Advertisement

The Role of Educational Technologist in Robot Supported Math Lessons

  • Janika LeosteEmail author
  • Mati Heidmets
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1092)

Abstract

The decision makers of educational systems in different countries have started to realize the importance of technology enhanced learning (TEL) in order to prepare students for the world of 4th Industrial Revolution. However, in the grass root level, teachers are still reluctant to implement technology into their lessons. In this paper we investigate the feedback from 134 Estonian teachers, each of whom conducted with the help of educational technologists up to 15 robot supported math lessons, in order to find out which supportive roles did educational technologists have in these lessons. The results show that educational technologist’s roles as a technical support person or a robotics teacher were more important during the first lessons, but the need for these roles faded fast. Instead, educational technologist’s role as an assistant teacher, explaining tasks and answering students’ questions, proved to have a greater importance, especially in the 3rd grade. Based on the results we suggest that in TEL lessons the subject teacher needs to be accompanied by an educational technologist who also has basic knowledge about the topic taught.

Keywords

Educational robots Technology enhanced learning Educational technologist Math 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 669074.

References

  1. 1.
    Schwab, K.: The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means, how to respond. World Economic Forum (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The Commonwealth of Australia: Australia’s National Science Statement. https://publications.industry.gov.au/publications/nationalsciencestatement/national-science-statement.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2019
  3. 3.
    European Commission: Employment and Social Developments in Europe Annual Review 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=19719&langId=en. Accessed 11 May 2019
  4. 4.
    Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Loveless, T.: 20 Years of TIMSS: International Trends in Mathematics and Science Achievement, Curriculum, and Instruction. Boston College, Chestnut Hill (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    OECD: The Future of Education and Skills. Education 2030. OECD Publishing (2018). https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf. Accessed 11 May 2019
  6. 6.
    Halonen, N., Hietajärvi, L., Lonka, K., Salmela-Aro, K.: Sixth graders’ use of technologies in learning, technology attitudes and school well-being. EJSBS XVIII (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bacchus, A.: New Microsoft research points to the declining interest of girls in STEM, ways to close the gender gap. OnMSFT (2018). https://www.onmsft.com/news/new-microsoft-research-points-to-the-declining-interest-of-girls-in-stem-ways-to-close-the-gender-gap. Accessed 11 May 2019
  8. 8.
    Elliott, J.: Action Research for Educational Change. Open University Press, Bristol (1991)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ernst & Young Global: Research Reveals Boys’ Interest in STEM Careers Declining; Girls’ Interest Unchanged. Ernst & Young Global Ltd (2018). https://www.ey.com/us/en/newsroom/news-releases/news-ey-research-reveals-boys-interest-in-stem-careers-declining-girls-interest-unchanged. Accessed 11 May 2019
  10. 10.
    The Star Online: Students taking up STEM subjects on decline last 10 years. Star Media Group Berhad (2018). https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/07/16/students-taking-up-stem-subjects-on-decline-last-10-years-ratio-of-science-to-arts-classes-reversed/. Accessed 11 May 2019
  11. 11.
    Grudin, J.: Innovation and Inertia: Information Technology and Education in the United States. IEEE Computer Society (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    OECD: Teaching for the Future. Effective Classroom Practices to Transform Education. OECD Publishing (2018). http://www.oecd.org/education/teaching-for-the-future-9789264293243-en.htm. Accessed 11 May 2019
  13. 13.
    Aypay, A., Çelik, H.C., Sever, M.: Technology acceptance in education: a study of pre-service teachers in Turkey. Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol. 11, 264–272 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Korthagen, F.: The gap between research and practice revisited. Educ. Res. Eval. 13(3), 303–310 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miller, M.D., Rainer, R.K., Corley, J.K.: Predictors of engagement and participation in an on-line course. Online J. Distance Learn. Adm. 6, 1–13 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Laferrière, T., Montane, M., Gros, B., Alvarez, I., Bernaus, M., Breuleux, A., Allaire, S., Hamel, C., Lamon, M.: Partnerships for knowledge building: an emerging model. Can. J. Learn. Technol. V36(1) (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Arhar, J., Niesz, T., Brossmann, J., Koebley, S., O’Brien, K., Loe, D., Black, F.: Creating a ‘third space’ in the context of a university–school partnership: supporting teacher action research and the research preparation of doctoral students. Educ. Action Res. 21(2), 218–236 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Erss, M., Kalmus, V.: Discourses of teacher autonomy and the role of teachers in Estonian, Finnish and Bavarian teachers’ newspapers in 1991-2010. Teach. Teach. Educ. 76, 95–105 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ley, T., Leoste, J., Poom-Valickis, K., Rodríguez-Triana, M.J., Gillet, D., Väljataga, T.: CEUR Workshop Proceedings (2018). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2190/CC-TEL_2018_paper_1.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2019
  20. 20.
    Acosta, A., Slotta, J.: CKBiology: an active learning curriculum design for secondary biology. Front. Educ. 3, 52 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Barker, B., Ansorge, J.: Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 39, 229–243 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Highfield, K., Mulligan, J., Hedberg, J.: Early mathematics learning through exploration with programmable toys. In: Figueras, O., Cortina, J.L., Alatorre, S., Rojano, T., Sepulveda, A., (eds.) Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of Pme 32 And Pme-Na Xxx, vol. 3, pp. 169–176. (PME Conference Proceedings). Cinvestav-UMSNH, Mexico (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kopcha, T.J., McGregor, J., Shin, S., Qian, Y., Choi, J., Hill, R., Mativo, J., Choi, I.: Developing an integrative STEM curriculum for robotics education through educational design research. J. Form. Des. Learn. 1, 31–44 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leoste, J., Heidmets, M.: Bringing an educational robot into a basic education math lesson. In: Robotics in Education - Current Research and Innovations. Springer (2019, in press)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lindh, J., Holgersson, T.: Does lego training stimulate pupils’ ability to solve logical problems? Comput. Educ. 49, 1097–1111 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Papert, S.: Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books, New York (1980)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Samuels, P., Haapasalo, L.: Real and virtual robotics in mathematics education at the school–university transition. Int. J. Math. Educ. 43, 285–301 (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Werfel, J.: Embodied teachable agents: learning by teaching robots. In: Conference Proceedings (2014). http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jkwerfel/nrfias14.pdf. Accessed 08 Nov 2018
  29. 29.
    HITSA: ProgeTiiger programmis toetuse saanud haridusasutused 2014–2018. https://www.hitsa.ee/ikt-haridus/progetiiger. Accessed 11 May 2019
  30. 30.
    Leppik, C., Haaristo, H.S., Mägi, E.: IKT-haridus: digioskuste õpetamine, hoiakud ja võimalused üldhariduskoolis ja lasteaias. Praxis (2017). http://www.praxis.ee/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/IKT-hariduse-uuring_aruanne_mai2017.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2019
  31. 31.
    Rasinen, A., Virtanen, S., Endepohls-Ulpe, M., Ikonen, P., Judith Ebach, J., Stahl-von Zabern, J.: Technology education for children in primary schools in Finland and Germany: different school systems, similar problems and how to overcome them. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 19, 367 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lorenz, B., Kikkas, K., Laanpere, M.: The role of educational technologist in implementing new technologies at school. In: Zaphiris, P., Ioannou, A. (eds.) Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Technology-Rich Environments for Learning and Collaboration, LCT 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8524. Springer, Cham (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Leoste, J., Heidmets, M.: Õpperobot matemaatikatunnis. Miks.ee. Estonian Research Council (2019). http://www.miks.ee/opetajale/uudised/opperobot-matemaatikatunnis. Accessed 11 May 2019
  34. 34.
    Leoste, J., Heidmets, M.: The impact of educational robots as learning tools on mathematics learning outcomes in basic education. In: Väljataga, T., Laanpere, M. (eds.) Digital Turn in Schools—Research, Policy, Practice. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. Springer, Singapore (2019)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Banke, J.: Technology Readiness Levels Demystified. NASA (2010)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Smith, C.: Artificial intelligence that can teach? It’s already happening. ABC Science (2018). http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-06-16/artificial-intelligence-that-can-teach-is-already-happening/9863574. Accessed 11 May 2019
  37. 37.
    Polega, M., Neto, R.C., Brilowski, R., Baker, K.: Principals and teamwork among teachers: an exploratory study. Revista@mbienteeducação, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 12–32 mai/ago. Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, São Paulo (2019)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tallinn UniversityTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations