Search

Studies have shown that educational robotics (ER) may impact student learning, especially in relation to STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) areas. In the STEM framework, particularly for younger children, the "E" and the "T" are considered to be missing letters, because few studies have concentrated on teaching and evaluating technology and engineering through ER activities. This study aimed to develop and test the efficacy of an ER protocol to teach robotics in a sample of 389 students, hypothesizing that girls would be as successful as boys. A Robotics Questionnaire assessing the basics of robotics was developed for this study. A Wilcoxon nonparametric test was performed in order to evaluate improvements (p < 0.05). A Mann–Whitney nonparametric test was performed in order to test the presence of gender differences (p < 0.05). Data indicated significant improvements for all the age ranges considered. No gender differences were found. In order to evaluate the efficacy of a didactic intervention utilizing ER, it is important to assess the impact on children's technological and engineering (robotics, in particular) knowledge. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic: Studies have shown that educational robotics (ER) has a potential impact on student learning.In the STEM framework, the "E" and the "T" are considered the STEM missing letters.What this paper adds: This study aims at developing and testing the efficacy of an ER protocol to teach robotics.The hypothesis that girls will be equally successful than boys is explored too, and no gender differences were found.Implications for practice and/or policy: Our results suggest that ER can be utilized to learn robotics, bringing technology in the schools.ER could be considered as a tool able to contribute to girl's involvement in STEM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we used eye-tracking methodology for deeper understanding of the refutation text effect on online text comprehension. A refutation text acknowledges the reader's alternative conceptions about a phenomenon, refutes them and presents the correct conceptions. We tested two hypotheses about its facilitation effect: the coherence hypothesis (refutation text is more coherent than standard text, thus facilitating comprehension) and the elaboration hypothesis (refutation text involves deeper processing, thus facilitating comprehension). Forty university students read one refutation text and one non-refutation text about two science topics. Offline data confirmed that refutation text readers recall more scientific facts than non-refutation text readers. Online eye-tracking measures revealed both an increase and a decrease in reading time in response to the refutation statements. Topic-medial text sentences with the correct science facts were fixated for a shorter time when first encountered in the refutation text. Refutation statements, however, increased integrative processing at the end of each text paragraph, as indexed by longer look-back fixation times on topic-final sentences with the science concepts, as well as longer look-back fixation times directed to the refutation statements. These findings support the elaboration hypothesis and are discussed in the light of current accounts of the refutation effect for theory development and educational practice. Lay Description What is already known about this topic: Science texts are often challenging to read, especially when the reader has misconceptions about the topicand must undergo conceptual-change learning in order to successfully comprehend the text., A specific type of text, the refutation text, mayact as a powerful resource in facilitating conceptual change, but findings from process-oriented investigations have been inconclusive with respect to its efficacy in this regard., What this paper adds: Refutation statements lead to faster processing of scientific facts that contradict commonly held misconceptions during the first-pass reading., Refutation statements also encourage readers' later integrative processing during rereading,to monitor and ensure resolution of the conflict between their own conceptions and the conceptual information contained within the text., Implications for practice and/or policy: Immediate introduction of new science concepts in an expository text may not benefit readers' comprehension when they have existing misconceptions within the relevant knowledge domain., The use of sentences explicitly refuting readers' misconceptions has the potential to induce and sustain the conscious and deliberate processing that is required for them to become aware of the conceptual conflict, increasing their likelihood of resolving it., Update made on 05 November 2016, after first online publication: Since the publication of this article, a Practitioner Notes section has been implemented for this journal. This article has been updated with the Practitioner Notes section. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]