Defining Innovation Literacy: Do Robotics Programs Help Students Develop Innovation Literacy Skills? (Pages:1-9)
Author :
Abstract
There has been an invalidated belief among educators that the robotics activities would improve the innovation capacities of students. The current study addressed the need to conceptualize the innovation literacy idea while the specific purpose of the study was to determine the effectiveness of a robotics program designed for improving the innovation literacy skills of economically disadvantaged students from underrepresented groups. Participants of the study were 11th grade students from an inner city charter school in Texas (N = 31; 15 female, 23 African American, and 8 Hispanic). In this quantitative study, the paired sample t-test showed statistically significant improvement in science literacy skills of Hispanic students and mathematics and science literacy skills of African American students. The findings implied that more controlled learning environments for students from underrepresented groups would be beneficial.
Keywords
Abstract
There has been an invalidated belief among educators that the robotics activities would improve the innovation capacities of students. The current study addressed the need to conceptualize the innovation literacy idea while the specific purpose of the study was to determine the effectiveness of a robotics program designed for improving the innovation literacy skills of economically disadvantaged students from underrepresented groups. Participants of the study were 11th grade students from an inner city charter school in Texas (N = 31; 15 female, 23 African American, and 8 Hispanic). In this quantitative study, the paired sample t-test showed statistically significant improvement in science literacy skills of Hispanic students and mathematics and science literacy skills of African American students. The findings implied that more controlled learning environments for students from underrepresented groups would be beneficial.
Keywords
- Baker, D. (2002). Good intentions: An experiment in middle school single-sex science and mathematics classrooms with high minority enrollment. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8(1), 1-23.
- Baker, D., & Jacobs, K. (1999). Winners and losers in single-sex science and mathematics classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
- Bergen, D. (2001). Learning in the robotic world: Active or reactive? Childhood Education, 77(4), 249–250.
- Capraro, M. M. (2009). Interdisciplinary STEM project-based learning. In R. M. Capraro, & W. W. Slough (Eds.), Project–based learning: An integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, and Technology (STEM) approach (pp. 91–102). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
- Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., & Rupley, W. (2011). Reading enhanced word problem solving (REPS): A theoretical model. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27(1), 91-114.
- Conley, D. T. (2007). Redefining college readiness. OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center.
- Corlu, M. S. (2012). A pathway to STEM education: Investigating pre-service mathematics and science teachers at Turkish universities in terms of their understanding of mathematics used in science, (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Texas A&M University, College Station.
- Dillenbourg, P., Jarvela, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning from design to orchestration. In N. Balachef, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 3-19). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
- Edquist, C., Hommen, L., & McKelvey, M. D. (2001). Innovation and employment: Process versus product innovation. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar.
- Erdogan, N., & Corlu, M. S. (2012, April). A case study: Investigating an innovative course to improve innovation literacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Education Researchers Association (AERA), Vancouver, Canada.
- Filer, A. (Ed.). (2000). Assessment: Social practice and social production (pp. 1-7). New York: Routledge.
- Gregory, G. H., & Kuzmich, L. (2005). Differentiated literacy strategies for student growth and achievement in grades K-6. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
- Haladyna, T. M., Nolen, S. B., & Haas, N. S. (1991). Raising standardized achievement test scores and the origins of test score pollution. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 2-7.
- International Technology Education Association. (1999). Technology for all Americans. Reston, VA: Author.
- Johnson, J. (2003). Children, robotics, and education. Artificial Life and Robotics, 7(1-2), 16-21.
- Lau K. W., Tan H. K., Erwin B. T., & Petrovic P. (1999). Creative learning in school with LEGO programmable robotics products. Proceedings of the 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education, Puerto Rico, 2, 12D4/26 - 12D4/31. doi: 0-7803-5643-8/99
- Lee, V. E., Marks, H. M., & Byrd, T. (1994). Sexism in single-sex and coeducational independent secondary school classrooms. Sociology of Education, 67(2), 92-100.
- Lund, H. H., & Pagliarini, L. (1998). Robot soccer with LEGO mindstorms. In M. Asada & H. Kitano (Eds.), Lecture notes in artificial intelligence: Vol. 1604. RoboCup 1998: Robot soccer world cup II (pp. 141-151). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
- MacDonald, J. (2003). Assessing online collaborative learning: Process and product. International Journal on Computers and Education, 40(4), 377–391.
- McRobbie, C. J., Norton, S. J., & Ginns, I. S. (2003, April). Student designing in a robotics classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
- Mayer, R. E. (1992). Cognition and instruction: Their historic meeting within educational psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 405-412.
- Miglino, O., Lund, H. H., & Cardaci, M. (1999). Robotics as an educational tool. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10(1), 25-47.
- National Economic Council, Council of Economic Advisers, & Office of Science and Technology Policy. (February, 2011). A strategy for American innovation: Securing our economic growth and prosperity. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/innovation/strategy
- National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: NAP.
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1997). The Oslo manual: Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data. Paris, France: Author.
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/40/44455820.pdf
- Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf
- Rogers, M. (1998). The definition and measurement of innovation. Melbourne Institute Working Paper 10/98. Retrieved from http://melbourneinstitute.com
- Silk, E. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2008, June). Using robotics to teach mathematics: Analysis of a curriculum designed and implemented. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, Pittsburgh, PA.
- Sklar, E., & Eguchi, A. (2004, March). Learning while teaching robots. In L. Greenwald, Z. Dodds, A. Howard, S. Tejada, & J. Weinberg (Co-chairs), Accessible hands-on artificial intelligence and robotics education. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Palo Alto, CA.
- Sklar, E., Eguchi, A., & Johnson, J. (2003). RoboCupJunior: Learning with educational robotics. In G. A. Kaminka, P. U. Lima, & R. Rojas (Eds.), Lecture notes in artificial intelligence: Vol. 2752. RoboCup 2002: Robot soccer world cup VI (pp. 238-253). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
- Slough, S. W., & Milan, J. O. (2009). Theoretical framework for STEM project-based learning. In R. M. Capraro, & W. W. Slough (Eds.), Project–based learning: An integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, and Technology (STEM) approach (p. 19–38). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
- Snyder, I. (2002). Silicon literacies. NY: Routledge.
- U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Elementary and secondary education act blueprint for reform. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
- Verner, I. M. (1997). The value of project-based education in robotics. In H. Kitano (Ed.), Lecture notes in artificial intelligence: Vol. 1395. RoboCup 1997: Robot soccer world Cup I (pp. 231-241). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
- Verner, I. M. (1998). The survey of RoboCup ’98: Who, how and why. In M. Asada & H. Kitano (Eds.), Lecture notes in artificial intelligence: Vol. 1604. RoboCup 1998: Robot soccer world cup II (pp. 109-119). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
- Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. UK: Cambridge University Press.