We argue that the hands-on nature of robotics is key to student engagement and knowledge building in the area of computational thinking. Therefore, we argue that robotics (and any other external computational media – arduinos, conductive thread, etc.) are more robust learning activities for children to engage in to develop CT and their knowledge of computer science. We think it is more effective than all of the screen-based, block-based approaches to teaching students. We are basing our arguments both on Papert’s (1980) theory of constructionism, and on Bruner’s (1973) representational view of learning, which begins with the enactive representation.

What do you think? Do you agree, or disagree? We would love to debate the merits of screen only vs. manipulative + screen learning for children. Especially since the manipulatives are so expensive as to be out of reach for lots of folks.

 florence

You do a very nice job of laying out the rationale for your study. It does leave me with two questions that I'd be interested to explore further:

1. Can you say something more concrete about the practices of the students that brought them to their solutions. Were they conscious of their testing and design strategies. Could they replicate or explain the process (i.e. were they thinking about their thinking).

2. While I'm inclined to believe in the power of embodied learning, I'd love to know more about why you think the physical objects was more effective than an on-screen simulations would be. I can imagine a real object might seem more "relevant," or there might be physical properties that are easier to key in on in a real object as opposed to a virtual one, but insofar as you've done the study, I'd love to know more about what you think.

As a veteran coach of FIRST Lego League (2011's Food Factor was actually my first year) I can wholeheartedly agree with saying manipulative+screen learning is infinitely more effective. Thinking even beyond robots in this program, the research portion requires developing an innovative solution to a real world problem--transporting and storing food, for example in Food Factor. In my experience, teams are more successful when they develop a physical object or prototype of their solution. Being able to see and touch an object is more inspiring and creates a lasting "bond" with the project that keeps drawing interest back to the project. 

Great video, Florence.  Thanks for sharing!  I agree with Joseph that there is definitely value in working with robotic manipulatives.  Another reason, perhaps, is that physical robots make the design space more complex by engaging students in engineering design practices around building/debugging the physical robot.

It might be possible to break down the question of manipulatives even further - e.g. physical manipulatives that are controlled by an instructor or peer (a "wizard of oz" style solution) versus physical manipulatives that are autonomous (such as robots). Would students bond equally with non-autonomous manipulatives controlled by a teammate (or even an opponent)? Really interesting question - like Scot, I'd really love to hear more about why you think the physical components are so important.

Hi Jessica - I'm not sure what you mean by bonding with the robot, are you talking about having an emotional investment in something one has created? If so, I do think that the act of creating and controlling a robot is also an important piece of why the manipulative matters (see the more drawn out explanation above, in response to Scot). 

There is something to be said about the materiality of the robotic device - a program running on a screen is very cool - but, if the thing that you program moves about and interacts with the environment, that seems to me to be a qualitatively different experience. I do think that students would also respond to non-autonomous devices controlled by others - I think that it is not just the possibility for control that people respond to, but also the sheer real-ness of the thing. The robot is a true "other" in this formulation - something to be regarded and contended with - it is different than a program that can only run on a screen.

The students seemed very engaged in the problems and developing the robot.  I am curious about the learning curve with the robot and the programming. The students seemed really proficient at working with the robot, and I believe you mentioned its only a one day workshop. Did the have experience with the programming before?

Can't wait to read the papers that come out of this. We are using some of your earlier research on problem-solving with robotics as inspiration for students debugging e-textiles (though we are beginning to move past an introductory level). 

We're particularly intrigued by the spaces students are moving between (the physical artifact, circuit diagram, screen-code) as well as how the physicality of the code affects problem-solving. Please email Yasmin and me your papers as they are written!

Sure, Deborah, will do. We have a lot of data, so it will be awhile before work is out (probably next year).

f.