Developing Visual Prompts for Robotics Education for a Kindergartner with Suspected Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

• In Event: Cultural Responsiveness and Inclusivity in Technology-Oriented STEM Education for Young Children and Teachers

Abstract

This paper presents (a) the process of developing visual prompts for robotics education for a kindergartner, Tim (pseudonym), and (b) the features of the prompts effective for his programming. Tim’s parents suspected Tim might have Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder because of his difficulty focusing on a task and sitting still.
Tim preferred programming a robotic tool, the Bee-Bot, without identifying the necessary command cards despite my repeated verbal instructions. This action led to making repetitive errors and spending much time on programming. As the developer and facilitator of the programming activities, I created visual prompts as mediators to remind him of two critical steps for successful programming: finding the necessary command cards and executing the commands on the Bee-Bot by referring to those cards.
According to Latour (2005), “any thing that does modify a state of affairs by making a difference is an actor” (p. 71), and the actors “extend…to non-human, non-individual entities” (Latour, 1996, p. 369). Meanwhile, controversies arise when actors' roles within the network are questioned (Latour, 2005). To stabilize the controversies, Kumar and Tissenbaum (2022) suggested that actors and their networks should be repeatedly traced, evaluated, and refined to find the mediators. During his programming, I traced how visual prompts “associate, exercise, and persist” (Fenwick & Edwards, 2011, p. 1) with Tim.
This is part of a larger design-based research (DBR) study I conducted with three children (ages 5-6) with neurodiversity. DBR examines theories and practices through the cycles of “iterative analysis, design, and implementation” (Wang & Hannafin, 2005, p. 6). Throughout the DBR cycles, I generated video-recordings, field notes, interviews, and two versions of visual prompts. I conducted a microanalysis of videos (Graue & Walsh, 1998) and artifact analysis (Bar-El & Worsley, 2021) by reviewing the field notes, interview transcripts, and visual prompts.
In Cycle 1, Baseline, I focused on my negotiations with Tim and examined the limitations of verbal instructions. During the presentation, I will illustrate how I developed a prototype of visual prompts to complement my verbal instructions. In Cycle 2, Intervention 1, I examined how the visual prompts and Tim engaged to identify the limitations of the prompts. For example, although the prompts led Tim to listen to my instructions, they were “weakly aligned” (Stuedahl & Smørdal, 2010, p. 24) with Tim, as he still refused to find the command cards. I refined the visual prompts by adopting a pre-teaching strategy (e.g., Prasetiyowati, 2019) for the two programming steps. In Cycle 3, Intervention 2, I used the refined visual prompts and examined their mediative role in Tim’s programming. In my presentation, I will visualize the actor-network stabilizing the controversy (Latour, 2005) in Tim’s programming by illustrating the features of the prompts, which elicited Tim’s verbal acknowledgment of the two steps and led to successful programming.
This study offers insights into how carefully designed instructional materials, including visual prompts, can contribute to inclusive robotics education. Highlighting Tim’s confidence in programming supported by the tailored prompts, the study also challenges deficit perspectives on children with neurodiversity.

Author

• Shinho Kim, Framingham State University