1 Introduction
2 Related work
2.1 Constructing a model for CS and robotics educational reform
2.1.1 Knowledge, persuasion, decision
2.1.2 Implementation
2.1.3 Confirmation
2.2 The CS and robotics integration model
2.2.1 Curriculum design
2.2.2 CS continuing professional development approaches
3 Methodology
3.1 Context
-
The state department of education (DFJC Vaud, Switzerland)
-
Professors, computer scientists and roboticists from the local technical university (EPFL, Switzerland)
-
Professionals from the local university of teacher education (HEP Vaud, Switzerland)
-
University experts in the evaluation of policies and large-scale projects (Unil, Switzerland)
-
Public schools from the Canton Vaud.
-
The conception of the content
-
The conception of the CPD and delivery of the training sessions
-
The accompaniment of teachers in schools (via the so-called purveyors or linkers)
-
Testing the content in the classrooms and reporting to the professionals in charge of the CPD program (henceforth referred to as trainers)
-
The overall evaluation of the project in collaboration with the researchers.
3.2 Proposed curriculum and CPD program
Activity | Activity Type | Activity Description | Day |
---|---|---|---|
The sorting machine | CSU | To understand how computers work and how processes can be parallelised, students do a succession of one to one comparisons and conditional movements on a mat to discover the notion of algorithms | 1 |
The robot game | CSU | A role-playing game where one student plays the computer who has to give the other student, who plays the robot, indications to move along a grid, as a way to discover the notion of language, instructions and programming terms | |
The crane | CSU | In groups, the students play the role of the programmer, reader and executer of a code so that the crane (played by the executer) does a specific motion. Notions of bugs and technical choices are also provided. | |
The pixel game | CSU | Students learn to transmit a black and white image without showing it and progressively introducing the notion of language, pixels, and encoding. | |
Treasure hunt | CSU | Students learn about instruction sequences and conditional statements by moving along a grid. | |
Bluebot | RU | Students learn how to translate movements into sequential instructions so that the Bluebot robot moves. These movements can be done with or without a map that can contain obstacles and intermediate waypoints. | 2 |
Pre-Programmed Thymio | RU | Students must first discover the Thymio robot with the different buttons and sensors before being introduced to the pre-programmed behaviours that they must decode and finally use to solve advanced missions. | |
Thymio VPL | RVP | Through a visual programming interface, the students learn about event-based programming and use it to solve increasingly complex problems. | |
Daily algorithms | CSU | Using flowcharts, the objective of this activity is to show that algorithms are not just specific to computer science but exist in our daily lives (e.g. recipes, grammar, logical problems) | 3 |
Salmon sorting | CSU | A kinaesthetic way to experience to sorting algorithm as a class, the students must line up and go up “the river” one by one and exchange their card with the other students each time they find one which is smaller | |
Scratch Jr | VP | This visual programming interface was used for creative and interactive narration so students learn about event based and sequential programming with customisable avatars and environments | |
Networks | CSU | A collaborative activity where students simulate the different components of network. They learn about routers, and specifying senders and recipients in order to communicate through networks with different configuration. | |
Cryptography | CSU | Introduction to the need to crypt information when it is passed through a network in a way that the recipient be able to decode the message. | 4 |
3.3 Participants and data collection
Data Type | Data Source | Questions on | Perception of the CPD | Representation and Adoption | When |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quantitative | Teachers | Representation of CS | X | CS days 1&4 | |
Evaluation of the CPD | X | CS days 1–4 | |||
Adoption of the CS content | X | CS days 2–4, ICT days 5–6 | |||
Directors | Start of CS CPD teacher related prognostics | X | Aug. 2018 | ||
End of CS CPD director satisfaction | X | June 2019 | |||
Qualitative | Teachers | Open questions in the teacher surveys | X | X | CS days 1–4 |
End of CS CPD teacher focus group | X | X | CS day 4 | ||
PRs | End of CS CPD PR focus group | X | PR day 4 | ||
Directors | End of CS CPD survey open questions | X | June 2019 |
3.3.1 Teachers
Topic | Question | Day |
---|---|---|
How do you feel at the end of this day: Reticent? | ||
Representation | How do you feel at the end of this day: Open? | 1 |
How do you feel at the end of this day: Confident? | ||
The training sessions were rich and interesting | ||
Perception | The level of difficulty was well adapted | 1–4 |
The equilibrium between theory and practice was well adapted | ||
The appreciation of the content | ||
Adoption | How many periods did you do per activity? | 2–4 & 6–7 |
One period represents approximately 45 min |
CPD Sessions Responses | Grades 1-2P | Grades 3-4P | Other | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|
CS - Day 1 (Oct. 2018) | 85 | 96 | 110 | 291 |
CS - Day 2 (Nov. 2018) | 130 | 136 | 54 | 320 |
CS - Day 3 (Mar. 2019) | 124 | 137 | 45 | 306 |
CS - Day 4 (Apr. 2019) | 66 | 111 | 37 | 214 |
ICT (no CS) - Day 5 (Oct. 2019) – No adoption survey | – | – | – | – |
ICT (no CS) - Day 6 (Dec. 2019) | 146 | 159 | 19 | 324 |
ICT (no CS) - Day 7 (Mar. 2020) | 128 | 150 | 20 | 298 |
ICT (no CS) - Day 8 (May. 2020) - Cancelled (COVID-19) | – | – | – | – |
3.3.2 The purveyors of our model: The PRs
3.3.3 School directors
4 Results and discussion
4.1 Perception of the CPD
4.2 Teacher representations and adoption
4.2.1 Representations
4.2.2 Adoption
Year 1 | Year 2 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(275 responses in March 20191) | (324 responses in Dec 2019 6, 298 in March 2020) | (181 responses that can be traced in March 20202) | |||||
Periods | % of Periods | % of Teachers | Periods | % of Periods | % of Teachers | ||
Activity Type | CS Unplugged (CSU) | 1353 | 59% | 85% | 1266 | 44% | 61% |
Robotics Unplugged (RU) | 926 | 40% | 72% | 1426 | 50% | 61% | |
Robotics Visual Programming (RVP) | 33 | 2% | 7% | 57 | 2% | 4% | |
Non-Robotic Visual Programming (VP) | 0 | 0% | 0% | 126 | 4% | 7% | |
All | 2312 | 100% | 92% | 2875 | 100% | 80% | |
Grades | 1-2P | 807 | 35% | 88% | 1305 | 45% | 84% |
3-4P | 1227 | 53% | 95% | 1407 | 49% | 79% | |
Other | 163 | 12% | 91% | 124 | 6% | 75% |
-
Adoption levels steadily increased both years. In Year 2, although initial adoption levels were low, the same positive trend was noticed: adoption rates nearly doubled between Day 6 and Day 7 going from 45% to 80% (see Fig. 5).
-
When the teachers were asked why they did not adopt in Day 6 (172/320 teachers in December 2019), 29% said they had other priorities, 27% that they did not have time and 19% both. Nonetheless, approximately 50% of the teachers that could be followed between day 6 and 7 went on to conduct activities in their classrooms.
-
In the open comments in Day 6, five teachers insisted that the CS content was better adapted to the second portion of the school year. This is corroborated by the fact that 46% of those that said they did not have time and 42% of those that said they had other priorities in Day 6 conducted an activity between Day 6 and Day 7.
-
Additionally, 50% of those who mentioned not feeling confident in Day 6 still went on to conduct activities by Day 7 (12/24). These facts suggest that there are other factors at play than time, priorities and confidence when trying to understand why some teachers consistently do not adopt.