Cited by 218Educational Robotics and EngineeringScience Education and PedagogyTeaching and Learning Programming

Acquisition of Physics Content Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry Skills in a Robotics Summer Camp

Williams, Douglas C., Ma, Yuxin, Prejean, Louise, Ford, Mary Jane, Lai, Guolin·2007·Journal of Research on Technology in Education

Abstract

Despite the growing popularity of robotics competitions such as FIRST LEGO League, robotics activities are typically not found in regular K–12 classrooms. We speculate that, among other reasons, limited adoption is due to the lack of empirical evidence demonstrating the effect of robotics activities on curricular goals. This paper presents a mixed methods study exploring the impact of a summer robotics camp on middle school students’ physics content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills. It was found that the camp enhanced students’ physics content knowledge but failed to improve their skills in conducting scientific inquiry. Qualitative data provided an explanation of the findings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15391523.2007.10782505

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Williams et al. (2007) found no statistically significant differences when comparing pre-test and post-test scores for the scientific inquiry measure.

    “However, no statistically significant differences were found when comparing pre-test and post-test scores for the scientific inquiry measure.”

    From A Systematic Review of Studies on Educational Robotics (2019) · cites this paper as Williams et al., 2007

  • Williams et al. (2007) found a significant difference in physics content knowledge measured by pre-tests and post-tests (M pre = 8.40; M post = 9.75; p = 0.004).

    “The analysis indicated a significant difference of physics content knowledge measured by pre-tests and post-tests (M pre 5 8.40; M post 5 9.75; p 5 0.004).”

    From A Systematic Review of Studies on Educational Robotics (2019) · cites this paper as Williams et al., 2007

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Williams, D. C., Ma, Y., Prejean, L., Ford, M. J., & Lai, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Louisiana at Lafayette (US)
  • Georgia State University (US)
Venue
Journal of Research on Technology in Education
Published
2007-12
Volume
40
Issue
2
Pages
201-216
ISSN
  • 1539-1523 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-0818
OpenAlex
W2562691818
Cited by
218
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 9
FWCI
3.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Research on Technology in Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Educational Robotics and Engineering
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
Keywords
robotics education, summer camps, scientific inquiry skills, junior high school students, FIRST LEGO League, STEM education, informal science learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review