ISSN 0798 1015
ISSN 0798 1015
Vol. 39 (# 15) Year 2018. Page 28
Zhanat K. NURBEKOVA 1; Kymbatsha M. MUKHAMEDIYEVA 2; Ainash H. DAVLETOVA 3; Akmaral H. KASYMOVA 4
Received: 01/03/2018 • Approved: 21/03/2018
2. Research methodology and design
ABSTRACT: The study aims to present a systematic review of the literature on the methods of teaching robotics to describe the generalized methodological system of robotics training. The findings of the literature review have been considered regarding the application of a generalized methodological system to the design of educational technologies in robotics, which makes the information resented in the paper relevant to teachers and researchers working in the field of robotics training. |
RESUMEN: El estudio tiene como objetivo presentar una revisión sistemática de la literatura sobre los métodos de enseñanza de la robótica para describir el sistema metodológico generalizado de la formación en robótica. Los hallazgos de la revisión de la literatura han sido considerados con respecto a la aplicación de un sistema metodológico generalizado al diseño de tecnologías educativas en robótica, lo que hace que la información resentida en el documento sea relevante para docentes e investigadores que trabajan en el campo de la formación en robótica. |
Educational robotics of Central Asia has recently drawn a closer attention of researchers due to the development of a modern learning environment, which was achieved by robotic tools. In addition to this, one may witness actively developing teaching methodology aimed at increasing the effectiveness of robotics training. Theorists of educational robotics, for example, Alimisis (2009) believe that teaching robotics, a subject with certain specifics, requires a special approach that should be based on the principle of constructionism. At present moment, there are numerous experimental studies in which authors successfully apply various methods and pedagogical approaches to teaching this subject (Alimisis et al., 2009; Nourbakhsh et al., 2005; Aufderheide et al., 2012; Cuellar et al., 2013; Jung, 2013; Al-Khalifa et al., 2014; He et al., 2014; Hassan, 2014; Scaradozzia et al., 2015; Tocháček et al. (2016); Michieletto et al. (2016); Nurbekova, Mukhamediyeva et al. al (2016), Pina and Ciriza, (2017), Filippov et al. (2017), Majherová and Králík (2017).
Educational robotics was first introduced in its informal form in schools and universities of Kazakhstan in 2015. Teachers began searching for effective methods of teaching robotics, which explains the relevance of the concept “methodology of teaching robotics”. A primary analysis of publications showed that this concept has not been studied in detail.
Pedagogical theory has many concepts that describe the tactics of teaching a subject. Such concepts include “Methods and Tools”, “Educational Technology”, “Instructional Technology”, “Instructional Methods”, “Educational Approach” which focus on this or that aspect of the learning process (AECT, 1977; AECT, 2004; Alessi, Stephen & Trollop, Stanley, 2001; Anderson, 2003; Collins, 1992, Seels & Richey, 1994).
Some authors (Pyshkalo, 1975; Kuzmina, 2002; Archangelski, 1980) use the concept of “methodological learning system” which consists of interrelated elements: learning objectives and content, methods, teaching forms and tools, and grading. Because the methodological system of teaching has a clear structure determined by external and internal factors, it could be easily applied and adapted in practice (Pyshkalo, 1975; Kuzmina, 2002; Archangelski, 1980). The primary analysis of the experience of teaching robotics showed that the authors do not clearly identify interrelations of elements in the methodological training system and describe only certain methods and techniques used for teaching robotics or its individual parts. This, in turn, raises the question: What is the methodological system of robotics training like?
This study aims to review systematically the publications describing the experience of teaching robotics and includes the following stages:
1) to outline the methodological system of teaching robotics for different stages of education according to the analysis of the empirical data;
2) to synthesize the considered data in a methodological system of robotics training;
3) to determine the directions for further research on robotics training.
The article consists of four sections. The relevance of the researched issues is discussed in the introduction. The second section presents the research methods and is followed by a review. The findings of the systematic literature review are given in the third section. The last section contains the general findings of the study.
Systematic search and review of literature is a method described by Kitchenham (Kitchenham and Charters (2007)) and it allowed us to evaluate and interpret the available and accessible publications on the issues under study. Establishing these, we carried out a systematic analysis of the academic papers on the research theme.
Besides, we studied similar systematic reviews on the application of robotics in education done by researchers headed by Fabiane Barreto Vavassori Benitti (Benitti, 2012; Spolaôr, Benitti, 2017). These works consider educational robotics based on theories of teaching and its application in higher education.
According to Kitchenham’s method of systematic analysis (Kitchenham 2004), to analyze the development of the methodological system in robotics, it is necessary to answer the following questions:
A) What is the goal of robotics training?
B) What is the content of the courses on robotics?
C) What methods, means, and forms of training are the most effective?
D) How are the learning outcomes of robotics training evaluated?
In this study, the authors analyzed over 277 publications. These articles were found in digital libraries such as IEEE Xplore and ACM, ScienceDirect, Web of science, Thomson Reuters, Elsevier, Scopus and Springer. The search field included the following keywords: “Educational Technology” OR “Instructional Technology” OR “Educational Approach” OR “Competence in Education”) AND (“Educational Robotics” OR “Methodology of Educational Robotics” OR “Teaching Methods of Educational Robotics” OR “Methodical system of Educational Robotics”.
Thus, when reviewing the literature, we considered 277 sources, selecting 75 out of these. Next, we carried out a qualitative analysis of 75 studies to classify the main findings. Since the study aims to identify the methodological system of robotics training, the qualitative synthesis implied extracting data from the study: the purpose of using educational robotics in the learning process, the age level of students, content, methods and tools of learning and evaluating learning outcomes. We applied the approach “from particulars to generals” (bottom up), taking into account explicit characteristics and scenarios of these studies.
In accordance with the research, we analyzed the publications after five parameters: instructional goal, content, methodology of teaching, and evaluation of learning outcomes of robotics training. Qualitative analysis was based on 12 sources. Most authors use a Lego robotic platform in their studies. In some papers (He et al., 2014; Majherová and Králík, 2017; Michieletto et al., 2016; Jung, 2013; Aufderheide et al., 2012; Nourbakhsh et al., 2005), it was difficult to identify the elements of the methodological system as they were not explicitly stated. Nevertheless, using the descriptive information, we managed to formalize and group the studies in accordance with the elements of the generalized methodological system used for robotics training (Table 1).
Table 1 classifies the elements of the methodological system depending on their application at a certain level of training (school or higher education).
Table 1
Generalized methodological system of robotics training
Element |
Primary, secondary, high school |
Higher education |
Goal |
Building and programming robots (Alimisis et al. (2009); Cuellar et al. (2013); Filipov (2013); He et al. (2014); Hassan (2014); Scaradozzia et al. (2015); Nurbekova, Mukhamediyeva and et al. (2016); Tocháček et al. (2016);Sergey A. Filippov et al. (2017); Majherová and Králík (2017))
|
Computer programming and engineering (Nourbakhsh et al. (2005); Aufderheide et al. (2012); Jung (2013); H. Hassan (2014); He et al. (2014); Al-Khalifa1 et al. (2014); Michieletto et al. (2016); Filippov et al. (2017)). |
Programming and making electronics (Cuellar et al. (2013); Pina and Ciriza (2017); Filippov et al. (2017)) |
STEM-Education (Alimisis et al. (2009); Nurbekova, Mukhamediyeva and et al. (2016); Pina and Ciriza (2017)) |
|
Training students for the secondary level of education. (Scaradozzia et al. (2015); Pina and Ciriza (2017)) |
Bridging the educational gap between academia and high school students in the field of programming (Al-Khalifa1 et al. (2014)) |
|
Content |
Introductory course with LEGO MINDSTORMS: - Computer Science; - Mobile Robotics; - Embedded Design; - Software Engineering; - Sensors; - Signal Processing. (Aufderheide et al. (2012); Scaradozzia et al. (2015))
|
- The main concepts of robotics - Building robotics - Robots models - The EV3/ NXT programming environment - EV3/ NXT programming - Programming in RobotC - Algorithms management - Robot tasks - Application of robotics in students’ major area of study (Filipov (2013); Hassan (2014); Al-Khalifa1 et al. (2014); Nurbekova, Mukhamediyeva and et al. (2016); Tocháček et al. (2016)) |
(Alimisis et al. (2009);Tocháček et al. (2016); Pina and Ciriza (2017)) |
|
|
Content of the Programming of a Robot course:
(Majherová and Králík (2017)) |
|
|
Platform |
Snap4Arduino, Arduino (Pina and Ciriza (2017);Filippov et al. (2017) |
Lego Mindstorms Education NXT/ EV3 (Alimisis et al. (2009); Aufderheide et al. (2012); Filipov (2013); Cuellar et al. (2013); Hassan (2014); Al-Khalifa1 et al. (2014); Al-Khalifa1 et al. (2014); Scaradozzia et al. (2015); Nurbekova, Mukhamediyeva and et al. (2016); Tocháček et al. (2016); Filippov et al. (2017)) |
Trikebot robots (Nourbakhsh et al. (2005)) |
IBM Robot Arm II (Hassan (2014)) |
|
Robot Virtual World, ROBOTC (Majherová and Králík (2017)) |
Humanoid robotics, Raspberry Pi. (Michieletto et al. (2016); Filippov et al. (2017)) |
|
Teaching methods |
Cooperative and collaborative frame of work (Alimisis et al. (2009); Jung (2013); Scaradozzia et al. (2015); Nurbekova, Mukhamediyeva and et al. (2016);Pina and Ciriza (2017)) |
Teamwork (Nourbakhsh et al. (2005); Alimisis et al. (2009); Jung (2013); Cuellar et al. (2013); He et al. (2014); Hassan (2014); Scaradozzia et al. (2015); Nurbekova, Mukhamediyeva and et al. (2016); Pina and Ciriza (2017);Filippov et al. (2017)) |
(PrBL) Project Based Learning (Alimisis et al. (2009); D. Aufderheide et al. (2012); Hassan (2014); Al-Khalifa1 et al. (2014); Nurbekova, Mukhamediyeva and et al. (2016); Michieletto et al. (2016); Pina and Ciriza (2017); Filippov et al. (2017)) |
Constructionist approach (Alimisis et al. (2009); Alimisis et al. (2009); Nurbekova, Mukhamediyeva and et al. (2016); Tocháček et al. (2016); Michieletto et al. (2016); Pina and Ciriza (2017)) |
|
Active learning (Aufderheide et al. (2012)) |
Gaming technology (Competition-based) (Jung (2013); J. Majherová and V. Králík (2017)) |
|
Practical learning (Nurbekova, Mukhamediyeva and et al. (2016)) |
Learning of design (Nourbakhsh et al. (2005); Jung(2013); Hassan (2014)) |
|
(PBL) Problem-based and/or Problem-solve learning (Cuellar et al. (2013); Cuellar et al. (2013); (Hassan (2014);Pina and Ciriza (2017); Filippov et al. (2017)) |
Self-learning through a continuous investigation or research process (Nourbakhsh et al. (2005); Pina and Ciriza (2017)) |
|
Leadership (Cuellar et al. (2013)) |
Creative learning (Hassan (2014); Filippov et al. (2017)) |
|
Forms of teaching |
Science clubs for schoolchildren and students (Nurbekova, Mukhamediyeva et al (2016); Pina and Ciriza (2017); Filippov et al. (2017); Majherová and Králík (2017)) |
Cooperation between the Professor and the student. (He et al. (2014); Tocháček et al. (2016)) |
Arranging lessons on robotics in the chain “students from pedagogical university - pupils of primary, secondary school- children in kindergarten” (Nurbekova, Mukhamediyeva and et al. (2016)) |
Training Courses. Advanced training for teachers (Alimisisetal. (2009); Nurbekova, Mukhamediyeva et al. (2016); Tocháček et al. (2016); Pina and Ciriza (2017)) |
|
Child works with his/her parent. (Cuellar et al. (2013)) |
Laboratory work (Aufderheide et al. (2012); Jung (2013); Filipov (2013); Hassan (2014); Michieletto et al. (2016); Majherová and Králík (2017)) |
|
Tools |
RobotC (Aufderheide et al. (2012); Filipov (2013)) |
LabVIEW (Aufderheide et al. (2012); Hassan (2014); Nurbekova, Mukhamediyeva et al. (2016)) |
Evaluation |
Pre-tests and post-tests (Hassan (2014); Al-Khalifa1 et al. (2014);Pina and Ciriza (2017)) |
During the course (Alimisis et al. (2009); Nurbekova, Mukhamediyeva and et al. (2016)) |
Electronic portfolios (Alimisis et al. (2009)) |
Structured interviews (Alimisis et al. (2009)) |
|
Individual questionnaires (Alimisis et al. (2009); Scaradozzia et al. (2015)) |
Feedback (Scaradozzia et al. (2015); Nurbekova, Mukhamediyeva and et al. (2016)) |
|
Creative Robot Design (Hassan (2014); D. Scaradozzia et al. (2015); Nurbekova, Mukhamediyeva and et al. (2016)) |
Formative and summative (Nurbekova, Mukhamediyeva and et al. (2016)) |
|
Competition (Filippov et al. (2017)) |
|
The undertaken analysis shows that researchers’ opinions may be classified into several groups. This indicates that, in general, teaching robotics stems from the logic of the subject domain and the platform chosen for developing robots. In addition to standard project and problem-based learning, we identified a wide variety of teaching methods used, so that the instructor has a great choice. In this regard, Competition seems to be an interesting method of evaluation (Filippov et al. (2017)) which emulates the atmosphere of the world competitions in robotics and sport excitement.
Having conducted a comprehensive analysis of the methodology of teaching robotics, we believe that the system presented in Table 1 may be seen as a generalized methodological system that teachers can use in their work.
Let us consider the selected research papers regarding the questions posed in our study.
Objectives of teaching robotics are determined by the stage of education. For instance, primary and secondary school aims at teaching building and programming robots, programming and making electronics, STEM-Education. Higher education focuses on computer programming and engineering, training pupils for secondary level education, bridging the educational gap between academia and high school students in the field of programming. Learning objectives directly determine the content.
LEGO MINDSTORMS courses include such topics as the basics of design, the environment of robots development and programming them, development of working robot prototypes for solving practical problems. Some works focus on the physical foundations of robotics. Jung (2013) adds to this list teaching programming of dynamic humanoid-like systems.
Some authors (Alimisis et al. 2009) have a special approach to robotics training as they explore teaching robotics to teachers and prospective teachers. Therefore, the course content includes didactic issues, robotics as a learning object, introduction to LEGO NXT Tan sensors, programming of mini robots, studying constructivism and constructionism in a robotics course, as well as project-based learning.
The authors identified the following most effective methods of robotics teaching: cooperative and collaborative frame work, teamwork, Project Based Learning, Constructionist approach, active learning, practical learning, Problem-based and/or Problem-solving learning, Leadership, Gaming technology, Learning of Design, self-learning through a continuous investigation or research process, and creative learning.
Forms of training considered by the authors include: science clubs for students and schoolchildren, cooperation between the professor and the student, arranging robotics lessons in the chain “students from pedagogical university – primary, secondary school pupils – children from kindergarten”, advanced training for teachers, and children working with their parents.
The authors use special software for programming robots-RobotC and LabVIEW as a means of training.
There are numerous forms and methods for evaluating the learning outcomes of a robotics course: pre-tests and post-tests, tests during the course, electronic portfolios, structured interviews, individual questionnaires, feedback, Creative Robot Design, formative and summative evaluation. Definitely, the choice of an evaluation method depends on the level and objectives of robotics training.
Defining the elements of the generalized methodological system of robotics training enables one to structure the learning process, select elements depending on the goal and the required result of a course in robotics. Understanding interrelations of the elements in the methodological system of robotics training allows teachers to use these learning methods efficiently and to develop some elements of the methodological system by themselves.
The paper summarizes the experience of teaching educational robotics with focus on the methodological system. Thus, we considered quantitative estimates of using robots as aids in the institutions of higher education. Finally, applying the selection criteria specified in the review we chose twelve papers to synthesize the methodological system for robotics training. We analyzed the papers for the elements of the methodological system and classified them into groups.
It should be noted that the systematic literature review covered in this study was limited due to the inability to analyze sources in other languages, apart from those in English, Russian and Kazakh. Defining the research perspectives of the methods of robotics training, we studied practices of teaching this course in Kazakhstan. Thus, this article outlines new directions for further research on the methodological system of robotics training.
AECT. (1977). The definition of educational technology. Washington DC: AECT.
AECT. (2004). The Meanings of Educational Technology, Washington DC: AECT.
ALESSI, Stephen. M. & TROLLOP, Stanley. R. (2001). Multimedia for Learning (3rd Edition). Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
ALIMISIS, D. (2009). Teacher Education on Robotics-Enhanced Constructivist Pedagogical Methods. School of Pedagogical and Technological Education. Athens: ASPETE.
AL-KHALIFA, H. S., AL-RAZGAN M., ALFARIES A. (2014). Using App Inventor and LEGO mindstorm NXT in a Summer Camp to attract High School Girls to Computing Fields. Istanbul: IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON).
ANDERSON, T. (2003). Models of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
ARCHANGELSKI, S.I. (1980). Educational process in high school, its legitimate bases and methods. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola.
AUFDERHEIDE, D., KRYBUS, W., & WITKOWSKI, U. (2012). Experiences with LEGO MINDSTORMS as an Embedded and Robotics Platform within the Undergraduate Curriculum. Bristol: Advances in Autonomous Robotics Joint Proceedings of the 13th Annual TAROS Conference and the 15th Annual FIRA RoboWorld Congress.
BENITTI, F. B. V. Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education. Vol 58, year 2012, number 3, page 978–988.
COLLINS, A. (1992). Towards a Design Science of Education. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
CUELLAR, F., PENALOZA, Ch., & KATO, G. (2013). Robotics Education Initiative for Parent-Children Interaction. Gyeongju: 2013 IEEE RO-MAN: The 22nd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.
FILIPOV, S.A. (2013). Robotics for children and parents. St. Petersburg.
FILIPPOV, S.A., TEN, N.G., FRADKOV, A.L. Teaching Robotics in Secondary School: Examples and Outcomes. IFAC Papers OnLine. Vol 50, year 2017, number 1, page 12167-12172.
HASSAN, H., DOMÍNGUEZ, C., MARTÍNEZ, J., PERLES, A., CAPELLA, J., & ALBALADEJO, J. A. (2014). Multidisciplinary PBL Robot Control Project in Automation and Electronic Engineering. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires. IEEE permission.
HE, Sh., MALDONADO, J., UQUILLAS, A., & CETOUTE, T. (2014). Teaching K-12 Students Robotics Programming in Collaboration with the Robotics Club. Princeton: 4th IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference.
JUNG, S. (2013). Experiences in Developing an Experimental Robotics Course Program for Undergraduate Education. IEEE Transactions on Education. Vol 56, year 2013, number 1, page129-136.
KITCHENHAM, B., & CHARTERS, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Keele University and Durham University: Technical Report EBSE 2007-001.
KUZMINA, N.V. (2002). The concept of “educational system” and evaluation criteria. Methods of the pedagogical research system. Moscow: Obrazovanie.
MAJHEROVÁ, J., & KRÁLÍK, V. Innovative Methods in Teaching Programming for Future Informatics Teachers. European Journal of Contemporary Education. Vol 6, year 2017, number 3, page 390-400.
MICHIELETTO, S., TOSELLO, E., PAGELLO, E., MENEGATTI, E. Teaching humanoid robotics by means of human teleoperation through RGB-D sensors. Robotics and Autonomous Systems. Year 2016, number 75, page 671–678.
NOURBAKHSH, I. R., CROWLEY, K., BHAVE, A., & HAMNER, E., HSIU, T., PEREZ-BERGQUIST, A., RICHARDS, S., WILKINSON, K. The Robotic Autonomy Mobile Robotics Course: Robot Design, Curriculum Design and Educational Assessment. Autonomous Robots. Year 2005, number 18, page 103-127.
NURBEKOVA, Zh.K., MUKHAMEDIYEVA, K.M., ASSAINOVA, A. Zh., NURGAZINOVA, G. Sh., KUSMANOV, K. R., (2016). Teaching robotics at the pedagogical higher educational establishment: Kazakhstan experience. The UNESCO International Workshop QED’16: Technology Advanced Quality Learning for ALL.
PINA, A., CIRIZA, I. Primary Level Young Makers Programming & Making Electronics with Snap4Arduino. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Year 2017, number 560, page 20-33.
PYSHKALO, A.M. (1975). Methodological system of teaching geometry in primary school. Moscow: Thesis of the Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences.
SCARADOZZI, D., SORBI, L., PEDALE, A., VALZANO, M., VERGINE, C. Teaching robotics at the primary school: an innovative approach. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. Year 2015, number 174, page 3838 – 3846.
1. L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Astana, Kazakhstan
2. L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Astana, Kazakhstan
3. L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Astana, Kazakhstan
4. Zhangir Khan WKATU, Uralsk, Kazakhstan