Research Article

Increasing Hispanic Students’ Awareness and Use of Floor-robots through Structured Activities

Jane Elizabeth Casey 1 * , Lisa K. Pennington 2, Dallas Lopez 3
More Detail
1 Texas A&M University Central Texas, USA2 Governors State University, USA3 Texas A&M International University, USA* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 13(1), January 2021, ep281, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/8706
OPEN ACCESS   2736 Views   1345 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

When educators provide students with opportunities to interact with educational technology such as floor-robots, it may: (a) increase students’ awareness of new educational tools, and (b) enhance students’ use and engagement with new technologies. This case study provided upper-elementary, Hispanic students with opportunities to engage in structured and unstructured activities with floor-robots, with direct support from researchers and the cooperating teacher. These educational robots were introduced to student-participants on multiple occasions during regular instructional class time in a Title I school on the U.S.-Mexico border to determine: (a) students’ interest in continued use of floor-robots; and (b) students’ perceptions of ease-of-use of floor-robots. Floor-robots were selected largely because researchers had access to two types: a Roamer floor-robot and a Thymio floor-robot. For students from underserved populations, it is important that educators strengthen students’ self-efficacy in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) areas (Mau & Li, 2018), as well as increase students’ awareness and use of newer educational technologies, which is a growing field and includes floor-robots. However, in-service teachers may need guidance, support, and professional development when selecting and using new educational technologies such as floor-robots. Student-participants’ post-study surveys and interviews provided researchers with insight into elementary students’: (a) interest in floor-robots and robotics, (b) perceived ease-of-use, (c) preferred type of floor-robot in this particular study, and, (d) opinions on the potential uses and downsides of floor-robots.
Keywords: Hispanic students, floor-robots, English language learners

CITATION (APA)

Casey, J. E., Pennington, L. K., & Lopez, D. (2021). Increasing Hispanic Students’ Awareness and Use of Floor-robots through Structured Activities. Contemporary Educational Technology, 13(1), ep281. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/8706

REFERENCES

  1. Bahnga, E., & Lee, M. (2017). Learning experiences and practices of elementary teacher candidates on the use of emerging technology: A grounded theory approach. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10(2), 225-241. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2017236118
  2. Blackwell, E., & Pinder, P. (2014). What are the motivational factors of first-generation minority college students who overcome their family histories to pursue higher education? College Student Journal, 48(1), 45-56.
  3. Boden, K. (2011). Perceived academic preparedness of first-generation Latino college students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 10(2), 96-106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192711402211
  4. Boschma, J., & Brownstein, R. (2016). The concentration of poverty in American schools. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/02/concentration-poverty-american-schools/471414/
  5. Casey, J. E. (2018). The effects of reciprocal teaching on Latino students' awareness of comprehension strategies for expository text. Journal of the International Association of Special Education (JIASE), 18(1), 9-22.
  6. Casey, J. E., Gill, P., Pennington, L., & Mireles, S.V. (2018). Lines, roamers, and squares: Oh my! Enhancing Hispanic students’ understanding and use of programming. Education and Information Technologies, 23(4), 1531-1546. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10639-017-9677-z
  7. Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.004
  8. Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first-generation students. Washington, DC: The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.
  9. Ensign, T. I., Rye, J. A., & Luna, M. J. (2017). Embedding probeware technology in the context of ocean acidification in elementary science methods courses. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(6), 646-656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9704-2
  10. Francis, K., Bruce, C., Davis, B., Drefs, M., Hallowell, D. Hawes, Z., McGarvey, L., Moss, J., Mulligan, J., Okamoto, Y., Sinclair, N., Whiteley, W., & Woolcott, G. (2017) Multidisciplinary perspectives on a video case of children designing and coding for robotics. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(3), 165-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2017.1297510
  11. Gamez-Vargas, J., & Oliva, M. (2013). Adult guidance for college: Rethinking educational practice to foster socially-just college success for all. Journal of College Admission, 221, 60-68.
  12. Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organization. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639502100509
  13. Jeon, M., Fakhr Hosseini, M., Barnes, J., Duford, Z., Zhang, R., Ryan, J., & Vasey, E. (2016). Making live theatre with multiple robots as actors: Bringing robots to rural schools to promote STEAM education for underserved students. The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction. Association of Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451798
  14. Kanda,T., Sato, R., Saiwaki, N., & Ishigo, H. (2007). A two-month field trial in an elementary school for long-term human-robot interaction. IEEE Transactions on robotics, 23(5), 962-971. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2007.904904
  15. Khanlari, K. (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
  16. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1-55.
  17. Mau, W. C. J., & Li, J. (2018). Factors influencing STEM career aspirations of underrepresented high school students. The Career Development Quarterly, 66(3), 246-258. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12146
  18. Nemiro, J., Larriva, C., and Jawaharlal, M. (2017). Developing creative behavior in elementary school students with robotics. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(1), 70-90. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.87
  19. Perna, L. W. (2015). Improving college access and completion for low-income and first-generation students: The role of college access and success programs. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/301
  20. Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: A gender study. Science Education, 96(3), 411-427. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21007
  21. Seo, E., Shen, Y., & Alfaro, E. C. (2019). Adolescents’ beliefs about math ability and their relations to STEM career attainment: Joint consideration of race/ethnicity and gender. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48, 306-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0911-9
  22. Sparkman, L, Maulding, W. S., & Roberts, J. G. (2012). Non-cognitive predictors of student success in college. College Student Journal, 46(3), 642-652.
  23. Toh, L. P. E., Causo, A., Tzuo, P. W., Chen, I. M., & Yeo, S. H. (2016). A review on the use of robots in education and young children. Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 148-163.
  24. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.