Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An effective educational tool: construction kits for fun and meaningful learning

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

Abstract

The integration of robotics in education is still relatively new and represents an important advance in education practices. So, this paper aims to share the results from the perspectives of both students and trainers in an experimental case research in which LEGO Mindstorms construction kits were used. Sixty-two students between the ages of 8 and 14 participated in the study. Multiple data collection methods were used to ensure the richness and diversity of the data. According to the findings, constructivist learning experiences that students had in this training program were themed into the four major themes; active learning, authentic learning, multiple perspectives and collaborative learning. Learning through construction kits offered opportunities to deepen the students’ understanding of various concepts with hands-on exploration and design, resulting in fun and enjoyment. It also promoted students’ active involvement and fostered the collaboration that leads to developing multiple perspectives.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackermann, E. K. (1996). Perspective-taking and object construction: Two keys to learning. In Y. Kafai & M. Resnik (Eds.), Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking and learning in a digital world (pp. 25–37). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akpınar, B., & Aydın, K. (2007). Türkiye ve bazı ülkelerin eğitim reformlarının karşılaştırılması. Fırat Üniversitesi Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(1), 82–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akşit, N. (2007). Educational reform in Turkey. International Journal of Educational Development, 27(2), 129–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alimisis, D., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Constructionism and robotics in education. In D. Alimisis (Ed.), Teacher education on robotics-enhanced constructivist pedagogical methods (pp. 11–26). School of Pedagogical and Technological Education (ASPETE) ISBN 978-960-6749-49-0. USA: AACE.

  • Arlegui, J., Menegatti, E., Moro, M. and Pina, A. (2008). Robotics, computer science curricula and interdisciplinary activities. In Proceedings of the TERECoP Workshop Teaching with robotics, Conference SIMPAR 2008 (pp. 10–21). Venice, Italy.

  • Ausubel, D. P. (1962). A subsumption theory of meaningful verbal learning and retention. The Journal of General Psychology, 66, 213–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avenstrup, R. (2007). The challenge of curriculum reform and implementation: Some implications of a constructivist approach. Ministry of National Education. Retrieved December, 10, 2010.

  • Babadogan, C., & Olkun, S. (2006). Program development models and reform in Turkish primary school mathematics curriculum. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 1–6.

  • Beer, R. D., Hillel, J. C., & Richard, F. D. (1999). Using robotics to teach science and engineering. Communications of the ACM, 42(6), 85–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers and Education, 58(3), 978–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bologna (1999). Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education Convened in Bologna on the 19th of June 1999. European Ministers of Education., retrieved December 3, 2012 from http://www.en.us.es/us/temasuniv/espacio-euro.2004.

  • Bulut, M. (2007). Curriculum reform in Turkey: A case of primary school mathematics curriculum. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(3), 203–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cey, T. (2001). Moving towards constructivist classroom, retrieved December 3, 2012 from http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/ceyt/ceyt.htm.

  • Chambers, J. M., Carbonaro, M., & Rex, M. (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 

  • Chanlin, L. J. & Chan, K.C. (2000). PBL approach in web-based instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(2).

  • Chioccariello, A., Manca, S., & Sarti, L. (2004). Children’s playful learning with a robotic construction kit. In J. Siraj-Blatchford (Ed.), Developing new technologies for young children (pp. 93–174). UK: Trentham Books Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, M., Keating, D., Harwin, W., & Dautenhahn, K. (1999). Robots in the classroom: Tools for accessible education. In C. Buhler & H. Knops (Eds.), Assistive technology on the threshold of the new millennium (pp. 448–452). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research: International edition (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D.C. Heath & Co.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Educational communications and technology (pp. 170–199). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertl, H. (2006). Educational standards and the changing discourse on education: The reception and consequences of the PISA study in Germany. Oxford Review of Education, 32(5), 619–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, B. A. (2003). Supporting elementary science education for English learners: A constructivist evaluation instrument. Journal of Educational Research, 96(6), 371–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA ‘effect’ in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gür, B. S., Celik, Z., & Özoğlu, M. (2012). Policy options for Turkey: a critique of the interpretation and utilization of PISA results in Turkey. Journal of Education Policy, 27(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J., & Hooper, S. R. (1993). Learning principles. In M. Fleming & W. H. Levie (Eds.), Instructional message design: Principles from the behavioral and cognitive sciences (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honebein, P. C., Duffy, T. M., & Fishman, B. J. (1993). Constructivism and the design of learning environments: Context and authentic activities for learning. Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 87–108). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jermann, P., Soller, A., & Muehlenbrock, M. (2001). From mirroring to guiding: A review of the state of the art technology for supporting collaborative learning. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), EuroCSCL 2001 proceedings: European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 324–331). Maastricht, The Netherlands: Maastricht McLuhan Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. A. (1999). Problem-based, cooperative learning in the engineering classroom. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 125(1), 8–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. S., & Finucane, P. M. (2000). The emergence of problem-based learning in medical education. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 6(3), 281–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. II, pp. 215–239). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. D., & Southern, T. W. (2003). Balancing perspectives on mathematics instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35(9), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, D. L. (2003). Overview of PIRLS. PIRLS, 1.

  • Kynigos, C. (1995). Programming as a means of expressing and exploring ideas in a directive educational system: Three case studies. In A. A. diSessa, C. Hoyles, & R. Noss (Eds.), Computers and exploratory learning NATO ASI Series (pp. 399–420). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, S. T., & Mioduser, D. (2008). Does it ‘‘want’’ or ‘‘was it programmed to…’’? Kindergarten children’s explanations of an autonomous robot’s adaptive functioning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18, 337–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, L-Y, Chang, C-W & Chen, G-D. (2009). Researches on using robots in education. In M. Chang, R. Kuo, K.Kinshuk, G.-D.Chen & M. Hirose (Eds.) Proceeding Edutainment ‘09 Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on E-learning and games: Learning by playing. Game-based education system design and development. Volume 5670/2009, (pp. 479–482). Berlin: Springer.

  • Liu, E. Z.-F. (2010). Early adolescents’ perceptions of educational robots and learning of robotics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), E44–E47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 226–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. E., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1993). Putting the “group” back in group support systems: Some theoretical issues about dynamic processes in groups with technological enhancements. In L. M. Jessup & J. S. Valacich (Eds.), Group support systems: New perspectives (pp. 78–96). NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mezirow, J. (1990). How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. Fostering critical reflection in adulthood, 1–20.

  • Mitnik, R., Nussbaum, M., & Soto, A. (2008). An autonomous educational mobile robot mediator. Autonomous Robot, 25(4), 367–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moallem, M. (2003). An interactive online course: A collaborative design model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 85–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neo, M. (2003). Developing a collaborative learning environment using a web based design. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 19, 462–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, G. R., & Schmidt, H. G. (1992). The psychological basis of problem-based learning: A review of the evidence. Academic Medicine, 67(9), 557–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nourbakhsh, I., Crowley, K., Bhave, A., Hamner, E., Hsium, T., Perez-Bergquist, A., et al. (2005). The robotic autonomy mobile robots course: Robot design, curriculum design, and educational assessment. Autonomous Robots, 18(1), 103–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4), 548–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N. & Adamchuk, V. (2009). The use of digital manipulatives in K-12: Robotics, GPS/GIS and programming. In 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. October 18–21, 2009, San Antonio, TX.

  • OECD. (2004). Learning for Tomorrow’s World. First Results from PISA 2003. France, Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2012). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework. Mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • PIRLS (2001). PIRLS 2001 International Report. Availble from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2001i/PIRLS2001_Pubs_IR.html Access date: 10 February 2014.

  • Resnick, M., Martin, F., Berg, R., Borovoy, R., Colella, V., Kramer, K. & Silverman, B. (1998). Digital manipulatives. In Proceedings of the CHI ‘98 conference, Los Angeles.

  • Resnick, M., & Ocko, S. (1991). LEGO/Logo: Learning through and about design. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 141–150). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley, K. (2004). Schooling the citizens of tomorrow: The challenges for teaching and learning across the global north/south divide. Journal of Educational Change, 5(4), 389–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, C., & Merredith, P. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM Education, 5(3/4), 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryu, H. J., Kwak, S. S., & Kim, M. S. (2008). Design factors for external form of robots as elementary school teaching assistants. The Bulletin of Japanese Society for Science of Design (JSSD), 54(5), 39–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahlberg, P. (2006). Education reform for raising economic competitiveness. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 259–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R., & Macpherson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 161–181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, B. (2000). Creating and managing brand experiences on the internet. Design Management Journal (Former Series), 11(4), 53–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shamlian, S.V., Killfoile, K., Kellogg, R., Duvallet, F. (2006). Fun with robots: A student-taught undergraduate robotics course. Robotics and Automation, 2006. In Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference (pp. 369–374), May 15–19, Orlando, Florida, USA.

  • Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 6–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, M. R., & Thompson, A. (1997). Educational computing foundations (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skadberg, Y. X., & Kimmel, J. R. (2004). Visitors’ flow experience while browsing a Web site: its measurement, contributing factors and consequences. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(3), 403–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. L., Ragan, T. J., & Ragan, T. (1999). Instructional design (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, S., Cresswell, J., & De Bortoli, L. (2004). Facing the future: A focus on mathematical literacy among Australian 15-year-old students in PISA 2003. Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research.

  • Von Glasersfeld, E. (1993). Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 23–38). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies, Gazi University, Gazi Education Faculty, L Blok No: 305, Besevler, Ankara, Turkey

    Sibel Somyürek

Authors
  1. Sibel Somyürek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sibel Somyürek.

Appendix: Student interview questions

Appendix: Student interview questions

General information

  1. 1.

    Name/Surname:

  2. 2.

    Age:

  3. 3.

    School:

  4. 4.

    Do you have a computer?

  5. 5.

    Have you experienced robot education training before? If you did, where and for how long?

  6. 6.

    Have you had programming language training before? Which software programs/programming languages did you study?

Opinions related to the activities and learning experiences

  1. 1.

    What do you think about the learning activities in this course? Can you explain?

  2. 2.

    How did you feel about the course? Why?

  3. 3.

    What was your role in the learning activities? What did you do each day? Can you explain?

  4. 4.

    Did you use any of your prior knowledge in the course? Can you give an example?

  5. 5.

    Did you need to solve any problems in the course? Can you give an example?

  6. 6.

    How did you solve the problem? What did you do to solve the problem?

  7. 7.

    Have you faced a similar problem in real life? Can you give an example? Why do you think this problem is similar?

  8. 8.

    Did you add anything new to your prior knowledge during this course? What was added?

  9. 9.

    Do you think you adding new knowledge was beneficial? Why? Can you explain?

  10. 10.

    Which do you prefer:

    1. a.

      Designing and programming a robot to complete a task on your own/with your team?

    2. b.

      Listening to your teacher explain how to design and program a robot, and then doing what she said?

Why? Can you explain?

  1. 11.

    Was the course different from school lessons? If yes, what were the differences? Can you explain?

  2. 12.

    Did your team members or students in other teams learn anything from you? Can you give an example?

  3. 13.

    What did you learn from watching and listening to your team members, or from students in other teams? Can you give an example?

  4. 14.

    Did you use your imagination? Can you give an example?

  5. 15.

    Do you like educational activities? Why?

  6. 16.

    Do you think robot education is important? Why?

  7. 17.

    Do you think programming is important? Why?

  8. 18.

    What did you learn from this course? Can you explain?

  9. 19.

    What was the most pleasing activity? Why?

  10. 20.

    What was the most difficult activity? Why?

  11. 21.

    What was the easiest activity? Why?

  12. 22.

    What was the most boring activity? Why?

  13. 23.

    Do you want to participate in a similar course in the future? Why?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Somyürek, S. An effective educational tool: construction kits for fun and meaningful learning. Int J Technol Des Educ 25, 25–41 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9272-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9272-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation