Advertisement

TechTrends

pp 1–12 | Cite as

Elementary School Student Development of STEM Attitudes and Perceived Learning in a STEM Integrated Robotics Curriculum

  • Yu-Hui ChingEmail author
  • Dazhi Yang
  • Sasha Wang
  • Youngkyun Baek
  • Steve Swanson
  • Bhaskar Chittoori
Original Paper
  • 42 Downloads

Abstract

Robotics has been advocated as an emerging approach to engaging K-12 students in learning science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). This study examined the impacts of a project-based STEM integrated robotics curriculum on elementary school students’ attitudes toward STEM and perceived learning in an afterschool setting. Three elementary school teachers and 18 fourth to sixth graders participated in an eight-week-long program. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed, and showed students’ attitudes toward math improved significantly at the end of the robotics curriculum. Three specific areas of perceived learning were identified, including STEM content learning and connection, engagement and perseverance, and development and challenge in teamwork. The findings also identified the opportunities and challenges in designing a STEM integrated robotics afterschool curriculum for upper elementary school students. Implications for future research studies and curriculum design are discussed.

Keywords

Educational robotics STEM STEM attitudes Integrated STEM Elementary school students 

Notes

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number 1640228. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Altin, H., & Pedaste, M. (2013). Learning approaches to applying robotics in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(3), 365–378.Google Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thoughts and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: a digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20–23.Google Scholar
  4. Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: a systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Binns, I. C., Polly, D., Conrad, J., & Algozzine, B. (2016). Student perceptions of a summer ventures in science and mathematics camp experience. School Science and Mathematics, 116(8), 420–429.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.  https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buck Institute of Education (BIE) (2017). Why project based learning? Retrieved March 20, 2019 from http://bie.org/.
  9. Ching, Y.-H., Hsu, Y.-C., & Baldwin, S. (2018a). Developing computational thinking with educational technologies for young learners. TechTrends, 62(6), 563–573.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0292-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ching, Y.-H., Yang, D., Wang, S., Baek, Y., Swanson, S., & Chittoori, B. (2018b). Improving student attitudes inSTEM through a project-based robotics program. In American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting and Exhibition, New York, NY, USA, April 13–17, 2018.Google Scholar
  11. Conrad, J., Polly, D., Binns, I., & Algozzine, B. (2018). Student perceptions of a summer robotics camp experience. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideals, 91(3), 131–139.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2018.1436819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eguchi, A. (2014). Robotics as a learning tool for educational transformation. Paper presented at the 4th International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics & 5th International Conference Robotics in Education, Padova, Italy.  https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-8363-1.ch002
  14. Elkin, M., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2014). Implementing a robotics curriculum in an early childhood Montessori classroom [electronic version]. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 13, 153–169. Retrieved September 17, 2018, from http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol13/JITEv13IIPvp153-169Elkin882.pdf.Google Scholar
  15. Friday Institute for Educational Innovation. (2012). Elementary school STEM - student survey. Raleigh: Author.Google Scholar
  16. Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2015). Constructionist gaming: understanding the benefits of making games for learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 313–334.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1124022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kandlhofer, M., & Steinbauer, G. (2015). Evaluating the impact of educational robotics on pupils’ technical- and social-skills and science related attitudes. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 679–685.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.09.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Khanlari, A. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and the challenges of integrating educational robots into primary/elementary curricula. European Journal of Engineering Education, 41(3), 320–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kopcha, T. J., McGregor, J., Shin, S., Qian, Y., Choi, J., Hill, R., et al. (2017). Developing an integrative STEM curriculum for robotics education through educational design research. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 1(1), 31–44.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-017-0005-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leonard, J., Buss, A., Gamboa, R., Mitchell, M., Fashola, O. S., Hubert, T., & Almughyirah, S. (2016). Using robotics and game design to enhance children’s self-efficacy, STEM attitudes, and computational thinking skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 860–876.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9628-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students. Science Education, 95(5), 877–907  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moore, T., Stohlmann, M., Wang, H., Tank, K., Glancy, A., & Roehrig, G. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In J. S. Purzer & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 35–60). West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common Core State Standards for mathematics: Grade 4 measurement & data. Retrieved March 20, 2019 from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/4/MD/.
  24. National Research council [NRC]. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  25. Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Impact of robotics and geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 391–408.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  27. Pea, R. (1987). Cognitive technologies for mathematics education. In A. Schoenfled (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 89–122). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Petre, M., & Price, B. (2004). Using robotics to motivate “back door” learning. Education and Information Technologies, 9(2), 147–158.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EAIT.0000027927.78380.60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scaradozzi, D., Sorbi, L., Pedale, A., Valzano, M., & Vergine, C. (2015). Teaching robotics at the primary school: An innovative approach. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 3838–3846.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schmidt, J., Kafkas, S., Maier, K., Shumow, L., & Kackar-Cam, H. (2018). Why are we learning this? Using mixed methods to understand teachers’ relevance statements and how they shape middle school students’ perceptions of science utility. Contemporary Educational Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.08.005.
  31. Sha, L., Schunn, C., & Bathgate, M. (2015). Measuring choice to participate in optional science learning experiences during early adolescence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(5), 686–709.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simpkins, S. D., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Math and science motivation: a longitudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 42, 70–83.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Slangen, L., Van Keulen, H., & Gravemeijer, K. (2011). What pupils can learn from working with robotic direct manipulation environments. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(4), 449–469.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9130-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stohlmann, M., Moore, T., & Roehrig, G. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34.  https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Taylor, K. (2016). Collaborative robotics, more than just working in groups: effects of student collaboration on learning motivation, collaborative problem solving, and science process skills in robotic activities. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved March 20, 2019 from https://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2179&context=td.
  36. Ucgul, M., & Cagiltay, K. (2014). Design and development issues for educational robotics training camps. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(2), 203–222.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9253-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Unfried, A., Faber, M., Stanhope, D. S., & Wiebe, E. (2015). The development and validation of a measure of student attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and math (S-STEM). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(7), 622–639.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915571160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Williams, D. C., Ma, Y., Prejean, L., Ford, M. J., & Lai, G. (2007). Acquisition of physics content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills in a robotics summer camp. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 201–216.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational TechnologyBoise State UniversityBoiseUSA
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsBoise State UniversityBoiseUSA
  3. 3.Division of Research and Economic DevelopmentBoise State UniversityBoiseUSA
  4. 4.Department of Civil EngineeringBoise State UniversityBoiseUSA

Personalised recommendations