Introducing robotics and block programming in elementary education

  1. Sáez López, José Manuel 1
  2. Buceta Otero, Rogelio 1
  3. De Lara García-Cervigón, Sebastián 1
  1. 1 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
    info

    Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02msb5n36

Journal:
RIED: revista iberoamericana de educación a distancia

ISSN: 1138-2783

Year of publication: 2021

Issue Title: Monográfico. Tecnologías avanzadas para afrontar el reto de la innovación educativa

Volume: 24

Issue: 1

Pages: 95-113

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5944/RIED.24.1.27649 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: RIED: revista iberoamericana de educación a distancia

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

This study shows the relevance of introducing visual block programming and robotics in primary education. The study describes how robotics are effectively implemented in schools, based on computational concepts and the classroom activities. We describe, apply and present specific resources teachers, who may think of introducing programming and robotics in education must consider. These resources can be adapted to their students’ levels and education stages. It is essential to be aware of the resources available and adapt them to students’ needs. The analysis involves 107 fifth-grade students in primary education at three schools. The sample of the study was non-probabilistic and intentional. The study is bidimensional. The first dimension is a quasi-experimental design obtaining data from a test. Construct validity was tested by an exploratory factor analysis. The second dimension details the results for four scales previously described: active learning, computational concepts, perceived usefulness and enjoyment. This dimension examines the results of the aforementioned scale, which analyses the pedagogical interactions. Statistically significant improvements were achieved in the understanding of basic computational concepts such as sequences, loops, conditional statements, parallel execution, event handling and use of robotics. Improvements were also noted in didactic interaction, and in greater enjoyment, enthusiasm, efficiency and active participation of students. They also showed stronger motivation, commitment and interest in the process.

Bibliographic References

  • Baytak, A., & Land, S. M. (2011). An investigation of the artifacts and process of constructing computer games about environmental science in a fifth-grade classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 765-782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9184-z
  • Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58, 978-988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006
  • Bers, M. U., González-González, C., & Armas-Torres, M. B. (2019). Coding as a playground: Promoting positive learning experiences in childhood classrooms. Computers & Education, 138, 130-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.013
  • Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Vancouver, BC, Canada.
  • Chen, G., Shen, J., Barth-Cohen, L., Jiang, S., Huang, X., & Eltoukhy, M. (2017). Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers & Education, 109, 162-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.001
  • Computer Science Teachers Association (2003). http://csta.acm.org
  • Cózar, R., y De Moya, M. del V. (Eds.). (2017). Entornos humanos digitalizados: experiencias TIC en escenarios educativos. Madrid: Síntesis.
  • Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (2002). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
  • González-González, C. S. (2019). State of the art in the teaching of computational thinking and programming in childhood education. Education in the Knowledge Society, 20, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.14201/eks2019_20_a17
  • Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12, a review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. (5th ed). Upper Saddle River. Prentice Hall.
  • Hiltz, S. R., Coppola, N., Rotter, N., & Turoff, M. (2000). Measuring the importance of collaborative learning for the effectiveness of ALN: a multi-measure, multi-method approach. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2), 103-125. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v4i2.1904
  • INTEF (2017). El Pensamiento Computacional en la Enseñanza Obligatoria (Computhink). https://intef.es/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2017_0206_CompuThink_JRC_UE-INTEF.pdf
  • International Society for Technology in Education and the Computer Science Teachers Association. (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12. http://csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/CompThinkingFlyer.pdf
  • Kwon, D. Y., Kim, H. S., Shim, J. K., & Lee, W. G. (2012). Algorithmic bricks: a tangible robot programming tool for elementary school students. Education, IEEE Transactions, 55(4), 474-479. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2012.2190071
  • Lambert, L., & Guiffre, H. (2009). Computer science outreach in an elementary school. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 24(3), 118-124.
  • Laros, F. J. M., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (2005). Emotions in consumer behavior: a hierarchical approach. Journal of Business Research, 58(10), 1437-1445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.09.013
  • Lin, J. M. C., Yen, L. Y., Yang, M. C., & Chen, C. F. (2005). Teaching computer programming in elementary schools: a pilot study. In National educational computing conference.
  • Lindh, J., & Holgersson, T. (2007). Does Lego training stimulate pupils' ability to solve logical problems? Computers & Education, 49(4), 1097-1111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.12.008
  • Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmong, E. (2010). The Scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1145/1868358.1868363
  • Maya, I., Pearson, J. N., Tapia, T., Wherfel, Q. M., & Reese, G. (2015). Supporting all learners in school-wide computational thinking: a cross-case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education, 82, 263-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.022
  • Mazzoni, E., & Benvenuti, M. (2015). A Robot-Partner for Preschool Children Learning English Using Socio-Cognitive Conflict. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 474-485.
  • Mitnik, R., Recabarren, M., Nussbaum, M., & Soto, A. (2009). Collaborative Robotic Instruction: A Graph Teaching Experience. Computers & Education, 53(2), 330-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.010
  • Moreno, J., Robles, G., Román, M., & Rodríguez, J. D. (2019). Not the same: a text network analysis on computational thinking definitions to study its relationship with computer programming. Revista Interuniversitaria de Investigación en Tecnología Educativa, 7. https://doi.org/10.6018/riite.397151
  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
  • Relkin, E., de Ruiter., L., & Bers, M. U. (2020). TechCheck: Development and Validation of an Unplugged Assessment of Computational Thinking in Early Childhood Education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29, 482-498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09831-x
  • Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing Engineering to Elementary School. Journal of STEM Education, 5, 17-28.
  • Sáez-López, J. M., Román-González, M., & Vázquez-Cano, E. (2016). Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school. A two year case study using scratch in five schools. Computers & Education, 97, 129-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.003
  • Sáez-López, J. M., & Sevillano-García, M. L. (2017). Sensors, programming and devices in art education sessions. One case in the context of primary education. Culture and Education, 29(2), 350-384. https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2017.1305075
  • Sáez-López, J. M. (2019). Programación y Robótica en Educación Infantil, Primaria y Secundaria. Editorial UNED.
  • Sáez-López, J. M., Sevillano-García, M. L., & Pascual-Sevillano, M. A. (2019). Aplicación del juego ubicuo con realidad aumentada en Educación Primaria. Comunicar, 61 (XXVII), 71-82. https://doi.org/10.3916/C61-2019-06
  • Sáez-López, J. M., Sevillano-García, M. L., & Vázquez-Cano, E. (2019). The effect of programming on primary school students’ mathematical and scientific understanding: educational use of mBot. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(6), 1405-1425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09648-5
  • Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: a theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18, 351-380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9240-x
  • Spolaôr, N., & Vavassori-Benitti, F.B. (2017). Robotics applications grounded in learning theories on tertiary education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 112, 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.001
  • Wilson, A., & Moffat, D. C. (2010). Evaluating Scratch to introduce younger school children to programming. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Psychology of Programming Interest Group Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Leganes, Spain.
  • Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Data source: Dialnet