skip to main content
10.1145/3291533.3291537acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Programming touch and full-body interaction with a remotely controlled robot in a secondary education STEM course

Published:29 November 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Contemporary research has introduced educational robotics in the classroom, but there are few studies about the effects of alternative embodied interaction modalities on computational thinking and science education. Twenty-six middle school students were asked to program interfaces for controlling the heading and speed of a robot using two types of embodied interaction modalities. We compared touch and full-body gestures to autonomous control, which does not require any embodied interaction. We assessed the development of their computational thinking skills by analyzing the projects they created during a problem-solving task and examined their understandings of science concepts related to kinematics. We found that novice students preferred full-body interfaces, while advanced students moved to more disembodied and abstract computational thinking. These findings might be applied to focus computing and science education activities to the right age and abilities groups of students.

References

  1. Abrahamson, D., 2014. Building educational activities for understanding: an elaboration on the embodied-design framework and its epistemic grounds. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 2(1), pp.1--16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Alimisis, D., 2013. Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), pp.63--71.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen-Conn, B.J. and Rose, K., 2003. Powerful ideas in the classroom using squeak to enhance math and science learning. Viewpoints Research Institute, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Barsalou, L.W., 2008. Grounded cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 59, pp.617--645.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Benitti, F. and Barreto, V., 2012. Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), pp.978--988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Bers, M.U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E.R. and Sullivan, A., 2014. Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, pp.145--157.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Brennan, K. and Resnick, M., 2012, April. New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada (pp. 1--25).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Fadjo, C.L., 2012. Developing computational thinking through grounded embodied cognition. Columbia University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Grover, S. and Pea, R., 2013, March. Using a discourse-intensive pedagogy and android's app inventor for introducing computational concepts to middle school students. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 723--728). ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Han, I. and Black, J.B., 2011. Incorporating haptic feedback in simulation for learning physics. Computers & Education, 57(4), pp.2281--2290. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Jacob, R.J., Girouard, A., Hirshfield, L.M., Horn, M.S., Shaer, O., Solovey, E.T. and Zigelbaum, J., 2008, April. Reality-based interaction: a framework for post-WIMP interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 201--210). ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Johnson-Glenberg, M.C., Megowan-Romanowicz, C., Birchfield, D.A. and Savio-Ramos, C., 2016. Effects of embodied learning and digital platform on the retention of physics content: Centripetal force. Frontiers in psychology, 7, p.1819.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Kafai, Y.B., Lee, E., Searle, K., Fields, D., Kaplan, E. and Lui, D., 2014. A crafts-oriented approach to computing in high school: Introducing computational concepts, practices, and perspectives with electronic textiles. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(1), p.1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Lindgren, R., Tscholl, M., Wang, S. and Johnson, E., 2016. Enhancing learning and engagement through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation. Computers & Education, 95, pp.174--187. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Lu, C.M., Kang, S., Huang, S.C. and Black, J.B., 2011, June. Building student understanding and interest in science through embodied experiences with LEGO Robotics. In EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 2225--2232). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Merkouris, A., Chorianopoulos, K. and Kameas, A., 2017. Teaching programming in secondary education through embodied computing platforms: Robotics and wearables. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 17(2), p.9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Oviatt, S., Cohen, A., Miller, A., Hodge, K. and Mann, A., 2012. The impact of interface affordances on human ideation, problem solving, and inferential reasoning. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 19(3), p.22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Papert, S., 1987, March. Tomorrow's classrooms. In New horizons in educational computing (pp. 17--20). Wiley-Interscience. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Parmar, D., Isaac, J., Babu, S.V., D'Souza, N., Leonard, A.E., Jörg, S., Gundersen, K. and Daily, S.B., 2016, March. Programming moves: Design and evaluation of applying embodied interaction in virtual environments to enhance computational thinking in middle school students. In Virtual Reality (VR), 2016 IEEE (pp. 131--140). IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Read, J.C., 2008. Validating the Fun Toolkit: an instrument for measuring children's opinions of technology. Cognition, Technology & Work, 10(2), pp.119--128. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Sung, W., Ahn, J.H., Kai, S.M. and Black, J., 2017, March. Effective planning strategy in robotics education: an embodied approach. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1065--1071). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Werner, L., Denner, J. and Campe, S., 2015. Children programming games: a strategy for measuring computational learning. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(4), p.24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Wilson, M., 2002. Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 9(4), pp.625--636.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Programming touch and full-body interaction with a remotely controlled robot in a secondary education STEM course

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        PCI '18: Proceedings of the 22nd Pan-Hellenic Conference on Informatics
        November 2018
        336 pages
        ISBN:9781450366106
        DOI:10.1145/3291533

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 29 November 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        PCI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate57of105submissions,54%Overall Acceptance Rate190of390submissions,49%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader