490044 PS Development Spaces (2024W)
Educational Robots and Social Diversity
Continuous assessment of course work
Labels
Registration/Deregistration
Note: The time of your registration within the registration period has no effect on the allocation of places (no first come, first served).
- Registration is open from Mo 02.09.2024 09:00 to Mo 16.09.2024 09:00
- Registration is open from Tu 24.09.2024 09:00 to Mo 30.09.2024 09:00
- Deregistration possible until Fr 18.10.2024 12:00
Details
max. 25 participants
Language: English
Lecturers
Classes (iCal) - next class is marked with N
Der Termin am 4.12.2024 findet im Computational Empowerment Lab statt.
UPDATE 1.10.2024: Der Termin am 6.11.2024 von 9:45-13:00 Uhr entfällt. Ersatztermin 13.11.2024 von 09:45-13:00 Uhr - online.- Wednesday 09.10. 09:45 - 13:00 Seminarraum 7 Sensengasse 3a 2.OG
- Wednesday 23.10. 09:45 - 13:00 Seminarraum 7 Sensengasse 3a 2.OG
- Wednesday 13.11. 09:45 - 13:00 Digital
- N Wednesday 20.11. 09:45 - 13:00 Seminarraum 7 Sensengasse 3a 2.OG
- Wednesday 04.12. 09:45 - 13:00 Ort in u:find Details
- Wednesday 08.01. 09:45 - 13:00 Seminarraum 7 Sensengasse 3a 2.OG
Information
Aims, contents and method of the course
Assessment and permitted materials
Hinweis der SPL:
Die Verwendung von KI-Tools (z. B. ChatGPT) für die Produktion von Texten ist nur dann erlaubt, wenn dies von der Lehrveranstaltungsleitung ausdrücklich gefordert wird (z. B. für einzelne Arbeitsaufgaben).
---------------------
Minimum requirements and assessment standards:
Regular participation (compulsory attendance) is required for a positive overall result. All partial performances must be positively assessed.
1. Final project: 60 points (as a group)
• Oral presentation: 20 points
• Written report (max 5 pages): 20 points
• Digital Story (max 3 minutes film related to the project): 20 points
2. Reflection papers: 20 points (individual)
3. Active engagement in class discussions: 20 points
Die Verwendung von KI-Tools (z. B. ChatGPT) für die Produktion von Texten ist nur dann erlaubt, wenn dies von der Lehrveranstaltungsleitung ausdrücklich gefordert wird (z. B. für einzelne Arbeitsaufgaben).
---------------------
Minimum requirements and assessment standards:
Regular participation (compulsory attendance) is required for a positive overall result. All partial performances must be positively assessed.
1. Final project: 60 points (as a group)
• Oral presentation: 20 points
• Written report (max 5 pages): 20 points
• Digital Story (max 3 minutes film related to the project): 20 points
2. Reflection papers: 20 points (individual)
3. Active engagement in class discussions: 20 points
Minimum requirements and assessment criteria
Minimum requirements and assessment standards:
Regular participation (compulsory attendance) is required for a positive overall result. All partial performances must be positively assessed.
For a positive evaluation of the course, 60 points are required.
1. 100-90 points (very good)
2. 89-81 points (good)
3. 80-71 points (satisfactory)
4. 70-60 points (sufficient)
5. 59-0 points (insufficient)
Regular participation (compulsory attendance) is required for a positive overall result. All partial performances must be positively assessed.
For a positive evaluation of the course, 60 points are required.
1. 100-90 points (very good)
2. 89-81 points (good)
3. 80-71 points (satisfactory)
4. 70-60 points (sufficient)
5. 59-0 points (insufficient)
Examination topics
There is no exam in the course.
Reading list
Literature:
Kafai, Y. B. (2016). From computational thinking to computational participation in K–12education. Communications of the ACM, 59(8), 26–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/2955114
Iversen, O. S., Smith, R. C., & Dindler, C. (2018). From computational thinking to computational empowerment: A 21st century PD agenda. In Proceedings of the 15thParticipatory Design Conference (Volume 1, pp. 1–11).
Pasi Silander, Sini Riikonen, Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, Kai Hakkarainen, (2022). Learning Computational Thinking in Phenomena-Based Co-creation Projects: Perspectives from Finland. Kong S.-C. and Abelson, H. (Eds.). Computational thinking education in K-12. Artificial Intelligence Literacy and Physical Computing. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/13375.003.0008
Christian Dindler, Ole Sejer Iversen, Michael E. Caspersen, Rachel Charlotte Smith. (2022) Computational Empowerment, Kong S.-C. and Abelson, H. (Eds.). Computational thinking education in K-12. Artificial Intelligence Literacy and Physical Computing. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/13375.003.0009
Ju-Ling Shih. (2022). Computational Thinking in the Interdisciplinary Robotic Game: the Charm of STEAM. Kong S.-C. and Abelson, H. (Eds.). Computational thinking education in K-12. Artificial Intelligence Literacy and Physical Computing. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/13375.003.0019
AHMAD KHANLARI (2017). 26. PLAY AND LEARN Build your Robot and Learn Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). J. B. Cummings & M. L. Blatherwick (Eds.), Creative Dimensions of Teaching and Learning in the 21st Century, 261–267
Memet Ucgul, Kursat Cagiltay, (2014). Design and development issues for educational robotics training camps. Int J Technol Des Educ (2014) 24:203–222 DOI 10.1007/s10798-013-9253-9
Y.W. Cheng, P.C. Sun, N.S. Chen, (2018). The essential applications of educational robot: requirement analysis from the perspectives of experts, researchers and instructors. Computers & Education, 126 (2018), pp. 399-416, 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.020
Göbl, B., Guenther, E., A., Kayali, F., & Frauenberger, C. (2023). Situating computational empowerment in formal education: A multi-perspective view. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, Volume 38, ISSN 2212-8689, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100604.
Christian Dindler, Ole Sejer Iversen, Mikkel Hjorth, Rachel Charlotte Smith, Hannah Djurssø Nielsen, (2023). DORIT: An analytical model for computational empowerment in K-9 education. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, Volume 37, ISSN 2212-8689, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100599.
Yüksel-Arslan, P., & Kayali, F. (2023). Exploring Design and Implementation of a Robotic-Coding Camp in Teacher Education. Beitrag in FIE 2023: Frontiers in Education, College Station, Texas, USAThe list can be extended or changed during the course.
Kafai, Y. B. (2016). From computational thinking to computational participation in K–12education. Communications of the ACM, 59(8), 26–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/2955114
Iversen, O. S., Smith, R. C., & Dindler, C. (2018). From computational thinking to computational empowerment: A 21st century PD agenda. In Proceedings of the 15thParticipatory Design Conference (Volume 1, pp. 1–11).
Pasi Silander, Sini Riikonen, Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, Kai Hakkarainen, (2022). Learning Computational Thinking in Phenomena-Based Co-creation Projects: Perspectives from Finland. Kong S.-C. and Abelson, H. (Eds.). Computational thinking education in K-12. Artificial Intelligence Literacy and Physical Computing. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/13375.003.0008
Christian Dindler, Ole Sejer Iversen, Michael E. Caspersen, Rachel Charlotte Smith. (2022) Computational Empowerment, Kong S.-C. and Abelson, H. (Eds.). Computational thinking education in K-12. Artificial Intelligence Literacy and Physical Computing. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/13375.003.0009
Ju-Ling Shih. (2022). Computational Thinking in the Interdisciplinary Robotic Game: the Charm of STEAM. Kong S.-C. and Abelson, H. (Eds.). Computational thinking education in K-12. Artificial Intelligence Literacy and Physical Computing. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/13375.003.0019
AHMAD KHANLARI (2017). 26. PLAY AND LEARN Build your Robot and Learn Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). J. B. Cummings & M. L. Blatherwick (Eds.), Creative Dimensions of Teaching and Learning in the 21st Century, 261–267
Memet Ucgul, Kursat Cagiltay, (2014). Design and development issues for educational robotics training camps. Int J Technol Des Educ (2014) 24:203–222 DOI 10.1007/s10798-013-9253-9
Y.W. Cheng, P.C. Sun, N.S. Chen, (2018). The essential applications of educational robot: requirement analysis from the perspectives of experts, researchers and instructors. Computers & Education, 126 (2018), pp. 399-416, 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.020
Göbl, B., Guenther, E., A., Kayali, F., & Frauenberger, C. (2023). Situating computational empowerment in formal education: A multi-perspective view. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, Volume 38, ISSN 2212-8689, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100604.
Christian Dindler, Ole Sejer Iversen, Mikkel Hjorth, Rachel Charlotte Smith, Hannah Djurssø Nielsen, (2023). DORIT: An analytical model for computational empowerment in K-9 education. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, Volume 37, ISSN 2212-8689, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100599.
Yüksel-Arslan, P., & Kayali, F. (2023). Exploring Design and Implementation of a Robotic-Coding Camp in Teacher Education. Beitrag in FIE 2023: Frontiers in Education, College Station, Texas, USAThe list can be extended or changed during the course.
Association in the course directory
Last modified: Mo 07.10.2024 10:47
This course aims to explore the concept of educational robotics and social diversity from the perspective of media didactics. To extend and deepen their knowledge and understanding of educational robotics and social diversity, students will create a robotic camp for their future students as an alternative learning and teaching method in a diverse social environment. In the robotic camp, students will use Lego Mindstorms kits or the other facilities from the Computational Empowerments lab to create an activity that includes elements of lesson plans. The activity should be interactive, engaging, and incorporate the use of Lego Mindstorms kits and the other tools from the CE-Lab.
At the end of the course, student will be able to:
• Create alternative multiliterate learning and teaching materials such as digital stories and lesson plans.
• design and develop inclusive and engaging educational robotics activities that provide to a diverse audience, considering different learning styles and abilities.
• demonstrate competence in using educational robotic kits or other relevant tools from the Computational Empowerments lab to create functional robotic activities.
• apply the principles of participatory design to involve diverse stakeholders (students, teachers, community members) in the co-design of educational robotics activities, ensuring that their voices and needs are heard.
• collaborate with peers to plan and execute a robotic camp project, demonstrating effective teamwork, communication, and problem-solving skills, while incorporating participatory design and computational thinking principles.