Loading…

Does it “want” or “was it programmed to...”? Kindergarten children’s explanations of an autonomous robot’s adaptive functioning

This study investigates young children’s perspectives in explaining a self-regulating mobile robot, as they learn to program its behaviors from rules. We explore their descriptions of a robot in action to determine the nature of their explanatory frameworks: psychological or technological. We have a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of technology and design education 2008-10, Vol.18 (4), p.337-359
Main Authors: Levy, Sharona T., Mioduser, David
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-ff95eb2a861d3e786164ca0e8f6fd48ce1d830bccbd880cc9fb0bc0265f6a8fb3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-ff95eb2a861d3e786164ca0e8f6fd48ce1d830bccbd880cc9fb0bc0265f6a8fb3
container_end_page 359
container_issue 4
container_start_page 337
container_title International journal of technology and design education
container_volume 18
creator Levy, Sharona T.
Mioduser, David
description This study investigates young children’s perspectives in explaining a self-regulating mobile robot, as they learn to program its behaviors from rules. We explore their descriptions of a robot in action to determine the nature of their explanatory frameworks: psychological or technological. We have also studied the role of an adult’s intervention in their reasoning. The study was conducted individually with six kindergarten children along five sessions that included tasks, ordered by increasing difficulty. We developed and used a robotic control interface. We have found that the children employed two modes of explanation: “engineering” mode focused on the technological building blocks which make up the robot’s operation; “bridging” mode tended to combine and align two explanatory frameworks – technological and psychological. However, this was not consistent across tasks. In the easiest tasks, involving one condition–action rule, most of the children used a technological perspective. When the task became more difficult, most children shifted to a psychological perspective. Further experience in programming was associated with a shift to technological or combined explanatory frameworks. The results are discussed with respect to developmental literature on children’s explanatory frameworks, and with regard to educational implications of incorporating such learning environments in early childhood classes.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10798-007-9032-6
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_36380689</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ808367</ericid><sourcerecordid>36380689</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-ff95eb2a861d3e786164ca0e8f6fd48ce1d830bccbd880cc9fb0bc0265f6a8fb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1u1DAQx60KpC6FB0DqweLALcvY2TjOCaFSPiv10p4txxlvXW3sxXb4uO2dJ0CCl9snqbdBICFxmhn_fzP-j4aQpwyWDKB9kRi0naxKWnVQ80ockQVr2rpiElYPyAK6pq3apuXH5FFKtwBMcNksyPfXARN1me53P79on_e7XzTEubp_38awjnoccaA5LJfLArykH50fMK51zOipuXGbIaLf734kil-3G-11dsEnGizVnuopBx_GMCUaQx_yPacHvc3uM1I7eXOgnV8_Jg-t3iR88juekOs351dn76qLy7fvz15dVKYWba6s7RrsuZaCDTW2JYiV0YDSCjuspEE2yBp6Y_pBSjCms32pgIvGCi1tX5-Q5_PcstunCVNWo0sGN8U4FpeqFrUEIbsCPvsHvA1T9MWb4pxxsWIcCsRmyMSQUkSrttGNOn5TDNThNmq-jTqkh9soUXpO5x6Mzvzhzz9IkGXFIvNZTkXya4x___3_zDtLnqN6</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>221264120</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Does it “want” or “was it programmed to...”? Kindergarten children’s explanations of an autonomous robot’s adaptive functioning</title><source>Education Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</source><source>Springer Nature</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</source><source>ERIC</source><source>Design &amp; Applied Arts Index (DAAI)</source><creator>Levy, Sharona T. ; Mioduser, David</creator><creatorcontrib>Levy, Sharona T. ; Mioduser, David</creatorcontrib><description>This study investigates young children’s perspectives in explaining a self-regulating mobile robot, as they learn to program its behaviors from rules. We explore their descriptions of a robot in action to determine the nature of their explanatory frameworks: psychological or technological. We have also studied the role of an adult’s intervention in their reasoning. The study was conducted individually with six kindergarten children along five sessions that included tasks, ordered by increasing difficulty. We developed and used a robotic control interface. We have found that the children employed two modes of explanation: “engineering” mode focused on the technological building blocks which make up the robot’s operation; “bridging” mode tended to combine and align two explanatory frameworks – technological and psychological. However, this was not consistent across tasks. In the easiest tasks, involving one condition–action rule, most of the children used a technological perspective. When the task became more difficult, most children shifted to a psychological perspective. Further experience in programming was associated with a shift to technological or combined explanatory frameworks. The results are discussed with respect to developmental literature on children’s explanatory frameworks, and with regard to educational implications of incorporating such learning environments in early childhood classes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0957-7572</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-1804</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10798-007-9032-6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Automation ; Child Development ; Childhood Attitudes ; Cognitive Processes ; Computers ; Early Childhood Education ; Education ; Educational Technology ; Educational Theories ; Kindergarten ; Kindergarten students ; Learning and Instruction ; Programming ; Psychology ; Robotics ; Science Education ; Technology Education ; Young Children</subject><ispartof>International journal of technology and design education, 2008-10, Vol.18 (4), p.337-359</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-ff95eb2a861d3e786164ca0e8f6fd48ce1d830bccbd880cc9fb0bc0265f6a8fb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-ff95eb2a861d3e786164ca0e8f6fd48ce1d830bccbd880cc9fb0bc0265f6a8fb3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/221264120/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/221264120?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,12113,21378,21394,27924,27925,33611,33612,33877,33878,34130,43733,43880,74093,74269</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ808367$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Levy, Sharona T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mioduser, David</creatorcontrib><title>Does it “want” or “was it programmed to...”? Kindergarten children’s explanations of an autonomous robot’s adaptive functioning</title><title>International journal of technology and design education</title><addtitle>Int J Technol Des Educ</addtitle><description>This study investigates young children’s perspectives in explaining a self-regulating mobile robot, as they learn to program its behaviors from rules. We explore their descriptions of a robot in action to determine the nature of their explanatory frameworks: psychological or technological. We have also studied the role of an adult’s intervention in their reasoning. The study was conducted individually with six kindergarten children along five sessions that included tasks, ordered by increasing difficulty. We developed and used a robotic control interface. We have found that the children employed two modes of explanation: “engineering” mode focused on the technological building blocks which make up the robot’s operation; “bridging” mode tended to combine and align two explanatory frameworks – technological and psychological. However, this was not consistent across tasks. In the easiest tasks, involving one condition–action rule, most of the children used a technological perspective. When the task became more difficult, most children shifted to a psychological perspective. Further experience in programming was associated with a shift to technological or combined explanatory frameworks. The results are discussed with respect to developmental literature on children’s explanatory frameworks, and with regard to educational implications of incorporating such learning environments in early childhood classes.</description><subject>Automation</subject><subject>Child Development</subject><subject>Childhood Attitudes</subject><subject>Cognitive Processes</subject><subject>Computers</subject><subject>Early Childhood Education</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Educational Technology</subject><subject>Educational Theories</subject><subject>Kindergarten</subject><subject>Kindergarten students</subject><subject>Learning and Instruction</subject><subject>Programming</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Robotics</subject><subject>Science Education</subject><subject>Technology Education</subject><subject>Young Children</subject><issn>0957-7572</issn><issn>1573-1804</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7SW</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>CJNVE</sourceid><sourceid>F29</sourceid><sourceid>M0P</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc1u1DAQx60KpC6FB0DqweLALcvY2TjOCaFSPiv10p4txxlvXW3sxXb4uO2dJ0CCl9snqbdBICFxmhn_fzP-j4aQpwyWDKB9kRi0naxKWnVQ80ockQVr2rpiElYPyAK6pq3apuXH5FFKtwBMcNksyPfXARN1me53P79on_e7XzTEubp_38awjnoccaA5LJfLArykH50fMK51zOipuXGbIaLf734kil-3G-11dsEnGizVnuopBx_GMCUaQx_yPacHvc3uM1I7eXOgnV8_Jg-t3iR88juekOs351dn76qLy7fvz15dVKYWba6s7RrsuZaCDTW2JYiV0YDSCjuspEE2yBp6Y_pBSjCms32pgIvGCi1tX5-Q5_PcstunCVNWo0sGN8U4FpeqFrUEIbsCPvsHvA1T9MWb4pxxsWIcCsRmyMSQUkSrttGNOn5TDNThNmq-jTqkh9soUXpO5x6Mzvzhzz9IkGXFIvNZTkXya4x___3_zDtLnqN6</recordid><startdate>20081001</startdate><enddate>20081001</enddate><creator>Levy, Sharona T.</creator><creator>Mioduser, David</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>8A4</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F29</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20081001</creationdate><title>Does it “want” or “was it programmed to...”? Kindergarten children’s explanations of an autonomous robot’s adaptive functioning</title><author>Levy, Sharona T. ; Mioduser, David</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-ff95eb2a861d3e786164ca0e8f6fd48ce1d830bccbd880cc9fb0bc0265f6a8fb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Automation</topic><topic>Child Development</topic><topic>Childhood Attitudes</topic><topic>Cognitive Processes</topic><topic>Computers</topic><topic>Early Childhood Education</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Educational Technology</topic><topic>Educational Theories</topic><topic>Kindergarten</topic><topic>Kindergarten students</topic><topic>Learning and Instruction</topic><topic>Programming</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Robotics</topic><topic>Science Education</topic><topic>Technology Education</topic><topic>Young Children</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Levy, Sharona T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mioduser, David</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Periodicals</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Design &amp; Applied Arts Index (DAAI)</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Education Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>International journal of technology and design education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Levy, Sharona T.</au><au>Mioduser, David</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ808367</ericid><atitle>Does it “want” or “was it programmed to...”? Kindergarten children’s explanations of an autonomous robot’s adaptive functioning</atitle><jtitle>International journal of technology and design education</jtitle><stitle>Int J Technol Des Educ</stitle><date>2008-10-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>337</spage><epage>359</epage><pages>337-359</pages><issn>0957-7572</issn><eissn>1573-1804</eissn><abstract>This study investigates young children’s perspectives in explaining a self-regulating mobile robot, as they learn to program its behaviors from rules. We explore their descriptions of a robot in action to determine the nature of their explanatory frameworks: psychological or technological. We have also studied the role of an adult’s intervention in their reasoning. The study was conducted individually with six kindergarten children along five sessions that included tasks, ordered by increasing difficulty. We developed and used a robotic control interface. We have found that the children employed two modes of explanation: “engineering” mode focused on the technological building blocks which make up the robot’s operation; “bridging” mode tended to combine and align two explanatory frameworks – technological and psychological. However, this was not consistent across tasks. In the easiest tasks, involving one condition–action rule, most of the children used a technological perspective. When the task became more difficult, most children shifted to a psychological perspective. Further experience in programming was associated with a shift to technological or combined explanatory frameworks. The results are discussed with respect to developmental literature on children’s explanatory frameworks, and with regard to educational implications of incorporating such learning environments in early childhood classes.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s10798-007-9032-6</doi><tpages>23</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0957-7572
ispartof International journal of technology and design education, 2008-10, Vol.18 (4), p.337-359
issn 0957-7572
1573-1804
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_36380689
source Education Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3); Springer Nature; Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3); ERIC; Design & Applied Arts Index (DAAI)
subjects Automation
Child Development
Childhood Attitudes
Cognitive Processes
Computers
Early Childhood Education
Education
Educational Technology
Educational Theories
Kindergarten
Kindergarten students
Learning and Instruction
Programming
Psychology
Robotics
Science Education
Technology Education
Young Children
title Does it “want” or “was it programmed to...”? Kindergarten children’s explanations of an autonomous robot’s adaptive functioning
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T17%3A07%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Does%20it%20%E2%80%9Cwant%E2%80%9D%20or%20%E2%80%9Cwas%20it%20programmed%20to...%E2%80%9D?%20Kindergarten%20children%E2%80%99s%20explanations%20of%20an%20autonomous%20robot%E2%80%99s%20adaptive%20functioning&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20technology%20and%20design%20education&rft.au=Levy,%20Sharona%20T.&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=337&rft.epage=359&rft.pages=337-359&rft.issn=0957-7572&rft.eissn=1573-1804&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10798-007-9032-6&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E36380689%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-ff95eb2a861d3e786164ca0e8f6fd48ce1d830bccbd880cc9fb0bc0265f6a8fb3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=221264120&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ808367&rfr_iscdi=true