Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Elementary School Student Development of STEM Attitudes and Perceived Learning in a STEM Integrated Robotics Curriculum

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
TechTrends Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Robotics has been advocated as an emerging approach to engaging K-12 students in learning science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). This study examined the impacts of a project-based STEM integrated robotics curriculum on elementary school students’ attitudes toward STEM and perceived learning in an afterschool setting. Three elementary school teachers and 18 fourth to sixth graders participated in an eight-week-long program. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed, and showed students’ attitudes toward math improved significantly at the end of the robotics curriculum. Three specific areas of perceived learning were identified, including STEM content learning and connection, engagement and perseverance, and development and challenge in teamwork. The findings also identified the opportunities and challenges in designing a STEM integrated robotics afterschool curriculum for upper elementary school students. Implications for future research studies and curriculum design are discussed.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Altin, H., & Pedaste, M. (2013). Learning approaches to applying robotics in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(3), 365–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thoughts and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: a digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: a systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binns, I. C., Polly, D., Conrad, J., & Algozzine, B. (2016). Student perceptions of a summer ventures in science and mathematics camp experience. School Science and Mathematics, 116(8), 420–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buck Institute of Education (BIE) (2017). Why project based learning? Retrieved March 20, 2019 from http://bie.org/.

  • Ching, Y.-H., Hsu, Y.-C., & Baldwin, S. (2018a). Developing computational thinking with educational technologies for young learners. TechTrends, 62(6), 563–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0292-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ching, Y.-H., Yang, D., Wang, S., Baek, Y., Swanson, S., & Chittoori, B. (2018b). Improving student attitudes inSTEM through a project-based robotics program. In American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting and Exhibition, New York, NY, USA, April 13–17, 2018.

  • Conrad, J., Polly, D., Binns, I., & Algozzine, B. (2018). Student perceptions of a summer robotics camp experience. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideals, 91(3), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2018.1436819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eguchi, A. (2014). Robotics as a learning tool for educational transformation. Paper presented at the 4th International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics & 5th International Conference Robotics in Education, Padova, Italy. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-8363-1.ch002

  • Elkin, M., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2014). Implementing a robotics curriculum in an early childhood Montessori classroom [electronic version]. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 13, 153–169. Retrieved September 17, 2018, from http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol13/JITEv13IIPvp153-169Elkin882.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friday Institute for Educational Innovation. (2012). Elementary school STEM - student survey. Raleigh: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2015). Constructionist gaming: understanding the benefits of making games for learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1124022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kandlhofer, M., & Steinbauer, G. (2015). Evaluating the impact of educational robotics on pupils’ technical- and social-skills and science related attitudes. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 679–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.09.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopcha, T. J., McGregor, J., Shin, S., Qian, Y., Choi, J., Hill, R., et al. (2017). Developing an integrative STEM curriculum for robotics education through educational design research. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 1(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-017-0005-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9628-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students. Science Education, 95(5), 877–907 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, T., Stohlmann, M., Wang, H., Tank, K., Glancy, A., & Roehrig, G. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In J. S. Purzer & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 35–60). West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common Core State Standards for mathematics: Grade 4 measurement & data. Retrieved March 20, 2019 from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/4/MD/.

  • National Research council [NRC]. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington: National Academies Press.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. (1987). Cognitive technologies for mathematics education. In A. Schoenfled (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 89–122). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petre, M., & Price, B. (2004). Using robotics to motivate “back door” learning. Education and Information Technologies, 9(2), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EAIT.0000027927.78380.60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scaradozzi, D., Sorbi, L., Pedale, A., Valzano, M., & Vergine, C. (2015). Teaching robotics at the primary school: An innovative approach. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 3838–3846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J., Kafkas, S., Maier, K., Shumow, L., & Kackar-Cam, H. (2018). Why are we learning this? Using mixed methods to understand teachers’ relevance statements and how they shape middle school students’ perceptions of science utility. Contemporary Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.08.005.

  • Sha, L., Schunn, C., & Bathgate, M. (2015). Measuring choice to participate in optional science learning experiences during early adolescence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(5), 686–709. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpkins, S. D., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Math and science motivation: a longitudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 42, 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slangen, L., Van Keulen, H., & Gravemeijer, K. (2011). What pupils can learn from working with robotic direct manipulation environments. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(4), 449–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9130-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohlmann, M., Moore, T., & Roehrig, G. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, K. (2016). Collaborative robotics, more than just working in groups: effects of student collaboration on learning motivation, collaborative problem solving, and science process skills in robotic activities. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved March 20, 2019 from https://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2179&context=td.

  • Ucgul, M., & Cagiltay, K. (2014). Design and development issues for educational robotics training camps. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(2), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9253-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unfried, A., Faber, M., Stanhope, D. S., & Wiebe, E. (2015). The development and validation of a measure of student attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and math (S-STEM). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(7), 622–639. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915571160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, D. C., Ma, Y., Prejean, L., Ford, M. J., & Lai, G. (2007). Acquisition of physics content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills in a robotics summer camp. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number 1640228. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Technology, Boise State University, 1910 University Dr., Boise, ID, 83725-1747, USA

    Yu-Hui Ching, Dazhi Yang & Youngkyun Baek

  2. Department of Mathematics, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA

    Sasha Wang

  3. Division of Research and Economic Development, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA

    Steve Swanson

  4. Department of Civil Engineering, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA

    Bhaskar Chittoori

Authors
  1. Yu-Hui Ching
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dazhi Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sasha Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Youngkyun Baek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Steve Swanson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bhaskar Chittoori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yu-Hui Ching.

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

Ching, YH., Yang, D., Wang, S. et al. Elementary School Student Development of STEM Attitudes and Perceived Learning in a STEM Integrated Robotics Curriculum. TechTrends 63, 590–601 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00388-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00388-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation