Advertisement

Programming Human-Robot Interactions in Middle School: The Role of Mobile Input Modalities in Embodied Learning

  • Alexandros Merkouris
  • Konstantinos Chorianopoulos
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 725)

Abstract

Embodiment within robotics can serve as an innovative approach to attracting students to computer programming. Nevertheless, there is a limited number of empirical studies in authentic classroom environments to support this assumption. In this study, we explored the synergy between embodied learning and educational robotics through a series of programming activities. Thirty-six middle school students were asked to create applications for controlling a robot using diverse interaction modalities, such as touch, speech, hand and full body gestures. We measured students’ preferences, views, and intentions. Furthermore, we evaluated students’ interaction modalities selections during a semi-open problem-solving task. The results revealed that students felt more confident about their programming skills after the activities. Moreover, participants chose interfaces that were attractive to them and congruent to the programming tasks.

Keywords

Embodied learning Educational robotics Experiment Children Human-robot interaction 

References

  1. 1.
    Alimisis, D.: Educational robotics: open questions and new challenges. Themes Sci. Technol. Educ. 6(1), 63–71 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allen-Conn, B.J., Rose, K.: Powerful ideas in the classroom using squeak to enhance math and science learning. Viewpoints Research Institute, Inc. (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barsalou, L.W.: Grounded cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59, 617–645 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benitti, F.B.V.: Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: a systematic review. Comput. Educ. 58(3), 978–988 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bers, M.U.: The TangibleK robotics program: applied computational thinking for young children. Early Child. Res. Pract. 12(2), n2 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daily, S.B., Leonard, A.E., Jörg, S., Babu, S., Gundersen, K.: Dancing alice: exploring embodied pedagogical strategies for learning computational thinking. In: Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pp. 91–96. ACM, March 2014Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fadjo, C.L., Hallman Jr., G., Harris, R., Black, J.B.: Surrogate embodiment, mathematics instruction and video game programming. In: EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology, pp. 2787–2792. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), June 2009Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fleming, N.D.: I’m different; not dumb. Modes of presentation (VARK) in the tertiary classroom. In: Research and Development in Higher Education, Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Conference of the Higher Education and Research Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA), vol. 18, pp. 308–313, July 1995Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grover, S., Pea, R.: Using a discourse-intensive pedagogy and android’s app inventor for introducing computational concepts to middle school students. In: Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pp. 723–728. ACM, March 2013Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Han, I., Black, J.B.: Incorporating haptic feedback in simulation for learning physics. Comput. Educ. 57(4), 2281–2290 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Howell, S.: Kinect2Scratch, Version 2.5 [Computer Software] (2012). http://scratch.saorog.com
  12. 12.
    Jacob, R.J., Girouard, A., Hirshfield, L.M., Horn, M.S., Shaer, O., Solovey, E.T., Zigelbaum, J.: Reality-based interaction: a framework for post-WIMP interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 201–210. ACM, April 2008Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnson-Glenberg, M.C., Megowan-Romanowicz, C., Birchfield, D.A., Savio-Ramos, C.: Effects of embodied learning and digital platform on the retention of physics content: Centripetal force. Front. Psychol. 7, 1819 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kontra, C., Lyons, D.J., Fischer, S.M., Beilock, S.L.: Physical experience enhances science learning. Psychol. Sci. 26(6), 737–749 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lindgren, R., Tscholl, M., Wang, S., Johnson, E.: Enhancing learning and engagement through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation. Comput. Educ. 95, 174–187 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lu, C.M., Kang, S., Huang, S.C., Black, J.B.: Building student understanding and interest in science through embodied experiences with LEGO robotics. In: EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology, pp. 2225–2232. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), June 2011Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oviatt, S., Cohen, A., Miller, A., Hodge, K., Mann, A.: The impact of interface affordances on human ideation, problem solving, and inferential reasoning. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. (TOCHI) 19(3), 22 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Papert, S.: Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books Inc., New York (1980)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parmar, D., Isaac, J., Babu, S.V., D’Souza, N., Leonard, A.E., Jörg, S., Gundersen, K., Daily, S.B.: Programming moves: design and evaluation of applying embodied interaction in virtual environments to enhance computational thinking in middle school students. In: Virtual Reality (VR), pp. 131–140. IEEE, March 2016Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Piaget, J.: The Construction of Reality in the Child, vol. 82. Routledge, Abingdon (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sung, W., Ahn, J., Kai, S.M., Black, J.B.: Effective planning strategy in robotics education: an embodied approach. In: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, pp. 1065–1071. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), March 2017Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wilson, M.: Six views of embodied cognition. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 9(4), 625–636 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhong, B., Wang, Q., Chen, J., Li, Y.: An exploration of three-dimensional integrated assessment for computational thinking. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 53(4), 562–590 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhu, K., Ma, X., Wong, G.K.W., Huen, J.M.H.: How different input and output modalities support coding as a problem-solving process for children. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pp. 238–245. ACM, June 2016Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, a part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandros Merkouris
    • 1
  • Konstantinos Chorianopoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsIonian UniversityCorfuGreece

Personalised recommendations