Advertisement

Non-sequential Learning in a Robotics Class: Insights from the Engagement of a Child with Autism Spectrum Disorder

  • Sung Eun JungEmail author
  • Kyunghwa Lee
  • Shara Cherniak
  • Eunji Cho
Original research

Abstract

This case study focused on the robotics learning process of Mark (a pseudonym), a Latino-American second grader diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Drawing on Polanyi’s (Personal knowledge: towards a post-critical philosophy [Kindle version], 1958/2015) notion of “tacit knowing” and “dwelling in tools,” we attempted to understand Mark’s unique processes and ways of engaging in learning about a Light Sensor by pursuing two research questions: (a) How does Mark, with his unique behavioral and socio-emotional characteristics, engage in the robotics class? (b) What insights can we gain from his inquiry as we develop responsive robotics education? Findings revealed that Mark used a non-sequential inquiry process filled with repetitive free explorations and unexpected expanded inquiries about the Light Sensor. This non-sequential inquiry process highlighted that dwelling with robotic manipulatives was Mark’s distinct ways of exploring the Light Sensor. His non-sequential inquiry process emerged from his tacit engagement and expanded to his sophisticated and holistic understanding of the Light Sensor. We discuss implications for a robotics education program that is responsive to young children with diverse needs and characteristics.

Keywords

Early childhood robotics education STEM Autism spectrum disorder Non-sequential learning Tacit engagement 

Notes

References

  1. Adair, J. K. (2014). Agency and expanding capabilities in early grade classrooms: What it could mean for young children. Harvard Educational Review, 84(2), 217–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 63–71.Google Scholar
  3. Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 661–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barakova, E. I., Bajracharya, P., Willemsen, M., Lourens, T., & Huskens, B. (2015). Long-term LEGO therapy with humanoid robot for children with ASD. Expert Systems, 32(6), 698–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berry, C. A., Remy, S. L., & Rogers, T. E. (2016). Robotics for all ages: A standard robotics curriculum for K-16. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 23(2), 40–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chandra, V. (2014). Developing students’ technological literacy through robotics activities. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 22(3), 24–29.Google Scholar
  8. Cho, S. J., & Ahn, D. H. (2016). Socially assistive robotics in autism spectrum disorder. Hanyang Medical Reviews, 36(1), 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Douglass, R., & Moustakas, C. (1985). Heuristic inquiry: The internal search to know. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 25(3), 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duguid, P. (2005). “The art of knowing”: Social and tacit dimensions of knowledge and the limits of the community of practice. The Information Society, 21(2), 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eguchi, A. (2014). Robotics as a learning tool for educational transformation. In the 4th International Workshop Teaching Robotics. Paper presented at Teaching with Robotics & 5th International Conference Robotics in Education (pp. 27–34). Padova.Google Scholar
  12. Elkin, M., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2014). Implementing a robotics curriculum in an early childhood Montessori classroom. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 13, 153–169.Google Scholar
  13. Gerde, H. K., Schachter, R. E., & Wasik, B. A. (2013). Using the scientific method to guide learning: An integrated approach to early childhood curriculum. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(5), 315–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gourlay, S. (2002). Tacit knowledge, tacit knowing, or behaving? Retrieved from http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/2293/1/Gourlay%202002%20tacit%20knowledge.pdf.
  15. Grant, K. A. (2007). Tacit knowledge revisited—we can still learn from Polanyi. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), 173–180.Google Scholar
  16. Graue, M. E., & Walsh, D. J. (1998). Studying children in context: Theories, methods, and ethics. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  17. Heath, C., Luff, P., & Svensson, M. S. (2007). Video and qualitative research: Analyzing medical practice and interaction. Medical Education, 41(1), 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hodson, D. (2014). Learning science, learning about science, doing science: Different goals demand different learning methods. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2534–2553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huskens, B., Verschuur, R., Gillesen, J., Didden, R., & Barakova, E. (2013). Promoting question-asking in school-aged children with autism spectrum disorders: Effectiveness of a robot intervention compared to a human-trainer intervention. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 16(5), 345–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson, J. (2003). Children, robotics, and education. Artificial Life and Robotics, 7(1–2), 16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jung, S. E., & Won, E. S. (2018). Systematic review of research trends in robotics education for young children. Sustainability, 10(4), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kats, Y., & Kuhn, J. (2015). Robotics-based course design for autism spectrum disorder. In S. Carliner, C. Fulford & N. Ostashewski (Eds.), EdMedia. Paper Presented at World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 1010–1015). Montreal: AACE.Google Scholar
  23. Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2014). Put your robot in, put your robot out: Sequencing through programming robots in early childhood. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(4), 553–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138–147.Google Scholar
  25. Lee, O., & Buxton, C. A. (2010). Diversity and equity in science education: Research, policy, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  26. Legare, H., Gose, R., & Guess, C. (2015). Examining the development of scientific reasoning in context. In D. M. Sobel & J. L. Jipson (Eds.), Cognitive development in museum settings: Relating research and practice (pp. 138–156). Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Mayer, D., Sodian, B., Koerber, S., & Schwippert, K. (2014). Scientific reasoning in elementary school children: Assessment and relations with cognitive abilities. Learning and Instruction, 29, 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  29. Nemiro, J., Larriva, C., & Jawaharlal, M. (2015). Developing creative behavior in elementary school students with robotics. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(1), 70–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  31. Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. E. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). Norwood: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Piaget, J. (1973). The psychology of intelligence. Totowa: Littlefield, Adams and Cooperation.Google Scholar
  34. Polanyi, M. (1958/2015). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy [Kindle version]. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/97802262332768.001.0001.
  35. Polanyi, M. (1962). Tacit knowing: Its bearing on some problems of philosophy. Philosophy Today, 6(4), 239–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  37. Rusk, N., Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Pezalla-Granlund, M. (2008). New pathways into robotics: Strategies for broadening participation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Savard, A., & Freiman, V. (2016). Investigating complexity to assess student learning from a robotics-based task. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 2(2), 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schön, D. A. (1995). Knowing-in-action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Somyürek, S. (2015). An effective educational tool: Construction kits for fun and meaningful learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(1), 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  43. Sullivan, A., Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The wheels on the bot go around and round: Robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten. Journal of Information Technology Education, 12, 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sveiby, K. E. (1996). Transfer of knowledge and the information processing professions. European Management Journal, 14(4), 379–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Varelas, M., Kane, J. M., & Wylie, C. D. (2011). Young African American children’s representations of self, science, and school: Making sense of difference. Science Education, 95(5), 824–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Visser, W. (2010). Schön: Design as a reflective practice. Art & design & psychology. Retrieved from https://hal.inria.fr/file/index/docid/604634/filename/Visser_Collection2_Schoen.pdf.
  47. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Wainer, J., Robins, B., Amirabdollahian, F., & Dautenhahn, K. (2014). Using the humanoid robot KASPAR to autonomously play triadic games and facilitate collaborative play among children with autism. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, 6(3), 183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park: SAGE.Google Scholar
  50. Zaharija, G., Mladenović, S., & Boljat, I. (2015). Use of robots and tangible programming for informal computer science introduction. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 3878–3884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zion, M., & Mendelovici, R. (2012). Moving from structured to open inquiry: Challenges and limits. Science Education International, 23(4), 383–399.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teaching, Learning, and Sociocultural StudiesUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational Theory and PracticeUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  3. 3.Division of Social ScienceEastfield CollegeMesquiteUSA

Personalised recommendations