Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) camp program on rural students’ self-efficacy and computational thinking skills. One hundred fifty-three third- and fourth-grade elementary school students from three different rural schools in China were recruited to participate. All participants took part in the camp program for three consecutive days. A single group pre- and post-test design was used, and the study employed both quantitative and qualitative analysis to examine elementary school students’ self-efficacy and computational thinking skills in the context of STEM activities. The findings revealed that the robotics STEM camp program significantly affected the self-efficacy and computational thinking of students in rural elementary schools. In addition, students’ experience with engineering-based activities had a statistically significant impact on computational thinking skills, and programming experience affected self-efficacy with regard to participation in STEM activities. There were gender differences in student satisfaction with the subject of the robotics STEM camp program. Finally, this study makes relevant suggestions for the future development of STEM camp activities and course design.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
06 March 2023
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10212-5
References
Aacute, S., Oacute, E., Pez, J. E., Iacute, S., & Vazquez-Cano, E. (2019). The effect of programming on primary school students’ mathematical and scientific understanding: Educational use of mBot. Educational Technology Research & Development, 67(6), 1405–1425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09648-5
Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832–835. https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxs074
Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 63–71.
Alliance, A. (2011). Stem learning in afterschool: An analysis of impact and outcomes. Afterschool Alliance, 13(4), 20.
Ardito, G., Czerkawski, B., & Scollins, L. (2020). Learning computational thinking together: Effects of gender differences in collaborative middle school robotics program. TechTrends, 64(3), 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00461-8
Avery, L. M. (2013). Rural science education: Valuing local knowledge. Theory into Practice, 52(1), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2013.743769
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 47, pp. 1–81). Academic Press.
Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman
Blanchard, S., Freiman, V., & Lirrete-Pitre, N. (2010). Strategies used by elementary schoolchildren solving robotics-based complex tasks: Innovative potential of technology. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2851–2857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.427
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
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
Bosman, A., & Schulze, S. (2018). Learning style preferences and mathematics achievement of secondary school learners. South African Journal of Education. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v38n1a1440
Burke, B. N. (2014). The ITEEA 6E learning ByDesign™ model: Maximizing informed design and inquiry in the integrative STEM classroom. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73, 14–19.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Heinemann.
Çetin, M., & Demircan, H. Ö. (2020). Empowering technology and engineering for STEM education through programming robots: A systematic literature review. Early child development and care. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1534844
Chiang, F.-K., Liu, Y.-Q., Feng, X., Zhuang, Y., & Sun, Y. (2020). Effects of the world robot Olympiad on the students who participate: A qualitative study. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1775097
Chiang, F.-K., Chang, C.-H., Wang, S., Cai, R.-H., & Li, L. (2022). The effect of an interdisciplinary STEM course on children’s attitudes of learning and engineering design skills. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09603-z
Cheng, C. C., Huang, P. L., & Huang, K. H. (2013). Cooperative learning in lego robotics projects: Exploring the impacts of group formation on interaction and achievement. Journal of Networks, 8(7), 1529–1535. https://doi.org/10.4304/jnw.8.7.1529-1535
Chung, C.-C., Lin, C.-L., & Lou, S.-J. (2018). Analysis of the learning effectiveness of the STEAM-6E special course—A case study about the creative design of IoT assistant devices for the elderly. Sustainability, 10, 3040. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093040
Craft, A. (2003). Creative thinking in the early years of education. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 21(1), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575140303105
Curşeu, P. L., Chappin, M. M. H., & Jansen, R. J. G. (2018). Gender diversity and motivation in collaborative learning groups: The mediating role of group discussion quality. Social Psychology of Education, 21(2), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9419-5
Eguchi, A. (2016). RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 692–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.05.013
FIRST LEGO League. (2006). FIRST LEGO League. Retrieved October 6, 2006, from http://www.usfirst.org/jrobtcs/flego.htm
Franz-Odendaal, T. A., Blotnicky, K. A., & Joy, P. (2020). Math self-efficacy and the likelihood of pursuing a STEM-based career: A gender-based analysis. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 20(3), 538–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-020-00105-7
Halpern, D. F. (2013). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking, Fifth Edition. Thought and knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking, Fifth Edition (pp. 1–637). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315885278
Holdren, J. P., & Lander, E. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Report to the President. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-v11.pdf
Hsiao, H.-S., Lin, Y.-W., Lin, K.-Y., Lin, C.-Y., Chen, J.-H., & Chen, J.-C. (2022). Using robot-based practices to develop an activity that incorporated the 6E model to improve elementary school students’ learning performances. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(1), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1636090
Ihrig, L. M., Lane, E., Mahatmya, D., & Assouline, S. G. (2018). STEM excellence and leadership program: Increasing the level of STEM challenge and engagement for high-achieving students in economically disadvantaged rural communities. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 41(1), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353217745158
ISTE. (2015). CT leadership toolkit. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/ctdocuments/ct-leadershipt-toolkit.pdf?sfvrsn=4.
Kerr, B., & Kurpius, S. E. R. (2004). Encouraging talented girls in math and science: Effects of a guidance intervention. High Ability Studies, 15(1), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813042000225357
Khanlari, A. (2016, 12–15 October). Robotics integration to create an authentic learning environment in engineering education. In 2016 IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE), Erie, PA, USA, (pp. 1–4). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2016.7757487
Kopcha, T. J., McGregor, J., Shin, S., Qian, Y., Choi, J., Hill, R., Mativo, J., & Choi, I. (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
Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 558–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.005
Kwon, K., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Brush, T. A., Jeon, M., & Yan, G. (2021). Integration of problem-based learning in elementary computer science education: Effects on computational thinking and attitudes. Educational Technology Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10034-3
Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., Malyn-Smith, J., & Werner, L. (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads, 2(1), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929902
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
Levinson, L., Gvirsman, O., Gorodesky, I. M., Perez, A., Gonen, E., & Gordon, G. (2020). Learning in summer camp with social robots: A morphological study: Studying dynamics using social robots. International Journal of Social Robotics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00689-y
Lin, K. Y., Hsiao, H. S., Williams, P. J., & Chen, Y. H. (2019). Effects of 6E-oriented STEM practical activities in cultivating middle school students’ attitudes toward technology and technological inquiry ability. Research in Science & Technological Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1561432
Luo, T., So, W. W. M., Li, W. C., & Yao, J. (2021). The development and validation of a survey for evaluating primary students’ self-efficacy in STEM activities. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(3), 408–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09882-0
Makgato, M. (2007). Factors associated with poor performance of learners in mathematics and physical science in secondary schools in Soshanguve South Africa. Africa Education Review, 4(1), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146620701412183
Marsden, E., & Torgerson, C. J. (2012). Single group, pre-and post-test research designs: Some methodological concerns. Oxford Review of Education, 38(5), 583–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2012.731208
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. China’s STEM Education White Paper. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.cn/s78/A16/s5886/s7822/201801/t20180111_324362.html.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Education Statistics 2020. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.cn/s78/A03/moe_560/2020/
Morton, C., & Smith-Mutegi, D. (2022). Making “it” matter: Developing African-American girls and young women’s mathematics and science identities through informal STEM learning. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 17(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-022-10105-8
Mutambara, D., & Bayaga, A. (2021). Determinants of mobile learning acceptance for STEM education in rural areas. Computers & Education, 160, 104010.
National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: people, places and pursuits. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments. In: Bell, P, Lewenstein, B, Shouse, AW, Feder, MA (eds) Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press
National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.
National Science Board. (2014). Re-visiting the STEM workforce: A companion to the science and engineering indicators 2014. National Science Foundation
Negrini, L., & Giang, C. (2019). How do pupils perceive educational robotics as a tool to improve their 21st century skills? Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 15(2), 77–87.
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
Ng, O., Liu, M., & Cui, Z. (2021). Students’ in-moment challenges and developing maker perspectives during problem-based digital making. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1967817
Qiao, X., & Zhou, X. (2020). Research on the integration of STEM education into the rural elementary school science curriculum: An example from rural elementary Schools in Western China. Best Evid Chin Edu, 5(1), 581–590. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3607636
Shimada, M., Kanda, T., & Koizumi, S. (2012). How can a social robot facilitate children’s collaboration? In S. S. Ge, O. Khatib, J-J. Cabibihan, R. Simmons, & M-A. Williams (Eds.) International conference on social robotics (pp. 98–107). Springer
Siew, N. M., Goh, H., & Sulaiman, F. (2016). Integrating stem in an engineering design process: The learning experience of rural secondary school students in an outreach challenge program. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(4), 477–493.
Sullivan, F. R., & Heffernan, J. (2016). Robotic construction kits as computational manipulatives for learning in the STEM disciplines. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 105–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1146563
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.
Taylor, K., & Baek, Y. (2018). Collaborative robotics, more than just working in groups. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(7), 979–1004. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117731382
Taylor, K., & Baek, Y. (2019). Grouping matters in computational robotic activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.010
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
Üşengül, L., & Bahçeci, F. (2020). The effect of Lego Wedo 2.0 education on academic achievement and attitudes and computational thinking skills of learners toward science. World Journal of Education, 10(4), 83. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v10n4p83
Veenman, S., Van Benthum, N., Bootsma, D., Van Dieren, J., & Van Der Kemp, N. (2002). Co-operative learning and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00052-X
Visser, M., Juan, A., & Feza, N. (2015). Home and school resources as predictors of mathematics performance in South Africa. South African Journal of Education. https://doi.org/10.15700/201503062354
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
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Wu, S.-Y., & Wang, S.-M. (2020). Exploring the effects of gender grouping and the cognitive processing patterns of a Facebook-based online collaborative learning activity. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1799026
Yanowitz, K. L. (2016). Students’ perceptions of the long-term impact of attending a “CSI science camp.” Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 916–928. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9635-3
Yilmaz Ince, E., & Koc, M. (2021). The consequences of robotics programming education on computational thinking skills: An intervention of the Young Engineer’s Workshop (YEW). Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 191–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22321
Young, J., Feille, K., & Young, J. (2017). Black girls as learners and doers of science: A single-group summary of elementary science achievement. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 1–20.
Yurt, E. (2014). The predictive power of self-efficacy sources for mathematics achievement. Egitim ve Bilim. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3443
Zhang, M. (2015). Analysis of the characteristics and reform suggestions of basic education in China. Higher Edu Res Southwest Univ Sci Tech, 3, 27–29.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016
Acknowledgements
LEGO materials were sponsored by Shanghai Leading the Future Education Technology Co., LTD. Thank you to the research team and volunteers who contributed to the STEM camp and to the teachers and students who participated in this study.
Funding
This study was funded by: Post-graduate Science Popularization Capability Promotion Program for 2022 sponsored by China Association for Science and Technology (No. KXYJS2022014); 2022 Shanghai Normal University First-class Post-graduate Training Program (No. 209-AC9103-22-368072006).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Ethical approval
The participating school principal, students, and parent/guardian for each student, provided written informed consent to participate in this study.
Consent to participate
All participants provided consent before fieldwork commenced.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The original version of this article was revised: The affiliation for Zhujun Jiang given in this article as originally published was incorrect and has been corrected.
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
“Shen Nong Tastes Herbs” course content
Subject | Task goals | Teaching/learning activities | STEM components |
|---|---|---|---|
Subject 1 Meet blocks
| 1. Understand the naming principles of Lego blocks 2. Classify the block parts according to the requirements | Teacher: 1. Introduce the story of Shen Nong Tastes Herbs 2. Teach the naming principles of LEGO blocks Students: 1. Share the ideas of the story 2. Classify the block parts with partner according to the naming principles of LEGO blocks | M: Count and classify the block parts |
Subject 2 Bird helper SNJ
| 1. Know the way birds help plants reproduce their seeds 2. Understand the role of cams 3. Complete the building of the block bird according to the building manual | Teacher: 1. Introduce the story of Shennong’s invented five-grain agriculture 2. Explain the mechanism of the cam 3. Teach how to use the programming software Students: 1. Understand the way birds help plants reproduce their seeds 2. Cooperate with partner to build the block bird according to the building manual 3. Use the programming software to add sound effects and input the program to the block bird | S: Cams enable the cam-follower to engage in more complex movement patterns T: Use programming software to add sound effects to the block bird E: Build the block bird according to the manual M: Count and classify the block parts |
Subject 3 We Come!
| 1. Learn about the geography of Shen Nongjia (SNJ) 2. Explore mechanical knowledge, types of gears, and transmission principles 3. Complete the construction of the mechanical claw according to the construction manual 4. Understand the role of the motor and realize the grasping function of the mechanical claw through graphical programming | Teacher: 1. Introduce the geographic knowledge of Shen Nongjia 2. Teach the mechanism of gear 3. Teach the motor-related programming Students: 1. Learn about Shen Nongjia 2. Cooperate to build the mechanical claw 3. Use programming software to realize the automatic cyclic control of mechanical claw | S: Gearing as a form of power transmission T: Motor-related programming instructions; Using programming software for automatic cyclic control of mechanical claw E: Mechanical claw and base construction and assembly M: Count and classify the block parts |
Subject 4: Hi! Captain
| 1. Understand the shape and efficacy of the herb mint 2. Design and build a block boat 3. Integrate the combination of inclination sensor and sound module | Teacher: 1. Introduce the mint (one of the common Chinese herbs) and its pesticide effects 2. Introduce different types of boat 3. Teach tilt sensors Students 1. Learn the knowledge of mint 2. Design the boat 3. Cooperate to build the block boat Use programming software to enable the designed boat to swing | S: Characteristics of mint; Types of boats; Role of tilt sensors T: Programming with the software to implement the tilt sensor E: Design and build small boats M: Count the number and period of block boat swings |
Subject 5 Herbal adventure
| 1. Understand the effects of common herbs such as mint, honeysuckle, dandelion 2. Master the basic principle of gear transmission 3. Complete the construction of the crocodile car according to the construction manual | Teachers: 1. Introduce common herbs such as mint, honeysuckle 2. Introduce the body structure of the crocodile 3. Teach basic principle of gear transmission Students: 1. Learn about the common herbs 2. Design crocodile car 3. Complete the construction of the crocodile car Use programming software to make the crocodile car move | S: Effectiveness of common herbs; Principles of reduction and acceleration gears; Motion sensors T: Program with the software to implement motion sensors E: Small gear experiments;Build a crocodile cart M: Count and classify the block parts |
Subject 6 Herbal delivery
| 1. Learn the standard transmission methods 2. Design and build the herb delivery vehicle on your own | Teachers: 1. Introduce different transmission methods 2. Explain how motion sensors work Students: 1. Design their own herb delivery vehicle Build the block delivery vehicle | S: A standard vehicle structure consists of two main parts: the chassis and the body T: Program with the software to implement motion sensors E: Design and construction of herb delivery vehicles M: Count and classify the block parts |
Subject 7 Let’s create! Blocks
| 1. Prepare follow-up and design sketches for the story of Shennong in groups 2. Complete construction | Teachers: 1. Assign tasks and provide ideas for story creating 2. Organize the final group presentation and vote Students: 1. Brainstorm with the task 2. Create the story 3. Design the context of the story and cooperate to build it with what they have learned using LEGO | S: Knowledge about herbs; Manufacturing Tools T: Electromechanical integration using programming software E: Work in groups to write story follow-ups M: Count and classify the block parts |
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Shang, X., Jiang, Z., Chiang, FK. et al. Effects of robotics STEM camps on rural elementary students’ self-efficacy and computational thinking. Education Tech Research Dev 71, 1135–1160 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10191-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10191-7