Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of programming on primary school students’ mathematical and scientific understanding: educational use of mBot

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study highlights the importance of an educational design that includes robotics and programming through a visual programming language as a means to enable students to improve substantially their understanding of the elements of logic and mathematics. Gaining an understanding of computational concepts as well as a high degree of student participation and commitment emphasize the effectiveness of introducing robotics and visual programming based on active methodologies in primary education. Implementation of this design provides sixth-grade elementary education students with activities that integrate programming and robotics in sciences and mathematics; these practices allow students to understand coding, motion, engines, sequences and conditionals. A quasi-experimental design, descriptive analysis and participant observation were applied across various dimensions to 93 sixth-grade students in four primary education schools. Programming and robotics were integrated in one didactic unit of mathematics and another in sciences. Statistically significant improvements were achieved in the understanding of mathematical concepts and in the acquisition of computational concepts, based on an active pedagogical practice that instills motivation, enthusiasm, commitment, fun and interest in the content studied.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aiken, L. R. (1980). Content validity and reliability of single items or questionnaires. Educational and Psychologial Measurement,40, 955–959. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448004000419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. (1978). In defense of advance organizers: A reply to the critics. Review of Educational Research,48, 251–257.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baytak, A., & Land, S. M. (2011). An investigation of the artifacts and process of constructing computer games about environmental science in a fifth grade classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development,59, 765–782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9184-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calder, N. (2010). Using scratch: An integrated problem-solving approach to mathematical thinking. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom,15(4), 9–14.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, F. K., & Qin, L. (2018). A pilot study to assess the impacts of game-based construction learning. Using scratch, on students’ multi-step equation-solving performance. Interactive Learning Environments,26(6), 803–814. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1412990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J., Rogers, M. P., Spradling, C., & Pais, J. (2013). What, no canoes? Lessons learned while hosting a scratch summer camp. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges,28, 204–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagin, B., & Merkle, L. (2003). Measuring the effectiveness of robots in teaching computer science. In SIGCSE ‘03 proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 35(1)).

  • Fletcher, G., & Lu, J. (2009). Human computing skills: Rethinking the K-12 experience. Communications of the ACM-Association for Computing Machinery-CACM,52(2), 23–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/1461928.1461938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, A., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., & Hall Giesinger, C. (2017). NMC/CoSN horizon report: 2017 K-12 Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from https://www.epiphanymgmt.com/Downloads/horizon%20report.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1988). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Madrid: Ediciones Morata.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, M. (2011). Learning, beliefs, and products: Students’ perspectives with project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1254.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, B., Bae, Y., & Park, J. (2016). The effect of mathematics achievement variables on scratch programming activities of elementary school students. International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications,10(12), 21–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Technology in Education and the Computer Science Teachers Association. (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12. http://csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/CompThinkingFlyer.pdf.

  • Ishii, N., Suzuki, Y., Fujiyoshi, H., Fujii, T., & Kozawa, M. (2007). A framework for designing and improving learning environments fostering creativity. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional,11, 59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC horizon report: 2014 K-12 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2014-nmc-horizon-report-he-EN.pdf.

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1977). Approaches to the study of visual literacy: A brief survey for media personnel. Pennsylvania Media Review,11, 15–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kanda, T., Hirano, T., Eaton, D., & Ishiguro, H. (2004). Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: A field trial. Journal of Human Computer Interaction,19, 61–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R. B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. N. (2015). Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers’ STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers & Education,91, 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kucuk, S., & Sisman, B. (2017). Behavioral patterns of elementary students and teachers in one-to-one robotics instruction. Computers & Education,111, 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwon, D. Y., Kim, H. S., Shim, J. K., & Lee, W. G. (2012). Algorithmic bricks: A tangible robot programming tool for elementary school students. Education, IEEE Transactions,55(4), 474–479. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2012.2190071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, L., & Guiffre, H. (2009). Computer science outreach in an elementary school. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges,24(3), 118–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. J. (2011). Empowering teachers to create educational software: A constructivist approach utilizing Etoys, pair programming and cognitive apprenticeship. Computers & Education,56(2), 527–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, J. M. C., Yen, L. Y., Yang, M. C., & Chen, C. F. (2005). Teaching computer programming in elementary schools: A pilot study. In National educational computing conference. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.83.3706&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

  • Maxcy, S. J. (2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 51–89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maya, I., Pearson, J. N., Tapia, T., Wherfel, Q. M., & Reese, G. (2015). Supporting all learners in school-wide computational thinking: A cross-case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education,82, 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzoni, E., & Benvenuti, M. (2015). A robot-partner for preschool children learning english using socio-cognitive conflict. Educational Technology & Society,18(4), 474–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness of problem-based instruction: A comparative study of instructional methods and student characteristics. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning,1(2), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oddie, A., Hazlewood, P., Blakeway, S., & Whitfield, A. (2010). Introductory problem solving and programming: Robotics vs traditional approaches. Innovations in Teaching & Learning in Information & Computer Sciences. https://doi.org/10.11120/ital.2010.09020011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parmaxi, A., & Zaphiris, P. (2014). The evolvement of constructionism: An overview of the literature. In International conference on learning and collaboration technologies (pp. 452–461). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07482-5_43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM Education,5, 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusk, N., Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Granlund, M. P. (2008). New pathways into robotics: Strategies for broadening participation. Journal of Science & Educational Technology,17, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9082-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sáez-López, J. M., Román-González, M., & Vázquez-Cano, E. (2016). Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school. A two year case study using scratch in five schools. Computers & Education,97, 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies,18, 351–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9240-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skelton, G., Pang, Q., Yin, J., Williams, B. J., & Zheng, W. (2010). Introducing engineering concepts to public school students and teachers: Peer-based learning through robotics summer camp. Review of Higher Education and Self-Learning,3, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spolaôr, N., & Vavassori-Benitti, F. B. (2017). Robotics applications grounded in learning theories on tertiary education: A systematic review. Computers & Education,112, 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Chapter 6: Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weng-yi Cheng, R., Shui-fong, L., & Chung-yan Chan, J. (2008). When high achievers and low achievers work in the same group: The roles of group heterogeneity and processes in project-based learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology,78, 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709907X218160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM,49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Spanish National University of Distance Education (UNED), C/ Juan del Rosal 14, 28040, Madrid, Spain

    José-Manuel Sáez-López, Maria-Luisa Sevillano-García & Esteban Vazquez-Cano

Authors
  1. José-Manuel Sáez-López
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria-Luisa Sevillano-García
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Esteban Vazquez-Cano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José-Manuel Sáez-López.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sáez-López, JM., Sevillano-García, ML. & Vazquez-Cano, E. The effect of programming on primary school students’ mathematical and scientific understanding: educational use of mBot. Education Tech Research Dev 67, 1405–1425 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09648-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09648-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation