You are here:

Integrating Robotics and Programming as Cognitive-Learning Tools: Meeting Disciplinary Learning Objectives
PROCEEDING

, Frederick University, Cyprus

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Austin, TX, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-27-8 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

Robotics and programming integration as cognitive-learning tools, in selected teaching cases exploits its full potential; therefore, it upgrades and enhances the teaching and learning process and promotes school transformation. Employing a case study approach, the current study examines how robotics and computer programming can be integrated within the elementary teaching practice (2nd to 6th grade) in order to achieve learning objectives across disciplines beyond STEM (8 teachers and 169 students participated at the study). Results are discussed taking into account class size, robotics package used, teacher age, gender, experience and teacher digital literacy/ comfort level with technology. The innovative educational robotics curriculum developed by the Robotics Academy provides the theoretical and educational framework to achieve the above.

Citation

Eteokleous, N. (2017). Integrating Robotics and Programming as Cognitive-Learning Tools: Meeting Disciplinary Learning Objectives. In P. Resta & S. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1545-1551). Austin, TX, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved September 24, 2022 from .

© 2017 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Bauerle, A. & Gallagher, M. (2003). Toying With Technology: Bridging the Gap between Education and Engineering. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference 2003 (pp. 3538-3541). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  2. Becker, H.J. (1993). Teaching with and about computers in secondary schools. Association for Computing Machinery, 36(5), 69-55.
  3. Becker, H.J., & Ravitz, J.L. (2001, March). Computer Use by Teachers: Are Cuban’s Predictions Correct? Paper presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Assosiation, Seattle, WA.
  4. Bers, M.U. (2010). The TangibleK Robotics Program: Applied Computational Thinking for Young Children. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 12(2).
  5. Bers, M., Matas. J., & Libman, N. (2013). Linvot U’Lehibanot, To Build and to be Built: Making Robots in Kindergarten to Explore Jewish Identity. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education: Studies of Migration, Integration, Equity, and Cultural Survival, 7(2), 164-179.
  6. Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999).Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. Reigeluth (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 269-292). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  7. Benitti, F. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers& Education, 58(3), 978-988.
  8. Bernstein, D., Mutch-Jones, K., Cassidy, M., Hamner, E., & Cross, J. (2016). Robots and Romeo and Juliet: Studying Teacher Integration of Robotics into Middle School Curricula, Paper presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Assosiation, Washington, DC.
  9. Chambers, J.M. & Carbonaro, M. (2003). Designing, Developing, and Implementing a Course on LEGO Robotics for Technology Teacher Education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(2), 209241.
  10. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2008). Research methods in education (5th ed.) London: Routledge.
  11. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (2003). Connecting learning theory and instructional practices: Leveraging some powerful affordances of technology. In H.O’Neil & P. Perez (Eds.) Technology application in Education: A learning view (pp.173-209).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  12. Cuban, L., & Pea, R. (1998, February).The Pros and Cons of Te1chnology in the Classroom. Paper presented at the Funder’s Learning Community Meeting Palo Alto, CA.
  13. Creemers, B.P.M., & Kyriakides, L. (2010). School factors explaining achievement on cognitive and affective outcomes: Establishing a dynamic model of educational effectiveness. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54(1), 263-294.
  14. Eguchi, A. (2007). Educational Robotics for Elementary School Classroom. In R. Carlsen et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp. 2542-2549). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  15. Eteokleous, N. (2015). Employing Educational Robotics for the Development of Problem-Based Learning Skills. Paper presented at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
  16. Eteokleous, N. (2016). Developing 21 st Century Skills Through an Educational Robotics Curriculum. Paper presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
  17. Eteokleous, N., Demetriou, A.Y., & Stylianou, A. (2013). The Pedagogical Framework for Integrating Robotics as an Interdisciplinary Learning– Cognitive Tool. In J.Roselli & E. Gulick (Eds.), Information and Communications Technology: New Research, (pp. 141-158), Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
  18. Haugland, W.S. (2000). Early Childhood classrooms in the 21 st century: Using Computers Maximize Learning. Young Children, 12-18.
  19. Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Constructionism. NJ: Ablex.
  20. Gura, M. (2011). Getting started with Lego Robotics: Α guide for K-12 Educators. VA: ISTE.
  21. Jonassen, D.H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking (2nd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  22. Kassotaki, S., & Roussos, P. (2006). The Greek Computer Self-Efficacy Scale. Proceedings of the 5th Panhellenic Conference ICT in Education (726–733), Thessaloniki. (in Greek)
  23. Kazakoff, E., & Bers, M. (2012). Programming in a robotics context in the kindergarten classroom: The impact on sequencing skills. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 21(4), 371-391.
  24. Kazakoff, E.R. & Bers, M.U. (2014). Put your robot in, Put your robot out: Sequencing through programming robots in early childhood. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(4).
  25. Maykut, P. & Morehouse, R. (1994).Beginning Qualitative Research, A Philosophic and Practical Guide. London, Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.
  26. Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. (2009). The use of digital manipulatives in k-12: robotics, GPS/GIS and programming. In Frontiers in education conference, 2009. FIE ’09. 39th IEEE (pp. 1–
  27. Papert, S. (1986). Constructionism: A New Opportunity for Elementary Science Education. A MIT proposal to the National Science Foundation.
  28. Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas (2nd ed.). New York, NY: BasicBooks.
  29. Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J.L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching and Teacher Education, 42(2), 185-217.
  30. Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Eisenberg, M. (2000). Beyond black boxes: Bringing transparency and aesthetics back to scientific investigation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(1), 7-30.
  31. Sullivan, A., & Bers, M.U. (2015). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: learning outcomes from an 8week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade, International Journal of Technology, 26 (1), 3-20.
  32. Sullivan, F.R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: thinking skills, science process skills, and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (3), 373 – 394.
  33. Sullivan, F.R. & Moriarty, M.A. (2009). Robotics and Discovery Learning: Pedagogical Beliefs, Teacher Practice, and Technology Integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(1), 109-142.
  34. Williams, D., Ma, Y., Prejean, L., Lai, G., & Ford, M. (2007). Acquisition of physics content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills in a robotics summer camp. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 201–216.
  35. Williams, D., Ma, Y. & Prejean, L. (2010). A Preliminary Study Exploring the Use of Fictional Narrative in Robotics Activities. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29 (1), 51-71. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  36. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Table 1 A/A Educators Grade Disciplines Duration Number of students

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Slides

Also Read

Related Collections