Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Examining the Effectiveness of a Professional Development Program: Integration of Educational Robotics into Science and Mathematics Curricula

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study describes a professional development (PD) program designed to support middle school teachers in effectively integrating robotics in science and mathematics classrooms. The PD program encouraged the teachers to develop their own science and mathematics lessons, aligned with national standards, infused with robotic activities. A multi-week summer PD and sustained academic year follow-up imparted to the teachers the technical knowledge and skills of robotics as well as an understanding of when and how to use robotics in science and mathematics teaching. The goal of this study is to investigate the effects of the robotics-integrated PD program through the changes of teachers’ technological-pedagogical-and-content knowledge self-efficacy, the improvement in their content knowledge of robotics in the context of science and mathematics teaching, and their reflections on the PD. The 41 participants consisted of 20 mathematics and 20 science teachers and one teacher who teaches both subjects. Three instruments were administered to the teachers during the PD, and follow-up interviews were conducted to further examine benefits and possible impacts on their teaching resulting from the PD. The data were analyzed by both statistical and qualitative methods to identify the effectiveness of the PD. The findings of the study indicate that the PD program was effective in increasing participants’ robotics content knowledge and confidence and outcome expectancy while integrating robotics in their teaching practices. Based on teacher reflections and follow-up interviews, this study offers guidelines for future development of technology-integrated science and mathematics teaching.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Find the latest articles, discoveries, and news in related topics.

References

  • Abbitt, J. T. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs about technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) among preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 134–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aladé, F., Lauricella, A. R., Beaudoin-Ryan, L., & Wartella, E. (2016). Measuring with Murray: Touchscreen technology and preschoolers’ STEM learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 433–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alimisis, D. et al. (2007). Robotics & constructivism in education: The TERECoP project. In I. Kalas (ed.), EuroLogo 2007, 40 Years of Influence on Education, Proceedings of the 11th European Logo Conference (pp. 19–24), August 2007, Bratislava, Slovakia: Comenius University.

  • Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Badia, A., & Iglesias, S. (2019). The science teacher identity and the use of technology in the classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(5), 532–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents (pp. 307–337). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M., & Assal, M. (2018). Robotics and STEM learning: Students’ achievements in assignments according to the P3 task taxonomy—practice, problem solving, and projects. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(1), 121–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, B. S., & Ansorge, J. (2007). Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 229–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bers, M., Seddighin, S., & Sullivan, A. (2013). Ready for robotics: Bringing together the T and E of STEM in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 21(3), 355–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilici, S. C., Yamak, H., Kavak, N., & Guzey, S. S. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge self-efficacy scale (TPACK-SeS) for pre-service science teachers: Construction, validation, and reliability. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 52, 37–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracken, C. (2010). Educate NXT. Pittsburg, KS: Pitsco Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carberry, A. R., Lee, H.-S., & Ohland, M. W. (2010). Measuring engineering design self-efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 71–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, J. M., Carbonaro, M., Rex, M., & Grove, S. (2007). Scaffolding knowledge construction through robotic technology: A middle school case study. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 6, 55–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clapp, B., & Swenson, J. (2013). The collaborative classroom: New technology brings new paradigm. Atlantic Marketing Journal, 2(3), 60–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York, NY: Routledge Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, N., Preston, C., & Sahin, I. (2009). Training teachers to use new technology impacts multiple ecologies: Evidence from a national initiative. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 861–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado-Rico, E., Carretero-Dios, H., & Ruch, W. (2012). Content validity evidences in test development: An applied perspective. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology España, 12(3), 449–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eguchi, A. (2010). What is educational robotics? Theories behind it and practical implementation. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 4006–4014), March 2010, San Diego, CA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

  • Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hixon, E., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2009). Revisiting technology integration in schools: Implications for professional development. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 130–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, S. K., & Mozejko, A. (2015). Teachers: Technology, change and resistance. In M. Henderson & G. Romeo (Eds.), Teaching and Digital Technologies: Big Issues and Critical Questions (pp. 307–317). Port Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hynes, M., & dos Santos, A. (2007). Effective teacher professional development: Middle school engineering content. International Journal of Engineering Education, 23(1), 24–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joo, Y. J., Park, S., & Lim, E. (2018). Factors influencing preservice teachers’ intention to use technology: TPACK, teacher self-efficacy, and technology acceptance model. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 48–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Junior Achievement USA. (2019). Survey: Teen Girls’ Interest in STEM Careers Declines. Retrieved from https://www.juniorachievement.org/web/ja-kansas/131

  • Karaca, F., Can, G., & Yildirim, S. (2013). A path model for technology integration into elementary school settings in Turkey. Computers & Education, 68, 353–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, F., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2017). Explaining technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A multilevel path analysis model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(4), 795–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luft, J. A., Roehrig, G. H., & Patterson, N. C. (2003). Contrasting landscapes: A comparison of the impact of different induction programs on beginning secondary science teachers’ practices, beliefs, and experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 77–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, F. G. (2001). Robotics Explorations: A Hands-on Introduction to Engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLellan, H. (1996). Situated learning: Multiple perspectives. In H. McLellan (Ed.), Situated Learning Perspectives (pp. 5–17). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorhead, M., Elliott, C. H., Listman, J. B., Milne, C. E., & Kapila, V. (2016). Professional development through situated learning techniques adapted with design-based research. Proceedings ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, http://doi.org/10.18260/p.25967.

  • NRC. (2009). Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects. National Research Council, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. National Research Council, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board. (2018). Science and Engineering Indicators 2018, Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/assets/nsb20181.pdf.

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ntemngwa, C., & Oliver, S. (2018). The implementation of integrated science technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) instruction using robotics in the middle school science classroom. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 6(1), 12–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Impact of robotics and geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 391–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Kopcha, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2018). Information and communication technology dispositional factors and relationship to information and communication technology practices. Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education, (pp. 309–333).

  • Papert, S. (1993). The Children’s Machine: Rethinking Schools in the Age of the Computer. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perdue, D. J. (2007). The Unofficial LEGO Mindstorms NXT Inventor’s Guide. San Francisco, CA: No Starch Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perritt, D. C. (2010). Including professional practice in professional development while improving middle school teaching in math. National Teacher Education Journal, 3(3), 73–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pittman, T., & Gaines, T. (2015). Technology integration in third, fourth and fifth grade classrooms in a Florida school district. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(4), 539–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plair, S. K. (2008). Revamping professional development for technology integration and fluency. The Clearing House, 82(2), 70–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodberg, S. (2019). Big tech, little change? Technology doesn’t change much in schools unless educators can push past convention. Educational Leadership, 76(5), 75–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-del-Solar, J., & Avilés, R. (2004). Robotics courses for children as a motivation tool: The Chilean experience. IEEE Transactions on Education, 47(4), 474–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) the development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnittka, C., Turner, G. E., Colvin, R. W., & Ewald, M. L. (2014). A state wide professional development program in engineering with science and math teachers in Alabama: Fostering conceptual understandings of STEM. Proceedings ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, 24.106.1—24.106.24.

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337–1370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Education. (2017). Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan Update. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vollmer, U., Jeschke, S., Burr, B., Knipping, L., Scheurich, J., & Wilke, M. (2011). Teachers need robotics-training, too. In S. Jeschke, I. Isenhardt, & K. Henning (Eds.), Automation, Communication and Cybernetics in Science and Engineering 2009/2010 (pp. 359–364). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • You, H. S., Chacko, S. M., Borges Rajguru, S., & Kapila, V. (2019). Designing robotics-based science lessons aligned with the three dimensions of NGSS-plus-5E model: A content analysis (Fundamental). Proceedings ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, https://peer.asee.org/32622.

  • You, H. S., Chacko, S. M., & Kapila, V. (2019). Teaching science with technology: Science and engineering practices of middle school science teachers engaged in a professional development for robotics integration into classroom (Fundamental). Proceedings ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, https://peer.asee.org/33353.

  • Zehra, R., & Bilwani, A. (2016). Perceptions of teachers regarding technology integration in classrooms: A comparative analysis of elite and mediocre schools. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 3(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the middle-school teachers for their participation in this study.

Funding

This work is supported in part by the National Science Foundation grants DRK-12 DRL: 1417769, ITEST DRL: 1614085, and RET Site EEC: 1542286, and NY Space Grant Consortium grant 76156-10488.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Physical Sciences Department, Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, AR, 72801, USA

    Hye Sun You

  2. Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, NYU Tandon School of Engineering, Brooklyn, NY, 11201, USA

    Sonia Mary Chacko & Vikram Kapila

Authors
  1. Hye Sun You
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sonia Mary Chacko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vikram Kapila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vikram Kapila.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (Inst. IRB-FY2016-520) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

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

You, H.S., Chacko, S.M. & Kapila, V. Examining the Effectiveness of a Professional Development Program: Integration of Educational Robotics into Science and Mathematics Curricula. J Sci Educ Technol 30, 567–581 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09903-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09903-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation