Supporting Students’ Computational Thinking and Preservice Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Through Robotics Education

Framework

The design of the robotics program is guided by Papert’s (1980) constructionist theory of learning that learning occurs when students are engaged in creating meaningful artifacts that can be explored and shared. Applying this principle, the robotics program offers experience that enables students to act as knowledge constructors when interacting with robotics technology (Kazakoff et al., 2013; Sáez-López et al., 2019). The tangible and functional robotics kits serve as external agents to support the development of mental representations of abstract ideas (Han, 2013), scaffold the progressive learning of programming (Grover & Pea, 2013) and improve students’ computational thinking (e.g., Atmatzidou & Demetriadis, 2016; Noh & Lee, 2020).
In this study, we examine two outcomes, students’ computational thinking (CT) and preservice teachers’ self-efficacy in teaching robotics, which were the main focus of the first iteration of the robotics program. CT has been identified as a critical skill that can be universally applied to STEM disciplines (Guzdial, 2008; Wing, 2006) and promote students’ pursuit of STEM careers (Mouza et al., 2020). We adopt an operational definition of CT that situates CT in the framework of constructionism and emphasizes the role of K-12 students as tool builders to solve problems “in a way that can be implemented with a computer” (Barr & Stephenson, 2011, p. 51). The core CT competencies include problem decomposition, algorithmic thinking, abstraction, data, automation, parallelization, and simulation (Computer Science Teachers Association & International Society for Technology in Education, 2011).
Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in his/her ability to complete a task. It is a judgment about how able an individual is to perform the task (Bandura, 1994). Research shows teachers lack confidence or self-efficacy in using computers or robots (e.g., Russell & Bradley, 1997; Khanlari, 2016), possibly due to low technology competence (Jones, 2004). A handful of studies find that teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching with robotics can be improved with training experiences involving robotics and CT (Jaipal-Jamani & Angeli, 2017; Schina et al., 2021).

Methods

We adopt the design-based research approach to investigate the program through an iterative process of analysis and exploration, design and construction, evaluation and reflection (McKenny & Reeves, 2012). This paper presents a case study of the first iteration of the process, focusing on the program’s spring 2022 implementation. The iteration began with a review of pertinent literature. Next, design principles identified from the literature were applied to design and develop the robotics curriculum and instruction. Finally, the program was implemented with its first cohort of students, and data was collected and analyzed.

Analysis and Exploration
A review of literature on robotics education, CT, and STEM education reveals preliminary design principles for the robotics program: 1) addressing core CT concepts in an integrative STEM context (Honey et al., 2014, p. 1; Kopcha et al., 2017) built upon students’ innate curiosity (Maloney et al., 2008); 2) providing a range of hands-on experiences, from entry-level to “high-ceiling”, to promote equitable participation (Ito et al., 2013); 3) implementing culturally relevant frameworks that enhance peer relationships (Zhong & Li, 2020) and development of identity and belongingness in CT and STEM fields (Estrada et al., 2018).

Design and Construction
Applying the above principles, we designed a Mars-themed curriculum and a series of sessions for the program, including an online orientation, seven on-campus instructional sessions, and a celebration event. In the sequential sessions, students could start with simple tasks and move forward to solve more complex challenges. Each session aimed to meet interdisciplinary learning objectives related to CT, engineering, space science, etc. Additionally, content highlighting STEM professionals from diverse racial, gender, and ethnic backgrounds was embedded throughout the program. We designed various experiences to engage all students through direct instruction, whole-class discussion, group collaboration on hands-on activities, etc.

Implementation, Evaluation and Reflection
The program was first implemented between February and May 2022 with 12 students from Grade 3 through 7, including seven African American students and two Hispanic/Latino American students. Five students came from schools for low socio-economic status communities. The program was co-facilitated by three preservice teachers. Students and preservice teachers indicated they had little prior experience with robotics. Among the seven instructional sessions, one student attended only once but two others attended all sessions. The median number of sessions attended was 5.5 (Mean = 5.0, SD = 1.8).
To support the program implementation, preservice teachers met with program faculty (authors) for about 1.5 hours to plan content and activities before each session. A template consisting of five components was used to guide the planning and implementation: 1) “warm-up”: completing informal building activities, 2) “opening”: exploring Mars related content, 3) “build”: building more complicated structures; 4) “coding”: programming robots for various challenges; and 5) “ending”: cleaning up. At the end of each session, preservice teachers and program faculty met to reflect on how the session went.

Data Sources
We used a concurrent triangulation, mixed methods design (Creswel, 2014) to investigate students’ CT and preservice teachers’ self-efficacy in teaching robotics, as well as their program experiences. We collected both quantitative and qualitative data from multiple sources: the computational thinking scale, meeting minutes, emails, session observations, preservice teacher interviews, student exit slips, parent questionnaires, etc. We analyzed exit slips, observation notes and program documents to understand the students’ and preservice teachers’ program experience. Students’ CT was assessed through a pretest-posttest method, where they completed a computational thinking scale adapted from Korkmaz et al. (2017) at the beginning and the end of the program. The measure has 29 items in five subscales; internal consistency ranged between 0.73-0.87 (Cronbach’s alpha). We also analyzed the parent emails and questionnaires to triangulate the results from the pre and post-tests. Finally, we interviewed the preservice teachers and analyzed the emails, session plans, and meeting notes to understand whether there was any change in their self-efficacy in teaching robotics.

Results

Students’ Program Experience
Overall, students liked attending the robotics sessions. Their average scores on exit slips (1 = don’t like it at all; 5 = like it very much) ranged between 4.25 and 4.89 over the seven instructional sessions. Parents also reported that their children enjoyed the robotics program, specifically building/controlling the robots.

Students’ Computational Thinking
Students frequently mentioned that they learned something new about coding at each session. Twelve students completed the February administration of the computational thinking scale; nine completed the May administration. For the eight students who had both pre and post scores, average change was positive for all subscales, except one (Cooperativity). More than half of students had higher scores for Algorithmic Thinking (5/8), Critical Thinking (5/8), and Problem Solving (7/8).

Students’ Learning and Growth in Other Areas
In addition to CT or coding, students reported knowledge growth in science and engineering, e.g., facts about Mars and using robotics pieces to build structures. Students also showed stronger interest in STEM, as indicated by their parents and the preservice teachers. Another theme was that students started to establish connections between their own identity and the STEM fields. A preservice teacher commented:
“[A] lot of the students connected their own personal backgrounds to the subject matter… one of the students, she is Latina, …and she asked who was the first Latino woman to go up to [the moon]... [A] lot of people …want …more representation … I was really happy to hear that,...she really wanted to know. And then a lot more of her classmates started being more interested … [and] started asking more questions, like who was the first black man to go up to …the moon…”

Preservice Teachers’ Experience and Self-efficacy
The preservice teachers enjoyed the robotics program, thought it was “fun” and “very interesting”, and believed it had benefited them as educators. They developed knowledge, skills, and confidence in teaching robotics during the program. Specifically, two of the three preservice teachers shared that at the beginning of the program, they felt it difficult to “adjust” and “adapt” to implement the “unfamiliar” robotics curriculum. Through planning and facilitating the sessions, the preservice teachers “got used to the rhythm [of] things” and collectively contributed ideas about student grouping and learning activities. In the last two sessions, they independently explained the sample codes and coached the students to program the robot, demonstrating an improved confidence and performance in teaching robotics.

Importance

As part of a longitudinal project, this study follows a design-based research model (McKenny & Reeves, 2012). It details the first iteration of the process: preliminary design principles identified from the literature (analysis and exploration) were applied to design specifications of the robotics program (design and construction), which were implemented with the first cohort of students (evaluation and reflection). The evidence shows how a robotics program can support elementary and middle school students’ CT development in out-of-school weekend meetings. Findings also revealed that preservice teachers learned how and developed self-efficacy in robotics instruction, addressing a gap in the literature (e.g., Jaipal-Jamani & Angeli, 2017; Schina et al., 2021). The study shows that the design of the robotics program was effective, as reflected by the students’ emerging CT skills, and interests in connections among STEM, their identities, and communities. The study informs the pedagogical design of the program’s future iterations by testing preliminary design principles and highlighting the importance of continuously incorporating culturally relevant elements to promote equitable participation and engagement. Future research should consider the sociocultural perspective (Vygotsky, 1978) and conduct longitudinal investigations of students' and preservice teachers’ social interactions to expand understanding of how CT development can be scaffolded through instructional and peer interactive dialogues (Wang et al., 2021) and how a sense of belonging in computing and STEM fields develops over time.

References

Aruch, M., Tomblin, D., & Mogul, N. F. (2018). Engagement in practice: Tensions and progressions of a robotics service-learning program. ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT.
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.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran V. S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). New York: Academic Press.
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K–12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54.
Chambers, J. M., Carbonaro, M. & Murray, H. (2008). Developing conceptual understanding of mechanical advantage through the use of LEGO robotics technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 387-401.
Computer Science Teachers Association & International Society for Technology in Education. (2011). Computational thinking. Teacher resources. Retrieved from http://csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/472.11CTTeacherResources_2ed-SPvF.pdf
Creswel, J. W. (2014). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Estrada, M., Hernandez, P. R., & Schultz, P. W. (2018). A longitudinal study of how quality mentorship and research experience integrate underrepresented minorities into STEM careers. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(1), ar9.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: a review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.
Guzdial, M. (2008). Paving the way for computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 51(8), 25–27.
Han, I. (2013). Embodiment: a new perspective for evaluating physicality in learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 41-59. doi:10.2190/EC.49.1.b.
Harper, F., Stumbo, Z., & Kim, N. (2021). When robots invade the neighborhood: Learning to teach preK-5 mathematics leveraging both technology and community knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 21(1), 19-52.
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Rockville, Committee on Integrated STEM Education: National Research Council.
Ito, M., Gutierrez, K. D., Livingstone, S., Penuel, W. R., Rhodes, J. E., Salen, K., et al. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design, research, and practice. Irvine: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.
Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Angeli, C. (2017). Effect of robotics on elementary preservice teachers’ self-efficacy, science learning, and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(2), 175-192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9663-z
Jones, A. (2004). A review of the research literature on barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 1–29. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1603/1/becta_2004_barrierstouptake_litrev.pdf
Kazakoff, E. R., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The Effect of a classroom-based intensive robotics and programming workshop on sequencing ability in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41, 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-012-0554-5
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.
Kennedy, J., Baxter, P., & Belpaeme, T. (2014). Comparing robot embodiments in a guided discovery learning interaction with children. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7, 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0277-4
Kennedy, T., & Odell, M. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246–258.
Kopcha, T. J., McGregor, J., Shin, S., Qian, Y., Choi, J., Hill, R. Mativo, J. & Choi, I. (2017). Developing an integrative STEM curriculum for robotics education through educational design research. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, (1), 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-017-0005-1
Korkmaz, O., Cakir, R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 558-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.005
Leonard, J., Buss, A., Gamboa, R., Mitchell, M., Fashola, O. S., Hubert, T., & Almughyirah, S. (2016). Using robotics and game design to enhance children's self-efficacy, STEM attitudes, and computational thinking skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 860-876.
Mac Iver, M. A., & Mac Iver. D. J. (2015). The Baltimore City Schools Middle School STEM Summer Program with Vex Robotics. Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Education Research Consortium.
Maloney, J., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008, March 12–15). Programming by choice: Urban youth learning programming with Scratch. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 39th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 367–371), Portland, OR, USA.
Master, A., Cheryan, S., Moscatelli, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2017). Programming experience promotes higher STEM motivation among first-grade girls. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 160, 92-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.03.013
McKenney, S. E., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational research design: what, why and how. Oxford: Taylor & Francis.
Mouza, C., Pan, Y., Yang, H., & Pollock, L. (2020). A multiyear investigation of student computational thinking concepts, practices, and perspectives in an after-school computing program. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(5), 1029-1056. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120905605
Noh, J., & Lee, J. (2020). Effects of robotics programming on the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 463-484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09708-w
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Rotermund, S., & White, K. (2019). Elementary and secondary mathematics and science education. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20196/executive-summary
Russell, G., & Bradley, G. (1997). Teachers’ computer anxiety: Implications for professional development. Education and Information Technologies, 2(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018680322904
Sáez-López, JM., Sevillano-García, ML., & Vazquez-Cano, E. (2019). The effect of programming on primary school students’ mathematical and scientific understanding: educational use of mBot. Educational Technology Research Development, 67, 1405–1425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09648-5
Schina, D., Valls-Bautista, C., Borrull-Riera, A., Usart, M., & Esteve-Gonzalez, V. (2021). An associational study: preschool teachers’ acceptance and self‑efficacy towards Educational Robotics in a pre‑service teacher training program. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(28). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00264-z
Shah, N., Lewis, M., Caires, R., Khan, N., Qureshi, A., Ehsanipour, D., & Gupta, N. (2013). Building equitable computer science classrooms: elements of a teaching approach. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 263–268), Denver, CO, USA.
The White House. (2016). Fact sheet: President Obama announces Computer Science for All initiative. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/30/fact-sheet-president-obama-announces-computer-science-all-initiative-0
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wang, X. C., Choi, Y., Benson, K., Eggleston, C., & Weber, D. (2021). Teacher’s role in fostering preschoolers’ computational thinking: An exploratory case study. Early Education and Development, 32(1), 26-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1759012
Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–36.
Xia, L., & Zhong, B. (2018). A systematic review on teaching and learning robotics content knowledge in K-12. Computers & Education, 127, 267-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.007
Yuen, T. T., Boecking, M., Tiger, E. P., Gomez, A., Guillen, A., & Arreguin, A. (2014). Group tasks, activities, dynamics, and interactions in collaborative robotics projects with elementary and middle school children. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 15(1), 39-45.
Zhong, B., & Li, T. (2020). Can pair learning improve students’ troubleshooting performance in robotics education? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(1), 220-248.
Zilberman, A., & Ice, L. (2021). Why computer occupations are behind strong STEM employment growth in the 2019-29 decade. Beyond the Numbers, 10(1). https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-10/why-computer-occupations-are-behind-strongstem-employment-growth.htm