Micro:bit Robotics Course: Infusing Logical Reasoning and Problem-Solving Ability in Fifth Grade Students Through an Online Group Study System
With rising societal interest in the subject areas of science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics (STEAM), a micro:bit robotics course with an online group study (OGS) system was designed to foster student learning anytime and anywhere. OGS enables the development of a learning environment that combines real-world and digital-world resources, and can enhance the effectiveness of learning among students from a remote area. In this pre- and post-test experiment design, we studied 22 (8 males and 14 females) 5th grade students from a remote area of Taiwan. A t test performed before and after the robotics course showed a positive increase in students’ proportional reasoning, probabilistic reasoning, and ability to analyze a problem. Results also revealed a gender difference in the association between students’ logical reasoning and problem-solving ability.
Arlin, P. K. (1975). Cognitive development in adulthood: A fifth stage? Developmental Psychology, 11(5), 602–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1622.214.171.1242
Axten, N., Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Human problem solving. Contemporary sociology , 2(2), 169-170. https://doi.org/10.2307/2063712
Bers, M. U. (2012). Designing digital experiences for positive youth development: From playpen to playground. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199757022.001.0001
Birkerts., S. (1994). The Gutenberg elegies: The fate of reading in an electronic age. Faber and Faber.
Bitner, B. L. (1991). Formal operational reasoning modes: Predictors of critical thinking abilities and grades assigned by teachers in science and mathematics for students in grades nine through twelve. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(3), 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280307
Bolter, J., & Grusin, R. (2000). Remediation: Understanding new media. The MIT Press.
Bransford, J., & Stein, B. S. (1984). The ideal problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning, and creativity. Freeman.
British Broadcasting Corporation. (2017, July 7). BBC micro:bit celebrates huge impact in first year, with 90% of students saying it helped show that anyone can code. https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2017/microbit-first-year
Chiappetta, E. L. (1976). A review of Piagetian studies relevant to science instruction at the secondary and college level. Science Education, 60(2), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730600215
Cohen, J.. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge Academic [Google Scholar] http://www.utstat.toronto.edu/~brunner/oldclass/378f16/readings/CohenPower.pdf
Conradty, C., & Bogner, F. X. (2018). From STEM to STEAM: How to monitor creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 30(3), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1488195
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. D. C. Heath. https://doi.org/10.1037/10903-000
Farrell, M. A. (1969). The formal stage: A review of the research. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 3, 111–118.
Flavell, J. H. (2007). The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget. D. Van Nostrand Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/11449-000
Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Hacıömeroğlu, G., & Hacıömeroğlu, E. S. (2017). Examining the relationship between gender, spatial ability, logical reasoning ability, and preferred mode of processing. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.17984/adyuebd.310833
Huang, Y. M., Chiu, P. S., Liu, T. C., & Chen, T. S. (2011). The design and implementation of a meaningful learning-based evaluation method for ubiquitous learning. Computers and Education, 57(4), 2291–2302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.023
Huang, Y. M., Huang, Y. M., Liu, C. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Applying social tagging to manage cognitive load in a Web 2.0 self-learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(3), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2011.555839
Huang, Y. M., & Wu, T. T. (2011). A systematic approach for learner group composition utilizing u-learning portfolio. Educational Technology and Society, 14(3), 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1049/cp.2010.0563
Jung, I. (2012). Asian learners’ perception of quality in distance education and gender differences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i2.1159
Khine, M. S. (2017). Robotics in STEM education: Redesigning the learning experience. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57786-9
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511571350
Lawson, A. E. (1978). The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660150103
Lawson, A. E., Adi, H., & Karplus, R. (1979). Development of correlational reasoning in secondary schools: Do biology courses make a difference? The American Biology Teacher, 41(7), 420–430. https://doi.org/10.2307/4446678
Lin, Y.-C., Lin, Y.-T., & Huang, Y.-M. (2011). Development of a diagnostic system using a testing-based approach for strengthening student prior knowledge. Computers & Education, 57, 1557–1570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.004
Lin, Y.-T., Huang, Y.-M., & Cheng, S.-C. (2010). An automatic group composition system for composing collaborative learning groups using enhanced particle swarm optimization. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1483–1493. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.014
Liu, H., Ludu, M., & Holton, D. (2015). Can K–12 math teachers train students to make valid logical reasoning? In X. Ge, D. Ifenthaler, & J. Spector (Eds.) Emerging technologies for STEAM education (pp. 331–353). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02573-5_18
Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years. Journal of Documentation, 61(6), 700–712. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510632040
Lovell, K. (1961). A follow‐up study of inhelder and Piaget’s: The growth of logical thinking. British Journal of Psychology, 52(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1961.tb00776.xMicro:bit. (n.d.). Let’s code. https://microbit.org/code/
O’Hara, K., & Sellen, A. (1997, March). Comparison of reading paper and on-line documents. In CHI ’97: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 335–342). https://doi.org/10.1145/258549.258787
Peters, O. (2000). Digital learning environments: New possibilities and opportunities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v1i1.3
Preacher, K. J. (2002, May). Calculation for the test of the difference between two independent correlation coefficients [Computer software]. Available from http://quantpsy.org.
Remmele, B., & Holthaus, M. (2013). De-gendering in the use of e-learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1299
Roberge, J. J., & Craven, P. A. (1982). Developmental relationships between reading comprehension and deductive reasoning. The Journal of General Psychology, 107(1), 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1982.9709912
Sentance, S., Waite, J., Hodges, S., MacLeod, E., & Yeomans, L. (2017, March). “Creating cool stuff”: Pupils’ experience of the BBC micro:bit. In SIGCSE '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 531–536). https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017749
Siegler, R. S. (1991). Children’s thinking (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall.
Sullivan, A., Strawhacker, A., & Bers, M. U. (2017). Dancing, drawing, and dramatic robots: Integrating robotics and the arts to teach foundational STEAM concepts to young children. In M. Khine (Ed.), Robotics in STEM education: Redesigning the learning experience (pp. 231–260). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57786-9_10
Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2003). Students’ achievement in human circulatory system unit: The effect of reasoning ability and gender. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(1), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022111728683
Tobin, K., & Capie, W. (1984). Application of the Test of Logical Thinking. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 7(1), 5–9.
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (n.d.). Education: From disruption to recovery. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse
Valanides, N. C. (1996). Formal reasoning and science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 96(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1996.tb15818.x
Valanides, N. C. (1997). Cognitive abilities among twelfth‐grade students: Implications for science teaching. Educational Research and Evaluation, 3, 160–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/1380361970030204
Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and schooling in the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 403–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12029
Wright, B., & Dowker, A. (2002). The role of cues to differential absolute size in children’s transitive inferences. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 81, 249–275. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.2001.2653
Yenilmez, A., Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2005). Investigating students’ logical thinking abilities: The effects of gender and grade level. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 28, 219–225.
Yu, P. T., Su, M. H., Cheng, P. J., & Liao, Y. H. (2012). Utilizing an online group study environment to enhance student reading ability and learning effectiveness. Journal of Internet Technology, 13(6), 981–988. https://doi.org/10.6138/JIT.2012.13.6.12
Yurdugül, H., & Aşkar, P. (2013). Learning programming, problem solving and gender: A longitudinal study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 605–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.115
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. The copyright of all content published in IRRODL is retained by the authors.
This copyright agreement and use license ensures, among other things, that an article will be as widely distributed as possible and that the article can be included in any scientific and/or scholarly archive.
You are free to
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms below:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.