Adopting educational robotics and coding to open dialogic spaces in lower secondary education

Main Article Content

Giuseppe Ritella
Fedela Feldia Loperfido
Gianfranco De Giglio
Antonietta Scurani
Maria Beatrice Ligorio

Abstract

This article explores how the adoption of educational robotics, cloud-based animation software, and simplified visual programming software can provide valuable opportunities for dialogic interaction and learning. The potentialities of this type of activity are often overlooked in dialogic investigations. Based on empirical illustration, we discuss how open-ended educational tasks involving the creation of material-digital artifacts can promote the expression of the students’ voices and the emergence of a dialogic space in which both human and non-human Others, as well as chronotropic dynamics and materiality, play a crucial role. To provide a polyphonic account of the dialogical processes detected, we analyzed excerpts from two group interviews with seven lower secondary school students (aged 11-12) and excerpts taken from meetings with their teacher. Our qualitative analysis shows that the technology-mediated activity provided valuable opportunities for opening a dialogic space in which the students could express their own voice in interaction with both human and non-human Others. The material world (including the virtual materiality of computer-generated objects) seems to play a twofold role. First, the resistance of the virtual and material objects can contribute to the opening of a dialogical space between the child and the world; second, the chronotopic relations seem to have an impact on the dialogic learning process. These are valid opportunities for educationally relevant dialogic interaction. They should be cultivated and supported to further advance the pedagogical value of educational robotics and coding.

Article Details

How to Cite
Ritella, G., Loperfido, F. F., De Giglio, G. ., Scurani, A., & Ligorio, M. B. (2022). Adopting educational robotics and coding to open dialogic spaces in lower secondary education. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 10, DT41-DT58. https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2022.466
Section
Special Issue: Digital technologies supporting dialogical education

References

Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2019). Persons pursuing multiple objects of interest in multiple contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 34(1), 1-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10212-018-0400-2
Anagnostopoulos, D., Basmadjian, K., & Mccrory, R. (2005). The decentered teacher and the construction of social space in the virtual classroom. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1699-1729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00539.x
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (Vol. 1). University of texas Press.
Biesta, G. (2012). The educational significance of the experience of resistance: Schooling and the dialogue between child and world. Other education, 1(1), 92-103.
Brown, R., & Renshaw, P. (2006). Positioning students as actors and authors: A chronotopic analysis of collaborative learning activities. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(3), 247-259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca1303_6
Cook, V., Warwick, P., Vrikki, M., Major, L., & Wegerif, R. (2019). Developing material-dialogic space in geography learning and teaching: Combining a dialogic pedagogy with the use of a microblogging tool. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 217-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.12.005
Culpepper, M. K., & Gauntlett, D. (2020). Making and learning together: Where the makerspace mindset meets platforms for creativity. Global Studies of Childhood, 10(3), 264-274.
DiCicco‐Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical education, 40(4), 314-321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x
Grossen, M., & Salazar Orvig, A. (2011). Dialogism and dialogicality in the study of the self. Culture & Psychology, 17(4), 491-509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354067X11418541
Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard educational review, 84(4), 495-504. http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.34j1g68140382063
Hatch, M. (2014). The maker movement manifesto: Rules for innovation in the new world of crafters, hackers, and tinkerers. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Hetherington, L., & Wegerif, R. (2018). Developing a material-dialogic approach to pedagogy to guide science teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(1), 27-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1422611
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Kangas, M. (2010). Creative and playful learning: Learning through game co-creation and games in a playful learning environment. Thinking skills and Creativity, 5(1), 1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2009.11.001
Kim, M. Y., & Wilkinson, I. A. (2019). What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing a pedagogy of classroom talk. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 21, 70-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.02.003
Kumpulainen, K., & Kajamaa, A. (2020). Sociomaterial movements of students’ engagement in a school’s makerspace. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1292-1307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12932
Jung, S. E., & Lee, K. (2021). A young child’s dialogic appropriation of programmable robots. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(1), 394-410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13012
Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically. IAP.
Lock, J., Redmond, P., Orwin, L., Powell, A., Becker, S., Hollohan, P., & Johnson, C. (2020). Bridging distance: Practical and pedagogical implications of virtual Makerspaces. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(6), 957-968. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12452
Mehto, V., Riikonen, S., Hakkarainen, K., Kangas, K., & Seitamaa‐Hakkarainen, P. (2020). Epistemic roles of materiality within a collaborative invention project at a secondary school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1246-1261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12942
Mercer, N., Hennessy, S., & Warwick, P. (2019). Dialogue, thinking together and digital technology in the classroom: Some educational implications of a continuing line of inquiry. International Journal of Educational Research, 97, 187-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.08.007
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Major, L. (Eds.). (2019). The Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education. Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780429441677
Papadakis, S. (2020). Robots and Robotics Kits for Early Childhood and First School Age. iJIM, 14(18), 35. http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v14i18.16631
Paavola, S., & Miettinen, R. (2019). Dynamics of design collaboration: BIM models as intermediary digital objects. Computer supported cooperative work (Cscw), 28(1), 1-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10606-018-9306-4
Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of educational research, 74(4), 557-576. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543074004557
Peppler, K., Halverson, E., & Kafai, Y. B. (Eds.). (2016). Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (Volume 1) (Vol. 1). Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315726519
Pickering, A. (1993). The mangle of practice: Agency and emergence in the sociology of science. American journal of sociology, 99(3), 559-589. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/230316
Pifarré, M. (2019). Using interactive technologies to promote a dialogic space for creating collaboratively: A study in secondary education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 32, 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.01.004
Riikonen, S. M., Kangas, K., Kokko, S., Korhonen, T., Hakkarainen, K., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2020). The Development of Pedagogical Infrastructures in Three Cycles of Maker-Centered Learning Projects. Design and Technology Education, 25(2), 29-49.
Ritella, G., & Ligorio, M. B. (2016). Investigating chronotopes to advance a dialogical theory of collaborative sensemaking. Culture & Psychology, 22(2), 216-231.
Ritella, G., Ligorio, M. B., & Hakkarainen, K. (2016a). Theorizing Space-Time Relations in Education: The Concept of Chronotope. Frontline Learning Research, 4(4), 48-55.
Ritella, G., Ligorio, M. B., & Hakkarainen, K. (2016b). The role of context in a collaborative problem-solving task during professional development. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(3), 395-412.
Ritella, G., & Loperfido, F. F. (2021). Students’ self-organization of the learning environment during a blended knowledge creation course. Education Sciences, 11(10), 580.
Ritella, G., & Sansone, N. (2020). Transforming the space-time of learning through interactive whiteboards: the case of a knowledge creation collaborative task. Qwerty-Open and Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and Education, 15(1), 12-30.
Tan, S. C., Chan, C., Bielaczyc, K., Ma, L., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2021). Knowledge building: aligning education with needs for knowledge creation in the digital age. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1-24.
Vossoughi, S., Hooper, P. K., & Escudé, M. (2016). Making through the lens of culture and power: Toward transformative visions for educational equity. Harvard Educational Review, 86(2), 206-232. http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.86.2.206
Wegerif, R. (2012). Learning to think as becoming dialogue: An ontologic-dialogic account of learning and teaching thinking. In M. B. Ligorio, & M. Ce’sar (Eds.), Interplays between dialogical learning and dialogical self (pp. 27–51). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.