Elementary Students’ Performance and Perceptions of Robot Coding and Debugging: Embodied Approach in Practice

References

• Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 63–71.
   Google Scholar
• Alimisis, D., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Constructionism and robotics in education. In D. Alimisis (Ed.), Teacher education on robotic-enhanced constructivist pedagogical methods (pp. 11–26). School of Pedagogical and Technological Education (ASPECT).
   Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
   Google Scholar
• Barak, M., & Zadok, Y. (2009). Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology, and problem-solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 289–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-007-9043-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905
   Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennie, M. A. (2020). Thinking strategically, acting tactically: The emotions behind the cognitive process of debugging in early childhood [ Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Tufts University.
   Google Scholar
• Bergen, D. (2001). Learning in the robotic world: Active or reactive? Childhood Education, 77(4), 249–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2001.10522178
   Google Scholar
• Bers, M. U. (2008). Using robotic manipulatives to develop technological fluency in early childhood. In O. A. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on science and technology in early childhood education (pp. 105–225). IAP.
   Google Scholar
• Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK Robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(2), 1–20. http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v12n2/bers.html
   Google Scholar
• Bers, M., Doyle-Lynch, A., & Chau, C. (2012). Positive technological development: The multifaceted nature of youth technology use towards improving self and society. In C. Ching & B. J. Foley (Eds.), Constructing the self in a digital world (pp. 110–136). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139027656.007
   Google Scholar
• 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.compedu.2013.10.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, J. B. (2010). An embodied/grounded cognition perspective on educational technology. In M. S. Khine, and I. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning (pp. 45–52). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Black, J. B., Segal, A., Vitale, J., & Fadjo, C. L. (2012). Embodied cognition and learning environment design. In D. Jonassen, and S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 198–223). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5716-0_3
   Google Scholar
• Branscombe, N. A., Burcham, J. G., Castle, K., & Surbeck, E. (2013). Early childhood curriculum: A constructivist perspective. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203808849
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Vancouver, Canada. http://scratched.gse.harvard.edu/ct/files/AERA2012.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Brown, M. C., McNeil, N. M., & Glenberg, A. M. (2009). Using concreteness in education: Real problems, potential solutions. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 160–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00098.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carver, S. M., & Klahr, D. (1986). Assessing children’s LOGO debugging skills with a formal model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(4), 487–525. https://doi.org/10.2190/KRD4-YNHH-X283-3P5V
   Google Scholar
• Chalmers, C. (2018). Robotics and computational thinking in primary school. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 17, 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.06.005
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, J., Carbonaro, M., & Murray, H. (2008). Developing conceptual understanding of mechanical advantage through the use of LEGO robotic technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 387–401. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1199
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, C. R., Wehmeyer, M. L., Saito, Y., Lida, K. M., Lee, Y., & Singh, V. (2007). Self-determination: What do we know? Where do we go? Exceptionality, 15(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830709336922
   Google Scholar
• Chen, G., Shen, J., Barth-Cohen, L., Jiang, S., Huang, X., & Eltoukhy, M. (2017). Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers & Education, 109, 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clements, D. H., Battista, M. T., & Sarama, J. (2001). Logo and geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph Series, 10, i–177. https://doi.org/10.2307/749924
   Google Scholar
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
   Google Scholar
• DeJarnette, N. (2012). America’s children: Providing early exposure to STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) initiatives. Education, 133(1), 77–84. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/prin/ed/2012/00000133/00000001/art00008
   Google Scholar
• Dorouka, P., Papadakis, S., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2020). Tablets and apps for promoting robotics, mathematics, STEM education, and literacy in early childhood education. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 14(2), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2020.106179
   Google Scholar
• English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9802-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fadjo, C. L., Lu, M. T., & Black, J. B. (2009, June). Instructional embodiment and video game programming in an after school program. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 4041–4046). Honolulu, Hawaii: The Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). http://www.editlib.org/p/32064
   Google Scholar
• Goulet, D. V., & Slater, D. (2009). Alice and the introductory programming course: An invitation to dialogue. Information Systems Education Journal, 7(20), 3–16.
   Google Scholar
• Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guay, F., & Chanal, C. F. (2008). Optimal learning in optimal contexts: The role of self-determination in education. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012758
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heikkilä, M., & Mannila, L. (2018). Debugging in programming as a multimodal practice in early childhood education settings. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 2(3), 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti2030042
   Google Scholar
• Holbert, N. R., & Wilensky, U. (2011, June). Racing games for exploring kinematics: A computational thinking approach. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Games+ Learning+ Society Conference, New Orleans, LA (pp. 109–118).
   Google Scholar
• Howard, T. J., Culley, S. J., & Dekoninck, E. (2008). Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Design Studies, 29(2), 160–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9(3), 182–194. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/jeductechsoci.9.3.182
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ioannou, M., & Ioannou, A. (2020). Technology-enhanced embodied learning: Designing and evaluating a new classroom experience. Educational Technology & Society, 2(3), 81–94. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26926428
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khanlari, A. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and the challenges of integrating educational robots into primary/elementary curricula. European Journal of Engineering Education, 41(3), 320–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2015.1056106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, C., Yuan, J., Vasconcelos, L., Shin, M., & Hill, R. B. (2018). Debugging during block-based programming. Instructional Science, 46(5), 767–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9453-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klahr, D., & Carver, S. M. (1988). Cognitive objectives in a LOGO debugging curriculum: Instruction, learning, and transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 362–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(88)90004-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwon, K., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Brush, T. A., Jeon, M., & Yan, G. (2021). Integration of problem-based learning in elementary computer science education: Effects on computational thinking and attitudes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 2761–2787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10034-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauwers, T., Nourbakhsh, I., & Hamner, E. (2009, March). CSbots: Design and deployment of a robot designed for the CS1 classroom. Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 428–432). New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1145/1508865.1509017
   Google Scholar
• Lawhead, P. B., Duncan, M. E., Bland, C. G., Goldweber, M., Schep, M., Barnes, D. J., & Hollingsworth, R. G. (2002). A road map for teaching introductory programming using LEGO© Mindstorms robots. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(2), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1145/782941.783002
   Google Scholar
• Lu, C. M., Kang, S., Huang, S., & Black, J. B. (2010). Using embodiment with LEGO robotics to enhance physics understanding in elementary school students. Paper presented at the World Conference on Educational Media and Technology, Toronto, CA. http://www.editlib.org/p/35068
   Google Scholar
• Lu, C. M., Kang, S., Huang, S., & Black, J. B. (2011). Building student understanding and interest in science through embodied experiences with LEGO robotics. In T. Bastiaens, and M. Ebner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2011 (pp. 2225–2232). AACE.
   Google Scholar
• Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marín-Marín, J. A., Costa, R. S., Moreno-Guerrero, A. J., & López-Belmonte, J. (2020). Makey Makey as an interactive robotic tool for high school students’ learning in multicultural contexts. Education Sciences, 10(9), 239. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090239
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matarić, M. J., Koenig, N., & Feil-Seifer, D. (2007). Materials for enabling hands-on robotics and STEM education. In AAAI Spring symposium: Semantic scientific knowledge integration (pp. 99–102). https://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Spring/2007/SS-07-09/SS07-09-022.pdf
   Google Scholar
• 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. The Clearing House, 74(4), 211–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650109599193
   Google Scholar
• Merkouris, A., & Chorianopoulos, K. (2019). Programming embodied interactions with a remotely controlled educational robot. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 19(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3336126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, B., Kirn, A., Anderson, M., Major, J. C., Feil-Seifer, D., & Jurkiewicz, M. (2018, October). Unplugged robotics to increase K-12 students’ engineering interest and attitudes. 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1–5). IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Noh, J., & Lee, J. (2020). Effects of robotics programming on the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 463–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09708-w
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norton, S. J., McRobbie, C. J., & Ginns, I. S. (2007). Problem solving in a middle school robotics design classroom. Research in Science Education, 37(3), 261–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9025-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Dell, D. H. (2017). The debugging mindset. Queue, 15(1), 50:71–50:90. https://doi.org/10.1145/3055301.306875
   Google Scholar
• Ortiz, A. M., Bos, B., & Smith, S. (2015). The power of educational robotics as an integrated STEM learning experience in teacher preparation programs. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(5), 42–47. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst15_044_05_42
   Google Scholar
• Palmer, S. B., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003). Promoting self-determination in early elementary school: Teaching self-regulated problem-solving and goal-setting skills. Remedial and Special Education, 24(2), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325030240020601
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Zaranis, N. (2016). Developing fundamental programming concepts and computational thinking with Scratch Jr. in preschool education: A case study. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 10(3), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2016.077867
   Google Scholar
• Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Computers, children, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism. Ablex Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Perry, R. P., Kramer, K., Hochstadt, M., & Molfenter, S. (2004). Beyond test anxiety: Development and validation of the Test Emotions Questionnaire (TEQ). Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 17(3), 287–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800412331303847
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147–169. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MOEM.0000032312.95499.6f
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rich, K. M., Strickland, C., Binkowski, T. A., & Franklin, D. (2019, February). A K-8 debugging learning trajectory derived from research literature. Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 745–751). Minneapolis, MN.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of Intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Soukup, J. H., Little, T. D., Garner, N., & Lawrence, M. (2008). Understanding the construct of self-determination: Examining the relationship between the Arc’s Self-Determination Scale and the American Institutes for Research Self-Determination Scale. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(2), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508407311395
   Google Scholar
• Sung, W., & Black, J. B. (2020). Factors to consider when designing effective learning: Infusing computational thinking in mathematics to support thinking-doing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1784066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verner, I. M., & Ahlgren, D. J. (2004). Robot contest as a laboratory for experiential engineering education. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC), 4(2), 2–es. https://doi.org/10.1145/1071620.1071622
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, S. P. (1998). Robotics and children: Science achievement and problem solving. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 9(2), 149–192. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/86390/
   Google Scholar
• Wehmeyer, M., Palmer, S., Argan, M., Mithaug, D., & Martin, J. (2000). Promoting causal agency: The self-determined learning instruction model. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290006600401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Werner, L., Campe, S., & Denner, J. (2012, February). Children learning computer science concepts via Alice game-programming. Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education, Raleigh, North Carolina (pp. 427–432).
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, A., & Moffat, D. C. (2010, September). Evaluating Scratch to introduce younger schoolchildren to programming. Proceedings of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group Workshop, Madrid/Espanha.
   Google Scholar
• Wolman, J. M., Campeau, P. L., DuBois, R. A., Mithaug, D. E., & Stolarski, V. S. (1994). AIR self-determination scale and user guide. American Institutes for Research.
   Google Scholar
• Wyeth, P., & Purchase, H. (2002). Designing technology for children: Moving from the computer into the physical world with electronic blocks. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1, 219–244. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/10767/
   Google Scholar
• Yen, C.-Z., Wu, P.-H., & Lin, C.-F. (2012). Analysis of experts’ and novices’ thinking process in program debugging. In International Conference on ICT in Teaching and Learning, (pp. 122–134). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31398-1_12
   Google Scholar