SITE 2018 - Washington, D.C.

, United States, March 26-30, 2018

Piloting Collaborative STEAM/ROBOTICS Programs at A Rural Midwestern

School: An Agenda for Research

Jacqueline Kaminski Mumford

Walsh University
United States
mumford.jacqueline@gmail.com

Bridget Scofinsky
West Branch Local Schools
United States
bridget.scofinsky@wbwarriors.org

ABSTRACT:
This virtual brief paper establishes a foundation and case for the implementation of a collaborative
primary school program for science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEM)/robotics for
students ages 5-13, as piloted in a rural, Midwestern school. The program brings together a variety of
community stakeholders including students, teachers, parents, administrators, university faculty, teacher
candidates, and area businesses/engineers. This paper is a work-in-progress that may be part of a
potential large-scale study.

ORIENTATION
Review of Literature
The Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21) offers extensive information, details, and models for 21st century
teaching and learning. P21 asserts that learning and innovation skills should be recognized as skills that separate
students who are prepared for life and work in the 21st century from those who are not. In addition to the P21
framework of necessary knowledge and skills (such as creativity, collaboration, critical thinking, and
communication), P21 also advocates for 21st century support systems. These systems are for students, educators, and
administrators. They address 21st century curriculum and instruction, professional development, and learning
environments/ecosystems. (Partnership for 21st Century Learning, 2016).

Bellanca and Brandt (2010) discuss ways to re-envision learning and prepare students for a rapidly evolving global
and technological world. The literacy skills that will be required of students in the 21st century have appeared in
copious educational publications. (Bellanca & Brandt, 2010; Trilling & Fadel, 2009). Robotics programs at the
elementary level have been largely ignored until most recently (DeJarnette, 2012).

Robotics and STEAM programs in schools often use problem-based learning (PBL) in an engaging way to reinforce
mathematics, science and technology. The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) incorporate science and
engineering, in addition to existing academic content standards. Thus the implementation of robotics in the
elementary school both supports and reinforces inquiry based learning and engineering design process--along with
problem solving skills. According to Trilling and Fadel, these skills are greatly needed today and for future jobs
(2009). Sixty-five percent of today’s children will end up in jobs that haven’t been invented yet. (DeJarnette, 2012).

Several recent studies have explored the use of robotics to address comprehensive computational thinking and other
comprehensive skills (Wing, 2006), authentic learning (Chang, Lee, Wang, & Chen, 2010; Druin & Hender, 2000),
and problem-solving (Lin & Liu, 2012; Mosley & Kline, 2006). For example, Yuen, Boecking, Tiger, Gomez,
Guillen, Arreguin and Stone (2014) conducted a study examining elementary and middle school students’
engagement in a summer robotics camp. The researchers investigated what occurred during collaborative projects.
Data from that study showed that the collaboration observed justified the use of group projects using robotics in a

-1564-
 SITE 2018 - Washington, D.C., United States, March 26-30, 2018

problem based learning environment (2014). Little research could be located assessing the efficacy or impact of
elementary robotics after-school programs in rural, struggling elementary schools.

Study Impetus
In September 2017, administrators and teachers at two small, rural, schools (one public, one parochial) in the
Midwest met with faculty from a private University to discuss innovative, new opportunities for student learning.
This program brings together a wide array of stakeholders: teachers, students, parents, and administrators from the
school district. It also includes faculty volunteers from the Teacher Preparation/Graduate Education programs at a
nearby university and local engineers/businesses. The program sought to implement an after-school STEAM/robotics
program for children ages 6-12, addressing 21st century skills, Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), Academic
Content Standards, and Science, Technology Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) fundamentals. The
university faculty offered to volunteer during this pilot program in order to develop a literature review, identify best
practices, and potentially collaborate on a future larger study. Local businesses and individuals offered to help
sponsor equipment purchases, donated materials, provided expertise, and completed 3D printing/rendering services.
This virtual brief paper provides some basic information on the goals and foundations for this project as a work-in-
progress, seeking feedback from others in the field.

School Information
The schools for this program are located in a rural area on the outskirts of Appalachia, where the majority of jobs are
agricultural or light industrial. The state provides a “District Report Card” system (2016) that is accessible to the
public via the Internet. It evaluates public schools and school districts, assigning them scores of “A” (highest)
through F (“Lowest”) in several categories. The public school’s state report card provided the following information:
The school has a chronic absenteeism rate of 8.4%. The elementary school has a total enrollment of just over 400
students in grades Kindergarten through 4. The state has labeled this elementary school a “High Needs” school where
over 40% of the children live in homes below the poverty level and State District Report Card grades are “D” or
lower.

All teachers in the district have a Bachelor’s Degree, with 67% holding a Master’s degree. 100% of the teachers are
certified to teach in their subject areas. Regarding Gap closing (identified as showing “how well schools are meeting
performance expectations for our most vulnerable populations of students in English language arts, math, and
graduation”), the district scored an “F.” Regarding literacy in grades Kindergarten through 3, the district scored a
“D.” The school scored a “C” on Progress (looking at growth that students are making based on past performances”
and a “C” in Preparing Students for Success). The students are predominantly white, non-Hispanic; 54% male and
46% female. The student to teacher ratio is 18:1. District spending averages $8,062 per student, significantly lower
than the state average of $11,436. No District money had been set aside in the budget to fund any robotics program
for 2016-2017, so a grass-roots effort to acquire equipment would be required.

The parochial school offers grades pre-school (PK) through 8. There are 90 students at the school, with 10 teachers,
one principal, two instructional aides, and two staff members. There was nor report card information available
publicly from the parochial school.

Research Opportunities
Little literature on implementing such projects in small, rural, struggling schools exists (ODE, 2016). Several
potential research questions arose: In what ways can a STEAM/robotics program in the K-8 school environment
foster cognitive development? Impact student achievement? School performance? Student motivation/engagement?
Student STEM/STEAM skills? Diversity awareness in a global society? 21st Century Skills that could lead to better
employment? How could stakeholders come together to support and sustain this initiative? What will this mean for
teacher education?

SELECTION OF A ROBOTICS PLATFORM

The idea for implementing a robotics program at the school began with one first grade teacher who sought to bring
opportunities to the school regarding science, engineering, and 21st century skills. She obtained district-level
permission to pilot an after-school robotics club, and started researching products for her robotics initiative. She
reviewed robotics platforms including Ozobots, Spheros, and Legos. She opted to utilize the Wonder Workshop Dot
and Dash robot sets. These robots have enjoyed significant press regarding their comprehensive STEM educational
focus, functionality, ease of use, and curricular integration materials (Mlot, 2015; Murray, 2015; and Sansing, 2015).

-1565-
 SITE 2018 - Washington, D.C., United States, March 26-30, 2018

The robot kits contain a mobile robot (Dash), a stationary robot (Dot), Lego-compatible connectors, a tow-hook, and
additional accessories including a Ping-Pong ball launcher, xylophone and mallet set, rabbit ears/tail that can be used
for decorating or “adding flair” to the robot, and a plow blade (Wonder Workshop, 2015; Bendici, 2016).

The Dot and Dash robots are controlled by tablet devices using Bluetooth technologies through a variety of apps
including Go (for direct remote-control), Xylo (for operating a xylophone and writing music), Blockly (for coding in
Scratch-like computer language blocks), and Wonder. The Wonder app also included various “Scroll Quest” games
that were both fun and educated the students about programming and paths. Those apps acquainted young students
with the fundamentals of object-oriented programming through tools that Wonder Workshop developed (Wonder
Workshop, 2015).

A unique affordance of selecting the Wonder Workshop platform included materials aligning to academic content
standards, Next Generation Science Standards, and other curriculum guides (Science World Teachers Guide, 2016).
Further, Wonder Workshop offers an annual “Wonder League Robotics Competition” each fall that for students in the
age 6-8 and age 9-12 groups. For that experience, teachers register competition teams of up to 5 students each.
Wonder Workshop provides five “missions” challenging students to use the robots to solve problems (PBL). These
problems all related to existing environmental concerns, and Wonder Workshop provides extensive additional
information on the context, themes, and content. The students were provided with both a written guide and a
YouTube video orienting them to the tasks. Adults are not allowed to provide direct assistance, as this is an inquiry-
based, problem-solving activity. Students had to utilize measurement, computational thinking, mathematics,
geometry, science, critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and problem-solving to complete tasks. Upon
completion, each group had to send in a video of their robots performing the task and an alpha-numeric key that links
evaluators to view the actual programming code for evaluation purposes.

In addition to the Dot and Dash robots, the program was expanded to include Lego WeDo2.0 and Lego Mindstorms
units for Spring 2018. Both of these platforms required the use of iPads and apps that coached students through the
building process and various tutorials.

Additional technology included the integration of the “SeeSaw” app that students used to create artifacts throughout
the entire process. Students could record video, save images, type reflections, and share successes/challenges through
this app with parents, teachers, and classmates. Students also used Legos and the DoINK app to develop green screen
videos inserting themselves into their projects to explore various STEAM-related topics.

PROGRAM DESIGN AND COLLABORATION

For the pilot, the lead teacher at the public school used social media to put out a call for participants. In the end, 90
district students participated in 25 teams of 2 to 4 students each. 40 teachers/parents volunteered to assist by
coaching teams (Char, 2016). This represented 25 percent of the student population at the school. The parochial
school expected 20-30 students to participate; however, over 65 students registered and attended. The after-school
participation was 81% of the student population.

The program began in early fall with students meeting in collaborative teams for 90 minutes after school each week
to familiarize themselves with the robots and coding. Students worked on missions and challenge cards. Students
began with the Dot and Dash robots, but then moved into the Lego Mindsstorms and WeDO 2.0 units. In Spring,
students began working with the DoINK green screen apps. Throughout the entire process, students used the SeeSaw
app to document their STEAM activities.

AN ANGENDA FOR RESEARCH

As a result of the relative success thus far on this pilot, a full study is in the process of being designed in order to
collect and analyze data. The schools have offered to make available a set of pre-/post-surveys based on the
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Standards for Students. Those standards outline the key
performances expected from students for digital age learning (ISTE, 2017). Initial data has been very interesting, and
warrants a study on this initiatives impact and efficacy regarding academic content standard mastery, 21 st century
skills, technology efficacy, Next Generation Science Standards, and achievement. Further, having students as young

-1566-
 SITE 2018 - Washington, D.C., United States, March 26-30, 2018

as six years old successfully generating code in teams to create a sequence solving robotics challenges has generated
much interest regionally.

Future Research Directions

Children in the early learning environment are enamored with technology (DeJarnette, 2012). Exploration through
play and problem-based activities lends itself to a rich STEM environment for children native to technology (Mosley
& Kline, 2006). Opportunities to investigate cognitive development in the early learning environment paired with a
comparative analysis on motivation to learn is explored through data documented on student achievement (Lin & Liu,
2012).

Research opportunities for the value of STEAM and robotics in the K-12 environment are almost limitless. This
project, limited a rural school, can serve as a base line for development of longitudinal studies of students
(individuals and groups) who participate in learning environments which include differentiated STEAM activities s a
part of the curriculum. Such studies could be replicated within other rural districts and in suburban/inner cities to
show the long-term impact on student learning in computational, science, engineering, and communication skills as
well as provide educators opportunities to study characteristics of learners, such as motivation and use of creativity.
Research into how to best train teachers to teach in the area of early childhood STEAM/robotics will be essential. As
more countries devise STEM education that includes robots and robotic activities, the more international the focus of
robotics education research in this area will become. This type of research communicated around the world could re-
envision learning for our rapidly advancing technological-global world.

References

Bellanca, J. A., & Brandt, R. S. (2010). 21st century skills : rethinking how students learn. Bloomington, IN :
Solution Tree Press.

Bendici, R. (2016). Product focus. District Administration, 52(3), 62.

Chang, C.-W., Lee, J.-H., Wang, C.-Y., & Chen, G.-D. (2010). Improving the authentic learning experience by
integrating robots into the mixed-reality environment. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1572–1578.

Dash & dot wonder pack. (2015). Children's Technology Review, 23(9), 8.

DeJarnette, N.K. (2012). America’s children: Providing early exposure to STEM (science, technology, engineering,
and math) initiatives. Education. 13(1), 77-85.

Druin, A., & Hender, J. A. H. (2000). Robots for Kids: Exploring New Technologies for Learning. (A. Druin & J. A.
H. Hender, Eds.), p. 377. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Angeli, C. (2016). Effect of robotics on elementary pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy, science
learning, and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1-18.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). Educational technology standards for teachers. Retrieved
from http://www.iste.org/standards/standards-for-students.

Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. (2015). Robotics to promote elementary education pre-
service teachers' STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers and Education, 91(14-31).

Lin, C. H., & Liu, E. Z. F. (2012). The Effect of Reflective Strategies on Students’ Problem Solving in Robotics
Learning. In 2012 IEEE Fourth International Conference On Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced
Learning (pp. 254–257).

-1567-
 SITE 2018 - Washington, D.C., United States, March 26-30, 2018

Lin, J. (2016, October 24). A rural town in Ohio shows strong in the international Wonder League Robotics
Competition. Code in Kid Speak. Retrieved from: https://blog.makewonder.com/a-rural-town-in-ohio-
shows-strong-in-the-international-wonder-league-robotics-competition-55c88dd24b32#.70vb20g44

Mlot, S. (2015). Dash and dot. PC Magazine, 31.

Mosley, P., & Kline, R. (2006). Engaging Students: A Framework Using Lego Robotics to Teach Problem Solving.
Information Technology, Learning & Performance Journal., 24(1), 39– 45.

Murray, M. (2015). Tech for tykes. PC Magazine, 136.

NGSS Lead, S. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, D.C. : National
Academies Press, 2013.

Ohio Department of Education (ODE) (2016). 2015-2016 Report Card for West Branch Local School District. Ohio
School Report Cards. Retrieved from http://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/Pages/District-Report.aspx?
DistrictIRN=048389

Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2016). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved December 29, 2016, from
http://www.p21.org/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf

PR, N. (2015, March 5). Wonder Workshop robots invade hundreds of schools on a mission to teach kids to code. PR
Newswire US.

Sansing, C. (2015). Coding made fun with robots. School Library Journal, 61(8), 10.Ml

Science world teacher’s guide. (2016). Science World (Teacher's Edition), 73(3), T1.

Scofinsky, B. (2016, September 28). DW3 Robotics Retrieved from Scofinsky, B. (2016, December 3). DW3
Accessory Design Challenge. Retrieved from http://www.westbranch.k12.oh.us/olc/page.aspx?
id=51150&s=167

Scofinsky, B. (2016, December 3). DW3 Accessory Design Challenge. Retrieved from
http://www.westbranch.k12.oh.us/olc/page.aspx?id=50056&s=167

Scofinsky, B. (2017, January 16). We had 15/16 teams finish! We had two teams take 1st place in their age bracket
and one of those teams was selected as one of 30 finalists worldwide. What a great day for West Branch!
[Facebook status update]. https://www.facebook.com/MrsSki301?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf

Shar, C. (2016, November 4). After-school robotics becomes school's most popular club. The Alliance Review.
Retrieved from http://www.the-review.com/local%20sebring%20mahoning/2016/11/04/afterschool-
robotics-becomes-schools-most-popular-club/?recommended=1

The Salem News, (2016, November 20). Damascus Wonder Workshop Warriors takes on robotic challenges. The
Salem News. Retrieved from: http://www.salemnews.net/news/neighborhood-news/2016/11/damascus-
wonder-workshop-warriors-takes-on-robotic-challenges/

Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills. [electronic resource] : learning for life in our times. San
Francisco, Calif. : Jossey-Bass, 2009.

Wonder Workshop, I. (7). Wonder Workshop cements global STEM product industry lead, announces $20 million
series b financing round. Business Wire (English).

Wonder, Workshop (10). Wonder workshop’s dash robot wins highest honor from Oppenheim Toy Portfolio.
Business Wire (English).

-1568-
 SITE 2018 - Washington, D.C., United States, March 26-30, 2018

Wonder, Workshop (11). Toy industry association names wonder workshop’s dash and dot robots top tech toy
finalists ahead of holiday gift season. Business Wire (English).

Wonder, Workshop (11). Wonder workshop brings computer science to schools in need this holiday. Business Wire
(English).

Yuen, T. T., Boecking, M., Tiger, E. P., Gomez, A., Guillen, A., Arreguin, A., & Stone, J. (2014). Group tasks,
activities, dynamics, and interactions in collaborative robotics projects with elementary and middle school
children. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 15(1), 39-45.

-1569-