3.2. Qualitative Study
Below, we present the analysis of the open questions, broken down by questions and evidence of the participants’ discourse will be presented (P1, P2, P3, …, Pi “i” stands for the code assigned for each of the participants).
The process of categorization of the analyzed units showed evidence of suggested actions in the participants’ discourses that derived implicitly from any of the didactic suitability criterion (or from some of their components or indicators).
In
Figure 1, the results obtained from the first open question “What suggestions would you provide to the teacher to address the start, development and ending of the class?” are stated.
As it can be inferred from
Figure 1, the criterion that gathers much of the percentage analyzed units is the “interactional” one, that encloses a 70% of the action recommendations given by the participants for the implementation of the assignment. Such recommendations are mainly focused on the teacher-student interaction. Furthermore, some examples of the analyzed units related to this criterion:
P13: Introduce questions connected with pattern sequences and perform an activity with the classroom in which the students must follow patterns.
P44: Using the work of the students randomly picked out and through guided questions, make a summary of the work performed in class.
P70: Consider every idea given by the children, even if they are not correct. Let there be communication.
P67: The teacher explains how to move Blue-Bot, with clear and concise instructions.
P81: It will be observed if it (the robot) made all the respective stops in each flower; if not, then some questions will be made in order to identify their errors and be able to correct them.
Additionally, the cognitive and mediational criteria have also obtained a high percentage (55% in each) in the participants’ discourse. In terms of the cognitive criterion, it can be observed that the analysis units are focused on producing actions that allow the recognition from the students of their previous knowledge, this can be observed in the following examples:
P15: For the start, I would find out what the students know about the objective and by asking them questions inquire into their knowledge.
P24: Be clear that the students know the patterns and sequences.
P67: Activate previous knowledge regarding the use of the math robot.
P71: At the beginning, I conducted a brainstorm of the concepts to work on.
P79: Activated previous knowledge on the use of patterns. The students can explain the pattern of simpler activities.
In the mediational criterion, the analyzed units are focused on the use of additional resources beyond the use of the robot, the classroom’s conditions (physical space and number of students) and time management, as evidenced in the following examples:
P41: Show them a video to activate the previous knowledge.
P49: A video is introduced along with a similar activity for the students to know the use of the robot.
P7: To address the class’s objective properly, I would recommend my colleague to consider the space defined for the activity (…).
P16: represent other paths in the classroom.
P30: For starting, I would recommend giving the students some time to observe the image (…).
Regarding the emotional criterion, the participants made comments on actions that can motivate the students, i.e.:
P4: Perform a pattern recreational activity, for example, create rhythmic patterns with applauses.
P13: Additionally, they can jump and move forward from flower to flower imagining they are the bee.
P22: Conduct an adequate motivation to challenge them to work in class.
P76: At the beginning of the class, I would recommend doing a game based on the exercise of the students being the bee and where they must move accordingly to the images in the classroom floor and where they’ll have to count how many jumps they have performed in order to reach one place or the other.
Regarding the epistemic criterion, most of the comments highlighted the fact that the use of Blue-Bot would improve the generalization and formulation of guesswork.
P3: Show them different patterns through the robot; show them how it identifies, show them the images of the flower and the bee so that the students can position the robot in each of the images, and then they will name the pattern that the robot followed to pass through each image and the rest of the students can guess the formed pattern, i.e., flower, bee, flower, bee.
P13: Use the educational robot that moves from the bee towards each of the flowers, where the student will have to identify the pattern followed by the robot.
P22: I consider the importance of the modelling, step by step in real time (about 7 min).
P34: I would recommend the development of group thinking about the instructions created, which could be discussed later where the students can communicate and argue about their experience during the activity.
P37: For the ending, the students should state the different alternatives of the patterns that they used in order to solve each of the given situations, modelling and reasoning their choices.
Regarding the ecological criterion, there were less comments than those reported in the other criteria; nevertheless, they are relevant since they suggest connecting the robot’s activity with other topics, i.e., studying bees and pollination.
P31: Comment on the bees’ characteristics and their pollination process.
P68: It cannot be overlooked the importance of coordinating with other syllabus, using the bee activity with Natural Sciences and the importance of using them for our planet.
P84: Before presenting the activity, it would be important to associate it with the science class and the patterns observed, giving emphasis with the bees’ life (extracts from the movie Bee Movie could be used, where patterns of the bees’ conducts are shown).
Alternatively, in
Figure 2 the benefits that would derive from performing activities that allow the introduction of robots in the mathematics’ teaching and learning process are noted; acknowledged in the teachers’ discourse when replying to the question of “What benefits would have the use of the pedagogical robot during a math class?”.
In
Figure 2, it can be observed that the affective suitability didactic criterion is the one that had more mentions in the analyzed units, followed by the cognitive criterion. As for the analyzed units related to the affective criterion, we observed that they relate primarily with the students’ needs and interests:
P3: The benefit would be the motivation towards the classes, a very much active learning by the children, participatory, where they can learn through games and technology, which is what nowadays motivates them the most.
P48: I think that the pedagogical robot would help a lot in my classes because students would be more motivated.
P79: To learn through games makes learning much more amicable.
In turn, the analyzed units related to the cognitive criterion are mainly related to the benefits of the use of the robot to enhance the mathematical learning (learning component of this criterion):
P2: All those related to cognitive development in a whole range of possibilities that comprise mathematical skills.
P47: Learning through errors and realizing mathematical concepts.
P83: It is a rich learning process, cerebrally speaking, because the logical actions provoked in the children does not happen through the traditional process of learning mathematics.
Even though most of the benefits are related to the affective and cognitive suitability criteria, the other criteria: mediational, ecological, interactional and epistemic, respectively, are also valued as for their benefits.
P46: It would be a definite, visual, motivational means of interaction, worked through trial-and-error. The game is introduced; it gathers the group within the class.
P48: It would be an innovative tool, something that will catch their attention because it is not a common element in class.
P70: The conversation (interaction) and the recollection of ideas will be the elements which will solve the problem presented.
P40: It would be a powerful tool to develop mathematical skills in my students.
Finally, in
Figure 3, the difficulties that would derive from conducting actions that would allow the introduction of robots in the mathematics learning and teaching process are presented, observed in the teacher’s discourses as a result of the question: “What difficulties might be experienced while using the pedagogical robot during a math class?”.
As for the difficulties, in general terms it is observed that the units analyzed focused on the teaching dimension, mainly in the mediational criterion with a 57%. In said criterion, it is evidenced that the analyzed units aim their discourse primarily towards the number of students and the space of the classroom, as exemplified below:
P12: I think that the main difficulty manifests in terms of the number of students per classroom and the little (or no) space in which we must develop the playful activities that imply teamwork.
P19: The problem would be that due to the great number of students in the classroom, the development of the class would be complicated. Not every student would be able to manipulate it. Moreover, we do not have enough room to use it.
P46: The room in my classroom is small: I have 23 students, and the teacher and assistant interact in the same space.
P56: The biggest difficulty is the big number of the class and the little room inside the classroom to perform the work.
P60: The number of students is high for just one person in charge of said group of people. Additionally, it would be ideal to have a special area designed for this type of robotic classroom.
Even though most of the difficulties are related to the mediational suitability criteria, other difficulties associated with the rest of the criteria are valued, except for the epistemic criterion. Next, we present some of the comments related to the affective, ecological, cognitive, and interactional criteria, respectively.
P70: That the students are not motivated to learn.
P22: The teacher’s preparation in regards this type of resource and maybe the costs of its introduction.
P52: Maybe the handling of the robot is not as understandable to everyone.
P79: Not giving the instructions clearly enough may cause conflict among the students; nevertheless, this will depend on the group management and the clarity of the explanation from the teacher in charge.