The use of robots in the process of algorithmic thinking in primary school pupils
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65164/qecd4t04Ключевые слова:
algorithmic thinking, primary education, robotics, STEM, block programming, problem-based learning, competencies.Аннотация
This study is dedicated to the empirical analysis of the effectiveness of using educational robotics in the process of forming and developing algorithmic thinking in primary school students. In the context of a modern digital society, algorithmic thinking, systematic problem solving, decision-making based on sequences, and abstract modeling skills are considered essential components of 21st-century competencies. Results from scientific research on the subject indicate that the logical-operational thinking of children aged 7–11 is in an active stage of development, making this period in human development a favorable pedagogical condition for forming algorithmic thinking and scientifically based concepts.A quasi-experimental method involving experimental and control groups was used in this study. In the experimental group of selected secondary school students, teaching was organized through robotics-based tasks (sensor robots, block programming environment, sequence modeling), while traditional methods were used in the control group. The results were evaluated based on indicators of algorithmic thinking levels, step-by-step problem solving, understanding the content and essence of conditional operators, understanding pedagogical tasks put forward in the lesson, and applying cycles to repeat material covered in the lesson.The results obtained from the experimental trial showed the effectiveness of using robots in increasing students' knowledge and statistically significantly increased students' algorithmic thinking indicators (p < 0.05). In particular, learning through a visual-dynamic environment allowed young students to connect abstract concepts with concrete actions. Furthermore, robotics lessons significantly developed students' motivation, creativity, and collaboration skills. The research results substantiate that integrating robotics in the primary education system is an effective pedagogical tool for developing algorithmic thinking.
Библиографические ссылки
1. World Economic Forum. (2020). The future of jobs report 2020. WEF.
2. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
3. Piaget, J. (1969). The psychology of the child. Basic Books.
4. Alimisis, D. (2012). Robotics in education & education in robotics: Shifting focus from technology to pedagogy. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Robotics in Education (pp. 7–14).
5. Knuth, D. E. (1997). The art of computer programming (Vol. 1). Addison-Wesley.
6. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
7. 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
8. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
9. Eguchi, A. (2014). Robotics as a learning tool for educational transformation. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop Teaching Robotics.
10. Bers, M. U. (2018). Coding as a playground: Programming and computational thinking in the early childhood classroom. Routledge.
11. Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2019). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9439-7
12. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Rand McNally.
13. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
14. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
16. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press.
17. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
18. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
19. Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
20. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism. Ablex Publishing.
21. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
