Robotics applied to classroom in Primary Education: a case in the Spanish context
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24197/st.Extra_2.2021.240-259Keywords:
Educational robotics, Mbot, programming, computational thinking, STEM education.Abstract
Innovating in the school stage, especially in Primary Education (PE), is essential to promote educational change at an early age. It is at this time that promoting teaching in areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics is essential to motivate students in school learning. Considering the current paradigm of STEM education, an experience is presented in a PE classroom with students from 10 to 12 years old, where elements of robotics, programming (Scratch) and computational thinking are included with the aim of articulating the learning of STEM disciplines. A series of activities are carried out in an environment of permanent inquiry, in which a voluntary group of students attend 15 workshop sessions after school. An evaluation of the program is carried out by a satisfaction survey, observing a positive evaluation of educational activities and the inclusion of technological elements.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Aguilera, D., y Perales-Palacios, F. J. (2020). What Effects Do Didactic Interventions Have on Students’ Attitudes Towards Science? A Meta-Analysis. Research in Science Education, 50(2), 573-597.
Batdi, V., Talan, T., y Semerci, C. (2019). Meta-analytic and meta-thematic analysis of STEM education. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (IJEMST), 7(4), 382-399.
Barker, B., y Ansorge, J. (2007). Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 229–243.
Becker, K., y Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education, 12(5), 23–38. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0019454
Benitti, F. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978-988.
Brennan, K., y Resnick, M. (2012, April). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In AERA 2012 - annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.
Busquets, T., Silva, M., y Larrosa, P. (2016). Reflexiones sobre el aprendizaje de las ciencias naturales: Nuevas aproximaciones y desafíos. Estudios Pedagógicos (Valdivia), 42(especial), 117–135.
Cardona, M. (2002). Introducción a los métodos de investigación en educación. Madrid: EOS
Castiblanco, P. (2016). El modelo STEM como practica innovadora en el proceso de aprendizaje de las matemáticas en las escuelas unitarias de la IED Instituto técnico agrícola de Pacho, Cundinamarca. (Tesis de maestría). Universidad Tecnológica de Bolívar, Cartagena de Indias.
Chung, C., Cartwright, C., y Cole, M. (2014). Assessing the impact of an autonomous Robotics competition for STEM education. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 15(2), 24-34.
Coxon, S. (2012). The malleability of spatial ability under treatment of a first lego league-based Robotics simulation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(3), 291–316.
Denning, P. (2017). Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 33-39.
De Jong, T. (2019). Moving towards engaged learning in STEM domains; there is no simple answer, but clearly a road ahead. Journal of computer assisted learning, 35(2), 153 -167.
Ferrada C., Carrillo-Rosúa, J., Díaz-Levicoy, D. y Silva-Díaz, F. (2020). La robótica desde las áreas STEM en Educación Primaria: una revisión sistemática. Education in The Knowledge Society (EKS). 22, 1-18.
Gonçalves, J., Lima, J., Brito, T., Brancalião, L., Camargo, C., Oliveira, V., & Conde., M. Á. (2019). Educational Robotics Summer Camp at IPB: A Challenge based learning case study. In M. Á. Conde-González et al. (Eds.), TEEM’19 Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 36-43). New York, USA: ACM.
González, H. y Kuenzi, J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service.
Greca, I., García, E., Fridberg, M., Cronquist, B., y Redfors, A. (2020). Robotics and Early-years STEM Education: The botSTEM Framework and Activities. European Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 01.
Ha, O., y Fang, N. (2013). Development of interactive 3D tangible models as teaching aids to improve students' spatial ability in STEM education. In Frontiers in Education Conference, 2013 IEEE (pp. 1302-1304). IEEE.
Hernández, R., Fernández, C., y Baptista, P. (2010). Metodología de la Investigación. México: Mac Graw Hill.
Linn, M. (2003). Technology and science education: starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 727–758.
López, V., Couso, D. y Simarro, C. (2020). Educación STEM en y para el mundo digital. Revista De Educación a Distancia, 20(62).
López-Escribano, C. y Sánchez-Montoya, R. (2012). Scratch y necesidades educativas especiales: Programación para todos. RED, Revista de Educación a Distancia, 34(3), 1-14.
Makokha, J. (2017). Emerging Technologies and Science Teaching. En: K.S. Taber y B. Akpan (eds.), Science Education, pp. 369-383. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Martín‐Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales‐Palacios, F., y Vílchez‐González, J. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education, 103(4), 799-822.
Marginson, S., Tytler, R. y Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: comparaciones de países: comparaciones internacionales de educación en ciencia, tecnología, ingeniería y matemáticas. Reporte final. Melbourne: Australian Council of Learned Academies
Marrero, I. (2019). Desde LOGO hasta Scratch y más allá. Revista NÚMEROS, 100(3), 213-217.
MECD (2014). Real Decreto 126/2014, de 28 de febrero, por el que se establece el currículo básico de la Educación Primaria. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte.
Monsalves, S. (2011). Estudio sobre la utilidad de la robótica educativa desde la perspectiva del docente. Revista de Pedagogía. 32(90), 81-117.
Nemiro, J., Larriva, C., y Jawaharlal, M. (2015). Developing Creative Behavior in Elementary School Students with Robotics. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(1), 70–90. https://doi:10.1002/jocb.87
Park, I., Kim, D., Oh, J., Jang, Y., y Lim, K. (2015). Learning Effects of Pedagogical Robots with Programming in Elementary School Environments in Korea. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8(26), 1-5.
Repenning, A., Basawapatna, A, y Escherle, N. (2017). Principles of Computational Thinking Tools. In P. Rich, & C. Hodges (Eds.), Proceedings of Emerging Research, Practice, and Policy on Computational Thinking (pp. 291-305).
Reyes-González, D. y García-Cartagena, Y. (2014). Desarrollo de habilidades científicas en la formación inicial de profesores de ciencias y matemática. Educación y Educadores, 17(2), 271-285.
Roig-Vila, R. y Moreno-Isac, V. (2020). El pensamiento computacional en educación. Análisis bibliométrico y temático. Red. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 20(63). http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/red.402621
Ruiz-Vicente, F. (2017). Diseño de proyectos STEAM a partir del currículum actual de Educación Primaria utilizando aprendizaje basado en problemas, aprendizaje cooperativo, flipped classroom y robótica educativa. (Tesis doctoral). Universidad CEU Cardenal Herrera, España.
Sánchez, J. (2013). Qué dicen los estudios sobre el aprendizaje basado en proyectos. Actualidad pedagógica. 1-4
Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEM mania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.
Sevian, H., Judy, Y., y Parchmann, I. (2018). How does STEM contex-based learning work: what we know and what we still do not know. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2) 1-13.
Silva-Díaz, F., Carrillo-Rosúa, J., y Fernández-Plaza, J. A. (2021). Uso de tecnologías inmersivas y su impacto en las actitudes científico-matemáticas del estudiantado de Educación Secundaria Obligatoria en un contexto en riesgo de exclusión social. Educar, 57(1), 0119-138.
Taylor, M., Vasquez, E., & Donehower, C. (2017). Computer programming with early elementary students with Down Syndrome. Journal of Special Education Technology, 32(3), 149–159.
Vo, H., Zhu, C., & Diep, N. (2017). The effect of blended learning on student performance at course-level in higher education: A meta-analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53(3), 17–28.
Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
Batdi, V., Talan, T., y Semerci, C. (2019). Meta-analytic and meta-thematic analysis of STEM education. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (IJEMST), 7(4), 382-399.
Barker, B., y Ansorge, J. (2007). Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 229–243.
Becker, K., y Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education, 12(5), 23–38. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0019454
Benitti, F. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978-988.
Brennan, K., y Resnick, M. (2012, April). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In AERA 2012 - annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.
Busquets, T., Silva, M., y Larrosa, P. (2016). Reflexiones sobre el aprendizaje de las ciencias naturales: Nuevas aproximaciones y desafíos. Estudios Pedagógicos (Valdivia), 42(especial), 117–135.
Cardona, M. (2002). Introducción a los métodos de investigación en educación. Madrid: EOS
Castiblanco, P. (2016). El modelo STEM como practica innovadora en el proceso de aprendizaje de las matemáticas en las escuelas unitarias de la IED Instituto técnico agrícola de Pacho, Cundinamarca. (Tesis de maestría). Universidad Tecnológica de Bolívar, Cartagena de Indias.
Chung, C., Cartwright, C., y Cole, M. (2014). Assessing the impact of an autonomous Robotics competition for STEM education. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 15(2), 24-34.
Coxon, S. (2012). The malleability of spatial ability under treatment of a first lego league-based Robotics simulation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(3), 291–316.
Denning, P. (2017). Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 33-39.
De Jong, T. (2019). Moving towards engaged learning in STEM domains; there is no simple answer, but clearly a road ahead. Journal of computer assisted learning, 35(2), 153 -167.
Ferrada C., Carrillo-Rosúa, J., Díaz-Levicoy, D. y Silva-Díaz, F. (2020). La robótica desde las áreas STEM en Educación Primaria: una revisión sistemática. Education in The Knowledge Society (EKS). 22, 1-18.
Gonçalves, J., Lima, J., Brito, T., Brancalião, L., Camargo, C., Oliveira, V., & Conde., M. Á. (2019). Educational Robotics Summer Camp at IPB: A Challenge based learning case study. In M. Á. Conde-González et al. (Eds.), TEEM’19 Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 36-43). New York, USA: ACM.
González, H. y Kuenzi, J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service.
Greca, I., García, E., Fridberg, M., Cronquist, B., y Redfors, A. (2020). Robotics and Early-years STEM Education: The botSTEM Framework and Activities. European Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 01.
Ha, O., y Fang, N. (2013). Development of interactive 3D tangible models as teaching aids to improve students' spatial ability in STEM education. In Frontiers in Education Conference, 2013 IEEE (pp. 1302-1304). IEEE.
Hernández, R., Fernández, C., y Baptista, P. (2010). Metodología de la Investigación. México: Mac Graw Hill.
Linn, M. (2003). Technology and science education: starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 727–758.
López, V., Couso, D. y Simarro, C. (2020). Educación STEM en y para el mundo digital. Revista De Educación a Distancia, 20(62).
López-Escribano, C. y Sánchez-Montoya, R. (2012). Scratch y necesidades educativas especiales: Programación para todos. RED, Revista de Educación a Distancia, 34(3), 1-14.
Makokha, J. (2017). Emerging Technologies and Science Teaching. En: K.S. Taber y B. Akpan (eds.), Science Education, pp. 369-383. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Martín‐Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales‐Palacios, F., y Vílchez‐González, J. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education, 103(4), 799-822.
Marginson, S., Tytler, R. y Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: comparaciones de países: comparaciones internacionales de educación en ciencia, tecnología, ingeniería y matemáticas. Reporte final. Melbourne: Australian Council of Learned Academies
Marrero, I. (2019). Desde LOGO hasta Scratch y más allá. Revista NÚMEROS, 100(3), 213-217.
MECD (2014). Real Decreto 126/2014, de 28 de febrero, por el que se establece el currículo básico de la Educación Primaria. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte.
Monsalves, S. (2011). Estudio sobre la utilidad de la robótica educativa desde la perspectiva del docente. Revista de Pedagogía. 32(90), 81-117.
Nemiro, J., Larriva, C., y Jawaharlal, M. (2015). Developing Creative Behavior in Elementary School Students with Robotics. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(1), 70–90. https://doi:10.1002/jocb.87
Park, I., Kim, D., Oh, J., Jang, Y., y Lim, K. (2015). Learning Effects of Pedagogical Robots with Programming in Elementary School Environments in Korea. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8(26), 1-5.
Repenning, A., Basawapatna, A, y Escherle, N. (2017). Principles of Computational Thinking Tools. In P. Rich, & C. Hodges (Eds.), Proceedings of Emerging Research, Practice, and Policy on Computational Thinking (pp. 291-305).
Reyes-González, D. y García-Cartagena, Y. (2014). Desarrollo de habilidades científicas en la formación inicial de profesores de ciencias y matemática. Educación y Educadores, 17(2), 271-285.
Roig-Vila, R. y Moreno-Isac, V. (2020). El pensamiento computacional en educación. Análisis bibliométrico y temático. Red. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 20(63). http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/red.402621
Ruiz-Vicente, F. (2017). Diseño de proyectos STEAM a partir del currículum actual de Educación Primaria utilizando aprendizaje basado en problemas, aprendizaje cooperativo, flipped classroom y robótica educativa. (Tesis doctoral). Universidad CEU Cardenal Herrera, España.
Sánchez, J. (2013). Qué dicen los estudios sobre el aprendizaje basado en proyectos. Actualidad pedagógica. 1-4
Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEM mania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.
Sevian, H., Judy, Y., y Parchmann, I. (2018). How does STEM contex-based learning work: what we know and what we still do not know. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2) 1-13.
Silva-Díaz, F., Carrillo-Rosúa, J., y Fernández-Plaza, J. A. (2021). Uso de tecnologías inmersivas y su impacto en las actitudes científico-matemáticas del estudiantado de Educación Secundaria Obligatoria en un contexto en riesgo de exclusión social. Educar, 57(1), 0119-138.
Taylor, M., Vasquez, E., & Donehower, C. (2017). Computer programming with early elementary students with Down Syndrome. Journal of Special Education Technology, 32(3), 149–159.
Vo, H., Zhu, C., & Diep, N. (2017). The effect of blended learning on student performance at course-level in higher education: A meta-analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53(3), 17–28.
Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
Downloads
Published
11/10/2021
How to Cite
Ferrada Ferrada, C. A., Puraivan Huenumán, E., Silva Díaz, F., & Díaz Levicoy, D. (2021). Robotics applied to classroom in Primary Education: a case in the Spanish context. Sociología Y Tecnociencia, 11(Extra_2), 240–259. https://doi.org/10.24197/st.Extra_2.2021.240-259
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Cristian Andres Ferrada Ferrada, EDUARDO PURAIVAN HUENUMÁN, FRANCISCO SILVA DÍAZ, Danilo Díaz Levicoy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Sociología y tecnociencia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
The journal allows the authors to retain publishing rights. Authors may reprint their articles in other media without having to request authorization, provided they indicate that the article was originally published in Sociología y Tecnociencia.
