Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using a Multifaceted Robotics-Based Intervention to Increase Student Interest in STEM Subjects and Careers

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal for STEM Education Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of a robotics-based intervention on elementary-aged students’ interest in STEM subjects and careers. Participants were thirty-seven second and third grade students from two classrooms at an elementary school in the Southeastern United States. Action research was used to examine a multifaceted, constructionist, and robotics-based intervention that included weekly WeDo Lego Robotics building and coding sessions facilitated by trained STEM-speaking adults to scaffold students’ interest in STEM subjects and careers, a classroom STEM learning center, and student participation in a robotics showcase. The intervention was found to have a positive impact on students’ interest in STEM subjects and careers. This study provides practitioners with a multifaceted robotics-based intervention that can be integrated into elementary classrooms in as little as two hours per week for sixteen weeks and result in student acquisition of positive attitudes toward STEM subjects and careers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barak, M., & Zadok, Y. (2009). Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology and problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 289–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, B., & Ansorge, J. (2007). Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 229–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, L. (1983). Learning centers in the classroom. Middle School Journal, 14(2), 17–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers in Education, 72, 145–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Paper presented at Annual American Educational Research Association Meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

  • Brick, B. (1975). Stations for learning. Language Arts, 52(8), 1145–1146 1158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Melton, M. (2011). STEM: Science technology engineering mathematics. In Executive summary Retrieved from https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/stem/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J., & Miller, D. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drozda, M. B., & Seaberg, D. I. (1978). Centers work with college students too! The Elementary School Journal, 79(1), 23–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eguchi, A. (2014). Robotics as a learning tool for educational transformation. Proceedings of 4th International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics & 5th International Conference Robotics in Education (pp. 27-34), Padova, Italy.

  • Eguchi, A. (2016). RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 692–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.05.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, V. (2018). Thinking about the coding process in qualitative data analysis. The Qualitative Report, 23(11), 2850–2861. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss11/14

  • Friday Institute for Educational Innovation. (2012). Student attitudes toward STEM survey: Upper elementary school students. Raleigh: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, M. A. (2016). Evaluation of a Lego WeDo robotics program for elementary-aged at-risk students. Unpublished manuscript: Author.

  • Jarrett, O. (2010). “Inventive” learning stations. Science and Children, 47(5), 56–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabatova, M., & Pekarova, J. (2010). Lessons learnt with LEGO Mindstorms: From beginner to teaching robotics. Retrieved from http://edi.fmph.uniba.sk/~kabatova/clanky/kabatova_pekarova_lego_rie2010.pdf.

  • Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer technology integration and student learning: Barriers and promise. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 560–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayerova, K. (2012). Pilot activities: LEGO WeDo at primary school. Proceedings of 3rd International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics Integrating Robotics in School Curriculum (pp. 32–39). April 20, 2012, Trento, Italy.

  • Mead, R. A., Thomas, S. L., & Weinberg, J. B. (2012). From grade school to grad school: An integrated STEM pipeline model through robotics. In B. S. Barker, G. Nugent, N. Grandgenett, & V. I. Adamchuk (Eds.), Robots in K-12 education: A new technology for learning (pp. 302–325). Hersey: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mikropoulos, T. A., & Bellou, I. (2013). Educational robotics as mindtools. Themes in Science & Technology Education, 6(1), 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., Al Mahmud, A., & Dong, J. (2013). A review of the applicability of robots in education. Technology for Education and Learning, 1, 209–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2015). Identifying and supporting productive STEM programs in out-of-school settings. Washington: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Impact of robotics and geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 391–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N. D., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorm: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In Constructionism. Norwood: Ablex Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html.

  • Petre, M., & Price, B. (2004). Using robotics to motivate “back door” learning. Education and Information Technologies, 9(2), 147–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, T., Jackson, C., Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Bush, S. B., Maiorca, C., Cavalcanti, M., & Cremeans, C. (2018). Students’ perceptions of STEM learning after participating in a summer informal learning experience. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0133-4.

  • Romero, E., Lopez, A., & Hernandez, O. (2012). A pilot study of robotics in elementary education. Paper presented at the Tenth Latin American and Caribbean Conference for Engineering and Technology, July 23–27, Panama City, Panama.

  • Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahin, A., Ayar, M. C., & Adiguzel, T. (2014). STEM related after-school program activities and associated outcomes on student learning. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 309–322. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.1.1876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, J. (2012). Qualitative research part II: Participants, analysis, and quality assurance. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(1), 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scaradozzi, D., Sorbi, L., Pedale, A., Valzano, M., & Vergine, C. (2015). Teaching robotics at the primary school: An innovative approach. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 3838–3846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • The LEGO Group (2009). Annual Report 09. Retrieved from https://www.lego.com/cdn/cs/aboutus/assets/blt2c9a79869f96e780/Annual_Report_2009_ENG.pdf

  • Tsupros, N., Kohler, R., & Hallinen, J. (2009). STEM Education in Southwestern Pennsylvania: Report of a project to identify the missing components. Unpublished report. Pittsburgh, PA: Intermediate unit 1 center for STEM education and Carnegie Mellon.

  • Turner, D. W. (2010). Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice investigators. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 754–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ucgul, M., & Cagiltay, K. (2014). Design and development issues for educational robotics training camps. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(2), 203–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unfried, A., Faber, M., Stanhope, D. S., & Wiebe, E. (2015). The development and validation of a measure of student attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and math (S-STEM). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(7), 622–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Snipes Academy of Arts & Design, New Hanover County Schools, 2150 Chestnut Street, Wilmington, NC, 28405, USA

    Mary-Alice Hudson

  2. Department of Educational Technology, Boise State University, Boise, ID, 83706, USA

    Youngkyun Baek, Yu-hui Ching & Kerry Rice

Authors
  1. Mary-Alice Hudson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Youngkyun Baek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yu-hui Ching
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kerry Rice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Youngkyun Baek.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hudson, MA., Baek, Y., Ching, Yh. et al. Using a Multifaceted Robotics-Based Intervention to Increase Student Interest in STEM Subjects and Careers. Journal for STEM Educ Res 3, 295–316 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00032-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00032-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation