INTRODUCTION
Science, Technology,
Engineering, Mathematics (STEM) education has become a major focus in efforts
to prepare students to face the demands of a modern world that is increasingly
dependent on skills in the fields of technology and science (National Research
Council, 2011). In the midst of dynamic changes in educational curricula,
innovative and effective learning approaches are important to facilitate
in-depth understanding of STEM concepts and sharpen students' critical thinking
skills (Bybee, 2010).
The use of robotics in STEM education is a learning tool that is
attracting increasing attention because robotics provides a practical approach
that allows students to apply theoretical concepts in real-world situations. By
including robotics in the curriculum (M. I. Sholeh,
2023a), schools can provide learning experiences that are more interesting and
oriented towards practical applications, as discussed in the research of Andreu et al. (2019). Students can learn about the basic
principles of science and technology while designing, programming, and
operating robots directly (Khanlari & Mansourkiaie, 2015). Shively & Farris's (2021) article
reviews the use of robotics in education and the opportunities it offers to
enrich STEM learning. Chapter Knezek et al. (2013)
discussed the impact of using robotics in STEM education and how this
technology can impact learning and teaching in the context of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (Sholeh,
2023). Although not directly related to STEM education, the study of Šabanović et al. (2013) highlight how interactions
with robots can influence user learning and experience, which is relevant in
the context of the use of robotics in education.
The use of robotics not only helps students understand STEM concepts in
more depth, but also helps them develop critical thinking, creativity, and
problem-solving skills (Liu et al., 2019; Klopfenstein & Sadri, 2018). When
students interact with robots, they are faced with challenges that require
critical thinking and the ability to find solutions (Chen et al., 2020). Apart
from that, the use of robotics can also increase students' interest in STEM
fields of science which are often considered complicated or difficult to
understand (Nyein et al., 2019). Although interest in
the use of robotics in STEM education is growing, further research is still
needed to fully understand its impact on student achievement (VanLehn & Jones, 2017).
The bristlebot
typically is a project designed to construct robots that can handle activities
such as sweeping, smoothing, scrubbing, or painting. Participants learn
engineering design skills such as cutting, geometry, gumming, add-on designs
and other related skills.With increasingly
advanced technology and changes in the world of education, it is important to
understand how the use of robotics can influence the learning process and
students' academic achievement (Liu et al., 2019). Through this research, it is
hoped that it can be identified to what extent the use of robotics influences
students' understanding of STEM concepts, as well as how this impacts their
learning achievement. By understanding more deeply the impact of using robotics
in STEM learning, it is hoped that it can provide valuable insights for
teachers, students and other educational stakeholders. It is hoped that the
results of this research can become the basis for developing more effective and
innovative learning strategies in Schools, as well as contributing to
scientific literature in the field of STEM education. Few research in Nigeria Katniyon et al (2023) focused on theoretical knowledge only
and has not addressed the issue of design and testing of brush robots. In this
context, this research aims to bridge the existing knowledge gap and provide a
better understanding of the potential for using robotics in improving student
achievement in primary schools in Pankshin.
Therefore, this research aims to conduct a more detailed investigation
regarding the design and testing of Brush Robot in improving STEM learning
outcome in Pre-schools in Pankshin. The brush robot
is a robot that employs elastic elements, referred to as brushes, to convert
the energy of a vibration source into directed locomotion. The subset of the brushbots on which we focus our study is that of planar
robots moving on a smooth surface
Theoretical
Framework
Two theories guiding this research are constructivism
and constructionism. Constructionism
as an educational theory is student-centered and
emphasizes discovery learning, where students are encouraged to work with
tangible objects in the real world and use what they already know to gain more
knowledge. Constructivism Theory states
that knowledge constructed by connecting new experience to existing ideas. Experiences gained each week was based on a three-stage learning progression model, (Fig 1)
namely: copy, tinker, and create. In the
first stage (approximately 30 min), students copied robot design examples from
learning material for practice purposes. Subsequent stages participants
modified those examples by adding more components, and in the final stage which
saw the creation of brush robot.
Figure 1 . Three-stage learning progression model.
The implication of these theories to the
study is that the design of educational robots and curriculum using tangible
technology to create new knowledge on design and testing of a robot.
Participants were availed hands on opportunities for hands on engagement in
research.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research is to Explore the design
and testing of an off - screen Educational Robotics curriculum among early
Childhood STEM teachers in Plateau State. Specifically it intends to:
- Find
out if pre - service teachers’ are able to identify brush robots
components?
- Assess
if participants are able to
demonstrate competence in brush robots design skills
- Assess
if teachers designed brush robots are effective when exposed to functionality
test?
Research Questions
The following research questions will guide the study:
- To
what extent are participants able to demonstrate competence in brush robots
design skills?
- To
what extent are pre - service teachers’ able to identify brush robots
components?
- To
what extent are the designed brush robots functional when exposed to
functionality test?
METHODS
AND MATERIALS
The research design is experimental design
which intended to design and test educational robotics (ER) curriculum for
pre-service teachers. The population will consist of NCE one students in the
department of early childhood offering the course Science Technology
Engineering and Mathematics STEM (ECE 124) in the 2023/2024 session. A Sample of 30 Pre service NCE teachers were
selected. The school was selected as a research site in order to see how the
robotics curriculum would unfold in a typical Nigerian public school, outside
of a research lab setting. The course and level was selected to empirically
observe how the new component STEM in the NCCE minimum standards for early
childhood will be implemented by would
be teachers. Also, it will provide an opportunity for pre- service teachers to
be proficient in teaching 21st century engineering and technology aspects of
STEM compared to peers in UK, Crete and USA. The study lasted for 4-week with
each week having an activity. Data was collected from the participants using
two assessments instruments: the Robot Parts test (which will assess robotics
knowledge) and secondly the Solve-Its tasks (which will assess design
process). Robotics knowledge Test will
assess pre-service teachers’ knowledge of the use of educational robotics. The
activities lasted for 6 weeks. Data was analysed using percentages, mean and
Standard Deviation. The materials used are:
Method
Used in design and testing
Use of
Sawing
The
saw was used to trim the brush handle to the required shape.
Gluing
Glue
is used to gum the materials to the top of the brush in order to maintain
firmness.
Connecting
of components
Cables and connector are used for
connecting battery to D.C. motor firmly.
Finishing
Nigerian
National flag is used to give the brush robot an attractive finishing and
appearance.
Safety
Precautions Undertaken.
·
Wearing
of nose masks to avoid plastic dusts and chemical inhaling from glue
·
Using
of hand gloves to avoid hand sticking to glue
·
Wearing
of goggle glass to protect your eyes during sawing the plastic.
·
Wearing
of protective shoes to avoid injury during the practical such as canvas.
Procedure
and Presentation of Finished Work
Procedure
The following are the procedures for
designing and testing of brush robot
-
Put
the brush on the table first
-
Cut
the hand of brush
-
Make
sure you measure the hand before cutting
-
Use
Mr. bone glue to hold the materials
-
Add
D.C Motor 12V battery on the brush
-
Test
and see whether it will move
-
Then
add battery connector on the battery to connect the battery and the D.C Motor
-
Add
9V battery to the brush top to see how it move
-
Connected
the witch to see how it work; and if it work we then connect it to the brush to
on it/of it.
-
Add
glue to gum both the battery, 9V battery D.C Motor switch and battery connector
on the brush and it move smoothly and vibrate to work faster. That make the
robot perfect.
-
Add
on: Nigerian National Flag to beautify
the robot to make it attractive for pupils; and it’s at the back of the robots.
Step 1:
Cutting/Sawing
Fig 2:
Cutting/Sawing brush
It's recommended to
use saw for trimming the brush
handle in order to create a medium for placing the DC motor, 9V battery and
switch.
Step 2: Connecting the 12V DC Motor
After
trimming the brush handle, the DC motor is placed on the medium created well
fixed with on a glue with wire connection to the battery for the purpose of
rotation or vibration.
Step 3: Fixing of Parts
Fig 3: Fixing of
Robots Parts
The parts
such as the DC Motor, battery, battery connector and wire are brought
altogether and fixed one after the other for proper working of the bush robot.
Terminals of the battery are tightly fixed to avoid slippage likewise with all
the parts.
Step 4:
Vibration testing
Fig 4:
Vibration testing
After the components are fixed, the battery
apart is used for testing the movement. There it was observed that wrongly
fixing the battery terminal leads to brush robot jumping rather than vibrating;
which was later removed and the battery terminals fixed appropriately to the DC
Motor before working properly.
Step 5: Rear view of finished model
Fig 5: Rear view of finished model
Step 6:
Side view of finished model
Fig 6:
Side view of finished model
After testing with the battery
apart, showing proper vibration not jumping. The battery is then fixed firmly
and the final functionality test done with proper vibration ascertained.
DISCUSSION OF
FINDINGS
Findings
and Discussion
Findings from the study is presented based on
the research questions as follows:
Research
Question one:
To what extent are pre - service teachers’
able to identify robots components?
Table: 1
Percentage of Component Identification by Participants
|
S/N
|
Components
|
Robot parts Identification
|
|
|
Low
|
Percentage
|
High
|
Percentage
|
|
1
|
Brush
|
5
|
8.34
|
25
|
91.66
|
|
2
|
DC motor
|
10
|
18.34
|
20
|
81.66
|
|
3
|
Battery
|
0
|
100
|
30
|
0.00
|
|
4
|
Jumper wires
|
10
|
75
|
20
|
25
|
|
5
|
Small Switch
|
4
|
6.67
|
26
|
93.33
|
|
6
|
Glue
|
20
|
83.33
|
10
|
16.67
|
|
7
|
Costume add on
|
4
|
93.33
|
26
|
6.67
|
Source
:
Pre-testing exercise 2024
Data on table 3 indicate that the designed
robots have high educational value and are age appropriate. The robots are
averagely complete in form, ease of use motion and durability. The designs
however have low compliance to safety. This implies an average functionality
test for the design off screen robots.
Functionality test of any engineering equipment is very important if it
must not be an excise in futility. Interest and attitude towards a design
process increases if there is a functional display of the usability of the
product from participants (Eguchi, 2016; Katniyon et al 2023).
In a classroom setting the teacher’s confidence to improve the
technology and engineering component of STEM engagements is enhanced in areas
of age appropriateness ease of use safety compliance and educational values
amongst others. Ultimately enhancing learner’s creativity, critical thing and
problem solving skills.
The research was an
engineering design process undertaken to access participants’ skills in
designing a bristlebot. Results from this study
indicated that the brush robot vibrated when the switch was turned on. This indicates
effective functionality for the created brush robots. This findings is in-line
with the findings according to an article written by Ben Finio,
(2024) titled ‘how to build a brushbot’ who states that:
when you turn the motor on, it makes the robot vibrate and move across the
table, the robot design
functionality test is excellent. This happens because you
attached an off-center weight (the cork) to the
motor's spinning shaft. If you removed the cork, the robot would not vibrate at
all. This is the same concept used to make video game controllers, electric
toothbrushes, and cell phones vibrate; they have little spinning motors with
weights inside. Your robot probably did not move in a straight line. In fact,
it probably buzzed all over the place, and crashed into things! This is because
your brushbot's movement is random. There is no computer
"brain" telling the robot how to steer. More-advanced robots rely on
computer programs to help them avoid crashing into things.
The brush
robot components are inexpensive and the brush robot can be customised/beautify
into different forms just like National flag is added to it. This is similar to
the findings of Vanstone, (2022) in his article titled ‘How to build a brushbot’ which states that brushbots are
super simple mini robots that only need a few bits of inexpensive kit
to create. All the materials can be reused in other robotics
projects too. They are easy to build and can be customised in many
different ways!
Summary of
Findings
The robot design experiment
by the participants shows that the brush robot vibrated and moved across the
table. This happens because you attached an off-center
weight (the cork) to the motor's spinning shaft. If you removed the cork, the
robot would not vibrate at all. This is the same concept used to make video
game controllers, electric toothbrushes, and cell phones vibrate; they have
little spinning motors with weights inside.
1. Pre - service
teachers’ were able to identify some brush robots components
2. Participants
were able to demonstrate competence in brush robots design skills
3. Designed
brush robots are effective when exposed to functionality test.
CONCLUSION
Having achieved the purpose of the
project though there was delay in the execution of the project due to
disagreement on issues relating to the design and testing with diverse views. However,
the aim of the project was achieved; the design and testing of the bristle
robot with every group member participating from beginning to the end having a
proper understanding.
Recommendation
Considering the positive impact of
the project on the pupils and the Department of Early Childhood Care and
Education, entirely, the following recommendation should be taken into
consideration;
1.
The
pupils should perform practical involve in the practice to acquire knowledge
and skill in any project given.
2.
The
school should provide some materials and tools that will be used during the
practical and project execution. For examples; tabular circular saw, DC Motor,
battery, battery connector and the brush machine; which will be used by pupils
to enable a smooth and easy work and also to help the pupils know how to use
some equipment involve in design and testing.
Acknowledgement:
The authors of this research article wish to acknowledge the support of Tertiary
Education Trust Fund, IBR Federal College of Education, Pankshin Nigeria who
fully funded this research.
REFERENCES
Azah, N., sholeh, M. I., & Supratno, H.
(2024). The influence of the principal’s leadership style, administrative
support, and professional development on teacher performance At Mtsn 17 Jombang. Journal of Research Administration,
6(1).
Alimisis, D. Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes Sci. Technol. Educ. 2013, 6, 63–71.
Bybee, R. W. (2010).
Advancing STEM Education: A 2020 vision. Technology
and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30–35.
Chen,
G., Zhang, X., & Jin, Y. (2020).
Research on the application of educational robotics in STEM education. In
2020 15th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE)
(pp. 261- 265). IEEE.
Finio, B. (2024). STEM-activities/brushbot
Retrieved from https://www.sciencebuddies.org/stem-activities/brushbot 1st
September, 2024.
Guenat, S.; Purnell, P.; Davies, Z.G.; Nawrath, M.;
Stringer, L.C.; Babu, G.R.; Balasubramanian,
M.; Ballantyne, E.E.F.; Bylappa,
B.K.; Chen, B.; et al. Meeting sustainable development goals via robotics and
autonomous systems. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 3559.
Katniyon, H. D. Duguryil, Z.
P. & Ladan,
N. (2023). The future of science teaching: Pre- primary teachers’ knowledge of educational robotics in STEM learning
in Plateau state. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Sciences,VII
(V), DOI
Khanlari, A., & Mansourkiaie, F. (2015). Using robotics for STEM education
in primary/elementary schools: Teachers' perceptions. 2015 10th International
Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCSE.2015.7250208
Knezek, G., Christensen,
R., Tyler-Wood, T., & Periathiruvadi, S. (2013). Impact
of robotics and geospatial technologies on science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (stem) learning and teaching. In Handbook of Research on
Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 735-745). Springer.
Liu,
Y., Navarrete, C., Brophy, S., & Pagnucco, M. (2019). The impact of robotics education on
creativity and problem solving skills. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International
Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 261-269). IEEE.
National
Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: identifying effective approaches in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. National Academies Press
Nyein, AK, Khaing, KT, & Soe, TK (2019).
A review on educational robotics in stem education. In 2019 International
Conference on Advanced Information Technologies (ICAIT) (pp. 142-147). IEEE.
Papadopoulos, I.; Lazzarino, R.;
Miah, S.; Weaver, T.; Thomas, B.; Koulouglioti, C. A
systematic review of the literature regarding socially assistive robots in
pre-tertiary education. Comput. Educ. 2020, 155, 103924.
Papert, S.; Solomon, C. (1971). Twenty things
to do with a computer; Constructing Modern Knowledge Press:
Cambridge, MA, USA, 1971.
Papert, S. Mindstorms (1980). Children, computers and powerful ideas;
Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1980
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic
Books.
Piaget,
J. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence. Routledge.
Šabanović, S., Bennett, C. C.,
Chang, W. L., & Huber, L. (2013). PARO robot affects diverse interaction
modalities in group sensory therapy for older adults with dementia. In
Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot
Interaction (pp. 385-392).
Sachs, J.D.; Schmidt-Traub, G.; Mazzucato, M.; Messner, D.; Nakicenovic, N.; Rockström, J.
Six transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 805–814.
Sadovnikova, K., & Chounta, I. A. (2020). Robotics in STEM education: A review
of current practices. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on
Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2020) - Volume 1 (pp. 243-250). SciTePress.
Shively,
K. R., & Farris, A. V. (2021). Robotics in education: A review of uses and opportunities.
The Mathematics Educator, 31(2), 9-28.
Sholeh, muh
I. (2023). Use of big data in education management: Building data powered
decision making. Promis,
4(2), 347–371. https://doi.org/10.58410/promis.v4i2.735
Uluer, P. Akalın, N.; Köse,
H. (2015).A new robotic platform for sign language tutoring. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2015, 7, 571–585.
VanLehn, K., & Jones, R.
M. (2017). Supporting learning from exploratory learning environments with
intelligent tutoring capabilities. In
International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp.
600-603). Springer, Cham.
Vanstone, E. (2022).
How to build a brushbot. https://www.science-sparks.com/how-to-build-a-brushbot/.
