Is Robotics Education and Training Gender Dependent? A Suggestive Robotics Syllabus for Teacher Training

G S Prakasha, Joseph Varghese Kureethara, Anthony Kenneth, Peter Varkey Muttungal, Trent Grundmeyer

Abstract


Application of robotics is rapidly increasing in all fields of life. Though robotics education became popular in the 21st century, its teaching and training has not gained much importance across the world, especially in developing and low-income countries. There are various reasons for its neglect and one of them could be gender-science stereotypes. Research studies are yet to explore the reasons for its slow emergence. The present study explores the need and training for educational robotics considering the role of students, teachers, teacher-educators and parents, determining whether it is gender-dependent or not. The study also proposes to come up with a syllabus for robotics training. The study employs exploratory, sequential, qualitative-quantitative mixed-method research design and applies purposive sampling techniques. Researchers conducted semi-structured interviews, including five science teacher-educators, five science teachers, and five trainee teachers majoring in sciences to understand the need, scope and benefits of robotics education. They recruited 100 high school students, 50 teacher-educators, and 100 parents to test whether their interest in robotics is gender-dependent through Chi-square analysis. The study revealed the need for robotics education under four themes and seven subthemes. It has been found that the interest of students and parents and the readiness of teacher-educators for robotics education is gender-dependent. The study came up with a suggestive syllabus for robotics training. It recommends that future researchers should focus on the implementation of robotics teaching for teacher and school education.

https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.10.3


Keywords


educational robotics; robotics training; robotics syllabus; gender-science stereotype

Full Text:

PDF

References


Afari, E., & Khine, M. S. (2017). Robotics as an educational tool: Impact of lego mindstorms. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7(6), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.6.908

Alemi, M., Taheri, A., Shariati, A., & Meghdari, A. (2020). Social robotics, education, and religion in the Islamic world: An Iranian perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(5), 2709–2734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00225-1

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9385-9

Blackley, S., & Howell, J. (2019). The next chapter in the STEM education narrative: Using robotics to support programming and coding. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v44n4.4

Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ?making? in education: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. B?ching (Eds.), Fab labs: Of machines, makers and inventors (pp. 1-21). Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers. https://doi.org/10.14361/transcript.9783839423820.203

Boyarinov, D. A., & Samarina A. E., (2020). The potential of educational robotics in teacher education. In I. Gafurov &R .Valeeva (Eds.), VI International forum on teacher education.ARPHA Proceedings (pp. 259-276). Kazan Federal University, Russia. 3. https://doi.org/10.3897/ap.2.e0259

Caballero-González, Y. A., & García-Valcárcel, A. (2020). Aprender con robótica en educación primaria? Un medio de estimular el pensamiento computacional. Education in the Knowledge Society (EKS), 21(15). https://doi.org/10.14201/eks.21443

Casey, J. E., Gill, P., Pennington, L., & Mireles, S. V. (2018). Lines, roamers, and squares: Oh my! Using floor robots to enhance Hispanic students’ understanding of programming. Education and Information Technologies, 23(4), 1531–1546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9677-z

Chalmers, C., Chandra, V., Hudson, S., & Hudson, P. (2012, July 1-4). Preservice teachers teaching technology with robotics. Paper presented to Australian Teacher Education Association (ATEA) Conference, Adelaide (Glenelg). https://eprints.qut.edu.au/52669/

Charles, M., & Bradley, K. (2009). Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114(4), 924–976. http://doi: 10.1086/595942

Chootongchai, S., Songkram, N., & Piromsopa, K. (2021). Dimensions of robotic education quality: Teachers’ perspectives as teaching assistants in Thai elementary schools. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 1387–1407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10041-1

Cornetta, G. A., Touhafi, A., Togou M. A., & Muntean, G. (2020). Fabrication-as-a-service: A web-based solution for STEM education using internet of things. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 7(2), 1519-1530. http://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2019.2956401.

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Daniela, L., L?ka, I., Rutka, L., & Zogla, I. (2014). The teacher of the 21st century: Quality education for quality teaching. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. https://www.cambridgescholars.com/product/978-1-4438-5612-6

De Cristoforis, P., Pedre, S., Nitsche, M., Fischer, T., Pessacg, F., & Di Pietro, C. (2013). A behavior-based approach for educational robotics activities. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(1), 61–66. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2012.2220359

Eagly, A., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. A. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski & E. T Higgins (Eds.), handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 458-476). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n49

Eguchi, A. (2010). What is educational robotics? Theories behind it and practical implementation. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2010--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 4006-4014). San Diego, CA, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/34007/

Gorakhnath, I., & Padmanabhan, J. (2017). Educational robotics: A new arena in classroom teaching. Electronic Interdisciplinary International Research Journal (EIIRJ). http://www.aarhat.com/eiirj/

Govinda, R. (2020). NEP 2020: A critical examination. Social Change, 50(4), 603–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049085720958804

Gupta, N. (2019). Analysing gender gap in science: Government of India initiatives. Current Science, 116(11), 1797. https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v116/i11/1797-1804

Hammond, A., Matulevich, E. R., Beegle, K., & Kumaraswamy, S. K. (2020). The equality equation: Advancing the participation of women and girls in STEM. World Bank, Washington, DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/34317.

Hinojo-Lucena, F. J., Dúo-Terrón, P., Ramos Navas-Parejo, M., Rodríguez-Jiménez, C., & Moreno-Guerrero, A. J. (2020). Scientific performance and mapping of the term STEM in education on the web of science. Sustainability, 12(6), 2279. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062279

Karypi, S. (2018). Educational robotics application in primary and secondary education: A challenge for the Greek teachers society. Journal of Contemporary Education, Theory & Research, 2(1), 9 - 14. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3598423

Khanlari, A. (2013). Effects of educational robots on learning STEM and on students' attitude toward STEM. Paper presented at the IEEE 5th Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED). http://doi: 10.1109/ICEED.2013.6908304.

Kim, H.-Y. (2017). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, 42(2), 152. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2017.42.2.152

Kubilinskiene, S., Zilinskiene, I., Dagiene, V., & Sinkevi?ius, V. (2017). Applying robotics in school education: A systematic review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 5(1), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.22364/bjmc.2017.5.1.04

Kucuk, S., &Sisman, B. (2020). Students’ attitudes towards robotics and STEM: Differences based on gender and robotics experience. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 23-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2020.100167

Mahajan, V., Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (1976). The delphi method: Techniques and applications. Journal of Marketing Research, 13(3), 317. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150755

Marshall, M. N. (1999). Improving quality in general practice: Qualitative case study of barriers faced by health authorities. BMJ, 319(7203), 164–167. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7203.164

Morgan, G.A., Gloeckner, G.W., Barrett, K.C., & Leech, N.L. (2004). SPSS for introductory statistics: Use and interpretation,(2nd ed.). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610539

Nandini, (2020). New education policy 2020 highlights school and higher education to see major changes. https://www.hindustantimes.com/education/new-education-policy-2020-live-updates-important-takeaways/story-yYm1QaeNyFW4uTTU3g9bJO.html

OECD, (2017). The pursuit of gender equality: An uphill battle. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi: 10.1787/9789264281318-en

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(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9082-2

Sánchez, H., Martínez, L. S., & González, J. D. (2019). Educational robotics as a teaching tool in higher education institutions: A bibliographical analysis. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1391/1/012128

Sullivan, F. R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 373–394. https://doi:10.1002/tea.20238

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of inter-group conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of inter-group relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. https://www.scirp.org/(S(i43dyn45teexjx455qlt3d2q))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=757561

Tsagaris, A., Chatzikyrkou, M., & Simeli, I. (2019). Educational robotics: The pleasure of participation. Journal of Contemporary Education, Theory & Research, 3(1), 31-35. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3598726

Vega, J., & Cañas, J. (2018). PiBot: An open low-cost robotic platform with camera for STEM education. Electronics, 7(12), 430. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics7120430

Vicente, F. R., Zapatera Llinares, A., & Montes Sánchez, N. (2021). Curriculum analysis and design, implementation, and validation of a STEAM project through educational robotics in primary education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22373

Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2017). Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educational psychology review, 29(1), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x

WEF, (2017). The global gender gap report. WEF. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2017.pdf

Yi, H. (2019). Robotics and kinetic design for underrepresented minority (URM) students in building education: Challenges and opportunities. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 27(2), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22080

Zviel-Girshin, R., Luria, A., & Shaham, C. (2020). Robotics as a tool to enhance technological thinking in early childhood. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(2), 294–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09815-x


Refbacks



e-ISSN: 1694-2116

p-ISSN: 1694-2493