Between the Social and the Technical: Negotiation of Human-Centered Robotics Design in a Middle School Classroom
This paper presents a middle school human-centered robotics (HCR) learning experience and the ways in which it supported students’ orientation to technical and social aspects of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). The interdisciplinary project associated with this analysis aims to engage diverse students in authentic STEM practices by creating robotic technologies that can assist people in their school, and connect with remote peers. The goal of this project is to increase student interest in and knowledge of STEM topics, and to help students recognize STEM as relevant to their daily lives and broader societal issues. The human-centered focus of the curriculum encouraged thinking from multiple perspectives (e.g. design, social science, programming) and allowed for diverse STEM exploration. We present samples from student work and classroom interactions. These samples show challenges and successes in engaging students with STEM as a combination of social and technical questions and skills. We trace the trajectory of one group’s work to highlight moments in which students navigated an engineering design cycle, analyzed and designed social environments, and crossed disciplinary domains through HCR design—using a phenomena, mechanisms, components framework (PMC) to explore systems thinking. Phenomena refers to attention to the function of the robotic technology in the classroom environment. Components included a focus on single parts of the robot, while mechanism addressed how parts of the robot worked together. This qualitative case study demonstrates the capacity social robotics and inquiry-based learning experiences hold for broadening notions of STEM as a social and multidisciplinary learning domain.
KeywordsHuman-centered robotics STEM education Problem-based learning Sociotechnical systems Engineering design cycle Qualitative case study
We acknowledge the contributions of Haley Molchan, Stella Huang, Charlie Mahoney, AnnaRose Girvin, Miranda Meade, and Ben Oistad who played a key role in the implementation of our curriculum.
This research was funded by National Science Foundation awards DRL-1433414 and DRL-1433841.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no other conflicts of interest.
All participants and their parents/guardians agreed to participate in this study and submitted informed consent forms.
- 2.Weinberg JB, Pettibone JC, Thomas SL, Stephen ML, Stein C (2007) The impact of robot projects on girls’ attitudes toward science and engineering. In: Robotics science and systems (RSS) workshop on research in robots for education. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30 June 2007Google Scholar
- 3.Mataric MJ, Koenig NP, Feil-Seifer D (2007) Materials for enabling hands-on robotics and STEM Education. In: AAAI spring symposium: semantic scientific knowledge integration, pp 99–102Google Scholar
- 4.Williams D, Ma Y, Prejean L (2010) A preliminary study exploring the use of fictional narrative in robotics activities. J Comput Math Sci Teach 29(1):51–71Google Scholar
- 5.Robinson LE, Whittier M (2007) Teaching evolution to non-English proficient students by using Lego robotics. Am Second Educ 35(3):19–28Google Scholar
- 7.Hamner E, Lauwers T, Bernstein D, Nourbakhsh IR, DiSalvo CF (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, pp 38–43Google Scholar
- 12.DiSalvo C, Nourbakhsh I, Holstius D, Akin A, Louw M (2008) The neighborhood networks project: a case study of critical engagement and creative expression through participatory design. In: Proceedings of the 10th conference on participatory design, Indiana University, pp 41–50Google Scholar
- 14.Turkle S, Papert S (1992) Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the concrete. J Math Behav 11(1):3–33Google Scholar
- 21.NGSS Lead States (2013) Next generation science standards: for states, by states. http://www.nextgenscience.org/get-to-know
- 22.Resnick M (2007) All I really need to know (about creative thinking) I learned (by studying how children learn) in kindergarten. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI conference on creativity and cognition. ACM, pp 1–6Google Scholar
- 23.Danish JA, Gresalfi MS (2018) Cognitive and sociocultural perspective on learning: tensions and synergy in the learning sciences. In: Fischer F, Hmelo-Silver CE, Goldman SR, Reimann, P (eds) International handbook of the learning sciences. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 24.Castanheira ML, Green JL, Yeager E (2009) Investigating inclusive practices: an interactional ethnographic approach. In: Kumpulainen K, Hmelo-Silver CE, César M (eds) Investigating classroom interaction: methodologies in action. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp 145–178Google Scholar
- 29.Kolodner JL (2002) Facilitating the learning of design practices: lessons learned from an inquiry into science education. J Ind Teach Educ 39(3):3. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v39n3/kolodner.html