Top

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Published in:

09-06-2020

Cognition, Attitude, and Interest in Cross-Disciplinary i-STEM Robotics Curriculum Developed by Thematic Integration Approaches of Webbed and Threaded Models: a Concurrent Embedded Mixed Methods Study

Authors: Chi-Cheng Chang, Yiching Chen

Published in: Journal of Science Education and Technology | Issue 5/2020

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

The study aimed to develop a cross-disciplinary integrative STEM (i-STEM) robotics curriculum by the thematic integration approaches of webbed and threaded models, and to understand high school students’ cognitions, attitudes, and interests in robotics STEM after the instruction. The concurrent mixed methods including quantitative experimental design and embedded qualitative design were adopted in the present study. Participants were 42 students, with 17 females and 25 males in a high school class. The students were grouped with 2 members in each group, and there were totally 21 groups. The results revealed that cognition for seven fields were significantly improved. Among the seven fields, sailboat design improved the most, while mathematics and computer programming improved the least. The students’ attitudes and interests in robotics STEM were significantly enhanced. The students’ interests in engineering design were significantly enhanced the most, programming was the second; continuous study of engineering, science, or technology was the third; jobs related to engineering or programming was the fourth; and robotics was the least enhanced. Finally, the implications for teacher teaching and student learning practices were proposed.

previous article Seeing the Forest through the Trees Using Network Analysis: Exploring Student Responses to Conceptual Physics Questions

next article The Influence of Inquiry-Based Remote Observations via Powerful Optic Robotic Telescopes on High School Students’ Conceptions of Physics and of Learning Physics

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

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!

inform now

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!

inform now

Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science & Technology Education, 6(1), 63–71.

Altin, H., & Pedaste, M. (2013). Learning approaches to applying robotics in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(3), 365–377.

Avsec, S., Rihtarsic, D., & Kocijancic, S. (2014). A predictive study of learner attitudes toward open learning in a robotics class. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(5), 692–704.

Barak, M., & Zadok, Y. (2007). Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology and problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 289–307.

Beane, J. A. (1997). Course integration - designing the core of democratic education. New York: Teachers College Press.

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

Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: exploration of an early childhood robotics course. Computers in Education, 72, 145–157.

Chen, X. (2019). How does participation in FIRST LEGO league robotics competition impact children’s problem-solving process? Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput., 829, 162–167.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Doerschuk, P., Bahrim, C., Daniel, J., Kruger, J., Mann, J., & Martin, C. (2016). Closing the gaps and filling the STEM pipeline: a multidisciplinary approach. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(4), 682–695.

Drake, S. (1993). Planning integrated course: the call to adventure. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Eguchi, A. (2016). RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 692–699.

Estivill-Castro, V. (2020). Inviting teachers to use educational robotics to foster mathematical problem-solving. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 1023, 248–261.

Fogarty, R. (1991). Ten ways to integrate course. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 61–65.

Fogarty, R., Stoehr, J., & Gardner, H. (2008). Integrating curricula with multiple intelligences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press A sage Publication Company.

Francom, G. M., & Gardner, J. L. (2013). How task-centered learning differs from problem-based learning: Epistemological influences, goals, and prescriptions. Educational Technology, 53(3), 33–38.

Gaudiello, I., & Zibetti, E. (2013). Using control heuristics as a means to explore the educational potential of robotics kits. Themes in Science &Technology Education, 6(1), 15–28.

Gisev, N., Pharm, B., Bell, J. S., & Chen, T. F. (2013). Interrater agreement and interrater reliability: key concepts, approaches, and applications. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 9(3), 330–338.

Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jäggle, G., Lammer, L., Hieber, H., & Vincze, M. (2020). Technological literacy through outreach with educational robotics. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 1023, 114–125.

Jojoa, E. M. J., Bravo, E. C., & Cortes, E. B. B. (2010). Tool for experimenting with concepts of mobile robotics as applied to children’s education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 53(1), 88–95.

Karaahmetoğlu, K., & Korkmaz, Ö. (2019). The effect of project-based Arduino educational robot applications on students’ computational thinking skills and their perception of basic stem skill levels. Participatory Educational Research, 6(2), 1–14.

Kim, M., & Aktan, T. (2014). How to enlarge the scope of the course integration of mathematics and science (CIMAS): a Delphi study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(5), 455–469.

Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the course? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 255–281.

Lindsay, S., Kolne, K., Oh, A., & Cagliostro, E. (2019). Children with disabilities engaging in STEM: exploring how a group-based robotics program influences STEM activation. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 19(4), 387–397.

López-Rodríguez, F. M., & Cuesta, F. (2016). Andruino-A1: low-cost educational mobile robot based on android and Arduino. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 81(1), 63–76.

McComas, W. F. (2009). Thinking, teaching, and learning science outside the boxes: reconsidering interdisciplinarity in science instruction. The Science Teacher, 76(2), 24–28.

McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Media, 22(3), 276–282.

Merrill, M. D. (2007). A task-centered instructional strategy. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 5–22.

Miller B, Kirn A, Anderson M, Major JC, Feil-Seifer D, Jurkiewicz M (2018) Unplugged robotics to increase K-12 Students’ engineering interest and attitudes. Paper presented at the conference of Frontiers in education conference, San Jose; USA.

Morse, J. M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed methods design: principles and procedures. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.

Negrini, L., & Giang, C. (2019). How do pupils perceive educational robotics as a tool to improve their 21st century skills? Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 15(2), 77–87.

Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Impact of robotics and geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 391–408.

Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Welch, G. (2016). Robotics camps, clubs, and competitions: results from a US robotics project. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 686–691.

Rihtaršič, D., Avsec, S., & Kocijancic, S. (2016). Experiential learning of electronics subject matter in middle school robotics courses. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(2), 205–224.

Sherrod, S. E., Dwyer, J., & Narayan, R. (2009). Developing science and math integrated activities for middle school students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(2), 247–257.

Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2019). Investigating the use of robotics to increase girls’ interest in engineering during early elementary school. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(5), 1033–1051.

Sullivan, F. R., & Heffernan, J. (2016). Robotic construction kits as computational manipulatives for learning in the STEM disciplines. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 105–128.

Sullivan, F. R., & Lin, X. (2012). The ideal science student: exploring the relationship of students’ perceptions to their problem solving activity in a robotics context. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 23(3), 1–36.

Sullivan, F. R., & Moriarty, M. A. (2009). Robotics and discovery learning: pedagogical beliefs, teacher practice, and technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(1), 109–142.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2006). Teaching complex rather than simple tasks: balancing intrinsic and germane load to enhance transfer of learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 343–352.

Verma, A. K., Dickerson, D., & McKinney, S. (2011). Engaging students in STEM careers with project-based learning: marine tech project. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 71(1), 25–31.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2011). The understanding by design guide to creating high-quality units. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Williams, D. C., Ma, Y., Prejean, L., Ford, M. J., & Lai, G. (2008). Acquisition of physics content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills in a robotics summer camp. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 201–216.

Yarker, M. B., & Park, S. (2012). Analysis of teaching resources for implementing an interdisciplinary approach in the K-12 classroom. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8(4), 223–232.

Yilmaz, M., Ozcelik, S., Yilmazer, N., & Nekovei, R. (2013). Design-oriented enhanced robotics course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(1), 137–144.

Title: Cognition, Attitude, and Interest in Cross-Disciplinary i-STEM Robotics Curriculum Developed by Thematic Integration Approaches of Webbed and Threaded Models: a Concurrent Embedded Mixed Methods Study
Authors: Chi-Cheng Chang
Yiching Chen
Publication date: 09-06-2020
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Journal of Science Education and Technology / Issue 5/2020
Print ISSN: 1059-0145
Electronic ISSN: 1573-1839
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09841-9

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 5/2020

Middle School Students’ Mechanistic Explanation About Trait Expression in Rice Plants During a Technology-Enhanced Science Inquiry Investigation

Comparative Learning Performance and Mental Involvement in Collaborative Inquiry Learning: Three Modalities of Using Virtual Lever Manipulative

The Influence of Inquiry-Based Remote Observations via Powerful Optic Robotic Telescopes on High School Students’ Conceptions of Physics and of Learning Physics

Development and Initial Validation of the Student Interest and Choice in STEM (SIC-STEM) Survey 2.0 Instrument for Assessment of the Social Cognitive Career Theory Constructs

How Much Cueing Is Needed in Instructional Animations? The Role of Prior Knowledge

Designing for Relationality in Virtual Reality: Context-Specific Learning as a Primer for Content Relevancy

Premium Partners