Robotics from STEM areas in Primary School: a Systematic Review
Abstract
Upon the need for scientific schooling at a young age, the use of robotics in an educational context establishes a valuable didactic resource to develop a STEM centred education. A systematic review has been made, following the declaration Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (Prisma) guidelines. The aim of this review is characterizing the scientific production related with STEM education, from working with educational robotics in primary school, thereby research questions are presented about bibliometric indicators, research methodologies employed, the relationship between STEM areas and educational robotics, or social and gender aspects. The research was made in three international databases (Scopus, ERIC and WoS), achieving to find 463 articles, of which 26 documents were selected that met the inclusion criteria. The results show that the investigations that use mixed methodologies are the most used and, at the same time, present a more significant number of citations in Google Scholar. Regarding the first authors’ gender approach and the research groups, these are presented equitably. Similarly, there are no differences in access, development, and skill acquisition among participants as a result of the investigations. Also, a more significant implementation of proposals is observed in the after-school hours, improving the attitude and acquisition of skills in STEM areas.
- Referencias
- Cómo citar
- Del mismo autor
- Métricas
Barker, B. S., & Ansorge, J. (2007). Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in aninformal learning environment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 229-243.
Benitti, F. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978-988. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006
Bravo Sánchez, F. A. & Guzmán, A. (2012). La robótica como un recurso para facilitar el aprendizaje y desarrollo de competencias generales. Revista Teoría de la Educación: Educación y Cultura en la Sociedad de la Información. 13(2), 120-136.
Bybee, R. W. (2010). What is STEM Education? Science, 329(5995), 996-996. doi:10.1126/science.1194998
Casey, E, J., Gill, P., Pennington, L. & Mireles, S. V. (2017). Lines, roamers, and squares: Oh my! using floor robots to enhance Hispanic students’ understanding of programming. Education and Information Technologies, 23(4), 1531–1546. Doi:10.1007/s10639-017-9677-z
Comisión Europea (2018). Recomendación del Consejo de 22 de mayo de 2018 relativa a las competencias clave para el aprendizaje permanente. Recuperado de https://bit.ly/2TjdCqw
Chung, C. J., Cartwright, C. & Cole, M. (2014). Assessing the impact of an autonomous Robotics competition for STEM education. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 15(2), 24-34.
Domènech-Casal, J. (2018). Aprendizaje basado en proyectos en el marco STEM. Componentes didácticas para la competencia científica. Ápice. Revista de Educación Científica, 2(2), 29-42. DOI: ttps://doi.org/10.17979/arec.2018.2.2.4524
Jung, S., & Won, E. (2018b). Systematic Review of Research Trends in Robotics Education for Young Children. Sustainability, 10(4), 905. doi:10.3390/su10040905
Kim, S., & Chulhyun, L. (2016). Lee Effects of robot for teaching geometry to fourth graders. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 24(2), 52-70.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. (2009). The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med, 6(7): e1000100.
Martín-Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales-Palacios, J., & Vílchez-González, J. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education. 103(4) 799-822. doi:10.1002/sce.21522
Mitnik, R., Nussbaum, M., & Soto, A. (2008). An autonomous educational mobile robot mediator. Autonomous Robots, 25(4), 367–382.
Moher, D., & Liberati, A. (2009). Revisiones sistemáticas y meta-análisis: la responsabilidad de los autores, revisores, editores y patrocinadores. Medicina Clínica, 135(11), 505–506.doi:10.1016/j.medcli.2010.02.016
Sánchez-Meca, J. (2010). Cómo realizar una revisión sistemática y un meta-análisis. Aula Abierta, 38(2), 53-64.
Sullivan, F. R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 373–394.
Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., . . . Depaepe, F. (2018). Integrated STEM Education: A Systematic Review of Instructional Practices in Secondary Education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 02. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/85525
Toma, R. B., & Greca, I. M. (2018). The effect of integrative STEM instruction on elementary students’ attitudes toward science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(4), 1383–1395.
Taylor, M. S., Vasquez, E., & Donehower, C. (2017). Computer Programming with Early Elementary Students with Down Syndrome. Journal of Special EducationTechnology, 32(3), 149–159. doi:10.1177/0162643417704439
Williams, D., Ma, Y., Prejean, L., Lai, G., & Ford, M. (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.
Xia, L & Zhong, B (2018) A systematic review on teaching and learning robotics content knowledge in K-12.Computers & Education. 127(2), 267-282.
Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM Literacy: STEM Literacy for Learning. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 12–19. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00101.x