Ubiquitous Computing, Mobile Computing and Internet of Things (UMI) technologies, are widely diffused in the everyday life and their diffusion is expected to increase at an exponential pace in the near future. In addition to their primary usage (e.g., supporting the implementation of the future 5G network) these technologies can be used in the context of Science Education. According to this perspective, the innovative psycho-pedagogical approach here presented has been ad-hoc developed for the Horizon 2020 Project “Exploiting Ubiquitous Computing, Mobile Computing and the Internet of Things to promote Science Education” (Umi-Sci-Ed). This EU Project has been approved within on the Horizon 2020 line, in the line “Research and Innovation Actions”. The aim of the project is to enhance knowledge and skills related to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) and to promote positive attitudes towards these disciplines. In order to reach this goal, across five different European Countries, the UMI technologies, framed in the Community of Practices (CoPs) paradigm, will be introduced in the learning process of secondary schools’ students (i.e., 9th and 10th grade). Specifically, the students will attend to innovative learning activities, such as hands on activities, concerning with Networking and networked Robotics, in order to improve their general knowledge about network technologies and architecture of embedded systems. In the present contribution, the theoretical framework that constitutes the rationale for the Umi-Sci-Ed project will be described. Specifically, the “bottom-up” socio-constructionist perspective will be presented, as well as its potential application to STEM’s education. Furthermore, the procedure and the main technological tools (e.g., UDOO) that would be used to implement an integrated STEM learning environment will be specified. The expected results and the practical implications of the project will be discussed.
Keywords: Ubiquitous Computing, Internet of Things Socio-psychological constructionists approaches to STEM, Pedagogical approaches, Individual differences, Epistemic motivations, Gender.
References:
[1] Henderson, C. “Facilitating Change in Undergraduate STEM Instructional Practices: An Analytic Review of the Literature”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Chichester, UK, Wiley Periodicals, 2011, 48, 952-984.
[2] Fraser, B. J., Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. J. (Eds.), “Second international handbook on science education”, New York, Springer, 2012.
[3] Rockland, R., Bloom, D.S., Carpinelli, J., Burr-Alexander, L., Hirsch, L.S., & Kimmel, H., “Advancing the “E” in K-12 STEM education”, Journal of Technology Studies, 2010, 36(1), 53–64.
[4] Ritz, J. M., & Fan, S. C., “STEM and technology education: international state-of-the-art”, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, Springer, 2015, 25(4), 429-451.
[5] Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L., “Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions”, Educational Psychology Review, Springer, 2016, 1-22.
[7] Selwyn, N. “Education and technology: Key issues and debates”, London, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016.
[8] Toh, L. P. E., Causo, A., Tzuo, P. W., Chen, I. M., & Yeo, S. H., “A Review on the Use of Robots in Education and Young Children”, Educational Technology & Society, 2016, 19(2), 148-163.
[12] Barr, R. B., & J. Tagg, “From teaching to learning – A new paradigm for undergraduate education”, Change: The magazine of higher learning, Abingdon, UK, Taylor & Francis, 1995, Nov-Dec, 13–25.
[13] Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. “Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature”, Journal of research in science teaching, Chichester, UK, Wiley Publications, 2011, 48(8), 952-984.
[14] Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H., “Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among US students”, Science Education, Chichester, UK, Wiley Publications, 2011, 95(5), 877-907.
[15] Savelsbergh, E. R., Prins, G. T., Rietbergen, C., Fechner, S., Vaessen, B. E., Draijer, J. M., & Bakker, A., “Effects of innovative science and mathematics teaching on student attitudes and achievement: A meta-analytic study”, Educational Research Review, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 2016, 19, 158-172.
[16] Bronfenbrenner, U., “Ecological models of human development”, International Encyclopedia of Education, Oxford, UK, Elsevier, Vol. 3 (2nd ed.). (Reprinted from Gauvain, M. & Cole, M., Eds. Readings on the development of children,1994, 2nd ed., pp. 37 – 43).
[17] Wenger, E., “Communities of practice: A brief introduction”, University of Oregon, 2011.
[18] Andrews, T., “What is social constructionism”, Grounded theory review, Mill Valley, Sociology Press, 2012, 11(1), 39-46.
[19] Martinez, Sylvia Libow, & Gary Stager, “Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom”, CMK Press, 2013 (p. 59).
Pixel International Conferences
