Advertisement

“CREA”: An Inquiry-Based Methodology to Teach Robotics to Children

  • Maria Blancas
  • Cristina Valero
  • Anna Mura
  • Vasiliki Vouloutsi
  • Paul F. M. J. VerschureEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1023)

Abstract

Learning programming and robotics offers the opportunity to practice problem-solving, creativity, and team-work and it provides important competencies to train for the 21st century. However, programming can be challenging, and children may encounter difficulties in learning the syntax or using the coding environment. To address this issue, we have developed a methodology for teaching programming, design and robotics based on inquiry-based learning and hands-on oriented activities together with visual programming. We have applied and evaluated this new methodology within the extracurricular activity of an international elementary school in Barcelona. Our findings showed acquisition and learning of technical language, understanding of electronics devices, understanding the mapping of coding into action via the robot’s behavior. This suggests that our approach is a valid and effective teaching methodology for the instructional design of robotics and programming.

Keywords

Educational technology Instructional design Robotics 

References

  1. 1.
    Chaudhary, V., Agrawal, V., Sureka, P., Sureka, A.: An experience report on teaching programming and computational thinking to elementary level children using lego robotics education kit. In: Proceedings - IEEE 8th International Conference on Technology for Education, T4E 2016, pp. 38–41 (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kalelioğlu, F.: A new way of teaching programming skills to K-12 students: Code.org. Comput. Hum. Behav. 52, 200–210 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bers, M.U.: Coding as a Playground. Routledge, Abingdon (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Petre, M., Price, B.: Using Robotics to Motivate ‘Back Door’ Learning. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tanja, K., et al.: Generation NXT: building young engineers with LEGOs. IEEE Trans. Educ. 53(1), 80–87 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Varney, M.W., Janoudi, A., Aslam, D.M., Graham, D.: Building young engineers: TASEM for third graders in woodcreek magnet elementary school. IEEE Trans. Educ. 55, 78–82 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kelleher, C., Pausch, R.: Lowering the barriers to programming: a survey of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 37(2), 83–137 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cockburn, A., Bryant, A.: Leogo: an equal opportunity user interface for programming. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 8(5–6), 601–619 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wing, J.M.: Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 366(1881), 3717–3725 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kazimoglu, C., Kiernan, M., Bacon, L., MacKinnon, L.: Understanding computational thinking before programming. Int. J. Game-Based Learn. 1(3), 30–52 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smith, A.C.: Using magnets in physical blocks that behave as programming objects. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible Embedded Interaction - TEI 2007, p. 147 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhang, J.X., Liu, L., de Pablos, P.O., She, J.H.: The auxiliary role of information technology in teaching: enhancing programming course using alice. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 30(3), 560–565 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Radenski, A.: Freedom of choice as motivational factor for active learning. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 41(3), 21 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guzdial, M.: Paving the way for computational thinking. Commun. ACM 51(8), 25 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barker, B.S., Ansorge, J.: Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 1523(June), 229–243 (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chambers, J., Carbonaro, M., Murray, H.: Developing conceptual understanding of mechanical advantage through the use of Lego robotic technology. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 24(4), 387–401 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karahoca, D., Karahoca, A., Uzunboylu, H.: Robotics teaching in primary school education by project based learning for supporting science and technology courses. Procedia Comput. Sci. 3, 1425–1431 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Blancas
    • 1
    • 4
  • Cristina Valero
    • 1
  • Anna Mura
    • 1
  • Vasiliki Vouloutsi
    • 1
  • Paul F. M. J. Verschure
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Synthetic Perceptive Emotive Cognitive Systems (SPECS) GroupInstitute for Bioengineering of Catalonia (IBEC)BarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies (ICREA)BarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology (BIST)BarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.Pompeu Fabra University (UPF)BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations