Educational Robotics and Preservice Teachers: STEM Problem-Solving Skills and Self-Efficacy to Teach

Kamini Jaipal-Jamani

doi:10.21432/cjlt28599

Authors

Kamini Jaipal-Jamani Brock University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt28599

Keywords:

educational robotics, preservice teachers, self-efficacy, STEM, problem-solving skills

Abstract

Integrating STEM education within the elementary school science curriculum in Ontario, Canada, elevated the expectation for elementary preservice teachers to teach STEM skills such as problem-solving through coding. Research shows that educational robotics can promote STEM knowledge and skills. This mixed methods study investigates the effect of an educational robotics intervention on preservice teachers’ STEM problem-solving skills and their self-efficacy to teach with educational robotics during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data sources included a pre- and postquestionnaire on problem-solving, a pre- and post- self-efficacy teaching questionnaire, a problem-solving worksheet, and transcripts of group interactions. Quantitative findings were statistically significant for preservice teachers’ self-efficacy to teach with educational robotics (large effect size) and for problem-solving competencies (small effect size). Using a STEM problem-solving framework, two preservice teacher group interactions were analysed. Qualitative findings indicated that preservice teachers exhibited similar problem-solving processes as STEM experts, but preservice teachers’ prior STEM knowledge limited the types of decisions considered at the problem-solving stages. The study provides an example of how preservice teachers’ self-efficacy to teach with educational robotics was developed within a science education course and lends unique insights into the problem-solving processes these preservice teacher groups engaged in.

Author Biography

Kamini Jaipal-Jamani, Brock University

Kamini Jaipal-Jamani is a full Professor in Science Education and Teacher Education and Chair, Department of Educational Studies at Brock University in Canada. Previously, she was the director of the Teacher Education program from 2018–2021. Her current research focuses on preservice teachers using educational robotics to teach STEM.

References

Altin, H., & Pedaste, M. (2013). Learning approaches to applying robotics in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(3), 365–377. https://www.scientiasocialis.lt/jbse/files/pdf/vol12/365-377.Altin_JBSE_Vol.12.3.pdf

Anwar, S., Bascou, N. A., Menekse, M., & Kardgar, A. (2019). A systematic review of studies on educational robotics. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 9(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1223

Aurini, J., McLevey, J., Stokes, A., & Gorbet, R. (2017). Classroom robotics and acquisition of 21st century competencies: An action research study of nine Ontario school boards. Ministry of Education and the Council of Directors of Education of Ontario.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). Academic Press.

Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006

Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. National Science Teachers Association.

Ching, Y. H., Yang, D., Wang, S., Baek, Y., Swanson, S., & Chittoori, B. (2019). Elementary school student development of STEM attitudes and perceived learning in a STEM integrated robotics curriculum. TechTrends, 63, 590–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00388-0

Chung, C. C., Cartwright, C., & 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. https://www.jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/1704/1606

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Baratz-Snowden, J. (2007). A good teacher in every classroom: Preparing the highly qualified teachers our children deserve. Educational Horizons, 85(2), 111–132. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42926597

Darmawansah, D., Hwang, G. J., Chen, M. R. A., & Liang, J. C. (2023). Trends and research foci of robotics-based STEM education: A systematic review from diverse angles based on the technology-based learning model. International Journal of STEM Education, 10, Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00400-3

Eguchi, A. (2021). Theories and practices behind educational robotics for all. In. S. Papadakis & M. Kalogiannakis (Eds.), Handbook of research on using educational robotics to facilitate student learning (pp. 68–106). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-6717-3.ch003

Fegely, A., & Tang, H. (2022). Learning programming through robots: The effects of educational robotics on pre-service teachers’ programming comprehension and motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(6), 2211–2234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10174-0

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (11.0 Update, 4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Glezou, K. V. (2021). Robotics as a powerful vehicle toward learning and computational thinking in secondary education of 21st century. In S. Papadakis & M. Kalogiannakis (Eds.), Handbook of research on using educational robotics to facilitate student learning (pp. 1–40). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-6717-3.ch001

Hudson, M. A., Baek, Y., Ching, Y. H., & Rice, K. (2020). Using a multifaceted robotics-based intervention to increase student interest in STEM subjects and careers. Journal for STEM Education Research, 3, 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00032-0

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

Karp, T., & Maloney, P. (2013). Exciting young students in grades K-8 about STEM through an afterschool robotics challenge. American Journal of Engineering Education, 4(1), 39–54. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1057112

Kaya, E., Newley, A., Deniz, H., Yesilyurt, E., & Newley, P. (2017). Introducing engineering design to a science teaching methods course through educational robotics and exploring changes in views of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of College Science Teaching, 47(2), 66–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst17_047_02_66

Kopcha, T. J., McGregor, J., Shin, S., Qian, Y., Choi, J., Mativo, J. M., & Choi, I. (2017). Developing an integrative STEM curriculum for robotics education through educational design research. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 1(2), 31–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41686-017-0005-1

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

Lemon, N., & Garvis, S. (2016). Pre-service teacher self-efficacy in digital technology. Teachers and Teaching, 22(3), 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1058594

Miller, K., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. (2018). The influence of students’ participation in STEM competitions on their interest in STEM careers. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 8(2), 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1397298

National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.

National Research Council (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. The National Academies Press.

Nemiro, J. E. (2021). Building collaboration skills in 4th-to 6th-grade students through robotics. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 35(3), 351–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2020.1721621

Nolan, A., & Molla, T. (2017). Teacher confidence and professional capital. Teaching and Teacher Education, 62, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.11.004

Nugent, G., Barker, B. S., & Grandgenett, N. (2012). The impact of educational robotics on student stem learning, attitudes, and workplace skills. In B. Barker, G. Nugent, N. Grandgenett, & V. Adamchuk (Eds.), Robots in K-12 education: A new technology for learning (pp. 186–203). IGI Global. https://doi-org.proxy.library.brocku.ca/10.4018/978-1-4666-0182-6.ch009

OECD (2015). PISA 2015 collaborative problem-solving. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/innovation/collaborative-problem-solving/

OECD (2023). OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030: OECD Learning Compass 2030: A series of concept notes. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/contact/

Ontario Curriculum and Resources. (2009). The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 9 and 10 (revised 2009). https://www.dcp.edu.gov.on.ca/en/curriculum/technological-education

Ontario Curriculum and Resources. (2022). Grades 1–8: Science and Technology. https://www.dcp.edu.gov.on.ca/en/curriculum/science-technology

Palmer, D. (2011). Sources of efficacy information in an inservice program for elementary teachers. Science Education, 95(4), 577–600. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20434

Park, J. (2015). Effect of robotics-enhanced inquiry-based learning in elementary science education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 34(1), 71–95 https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/130555/

Piedade, J., Dorotea, N., Pedro, A., & Matos, J. F. (2020). On teaching programming fundamentals and computational thinking with educational robotics: A didactic experience with pre-service teachers. Education Sciences, 10(9), 214. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090214

Price, A. M., Kim, C. J., Burkholder, E. W., Fritz, A. V., & Wieman, C. E. (2021). A detailed characterization of the expert problem-solving process in science and engineering: Guidance for teaching and assessment. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-12-0276

Priemer, B., Eilerts, K., Filler, A., Pinkwart, N., Rösken-Winter, B., Tiemann, R., & Zu Belzen, A. U. (2020). A framework to foster problem-solving in STEM and computing education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 38(1), 105–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1600490

Privitera, G. J., & Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. (2018). Research methods for education. Sage.

Rohaan, E. J., Taconis, R., & Jochems, W. M. (2012). Analysing teacher knowledge for technology education in primary schools. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(3), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9147-z

Sáez-López, J. M., Sevillano-García, M. L., & Vazquez-Cano, E. (2019). The effect of programming on primary school students’ mathematical and scientific understanding: Educational use of mBot. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 1405–1425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09648-5

Schina, D., Esteve-González, V., & Usart, M. (2021). An overview of teacher training programs in educational robotics: Characteristics, best practices and recommendations. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 2831–2852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10377-z

Siverling, E. A., Suazo-Flores, E., & Moore, T. J. (2018, June). STEM content in elementary school students’ evidence-based reasoning discussions (fundamental) [Paper presentation]. ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, Utah. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--30986

Tan, A. L., Ong, Y. S., Ng, Y. S., & Tan, J. H. J. (2023). STEM problem-solving: Inquiry, concepts, and reasoning. Science & Education, 32(2), 381–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00310-2

Taylor, K., & Baek, Y. (2018). Collaborative robotics, more than just working in groups. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(7), 979–1004. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117731382

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 944–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003

Velthuis, C., Fisser, P., & Pieters, J. (2014). Teacher training and pre-service primary teachers’ self-efficacy for science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(4), 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9363-y

Williams, D. C., Ma, Y., Prejean, L., Ford, M. J., & Lai, G. (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. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782505

Zhang, Y., Luo, R., Zhu, Y., & Yin, Y. (2021). Educational robots improve K-12 students’ computational thinking and STEM attitudes: Systematic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(7), 1450–1481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633121994070

Zhang, Y., & Zhu, Y. (2022). Effects of educational robotics on the creativity and problem-solving skills of K-12 students: A meta-analysis. Educational Studies, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2022.2107873

Ziaeefard, S., Miller, M. H., Rastgaar, M., & Mahmoudian, N. (2017). Co-robotics hands-on activities: A gateway to engineering design and STEM learning. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 97, 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2017.07.013