Developing Creative Behavior in Elementary School Students with Robotics

Abstract

The School Robotics Initiative (SRI), a problem-based robotics program for elementary school students, was developed with the objective of reaching students early on to instill an interest in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math disciplines. The purpose of this exploratory, observational study was to examine how the SRI fosters student creative behavior. Weekly observations of 194 students (4th-6th grade) were conducted in three classrooms, over 3 years. Supplemental data were collected from student-written journals. Data were coded for themes. The findings revealed that the robotics classrooms were characterized by a high degree of energy. The students worked intensely on robotic tasks, engaging in a two-stage creative process that involved first designing a robot with a preplanned or spontaneous work approach, followed by an iterative period of trial and error creative programming. A variety of creativity techniques were observed being used. The SRI was shown to develop creative behavior in the students through the myriad of creative robot products generated. Based on the findings, the authors propose a componential model for developing creative behavior in the students through robotics, which includes a set of social, psychological, and physical elements necessary for the students to produce creative results in school robotics programs.

Fostering students’ creativity via educational robotics: An investigation of teachers’ pedagogical practices based on teacher interviews

“…Fostering creativity via ER ER has attracted much interest from practitioners and researchers in recent years. ER is a multidisciplinary that integrates computer science with mechanical, electrical and electronic engineering (Nemiro, Larriva, & Jawaharlal, 2015). ER provides students opportunities to work with peers and conduct hands-on projects such as assembling their own robots, and therefore, creates a fun and exciting learning experience (Eguchi, 2014).…”

“…Berland and Wilensky (2015) fostered students' creativity by providing them with authentic and virtual robotic systems that allow them to apply their acquired knowledge and skills and make innovations. The research and practice of helping students develop creativity via ER has captured the interest of researchers and teachers (Benitti, 2012;Eguchi, 2016;Nemiro et al, 2015). However, the use of ER and research in this area both remain at a stage of inception.…”

A Review of Articles Using Observation Methods to Study Creativity in Education (1980–2018)

“…In our review, ambiguous descriptions did not clarify whether the intent was to encompass all the activities of the entire classroom, or relatively smaller clusters of group interactions. The most prevalent unit of observation was the classroom environment as indicated in eight articles (Cho et al., ; Cheung, ; Coulson & Burke, ; Guay, ; Meyer & Lederman, ; Nemiro, Larriva, & Jawaharlal, ; Petsch, ; Schacter et al., ). We note four exceptions to classroom as the designated unit of observation: Biasutti () focused more narrowly on students and teachers learning music in an online setting, and Budge () examined interactions between teachers and students while learning art.…”

“… Teachers stated beliefs about creativity may not correspond to classroom observations of teaching (Cheung, 2012), and thus training and professional development that clarifies and bridges creativity theory to classroom practice is important (Kandemir & Gur, ; Kin & Wong, ). Teacher modeling of how to use materials (Coulson & Burke, ; James, ), how to interpret art (Budge, ) and making connections to real‐world scenarios (Chiu, ) can be essential to learning, as long as teachers don't over‐rely on proscriptive activities (Geist & Hohn, ). Teacher and student behaviors that contribute to a supportive environment for creative learning should be distinguished in observation (Gadja et al., ) and, when included in analysis, can reveal patterns of interaction, modeling, and instruction, contributing to theory and practice. Nonverbal cues can enhance expression of ideas (Biasutti, ) as well as the allowance of student vocalizations (Nemiro et al., ) in addition to direct verbal communication (Cho et al., ) when projects are open‐ended (Mars, ; Sullivan, ) but have a clear purpose (Meyer & Lederman, ). Elements of personal meaning making are critical: student efficacy in creative environments with diverse student populations relies on personal meaning making (Guay, ; Petsch, ; Wielgosz & Molyneux, ), which can be enhanced through opportunities to use different modalities in learning (e.g., visual, auditory, kinesthetic); Creativity can include incremental as opposed to radical adaptations to a given form and can be based on personal taste (Glăveanu & Lahlou, ; Godart & Mears, ). Child‐initiated activities rather than adult‐initiated activities may facilitate creativity in preschool children (Robson & Rowe, ), and peer feedback can be used effectively to foster design and creativity (Karademir, ). Tapping into students’ embodied creativity through movement or enacted forms can access different reserves of creative potential and opportunities in learning (Konstantinidou & Zisi, ; Torrents et al., ). Supporting the metacognitive capacity of students can be supported by arts integration teaching strategies and help students learn when, how, and why to apply their creative skills and potential to the classroom learning context (Pitts et al., ). …”

The impact of AI and robotics on physical, social‐emotional and intellectual learning outcomes: An integrated analytical framework

“…The impact of AI and robotics 1811 integral to learning, (4) recognizing individual differences, (5) stretching all students, (6) assessment for learning and (7) building horizontal connections (Dummont, Istance & Benavides, 2012). Also, from a sociocultural perspective, the design of meaningful activities has to be guided by (1) an open learning space, (2) flexibility, (3) mixed ages, (4) the use of new technologies and (5) the inclusion of integral development based on multiple learning domains (Barnard, 2015;Elkin, Sullivan & Bers, 2014;Mulcahy, Cleveland & Aberton, 2015;Nemiro, Larriva & Jawaharlal, 2017).…”