Advertisement

Crab Robot: A Comparative Study Regarding the Use of Robotics in STEM Education

  • Icleia Santos
  • Elaine Cristina Grebogy
  • Luciano Frontino de MedeirosEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Educational robotics has proved to be a propulsive pedagogical tool for the recovery of students’ interest, creativity, imagination, and logical reasoning, as well as assisting in the development of critical thinking, motor coordination, teamwork, and problem solving through hits and errors. The objective of this study was to verify the effectiveness of the use of Robotics as a pedagogical tool through a qualitative–quantitative research study with students in the fourth year of primary education, in the science discipline in an elementary public school in São José dos Pinhais (South of Brazil), with content on invertebrate animals. The study was carried out in two groups of the fourth year. Both underwent initial diagnostic evaluations, and one received the content in a traditional way, while the other followed the same planning but with the intervention of Robotics in parallel. The qualitative analysis considered the students’ reports after the development of the activity. Regarding the quantitative analysis, we used the statistical tests of hypotheses, Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney medians and Student’s t-test, for comparison of means, from which it was possible to show that the group that received the test content with robotics had a better performance in relation to the appropriation of the content.

Keywords

Educational robotics Sustainable robotics Meaningful learning STEM education Elementary school 

References

  1. Ausubel, D. (2000). Aquisição e Retenção de Conhecimentos: Uma Perspectiva Cognitiva [The Acquisition and Retention of Knowledge: a Cognitive View]. Plátano Edições Técnicas, 35.Google Scholar
  2. Bellas, F., Naya, M., Varela, G., Llamas, L., Prieto, A., Becerra, J. C., et al. (2018). The robobo project: Bringing educational robotics closer to real-world applications. In W. Lepuschitz, M. Merdan, G. Koppensteiner, R. Balogh, & D. Obdržálek (Eds.), Robotics in education (pp. 226–237). Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhagat, K. K., Chang, C., & Chang, C. (2016). The impact of the flipped classroom on mathematics concept learning in high school. Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 134–142.Google Scholar
  4. Bielefeldt, V., Torman, L., Coster, R., & Riboldi, J. (2012). Normalidade de variáveis: Métodos de verificação e comparação de alguns testes não-paramétricos por simulação [Normality of variables: Methods of verification and comparison of some non-parametric tests by simulation.]. Clinical & Biomedical Research, 32(2), 227–234.Google Scholar
  5. Bussab, W. O., & Morettin, P. A. (2017). Estatística Básica (9a ed.) [Basic Statistics]. São Paulo: Saraiva.Google Scholar
  6. Campos, F. R. (2017). Robótica Educacional no Brasil: Questões em aberto, desafios e perspectivas futuras [Robotics in Brazil: Open questions, challenges and future perspectives]. Revista Iberoamericana de Estudos Em Educação, 12(4), 2108–2121.  https://doi.org/10.21723/riaee.v12.n4.out./dez.2017.8778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cramer, D., & Howitt, D. L. (2004). The SAGE dictionary of statistics: A practical resource for students in the social sciences. London: SAGE Publications Ltd..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daros, C. R., da Rosa, C. T. W., & Darroz, L. M. (2016). A robótica educacional como apoio para aulas de ciências no ensino fundamental: Relato de atividade envolvendo o estudo das cores [Educational robotics as support for science classes in elementary school: Activity report involving the study of colors]., 8(1), 57–68.Google Scholar
  9. Dilshad, M., Malik, R., Tabassum, R., & Latif, M. I. (2016). Impact of computer simulation on the achievement of biology students at secondary level. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 36(2), 1205–1214.Google Scholar
  10. Gatti, B. A. (2004). Estudos quantitativos em educação [Quantitative studies in education]. Educação e Pesquisa, 30(1), 11–30. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ep/v30n1/a02v30n1.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Godoy, A. S. (1995). Pesquisa Qualitativa: tipos fundamentais [Qualitative Research: fundamental types]. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 35(3), 20–29.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
  12. Hohman, M., Pierce, P., & Barnett, E. (2015). Motivational interviewing: An evidence-based practice for improving student practice skills. Journal of Social Work Education, 51(August 2013), 287–297.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2015.1012925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson, J. P., & Mighten, A. (2005). A comparison of teaching strategies: Lecture notes combined with structured group discussion versus lecture only. Journal of Nursing Education, 44(7), 319–322.Google Scholar
  14. Karkazis, P., Balourdos, P., Pitsiakos, G., Asimakopoulos, K., Saranteas, I., Spiliou, T., & Roussou, D. (2018). Application of educational robotics on an automated water management system. International Journal of Smart Education and Urban Society (IJSEUS), 9(1), 25–36.  https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSEUS.2018010103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Larson, R., & Farber, B. (2015). Estatística Aplicada (6a ed.) [Applied statistics]. São Paulo: Pearson Education do Brasil.Google Scholar
  16. Lima, W. F., Paulo, J., Ic, C., & Garcia, T. M. (2012). A robótica educacional no ensino de Química, elaboração, construção e aplicação de um robô imóvel no ensino de conceitos relacionados à tabela periódica [Educational robotics in the teaching of Chemistry, elaboration, construction and application of an immovable robot in the teaching of concepts related to the periodic table]. XVI Encontro Nacional de Ensino de Química.Google Scholar
  17. Mataric, M. (2014). Introdução à Robótica [The Robotics Primer]. São Paulo: UNESP/Blucher.Google Scholar
  18. Mayer, B., Braisch, U., Meule, M., Allgoewer, A., Richter, S., & Muche, R. (2018). Effect of data self-collection as an activating teaching method in a statistical software course in medical biometry – A pilot study. GMS Journal for Medical Education, 35(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  19. Moreira, H., & Caleffe, L. G. (2008). In Lamparina (Ed.), Metodologia da Pesquisa para o Professor Pesquisador (2a. Ed) [Research Methodology for the Researcher Professor]. Rio de Janeiro: Lamparina.Google Scholar
  20. Moro, M., Agatolio, F., & Menegatti, E. (2018). The development of robotic enhanced curricula for the RoboESL project: Overall evaluation and expected outcomes. International Journal of Smart Education and Urban Society, 9(1), 48–60.  https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSEUS.2018010105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Papert, S. (1985). LOGO: Computadores e Educação [Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas]. São Paulo: Brasiliense.Google Scholar
  22. Papert, S. (2008). A Máquina das Crianças: repensando a escola na era da informática [The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer]. Porto Alegre: Artmed.Google Scholar
  23. Pérez-Marín, D., Hijón-Neira, R., & Santacruz, L. (2016). Active learning through collaborative knowledge building using an automatic free-text scoring system in a b-learning environment. Behavior & Information Technology, 35(7), 572–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Perrenoud, P. (2000). Dez Novas Competências para Ensinar [Ten New Competencies for Teaching]. Porto Alegre: Artmed.Google Scholar
  25. Ramezani-monfared, N., Shahvarani, A., & Behzadi, M. H. (2015). The impact of mathematics teachers “effectiveness on students” learning in the two realms of: Knowledge and understanding. Mathematics Education Trends and Research, 2015(1), 35–42.  https://doi.org/10.5899/2015/metr-00072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Romero, M. (2016). La Robotique Pédagogique dans les Écoles de Québec [Pedagogical Robotics in the Quebec Schools]. Retrieved from http://www.quebecnumerique.com/robotique-dans-les-ecoles-de-quebec/.
  27. Saleiro, M., Carmo, B., Rodrigues, J. M. F., & du Buf, J. M. H. (2013). A low-cost classroom-oriented educational robotics system (pp. 74–83). Springer International Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Santos, I. (2017). Contribuição da Robótica como Ferramenta Pedagógica no Ensino da Matemática no Terceiro Ano do Ensino Fundamental [Contribution of Robotics as a Pedagogical Tool in Teaching Mathematics in the Third Year of Primary Education]. Curitiba-PR: Centro Universitário Internacional UNINTER. Retrieved from https://www.uninter.com/mestrado/mestrado-profissional-em-educacao-e-novas-tecnologias-dissertacoes-defendidas/.
  29. Santos, I., & De Medeiros, L. F. (2017). Robótica com Materiais Recicláveis e a Aprendizagem Significativa no Ensino da Matemática: Estudo Experimental no Ensino Fundamental [Robotics with Recyclable Materials and Significant Learning in Mathematics Teaching: Experimental Study in Elementary Education]. In Anais do Workshop de Informática na Escola (pp. 275–284). WIE.  https://doi.org/10.5753/cbie.wie.2017.275.
  30. Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Effects of problem-based learning and traditional instruction on. Journal of Educational Research, 99(5), 307–317. Retrieved from pre-test-post-test; ANCOVA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Torcato, P. (2012). O Robô ajuda? Estudo do Impacto do uso de Robótica Educativa como Estratégia de Aprendizagem na disciplina de Aplicações Informáticas B [Does the Robot help? Study of the Impact of the use of Educational Robotics as a Learning Strategy in the discipline of Computer Applications B]. Congresso Internacional de TIC e Educação, 2578–2583.Google Scholar
  32. Wolbers, K. A., Dostal, H. M., Graham, S., Cihak, D., Kilpatrick, J. R., & Saulsburry, R. (2018). The writing performance of elementary students receiving strategic and interactive writing instruction. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, (July), 385–398.  https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/env022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Icleia Santos
    • 1
  • Elaine Cristina Grebogy
    • 1
  • Luciano Frontino de Medeiros
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.International University Center UNINTERCuritibaBrazil

Personalised recommendations