Characteristics of learning computer-controlled mechanisms by teachers and students in a common laboratory environment

Growing popularity of robotics education motivates developing its didactics and studying it in teacher training programs. This paper presents a study conducted in the Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion, in which university students and school pupils cope with robotics challenges of designing, building and operating computer-controlled mechanisms. The university students were involved in developing robot prototypes and related instructional materials, and assisted in teaching robotics and guiding projects to middle school and high school pupils. The study focused on behaviors of the two groups of learners and aimed to elicit and analyze typical characteristics of learning in the developed robotics environment. We collected qualitative data on learning through robot design and experimentation activities and, by means of the ground theory method, elicited and analyzed typical behavioral characteristics of students’ and pupils’ learning: self-confidence, help, collaboration, interest, seriousness, self-dependence, learning effort, responsibility, coping with learning pressure, learning through observation, and perseverance. As found, the behavior characteristics evolve in the course of robotics studies and their evolution can give indication on the development of the desired competences.

[1]  David Kember,et al.  Characterising a teaching and learning environment conducive to making demands on students while not making their workload excessive , 2006 .

[2]  Igor M. Verner,et al.  School Graduation Project in Robot Design: A Case Study of Team Learning Experiences and Outcomes , 2003 .

[3]  E. Parkinson,et al.  Re-constructing the Construction Kit -- Re-constructing Childhood: A Synthesis of the Influences which have Helped to Give Shape and Form to Kit-based Construction Activities in the Primary School Classroom , 1999 .

[4]  Igor M. Verner,et al.  Conceptualising Educational Approaches in Introductory Robotics , 2004 .

[5]  A. Schoenfeld.  Learning to Think Mathematically: Problem Solving, Metacognition, and Sense Making in Mathematics (Reprint) , 2009 .

[6]  Kathryn Ley,et al.  Instructional principles for self-regulation , 2001 .

[7]  Chris Rogers,et al.  Kindergarten Robotics: Using Robotics to Motivate Math, Science, and Engineering Literacy in Elementary School* , 2006 .

[8]  Esa-Matti Jarvinen,et al.  The Lego/Logo Learning Environment in Technology Education: An Experiment in a Finnish Context , 1998 .

[9]  Susan E. Newman,et al.  Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Craft of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics. Technical Report No. 403. , 1987 .

[10]  Marina Umaschi Bers,et al.  Teachers as Designers: Integrating Robotics in Early Childhood Education. , 2002 .

[11]  Janet L. Kolodner,et al.  Learning by Design from Theory to Practice , 1998 .

[12]  K. Crowley,et al.  The Personal Exploration Rover: Educational Assessment Of A Robotic Exhibit For Informal Learning Venues* , 2006 .

[13]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Constructing Extended Inquiry Projects: Curriculum Materials for Science Education Reform , 2000 .

[14]  L.J. Leifer,et al.  Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning , 2005, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[15]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of Qualitative Research , 1992 .

[16]  L. van Dyne,et al.  Antecedents and Performance Consequences of Helping Behavior in Work Groups , 2005 .

[17]  J. Gosby.  MEDIA REVIEWS: Basics of Qualitative Research - Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory 2nd Edition by A. Strauss and J. Corbin. Sage Publications, , 2000 .

[18]  S. Waks,et al.  Creative Thinking of Practical Engineering Students During a Design Project , 2003 .

[19]  Ibo van de Poel,et al.  Design Ethics: The Social Ethics Paradigm* , 2004 .

[20]  C. Argyris.  On organizational learning , 1993 .

[21]  Jean Hartley,et al.  Case study research , 2004 .

[22]  Olivier Armantier,et al.  Does observation influence learning? , 2004, Games Econ. Behav..

[23]  Igor M. Verner,et al.  Robot Projects and Competitions as Education Design Experiments , 2007, Intell. Autom. Soft Comput..

[24]  Mitchel Resnick,et al.  Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking, and Learning in A Digital World , 1996 .

[25]  C. G. Boucharenc,et al.  Research on Basic Design Education: An International Survey , 2006 .

[26]  Fred Martin,et al.  Building Robots to Learn Design and Engineering , 1992, Proceedings. Twenty-Second Annual conference Frontiers in Education.

[27]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory , 1998 .

[28]  J. E. Stake,et al.  Science Enrichment Programs for Gifted High School Girls and Boys: Predictors of Program Impact on Science Confidence and Motivation. , 2001 .

[29]  B. Ray.  The Determinants of Grades Three to Eight Students' Intentions to Engage in Laboratory and Nonlaboratory Science Learning Behavior. , 1991 .

[30]  Trevor Davies,et al.  Confidence! Its Role in the Creative Teaching and Learning of Design and Technology , 2000 .

[31]  Vicki A. Wilson.  Stress and Stress Relief in the Educational Research Classroom. , 2000 .

[32]  Fred Martin,et al.  Ideal and Real Systems: A study of notions , 1996 .

[33]  Franklyn Turbak,et al.  Robotic Design Studio: Exploring the Big Ideas of Engineering in a Liberal Arts Environment , 2002 .

[34]  Sasha A. Barab,et al.  Doing science at the elbows of experts: Issues related to the science apprenticeship camp , 2001 .

[35]  Igor M. Verner,et al.  Experiential Learning through Designing Robots and Motion Behaviors: A Tiered Approach* , 2006 .

[36]  William Wiersma,et al.  Research Methods in Education: An Introduction , 1980 .

[37]  Illah R. Nourbakhsh,et al.  Formal measures of learning in a secondary school mobile robotics course , 2004, IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2004. Proceedings. ICRA '04. 2004.

[38]  L. Resnick,et al.  Knowing, Learning, and Instruction , 2018 .

[39]  Mitchel Resnick,et al.  Digital manipulatives: new toys to think with , 1998, CHI.

[40]  Lee S. Shulman,et al.  Taking Learning Seriously , 1999 .

[41]  Bernard Zubrowski,et al.  Integrating Science into Design Technology Projects: Using a Standard Model in the Design Process , 2002 .

[42]  R. Hersh,et al.  Fostering Personal & Social Responsibility on College & University Campuses. , 2005 .

[43]  Woodie Flowers,et al.  FIRST Robotics Competition: University Curriculum Applications of Mobile Robots* , 2006 .

[44]  A. Bandura.  Perceived Self-Efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning , 1993, Educational Psychologist.

[45]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Doing with Understanding: Lessons from Research on Problem- and Project-Based Learning , 1998 .

[46]  Mary M. Atwater,et al.  Traveling the road to success: A discourse on persistence throughout the science pipeline with African American students at a predominantly white institution , 2005 .

[47]  Janet L. Kolodner,et al.  Problem-Based Learning Meets Case-Based Reasoning in the Middle-School Science Classroom: Putting Learning by Design(tm) Into Practice , 2003 .

[48]  Daniel C. Edelson,et al.  The Interest-Driven Learning Design Framework: Motivating Learning through Usefulness , 2004, ICLS.

[49]  D. Kolb,et al.  Experiential Learning Theory: Previous Research and New Directions , 2000 .

[50]  Igor M. Verner,et al.  Robot Manipulations: A Synergy of Visualization, Computation and Action for Spatial Instruction , 2004, Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn..

[51]  Yasmin B. Kafai,et al.  The Classroom as "Living Laboratory": Design-Based Research for Understanding, Comparing, and Evaluating Learning Science Through Design , 2005 .

[52]  M. Lecompte,et al.  Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research , 1984 .

[53]  A. Ahlgren,et al.  Science for all Americans , 1990 .

[54]  Wolff-Michael Roth,et al.  Learning to talk engineering design: Results from an interpretive study in a Grade 4/5 classroom , 1996 .