M.D., Rainer, R.K., Corley, J.K.: Predictors of engagement and participation in an on-line course. Online J. Distance Learn. Adm. 6, 1–13 (2003)
Laferrière, T., Montane, M., Gros, B., Alvarez, I., Bernaus, M., Breuleux, A., Allaire, S., Hamel, C., Lamon, M.: Partnerships for knowledge building: an emerging model. Can. J. Learn. Technol. V36(1) (2010)
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)
Erss, M., Kalmus, V.: Discourses of teacher autonomy and the role of teachers in Estonian, Finnish and Bavarian teachers’ newspapers in 1991-2010. Teach. Teach. Educ. 76, 95–105 (2018)
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
Acosta, A., Slotta, J.: CKBiology: an active learning curriculum design for secondary biology. Front. Educ. 3, 52 (2018)
Barker, B., Ansorge, J.: Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 39, 229–243 (2007)
Highfield, K., Mulligan, J., Hedberg, J.: Early mathematics learning through exploration with programmable toys. In: Figueras, O., Cortina, J.L., Alatorre, S., Rojano, T., Sepulveda, A., (eds.) Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of Pme 32 And Pme-Na Xxx, vol. 3, pp. 169–176. (PME Conference Proceedings). Cinvestav-UMSNH, Mexico (2008)
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, 31–44 (2017)
Leoste, J., Heidmets, M.: Bringing an educational robot into a basic education math lesson. In: Robotics in Education - Current Research and Innovations. Springer (2019, in press)
Lindh, J., Holgersson, T.: Does lego training stimulate pupils’ ability to solve logical problems? Comput. Educ. 49, 1097–1111 (2007)
Papert, S.: Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books, New York (1980)
Samuels, P., Haapasalo, L.: Real and virtual robotics in mathematics education at the school–university transition. Int. J. Math. Educ. 43, 285–301 (2012)
Werfel, J.: Embodied teachable agents: learning by teaching robots. In: Conference Proceedings (2014). http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jkwerfel/nrfias14.pdf. Accessed 08 Nov 2018
HITSA: ProgeTiiger programmis toetuse saanud haridusasutused 2014–2018. https://www.hitsa.ee/ikt-haridus/progetiiger. Accessed 11 May 2019
Leppik, C., Haaristo, H.S., Mägi, E.: IKT-haridus: digioskuste õpetamine, hoiakud ja võimalused üldhariduskoolis ja lasteaias. Praxis (2017). http://www.praxis.ee/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/IKT-hariduse-uuring_aruanne_mai2017.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2019
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)
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)
Leoste, J., Heidmets, M.: Õpperobot matemaatikatunnis. Miks.ee. Estonian Research Council (2019). http://www.miks.ee/opetajale/uudised/opperobot-matemaatikatunnis. Accessed 11 May 2019
Leoste, J., Heidmets, M.: The impact of educational robots as learning tools on mathematics learning outcomes in basic education. In: Väljataga, T., Laanpere, M. (eds.) Digital Turn in Schools—Research, Policy, Practice. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. Springer, Singapore (2019)
Banke, J.: Technology Readiness Levels Demystified. NASA (2010)
Smith, C.: Artificial intelligence that can teach? It’s already happening. ABC Science (2018). http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-06-16/artificial-intelligence-that-can-teach-is-already-happening/9863574. Accessed 11 May 2019
Polega, M., Neto, R.C., Brilowski, R., Baker, K.: Principals and teamwork among teachers: an exploratory study. Revista@mbienteeducação, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 12–32 mai/ago. Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, São Paulo (2019)
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
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Leoste, J., Heidmets, M. (2020). The Role of Educational Technologist in Robot Supported Math Lessons. 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_38
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35990-4_38
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-35989-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-35990-4
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)