Archives
Current issue
About
About us
Aims and Scope
Abstracting and Indexing
Editorial Office
Open Access Policy
Publication Ethics
Journal History
Publisher
Follow us: Twitter
Contact
For Authors
Editorial Policy
Peer Review Policy
Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
Copyright & Licencing
Publication Fees
Fee Waiver Policy for Doctoral Students
EJMSTE Language Editing Service
More
Statistics
Special Issues
Special Issue Announcements
Published Special Issues
RESEARCH PAPER
Skill Development and Knowledge Acquisition Cultivated by Maker Education: Evidence from Arduino-based Educational Robotics
1
Department of Education, National University of Tainan, Tainan, TAIWAN
Publication date: 2018-07-15
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(10):em1600
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
This study investigated elementary school students’ learning performances and behaviors in a maker education program. An informal after-school learning environment entitled Robot MakerSpace was created at a public elementary school in Taiwan and 30 grade 5 students voluntarily participated in a 16-week educational experiment. The student participants were randomly divided into two experimental groups. Students in the maker group received weekly educational robotics lessons, whereas those in the nonmaker group only engaged in other after-school learning activities such as homework practice in traditional classrooms. Mixed methods research was used for data collection. An experiment with a pretest–posttest and control group design was employed to measure the students’ electrical engineering and computer programming content knowledge and problem-solving skills. In addition, a qualitative approach with an emphasis on filed observation was adopted to evaluate the instructional implementation of the maker education program. The quantitative findings revealed that maker education training significantly improved the electrical engineering and computer programming content knowledge of the students and improved their problem-solving skills. The qualitative findings showed the students required considerable learning support from the instructor such as strategies for software and hardware debugging.
REFERENCES (40)
1.
Aiken, L. R., & Groth-Marnat, G. (2006). Psychological testing and assessment (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
2.
Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science & Technology Education, 6(1), 63-71.
3.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.
4.
Bagiati, A., & Evangelou, D. (2016). Practicing engineering while building with blocks: Identifying engineering thinking. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24(1), 67-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/135029....
5.
Barak, M., & Zadok, Y. (2009). Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology and problem solving. International Journal of Design Education, 19, 289-307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798....
6.
Barker, B. S., & Ansorge, J. (2006). Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. Journal of Research Technology in Education, 39(3), 229-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/153915....
7.
Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire wireless learning initiative. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(1). Retrieved from Wired: http://www.jtla.org.
8.
Benitti, F. B. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58, 978-988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comp....
9.
Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comp....
10.
Chan, H. M., & Wu, W. T. (2007). New edition of problem solving test kit. Taipei, Taiwan: Psychology Press.
11.
Chou, P-. N. & Chen, W-.F. (2010). Chinese students’ perceptions of online learning on western discussion boards: A cultural perspective. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 7(2), 35-43.
12.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage. https://doi.org/10.1177/155868....
14.
Donohue, C. (Ed) (2015). Technology and digital media in the early years: Tools for teaching and learning. NY: Routledge.
15.
Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations, 7(3), 11-14. https://doi.org/10.1162/INOV_a....
16.
Fernandez-Samaca, L., Barrera, N., Mesa, L. A., & Perez-Holguin, W. J. (2017). Engineering for children by using robotics. International Journal of Engineering Education, 33(1B), 389-397.
17.
Forest, C. R., Moore, R. A., Jariwala, A. S., Fasse, B. B., Linsey ,J., Newstetter, W., Ngo, P. & Quintero, C. (2014). The invention studio: A university maker space and culture. Advances in Engineering Education, 4(2), 1-32.
18.
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.
19.
Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20.
Kurti, R. S., Kurti, D. L., & Fleming, L. (2014). The philosophy of educational makerspaces. Teacher Librarian, 41(5), 8-11.
21.
Lee, M. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(1), 30-39.
22.
Lieto, M. C. D., Inguaggiato, E., Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Cioni, G., Dell’Omo M., Laschi, C., Pecini, C., Santerini, G., Sgandurra, G., & Dario, P. (2017). Educational robotics intervention on executive functions in preschool children: A pilot study. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 16-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.....
23.
Lillard, A. S. (2003). Playful learning and Montessori education. American Journal of Play, 5(2), 157-186.
24.
Lindh, J., & Holgersson, T. (2007). Does LEGO training stimulate pupils’ ability to solve logical problems? Computers & Education, 49, 1097-1111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comp....
25.
Liu, J. (2012). Does cram schooling matter? Who goes to cram schools? Evidence from Taiwan. International Journal of Educational Development, 32, 46-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijed....
26.
Massachusetts Department of Education (2006). Massachusetts science and technology/engineering curriculum framework. Retrieved on 3 March 2017 from: http://www.doe.mass.edu/framew....
27.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/978141....
28.
Obama, B. (2009). Remarks by the president at the national academy of sciences annual meeting. Speech presented at the National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C. Retrieved on 2 February 2017 from: https://www.energy.gov/article....
29.
Obama, B. (2013). President Obama asks America to learn computer science. Retrieved on 2 February, 2017 from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?....
30.
Olson, S., & Rapporteurs, J. L. (2014). STEM learning is everywhere: Summary of a convocation on building learning systems. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
31.
Padir, T., & Chernova, S. (2013). Guest Editorial: Special issue on robotics education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(1), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.201....
32.
Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Oxford University Press.
33.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
Sheridan, K. M., Halverson, E. R., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L. & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505-531. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.....
35.
Stone-MacDonald, A., Wendell, K., Douglass, A., & Love, M. L. (2015). Engaging young engineers: Teaching problem-solving skills through STEM. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes.
36.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20....
37.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
38.
The Horizon Report (2016). K–12 edition. Retrieved on 13 December, 2016 from: https://www.nmc.org/publicatio....
39.
Williams, D. C., Ma, Y., Prejean, L., & Ford, J. (2007). 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/153915....
40.
Zachman, L., Jorgensen, C., Huisingh, R., & Barrett, M. (1984). Examiner’s manual of Test of Problem Solving. Mobile, ILL: Lingui Systems.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1305-8223 |
| ISSN: | 1305-8215 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
