Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Learning programming through robots: the effects of educational robotics on pre-service teachers’ programming comprehension and motivation

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational technology research and development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this convergent mixed-methods study was to evaluate the effect of educational robotics on pre-service teachers’ programming comprehension and motivation. Computer science is increasingly being integrated into K-8 curricula. However, a shortage of teachers trained to teach basic computer science concepts remains unresolved. This study thus utilized educational robotics as “mindtools” to teach programming concepts to pre-service teachers. Data were obtained through a pre-post comprehension assessment, a pre-post motivation survey, field notes, and individual interviews. The findings of this study indicated that pre-service teachers’ comprehension of programming concepts and motivation related to programming can be improved through educational robotics to statistically significant levels. Design implications on integrating educational robotics into pre-service teacher programming instruction are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Ala-Mutka, K. (2004). Problems in learning and teaching programming. Codewitz Needs Analysis, 1–13. http://www.cs.tut.fi/~edge/literature_study.pdf

  • Alimisis, D., Moro, M., Arlegui, J., Pina, A., Stassini, F., & Papanikolaou, K. (2007). Robotics & constructivism in education: The TERECoP project. EuroLogo, 1–11. http://users.sch.gr/adamopou/docs/syn_eurologo2007_alimisis.pdf

  • Alkaria, A., & Alhassan, R. (2017). The effect of in-service training of computer science teachers on scratch programming language skills using an electronic learning platform on programming skills and the attitudes towards teaching programming. Journal of Education and Training Studies. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i11.2608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arwood, L. (2004). Teaching cell biology to nonscience majors through forensics, or how to design a killer course. Cell Biology Education, 3, 131–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. Harvard Mental Health Letter, 13(9), 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayman, P., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). A diagnosis of beginning programmers’ misconceptions of BASIC programming statements. Communications of the ACM, 26(9), 677–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674179530

  • Bucks, G. W. (2010). A phenomenographic study of the ways of understanding conditional and repetition structures in computer programming languages. https://www.proquest.com/docview/858607918

  • Burke, Q., Schep, M., & Dalton, T. (2016). CS for SC: A landmark report on K-12 computer science in South Carolina (pp. 1–19). National Science Foundation. https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3022413

  • Creswell, J. W. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among the five traditions: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.): Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • El-Hamamsy, L., Chessel-Lazzarotto, F., Bruno, B., Roy, D., Cahlikova, T., Chevalier, M., & Mondada, F. (2020). A computer science and robotics integration model for primary school: Evaluation of a large-scale in-service K-4 teacher-training program. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10355-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erol, O., & Kurt, A. A. (2017). The effects of teaching programming with scratch on pre-service information technology teachers’ motivation and achievement. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falloon, G. (2016). An analysis of young students’ thinking when completing basic coding tasks using scratch Jnr. On the iPad. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(6), 576–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fegely, A., Winslow, J., Lee, C., & Rubbo, L. J. (2021). The effects of robotics professional development on science and mathematics teaching performance and student achievement in underserved middle schools. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 21(4), 655–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleasman, C., & Kim, C. (2020). Pre-service teachers’ use of block-based programming and computational thinking to teach elementary mathematics. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 6(1), 52–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-019-00056-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, S. M., Brickman, P., Armstrong, N., & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2011). Science motivation questionnaire II: Validation with science majors and nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1159–1176. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, S. D. (1960). Point biserial correlation coefficient and its generalization. Psychometrika, 25(4), 393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, I. (2013). Embodiment: A new perspective for evaluating physicality in learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.49.1.b

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: a longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Angeli, C. (2017). Effect of robotics on elementary pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy, science learning, and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9663-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, J. S., Moss, J. G., Engelman, S., & McKlin, T. (2014). Sneaking in through the back door: Introducing K-12 teachers to robot programming. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538972

  • Kaya, E., Newley, A., Deniz, H., Yesilyurt, E., & Newley, P. (2015). Introducing engineering design to a science teaching methods course through educational robotics and exploring changes in views of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of College Science Teaching, 47(2), 66–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelleher, C., Pausch, R., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Storytelling Alice motivates middle school girls to learn computer programming. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’07, ACM.

  • Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R. B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. N. (2015). Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers’ STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers & Education, 91, 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C., Yuan, J., Vasconcelos, L., Shin, M., & Hill, R. B. (2018). Debugging during block-based programming. Instructional Science, 46(5), 767–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9453-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopcha, T. J., McGregor, J., Shin, S., Qian, Y., Choi, J., Hill, R., & Choi, I. (2017). Developing an integrative STEM curriculum for robotics education through educational design research. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 1(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-017-0005-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kucuk, S., & Sisman, B. (2018). Pre-service teachers’ experiences in learning robotics design and programming. Informatics in Education, 17(2), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2018.16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Majherová, J., & Králík, V. (2017). Innovative methods in teaching programming for future informatics teachers. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 6(3), 390–401. https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2017.3.390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mannila, L., Dagiene, V., Demo, B., Grgurina, N., Mirolo, C., Rolandsson, L., & Settle, A. (2014). Computational thinking in K-9 education. Proceedings of the Working Group Reports of the 2014 on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education Conference - ITiCSE-WGR ’14, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/2713609.2713610

  • Martin, F. G., Scribner-MacLean, M., Christy, S., Rudnicki, I., Londhe, R., Manning, C., & Goodman, I. F. (2011). Reflections on iCODE: using web technology and hands-on projects to engage urban youth in computer science and engineering. Autonomous Robots, 30(3), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-011-9218-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching. ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGill, T. J., & Volet, S. E. (1997). A conceptual framework for analyzing students’ knowledge. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(3), 276–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mertler, C. A. (2017). Action research: improving schools and empowering educators (5th ed.). Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz, A., Bos, B., & Smith, S. (2015). The power of educational robotics as an integrated STEM learning experience in teacher preparation programs. Journal of College Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst15_044_05_42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual:A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows (3rd ed.). McGraw Hill Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogerson, C., & Scott, E. (2010). The fear factor: How it affects students learning to program in a tertiary environment. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 9, 147–171. https://doi.org/10.28945/1183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1994). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. NATO ASI Series F Computer and Systems Sciences, 128, 69–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salkind, N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design (Vols. 1 – 0). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412961288

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sentance, S., & Csizmadia, A. (2017). Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a teacher’s perspective. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9482-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sisman, B., & Kucuk, S. (2019). An educational robotics course: Examination of educational potentials and pre-service teachers’ experiences. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 5(1), 510–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soloway, E., & Ehrlich, K. (1984). Empirical studies of programming knowledge. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 10(5), 595–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, F., & Moriarty, M. (2009). Robotics and discover learning: Pedagogical beliefs, teacher practice, and technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17, 109–142. http://people.umass.edu/florence/jtate.pdf%5Cnpapers2://publication/uuid/284416E1-4D1B-48FA-8F07-583B7FCCFA47

  • Thompson, G. (2008). Beneath the apathy. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 50–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2017). Comparing block-based and text-based programming in high school computer science classrooms. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 18(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3089799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, J., Kim, C., Vasconcelos, L., Shin, M. Y., Gleasman, C., & Umutlu, D. (2022). Preservice elementary teachers’ engineering design during a robotics project. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. https://citejournal.org/volume-22/issue-1-22/science/preservice-elementary-teachers-engineering-design-during-a-robotics-project/

  • Yukselturk, E., & Altiok, S. (2017). An investigation of the effects of programming with scratch on the preservice IT teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions and attitudes towards computer programming. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(3), 789–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12453

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instructional Technology, Department of Educational Studies Spadoni College of Education & Social Sciences, Coastal Carolina University, P.O. Box 261954, Conway, SC, 29528, USA

    Alex Fegely

  2. Department of Educational Studies College of Education, Learning Design & Technologies, University of South Carolina, 820 Main St. 239 Wardlaw, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA

    Hengtao Tang

Authors
  1. Alex Fegely
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hengtao Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alex Fegely.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human and animal rights

Human participants only.

Informed consent

Yes.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fegely, A., Tang, H. Learning programming through robots: the effects of educational robotics on pre-service teachers’ programming comprehension and motivation. Education Tech Research Dev 70, 2211–2234 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10174-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10174-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation