Establishing Meta-Learning Metrics When Programming Mindstorms EV3 Robots

Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 620)

Abstract

Recently, wider issues of social relationships, contexts, feelings and personal goals have been recognized as impacting upon learning. Moreover, as the Higher Education paradigm appears to be shifting towards students as consumers, there is added pressure on academics to ensure students evaluate and subsequently ‘make sense’ of their educational experiences. This has been termed ‘meta-learning’ but there has been little research on meta-learning compared to the more recognized cognitive science term of metacognition. The paper describes a project in a Japanese university where meta-learning was promoted among first-year Systems Information Science students learning to program LEGO Mindstorms EV3 robots. Students were engaged in a collaborative, creative cycle termed TKF (Tsukutte つくって- Create)/Katatte かたって- Share)/FurikaeruOpen image in new window- Reflect) to build and program robots to solve systematic problems. This paper will demonstrate that learners actively engaged in iteratively challenging robot-mediated interactive tasks can develop generic, declarative and epistemic competencies, with a consequential development of meta-learning.

Keywords

Competencies Meta-learning Programming Systems Information Science Robots 

References

  1. 1.
    Papert, S.: Mindstorms. Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vygotsky, L.: Thought and Language. MIT Press, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dede, C.: The evolution of distance education: Emerging technologies and distributed learning. Am. J. Distance Educ. 10(2), 4–36 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cafolla, R.: The Relationship of Piagetian formal Operations and other cognitive factors to computer programming ability. Dissertations Abstr. A47(7), 2506 (1987)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Piaget, J.: Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adult. Hum. Dev. 15, 1–12 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gluga, R., Kay, J., Lister, R., Kleitman, S.: Mastering cognitive development theory in computer science education. Comput. Sci. Educ. 23(1), 24–57 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Morra, S., Gobbo, C., Marini, Z., Sheese, R.: Cognitive Development: Neo-Piagetian Perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc Inc., Abingdon (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lau, W.W.F., Yuen, A.H.K.: Exploring the effects of gender and learning styles on computer programming performance: implications for programming pedagogy. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 40(4), 696–712 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen, L.: Web based learning programs: used by learners with various cognitive style. Comput. Educ. 54(4), 1028–1035 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    White, G., Ploeger, F.: Cognitive characteristics for learning visual basic. J. Comput. Inform. Syst. (JCIS) 44(3), 58–66 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Siegmund, J., Kastner, C., Apel, S., Parnin, C., Bethmann, A., Leich, T., Saake, G., Brechmann, A.: Understanding Understanding Source Code with Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, ICSE 2014, May 31–June 7, Hyderabad, India (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Katz, S., Albritton, D., Aronis, J., Wilson, C., Soffa, M.L.: Gender, achievement, and persistence in an undergraduate computer science program. Database Adv. Inform. Syst. 37(4), 42–57 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mima, N., Yamauchi, Y.: Design for Learning Environments: Space, Activity and Community. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Honey, M., Kanter, D.E.: Design, Make, Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators. Routledge, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hase, S.: Learner defined curriculum: heutagogy and action learning in vocational training. Southern Institute of Technology Journal of Applied Research. http://sitjar.sit.ac.nz/SITJAR/Special. Accessed 27 Aug 2014
  16. 16.
    Turkle, S., Papert, S.: Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the concrete. In: Harel, I., Papert, S. (eds.) Constructionism, pp. 161–191. Ablex Publishing, Norwood (1991)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Martin, S., Vallance, M.: The impact of synchronous inter-networked teacher training in Information and Communication Technology integration. Comput. Educ. 51, 34–53 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goodyear, P.: Psychological foundations for networked learning. In: Steeples, C., Jones, C. (eds.) Networked Learning: Perspectives and Issues. Springer Verlag, London (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morrison, D., Collins, A.: Epistemic fluency and constructivist learning environments. In: Wilson, B.G. (ed.) Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design, pp. 107–119. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Resnick, M.: All I Really Need to Know (About Creative Thinking) I Learned (By Studying How Children Learn) in Kindergarten. In: ACM Creativity & Cognition Conference, Washington DC (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ueda, N.: ワークショップ―新しい学びと創造の場 (Workshop – new learning and creation of place). Iwanami Shoten, Japan (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vallance, M., Naamani, C., Thomas, M., Thomas, J.: Applied information science research in a virtual world simulation to support robot mediated interaction following the fukushima nuclear disaster. Commun. Inform. Sci. Manage. Eng. (CISME) 3(5), 222–232 (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lui, A.K., Ng, S.C., Cheung, H.Y., Gurung, P.: Facilitating independent leaning with LEGO Mindstorms robots. ACM Inroads 1(4), 49–53 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Popelka, M., Nožička, J.: Lego mindstorms as a simulation of robotic systems. Int. J. Comput. Control Quantum Inform. Eng. 8(7) (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Catlin, D., Blamires, M.: The principles of educational robotic applications (ERA). In Constructionism 2010: Constructionist Approaches to Creative Learning, Thinking and Education: Lessons for the 21st Century, Proceedings for Constructionism 2010: The 12th EuroLogo Conference, Paris (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Turner, S.J., Hill, G.: Robotics within the teaching of problem-solving. ITALICS Innov. Teach. Learn. Inform. Comput. Sci. 7(108), 119 (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lew, M.W., Horton, T.B., Sherriff, M.S.: Using LEGO MINDSTORMS NXT and LEJOS in an advanced software engineering course. In: 23rd IEEE Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T), Pittsburgh, pp. 121–128 (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vallance, M., Martin, S., Naamani, C.: A situation that we had never imagined: post-Fukushima virtual collaborations for determining robot task metrics. Int. J. Learn. Technol. 10(1), 30–49 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    Vallance, M., Goto, Y.: Learning by TKF to promote computational participation in Japanese education. In: Proceedings of 43rd International Conference on Engineering Pedagogy, 20–24 September, Florence, Italy (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Media ArchitectureFuture University HakodateHakodateJapan

Personalised recommendations