Technologies for an inclusive robotics education
Authors/Creators
- 1. EDUMOTIVA (European Lab for Educational Technology), Kapnikareas 19A, Athens, 10556, Greece
Description
The H2020 project "INBOTS: Inclusive Robotics for a Better Society" (2018–21) has worked in different disciplines involved in the acceptance and uptake of interactive robotics, including the promotion of accessible and multidisciplinary education programs. In INBOTS, educational robotics is considered as a learning tool that can bring robotics into school classrooms and benefit all children regardless of their future educational or professional orientation. Aiming to make robotics education inclusive, INBOTS has introduced a paradigm shift inspired by sound pedagogies (Papert's constructionism) and emerging educational trends (the maker movement) and focused on creativity and other 21 st-century skills. However, the realisation of this new paradigm requires appropriate curricula and technologies at both hardware and software levels. This paper addresses several questions and dilemmas related to the technologies currently in use in robotics education and the kind of technologies that can best support the proposed paradigm. This discussion results in specific criteria that robotics technologies must fulfil to foster the new paradigm. Based on these criteria, we review some representative technologies in both hardware and software. Then, we identify and discuss some technological solutions that exemplify the kind of technologies that can best support inclusive robotics education and make the proposed paradigm feasible. Finally, we show how some of these technologies can be combined to design a creative and inclusive project consistent with the criteria set in this paper.
Files
openreseurope-1-14892.pdf
Files
(2.0 MB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:b0b84fcd2060c14be4e182615db4d9de
|
2.0 MB | Preview Download |
Additional details
References
- Alimisis D (2013). Educational Robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education.
- Eguchi A (2014). Educational robotics for promoting 21st century skills. Journal of Automation Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems. doi:10.14313/JAMRIS_1-2014/1
- Bar-El D, Worsley M (2021). Making the maker movement more inclusive: Lessons learned from a course on accessibility in making. Int J Child Comput Interact. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100285
- Alimisis D, Loukatos D, Zoulias E (2020). The Role of Education for the Social Uptake of Robotics: The Case of the eCraft2Learn Project. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-24074-5_30
- Alimisis D (2020). Emerging Pedagogies in Robotics Education: Towards a Paradigm Shift. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-24074-5_22
- Papert S, Harel I (1991). Constructionism.
- Blikstein P (2013). Digital Fabrication and 'Making' in Education: The Democratization of Invention. doi:10.14361/transcript.9783839423820.203
- Schon S, Ebner M, Kumar M (2014). The Maker Movement Implications from modern fabrication, new digital gadgets, and hacking for creative learning and teaching.
- Blikstein P, Worsley M (2016). Children Are Not Hackers: Building a Culture of Powerful Ideas, Deep Learning, and Equity in the Maker Movement.
- Jung SE, Won ES (2018). Systematic Review of Research Trends in Robotics Education for Young Children. Sustainability. doi:10.3390/su10040905
- Sapounidis T, Alimisis D (2021). Educational robotics curricula: current trends and shortcomings.
- Blikstein P (2015). Computationally Enhanced Toolkits for Children: Historical Review and a Framework for Future Design. doi:10.1561/1100000057
- Sapounidis T, Alimisis D (2020). Educational Robotics for STEM: A Review of Technologies and Some Educational Considerations.
- Fortunati L, Manganelli AM, Ferrin G (2020). Arts and crafts robots or LEGO® MINDSTORMS robots? A comparative study in educational robotics. Int J Technol Des Educ. doi:10.1007/s10798-020-09609-7
- Alimisis D, Alimisi R, Loukatos D (2019). Kids make their own robots: good practices from the eCraft2Learn project. doi:10.13128/formare-24733
- Matthews S, Viller S, Boden M (2020). "... And We Are the Creators!" Technologies as Creative Material. doi:10.1145/3374920.3374980
- Matthews S, Matthews B (2021). Reconceptualising feedback: Designing educational tangible technologies to be a creative material. Int J Child Comput Interact. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100278
- Piaget J (1974). To understand is to invent.
- Saleiro M, Carmo B, Rodrigues JMF (2013). A Low-Cost Classroom-Oriented Educational Robotics System. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_8
- Agatolio F, Moro M (2017). A Workshop to Promote Arduino-Based Robots as Wide Spectrum Learning Support Tools. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-42975-5_11
- Castledine AR, Chalmers C (2011). LEGO Robotics: An authentic problem solving tool?. Design and Technology Education: an International Journal, [S.l.].
- Sentance S, Waite J, Hodges S (2017). "Creating Cool Stuff" - Pupils'experience of the BBC micro:bit. doi:10.1145/3017680.3017749
- Papert S (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas.
- Devine J, Finney J, Halleux P (2019). MakeCode and CODAL: Intuitive and efficient embedded systems programming for education. Journal of Systems Architecture. doi:10.1016/j.sysarc.2019.05.005
- Resnick M, Maloney J, Monroy-Hernández A (2019). Scratch: programming for all. Commun ACM. doi:10.1145/1592761.1592779
- Qi J, Dick J, Cole D (2016). Paper electronics with circuit stickers.
- Pedersen BKMK, Larsen JC, Nielsen, J (null). From diagram to breadboard: Limiting the gap and strengthening the understanding. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-67411-3_31
- Papert S (1987). Information technology and education: Computer criticism vs. technocentric thinking. doi:10.3102/0013189X016001022
- Brennan K (2015). Beyond technocentrism: Supporting constructionism in the classroom.