nach oben

International Journal of Technology and Design Education

Erschienen in:

04.07.2020

Arts and crafts robots or LEGO^® MINDSTORMS robots? A comparative study in educational robotics

verfasst von: Leopoldina Fortunati, Anna Maria Manganelli, Giovanni Ferrin

Erschienen in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education | Ausgabe 1/2022

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

With the development of educational robotics, teachers of secondary and high school frequently request clear indications on which type of robot is most effective for strengthening students’ mental schemes on the robot. This paper investigates whether using crafts and recycled materials or structured materials to build robots is more effective in terms of pupils’ cognition in educational robotics. Some scholarship argues that using crafts and recycled materials to build a robot from scratch is more effective than using structured materials. The design of the educational research applied here, and in which we tested this hypothesis, included two different robotics activities, carried out in Italy with two classes of secondary school. In the first, we asked the students to build a robot from scratch using crafts and recycled materials, while in the other we asked the students to build a robot from structured materials. These two activities were preceded and followed by the completion, by students, of the same questionnaire about knowledge of mechanics, manual skills, conceptualization of robots, and beliefs about the robotization of everyday life machines, which were the learning outcomes identified in this study according to the concept of constructive alignment and outcome-based education. Results show that building a robot from scratch increases pupils’ knowledge and manual skills, while building a robot with structured materials increases their awareness of the robotization of machines. Thus, current scholarship’s approach is only partially confirmed. To conclude, although pupils’ appreciation involves equally both these robotics activities, each of these outlines a specific educational outcome.

Vorheriger Artikel T/E design based learning: assessing student critical thinking and problem solving abilities

Nächster Artikel High school pre-engineering students’ engineering design cognition

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Anderson, C. (2014). Makers: The new industrial revolution. New York, NY: Crown Business.

Anderson, J. (1980). The theoretical lineage of critical viewing curricula. Journal of Communication, 30(3), 64–70.

Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: An experimental and social study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bazalgette, C. (1988). They changed the picture in the middle of the fight: New kind of literacies. In M. Meek & C. Mills (Eds.), Language and literacy in the primary school (pp. 211–223). London: Falmer.

Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988.

Biggs, J. B. (2003a). Teaching for quality learning at the university. Buckingham: The Open University Press.

Biggs, J. B. (2003b). Aligning teaching and assessment to curriculum objectives. Retrieved May 13, 2020 from https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/41876958/aligning-teaching-and-assessment-to-curriculum-objectives-john-biggs.

Bourdieu, P. (1979). Algeria 1960: The disenchantment of the world: The sense of honour: The Kabyle house or the world reversed: Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Buckingham, D. (Ed.). (2003). Media education: Literacy, learning and contemporary culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Caci, B., D’Amico, A., & Cardaci, M. (2004). New frontiers for psychology and education: Robotics. Psychological Reports, 94(3_suppl), 1372–1374. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.94.3c.1372-1374.CrossRef

Caci, B., D’Amico, A., & Chiazzese, G. (2014). Robotica e Mondi Virtuali: un’esperienza di edutainment con Lego^® Mindstorm e Kodu Game Lab. Rivista Italiana di Ergonomia, 9(9), 30–37.

Catlin, D., & Blamires, M. (2010). The principles of educational robotic applications (ERA): A framework for understanding and developing educational robots and their activities. In The 12th EuroLogo conference.

Catlin, D., Kandlhofer, M., Cabibihan, J.-J., Angel-Fernandez, J., Holmquist, S., & Csizmadia, A. P. (2019). EduRobot Taxonomy. In L. Daniela (Ed.), Smart learning with educational robotics: Using robots to scaffold learning outcomes (pp. 333–338). Cham: Springer.

Chioccariello, A., Manca, S., & Sarti, L. (2004). Children’s playful learning with a robotic construction kit. In J. Siraj-Blatchford (Ed.), Developing new technologies for young children (pp. 93–112). London: Trentham Books Ltd.

Datteri, E., Zecca, L., Laudisa, F., & Castiglioni, M. (2013). Learning to explain: The role of educational robots in science education. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 29–38.

de Vries, M. J. (2003). Design matters, and so does philosophy of design: 2003 John Eggleston memorial lecture. Journal of Design & Technology Education, 8(3), 150–153.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

Drotner, K., & Erstad, O. (2014). Inclusive media literacies: Interlacing media studies and education studies. International Journal of Learning and Media, 4(2), 19–34.

Druin, A., & Hendler, J. A. (Eds.). (2000). Robots for kids: Exploring new technologies for learning. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

Eisenberg, M., & Buechley, L. (2008). Pervasive fabrication: Making construction ubiquitous in education. Journal of Software, 3(4), 62–68.

Eisenberg, M., Buechley, L., & Elumeze, N. (2004). Computation and construction kits: Toward the next generation of tangible building media for children. In Kinshuk, D. G. Sampson, & P. T. Isaías (Eds.), Cognition and exploratory learning in digital age (CELDA’04). Proceedings of the IADIS international conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 15–17 December 2004 (pp. 423–426).

Ferrari, L. (2016). L’introduzione del “coding” nella scuola: da déjà vu a opportunità di coevoluzione tra le didattiche e le tecnologie digitali per l’inclusione. Pedagogia Oggi, 2, 196–208.

Fortunati, L. (2017). Robotization and the domestic sphere. New Media & Society, 20(8), 2673–2690.

Fortunati, L., Esposito, A., Ferrin, G., & Viel, M. (2014). Approaching social robots through playfulness and doing-it-yourself: children in action. Cognitive Computation, 6(4), 789–801.

Fortunati, L., Esposito, A., Sarrica, M., & Ferrin, G. (2015). Children’s knowledge and imaginary about robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(5), 685–695.

Fortunati, L., Ferrin, G., & Zuncheddu, A. (2020). I robot sociali visti come strumento educativo e interrogazione teorica. Sistemi intelligenti, 32(1), 155–165.

Fortunati, L., Sarrica, M., Ferrin, G., Brondi, S., & Honsell, F. (2018). Social robots as cultural objects. The sixth dimension of dynamicity? The Information Society, 34(3), 141–152.

Gauntlett, D. (2011). Making is connecting. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row.

Goldman, R., Eguchi, A., & Sklar, E. (2004). Using educational robotics to engage inner-city students with technologies. In Proceedings of the conference on learning sciences (pp. 214–221).

Gomoll, A., Šabanović, S., Tolar, E., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Francisco, M., & Lawlor, O. (2018). Between the social and the technical: Negotiation of human-centered robotics design in a middle school classroom. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(3), 309–324.

Gopsill, J. (2018). Examining the solution bias of construction kits. In International design conference—design 2018.

Harmin, M., & Toth, M. (2006). Inspiring active learning: A complete handbook for today’s teachers. Alexandria: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Hatch, M. (2013). The maker movement manifesto: Rules for innovation in the new world of crafters, hackers, and tinkerers. New York: McGraw Hill.

Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A. J., & Weighel, M. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (From The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and Learning).

Johal, W., Castellano, G., Tanaka, F., & Okita, S. (2018). Robots for learning. Special Issue of the International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(3), 293–294.

Law 13 July 2015, n. 107.

Kajimura, S., & Michio, N. (2016). When we cannot speak: Eye contact disrupts resources available to cognitive control processes during verb generation. Cognition, 157, 352–357.

Karim, M. E., Lemaignan, S., & Mondada, F. (2015) .A review: Can robots reshape K-12 STEM education? In Advanced robotics and its social impacts (ARSO), 2015 IEEE international workshop (pp. 1–8). https://doi.org/10.1109/arso.2015.7428217.

Kennedy, J., Baxter, P., & Belpaeme, T. (2015). The robot who tried too hard: Social behaviour of a robot tutor can negatively affect child learning. In Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction 2015 (pp. 67–74). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696457.

Khanlari, A. (2013). Effects of educational robots on learning STEM and on students’ attitude toward STEM. In 2013 IEEE 5th conference on engineering education (ICEED) (pp. 62–66). https://doi.org/10.1109/iceed.2013.6908304.

Kwon, B. R., & Lee, J. (2017). What makes a maker: The motivation for the maker movement in ICT. Information Technology for Development, 23(2), 318–335.

Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316.

Livingstone, S. (2004). What is media literacy? Intermedia, 32(3), 18–20.

Livingstone, S. (2013). The changing nature and uses of media literacy. In R. Gill, A. Pratt, T. Rantanen & N. Couldry (Eds.), MEDIA@LSE electronic working papers no. 4.

Luke, C. (2000). Cyber-schooling and technological change: Multiliteracies for new times. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 69–105). London: Routledge.

Malec, J. (2001). Some thoughts on robotics for education. In Proceedings of the 2001 AAAI Spring symposium on robotics and education, Palo Alto, California.

Mascheroni, G., & Holloway, A. (Eds.). (2019). The internet of toys. Practices, affordances and the political economy of children’s smart play. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Moricca, C. (2016). L’innovazione tecnologica nella scuola italiana. Per un’analisi critica e storica. Form@re, 16(1), 177–187. https://doi.org/10.13128/formare-18063.CrossRef

Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., Al Mahmud, A., & Dong, J. J. (2013). A review of the applicability of robots in education. Journal of Technology in Education and Learning, 1(209-0015), 1–7.

Neisser, U. (1989). Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization. Emory symposia in cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

New London Group. (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 60–92). Melbourne: Macmillan.

Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2), 174–207.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Computers, children and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. New York: Penguin Books.

Ratto, M., & Boler, M. (Eds.). (2014). DIY citizenship: Critical making and social media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ribeiro, T., & Paiva, A., (2017). Animating the adelino robot with Erik. In ICMI’17, 13–17 November 2017, Glasgow, UK.

Rus, D. (2006). Teaching robotics everywhere. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 13(1), 15–94.

Ryle, G. (1983). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.

Sanderson, P. (1999). Using newspapers in the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Silverstone, R. (1999). Why study the media?. London: Sage.

Smith, E. R., & Semin, G. R. (2004). Socially situated cognition: Cognition in its social context. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 53–117.

Sugiyama, S. (2013). Melding with the self, melding with relational partners, and turning into a quasi-social robot: A Japanese case study of people’s experiences of emotion and mobile devices. Intervalla: Platform or Intellectual Exchange “Social Robots and Emotion: Transcending the Boundaries between Humans and ICTs”, 1(1), 71–84.

Sugiyama, S., & Vincent, J. (2013). Social robots and emotion: Transcending the boundary between humans and ICTs. Intervalla: Platform or Intellectual Exchange “Social Robots and Emotion: Transcending the Boundaries between Humans and ICTs”, 1(1), 1–6.

Suguitan, M., & Hoffman, G. (2019). Blossom: A handcrafted open-source robot. ACM Transactions on Human–Robot Interaction, 8(1), 2.

Sun, Y., & Sundar, S. S. (2016). Psychological importance of human agency. How self-assembly affects user experience of robots. In Proceeding HRI ‘16 the eleventh ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction (pp. 189–196), Christchurch, New Zealand, 07–10 March 2016. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press. ISBN: 978-1-4673-8370-7.

Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1992). Epistemological pluralism and revaluation of the concrete. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11(1), 3–33.

Vincent, J. (2013). Is the mobile phone a personalized social robot? Intervalla: Platform or Intellectual Exchange, 1(1), 60–70.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Titel: Arts and crafts robots or LEGO® MINDSTORMS robots? A comparative study in educational robotics
verfasst von: Leopoldina Fortunati
Anna Maria Manganelli
Giovanni Ferrin
Publikationsdatum: 04.07.2020
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education / Ausgabe 1/2022
Print ISSN: 0957-7572
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1804
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09609-7

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2022

Physics competition to inspire learning and improve soft skills: a case of the Chain Experiment

The need to consider the predictive capacity of intelligence and its malleability within design and technology education research

An in-depth investigation of student information gathering meetings with stakeholders and domain experts

High school pre-engineering students’ engineering design cognition

Primary school students' interests in STEM careers: how conceptions of STEM professionals and gender moderation influence

Effect of design thinking approach on students’ achievement in some selected physics concepts in the context of STEM learning

Premium Partner