English Robotique éducative et formation initiale des enseignants : compétences en résolution de problèmes dans les STIM et auto-efficacité pour enseigner
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt28599Mots-clés :
auto-efficacité, compétence en résolution de problèmes, futurs enseignants, robotique éducative, STIMRésumé
Avec l’intégration de l’enseignement des STIM dans le programme de sciences de l’école primaire en Ontario, au Canada, les futurs enseignants devront s’attendre à enseigner des compétences en lien avec la programmation informatique et la résolution de problèmes. La littérature scientifique montre que la robotique éducative peut favoriser l’acquisition de connaissances et de compétences dans le domaine des STIM. Cette étude à méthodes mixtes porte sur l’effet d’une intervention en robotique éducative sur les compétences en résolution de problèmes dans les STIM chez des enseignants en formation et sur leur auto-efficacité vis-à-vis de la robotique éducative pendant la pandémie de COVID-19. Les sources de données comprenaient des questionnaires sur les processus de résolution de problèmes et sur l’auto-efficacité relative à l’enseignement, une feuille de travail sur la résolution de problèmes et des transcriptions des interactions au sein du groupe. Les résultats quantitatifs étaient significatifs d’un point de vue statistique en ce qui concerne l’auto-efficacité des enseignants en formation initiale relativement à la robotique éducative (taille de l’effet forte) et leurs compétences en matière de résolution de problèmes (taille de l’effet faible). Les interactions de deux groupes d’enseignants en formation initiale ont été analysées selon un cadre de résolution de problèmes propre aux STIM. Les résultats qualitatifs indiquent que les processus de résolution de problèmes des enseignants en formation initiale sont similaires à ceux des experts en STIM, mais que les connaissances préalables de ces enseignants en STIM ont eu pour effet de limiter les types de décisions prises lors des étapes de résolution de problèmes. L’étude montre de quelle façon l’auto-efficacité de futurs enseignants vis-à-vis de la robotique éducative a évolué dans le cadre d’un cours de science et donne un aperçu unique des processus de résolution de problèmes que ces groupes d’enseignants en formation ont mis en œuvre.
Références
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
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
© Kamini Jaipal-Jamani 2024
Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale 4.0 International.
Droits d’auteur
Les auteurs conservent le droit d'auteur et accordent le droit de la première publication de la revue avec le travail simultanément sous une licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale 4.0 International (CC-BY-NC 4.0) qui permet aux autres de partager le travail avec une reconnaissance de la paternité de l'œuvre et la publication initiale dans ce journal.
