References
- Benitti, F. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006
- Bernstein, D., Mutch-Jones, K., Cassidy, M., Hamner, E., & Cross, J. (2016). Robots and Romeo and Juliet: Studying Teacher Integration of Robotics into Middle School Curricula. Paper presented at the International Conference of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
- Boschman, F., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Understanding decision making in teachers’ curriculum design approaches. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(4), 393–416. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9341-x
- Brown, M. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. Remillard, G. Lloyd, & B. Herbel-Eisenmann (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–36). Routledge.
- Burning Glass. t compute: The high cost of low technology skills in (2015). Job market intelligence: Cybersecurity jobs, 2015. Burning Glass Technologies.
- Capobianco, B. M., DeLisi, J., & Radloff, J. (2018). Characterizing elementary teachers’ enactment of high‐leverage practices through engineering design‐based science instruction. Science Education, 102(2), 342–376. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21325
- Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2009). Design for scalability: A case study of the river city curriculum. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 353–365. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20627713
- Cober, R., Tan, E., Slotta, J., So, H., & Konings, K. D. (2015). Teachers as participatory designers: Two case studies with technology-enhanced learning environments. Instructional Science, 43(2), 203–228. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9339-0
- Cross, J., Bartley, C., Hamner, E., & Nourbakhsh, I. (2013). A visual robot- programming environment for multidisciplinary education. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Karlsruhe, pp. 445–452.
- Cross, J., Hamner, E., Zito, L. & Nourbakhsh, I. (2016). Engineering and computational thinking talent in middle school students: A framework for defining and recognizing student affinities. Proceedings of IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.
- Cross, J. L. (2017). Creative robotic systems for talent-based learning. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Carnegie Mellon University.
- Crow, G. M., & Pounder, D. G. (2000). Interdisciplinary teacher teams: Context, design, and process. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 216–254. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X00362004
- CTEq. (2015). Does not compute: The high cost of low technology skills in the U.S. – and what we can do about it. Vital Signs. Retrieved at Change the Equation: http://changetheequation.org/does-not-compute
- Cuperman, D., & Verner, I. M. (2013). Learning through creating robotic models of biological systems. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(4), 849–866. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9235-y
- Cuperman, D., & Verner, I. M. (2019). Fostering analogical reasoning through creating robotic models of biological systems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(2), 90–103. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9750-4
- Cviko, A. (2013). Teacher roles and pupil outcomes in technology-rich early literacy learning. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Faculty of Behavioural Sciences.
- Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Teacher roles in designing technology-rich learning activities for early literacy. Computers & Education, 72, 68–79.
- Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2015). Teachers as co-designers of technology-rich learning activities for early literacy. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(4), 443–459. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2014.953197
- Davis, E. A., Janssen, F. J. J. M., & Van Driel, J. H. (2016). Teachers and science curriculum materials: Where we are and where we need to go. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 127–160. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1161701
- Gomez, K., Bernstein, D., Zywica, J., & Hamner, E. (2012). Building technical knowledge and engagement in robotics: An examination of two out-of-school programs. In B. Barker, G. Nugent, N. Grandgenett, & V.I. Adamchuk (Eds.), Robotics in K-12Education: A New Technology for Learning (pp. 222‐244).
- Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2018). Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come. In S. Sentance, E. Barendsen, & C. Schulte (Eds.), Computer science education: Perspectives on teaching and learning in school (pp. 19–37). Bloomsbury Academic.
- Hamner, E., & Cross, J. (2013). Arts & Bots: Techniques for distributing a STEAM robotics program through K-12 classrooms. In IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC).
- Hamner, E., Cross, J., Zito, L., Bernstein, D., & Mutch-Jones, K. (2016). Training teachers to integrate engineering into non-technical middle school curriculum. Proceedings of IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.
- Hamner, E., Zito, L., Cross, J., Slezak, B., Mellon, S., Harapko, H., & Welter, M. (2016a). Utilizing engineering to teach non-technical disciplines: case studies of robotics within middle school english and health classes. Proceedings of IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.
- Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: A Descriptive study of secondary teachers' curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211–229. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2011.10782570
- Karim, M. E., Lemaignan, S., & Mondada, F. (2015). A review: Can robots reshape K-12 STEM education? In Advanced Robotics and Its Social Impacts (ARSO), 2015 I.E. International Workshop on (pp. 1–8). IEEE.
- 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/https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2015.1056106
- McKenney, S. (2013). Designing and researching technology-enhanced learning for the zone of proximal implementation. Research in Learning Technology, 21.https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21i0.17374
- McKenney, S., Kali, Y., Markauskaite, L., & Voogt, J. (2015). Teacher design knowledge for technology enhanced learning: An ecological framework for investigating assets and needs. Instructional Science, 43(2), 181–202. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9337-2
- McNeill, K. L., Gonzalez-Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2017). Moving beyond pseudoargumentation: Teachers’ enactments of an educative science curriculum focused on argumentation. Science Education, 101(3), 426–457. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21274
- Menekse, M., Higashi, R., Schunn, C., & Baehr, E. (2017). Exploring the role of robotics teams’ collaboration quality on team performance in a robotics tournament. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(4), 564–584. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20178
- Mitnik, R., Nussbaum, M., & Recabarren, M. (2009). Developing cognition with collaborative robotic activities. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 317–330.
- Nourbakhsh, I., Crowley, K., Bhave, A., Hamner, E., Hsiu, T., & Perez-Bergquist, A. (2005). The Robot Autonomy Mobile Robotics Course: Robot Design, Curriculum Design and Educational Assessment. Autonomous Robotics Journal 18(1), 1–25.
- Penuel, W. R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2009). Preparing teachers to design instruction for deep understanding in middle school earth science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(4), 461–508. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903191904
- Penuel, W. R., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 02(01), 51–74. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793206807000300
- Shaw, F., Kshirsagar, K., Wendell, K., Danahy, E., Bernstein, D., Puttick, G., & Cassidy, M. (2020). Characterizing student artifacts in a multi-disciplinary biomimicry and robotics unit. In Proceedings of FabLearn 2020.
- Shifflet, R., & Weilbacher, G. (2015). Teacher beliefs and their influence on technology use: A case study. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 368–394.
- Silk, E. M., Higashi, R., Shoop, R., & Schunn, C. D. (2010). Designing technology activities that teach mathematics. The Technology Teacher, 69(4), 21–27.
- Souza, M. A., & Duarte, J. R. (2015). Low-cost educational robotics applied to physics teaching in Brazil. Physics Education, 50(4), 482–488. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/50/4/482
- Squire, K. D., MaKinster, J. G., Barnett, M., Luehmann, A. L., & Barab, S. L. (2003). Designed curriculum and local culture: Acknowledging the primacy of classroom culture. Science Education, 87(4), 468–489. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10084
- Sullivan, F. (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/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20238
- Sullivan, F. (2011). Serious and playful inquiry: Epistemological aspects of collaborative creativity. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 55–65.
- Sullivan, F. R., & Heffernan, J. (2016). Robotic construction kits as computational manipulatives for learning in the STEM disciplines. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 105–128. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1146563
- Voogt, J. M., Pieters, J. M., & Handelzalts, A. (2016). Teacher collaboration in curriculum design teams: Effects, mechanisms, and conditions. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(3–4), 121–140. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2016.1247725
- Voogt, J., Pieters, J., & Pareja Roblin, N. (2019). Collaborative curriculum design in teacher teams: Foundations. In J. Pieters, J. Voogt, & N. Pareja Roblin (Eds.), Collaborative curriculum design for sustainable innovation and teacher learning (pp. 5–18). Springer Open.
- Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
- Wendell, K. B., Swenson, J. E. S., & Dalvi, T. S. (2019). Epistemological framing and novice elementary teachers’ approaches to learning and teaching engineering design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(7), 956–982. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21541
- Wiggins, G., Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. ASCD.
- Williams, D. C., Ma, Y., Prejean, L., Ford, M. J., & Lai, G. (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/https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782505
- Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research and applications:Design and Methods (fourth edition). Sage.