Coding Literature: Mapping Bud, Not Buddy with Ozobots

Participants will be engaged every 5–10 minutes through a variety of strategies. The session begins with a poll and partner discussion, followed by a live Ozobot demo. Most of the time is hands-on: attendees code robots in pairs, troubleshoot with peer support, and share ideas in small groups. Rapid-fire classroom examples keep content lively, and reflection plus an “exit ticket” ensure participants leave with clear, actionable takeaways. 1. Introduction (8 min) Content: Purpose of integrating Ozobots in Language Arts; research and standards alignment (Dr. Betty Nugent). Engagement: Audience poll + quick partner share on technology in their classrooms. 2. Student Testimony & Demonstration (7 min) Content: Two student presenters (with 3+ years of Ozobot experience) share how they have used color coding and block coding for storytelling and mapping. Engagement: Students display prepared codes, run Ozobot demos, and briefly explain their design choices. 3. Teacher Testimony: Bud’s Journey (5 min) Content: Cherryl Drummond shares classroom experience coding Bud Caldwell’s travels in Bud, Not Buddy. Engagement: Demo student-created map; quick Q&A. 4. Hands-On Coding (25 min) Content: Attendees code Ozobots through a sample “Bud Map” using block coding and color codes. Engagement: Peer-to-peer coding in pairs; student and teacher presenters circulate to assist and coach. 5. Cross-Curricular Applications (6 min) Content: Science – sequencing processes (Rosalee Taylor) Grade 2 – story retelling with color codes (Kimberly Nugent) Social Studies – mapping historical journeys (Betty Nugent) Engagement: Attendees jot one “spark” idea for adapting in their subject/grade. 6. Collaborative Design (5 min) Content: Small groups brainstorm adaptations for their classrooms, integrating ideas from both teacher and student presenters. Engagement: Share-outs, quick prototypes exchanged across groups. 7. Wrap-Up (4 min) Content: Reflection on takeaways; digital resources (maps, coding guides, lesson templates) shared. Engagement: Exit ticket—each participant identifies one immediate way they’ll use Ozobots.

Annotated Bibliography: Robotics and Literacy (Ozobots in the Language Arts Classroom) Anwar, S., Bascou, N., Menekse, M., & Kardgar, A. (2019). A Systematic Review of Studies on Educational Robotics. Journal of Peer Education, 9(1), 23–40. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jpeer/vol9/iss1/3 Summarizes research on educational robotics, highlighting benefits for academic learning, social development, and motivation. Supports robotics as an established, effective educational strategy. __________________________________ Lopes, J., & Loureiro, A. (2022). Interaction and Collaboration in Robot-Assisted Language Learning (RALL). Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(8), 1533–1558. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1799821 Examines how learner–robot interactions (turn-taking, scaffolding) affect language learning. While not specific to Ozobots, provides theoretical support for how robotics can support narrative, dialogue, and literacy engagement. __________________________________ Eure, K. D. (2023). Using Ozobots to Learn Character Traits. Doctoral dissertation, Old Dominion University. https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/teachinglearning_etds/81 A design-based research study in a 4th grade classroom integrating Ozobots into literacy lessons on character traits. Provides a concrete example of using Ozobots directly in Language Arts, demonstrating positive engagement and adaptability. __________________________________ Fojtik, R. (2017). The Ozobot and Education of Programming. 15th International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICETA.2017.8102483 Reports on the use of Ozobots in programming education, noting positive teacher perceptions and versatility for different ages. Helpful as background evidence for using Ozobots in classrooms. __________________________ Gubenko, A., et al. (2021). Educational Robotics and Robot Creativity. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8, 686181. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.686181 Discusses how robotics encourages creativity, problem-solving, and design thinking. Can be applied to narrative work in ELA where creativity and story design are central. __________________________________ Hébert, C., et al. (2024). Student Teacher Learning with Ozobots and Makey Makey. Technology, Pedagogy and Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2024.2391302 Explores pre-service teachers’ planning and implementation with Ozobots. Highlights challenges and opportunities for integrating robotics into literacy instruction. Useful for discussing teacher PD and sustainability. __________________________________ Tang, H., Wu, C., & Zhou, Y. (2024). Enhancing Rural Students’ Computer Science Self-Efficacy in a Robotics-Based Language Arts Course. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12875-w This mixed-methods study found that embedding robotics in a Language Arts course significantly increased students’ computer science self-efficacy. Shows benefits of cross-curricular integration of robotics into ELA. __________________________________ Wang, K., Chen, H., & Chang, C. (2023). The Effectiveness of Educational Robots in Improving Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Sustainability, 15(5), 4637. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054637 This meta-analysis reviewed 17 empirical studies on educational robots and found a moderate positive effect (g = 0.57) on student learning outcomes across subjects, including non-STEM. Supports the general claim that robotics interventions can enhance learning and motivation.

It is not necessary to pre-load any applications. We will use the website, https://ozobot.com/create/ozobot-blockly/