Abstract
Teaching programming and coding skills in K-12 classrooms is becoming a part of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) programs across the United States. Often, these opportunities are available through extra-curricular activities such as Robotics club, math club, STEM club, etc. Increasing STEM opportunities for students who are English language learners, culturally and linguistically diverse learners, and/or students from underserved backgrounds is vital. In a pilot study prior to a larger, grant-funded study on the effects of metacognitive strategy instruction on elementary students’ academic performance, the principal investigator (PI) developed an activity with a corresponding assessment instrument. The PI initially incorporated floor-robots into an activity in two fifth grade science classrooms. Pre/post survey analysis provided encouraging results. To follow up on the initial results, the PI and co-principal investigators (co-PIs) introduced floor-robots into eight additional fourth and fifth grade science classrooms over an additional school year, as well as in an after-school setting, to determine how floor-robots might be used effectively to engage elementary students in STEM learning. The investigators introduced over 257 elementary students to three types of floor-robots, and this provided students with opportunities to have hands-on access to programming and coding robots for specific purposes. Of the 257 students who interacted with the floor-robots, approximately 103 were provided with pre/post surveys on Roamer®, one of the floor-robots. Additional data analysis provided surprising and encouraging results.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1986). Mechanical, behavioural and intentional understanding of picture stories in autistic children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 4, 113-125.
Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers and Education, 58, 978–988.
Gura (2012). Lego robotics: STEM sport of the mind, International Society for Technology in Education, p. 12–16. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ991224.pdf
Hoffman, D. L., Novak, T. P., & Schlosser, A. (2000). The evolution of the digital divide: How gaps in internet access may impact electronic commerce. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication, 5(3) Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.tb00341.x/full.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Kamenetz, A., & Turner, C. (2016). The High School Graduation Rate Reaches A Record High— Again. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/10/17/498246451/the-high-school-graduation-reaches-a-record-high-again.
Karp, T., & Maloney, P. (2013). Exciting young students in grades K-8 about STEM through an afterschool robotics challenge. American Journal of Engineering Education, 4(1), 39–54.
Kazakoff, E. R., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The effect of a classroom-based intensive robotics and programming workshop on sequencing ability in early childhood. Early Childhood Education, 41, 245–255.
Klinger, J.K., & Vaughn, S. (1998). Using collaborative strategic reading. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(6), 32-37.
Linn, D., & Hemmer, L. (2011). English language learner disproportionality in special education: Implications for the scholar-practitioner. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 1(1), 70–80.
Matson, E., DeLoach, S., & Pauly, R. (2004). Building interest in math and science for rural and underserved elementary school children using robots. Journal of STEM Education, 5(3&4), 35–46.
Ortiz, A. A., Robertson, P. M., Wilkinson, C. Y., Liu, Y. J., McGhee, B. D., & Kushner, M. I. (2011). The role of bilingual education teachers in preventing inappropriate referrals of ELLs to special education: Implications for response to intervention. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(3), 316–333.
Palincsar, A. M., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.
Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. A. (2008). Formative and design experiments: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York: Teachers College Press.
Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006). Educational design research. New York: Routledge.
Vasquez, M. (2012). Ethnic and racial disparities in education: Psychology’s contributions to understanding and reducing disparities. A report by the American Psychological Association presidential task force on educational disparities. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/ed/resources/racial-disparities.pdf.
Waxman, H. C., & Padrón, Y. N. (1987). The effects of students’ perceptions of cognitive strategies on reading achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association. Dallas.
Zinth, J. D. (2013). English language learners: A growing-yet underserved-student population. The progress of education reform, 14(6), 1–9 Retrieved from https://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/01/10/20/11020.pdf.
Acknowledgements
A Competitive University Research and Development Award at Texas A&M International University funded this project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Elizabeth Casey, J., Gill, P., Pennington, L. et al. Lines, roamers, and squares: Oh my! using floor robots to enhance Hispanic students’ understanding of programming. Educ Inf Technol 23, 1531–1546 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9677-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9677-z