=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3037/paper0
|storemode=property
|title=Modification of Scientific Skills through a Robotics Ecology Program
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3037/paper0.pdf
|volume=Vol-3037
|authors=Jhon Holguin-Alvarez,Juana Cruz-Montero,Jenny Ruiz-Salazar,Fernando Ledesma-Pérez
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/cisetc/Holguin-Alvarez21
}}
==Modification of Scientific Skills through a Robotics Ecology Program==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3037/paper0.pdf
Modification of Scientific Skills through a Robotics Ecology
Program
Jhon Holguin-Alvarez 1, Juana Cruz-Montero 1, Jenny Ruiz-Salazar 2 and Fernando Ledesma-Pérez 1
1
Universidad César Vallejo, Av. Alfredo Mendiola 6232, Perú
2
Universidad Tecnológica del Perú, Av. Arequipa 265, Perú
Abstract
An experiment of social responsibility applied through a robotic ecology program based on
three pedagogical phases was developed: (a) Social ecological intelligence, (b) Social
scientific task, (c) Scientific reflection. A contaminated beach context was approached, from
which elementary school students recycled waste to develop basic robotic prototypes.
Knowledge, observation and reflection skills were modified. Similarly, environmental
awareness was considered as an implicit construct in the reflection, which was developed
during the ecological approach experience. Although the dimensions improved, the
differences obtained in knowledge capacity were not significant in the group comparison.
Keywords 1
Environmental Awareness, School Robotics, Scientific Skills, Sustainability.
1. Introduction
En [1] evidences of the ecological transformation from the work with recycling in the city context
are reported. With a similar experience, we seek to continue other works that investigate STEAM
work modalities with the production of didactic elements based on educational robotics [2, 3, 4]. This
work reports the results of the development of scientific skills based on a Robotic Ecology program in
the interrelation of the school-society type. Contributes to the study of the basic skills of observation,
inquiry and reflection through the use of creativity coupled with caring for the environment. These
evidences reflect the first results in learning in science and technology from an experiential didactics
applied in a literal Latin American coastal context, which reflect both the increase in these skills, the
development of social responsibility, and the attitudes of ecological care.
1.1. Robotic Ecology for Education
The robotic ecology proposal bases the work of robotic didactics based on overcoming the
difficulties to learn science and technology. In the proposal of [3], the needs of scientific learning can
be understood from the development of socio-emotional skills through STEAM. This is evidenced in
other studies that have reflected the development of interrelationships that outline the behavior of the
type: individual> computer> robot [5], as well as work in groups with learning difficulties [6]. Since
gamification, social learning has been established in educational management to develop emotional
components in students, although efforts still continue in the social field, developing the commitment
of the individual> learning type [7, 8, 9], when robotics is an intermediary, without generating strong
evidence on engagement> interaction [7]; and better stimulation with the inclusion of the robot in
CISETC 2021: International Congress on Educational and Technology in Sciences, November 16-18, 2021, Chiclayo, Peru
EMAIL: jholguin@ucv.edu.pe (A. 1); jcruzmo@ucv.edu.pe (A. 2); c17371@utp.edu.pe (A. 3); fledesma@ucv.edu.pe (A. 3)
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5786-0763 (A. 1); https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7772-6681 (A. 2); https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9882-
3133 (A. 3); https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4572-1381 (A. 4)
©️ 2020 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
STEM practice [2]. In other studies, simulation algorithms already show attempts to improve the
quality of human> robot collaboration [9]. Thus, in the language area there are already improvements
in the search for learning in orality and vocabulary [8], and this is also already corroborated in the
collaborative investigative and communicative interaction in virtual education [10].
In more palpable evidence in the educational area, other proposals have been found with
innovative and playful methodological structures such as Design Thinking [11], which help to
mediate prior knowledge, new knowledge and cognitive feedback [4, 11]. In this sense, we base the
experience of an educational robotics program from the recycling of solid waste in a particular
context. The proposed didactic processes were based on the scheme: SEI [Social Ecological
Intelligence] > SST [Social Scientific Task] SSR [Social Scientific Reflection], each one based on the
theoretical proposals for the development of ecological and social intelligence [12, 13, 14].
With SEI, it was sought to generate cultural knowledge in students and the recognition of the
diversity of a polluting environment, in order to achieve the capacity for inquiry and generate new
knowledge through social self-questioning. Then, SST allows the student to use the objects, prevent
damages to his person, and manage to propose robotic sketches in the classroom through the
replication of other pre-existing ones. Regarding the SSR phase, pedagogical questions are generated
to awaken two types of reflection, one of a cognitive type, on robotic models; and others, of a social
nature, on the conservation of the environment and its sustainability. The processes try to follow the
development of the multididactics of [15], based on the search for cultural and social recognition for
the development and use of technology.
1.2. Scientific Skills: Cognitive Approach
Scientific skills from the cognitive approach are conceived as the set of capacities that allow the
development of knowledge from empirical experience [16]. This position considers the set of
stimulated competences for the search for new knowledge as a precedent of the previous knowledge
that the student possesses [17, 18], when contrasting it with the results obtained when observing,
analyzing, comparing, arguing, refuting and reflecting on certain processes that allow them come to
knowledge. Deeper knowledge has been found in students who used technologies when performing
reflective tasks through interpretation [19], as well, combinatorial thinking generates better skills
when there is cooperation between members of a student group [20]. Other evidences have reported
results in that the use of technology allows generating motivation, critical thinking, better
opportunities [21], and reflective capacity to propose solutions to certain scientific problems.
In this case, the SEI> SST> SSR scheme is proposed, through a scientific skills development
program with environmental ecology. However, there is special interest in the use of other type
methodologies: I > PBL > RF [Inquiry > Problem Based Learning > Reflection and Feedback], for
which the basis is the studies that sought to develop communicational and scientific informational
skills in students with a low level [22, 23]. We adapt these processes to the methodological phases of
the robotic ecology program: inquiry (I) to the intelligence process of social ecology or motivational
process, problem-based learning (PBL) to social scientific tasks, and reflection and feedback (RF) to
the phase of social scientific reflection. This allowed bringing the scientific research process closer to
studies and proposals focused on recycling for social ecological awareness [1, 3]. The objective of the
research was to modify the scientific abilities of a school group through the application of a robotic
ecology program in its formative process.
2. Method
The research is based on the positivist paradigm, a study of an applied type with manipulation of
an independent variable, and the verification of its effects on another dependent, so we carry out
measurements in the quantitative approach. The design was experimental with pre- and posttest. We
compared two groups of students compared methodologically (n(Exp.) = 45; n(Cont.) = 35). A total of 80
students from the fifth and sixth grade of primary school were included as the total of the
experimental sample. The number of subjects was mostly female (male = 39 %; female = 61 %), all of
whom attended educational institutions in vulnerable contexts in capital districts. The average age of
the participants was 10 years, 8 months (Fifth grade = 10.43 years; Sixth grade = 11.2). Variables
such as: (a) regular attendance to classes, (b) profound cognitive deficiencies, (c) age above
educational level, (d) pre and post-pandemic reinforcement stages, (d) health status were controlled.
All participants gave their consent by signing the Parental Informed Consent. This document was
prepared in accordance with the acceptance of the parents and signed by them, to integrate their
children in the experiment. This was given as part of a cycle of cognitive reinforcement of the science
and technology area in their respective educational institutions. The process described made it
possible to avoid biases such as the institutional directive obligation or the teacher's demand. After
contacting the parents, the school directors and the tutors of the corresponding classrooms were
contacted, who mediated the investigation in general. This administrative procedure followed the
ethical research model based on the model established by the Declaration of Helsinki; and the
generation of exogenous factors that would invalidate the study was avoided
We developed a test of theoretical and practical performance on scientific skills, in which
dimensions of type: (a) Knowledge, (b) Observation, (c) Reflection were measured (Table 1).
Table 1
Test-subtest correlations in the Test and Scale constructs.
Variable Dimension r*
Knowledge .891
Scientific skills (SS) Observation .901
Reflection .789
Awareness about the environment .871
Environmental Awareness (EA)
Beliefs about caring .883
Note: *p <.001.
The tasks carried out made it possible to measure the content of these dimensions through tasks
called “Scientific Situations”. The tasks were based on the research proposed by [21] and [24],
choosing and diversifying the most appropriate dimensions for the students of the evaluated context.
Likewise, an Environmental Awareness Scale was used with the intention of supporting the
qualification in scientific reflection, in this case, the instrument allowed to measure the constructs: (a)
Awareness about the Environment, (b) Beliefs about caring. The level of reliability achieved in both
instruments was acceptable (Ins. (α-1) = .921; Ins. (α-2) = .890). Table 1 shows the results of
correspondence between the variables and the dimensions through a correlation analysis of the
principal components with the variables.
2.1. Procedure
The ecological problem of a coastal beach was addressed through a social responsibility program,
this was directed in agreement with a private university and three schools from vulnerable contexts.
The program consisted of three pedagogical phases [SEI - SST - SSR], running in six months of the
school term. The execution of the second and third phases allowed the subjects of the experimental
group to come into contact with the recycled waste to develop basic prototypes of robots, following
their creativity criteria attached to the teaching routes applied by the teachers. The students in the
control group only developed daily recycling.
3. Results
The initial scores for scientific skills (t (53) = -1,073; p >.005) and environmental awareness (t (41) =
-1,110; p > .005) were statistically equitable (no significance). According to Figure 1, the global
results allowed to find notable differences that support the improvement of scientific skills (t-SS (74) =
-3.831; p <.005) after executing the eco-robotics program.
60
50
40
30 Pretest (M)
Posttest (M)
20
10
0
CG EG
Figure 1: Pretest and posttest measurements in scientific skills
Regarding environmental awareness, the comparison of means allowed to establish considerable
increases in the experimentation group (t-CA (72) = -2.720; p <.005), these measurements evidenced
the parallel development of this construct (figure 2).
60
50
40
30 Pretest (M)
Posttest (M)
20
10
0
CG EG
Figure 2: Pretest and posttest measurements in environmental awareness
Table 2
Average in dimensions of scientific skills and environmental awareness.
Pretest Posttest
Dimension CG EG CG EG
Knowledge 10.11 10.19 15.16 16.01
Observation 9.21 9.16 15.21 18.32
Reflection 5.71 5.8 6.34 10.81
Awareness about the environment 15.20 15.01 21.30 20.41
Beliefs about caring 12.30 12.35 18.83 20.01
Note: CG = Control Group; EG = Experimental Group.
The initial scores did not show significant differences before starting the experimental approach.
On the other hand, favorable scores were evidenced for the experimental group after applying the
pedagogical phases [IES-TCS-RCS] of the robotic ecology program, which represented significant
differences in the observation dimensions (t (70) = -2,45), reflection (t (77) = -2,31), awareness about the
environment (t (75) = -2,21), beliefs about caring (t (78) = -2,10). Table 2 also describes non-significant
differences in the scientific knowledge dimension (t (61) = -1,02).
The findings allow us to assert that the method based on responsibility with the SEI > SST > SSR,
model, contributed to the strengthening of scientific skills by constantly awakening the previous
knowledge obtained as in other studies [1, 11]. This prompted the students to develop robotic
prototypes for the construction of scientific learning. In this sense, the program was able to integrate
creativity towards scientific inquiry processes through STEAM in the experimental group as scientific
feedback processes [3, 4]. Additional tests were developed to measure progress in scientific skills
over the six-month period. We applied these evaluations three times during the process, although they
were ad hoc tests, they served to monitor the quality of progress in each of the dimensions. It should
be noted that these resembled the structure of the test in general. The first test was carried out a few
weeks after the application of the pre-test, and the last, two weeks before the post-test evaluation. In
figure 2 we observe better progress in knowledge ability with a better difference between the first and
second evaluation (diff. = -5.44), and between the second and third application (diff. = -4.51).
18
16 15.31 15.4
15.05
14
12 9.87
10 10.54
8.93 Knowledge
8 9.21
Observation
6 5.98 6.35
Reflection
4
2
0
First Second Third
Process evaluation
Figure 3: Pretest and posttest measurements in environmental awareness
On the other hand, the progression in the observation dimension was a little less fluid, the increase
was less between the first and second reports (diff. = -1.33). However, from the second evaluation,
evidence is reflected that supports that the property to perform basic observation was complex to
develop for the test subjects (diff. = -0.09). Finally, less obvious progress is observed in reflective
ability between the first and second evaluation. The increase becomes more pronounced in the last
evaluation (diff. = -2.58), although the progress up to that moment (X = 8.93) is low compared to the
beginning (X = 5.98).
The general approach based on the use of social ecological intelligence [13, 14], and cooperative
and motivational didactic processes [20, 21] have contributed to the improvement in obtaining
knowledge, increasing the elaboration and cognitive reflection. This last dimension was also
evidenced when developing environmental awareness processes in parallel in the cleaning of the
coastal beach.
Regarding the case of the evidence reported in progress, it is necessary to accept that the
knowledge dimension is less complex to develop in students who are more used to being receptive.
Some evidence has shown that as a basic ability it is usually used in subjects with certain similar
characteristics [7, 10], although not entirely basic. Therefore, the expansion of individualistic work
with robotics has been transformed into this experience due to the collaboration generated by the
individuals themselves in their guided learning, as they also do in other contexts through cognitive
collaboration [8, 9, 10, 11]. In any case, the reflective processes evaluated in the progress of reflective
ability seem to be linked to the observational processes of the subjects of the experiment. Therefore, it
is argued that the individual> robotics> learning experience can be crucial due to the stimulation
generated in the science processes themselves [2].
Finally, although no significant differences were found in the knowledge dimension, it is important
to note the parallel progress shown by both the control group and the experimental group, since both
discovered the environment close to which they faced. This situation disposed them to obtain
permanent information on environmental pollution and environmental settings as a strictly academic
condition.
4. Conclusions
The robotic ecology experience premeditated the modification of scientific skills, developing
observation and reflection in the participants of the program of boarding a coastal beach. Regarding
their ways of thinking, the scientific task and social scientific reflection phases of the program
improved their awareness of the environment and caring for the environment as part of student
scientific reflection. The specific results showed improvement effects in scientific knowledge,
although the results did not allow to show clear advances in the students of the sample.
The study helps to clarify links between science learning, lived conservation of the environment
and the use of waste as a method of STEM education. It is shown that the ability to know is crucial to
those of observation and reflection, although in contexts in which the use of the natural environment
are issues of social (environmental) need. These last competences generate a broader conservative
thought, competences for investigative analysis; and positive attitudes towards creative robotics in
schooling.
5. References
[1] Garofalo, D.D.: Robotics with scratch a creative education for all. Revista Brasileira de Pós-
Graduação, Vol. 15, Num. 34, (2019). 1-21. doi:10.21713/rbpg.v15i34.1611.
[2] Chalmers, C.: Robotics and computational thinking in primary school. International Journal of
Child-Computer Interaction, Vol. 17 (2018), 93-100. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.06.005.
[3] Garofalo, D.D. & Bacich, L.: Um olhar para aprendizagem socioemocional no STEAM. In:
Bacich, L. Holanda, L. (Org.): STEAM em sala de aula: a aprendizagem baseada en projetos
integrando conhecimientos na educação básica, Vol. 9. Grupo Educação SA, Porto Alegre
(2020).
[4] Gentil, D.; Martins, F.; Palheta, M.C.; Da Silva, W.: Robótica pedagógica na amazônia -
aprendizagem significativa e conectividade na Educação 4.0. Anais IV CONAPESC (2019).
https://editorarealize.com.br/artigo/visualizar/57203.
[5] Oliveira, R.; Arriaga, P.; Santos, F.P.; Mascarenhas, A; Paiva, A.: Towards prosocial design: A
scoping review of the use of robots and virtual agents to trigger prosocial behavior. Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 114 (2021), 106547. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106547.
[6] Pivetti, M.; Di Battista, S.; Agatolio, F.; Simaku, B.; Moro, M.; Menegatti, E.: Educational
Robotics for children with neurodevelopmental disorders: A systematic review. Heliyon, Vol. 6.
Num. 10 (2020). e05160. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05160.
[7] Donnermann, M.; Lein, M.; Messingschlager, T.; Riedmann, A.; Schaper, P.; Steinhaeusser, S.;
Lugrin, B.: Social robots and gamification for technology supported learning: An empirical study
on engagement and motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 121 (2021). 106792.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106792.
[8] Lin, V.; Yeh, H.-C.; Huang, H.-H.; Chen, N.-S.: Enhancing EFL vocabulary learning with
multimodal cues supported by an educational robot and an IoT-Based 3D book, System, (2021).
102691. doi:10.1016/j.system.2021.102691.
[9] Liu, X.; Huang, P.; Ge, S.S.: Optimized control for human-multi-robot collaborative
manipulation via multi-player Q-learning. Journal of the Franklin Institute, Vol. 358. Num. 11
(2021). 5639-5658. doi:10.1016/j.jfranklin.2021.03.017.
[10] Schouten, A.P.; Portegies, T.C.; Withuis, I.; Willemsen, L.M.; Mazerant-Dubois, K.:
Robomorphism: Examining the effects of telepresence robots on between-student cooperation.
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 126, (2022). 106980. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106980.
[11] Da Costa, A.; Rodrigues, F.; Ramírez, L.: Creative robotics for the development of inclusive
Maker culture in elementary education: the case of the Capistrano de Abreu Municipal School, in
São Paulo, Brazil. Revista de Investigación en Educación Militar, Vol. 1, Num. 1 (2020). 69-91.
doi:10.47961/27450171.7.
[12] Aghajani, M. Types of Intelligences as Predictors of Self-Efficacy: A Study on Iranian EFL
Students. International Journal of Research in English Education, Vol. 3, Num. 4, (2018). 12-6.
doi:10.29252/ijree.3.4.12.
[13] Gardner, H., Kornhaber, M.L. & Wake, W.K.: Intelligence: Multiple perspectives. (1996).
Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
[14] Emmiyati, N.; Rasyid, M.A.; Rahman, M.A.; Arsyad, A.; Dirawan, G.D.: Multiple Intelligences
Profiles of Junior Secondary School Students in Indonesia. International Education Studies, Vol.
7, Num. 11, (2014). 77-103. doi:10.5539/ies.v7n11p103.
[15] Irianto. D., Herlambang. Y. & Hana, Y.: Multiliteration model based on Eco pedagogy Approach
in improving ecological Intelligence and developing characters. Universitas Pendidikan
Indonesia, (2018). 135-142. http://proceedings.upi.edu/index.php/icee/article/view/30/27.
[16] Zimmerman, C.: The Development of Scientific Reasoning Skills: What Psychologists
Contribute to an Understanding of Elementary Science Learning. (2005).
[17] Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S.,... & Eberle, J.: Scientific Reasoning and Argumentation:
Advancing an Interdisciplinary Research Agenda in Education. Frontline Learning Research,
Vol. 2, Num. 3, (2014). 28-45. doi:10.14786/flr.v2i2.96.
[18] Valdés, A., Arteaga, L., & Martínez, J.: La enseñanza de las ciencias en el nuevo milenio. Retos
y sugerencias. Revista Universidad y Sociedad, Vol. 8, Num. 1, (2016). 169-176.
https://rus.ucf.edu.cu/index.php/rus/article/view/321.
[19] Chia-Jung, C.; Chen-Chung, L.; Chin-Chung, T.: Supporting Scientific Explanations with
Drawings and Narratives on Tablet Computers: An Analysis of Explanation Patterns. Asia-
Pacific Education Researcher, Vol. 25, Num. 1, (2016). 173-184. doi:10.1007/s40299-015-0247-
0.
[20] Yuksel, I.: The effects of research inquiry based learning on the scientific reasoning skills of
prospective science teachers. Journal of Education and Training Studies, Vo.l. 7, Num 4, (2019).
273-278. doi:10.11114/jets.v7i4.4020.
[21] Pramono, S.; Prajanti, S.; & Wibawanto, W.: Virtual Laboratory for Elementary Students.
Journal of Physics: Conference Series, (2019). 1-6. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1387/1/012113.
[22] Ormancı, Ü. & Çepni, S.: Investigating the Effects of web-based Science Material for Guided
Inquiry Approach on Information and Communication Skills of Students. Participatory
Educational Research, Vol. 7, Num. 1, (2020). 201-219. doi:10.17275/per.20.12.7.1
[23] Palupi, B.; Subiyantoro, S.; Rukayah; & Triyanto.: The Effectiveness of Guided Inquiry
Learning (GIL) and Problem-Based Learning (PBL) for Explanatory Writing Skill. International
Journal of Instruction, Vol. 13, Num. 1, (2020). 713-730. doi:10.29333/iji.2020.13146a
[24] Ong, E.T.; Ramiah, P.; Ruthven, K.; Salleh, S.M.; Yusuff, N.A.N.; Mokhsein, S.E.: Acquisition
of Basic Science Process Skills among Malaysian Upper Primary Students. Research in
Education, Vol. 94, Num 1 (2015). 88-101. doi:10.7227/RIE.0021.