Abstract
AbstractDuring a relatively short period of time, programming has been implemented in the national curriculum of the compulsory school in Sweden. Since 2018, programming is a new content in the technology subject and the research field has discussed some of the challenges teachers and students, who generally have little experiences of programming, face when programming is introduced in teaching. In this study, we have explored what strategies lower secondary school students (ages 13–15) use when they are programming a robot to follow a curved line in technology education class. Data consists of screen recorded films when students are pair programming a robot. Student talks were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Practical Epistemological Analysis. The analysis revealed three different strategies that the students used when programming the robot: (1) sensor—follow the line, searching for a code that automatically would make the robot to follow the route, (2) sensor—wheels, using codes to create a feedback system between sensor and wheels, and (3) rotations—degrees–wheels, using the position of the robot to stepwise fine tune the movement of the wheels. In line with previous research, the students in our study spent much time discussing, testing, and debugging their code, and our findings contribute by showing how these discussions were aligned with the strategy used. Depending on the strategy, students actively looked for and tested codes affecting different aspects of the sensor-wheel system, such as for example sensor input, power, rotations or turning. Implications for teaching is discussed.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Engineering,Education
Reference33 articles.
1. Anderhag, P., Björn, M., Fahrman, B., Lundholm-Bergström, A., Weiland, M., & Wållberg, T. (2021). Kod som teknisk lösning: en studie om grundskoleelevers uppfattningar av ändamålsenlighet i deras spontana programspråk. [Code as technical solution: A study on primary school students´ perception of fitness of purpose in their spontaneous programming language] Nordic Studies in Science Education, 17(1), 113–129. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.7020.
2. Beraza, I., Pina, A. & Demo, B. (2010). Soft & hard ideas to improve interaction with robots for kids & teachers. In Workshop proceedings of SIMPAR 2010 Intl. Conference on simulation, modelling and programming for autonomous robots, (pp. 549–557).
3. Bers, M. U., & Horn, M. S. (2010). Tangible programming in early childhood. In I. R. Berson & M. J. Berson (Eds.), High-tech tots: Childhood in a digital world (pp. 49–70). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
4. Björkholm, E. (2014). Exploring the capability of evaluating technical solutions: A collaborative study into the primary technology classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9240-1
5. Cederqvist, A.-M. (2022). An exploratory study of technological knowledge when pupils are designing A programmed technological solution using BBC Micro:bit. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32, 355–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09618-6