Using Robotics to Enhance Active Learning in Mathematics: A Multi-Scenario Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Learning Mathematics in Mexico
1.2. Educational Robotics
1.3. Active Learning and Robotics in Mathematics
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Plan
2.2. Methodology
3. Results
3.1. Quantitative Analysis
3.1.1. Primary School Tests Performed
3.1.2. Secondary School Tests Performed
3.1.3. High School Tests Performed
3.2. Qualitative Analysis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Pachidis, T.; Vrochidou, E.; Kaburlasos, V.G.; Kostova, S.; Bonković, M.; Papić, V. Social robotics in education: State-of-the-art and directions. In International Conference on Robotics in Alpe-Adria Danube Region; Aspragathos, N., Koustoumpardis, P., Moulianitis, V., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Germany, 2018; Volume 67, pp. 689–700. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do; PISA, OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed; PISA, OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peter, E. Critical thinking: Essence for teaching Mathematics and Mathematics problem solving skills African. J. Math. Comput. Sci. Res. 2012, 5, 39–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OCDE. Informe PISA 2003. Aprender Para el Mundo de Mañana; Santillana: Madrid, Spain, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Rico, L. Evaluación de competencias matemáticas. Proyecto PISA/OCDE 2003. In Investigación en Educación Matemática: Octavo Simposio de la Sociedad Española de Investigación en Educación Matemática (SEIEM); Castro, E., De la Torre, E., Eds.; Universidad da Coruña: Galicia, Spain, 2004; pp. 89–102. [Google Scholar]
- Rico, L.; Lupiáñez, J.L. Competencias Matemáticas Desde una Perspectiva Curricular; Alianza Editorial: Madrid, Spain, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- SEP. Matemáticas. Educación Secundaria PLAN y Programas de Estudio, Orientaciones Didácticas y Sugerencias de Evaluación; SEP: Ciudad de México, México, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Martínez, X.; Camarena, P. (Eds.) La educación Matemática en el Siglo XXI; Instituto Politécnico Nacional: Distrito Federal, Mexico, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- INEE. La Educación Obligatoria en México. Informe 2019; INEE: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Ruiz-Velasco-Sánchez, E. Educatrónica: Innovación en el Aprendizaje de las Ciencias y la Tecnología; Ediciones Díaz Santos: Mexico City, Mexico, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Chiara, D.L.M.; Inguaggiato, M.; Castro, E.; Cecchi, F.; Cioni, G.; Dell’Omo, M.; Laschi, C.; Pecini, C.; Santerini, G.; Sgandurra, G.; et al. Educational Robotics intervention on Executive Functions in preschool children: A pilot study. Comput. Human Behav. 2017, 71, 16–23. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, D.C.; Yuxin, M.; Prejean, L.; Ford, M.J.; Lai, G. Acquisition of physics content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills in a robotics summer camp. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2012, 40, 201–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ariza, D.V.; Palacio, A.M.; Aragón, I.P.; Pulido, C.M.; Logreira, E.A.; McKinley, J.R. Application of color sensor programming with LEGO-Mindstorms NXT 2.0 to recreate a simplistic plague detection scenario. Sci. Tech. 2017, 22, 268–272. [Google Scholar]
- Daniela, L.; Lytras, M.D. Educational Robotics for Inclusive Education. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 2019, 24, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Günbatar, M.S.; Bakırcı, H. STEM teaching intention and computational thinking skills of pre-service teachers. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2019, 24, 1615–1629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Román-Graván, P.; Hervás-Gómez, C.; Martín Padilla, A.H.; Fernández Márquez, E. Perceptions about the Use of Educational Robotics in the Initial Training of Future Teachers: A Study on STEAM Sustainability among Female Teachers. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Román-Graván, P.; Hervás-Gómez, C.; Guisado-Lizar, J.L. Experiencia de innovación educativa con robótica en la Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación de la Universidad de Sevilla (España). In Innovación Docente y uso de las TIC en Educación; Ruiz-Palmero, J., Sánchez-Rodríguez, J., Sánchez-Rivas, E., Eds.; UMA Editorial: Málaga, Spain, 2017; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Martínez-Pérez, S.; Gutiérrez-Castillo, J.J.; Fernández-Robles, B. Percepciones y uso de las TIC en las aulas inclusivas. Un estudio de caso. EDMETIC 2018, 7, 87–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Karkazis, P.; Balourdos, P.; Pitsiakos, G.; Asimakopoulos, K.; Saranteas, I.; Spiliou, T. To water or not to water: The Arduino approach for the irrigation of a field. Int. J. Smart Educ. Urban Soc. 2018, 9, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khanlari, A. The Use of Robotics for STEM Education in Primary Schools: Teachers’ Perceptions. In Smart Learning with Educational Robotics; Daniela, L., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, I.W.; Han, J. Teachers’ views on the use of robots and cloud services in education for sustainable development. Clust. Comput. 2016, 19, 987–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Negrini, L.; Giang, C. How do pupils perceive educational robotics as a tool to improve their 21st century skills? J. e-Learn. Knowl. Soc. 2019, 15, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorman, N. Teachers Want More Training before Introducing Robots into the Classroom; Education World: Colchester, CT, USA, 2016; Available online: http://www.educationworld.com/a_news/teachers-want-more-training-introducing-robots-classroom-1642632440 (accessed on 14 October 2020).
- Nugent, G.; Barker, B.; Grandgenett, N.; Welcha, G. Robotics camps, clubs, and competitions: Results from a US robotics project. Robot. Auton. Syst. 2016, 75, 686–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barrientos, A.; Peñín, L.F.; Balaguer, C. Fundamentos de Robótica; McGraw-Hill: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- AliveRobots. Nao los Robots del Futuro Son una Realidad. Available online: https://aliverobots.com/nao/ (accessed on 2 October 2020).
- Lopez-Caudana, E.; Ponce, P.; Cervera, L.; Iza, S.; Mazon, N. Robotic platform for teaching maths in junior high school. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. IJIDeM 2018, 12, 1349–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Labrador, M.; Andreu, M. Metodologías Activas; Universidad Politécnica de Valencia: Valencia, Spain, 2008; Available online: http://www.upv.es/diaal/publicaciones/Andreu-Labrador12008_Libro%20Metodologias_Activas.pdf (accessed on 29 September 2020).
- Universidad ICESI. PEI Aprendizaje Activo; Editorial Universidad ICESI: Cali, Colombia, 2017; Available online: https://www.icesi.edu.co/contenido/pdfs/pei/PEI-Aprendizaje-Activo.pdf (accessed on 4 October 2020).
- Godino, J.D.; Giacomone, B.; Batanero, C.; Font, V. Enfoque ontosemiótico de los conocimientos y competencias del profesor de matemáticas. Bol. Educ. Matemática 2017, 31, 90–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rocha, G.; Juárez, J.A.; Fuchs, O.L.; Rebolledo-Méndez, G. El rendimiento académico y las actitudes hacia las matemáticas con un Sistema Tutor Adaptativo. PNA. Rev. Investig. Didáctica Matemática 2020, 14, 271–294. [Google Scholar]
- Abu Bakar, M.A.; Ismail, N. Mathematical instructional: A conceptual of redesign of active learning with metacognitive regulation strategy. Int. J. Instr. 2020, 13, 633–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wurdinger, S.; Newell, R.; Kim, E.S. Measuring life skills, hope, and academic growth. Improv. Sch. 2020, 23, 264–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razali, N.; Zainuri, N.A.; Othman, H.; Nopiah, Z.M.; Bakar, N.A.A. Engineering Students’ Performances in Mathematics through Project-based Learning. Univers. J. Educ. Res. 2020, 8, 1899–1906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dennison, W.F.; Kirk, R. Do, Review, Learn and Apply: A Simple Guide to Experiential Learning; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Watkins, C. Learning: A Sense-Maker’s Guide; Association of Teachers and Lecturers: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Watkins, C.; Lodge, C.; Carnell, E. Effective Learning in Classrooms; Sage: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Glasserman, L.D.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.S. Uso de recursos educativos abiertos (REA) y objetos de aprendizaje (OA) en educación básica. Educ. Knowl. Soc. EKS 2014, 15, 86–107. [Google Scholar]
- Marrero, T.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.S.; Ramírez-Hernández, D.C. Novel Use of a Remote Laboratory for Active Learning in Class. Chem. Eng. Educ. 2016, 50, 141–148. [Google Scholar]
- Özerem, A. Misconceptions in geometry and suggested solutions for seventh grade students. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 55, 720–729. [Google Scholar]
- Pérez-González, M.E.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.S. Techno-andragogic Ecosystem Model for Active Learning: Digital age learners. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM 2019), Leon, Spain, 16–18 October 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, J.G.; Suzuki, S. Embedded blended learning within an algebra classroom: A multimedia capture experiment. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2015, 31, 133–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goos, M.; O’Donoghue, J.; Ríordáin, M.N.; Faulkner, F.; Hall, T.; O’Meara, N. Designing a national blended learning program for “out-of-field” mathematics teacher professional development. ZDM Math. Educ. 2020, 52, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arroyo, I.; Woolf, B.P.; Burelson, W.; Muldner, K.; Rai, D.; Tai, M. A multimedia adaptive tutoring system for Mathematics that addresses cognition, metacognition and affect. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 2014, 24, 387–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oktaviyanthi, R.; Supriani, Y. Utilizing Microsoft Mathematics in Teaching and Learning Calculus. Indones. Math. Soc. J. Math. Educ. 2015, 6, 63–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cueli, M.; González-Castro, P.; Krawec, J.; Núñez, J.C.; González-Pienda, J.A. Hipatia: A hypermedia learning environment in Mathematics. An. Psicol. 2016, 32, 98–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sternberg, R.J. Psicologia Cognitiva, 7th ed.; Artmed: Porto Alegre, Brasil, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Digital Education Plan 2021–2027; European Union: Luxemburg, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Sales, D.; Cuevas-Cerveró, A.; Gómez-Hernández, J.A. Perspectivas sobre la competencia informacional y digital de estudiantes y docentes de Ciencias Sociales antes y durante el confinamiento por la Covid-19. Prof. Inf. 2020, 29. Available online: https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/EPI/article/view/79360 (accessed on 6 October 2020).
- Villén, C. El Profesorado y las Tecnologías en Tiempos de Confinamiento por la Pandemia Covid-19. Creencias Sobre Actitudes, Formación, Competencia Digital e Importancia de las TIC en Educación. Master’s Thesis, Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, España, 2020. Available online: https://gredos.usal.es/handle/10366/143691 (accessed on 8 October 2020).
Stage | What Is It? | Student’s Responsibility | Learning about Active Learning |
---|---|---|---|
Do | The tasks stimulate the students’ activity (games, discussion of cases, dynamics, problem solving…) | Students choose and plan their work strategies. | Students are encouraged to observe aspects of their learning while they are involved in the tasks. |
Review | Students stop to become aware of what happened in the process, what was important, how they felt. | Students monitor their progress and review their plan. | Students describe what they observed and review their learning (objectives, strategies, feelings, context, etc.). |
Learn | The new ideas and perspectives that the activity allowed to generate are made explicit. | Students can identify for themselves what they have learned. | Elements affecting progress are identified and new strategies proposed. |
Apply | Future actions are planned in the light of the new findings or knowledge. The possibility of transferring what was learned to other situations is discussed. | Students review their plans taking into account their recent learning. | Students plan how they will continue to observe and experience their learning strategies. |
Subject | Do | Review | Learn | Apply |
---|---|---|---|---|
Maths | Tackle a problem | Review strategies | Compare effectiveness | Prepare for next challenge |
English | Create a draft | Try out with a reader | Consider feedback | Redraft and publish |
Technology | Construct a product | Test its function | Examine evaluations | Redesign |
History | Collect sources | Identify points of view | Synthesise | Make sense of another situation |
Scenario | Do | Review | Learn | Apply |
---|---|---|---|---|
Elementary school | Medium-high | Medium-low | Medium-low | Low-medium |
Secondary school | Medium-high | High-medium | Medium-high | Low-medium |
High school | High-medium | High | Low-medium | High-medium |
Scenarios | Comparison | ||
---|---|---|---|
Quantitative results | Qualitative results | General comments | |
Elementary school | Even though the results obtained in this scenario cannot be considered conclusive because the study is exploratory and no statistical analyses are performed, it is reasonable to derive from the observations that students have an improvement in grades when the robotic platform is present in the session. This we can observe with the group average, of the test that was applied to all groups, since it was always higher in the groups with robotic interaction. | By observing the results obtained, it was determined that the favourable points for the robot were: T-Concentration (memory) -Less distraction -Interest in the task (enthusiasm) -Interest in the task (motivation) | The motivation was clearly increased; perhaps a not so adequate trait is that the control over the group was not so favourable. Teachers somehow also became an audience for the robotic platform. |
Secondary school | It can be seen that there was an improvement between the pre-test and post-test results in both groups. This result was expected because, during the application of the tests, the students did not have enough knowledge to solve the exam. Nonetheless, there were many confounding factors, since groups varied in scheduled hours of instruction and assigned teachers, so results should be viewed with caution. | The results showed that the majority considered the presence of the robot made the class more interesting. Some students assured that the robot helped to understand the issues, and most denied feeling uncomfortable with the presence of the robot. | The teacher’s comments stand out, as he had not used this type of robotic tool before. He was more interested in knowing how the robot works, and held a favourable position on the introduction of new technologies in education, so he stated that the group was more attentive and it was easier to control |
High school | The results are only descriptive, that is, analysing the distributions of grades in the groups (minimum and maximum score, and the concentration of the majority of the students between certain scores), the results were better grades in the experimental groups, and in this case, the participation of the teachers was fundamental. | When comparing the general results of the traditional groups with the experimental one, the robotic platform is useful for the improvement of interactions between students. Furthermore, when comparing the test results and the opinions of the students, it is preferable to use the platform in fewer and more specific sessions | We observed that students are protagonists of their own learning and the technological platform allows a constructive dialogue between student and teacher, promoting reflection on the contents reviewed in each session scheduled for a visit of the robot. Similarly, in the design of each of the classes, the teachers included activities where the student is the axis of their own learning |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lopez-Caudana, E.; Ramirez-Montoya, M.S.; Martínez-Pérez, S.; Rodríguez-Abitia, G. Using Robotics to Enhance Active Learning in Mathematics: A Multi-Scenario Study. Mathematics 2020, 8, 2163. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8122163
Lopez-Caudana E, Ramirez-Montoya MS, Martínez-Pérez S, Rodríguez-Abitia G. Using Robotics to Enhance Active Learning in Mathematics: A Multi-Scenario Study. Mathematics. 2020; 8(12):2163. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8122163
Chicago/Turabian StyleLopez-Caudana, Edgar, Maria Soledad Ramirez-Montoya, Sandra Martínez-Pérez, and Guillermo Rodríguez-Abitia. 2020. "Using Robotics to Enhance Active Learning in Mathematics: A Multi-Scenario Study" Mathematics 8, no. 12: 2163. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8122163
APA StyleLopez-Caudana, E., Ramirez-Montoya, M. S., Martínez-Pérez, S., & Rodríguez-Abitia, G. (2020). Using Robotics to Enhance Active Learning in Mathematics: A Multi-Scenario Study. Mathematics, 8(12), 2163. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8122163