Methodology of training future teachers of computer science and robotics in interdisciplinary communication

Issue 56, 2024

Kaisar Nurlybayev, Yessen Bidaibekov, Indira Bulakbayeva

Received 14.10.2023, Revised 17.02.2024, Accepted 11.04.2024

https://doi.org/10.54919/physics/56.2024.102og1

Abstract

Relevance. The relevance of the research is determined by the fact that the development of the educational process in the field of science and technology is necessary to forereach technological achievements in response to the challenges and changes created by the fourth industrial revolution.

Purpose. This study aims to develop a methodology for training future teachers of computer science and robotics, focusing on interdisciplinary communication. It seeks to address the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical applications in educational settings, preparing educators to integrate new technologies effectively amidst the challenges posed by the fourth industrial revolution.

Methodology. This study employs a competency-based approach to develop a methodology for training future teachers in computer science and robotics, emphasizing interdisciplinary connections within educational contexts. It integrates insights from pedagogical research and international collaborations to enhance robotics education in Kazakhstan.

Results. The study found that integrating robotics and computer science within an interdisciplinary framework enhances students' technical education by fostering critical thinking and problem-solving skills. However, it highlighted challenges such as aligning educational goals and overcoming disciplinary boundaries, necessitating careful planning and adaptation in pedagogical practices.

Conclusions. The research concludes that a well-developed methodology for training future teachers in interdisciplinary communication is essential for modernizing educational curricula in response to technological advancements. By integrating robotics and computer science effectively, educators can better prepare students to navigate and contribute to the evolving landscape of science and technology, ensuring relevance and applicability in their future careers.

Keywords: computer technologies; interdisciplinary connections; integration; pedagogical training; educational process

Suggested citation

Nurlybayev K, Bidaibekov Ye, Bulakbayeva I. Methodology of training future teachers of computer science and robotics in interdisciplinary communication. Sci Herald Uzhhorod Univ Ser Phys. 2024;(56):1021-1030. DOI: 10.54919/physics/56.2024.102og1

Download article

References

  1. Pásztor A. How can IT be taught playfully with the help of programmable robots? Valencia: INTED; 2008.
  2. Kozhagul A, Bidaibekov Y, Bostanov B, Pak N, Kozhagulova Z. Integration of robotics design into the learning process at school. Per Tche Quim. 2020;17(35):404-424.
  3. Chambers JM, Carbonaro M. Designing, developing, and implementing a course on LEGO robotics for technology teacher education. J Tech Teach Ed. 2003;11(2):209-241.
  4. Sisman B, Kucuk S. Educational robotics course: Examination of educational potentials and pre-service teachers’ experiences. Int J Res Ed Sci. 2019;5(2):510-531.
  5. Major L, Kyriacou T, Brereton P. The effectiveness of simulated robots for supporting the learning of introductory programming: A multi-case case study. Comp Sci Ed. 2014;24(2-3):193-228.
  6. Bers MU, Seddighin S, Sullivan A. Ready for robotics: Bringing together the T and E of STEM in early childhood teacher education. J Tech Teach Ed. 2013;21(3):355-377.
  7. Tochácek D, Lapes J, Fuglík V. Developing technological knowledge and programming skills of secondary schools’ students through the educational robotics projects. Proc-Soc Beh Sci. 2016;217:377-381.
  8. Anagnostakis S, Michaelides PG. Laboratory of educational robotics – An undergraduate course for primary education teachers. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Hands-on Science (HSci 2006). Braga: University of Minho; 2006.
  9. Nurbekova ZhK, Mukhamediyeva KM, Davletova AH, Kasymova AH. Methodological system of educational robotics training: Systematic literature review. Espacios. 2018a;39(15):28.
  10. Nurbekova ZhK, Mukhamediyeva KM, Assainova A. Educational robotics technologies in Kazakhstan and in the world: Comparative analysis, current state and perspectives. Astra Salvensis. 2018b;11:665-686.
  11. Avdarsol S, Rakhimzhanova L, Bostanov B, Sagimbaeva A, Khakimova T. Criteria-based assessment as the way of forming students' functional literacy in computer science. Per Tche Quim. 2020;17(35):41-54.
  12. Touretzky DS, Gardner-McCune C. Calypso for Cozmo: Robotic AI for everyone. In: Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. New York: Association for Computing Machinery; 2018.
  13. Eguchi A. What is educational robotics? Theories behind it and practical implementation. In: Gibson D, Dodge B, editors. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010. Chesapeake: AACE; 2010.
  14. Piaget J. To understand is to invent. New York: Basic Books; 1974.
  15. Papert S, Harel I. Constructionism. New York: Ablex Publishing Corporation; 1991.
  16. Benitti FBV. Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Comp Ed. 2012;58(3):978-988.
  17. Detsikas N, Alimisis D. Status and trends in educational robotics worldwide with special consideration of educational experiences from Greek schools. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution and Perspectives. Tallinn: Tallinn University; 2011.
  18. Litinas A, Alimisis D. Planning, implementation and evaluation of lab activities using robotic technology for teaching the phenomenon of motion. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Pan-Hellenic Conference “Integration and Use of ICT in Educational Process”. Piraeus: HAICTE & University of Piraeus; 2013.
  19. Alimisis D, editor. Teacher education on robotics-enhanced constructivist pedagogical methods. Athens: School of Pedagogical and Technological Education; 2009.
  20. Alcácerac V, Cruz-Machado V. Scanning the Industry 4.0: A literature review on technologies for manufacturing systems. Eng Sci Tech Int J. 2019;22:899-919.
  21. Dabu CM. Computer science education and interdisciplinarity. Sci Ed Res New Tech. 2017;31(4):115-127.
  22. Stukalenko N, Murzina SA, Kramarenko BV, Yermekova ZhK, Rakisheva GM. Implementation of competence approach in the professional education of prospective teachers in the higher education conditions. Int Rev Man Mark. 2016;6(S3):175-181.
  23. Snopkova EI. The relevance of an interdisciplinary approach in pedagogical research: Scientific rationale. Int Ed. 2015;19(1):111-117.
  24. OECD. New millennium learners: a project in progress optimising learning: implications of learning sciences research; 2008. www.oecd.org/dataoecd/39/51/40554230.pdf.
  25. Jimoyiannis A. The new curriculum for informatics literacy in compulsory education: From design to implementation. In: Bratitsis T, editor. Proceedings of the 6th Pan-Hellenic Conference “Didactics of Informatics”. Thessaloniki: Hellenic Association of ICT in Education; 2012.
  26. Sullivan FR, Moriarty MA. Robotics and discovery learning: Pedagogical beliefs, teacher practice, and technology integration. J Tech Teach Ed. 2009;17(1):109-142.
  27. Blikstein P. Digital fabrication and “making” in education: The democratization of invention. In: Herrmann JW, Bόching C, editors. FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors. Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers; 2013.
  28. Resnick M. Sowing the seeds for a more creative society. Learn Lead Tech. 2007;35(4):18-22.
  29. Demo GB, Moro M, Pina A, Arlegui A. In and out of the school activities implementing IBSE and constructionist learning methodologies by means of robotics. In: Barker BS, Nugent G, Grandgenett N, Adamchuk V, editors. Robots in K-12 education: A new technology for learning. Hershey: IGI Global; 2012.
  30. Papert S. Computer criticism vs. technocentric thinking. Ed Res. 1987;16(1):22-30.
  31. DiSessa AA. Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2000.
  32. Rusk N, Resnick M, Berg R, Pezalla-Granlund M. New pathways into robotics: Strategies for broadening participation. J Sci Ed Tech. 2008;17:59-69.
  33. Lu CM, Kang S, Huang SC, Black JB. Building student understanding and interest in science through embodied experiences with LEGO robotics. In: Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2011. Waynesville: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education; 2011.
  34. De Koning BB, Tabbers HK. Facilitating understanding of movements in dynamic visualizations: An embodied perspective. Ed Psych Rev. 2011;23:501-521.
  35. Resnick M, Berg R, Eisenberg M. Beyond black boxes: Bringing transparency and aesthetics back to scientific investigation. J Learn Sci. 2000;9(1):7-30.
  36. Kynigos C. Black-and-white-box perspectives to distributed control and constructionism in learning with robotics. In: Proceedings of SIMPAR workshops 2008. Piscataway: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.; 2018.
  37. Bredenfeld A, Hofmann A, Steinbauer G. Robotics in education initiatives in Europe: Status, shortcomings and open questions. In: Menegatti E, editor. Proceedings of International Conference on Simulation, Modeling and Programming for Autonomous Robots (SIMPAR 2010) Workshops. Darmstadt: Springer; 2010.
  38. Barker BS, Ansorge J. Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. J Res Tech Ed. 2017;39(3):229-243.
  39. Jormanainen I, Sutinen E. Using data mining to support teacher's intervention in a robotics class. In: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Fourth International Conference on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning. Washington: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.; 2012.
Make a Submission

Indexing

info@physics.uz.ua