Promoting primary school students' creativity via reverse engineering pedagogy in robotics education

被引:11
作者
Liu, Xiaohong [1 ]
Gu, Jianjun [1 ]
Zhao, Li [1 ]
机构
[1] Nanjing Normal Univ, Sch Educ Sci, Nanjing, Peoples R China
关键词
Creativity; Reverse engineering pedagogy; Creative thinking; Robotics education; Creative self -efficacy; THINKING; KNOWLEDGE; DESIGN;
D O I
10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101339
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Creativity is an essential basic skill for students. In this study, the reverse engineering pedagogy (REP) was applied to primary school students' robotics education course, with the aim of investigating the influence of REP and project-based pedagogy (PBP) on the cultivation of students' creativity. A quasi-experimental study that utilized a non-equivalent groups design was conducted with 91 fifth-grade students, comprising a control group (n = 46) who received the PBP intervention, and an intervention group (n = 45) who received the REP intervention. Creative self-efficacy, Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Figural (TTCT-Figural), and assessment of the students' robotic creative products were conducted to evaluate students' creativity. In addition, t tests, ANCOVA, and ANOVA were used to analyze the data to determine whether REP could improve students' creativity better than PBP. The results showed that REP could enhance students' creative self-efficacy and their robotic creative products score more than PBP could, but not the TTCT-Figural score after the confounding effect of fluency was controlled for. In the intervention group, creative self-efficacy and creative thinking were improved after intervention. Overall, REP has more advantages than PBP for promoting primary school students' creativity. The findings of this study provide a reference and teaching strategies guidance for the cultivation of K-12 students' creativity in robotics education.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 88 条
  • [31] Arduino-assisted robotics coding applications integrated into the 5E learning model in science teaching
    Guven, Gokhan
    Cakir, Nevin Kozcu
    Sulun, Yusuf
    Cetin, Gurcan
    Guven, Emine
    [J]. JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION, 2022, 54 (01) : 108 - 126
  • [32] Hair J. F., 2018, Multivariate data analysis, V8th
  • [33] Huang K, 2008, PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASME INTERNATIONAL DESIGN ENGINEERING TECHNICAL CONFERENCES AND COMPUTERS AND INFORMATION IN ENGINEERING CONFERENCE 2007, VOL 6, PTS A AND B, P443
  • [34] Studying interrelations of computational thinking and creativity: A scoping review (2011-2020)
    Israel-Fishelson, Rotem
    Hershkovitz, Arnon
    [J]. COMPUTERS & EDUCATION, 2022, 176
  • [35] The creative student in the eyes of a teacher: A cross-cultural study
    Karwowski, Maciej
    Gralewski, Jacek
    Patston, Timothy
    Cropley, David H.
    Kaufman, James C.
    [J]. THINKING SKILLS AND CREATIVITY, 2020, 35
  • [36] Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity
    Kaufman, James C.
    Beghetto, Ronald A.
    [J]. REVIEW OF GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2009, 13 (01) : 1 - 12
  • [37] Kennedy J, 2016, PROC FRONT EDUC CONF
  • [38] Kim H.K., 2017, Creativity, V4, P302, DOI [DOI 10.1515/CTRA-2017-0015, 10.1515/ctra-2017-0015]
  • [39] Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrance tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT)
    Kim, Kyung Hee
    [J]. CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 2006, 18 (01) : 3 - 14
  • [40] A study of primary school students' interest, collaboration attitude, and programming empowerment in computational thinking education
    Kong, Siu-Cheung
    Chiu, Ming Ming
    Lai, Ming
    [J]. COMPUTERS & EDUCATION, 2018, 127 : 178 - 189