Advertisement

Developing Extended Real and Virtual Robotics Enhancement Classes with Years 10–13

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 457)

Abstract

There is growing evidence of the potential of educational robotics to enhance science, technology, engineering and mathematics education provided that they are deployed carefully. This paper describes a developmental research project between a university and a secondary school in the UK to develop extended robotics enhancement classes, mainly using LEGO MINDSTORMS robotic kits, and GeoGebra, which was used to animate virtual robots. Two styles of class were deployed: student-led project creations and facilitator-led challenges. The pedagogical principles underpinning these classes and their design are discussed. Feedback generally indicated that the classes were successful and appreciated by the students but they experienced difficulties in incorporating the virtual robotic element. Lessons learnt from the project, including the development of employability skills, the potential impact on students with autism, and the effective use of peer students, are discussed. The possibility of combining the two styles of class together is proposed.

Keyword

Developmental research Learning by design STEM education Robotic kits LEGO MINDSTORMS Virtual robotics Geogebra Employability skills 

References

  1. 1.
    Sanders, M.: STEM, STEM Education, STEMmania. The Tech. Teach. 68(4), 20–26 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Friedman, T.: The World is flat: a brief history of the twenty-first century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roberts, G.G.: SET for Success: The Supply of People with Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Skills: The Report of Sir Gareth Roberts’ Review. HM Treasury, London (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Becker, F.S.: Why don’t young people want to become engineers? Rational reasons for disappointing decisions. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 35(4), 349–366 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Henriksen, E.K., Dillon, J., Ryder, J. (eds.): Understanding Student Participation and Choice in Science and Technology Education. Springer, Dordrecht (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sjøberg S., Schreiner C.: The ROSE Project: An Overview and Key Findings. Technical report, University of Oslo (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mann A, Oldknow A.: School-industry STEM links in the UK: a report commissioned by Futurelab. Education and Employers (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Network: Top 10 Employability Skills. http://www.exeter.ac.uk/ambassadors/HESTEM/resources/General/STEMNET%20Employability%20skills%20guide.pdf
  9. 9.
    Kudenko, I., Gras-Velázquez, À.: The Future of European STEM Workforce: What Secondary School Pupils of Europe Think About STEM Industry and Careers. In: Papadouris, N., Hadjigeorgiou, A., Constantinou, C. (eds.) Insights from Research in Science Teaching and Learning. Contributions from Science Education Research, vol. 2, pp. 223–236. Springer, Berlin (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Adams, J., Kaczmarczyk, S., Picton, P., Demian, P.: Problem solving and creativity in engineering: conclusions of a three year project involving reusable learning objects and robots. Eng. Educ. 5(2), 4–17 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Robinson, K.: RSA animate—changing education paradigms (2008). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U
  12. 12.
    Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., Paris, A.H.: School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev. Educ. Res. 74(1), 59–109 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Samuels, P.C., Maitland, K.: Redefining maths learning technologies: putting the curriculum into the fun. In: 1st HEA Annual Conference on Aiming for Excellence in STEM Learning and Teaching. Higher Education Academy, London (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haapasalo, L., Samuels, P.C.: Five recommendations for mathematical learning technologies from the learner’s perspective. Submitted to Ed. Tech. Res. & DevGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Melchior, A., Cohen, F., Cutter, T., Leavitt, T.: More than Robots: An Evaluation of the FIRST Robotics Competition Participant and Institutional Impacts. Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Benitti, F.B.V.: Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: a systematic review. Comput. Educ. 58(3), 978–988 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kandlhofer, M., Steinbauer, G.: Evaluating the impact of educational robotics on pupils’ technical—and social-skills and science related attitudes. Rob. Auton. Syst. 75, 679–685 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eronen, L., Haapasalo, L.: Making mathematics through progressive technology. In: Sriraman, B., Bergsten, C., Goodchild, S., Palsdottir, G., Dahl, B., Haapasalo, L. (eds.) The First Sourcebook on Nordic Research in Mathematics Education, pp. 701–710. Information Age, Charlotte, NC (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Samuels, P.C.: Motivating mathematics learning through an integrated technology enhanced learning environment. Int. J. Tech. Math. Educ. 17(4), 197–203 (2010)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Jaworski, B.: Challenge and support in Undergraduate Mathematics for Engineers in a GeoGebra Medium. MSOR Connect. 10(1), 10–14 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jaworski, B.: Developmental research in mathematics teaching and learning: developing learning communities based on inquiry and design. In: Liljedahl, P. (ed.) Proceedings of the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group, pp. 3–16. University of Calgary (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haapasalo, L., Samuels, P.C.: Responding to the challenges of instrumental orchestration through physical and virtual robotics. Comput. Educ. 57(2), 1484–1492 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Papert, S.: Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books, New York (1980)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Burdea, G.C.: Invited review: the synergy between virtual reality and robotics. IEEE Trans. Rob. Autom. 15(3), 400–410 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Catlin, D., Blamires, M.: The Principles of Educational Robotic Applications (ERA): a framework for understanding and developing educational robots and their activities. In: Clayson, J.E., Kalas̆, I. (eds.) Proceedings for Constructionism 2010: the 12th EuroLogo Conference, Paris (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Eisenberg, M.: Mindstuff: educational technology beyond the computer. Convergence 9(2), 29–53 (2003)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kolodner, J.L., Crismond, D., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S.: Learning by design from theory to practice. Proc. Int. Conf. Learn. Sci. 98, 16–22 (1998)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cropley, D.H., Cropley, A.J.: Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates. High Abil. Stud. 11(2), 207–219 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Strijbos, J.W., Martens, R.L., Jochems, W.M.: Designing for interaction: six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Comput. Educ. 42(4), 403–424 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Atmatzidou, S., Demetriadis, S.: Evaluating the role of collaboration scripts as group guiding tools in activities of educational robotics: conclusions from three case studies. In: IEEE 12th International Conference Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), pp. 298–302. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Topping, K.J.: Trends in peer learning. Educ. Psych. 25(6), 631–645 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Samuels, P.C., Haapasalo, L.: Real and virtual robotics in mathematics education at the school-university transition. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Tech. 43(3), 285–301 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rinderknecht, M.: Tutorial for Programming the LEGO® MINDSTORMS™ NXT. http://www.legoengineering.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/download-tutorial-pdf-2.4MB.pdf
  35. 35.
    Samuels, P.C.: Animation of a Robot Moving through Three Points. http://www.geogebra.org/material/simple/id/2807809
  36. 36.
    Jones, A., Issroff, K.: Learning technologies: affective and social issues in computer-supported collaborative learning. Comput. Educ. 44(4), 395–408 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Costa, S., Resende, J., Soares, F.O., Ferreira, M.J., Santos, C.P., Moreira, F.: Applications of simple robots to encourage social receptiveness of adolescents with autism. In: 31st IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society Conference, pp. 5072–5075. IEEE, Minneapolis (2009)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dautenhahn, K., Werry, I.: Towards Interactive Robots in Autism Therapy: Background, Motivation and Challenges. Pragmat. Cognitive 12(1), 1–35 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Academic SuccessBirmingham City UniversityBirminghamUK
  2. 2.Lawrence Sheriff SchoolRugbyUK

Personalised recommendations