Recently educational robotics has expanded into curriculum beyond traditional STEM fields, and which can also be used to foster computational thinking (CT) skills. Prior research has shown numerous interdisciplinary benefits related to CT, however, these influential factors have often been investigated with relatively few variables. This study investigated factors that may lead to 4th and 5th grade elementary school students’ development of computational thinking skills in collaborative robotics activities by hypothesizing a model which proposed that a problem solving inventory, intrinsic motivation, and enjoyment were the main predictors of computational thinking skills. The model was then tested by surveying students with several psychometric inventories where a revised model was then constructed. The study found significant relationships between perceived competence and enjoyment, and learning motivation, and intrinsic motivation. Another important finding was that problem solving was a significant predictor of computational thinking skills. Results were interpreted with reference to implications for possible means of improving learning outcomes when using collaborative robotics in an educational setting.
AltinH.PedasteM. (2013).
Learning approaches to applying robotics in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education,
12, 365–377.
3.
AnwarS.BascouN. A.MenekseM.KardgarA. (2019).
A systematic review of studies on educational robotics. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER),
9, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1223
AugustyniakR. A.AblesA. Z.GuilfordP.LujanH. L.CortrightR. N.DiCarloS. E. (2016).
Intrinsic motivation: An overlooked component for student success.Advances in Physiology Education,
40, 465–466. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00072.2016
6.
BaarsM.WijniaL.PassF. (2017).
The association between motivation, affect, and self-regulated learning when solving problems.Frontier Psychology,
8, 1346. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01346
7.
BaekY.TouatiA. (2017).
Exploring how individual traits influence enjoyment in a mobile learning game. Computers in Human Behavior,
69, 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.053
8.
BaekY.WangS.YangD.ChingY.-H.SwansonS.ChittooriB. (2019).
Revisiting second graders’ robotics with an Understand/Use-Modify-Create (U2MC) strategy. European Journal of STEM Education,
4, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/5772
9.
BarakM.ZadokY. (2009).
Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology and problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,
19, 289–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-007-9043-3
10.
BaratèA.LudovicoL. A.MalchiodiD. (2017).
Fostering computational thinking in primary school through a LEGO-based music notation. Procedia Computer Science,
112, 1334–1344. https://10.1016/j.procs.2017.08.018
BlunsdonB.ReedK.McNeilN.McEachernS. (2003).
Experiential learning in social science theory: An investigation of the relationship between student enjoyment and learning.Higher Education Research & Development,
22, 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436032000056544
14.
BrianA.MeesterA. D.KlavinaA.IrwinJ. M.TauntonS.PennellA.LibermanL. J. (2019).
Exploring children/adolescents with visual impairments’ physical literacy: A preliminary investigation of autonomous motivation. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
38, 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2018-0194
15.
BurhansD. T.DantuK. (2017, February). ARTY: Fueling creativity through art, robotics and technology for youth. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 4765–4770). ACM. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/3297863.3297889
16.
CantwellR. H.AndrewsB. (2002)
Cognitive and psychological factors underlying secondary school students' feelings towards group work. Educational Psychology,
22, 75–91. http://10.1080/01443410120101260
17.
CarrollB.LoumidisJ. (2001).
Children ís perceived competence and enjoyment in physical education and physical activity outside school. European Physical Education Review,
7, 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X010071005
18.
CassidyS. (2004)
Learning styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures. Educational Psychology,
24, 419–444. http://10.1080/0144341042000228834
19.
CervoneD.ShadelW. G.JenciusS. (2001). Social-cognitive theory of personality assessment. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
5, 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0501_3
20.
ChalmersC. (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
21.
ChenG.ShenJ.Barth-CohenL.JiangS.HuangX.EltoukhyM. (2017).
Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers and Education,
109, 162–175. http://10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.001
22.
ChenY.ChangC-C. (2018).
The impact of an integrated robotics STEM course with a sailboat topic on high school students’ perceptions of integrative STEM, interest, and career orientation. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education,
14, em1614. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/94314
23.
ChoS.LinC.-Y. (2010).
Influence of family processes, motivation, and beliefs about intelligence on creative problem solving of scientifically talented individuals. Roeper Review,
33, 46–58. http://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2011.530206
24.
ChoiJ.MogamiT.MedaliaA. (2009).
Intrinsic Motivation Inventory: An adapted measure for schizophrenia research.Schizophrenia Bulletin,
36, 966–976. http://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbp030
25.
ChungC. C. J. (2014, March). Integrated STEAM education through global robotics art festival (GRAF). In 2014 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (pp. 1–6). IEEE. http://doi.org/10.1109/ISECon.2014.6891011
26.
ChungC. C. J.CartwrightC.ChungC. (2014, March). Robot music camp 2013: An experiment to promote STEM and computer science. In 2014 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (pp. 1–7). IEEE. http://doi.org/10.1109/ISECon.2014.6891012
27.
CookA.EncarnaçãoP.AdamsK. (2010).
Robots: Assistive technologies for play, learning and cognitive development. Technology and Disability,
22, 127–145. http://doi.org/10.3233/TAD-2010-0297
28.
DeciE. L.MollerA. C. (2005). The concept of competence: A starting place for understanding intrinsic motivation and self-determined extrinsic motivation. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 579–597). Guilford Publications.
29.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
30.
DuffA. (2004)
A note on the problem solving style questionnaire: An alternative to Kolb's learning style inventory?Educational Psychology,
24, 699–709. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000262999
31.
EguchiA. (2012). Educational robotics theories and practice: Tips for how to do it right. In B. Barker, G. Nugent, N. Grandgenett, & V. Adamchuk (Eds.), Robots in K-12 education: A new technology for learning (pp. 1–30). Information Science Reference. http://10.4018/978-1-4666-0182-6.ch001
Eteokleous-GrigoriouN.PsomasC. (2013, March). Integrating robotics as an interdisciplinary-educational tool in primary education. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3877–3881). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/48720/
34.
FaircloughS. (2003).
Physical activity, perceived competence and enjoyment during high school physical education. European Journal of Physical Education,
8, 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1740898030080102
35.
FalvoD.PastoreR. (2005). Exploring the relationship between learning styles and technological collaborations. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3167–3172). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/19610/
36.
FangX.ChanS.BrzezinskiJ.NairC. (2010).
Development of an instrument to measure enjoyment of computer game play. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction,
26, 868–886. http://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2010.496337
GaskinJ. C (2013). An investigation of the association between sources of competence and affect in physically active college students (Publication No. 3602911) [Doctoral dissertation, State University of New Jersey]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
39.
GohH.AliM. B. (2014).
Robotics as a tool to STEM learning. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research,
2, 66–78.
40.
GomezE. A.WuD.PasseriniK. (2010).
Computer-supported team-based learning: The impact of motivation, enjoyment and team contribution on learning outcomes. Computers and Education,
55, 378–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.003
41.
GrandgenettN.OstlerE.ToppN.GoemanR. (2012). Robotics and problem-based learning in STEM formal educational environments. In B. Barker, G. Nugent, N. Grandgenett, & V. Adamchuk (Eds.), Robots in K-12 education: A new technology for learning (pp. 94–119). Information Science Reference. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
42.
GrantA. M. (2008).
Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity.Journal of Applied Psychology,
93, 48–58. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.48
43.
GroverS.PeaR. (2013).
Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field.Educational Researcher, 42, 38–43. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
44.
GuayF.BoggianoA. K.VallerandR. J. (2001).
Autonomy support, intrinsic motivation, and perceived competence: Conceptual and empirical linkages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
27, 643–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201276001
45.
HaapasaloL.SamuelsP. (2011).
Responding to the challenges of instrumental orchestration through physical and virtual robotics. Computers & Education,
57, 1484–1492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.006
HanusM. D.FoxJ. (2015).
Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education,
80, 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019
48.
HardreP. L.ReeveJ. (2003).
A motivational model of rural students' intentions to persist in, versus drop out of, high school. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95, 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.347
49.
HeuerT.SchieringI.GerndtR. (2017, April). MuseumsBot—An interdisciplinary scenarioin robotics education. In International Conference on Robotics and Education RiE 2017 (pp. 141–153). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62875-2_13
50.
HornT. (2014). Competence motivation theory. In R. Eklund, & G. Tenenbaum (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sport and exercise psychology (pp. 155–158). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781483332222.n70
51.
HuangK. H.HuangP. L. (2011, 27–29 May). Lego robotics and group learning: Exploring the effects of gender, age, and family background. In 2011 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Communication Software and Networks, Xi’an, China, (pp. 219–222). IEEE. http://doi.org/10.1109/ICCSN.2011.6013813
52.
Huang, Y-H., & Flores, L. Y (2011). Exploring the validity of the problem-solving inventory with Mexican American high school students. Journal of Career Assessment, 19, 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711409720
53.
HughesA.GalbraithD.WhiteD. (2011).
Perceived competence: A common core for self-efficacy and self-concept?Journal of Personality Assessment,
93, 278–289. http://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.559390
54.
HwangW.-Y.WuS.-Y. (2014).
A case study of collaboration with multi-robots and its effect on children’s interaction. Interactive Learning Environments,
22, 429–443. http://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.680968
55.
IsenA. M.ReeveJ. (2005).
The influence of positive affect on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Facilitating enjoyment of play, responsible work behavior, and self-control. Motivation and Emotion,
29, 295–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9019-8
56.
JõgiA. L.KikasE. (2016).
Calculation and word problem‐solving skills in primary grades—Impact of cognitive abilities and longitudinal interrelations with task‐persistent behaviour. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
86, 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12096
57.
JungS. E.WonE. (2018).
Systematic review of research trends in robotics education for young children. Sustainability,
10, 905. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040905
58.
Kaloti-HallakF.ArmoniM.Ben-AriM. (2015, 9–11 November). Students' attitudes and motivation during robotics activities. Proceedings of the 2015 Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, London, UK, (pp. 102–110). https://doi.org/10.1145/2818314.2818317
59.
KaratasH.ErdenM. (2017).
Predictors of academic motivation: Epistemological beliefs, learning approaches and problem solving skills. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences,
9, 897–916. https://doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2017.04.001
60.
KhanlariA. (2016, 12–15 October). Robotics integration to create an authentic learning environment in engineering education. In 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Erie, PA, USA, (pp. 1–4). IEEE. http://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2016.7757487
KlimmtC. (2003, 4–6 November). Dimensions and determinants of the enjoyment of playing digital games: A three-level model. In M. Copier & J. Raessens (Eds.). Level up: Digital Games Research Conference (pp. 246–257). Utrecht University.
64.
KourmousiN.XythaliV.TheologitouM.KoutrasV. (2016).
Validity and reliability of the Problem Solving Inventory (PSI) in a nationwide sample of Greek educators. Social Sciences,
5, 25. http://doi.org/10.3390/socsci5020025
65.
LambR.AkmalT.PetrieK. (2015).
Development of a cognition‐priming model describing learning in a STEM classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
52, 410–437. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21200
66.
LauW.YuenA. (2009).
Exploring the effects of gender and learning styles on computer programming performance: Implications for programming pedagogy. British Journal of Educational Technology,
40, 696–712. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00847.x
67.
LawK. M. Y.LeeV. C. S.YuY. T. (2010).
Learning motivation in e-learning facilitated computer programming courses. Computers & Education,
55, 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.01.007
68.
LiW.LeeA. M.SolmonM. A. (2005).
Relationships among dispositional ability conceptions, intrinsic motivation, perceived competence, experience, persistence, and performance. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
24, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.24.1.51
69.
LietoM. C. D.InguaggiatoE.CastroE.CecchiF.CioniG.Dell’OmoM.LaschiC.PeciniC.SanteriniG.SgandurraG.DarioP. (2017).
Educational robotics intervention on executive functions in preschool children: A pilot study. Computers in Human Behavior,
71, 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.018
70.
LumbyJ. (2011).
Enjoyment and learning: Policy and secondary school learners’ experience in England. British Educational Research Journal,
37, 247–264. http://doi.org/10.1080/01411920903540680
71.
MicoogullariB. O.EkmekciR. (2018).
Adaptation study of the problem solving inventory on the Turkish athlete population. SportMont,
16, 57–62. http://doi.org/10.26773/smj.181010
72.
MillsK.ChandraV.ParkJ. (2013).
The architecture of children’s use of language and tools when problem solving collaboratively with robotics. Australian Educational Research,
40, 315–337. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-013-0094-z
73.
OrtizA. M.BosB.SmithS. (2015).
The power of educational robotics as an integrated STEM learning experience in teacher preparation programs. Journal of College Science Teaching,
44, 42–47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43631847
74.
PatallE. A.CooperH.RobinsonJ. C. (2008).
The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings.Psychological Bulletin,
134, 270–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.270
75.
PekrunR.GoetzT.TitzW.PerryR. P. (2002).
Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational. Psychology,
37, 91–105. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3702-4
76.
PoletzL.EncarnaçãoP.AdamsK.CookA. (2010).
Robot skills and cognitive performance of preschool children. Technology and Disability,
22, 117–126. http://10.3233/TAD-2010-0296
77.
PowellL. M.WimmerH. (2016).
Evaluating students’ perception of group work for mobile application development learning, productivity, enjoyment and confidence in quality. Information Systems Education Journal,
14, 85–95. http://isedj.org/2016-14/
78.
RodgersW. M.MarklandD.SelzlerA. M.MurrayT. C.WilsonP. M. (2014).
Distinguishing perceived competence and self-efficacy: An example from exercise. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
85, 527–539. http://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2014.961050
79.
Román-GonzálezM. (2015, 6–8 July). Computational thinking test: Design guidelines and content validation. In Proceedings of EDULEARN15 Conference (pp. 2436–2444). Barcelona, Spain. IATED.
80.
Román-GonzálezM.Pérez-GonzálezJ. C.Jiménez-FernándezC. (2017).
Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Computers in Human Behavior,
30, 678–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.047
81.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000).
Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55, 68–78. http://doi.org/10.1037110003-066X.55.1.68
82.
RyanR. M.RigbyC. S.PrzybylskiA. (2006).
The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach.Motivation and Emotion,
30, 344–360. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8
83.
SabanovicS.MichalowskiM. P.CaporaelL. R. (2007, March). Making friends: Building social robots through interdisciplinary collaboration. In AAAI Spring Symposium: Multidisciplinary Collaboration for Socially Assistive Robotics (pp. 71–77). https://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Spring/2007/SS-07-07/SS07-07-016.pdf
84.
SansoneC.HarackiewiczJ. M. (2000). Controversies and new directions—Is it déjà vu all over again? In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 444–454). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012619070-0/50037-4
85.
SchukajlowS.LeissD.PekrunR.BlumW.MüllerM.MessnerR. (2012).
Teaching methods for modelling problems and students’ task-specific enjoyment, value, interest and self-efficacy expectations. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
79, 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9341-2
86.
ShernoffD. J.CsikszentmihalyiM.SchneiderB.ShernoffE. S. (2003).
Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly,
18, 158–176. http://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.18.2.158.21860
SismanB.KucukS. (2019).
An educational robotics course: Examination of educational potentials and pre-service teachers' experiences.International Journal of Research in Education and Science,
5, 510–531. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1205775.pdf
89.
SomyürekS. (2014).
Gaining the attention of generation Z in learning process: Augmented reality. Educational Technology Theory and Practice,
4, 63–80.
90.
SongH. D.GrabowskiB. L. (2006).
Stimulating intrinsic motivation for problem solving using goal-oriented contexts and peer group composition.Educational Technology Research and Development,
54, 445–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-0128-6
91.
SullivanA.BersM. U. (2016).
Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,
26, 3–20. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9304-5
92.
SullivanaF.HeffernanaJ. (2016).
Robotic construction kits as computational manipulatives for learning in the STEM disciplines. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
48, 105–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1146563
93.
TamboriniR.BowmanN. D.EdenA.GrizzardM.OrganA. (2010).
Defining media enjoyment as the satisfaction of intrinsic needs. Journal of Communication,
60, 758–777. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01513.x
94.
TaylorK.BaekY. (2018).
Collaborative robotics, more than just working in groups. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
56, 979–1004. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117731382
TellaA. (2007).
The impact of motivation on student’s academic achievement and learning outcomes in mathematics among secondary school students in Nigeria. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education,
3, 149–156. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75390
97.
TennentH.MooreD.JungM.JuW. (2017). Good vibrations: How consequential sounds affect perception of robotic arms [Paper presentation]. 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Lisbon, Portugal.
98.
TocháčekaD.LapešJ.FuglíkV. (2016).
Developing technological knowledge and programming skills of secondary schools students through the educational robotics projects. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences,
217, 377–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.107
99.
TuluriF. (2015, March). Using robotics educational module as an interactive STEM learning platform. In 2015 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (pp. 16–20). IEEE. http://doi.org/10.1109/ISECon.2015.7119916
100.
TurnerS.HillG. (2007).
Robots in problem-solving and programming. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences,
7, 108–119. http://doi.org/10.11120/ital.2008.07010108
101.
UrdanT.TurnerJ. C. (2005). Competence motivation in the classroom. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 297–317). Guilford Publications.
YancoH. A.KimH. J.MartinF. G.SilkaL. (2007, 26–28 March). Artbotics: Combining art and robotics to broaden participation in computing. In D. L. McGuinness, B. Brodaric, & P. Fox (Eds.). AAAI Spring Symposium: Semantic Scientific Knowledge Integration (Vol. 192), Stanford, CA, USA. https://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Spring/2007/SS-07-09/SS07-09-044.pdf
104.
YuenT. T.BoeckingM.TigerE. P.GomezA.GuillenA.ArreguinA.StoneJ. (2014).
Group tasks, activities, dynamics, and interactions in collaborative robotics projects with elementary and middle school children. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research,
15, 39–46. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/148284
