Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pilot analysis of the impacts of soft robotics design on high-school student engineering perceptions

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Engineering career interest, especially that of young women, declines as they approach high-school graduation. We used expectancy-value theory, which emphasizes expectations for success and subjective value of experiences as antecedent factors to choice, as a framework for investigating new 9th grade soft robot design lessons. Compared to traditional robotics, the nature of soft robotics—materially embedded safety and an emerging technology with significant social implications—positions it to be favorable for growing students’ perceptions of success and value. To gauge the impact of the lessons following the first year of implementation, we use multilevel and ANOVA models to predict changes in three student perceptions following the lessons: self-efficacy (related to expectations of success), and situational motivation and career interest (both related to subjective value). Survey responses and demographic information were collected from 431 students, before and after both the soft robotics treatment lessons and the traditional robotics comparison lessons. Analysis of the results indicates that changes in perception were negligible for both lesson types and genders. These comparable findings between the lesson types indicate the feasibility of incorporating soft robotics into high-school classrooms. While not noticeably better, the soft robotics lessons expose students to an emerging field of engineering situated in a socially meaningful context that is theoretically aligned with career choices. Moreover, challenges that occurred during the first-year implementation suggest possible refinements which may improve students’ experiences and perceptions as our research continues.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ashcraft, C., McLain, B., & Eger, E. (2016). Women in tech: The facts (2016 update). National Center for Women & Technology. www.ncwit.org/thefacts. Accessed 28 Nov 2017.

  • Ball, T. (2005). Gender bias in FIRST robotics competitions. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price, & R. Weber, et al. (Eds.), Society for information technology and teacher education international conference, Phoenix, AZ (pp. 3626–3630).

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bao, G., Fang, H., Chen, L., Wan, Y., Xu, F., Yang, Q., et al. (2018). Soft robotics: Academic insights and perspectives through bibliometric analysis. Soft Robotics, 5(3), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1089/soro.2017.0135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, B. S., Nugent, G., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2012). Robots in K-12 education: A new technology for learning. Hershey: IGI.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers and Education, 58(3), 978–988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson, L., Kirn, A., & Morkos, B. (2013). Career: Student motivation and learning in engineering. In 2013 ASEE annual conference and exposition, Atlanta, GA, June.

  • Berland, L. K., & Steingut, R. (2016). Explaining variation in student efforts towards using math and science knowledge in engineering contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 38(18), 2742–2761. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1260179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betz, N. E. (2006). Developing and using parallel measures of career self-efficacy and interests with adolescents. In F. Pajares & T. C. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 225–244). Greenwich: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bong, M. (2001). Between-and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle and high school students: Self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485–499. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brotman, J. S., & Moore, F. M. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971–1002. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, B. N. B. I. O. (2014). The ITEEA 6e learning bydesign model. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73(6), 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Youth and Communities. (2011). Cross-program evaluation of the FIRST tech challenge and the FIRST robotics competition. Waltham: Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Core Team, R. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (3.4.2 ed.). Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denissen, J. J. A., Zarrett, N. R., & Eccles, J. S. (2007). I like to do it, I’m able, and I know I am: Longitudinal couplings between domain-specific achievement, self-concept, and interest. Child Development, 78(2), 430–447. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01007.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2015). The systematic design of instruction (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diekman, A. B., Clark, E. K., Johnston, A. M., Brown, E. R., & Steinberg, M. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to STEM careers: Evidence for a goal congruity perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 902–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J., Adler, T. E., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., et al. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75–146). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finio, B., Shepherd, R., & Lipson, H. (2013). Air-powered soft robots for K-12 classrooms. In 2013 IEEE integrated STEM education conference (ISEC), Princeton, NJ, 9 March (pp. 1–6). https://doi.org/10.1109/isecon.2013.6525198.

  • Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The situational motivation scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, 24(3), 175–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamner, E., Lauwers, T., Bernstein, D., Nourbakhsh, I. R., & DiSalvo, C. F. (2008). Robot diaries: Broadening participation in the computer science pipeline through social technical exploration. In AAAI spring symposium: Using AI to motivate greater participation in computer science, Stanford, CA (pp. 38–43).

  • Hartmann, S., Wiesner, H., & Wiesner-Steiner, A. (2007). Robotics and gender: The use of robotics for the empowerment of girls in the classroom. In Gender designs IT (pp. 175–188).

  • Hendricks, C. C., Alemdar, M., & Ogletree, T. W. (2012). The impact of participation in vex robotics competition on middle and high school students’ interest in pursuing STEM studies and STEM-related careers. In 2012 ASEE annual conference and exposition, San Antonio, TX.

  • Hernandez, P. R., Bodin, R., Elliott, J. W., Ibrahim, B., Rambo-Hernandez, K. E., Chen, T. W., et al. (2014). Connecting the STEM dots: Measuring the effect of an integrated engineering design intervention. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9241-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, G. S., & Dailey, P. R. (1979). Response-shift bias: A source of contamination of self-report measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(2), 144–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.64.2.144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulleman, C. S., Durik, A. M., Schweigert, S. B., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2008). Task values, achievement goals, and interest: An integrative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 398–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilievski, F., Mazzeo, A. D., Shepherd, R. F., Chen, X., & Whitesides, G. M. (2011). Soft robotics for chemists. Angewandte Chemie, 123(8), 1930–1935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Technology Education Association. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology (3rd ed.). Reston: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, A. (2018). Validity evidence for the general engineering self-efficacy and engineering skills self-efficacy scales with secondary students. In 2018 ASEE Illinois–Indiana section conference, West Lafayette, IN, March.

  • Jackson, A., Mentzer, N., Kramer, R., & Zhang, J. (2017a). Maker: Taking soft robotics from the laboratory to the classroom. In Make it! event during the 2017 ASEE annual conference and exposition, Columbus, OH, June.

  • Jackson, A., Zhang, J., Kramer, R., & Mentzer, N. (2017b). Design-based research and soft robotics to broaden the STEM pipeline (work in progress). In 2017 ASEE annual conference and exposition, Columbus, OH, June.

  • Jones, B. D., Paretti, M. C., Hein, S. F., & Knott, T. W. (2010). An analysis of motivation constructs with first-year engineering students: Relationships among expectancies, values, achievement, and career plans. Journal of Engineering Education, 99, 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01066.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kier, M. W., Blanchard, M. R., Osborne, J. W., & Albert, J. L. (2013). The development of the STEM career interest survey (STEM-CIS). Research in Science Education, 44(3), 461–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9389-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lachapelle, C. P., Oh, Y., Shams, M. F., Hertel, J. D., & Cunningham, C. M. (2015). Hlm modeling of pre/post-assessment results from a large-scale efficacy study of elementary engineering. In 2015 ASEE annual conference and exposition, Seattle, WA, June.

  • Lipson, H. (2014). Challenges and opportunities for design, simulation, and fabrication of soft robots. Soft Robotics, 1(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1089/soro.2013.0007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lottero-Perdue, P. S., & Parry, E. A. (2015). Elementary teachers’ reported responses to student design failures. In 2015 ASEE annual conference and exposition, Seattle, WA. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.23930.

  • Majidi, C. (2013). Soft robotics: A perspective—Current trends and prospects for the future. Soft Robotics, 1(1), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1089/soro.2013.0001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mamaril, N. A., Usher, E. L., Li, C. R., Economy, D. R., & Kennedy, M. S. (2016). Measuring undergraduate students’ engineering self-efficacy: A validation study. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(2), 366–395. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified approach. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, B., Sayres, J., Lowes, S., & Lin, P. (2008). Underwater lego robotics as the vehicle to engage students in STEM: The build IT project’s first year of classroom implementation. Hoboken: American Society for Engineering Education Mid-Atlantic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its influence on young adolescents’ course enrollment intentions and performance in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milto, E., Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2002). Gender differences in confidence levels, group interactions, and feelings about competition in an introductory robotics course. In 2002 frontiers in education, Boston, MA (Vol. 2, pp. F4C-7).

  • Munce, R., & Fraser, E. (2013). Where are the STEM students? http://www.stemconnector.org. Accessed October 7 2014.

  • Nagengast, B., Marsh, H. W., Scalas, L. F., Xu, M. K., Hau, K. T., & Trautwein, U. (2011). Who took the “x” out of expectancy-value theory? A psychological mystery, a substantive-methodological synergy, and a cross-national generalization. Psychological Science, 22(8), 1058–1066. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611415540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Engineering, & Committee on Public Understanding of Engineering Messages. (2008). Changing the conversation: Messages for improving public understanding of engineering. Washington: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Educational Statistics. (2016). Number and percentage distribution of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees/certificates conferred by postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, level of degree/certificate, and sex of student: 2008–09 through 2014–15. Washington: US Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, M. (2013). “Welcome to the real world”: Navigating the gap between best teaching practices and current reality. Studying Teacher Education, 9(3), 284–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2013.833902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1)., Advanced quantitative techniques in the social sciences Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raykov, T., & Zinbarg, R. E. (2011). Proportion of general factor variance in a hierarchical multiple-component measuring instrument: A note on a confidence interval estimation procedure. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 64(2), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711009X479714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roche, E. T., Horvath, M. A., Wamala, I., Alazmani, A., Song, S.-E., Whyte, W., et al. (2017). Soft robotic sleeve supports heart function. Science Translational Medicine, 9(373), 3925. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf3925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rusk, N., Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Pezalla-Granlund, M. (2008). New pathways into robotics: Strategies for broadening participation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1), 59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: A gender study. Science Education, 96(3), 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satterthwaite, F. E. (1946). An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biometrics Bulletin, 2(6), 110–114. https://doi.org/10.2307/3002019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (2014). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skorinko, J., Lay, J., McDonald, G., Miller, B., Shaver, C., Randall, C., et al. (2010). The social outcomes of participating in the FIRST robotics competition community. Worcester: Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, C., Nickerson, K., & Schools, N. P. (2004). Botball robotics and gender differences in middle school teams. In 2004 ASEE annual conference and exposition, Salt Lake City, UT.

  • Stolk, J. D. (2013). The impacts of societal context on student motivation and engagement. In MRS online proceedings library (Vol. 1532). https://doi.org/10.1557/opl.2013.427.

  • Stubbs, K., & Yanco, H. (2009). STREAM: A workshop on the use of robotics in K-12 STEM education. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 16(4), 17–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 859–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terry, B. S., Briggs, B. N., & Rivale, S. (2011). Work in progress: Gender impacts of relevant robotics curricula on high school students’ engineering attitudes and interest. In 2011 frontiers in education conference, Rapid City, SD (pp. T4H-1).

  • Trautwein, U., Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., Lüdtke, O., Nagy, G., & Jonkmann, K. (2012). Probing for the multiplicative term in modern expectancy-value theory: A latent interaction modeling study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 763–777. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trimmer, B. (2013). A journal of soft robotics: Why now? Soft Robotics, 1(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1089/soro.2013.0003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trimmer, B., Ewoldt, R. H., Kovac, M., Lipson, H., Lu, N., Shahinpoor, M., et al. (2013). At the crossroads: Interdisciplinary paths to soft robots. Soft Robotics, 1(1), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1089/soro.2013.1509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017). Women in the labor force: A databook. US Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/. Accessed 28 Nov 2017.

  • Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy in mathematics: A validation study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.09.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallerand, R. J. (2001). A hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and exercise. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 263–320). Champaign: Human Kinetics.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Aalderen-Smeets, S. I., & Walma van der Molen, J. H. (2016). Modeling the relation between students’ implicit beliefs about their abilities and their educational STEM choices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9387-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes. Developmental Review, 30(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12(3), 265–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(92)90011-P.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Eccles, J. S. (2004). Expectancy value theory in cross-cultural perspective. In D. M. McInerney & S. V. Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited (Vol. 4, pp. 165–198)., Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoder, B. L. (2016). Engineering by the numbers. American Society for Engineering Education. https://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/publications/college-profiles. Accessed 28 Nov 2017.

  • Zhang, J., Jackson, A., Mentzer, N., & Kramer, R. (2017). A modular, reconfigurable mold for a K-12 soft robotic gripper design activity. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 4, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2017.00046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ω h : Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70(1), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant DRL-1513175.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Rebecca Kramer-Bottiglio

    Present address: Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, Yale University, New Haven, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Engineering/Technology Teacher Education, Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA

    Andrew Jackson & Nathan Mentzer

  2. Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA

    Rebecca Kramer-Bottiglio

Authors
  1. Andrew Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nathan Mentzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rebecca Kramer-Bottiglio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Jackson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jackson, A., Mentzer, N. & Kramer-Bottiglio, R. Pilot analysis of the impacts of soft robotics design on high-school student engineering perceptions. Int J Technol Des Educ 29, 1083–1104 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9478-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9478-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation