Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How Does the Degree of Guidance Support Students’ Metacognitive and Problem Solving Skills in Educational Robotics?

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Educational robotics (ER) is an innovative learning tool that offers students opportunities to develop higher-order thinking skills. This study investigates the development of students’ metacognitive (MC) and problem-solving (PS) skills in the context of ER activities, implementing different modes of guidance in two student groups (11–12 years old, N1 = 30, and 15-16 years old, N2 = 22). The students of each age group were involved in an 18-h group-based activity after being randomly distributed in two conditions: “minimal” (with minimal MC and PS guidance) and “strong” (with strong MC and PS guidance). Evaluations were based on the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory measuring students’ metacognitive awareness and on a think-aloud protocol asking students to describe the process they would follow to solve a certain robot-programming task. The results suggest that (a) strong guidance in solving problems can have a positive impact on students’ MC and PS skills and (b) students reach eventually the same level of MC and PS skills development independently of their age and gender.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akin, A., Abaci, R., & Çetin, B. (2007). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the metacognitive awareness inventory. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 7(2), 671–678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alimisis, D. (2009). Teacher education on robotics-enhanced constructivist pedagogical methods. Αthens: School of Pedagogical and Technological Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alimisis, D. (2014). Educational robotics in teacher education: An innovative tool for promoting quality Educatio. In L. Daniela, I. Lūka, L. Rutka, & I. Žogla (Eds.), Teacher of the 21st Century: Quality Education for Quality Teaching (pp. 14–27). Cambridge: Cambridge scholars publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anewalt, K. (2002). Experiences teaching writing in a computer science course for the first time. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 18(2), 346–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. N. (2012). Evaluating the role of collaboration scripts as group guiding tools in activities of educational robotics: Conclusions from three case studies. In IEEE 12th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2012 (pp. 298-302).

  • Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robot Auton Syst, 75, 661–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atmatzidou, S., Markelis, I., & Demetriadis, S. (2008). The use of LEGO Mindstorms in elementary and secondary education: Game as a way of triggering learning. In Workshop Proceedings of International Conference on Simulation, Modelling, and Programming for Autonomous Robots (pp. 22-30).

  • Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New directions for teaching and learning, 1996(68), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Comput Educ, 58(3), 978–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bers, M. U. (2007). Project InterActions: A multigenerational robotic learning environment. J Sci Educ Technol, 16(6), 537–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Comput Educ, 72, 145–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, S., Freiman, V., & Lirrete-Pitre, N. (2010). Strategies used by elementary schoolchildren solving robotics-based complex tasks: Innovative potential of technology. Procedia-SocialandBehavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2851–2857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 77–165). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Çalik, M., Özsevgeç, T., Ebenezer, J., Artun, H., & Küçük, Z. (2014). Effects of ‘environmental chemistry’ elective course via technology-embedded scientific inquiry model on some variables. J Sci Educ Technol, 23(3), 412–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çalik, M., Ebenezer, J., Özsevgeç, T., Küçük, Z., & Artun, H. (2015). Improving science student teachers’ self-perceptions of fluency with innovative technologies and scientific inquiry abilities. J Sci Educ Technol, 24(4), 448–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castledine, A. R., & Chalmers, C. (2011). LEGO robotics: An authentic problem solving tool? Design and Technology Education, 16(3), 19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T., & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning from examples via self-explanations. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 251–282). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

  • Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. J Res Sci Teach, 37(2), 109–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennison, R. S. (1997). Relationships among measures of metacognitive monitoring. In annual meeting of the American Educational Association, Chicago, IL.

  • Druin, A., & Hendler, J. A. (2000). Robots for kids: Exploring new technologies for learning. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

  • Du Toit, S., & Kotze, G. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Pythagoras, 2009(70), 57–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eguchi, A. (2014, July). Robotics as a learning tool for educational transformation.In Proceeding of 4th International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics & 5th International Conference Robotics in Education Padova (Italy).

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. Am Psychol, 34(10), 906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fülöp, E. (2015). Teaching problem-solving strategies in mathematics. LUMAT (2013–2015 Issues), 3(1), 37–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gama, C. (2004). Metacognition in interactive learning environments: The reflection assistant model, In Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 668–677). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaudiello, I., & Zibetti, E. (2013). Using control heuristics as a means to explore the educational potential of robotics kits. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goos, M., & Galbraith, P. (1996). Do it this way! Metacognitive strategies in collaborative mathematical problem solving. Educ Stud Math, 30(3), 229–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gura, M. (2007). In K. King & M. Gura (Eds.), Classroom robotics: Case stories of 21st century instruction for millennial students (pp. 11–31). Charlotte: Information age publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, L., Varnado, T., & Gillan, D. (2014).Exploring reflection journals and self-efficacy in robotics education. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 1939-1943).SAGE publications.

  • Hussain, S., Lindh, J., & Shukur, G. (2006). The effect of LEGO training on pupils' school performance in mathematics, problem solving ability and attitude: Swedish data. Educational Technology & Society, 9(3), 182–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishii, N., Suzuki, Y., Fujiyoshi, H., Fujii, T., &Kozawa, M. (2006). A framework for designing learning environments fostering creativity. In A. Mendez-Vilas, A. Solano Martın, J.A. Mesa Gonzalez, & J. Mesa Gonzalez (Eds.), Current developments in technology-assisted education (pp. 228–232). Badajoz: Formatex. 

  • Jacobse, A. E., & Harskamp, E. G. (2012). Towards efficient measurement of metacognition in mathematical problem solving. Metacognition and Learning, 7(2), 133–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educ Technol Res Dev, 48(4), 63–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keren, G., & Fridin, M. (2014). Kindergarten social assistive robot (KindSAR) for children’s geometric thinking and metacognitive development in preschool education: A pilot study. Comput Hum Behav, 35, 400–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educ Psychol, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (1997). Cognitive-metacognitive training within a problem-solving based logo environment. Br J Educ Psychol, 67(4), 425–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Paglia, F., Caci, B., La Barbera, D., & Cardaci, M. (2010). Using robotics construction kits as metacognitive tools: A research in an Italian primary school. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 154, 110–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Paglia, F., Rizzo, R., & La Barbera, D. (2011). Use of robotics kits for the enhancement of metacognitive skills of mathematics: A possible approach. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 167, 26–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai, K. W. (1990). Problem solving in a Lego-logo learning environment: Cognitive and metacognitive outcomes, Computers in Education (pp. 403–408). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai, K. W. (1993). Lego-logo as a learning environment. J Comput Child Educ, 4(3), 229–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. J Sci Educ Technol, 25(6), 860–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C. H., & Liu, E. Z. F. (2011). A pilot study of Taiwan elementary school students learning motivation and strategies in robotics learning. In International Conference on Technologies for E-Learning and Digital Entertainment (pp. 445–449). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

  • Lorenzo, M. (2005). The development, implementation, and evaluation of a problem solving heuristic. Int J Sci Math Educ, 3(1), 33–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, K. J., Chrispeels, J. H., & D'Emidio-Caston, M. (1998). Exploring the use of problem-based learning for developing collaborative leadership skills. Journal of School Leadership, 8, 470–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWhorter, W. (2008). The effectiveness of using LEGO Mindstorms robotics activities to influence self-regulated learning in a university introductory computer programming course.(doctoral dissertation).University of NorthTexas.

  • Menary, R. (2007). Writing as thinking. Lang Sci, 29(5), 621–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P. H., Kessel, F. S., & Flavell, J. H. (1970). Thinking about people thinking about people thinking about...: A study of social cognitive development. Child Development, 41(3), 613–623.

  • Nosratinia, M., Saveiy, M., & Zaker, A. (2014). EFL learners' self-efficacy, metacognitive awareness, and use of language learning strategies: How are they associated? Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(5), 1080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panaoura, A., & Philippou, G. (2003). The construct validity of an inventory for the measurement of young Pupils' metacognitive abilities in mathematics. International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3, 437–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papadopoulos, P. M., Demetriadis, S. N., Stamelos, I. G., & Tsoukalas, I. A. (2011). The value of writing-to-learn when using question prompts to support web-based learning in ill-structured domains. Educ Technol Res Dev, 59(1), 71–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). Norwood: Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical model. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugalee, D. K. (2001). Writing, mathematics, and metacognition: Looking for connections through students' work in mathematical problem solving. Sch Sci Math, 101(5), 236–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricca, B., Lulis, E., & Bade, D. (2006). Lego Mindstorms and the growth of critical thinking. In Intelligent tutoring systems workshop on teaching with robots, agents, and NLP. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.499.7535&rep=rep1&type=pdf. 

  • Rusk, N., Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Pezalla-Granlund, M. (2008). New pathways into robotics: Strategies for broadening participation. J Sci Educ Technol, 17(1), 59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educ Psychol, 42(2), 91–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York: Macmillan. 

  • Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemp Educ Psychol, 19(4), 460–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, M. A. (2012). Filling in the distance between us: Group metacognition during problem solving in a secondary education course. J Sci Educ Technol, 21(3), 325–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Staley, R., & DuBois, N. (2004). Metacognition and self-regulated learning constructs. Educ Res Eval, 10(2), 117–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stillman, G. A., & Galbraith, P. L. (1998). Applying mathematics with real world connections: Metacognitive characteristics of secondary students. Educ Stud Math, 36(2), 157–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educ Psychol, 42(2), 115–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo Ting-kau. (1992). Lego TC logo as a learning environment in problem- solving in advanced supplementary level design & technology with pupils aged 16–19.(Master’s thesis).University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam.

  • Turner, S., & Hill, G. (2007). Robots in problem-solving and programming. In 8th Annual Conference of the Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences (pp. 82–85).

  • Van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. V. (2010). Development of metacognitive skillfulness: A longitudinal study. Learn Individ Differ, 20(3), 220–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vickers, A. J. (2005). Parametric versus non-parametric statistics in the analysis of randomized trials with non-normally distributed data. BMC medical research methodology, 5(1), 35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Soumela Atmatzidou, Stavros Demetriadis & Panagiota Nika

Authors
  1. Soumela Atmatzidou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stavros Demetriadis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Panagiota Nika
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Soumela Atmatzidou.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Atmatzidou, S., Demetriadis, S. & Nika, P. How Does the Degree of Guidance Support Students’ Metacognitive and Problem Solving Skills in Educational Robotics?. J Sci Educ Technol 27, 70–85 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9709-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9709-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation