Research Article

Exploring technology acceptance: Teachers' perspectives on robotics in teaching and learning in the UAE

Nagla Ali 1 , Ieda M. Santos 1 , Rehab AlHakmani 1 , Othman Abu Khurma 1 * , Myint Swe Khine 2 , Usama Kassem 3
More Detail
1 Emirates College for Advanced Education, Abu Dhabi, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES2 Curtin University, Bentley, WA, AUSTRALIA3 Emirates School Establishment, Abu Dhabi, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), October 2023, ep469, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13646
Published Online: 07 September 2023, Published: 01 October 2023
OPEN ACCESS   1638 Views   1283 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

It is becoming increasingly vital for the next generation of students to acquire problem-solving, critical thinking, and collaborative skills for them to be successful in the 21st century. The use of technology greatly bolsters the integration of these skills. Robotics, one of the many emerging arrays of technologies, presents learners with challenges and opportunities for developing innovative ideas, critical thinking, and higher-order thinking skills. As a result, the Ministry of Education in Dubai realized these potentials and took an essential step in the form of the distribution of Lego Mindstorms Education kits to schools with the goal of encouraging teachers to use these kits in their classrooms. This research study aimed to investigate teachers’ perceptions of a training on Lego Mindstorms in terms of content, methodology, activities, and recommendations. In addition, the study investigated how teachers perceived Lego Mindstorms based on TAM model. A total of 59 high school (cycle 2) teachers participated in the current study. The data from the teachers were collected using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Data analysis consists of descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Teachers showed positive perceptions of robotics integration, emphasizing its potential to enhance teaching and learning. Their willingness to learn and adapt, combined with their recommendations for enhanced training methods, highlights the importance of continuous professional development for effective robotics integration. Teachers expressed the need for more practical training, hands-on activities, and a balance between theoretical and practical aspects. A positive correlation between perceived learning usefulness, perceived teaching usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitudes, and teachers’ intention to use Lego Mindstorms in their future teaching was found.
Keywords: robotics, TAM model, teaching usefulness, learning usefulness, behavioral intentions

CITATION (APA)

Ali, N., Santos, I. M., AlHakmani, R., Abu Khurma, O., Swe Khine, M., & Kassem, U. (2023). Exploring technology acceptance: Teachers' perspectives on robotics in teaching and learning in the UAE. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), ep469. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13646

REFERENCES

  1. Afari, E., & Khine, M. S. (2017). Robotics as an educational tool: Impact of Lego Mindstorms. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7(6), 437-442. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.6.908
  2. Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832-835. https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxs074
  3. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
  4. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888
  5. Alhashmi, M., Mubin, O., & Baroud, R. (2021). Examining the use of robots as teacher assistants in UAE classrooms: Teacher and student perspectives. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 20, 245-261. https://doi.org/10.28945/4749
  6. AlQarzaie, K. N., & AlEnezi, S. A. (2022). Using LEGO MINDSTORMS in primary schools: Perspective of educational sector. International Journal of Online & Biomedical Engineering, 18(1), 139-147. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v18i01.27579
  7. Anwar, S., Bascou, N. A., Menekse, M., & Kardgar, A. (2019). A systematic review of studies on educational robotics. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 9(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1223
  8. Baek, Y., Yang, D. Z., & Fan, Y. B. (2019). Understanding second grader’s computational thinking skills in robotics through their individual traits. Information Discovery and Delivery, 47(4), 218-228. https://doi.org/10.1108/idd-09-2019-0065
  9. Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48-54. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905
  10. Benitti, F. (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
  11. Bertel, L., Brooks, E., & Dau, S. (2019). Robot-supported inclusion and learning: A case study on the KUBO robot in early childhood education. In Proceedings of the Global Challenges in Assistive Technology: Research, Policy & Practice.
  12. Chalmers, C. (2018). Robotics and computational thinking in primary school. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 17, 93-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.06.005
  13. Chiang, F. K., Zhang, Y., Zhu, D., Shang, X., & Jiang, Z. (2022). The influence of online STEM education camps on students’ self-efficacy, computational thinking, and task value. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31(4), 461-472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09967-y
  14. Ching, Y. H., Yang, D., Wang, S., Baek, Y., Swanson, S., & Chittoori, B. (2019). Elementary school student development of STEM attitudes and perceived learning in a STEM integrated robotics curriculum. TechTrends, 63(5), 590-601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00388-0
  15. Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475-487. https://doi.org/10.1006/imms.1993.1022
  16. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
  17. 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
  18. Hrastinski, S., Olofsson, A. D., Arkenback, C., Ekström, S., Ericsson, E., Fransson, G., Jaldemark, J., Ryberg, T., Öberg, L.-M., Fuentes, A., Gustafsson, U., Humble, N., Mozelis, P., Sungren, M., & Utterberg, M. (2019). Critical imaginaries and reflections on artificial intelligence and robots in postdigital K-12 education. Postdigital Science and Education, 1(2), 427-445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-019-00046-x
  19. Hussin, H., Jiea, P., Rosly, R., & Omar, S. (2019). Integrated 21st century science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) education through robotics project-based learning. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(2), 204-211. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7222
  20. Janke, C., Luthi, K., Kleinke, S., & Lin, Y. (2022). Using small UAS for STEM education: Introducing robotics and mechatronics with drones. In Proceedings of the Florida Conference for Recent Advances in Robotics 2022. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. https://doi.org/10.5038/QQGN3785
  21. Khanlari, A. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and the challenges of integrating educational robots into primary/elementary curricula. European Journal of Engineering Education, 41(3), 320-330. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2015.1056106
  22. Khanlari, A. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and the challenges of integrating educational robots into primary/elementary curricula. European Journal of Engineering Education, 41, 320-330. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2015.1056106
  23. Kim, K. H., Choi, H. S., & Baek, J. E. (2014). A study on the teachers’ perception of school curriculum, Implementation about robot-based education in Korea. Advanced Science and Technology Letters, 59, 105-108. https://doi.org/10.14257/astl.2014.67.25
  24. King, W., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43(6), 740-755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003
  25. Kradolfer, S., Dubois, S., Riedo, F., Mondada, F., & Fassa, F. (2014). A sociological contribution to understanding the use of robots in schools: The Thymio robot. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Robotics (pp. 217-228). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11973-1_22
  26. Lathifah, A., Budiyanto, C. W., & Yuana, R. A. (2019). The contribution of robotics education in primary schools: Teaching and learning. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2194, 1. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5139785
  27. Leonard, J., Buss, A., Gamboa, R., Mitchell, M., Fashola, O. S., Hubert, T., & Almughyirah, S. (2016). Using robotics and game design to enhance children’s self-efficacy, STEM attitudes, and computational thinking skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 860-876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9628-2
  28. Morgan, T. (2019). Enabling meaningful reflection within project-based-learning in engineering design education. In Design education today (pp. 61-90). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17134-6_4
  29. Mosley, P. & Kline, R. (2006). Engaging students: A framework using Lego robotics to teach problem solving. Information, Technology, Learning, 24(1), 39-45.
  30. Mubin, O., Alhashmi, M., Baroud, R., & Alnajjar, F. S. (2019). Humanoid robots as teaching assistants in an Arab school. In Proceedings of the 31st Australian Conference on Human-Computer-Interaction (pp. 462-466). https://doi.org/10.1145/3369457.3369517
  31. Mury, S. R., Negrini, L., Assaf, D., & Skweres, M. (2022). How to support teachers to carry out educational robotics activities in school? The case of Roteco, the Swiss robotic teacher community. Frontiers in Education, 7, 968675. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.968675
  32. Negrini, L., & Giang, C. (2019). How do pupils perceive educational robotics as a tool to improve their 21st century skills?. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 15, 77-87.
  33. Nugent, G., Barker, B., Lester, H., Grandgenett, N., & Valentine, D. (2019). Wearable textiles to support student STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(5), 470-479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09779-7
  34. Papadakis, S., Vaiopoulou, J., Sifaki, E., Stamovlasis, D., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2021). Attitudes towards the use of educational robotics: Exploring pre-service and in-service early childhood teacher profiles. Education Sciences, 11(5), 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050204
  35. Papert, S. (1980) Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc.
  36. Petraki, E., & Herath, D. (2022). Teaching and learning robotics: A pedagogical perspective. In Foundations of Robotics (pp. 43-62). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1983-1_2
  37. Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. Ballantine Books. https://doi.org/10.1037/11168-000
  38. Piedade, J., Dorotea, N., Pedro, A., & Matos, J. F. (2020). On teaching programming fundamentals and computational thinking with educational robotics: A didactic experience with pre-service teachers. Education Sciences, 10(9), 214. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090214
  39. Plaza, P., Sancristobal, E., Carro, G., Blazquez, M., García-Loro, F., Muñoz, M., Albert, M. J., Morinigo, B., & Castro, M. (2019). STEM and educational robotics using scratch. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (pp. 330-336). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2019.8725028
  40. Thomaz, S., Aglae, A., Fernandes, C., Pitta, R., Azevedo, S., Burlamaqui, A., Silva, A., & Goncalves, L. (2009). RoboEduc: A pedagogical tool to support educational robotics. In Proceedings of ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2009.5350439
  41. Touretzky, D., Gardner-McCune, C., Martin, F., & Seehorn, D. (2019). Envisioning AI for K-12: What should every child know about AI? In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 9795-9799). https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33019795
  42. Usengul, L., & Bahceci, F. (2020). The effect of LEGO WeDo 2.0 education on academic achievement and attitudes and computational thinking skills of learners toward science. World Journal of Education, 10(4), 83-93. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v10n4p83
  43. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
  44. Vollstedt, M. A., Robinson, M., & Wang, E. (2007). Using robotics to enhance science, technology, engineering, and mathematics curricula. In Proceedings of American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Annual Conference.
  45. Williams, D. C., Ma, Y., Prejean, L., Ford, M. J., & Lai, G. (2007). Acquisition of physics content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills in a robotics summer camp. Journal of research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 201-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782505
  46. Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
  47. World Bank. (2019). Global financial development report 2019/2020: Bank regulation and supervision a decade after the global financial crisis. The World Bank.
  48. World Economic Forum. (2018). Towards a reskilling revolution: A future of jobs for all. World Economic Forum. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_FOW_Reskilling_Revolution.pdf
  49. Yang, W., Luo, H., & Su, J. (2022). Towards inclusiveness and sustainability of robot programming in early childhood: Child engagement, learning outcomes and teacher perception. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(6), 1486-1510. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13266
  50. Zacharia, X., Rotsaka, I., & Hovardas, T. (2015). Development and test of an instrument that investigates teachers’ beliefs, attitudes and intentions concerning the educational use of simulation. In M.S. Khine (Ed.), Attitude measurements in science education: Classic and contemporary approaches (pp. 83-118). Information Age Publishing.
  51. Zadok, Y. (2020). Project-based learning in robotics meets junior high school. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 18(5), 941-958. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-01-2019-0023