Science, Education and Technology:
Robotics in the curriculum at schools in Brazil
Flavio Campos, flavio@cidadeelshadai.com.br
Cidade El Shadai Education and
Technology Research Centre. São Paulo, Brazil
Abstract
This paper describes, taking a PhD
thesis defended in 2011, some results about the integration of robotics as a
technological resource in the curriculum of a private school in Brazil. It’s
emphasized the pedagogical and didactical aspects and brings a discussion about
teaching science and the perspective of using robotics and the relation between
curriculum, science and technologies. The results indicate the integration of
robotics as a technological resource in basics education in Brazil has complex
aspects, such as relation between time/space, the preparation of the educators
and the relation between robotics and other subjects. Therefore, the comprehension
of these aspects could indicate some steps that we should think when integrate
robotics into curriculum, that the technology is not going to keep the
prescribed curriculum hegemony, but amplified the perspectives of education for
science and technology significant and motivated for students.
Keywords
Constructionism and the curriculum;
Educational Robotics; Constructionist approach; Education and Technology
Introduction
As a
technological resource in education, we could say robotics has been one of the
most technologies innovated nowadays. Therefore, schools in Brazil have
difficulties to integrate this technology into their curriculum.
The robotics
projects in basics Education in Brazil show themselves as an isolated practice
in different development projects, because these projects are sometimes
understand as a specific subject in the curriculum, which means it has been
using in professional education in high school or college. Robotics have been
seen by educators and the population as a sophisticated toy, in which people
that loves robotics find themselves in championships and conferences around the
world.
The research
about robotics is reaching the university context – engineering and mechanics –
and industries. The interest for the subject is growing, and we can see the
investments from the government in education technology. Even with all the
investments, only a few schools in basics education integrate educational
technology subjects (as robotics) in curriculum. The more significant projects
are limited in professional education and college.
Despite all
that, sometimes we find educators interested in explore robotics and
constructionism concepts into their practice. Influenced by researchers and
primary projects using robotics in schools, by cinema and media, or by simply
like technology, teachers and students mobilize themselves to construct their
projects. Make the design, build, program and analyze the results of robotics
become a motivated activity for the learning process and helps cognitive
process (D´ABREU, 1993), as well as provides creative activities
(RESNICK, BERG e EISENBERG, 2000; RESNICK, 2006).
Today, the use
of robotics in education in Brazil (from kindergarten to High school) as a
technological resource receives the name of “pedagogical or educational
robotics”. We ask, is this the right denomination? Is it possible to determine
what´s the right denomination?
The fact is we
don´t want to say these nominations are wrong, but we realize educators
and researchers that use this resource (robotics) with different names. We find
out that even in the internet and scientific articles talk about robotics with
a diversity of denominations. Because of that, we find the robotics in
education researches related to the following topics:
· Robotic
object – the concept has a direct relation with robotics hardware;
· Physical
space/laboratory –
Relation to the robotic learning environment at schools;
· Learning
environment –
Its seems to be the same as the topic before, but emphasizes the cognitive
process that the environment creates, involving the space, the activities and
the relations between students and the teacher;
· Specific
Project –
The characteristic is fundamental about developing projects like Summer
programs, outside the school class;
· Methodology –
This topic emphasizes the use of robotics as a methodology, in other words,
pedagogical practice.
We could say that is not easy to describe
correctly the name of robotics in education, if it’s pedagogical or
educational. But still, we don´t have pretention to defend a concept or
say that one term is better than other, but we prefer to use the expression
“robotics in education”, because we believe robotics is a technological
resource used in basics education for develop projects related to the following
topics:
· Learning robotics;
· Robotics
as a technological resource used in learning process of different subjects and
concepts;
· Integration of both categories.
The first category corresponds to projects
with purpose in learning robotics concepts, the students develop projects and
learn how to program a robot, how to use a sensor and all the technology
involved, and giving attention to robotics itself. At schools in Brazil, this
category appears with more evidence in after school programs.
The second category, robotics are used to
develop projects that holds in evidence the learning of different concepts,
such as mathematics, physics, art, etc. So, this technological resource allows
the school to create a different environment to the learning process, in which
by creating and programming the robot, the student can learn physics,
mathematics, science, arts, for example.
Although the use of robotics in the last
category has a direct relation with science and mathematics, projects involved
are integrated with knowledge like arts, geography, history and others, and
could more interdisciplinary, in special involving the last ones.
In this point of view, the schools in
Brazil work with robotics in after schools programs, specific projects such as
championships during the school year and in a few institutions the projects
using robotics are directly in the curriculum, in other words, are into
curriculum as a subject (like mathematics, arts, history) or are used in
different subjects as a technological resource, depending on the teacher.
The last category – integration – involves
the other two categories, that is, the projects developed include both,
learning robotics and specific topics and interdisciplinary subjects. An
example of this are activities that provides learning of science concepts, and
at the same time the student can construct his/her learning how to program a
robot, how to use sensors and motors in the construction of the device.
Development
Our research sought, from a
qualitative analysis, identify the characteristics of robotics (constructionist
concepts) integration in the curriculum of a private school in Brazil, from
kindergarten to high school, especially about pedagogical and administrative
aspects.
When we use the term “integration
in curriculum”, we refer to relation between curriculum and robotics as a
technological resource, in other words, not only the use to “knowledge
transmission” and the consequence adaptation of this technology to learning
process, but a real rethink of pedagogical practice and other aspects that
involves the integration of this resource (robotics) in curriculum.
Although we can find robotics at
schools around Brazil, considering the researches produced until 2011 in
Brazil, the proposes of companies that sell robotics materials and the
Brazilian school system, we could say that our work has an impact in point some
elements of curriculum integration of this resource and the constructionist
concepts in the curriculum.
The research considered the focus
group as a methodology, having sixteen students in eighth grade (13 years old).
We use the data to analyze the impact of robotics and constructionist concepts
in the curriculum, as the students face the subject with one class per week,
studying components, sensors, engineering, math, science and others.
We accentuate that our research
considered the perspective of robotics in the curriculum as an amplified form,
in other words, its integration permeates the curriculum of everyday class and
after school programs. However, this research prioritizes the integration of
robotics in curriculum because after school programs have specific
characteristics, allowing more flexibility during development. Although, this
projects seems to be a part of the curriculum, with few activities during the
school year.
In fact, we observe that
integration of robotics in curriculum of basic education is complex, involving
pedagogical and administrative aspects in relation to objectives and purpose.
It is important to point that
this technological resource has characteristics that influenced directly the
integration in curriculum. Robotics materials (Lego, tetrix, and picocricket)
are not like computers that condense a wide range of media in one physical
device, the items that define robotics demand specific knowledge (program,
building, motors, sensors, etc.), which makes more difficult for teachers to
know how to use in classroom for example.
There so, one important issue
that interferes directly the integration of robotics and constructionist
concepts is the necessity of the educational institutions to have in its staff,
educators who know robotics and constructionist approach in all
characteristics, such as: robotics materials available in the market, building
pieces and the computer program language.
When we say educators, we are not
referring to professionals specialized in computer science or robotics, which
by their degree they have knowledge in program a robot and building the device,
but we talk about history, arts and other subject teachers, coordinators and
educational managers.
In this way we understand that
education institutions, most of them, doesn´t have exclusive teachers to
develop projects to integrate robotics in the curriculum, so make this process
even more complex, considering the most of the teachers responsible for use
robotics (constructionist approach) have their degree in science (Mathematics,
physics and others).
Besides, the personnel
responsible to the management (principals, advisors, coordinators) don´t
have specific knowledge like teachers, which means they need to learn in
service. Therefore, a few companies are specialized in courses that involve
learning robotics (how to program a robot and how to use sensors, motors and a
sort of pieces), so it´s more difficult to integrate robotics in
curriculum.
The integration of robotics in
curriculum is different from a simple specific training, demanding from
teachers a continuous learning about robotics itself (sensors, motors, language
program) and a pedagogical approach about using robotics in learning situations.
We can add the fact that exists in
the educational market in Brazil robotics projects that seems “easy and ready”
solutions for schools, with books and activities that tells everything students
and teachers should do, limiting their creativity and the possibilities of
knowledge construction by students. That is, robotics and constructionist
concepts have been incorporated in the curriculum at schools in Brazil without
a real reflection and preparation.
Another important question of
robotics integration is the relation between continuous teachers learning and
pedagogical planning for robotics classes, including the content and activities
to be done during school year.
A relevant element of this aspect
is the fact most institutions doesn´t have a consistent conceptual basis
about what to teach in robotic subject, in other words, they don´t know
what or how to relate any content to this technology that has been incorporated
in curriculum tables, and the consequences are different ways to choose books
and didactic instructions to robotic as a subject.
Indeed, this is a fundamental
data when we talk about integration of robotics in curriculum. Differently from
other subjects such as mathematics, history, geography, culture studies and
others, those have been historically constituted in schools curriculum with
defined content for all grades, robotics don´t have this structure, and
for this we can see a wide range of content that is not helping the real need
of robotics integration in the curriculum.
To exemplify this, we could think
in schools that have an annual planning for content in robotics subject related
to technology concepts directly attached to sensors, motors, cables, pieces and
program, as an example, learning how to program an electronic device (robotic)
and use of sensors and motors. In this case, schools cannot get together
interdisciplinary subjects that compose school curriculum and either
construction of scientific concepts.
Other example are institutions
that gives privilege in content related to subjects in general (science,
mathematics, physics), which can reach learning of technology that we mentioned
before.
Well, in fact when we think in
integrate robotics in the curriculum is consider the basis to choose content to
work in robotic subject. Considering the results of interviews and the
observation of activities during school year of 2011, we believed that
integrate robotics in curriculum as a subject should be sustained in three
basis: education for science, technology and interdisciplinary.
In this particularly research, we observe physics subjects and during the
activities the students amplified science and other concepts.
As an example, an 8th grade group of students had an idea to a project (The theme was about robotics
and special human needs) that teacher asked them to get involved. Instead of
just research and present something press, they decided to build a model of a
wheel chair with lego mindstorms and also construct a small example of a street
to represent a real attempt of the device they were building.
For that, they spent two months
to design all. What made that possible was because they had one lego mindstorms
exclusive for them, and so they could experience the whole project building and
also learning the concepts involved.
Figure 1. Image of students building the street reference
for the Lego model.
To compare, the same group had
weekly robotic classes, in which they worked in projects design for only 50
minutes. On that, all students should build the models and at the end of the
classes they get all the pieces back in the box for other students. That is
different from the project we described above, because in this case they
couldn’t use the same Lego material for a long time. Instead, they constructed
some device and had to take all the pieces apart to other students that were
going after them.
Therefore, these aspects need to
guide the content insert in pedagogical projects in educational institutions
and the integration of this technological resource in curriculum in a
significant way (Thinking about constructionist approach), having as a
reference the construction of knowledge and the student’s freedom in the
learning process.
The education for science expresses
elements such as investigation process and concepts like force, motion and
energy. About education for technology,
we need to consider the knowledge of pieces functions like sensors, motors,
computer science and all involving this theme.
Lastly, we have education in
relation to interdisciplinary, in which involves concepts such as working team,
creativity and even those that are not directly attached to robotics or
science. We want to say that interdisciplinary is something inevitable and goes
beyond different subjects, amplifying their boundaries.
Integrate robotics in curriculum
is fundamental, because it’s not only a technological resource that allows
students to participate directly in their learning process, but has a potential
to contribute in the development of projects that aim to emancipate the
students in their thinking.
Besides, contributes not only to
build a multiple referenced curriculum, that considered both historically
content and specific context in each institution to develop pedagogical
projects, but also to enrich a culture of use of technology in education that
has sustained by emancipation and autonomy of students in learning process.
It is not, therefore, simply add
a subject “robotic” in curriculum because is interesting, to conquer new
students or to be more “visible” with clients (in case we talk about private
schools, because in Brazil is more significant in use of robotics), neither to
use this technological resource in a few moments during the school year
depending on the teacher or the content. (Bers,
M., 2007)
Indeed, integrate robotics in
curriculum means considerer two sides, articulating the teaching learning about
robotics and a school pedagogical approach that has as foundation to the
necessary steps to develop an activity using robotics (challenge/problem,
design/solution, test, results and share), providing
to students an active participation in the whole process.
The creativity in the context of
robotics integration it is another important element. Projects that give
instructions to students to build the devices don’t help in knowledge
construction and student autonomy, and this is the most usual scenario around
the schools in Brazil.
Then, during the class steps
described before (challenge/problem,
design/solution, test, results and share) students
need to be creative, in other words, they cannot, for example receive
instruction (device model) to build, but instead use imagination and the
challenge proposed to build their device. They have to program the device to
operate and not get the program from the teacher.
A reference for creativity is the
spiral of creative thinking from Resnick (2007). For this, creativity must permeate the student action during all steps in robotics activity, with
the objective to enrich the use of this technology and constructionist concepts
in learning process, and there so, guarantee the significant integration of
robotics in curriculum
Another fact that compromised the
integration of robotics in curriculum is the relation time/space, related to
development of robotics activities in schools. The data from students shows the
needs to rethink this matter.
Most of the schools don´t
have specific labs to teach robotics, environment that facilitates students to
be more engage during the activities, using large tables with computers and
different robotics materials. What happen in some schools is that robotics
classes usually occurs in small places, with association to computer labs, and
students must build their device with small spaces available, interfering
significantly in the integration of robotics in curriculum.
We can go further, talking about
time. In general, schools have in their curriculum robotics classes with only
fifty minutes, or in some institutions with one hour and a half. This context
makes difficult to integrate robotics in curriculum because the lessons steps
that we described cannot be fully developed. As an example, we could imagine a
robotic activity, and during fifty minutes students must design and build the
device, write the language program, test and share the solutions.
It is not difficult to understand
that time is not sufficient, which makes the integration of robotics limited in
all ways and all the steps are compromised. In case of after school programs,
even though time seems to not be a problem (because the project could last
weeks), the projects have been developed without connection to curriculum.
The relation between time/space
is directly attached to management in institutions, because the costs involving
teachers, robotics materials, classes’ time and adequacy in the curriculum
prevent us to reflect about our real needs to integrate robotics in curriculum.
Then we could say, the integration of
robotics in curriculum is considering education for science, technology and interdisciplinary as fundamental elements to pedagogical planning
for teachers and educators, especially about content of robotics.
References
BERS, M. (2007). Blocks
to Robots: Learning with Technology in the Early Childhood Classroom. Massachussets,Teachers
College Press.
D’ABREU,
J. V. (1993). Uso do computador para controle de dispositivos. In: Valente,
José A. (org.). Computadores e conhecimento: repensando a
educação. Campinas, UNICAMP.
PAPERT,
S. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. 2. ed.
New York: Basic Books.
PAPERT, S. (1996). The Connected Family: Bridging the digital generation gap. Atlanta GA:
Longstreet Press.
PAPERT, S. (1997). Looking at technology Through School-Colored Spectacles. Massachusetts, MIT.
RESNICK, M; Berg, R; Eisenberg, M. (2000). Beyond
Black Boxes: Bringing Transparency and Aesthetics Back to Scientific
Investigation. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 7-30.
RESNICK, M; Silverman,
B. (2005). Some Reflections on Designing Construction
Kits for Kids. Boston:Paper, MIT.
RESNICK, M.
(2006). Computer
as Paintbrush: Technology, Play, and the Creative Society. In Singer,
D., Golikoff, R., and Hirsh-Pasek, K. (eds.), Play = Learning:
How play motivates and enhances children's cognitive and social-emotional
growth. Oxford University Press.
RESNICK, M. (2007). Sowing
the Seeds for a More Creative Society: Learning
and Leading with Technology. ISTE.
