Karolína Miková
ABSTRACT
This work aims to contribute to a newly emerging theory that addresses the development of a complex system for evaluating the suitability of robotics kits and robots for teaching programming in Slovakia. It is an iterative process consisting of several phases. In this paper, we present the results of the first phase, which involved working with the LEGO SPIKE Prime robotics kit and lower secondary students. These preliminary results will be verified and adjusted in the next phases. By repeatedly implementing different robotics kits in different grades of primary and secondary schools, taking into account the specifics of our educational system, as well as the cognitive level of students of different grades, we aim to come up with a theory that would help teachers to assess the adequacy of robotics kits. We are aware of the wide range of aspects that can play an important role in this process. For this reason, we have chosen a qualitative research design - a case study that identifies areas or criteria related to the application of the new construction kit in teaching programming. By analyzing qualitative data from artifacts, collecting field notes, and conducting dialogic interviews, we can better understand the appropriateness of tasks and determine their level of difficulty more accurately. Our preliminary results point to the following key areas: Cognitive difficulty, Model construction, Engagement, Creativity, and Discovering, from which we can determine the overall time adequacy of the robotic activity.
- Ernest Afari and Myint Swe Khine. 2017. Robotics as an educational tool: Impact of lego mindstorms. International Journal of Information and Education Technology 7, 6 (2017), 437–442.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Nuria Arís and Lara Orcos. 2019. Educational robotics in the stage of secondary education: Empirical study on motivation and STEM skills. Education Sciences 9, 2 (2019), 73.Google ScholarCross Ref
- SGP Systems 1978. Educational Programming Tools for Kids, Youth, and Adults. SGP Systems. Retrieved June 21, 2023 from https://sgpsys.com/en/Google Scholar
- Markéta Bartoňová and Dana Kričfaluši. 2021. THE METHODOLOGY FOR CREATING WORKSHEETS FOR INTEGRATED SCIENCE. Science and technology education: DEVELOPING A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE (2021), 7–15.Google Scholar
- Scott Bell, Linda Heeler, and Phillip Heeler. 2008. A preliminary report on the use of robots with elementary school students. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 23, 4 (2008), 263–268.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fabiane Barreto Vavassori Benitti. 2012. Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education 58, 3 (2012), 978–988.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Benjamin Samuel Bloom. 1956. Committee of College and University Examiners. Taxonomy of educational objectives.Google Scholar
- Dave Catlin, Martin Kandlhofer, Stephanie Holmquist, Andrew Paul Csizmadia, Julian Angel-Fernandez, and J Cabibihan. 2018. Edurobot taxonomy and Papert’s paradigm. Constructionism 2018 (2018), 151–159.Google Scholar
- JW Creswell. 2002. Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. CSAB.(2001, April 19, 2002). CSAB Board of Directors. Retrieved May 22, 2002. Theory into practice 39, 3 (2002), 124130.Google Scholar
- Department for Education, gov.uk 2013. The national curriculum in England - Key stages 1 and 2 framework document. Department for Education, gov.uk. Retrieved June 21, 2023 from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/425601/PRIMARY_national_curriculum.pdfGoogle Scholar
- Salomi Evripidou, Lefteris Doitsidis, George Tsinarakis, Zinon Zinonos, and Savvas A. Chatzichristofis. 2022. Selecting a Robotic Platform for Education. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE). 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCE53296.2022.9730568Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mike Gershon. 2018. How to use questioning in the classroom: The complete guide. Hawker Brownlow.Google Scholar
- Elmar Hashimov. 2015. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook and The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers: Matthew B. Miles, A. Michael Huberman, and Johnny Saldaña. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014. 381 pp. Johnny Saldaña. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2013. 303 pp.Google Scholar
- Ivan Kalaš. 2018. Programming in lower primary years: design principles and powerful ideas. In Proceedings of Constructionism 2018, V. Dagienė & E. Jasutė (Ed.). Lithuania: Institute of Data Science and Digital Technologies, Vilnius, 71–80.Google Scholar
- Nina Körber, Lisa Bailey, Luisa Greifenstein, Gordon Fraser, Barbara Sabitzer, and Marina Rottenhofer. 2021. An Experience of Introducing Primary School Children to Programming using Ozobots (Practical Report). In The 16th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. 1–6.Google ScholarDigital Library
- LEGO 2013. LEGO Mindstorms EV3. Retrieved January 31, 2023 from https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/lego-mindstorms-ev3-31313Google Scholar
- LEGO 2020. LEGO PRIME Spike. Retrieved January 31, 2023 from https://education.lego.com/en-us/products/lego-education-spike-prime-set/45678#spike%E2%84%A2-primeGoogle Scholar
- Marilyn Lichtman. 2012. Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Sage publications.Google Scholar
- Louis Major, Theocharis Kyriacou, and O Pearl Brereton. 2012. Systematic literature review: teaching novices programming using robots. IET software 6, 6 (2012), 502–513.Google Scholar
- MakeBlock 2013. MakeBlock Education. Retrieved April 14, 2023 from https://education.makeblock.com/resourceGoogle Scholar
- Karolína Mayerová and Michaela Veselovská. 2014. The programming environment for the lego wedo robotic construction set. Information and communication technology in education (2014), 149–157.Google Scholar
- Deborah A McAllister Ed D, Jared L Glidden, 2022. Learning Robotics Concepts with Lego Spike Essential: Data Collection 2021 with Pre-service Teachers. (2022).Google Scholar
- James C. McCroskey, Virginia P. Richmond, and L. L. McCroskey. 2006. An Introduction to Communication in the Classroom: The Role of Communication in Teaching and Training. Allyn & Bacon, Boston.Google Scholar
- BBC 2014. Micro:bit. BBC. Retrieved June 22, 2023 from https://microbit.org/Google Scholar
- Orazio Miglino, Henrik Hautop Lund, and Maurizio Cardaci. 1999. Robotics as an educational tool. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 10, 1 (1999), 25–47.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Karolína Miková and Lucia Budinská. 2021. Robot Kits in Primary Informatics Education-What Should Future Teachers Know?. In 2021 19th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET). IEEE, 1–8.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Karolína Miková and Veronika Fejková. 2022. A COMPARISON OF TWO (NOT WELL KNOWN) EDUCATIONAL ROBOTIC KITS FOR TEACHING COMPUTATIONAL THINKING. In ICERI2022 Proceedings. IATED, 7830–7837.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Karolína Miková, Andrea Hrušecká, Lucia Budinská, and Daniela Bezáková. 2022. Gradation of Cognitive operations of Blue-Bot control in the primary education. In Robotics in Education: RiE 2021 12. Springer, 3–13.Google Scholar
- National Institute for Education 2014. The National Curriculum in Slovakia, Informatic for lower secondary school. Retrieved January 31, 2023 from https://www.statpedu.sk/files/articles/dokumenty/inovovany-statny-vzdelavaci-program/informatika_nsv_2014.pdfGoogle Scholar
- Ozobot 2014. Ozobot Lessons. Retrieved April 14, 2023 from https://ozobot.com/educate/lessons-and-activities/Google Scholar
- Bjarke Kristian Maigaard Kjær Pedersen, Vuyelwa David Ruwodo, Annastasia Shipepe, Lannie Uwu-Khaeb, Samuel Tewelde Yigzaw, Ilkka Jormanainen, Jacob Nielsen, and Erkki Sutinen. 2022. Taxonomy for Educational Robotics at Schools. In Robotics in Education: RiE 2022. Springer, 91–96.Google ScholarCross Ref
- João Piedade, Nuno Dorotea, Ana Pedro, and João Filipe Matos. 2020. On teaching programming fundamentals and computational thinking with educational robotics: A didactic experience with pre-service teachers. Education Sciences 10, 9 (2020), 214.Google ScholarCross Ref
- MIT 1978. Scratch. MIT. Retrieved June 21, 2023 from https://scratch.mit.edu/Google Scholar
- Sue Sentance, Jane Waite, Steve Hodges, Emily MacLeod, and Lucy Yeomans. 2017. " Creating Cool Stuff" Pupils’ Experience of the BBC micro: bit. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education. 531–536.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Isabelle ML Souza, Wilkerson L Andrade, Lívia MR Sampaio, and Ana Liz Souto O Araujo. 2018. A Systematic Review on the use of LEGO® Robotics in Education. In 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, 1–9.Google ScholarDigital Library
- UCL 2018. UCL ScratchMath Curriculum. Retrieved January 31, 2023 from https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/research/projects/ucl-scratchmaths/ucl-scratchmaths-curriculumGoogle Scholar
- Amy K Way, Robin Kanak Zwier, and Sarah J Tracy. 2015. Dialogic interviewing and flickers of transformation: An examination and delineation of interactional strategies that promote participant self-reflexivity. Qualitative Inquiry 21, 8 (2015), 720–731.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Richard Weiss and Isaac Overcast. 2008. Finding your bot-mate: criteria for evaluating robot kits for use in undergraduate computer science education. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 24, 2 (2008), 43–49.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Benjamin Wohl, Barry Porter, and Sarah Clinch. 2015. Teaching Computer Science to 5-7 year-olds: An initial study with Scratch, Cubelets and unplugged computing. In Proceedings of the workshop in primary and secondary computing education. 55–60.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Robert K Yin. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods. Vol. 5. Sage.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Appropriateness of a New Programmable Robotics Kit – Preliminary Results (Discussion Paper)
Recommendations
Evaluation of a robotics course with the humanoid robot NAO in CS teacher education
WiPSCE '18: Proceedings of the 13th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing EducationUsing Educational robotics as an hands-on approach to Computer Science (CS) is very popular in international CS education. The market provides various robotics systems for CS education with regard to e.g. age group of the students. In this article we ...
Using robots to teach programming to K-12 teachers
FIE '12: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)We present the results of a pilot study in which twenty K-12 teachers were introduced to LEGO NXT-G robot programming through a three-day summer workshop. Our aim was to give teachers the confidence and skills to start after-school robotics programs ...
Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers' STEM engagement, learning, and teaching
We report a research project with a purpose of helping teachers learn how to design and implement science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) lessons using robotics. Specifically, pre-service teachers' STEM engagement, learning, and ...
Comments