Investigating the effect of reverse engineering pedagogy in K‐12 robotics education

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to explore the effectiveness of reverse engineering pedagogy (REP) and forward project‐based pedagogy (FPP) in K‐12 robotics education. A two‐stage study was conducted in two secondary schools, involving a total of 169 students. Based on the experience of the pilot study (Study 1), we refined the REP and examined its effectiveness through a quasi‐experimental design in the formal study (Study 2), which included four teaching models: the Deconstruction Recovery Model, Troubleshooting Model, Element Minitrim Model, and Structural Innovation Model. Results indicated that students in the REP group performed significantly better and perceived a higher degree of compatibility and creative self‐efficacy than those in the FPP group, which is consistent with the final robotics product evaluation. However, no significant difference was found in the learning attitude towards the course. The research findings highlight the value of REP in robotics education, especially in cultivating creativity and enhance learning performance, however, it needs reasonable planning and design.

Ninth-grade students’ perceptions on the design-thinking mindset in the context of reverse engineering

“…This study demonstrates that, after reverse engineering activities where students are exposed to the internal structure of a bimetal thermostat, the students were more positive about the use of their creative ideas to overcome the engineering design challenge to prototype their own bimetal thermostat. This result is consistent with Zhong et al's (2020) results, indicating that reverse engineering can even better facilitate students' creative self-efficacy (i.e., how they view their own abilities in creative product development) than forward engineering. In fact, as McLellan and Nicholl (2011) noted, tasks involving product analysis (i.e., a key part of reverse engineering) can be used if and only if they are designed to maintain ambiguity and risks in a balanced way.…”

“…Even so, it seems that reverse-engineering activities can enhance students' perceptions about collaboration, as the process encourages them to share ideas, knowledge, and competencies to collaboratively solve an engineering problem. This result also supports Zhong et al (2020), who found that the degree of compatibility within groups of students significantly improved after they had engaged in the process of reverse engineering, which requires them to cooperate and communicate at the beginning when they are trying to figure out how a product functions and works. In contrast to forward engineering activities, in which students can begin with "designing work directly and individually" (Zhong et al, 2020, p. 12), they can have "a conflict with peers in groups that occurred from a dispute about problems or errors and ideas they confronted," especially when "they are not successful in communicating their problem-solving process with others in order to fix the problems" (Chusinkunawut et al, 2020, p. 2).…”

“…Rouse and Rouse (2019), for example, used reverse engineering to introduce engineering concepts to third-grade students. In robotics education at fifth-and sixth-grade levels, Zhong et al (2020) used four pedagogical models of reverse engineering, namely (1) deconstruction and recovery, where students deconstruct and restore a robot, (2) troubleshooting and recovery, where students analyze and solve the problems of a malfunctioning robot, (3) elements minitrim, where students deconstruct a robot and adjust some of its elements, and (4) structural innovation, where students deconstruct a robot and reconstruct its structure. In science education, McGowan et al (2017) described a pedagogical model of reverse engineering which comprises five steps, namely (1) introducing a design challenge, (2) researching everyday solutions, (3) testing everyday solutions, (4) connecting everyday knowledge to scientific concepts, and (5) redesigning and sharing final solutions.…”

“…Thus, product evaluation can potentially cultivate the empathic approach of design thinking. Moreover, in their experimental study, Zhong et al (2020) found that reverse engineering had positive effects on compatibility within students' groups and their creative self-efficacy, implying the development of the collaborative and creative nature of design thinking among students. However, McLellan and Nicholl (2011) observed that presenting a product for students to analyze its features and functions can inhibit creativity, because the students' ideas could be fixed on the given product, leading to design fixation (Schut et al, 2020).…”

A Systematic Review of Creative Self-Efficacy Literature in Education

“…Chang et al (2019) investigated the effect of using computer-aided design application (3D-CAD) on the CSE of high school students. Zhong et al (2020) investigated the effects of reverse engineering pedagogy and forward-looking project-based pedagogy on the CSE of secondary school students in K-12 robotics education using quasiexperimental design. Lin and Wang (2021) used virtual reality in his EFL classroom to facilitate the CSE and intrinsic motivation of university students.…”