International Journal of Technology and Design Education Design and development issues for educational robotics training camps. --Manuscript Draft-Manuscript Number:
ITDE-D-13-00050R1
Full Title:
Design and development issues for educational robotics training camps.
Article Type:
Original Research Article
Keywords:
Robotics training camp; design issues; STEM; robotic camp curriculum.
Corresponding Author:
Memet UCGUL, Ph.D. Kırıkkale, TURKEY
Corresponding Author Secondary Information: Corresponding Author's Institution: Corresponding Author's Secondary Institution: First Author:
Memet UCGUL, Ph.D.
First Author Secondary Information: Order of Authors:
Memet UCGUL, Ph.D. Kursat CAGILTAY, Ph.D.
Order of Authors Secondary Information: Abstract:
The aim of this study is to explore critical design issues for educational robotics training camps and to describe how these factors should be implemented during development. For this purpose, two robotics training camps were organized for secondary school students. The first camp had 30 children attendees, and the second had 22. As a research methodology, a multiple-case design approach was used. Data collection methods included interviews with children and instructors, observations, field notes, and camp evaluation forms. Qualitative data analysis techniques were applied to categorize data into themes: instruction, group issues, competition, coaching, technical issues, challenges, and camp duration. Prominent findings indicate that instruction strategies for robotics camps should be designed from simple to complex. Project studies proved to be the most effective and enjoyable part of the camps and should be highly encouraged. Further, robotics training camps should provide children a chance to practice what they have learned in school, and group sizes should allow for every child to have tasks assigned at all times.
Response to Reviewers:
Reviewer #2: Thank you for your valuable comments, we have made all correction to each your specific comments. Thank you so much. Reviewer #1: Thank you for your valuable comments. We are sorry about that "Nice paper, but I am a reviewer not a proofreader" A professional proofreader has checked our paper. We add new studies to literature review section. Thank you for your efforts.
Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Title Page With All Author Information
Design and development issues for educational robotics training camps. Memet Ucgula*, Kursat Cagiltayb a
Middle East Technical University,Ankara, Turkey
b
Middle East Technical University,Ankara, Turkey
ABSTRACT The aim of this study is to explore critical design issues for educational robotics training camps and to describe how these factors should be implemented in the development of such camps. For this purpose, two robotics training camps were organized for elementary school students. The first camp had 30 children attendees, and the second had 22. As a research methodology, a multiple-case design approach was used. Interviews with children and instructors, observations, field notes, and camp evaluation forms were used as data collection methods. The data were analyzed by qualitative data analysis techniques and categorized into themes: instruction, group issues, competition, coaching, technical issues, challenges, and camp duration. Prominent findings indicate that instruction strategies for a robotics camp should be designed from simple to complex. The most effective and enjoyable part of the camps were the project studies, which should be highly encouraged. Robotics training camps should provide children a chance to practice what they have learned in school. Group size should allow for every child in the group to have tasks assigned at all times.
KEYWORDS Robotics training camp; design issues; STEM; robotic camp curriculum.
*
Corresponding author. Telephone +09 0555 6536455. Email address
[email protected].
*Blind Manuscript Without Author Information Click here to view linked References
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES FOR EDUCATIONAL ROBOTICS TRAINING CAMPS
ABSTRACT The aim of this study is to explore critical design issues for educational robotics training camps and to describe how these factors should be implemented during development. For this purpose, two robotics training camps were organized for secondary school students. The first camp had 30 children attendees, and the second had 22. As a research methodology, a multiple-case design approach was used. Data collection methods included interviews with children and instructors, observations, field notes, and camp evaluation forms. Qualitative data analysis techniques were applied to categorize data into themes: instruction, group issues, competition, coaching, technical issues, challenges, and camp duration. Prominent findings indicate that instruction strategies for robotics camps should be designed from simple to complex. Project studies proved to be the most effective and enjoyable part of the camps and should be highly encouraged. Further, robotics training camps should provide children a chance to practice what they have learned in school, and group sizes should allow for every child to have tasks assigned at all times. KEYWORDS Robotics training camp; design issues; STEM; robotic camp curriculum 1. INTRODUCTION Through their research on introducing children to computers and bringing programming into the physical world, Seymour Papert and his students created the Logo programming environment in 1967 (McNerney, 2004; McWhorter, 2005). Although robots have played an active role in education since the introduction of Logo Turtle (Papert & Harel, 1991), interest in using robots for educational purposes has increased over recent years. International robot championships such as RoboCup, First LEGO League, and RoboFesta have attracted the attention of primary and secondary school administrators and students. Many universities and schools offer technology and robotics related summer schools for children (Cannon et al., 2006; Cannon, Panciera, & Papanikolopoulos, 2007; Keathly & Akl, 2007; Nordstrom, Reasonover, & Hutchinson, 2009; Williams, Ma, Prejean, & Ford, 2008). Some technology-related camps are geared towards promoting female interest in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics), increasing the possibilities of engineering careers (Burket, Small, Rossetti, Hill, & Gattis, 2008). Some researchers have shared their experiences conducting robotics camps. For example, Murphy and Rosenblatt (2000) provided a daily teaching syllabus and information about appropriate videos, Web sites, and commercial robot kits. Nourbakhsh et al. (2005) from The Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University published the curriculum and daily plans of their course, Robotic Autonomy, a seven week, hands-on introduction to robotics design for
1
high school students. However, these studies were not conducted with LEGO Mindstorms NXT sets and did not offer any suggestions for future camps; they simply presented their curriculums. Therefore, there is a need to define success factors for robotics camps and to evaluate these factors to suggest design improvements. This study fills a gap in the literature about instructional robotics. The purpose of this study is to determine the factors that affect the success of a robotics training camp for secondary school students, using them to determine design principles. To serve this purpose, two robotics training camps were conducted with secondary school students. A case study approach was chosen as the research method, which is a qualitative inquiry to describe, illustrate, and enlighten with regard to a phenomenon within its real context (Yin, 2009): The purpose of the study was to describe critical factors for the design and development of an educational robotics training camp for secondary students, to illustrate how each factor affects the success of the camp, and to enlighten researchers as to how these factors should be implemented. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Constructionism In the 1960s, Seymour Papert and his colleagues initiated a research project at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to understand how children think and learn. They invented the programming language and philosophy of education known as Logo. Logo has been used by tens of millions of school children all over the world. Its theoretical background, constructionism, has influenced the direction of educational reform and the roles of technology in education (Kafai & Resnick, 1996). Papert worked with Piaget in the late 1950s and early 1960s in Switzerland and has stated, “In 1964, after five years at Piaget's Center for Genetic Epistemology in Geneva, I came away impressed by his way of looking at children as the active builders of their own intellectual structures” (Papert, 1993, p. 19). Papert built his theory of learning on the constructivist theories of Jean Piaget, stating that learning is an active construction of knowledge in the learner’s mind and that knowledge is not simply transmitted from teacher to student. In addition to the constructivist theory, Papert was influenced by artificial intelligence theories and gender and personality studies (Harel, 1991). Papert provides the simplest definition of constructionism as “learning by making” (Papert & Harel, 1991). He adopted the word constructionism to refer to everything related to “learning by making”; constructionism includes and extends far beyond “learning by doing,” the notion of constructivism (Papert, 1999). Papert and Harel (1991) define constructionism in the first chapter of their book, Constructionism. Constructionism—the N word as opposed to the V word—shares constructivism's connotation of learning as "building knowledge structures" irrespective of the circumstances of the learning. It then adds the idea that this happens especially felicitously in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity, whether it's a sand castle on the beach or a theory of the universe. (p. 1)
2
2.2 Logo to LEGO Logo is a computer language that communicated with Turtle, a basketball-sized, dome-shaped robot that could move across the floor by commands like FORWARD, BACKWARD, LEFT and RIGHT. It also made drawings on butcher paper with a mounted pen (Martin, Mikhak, Resnick, Silverman, & Berg, 2000; Papert, 1993; Watt, 1982). Although personal computers had become common in schools, the floor turtle was expensive and unreliable in school settings. By the 1970s, the turtle had migrated to the computer screen, where it was more accurate and much faster, allowing children to create and examine more complex geometric shapes (Martin et al., 2000; McNerney, 2004; Sargent, 1995; Sargent, Resnick, Martin, & Silverman, 1996; Watt, 1982). Although the screen turtle was more practical, it added abstraction and caused difficulties for some children (McNerney, 2004). In the mid-1980s, collaboration with LEGO created the LEGO/Logo system, a combination of LEGO Technic products (beams, gears, and motors) and the Logo language that brought the turtle back to the real world. Children could build and program machines such as a Ferris wheel, elevator, and robotic creature (Martin, 1988; Martin et al., 2000; Sargent, 1995; Sargent et al., 1996; Watt, 1982). LEGO/Logo had mobility limitations; the machines had to be connected to the computer with wires. Martin (1988) and his research group overcame this deficiency with Programmable Bricks in 1987. The Programmable Brick had a computer inside, where a downloaded program could be executed independently (Sargent, 1995; Sargent et al., 1996). Sargent (1995) and his colleagues created second generation Programmable Bricks (Gray Brick and Red Brick). Red Brick and its field works were the basis for the development of the LEGO RCX Brick, which shares many common features (Martin et al., 2000; Mindell, Beland, Wesley, Clarke, Park, & Trupiano, 2000). In 1998, the LEGO Company released the new LEGO Mindstorms Robotic Invention Kit, consisting of 717 pieces: LEGO bricks, motors, gears, sensors, and a RCX Brick with three input and three output ports attached to a Hitachi H8/3292 micro controller (McWhorter, 2005; Mindell et al., 2000). The Mindstorms kit, which was named for Seymour Papert’s groundbreaking book (Martin et al., 2000), was upgraded to the LEGO Mindstorms NXT kit in 2006. This kit consisted of 577 pieces, including three servo motors and four sensors (ultrasonic, sound, touch, and light). Mindstorms NXT supports more complicated programming languages like NXT-G and LabVIEW. The latest version, EV3, was released in 2013 and features WiFi and SD card support (Altin & Pedaste, 2013). 2.3 Robotics in Education Papert (1993) has said that robots are one of the best tools for implementing constructivist learning principles. Some studies with robotics have showed an increase in students’ motivation toward mathematics and science courses (Robinson, 2005; Rogers & Portsmore, 2004) by providing a practice platform for STEM principles (Rogers & Portsmore, 2004) and improving students’ problem solving skills (Beer, Chiel, & Drushel, 1999; Nourbakhsh, Hamner, Crowley, & Wilkinson, 2004; Petre & Price, 2004; Robinson, 2005; Rogers & Portsmore, 2004). However, some studies did not report positive effects in educational settings (Bjoerner, 2009; Fagin & Merkle, 2003; Hussain, Lindh, & Shukur, 2006; McNally, Goldweber, Fagin, & Klassner, 2006).
3
One large scale study about robotics was conducted in Peru (Iturrizaga, 2000). A quasiexperimental, post-test only approach was used. Fourteen schools were selected to participate, and the sample included 553 students in grade 2, 566 students in grade 4, and 534 students in grade 6. Many post-tests were employed to assess students’ mathematical skills related to real world problems, technology knowledge, Spanish performance, eye-hand coordination, problem solving, and self-esteem. After one year using LEGOs, students in the experimental group outperformed the control group in math, technology, Spanish, and eye-hand coordination. The difference between boys and girls was not significant. Hussain, Lindh, and Shukur (2006) ran a similar large scale study to investigate the effect of one year of regular LEGO training on pupils’ performance in schools in Sweden. There were 322 students in the experimental group (193 fifth graders and 129 ninth graders) and 374 students in the control group (169 fifth graders and 205 ninth graders). Achievements in mathematics were measured for fifth grade students before and after the training using the standard two-sample t-test; findings showed a positive shift in the mean, from 0.711 to 0.817 with p-value = 0.000, indicating better performances for the trained group. For problem solving, on the other hand, Hussain et al. found a slight shift in the opposite direction, from 0.696 to 0.649 with p-value = 0.023, which is rather significant. When ninth grade students' results were compared, no significant differences were found. Williams, Ma, Prejean, and Ford (2008) prepared a two week summer robotics camp to explore middle school students’ physics content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills. A single group of 21 summer camp participants was tested before and after participating in the program. The results revealed that the robotics summer camp had a statistically significant impact on gains in physics content knowledge; however, no statistically significant difference was found for scientific inquiry skills. Benitti (2012) conducted a systematic review on the educational usage of robotics. Results of the review showed that 80% of studies explored physics and mathematics related subjects such as Newton’s Laws of Motion, distances, angles, kinematics, graph construction and interpretation, fractions, ratios, and geospatial concepts. Related literature supports that educational usage of robotics is not limited to subjects closely related to the robotics field, such as programming, construction, or mechatronics. Moreover, Benitti reported an emphasis in studies on problem solving, logic, and scientific inquiry improvement through robotics. Altin and Pedaste (2013) made a similar review of robotics studies to evaluate approaches used to teach with robots in science education. They concluded that robotics studies were mostly qualitative in nature and the most common approches were problem-based, contructionist, and competition-based. Moreover, inquiry learning, a more recent approach, could be used not only for physics but also other STEM subjects. 3. METHODS The present study was conducted as part of the Young Inventors Build Robots and Discover Science Project. The scope of the project was to offer 10 day educational robotics camps where children could design robots with LEGO Mindstorms NXT sets and apply mathematics and science in real life. The project was managed by researchers from three different universities and funded by a research agency. The study was guided by the following research questions:
4
What are the key design and development principles for an educational robotics training camp? How should instruction be structured for an effective robotics camp? What group and gender issues may arise? What are the relevant cooperation and competition issues and strategies among learners? How should coaching be provided? What are successful coaching strategies? What are the technical issues and strategies for a successful training camp? 3.1 The Sample Two robotics camps were organized for elementary school students at the education park of a non-profit civil society organization. The first camp was held during the semester holiday. A total of 19 boys and 9 girls in 6th grade attended the first camp. The second camp was held over spring break at the same location with 11 boys and 11 girls from 6th, 7th, and 8th grades. Students’ genders and grade levels are shown in Table 1. [Table 1 is about here] In addition to the authors, five instructors attended the camps. One author and one instructor were Ph.D. students with robotics and FLL (First LEGO League) experience, while the remaining instructors were senior students who had prepared a project about the application of LEGO Mindstorms NXT in educational settings. 3.2 Data Collection According to Yin (2009), case study research is not limited to a single source of data; a good case study benefits from multiple sources. Interviews, observations, field notes, and camp evaluation forms were all incorporated in this study. After preparing the data collection tools, required permissions were obtained from the ethical committee to conduct research involving human subjects. On the first day of the camps, participants were asked for their parents’ permission via a consent form. The primary data collection method was one-on-one semi-structured interviews with the children who attended the camps. All interviews were conducted by one of the authors to ensure consistency in the procedure and maximum reliability. Interviews were conducted during the last three days of the camps in a private room. Before each interview, the participant was informed about the interview contents and confidentiality and was asked for permission to record the interview. In addition to the interviews with children, the researcher conducted a group interview with the instructors (except one) after the second camp to evaluate instructional aspects, offer a venue for self-criticism, and discuss each camp’s positive and negative aspects. The researcher worked as an instructor at both camps. Therefore, he was a part of the case and had a chance to experience the phenomenon firsthand as a participant-observer. Participantobservation is a special mode of observation in which the observer is not passive but takes a variety of roles within a case study, possibly participating in the events being studied (Yin, 2009). According to Yin (2009), participant-observation provides unusual opportunities; for 5
example, for some topics, participant-observation may be the only means of collecting evidence, and the researcher perceives reality from “inside” the case rather than externally. However, a participant-observer may not have sufficient time to take notes because of the participant role; further, the existence of the investigator can cause bias due to the participantobserver’s manipulation of events. The main concern of the observation was identifying social issues, assessing effectiveness of robotics activities, and recording positive or negative experiences. The researcher took notes, summarizing events as needed and making a copy each evening. During the camps, participants were asked to evaluate the activities using forms every two or three days. The evaluation form was created by the researchers, and the aim form was twofold: first, participants could express themselves without potential negative interactions with peers or instructors, and, second, because interviews with participants did not take place until the last days of the camps, evaluation forms allowed for more timely feedback. 3.3 Analysis Interviews with instructors and students were digitally recorded and transcribed. Events, happenings, and objects interactions found to be conceptually similar in nature or related in meaning were grouped into categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In this study, attribute coding, structural coding, descriptive coding, and pattern coding techniques were used. In a multiple case study, there are two stages of analysis: within-case analysis and cross-case analysis. For the within-case analysis, each case is treated as independent research. When the analysis of each case is completed, cross-case analysis begins. The researcher attempts to find a general explanation that fits the individual cases (Miles & Huberman, 1994 Yin, 2009). NVivo 8, a Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS), was used to analyze the data. For the cross-case analysis, the researchers did not use any software; when the two camps’ codebooks were compared, their similarities and differences were easily perceived. The authors ensured the trustworthiness of the study trough triangulation (Merriam, 2009), intercoder agreements (Creswell, 2007), tick description (Merriam, 2009; Simsek & Yildirim, 2008), and prolonged engagement (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Triangulation was achieved by collecting data from multiple methods (interviews, observations, camp evaluation forms) and sources (children and instructors). For intercoder agreements, five randomly selected interviews were coded by another researcher familiar with the Nvivo software. Then intercoder reliability was calculated using the coding comparison query feature. A minimum of 86.82% agreement was achieved. The authors also attended all sessions to meet prolonged engagement criteria for trustworthiness. 4. RESULTS Findings of the interviews with children from both camps, interviews with instructors, observations, evaluation forms, and field notes are presented below with a variable-oriented strategy (Miles & Huberman, 1999) seeking design principles for educational robotics training camps. Seven themes emerged: Instruction, Group Issues, Competition, Coaching, Technical Issues, Challenges, and Camp Duration. For better visualization, the themes, categories, and their relationships are presented in Figure 1. The driving research question, key design principles for an educational robotics training 6
camp, takes the center position in the diagram, and main and secondary design issues are placed around it. [Figure 1 is about here] 4.1 Theme 1: Instruction Two categories emerged with regard to instructional aspects of a robotics camp: learning outcomes and evaluation of the camps’ components. 4.1.1 Category 1: Learning Outcomes The children expressed their learning outcomes from the camps in three different categories: robotics, mathematics and science, and social skills. 4.1.1.1 Robotics During both camps, children easily grew accustomed to the robotics concept. When talking or working, they used robot-related words properly and often knew the properties of each sensor or recognized how the sensors should be used. Except for one, none of the children had touched a robot before. All children stated that they learned robotics at the camp. Robotics-related learning is categorized into four sub-categories: general robotics knowledge, programming, sensors, and mechanics. Although most children declared their robotics knowledge with specific words such as sensors and programming, some children stated a more general understanding about robotics. This kind of learning, general robotics knowledge, refers to information such as what a robot is or why robots are used. One child stated: Child.I.22: For instance, formerly when someone mentioned robots, I did not know what it is. Now I can answer lots of questions instantly. I can even make a robot by myself.
One of the most frequently stated learning outcomes of both camps was the learning of robot “programming.” Most children (17 of 30 from the first camp and 21 of 22 from the second) expressed that they learned robot programming at the camp. Another child explained: Child.I.20: I have learned how to program, too. For instance, I was very interested in computers. Before these activities, I did not know so many things.
Moreover, the children grasped the “loop” concept so easily that it impressed the authors. Although most of them reported basic level computer literacy at the outset, they felt they learned programming in the camps. The LEGO Mindstorms NXT Education base set that was used in the camps comes with one light, one sound, one ultrasonic sensor, and two touch sensors. One important characteristic of the robots different from any other remote controlled device is their interaction with the environment. This interaction occurs through sensors. Therefore, sensors are a key part of 7
what makes robots, robots. During the camps, the children worked with all of the sensors in the set. In the evaluations, 19 children from the first camp and 11 children from the second described their learning about sensors. In their statements, they supplied detailed characteristics of the sensors and how they used them: Child.I.15: It is very beautiful and entertaining. I had not known about light sensor, ultrasonic sensor but now I have learned. We see some places with light sensor. It returns when it sees black bands. With ultrasonic sensor, if it sees obstacles, it has hands and lifts cans.
A LEGO Mindstorms NXT set comes with approximately four hundred pieces; with the resource set, the number reaches more than a thousand. With these building elements, children can create their own robot design. In interviews and on evaluation forms, 11 children at the first camp and 5 at the second explicitly reported learning while combining these LEGO pieces. 4.1.1.2 Mathematics and Science During the design phase of the camps, mathematics and science concepts were emphasized. Sixth grade Mathematics and Science and Technology curriculums were investigated, and suitable concepts for robotics activities were created. Activity sheets were prepared for the first camp, and learning stations were prepared for the second camp. A total of 16 children from both camps expressed positive effects of the program on their mathematics knowledge because they learned mathematics and science in a fun way: Child.I.25: It has improved my mathematics. My math skill was not very good this year but because it was fun here, I could learn math. Child.II.09: I am thinking. I am a person who does not like science and math. Here, I loved math and science more.
As seen from their statements, the children either reinforced their knowledge about mathematics and science or increased their interest. 4.1.1.3 Social Skills The children worked in teams during the camps. Moreover, they ate their meals together, and during lunch, the boys played football and the girls played jump rope. Sometimes, they played all together at the end of the day. As a result of this social environment, especially in the first camp, the social skills category emerged as a learning outcome. One of the participants talked about his improved social skills: Child.I.25: I learned how to cooperate. I have learned how to get along with my friends. I learned that robot are not so hard.
Especially in competition, their collaboration and enthusiasm was easily observed. Specialization was also observed in some of the groups, where one group member was responsible for programming, while another was responsible for combining pieces. 4.1.2 Category 2: Evaluation of the Camps’ Components
8
Evaluation in instructional design has two purposes. One aspect of “evaluation is determining how well the instruction works: is the instruction effective, efficient, and appealing? And if it is not working well, what changes need to be made?” (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 104); that is, evaluation of the instruction. Knowing how instruction should be structured at a robotics camp would be impossible without evaluation. Therefore, the children and instructors evaluated parts of the camps using activity sheets during the first camp and programming instruction, learning stations, and project sections during the second camp. Child.II.22: The most positive thing that I liked most? We had project work, and the most important thing was that we designed them, and even with our designs, we achieved it, and this is something that makes me very proud. And you say to yourself that I designed this, and it is what I wanted. Something very proud.
As shown by this statement, the projects section of a camp is the most enjoyable feature. No negative statements were made about the projects, and 14 children explicitly expressed positive feedback. 4.2 Theme 2: Group Issues The second theme that emerged was group issues, which were investigated under three subcategories: group size, group mates’ gender, and group problems. 4.2.1 Category 1: Group Size When evaluating their group work, 12 children from the first camp and 6 children from the second stated that the group size should be three because a small group increases the chance of working with the robot and decreases group conflicts. One participant expressed: Child.I.05: With five people, it was crowded. We could have arguments between us, such as "I will do this and you will do this" kind of thing, but with three people, everything was ok. Everybody takes one mission, and it becomes easier.
Six children at the first camp and eight children at the second believed that the optimum group size was four, creating a balance between the numbers of ideas and materials (in this case, one LEGO Mindstorms set): R: What is the ideal number for working? Child.I.23: In my opinion, four people is ideal. R: If it is two or three? Child.I.23: When it is two I feel something is missing. I want more opinions.
4.2.2 Category 2: Group Mates’ Gender Analysis of the children’s interviews showed that most children either preferred to work in a mixed gender group (5 from the first camp, 8 from the second) or did not have a preference (14 from the first camp, 7 from the second): Child.I.21: In my opinion, being mixed is better. If all we were girls, maybe we could not have done well. If someone takes something, I also want to take it, but if there are boys, we get along. Things could go in order.
9
Therefore, groups in robotics camps should be constructed with mixed gender groups to encourage social interactions with the opposite gender and increase productivity. 4.2.3 Category 3: Group Problems The main cause of group problems were group members who were either overly involved or not interested. Children mostly complained about group mates taking too many opportunities to build and not sharing the experience (8 from the first camp, 5 from the second). However, 7 children from the first camp and 4 from the second complained about group mates who did not participate enough. One student complained: Child.I.30: My friends did not do anything. All the things were done by me and my friend [Child.I.05]. That day, we were very tired and fell asleep on the school bus.
4.3 Theme 3: Competition At the first camp, races and tournaments were held to increase motivation. Because of some negative consequences from the first camp, such as objections to results and the resulting unwanted discussions, similar competitions were kept to a minimum at the second camp. Despite the negative outcomes, 22 children who attended the first camp and 7 from the second felt that the competitions were positive and emphasized how they improved focus: R: At the beginning, we had competitions. What do you think about those competitions? Child.I.27: I think the competition is better. … R: So, is such a competition atmosphere good? Child.I.27: Yes, you try to build better robots to win the competition, to become better.
At the second camp, the instructors did not encourage the children to compete, but 14 children seemed to arrange themselves into self-competition. They mostly mentioned Child.II.06’s challenging behavior: R: So between the groups, was there a competitive feel of things? Have you felt like that during the camp? Child.II.11: Only [Child.II.06] was coming to our side and telling us that our robot was bad and theirs was good.
4.4 Theme 4: Coaching The instructors’ role at the camps was that of coach—a coach should motivate learners, analyze performances, provide feedback and advice, and provoke reflection on and articulation of what was learned (Jonassen, 1999). During the camps, the instructors avoided direct instruction, especially when children worked at learning stations or on projects; they encouraged children to find their own solutions to their design or programming problems. Although the children did not know the official name for this learning style, their experiences were categorized by the researchers under discovery learning, critical thinking, trial-and-error, and learning with fun. As a result of this coaching approach, the children stated that their learning increased and was more enjoyable:
10
Child.I.24: When you did it like that, I learned how to make analogies and relationships between them. While days were passing, I was learning more—I mean about robots—and I was relaxing because I was learning, so in the first days, it was problematic for me. R: Which one is better? Behaving like that or just being told on the board directly? Child.I.24: In my opinion, behaving like that, because we set up the connection between them and we learned better. R: So, what is happening when you set it up yourself? Child.I.24: If you had shown it on the board, maybe we would have forgotten it, but for example, at first, when we make a mistake and then fix it, I remember this mistake longer. However, I am talking for me, of course.
4.5 Theme 5: Technical Issues The purpose of the study was not to deal with the technical parts of a robot or to reveal and improve electronic or mechanical design problems. The aim of the study was to determine technical problems that children encountered during activities with LEGO Mindstorms NXT sets and computers. Therefore, the phrase "technical issues" should be understood as technical problems resulting from the tools used at the camps. When children started their projects, resource packs were distributed, providing each group more than a thousand LEGO pieces. However, this was still not enough to satisfy the children's imaginations. The most commonly reported technical problem from both camps was a deficiency of LEGO pieces. At the second camp, 50 percent of children voiced this concern. As the camps ran all day, battery shortage was a technical problem at the first camp. Although the children were reminded to charge their robots at noon or at night when leaving the camp, sometimes the children forgot or the batteries did not last all day, forcing the children to wait. However, extra battery packs were acquired for the second camp, so when a robot powered down, its battery was swapped out, and the dead battery could charge. As a result, this technical problem was resolved during the second camp. 4.6 Theme 6: Challenges Analysis of interviews indicated that the children felt stressed when combining pieces of robots to create functional parts and during programming. Fourteen children from the first camp and two from the second had difficulties mostly when combining pieces. It appeared easy for participants to combine pieces with the help of the manual; however, when they created a new design, especially while working on their projects, it was difficult to make functional parts, like the can grabber: Child.I.12: For example, we try to put the parts horizontally in order to take the cola can. It is very hard to get them right. For two and a half days, I struggled, till I started to do it. It is hard for me to put something horizontally. There is not a part, and you have to create the fixing point. It is hard for me. Except for this, I have no problem.
Although an important outcome of the camp was to learn how to program the robots with NXT-G software, some children had a hard time. Ten children at the first camp and nine at the second felt that programming was challenging. 11
4.7 Theme 7: Camp Duration Both camps generally started around 08:45 and finished around 16:00. On an ordinary day, students took one long lunch break, two snack breaks, and three or four short breaks. A study session lasted 45-60 minutes. During the first camp, the children did not complain about the schedule. However, many children at the second camp were unwilling to resume work after breaks. Moreover, they asked for more and longer breaks on their camp evaluation forms. The first camp was conducted in the winter, and there were no complaints about camp duration or break times; however, the children and instructors agreed that the second camp was more exhausting because of the hot weather, which affected attitudes toward the camp. 5 DISCUSSION The first learning outcome category under the robotics theme is general robotics knowledge, referring to general information, such as what a robot is and why and how robots are used. The results of the study show that the children gained knowledge about robotics from the camps. However, when designing these camps, the question is when and how robotics knowledge should be presented. Because of the paradigm shift from teacher-centered instruction to learner-centered instruction, Reigeluth (1999) offers elaboration theory, which argues that content should be organized in order from simple to complex. According to this theory, broader, more inclusive concepts should be taught before narrower details. The theory of robotics studies can be based on Papert’s constructionism (1993), which also emphasizes children’s active roles while building unique intellectual structures. Further, Reigeluth's (1999) elaboration theory emerged from the need to sequence instruction in a learner-centered paradigm. Therefore, elaboration theory also applies to robotics camp design. When all concepts in a robotics camp curriculum are considered, the basic, broadest and most inclusive concept defines robots, and that definition is general robotics knowledge. When elaboration theory is considered, instruction in robotics camps should start with this general robotics knowledge. The children learned to build their first NXT robots while following the instructions manual. While they built, the instructors explained the symbols in the manual. That is, the students learned robot mechanics by building a robot following Papert’s simple definition of constructionism as “learning by making” (Papert & Harel, 1991). Results of the study prove that robot mechanics emerged as a learning outcome of robotics camps. Nourbakhsh et al. (2004), Nourbakhsh et al. (2005), and Druin & Hendler (2000) found similar results; Nourbakhsh et al. (2005) call that theme “mechanics,” while Druin and Hendler (2000) call it “mechanical design.” The most important learning outcome of the camps was that children could learn to make and implement programs for robots. Although classical programming environments such as Basic or Pascal would be very challenging for young children, the NXT-G environment makes programming understandable through its drag and drop block architecture. It simplifies programming logic, removing the need to spend hours learning and debugging syntaxes (Ranganathan, Schultz, & Mardani, 2008).
12
Robots offer unique characteristics when teaching programming because when children run a program, the results are not on a computer screen but in the real world. Sargent explains, “The programmable brick breaks new ground for programming environments for kids: it connects programming to the real world” (1995, p. 11). This benefit explains why programming was overall the most mentioned and enjoyable learning outcome for both camps. Many robotics studies have aimed to measure the effects of robotics activities on children’s critical thinking and problem solving skills (Barak & Zadok, 2007; Barker & Ansorge, 2007; Beer et al., 1999; Hussain et al., 2006; Johnson, 2003; Lindh & Holgersson, 2007; Mauch, 2001; Mosley & Kline, 2006; Nugent, Barker, & Grandgenett, 2010; Robinson, 2005; Sullivan, 2008; Wyeth, Venz, & Wyeth, 2004). Results have also revealed that robotics activities have positive effects on children’s discovery learning and critical thinking because they give children a chance to practice relevant skills. A robot is obviously a good tool not only within robotics itself but also for general science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) concepts (Mataric, Koenig, & Feil-Seifer, 2007). In addition to the robotics and Mathematics & Science outcomes, robotics also affects children’s social skills. Social learning may be the most beneficial aspect of robotics studies. This subject has been considered since Logo, ancestor to today’s LEGO Mindstorms NXTs (Yelland, 1995a). Some studies have focused on types of interactions inside groups (Denis & Hubert, 2001), while some measured how robotics helps children develop teamwork skills (Johnson, 2003) or how learning is more fun in social environments (Panadero, om n, Kloos, 2010; Robinson, 2005). Similarly, this study indicated that children gained some social skills through group work. When developing a robotics camp, the designer should consider a number of factors when determining group size. As size increases, the abilities, expertise, skills, and number of minds to process information also increase. However, the available materials for the task must also be considered (Wilkinson, 2002). The designer must balance the number of children in a group with materials. If groups are too crowded, some children will get bored or distracted. A criterion for optimum group size is that every child in the group should have an assigned role at all times (Edmiston, 2004). Gender issues in this study echoed Logo findings. Hughes, Brackenridge, Bibby, and Greenhough (1989) found that boy-girl mixed groups performed better on a Logo task than all-boy groups and the same as all-girl groups (cited in Howe, 1997). Yelland (1995b) also investigated gender issues using collaborative Logo tasks. He found no differences in performance measures between girls and boys. The results of this study show that most children either prefer mixed groups or gender does not matter to them. Further related literature shows no performance or enthusiasm differences between boys and girls; therefore, mixed gender groups are suggested for a robotics camp. Group problems at a robotics camp are different than group problems in a classroom setting; for example, hitchhikers or hitch-hiking, a concept in which everyone earns the same grade regardless of contribution levels (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 2007; Oakley, Felder, & Brent, 2004; Shimazoe & Aldrich, 2010), is a problem in the classroom. However, results of this study show that hitch-hiking is not an issue at a robotics camp. On the contrary, the over willingness of some students to interact with the robot is the primary group problem. Cohn (1999) has indicated that assigning roles to group members is a strategy that encourages students to work cooperatively, and giving clear assignments is an effective way to prevent
13
hitchhikers. Although hitchhikers were not a problem, encouraging task sharing or division of labor can still prevent disruptive behavior of group members who want to use the robots more often. Petre and Price (2004) found that robotics competitions motivated students to persist in spite of frustration or setbacks. Similarly, although it also has negative consequences, the results of this study provide children’s positive feedback about competition. Moreover, when external competition was kept at a minimum, self-competition between children emerged, demonstrating that competition is a necessity for robotics camps. In their study with LEGO Mindstorms NXTs, Panadero, om n, and loos (2010) also concluded that competition and social interaction contribute directly to increasing student motivation. Moreover, competition can create positive interdependence (Johnson & Johnson, 1996). Although competition mostly tends to be boy related, in the second camp, where competition was kept to a minimum by the instructors, a girl challenged other groups to engage the students in self-competition. Like, the preference of group mates gender, this finding also suggests that robotics camps should be gender independent. Tinzmann, Jones, Fennimore, Bakker, Fine, and Pierce (1990) define the duties of a coach as providing hints or cues, giving feedback, redirecting students' efforts, and helping students use a strategy. The main principle of coaching is providing the right amount of help when students need it; therefore, students retain as much responsibility as possible for their own learning. As a result of this approach at the camps, the children stated that they learned better and enjoyed it. Therefore, instructors for a robotics camp should understand that their duty is to be a coach. They should not give direct solutions, but they should evaluate the children’s performance and offer an appropriate amount of support. Jim (2010) has observed that frustration and stress can build up very quickly when robots fail to perform as expected. The instructors should keep students active through their support, derailing anxiety or boredom and maintaining a flow state (Csikszentmihalyi, 1991). Nourbakhsh et al. (2004) reported in their study on robotics that the children mostly struggled with programming and mechanics. Similarly, Järvinen (1998) indicated that programming appeared to be the most difficult and frustrating task in his study. Parallel to the literature, the results of this study show that children mostly struggled with programming and mechanics. Therefore, instructors should be more aware of necessary guidance when children are working on programming or combining pieces (mechanics). These two concepts are the most challenging parts of robotics camps, so it is unsurprising that children are easily frustrated when faced with them. 5.1 Design Principles for an Educational Robotics Training Camp The purpose of the present study was to define key design and development principles for an educational robotics training camp; suggestions are presented below based on the themes that emerged during data analysis. 5.1.1 Robotics Robotics concepts should be designed under four headings: general robotics knowledge, programming, sensors, and mechanics. “General robotics knowledge,” which conveys a general idea of what robots are, should be presented early through videos, pictures, role playing games, and guiding questions.
14
Programming, sensors, and mechanics should be presented concurrently. The content of instruction should be organized from simple to complex, and subsequent content should be integrated with former ideas. 5.1.2 Mathematics and Science Mathematics and science should not be taught through direct instruction at robotics camps but using Problem Based Learning. Activities should affect children’s attitudes toward mathematics and science in a positive way. Authentic, complex problems should be prepared for children to solve by applying mathematics and science knowledge to robots. Robotics training camps should allow children to practice what they learn at school. 5.1.3 Social Skills In group and across group social interaction should be encouraged. Implementing cooperative learning and small group work strategies enhances group interaction. Between group interaction includes borrowing LEGO pieces, sharing information, or participating in arranged competitions. 5.1.4 Camp Components Projects parts should be emphasized; if it is possible, the whole camp’s curriculum should be made of small projects focused around STEM concepts. Mathematics and science related concepts should be included at learning stations via activity sheets. 5.1.5 Group Size The group size should be arranged so that every child in a group has duties at any given time. If group members do not have assignments, they may distract others. Engagement of all group members is ensured by adjusting group size or complexity of an activity. Three member groups are advised, while four member groups are also acceptable. 5.1.6 Group Mates’ Gender Groups should be constructed with mixed gender. 5.1.7 Group Problems Task sharing and division of labor should be encouraged to eliminate “not interested” and “wants to make more” group problems. The children who attend camp should be in the same grade level, especially for mathematics and science activities. 5.1.8 Competition Tournaments and races should be arranged to increase motivation and make the camp more entertaining. Competition should not be overemphasized. It should be clearly defined that tournaments and races are for fun and motivation. 5.1.9 Coaching
15
An instructor's main duty at a robotics camps is to be a good coach, rather than a traditional teacher. Instructors should motivate learners, analyze their performances, provide feedback, and provoke reflection on and articulation of what was learned. 5.1.10 Technical Issues Battery shortages, lack of battery charges, and having enough pieces were the main technical problems faced at these robotics camps. At least one person should be on staff with technical competencies. Each camp should have an extra robot set, computer, and battery packs. A basic LEGO Mindstorms NXT set does not have enough pieces; adding the resource pack is advised. 5.1.11
Challenges Challenges should be a part of robotics camps to increase motivation and engagement. The challenges should not be too hard for the children. Because children will not have programming experience, programming will be challenging itself. Moreover, connecting LEGO pieces to create functional parts requires time and some mechanical talent. Therefore, especially on the first days of camp, coaches should provide appropriate scaffolding.
5.1.12 Camp Duration A normal day for a robotics camp could be arranged as a 45-50 minute session with a fifteen minute break. Three morning and three afternoon sessions with a lunch break would offer ample time for exploration. While designing curriculum, conditions that affect instruction, such as weather conditions, should be considered. 6. CONCLUSION The aim of the study was to define critical success factors for educational robotics training camps in order to create design guidelines. Data resulted in seven critical robotics training camp design themes: Instruction, Group Issues, Competition, Coaching, Technical Issues, Challenges, and Camp Duration. The authors proposed design principles for each theme. However designing a robotics training camp’s curriculum is not a single step progress, and there is no single best curriculum. Design is a continuous progress, and this study is only one step towards creating a standard robotics training camp curriculum. Therefore, the results of this study should be applied in robotics camps and evaluated. The redesign, implementation, and evaluation cycle should be followed to establish a better curriculum. Moreover, longitudinal research on the effectiveness of robotics training camps is also needed.
16
REFERENCES Altin, H., & Pedaste, M. (2013). Learning approaches to applying robotics in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(3), 365-377. 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. Barker, B. S., & Ansorge, J. (2007). Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 229. Beer, R. D., Chiel, H. J., & Drushel, R. F. (1999). Using autonomous robotics to teach science and engineering. Communications of the ACM, 42(6), 85-92. Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978-988. Bjoerner, T. (2009, June). If I had a robot it should do everything for me: Children’s attitudes to robots in everyday life. International Journal of Learning, 16(3), 243-254. Burket, S., Small, C., Rossetti, C., Hill, B., & Gattis, C. (2008). A day camp for middle school girls to create a STEM pipeline. Proceedings of the 2008 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Pittsburgh, PA. Cannon, K., LaPoint, M. A., Bird, N., Panciera, K., Veeraraghavan, H., Papanikolopoulos, N., & Gini, M. (2006). No fear: University of Minnesota robotics day camp introduces local youth to hands-on technologies.. Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (pp. 363–368). doi: 10.1109/ROBOT.2006.1641738 Cannon, K., Panciera, K., & Papanikolopoulos, N. (2007). Second annual robotics summer camp for underrepresented students. Proceedings of the 12th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 14–18). doi: 10.1145/1268784.1268791 Cohn, C. L. (1999). Cooperative learning in a macroeconomics course. College Teaching, 47(2), 51. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: HarperPerennial. Denis, B., & Hubert, S. (2001). Collaborative learning in an educational robotics environment. Computers in human behavior, 17(5-6), 465–480. doi: 10.1016/S07475632(01)00018-8
17
Druin, A., & Hendler, J. A. (2000). Robots for kids: Exploring new technologies for learning. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Edmiston, G. (2004). Designing inclusive curriculum: Engaging girls with science, engineering and technology using robotics. Proceedings of the Australian Computersin Education Conference. Retrieved in October 2012 from http://acce.edu.au/sites/acce.edu.au/files/ archived_papers/conf_P_68_designinginclusivecurriculumfinal.doc Fagin, B., & Merkle, L. (2003). Measuring the effectiveness of robots in teaching computer science. Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Vol. 35, pp. 307-311). doi: 10.1145/792548.611994 Harel, I. (1991). Children designers: Interdisciplinary constructions for learning and knowing mathematics in a computer-rich school (pp. 24-27). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Howe, C. (1997). Gender and classroom interaction: A research review. Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Council for Research in Education. Hussain, S., Lindh, J., & Shukur, G. (2006). The effect of LEGO training on pupils ’ school performance in mathematics, problem solving ability and attitude: Swedish data. Educational Technology & Society, 9(3), 182-194. Iturrizaga, I. M. (n.d.). Study of educational impact of the LEGO Dacta materialsINFOESCUELA-MED. Final Report. 2000. Järvinen, E. M. (1998). The Lego/Logo learning environment in technology education: An experiment in a Finnish context. Journal of Technology Education, 9(2), 47-59. Jim, C. K. W. (2010). Teaching with LEGO mindstorms robots: Effects on learning environment and attitudes toward science (Master's thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 1489918) Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (Vol. 1, pp. 1017-1044). New York, NY: Macmillan. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15-29. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9038-8 Johnson, J. (2003). Children, robotics, and education. Artificial Life and Robotics, 7(1), 1621. doi:10.1007/s10015-003-0265-5 Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (Vol. 2, pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18
Keathly, D., & Akl, R. (2007). Attracting and retaining women in computer science and engineering: Evaluating the results. Paper presented at the 2007 ASEE Annual Conference. doi: 10.1.1.125.3086 Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Lindh, J., & Holgersson, T. (2007). Does Lego training stimulate pupils’ ability to solve logical problems? Computers & Education, 49(4), 1097-1111. Martin, F. (1988). Children, cybernetics, and programmable turtles (Unpublished master's thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Laboratory, Cambridge, MA. Martin, F., Mikhak, B., Resnick, M., Silverman, B., & Berg, R. (2000). To mindstorms and beyond: Evolution of a construction kit for magical machines. Robots for kids: Exploring new technologies for learning (pp. 9-33). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Mataric, M. J., Koenig, N., & Feil-Seifer, D. (2007). Materials for enabling hands-on robotics and STEM education. Proceedings AAAI Spring Symposium: Semantic Scientific Knowledge Integration '07 (pp. 99-102). Mauch, E. (2001). Using technological innovation to improve the problem-solving skills of middle school students: Educators’ experiences with the LEGO Mindstorms robotic invention system. Clearing House, 74(4), 211-214. McNally, M., Goldweber, M., Fagin, B., & Klassner, F. (2006). Do Lego Mindstorms robots have a future in CS education? SIGCSE Bulletin 36(3), 61-62. doi: 10.1145/ 1121341.1121362 McNerney, T. (2004). From turtles to tangible Programming Bricks: Explorations in physical language design. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8(5), 326-337. doi: 10.1007/ s00779-004-0295-6 McWhorter, W. (2005). Turtles and beyond: A history of programmable robots. Unpublished manuscript. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage. Mindell, D., Beland, C., Wesley, C., Clarke, D., Park, R., & Trupiano, M. (2000). LEGO Mindstorms: The structure of an engineering (r)evolution. Retrieved from web.mit.edu/6.933/www/Fall2000/LegoMindstorms.pdf Mosley, P., & Kline, R. (2006). Engaging students: A framework using LEGO robotics to teach problem solving. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 24(1), 39-45.
19
Murphy, R. R., & Rosenblatt, M. (2000). Robocamp: One hands-on week of exploring science through robotics. In Allison Druin & J. Hendler (Eds.), Robots for kids: Exploring new technologies for learning (pp. 297-331). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Nordstrom, G., Reasonover, G., & Hutchinson, B. (2009). Attracting students to engineering through robotics camp. Paper presented at the ASEE Southeast Section Conference., Marietta, GA. Nourbakhsh, I. R., Crowley, K., Bhave, A., Hamner, E., Hsiu, T., Perez-Bergquist, A., Richards, S., et al. (2005). The robotic autonomy mobile robotics course: Robot design, curriculum design and educational assessment. Autonomous Robots, 18(1), 103-127. doi: 10.1023/B:AURO.0000047303.20624.02 Nourbakhsh, I. R., Hamner, E., Crowley, K., & Wilkinson, K. (2004). Formal measures of learning in a secondary school mobile robotics course. Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (pp. 1831-1836). Nugent, G., Barker, B., & Grandgenett, N. (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. Oakley, B., Felder, R., & Brent, R. (2004). Turning student groups into effective teams. Journal of Student Centered Learning, 2(1), 9-34. Panadero, C. ., om n, . ., loos, C. . ( 1 ). mpact of learning experiences using LEGO Mindstorms in engineering courses. Education Engineering (EDUCON), 2010 IEEE (pp. 503-512). doi: 10.1109/EDUCON.2010.5492534 Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books. Papert, S. (1999). What is Logo? And who needs it? Logo Philosophy and Implementation (p. iv–xvi). Logo Computer Systems, Inc. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.papert.org/articles/ SituatingConstructionism.html Petre, M., & Price, B. (2004). Using robotics to motivate “back door” learning. Education and Information Technologies, 9(2), 147-158. doi: 10.1023/ B:EAIT.0000027927.78380.60 Ranganathan, P., Schultz, R., & Mardani, M. (2008). Use of LEGO NXT Mindstorms brick in engineering education. Proceedings of 2008 ASEE North Midwest (pp. 1-12). Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory (Vol. II). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20
Robinson, M. (2005). Robotics-driven activities: Can they improve middle school science learning? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 25(1), 73-84. doi: 10.1177/ 0270467604271244 Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM Education, 5(3-4), 17-28. Sargent, R. (1995). The programmable LEGO brick: Ubiquitous computing for kids. (Unpublished master's thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Laboratory, Cambridge, MA. Sargent, R., Resnick, M., Martin, F., & Silverman, B. (1996). Building and learning with Programmable Bricks. In Y. Kafai and M. Resnick (Eds.), Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking and learning in a digital world (pp. 161-174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Shimazoe, J., & Aldrich, H. (2010). Group work can be gratifying: Understanding & overcoming resistance to cooperative learning. College Teaching, 58(2), 52-57. doi: 10.1080/87567550903418594 Yıldırım, A., Şimşek, H. ( Seçkin Yayıncılık.
8). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara:
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional Design (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Willey & Sons. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for devoloping grounded theory. London: Sage Publications. Sullivan, F. R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 373-394. doi: 10.1002/tea .20238 Tinzmann, M., Jones, B., Fennimore, T., Bakker, J., Fine, C., & Pierce, J. (1990). What is the collaborative classroom? Oak Brook, IL: NCREL. Watt, M. (1982). What is Logo? Creative Computing, 8(10), 112-29. Wilkinson, I. (2002). Small-group composition and peer effects. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(5), 425-447. doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00014-4 Williams, D., Ma, Y., Prejean, L., & Ford, M. (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. Wyeth, P., enz, M., Wyeth, G. ( 4). Scaffolding children’s robot building and programming activities. In D. Polani, B. Browning, A. Bonarini, and K. Yoshida (Eds.), RoboCup 2003: Robot Soccer World Cup VII (308-319). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
21
Yelland, N. (1995a). Mindstorms or a storm in a teacup? A review of research with Logo. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 26(6), 853-869. doi:10.1080/0020739950260607 Yelland, N. (1995b). Collaboration and learning with Logo: does gender make a difference? The First International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 397-401). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22
Figure caption Figure 1. Concept map of the themes and categories.
23
Figure Click here to download high resolution image
table Click here to download table: Table 1.doc
Table 1. Participant Genders and Grade Levels
First Camp Second Camp
Grade 6 6 7 8
Boys 19 2 8 1
Girls 9 3 3 5
Total 28 22
