Effectiveness of Physical Robot Versus Robot Simulator in Teaching Introductory Programming

This study reports the use of a physical robot and robot simulator in an introductory programming course in a university and measures students' programming background conceptual learning gain and learning experience. One group used physical robots in their lessons to complete programming assignments, while the other group used robot simulators. We are interested in finding out if there is any difference in the learning gain and experiences between those that use physical robots as compared to robot simulators. Our results suggest that there is no significant difference in terms of students' learning between the two approaches. However, the control group that uses the physical robot shows a more positive response in their attitudes towards computing. We discuss the implications of our findings in relation to engaging students and challenges in using physical robots from the learner perspectives and ways to alleviate this. Finally, by considering the insights from students' comments, we also suggest an alternative that may give both benefits of using both physical robots and robot simulators.

[1]  Yuxin Ma,et al.  Acquisition of Physics Content Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry Skills in a Robotics Summer Camp , 2007 .

[2]  Rodolfo Azevedo,et al.  Developing a Computer Science Concept Inventory for Introductory Programming , 2016, SIGCSE.

[3]  Jeannette M. Wing An introduction to computer science for non-majors using principles of computation , 2007, SIGCSE.

[4]  Francesco Mondada,et al.  Thymio II, a robot that grows wiser with children , 2013, 2013 IEEE Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts.

[5]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Systematic literature review: teaching novices programming using robots , 2011, IET Softw..

[6]  Seymour Papert,et al.  Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas , 1981 .

[7]  Barbara M. Moskal,et al.  Examining science and engineering students' attitudes toward computer science , 2009, 2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

[8]  Florence R. Sullivan Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding , 2008 .

[9]  Gwen Nugent,et al.  The use of digital manipulatives in k-12: robotics, GPS/GIS and programming , 2009, 2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

[10]  Thiemo Leonhardt,et al.  The Effect of Tangible Artifacts, Gender and Subjective Technical Competence on Teaching Programming to Seventh Graders , 2009, ISSEP.

[11]  David J. Barnes,et al.  Teaching introductory Java through LEGO MINDSTORMS models , 2002, SIGCSE '02.

[12]  Cheng-Chih Wu,et al.  Visualization of Program Behaviors: Physical Robots Versus Robot Simulators , 2008, ISSEP.

[13]  Octavio Ortiz Ortiz,et al.  Innovative Mobile Robot Method: Improving the Learning of Programming Languages in Engineering Degrees , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Education.

[14]  Fabiane Barreto Vavassori Benitti,et al.  Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[15]  Barry S. Fagin,et al.  Measuring the effectiveness of robots in teaching computer science , 2003, SIGCSE.

[16]  Ghazi Shukur,et al.  The Effect of LEGO Training on Pupils' School Performance in Mathematics, Problem Solving Ability and Attitude: Swedish Data , 2006, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[17]  Bradley S. Barker,et al.  Robotics as Means to Increase Achievement Scores in an Informal Learning Environment , 2007 .

[18]  Huseyin Bicen,et al.  Does the Inclusion of Robots Affect Engineering Students’ Achievement in Computer Programming Courses? , 2017 .

[19]  Illah R. Nourbakhsh,et al.  CSbots: design and deployment of a robot designed for the CS1 classroom , 2009, SIGCSE '09.