MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592324990 · doi:10.18260/1-2--19343

Connecting Cognitive Domains of Bloom’s Taxonomy and Robotics to Promote Learning in K-12 Environment

2020· article· en· W2592324990 on OpenAlexfundno aff
James Muldoon, Paul Phamduy, Raymond Le Grand, Vikram Kapila, Magued Iskander

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork UniversityXerox FoundationDirectorate for STEM EducationNew York Space Grant ConsortiumNational Science Foundation
KeywordsConceptualizationTaxonomy (biology)Bloom's taxonomyCognitionComprehensionCognitive scienceDomain (mathematical analysis)Mathematics educationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCognitive skillPsychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Connecting Cognitive Domains of Bloom’s Taxonomy and Robotics to Promote Learning in K-12 EnvironmentLearning as currently represented in our K-12 educational system doesn’t lend itself to effectiveclassroom environments that stimulate the growth of students’ cognitive domain. Instead, manycurrent classroom practices rely on rigid theory, disconnected facts, and computational recipes.Such an approach fails to relate to students’ everyday experiences in life outside the classroom.Consequently, when classroom instruction fails to connect theory/facts/procedures with students’conceptualization of ideas, it results in a loss of significance, i.e., the students can neither recallnor appreciate the significance of their classroom learning. Alternatively, the ability to recalltheory/facts/procedures and their significance allow students to apply ideas more effectively anddevelop higher-order thinking to synthesize new concepts. In Bloom’s taxonomy, learning incognitive domain is categorized from simple to complex behaviors. Specifically, knowledge,comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation are the behaviors that aretypically mastered sequentially due to the nature of their increasing difficulty. Bloom’s methodallows accurate measurement of students’ learning progression through each level of behavior.As behavior at each level is learned sequentially, with each new step in the chain building on itspredecessor, this approach allows the development of a deeper level of understanding andhigher-order thinking. Designing and conducting classroom activities that support the cognitivelearning domains of Bloom’s taxonomy can allow students to develop their fundamental andhigher-order skill sets. Unfortunately, the current educational system exposes students to onlysome but not all of the core cognitive learning categories of Bloom’s taxonomy.In this paper, three concrete illustrations will demonstrate integration of the entire cognitivelearning domain with robotics lessons. The example lessons will address typical educationalobjectives of K-12 science and math disciplines and strengthen students’ ability to learn thesubject material. Three lessons, based on Lego NXT robotics, will be used to transcend agegroups from elementary school to high school levels. For example, one lesson will use a mobilerobot with an ultrasonic sensor to navigate around obstacles. First, to allow students to developknowledge and ability to recall, verbal and visual connections will be drawn between the robot’sultrasonic sensor and a bat’s echolocation. Second, to develop their comprehension, the studentswill perform experiments to establish how the ultrasonic sensor interacts with various objects inthe environment and its effect on measurements. Third, to develop their cognitive domain ofapplication, the students will construct a robot that is capable of movement and uses theultrasonic sensor to interact with its environment. Having addressed the fundamental cognitivelearning domains, the robotics lesson will be used to address students’ higher-order cognitiveskills. First, to allow the development of analysis skills, students will conduct an experimentinvolving the measurement of reaction time and robot behavior when the ultrasonic sensor is setto several different distance thresholds. Second, to develop their synthesis skills, student willemploy the data collected from the previous step and make inferences about rebuilding theirrobot to optimize its abilities to maneuver around obstacles. Finally, to develop their evaluationskills, students will obtain qualitative data on their newly synthesized robot design to determinethe results of their decisions. Such an approach will guide students through the entire cycle ofcognitive domains of Bloom’s taxonomy to ensure that all levels of learning are captured. Thefull version of the paper will include classroom assessment of the aforementioned activities, inelementary, middle, and high school grades, and recommendations for future work.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTeaching and Learning ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207