Using Robotics and Game Design to Enhance Children’s Self-Efficacy, STEM Attitudes, and Computational Thinking Skills

Abstract

This paper describes the findings of a pilot study that used robotics and game design to develop middle school students’ computational thinking strategies. One hundred and twenty-four students engaged in LEGO^® EV3 robotics and created games using Scalable Game Design software. The results of the study revealed students’ pre–post self-efficacy scores on the construct of computer use declined significantly, while the constructs of videogaming and computer gaming remained unchanged. When these constructs were analyzed by type of learning environment, self-efficacy on videogaming increased significantly in the combined robotics/gaming environment compared with the gaming-only context. Student attitudes toward STEM, however, did not change significantly as a result of the study. Finally, children’s computational thinking (CT) strategies varied by method of instruction as students who participated in holistic game development (i.e., Project First) had higher CT ratings. This study contributes to the STEM education literature on the use of robotics and game design to influence self-efficacy in technology and CT, while informing the research team about the adaptations needed to ensure project fidelity during the remaining years of the study.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Robotics worksheet

Appendix 2: Computational thinking rubric

CT components	Emerging (1)	Moderate (2)	Substantive (3)
Formulating problems	If–then statements unclear in terms of problem goals (e.g., “Can pigs fly?”)	If–then statements create conditions allow agent to move through program using a single condition (e.g., if you see a ghost move left)	If–then statements more complex and agent moves to more than one set of criteria (e.g., if you see a ghost and a scarecrow move to the left and/or up)
Abstraction	Agent and background resemble tutorial in Frogger game	Agent or background is non-traditional and created by the student	Agent and background are non-traditional and created by the student
Logical thinking	If–then statements do not follow logical path (e.g., agent is stuck and cannot move through the program)	If–then statements follow logical path with some complexity (e.g., agent moves through the program but no real challenges)	If–then statements follow logical path with more complexity (e.g., agent moves through program but can run into danger)
Using algorithms	No evidence of algorithmic use (i.e., game cannot keep score)	Some evidence of algorithm use (i.e., the game can keep score)	Evidence of algorithm use and final score (i.e., the games keeps score and says “you won”)
Analyzing and implementing solutions	No evidence of the ability to debug the program	Some evidence of debugging	Strong evidence of debugging
Generalizing and problem transfer	Game resembles Frogger example	Game has some evidence of Frogger but some differences	Game is not similar to Frogger at all and shows creative use of knowledge transfer
Use of pop gaming culture	No evidence of including elements from other off-shelf games	Some similarities to current off-shelf games	Substantial modeling or similarities to current off-shelf games with improvements and/or significant modifications