Linda 

Daniela Editor

Smart
Learning with
Educational
Robotics
Using Robots to Scaffold Learning
Outcomes
Smart Learning with Educational Robotics
Linda Daniela
Editor

Smart Learning with

Educational Robotics
Using Robots to Scaffold Learning Outcomes
Editor
Linda Daniela
Faculty of Education, Psychology, & Art
University of Latvia
Rīga, Latvia

ISBN 978-3-030-19912-8    ISBN 978-3-030-19913-5 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19913-5

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Foreword

The prosperity of today’s societies depends on the capacity of educators to deal with
the changes and increasing complexity of the educational needs of the twenty-first-­
century citizens. Our society is dependent on the technological development.
Therefore, it would be logical for educational institutions to promote digital literacy
that goes beyond learning technology as users or consumers. They should teach
basic skills that will allow new generations to become technology producers. This
monograph explains that infusing robotics into the curriculum would help to reach
this target. Educational robotics facilitate smart learning because technology is used
to empower learners to develop innovative talents that involve computational think-
ing, programming skills, and collaboration in the construction of robots.
Thus, it is not surprising that instruction through robotics has received increasing
attention from educators all over the world, especially in recent years, regardless of
the educational level. Many education professionals have begun to accept the chal-
lenge of incorporating robotics into life in educational institutions due to their edu-
cational benefits. However, educational robotics is an area that is still in an initial
phase of development. Today, not all educators are prepared to implement robotics
in the classroom. Therefore, it is advantageous to organise, synthesise, and com-
municate updated knowledge about educational robotics, in order to make it easier
for novice educators in educational robotics to understand teaching supported by
robots in the classroom and provide experts with other perspectives and avant-garde
lines of work.
Professor Linda Daniela is correct in identifying the need to elaborate a mono-
graph on educational robotics. The monograph entitled Intelligent Learning with
Educational Robotics has a different focus from other manuals on smart learn-
ing. It brings together experts in educational robotics from different parts of the
world with the purpose of explaining the value of educational robotics in address-
ing the challenges of learning and teaching in the twenty-first century. This
monograph offers a theoretical and updated review that will allow the reader to
understand what is meant by educational robotics, its history, types, and educa-
tional benefits. In addition, the work offers a broad and diverse set of experiences
and ideas at different educational levels, providing insight into the efficient

v
vi Foreword

implementation of educational robotics. There is no doubt that reading this book

will contribute to the satisfaction of education professionals who want to know
about the current advances in educational robotics in order to better prepare
future generations.

Gutiérrez Braojos Calixto
Department of Research Methods in Education 
University of Granada, Granada, Spain
Foreword

The last decades have been exciting with regard to innovations and technology
advancement for education. However, it is also a challenging time for learning
designers, teachers, and educational researchers, ensuring that students are ready
for an ever-changing world and fully capable of becoming tomorrow’s progressive
leaders, productive workers, and responsible citizens.
The dawn of the first educational robot can be traced back to the late 1960s. Not
only the robot technology has been advanced over the last 50 years, but also the
pedagogical approaches and methodologies have been further developed.
Recently, robots have become increasingly popular as an educational tool for
various age groups ranging from preschool to primary school over K–12 classrooms
to graduate university education. Also, the targeted learning outcomes utilising edu-
cational robots are broad, including general interest in science and technology, sup-
porting and enhancing STEAM learning activities, as well as fostering specialised
applications such as software engineering or control theory. The pedagogical
orchestration of educational robots includes teacher-led demonstrations, guided
workshops, or discovery and problem-solving scenarios. The learning activities are
often multifaceted including design, construction, and programming for solving a
specific problem.
Empirical research focussing on educational robots have documented a greater
engagement of students in STEAM learning activities. Other empirical studies show
support for critical thinking and complex problem-solving and increased compre-
hension of complex concepts and procedures. In addition, as artificial intelligence
for robots is further developed, data analytics, adapted behaviour to specific learn-
ing needs, and enhanced social interaction, including educational robots, are cur-
rently a focal point of empirical research.
In this edited volume, Smart Learning with Educational Robotics, Professor
Linda Daniela brings together international experts on educational robotics show-
casing their latest concepts, methodologies, and empirical findings. The contribu-
tions focus on students from early childhood to higher education. The chapter
authors use  empirical research methodologies,  including  existing, experimental,
and emerging conceptual frameworks,  from various fields, in order to tackle

vii
viii Foreword

p­ henomena for understanding learners’ cognitive functions, optimal learning design

for educational robotics classrooms, or increasing acceptance and adoption of edu-
cational robotics among teachers. Further examples include advancing learning
beyond the classroom walls, the design of competitive environments for learning, or
building confidence and interest among students through educational robotics.
The synthesis of the latest innovations and fresh perspectives on pedagogical
constructs makes Smart Learning with Educational Robotics a cutting-edge reading
for the researchers and educators in educational robotics, STEAM education, and
beyond. Despite the potential and applications of educational robotics being show-
cased in this edited volume, it is imperative to note that a meaningful integration of
educational robotics in pedagogical scenarios shall have a supporting purpose for
learning processes, knowledge construction, and learning outcomes.
Dirk Ifenthaler (http://www.ifenthaler.info) is Professor and Chair of Learning,
Design, and Technology at the University of Mannheim, Germany, and UNESCO
Deputy Chair of Data Science in Higher Education Learning and Teaching at Curtin
University, Australia. His previous roles include Professor and Director, Centre for
Research in Digital Learning, at Deakin University, Australia; Manager of Applied
Research and Learning Analytics at Open Universities, Australia; and Professor for
Applied Teaching and Learning Research at the University of Potsdam, Germany.
He was a 2012 Fulbright Scholar in Residence at the Jeannine Rainbolt College of
Education, University of Oklahoma, USA. His research focuses on the intersection
of cognitive psychology, educational technology, data analytics, and organisational
learning. His research outcomes include numerous coauthored books, book series,
book chapters, journal articles, and international conference papers, as well as suc-
cessful grant funding in Australia, Germany, and USA. He is the Editor in Chief of
the Springer journal Technology, Knowledge and Learning (www.springer.
com/10758) and Editorial Board Member of several international journals.

Dirk Ifenthaler
University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
Curtin University, Perth, Australia
Preface

Progress in technology development creates new opportunities as well as new chal-

lenges for the educational environment, as it has to be able to transform the learning
process so as to prepare the future generations for life and work with technology,
both by using the opportunities created by technology and by creating new techno-
logical solutions. Despite the frequent slogans that technology will deprive people
of their jobs, it is clear that technological progress is driven by people’s innovative
thinking and creative solutions, but people need to be ready for collaboration with
technology. It is essential for the educational environment to accept this progress
and offer innovative learning methods so that students can develop computational
thinking, creative thinking, and digital competence. Educational researchers have
come to the conclusion that it is not only technology and technological solutions
that are important, but also the students’ readiness to learn. Smart learning was
defined by Spector (2014) as the scenario where technological possibilities are
added to the learning environment and are able to support students’ learning.
Daniela (2019) has defined SMART pedagogical principles, where, when working
with a technology-enhanced learning environment, it is important to take into
account not only technological advances but also the developmental peculiarities
and learning taxonomies and use innovative pedagogical methods to facilitate the
learning process in a technology-enhanced environment where the knowledge con-
struction process is provided.
One of the possibilities to make the learning process creative, innovative, and, at
the same time, an asset that promotes the acquisition of current skills and compe-
tences is by using robotics, where new solutions are created that promote learning.
These ideas were initiated by Papert in developing constructionism ideas and using
the Logo language in the learning process (Papert 1980), thus attempting to prove
that the education process can be successfully enhanced by active learning and offer
students a variety of hands-on activities with computers and other topical
technologies.
Nowadays, the ideas for incorporating robotics activities into the learning pro-
cess are no longer a novelty, but there is still the question of how to use them to
promote the development of certain competencies and which pedagogical principles

ix
x Preface

should be taken into account in order to improve the students’ motivation to look for
new innovative solutions that need to be considered to ensure inclusive education in
reality, rather than to try to involve everyone in innovative activities, sometimes
without thinking about the specific needs of the students (Daniela and Lytras 2018).
There are different approaches in the classification of robots, one of which is to
define the three groups: (i) industrial robots, (ii) assistive robots, and (iii) educational
robots. It is not always easy to classify the robots into one of the three groups, but the
important issue is that there are huge variety of them and we have to face the reality
that students have to learn about them, about the possibilities that one can achieve by
programming, about what ethical and legal aspects we have to consider, and about
how we can ensure sustainable development and how we can support progress.
The present book, Smart Learning with Educational Robotics: Using a Robot to
Scaffold Learning Outcomes, provides ideas on how educational robotics (ER) can
be used both for working with students in compulsory education and for analyzing
the use of educational robotics in higher education. The authors of the chapters have
also tried to analyze the students’ cognitive development during activities with ER,
thus emphasizing the possibilities of using robotics to promote learning and to help
develop competences that are important today, where it is necessary to understand
how different technologies work, how they can be used to make people’s lives eas-
ier, and how technology and technological solutions can be used to help students to
construct their knowledge. The authors discuss the possibilities of how ER can be
classified, and the book concludes with a proposed ER taxonomy.
This book, with its ideas discussed by various authors, offers some insight into
the topicalities of ER, but it is also clear that it is still an area that is in a continuous
developmental phase and it is necessary to continue researching outcomes from the
perspective of knowledge and competence development, as well as from the per-
spective of the risks that we face. The academics should continue the development
of evaluation tools to provide proofs on outcomes and propose solutions to mitigate
the possible risks which are stressed in the European Civil Law Rules in Robotics
(Nevenjans 2017).
There are 15 chapters included in the book. A brief description of each of the
chapters follows.
Dave Catlin, in his chapter “Beyond Coding: Back to the Future with Education
Robots,” explores the history of education robots – specifically the ideas of Seymour
Papert – and suggests that as technology develops, the need for coders will (in the
long term) dwindle, but the power of robots to help educate children for the future
will increase.
In the next chapter, “Educational Robotics for Reducing Early School Leaving
from the Perspective of Sustainable Education,” Linda Daniela and Raimond Strods
analyze the possibilities of ER from the perspective of sustainable education. It is
concluded that the use of ER enhances the motivation to learn in students at high
risk of early school leaving and encourages them to construct knowledge actively
and independently, thus reducing their risk of early school leaving and, in the long
term, ensuring the achievement of the 4th Sustainable Development Goal, particu-
larly with regard to sustainable education.
Preface xi

David Scaradozzi, Laura Screpanti, and Lorenzo Cesaretti, in their chapter

“Towards a Definition of Educational Robotics: A Classification of Tools,
Experiences and Assessments,” analyze the scientific literature reporting experi-
ences in the field of ER. They provide a broad classification of experiences on the
use of robots for education, a classification of the available robots used in the ER
context, and a classification of existing evaluation methods to carry out the assess-
ment of ER activities. Starting from the distinction between robotics in education
(RiE) and ER, this chapter contributes to the discussion of what ER means and
consists of.
The chapter “Introducing Maker Movement in Educational Robotics: Beyond
Pre-Fabricated Robots and ‘Black Boxes’” by Dimitris Alimisis, Rene Alimisi,
Dimitriοs Loukatos, and Emmanouil Zoulias introduces the ideas developed during
the eCraft2Learn project, where they researched, designed, piloted, and evaluated
an ecosystem intended to introduce digital fabrication and maker movement in for-
mal and informal education, in order to make robots transparent for children and
finally help them make their own robotic artifacts.
In their chapter “Modbloq: Design of a Modular Robot made with 3D Printing
for Educational Purposes,” Pedro de Oro and Silvia Nuere propose the design and
explain how to make a modular prototype educational robot. They conclude that the
physical characteristics of the design, as well as the programming language chosen,
make it interesting for educational purposes, both for primary and secondary
education.
Francisco Bellas, María Salgado, Teresa F. Blanco, and Richard J. Duro, in their
chapter “Robotics in Primary School: A Realistic Mathematics Approach,” present
a methodology, based on realistic mathematics, for the integration of ER in primary
schools. This methodology was tested during one semester at the Sigüeiro Primary
School (Spain) in the subject of mathematics with students of different ages, rang-
ing from 7 up to 11 years old. Two different educational robots, with different fea-
tures, were used to highlight that the methodology is independent of the robotic
platform used.
The chapter “Crab Robot: A Comparative Study Regarding the Usage of Robotics
in STEM Education” by Icleia Santos, Elaine Cristina Grebogy, and Luciano
Frontino de Medeiros explains how to use the crab robot design as it is of very low
complexity, is really inexpensive, has quick application, and allows the students to
engage in a project that also reuses materials, making an appropriate connection
between the discipline of science with environmental education.
The authors of the chapter “Innovative Tools for Teaching Marine Robotics, IoT
and Control Strategies Since the Primary School” present a project developed to
teach robotics, STEM, and the Internet of Things (IoT). Moreover, by directly
involving people in themes about the marine environment, they raise awareness and
provide knowledge about roboethics, blue careers, and ocean literacy.
In the chapter “Robot Programming to Empower Higher Cognitive Functions in
Early Childhood,” the authors describe a new approach in ER aimed at empowering
higher cognitive functions in school. They conclude that the available evidence has
suggested that robot programming could be a powerful tool for improving EFs.
xii Preface

However, in order to be effective, it must be used by embedding EF exercises within

an area of major cognitive development for a certain age group or within a domain
that is dysfunctional for a certain disorder.
In the chapter “Activities With Educational Robotics: Research Model And Tools
For Evaluation Of Progress,” Linda Daniela, Raimonds Strods, and Ilze France pro-
vide a research model and five research tools (structured observation protocol, eval-
uation of the possible risks of early school leaving to be filled in by the teachers
before and after activities, students’ questionnaires to be filled in before and after
activities) for evaluating the outcomes of organized after-school robotics activities.
The research model and tools were tested and approbated by students who are at
risk of early school leaving and students who participated in robotics activities to
develop computational thinking.
The chapter “The Use of Robotics for STEM Education in Primary Schools:
Teachers’ Perceptions” by Ahmad Khanlari aims to better understand elementary
teachers’ perspectives on the use of robotics for STEM education. The results
obtained during the research indicated that the participants’ perceptions changed as
a result of participating in the workshop, learning about robotics, and being involved
in hands-on robotics activities.
Mounir Ben Ghalia, in his chapter “Using Robots to Introduce First-Year College
Students to the Field of Electrical Engineering,” describes the curriculum of an
introductory course for first-year students in an electrical engineering program. He
concludes that although most of the first-year students did not have a background in
robot programming, it is possible to guide them to write programs that solved com-
plex robot navigation challenges.
The following chapter, “Designing a Competition Robot as a Capstone Project
for Electrical and Computer Engineering Students,” provides an insight into
robotics-­based capstone design projects and comes to the conclusion that designing
and building robots for capstone design projects support a number of student learn-
ing outcomes. These include the following: (i) the ability to apply engineering
design to produce solutions that meet specified needs; (ii) the ability to function
effectively in a team whose members together provide leadership, create a collab-
orative and inclusive environment, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet objectives;
(iii) the ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences; and (iv) the
ability to create and use software both as an analysis and design tool and as part of
systems containing hardware and software.
Ivana Đurđević Babić, in her chapter, focuses on students who are trained for
teaching educational programming languages but who did not have a lot of or any
opportunity to work with educational robots. Since ER is gaining more attention at
all levels of education, it is almost certain that they will have the desire, but also the
need, to use ER in some segment of their future work.
The concluding chapter is prepared by experts of ER who propose an “EduRobot
Taxonomy” and briefly explain its ideas and arguments before using it to classify
some of the robots cited in this book.

Rīga, Latvia   Linda Daniela

Preface xiii

References

Daniela, L. (2019). Smart pedagogy for technology enhanced learning. In L.  Daniela (Ed.),
Didactics of smart pedagogy: Smart pedagogy for technology enhanced learning (pp. 3–22).
Cham: Springer.
Daniela, L., & Lytras, M.  D. (2018). Educational robotics for inclusive education. Technology,
knowledge and learning (pp. 1–7). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9397-5
Nevenjans, N. (2017). European civil law rules in robotics. European commission. Available at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/fr/supporting-analyses-search.html. Accessed 25th
January 2019.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Spector, J. M. (2014). Conceptualizing the emerging field of smart learning environments. Smart
Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–10.
Contents

1 Beyond Coding: Back to the Future with Education Robots��������������    1

Dave Catlin
2 Educational Robotics for Reducing Early School Leaving
from the Perspective of Sustainable Education������������������������������������   43
Linda Daniela and Raimonds Strods
3 Towards a Definition of Educational Robotics: A Classification
of Tools, Experiences and Assessments��������������������������������������������������   63
David Scaradozzi, Laura Screpanti, and Lorenzo Cesaretti
4 Introducing Maker Movement in Educational Robotics: Beyond
Prefabricated Robots and “Black Boxes”����������������������������������������������   93
Dimitris Alimisis, Rene Alimisi, Dimitriοs Loukatos,
and Emmanouil Zoulias
  5 Modbloq. Design of a Modular Robot Made with 3D Printing
for Educational Purposes������������������������������������������������������������������������  117
Pedro de Oro and Silvia Nuere
6 Robotics in Primary School: A Realistic Mathematics
Approach��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  149
Francisco Bellas, María Salgado, Teresa F. Blanco,
and Richard J. Duro
7 Crab Robot: A Comparative Study Regarding the Use
of Robotics in STEM Education ������������������������������������������������������������  183
Icleia Santos, Elaine Cristina Grebogy,
and Luciano Frontino de Medeiros
8 Innovative Tools for Teaching Marine Robotics, IoT and Control
Strategies Since the Primary School������������������������������������������������������  199
David Scaradozzi, Lorenzo Cesaretti, Laura Screpanti,
Daniele Costa, Silvia Zingaretti, and Mariantonietta Valzano

xv
xvi Contents

9 Robot Programming to Empower Higher Cognitive Functions

in Early Childhood����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  229
Maria Chiara Di Lieto, Chiara Pecini, Emanuela Castro,
Emanuela Inguaggiato, Francesca Cecchi, Paolo Dario,
Giuseppina Sgandurra, and Giovanni Cioni
10 Activities with Educational Robotics: Research Model
and Tools for Evaluation of Progress�����������������������������������������������������  251
Linda Daniela, Raimonds Strods, and Ilze France
11 The Use of Robotics for STEM Education in Primary
Schools: Teachers’ Perceptions ��������������������������������������������������������������  267
Ahmad Khanlari
12 Using Robots to Introduce First-Year College Students
to the Field of Electrical Engineering����������������������������������������������������  279
Mounir Ben Ghalia
13 Designing a Competition Robot as a Capstone Project
for Electrical and Computer Engineering Students ����������������������������  297
Samuel Roberts, Joshua Acosta, Salvador Garza,
Mounir Ben Ghalia, and Heinrich Foltz
14 Future Class Teachers and Educational Robotics: Current State
and Possible Future Use��������������������������������������������������������������������������  317
Ivana Đurđević Babić
15 EduRobot Taxonomy ������������������������������������������������������������������������������  333
Dave Catlin, Martin Kandlhofer, John-John Cabibihan,
Julian Angel-­Fernandez, Stephanie Holmquist,
and Andrew Paul Csizmadia

Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  339
About the Authors

Joshua Acosta  received his bachelor’s degree of Science in Electrical Engineering

from the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, USA, in May 2018. He was a mem-
ber of the 2017–2018 robotics team who competed in the 2018 IEEE Region 5
Robotics Contest held in Austin, Texas. After graduation, he joined Texas
Instruments, a global semiconductor design and manufacturing company.

Rene  Alimis  holds a degree in Computer Engineering (from the University of

Thessaly, GR) and an MA in ICT in Education (from the Institute of Education,
UCL, London) and has more than 8 years of experience in the field of educational
innovation within EU-funded projects (H2020, Erasmus+, Lifelong Learning). She
has collaborated with well-known Greek research centers (CERTH, IRETETH) and
higher education departments in Europe in the context of EU-funded projects. She
is also a certified ICT trainer for adults and holds a Postgraduate Certificate in
Education; since 2010, she works closely with teachers and adults of all ages and
various cultural and professional backgrounds in numerous Greek public centers for
lifelong learning and private companies. She has also carried out research studies in
primary and secondary schools in Greece and the UK, exploring how ICT interven-
tions can support students in developing computational thinking skills in a creative
and playful way.

Dimitris Alimisi  after his resignation in 2013 from a full professorship position in

educational technology at the Higher School of Pedagogical & Technological
Education (Patras, Greece), is currently the scientific leader at the EDUMOTIVA
(European Lab for Educational Technology). He has also served as adjunct profes-
sor at the Hellenic Open University in Science Education, at the University of
Athens in ICT in Education, and at the University of Patras in STEM Education and
as teacher trainer in several courses in Greece and other European countries. His
research interests include learning technologies with a special focus on STEAM
education, educational robotics, and maker movement in education. He has served
for years as coordinator or partner in several EU research and educational projects
(FP7, HORIZON 2020, ERASMUS+, and more). Moreover, he is the coeditor of

xvii
xviii About the Authors

proceedings books and special issues in educational robotics, the co-organizer and
co-chair of the International Conference of Educational Robotics (EDUROBOTICS),
and a member of program committees in many national and international
conferences.

Julian Mauricio Angel-Fernandez  was born in Bogotá, Colombia, and holds two

bachelor’s degrees of 5 years each from the Universidad de los Andes, Bogota,
Colombia, in Electronic Engineering and Computer and Systems Engineering. He
also holds a master’s degree in Computer and Systems Engineering from the same
institution. He obtained his European PhD with merit at Politecnico di Milano,
Milan, Italy, in Computer and System Engineering with a focus on human-robot
interaction. He worked as a lecturer at the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogota,
Colombia, and also worked in several projects, including ER4STEM, which was
founded by the European Commission under the program Horizon 2020, and focus
on the critical use of robotics on education. His interests are multi-robot system,
human-robot interaction, and educational robotics.

Francisco  Bellas  received his MS degree in Physics from the University of

Santiago de Compostela, Spain, in 1999, and his PhD in Computer Science from the
University of A Coruña, where he is currently an  associate professor  in the
Department of Computer Science and member of the Integrated Group for
Engineering Research, in 2003. His research interests include cognitive robotics,
evolutionary robotics, and collective intelligence. During the last few years, he has
been involved in educational projects related with robotics, mainly in The Robobo
Project, a new concept of educational robot that aims to bring intelligent robotics to
secondary schools. As the coordinator of this project, he was awarded with the Best
Paper Award in the Robotics in Education Conference (Rie 2017), with the first
prize in the Vodafone Connecting for Good Galicia 2017 initiative, and with a
European project in the 2018 ROS industrial call.

Mounir Ben Ghalia  is a professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering at

the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, USA. He served as the principal investi-
gator and the director of the National Science Foundation-funded program titled
Research Experiences for Teachers in Emerging and Novel Engineering Technologies
in the Rio Grande Valley. His funded program supported the professional develop-
ment of STEM teachers to introduce engineering education in pre-college class-
rooms. His research focuses on control systems, robotics, and engineering education;
he has published in these areas and has mentored several engineering students in
the area of robotics. He is the recipient of the prestigious University of Texas System
Regents’ Outstanding Teaching Award.

Teresa Fernández Blanco  is professor of Mathematics Didactics at the University

of Santiago de Compostela. She holds a degree in Mathematical Sciences from the
University of Santiago de Compostela in “Numerical methods for equations in
About the Authors xix

partial derivatives: applications in engineering” and a PhD in Mathematical Sciences

in the Experimental Sciences and Mathematics program. She received an
Extraordinary Doctorate Award.
Her main research interests focus on visualization and spatial reasoning and
modeling with special attention to new technologies. She is collaborator in the proj-
ect ERASMUS + KA2-KO-187-1/2015 (Kids Inspiring Kids for STEAM) and in
the project H2020SEAC-2015-1-710577 (STEM4YOUTH: promotion of STEM
education through key scientific challenges and their impact on our lives and career
prospects).
She is currently supervisor of several PhD theses that integrate STEAM and is
the main researcher of the project EDU2017-84979-R entitled “Teaching and learn-
ing mathematics in adolescents at risk of exclusion. Teaching intervention through
STEAM.”

John-John Cabibihan  received his PhD degree in Bioengineering, with special-

ization in biorobotics, from the Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy, in 2007.
Concurrent with his PhD studies, he received another international scholarship
grant in 2004 from the École Normale Supérieure Paris-Saclay, France. Therein, he
spent 1 year with the Laboratoire de Mécanique et Technologie. From 2008 to 2013,
he was an assistant professor at the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department,
National University of Singapore. He served as the deputy director of the Social
Robotics Laboratory and serves as the graduate program coordinator of the
Mechanical Engineering Program. In addition, he is currently an associate professor
at the Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department  at Qatar University, is
member of the Faculty Senate, is lead/co-lead principal investigator of several proj-
ects under the National Priorities Research Program of Qatar National Research
Fund, and is associate editor/editorial board member of several Scopus indexed
journals. His research has attracted more than US$4 million in funding from various
funding agencies. He was the general chair of the International Conference on
Social Robotics (ICSR) 2018 in Qingdao, China; program chair/co-chair of Ro-Man
2019  in New Delhi, India; ICSR 2017  in Tsukuba, Japan; ICSR 2016  in Kansas
City, USA; and ICSR 2012 and ICSR 2010 in Singapore. Over the years, his work
has been focused toward assistive and social robotics for the therapy of children
with autism, lifelike prosthetics, bio-inspired tactile sensing, and human-robotic
touch and gestures. His works were featured in the British Broadcasting Corp.
(BBC) News, MIT Technology Review, Phys.org, Popular Science, New Scientist,
and Discovery News, among others.

Emanuela Castro  received her master’s degree in Psychology at the University of

Pisa in July 2014 and her PhD degree at Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna in BioRobotics
in December 2018, working on a thesis about human-robot interaction and educa-
tional robotics. Currently, she is collaborating with IRCCS Fondazione Stella
Maris, working on neuropsychology, cognitive rehabilitation, and developmental
psychology.
xx About the Authors

Dave  Catlin  completed an apprenticeship before going to Bradford University

where he graduated in mechanical engineering in 1971. He worked as a contract
design engineer until, inspired by Seymour Papert, he founded Valiant Technology
with Professor Tom Stonier and designed the Valiant Turtle in 1983, the Classic
Roamer in 1989, and the latest Roamer in 2012. His company has shipped several
hundred thousand robots to schools in 32 different countries. He has worked with
schools on five different continents while researching and developing new ways to
use robots to help children learn.

Francesca Cecchi  is a senior researcher at the BioRobotics Institute of the Scuola

Superiore Sant’Anna, Italy. She received her master’s degree in Biomedical
Engineering from the University of Pisa in 2007 and her PhD degree in Biorobotics
from the Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna (SSSA) in 2011. Her research fields are neu-
rodevelopmental engineering and educational robotics. She is an author and coau-
thor of more than 20 publications about mechatronic devices for rehabilitation in
infancy and educational robots. She has been involved in national and international
research project about tele-rehabilitation of children and educational robotics both
on the students’ level for measuring the efficacy of educational robotics and on the
teachers’ side by studying training courses for teachers.

Lorenzo Cesaretti  is enrolled in the PhD School of Information Engineering at the

Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Informazione (DII) at the Università Politecnica
delle Marche. He is co-founder and CTO at TALENT srl, an Italian innovative start-
­up working in the field of educational technologies. He has expertise in robotics,
educational robotics, and educational technology. He is involved in more than 40
projects and trainings mainly regarding educational robotics, coding, and creative
use of technology in education.

Giovanni  Cioni  is full professor of Child Neurology and Psychiatry at the

University of Pisa, where he specialized in child neurology and psychiatry and in
rehabilitation medicine, and scientific director of the National Biomedical Research
Hospital (IRCCS), Fondazione Stella Maris. He graduated cum laude in medicine at
the University of Florence. He has been research fellow in 1984–1986 at the
University of Groningen, Department of Developmental Neurology and attended
for stages many research and clinical centers in France and the UK. He is an expe-
rienced researcher mainly around the following topics: models, neurophysiological
mechanisms, and molecular basis of plasticity of the nervous system in children;
new approaches to neurological assessment of the newborn and young child; fol-
low-­up of the infant at risk for neurological impairment; maturation of perceptual
systems and their disorders; early diagnosis and rehabilitation of disorders of motor,
cognitive, and language development; and neuroimaging and electrophysiological
techniques of exploration applied to neurological disorders in children. He has been
recipient as principal investigator or coordinator of local units of many peer-­
reviewed projects around child neurology and neurorehabilitation, supported by the
national and international organizations (European Union FP7, Italian Ministry of
Health, Italian Telethon, National Banks, Cure Autism Now Foundation, Mariani
About the Authors xxi

Foundation, other). His publications indexes are the following (Google Scholar
January 2019): total number of publications, 362 (last 5 years 93); total H-index, 56
(last 5 years 14); and total number of citation, 10384 (last 5 years 674). For execu-
tive functions on the national and international scientific organizations, he served in
the European Academy of Childhood Disability (chair); IMAGO7 for ultrahigh
field MRI (member of the scientific committee); European Society of Child
Neurology; Italian Society of Child and Adolescence Neuropsychiatry (vice presi-
dent); and The GM Trust. He has been recipient of many scientific awards: 1995,
Annual Award of Pediatrics University of Turku (Finland); 1998, Heinz Prechtl
Award for Developmental Neurology, University of Graz (Austria); 2003, Danish
Society for Cerebral Palsy Award; 2011, Castang Award for Developmental
Disabilities; 2016, University of Pisa Cherubino Award for scientific merits; and
2018, Karel and Berta Bobath International Award (2018).

Daniele Costa  holds a master’s degree in Aerospace Engineering and in Mechanical

Engineering and a PhD in Underwater Robotics from the Università Politecnica
delle Marche. His research interests are in biomimetic autonomous marine vehicles.
He has experience in multibody systems, hydrodynamics, finite element analysis,
compliant structures, seal design, and composite materials.

Andrew  Csizmadia  is senior lecturer in Computer Education at Newman

University, Birmingham, in the United Kingdom and is seconded part time to the
British Computer Society (BCS) as academic lead for the BCS Certificate in
Computer Science Teaching certification.

Linda  Daniela  is professor and senior researcher, chair of the Council for PhD
Defence in Pedagogy, and head of the Scientific Institute of Pedagogy at the
University of Latvia. She also serves as expert in Education at the Council of
Sciences of the Republic of Latvia.
Her expertise spans smart pedagogy, virtual education, smart education, digital
learning materials, educational technologies for learning, educational robotics, edu-
cational processes and solutions for reducing social exclusion from the educational
processes, and behavioral problems.
Professor Daniela is an author and coauthor of more than 70 publications about
processes in all dimensions of education. She has been involved in more than 30
research projects. At the moment, she is leading the research projects as follows:
“Human, Technologies and Educational Quality,” “Motivating secondary school
students towards STEM careers through robotic artifact making (RoboScientists),”
“Developing Teaching Materials for Preschool Teaching Undergraduates on
Computational Thinking and Introduction to Coding (EarlyCode),” “eMedia:
MEdia literacy and Digital citizenship for all,” “Audio learning materials for pre-
school education,” “The gap between political development documents and real
practice of digitalization of higher education,” and “MyHUB – a one-stop-shop on
inclusion practices, tools, resources and methods for the pedagogical staff at formal
and nonformal educational institutions.”
xxii About the Authors

Paolo  Dario  is professor of Biomedical Robotics and coordinator of the PhD

Program in BioRobotics of the Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy. He received
his doctor engineering degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of
Pisa and Honorary Doctor Engineering Degree in Biomedical Engineering from the
Campus Bio-Medico University in Rome and has been and is visiting researcher,
professor, and fellow at various universities and scientific institutions in Europe, the
USA, the Middle East, and Asia. His current research interests are in the field of
biorobotics and bionics and include surgical robotics, micro-/nanodevices for
endoscopy, bio-inspired devices and systems, and assistive and companion robots.
He is the author of 400+ journal publications (Scopus), coauthor of 50+ interna-
tional patents, and co-founder of 5 start-up companies. His H-Index is 59 (Scopus).
Moreover, he has been the coordinator of many large national and European proj-
ects; served as editor in chief, associate editor, as member of the editorial board of
many international journals in biomedical engineering and in robotics, and as presi-
dent of the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society; and received many prizes and
awards, including the 1996 Joseph Engelberger Award for Medical Robotics, the
2014 IEEE RAS George Saridis Leadership Award, and the 2017 IEEE RAS Pioneer
Award for Biorobotics. He is also founding editorial board member of the journal
Science Robotics, associate editor of the IEEE Transactions on Biomedical
Engineering, IEEE fellow, and fellow of the European Society of Medical and
Biological Engineering. In 2018, he has been nominated editor in chief of the new
IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics.

Maria  Chiara  Di Lieto  PhD in Basic and Developmental Neuroscience at

University of Pisa (Italy), is a developmental psychologist and cognitive behavioral
psychotherapist. She works as an independent contractor and external consultant at
IRCCS Fondazione Stella Maris in Calambrone (Pisa, Italy). Her expertise spans
cognitive and neuropsychological assessment and rehabilitation of children and
adolescents with neurodevelopmental disorders, such as cerebral palsy, specific
learning disorders, and language impairment; new rehabilitative technologies, such
as educational robotics, to promote executive functions and cognitive tele-­
rehabilitation and to train neuropsychological processes and learning skills; and
compensatory informatic programs to support academic learning. She is an author
and coauthor of some scientific publications and research projects about educational
robotics, tele-rehabilitation, and developmental neuropsychology. Furthermore, she
has been involved in design and trial of some tele-rehabilitative programs in col-
laboration with Cooperativa Anastasis and has been trainer in some national training
courses about executive functions and new technologies for clinical rehabilitation
and educational practice.

Ivana Đurđević Babić  is an associate professor of Information and Communication

Sciences. She teaches courses at integrated undergraduate and graduate 5-year uni-
versity class teacher studies. Her scientific and research interests include ICT in
education, data mining methods, and machine learning techniques.
About the Authors xxiii

She actively participated at scientific and professional conferences and was a

reviewer of professional and scientific articles.
Currently, she holds the position of chair president of the chair of Mathematics
and Informatics as part of the Department of Natural Sciences at the Faculty of
Education and is the head of the Commission for Quality Enhancement and
Assurance at the Faculty of Education, University of Osijek. She is a member of the
Croatian Operational Research Society (CRORS).

Richard J. Duro  received his MS and PhD degrees in Physics from the University
of Santiago de Compostela, Spain, in 1989 and 1992, respectively. He is currently
a full professor in the Department of Computer Science and head of the Integrated
Group for Engineering Research at the University of A Coruña. His research inter-
ests include higher-order neural network structures, signal processing, and autono-
mous and evolutionary robotics. During the last few years, he has been involved in
educational projects related with robotics, including the “Adopt a robot” initiative
within the DREAM FET-OPEN European Project, and in the development of acces-
sible but powerful educational robots capable of running AI-related applications.

Heinrich Foltz  is professor of Electrical Engineering at the University of Texas

Rio Grande Valley,  USA, where he has been faculty since 1994.  He teaches elec-
tronics, electromagnetics, RF/microwave, and design laboratories.

Ilze  France  is senior researcher of the Interdisciplinary Center for Educational

Innovation at the University of Latvia. She also serves as expert in Education at the
Council of Sciences of the Republic of Latvia.
Her expertise spans curriculum development, inquiry-based learning, education
through science, development of methodological and teacher support materials,
digital learning materials, educational robotics, and lesson-based professional
development.
Senior Researcher France is an author and coauthor of more than 26 publications
about processes in different dimensions of education and of 37 methodological
materials and textbooks. She has been involved in six research projects. At the
moment, she is an expert at the National Centre for Education of Latvia EU Project
“Competency Approach to Learning Content.”

Salvador Garza  received his bachelor’s degree of Science in Electrical Engineering

from the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, USA, in May 2018. He was a mem-
ber of the 2017–2018 robotics team who competed in the 2018 IEEE Region 5
Robotics Contest held in Austin, Texas. After obtaining his undergraduate degree,
he enrolled in the university graduate program.

Elaine Cristina Grebogy  is PhD student in Computer Science at the Universidade

Federal do Paraná (UFPR) and specialist in Management of the School Environment
at the Universidade Castelo Branco (2009). She finished his MSc in Education and
New Technologies at the Centro Universitário Internacional (UNINTER) in 2017
xxiv About the Authors

and graduated in Pedagogy at the Universidade Castelo Branco in 2007. She has
experience in education, with emphasis on educational management and literacy.
She is currently the deputy principal of a municipal school in the city of São José
dos Pinhais. In addition, she is also participant in Computing Simulations and
Educational Robotics research group at the UNINTER, working in educational
robotics projects and teacher training courses.

Stephanie  (Stephie)  Kaye  Holmquist  is president and CEO of Holmquist

Educational Consultants, Inc., a national career and technology education consult-
ing firm in business since 1998. She is also the director of the Collaboratory, associ-
ate director of the David C. Anchin Center, and adjunct instructor at the University
of South Florida, College of Education. She received her PhD from the University
of South Florida in Career and Workforce Education with an emphasis in Curriculum
and Instruction, with a focus on Educational Robotics. She has coauthored STEM
curriculum, consults nationally in the area of career and technical education and
academic integration, and specializes in STEM/STEAM education and professional
development. Her programs have won numerous state and national awards. She
began her career as the director of the Professional Children’s Theatre in Tampa,
FL, where she then became the outreach coordinator and director of K.I.D.S. at the
Museum of Science and Industry, and then director of Education and Marketing at
Great Explorations, The Hands-On Museum in St. Petersburg, Florida. Moreover,
she was an adjunct instructor in Aviation Technology as well as Career and Technical
Education at St. Petersburg College.

Emanuela Inguaggiato  is a child neurologist and psychiatrist. She completed her

PhD at Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna (Pisa, Italy) in 2017 in Innovative Strategies in
Biomedical Research. She works as medical doctor and researcher at the Stella
Maris Foundation of IRCCS in Calambrone (Pisa, Italy), in which her work has
focused mainly on early diagnosis and intervention in children with neurodevelop-
mental disorders (such as ADHD, learning and motor disorders). One of her main
fields of research involved the executive functions and the new technologies appli-
cable in the intervention, for example, tools and platforms, that can also be used in
a tele-rehabilitation approach. In addition, she is an author and coauthor of some
scientific publications and research projects about early intervention in children at
risk for neurodevelopmental disorders, educational robotics, and
tele-rehabilitation.

Martin  Kandlhofer  received his MSc in Software Engineering in 2010 and his
PhD in Computer Science in 2017 from Graz University of Technology, where he is
currently member of the research group Autonomous Intelligent Systems.
His area of research is the preparation and evaluation of educational robotics and
AI topics for different age groups on different educational levels (K–12,
undergraduate).
About the Authors xxv

Ahmad  Khanlari  is a PhD candidate in the Department of Curriculum,

Teaching,  and  Learning (CTL)  and  the Collaborative Program in Engineering
Education at the University of Toronto. He received his bachelor’s degree and his
first master’s degree in Electrical  and  Communication Engineering and his sec-
ond  master’s degree in Educational Technology from Memorial University of
Newfoundland. Prior to starting his MEd program at Memorial University, he co-­
founded an educational technology company in 2003 and worked there as the edu-
cation manager to develop curriculums for teaching robotics and other STEM-related
subjects. He also worked as a consultant engineer in the R&D department to design
educational kits, such as educational robots, to facilitate teaching and learning of
STEM-related topics. His research areas lie in educational robotics, STEM educa-
tion, engineering education, educational data mining,  learning analytics, educa-
tional technology,  online learning, knowledge building communities, wireless
communications, and satellite communication.

Dimitrios Loukatos  received his diploma in Electrical and Computer Engineering

and his PhD degree in Telecommunications and Computing, both from the National
Technical University of Athens (NTUA), Greece. He is currently member of the
laboratory teaching staff of the Agricultural Engineering Laboratory of the
Agricultural University of Athens. He has worked as a research associate with the
NTUA and the National Centre for Scientific Research “Demokritos.” His research
interests include hardware/software platforms evaluation and optimization, man-
agement and applications of wired and/or wireless (sensor) networks, and robotics
and applications. His most recent work is focused on the area of IoT, physical com-
puting, and artificial intelligence. In parallel, he has more than 20 years of teaching
experience, in secondary, vocational, adult, and higher education, in the areas of
computer architecture and programming, embedded systems (Atmel, Arduino,
Raspberry Pi, etc.), networking, robotics, human-machine interaction, and STEAM
education. He has been involved in many national or European projects.

Luciano  Frontino  de Medeiros  is professor and senior research at the Centro

Universitário Internacional (UNINTER), Curitiba, Brazil, and assistant coordinator
of the Program of Master in Education and New Technologies. He completed his
postdoctoral studies in Artificial Intelligence (2013) at the Universidade Politécnica
de Madrid, his PhD in Knowledge Engineering and Management (2010) at the
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC), and his MSc degree in Informatics
at the Univeridade Federal do Paraná (UFPR) (2001).
His expertise include artificial intelligence, new technologies in education, edu-
cation at distance, computing simulations, educational robotics, learning objects,
systems analysis and development, databases modeling, knowledge engineering,
and managing. In addition, he is a DIY enthusiast.
He is also professor, consultant, author, and coauthor of approximately 100 pub-
lications involving interdisciplinary projects in education, artificial intelligence,
neural networks, knowledge management, and ontologies. He is the head of the
xxvi About the Authors

Computing Simulations and Educational Robotics research group at the UNINTER,

conducting educational projects joining robotics with recyclable materials and
easy-to-use open-source electronic platforms, programming in schools and compu-
tational thinking, 3D printing at schools, games and gamification, and quantitative
research methodologies for education.

Silvia  Nuere  is a professor in the Department of Mechanical, Chemical and

Industrial Design of the Technical School of Engineering in Industrial Design at the
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid and, since 2011, is the creator and director of the
scientific journal ArDIn (Arte, Diseño e Ingeniería) [Art, Design and Engineering].
She teaches artistic drawing and design from a point of view of humanism. Her
research interests include teaching and learning methodologies based on project-­
oriented learning and on the necessity of mixing different fields of knowledge as art,
design, and engineering. She has promoted this approach to education through more
than 30 innovation education projects
She is an author and coauthor of more than 50 publications about artistic learning
methodologies and humanistic approach to education. She has also, as an artist,
participated in more than 20 collective exhibitions and made several illustrations for
the scientific journal Investigación y Ciencia, the Spanish edition of the Scientific
American Journal.

Pedro  de Oro  Martín  industrial electronic engineer at Carlos III University of

Madrid with an Industrial Design Engineering Master at Technical University of
Madrid, is a designer and product developer focused on educational robotics and 3D
printing with almost a decade of experience. He has been product owner of multiple
international robotics products such as the educational robot Zowi or PrintBot
Evolution. On his spare time, he develops his enthusiasm for open source, art and
design, and their links with robotics.

Chiara Pecini  is associate professor at the Department of Educational Sciences,

Linguistic and Developmental Psychology, University of Florence (Italy). She has
been working as clinical neuropsychologist and researcher in Developmental
Neuropsychology at the IRCCS Fondazione Stella Maris Institute from 1998 to
2018.
Her studies span from typical development to developmental neuropsychology
and are focused on describing the trajectories of the main cognitive processes for
learning, defining the cognitive profiles of children with neurodevelopmental disor-
ders, and developing new intervention tools to empower and rehabilitate basic cog-
nitive processes. Within the last field, in 2013, she started to develop and use new
tele-rehabilitation techniques for the intervention on reading and executive func-
tioning. Furthermore, she is an author and coauthor of more than 30 publications
about developmental neuropsychology and learning in typical development and has
been involved in several research projects.
About the Authors xxvii

Samuel Roberts  received his bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering degree

from the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, USA, in May 2018. He was the
captain of the 2017–2018 robotics team who competed in the 2018 IEEE Region 5
Robotics Contest held in Austin, Texas. After graduation, Mr. Roberts joined
Raytheon Company, an international aerospace and defense company.

Icléia Santos  is PhD student in Computer Science at the Universidade Federal do

Paraná-UFPR and specialist in Management of Education at the FACEL, Curitiba,
and in Psychopedagogy at the Faculdades Bagozzi (2011). She finished her MSc in
Education and New Technologies at the Centro Universitário Internacional
(UNINTER) in 2017. She holds a degree in Pedagogy from the Faculdade de
Administração, Ciências, Educação e Letras (2005). She acted as pedagogical
supervisor at the Colégio Técnico Industrial de Araucária, from 2004 to 2006, focus-
ing on vocational education. Currently, she is principal of Emilio de Menezes
Municipal School, in São José dos Pinhais, since 2006, working in elementary
school. She has active participation in the computing simulations and educational
robotics research group at the UNINTER, working mainly in educational robotics
projects.

David Scaradozzi  is assistant professor and mobility delegate of the Engineering

Faculty of the UNIVPM. He is chercheur associé at LSIS – UMR CNRS 6168 –
Marseille, France, and member of ISME (Italian Interuniversity Center of Integrated
Systems for the Marine Environment, www.isme.unige.it) where he cooperates with
the Italian Navy and NATO. His research activities are control and optimization of
dynamical systems; robotics and automation (motion and interaction control prob-
lems in distributed agents, rapid prototyping and mechatronics); underwater robot-
ics and marine technologies, focusing on tools for 3D scientific documentation of
sea operative surveys for marine protected areas and archaeological sites study
using divers, AUVs, ROVs, and other technological devices; educational robotics,
with special interests devoted to all the aspects regarding the study and development
of new robotic tools; and lesson plans for teaching e-STrEM (environmental Science
Technology robotics Engineering Maths) subjects, in formal and nonformal educa-
tion, to foster innovation at school, raising awareness on environmental sustainabil-
ity and training the twenty-first-century skills. He has worked within the national
and international projects and has of about 80 publications in refereed international
journals, books, and conferences.

Laura Screpanti  is a PhD student at the School of Information Engineering of the

Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Informazione (DII), Università Politecnica delle
Marche. She has expertise in bioengineering and educational robotics.

Giuseppina  Sgandurra  has a first honor degree cum laude in Medicine and
Surgery in 2002 at the University of Catania and a specialization in Child Neurology
and Psychiatry in 2008 at the University of Pisa; moreover, she received her PhD in
New Strategies in Biomedical Research from Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna in 2012.
xxviii About the Authors

Currently, she is junior researcher full time (RTD-A) at the Department of Clinical
Neuroscience, IRCCS Fondazione Stella Maris, and Department of Clinical and
Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa. She works in the Laboratory
Neuroengineering – mechatronics and robotics in rehabilitation. Her main research
topics are new approaches for diagnosis and treatment of motor and cognitive devel-
opment disorders, neuroimaging techniques applied to the child neurology, and
movement disorders. Her current research focus builds upon the new perspectives
of the following: (i) assessment of the upper limb asymmetries in infants and chil-
dren with hemiplegia, (ii) rehabilitation as action observation training for the reha-
bilitation of the upper limb in children with UCP, and (iii) educational robotics
approaches for rehabilitation in developmental disorders. She is experienced in
leading design of new technological tools for quantitative assessment and rehabili-
tation and personalization of exercises for the rehabilitation of developmental dis-
abilities, the clinical assessment with new clinical and technological tools, and the
design of RCTs. She has received a grant (278k) from the Italian Ministry of Health
for the proposal “Action-Observation Therapy (AOT) and Information and
Communications Technologies (ICT) for Home Rehabilitation of Children with
Hemiplegia.” She has been also involved in the EU project CareToy and in the
Tuscany regional project Mechtoy with a lead role in the management of clinical
specification and validation. Furthermore, she is author and coauthor of scientific
papers also in extenso published on international indexed journals.

Mariantonietta Valzano  is a primary school teacher at I.C. Largo Cocconi. She

has large expertise in educational robotics. Since 2010, she has been carrying out
the experimental project “Robotica a scuola,” teaching robotics as a school subject
to students from 6 to 11 years old and involving other teachers in the replication of
the same project. She is currently working also at the development of the robotics
curriculum with other researchers at the Università Politecnica delle Marche.

Silvia  Zingaretti  holds a PhD in Information Engineering. She has knowledge

about computer vision algorithms, structure from motion, 3D reconstruction, and
camera calibration techniques.

Emmanouil  Zoulias  is task manager and scientific assistant in Edumotiva. He

holds a BSc and PhD in Biomedical and Educational Informatics and Technologies
(NTUA, Greece) as a specialist on data mining. His main active research focuses on
biomedical and educational informatics and technologies. He is a developer, admin-
istrator, and integrator of various web2-based platforms. He has served for almost 4
years as IT expert in the Public Health System of Greece, for 10 years as IT expert
and member in the National Centre of Public Administration and Local Governance,
and for 2 years out of them as CIO. His teaching experience includes, among others,
educational technology courses in the field of web development and ICT skills. He
has been involved in various European projects in the field of health, e-health, edu-
cational technologies, telemedicine, and tele-education in collaboration with several
research organizations. He is currently scientific partner of the School of Nursing in
the University of Athens.
Chapter 1
Beyond Coding: Back to the Future
with Education Robots

Dave Catlin

Abstract  Jeannette Wing’s 2013 call for education to make coding a key skill
coincided with a boom in new education robots. Not surprisingly most of these new
robots focus on developing student’s computational thinking abilities and program-
ming know-how. Is that all robots can offer? To find the answer I’ll explore the
history of education robots: specifically the ideas of Seymour Papert. What we’ll
find is something with far more potential than providing learners with a way of
developing their coding skills. And against accepted wisdom, I’ll suggest that as
technology develops the need for coders will (in the long term) dwindle but the
power of robots to help educate children for the future will increase.

Keywords  Logo · Seymour Papert · Jeannette Wing · Education Robots · STEM ·

Computational thinking · Coding · EduRobot taxonomy · Machine learning ·
Artificial intelligence

Introduction

The Constructionism 2018 Conference hosted a panel session entitled ‘Inside the
Trojan Horse – A discussion Among the Next Generation of Constructionist’. The
room was full of Seymour Papert ‘groupies’, perhaps more respectfully, academics
who Papert inspired, worked with and contributed much to his ideas of construc-
tionism, Logo and robots. Yet, some were like one panellist, who admitted until
recently he’d never heard of Papert. When I mention Papert or Logo to young teach-
ers I’m often greeted with blank stares. In this chapter, I want to take you back to
Papert’s ideas and together explore how much they offer future education. To old
hands, I apologise for running through some historic stories and ideas which they
probably know. But I keep coming across articles about this history and Papert’s

D. Catlin (*)
Valiant Technology Ltd., London, UK
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 1

L. Daniela (ed.), Smart Learning with Educational Robotics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19913-5_1
2 D. Catlin

approach to education so severely distorted by Chinese whispers that they lose their
potency. I want to take the chance to correct these errors. I must also confess that
while writing this chapter I’m left to marvel again at Papert’s vision and how much
I’d forgotten, not known or not fully grasped the first time. While a large part of the
chapter devotes itself to this exercise, I believe Papert’s ideas will resonate with our
future use of education robots.
I understand the controversial statement, ‘need for coders will dwindle’ needs
justification. Again, we can explain this by looking back to the work of another of
my mentors, futurist and professor of science and society, the late Tom Stonier. Just
to add a little more weight to his views I’ll include predictions made by Alan Turing
70 years ago. Comments from both men prove prophetic.
All this preparatory work is about building a platform, from where we can gaze
at the future of education robots. On the way, we’ll ask what an education robot is.
Fortunately, the EduRobot taxonomy defines this in some detail (Catlin et al. 2018a,
b). That brings us to the crux of the chapter: how can robots play a major role in
future education? What problems do they need to overcome? What dangers lurk
ready to thwart our ambition? Again we’ll find the answers in earlier work. The
‘educational robotic application (ERA) principles’ summarise, into ten axioms, five
decades of practical classroom experience of using robots. ERA explains the value
of robots and we’ll explore how they work together to support effective education
programmes.
We can’t take this journey without bumping into issues of education policy, much
of which justifies Papert’s well-known dislike of conventional schooling. We’ll find
ourselves at a crossroad. Powerful, machine learning robots are already ‘attending
teacher training college’. Papert’s vision offers a more appealing alternative to using
this technology. But before we do any of this, we need to review what’s going on
today.

Jeannette Wing’s Revolution

In 2006, Jeannette Wing, then President’s Professor of Computer Science at

Carnegie Mellon University, delivered a seminal paper to ‘The Association of
Computer Machinery’. She stated that thinking methods and disciplines used by
computer scientists would benefit students of all subjects. She reasoned the wide-
spread use of computers in all disciplines made coding literacy an important skill.
But, more importantly, the way computer scientists worked involved computational
thinking, a problem-solving template that all subjects could use. ‘It [Computational
Thinking] represents a universally applicable attitude and skill set everyone, not just
computer scientists, would be eager to learn and use’. She continues, ‘To reading,
writing, and arithmetic, we should add computational thinking to every child’s ana-
lytical ability’ (Wing 2006).
1  Beyond Coding: Back to the Future with Education Robots 3

Wing’s paper inspired computer scientists, educators and politicians and led to
growing interest around the world to promote coding in schools. In August 2010,
the UK government tasked the Royal Society to review the status of computing in
British schools. Their report found ‘The current delivery of computing education in
many UK schools is highly unsatisfactory. Although existing curricula for
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) are broad and allow scope for
teachers to inspire pupils and help them develop interests in Computing, many
pupils are not inspired by what they are taught and gain nothing beyond basic digital
literacy skills such as how to use a word-processor or a database’ (Furber 2012).
The report concluded, ‘Every child should have the opportunity to learn
Computing at school, including exposure to Computer Science as a rigorous aca-
demic discipline’.
By September 2013 the UK government launched its new computing curriculum
(Computing Programmes of Study 2013).1 This document stated a set of clear aims:
‘The national curriculum for computing aims to ensure that all pupils:
• Can understand and apply the fundamental principles and concepts of computer
science, including abstraction, logic, algorithms and data representation.
• Can analyse problems in computational terms, and have repeated practical expe-
rience of writing computer programmes in order to solve such problems.
• Can evaluate and apply information technology, including new or unfamiliar
technologies, analytically to solve problems.
• Are responsible, competent, confident and creative users of information and
communication technology’.
While the UK was among the first adopters of Wing’s revolution, it wasn’t alone.
In 2017 the European Union (EU) Code Week, held between the 7th and 22nd of
October, saw 1.2 million people in more than 50 countries and 4 continents taking
part in coding events. This included Australia, USA, Argentina, Brazil, Malaysia
and many other non-European countries. An extra 1.3 million young people engaged
in Africa Code Week, a spin-off initiative, and in 2018, the EU event had expanded
to include 72 countries (CodeWeek EU 2018).

The Economic Need for More Coders

Commentators often cite the future economic prosperity of a country as a reason for
striving for computer literacy. For example, in Costa Rica, Carol Angulo and her
colleagues at the Omar Dengo Foundation stated ‘labour demand in informatics
experiences constant growth’ (Angulo et  al. 2018). They cite economic reports
claiming the country lacked 8000 computer scientists in 2017 and between June and
August 2016 saw the creation of 5000 new technology jobs.

1
 Strictly speaking this applies not just to England, but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also
followed similar polices.
4 D. Catlin

Computational Thinking

Table 1.1 shows one version of what this means.

Wing’s idea claims students would benefit from thinking like computer scientists.
Several authors, while not dismissing the claim, raised questions and concerns.
David Hemmendinger urges his fellow computer scientists to tone down their more
zealous rhetoric (Hemmendinger 2010). He points out that all subjects claim meta-
cognitive thinking skills belonging to their profession. And some, like mathemati-
cians, have a prior claim over most of the elements claimed by computer science.
Catlin and Woollard (2014) raised a few other concerns:
• Design technology2 promoted the way designers think as a method all subjects
could use – including computer science (for a designer, writing a programme is
simply a design problem). This effort failed because art teachers wanted their
students to think like artists, science teachers wanted learners to think like scien-
tists, and so on.
• Computational thinking is an emergent behaviour: it grows from writing pro-
grammes to solving problems. Bransford and his colleagues confirm this when
they comment on the difference between novices and experts who rely on ‘inter-
nalised mental structures’ (Bransford et al. 2000).
A study by Lave and Wenger records how practitioners gain the mental skills of
their profession from exposure to its relevant experiences (Lave and Wenger 1991).
Computational thinking is such a set of skills which you can’t simply ‘bolt on’ to a
novice.
George Polya’s million-copy selling mathematics book, ‘How to Solve It’, pre-
sented a set of heuristics representing the way mathematicians think and solve prob-
lems (Polya 1990). In his foreword to the latest edition, Professor Ian Stewart gives
a compelling critique which I believe applies to all such thinking methods. He starts

Table 1.1  Computational thinking skills based on Southampton University (2013)

Skill Competencies
Abstraction Dealing with complexity by stripping away unnecessary detail
Algorithm Identifying the processes and sequence of events
Decomposition Breaking complex artefacts, processes or systems into their basic parts
Generalisation Identifying the patterns and shared by artefacts, processes or systems
Logical Applying and interpreting Boolean logic
analysis
Evaluation Systematically (through criteria and heuristics) making proven value
judgements
This table represents a fuller version of the computational thinking than shown in much of the lit-
erature. Many other sources used in K-12 education miss out or subsume logical analysis and
evaluation into the other skills. They also refer to generalisation as pattern recognition

 Now more popularly known as the maker movement

2
1  Beyond Coding: Back to the Future with Education Robots 5

with, ‘There are fashions in the teaching of mathematics. Problem solving came into
vogue in the 1980s, …The 1980 yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (NCTM) in the USA reads as if it had been marinated in Polya sauce’.
But did this approach work? Stewart claims the anecdotal evidence from practising
teachers says yes, but the results from International Mathematics Olympiads says
no. Yet, he emphatically supports Polya’s ideas. He explains Polya’s methods give
the mathematician a toolkit for solving a problem, but that is not something you can
use dogmatically. How and when you use the heuristics is the internalised art of an
experienced mathematician (Stewart 1990, pp. xi–xxx).
As an experienced designer, I believe this story applies to the design process.
When education rigidly applied design thinking to maker projects, it often led to
sterile work. We make this worse with high-stakes testing which demands the stu-
dents to show the different parts of such thinking skills irrespective of whether
they’re all relevant to a specific project. We contrive to replace creativity and design
flair with box ticking exercises showing how well we know a process. I suspect the
issues apply to computational thinking.

Coding in the Future

It’s clear now that there’s a shortage in computer programmers. Anyone, leaving
school in the next few years would find well-paid work if they had coding skills.
Will it be the same when children entering primary school today search for their first
job? There are reasons to doubt this.
Alan Turing was the first to raise a relevant issue. In a 1947 lecture to the London
Mathematical Society, Turing stated, ‘Roughly speaking those who work in connec-
tion with the ACE [a computer] will be divided into its masters [programmers] and
its servants [users]. Its masters will plan out instruction tables [programs] for it,
thinking up deeper and deeper ways of using it. Its servants [users] will feed it with
cards [data] as it calls for them’. He continues, ‘The masters are liable to get replaced
because as soon as any technique becomes at all stereotyped it becomes possible to
devise a system of instruction tables [programs] which will enable the electronic
computer to do it for itself’. Turing speculates the programmers may refuse to allow
computers to steal their jobs. ‘… [they will] surround the whole of their work with
mystery and make excuses, couched in well-chosen gibberish, whenever any dan-
gerous suggestions were made’ (Turing 1947).
John Cribben records: Britain’s National Physics Laboratory recruited Turing
after the Second World War and before he moved to Manchester to work on
ACE. While there he wrote a report called the ‘Proposed Electronic Calculator’. ‘He
was interested in developing an adaptable machine that could through its program-
ming, carry out many different tasks; he suggested one program could modify
another…’ (Cribben 2013).
Commenting in the mid-eighties, David Parnas agreed, ‘…Of course, automatic
programming is feasible. We have known for years that we can implement
6 D. Catlin

h­ igher-­level programming languages’ (Parnas 1985). He equated automatic coding

with creating these languages because they’re closer to natural language than
machine and assembler code.
Forward to 2014, the Pliny Project ‘… aims to develop a family of systems for
automatically detecting and fixing errors in programs, and synthesizing reliable
code from high-level specifications’ (Rice University 2018). Many programmes
need to solve the same coding problems so Pliny reviews code from thousands of
existing products and turns them into reusable scripts.
Tomasz Korzeniowski, CEO of CODEBEAT, claims, ‘A fundamental shift in
software development is underway’. He focuses on using artificial intelligence (AI)
and machine learning to ‘… develop a set of practical tools which combine static
code analysis with machine learning. …Technological development was histori-
cally all about the mechanization of manual tasks. Today it’s expected to impact
cognitive tasks as well. And everyone should make the most out of this innovation,
including software developers. Let’s not forget that automation isn’t new to the
industry. In fact, software is already performing many software engineering tasks
that used to be done by humans’ (Korzonek 2016).
It seems the mood among programmers is starting to support Turing’s prediction.
An Evans Data Corporation survey of 500 programmers found 29.1% fear AI and
machine learning threatens their jobs (Garvin 2016).
We’ve discussed the possibilities of software creating software, but what about
radical changes to computing? Will, for example, quantum computing change the
nature of programming? Some people say it will, others disagree and some think
we’ll see a mixture of the quantum and classic computer programmes (Hayes 2014).
Whether this is true or not, it’s a brave person who’d bet the coding skills we start
to teach today’s 5-year-olds will help them find a job 20 years from now.

The Wealth of Information

In 1983, Professor Tom Stonier wrote The Wealth of Information: A Profile of the
Post-industrial Economy. He claimed advanced Western economies were undergo-
ing a structural (permanent) shift to a wealth-creating information economy (Stonier
1983). He isolated a few patterns which would dictate the transformations affecting
employment. In a case study, he examined the fate of a number of industries in my
hometown of Bradford, West Yorkshire. He included the wool industry  – which
provided me with my first job making machines to turn fleece into yarn. Wool man-
ufacturing in Britain dated from the Bronze Age and became a huge contributor to
the country’s economy in medieval times and a major beneficiary of the industrial
revolution. Recognised as the wool capital of the world, Bradford employed 70,000
people in 1976; this fell to 35,000 by 1980 and is now a few thousand. More modern
businesses also suffered the same dramatic changes. Stonier cites Thorne Consumer
Electronics who in 1974 boasted the largest television factory in Europe. It employed
4700 workers making 10,000 television sets each week. It stopped trading in 1978.
1  Beyond Coding: Back to the Future with Education Robots 7

Stonier identifies causes driving permanent changes to the economy in advanced

countries:
1. Passing on of knowledge and skills from advanced high-cost countries to coun-
tries with lower costs
2. A decline in demand for outdated products
3. Advances in technology opening new possibilities
Over recent years many advanced countries focused their education efforts on
science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) – they believe this will give
them a competitive edge. It’s difficult to see how this can happen when every coun-
try follows the same policy. And Stonier’s case studies show people with high
STEM skills still lost their jobs and struggled to find work when their industry
moved forever. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t focus on STEM teaching – far from
it. What it does mean is we shouldn’t demote the arts, history and other non-­technical
subjects. For example, the creative industries accounted for $340 billion (14.2%) to
the British GVA (gross value added)3 in 2017. It grew twice as much as any other
part of the economy (Bradly 2017).
Stonier predicted this area of economic growth and forecast movement of labour
from manufacturing to the service industry. The following decades saw major job
increases in retail and call centre employment. However, we now see online shop-
ping and offshore call centres reducing the number of people employed by retail and
moving call centre jobs to lower-cost economies. All this made possible by technol-
ogy not available in 1983. This technology also supports a vibrant offshore coding
industry moving programming jobs to low-cost economies all over the world.

What Education Do We Need?

The answer to this critical question will define a role for robots in education. How
do we educate students who live in a society undergoing frequent economic upheav-
als where we can’t guarantee full employment, even for those with STEM skills?
Stonier answers this by making a distinction between education and training. K-12
education should focus on helping students develop as people finding their interests
and talents and turning them into lifelong learners. Such education creates skilled
knowledgeable citizens able to adapt to whatever happens in the future. This isn’t a
new debate. We can go back to the Ancient Greeks: Plato supported training people
for their role in life (Cooper 2001). Aristotle thought education should help a stu-
dent maximise their intellectual and moral ‘virtues’ (Hutchinson 1995; Hobson
2001). He believed people who’d maximised their talents would find solutions to
whatever challenges their society faced.

 GVA – it is a measure of total output and income in the economy.

3
8 D. Catlin

Should We Teach Coding and Computational Thinking?

I’ve presented an analysis which questions many of the reasons used to justify the
coding effort in schools. This isn’t an argument to stop what we’re doing: it’s about
changing perspective and clarifying how best robots can play a role in future
education.
When programmers say to me, ‘It’s intuitive…’, I’m left wondering intuitive to
whom – my grandmother? In the early 1930s, data collected by Alexander Luria
studying peasants in the steppes of Central Asia confirmed Vygotsky’s ideas on
thinking’s dependence on social, historical and cultural settings (Luria 1976). All
Luria’s subjects had little or no education. Their thinking grew from their practical
work. He noted shifts in their thinking as they engaged in different experiences
forced on them by Stalin’s economic reforms. The changing thought patterns also
started to change their cultural life.
The intuition programmers talked about refers to members of their cultural com-
munity. By giving young students the chance to explore, coding places them at what
Lave and Wenger called the ‘periphery of such a community’. Lave and Wenger
noted as the individual journeyed from community fringes to its heart, both the
student and the nature of the community changed. Introducing students to such a
community will enable them to grow with future changes (Lave and Wenger 1991).

Seymour Papert

South African born Seymour Papert invented education robots. ‘The son of an itin-
erant South African entomologist researching the tsetse fly Seymour Papert spent
his early childhood camping along the East African coast in the 1930s. The Papert
family’s way of life was straight out of a Hemmingway story. Travelling along the
bush trails they hunted their food and fixed their trucks when they broke down’
(Crevier 1993). Papert recalls how before he was 2 years old he’d got to know about
these trucks. ‘I was particularly proud of knowing the parts of the transmission sys-
tem, the gearbox and most especially the differential’ (Papert 1980, p. vi). When he
got to understand how gears worked, he loved playing with them and different forms
of rotating objects.
Eventually, his family moved to Johannesburg and he started attending school. ‘I
remember working with differentials did more for my mathematical development
than anything I was taught in elementary school. Gears, serving as models, carried
many abstract ideas into my head. I clearly remember two examples from school
math. I saw multiplication tables as gears, and my first brush with equations with
two variables (example 3x + 4y = 10) immediately evoked the differential’ (Papert
1980, p. vi). He believed his experience with gears provided him with useful mental
models for learning. He generalised the idea as a rule, ‘Anything is easy if you can
assimilate it into your models’ (Papert 1980, p. vii).
1  Beyond Coding: Back to the Future with Education Robots 9

Papert’s move from living in the bush with black Africans to Johannesburg’s
white South African society gave him a cultural shock. He struggled to understand
apartheid. How did his neighbours, who in many ways seemed reasonable people,
have these bizarre racial ideas? His curiosity led him to generalise the question: how
do we get our ideas? It inspired him to study logic; he attended a university course
on the subject while still in high school. There he settled a debate with fellow stu-
dents about whether you could formalise logic: he built a machine that did just that.
He didn’t realise that such machines existed – but it showed his practical interest in
computers and engineering (McCorduck 2004).
He first studied philosophy at the University of the Witwatersrand before trans-
ferring to mathematics where he earned a PhD. While working for a second math-
ematical doctorate, this time at Cambridge University, he met Jean Piaget. Piaget
persuaded him to join him in Switzerland to try to figure out how children learn
mathematics. After 4  years the allure of computers enticed him to the National
Physics Laboratory in London. While working there he met Marvin Minsky who
convinced him to move to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). It’s
there he’d weave his formative interests and experiences into his major contribution
to education.

Logo

The US Navy commissioned Bolt, Beranek and Newman (BBN)4 to study how they
might use computers to train their sailors. Wally Feurzeig ran the project and
Cynthia Solomon was on the team. Solomon, who’d worked for Minsky at MIT, got
to know Papert and persuaded Feurzeig to invite him to join the project as a consul-
tant.5 The group had realised the potential of the computer to help schoolchildren to
learn. Solomon recalls, ‘Papert made a summer visit to the parents of his first wife
in Cyprus. When he came back we all met in Danny Bobrow’s apartment and
Seymour explained the idea of Logo’. Under Papert’s directions, Bobrow wrote the
first Logo as a variation on LISP (Papert 1969, 1993, p. 168).
In those days people created high-level computer languages for specific purposes –
for example, FORTRAN for science and engineering and COBOL for business. AI
researchers favoured LISP. Papert believed ‘Logo was designed for learning and it’s
unique in this respect. No other language was designed for this purpose. BASIC and its

4
 Leo Beranek and Richard Bolt, professors at MIT, with Bolt’s former student Robert Newman.
People who worked there in the 1960s and 70s told me it was difficult to know who worked for
BBN and who for MIT.
5
 I constructed this history from interviews and discussions with Solomon, Feurzeig and Paul
Wexelblat and email correspondence with Marvin Minsky, Danny Bobrow and Mike Paterson.
Some say Papert co-invented Logo and the Turtle – this wasn’t the view of those I interviewed. The
Children’s Machine reference is Papert’s explanation of his Eureka moment in Cyprus  – the
moment he invented Logo.
10 D. Catlin

variants such as PILOT which are most commonly used were made for totally different
purposes and were handed on like cast-off-clothing to be used by the world of educa-
tion. I think this is a scandal’ (Papert 1983, pp. Part 1 – 02:48–03:10).
Papert continues explaining, ‘We tried to achieve a number of goals. First of all
that it should be easily accessible. There should be corners of the language that you
can get into; like baby-talk getting into English that are easy for the youngest begin-
ner. But, it shouldn’t be a toy language. It’s not that Logo is easy, it’s easy to get
into, but once you’re in there you can progress to the most sophisticated ideas in the
world of programming’ (Papert 1983, pp. Part 1 – 05:30–05:55).
This idea became summarised in a metaphor, ‘Low floors, high ceilings and
wide walls’ (Resnick 2016). To low floors (easy access) and high ceiling (sophisti-
cated programming), Papert added wide walls  – meaning they’re many routes
between floor and ceiling. This begs a question: why should we force computa-
tional thinking on to children? This is an emergent thinking pattern which we
should gently cultivate by involving children in worthwhile programming chal-
lenges. ‘Rather than pushing children to think like adults, we might do better to
remember that they are great learners and to try harder to be more like them’
(Papert 1993, p. 155).
Papert’s invention of Logo took place a decade before personal computers arrived
on anyone’s desk. BBN housed the computer, a Programmed Data Processor (PDP),
in their offices and schools connected to it through a teleprinter. Papert asked deep
questions about the role of computers in schools. Alan Kay pithily paraphrased
Papert’s answer, ‘Should the computer program the kid or should the kid program
the computer?’ (Brand 1972)

Papert and Learning

Papert wanted to find better ways to learn – not teach. ‘Why is there no word in
English for the art of learning? Webster says pedagogy means the art of teaching.
What is missing is the parallel word for learning’ (Papert 1993, p. 81). This doesn’t
mean teaching and instruction don’t have their place, but he felt what he called
instructionism wasn’t necessarily the best way to improve education. ‘The word
instructionism is meant to mean something rather different from pedagogy or the
art of teaching… [it’s] the belief that the route to better learning must be the
improvement of instruction…’ (Papert 1993, pp.  138–139). He added, ‘…con-
structionism as one of a family of educational philosophies that denies this “obvi-
ous truth”…’.
None of this means you don’t ‘tell’ children anything. It took our cave-dwelling
ancestors about 70,000 years6 to invent the wheel; children don’t have time to invent

 I base this on the findings in the Blombos Caves in Papert’s native South Africa.
6
1  Beyond Coding: Back to the Future with Education Robots 11

and discover everything. Papert thwarts the many arguments posed by his critics and
those opposed to constructionist approaches to education (Price n.d.). ‘[His method]
does not call into question the value of instruction. That would be silly: Even the
statement… every act of teaching deprives the child of an opportunity for discovery
is not a categorical imperative against teaching, but a paradoxically expressed
reminder to keep it in check’ (Papert 1993, p. 139).
Papert challenged the way schools work. For example, I once went into a school
with a couple of researchers from London’s Institute of Education. We wanted to set
up a small project. We explained our aims to the teacher who responded by saying,
‘Yes, we’re happy to do this – the examinations are over so we can do the interesting
stuff’. This is a symptom of the problem: I don’t blame teachers – they’re caught in
the black hole of accountability and high-stakes testing.
Papert believed, ‘…we know if we become involved with an area of knowl-
edge, we learn it – with or without school, and in any case without the parapher-
nalia of curriculum and tests. We also know if we do not become involved with
the area of knowledge, we’ll have trouble learning it with or without school meth-
ods’ (Papert 1993, p.  141). He described his efforts as, ‘…expanding beyond
Piaget’s cognitive emphasis to include a concern with the effective. It develops a
new perspective for education research focused on creating the conditions under
which intellectual models will take root’ (Papert 1980, pp. vii–viii). Once again
we see a basic theme: he recognised how the love affair he had with gears acted
as a springboard for his development. But he knew such an idiosyncratic experi-
ence wouldn’t have universal appeal. He believed the computer could become a
more versatile machine tool allowing students to explore ideas and build a wider
range of mental models.

The Child Scientist

My daughter once saw the police performing a stop and search on a car; she ration-
alised the man must have lost his Barbie Doll and the police were helping him find
it. Parents everywhere will have similar cute stories of their young offspring trying
to make sense of their world. ‘The child does not wait with a virginally empty mind
until we are ready to stuff it with a statistically validated curriculum. He [/she] is
constantly engaged in inventing theories about everything, including himself,
schools and teachers’ (Papert 2005).
‘All of us learn by constructing, exploring, or theory building, but most of the
theory building on which we cut our teeth resulted in theories we would have to give
up later’ (Papert 1980, p. 132). Papert encourages children to hypothesise based on
their experience and to test and reformulate their thinking based on new experi-
ences. He sees this as a lifelong process.
12 D. Catlin

Children and Thinking

In the Children’s Machine Papert reproduces the work of another of his ex-wives,
Sherry Turkle. She reports on two students Jeff and Kevin creating space explora-
tion scenes on a computer. Jeff follows a computational thinking approach: Kevin
more of an artistic strategy. Kevin doesn’t have a plan: he tries something and if he
doesn’t like it he changes it. Despite the differences Turkle reports, ‘Kevin not only
succeeded in creating a space scene, but like Jeff, he learnt a great deal about com-
puter programming and mathematics’ (Turkle 2005). Papert picks up the story,
‘Kevin is lucky to be in an environment where he is allowed to work in his own
style. In many schools he would be under pressure to do things “properly”…’
(Papert 1993, p. 148). Both Papert and Turkle claim bullying children into thinking
in a particular way will adversely affect their intellectual growth.

Constructivism and Constructionism

‘It is easy enough to formulate simple catchy versions of the idea of construction-
ism; for example, thinking of it as “learning-by-making”’ (Papert and Harel 1991).
The authors continue, ‘…[how] constructionism is much richer and more multifac-
eted, and very much deeper in its implications, than could be conveyed by any such
formula’.
Papert believed Piaget’s views on constructivism. ‘… knowledge simply cannot
be transmitted or conveyed ready made to another person’ (Papert 1993, p. 142). He
continues by claiming even if you tell people some information, they reconstruct a
personal version and understanding. Learning is something we do – no one can do
it for us.
Edith Ackermann describes Piaget’s constructivism, ‘… how children become
progressively detached from the world of concrete objects and local contingencies,
gradually becoming able to mentally manipulate symbolic objects within a realm of
hypothetical worlds’ (Akermann n.d.). Papert discusses the transition from concrete
to abstract thought. He believes Piaget’s stage of concrete operations doesn’t limit
itself to young children: ‘…the sophisticates do not resort to “concrete thinking”
only in their preliminary gropings toward solving a problem or when they are oper-
ating as novices outside their areas of expertise… …what Levi-Strauss and Piaget
identify as “concrete” are present at the core of important and sophisticated intel-
lectual enterprises’ (Papert 1993, p. 151).
Papert declares, ‘This praise for the concrete is not to be confused with a strategy
of using it as a stepping-stone to the abstract. That would leave the abstract
ensconced as the ultimate form of knowing. I want to say something more contro-
versial and more subtle in helping to demote abstract thinking from being seen as
“the real stuff” of the working of the mind. More often, if not always in the last
1  Beyond Coding: Back to the Future with Education Robots 13

analysis concrete thinking is more deserving of this description…’ (Papert 1993,

p. 146). He hastens to add that this isn’t a rejection of logic, formal and abstract
thinking, but we shouldn’t think of them as our ultimate goal. We need a deeper
respect for concrete thinking.
Constructionism focuses on concrete thinking: it’s about children building new
knowledge using what’s available in their experience. This may involve building
physical artefacts, or creating new ideas and thoughts. We don’t think twice about
teaching students the scientific method, but that’s only one part of scientific effort.
Albert Einstein’s thought experiments and Schrodinger’s famous cat serve as exam-
ples of stories created by scientists to help them and us understand: a core idea in
constructionism is to let the children create their own stories.

Papert’s Paradigm

At the Construit 2017 Conference I engaged another delegate in conversation about

Logo. He proclaimed, ‘Papert’s ideas don’t work’ . This isn’t the first time I’ve
come across this. Branson and colleagues discuss conflicting research (Bransford
et al. 2000, pp. 53–55). They cite research which proclaims it doesn’t (Vanderbilt
1996). The Vanderbilt team’s research stated Papert proposed using Logo would
help children transfer knowledge from one problem to another and their tests
showed it didn’t. However, other studies found the opposite (Klahr and Carver
1988). Branson credits the difference to how well the Vanderbilt students knew the
Logo language.
You’ll find similar claims and counterclaims in the literature. To cope with this
Mike Blamires and I introduced the term Papert’s Paradigm when we reviewed the
use of robots in special needs education (Catlin and Blamires 2018). We use the
term ‘paradigm’ referring to Kuhn’s paradigm shift philosophy of science (Kuhn
1996). In Kuhn’s theory, positive or negative research isn’t enough to prove or dis-
prove a theory: it’s about accumulated evidence and probability. In reviewing the
claims made by Pea and Kurland (1984) and the counterclaims made by (Noss
1995) and (Johnstone 2003, pp. 123–133), Blamires and I feel Papert is the clear
‘winner’. Yet, it’s worth looking at some other aspects of this dispute.
The scope of Papert’s intellectual effort is vast, and sometimes it appears contra-
dictory so it’s not surprising that it’s easily misunderstood. Papert’s work is like a
diary of his learning journey which changes with time. For example, he disliked
teachers as a child and mistakenly continued this early in his career. ‘[he demon-
ised] teachers by identifying them with the roles that School forced on them. I dis-
liked School’s coercive methods, and it was the teachers who applied the coercion.
I disapproved of judgment by grading, and it was the teacher who gave the grades’.
The response to Mindstorms dramatically changed his attitude, ‘…my identification
of “teacher” with “School slowly dissolved…”’ (Papert 1993, p. 59). To understand
his message you need to follow how his opinion evolved.
14 D. Catlin

When reviewing the Children’s Machine, Daniel Dennett echoes this idea when
mentioning Logo. He comments, ‘But one can learn even more from ‘mistakes’
than from a string of successes – that is a central tenet of Papert’s vision of learning,
and he practices what he preaches’ (Dennett 1993). Dennett testifies his experience
with undergraduates who were, ‘experts at piling in the facts, drilling for the big
test – and they were pathologically uncomfortable in any setting where they had to
think’. He ran a course using Logo which he thought was spectacularly successful:
‘The students forgot their phobias and inhibitions and took flight, creating a trove of
idiosyncratic projects, effortlessly learning the fundamentals of programming, and
building a robust base on which we could then help them construct a more ‘adult’
set of edifices’.
We find a different challenge in Richard Mayer’s provocative titled paper,
‘Should there be a Three-Strike Rule against Pure Discovery Learning’ (Mayer
2004). He criticises the ideas of Piaget and Papert while making the case for guided
participation. While his statements aren’t wrong his criticisms are strawman argu-
ments. First, Piaget’s ideas aren’t a teaching theory: they describe a cognitive pro-
cess, whether it does or doesn’t involve guidance. Papert had pre-empted Mayer’s
criticism with, ‘But “teaching without curriculum” does not mean spontaneous,
free-form classrooms or simply “leaving the child alone”. It means supporting chil-
dren as they build their own intellectual structures with materials drawn from the
surrounding culture. In this model, educational intervention means changing the
culture, planting new constructive elements in it and eliminating noxious ones’
(Papert 1980, pp.  31–32). Papert never prescribed a strategy which said teachers
shouldn’t help students.
In my experience, UK teachers in the eighties were ahead of the researchers.
When they practised constructionist teaching, not involving Logo, they already used
guided participation. Interestingly, Roy Pea stated that when he saw Logo working
in the way claimed by Papert it was because, ‘Someone has provided guidance, sup-
port, ideas, for how the language could be used’ (Pea 1984, pp. 55–66). This shows
Pea knew Logo worked despite his widely publicised criticism. Table  1.2 shows
types of interventions used in a Logo research project.
Sylvia Weir noted the early Logo community ‘de-emphasised’ the role of the
teacher – but it did not eliminate it. She said, ‘At its best, the interactive computer
experiences should drive itself, for at least some of the time, under the steam of the
user’s intentions. The user should be the initiator, setting the goals and taking
responsibility for tracking down the errors in her program (debugging)’ (Weir
1987). In that quote, she gives a flavour of what we mean when we say the ‘student
takes charge of their learning’.
Some modern commentators, like David Ng, look back on Papert and build mean-
ings which don’t resonate with my understandings (Ng 2017). Ng says, ‘… putting
children in charge of their own learning is not the core premise of Mindstorms. If it
was, why would Papert use learning French in France as his analogy for Mathland?
How would putting American students in charge of their own learning in French help?
Would they learn as naturally and easily as children in France? Agency is necessary,
but completely insufficient if the raw materials for learning aren’t even available’.
1  Beyond Coding: Back to the Future with Education Robots 15

Table 1.2  Classification interventions in a Logo Maths project adapted from (Hoyles and
Sutherland 1989)
Category Description
Motivational
 Reinforcement ‘That’s good’
 Encouragement ‘Try it’
Reflection
 Process (forward) Encourage students to reflect and predict what they had to do
 Goal (forward) Encourage students to keep in mind their eventual goal
 Process (backward) Encourage students to reflect on what they’d done
 Goal (backward) Encourage students to reflect on their goal
Directional
 Nudge ‘Are you sure you want to do that’
 Method ‘Do you remember how you solved that type of problem before?’
 Building Encouraging students to use a specific method they already know
 Factual: new Providing students with new piece of information
 Factual: recall Reminding students of information they already know
 New idea Introducing a new idea – like the repeat programming command or a
mathematical method
Courtesy of Hoyles and Sutherland

Weir’s statement reflects Mindstorms and makes it clear  – the child ‘taking
charge of their learning’ is at the heart of any constructionist enterprise. This doesn’t
need to involve Logo or computers. Papert only thought of Logo and Turtle robots,
‘…as a valuable educational object, but its principal role here is to serve as a model
for other objects, yet to be invented’ (Papert 1980, p. 11). I urge readers to check out
Fleet Circus: a project I had the privilege to witness and record (Catlin and Thomson
1998). It involved a class of 10- and 11-year-old students in a Maker Space project
designing a circus full of automatons. They controlled most of the designs by pro-
gramming a control box. Apart from the spectacular videos showing their work, the
project shows what it means for children to take charge of their own learning. It is
the perfect demonstration of constructionism, the role of the teacher (Trevor
Thomson) and solid improvement in test scores.
The circus students didn’t limit their effort to the classroom or project time. Of
their own choosing they took work home, they asked questions and sought answers,
and instead of taking breaks in the schoolyard, you’d find them working away on
their project. They’d taken charge of their own learning. So to answer Ng’s ques-
tion about learning French: if you fire up student’s passion to learn French they’ll
learn it.
What Fleet Circus also shows is something else Mr. Ng seems to misunderstand,
‘It is about an end to the culture that makes science and technology alien to the vast
majority of people... Most branches of the most sophisticated modern culture of
Europe and the United States are so deeply “mathophobic” that many privileged
children are as effectively (if more gently) kept from appropriating science as their
16 D. Catlin

own’ (Papert 1980, p. 4). Papert continues prophetically, ‘In my vision, space-age
objects, in the form of small computers, will cross these cultural barriers to enter the
private worlds of children everywhere. …computers can be carriers of powerful
ideas and of the seeds of cultural change, how they can help people form new rela-
tionships with knowledge that cut across the traditional lines separating humanities
from sciences...’.
Papert’s Paradigm is about forming constructionist cultures which encourage
students to think, create, explore and love learning. It’s where students become
motivated to find out, become excited and have the confidence to succeed or fail
with equanimity. Failed efforts become stepping stones to solutions that work.
Debugging is a basic trait of the Logo culture and it’s something students do: it’s
radically different from looking up an answer. They want to know.

Difference between Papert and Wing

Wing’s 2006 ‘revolution’ enticed numerous new stakeholders into the education
space. But I find many of these lack a deep educational vision. Despite his interest
in computers, Papert’s main focus is education. If he believed coding had nothing to
offer learning, I believe he would’ve abandoned it. The ‘Fleet Circus project’ reflects
this perspective. The children wrote essays with pen and pencil; they used tools to
build automatons and painted and sculptured artwork. They did programme control
boxes to animate their models, but programming wasn’t the focus of their effort.
They used the computer as a tool in the same matter-of-fact way they used pencils
or hacksaws. When they didn’t know how to do something, they found out. All of
this epitomises Papert’s Paradigm.

Can Papert’s Ideas Work?

‘Seymour Papert dreamed of a learning revolution — why hasn’t it happened?’

asked Junaid Mubeen (Mubeen 2017). I have to disagree with the sentiment. It
hasn’t happened in America or Europe, but it did happen in Costa Rica. Their
‘Computers in Education Program’ started in 1988 (Fonesca 1999) and still runs
today (Angulo et al. 2018). Writing in 2003 Johnstone reports from a population of
3.8 million their programme has affected over 1.5 million children, teachers and
adults (Johnstone 2003, pp. 131–133). Why is the Costa Rican programme so suc-
cessful? I believe it starts with clear political vision supported by sensible adminis-
tration. When Logo became available in the early eighties, teachers in the UK, still
influenced by the Plowden Report which put Piaget at the heart of teaching practice,
took to it with enthusiasm (Plowden 1967). Despite heavy investment in computers
and teacher training, every election campaign sees candidates vowing to fix educa-
tion – implying previous efforts failed. Every time the government appoints a new
1  Beyond Coding: Back to the Future with Education Robots 17

Secretary of State for Education, they tear down previous efforts and start again. In
Costa Rica, they started with a clear vision and steadily improved on their accom-
plishments for nearly 30 years.
‘Nothing could be more absurd than an experiment in which computers are
placed in a classroom where nothing else is changed’ (Papert 1993, p. 149). Costa
Rica made changes and implemented Papert’s ideas. When I see cases where indi-
vidual schools or teachers follow this advice, something special follows.

Education Robots

You might wonder, why I’ve talked about computers and programming and so far
nothing about robots. I believe the principles and practice described by Papert’s
Paradigm provide the education foundation for robots past, present and future. So
let’s now look at education robots.

Papert the Father of Education Robots

Papert invented the world’s first education robot. Students wrote Logo programmes
to solve problems like NIM (Papert calls it Twenty-One) – a maths game played
between two people. He recalls, ‘I was doodling at the computer as I often do by
writing little programs with no particular importance or difficulty in themselves.
You could call it just playing. I don’t know what such activity does for the mind, but
I assume it’s the same as what happens when one draws patterns or pictures with
pencil on paper while thinking or listening to a lecture. What happened this time
came from thinking that writing programs can be like drawing in many ways. In a
way the Twenty-one program is a representation – might one say a kind of picture
of the form of a mental process, just as a pencil and paper drawing can be a repre-
sentation of a physical shape’ (Papert 1993, pp. 174–178). Once again we witness
Papert’s Eureka moment. He carries on describing how his thoughts wandered
through several analogies, ‘Previously I would have said that what was important
about the program was that it represented a kind of thinking. Now I wanted to say
that what counted was that it represented something the programmer does. It didn’t
matter that the something was thinking; it could just as well have been walking or
drawing or whatever. In fact, maybe walking or drawing would be better than play-
ing 21; children care more and know more about these activities’.
This led to Papert creating the idea of a Turtle7 robot and adding to Logo a new
geometry called Turtle Graphics. This geometry didn’t depend on a Cartesian

7
 Grey Walter made robots Elmer and Elsie between 1947 and 1948. He called them tortoises,
because of their shapes. Tortoise got translated from British English to the American Turtle. Grey
Walter’s work inspired Papert to use the name Turtle, but Grey Walter’s robots had nothing to do
with education. He made them as part of his studies in neuroscience – not education. Similarly,
Braitenberg created his famous robots to explore neuroscience.
18 D. Catlin

framework; it explained space from the robot’s point of view. Like the child, the
robot always faced forward, irrespective of whether that was north, south, east or
west – or up, down, left and right on a computer screen (Ableson and diSessa 1981,
pp. 11–16).
Danny Bobrow, who added the Turtle Graphics Code to Logo, told me that before
he started coding they went to a school and got the children to ‘play turtle’. Papert
explains, ‘The essential point about the Turtle is its role as transitional object that is
a transitional between the body, the self and abstract mathematical ideas. [With] the
Turtle you can identify with it, you can move your body in order to get how to com-
mand the Turtle. So it’s related to you, to the body to the human and it’s also related
to mathematical ideas whose structure is such that it captures some extremely pow-
erful geometric and physical ideas’ (Papert 1983, p. Video 2 1:37–2:11).
As a graduate student Mike Paterson, who became Professor of Computing at
Warwick University in England, visited BBN. In December 1969, Papert set him
the task of specifying the Turtle robot (Paterson 1969). In January 1970 the MIT
AI Lab built the first Turtle (See Fig. 1.1). Early Turtles included the Turtle Tot,
Tasman Turtle, Jessop (Edinburgh) Turtle, the BBC Buggy (made from
Fischertechnik) and the most popular the Valiant Turtle – which only stopped pro-
duction in 2015. Meanwhile in January 1989, Valiant launched the Roamer, which
contained a cut-­down version of Turtle Graphics embedded in its chip. Children
programmed Roamer directly using its on-board keypad. Later that year Swallow
systems launched their version of Roamer called PIP and later a forerunner of
BeeBot called Pixie.

Fig. 1.1  The first turtle. (Courtesy of Cynthia Solomon)

1  Beyond Coding: Back to the Future with Education Robots 19

In the seventies, Logo development moved from BBN to MIT. Papert and his
team started to play with Lego and their control boxes. These did the same tasks as
the control boxes used to drive the ‘Fleet Circus’ automaton but using Lego bricks
instead of maker materials. UK schools justified using control technology because
both the design technology and the information and communications technology
(ICT) curriculums mandated their use. Schools had a choice of control boxes. In late
1984 Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen, then the CEO of Lego (and grandson of its founder),
saw a television programme with children explaining their programming skills and
Papert explaining his educational philosophy. This inspired Lego to fund Papert’s
research team which in January 1998 resulted in the launch of Lego Mindstorms
(Waterson 2015).

Other Early Robots

In his book Personal Robotics, Richard Raucci described several robots. Some of
these had found their way into schools (Raucci 1999). Raucci asked: ‘What Is a
Robot, and What Isn’t?’ His answer – you can programme it and it must have sen-
sors. This definition raises many questions and doesn’t address a few important
issues germane to education robots. Since around 2010 a flood of robots have
appeared, many of them proclaiming their education credentials. To better answer
Raucci’s questions and give some semblance of order to the new robots, I worked
with several researchers on producing a taxonomy for education robots.

EduRobot Taxonomy

In April 2018 we presented a provisional version of the taxonomy as a poster and a

paper at the Robots in Education Conference held in Malta (Catlin et al. 2018a).
Figure  1.2 shows the basic taxonomic structure. We surveyed and discussed the
proposal with conference delegates, and with the aid of a few more colleagues, we
presented a revised version at the Constructionism Conference in August 2018
(Catlin et al. 2018b).
We first identified two ‘types’ of robot, Build Bots, which the students had to
build before they could do anything with them. The second we called User Bots –
these you can take them out of the box and use them immediately. Figure 1.3 shows
an example classification.8

8
 You can make a Turtle robot (taxonomy – User Bot: Turtle) from Lego. This doesn’t make Lego
a User Bot. The classification rule, the higher classification determines the choice. That is, Lego is
first and foremost a Build Bot. Think of a platypus, which is a mammal despite its many reptile
characteristics.
20 D. Catlin

Fig. 1.2 EduRobot
taxonomy. (Courtesy of
Catlin, Kandlhofer and
Holmquist)

Fig. 1.3  Example robot classification. (Courtesy of Catlin, Kandlhofer and Holmquist)
1  Beyond Coding: Back to the Future with Education Robots 21

Following feedback in Malta, we changed the taxonomy to include Social Robots

as a separate ‘type’. We used the definition, ‘Social Bots are autonomous robots that
interact and communicate with students using HRI [Human Robot Interaction]
­technologies. The interactions aim to embody accepted social and cultural norms’
(Li et al. 2011, p. 333).

Educational Robotic Application (ERA) Principle

In 2010 Mike Blamires and I wrote the ten ERA principles (Catlin and Blamires
2010a, b). We both started working in this field in the early 1980s and used different
types of robots in thousands of schools spread over five continents. By following
Papert’s method of reflection we tried to make sense of our multiple experiences.
This led us to draft ERA. The principles serve several purposes:
1 . They reflect our past efforts with education robots.
2. They provide a set of heuristics for evaluating and thinking about education
robots.
3. They provide a design specification to assist in the development of robots, their
activities and learning environments.
Table 1.3 shows the ten principles and their axiomatic style definitions.
We can use ERA to better answer Raucci’s questions: What is an education robot
and must a robot have senses? First, we need to decide whether we should include
physical and virtual robots.
The ‘embodiment principle’ refers to physical and not virtual robots. This doesn’t
mean virtual robots don’t have educational value. It does mean the student experi-
ences with physical and virtual robots aren’t the same. The ERA paper justifies this
based on the theory of embodiment, responses of teachers and some evidence from
mathematicians on how children develop spatial understanding. Added to this I
recently discovered more direct evidence from Sylvia Weir, ‘The inventors of Logo
treated the physical Turtle as much the same as the screen Turtle, but children do
not’ (Weir 1987, p. 155). She reports improvements gained by children using the
floor Turtle over the screen version. This led the taxonomy group to decide virtual
robots needed a taxonomy branch of their own  – which is outside the scope of
EduRobot.
Combining the ‘intelligence, interaction and embodiment principles’ provides a
definition of an education robot. Put simply, they combine to say an education robot
is a physical machine with enough intelligence to support a student’s learning when
they interact with it. This resolved a difficult question about whether you can clas-
sify toy robots as educational. We need to look at some subtle arguments to answer
the sensor’s question.
Defining a robot has always been tricky (Catlin et al. 2018a, pp. 4–6). The word
‘robot’ isn’t the sole prerogative of engineers and scientists  – after all the word
came from the arts when Karel Capek entitled his play Rossum’s Universal Robots.
22 D. Catlin

Table 1.3  Educational robotic application (ERA) principles

Principle Explanation
Technology focus
Intelligence ‘Educational robots can have a range of intelligent behaviours that enables
them to effectively participate in educational activities’
Interaction ‘Students are active learners whose multimodal interactions with
educational robots take place via a variety of appropriate semiotic systems’
Embodiment ‘Students learn by intentional and meaningful interactions with educational
robots situated in the same space and time’
Student focus
Engagement ‘Through engagement educational robots can foster affirmative emotional
states and social relationships that promote the creation of positive learning
attitudes and environments, which improves the quality and depth of a
student’s learning experience’
Sustainable ‘Educational robots can enhance learning in the longer term through the
learning development of meta-cognition, life skills and learner self-knowledge’
Personalisation ‘Educational robots personalise the learning experience to suit the individual
needs of students across a range of subjects’
Teacher focus
Pedagogical ‘The science of learning underpins a wide range of methods available for
using with appropriately designed educational robots to create effective
learning scenarios’
Curriculum and ‘Educational robots can facilitate teaching, learning and assessment in
assessment traditional curriculum areas by supporting good teaching practice’
Equity ‘Educational robots support principles of equity of age, gender, ability, race,
ethnicity, culture, social class, life style and political status’
Practical ‘Educational robots must meet the practical issues involved in organising
and delivering education in both formal and informal learning situations’
Courtesy of Catlin and Blamires

The real issue lies with our focus: Raucci focuses on the technology – and I detect
similar interests from many people behind new education robots. If you concentrate
on the child’s learning, you get a different perspective. Papert discussed Norbert
Weiner and cybernetics and the idea of control (Papert 1993, pp. 179–204). In con-
trol you need to define the boundaries of your system. Figure 1.4 shows three con-
trol models: A has the system boundary around the technology, and B and C include
the students as an active part of the setup. If the robot doesn’t have sensors, it relies
on the student’s ‘sensors’ and creates a natural learning environment. In these cir-
cumstances, education robots may or may not have sensors.

Social Robots

The ‘pedagogical principle’ covers developmental theories sympathetic to edu­

cation robots and a classification of activities used with them. The original
ERA paper only outlined this classification and a later paper expanded on this
1  Beyond Coding: Back to the Future with Education Robots 23

Fig. 1.4  Robot, student and sensor learning systems

(Catlin 2016a). Blamires and I believe constructionist theories best account for the
use of education robots. But we recognise psychological theories view data from
different standpoints. For example, instead of Piaget’s cognitive ideas, you could
look at how robots work from Gibson’s perceptual development theory (Gibson
1969). If a particular theory helps create a better learning scenario, then it’s worth-
while considering it.
The University of Hertfordshire developed the social robot Kaspar9 to help autis-
tic children. The robot reacts to children and the child gradually learns to adjust the
way they respond to the robot. This helps them improve their social skills. You could
understand this using Bandura’s social learning theory which examines how we
develop by copying the actions and behaviours of people around us. Sick, bedridden
children have used a robot called Pebbles10 to go to school for them. They control it
and it enables them to take part in lessons which improves their morale and hastens
their recovery. Although research is continuing, I believe these cases will comply
with Papert’s Paradigm. However, a new breed of education robot is starting to
appear which doesn’t.

Breaking Papert’s Paradigm

‘Robots will begin replacing teachers in the classroom within the next 10 years as
part of a revolution in one-to-one learning, a leading educationalist has predicted.
Sir Anthony Seldon, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Buckingham, said

 Taxonomy – Social Robot: human-like

9

 Taxonomy – Social Robot: telepresence

10
24 D. Catlin

intelligent machines that adapt to suit the learning styles of individual children will
soon render traditional academic teaching all but redundant. The former Master of
Wellington College said programmes currently being developed in Silicon Valley
will learn to read the brains and facial expressions of pupils, adapting the method of
communication to what works best for them’ (Bodkin 2017).
This wasn’t news. A group from Carnegie Mellon University worked with
Honda’s Asimo robot, training it to tell stories. ‘Engaging storytelling is a necessary
skill for humanoid robots if they are to be used in education and entertainment
applications. Storytelling requires that the humanoid robot be aware of its audience
and able to direct its gaze in a natural way. In this paper, we explore how human
gaze can be modelled and implemented on a humanoid robot to create a natural,
human-like behaviour for storytelling’ (Mutlu et al. 2006).
This paper appeared 11 years before Seldon’s prediction. Then a school would
need to pay $150,000 per month to hire Asimo. Now you can buy RoboThespian11
for $75,000. This is a British robot, but you can find people developing this type of
technology all over the world. And they’re becoming more powerful and accom-
plished. Scientific American list ‘Bots that Argue and Instruct’ (Meyrson 2018,
p. 26) as one of the top ten emerging technologies of 2018. The article more or less
claims the technology capable of passing the Turing Test!12 The article finishes with,
‘The intelligent systems will be useful only for assembling existing knowledge, not
for creating it… Still, as machines become more intelligent they raise the spectre of
job losses. It behoves society to provide the next generation with the skills it needs
to tackle problems that require human ingenuity to solve’.
We can challenge this last statement. Astronauts aboard the International Space
Station had to shut down their robot CIMON13 when it began to behave like Hal
9000 from 2001 Space Odyssey (Johnson 2018). In another incident Facebook shut
down robots Bob and Alice when they stopped speaking English and started talking
in a more efficient language they invented (Kenna 2017). Clearly, we can assign
these glitches to teething problems, but they show the ingenuity of such machines
and our inability to predict undesired outcomes.
How should robots with these skills work in the classroom? I’m sure many
schoolchildren would enjoy pulling faces and doing their creative best to fool Mr.
Robot Teacher. On a more serious note, this is the computer programming children.
I think these developments are unavoidable  – but their desirability is dubious.
What’s happening here revives debates between Papert and Patrick Suppes (who
supported computer-aided instruction – CAI) except we now have an anthropomor-
phised computer on wheels or legs (Papert 1993, pp. 162–164) (Johnstone 2003,
pp. 93–94). We need a strategy to manage this technology, and I suggest Papert’s
ideas is the place to start.

11
 Taxonomy – Social Robot: humanoid
12
 A test of machine intelligence. If a human can’t distinguish the machine from another human by
the replies to questions put to both, the machine is intelligent.
13
 Crew Interactive Mobile Companion
1  Beyond Coding: Back to the Future with Education Robots 25

Fast Forward to the Future

Machine Learning and Human Robot Interaction

ERA anticipated machine learning (intelligence principle) and advances in

­human-­robot (HRI) and human-computer interactions (HCI) (interaction principle).
Robots like the latest Roamer14 allow you to change their ‘intelligence’ to support
specific activities. This isn’t simply changing the programme, but how the robot
works. You build the robot Cubelets15 by assembling its modules in different arrange-
ments (Fig. 1.5). How you do this decides the robot’s behaviour and ‘programmes’
it. This is a modern version of the ideas expressed in David Miller’s Scarecrow robot
(Miller et al. 2006). Scarecrow represented an electromechanical robot – it didn’t
have a computer. Its mechanical arrangement determined what it did.
Programming is one way of interacting with a robot, but ERA imagined different
ways for children to interact with education robots, for example, tangible comput-
ing – explained by Tangible Bits (Ishii and Ullmer 1997). The focus on coding dis-
torts what we mean when we say ‘programming’. It’s clear the popular programme
Scratch16 (a descendant of Logo) is a coding system. You can interact with other new
robots like Ozobot17 by drawing lines: although the manufacturer calls it coding, I
think interacting is a more accurate term.

Fig. 1.5 Cubelets.
(Courtesy of Modular
Robotics)

14
 Taxonomy – User Bot: Turtle
15
 Taxonomy – Build Bot: Build system; modular parts
16
 Characteristic tag: Block-based program
17
 Taxonomy – User Bot: Turtle
26 D. Catlin

We live in a time experiencing rapid and significant advances in the technologies

affecting the ‘ERA interaction and intelligence principles’. This includes the
Internet of things (IoT) which will enrich learning environments. We need careful
research to develop robots with machine learning and HRI abilities and stay faithful
to Papert’s Paradigm.

Education, Policy, Schools and Teachers

It’s my experience that a robot activity can work well with one teacher and be a
failure with another. It appears from our earlier review that success and failure
issues apply to school, researchers, teachers, school administrators and political
policies.
Papert wasn’t a fan of logical positivism. He reflected when he first met gears, ‘If
any “scientific” education psychologist had tried to “measure” the effects of this
encounter, he probably would have failed. It had profound consequences but, I con-
jecture, only many years later. A “pre- and post” test at the age of two would have
missed them’ (Papert 1980, p. viii). A logical positivist would dismiss this experi-
ence as anecdotal and demand randomised control trials. I’m not against this sort of
study, but I don’t accept they occupy the pinnacle of quality research: we need to
treat all research respectfully (Catlin and Blamires 2010a, b). However, our strategy
here is not investigating why something didn’t work, but why it worked.
We can’t do better than starting with Costa Rica. In the ‘ERA practical principle’
we examine the conditions that foster systemic change. Success needs five
conditions:
1 . Vision (without it we get confused)
2. Participant buy-in (without it we resist change)
3. Participant skills (without appropriate skills we become fearful)
4. Resources (without resources we get frustrated)
5. Action plan (without a plan we dither)
An examination of the Costa Rican effort sees they met all these conditions.
The projects’ director Clotilde Fonseca explains the details of their project in a
must-­read paper which serves as a model for the application of Papert’s ideas
(Fonseca 2001). She explains their approach to evaluation. ‘It is extremely useful
to establish strategies and methodologies that facilitate the monitoring and forma-
tive evaluation... Unfortunately, daily practice reveals a lack of suitable method-
ologies for measuring the impact of technology and applying qualitative
monitoring’ (Fonseca 2001, p. 12).
Those who insist on quantitative assessments may hastily dismiss this approach.
The Costa Rican government appointed IBM and Seymour Papert to set up the proj-
ect. The head of their Latin American Education Group, Alejandrina Fernandez)
summarised the impact of the effort (Fernandez n.d.):
1  Beyond Coding: Back to the Future with Education Robots 27

• It inspired 13 Latin American to launch similar projects, seven of which evolved

into larger national projects.
• One of the subprojects (Genesis) changed the way over two and a half million
students in over 1000 schools learned and how they thought about themselves
and their potential.
• It trained and transformed how over 12,000 K-12 teachers taught.
• The Costa Rican government officials credit the project for helping transform
Costa Rica from an agricultural country to a technological one.
• Costa Rican leaders claim that the Costa Rican software industry emerged as a
result of the exposure of millions of children to a new way of learning.
According to Johnstone the first 10  years of the project resulted in a fourfold
increase in students studying computer science and persuaded Intel to locate its first
Latin American assembly and testing plant in the country (Johnstone 2003, p. 132).
Costa Rica’s success did attract high-ranking political visitors eager to learn
from their approach. However, their reaction didn’t always embrace the spirit of
the enterprise. For example, the Minister of Finance of a Latin American country
gave his views about the project. ‘I find this programme of yours wonderful. It is a
real asset. You install machines. The children learn. Teachers are dispensed with.
The State payroll shrinks. And best of all you do away with strikes altogether’
(Fonseca 2001, p. 2).
We need to laud the Costa Rican efforts, particularly their attitude to teacher
training. I’ve sold many robots over the last 35 years. And I find it shocking how
many schools, school districts and even whole countries fail to understand the
importance of teacher training or the effort needed to do it properly. It’s not simply
a matter of learning how to programme the robot – it’s about how to organise the use
of robots and teach a constructionist lesson.
Going on a course or several courses is not enough, particularly if, as is the case
with some countries climbing on to the coding bandwagon, the normal teaching
style is drill and practice. Costa Rica committed to constructionism before selecting
any technology. The issue with teacher training is normally economic and teachers’
reluctance to change how they teach. This isn’t a matter of obstinacy: teaching is
both a science and intrinsic skill (Carr 2003). As we discussed programmers gain
‘intuition’ through practice. Irrespective of what talent a teacher starts with, they
must climb Gordon’s skill ladder shown in Fig. 1.6. I’ve found integrating, training
(online) and research into activities will support teacher development (Catlin et al.
2015). This sets up a just-in-time, on-the-job training approach which gradually
improves the teacher’s knowledge and skills as they teach.

Robots and the Curriculum

Jim Howe of Edinburgh University did develop an alternative structured way of

using Logo but Beryl Maxwell suggested a balanced mixture of structure and explo-
ration (Howe and Maxwell 1983, p. Video 4 3:02–4:07). The law demands teachers
28 D. Catlin

Fig. 1.6  Gordon’s skill

ladder

work to the curriculum. Maxwell’s balanced approach satisfies the ‘practical and the
curriculum and assessment ERA principles’.
What you can do with robots varies according to its taxonomy. The ‘pedagogy
principle’ identified 29 characteristics of education robot activities (Catlin 2016a,
b). For example:
‘Exploration  We use the robot to explore and discover the knowledge hidden in a
Microworld. This exercise adds excitement to primary school history lessons. For
example, Roamer is an Archaeologist and it starts to explore an Ancient Roman
Site. Pupils programme Roamer to explore the site. They discover artefacts and pat-
terns that tell them whether the site was a marketplace, a barracks or a Roman bath-
house’ (Catlin 2016a, b, p. 8).
This provoked a whimsical response from one reviewer who said: ‘There were
better ways of doing the activity: the robot served no purpose and you might as well
use an electric toothbrush or a stone’.18 We did a small test and asked a class of
children which they preferred to play with (see Fig. 1.7).
I’ve two reasons for mentioning this. First, according to the United Nations,
about 1.2 billion children go to school every day and in a year teachers cover every
school topic. We can consider the number of lessons using robots as a percentage
equates to zero. Somewhere, we can also assume, a teacher has found a fantastic
way of presenting a topic. However, it’s not a matter of finding those ‘killer activi-
ties’ and getting everyone to use them. It’s a matter of finding what works for you
[teacher] and your students. Robots based on Papert’s Paradigm used by experi-
enced teachers have a high chance of working.
A teacher devised the Exploration activity for a history lesson on the Romans.
She lived near Lindum Colonia [Lincoln], the site of a legionary fortress where

18
 I reviewed a paper for the same conference. It focussed on using Lego and exploring poetry and
it got the same sort of response from one of the other reviewers.
1  Beyond Coding: Back to the Future with Education Robots 29

Fig. 1.7  Children’s choice: do you want to play with the robot, toothbrush or stone. (Courtesy of
Valiant Technology)

archaeologists were working on local digs and the children had watched a popular
television programme called ‘Time Team’. She could justify this activity because of
the ‘engagement and personalisation ERA principles’. It also gave students the
chance to consolidate some maths and coding skills – ‘curriculum and assessment
principle’. Papert’s Paradigm once again ‘kicks in’: all teachers know if you capture
the students’ interest they will learn.19 The moral of this story is it’s never about the
technology (unless your subject is robotics), it’s about the learning and what works
for those involved.
In general, education authorities have gradually shoved schools closer to the
‘school’ Papert hated. The obsessive focus on high-stakes testing, league tables and

 The children who chose the stone and toothbrush were happy to play with the robot, but had
19

specific interest in finding out how the toothbrush worked and writing a story about a magic stone.
30 D. Catlin

accountability oppresses teachers and warps how we organise schoolwork. We need

the courage of our convictions and back Papert’s Paradigm: it works. This means
discovering robot activities that connect to the curriculum and transform the way
children learn. It also means finding opportunities to use robots throughout the
school day.

Making Effective Use of Robots in Schools

Between September 1987 and December 1989, the National Council for Education
Technology (NCET) ran a Turtle project in 21 school districts in the UK (Mills et al.
1989). As a result the use of programmable toys appeared in the first national cur-
riculum for mathematics, ICT and design technology in England and Wales and has
remained in all later revisions.
Papert talked about people ‘doing Logo’ but not entering into ‘the spirit of Logo’
(Papert 1999, pp. vi–vii). Valiant Service Desk often received calls from some
schools saying: ‘We’ve got Roamer scheduled into our teaching plan this month…
or we have an Ofsted20 inspection and we need to show pupils using Roamer’. These
questions show schools ‘doing’ enough to meet curriculum demands but not
embracing the spirit of using ‘programmable toys’. Many of these teachers found it
difficult to justify using a robot. Sometimes because they didn’t know how, or the
technology intimidated them, using it didn’t match their teaching style or they were
too set in their ways to even try. But in other cases, they simply didn’t see the
opportunities.

Opportunities to Use Robots

Everyday Lessons

You can use robots in everyday lessons. Even with one robot, you can engage a
whole class. For example, in the robot rally activity (Fig. 1.8), students programme
the robot to travel the course as fast as possible. They choose a route across different
terrains. Working in pairs the whole class test the speed of the robot along the road,
over the mountain or through the forest. Each team is responsible for timing the tri-
als and using their data to chart a route. The class correlate the routes and then test
them. Children do some scientific experiments, use mathematics and the data col-
lected to decide a course and then test their idea.
You can find challenges to cover all subjects. Like Hollywood stars, robots can
play a lead role, but they’re also good playing cameo parts. I’ve used robots just to

 Office for Standards in Education  – a government quango who inspect and report on school
20

performance
1  Beyond Coding: Back to the Future with Education Robots 31

Fig. 1.8  Robot rally race. (Courtesy of Valiant Technology Ltd)

introduce a topic or to get student’s thinking and talking. We need to remind

­ourselves that the core of Papert’s Paradigm is encouraging children to think, to get
them to fall in love with learning. If that’s all the robot does, it has done a good job.
The clarion call for STEM loudly drowns out a desperate need to enrich the cul-
tural and moral life of our communities. An MIT experiment in Buenos Aries aimed
to engage Jewish parents and their children to come together in a reflective way
during the Jewish High Holidays. They aimed to build and programme Lego robots
to explore values and identity (Bers and Urrea 2000, pp. 194–217). Another exam-
ple, Roamer, signs the European Pledge to Peace. One peace event led a class of 30
children in Oldham to programme 6 robots to draw a line from one classmate to
another. They sat in a circle and sent the robot to a ‘person who has the same colour
hair’ or ‘supported the same football team’. Their teacher proclaimed, ‘They learnt
more about each other in one hour than they had in the previous six months’. The
task resulted in a network of lines representing what they had in common – not their
differences. It’s surprising how many arch enemies became friends when they did
that (Catlin 2014a, b, c).
I don’t hold with the opinion that arts are creative and somehow science, comput-
ing, engineering and mathematics aren’t. Robots belong to both worlds and often
combine the two. A mathematics and Islamic art project demonstrated this idea
(Catlin 2018b). Other examples include art (Clayson 1988), robot performing arts
­(movies) (Catlin 2010) and dancing robots (Catlin 2017).
32 D. Catlin

Prior Knowledge

You might find it useful to introduce a new topic with activities that engage students
with the subjects’ key ideas. Bransford and colleagues introduce the importance of
prior knowledge and experience (Bransford et al. 2000, pp. 10–12). And of course
Papert endorses the approach: ‘By getting to know these Turtles as they get to know
a person these children are learning to be mathematicians. This is Piaget’s real mes-
sage, knowledge built on experience’ (Papert 1983, pp. Video 2 – 0:04–0:16).
Inspired by the work of Professors John Paulos (Paulos 1998) and Kieran Egan
(Egan 1989), I ran a test in a high school with a group of average-ability students.
Their teacher wanted to prepare them for a study of movement. He gave them a list
of keywords about motion, like velocity, speed and distance, and asked them to
write stories including the keywords. They had to programme the Roamer robot to
act the story and then present it to their classmates. The exercise highlighted what
students knew and what they misunderstood about the words they used in conversa-
tion. Their teacher thought this made them focus on the subject and helped him to
know what confusions he had to correct.
It also revealed how we’d brainwashed students into views that limited their
appreciation of the maths, their thinking and their creativity. ‘We’re meant to be
doing maths. This is English: not maths!’ Little wonder people don’t enjoy the beauty
and power of mathematics. We’ve locked them into such narrow-minded perspectives
of what it is they fail to see how it surrounds us all. The more advanced our robots21
become the more elegant and sophisticated we can make these activities.

Classroom Strategies

You can use User Bots: Turtles for revision by engaging students in tasks that help
them with factual information and skills in a different context. The Biggest Number
is an example which has proved successful in various situations (Catlin 2013;
Hudson 2017). The students programme the robot to find a route from start to finish.
They can only enter a square once and then use the operator and next number to
amass a score. In Fig. 1.9 they can go from 12 + 4–2 and so on. The task tests and
reinforces their grasp of arithmetic and arithmetic operations (including inverse
operations): 759,942 is the highest to date.
If your normal teaching method hasn’t helped the children understand a concept,
then you could try a relevant robot task. A different approach often helps. Some
teachers set up a special robot corner so a small group of children can work with a
robot while the rest of the class do other activities. Others organise pull-out sessions
and use the help of a teaching assistant. Both these methods help teachers to work
with minimal equipment. Better equipped classrooms work with groups of five chil-
dren with one robot.

 The ‘ERA intelligence and interaction principle’ predict we’ll develop more natural interactions
21

with robots.
1  Beyond Coding: Back to the Future with Education Robots 33

Fig. 1.9  Biggest number

mat. You can change the
mathematics in the puzzle
to suit your students.
(Courtesy of Valiant
Technology)

Events

Teachers often use robots, especially Build Bots like Lego, in after-school clubs or
they attend special events like Lego First League or Big Bang experiences. Robots
used in special events always create enthusiasm and energy. What happens when the
pupils return to schools – a return to the humdrum? Better planning harnesses the
energy and makes sure it supports the curriculum. Some teachers find ways to set up
events within their school. They often fit this into busy classroom schedules through
cultural events and link it to the curriculum as prior knowledge or revision
opportunities

Cultural Events

Some education robots have neutral designs, allowing the student to give them a
personality that reflects their culture. The robot becomes a tool of culture and sup-
ports student’s self-expression. Obvious cases include a project with Roamer Maori
people which started in New Zealand and repeated by a small Squaxin tribe in
Seattle (Catlin et al. 2012). The Squaxins used the robot in a summer camp during
the canoe and potlatch event.22 Students programmed Roamer to animate their tra-
ditional stories, simulate the canoe journey and perform traditional dances. Before
the summer camp, the tribal elders approved the programme thinking it was a STEM
project. When the children23 started to approach them to find out how to do the
dances and weave blankets to dress their Roamer up, they realised it was a cultural
project.

22
 West Coast Native American used ocean-going canoes to travel up and down the US Pacific
Coast. Celebrating this tradition is now an annual adult-only event. Native Americans revived
potlatch festivals (banned in the nineteenth century) which traditionally brought tribes together to
share wealth, news, food, music and dance.
23
 Children attend the summer camp voluntarily and those involved were of all ages and abilities.
34 D. Catlin

The ‘ERA equity and personalisation principles’ provide more understanding of

how robots grounded in Papert’s Paradigm engage children no matter their circum-
stance. While we normally cite gender, ethnicity and cultural factors, we shouldn’t
forget poverty (Catlin and Robertson 2012). Again we cite the Costa Rican project.
‘Perhaps one of the more valuable contributions that the Computers in Elementary
Education Program has made to the international community is showing that it is
possible to obtain significant results from introducing new technological and educa-
tional opportunities to children and teachers from deprived communities’ (Fonesca
1999, p. 13).
You can also use the energy and cultural interests aroused by festivals from the
Rio Carnival to Chinese New Year: or major international events like the Olympics
(Catlin 2012b).

Robots Versus Computers

People, heeding Wing’s call for coding to touch all subjects, have found ways to,
for example, engage children with Newton’s laws of motion. Some teaching
resources simply substitute the traditional CAI student-computer interactions with
students writing trivial bits of code. Scratch shows its Logo ancestry by challeng-
ing children to code simulations to explain the laws. Simulation plays an impor-
tant role in modern sciences, like astrophysics and cosmology. But robots live in
the concrete world and provide tangible experiences of Newton’s laws giving
­students the chance to form and test theories. For example, in the World Cup pen-
alty shoot-out, pupils programme a robot to run at and hit a ball into the goal
(Catlin 2018a). At normal speed, the robot will not score. How do you make sure
it does? Better follow through? Hit the ball harder – how do you do that – why
does it work? The problem throws up many relevant questions needing concrete,
testable answers.

Assessment

Teachers around the world bemoan assessment and high-stakes testing. ‘When they
feel they are successful they feel it is despite the undermining opposition, they feel
they triumph despite obstacles … But the sense of being undermined comes about
because they feel their voice is ignored. The curriculum and its assessment is thrust
upon them from outside. The sense of personal involvement and freedom to be
inspired are constrained’ (Cullingford 1997, p. 266). I believe the political drive for
accountability has significantly worsened since Cullingford wrote those words.
Although subject to many pressures and sometimes politically motivated inter-
ference, teachers still, more or less, control what goes on in their classroom. We
need to capture Trevor Thomson’s expertise. And, more importantly, we need a way
1  Beyond Coding: Back to the Future with Education Robots 35

Table 1.4  Components of assessment for learning

Component Meaning
Learning intentions The student’s perspective on what they’re learning
Success criteria How students recognise when they’ve succeeded
Peer assessment Students interacting, discussing, challenging and criticising each other’s
efforts
Quality feedback Ways for teachers to help students overcome difficulties and guides
improvements to their understanding

of helping teachers improve their skills and climb on to the top step of Gordon’s
skill ladder. Assessment for learning (AfL), properly used, is a set of heuristics that
can support these ambitions. More importantly, AfL provides the ideal way of man-
aging lessons with education robots (Catlin 2012a).
Black and Wiliam’s seminal paper, Inside the Black Box, outlines a formative
assessment approach to managing lessons (Black and Wiliam 1990) (see Table 1.4).
Effectively, AfL codifies good teaching practice, and you’ll find when used prop-
erly, it reflects Papert’s Paradigm. A review of the report of the 1989 NCET Turtle
project referred to earlier shows a natural correlation with AfL ideas and the use of
education robots. AfL is a formative assessment method; it’s a set of techniques to
help teachers understand and manage the dynamics of a lesson and maximise stu-
dent learning. Unfortunately, bureaucrats are increasingly trying to control the
classroom and the way teachers teach. Wiliam cites the example of teachers forced
to write learning ‘intention’ on the blackboard and even making children copy it
into their exercise books. Teachers know this is nonsense (Wiliam 2011, p. 56).
A learning intention is, ‘What the children think they’re learning’. You should
make sure this is the children telling you: not simply students paraphrasing your
lesson objectives. I argue you can only set up learning intentions once you’ve
engaged the pupils in the lesson (Catlin 2016a, b). Dylan Wiliam discusses many
exceptions to the bureaucratic constraints insisting AfL guidelines become ‘must
follow rules’ (Wiliam 2012).

Conclusion

Jeannette Wing’s coding revolution coincided and perhaps promoted a surge in new
education robots. However, her rationale encouraging schools to take up coding and
its promised education and economic rewards lack long-term conviction. It’s true
there’s an immediate need for more programmers. But it’s hard to believe this is a
long-term issue: advances in machine learning technologies will resolve the prob-
lem. While her idea about computational thinking has merit, it’s not something we
should impose on children. Instead, we should encourage its natural development
through experience while allowing children to cultivate their own styles. We need to
remember that computational thinking isn’t the only professional thinking method
that works, and it’s an emergent process that comes from experience.
36 D. Catlin

This doesn’t mean we should abandon the idea of children learning to code, but
it changes the reason we’re doing it and so how we organise it and assess its
benefits.
We can see sophisticated robots taking their first baby steps towards becoming
teachers. What they do now is mechanical and predictable. However, we can’t rule
out developments in AI leading to robots that compete for jobs with human teachers.
We’ve seen how some politicians see teachers as part of the education problem – not
the solution. They’d like to get rid teachers as far as possible and no doubt would
like to replace them with robots. I recognise this is an extreme, even fanciful view-
point, but it does indicate a tendency among some people. If we adopt this approach,
computers will teach children, which runs counter to the constructionist way we
learn.
I presented two examples where constructionism lay at the heart of school educa-
tion. One in the classroom (Trevor Thomson) and national programme (Costa Rica).
Both of these embraced Papert’s ideas by showing how we can achieve a balance
between developing student talents and meeting the education expectations of soci-
ety. They prove both the worth and practicality of Papert’s Paradigm.
Robots can and should play a part in such education as teaching aides and not as
teacher replacements. I’ve outlined some ways teachers can incorporate their use in
everyday schooling. The question developers must tackle is how to include power-
ful machine learning technology into education robots compliant with Papert’s
Paradigm. This will still keep children in charge of their own learning while giving
them the experiences needed to grow their talents and gain knowledge. Students
will still programme robots, but they’ll also interact with them in more natural ways
offered by HRI.

References

Ableson, H., & diSessa, A. A. (1981). Turtle geometry. Cambridge, Massacheusetts: London: MIT
Press.
Akermann, E. K. (n.d.). Piaget’s constructivism, papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference.
(MIT Media Lab) Retrieved November 15, 2018, from Future Learning Group: http://learning.
media.mit.edu/content/publications/EA.Piaget%20_%20Papert.pdf
Angulo, C., Canas, A.  J., Castro, A.  G., Munoz, L., & Zamora, N. (2018). Think, create and
program: Evolving to a K-9 nationwide computational thinking program in Costa Rica. In
V.  Dagienė, & E.  Jasutė, Constructionism 2018, (pp.  515–520). Vilnius. Retrieved October
25, 2018, from http://www.constructionism2018.fsf.vu.lt/file/repository/Proceeding_2018_
Constructionism.pdf
Bers, M. U., & Urrea, C. (2000). Technological prayers: Parents and children exploring robotic
values. In A. Druin, J. Hendler, A. Druin, & J. Hendler (Eds.), Robots for kids (pp. 194–217).
San Diego, London: Academic Press.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1990). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assess-
ment. GL assessment Limited. Retrieved November 30, 2018, from https://weaeducation.type-
pad.co.uk/files/blackbox-1.pdf
Bodkin, H. (2017). ‘Inspirational’ robots to begin replacing teachers within 10 years. Telegraph
online. Retrieved November 15, 2017, from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/09/11/
inspirational-robots-begin-replacing-teachers-within-10-years/
1  Beyond Coding: Back to the Future with Education Robots 37

Bradly, K. (2017). Creative industries record contribution to UK economy. Department for Digital,
Cultural, Media and Sport. UK Government. Retrieved December 7, 2018, from https://www.
gov.uk/government/news/creative-industries-record-contribution-to-uk-economy
Brand, S. (1972). Spacewar. Retrieved November 8, 2018, from Rolling Stone: http://wheels.org/
spacewar/stone/rolling_stone.html
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience and school (Vol. Expanded Edition). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Carr, D. (2003). Making sense of education. London and New York: Routledge Falmer, Taylor &
Francis Group.
Catlin, D. (2010). Robotic performing arts project. Constructionism 2010. Paris. Retrieved
December 6, 2018, from http://research.roamer-educational-robot.com/2010/08/16/
robotics-performing-arts-project/
Catlin, D. (2012a). Maximising the effectiveness of education robotics through the use of assess-
ment for learning methodologies. TR-TWR conference. Riva del Garda, Italy. Retrieved
November 30, 2012, from http://research.roamer-educational-robot.com/2012/04/20/maxi-
mising-the-effectiveness-of-educational-robotics-through-the-use-of-assessment-for-learning-
methodologies/
Catlin, D. (2012b). Roamer olympics. Retrieved November 22, 2012, from Tumblr: http://roamer-
robot.tumblr.com/post/27185616533/roamer-olympics
Catlin, D. (2013). The big bang experience. Retrieved November 22, 2018, from Tumblr: http://
roamerrobot.tumblr.com/post/45871836724/roamer-a-big-bang-experience
Catlin, D. (2014a). Roamer makes friends. Retrieved November 29, 2018, from Tumblr: http://
roamerrobot.tumblr.com/post/158920999823/roamer-makes-friends
Catlin, D. (2014b). Using peer assessment with education robots. 1st international confer-
ence on peer review, peer assessment and self assessment. Tallinn, Estonia. Retrieved
December 1, 2018, from http://research.roamer-educational-robot.com/2014/08/21/
using-peer-assessment-with-educational-robots/
Catlin, D. (2014c). Using peer assessment with educational robots. 1st International Conference
on Peer Review, Peer Assessment and Self Assessment. Tallinn, Estonia: PRASAE. Retrieved
November 30, 2018, from http://research.roamer-educational-robot.com/2014/08/21/
using-peer-assessment-with-educational-robots/
Catlin, D. (2016a). 29 effective ways you can use robots in the classroom:
An explanation of ERA pedagogical principle. Edurobotics 2016. Athens.
Retrieved November 15, 2018, from http://research.roamer-educational-robot.
com/2016/12/23/29-effective-ways-you-can-use-robots-in-the-classroom/#more-368
Catlin, D. (2016b). Learning intentions and educational robots. Constructionism 2016. Bangkok.
Retrieved November 30, 2018, from http://research.roamer-educational-robot.com/2016/02/05/
learning-intentions-and-educational-robots/
Catlin, D. (2017). 5 things that made roamer a terrific dancer: How student’s loved roamer’s cre-
ative coding challenge. GO Magazine. Retrieved December 6, 2018, from http://go.roamer-
educational-robot.com/2017/10/16/5-things-that-make-roamer-a-terrific-dancer
Catlin, D. (2018a). How did world cup fever win in essex. Retrieved November 29,
2018, from GO Magazine: http://go.roamer-educational-robot.com/2018/07/19/
how-did-world-cup-fever-win-in-essex/
Catlin, D. (2018b). How to engage 14 year-old students with mathematics: Using roamer to explore
islamic art. GO Magazine. Retrieved December 6, 2018, from http://go.roamer-educational-
robot.com/2018/05/18/how-to-engage-14-year-old-students-with-mathematics/
Catlin, D., & Blamires, M. (2010a). The e-robot project: A longitudinal on-line research collabo-
ration to investigate ERA principles. Simpar (TRTWR). Darmstadt. Retrieved November 22,
2018, from http://research.roamer-educational-robot.com/2010/11/15/the-e-robot-project/
Catlin, D., & Blamires, M. (2010b). The principles of educational robotic applications (ERA):A
framework for understanding and developing educational robots and their activities.
Constructionism 2010. Paris: Proceedings of Constructionism 2010. Retrieved May 15, 2018,
from goo.gl/N7z84k.
38 D. Catlin

Catlin, D., & Blamires, M. (2018). Designing robots for special needs education. In L. Daniela &
M. D. Lytras (Eds.), Technology, knowledge and learning special issue on education robotics
for inclusive education. Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9378-8.
Catlin, D., & Robertson, S. (2012). Using educational robots to enhance the perfor-
mance of minority Students. TR-TWR. Riva del Garda, Italy. Retrieved November
22, 2018, from http://research.roamer-educational-robot.com/2012/04/12/74/
Using_Educational_Robots_to_Enahnce_the_Performance_of_Minority_Students
Catlin, D., & Thomson, T. (1998). Fleet circus of imagination. Retrieved November
20, 2018, from GO Magazine: http://go.roamer-educational-robot.com/1998/11/21/
fleet-circus-of-imagination/
Catlin, D., & Woollard, J.  (2014). Educational robots and computational thinking. Teaching
Robotics Teaching with Robotics (TRTWR) and Robotics in Education (RIE) 2014
Conference, Padova, Italy Teaching Robotics Teaching with Robotics (TRTWR)  – Robotics
in Education (RIE) 2014 Conference, Padova, Italy, Italy. 8  pp. Padova, Italy. Retrieved
October 29, 2018, from http://research.roamer-educational-robot.com/2014/07/22/
educational-robots-and-computational-thinking/
Catlin, D., Smith, J.  L., & Morrison, K. (2012). Using educational robots as tools of cultural
expression: A report on projects with indigenous communities. 3rd International Conference
Robots in Education. Prague. Retrieved November 29, 2018, from http://research.roamer-edu-
cational-robot.com/2012/09/13/using-educational-robots-as-tools-of-cultural-expression/
Catlin, D., Csizmadia, A.  P., Omera, J., & Younie, S. (2015). Using education robotic
research to transform the classroom: Establishing a robotics community of evi-
denced-based practice using MESH guides and the TACTICS framework. 6th
International Conference on Robots in Education. Yverdon-les-Bains. Retrieved
November 22, 2018, from http://research.roamer-educational-robot.com/2015/05/21/
using-educational-robotics-research-to-transform-the-classroom/
Catlin, D., Kandlhofer, M., & Holmquist, S. (2018a). EduRobot taxonomy a provisional
schema for classifying educational robots. 9th International Conference Robotics in
Education. Qwara, Malta. Retrieved November 12, 2018, from https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/324786505_EduRobot_Taxonomy_A_Provisional_Schema_for_Classifying_
Educational_Robots
Catlin, D., Kandlhofer, M., Holmquist, S., CsIzmadia, A. P., Angel-Fernandez J., & Cabibihan,
J.  (2018b). Edurobot taxonomy and Papert’s paradigm. In V.  Dagienė, & E.  Jasutė (Ed.),
Constructionism 2018: Constructionism, computational thinking and innovation, (pp. 151–
159). Vilnius, Lithuania. Retrieved November 12, 2018, from http://www.construction-
ism2018.fsf.vu.lt/file/repository/Proceeding_2018_Constructionism.pdf
Clayson, J. (1988). Visual Modeling with logo. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
CodeWeek EU. (2018). Retrieved October 25, 2018, from CodeWeek EU: https://codeweek.eu/
about/
Computing Programmes of Study. (2013). Statutory guidance: National curriculum in England.
Department of Education. Retrieved October 25, 2018, from https://www.gov.uk/gov-
ernment/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study/
national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study
Cooper, D. E. (2001). Plato. In J. A. Palmer (Ed.), Fifty major thinkers on education (pp. 10–14).
London and New York: Routledge.
Crevier, D. (1993). AI: The tumultuous history of the search for artificial intelligence. New York:
Basic Books.
Cribben, J. (2013). Computing with quantum cats: From Alan turing to teleportation (Black Swan
Edition 2014 ed.). London: Bantum Press.
Cullingford, C. (1997). Conclusion: The personal effects of assessment. In C. Cullingford (Ed.),
Assessment versus evaluation. London: Cassell.
Dennett, D.  C. (1993) Review of papert, the children’s machine. New Scientist, pp.  45–46.
Retrieved November 16, 2018, from https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/papert.htm
Egan, K. (1989). Teaching as story telling. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
1  Beyond Coding: Back to the Future with Education Robots 39

Fernandez, A. (n.d.). Masterpiece: Education technology industry: Projects genisis and quorum.
Retrieved December 22, 2018, from Breakthrough Design Lab: http://www.breakthrough-
designlab.com/new-page-2/
Fonesca, C. (1999). The Computer in Costa Rica: A new door to educational and social oppor-
tunities. In Logo philosophy and implementation (pp. 3–21). LCSI. Retrieved November 16,
2018, from http://www.fod.ac.cr/aplicacionesFOD/ARCHIVOS/RECURSOS/thecomputerin-
costarica.pdf
Fonseca, C. (2001). Fallacies and objectives regarding the uses of new technologies in educa-
tion. New Technologies in Education: Prospects, XXXI(3), 399–413. Retrieved December 22,
2018, from http://www.fod.ac.cr/aplicacionesFOD/ARCHIVOS/RECURSOS/fallaciesandob-
jectivesregardingtheusesofnewtechnologiesineducation.pdf
Furber, S. (2012). Shut down or restart? The way forward for computing in UK schools. London:
Royal Society. Retrieved October 24, 2018, from https://royalsociety.org/~/media/education/
computing-in-schools/2012-01-12-computing-in-schools.pdf
Garvin, J. (2016). Software developers worry they will be replaced by AI. Retrieved October 28,
2018, from https://evansdata.com/press/viewRelease.php?pressID=231
Gibson, E. J. (1969). The principles of perceptual learning and development. New York: Prentice
Hall.
Hayes, B. (2014). Programming yur quantum computer. American Scientist, 102(1), 22. https://
doi.org/10.1511/2014.106.22.
Hemmendinger, D. (2010). A plea for modesty. Inroads, 1(2), 4–7.
Hobson, P. (2001). Aristotle. In J. A. Palmer (Ed.), Fifty major thinkers on education (pp. 14–19).
London and New York: Routledge.
Howe, J., & Maxwell, B. (1983). Talking turtle. Horizon, Part 1–05:30 to 05:55. BBC and the
Open University. Retrieved November 5, 2018, from http://research.roamer-educational-robot.
com/1983/12/14/talking-turtle/
Hoyles, C., & Sutherland, R. (1989). Logo mathematics in the classroom (Revised ed.). London
and New York: Routledge.
Hudson, K.  R. (2017). How did roamer do at amazing robot exhibition. Retrieved November
30, 2018, from GO Magazine: http://go.roamer-educational-robot.com/2017/11/14/
how-did-roamer-do-at-amazing-robot-exhibition/
Hutchinson, D.  S. (1995). Ethics. In J.  Barnes (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to aristotle
(pp. 195–232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ishii, H., & Ullmer, B. (1997). Tangible bits: Towards seamless interfaces between people, bits
and atoms. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Atlanta, GA.  Retrieved
November 22, 2018, from http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~ullmer/papers/tangible_bits/
Johnson, A. (2018). ‘Don’t be so mean’: CIMON the European space robot cops an attitude.
Retrieved December 22, 2018, from NBC News: Innovation: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/
innovation/don-t-be-so-mean-cimon-european-space-robot-cops-n943336
Johnstone, B. (2003). Never mind the laptops. New York: IUniverse Inc.
Kenna, S. (2017). Facebook shuts down AI robot after it creates its own language. Retrieved
December 22, 2018, from Huff Post: Innovation: https://www.huffingtonpost.com.
au/2017/08/02/facebook-shuts-down-ai-robot-after-it-creates-its-own-language_a_2305
8978/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&g
uce_referrer_cs=wDg16blW8AFS0-SOeZT0ow
Klahr, D., & Carver, S.  M. (1988). Cognitive objectives in a LOGO debugging curriculum:
Instruction learning and transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 362–404. Retrieved November
11, 2018, from http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/0010-0285(88)90004-7
Korzonek, T. (2016). Is AI on its way to disrupting software development? Retrieved October 28,
2018, from https://blog.codebeat.co/: https://blog.codebeat.co/is-ai-on-its-way-to-disrupting-
software-development-e7933fc0a75
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
40 D. Catlin

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Li, H., Cabibihan, J., & Tan, Y. K. (2011). Towards an effective design of social robots. International
Journal of Social Robots, 3, 333–335.
Luria, A. R. (1976). In M. Cole (Ed.), Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations.
Caambridge Massachusetts and London: Harvard University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strike rule against pure discovery learning. American
Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14.
McCorduck, P. (2004). Machines who think. Natick, MA: A.K. Peters.
Meyrson, B.  S. (2018). Bots that argue and instruct. Scientic American. Scientific American,
New York.
Miller, D. P., Milstein, J. Q., & Stein, C. (2006). Scarecrow: If I only had AI. Retrieved December
1, 2018, from Smantic Scholar: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dc0b/216f5a99a84d57ed8f73
03b1240b57644b18.pdf
Mills, R., Staines, J., & Tabbeerer, R. (1989). Turtling without tears. Coventry, UK: National
Council for Educational Technology.
Mubeen, J.  (2017). Seymour papert dreamed of a learning revolution -Why hasn’t it hap-
pened? Retrieved November 16, 2018, from Medium: https://medium.com/@fjmubeen/
seymour-papert-dreamed-of-a-learning-revolution-why-hasnt-it-happened-b280f542e4ff
Mutlu, B., Forlizzi, J., & Hodgins, J. (2006). A storytelling robot: Modeling and evaluation of. In
6th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots Human-like Gaze Behaviour.
Genoa, Italy: IEEE.
Ng, D. (2017). Where seymour papert got it wrong. Retrieved November 16, 2018, from
Medium.Com: https://medium.com/vertical-learning/where-seymour-papert-got-it-wrong-
6203f94149d1
Noss, R. (1995). Thematic chapter: Computers as commodities. In A.  DiSessa, C.  Hoyles, &
R. Noss (Eds.), Computers and exploratory learning (pp. 363–382). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Papert, S. (1969). Programming and problem solving: The logo programming language. In
W.  Feurzeig, Computer systems for teaching complex concepts: Final report (Final Report
ed., Vol. Report 1742, pp.  94–108). Cambridge, MA, USA: Bolt, Beranek and Newman.
Retrieved 11 7, 2018, from http://research.roamer-educational-robot.com/1969/03/10/
programming-and-problem-solving-the-logo-programming-language/
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1983). Talking turtle. Horizon, Part 1–02:48 to 03:10. BBC and the Open University.
Retrieved November 5, 2018, from http://research.roamer-educational-robot.com/1983/12/14/
talking-turtle/
Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine. New York: Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1999). Introduction. In Logo philosophy and implementation (pp. v–xvi). LCSI. Retrieved
November 16, 2018, from http://www.fod.ac.cr/aplicacionesFOD/ARCHIVOS/RECURSOS/the-
computerincostarica.pdf
Papert, S. (2005). Teaching children thinking. CITE Journal: Contemporary Issues in Technology
and Teacher Education, 5(3). Retrieved November 9, 2018, from https://www.citejournal.org/
volume-5/issue-3-05/seminal-articles/teaching-children-thinking/
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. New York: Ablex Publishing. Retrieved
from http://web.media.mit.edu/~calla/web_comunidad/Reading-En/situating_construction-
ism.pdf
Parnas, D. L. (1985). Software aspects of strategic defense systems. Communications of the ACM,
28(12), 1326–1335. Retrieved October 27, 2018, from https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs99r/
readings/parnas1.pdf
Paterson, M. (1969). LOGO ambulatory executor – Turtle robot. Scientific American. Retrieved
May 1, 2018, from goo.gl/VK2DMv.
Paulos, J. A. (1998). Once upon a number. New York: Basic Books.
1  Beyond Coding: Back to the Future with Education Robots 41

Pea, R. D. (1984). Symbol systems and thinking skills: Logo in context. In Pre-proceedings of
the 1984 National Logo Conference (pp. 55–66). Cambridge, MA: Laboratory of Computer
Science, Massachusettes Institute of Technology.
Pea, R. D., & Kurland, M. (1984). On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming.
New Ideas in Psychology, 2, 138. Retrieved from On the Cognitiive Effects of Learning
Computer Programming.
Plowden, B. (1967). Children and their primary schools. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.
Retrieved Nov 10, 2017, from http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/plowden/
plowden1967-1.html
Polya, G. (1990). How to solve it (New Edition ed.). London and New York: Penguin Books.
Price, B.  D. (n.d.). The con in constructivism. Retrieved November 24, 2018, from Improve
Education: http://www.improve-education.org/id55.html
Raucci, R. (1999). Personal robotics. Natick, MA: A K Peters.
Resnick, M. (2016). Mitch resnick: Designing for wide walls. Retrieved November 6, 2018, from
Design Blog: https://design.blog/2016/08/25/mitchel-resnick-designing-for-wide-walls/
Rice University. (2018). Retrieved from Pliny: http://pliny.rice.edu/
Southampton University. (2013). Computational thinking: The developing definition. Southampton.
Retrieved October 29, 2018, from http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/356481
Stewart I. (1990). Foreword G. Polya, How to solve it (New Edition ed.). London and New York:
Penguin Books.
Stonier, T. (1983). The wealth of information: A profile of the post-industrial economy. London:
Thames Methuen.
Turing, A. M. (1947). Lecture to the London mathematical society. London: London Mathematical
Society. Retrieved October 27, 2018, from https://www.vordenker.de/downloads/turing-vor-
lesung.pdf
Turkle, S. (2005). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. (20th Anniversary Edition
ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Vanderbilt, C. A. (1996). Looking at technology in context: A framework for understanding tech-
nology in context. In D.  C. Berliner & R.  C. Calfee (Eds.), The handbook for educational
psychology (pp. 807–840). New York: Simon and Schuster-MacMillan.
Waterson, A. (2015). Lego mindstorms: A history of educational robots. Retrieved November 22,
2018, from Hack Education: http://hackeducation.com/2015/04/10/mindstorms
Weir, S. (1987). Cultivating minds: A logo case book. New York: Harper Row.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, ID: Solution Tree.
Wiliam, D. (2012). Unpacking formative assessment. (Northwest Evaluation Association) Retrieved
November 30, 2018, from You Tube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPf0nQFfv50
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
Chapter 2
Educational Robotics for Reducing Early
School Leaving from the Perspective
of Sustainable Education

Linda Daniela and Raimonds Strods

Abstract  Early School Leaving (ESL) is a problem for many countries and some
have pledged to reduce the number of children leaving school early to below 10%
by 2020. Between October 2015 and September 2017, Italy, Greece and Latvia
implemented an Erasmus+ project that used robotics to reduce the risk of ESL. The
effectiveness of the teaching and learning materials developed during the project
and the pedagogical strategies used were examined in groups at high-risk of ESL
and in the work of the teachers participating in the project. In this paper, the use of
robotics to reduce the risks of early school leaving is analysed from the perspective
of sustainable education. Mixed methods were used to evaluate the project, and
several tools were developed to gather qualitative and quantitative data. Preliminary
evaluation of the project was based on action research principles.
It was concluded that the use of robotics enhanced the motivation to learn in
students at high-risk of ESL and encouraged them to construct knowledge actively
and independently, thus reducing their risk of ESL and in the long-term ensuring the
4th SDG was reached, particularly sustainable education. Analysis of teachers’
responses also supported the conclusion that the use of robotics improved the stu-
dents’ attitude towards learning, motivation and ensured active participation in the
learning process.

Keywords  Educational robotics · Robotics-based learning · Sustainable education

Early school leaving

L. Daniela (*)
Faculty of Education, Psychology, & Art, University of Latvia, Rīga, Latvia
e-mail: [email protected]
R. Strods
University of Latvia, Rīga, Latvia

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 43

L. Daniela (ed.), Smart Learning with Educational Robotics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19913-5_2
44 L. Daniela and R. Strods

Introduction

Many countries of the world are trying to reduce rates of Early School Leaving
(ESL). A low population level of education has a negative effect on a country’s
competitiveness because of the waste of human capital, but it also has a social
impact, which in turn influences the different aspects of sustainable development.
People with little education may be unable to provide for themselves economically
and require social assistance, thus creating a burden for the economy and potentially
endangering the safety of other people, etc. People with low levels of education may
not be able to take responsible decisions about their families, they are not ready for
innovations and so on. In 2015, countries agreed on Sustainable Development Goals
(SDG), where the 4th goal is devoted to quality education for everyone; thus, we can
understand that activities aimed to reduce risks of early school leaving ensures that
everyone can realise his/her potential. However, educational robotics can support
reaching not only educational objectives but also can support reaching other goals
of sustainable development, for example, support reducing the gender gap in the
field of ICT, support innovations to improve the industry, help to develop sustain-
able cities and societies and so on (United Nations Development Programme 2015).
The focus of this paper is on outcomes of the use of educational robotics for stu-
dents at risk of ESL, but these outcomes will be analysed trough the lenses of SDGs.
The sustainable development goal for education in broad understanding is perceived
as education that is inclusive and available for everyone without borders or other
restrictions, such as gender, educational availability and so on. In this paper, we
look at this goal from another perspective — how to ensure that children stay in
education and reach higher objectives — and we believe that this perspective is also
important for reaching sustainable development goals.
Rates of ESL in the countries involved in the project were rather high during the
preparation phase: in 2014 they were 9% in Greece, 15% in Italy and 8.5% in Latvia.
Hence, the aim of the project was to reduce rates of ESL through use of educational
robotics (ER) (Eurostat 2016).
The risk factors for ESL are often complex and combined with other risk factors
(Bhowmik 2017; Daniela et al. 2014; Nevala et al. 2011). Family-related risk factors
include lack of social and emotional support, but other risk factors are related to the
teaching and learning process or the student’s special needs (health issues, learning
disabilities, etc.) (Melkevik et al. 2016; Downes 2016). Risk of ESL is also increased
by lack of emotional attachment to one’s school, feeling rejected by the school and
unsupported by the teachers. Fredrick and colleagues concluded that school attach-
ment was influenced by factors in three broad categories: behaviour, i.e. factors
relating to involvement in learning and social activities; emotion, i.e. relationships
with teachers and other students and attitude towards school in general; cognition,
i.e. factors relating to one’s willingness and readiness to devote one’s energy and
intellectual capacity to performing learning tasks of varying complexity (Fredricks
et al. 2004). ESL risk is also related to motivation to learn and overcome difficulties
and hence can be related to problems with the teaching process, such as neglect of
2  Educational Robotics for Reducing Early School Leaving from the Perspective… 45

students’ individual needs or use of lessons and activities that are perceived as bor-
ing or not relevant to real life. There are also many factors outside the school envi-
ronment that can cause ESL: the ease with which information can be accessed today
and the availability of opportunities to participate in different activities in or out of
the school environment can give students the impression that time spent at school is
lost time.
The fast tempo of contemporary life has created a paradoxical situation: on the
one hand, the need for educated, creative and innovative people has increased, yet at
the same time young people are looking more critically at the potential opportuni-
ties opened up by education. The ever-increasing pace of technological progress and
urbanisation mean there is an urgent need for people who are able to think cre-
atively, to solve problems, to make prompt decisions and take responsibility for
their actions. This poses a challenge to educational systems on many levels, because
it is necessary to ensure that the education process is interesting and exciting for
students and also equips students with the skills required to take responsibility for
constructing their knowledge. Boring teaching and learning processes are often
mentioned as the cause of the ESL problem, but they represent only one facet of
ESL risk. If the emphasis is on ensuring that lessons and activities are always inter-
esting and exciting, it encourages students to focus their attention on what is new,
attractive and exciting and makes the education system hostage to the need for
materials and activities that are new and interesting and reduces students’ attention
span. We have reached the point where learners have become external experts
assessing whether the teaching and learning process is interesting enough. Teachers
have become service providers and have to take responsibility for ensuring that the
learning process is interesting yet also equips students with the skills to analyse
information critically and to take a broad view of areas of knowledge rather than
simply considering units of information individually. We do not deny the impor-
tance of making teaching and learning interesting, but it should be taken into account
that making this the sole guiding principle of pedagogy promotes the development
of a short attention span, because students’ attention is continuously shifting to the
next interesting stimulus. This phenomenon affects learners’ ability to memorise
information in order to analyse it and it also affects the development of metacogni-
tive processes, which influence learners’ ability to analyse and synthesise acquired
knowledge to generate new levels of competence. Hence, pedagogical science must
seek new ways of facilitating students’ learning, assessing the knowledge and skills
they have acquired and preparing them to collaborate with processes taking place in
the urban world. It also brings the necessity for innovative pedagogies to a new level
(Daniela 2018) and shows the necessity to analyse sustainable education not only
from the perspective of how to ensure that everyone can access education but also
how to ensure that students are not leaving the education system. The next genera-
tion must be equipped to be responsible participants in the teaching and learning
process and heed should be paid to Papert’s argument that knowledge should be
acquired in a complex way and fragmentation should be avoided (Papert 1980;
Daniela et al. 2017; Alimisis 2014).
46 L. Daniela and R. Strods

Project participants tried to take into consideration both the need to make the
teaching and learning process interesting and exciting and the need to allow stu-
dents to acquire new knowledge through hands-on activities. The latter is necessary
if learners are to link the exciting robotics activities with other knowledge that is
acquired in the compulsory teaching and learning process. The aim was to make the
learning process more interesting and show students that it is possible to learn dif-
ferently and acquire knowledge through practical activities. LEGO Mindstorm
robots were the tool chosen to realise this aim. Although the idea of using robotics
in the teaching and learning process has been around since 2006 (Eguchi 2014), in
the majority of cases these principles of hands-on activities by using robotics are
used in the acquisition of mathematics, sciences and engineering knowledge (Benitti
and Spolaōr 2017; Alimisis 2013). During the past decades some studies have
appeared on the use of robotics with students who have special needs (Tweddle
2008; Lund and Marti 2005), and there are still few studies examining the use of
educational robotics as a means of reducing risk of ESL (Moro et al. 2018; Alimisis
2014; Karampinis 2018; Karkazis et al. 2018).
There have also been studies where it is concluded that students of different ages
and both genders should be able to achieve the same level of Computational
Thinking (CT) skills, but development of CT is affected by the time devoted to rel-
evant activities, students level of proximal development and attitude towards the
tasks that need to be done and by gender. The influence of gender can, however, be
overcome by use of appropriate teaching and learning methods (Atmatzidou and
Demetriadis 2016). The evaluation of this project yielded a similar conclusion,
namely that girls are equally capable of developing their digital competence if they
are supported (Daniela et al. 2017).
The aim of this study was to determine whether the activities designed to reduce
the risk of ESL that were developed as part of our Erasmus+ robotics project do, in
fact, reduce the risk of ESL in students who are at high-risk, thereby reaching the
4th goal of SDG (United Nations Development Programme 2015).

Didactical Model of Activities

It was decided that work with students at high-risk of ESL would take the form of
after-school, extracurricular activities in participating schools. Ten programmes of
progressively increasing difficulty were developed by the project experts to guide
students’ learning. The programmes were delivered by teachers who volunteered to
participate in the project (from a variety of subjects, including mathematics, phys-
ics, information and communication technology (ICT), home economics, philoso-
phy and English); we did not seek teachers of specific school subjects. Before they
started to deliver the new programmes, teachers participated in a number of training
activities provided by project experts.
2  Educational Robotics for Reducing Early School Leaving from the Perspective… 47

The ESL risk evaluation tools developed as part of the project (Daniela 2016)
were used to select students at high-risk of ESL. These students were offered the
opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities and learn to work with LEGO
Mindstorm robots. Separating high-risk groups from the rest of a population and
organising special activities for them risks causing social exclusion (Midgley 2000;
Migdley and Urdan 2001; Daniela et al. 2014); nevertheless, this was the approach
we adopted because robotics activities are not part of the standard curriculum.
Therefore, it was necessary to verify the developed teaching/learning curricula
organising extracurricular activities, which, on the one hand, created several risks —
even greater marginalisation of ESL students, possible unwillingness of these stu-
dents to participate in additional activities that require cognitive effort and the
necessity to stay for longer at school, etc. Yet, on the other hand, a positive effect
was anticipated if the teaching/learning was organised in that way because students
subjected to ESL were collaborating with students who also had poor social links
with their classmates and formed new social links that facilitated their willingness
to learn and to cooperate with others. Secondly, students’ knowledge and academic
achievement was not assessed summatively; we opted to use formative assessment
instead in order to reduce the possible stress associated with being assessed. It was
decided to use ER to reduce risk of ESL and to introduce the activities outside com-
pulsory lessons so that the target group (students at high-risk of ESL) could work
without worrying about the learning speed or academic achievement of other stu-
dents and would not be competing with students who were highly motivated to learn
and had faster cognitive processes. This might have been off-putting for the target
participants, who had lower self-esteem, slower cognitive processes and lower moti-
vation to learn, developed avoidance motivation and so on.
Classes with ER were organised in two rounds (Moro et al. 2018). During the
first round, students tried out five programmes, working alongside their teachers.
Students’ achievements and the teaching and learning materials were evaluated
after each round. A new group of students at high-risk of ESL was involved in the
second round and worked with 10 ER programmes. In both the rounds, the pro-
grammes were delivered over a 3-month period and ESL risk was assessed before
and after the programmes to find out the positive outcomes from ER activities.
Delivery of the programmes was based on hands-on learning principles and, to a
certain extent, smart learning principles (students had to use LEGO software to
program the robots). Samra and colleagues reported that hands-on learning pro-
vides immediate feedback and allows students to choose the learning content and
assess their own achievements, thus promoting willingness to participate (Samra
et al. 2017). Using the LEGO Mindstorms robots also enabled us to apply pedagogi-
cal techniques, such as peer learning and collaborative learning — students worked
in groups in order to teach the robot to do thing; active learning — students pro-
grammed the robots and then tested whether their code worked; blended learning
strategies — students had to use the e-environment as well as asking the teachers for
support and assistance.
48 L. Daniela and R. Strods

Methodology

Students at risk of ESL were selected to participate in the project by using method-
ology developed as part of the project (Daniela 2016).
Several original instruments were developed to evaluate the results of the extra-
curricular programmes and detailed information on progress evaluation instruments
is given in Chap. 10.
–– A questionnaire evaluating risk of ESL. This was completed by teachers before
students started participating in the extracurricular ER activities and was used
only to select the students of target group. This article does not present detailed
data on the risk of ESL.
–– A student evaluation questionnaire. This was completed by the students who
participated in the programmes and by their regular teachers. The questionnaire
captured data on several educational environment-related ESL risk variables.
–– A questionnaire consisting of open questions about the delivery and outcomes of
the ER programmes. This was completed by the participating teachers and
included questions on the programmes and students’ participation and
engagement.
Two rounds of programme activities were organised, in accordance with action
research principles (Orland-Barak and Becher 2011; Corey 1954). In the first round,
the educational programmes were delivered to students at high-risk of ESL who had
been involved in the process of developing the programmes. The teachers’ evalua-
tions of the results of the first round were then used to improve the materials for the
second round. In the second round, the improved programmes were delivered to a
new group of students at high-risk of ESL.

Results

Risk of ESL is associated with low socio-economic status, low motivation to learn,
learning difficulties and special educational needs. In our analyses we did not dis-
tinguish between groups on the basis of ESL risk or special needs.
We compared students’ opinions of learning motivation, attitude towards learn-
ing, perception about educational robotics and teachers’ opinions of students learn-
ing motivation, attitude towards learning, and behaviour in school before and after
the ER programmes. The average age of participating students was 15 years, but the
range was 11–19 years, which created some implementation challenges which will
be explained in the chapter. The results from the first round are based on data from
62 students and the results of the second round are based on data from 80 students.
Initially, we summarised and compared students’ answers to questions about par-
ticipation in project activities in the first and second rounds; these results are sum-
marised in Table 2.1. There were mean changes in the positive direction in all the
2  Educational Robotics for Reducing Early School Leaving from the Perspective… 49

Table 2.1  Students’ opinions of the impact of the activities in the first and second rounds
First round Second round
N Mean N Mean Difference
Learning by using robots was 62 4.13 80 4.40 0.27
exciting
I have learned how to program robots 62 3.52 80 3.89 0.37
I liked working in groups on 62 3.68 80 4.34 0.66
assignments with the robots
I liked doing calculations while 62 2.98 80 3.50 0.52
programming
I can use this knowledge in other 62 2.97 80 3.72 0.75
activities
I liked solving programming 62 2.79 80 3.44 0.65
problems by myself
I liked that others helped me to solve 62 3.68 80 4.05 0.37
programming problems
I liked looking for the extra 62 2.77 80 3.48 0.71
information needed to use robots
Improved knowledge in Maths 62 2.81 80 3.21 0.4
Improved knowledge in Physics 62 2.55 80 3.05 0.5
Improved knowledge in ICT 62 3.66 80 4.06 0.4
Improved attitude towards learning 62 3.24 80 3.66 0.42
Improved cooperation with 62 3.69 80 4.10 0.41
classmates
Improved cooperation with teachers 62 3.50 80 4.25 0.75
Average first 3.28 Average 3.8
round second
round

criteria included in the questionnaire. In the first round, the mean score for all the
variables was 3.28 (all the variables were evaluated by using the Likert scale from 1
to 5, where 1 was completely disagree and 5 was completely agree), but in the sec-
ond round the mean was 3.8, indicating that the programmes had a positive impact.
The greatest changes relate to the following items: “I can use this knowledge in
other activities” (ΔM = 0.75); “cooperation with teachers” (ΔM = 0.75); “I liked
looking for the extra information needed to use the robots” (ΔM = 0.71); “I liked
working in groups on assignments with the robots” (ΔM  =  0.66). Not all these
changes were statistically significant, but it should be remembered that the results
relate to 3-month programmes. The results indicate that the second round of pro-
grammes had a greater impact than the first round of programmes. There are several
possible explanations for this, e.g. the participating teachers became better at work-
ing with the target group. The students in both rounds indicated that the programmes
had an impact on their ICT knowledge. The greatest increase in positive direction is
in the variable about the knowledge in physics, where the mean increase is by 0.5
points.
50 L. Daniela and R. Strods

Table 2.2  Factor analysis: first round. Rotated component matrixa: first round
Digital and real Positive learning
Activities with robotics world interaction environment Stem knowledge
0.774 I liked working 0.808 Cooperation 0.760 Learning by 0.846 Knowledge
in groups on with teachers using robots was of Physics
assignments with exciting
the robots
0.768 I have learned 0.764 Knowledge 0.663 I liked working 0.782 Knowledge
how to program of ICT in groups on of Maths
robots assignments with
the robots
0.707 I liked looking 0.666 Cooperation 0.658 I liked that
for the extra with others helped me
information classmates to solve
needed to use the programming
robots problems
0.648 I liked solving 0.618 Attitude 0.620 I can use this
programming towards knowledge in
problems by learning other activities
myself
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation
a
Rotation converged in six iterations

Next, separate factor analyses of data from the first and second rounds were per-
formed, where for Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis was used; for
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation. Results of the first round
were split into 4 factors (see Table 2.2). The most expressive dimension was named
“Activities with robotics” because all the variables were those indicating that stu-
dents enjoyed such activities. This indicated that, when using the didactic model
developed in the project involving Lego Mindstorms robots in the teaching process
of students subjected to the ESL risk, the highest results were in the robotics activi-
ties. The second most important factor was “Digital and real world interaction”,
followed by “Positive learning environment” and finally “Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) knowledge”. These results confirm that pur-
poseful use of ER affects not only students’ knowledge about programming robots
and willingness to learn in a self-directed way but also their perceived knowledge of
physics and mathematics, which in turn influences their self-assessment and can
have a favourable impact on their motivation to learn.
The data from the second round were also subjected to factor analysis (see
Table 2.3), and three factors emerged: “Synergy between attitude and digital knowl-
edge”, “Knowledge improvements” and “Relationships relevant to the learning pro-
cess”. Comparison of the factor analyses of the first and second rounds revealed that
factors obtained after the second round had become reciprocally complementary,
because, for example, knowledge of mathematics and physics no longer constituted
a separate factor but contributed to the Knowledge improvement factor.
2  Educational Robotics for Reducing Early School Leaving from the Perspective… 51

Table 2.3  Factor analysis: Second round. Rotated component matrixa: Second round
Synergy between attitude and Relationships relevant to the
digital knowledge Knowledge improvement learning process
0.810 I liked working in 0.820 I liked solving 0.868 I liked that others
groups on programming helped me to solve
assignments with problems by myself programming
the robots problems
0.762 Learning by using 0.741 I liked looking for the 0.625 Cooperation with
robots was exciting extra information teachers
needed to use the
robots
0.754 Cooperation with 0.653 I can use this
classmates knowledge in other
activities
0.679 Attitude towards 0.611 I liked working in
learning groups on assignments
with the robots
0.475 Knowledge of ICT 0.573 I have learned how to
program robots
0.528 Knowledge of Physics
0.491 Knowledge of Maths
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation
a
Rotation converged in four iterations

The data shows that the developed model of working with students at risk of ESL
not only supports development of knowledge about robotics and programming,
which affects knowledge of mathematics, physics and ICT, but also influences
­student–teacher cooperation, the development of a positive attitude towards learn-
ing and self-directed learning. Hence, we can infer that students’ risk of ESL
decreased as a result of their participation in the programmes.
The next step in the analysis was the calculation of correlations using Spearman’s
rho, which was chosen because Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests indicated that the data
distributions were non-parametric. Correlations were calculated separately for the
first and second rounds and only those results proving high correlation are presented
in Table  2.4; results having no mutual correlation between variables were not
included in the table. Correlations in the first round are shown in white and correla-
tions in the second round in grey.
The obtained results correspond to the results of the factor analysis and the cor-
relations between variables were higher in the second round, indicating that the
ER-based programmes were more effective in the second round. In the first round,
the highest correlations between variables were:
–– “I liked working in groups on assignments with the robots” and “Improved coop-
eration with classmates”: −0.569;
–– “Improved knowledge in ICT” and “Improved cooperation with classmates”:
−0.563;
Table 2.4 Correlations
52

Spearman’s rho

Round
Learning by using robots
was exciting
I have learned how to
program robots
I liked working groups
on assignments with the
robots
I liked doing calculations
while programming
I can use this knowledge
in other activities
Improved knowledge in
Physics
Improved knowledge in
ICT
Improved attitude to
learning
Improved cooperation
with classmates
Improved cooperation
with teachers

I liked solving
programming problems
by myself
I liked that others helped
me to solve
programming problems
I liked looking for the
extra information needed
to use the robots
Improved knowledge in
Math
Learning by using robots was 1st 1 0.339**
exciting 2nd 1 0.487** 0.494** 0.549** 0.365** 0.335** 0.402** 0.341** 0.575** 0.396** 0.363**
I have learned how to program 1st 1 0.479** 0.527**
robots 2nd 0.487** 1 0.521** 0.560** 0.656** 0.332** 0.310** 0.465** 0.400** 0.392** 0.496** 0.527** 0.382** 0.356**
I liked working groups on 1st 1 0.348** 0.335** 0.439** 0.569**
assignments with the robots 2nd 0.494** 0.521** 1 0.463** 0.350** 0.331** 0.300** 0.306** 0.435** 0.550**
I liked doing calculations while 1st 0.479** 0.348** 1 0.394** 0.528** 0.392**
programming 2nd 0.549** 0.560** 0.463** 1 0.482** 0.432** 0.498** 0.414** 0.538** 0.422** 0.585** 0.416** 0.318**
I can use this knowledge in other 1st 0.339** 0.335** 1 0.374** 0.338**
activities 2nd 0.365** 0.656** 0.350** 0.482** 1 0.492** 0.289** 0.450** 0.409** 0.338** 0.560** 0.521** 0.403** 0.352**
I liked solving programming 1st 0.394** 1
problems by myself 2nd 0.332** 0.432** 0.492** 1 0.507** 0.316** 0.392** 0.375** 0.361**
I liked that others helped me to 1st 0.373** 1
solve programming problems 2nd 0.310** 0.289** 1 0.313** 0.336**
I liked looking for the extra 1st 0.527** 1
information needed to use the 2nd 0.465** 0.331** 0.498** 0.450** 0.507** 1 0.391** 0.433** 0.345** 0.412** 0.338** 0.352**
robots
1st 0.338** 1 0.540** 0.373** 0.393** 0.431**
Improved knowledge of Maths
2nd 0.335** 0.400** 0.414** 0.409** 0.316** 0.391** 1 0.483** 0.420** 0.548** 0.388** 0.342**
1st 0.540** 1 0.370**
Improved knowledge of Physics
2nd 0.402** 0.392** 0.300** 0.538** 0.338** 0.392** 0.433** 0.483** 1 0.519** 0.528** 0.405** 0.344**
1st 0.439** 0.373** 1 0.476** 0.563** 0.381**
Improved knowledge of ICT
2nd 0.341** 0.496** 0.306** 0.422** 0.560** 0.375** 0.313** 0.345** 0.420** 0.519** 1 0.523** 0.508** 0.537**
1st 0.385** 0.393** 0.370** 0.476** 1 0.501** 0.476**
Improved attitude to learning
2nd 0.575** 0.527** 0.435** 0.586** 0.521** 0.361** 0.412** 0.548** 0.528** 0.523** 1 0.680** 0.612**
Improved cooperation with 1st 0.569** 0.431** 0.563** 0.501** 1 0.500**
classmates 2nd 0.396** 0.382** 0.550** 0.416** 0.403** 0.302** 0.338** 0.388** 0.405** 0.508** 0.680** 1 0.701**
1st 0.381** 0.476** 0.500** 1
Improved cooperation with teachers
2nd 0.363** 0.356** 0.318** 0.352** 0.336** 0.352** 0.342** 0.344** 0.537** 0.612** 0.701** 1

∗∗ Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

L. Daniela and R. Strods
2  Educational Robotics for Reducing Early School Leaving from the Perspective… 53

–– “Improved knowledge of Physics” and “Improved knowledge of Maths”: −0.540.

In the second round, the highest correlations between variables were:
–– “Improved cooperation with teachers” and “Improved cooperation with class-
mates”: −0.701
–– “Improved attitude towards learning” and “Improved cooperation with class-
mates”: −0.680
–– “I have learned how to program robots” and “I can use this knowledge in other
activities”: −0.656.
In the first round, the variable “Improved attitude towards learning” was corre-
lated with the greatest number of other variables (six) and four variables were cor-
related with only one other variable. In the second round, there were three variables
that were correlated with all 13 other variables. The greatest increase in correlations
applied to the variable “I have learned how to program robots”, which was corre-
lated with 2 variables in the first round and 13 in the second, indicating that students
who participated in the second round had learned how to apply what they had
learned from using robotics to other areas and aspects of learning.
The results also confirmed that students’ self-directed learning had developed
considerably, because the variable “I liked looking for the extra information needed
to use the robots” was correlated with only 1 variable (“I have learned how to pro-
gram robots”) in the first round, but with 11 in the second. The same conclusion is
confirmed by the change in the correlations of the variable “I can use this knowl-
edge in other activities”, which was correlated with 4 variables in the first round and
13 in the second.
These data also confirm that the programmes delivered greater benefits in the
second round than the first. This indicates that the main factor in the greater efficacy
of the programmes in the second round was an increase in teacher competence, as
different students were involved in rounds one and two, whereas the teachers did not
change. As the teachers gained experience with the programmes, the programmes
became more effective in reducing the risk of ESL.
The next step in the analysis was to compare teachers’ opinions of the impact of
the programmes in the first and second rounds; these results are summarised in
Table 2.5. After the first round, 203 teachers expressed an opinion about the impact
of the programmes on participating students, and after the second round, this figure
increased to 278 teachers. As already noted, the teacher’s evaluation questionnaire
was completed by teachers who worked with the participating students during com-
pulsory school lessons. A part of the criteria included in the evaluation question-
naire had been formulated so that positive tendencies were observed if teachers had
chosen higher variables on the scale from 1 to 5; other criteria, in their turn, were
inversely proportional and positive tendencies appeared if indicators were lower.
These criteria (which should be read inversely) in the table are indicated with grey
background. Common changes in mean indicators were from 2.88 in the criteria,
where a higher assessment level was valued positively (the criteria had to be evalu-
ated on the scale from 1 to 5, where 1 was for never and 5 for always), and in the
54 L. Daniela and R. Strods

Table 2.5  Teachers’ opinion after activities: First and second rounds
1st round 2nd round difference
N Mean N Mean
Preparation of homework assignments 203 2.70 278 3.58 0.88
Positive cooperation with teachers 203 3.07 278 3.92 0.85
Positive cooperation with classmates 203 2.96 278 3.71 0.75
Readiness for work in lessons 203 2.76 278 3.68 0.92
Understanding of the connection between learning and
203 2.85 278 3.68
achievements 0.83
Readiness to do extra assignments to improve achievements 203 2.74 278 3.46 0.72
Following of behavioural rules in the classroom 203 3.05 278 4.16 1.11
Readiness participate in out-of-class or -school activities with
203 2.82 278 3.79
classmates 0.97
Readiness to join activities led by other classmates 203 2.77 278 3.58 0.81
Motivation to learn the subject you teach 203 2.86 278 3.73 0.87
Motivation to understand his/her mistakes and correct them 203 2.90 278 3.70 0.8
Motivation to improve achievements 203 2.80 278 3.64 0.84
Motivation to overcome difficulties in learning 203 2.81 278 3.62 0.81
Readiness to work hard to achieve an aim 203 2.70 278 3.55 0.85
Being late for lessons 203 2.25 278 1.62 0.63
Problematic behaviour during recess (break) 203 2.22 278 1.53 0.69
Aggression towards other students 203 2.28 278 1.42 0.86
Aggression towards teachers 203 2.26 278 1.21 1.05
Using rude language with classmates 203 2.19 278 1.49 0.7
Using rude language with teachers 203 2.18 278 1.22 0.96
Refusing to do assignments during lessons 203 2.26 278 1.59 0.67
Aggression during conflicts 203 2.30 278 1.58 0.72
Solves learning problems by himself/herself 203 2.93 278 3.50 0.57
Asks for help from teachers 203 2.87 278 3.30 0.43
Resolves conflict calmly 203 3.37 278 4.20 0.83
Readiness to reach learning aims 203 2.87 278 3.45 0.58

second round, it was 3.68. When assessing the second part of the criteria, improve-
ments of situations were assessed positively if teachers had assessed them with a
lower value on the scale from 1 to 5. The mean variable in these criteria in the first
round was 2.24 and 1.46 in the second round. Overall, the results indicate that teach-
ers perceived that the programmes had a positive impact on students which are at
risk of ESL, and it confirmed that such activities can support reaching the 4th SDG
from the perspective that students are not dropping out from education.
Teachers perceived that the after-school programmes’ greatest impact was on
behaviour, thus confirming that the programmes increased students’ involvement in
the learning process and improved their attitude towards learning. Teachers were
more sceptical about changes in students’ attitude after the first round (Daniela
2016; Daniela et al. 2017), but the results of the second round confirmed that teach-
ers perceived positive changes in students’ behaviour and attitudes following their
participation in the after-school programmes. There were significant changes in
mean scores for the following variables “Following of the behavioural rules in the
classroom” (ΔM = 1.11); “Readiness to participate in out-of-class or -school activi-
ties with other classmates” (ΔM = 0.97); “Aggressiveness to teachers” (ΔM = −1.05);
“Using rude language with teachers” (ΔM = −0.96) (note that in the case of the
2  Educational Robotics for Reducing Early School Leaving from the Perspective… 55

latter two variables a decrease in score indicates an improvement in student

performance).
These data confirm that in the opinion of their teachers, students’ ability to fol-
low instructions improved markedly as a result of the programmes. This was prob-
ably connected to changes in students’ motivation, because the use of LEGO robots
made the teaching and learning process more interesting and in consequence stu-
dents performed set tasks more willingly. These changes for the students subjected
to ESL risks are vital, as this group of students is usually passive and does not
­participate in extracurricular activities. Developing new friendships and strengthen-
ing existing friendships through participation in the after-school ER programmes
may also have increased the target group’s motivation to stay in education. One can
conclude from these results that the ER programmes improved students’ behaviour
and attitude towards their teachers. Empirical research has shown that students at
high-­risk of ESL often have a negative attitude towards teachers. We have shown
that the techniques and content of the ER programmes used in this project reduced
the risk of ESL, because they improved students’ attitude. The scores teachers gave
for the item “Is ready for work in lessons” (post-1st round M = 2.76; post-2nd round
M = 3.68; Δ = 0.92) confirm that in general students were more motivated to partici-
pate in education after being involved in the after-school ER programmes.
Problem-solving was the area in which teachers perceived the least improvement
in students’ performance, this can be seen from score for the following items: “Asks
for help from teachers” (post-1st round M  =  2.87; post-2nd round M  =  3.30;
Δ = 0.43) and “Solves the learning problems by himself/herself” (post-1st round
M = 2.93; post-2nd round M = 3.50; Δ = 0.57). We can conclude from these results
that students involved in the project used various evasion strategies instead of solv-
ing their problems. Teachers’ assessments indicated that the item “Is ready to do
extra assignments to improve achievements” (post-1st round M = 2.74; post-2nd
round M  =  3.46; Δ  =  0.72) saw the third smallest improvement of all the items
measured.
We also analysed teachers’ responses to a specially developed questionnaire
about the ER programmes. The questionnaire contained questions about the respon-
dent’s country, the school in which they were working and which of the ER pro-
grammes they had used, and the questionnaire was anonymous, allowing teachers to
give an honest assessment of their work in the project. These were followed with
open-ended questions, e.g. “Please briefly describe your students’ interest in activi-
ties provided during all Robotics lessons”; “Which activities did they like the
most?”; “Which activities did they not like?”; “Which activities were challenging
for them? How did you deal with this?”; “What worked well? Why did it work
well?”; “What did not work well? How did you cope with this?”; “Did you observe
some signals which showed that students’ motivation to learn rose during the proj-
ect? What kind of signals can you name?”; “What kind of difficulties did you face
regarding your students during the Project?”; “What kind of difficulties did you face
with regard to cooperation among students during the project?”
Teachers gave positive responses that indicate the strengths of the project, for
example:
56 L. Daniela and R. Strods

Students’ interest increased continuously… The vast majority did more work than expected,
solved simple problems and in some cases displayed an innovative approach.
Interest was generally high. In the case of several students this was quite remarkable
because they showed very little interest in normal school activities.
The majority of our activities worked well. The preparation helped a lot. One reason that
the programme went well is that we avoided lots of theory and focused on practical
activities.
My students were highly motivated. They showed skills that aren’t always evident in
compulsory school activities.
Students were asking for more information (mainly about robotics, competitions, fur-
ther development, etc.).
The oldest students helped and taught the youngest. They all were very friendly. They
always wanted to complete the project in one session.

Many teachers commented positively on the benefits of the project. We con-

cluded from teachers’ responses that they had noticed improvements in the follow-
ing areas of students’ performance: interest in learning had increased; students
worked more diligently than previously; students’ motivation to persevere with
more complicated tasks had improved; it was indicated that students demonstrated
skills that teachers had not anticipated before; students wanted to find additional
information and take responsibility for their own learning; students worked together
and helped each other in order to complete the tasks more quickly and achieve better
results. These and many other previously described benefits certainly diminish the
risk of ESL. However, various challenges emerged during the project that may con-
stitute new risk factors and it was important to analyse them so that we could explore
ways of reducing or eliminating them in future work.
Examples of responses that indicate weaknesses of the ER programmes are given
below:
As soon as the task became more difficult the students lost interest.
The children didn’t like tasks where they had to make calculations or tasks where great
accuracy was needed.
Not all students were able to complete the tasks in the specified time and according to
the plan.
Difficulties were caused by the fact that some children worked at a slow pace. Some
students wanted to do the task individually, using the robot on their own. We tried to allow
this as much as possible. We took a personalised approach.
The difficulty was that the robotics activities were after-school lessons and at the end of
the day pupils are tired and unable to perceive and process information.

Teachers’ comments on the weaknesses of the project did not mention poor
choice of learning approaches or methods or poorly structured teaching activities;
instead there were statements describing rather typical characteristics of students at
high-­risk of ESL. The teachers’ comments on the weakness of the programmes as
delivered can be summarised as follows: students’ motivation drops if the tasks are
too complicated; they find the mathematical calculations difficult and there is not
enough time for all students to complete all the tasks because they work at different
paces. Knowing about these weaknesses should enable us to devise ways of tackling
them.
2  Educational Robotics for Reducing Early School Leaving from the Perspective… 57

Teachers also noted various threats to the success of the programmes:

They [students] didn’t like the tasks they failed at or tasks which had logical conclusions.
The students didn’t like the theory, they wanted to experiment themselves.
Students experimented and used the Internet to find solutions.
Sometimes there was not enough time to complete all the activities and explain all the
‘solutions’. We asked the students to email us about their difficulties, so that we could go
over a solution in the next session, but none of them did.

These teachers’ comments highlight factors to which more attention should be

paid in future work. For instance, the programmes should be adjusted so that they
promote logical thinking and thus help students to find solutions to problems with-
out seeking concrete instructions. Students showed willingness to experiment and
search for creative solutions to problems. They also looked for answers on the
Internet; this means that teachers have to give students a possibility to work inde-
pendently if there is such need. Considerable emphasis was placed on improving
students’ cooperation and group work skills, and the teachers’ feedback indicated
that they had to devote considerable effort to this aspect of students’ performance in
order to achieve the desired result.
Participating in the project gave the teachers new experience and they com-
mented on various opportunities the project presented:
There is a need to change the compulsory learning process by combining various types of
learning activities to enhance students’ in-depth understanding and willingness to use
emerging technologies to learn.
It is necessary to train teachers to use the modern pedagogical strategies and teaching
methods that are central to these programmes, which are radically different from normal
teaching and learning activities.
It is necessary to train teachers to work with students at risk of ESL.

Conclusions

Summarising and analysing the data from the project enables us to conclude that:
–– During the project, teachers acquired new knowledge and gained experience in
applying it in their teaching. Their perception of the benefits of the programmes
is so great that they recommended that all teachers be trained in the learning
methods used in the programmes, because these methods enabled students to
acquire deep knowledge of a subject and avoid fragmentary mastery of content.
–– It is vital to ensure that teachers delivering programmes such as those used in our
project to students at high-risk of ESL are trained to work with this specific stu-
dent population, which typically displays low motivation to learn and a negative
attitude towards learning. This means that teachers’ support and assistance is
crucial to the success of the programmes, although the programmes are struc-
tured so that the teacher is not in the centre of the teaching and learning process.
This is confirmed by the finding that the programmes delivered better results in
58 L. Daniela and R. Strods

the second round than the first; a result we attribute to the teachers’ increased
competence in working with students at high-risk of ESL. The approach to train
teachers for using robotics can help to reach the 4th SDG (United Nations
Development Programme 2015), where it is stated that adequately trained teach-
ers can help to ensure quality education.
–– The teacher’s questionnaire enabled teachers to reflect on their experiences of
developing and delivering the programmes and offer detailed and considered
comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the programmes in the format
used in this project. We can conclude from all the data analysed that the greatest
benefit of the ER programmes is that they increased students motivation and
engagement in the learning process, encouraging them to construct knowledge
themselves and work together to complete tasks and achieve good results.
–– Participating in planned ER activities reduces risk of ESL in high-risk students
because it leads to improvements in several ESL risk indictors, such as learning
motivation, attitude towards learning, behaviour in lessons and cooperation with
classmates and teachers, and it proved that such innovative and fun activities sup-
port the objective defined in SDG to ensure quality education from the perspec-
tive that children are not leaving the educational system.
–– Although it has been argued that students subjected to social risk should not be
separated from other students in order to avoid the risks associated with further
social exclusion (Midgley 2000; Migdley and Urdan 2001), the didactic model
employed in the project demonstrated that delivering tailored activities to a target
group  — students at high-risk of ESL who were selected using well-defined
criteria — helped this group to experience the joy of learning and to feel a sense
of belonging to the group of students that participated in the teaching and learn-
ing process, which should, in the long-term reduce their risk of ESL. It should be
noted, however, that we did not assess the impact of ER activities on other stu-
dents who might have wanted to participate but were ineligible for the pro-
grammes run under this project as they were not considered to be at high-risk of
ESL.
–– Use of active learning principles and emphasis on hands-on activities in the pro-
grammes had a positive influence on participants’ knowledge of mathematics,
physics and information technologies as well as improving their cooperation
skills.
–– The nature of the ER activities meant that students received immediate feedback
on their work, because if their calculations or programming were incorrect the
robot did not perform as intended. This prompted the students to look for their
mistakes and try to eliminate them and such activities also support reaching the
9th SDG, which states that transport, irrigation, energy and information and
communication technology are crucial to achieving sustainable development
(United Nations Development Programme 2015), and robotics supports the
development of ICT competence, by supporting innovative thinking to obtain
solutions for problems connected with sustainable development (Moro et  al.
2018; Karampinis 2018; Karkazis et al. 2018).
2  Educational Robotics for Reducing Early School Leaving from the Perspective… 59

–– Through working with ER, the students involved in the programmes became
interested in compulsory lessons, leading to the improvements in their academic
achievement that were reported by their regular class teachers.
–– Delivering ER activities as an after-school activity led to a ‘digital divide’
between students who had the opportunity to participate and those who did not.
High-achieving students were excluded from our programmes because they were
targeted at students at high-risk of ESL, but students who have other after-school
activities to attend would also be unable to attend project activities. It is therefore
necessary to include ER activities in the compulsory curriculum in order to avoid
creating a digital divide.
–– It is important to continue research into the impact of ER on different groups in
order to determine which kinds of activity are best suited to specific groups.
Questions that should be addressed include whether ER activities are suitable for
all children with special educational needs, what should be taken into account
and how the learning process should be organised for students who are intro-
verted and do not want to cooperate.
In this chapter, we analysed how the ER activities can reduce the risks of ESL
from the perspective that not only the access to education is important but also
actions should be taken to ensure that children stay at educational institutions. We
believe that by reducing the risks of ESL, reaching the 4th SDG is supported because
students stay at educational institutions. By using innovative learning methods with
ER, the development of computational thinking is ensured and it supports reaching
the 9th SDG. Our activities were aimed at children who are at risk of ESL without
any other limitations, and they ensured that children of different ages and girls and
boys were working together, thus helping to reach the 6th goal because equal oppor-
tunities were provided for girls to participate in ER activities.

References

Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science
and Technology Education, 6(1), 63–71.
Alimisis, D. (2014). Educational robotics in teacher education: An innovative tool for promot-
ing quality education. In L.  Daniela et  al. (Eds.), Teacher of the 21st century (pp.  28–39).
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills
through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and
Autonomous Systems, 75, 661–670.
Benitti, F.  B. V., & Spolaōr, N. (2017). How have robots supported STEM teaching? In
M.  Khine (Ed.), Robotics in STEM education (pp.  103–129). Cham: Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-57786-9_5.
Bhowmik, M. K. (2017). Dropping out: Why students drop out and what can be done about it.
Educational Review, 70(4), 527. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2017.1336276.
Corey, S. M. (1954). Action research to improve school practices. New York: Bureau of Publications,
Teachers College, Columbia University. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.37303805127.
60 L. Daniela and R. Strods

Daniela, L. (2016). Preliminary results of the project “robotics-based learning interventions for
preventing school failure and early school leaving. ICERI 9th annual international conference
of education, research and innovation proceedings. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2016.
Daniela, L. (2018). Smart pedagogy for technology enhanced learning. In Didactics of smart peda-
gogy: Smart pedagogy for technology enhanced learning (pp. 1–20). Cham: Springer. ISBN
978-3-030-01550-3.
Daniela, L., Nīmante, D., & Kraģe, G. (2014). Development of support system for decreasing social
exclusion. In Teacher of the 21st century: Quality education for quality teaching (pp. 1–12).
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scoolar Publishing. ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-5612-6.
Daniela, L., Strods, R., & Alimisis, D. (2017). Analysis of robotics-based learning interventions
for preventing school failure and early school leaving in gender context. 9th international con-
ference on education and new learning technologies (Edulearn17) (pp. 810–818), 3–5 July.
Barcelona: Conference Proceedings Barcelona. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2017.1176.
Downes, P. (2016). Developing a framework of system change between diametric and concen-
tric spaces for early school leaving prevention. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48(9),
899–914. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2015.1079517.
Eguchi, A. (2014). Educational robotics for promoting 21st century skills. Journal of Automation.
Mobile Robotics & Intelligent Systems, 8(1), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.14313/JAMRIS_1-2014/1.
Eurostat. (2016). Early leavers from education and training by sex. Retrieved from: http://
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=t2020_40
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00346543074001059.
Karampinis, T. (2018). Activities and experiences through RoboESL project opportunities.
International Journal of Smart Education and Urban Society (IJSEUS). https://doi.org/10.4018/
IJSEUS.
Karkazis, P., Balourdos, P., Pitsiakos, G., Asimakopoulos, K., Saranteas, I., Spiliou, T., &
Roussou, D. (2018). “To water or not to water”. The Arduino approach for the irrigation of
a field. International Journal of Smart Education and Urban Society (IJSEUS). https://doi.
org/10.4018/IJSEUS.
Lund, H.  H., & Marti, P. (2005). Designing manipulative technologies for children with dif-
ferent abilities. Artificial Life and Robotics, 9(4), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10015-005-0351-y.
Melkevik, O., Nilsen, W., Evensen, M., et al. (2016). Internalizing disorders as risk factors for early
school leaving: A systematic review. Adolescent Research Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40894-016-0024-1.
Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic intervention: Philosophy, methodology and practice. New  York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum. 447 p.
Migdley, C., & Urdan, T. (2001). Academic self-handicapping and performance goals: A further
examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1006/
ceps.2000.1041.
Moro, M., Agatolio, F., & Menegatti, E. (2018). The development of robotic enhanced curricula
for the RoboESL project: Overall evaluation and expected outcomes. International Journal of
Smart Education and Urban Society (IJSEUS), 9(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSEUS.
Nevala, A.M., Hawley, J., Stokes, D., Slater, K., Souto-Otero, M., Santos, R., et  al. (2011).
Reducing early school leaving in the EU. Retrieved from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2011
Orland-Barak, L., & Becher, A. (2011). Cycles of action through systems of activity: Examining
an action research model through the lens of activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 18(2),
115–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2010.484099.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
2  Educational Robotics for Reducing Early School Leaving from the Perspective… 61

Samra, H. E., Alice, S. L., Ben, S., & Mohammed, A. A. (2017). A cloud-based architecture for
interactive e-training. International Journal of Knowledge Society Research, 8(1), 67–78.
https://doi.org/10.4018/IJKSR.2017010104.
Tweddle, L. K. (2008). Reinventing papert’s constructionism – Boosting young children’s writ-
ing skills with e-learning designed for dyslexics. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 6(3),
227–234. ISSN: EISSN-1479-4403.
United Nations Development Programme. (2015). Sustainable development goals. Retrieved from:
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html. Accessed
26 June 2018.
Chapter 3
Towards a Definition of Educational
Robotics: A Classification of Tools,
Experiences and Assessments

David Scaradozzi, Laura Screpanti, and Lorenzo Cesaretti

Abstract  Robotics in education (RiE) covers a variety of applications of robots to

the world of teaching and learning. Despite all the benefits that robotics can bring to
education, a clear definition of the purpose for introducing robotics in education is
still missing. Authors aim at facing this issue proposing a classification of RiE expe-
riences, stating the difference between RiE and educational robotics (ER). The need
for this classification arises from the wide usage of ER to indicate a diverse range of
activities using robots and from the lack of clarity when describing how ER impacts
students’ curricula. Moreover, a definition of ER can impact the definition of the
policies on the integration of ER into formal and non-formal education; it can also
provide a basis for further studies whose aim is to provide clear evidence on the
benefits of ER activities; finally, it can enhance the replicability of ER activities. To
better characterise ER, authors propose two more classifications: one for the robotic
tools used in the ER activities and one for the evaluation of ER activities. Drawing
upon the proposed classifications, authors point out some distinctive features of ER
comparing them to literature. This general outline aims at creating a starting point
to open a debate on the definition of ER.

David Scaradozzi, Laura Screpanti and Lorenzo Cesaretti contributed equally with all other
contributors.

D. Scaradozzi (*)
Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Informazione (DII), Università Politecnica delle Marche,
Ancona, Italy
LSIS – umr CNRS 6168, Laboratoire des Sciences de l’Information et des Systèmes, Equipe
I&M (ESIL), Case 925 - 163, Marseille, France
e-mail: [email protected]
L. Screpanti
Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Informazione (DII), Università Politecnica delle Marche,
Ancona, Italy
L. Cesaretti
Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Informazione (DII), Università Politecnica delle Marche,
Ancona, Italy
TALENT srl, Osimo, Ancona, Italy

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 63

L. Daniela (ed.), Smart Learning with Educational Robotics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19913-5_3
64 D. Scaradozzi et al.

Keywords  Educational robotics · Curricular robotics · Robotics in education ·

Primary school · Secondary school · STEM · Evaluation · Assessment

The present chapter will analyse the scientific literature reporting experiences in the
field of educational robotics (ER). This analysis aims to provide a broad classifica-
tion of experiences reporting the use of a robot for education, a classification of the
available robots used in the ER context and a classification of existing evaluation
methods to carry out the assessment of the ER activities. Starting from the distinc-
tion between robotics in education (RiE) and ER, this chapter will contribute to the
discussion of what ER means and consists of. On the other hand, the proposed clas-
sifications aim to provide people working in the field of ER with a reference, by
stating clearly what robotics can do for education and by providing a benchmark
against which one can compare the activities carried out in the educational context.
This comparison could improve teachers’ and educators’ understanding of how to
bring robotics into the classroom. Moreover, all stakeholders could rethink existing
experiences and work together to improve and replicate them.
Previous literature in the field of ER searched through databases to answer spe-
cific questions like “What topics are taught through robotics in schools?” (Alimisis
2013; Benitti 2012; Jung and Won 2018; Mubin et al. 2013), “What kind of skills
does an ER activity develop?” (Jung and Won 2018; Miller and Nourbakhsh 2016),
“How is student learning evaluated?” (Alimisis 2013; Benitti 2012; Jung and Won
2018; Miller and Nourbakhsh 2016; Toh et al. 2016), “What kind of robotic tools
are employed in an ER activity?” (Alimisis 2013; Miller and Nourbakhsh 2016;
Mubin et al. 2013), “Which pedagogical theories are supporting the implementation
of ER activities?” (Jung and Won 2018; Mubin et al. 2013) and “Is robotics an effec-
tive tool for teaching and developing skills?” (Benitti 2012; Jung and Won 2018;
Toh et al. 2016). Unfortunately, there is little agreement on what the essential fea-
tures of ER are. This means that even if researchers are trying to answer the same
questions, they are working on different sets of examples taken from the literature.
For example, Benitti (2012) and Toh et al. (2016) excluded from their analysis those
papers reporting activities using robotics as a subject in primary and secondary
education. On the contrary, Jung and Won (2018) reviewed existing literature
describing trends in two areas: robotics to teach robotics itself and robotics to teach
other subjects. Moreover, Jung and Won (2018) analysed literature in robotics edu-
cation using robotics kits for young children, excluding social robots, whereas
Mubin et  al. (2013) included them. Differences in carrying out activities and in
researching on this field affect the results and their comparison.
Authors will provide in each section a classification for an aspect that character-
ises an ER activity. First of all, Section 1 states the difference between RiE and ER
and provides a general classification of RiE and ER activities. Section 2 presents an
overview of the robotic tools that are used to carry out activities and a classification
of these tools based on four main features. Section 3 discusses a classification for
the evaluation of ER activities and proposes the authors’ first steps and c­ onsiderations
3  Towards a Definition of Educational Robotics: A Classification of Tools… 65

into a novel real-time technique for the assessment of the ER activities. Results
from the proposed classifications can be found in the Appendix section.

 ection 1: A Classification of Experiences Carried

S
Out in Education Using Robots

Even if some literature uses “robotics in education” and “educational robotics” as

synonyms (Benitti 2012; Eguchi 2017), authors believe that a distinction should be
made between the two labels. Robotics in education (RiE) is a broader term refer-
ring to what robotics can do for people in education. For example, it can help
impaired students to overcome limitations or it can help teachers to gain attention or
to deliver content to pupils. Educational robotics (ER) refers to a specific field,
which is the intersection of different kinds of expertise like robotics, pedagogy and
psychology. ER builds on the work of Seymour Papert, Lev Vygotsky and Jean
Piaget (Ackermann 2001; Mevarech and Kramarski 1993; Papert 1980; Vygotsky
1968) to bring not just robotics in education, but to create meaningful experiences
on robotics since an early age (Scaradozzi et  al. in press, 2015). ER is made of
robots allowing a construction/deconstruction and programming activity, teachers/
experts facilitating the activity and methodologies enabling students to explore the
subject, the environment, the content of the activity and their personal skills and
knowledge. These key elements of ER make it an integrated approach to STEM
(Brophy et al. 2008) and an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary subject (Eguchi
2014). Authors identified four different features to describe a RiE experience or
project: the learning environment, the impact on students’ school curriculum, the
integration of the robotic tool in the activity and the way evaluation is carried out.
Regarding how the robotic tool is integrated into the activity, we can distinguish ER
as a subset of RiE (Fig. 3.1).

Robotics in Education
(RiE)

Learning Environment Impact on Curriculum Integration of the robotic Evaluation of activities

tool

Formal Non Formal

Qualitative Quantitative Mixed
Learning Learning
Environment Environment Curricular Non Curricular Assistive Socially Social Educational Methods Methods Methods
Activity carried Activities carried Robots Assistive Robots Robots
out regularly out not regularly Robots
impacting the and not impacting
final evaluation the final
of the evaluation on an
educational educational path
path

Fig. 3.1  The proposed classification for robotics in education (RiE)

66 D. Scaradozzi et al.

In the next subsections, these four categories are described. Table 3.1, reported in
the Appendix section, shows some examples of experiences using robotics in educa-
tion and analyses them through the four main categories proposed by the authors.

Learning Environment: Formal or Non-formal Projects

Students can learn in a variety of settings (e.g. at school, at home, in an outdoor

environment). Each setting is characterised by the physical location, learning con-
text and cultures. Usually, each setting holds specific rules and ethos to define rela-
tionships, behaviours and learning activities. It’s the authors’ opinion that it is
important to specify in a RiE activity whether the learning environment is formal or
non-formal. Formal education is usually delivered by trained teachers in publicly
recognised organisations providing structured activities and evaluation. Non-formal
education can be a complement to formal education, but it may be apart from the
pathway of the national education system, consisting in a shorter activity. Usually,
non-formal activities lead to no qualification, but they can have recognition when
they complete competences otherwise neglected. Formal environment is where for-
mal education usually takes place (e.g. schools) and non-formal environment is
where non-formal education usually happens (e.g. private houses, company’s head-
quarters, museums).
Teaching methodologies, spaces, furniture and many other variables influence
the outcome of a RiE or an ER activity, but they are out of scope in this part of the
classification, which intends to make a distinction at a broader level.

 chool Curriculum Impact: Curricular or Non-curricular

S
Projects

The way activities are integrated in education strongly impacts their design and
their expected outcomes. Activities carefully designed to fit the curriculum needs,
carried out regularly in the classroom to support students’ learning of a concept and
whose evaluation is recognised in the final evaluation of the school on students, are
curricular activities. Seldom activities organised to better support the teaching of
particular concepts, both inside and outside the classroom, and that lead to no final
formal recognition are non-curricular activities. There may be activities performed
at school (formal learning environment) that do not account for the final evaluation
of the student (non-curricular activity). On the other hand, there may be an activity
performed outside the classroom environment (non-formal learning environment)
that is recognised into the final evaluation of the student provided by the school
(curricular activity).
3  Towards a Definition of Educational Robotics: A Classification of Tools… 67

Integration of Robotic Tools

Robotic tools that are used into the activities should be distinguished according to
the purpose they serve in the educational context. First, they can reduce the impair-
ments for students with physical disabilities. These tools are usually medical devices
that help people in their activities of daily living and they compensate for the lost
function. These kinds of robots are assistive robots, and they are not intentionally
produced to meet the need of education, but to meet the needs of impaired people.
Second, some robots can help people with a social impairment (e.g. autistic spec-
trum disorder). This kind of robots can be defined as socially assistive robots,
because they are capable of assisting users through social rather than physical
­interaction (Matarić and Scassellati 2016). Socially assistive robots “attempt to pro-
vide the appropriate emotional, cognitive, and social cues to encourage develop-
ment, learning, or therapy for an individual” (Matarić and Scassellati 2016, p. 1974).
Third, some robots can be companions to students’ learning or to teachers while
teaching (Belpaeme et al. 2018). These robots are called social robots, because they
are designed to interact with people in a natural, interpersonal manner to accom-
plish a variety of tasks, including learning (Breazeal et al. 2016).
Fourth, robots can be a tool to study robotics and STEAM subjects and to develop
transversal skills. ER projects use this kind of robots. Generally, they are presented
to students as disassembled kits to give the possibility to create meaningful interdis-
ciplinary pathways, letting students be free to build original artefacts. To build an
artefact with fully functioning actuators and sensors, students need to master the
fundamental concepts about robotics. Only when these concepts are reworked and
absorbed by students that they can feel confident in reusing that kind of knowledge
in another context. So, one of the main features of ER is the basic understanding of
robotics fundamentals.

Evaluation: Qualitative, Quantitative or Mixed Methods

Evaluation in RiE activities could be carried out by using a qualitative method, a

quantitative method or a mixed-methods approach. Qualitative methods in educa-
tion pertains to research and to everyday practice. Teachers and researchers can
analyse essays, focus groups, scenarios, projects, case studies, artefacts, personal
experiences, portfolios, role play or simulation and many other outputs of the activi-
ties. This is a deep and rich source of information on students’ learning, but some-
times impractical in a crowded classroom and always vulnerable to personal biases
or external influence. On the opposite, quantitative methods are easier to replicate
and administer. They try to summarise with numbers the outcome of an activity.
Common tools in quantitative methods are based on questionnaires, tests and
rubrics. Anyway, experiments and empirical method should be applied to prove
these methods are valid, reliable and generalisable. Moreover, a quantitative evalu-
ation in education is often deemed as poor and reductive. Lately, researchers in
68 D. Scaradozzi et al.

education have been overcoming the historical distinction between qualitative and
quantitative methods to exploit the beneficial aspects that both methods provide.
Researchers have been proposing the mixed-methods approach as an appropriate
research method to address problems in complex environments, like education. The
choice of mixed-methods design is usually well motivated because it could imply a
lot of work as it requires that both quantitative and qualitative data are collected. In
the last years, some novel real-time techniques have been introduced to monitor
students during their activities. Technology and artificial intelligence seem to be
promising in providing feedback on students’ learning and in integrating both quali-
tative and quantitative methods of assessment. Moreover, it could be deployed into
classroom seamlessly and give response on the activity to support the assessment.

Section 2: A Classification of ER Tools

The way the robotic tool is integrated into the experience can make the difference
between a general RiE experience or an ER activity, but even among the ER tools
we can make a distinction. In fact, there are many robots and robotic kits available
on the market, but not all of these products are meant to be “educational”. Reviewing
ER tools available on the market, authors included those robots or robotic kits that
respected these two criteria: tools that were designed purposefully for education OR
tools that have been used in educational contexts, whose activities were reported in
a scientific paper. Table  3.2 reports the analysis of those tools according to four
sub-categories:
1. Age (kindergarten/primary school/secondary school): The age group for which
the kit is recommended; it could be a large range; indeed sometimes varying the
educational activity is possible to use the kit with different age groups.
2. Programming language (text-based/block-based/unplugged): There are three
different kinds of programming languages associated with the kits. The most
commonly used are the block-based environments (scratch or similar), where the
students can create software sequences using blocks, without writing code and
the possibility of making syntactical errors (namely visual programming tech-
nique). Considering tools that are more suitable for secondary school students,
the trend is to propose text-based programming language as an alternative to the
block-based environments. The third option, the unplugged way to program a
robot, is very common for the kindergarten tools. There is no need to use a screen
(tablet or computer) to create the sequence. Students can design different behav-
iours for their robot using some physical blocks (or physical buttons).
3. Assembly feature (“ready-to-use” robot/“to-build” kit): Using some of the com-
mercial kit, students have the possibility of building the robot, interacting with
mechanical and electronic parts (wheels, gears, sensors, motors, etc.). Other
solutions are “ready to use”: opening the box pupils find an already assembled
robot, so they can program only the behaviour of the system, without the chance
of modifying the robot’s aspect.
3  Towards a Definition of Educational Robotics: A Classification of Tools… 69

4. Robot’s environment (earth/water/air): educational robots usually move on the

floor, or on the school desk (earth robot); but in recent years, some companies
and research institutes have developed also educational drones (air) and marine
vehicles (water).
In addition to the commercial kits presented in Table 3.2, there are other tools
purposefully designed by researchers to implement ER activities (Bellas et al. 2018;
Ferrarelli et al. 2018; Junior et al. 2013; Naya et al. 2017).

Section 3: A Classification of the Assessment of ER Activities

Section 1 introduced a distinction on how evaluation is carried out based on the way
observation is designed, carried out and presented, and resulting in three categories:
qualitative methods, quantitative methods and mixed methods. This is not the only
way to characterise evaluation and research methods. Considering the target of the
evaluation, evaluation can focus on performance, attitude and behaviour.
Performance measurement can be a test whose aim is to evaluate the knowledge
acquired on the subject and/or the ability to use it to perform a task (Blikstein et al.
2017; Di Lieto et al. 2017; Screpanti et al. 2018b) or it can be based on neuropsy-
chological measures (Di Lieto et  al. 2017). Complex task evaluation can also be
related to the development of skills, not only knowledge. Moreover, written tests
more often reflect theoretical knowledge, while practical exercises or tests demon-
strate applied skills. Attitudes and skills are more often measured through surveys
and questionnaires (Atmatzidou and Demetriadis 2016; Cesaretti et al. 2017; Cross
et al. 2017; Di Lieto et al. 2017; Goldman et al. 2004; Lindh and Holgersson 2007;
Screpanti et al. 2018a; Weinberg et al. 2007), which are easy to administer and use-
ful for triangulation. Measures of student’s behaviours in ER activities can help the
design of the learning environment as well as deepen understanding of how students
learn (Kucuk and Sisman 2017).
Another distinctive feature of evaluation regards when to measure. Measurements
(or evaluation of a student’s state) can be performed before the activity, iteratively
during the activity and after the activity. In addition to this, stating the purpose of
evaluation can help researchers and teachers to clarify how and when to perform
such assessment. Summative assessment (or assessment of learning) is often related
to the outcome of the activity and it is often regarded as the post-activity evaluation
which relates to benchmarks. Formative assessment (or assessment for learning) is
often a kind of evaluation taking place before the activity, but it can also be itera-
tive, occurring periodically throughout the ER activity. The purpose of formative
assessment is to adjust teaching and learning activities to improve student’s attain-
ment. More recently, the field of assessment as learning brought the idea that for-
mative assessment, feedback and metacognition should go together (Dann 2014;
Hattie and Timperley 2007).
At the end of an ER activity, it would be interesting to investigate the process
that led to the resolution of a specific problem, or to the design of a software
70 D. Scaradozzi et al.

sequence. During an ER activity, students experiment and modify their sequence of

instructions or robot’s hardware structure, to obtain a specific behaviour. They usu-
ally work in team in a continuous process of software and/or hardware improve-
ment, as specified by the TMI model (Martinez and Stager 2013). It would be very
interesting for an educator to have the chance to observe and analyse this process,
but it is not realistic to have one teacher per group that keeps track of the students’
development inside the classroom. New experimentations in constructionist
research laid the way into new possibilities of insights into the students’ learning
processes. Evaluation can be performed using the “offline” or “online” method. The
offline methods are those assessments gathering information one or more times
during the activity and then usually processed later by a human evaluator. The
online methods are those assessments “continuously” gathering information on stu-
dents’ activity (e.g. camera recording students’ behaviour, sensors collecting physi-
ological parameters, log system recording students’ interactions) aiming at
providing an analysis of the student’s learning while the student is still exploring
the activity. Online methods are usually automated and rely on educational data
mining (EDM) and learning analytics (LA). The first applications of these tech-
nologies tried to extrapolate information from data gathered from structured online
learning environments (Baker et  al. 2004; Beck and Woolf 2000; Berland et  al.
2014; Merceron and Yacef 2004): in this type of condition, it was easier to deduce
relations and recognise patterns in the data. Recent studies (Asif et al. 2017; Ornelas
and Ordonez 2017) tried to predict students’ success using machine learning algo-
rithms on data gathered from closed environments. Blikstein et al. (2014) collected
the code snapshots of computer programs to investigate and identify possible states
that model students’ learning process and trajectories in open-ended constructionist
activities. Berland et al. (2013), extending the previous work by Turkle and Papert
(1992), registered students’ programming actions and used clustering to study dif-
ferent pathways of novice programmers. This led to the identification of three gen-
eral patterns: tinkering, exploring and refining. To evaluate different aspects of
constructionist activities, other works relied on external sensors (cameras, micro-
phones, physiologic sensors) and automated techniques, like text analysis, speech
analysis and handwriting analysis (Blikstein and Worsley 2016). A key for future
developments and experimentations will probably be connected to the availability
and cost of implementation of such technological solutions for classroom assess-
ment. External sensors may be more expensive, whereas embedded software solu-
tions and machine learning algorithms could be effective and reliable in extracting
evidence of students’ learning process and helping teachers to provide personalised
feedback to students. Anyway, as stated by Berland et al. (2014), EDM and LA in
constructionist environment aim at generating complementary data to assist teach-
ers’ deep qualitative analysis with quantitative methods.
A first experimentation that used data mining in the field of ER was conducted
by Jormanainen and Sutinen (2012). They adopted the Lego Mindstorms RCX and
collected data from students’ activities with the main functions of a new graphical
programming environment that they designed. They created an open monitoring
environment (OME) for the teachers involved, obtaining promising results with
3  Towards a Definition of Educational Robotics: A Classification of Tools… 71

decision trees algorithm (J48 implementation) for classifying students’ progress in

the ER setting. But probably there were some weaknesses in this experimentation:
the kit chosen for the study was anachronistic, indeed in 2012 the new model of
Lego Mindstorms (the NXT version) had been on the market since 2006; only 12
students and 4 teachers from primary school were involved, a very low number of
participants to validate the method; a new graphic programming environment was
developed, but it was without a block-based approach, maybe not so friendly for
primary school pupils.

 irst Steps Towards Educational Data Mining with Lego

F
Mindstorms EV3

The first steps in the application of educational data mining to Lego Mindstorms
EV3 were made by the authors in an Italian upper secondary school, Liceo Volta
Fellini in Riccione (a formal learning environment) during an alternating school-­
work course (a non-curricular activity). Thanks to a software development it was
possible to track all the sequences of blocks made by the students using the Lego
Mindstorms EV3 software environment. Three classes were involved in the project.
Participants were divided into teams of 3–4 students who worked together to design
software or hardware solutions to a set of tasks. The first challenge faced by the
learners, after the robot’s construction, was programming the robot so that it covers
a given distance (1 m), trying to be as precise as possible. Solving the task, students
had to consider a few constraints:
• Fifteen minutes to prepare the software solution and then the “final” competition
between the teams.
• During the available time, the teams could test the solution as many times as they
wanted.
• They could not use measuring instruments (set squares, rulers, etc.) to measure
the distance covered by the robot on the floor during the test time; they had the
possibility of using the instruments only to determine some robot’s parameters
(e.g. the radius of the wheel).
Some students realised that there were some cables with a known length inside
the Lego Mindstorms box, and they were allowed to use them as a reference object
for the trials.
This task was tricky because in the Lego software there are not blocks in which
the designer can set a specific distance to cover. The trainer presented only one
block for the challenge: the “move steering” function, where students can set three
modes to control the motors (“on for seconds”, “on for degrees” or “on for rota-
tions”) and the steering of the robot and the motors’ power.
Students’ teams mainly focused on the change in the last parameter: some groups
calculated the wheel’s circumference; other groups tried to measure the robot’s
72 D. Scaradozzi et al.

speed (in order to calculate the number of seconds to set); other groups adopted a
more practical and “trial and error” approach, for example, using the cable inside
the box as a reference measurement. These different approaches to the solution to a
given task seem to fit into the two different styles in problem-solving proposed by
Turkle and Papert (1992). They suggested that students could achieve learning
objectives while taking different pathways and strategies: the “bricoleur scientist”
prefers “a negotiational approach and concrete forms of reasoning”, while the
“planner scientist” prefers “an abstract thinking and systematic planning”.
Figure 3.2 shows an example of the log recorded by the modified Lego
Mindstorms EV3 used during the challenge. It is interesting to take into consider-
ation the rotations/seconds/degrees parameter set by the students during the trial
time, and analyse the behaviour of three groups involved in the robotics course,
which seem to have very definite features.
Figure 3.3 shows the sequence of the rotation parameter (the number of the rota-
tions set for the motors) chosen by group 1: 9 tests were conducted by the team (the
last one was the final competition), all of them with a rotation parameter very close
to 5.78 rotations. In this case, planning seems to be the prevalent approach adopted
by the group, probably with an initial mathematical calculus and then verification
tests to check the robot’s behaviour. This team obtained a 0.5  cm error from the
desired measure.
Group 2 performed 8 tests (the last one was the final competition): the first one
with a value equal to 1 rotation and the following with a value very close to 5.5 rota-
tions (Fig. 3.4). Planning seems to be the prevalent approach adopted by the group.
They probably did a first check of the robot’s behaviour setting 1 rotation for the
motors, then they inserted the value 5.5 in the rotation parameter. It is likely that
they made a calculation (or a proportion) to reach the solution of the given task. This
team obtained a 2 cm error from the desired measure.

Fig. 3.2  A log example, generated by the modified Lego Mindstorms EV3
 3  Towards a Definition of Educational Robotics: A Classification of Tools… 73

5.88

5.86
Rotation parameter set by the students

5.84

5.82

5.8

5.78

5.76

5.74

5.72

5.7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Test number

Fig. 3.3  Rotations graph for team 1

5.5

5
Rotation parameter set by the students

4.5

3.5

2.5

1.5

1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Test number

Fig. 3.4  Rotations graph for a team 2

Figure 3.5 shows the sequence of the values chosen by group 3 for the rotation
parameter. They performed 15 tests (the last one was the final competition), and
their strategy is represented by a broken line ranging from a minimum value of 1
rotation to a maximum value of 8. In this case, tinkering seems to be the prevalent
approach adopted by the group, probably with a “trial and error” pathway more
pronounced compared to the other teams. This team obtained a 1.5 cm error from
the desired measure.
This preliminary analysis shows how such a tool can provide teachers with com-
plementary information on students learning. Furthermore, such an automated tool
 74 D. Scaradozzi et al.

8
Rotation parameter set by the students

1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Test number

Fig. 3.5  Rotations graph for team 3

assessing the progress of the activity from each group (as an online method of evalu-
ation) can provide feedback to the teacher, thus allowing a real-time evaluation.
Experts are cooperating to identify meaningful indexes for students’ performance
and style of learning. More complex tasks, and therefore logs, are under analysis, to
unravel the knot of different skills and knowledge applied in an open-ended envi-
ronment. Moreover, different machine learning algorithms are compared to extrapo-
late knowledge from the raw data.

Discussions and Conclusion

Results from authors’ classification of RiE experiences are shown in Table  3.1.
Information on learning environment or on school curriculum impact is often miss-
ing (the word “Unknown” in the table means that authors didn’t find these specifica-
tions). This can be related to the scope of some activities within the RiE field,
namely, social robotics, socially assistive robotics and assistive robotics, where
studies are mainly focused on interaction or physical or cognitive rehabilitation, not
on education. But even in the ER subfield, it is hard to retrieve information on
school’s curriculum impact. Information about the impact of an ER research project
on school curriculum is fundamental to the process of integrating ER at school and
for the design of activities because it influences the learning outcomes and their
evaluation. Moreover, clear consideration of the curriculum impact could make it
easier for teachers and educators to replicate the project in other schools or institu-
tions, spreading the academic results into the daily educational practice.
It is also important for ER designers to consider the appropriate tools, analysing
the four features proposed in Section 2: age group, programming language, assem-
3  Towards a Definition of Educational Robotics: A Classification of Tools… 75

bly feature and robot’s environment. Table 3.2 shows that market has a variety of
robotic tools to choose from. For a deep understanding of the core concepts of
robotics, authors suggest choosing kits defined as “to build”, especially in primary
school. This kind of kits lets students manipulate basic elements of a robot, design
experimental mechanisms, design creative robots and create personal and meaning-
ful “public entity”, as proposed by Papert (1991). Furthermore, the simultaneous
analysis of hardware and software during the design process is more challenging for
students: if the robot doesn’t work, students have to consider how they assembled
the various parts of the robot as well as how they programmed it. This can be even
more challenging when integrating an open control board (e.g. based on Arduino or
Raspberry Pi) in the activity. On the one hand, it would offer teachers the chance to
explain the relevance of the open source culture and the community. On the other
hand, it provides students with a “white-box” tool, whose construction and recon-
struction is enabled to a deeper level. Authors agree with Alimisis (2013) on the
need of a transition to a “white-box” or “black-and-white” approach for construc-
tionist environments. Teachers and educators can choose according to their learning
objectives how to introduce robotics in their class to support teaching and to pro-
duce a positive impact on student’s learning. Literature supports observations like
“ER helps in developing twenty-first-century skills”(Eguchi 2014, 2015, 2016),
“ER prevents ESL”(Daniela and Strods 2018; Daniela et al. 2017; Moro et al. 2018)
and “ER is effective in conveying knowledge about subjects” (West et al. 2018), but
often those studies are too limited to generalise. Several studies focus on qualitative
methods that do not provide indexes or a numeric indication on how to evaluate
student’s performance. Moreover, there is no homogeneity in conducting such stud-
ies because they do not all align on the purpose of the study, and when they do, they
do not use the same protocol to bring ER to student or measurement instrument
(Castro et al. 2018). ER needs longitudinal studies to validate ER curricula, valid
and reliable assessment instruments, trained and motivated educators and teachers,
stakeholders’ engagement to help ER methodologies and tools to enter the educa-
tion system and impact the future citizens.
Table 3.3 shows some literature’s studies and their description through the four
features of evaluation. It reports that several constructs belonging to performance,
behaviour and attitude are explored in relation to the ER experience. This evaluation
has almost always the purpose of assessing the intended constructs and hardly ever
the purpose of providing feedback to students. Moreover, qualitative and quantita-
tive assessments are widely used, often in a mixed approach. It can be noted that the
categories “what”, “when” and “how” can belong to all RiE subfields, but “for what
purpose” pertains specifically to those fields directly targeting learning. In fact, in
socially assistive robotics and assistive robotics, the assessment is often focused on
the evaluation of the improvements of the lost function following the intervention
with robots (Bharatharaj et al. 2018; Cook et al. 2005; Holt et al. 2013; Mengoni
et al. 2017; Tapus et al. 2012). In the RiE subfield of social robotics, studies are
mainly focused on the interaction between the robot and the student or the teacher
(Fridin 2014; Fridin and Belokopytov 2014).
76 D. Scaradozzi et al.

In the ER context, online measurement is not used, but for Jormanainen and
Sutinen (2012). This may be because the data mining approach is relatively new,
and it has become robust only recently. Though, mainly unexplored, this research
direction is an interesting challenge which may eventually lead to a system inform-
ing teachers or students on the ER activity. To reach this goal, data should be gath-
ered through transparent, replicable and open experiments that could thus produce
comparable results. Moreover, integrating teachers’ qualitative evaluation, new
technologies and techniques, like educational data mining and learning analytics, it
will be possible to validate and examine in depth the real potential of ER. In a future
scenario, teachers will be able to analyse minute by minute the progression of their
students, and they will have available meaningful information about students’ learn-
ing. In this scenario, students will also benefit from personalised feedbacks, with a
real chance to develop their personal learning style.
The proposed classifications are in line with some aspects proposed by relevant
literature but they lead to some considerations in relation to other aspects. Moro
et al. (2018) stated that ER does not mean to teach a specific discipline like robotics,
but rather a didactical approach to learning, based on constructivist and constructiv-
ism theories. Authors agree with the fact that ER is a didactical approach to learning
but argue that this is not enough to describe ER. In fact, constructivism alone does
not build the ER field. The didactical approach is a key element in ER education, but
another essential element in ER is robotics. Students should develop the technical
knowledge on the object they are using to grasp the meaning of the activity. This
aspect is also highlighted by Angel-Fernandez and Vincze (2018). They proposed a
definition of ER as a field of study at the intersection of three broad areas: education
(all those disciplines aiming at studying and improving people’s learning), robotics
(all those disciplines aiming at studying and improving robots) and human-­computer
interface (aiming at improving user experience). This definition covers categories
like robotics as a learning object (robots used to teach robotics), robotics as a l­ earning
tool (robots are tools to teach other subjects) and robots as learning aids (social
robots). As previously stated, authors disagree with the inclusion of social robotics
in the field of ER. Social robots focus on the interaction between robots and people
in a natural, interpersonal manner, often to achieve positive outcomes (Breazeal
et al. 2016). Thus, social robotics is a RiE subfield dealing with robots as compan-
ions to teachers or peers to students with the aim of engaging them in a learning
activity. Although robots for ER, described in Section 2, do not focus on just the
interaction between humans and robots to achieve an outcome, they are designed,
built and programmed by students in the context of a constructionist environment.
This chapters presented a novel description of some basic features of an ER activ-
ity to provide a common ground for researchers and common knowledge for teachers
and educators. Moreover, specifying the impact on school curriculum and the learning
environment, authors intended to remark that ER can actually enter the school curricu-
lum. Robotics should be a subject within school’s hours, with its own lesson and
evaluation plan or, at least, afternoon activities strictly connected to the school pro-
gram. Whether a whole curriculum-based education or a regular activity inside another
broader subject, ER should be part of school’s curricular offer since an early stage.
3  Towards a Definition of Educational Robotics: A Classification of Tools… 77

Appendix

Table 3.1  Results from the classification proposed in Section 1

Learning Impact on Integration of Evaluation of
Paper environment education technology activities
Akagi et al. (2015) Formal Curricular Educational Qualitative
robotics
Bers et al. (2014) Formal Unknown Educational Quantitative
robotics Offline
Bharatharaj et al. Formal Unknown Socially assistive Quantitative
(2018) robotics Offline
Cannon et al. (2007) Formal Non-curricular Educational Mixed
robotics Offline
Castro et al. (2018) Formal Unknown Educational Quantitative
robotics Offline
Cesaretti et al. (2017) Formal Non-curricular Educational Quantitative
robotics Offline
Chalmers (2018) Formal Unknown Educational Mixed
robotics Offline
Chang et al. (2010) Formal Unknown Social robotics Qualitative
Chen (2019) Non-formal Unknown Educational Mixed
robotics Offline
Cook et al. (2005) Formal Unknown Assistive robotics Mixed
Offline
Costantini et al. Non-formal Non-curricular Educational Unknown
(2017) robotics
Cross et al. (2015) Formal Unknown Educational Mixed
robotics Offline
Cross et al. (2017) Formal Unknown Educational Mixed
robotics Offline
Daniela et al. (2017) Formal Unknown Educational Mixed
robotics Offline
Denicolai et al. Formal Unknown Educational Unknown
(2018) robotics
Di Lieto et al. (2017) Formal Non-curricular Educational Quantitative
robotics Offline
Eguchi (2015) Formal Curricular Educational Mixed
robotics Offline
Eguchi (2016) Non-formal Non-curricular Educational Quantitative
robotics Offline
Ferrarelli et al. Formal Non-curricular Educational Mixed
(2018) robotics Offline
Frangou et al. (2008) Formal Unknown Educational Qualitative
robotics
Fridin (2014) Formal Non-curricular Social robotics Quantitative
Online
(continued)
78 D. Scaradozzi et al.

Table 3.1 (continued)
Learning Impact on Integration of Evaluation of
Paper environment education technology activities
Fridin and Formal Non-curricular Social robotics Quantitative
Belokopytov (2014) Offline
Goldman et al. Non-formal Non-curricular Educational Quantitative
(2004) robotics Offline
Horn et al. (2008) Non-formal Non-curricular Educational Mixed
robotics Online
Holt et al. (2013) Formal Unknown Assistive robotics Mixed
Online
Iacobelli (2010) Formal Curricular/ Educational Mixed
non-curricular robotics Offline
Iacobelli and Spano Formal Unknown Educational Unknown
(2011) robotics
Jeon et al. (2016) Formal Non-curricular Educational Unknown
robotics
Jormanainen and Non-formal Non-curricular Educational Quantitative
Sutinen (2012) robotics Online
Junior et al. (2013) Unknown Unknown Educational Quantitative
robotics Offline
Kandlhofer and Formal Non-curricular Educational Quantitative
Steinbauer (2016) robotics Offline
Kim et al. (2015) Formal Unknown Educational Mixed
robotics Offline
Kory Westlund et al. Formal Unknown Social robotics Mixed
(2016) Offline
Kucuk and Sisman Formal Non-curricular Educational Quantitative
(2017) robotics Online
Lindh and Formal Unknown Educational Mixed
Holgersson (2007) robotics Offline
Lins et al. (2018) Formal Unknown Assistive robotics Quantitative
Online
Mengoni et al. (2017) Formal Unknown Socially assistive Mixed
robotics Offline
Micotti et al. (2017) Formal Unknown Educational Unknown
robotics
Montero and Unknown Unknown Educational Unknown
Jormanainen (2016) robotics
Oreggia et al. (2016) Formal Non-curricular Educational Quantitative
robotics Offline
Ospennikova et al. Formal Unknown Educational Unknown
(2015) robotics
Ozgur et al. (2018) Non-formal Unknown Assistive robotics Quantitative
Online
Palsbo and Hood-­ Unknown Unknown Assistive robotics Quantitative
Szivek (2012) Offline
3  Towards a Definition of Educational Robotics: A Classification of Tools… 79

Table 3.1 (continued)
Learning Impact on Integration of Evaluation of
Paper environment education technology activities
Polishuk et al. (2012) Non-formal Non-curricular Educational Unknown
robotics
Polishuk and Verner Non-formal Non-curricular Educational Qualitative
(2017) robotics
Rusk et al. (2008) Non-formal Non-curricular Educational Unknown
robotics
Ryu et al. (2013) Unknown Unknown Assistive robotics Unknown
Sahin et al. (2014) Formal Non-curricular Educational Qualitative
robotics
Scaradozzi et al. Formal Unknown Educational Quantitative
(2018) robotics Offline
Scaradozzi et al. Formal Curricular Educational Quantitative
(2015) robotics Offline
Scaradozzi et al. Formal Non-curricular Educational Quantitative
(2016) robotics Offline
Screpanti et al. Formal Non-curricular Educational Quantitative
(2018a) robotics Offline
Screpanti et al. Formal Non-curricular Educational Quantitative
(2018b) robotics Offline
Sullivan (2008) Formal Non-curricular Educational Mixed
robotics Offline
Online
Tapus et al. (2012) Unknown Unknown Socially assistive Quantitative
robotics Online
Tocháček et al. Formal Non-curricular Educational Quantitative
(2016) robotics Offline
Vitale et al. (2016) Formal Curricular Educational Quantitative
robotics Offline
Weinberg et al. Formal Non-curricular Educational Quantitative
(2007) robotics Offline
West et al. (2018) Non-formal Non-curricular Educational Unknown
robotics
Table 3.2  Results from the classification proposed in Section 2
80

Assembly Programming Robot’s

Kits name Age feature language environment Link
Bee-Bot/Blue-Bot Kindergarten/ Ready to use Unplugged Earth https://www.bee-bot.us/
primary
Clementoni Doc Kindergarten/ Ready to use Unplugged Earth https://www.clementoni.com/
primary it/11112-doc-robottino-educativo-parlante/
Cubetto Kindergarten/ Ready to use Unplugged/block Earth https://www.primotoys.com/it/
primary based
Matatalab Kindergarten/ Ready to use Unplugged Earth https://www.matatalab.com/
primary
Dash & Dot Kindergarten/ Ready to use Block based Earth https://www.makewonder.com/dash/
primary
Clementoni Mind Primary Ready to use Unplugged/block Earth https://www.clementoni.com/
Designer based it/12087-mind-designer-robot-educativo-intelligente/
Ozobot Primary Ready to use Unplugged/block Earth https://ozobot.com/
based
Codey Rocky Primary Ready to use Block based/text Earth https://www.makeblock.com/steam-kits/codey-rocky
based
Sam Labs kits Primary/lower To build Block based Earth https://samlabs.com/
secondary
Little Bits kits Primary/lower To build Unplugged/block Earth https://littlebits.com/
secondary based
Sphero Primary/lower Ready to use Block based/text Earth https://www.sphero.com/
secondary based
Thymio Primary/lower Ready to use Block based Earth https://www.thymio.org/
secondary
mBot kits Primary/secondary To build Block based/text Earth https://www.makeblock.com/steam-kits/mbot
based
D. Scaradozzi et al.
 Assembly Programming Robot’s
Kits name Age feature language environment Link
airBlock Primary/secondary To build Block based/text Air/water https://www.makeblock.com/steam-kits/airblock
based
Lego Wedo Primary To build Block based Earth https://education.lego.com/en-gb/product/wedo-2
Clementoni RoboMaker Primary/lower To build Block based Earth https://www.clementoni.com/
Pro secondary it/13992-robomaker-pro/
Jimu Robot Primary/secondary To build Block based Earth https://ubtrobot.com/collections/jimu-robots
Lego Mindstorms EV3 Primary/secondary To build Block based/text Earth https://education.lego.com/en-gb/product/
based mindstorms-ev3
Fischertechnik – ROBO Secondary To build Block based Earth https://www.fischertechnik.biz/Robotics/
TX Explorer fischertechnik-robo-tx-explorer-comp.html
BYOR Secondary To build Block based/text Earth https://byor.scuoladirobotica.it/it/homebyor.html
based
Pi2Go Secondary To build Block based/text Earth https://4tronix.co.uk/blog/?p=452
based
Nao Secondary Ready to use Block based/text Earth https://www.softbankrobotics.com/emea/en/nao
based
Alpha 1 Pro Secondary Ready to use Block based Earth https://ubtrobot.com/pages/alpha
Parrot Mambo Secondary Ready to use Block based/text Air https://www.parrot.com/it/droni/parrot-mambo-fpv
based
Openrov 2.8 Secondary To build Text based Water https://store.openrov.com/collections/diy-rovs-part/
products/openrov-v2-8-kit
SeaMATE AngelFish Secondary To build – Water https://seamate.org/collections/rov-kits/
products/3-seamate-angelfish-control-box-kit
SeaMATE PufferFish Secondary To build – Water https://seamate.org/collections/rov-kits/products/
3  Towards a Definition of Educational Robotics: A Classification of Tools…

seamate-pufferfish-control-box-kit-rev-7
Kuka Youbot Upper secondary Ready to use Text based Earth http://www.youbot-store.com
Dobot Magician Secondary Ready to use Block based Earth http://www.dobot.it
81
82 D. Scaradozzi et al.

Table 3.3  Results from the classification of evaluation proposed in Section 3

To what
Paper What When purpose How
Akagi et al. Performance: Robotics Post Assessment Qualitative
(2015) of learning
Bers et al. Performance: During Assessment Quantitative
(2014) Computational thinking of learning Offline
skills (rubric, Likert scale)
Bharatharaj Behaviour During Unknown Quantitative
et al. (2018) Offline
(questionnaires)
Qualitative (observation)
Cannon et al. Attitude: STEM Pre, Assessment Quantitative
(2007) during, of learning Offline
post (surveys, rankings)
Qualitative
(students’ comments)
Castro et al. Performance: Robotics Pre, post Assessment Quantitative
(2018) of learning Offline
(questionnaires)
Cesaretti et al. Attitude: STEM, Post Assessment Quantitative
(2017) teamwork of learning Offline
(questionnaires)
Chalmers Performance: Pre, Assessment Quantitative
(2018) Computational thinking during, of learning Offline
skills post (questionnaires)
Qualitative (interviews)
Chang et al. Performance: Second Pre, Assessment Qualitative
(2010) language during of learning (video recording)
Chen (2019) Performance: Problem-­ Post Assessment Mixed
solving skill of learning Offline
(self-assessment) (interviews and data
analysis)
Cook et al. Behaviour During, Unknown Quantitative
(2005) post Offline
(video recording and
data analysis)
Qualitative (interviews)
Costantini Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
et al. (2017)
Cross et al. Performance: Pre, post Assessment Quantitative
(2015) Technological fluency, of learning Offline
robotics (questionnaires)
Attitude: Teamwork Qualitative
(interviews,
observations)
3  Towards a Definition of Educational Robotics: A Classification of Tools… 83

Table 3.3 (continued)
To what
Paper What When purpose How
Cross et al. Performance: Pre, post Assessment Quantitative
(2017) Technological fluency, of learning Offline
robotics (questionnaires)
Attitude: Teamwork Qualitative
(interviews,
observations)
Daniela et al. Attitude: School Pre, Assessment Quantitative
(2017) during, of learning Offline
post (questionnaires)
Qualitative
(observations)
Denicolai et al. Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
(2018)
Di Lieto et al. Performance: Visuo-­ Pre, post Assessment Quantitative offline
(2017) spatial working memory of learning (questionnaires)
inhibition skills,
attention, robotics
Eguchi (2015) Performance: Subjects Post Assessment Mixed
Attitude: Twenty-first-­ of learning Offline
century skills (final essay analysed
using text coding with
quasi-grounded
Theory)
Eguchi (2016) Attitude: STEM, Post Assessment Quantitative
twenty-first-century of learning Offline
skills (questionnaires)
Ferrarelli et al. Performance: Physics Pre, Assessment Quantitative
(2018) Attitude: Technology, during, of learning Offline
teamwork post (questionnaires)
Qualitative
(observations)
Frangou et al. Performance: Subjects Post Assessment Qualitative
(2008) of learning
Fridin (2014) Performance: Robot-­ During Assessment Quantitative
children interactions of learning Online
(video recording with
robot’s camera)
Fridin and Attitude: Technology Pre Unknown Quantitative
Belokopytov Offline
(2014) (questionnaires)
Goldman et al. Performance: Physics, Pre, post Assessment Quantitative
(2004) math of learning (questionnaires)
(continued)
84 D. Scaradozzi et al.

Table 3.3 (continued)
To what
Paper What When purpose How
Horn et al. Behaviour During Unknown Quantitative
(2008) Online
(computers log,
evaluators log)
Qualitative
(observation)
Holt et al. Behaviour During Unknown Quantitative
(2013) Online
(system error logs and
callouts)
Qualitative
(observation)
Iacobelli Performance: Robotics, Post Assessment Quantitative
(2010) twenty-first-century of learning Offline
skills (rubric)
Qualitative
(observation)
Iacobelli and Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Spano (2011)
Jeon et al. Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
(2016)
Jormanainen Performance: Robotics During Assessment Quantitative
and Sutinen of learning Online
(2012) (data logging of students
programming)
Junior et al. Attitude: Robotics Post Assessment Quantitative
(2013) of learning Offline
(questionnaires)
Kandlhofer Performance: Technical Pre, post Assessment Quantitative
and Steinbauer skills of learning Offline
(2016) Attitude: Science, social (questionnaires)
and soft skills
Kim et al. Performance: STEM Pre, Assessment Quantitative
(2015) teaching and learning during, of learning Offline
Attitude: Engagement in post (questionnaires)
robotics and STEM Qualitative
Activities (observations)
Kory Westlund Attitude: Teachers’ Pre, post Unknown Quantitative
et al. (2016) perception of social Offline
robots in their (questionnaires)
classrooms Qualitative
(interviews)
Kucuk and Behaviour: Student-­ During Unknown Quantitative
Sisman (2017) teacher interaction Online
(video recording)
3  Towards a Definition of Educational Robotics: A Classification of Tools… 85

Table 3.3 (continued)
To what
Paper What When purpose How
Lindh and Performance: Math, Pre, Assessment Quantitative
Holgersson problem-solving during, of learning Offline
(2007) post (tests in mathematics and
problem-solving)
Qualitative
(observation, interview
and inquiry)
Lins et al. Unknown During Unknown Quantitative
(2018) Online
(brain wave sensor)
Mengoni et al. Unknown Pre, post Unknown Quantitative
(2017) Offline
(questionnaires)
Qualitative
(observation)
Micotti et al. Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
(2017)
Montero and Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Jormanainen
(2016)
Oreggia et al. Attitude: Computer Pre, post Assessment Quantitative
(2016) engineering of learning Offline
(questionnaires)
Ospennikova Performance: Physics Unknown Assessment Unknown
et al. (2015) of learning
Ozgur et al. Behaviour During Unknown Quantitative
(2018) Online
(log of the motion and
game data)
Palsbo and Performance: Hand Pre, post Unknown Quantitative
Hood-Szivek motor function Offline
(2012) (specific test for the
motor function)
Polishuk et al. Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
(2012)
Polishuk and Performance: Systems Post Assessment Qualitative (rubrics)
Verner (2017) thinking skills of learning
Rusk et al. Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
(2008)
Ryu et al. Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
(2013)
Sahin et al. Attitude: STEM, During Assessment Qualitative (observation,
(2014) twenty-first-century of learning interviews)
skills
(continued)
86 D. Scaradozzi et al.

Table 3.3 (continued)
To what
Paper What When purpose How
Scaradozzi Performance: Robotics, Pre, post Assessment Quantitative
et al. (2018) coding, tinkering of learning Offline
(questionnaires)
Scaradozzi Performance: Robotics Post Assessment Quantitative
et al. (2015) of learning Offline
(final grade)
Scaradozzi Performance: Robotics, Post Assessment Quantitative
et al. (2016) science of learning Offline
Attitude: STEM, (questionnaires)
teamwork
Screpanti et al. Performance: Robotics, Post Assessment Quantitative
(2018a) science of learning Offline
Attitude: STEM, (questionnaires,
twenty-first-century crossword puzzle)
skills
Screpanti et al. Performance: Robotics Post Assessment Quantitative
(2018b) Attitude: STEM, of learning Offline
twenty-first-century (surveys, rankings)
skills
Sullivan 2008 Performance: Problem-­ Pre, Assessment Quantitative
solving skill, science during, of learning Offline
process skill, technology post (questionnaires)
literacy, systems Online
understanding (descriptive written logs
of student activity
created through multiple
viewing of the
videotapes.)
Tapus et al. Behaviour During Unknown Quantitative
(2012) Online
(video recording)
Tocháček et al. Performance: Post Assessment Quantitative
(2016) Technology literacy of learning Offline
(not clearly described)
Vitale et al. Performance: Robotics, During Assessment Quantitative
(2016) teamwork of learning Offline
(rubric)
Weinberg et al. Attitude: STEM Pre, post Assessment Quantitative
(2007) of learning Offline
(questionnaires)
West et al. Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
(2018)
3  Towards a Definition of Educational Robotics: A Classification of Tools… 87

References

Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference.

Future of Learning Group Publication, 5(3), 438.
Akagi, T., Fujimoto, S., Kuno, H., Araki, K., Yamada, S., & Dohta, S. (2015). Systematic educa-
tional program for robotics and mechatronics engineering in OUS using robot competition.
Procedia Computer Science, 76, 2–8.
Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science
and Technology Education, 6(1), 63–71.
Angel-Fernandez, J. M., & Vincze, M. (2018). Towards a formal definition of educational robotics.
In P. Zech & J. Piater (Eds.), Proceedings of the austrian robotics workshop 2018 (Conference
series). Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press. https://doi.org/10.15203/3187-22-1.
Asif, R., Merceron, A., Ali, S.  A., & Haider, N.  G. (2017). Analyzing undergraduate students’
performance using educational data mining. Computers & Education, 113, 177–194.
Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills
through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and
Autonomous Systems, 75, 661–670.
Baker, R.S., Corbett, A.T., & Koedinger, K.  R. (2004). Detecting student misuse of intelligent
tutoring systems. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on intelligent tutoring
systems (pp. 531–540).
Beck, J.  E., & Woolf, B.  P. (2000). High-level student modeling with machine learning. In
G. Gauthier, C. Frasson, & K. VanLehn (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (Lecture notes in
computer science) (pp. 584–593). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Bellas, F., Naya, M., Varela, G., Llamas, L., Prieto, A., Becerra, J. C., Bautista, M., Fain, A., &
Duro, R. (2018). The Robobo project: Bringing educational robotics closer to real-world appli-
cations. In W. Lepuschitz, M. Merdan, G. Koppensteiner, R. Balogh, & D. Obdržálek (Eds.),
Robotics in education. RiE 2017. Advances in intelligent systems and computing (Vol. 630).
Cham: Springer.
Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B., & Tanaka, F. (2018). Social robots
for education: A review. Science robotics, 3(21), eaat5954.
Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic
review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988.
Berland, M., Martin, T., Benton, T., Petrick Smith, C., & Davis, D. (2013). Using learning ana-
lytics to understand the learning pathways of novice programmers. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 22(4), 564–599.
Berland, M., Baker, R. S., & Blikstein, P. (2014). Educational data mining and learning analyt-
ics: Applications to constructionist research. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19(1–2),
205–220.
Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and
tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72,
145–157.
Bharatharaj, J., Huang, L., Krägeloh, C., Elara, M. R., & Al-Jumaily, A. (2018). Social engage-
ment of children with autism spectrum disorder in interaction with a parrot-inspired therapeutic
robot. Procedia Computer Science, 133, 368–376.
Blikstein, P., & Worsley, M. (2016). Multimodal learning analytics and education data mining:
Using computational technologies to measure complex learning tasks. Journal of Learning
Analytics, 3(2), 220–238.
Blikstein, P., Worsley, M., Piech, C., Sahami, M., Cooper, S., & Koller, D. (2014). Programming
pluralism: Using learning analytics to detect patterns in the learning of computer programming.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 561–599.
Blikstein, P., Kabayadondo, Z., Martin, A., & Fields, D. (2017). An assessment instrument of tech-
nological literacies in makerspaces and FabLabs. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(1),
149–175.
88 D. Scaradozzi et al.

Breazeal, C., Dautenhahn, K., & Kanda, T. (2016). Social robotics. In B. Siciliano & O. Khatib
(Eds.), Springer handbook of robotics (pp. 1935–1972). Cham: Springer.
Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in
P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387.
Cannon, K. R., Panciera, K. A., & Papanikolopoulos, N. P. (2007). Second annual robotics summer
camp for underrepresented students. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(3), 14–18. ACM.
Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Valente, M., Buselli, E., Salvini, P., & Dario, P. (2018). Can educational
robotics introduce young children to robotics and how can we measure it? Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 34(6), 970–977.
Cesaretti, L., Storti, M., Mazzieri, E., Screpanti, L., Paesani, A., Principi, P., & Scaradozzi, D.
(2017). An innovative approach to school-work turnover programme with educational robotics.
Mondo Digitale, 16(72), 2017–2015.
Chalmers, C. (2018). Robotics and computational thinking in primary school. International
Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 17, 93–100.
Chang, C. W., Lee, J. H., Chao, P. Y., Wang, C. Y., & Chen, G. D. (2010). Exploring the possibil-
ity of using humanoid robots as instructional tools for teaching a second language in primary
school. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(2), 13–24.
Chen, X. (2019). How does participation in FIRST LEGO league robotics competition impact chil-
dren’s problem-solving process? In W. Lepuschitz, M. Merdan, G. Koppensteiner, R. Balogh,
& D. Obdržálek (Eds.), Robotics in education. RiE 2018. Advances in intelligent systems and
computing (Vol. 829, pp. 162–167). Cham: Springer.
Cook, A.  M., Bentz, B., Harbottle, N., Lynch, C., & Miller, B. (2005). School-based use of a
robotic arm system by children with disabilities. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and
Rehabilitation Engineering, 13(4), 452–460.
Costantini, R., Laura, L., Mazza, L., & Santilli, R. (2017). STEAM – un nuovo framework didattico
per l’Alternanza Scuola Lavoro: Coding, robotica e design nel Milano Luiss Hub (STEAM – a
new educational framework for the alternating school-work programme: Coding, robotics and
design at the Milano Luiss Hub). In Proceedings of DIDAMATICA 2017.
Cross, J. L., Hamner, E., Bartley, C., & Nourbakhsh, I. (2015). Arts & Bots: application and out-
comes of a secondary school robotics program. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE),
2015 IEEE (pp. 1–9). IEEE.
Cross, J.  L., Hamner, E., Zito, L., & Nourbakhsh, I. (2017). Student outcomes from the evalu-
ation of a transdisciplinary middle school robotics program. In Proceedings of Frontiers in
Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1–9). IEEE.
Daniela, L., & Strods, R. (2018). Robot as agent in reducing risks of early school leaving. In
L. Daniela (Ed.), Innovations, technologies and research in education (pp. 140–158). Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN (10): 1-5275-0622-3.
Daniela, L., Strods, R., & Alimisis, D. (2017). Analysis of Robotics-based Learning Interventions
for Preventing School Failure and Early School Leaving in Gender Context. In Proceedings of
the 9th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (Edulearn17)
(pp. 810–818). 3–5 July, 2017, Barcelona, Spain. ISBN 9788469737774. ISSN 2340-1117.
Dann, R. (2014). Assessment as learning: Blurring the boundaries of assessment and learning for
theory, policy and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(2),
149–166.
Denicolai, L., Grimaldi, R., & Palmieri, S. (2018). Robotica e linguaggio audiovisivo: Quando le
tecnologie si parlano (robotics and audio-visual language: When different technologies com-
municate with each other). In Proceedings of DIDAMATICA 2018. Cesena, Italy: AICA.
Di Lieto, M.  C., Inguaggiato, E., Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Cioni, G., Dell’Omo, M., Laschi, C.,
Pecini, C., Santerini, G., Sgandurra, G., & Dario, P. (2017). Educational robotics intervention
on executive functions in preschool children: A pilot study. Computers in Human Behavior,
71, 16–23.
3  Towards a Definition of Educational Robotics: A Classification of Tools… 89

Eguchi, A. (2014). Robotics as a learning tool for educational transformation. In Proceeding of

4th International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics & 5th International
Conference Robotics in Education (pp. 27–34). Padova (Italy).
Eguchi, A. (2015). Educational robotics to promote 21 st century skills and technological under-
standing among underprivileged undergraduate students. In Integrated STEM Education
Conference (ISEC), 2015 IEEE (pp. 76–82). IEEE.
Eguchi, A. (2016). RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and tech-
nological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75,
692–699.
Eguchi, A. (2017). Bringing robotics in classrooms. In M. Khine (Ed.), Robotics in STEM educa-
tion (pp. 3–31). Cham: Springer.
Ferrarelli, P., Villa, W., Attolini, M., Cesareni, D., Micale, F., Sansone, N., Pantaleone, L. C., &
Iocchi, L. (2018). Improving students’ concepts about Newtonian mechanics using Mobile
robots. In International conference on robotics and education (RiE) 2017 (pp.  113–124).
Cham: Springer.
Frangou, S., Papanikolaou, K., Aravecchia, L., Montel, L., Ionita, S., Arlegui, J., Pina, A.,
Menegatti, E., Moro, M., Fava, N., & Monfalcon, S. (2008). Representative examples of imple-
menting educational robotics in school based on the constructivist approach. In Workshop
proceedings of SIMPAR (pp. 54–65).
Fridin, M. (2014). Storytelling by a kindergarten social assistive robot: A tool for constructive
learning in preschool education. Computers & Education, 70, 53–64.
Fridin, M., & Belokopytov, M. (2014). Acceptance of socially assistive humanoid robot by pre-
school and elementary school teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 23–31.
Goldman, R., Eguchi, A., & Sklar, E. (2004). Using educational robotics to engage inner-city stu-
dents with technology. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on learning sciences
(pp. 214–221). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1),
81–112.
Holt, R., Weightman, A., Gallagher, J., Preston, N., Levesley, M., Mon-Williams, M., & Bhakta,
B. (2013). A system in the wild: Deploying a two player arm rehabilitation system for children
with cerebral palsy in a school environment. Journal of Usability Studies, 8(4), 111–126.
Horn, M. S., Solovey, E. T., & Jacob, R. J. (2008). Tangible programming and informal science
learning: Making TUIs work for museums. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference
on interaction design and children (pp. 194–201). ACM.
Iacobelli, C. (2010). I robot a scuola: l’esperienza insegna (Robots at school: experience teaches).
Retrieved from http://www.robocupjr.it/roboscuola/2010_atti/cesareiacobelli_x.pdf
Iacobelli, C. and Spano A. (2011). Competizioni di robotica: Nuovi percorsi per la didattica (robot-
ics competitions: New pathways for teaching and learning). In Proceedings of DIDAMATICA
2011. Turin, Italy. AICA.
Jeon, M., FakhrHosseini, M., Barnes, J., Duford, Z., Zhang, R., Ryan, J., & Vasey, E. (2016).
Making live theatre with multiple robots as actors: Bringing robots to rural schools to promote
STEAM education for underserved students. In The 11th ACM/IEEE international conference
on human robot interaction (pp. 445–446). IEEE Press.
Jormanainen, I., & Sutinen, E. (2012). Using data mining to support teacher’s intervention in a
robotics class. In Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (DIGITEL), 2012 IEEE
Fourth International Conference on (pp. 39–46). IEEE.
Jung, S. E., & Won, E. S. (2018). Systematic review of research trends in robotics education for
young children. Sustainability, 10(4), 905.
Junior, L. A., Neto, O. T., Hernandez, M. F., Martins, P. S., Roger, L. L., & Guerra, F. A. (2013). A
low-cost and simple arduino-based educational robotics kit. Cyber Journals: Multidisciplinary
Journals in Science and Technology, Journal of Selected Areas in Robotics and Control (JSRC),
December edition, 3(12), 1–7.
90 D. Scaradozzi et al.

Kandlhofer, M., & Steinbauer, G. (2016). Evaluating the impact of educational robotics on pupils’
technical-and social-skills and science related attitudes. Robotics and Autonomous Systems,
75, 679–685.
Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R.  B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C.  N. (2015). Robotics to promote
elementary education pre-service teachers’ STEM engagement, learning, and teaching.
Computers & Education, 91, 14–31.
Kory Westlund, J., Gordon, G., Spaulding, S., Lee, J.  J., Plummer, L., Martinez, M., Das, M.,
& Breazeal, C. (2016). Lessons from teachers on performing HRI studies with young chil-
dren in schools. In the 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction
(pp. 383–390). IEEE Press.
Kucuk, S., & Sisman, B. (2017). Behavioral patterns of elementary students and teachers in one-­
to-­one robotics instruction. Computers & Education, 111, 31–43.
Lindh, J¸ Holgersson, T. (2007). Does lego training stimulate pupils ability to solve logical prob-
lems? Computers & Education, 49 (4), 1097–1111.
Lins, A. A., de Oliveira, J. M., Rodrigues, J. J., & de Albuquerque, V. H. C. (2018). Robot-assisted
therapy for rehabilitation of children with cerebral palsy-a complementary and alternative
approach. Computers in Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.012.
Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the
classroom. Torrance, CA: Constructing modern knowledge press.
Matarić, M. J., & Scassellati, B. (2016). Socially assistive robotics. In B. Siciliano & O. Khatib
(Eds.), Springer handbook of robotics (pp. 1973–1994). Cham: Springer Handbooks. Springer.
Mengoni, S.  E., Irvine, K., Thakur, D., Barton, G., Dautenhahn, K., Guldberg, K., Robins, B.,
Wellsted, D., & Sharma, S. (2017). Feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial to
­investigate the effectiveness of using a humanoid robot to improve the social skills of children
with autism spectrum disorder (Kaspar RCT): A study protocol. BMJ Open, 7(6), e017376.
Merceron, A., & Yacef, K. (2004). Mining student data captured from a web-based tutoring tool:
Initial exploration and results. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 15(4), 319–346.
Mevarech, Z.  R., & Kramarski, B. (1993). Vygotsky and Papert: Social-cognitive interactions
within logo environments. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 96–109. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1993.tb01044.x.
Micotti, F., Fiocchi, E. and Giurato, M. (2017). Introdurre la robotica nelle scuole secondarie, un
approccio progettuale (Introducing Robotics into secondary schools, a planning approach). In
Proceedings of DIDAMATICA 2017.
Miller, D. P., & Nourbakhsh, I. (2016). Robotics for education. In Springer handbook of robotics
(pp. 2115–2134). Cham: Springer.
Montero, C. S., & Jormanainen, I. (2016). Theater meets robot–toward inclusive STEAM educa-
tion. In International conference EduRobotics 2016 (pp. 34–40). Cham: Springer.
Moro, M., Agatolio, F., & Menegatti, E. (2018). The RoboESL project: Development, evalua-
tion and outcomes regarding the proposed robotic enhanced curricula. International Journal of
Smart Education and Urban Society (IJSEUS), 9(1), 48–60.
Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., Al Mahmud, A., & Dong, J. J. (2013). A review of the appli-
cability of robots in education. Journal of Technology in Education and Learning, 1(1–7), 13.
Naya, M., Varela, G., Llamas, L., Bautista, M., Becerra, J. C., Bellas, F., Abraham Prieto, Alavaro
Deibe & Duro, R.  J. (2017). A versatile robotic platform for educational interaction. In
Intelligent Data Acquisition and Advanced Computing Systems: Technology and Applications
(IDAACS), 2017 9th IEEE International Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 138–144). IEEE.
Oreggia, M., Chiorri, C., Pozzi, F., & Tacchella, A. (2016, July). Introducing Computer Engineering
Curriculum to Upper Secondary Students: An Evaluation of Experiences Based on Educational
Robotics. In 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies
(ICALT) (pp. 293–294). IEEE.
Ornelas, F., & Ordonez, C. (2017). Predicting student success: A Naïve Bayesian application to
community college data. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(3), 299–315.
3  Towards a Definition of Educational Robotics: A Classification of Tools… 91

Ospennikova, E., Ershov, M., & Iljin, I. (2015). Educational robotics as an innovative educational
technology. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 214, 18–26.
Ozgur, A. G., Wessel, M. J., Johal, W., Sharma, K., Özgür, A., Vuadens, P., Francesco Mondada,
Friedhelm Christoph Hummel & Dillenbourg, P. (2018). Iterative design of an upper limb reha-
bilitation game with tangible robots. In ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot
Interaction (HRI) (p. 187).
Palsbo, S. E., & Hood-Szivek, P. (2012). Effect of robotic-assisted three-dimensional repetitive
motion to improve hand motor function and control in children with handwriting deficits:
A nonrandomized phase 2 device trial. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66(6),
682–690.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books,
Inc.
Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S.  Papert & I.  Harel (Eds.), Constructionism
(pp. 1–11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Polishuk, A., & Verner, I. (2017). Student-robot interactions in museum workshops: Learning
activities and outcomes. In M. Merdan, W. Lepuschitz, G. Koppensteiner, & R. Balogh (Eds.),
Robotics in education. Advances in intelligent systems and computing (Vol. 457, pp. 233–244).
Cham: Springer.
Polishuk, A., Verner, I., Klein, Y., Inbar, E., Mir, R., & Wertheim, I. (2012). The challenge of
robotics education in science museums. International Journal of Robots, Education and Art
(IJREA), 2(1), 30–37.
Rusk, N., Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Pezalla-Granlund, M. (2008). New pathways into robotics:
Strategies for broadening participation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1),
59–69.
Ryu, G. J., Kang, J. B., Kim, C. G., & Song, B. S. (2013). Development of a robot remote support
system for student with health impairment. In Proceedings of the 7th International Convention
on Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology (p.  24). Singapore Therapeutic,
Assistive & Rehabilitative Technologies (START) Centre.
Sahin, A., Ayar, M. C., & Adiguzel, T. (2014). STEM related after-school program activities and
associated outcomes on student learning. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(1),
309–322.
Scaradozzi, D., Cesaretti, L., Screpanti, L., Costa, D., Zingaretti, S., & Valzano, M. (in press).
Innovative tools for teaching marine robotics, iot and control strategies since the primary
school. In: Daniela, L. (Ed.), Smart learning with educational robotics – using robots to scaf-
fold learning outcomes, Springer. ISBN 978-3-030-19912-8.
Scaradozzi, D., Sorbi, L., Pedale, A., Valzano, M., & Vergine, C. (2015). Teaching robotics at
the primary school: An innovative approach. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174,
3838–3846.
Scaradozzi, D., Screpanti, L., Cesaretti, L., Mazzieri, E., Storti, M., Brandoni, M., & Longhi, A.
(2016). Rethink Loreto: We build our smart city!” A stem education experience for introduc-
ing smart city concept with the educational robotics. In 9th annual international conference of
education, research and innovation (ICERI 2016), Seville, Spain (pp. 750–758).
Scaradozzi, D., Screpanti, L., Cesaretti, L., Storti, M., & Mazzieri, E. (2018). Implementation
and assessment methodologies of teachers’ training courses for STEM activities. Technology,
Knowledge and Learning, 1–21.
Screpanti, L., Cesaretti, L., Storti, M., Mazzieri, E., & Longhi, A. (2018a). Advancing K12 edu-
cation through Educational Robotics to shape the citizens of the future. In Proceedings of
DIDAMATICA 2018. AICA.
Screpanti, L., Cesaretti, L., Marchetti, L., Baione, A., Natalucci, I. N., & Scaradozzi, D. (2018b,
July). An educational robotics activity to promote gender equality in STEM education. In
Procedings of the eighteenth International Conference on Information, Communication
Technologies in Education (ICICTE 2018) (pp. 336–346). Chania, Crete, Greece.
92 D. Scaradozzi et al.

Sullivan, F. R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and
systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 373–394.
Tapus, A., Peca, A., Aly, A., Pop, C., Jisa, L., Pintea, S., Rusu, A., & David, D. O. (2012). Children
with autism social engagement in interaction with Nao, an imitative robot: A series of single
case experiments. Interaction Studies, 13(3), 315–347.
Tocháček, D., Lapeš, J., & Fuglík, V. (2016). Developing technological knowledge and program-
ming skills of secondary schools students through the educational robotics projects. Procedia-­
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 377–381.
Toh, E., Poh, L., Causo, A., Tzuo, P. W., Chen, I., & Yeo, S. H. (2016). A review on the use of
robots in education and young children. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(2).
Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1992). Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the concrete.
Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11(1), 3–33.
Vitale, G., Bonarini, A., Matteucci, M., & Bascetta, L. (2016). Toward vocational robotics:
An experience in post-secondary school education and job training through robotics. IEEE
Robotics & Automation Magazine, 23(4), 73–81.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1968). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
Weinberg, J. B., Pettibone, J. C., Thomas, S. L., Stephen, M. L., & Stein, C. (2007). The impact of
robot projects on girls’ attitudes toward science and engineering. In Workshop on research in
robots for education (Vol. 3, pp. 1–5).
West, J., Vadiee, N., Sutherland, E., Kaye, B., & Baker, K. (2018). Making STEM accessible and
effective through NASA robotics programs. Tribal College Journal of American Indian Higher
Education, 29(4).
Chapter 4
Introducing Maker Movement
in Educational Robotics: Beyond
Prefabricated Robots and “Black Boxes”

Dimitris Alimisis, Rene Alimisi, Dimitriοs Loukatos, and Emmanouil Zoulias

Abstract  Nowadays, several studies assure that digital fabrication and making
technologies, if coupled with proper learning methodologies such as constructivism
and constructionism, can provide learning experiences that promote young people’s
creativity, critical thinking, teamwork and problem-solving skills  – the essential
skills necessary in the workplace of the twenty-first century. Robotic technologies
combined with digital fabrication and DIY electronics emerge as unique making
tools that can create a learning environment attracting and keeping learners
interested and motivated with hands-on, fun learning activities. The “maker
movement” is seen as an inspiring and creative way for youth to deal with our world
and able to develop technological interest and competences. However, in the field of
educational robotics, the focus is often on prefabricated robots and ready-made
code to program behaviours for the robots. This way, robotics is conceived as “black
box” for children who are invited to play or interact with a robot without
understanding “what’s inside” and how it works. The project eCraft2Learn
researched, designed, piloted and evaluated an ecosystem intended to introduce
digital fabrication and maker movement in formal and informal education, to make
robots transparent for children and finally to help them make their own robotic
artefacts.

Keywords  Educational robotics · Maker movement · Constructionism ·

eCraft2Learn project

D. Alimisis (*) · R. Alimisi · E. Zoulias

EDUMOTIVA - European Lab for Educational Technology, Athens, Greece
e-mail: [email protected]
D. Loukatos
EDUMOTIVA - European Lab for Educational Technology, Athens, Greece
Agricultural University of Athens - Department of Natural Resources Management
& Agricultural Engineering, Athens, Greece

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 93

L. Daniela (ed.), Smart Learning with Educational Robotics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19913-5_4
94 D. Alimisis et al.

Introduction

While robotic technologies are radically changing the way people work in industry,
finance, services, media and commerce, the introduction of robotics in education
has emerged in recent years as a challenge for education systems. Engaging youth
in robotics education even from early school years helps their familiarisation with
robotic technologies and promotes a first understanding of the way robots are
created and operate to serve people in their everyday life (Castro et  al. 2018;
Scaradozzi et al. 2015).
Robotic technologies if coupled with proper learning methodologies such as sug-
gested by constructivism (Piaget 1974) and constructionism (Papert and Harel
1991) can provide learning experiences that promote young people’s creative
thinking, teamwork and problem-solving skills (Alimisis 2014) – the essential skills
necessary in the workplace of the twenty-first century (Fullan and Langworthy
2013). Studies report a potential impact on learners, both in subject areas (physics,
electronics, mathematics, engineering, computer science and more) and on personal
development including cognitive, metacognitive and social skills (Alimisis 2013;
Alimisis et al. 2017; Moro et al. 2018).
However, the progress in the robotics education arena is rather slow. Robotic
technologies in education are often used in a way reinforcing old methods of
teaching (Alimisis 2013), which is ineffective in a society and labour market
demanding creativity, entrepreneurship, critical thinking, collaboration skills,
computational fluency and so forth (Fullan and Langworthy 2013).
This chapter introduces the connection of educational robotics with the maker
movement, exemplifies this connection with the case of an exemplary project
presenting both its pedagogical and technological solution, reports evaluation
results and lessons learnt from the project pilots with students and finally concludes
that the future of educational robotics should be envisioned in close connection with
the maker movement.

Connecting Robotics Education with the Maker Movement

While education in robotics is so important and fruitful, current curricula and edu-
cational resources in school education are very often developed according to a
widespread misconception that robotics is “hard” science and suitable only for
gifted children or science- and technology-oriented students. This misconception is
often coupled with gender-biased views that robotics subjects are only for boys and
poses real obstacles to the adoption of robotics in education (Alimisis 2013).
Furthermore, lack of robotic equipment in schools and limited resources often
cause additional difficulties. The commercial robotics kits are usually too expensive
for schools or cheap and unreliable (Darrah 2018). In addition to this, most of the
robotics kits available in the market come with ready-made robots, inherent lock-in
4  Introducing Maker Movement in Educational Robotics: Beyond Prefabricated… 95

mechanisms, closed hardware and/or software or cookbook-like recipes for step-by-­

step assembly of one or few predefined models treating users rather as consumers
than creative makers and learners. Consequently, robots are still conceived as “black
boxes” by children who are invited to play or interact with a robot without
understanding “what’s inside” and how it works (Alimisis and Kynigos 2009;
Alimisis 2013).
We have observed in several robotics courses using this approach that, not sur-
prisingly, children’s interest, after the first assembly and some trials, is diminishing
and learners don’t advance beyond some mere knowledge acquisition. Moreover,
this approach of the ready-made robots is not compatible with the principles of the
maker movement (Blikstein 2013; Schon et al. 2014), which has recently emerged
in education with the great promise to democratise access to opportunities for learn-
ing by making, for skills development and more importantly for fostering positive
attitudes and openness to making culture for the future generations of citizens.
In this chapter, we argue for moving away from elitist misconceptions to the
recognition that fluency with robotic technologies is no longer just a vocational
skill, but it is knowledge and skills valuable for every citizen (Alimisis 2013). This,
in turn, implies that we need to provide learners a hands-on open-source robotics
learning environment that will be inexpensive, reliable and able to support learners
to make their own robotic creations from scratch. According to this approach,
learners are invited to act as makers and developers of their own projects instead of
being passive consumers of ready-made robots. For this purpose, the educational
robotics community needs to explore the potential of the making culture, the
emerging digital fabrication and do-it-yourself (DIY) philosophy and connect with
the broader community of makers.
The maker movement has its roots in Papert’ s constructionism (Papert and Harel
1991) and can offer a vision for a robotics education that will enable learners to
make their own robotic artefacts using the twenty-first-century technologies. The
incorporation of the maker movement in robotics education implies a paradigm shift
in robotics curricula from step-by-step-guided tasks and predefined robots towards
open projects and making practices, from “black box” and silo products to the
“white box” paradigm where learners become “makers” of their own transparent
robotic artefacts (Alimisis 2013).
Inspired from the maker movement, the eCraft2Learn project (eCraft2Learn
2018) researched, designed, piloted and validated an ecosystem aimed to introduce
digital fabrication and making technologies in education. The constructivist
“learning by making” methodology is strongly related to the digital fabrication and
“do-it-yourself” (DIY) philosophy (Schon et  al. 2014) and is the driving force
behind the eCraft2Learn pedagogy. Hence, the project suggests that the twenty-­
first-­century learning ecosystems should be designed in a way that can actively
engage students with learning tasks, hands-on activities and learning experiences
that promote young people’s creativity, critical thinking, teamwork and
problem-solving.
96 D. Alimisis et al.

To exemplify this paradigm in concrete terms, we present in the next sections the
eCraft2Learn project: the pedagogical methodology, the technological solution, the
pilots with children, indicative projects, evaluation results and lessons learnt.

The eCraft2Learn Project in Action

The Context

This section describes the small-scale pilots with learners that were carried out in
Athens during the project implementation period (Autumn 2017–Spring 2018). The
small-scale pilots were conducted in two rounds in formal and informal education
settings. Prior to deploying the pilots, the involved teachers participated in capacity-­
building workshops that aimed at enabling them to use the eCraft2Learn tools and
the corresponding pedagogical model (Alimisis et al. 2018).
The pilots in formal education settings were carried out in a secondary voca-
tional school where the main challenge was how to integrate the eCraft2Learn lab
in the school curriculum (Asimakopoulos et al. 2018). This chapter focuses on the
informal eCraft2Learn lab, which was established in the Technopolis City of Athens,
a hub of cultural and educational events and a focal point in the cultural identity of
Athens. Technopolis is a former gas factory that was restored to an industrial park.
A wide variety of cultural and educational events are held in Technopolis every
year: music, dance, theatre and performing arts, plastic and applied arts, educational
programs for children and youth, entrepreneurship and temporary exhibitions,
attracting over 600,000 people annually. It is centrally located in Athens and well
accessible. All these made it an ideal place for accommodating the eCraft2Learn
initiative. The lab was set up in the first floor of a former industrial building, the Gas
Water Tower. The old machinery remained in the place, creating an inspiring scen-
ery for making with strong conceptual symbolism.
An open invitation to the local school community was distributed. No student
was excluded from the selection process; the only limitation was the room space.
The first pilot round was conducted with 24 students from 13 to 17 years old. The
same number of students participated in the second pilot round. The parents were
informed and agreed signing a consent form that their children’s activities are
observed and analysed. Table 4.1 summarises the key information regarding the two
pilot rounds in Athens.

The Learning Methodology

Embedded in a constructionist pedagogical model, the learning methodology is

aimed to encourage teachers and students to work together and explore the fun and
challenges of the making process. The methodology proposes five stages highly
4  Introducing Maker Movement in Educational Robotics: Beyond Prefabricated… 97

Table 4.1  Key information on the two pilot rounds

First pilot round Second pilot round
Total participants 24 students (13–17 years old) 24 students (13–17 years old)
Number of teachers 6–8 per class 4–5 per class
Teamwork approach Work in groups of 3–4 Work in groups of 3–4
Time 3 hours every Saturday 4 hours every day in 1 week
Total duration November 2017–February 2018 June 2018
Totally 30 hours Totally 20 hours

interlinked: ideation, planning, creation, programming and sharing (Alimisis et al.

2018). The main pillars of the pedagogical model are presented shortly in the
following lines.

Project-Based Learning

The eCraft2Learn learning methodology focuses on the project-based learning, a

model for classroom activities, that shifts away from the traditional classroom
practices of short, isolated, teacher-centred lessons. The methodology encourages
learners’ engagement in a real-life scenario that requires taking an action for making
or using a robot in a creative way, planning and designing their own robotic projects,
making and programming their own robotic artefacts, testing and reflecting on their
solutions and finally sharing their experiences with the community. Students are
encouraged and supported to devise their own heuristic approach to a solution which
offers much more space for creativity and involvement in creative design for learners
compared to closed problem-solving.

Teamwork

Following the pedagogical ideas underpinning the eCraft2Learn methodology, the

teamwork is highly encouraged. The students, early from the beginning, are invited
to form groups of 3–4. As the sessions are going by, the students can move to support
other groups as well, to exchange tips and to allocate roles. In some groups, the
students may be equally involved in the project tasks, but in most cases, there is a
role rotation. For example, some students may be more involved into programming,
others more into electrical circuit making while some others are taking care of the
handcrafting tasks or 3D modelling. The reasons for this role allocation is usually
related to time constraints and personal interests.
During the first session, focus is placed on familiarising the students with the
eCraft2Learn tools, technologies and resources. Some groups need more time for
familiarisation than others, but the whole familiarisation process is integrated into
the making process and occurred through the practical engagement in projects for
computer-supported artefact constructions. It is worth mentioning that as the work-
shops are progressing, the students are expected to become more confident in using
98 D. Alimisis et al.

the available tools and more eager in trying out different ideas. As the participant
teachers have pointed out, initially the students are a bit reticent but, as soon as they
become familiar with the available tools and technologies, are noticed to take initia-
tives for new projects and extended implementations.

Ice-Breaking and Setting the Rules in the Informal Pilot Site

The first session started with ice-breaking activities, the setting of the ground rules
and the elaboration of the process which the students will go through. Given that the
students and the teachers in the informal site did not know already one another, part
of the first session was dedicated to ice-breaking activities. These activities were
selected in advance by the teachers with the aim to activate the necessary mechanisms
for the “group-development process” and the establishment of a positive and warm
atmosphere.
In the context of the ice-breaking activities, the students were encouraged to
form a circle and introduce themselves and to talk about their hobbies and interests;
through playful techniques, they were also invited to have short one-to-one
conversations. It is noteworthy that the teachers took also part in the ice-breaking
activities and the discussions. The formation of the groups was partly based on these
discussions and partly random. These discussions were also seen as important steps
towards team bonding and good relationship establishment.
During the first session, focus was also placed (at group level) on creating a set
of rules that would reflect the accepted behaviours in the group and in the lab, for
both teachers and students. The teachers considered that the best way to create a set
of rules was to decide on them as a group. It was important to ensure that the
appropriate rules have been set for establishing a positive atmosphere for peer
learning, smooth project deployment and ideas and experiences sharing. The
discussion focused on the following topics: group/classroom behaviour, the
importance of sharing and ways to support it, the use of the equipment, storage/
uploading/downloading of files and lab safety rules.
The discussion about lab safety rules was revisited as the sessions were progress-
ing. The ice-breaking activities and the setting of the rules were followed by the
exploration of the lab equipment at group level. Supported by their teachers, the
students set up their working stations and did their very first steps into electrical
circuit making using the Tinkercad circuits simulator (Tinkercad 2018).

Implementing the eCraft2Learn Methodology

The ideation stage was considered a challenging process, and the teachers, espe-
cially in the beginning, supported it a lot. The first projects that the students involved
into were proposed by the teachers, who exploited the list of the indicative scenarios
introduced during their teacher training. Easy-to-start-with projects were selected
with the aim to smoothly familiarise the students with the available tools and the
kind of artefacts that can be created. As the sessions were progressing, the teachers
4  Introducing Maker Movement in Educational Robotics: Beyond Prefabricated… 99

were reducing the level of support on this matter encouraging free choice in project
selection.
More precisely, the students were asked about any possible idea that they would
like to implement soon. It is noteworthy that through their diaries, they were also
encouraged to periodically document their ideas for new projects. Their responses
on this matter were not very enlightening in the beginning. However, as they
became more familiar with tools and technologies, they started expressing interest
in working on specific or thematic projects. In December, being in Christmas
mood, some teams were noticed to give a Christmas touch to their artefacts and
discuss the implementation of Christmas-related artefacts. The review of the stu-
dents’ diaries brought also additional interesting ideas into focus: many students
expressed an interest in creating a moving robotic artefact that could be controlled
by them. Some of their ideas were vague enough while some others more specific.
For example, they were referring to robots that move and change colours, solar
cars, vehicles with many sensors, cars that move around and follow commands and
more. Building upon this interest, the teachers supported a relevant project for DIY
automobiles, providing students with the freedom to personalise their automobiles,
to add specific behaviours and functionalities and to give them the form that they
liked.
During the second pilot round, most of the projects came directly by the students.
It is noteworthy that one group (the members of which had met one another during
the first pilot round) mentioned that they arranged a meeting in a cafe before the
beginning of the second round to get together and to discuss some ideas that had
emerged for a  new computer-supported artefact construction. This  was another
encouraging sign that the eCraft2Learn practices had entered learners’ daily life in
a meaningful way.
The generation of ideas was also important during failures; failures were part of
the making process (i.e. failed prints, artefacts that did not operate properly), and
often the students were invited to share their ideas regarding possible solutions for
overcoming the emerging problems.
The teachers discreetly observed and supported this process; in some cases,
teachers’ intervention was more dynamic by providing useful explanations (i.e. in
making circuitry more transparent, increasing students’ understanding of electronics)
to help students move forward. Frequently, the teachers were encouraging the
team members to bring these ideas in the plenary session for the benefit of the whole
group. Sharing existing ideas, plans for implementation, problem-solving practices
and thoughts in group and in the plenary session was seen as a process that can
significantly boost the generation of ideas for new computer-supported artefact
constructions.

Bringing Ideas in the Plenary Sessions

There was also encouragement towards analysing ideas, breaking down complex
activities into subtasks, keeping notes about science, technology, engineering, arts
and math (STEAM) concepts related to their project, listing the materials that will
100 D. Alimisis et al.

be needed, sketching the structure of the construction and visualising the key
processes. This was the stage of planning that in many cases was embedded in the
ideation process, revisited and creatively re-approached by the groups during the
creation of the artefacts and the programming phase. In a way, these practices show
how interlinked the stages of the eCraft2Learn methodology are. Most of the
teams did paper-based plans, while few others were based on oral agreements at
team level.
As the sessions were progressing, the students were engaging more naturally in
the creative production of different artefacts based on their interests and at their own
pace. Different projects were on at the same time, different challenges were calling
for solutions and lots of hands-on making was on that was inspiring students to dig
deeper and to extend their ideas. Moved by the fun of making, many students were
noticed to stay longer in the eCraft2Learn lab than initially planned.

Teamwork, Role Allocation and Challenges

Role allocation was also noticed in some teams; some students were in charge of the
electrical circuit making, others more into programming and some others more
involved into 3D modelling and handcrafting. The role allocation happened at
team level and was not enforced by the teachers. However, there were teams where
all the members were involved in all the parts of the development of the computer-­
supported artefact, supporting one another. The teachers intervened only  in few
cases where one member of the team  was inactive. They were mainly trying to
understand the reasons behind the inactivity and to create a situation where, through
the interaction with the other team members, a role for him/her would emerge.
For example, in one of the teams, there was a young boy rather introvert that was
absorbed by his smartphone. The teacher/coach of the team told him that it would
be very useful to record the artefact construction process using his smartphone as
this would allow the sharing of the work online ensuring greater visibility. The
student took happily the challenge and started observing what was going on but
(initially) only through his smartphone video-recording the process of the
construction. Smoothly, he was taken over by the making spirit and was noticed to
participate more, to express ideas for alternative solutions and become active member
of the team.

A Closer Look into the Aspect of “Sharing”

The sharing of the making processes and projects with others was considered of
great significance. The teachers encouraged all the teams to share the current status
of their work in the end of almost each session and to talk about the processes that
they went through and their future plans.
In addition, the teams  were encouraged to showcase their work in the school
community and the wider public. In this light, the students presented their projects
4  Introducing Maker Movement in Educational Robotics: Beyond Prefabricated… 101

in the Athens Science Festival 2018 and interacted with people of all ages and from
varying scientific backgrounds as well as with other groups of students that
participated in the festival either as exhibitors or visitors.
The students and the teachers were also noticed to record their work using their
smartphones or cameras. At a later stage, some of this material was uploaded by
them in their social media accounts. Although not practiced by all the teams, some
of them, after encouragement by their teachers, were seen to upload their 3D models
from the Tinkercad (2018) environment to the Thingiverse (2018) Community.

The Role of the Teachers

The description above revealed already many interesting aspects of the role of the
teachers. Given the different ages in the students' group, their contribution on the
formation of the teams early in the beginning and their remedial actions were also
of great significance. The teachers were supporters of the learning process,
co-makers and boosters of the collaborative work, the discussion and the sharing at
team level and beyond.
Most of them adopted smoothly these roles, dealing with their duties and con-
cerns at their own pace. Some teachers were quite concerned about their self-­image
in the class. Their concerns revolved around the question: “What if we do not man-
age to support the students? What if we cannot answer their questions”. As long as
they started seeing the eCraft2Learn lab as a making environment and themselves as
co-makers, co-designers and facilitators of the learning process, their stress smoothly
eliminated allowing them to stand by the students as coaches.
The teachers supported significantly the generation of ideas prompting for rele-
vant group discussions and existing project ideas extension. In addition, they
boosted a lot the “can-do” attitude, sharing their enthusiasm with the students and
creating an atmosphere conducive to learning.

The Technological Solution

Several innovative technologies have been combined in order to design and imple-
ment the eCraft2Learn ecosystem to support the pilot activities with teachers and
students. This ecosystem consists of several hardware and software components,
glued together using a specially designed web platform called unified user interface
(UUI) (2018) and having several RPi3 (2018) units to play a dominant role in this
ecosystem.

The Hardware Components

The hardware core of the eCraft2Learn ecosystem includes (Fig. 4.1):

102 D. Alimisis et al.

Fig. 4.1  Overview of the eCraft2Learn ecosystem

–– A set of Raspberry Pi3 (RPi3) units serving as experimental development com-

puters (workstation units) for the students. These units are equipped with TFT
screens and keyboard-mouse sets. The adoption of this solution tackles the prob-
lems related to the vast software and hardware diversity characterising a typical
school lab and reduces the cost and the overall energy consumption.
–– A second set of Raspberry Pi3 units that can be used for a potential implementa-
tion in the designed artefacts (the more complex ones).
–– One or more Arduino Uno (2018) boards connected with a variety of electronic
components and/or the Raspberry Pi3 units. The  Arduino boards are the core
module inside most of the designed artefacts.
–– Various DIY electronic components (e.g. photoresistors, potentiometers, servo-
motors, LEDs) that are used in conjunction with the RPi3 and the Arduino boards
to realise the designed artefacts.
–– Various DIY-modified parts brought from home during a recycling process, like
broken toys, plastic bottles, pieces of paperboard, computer fans, speakers, etc.
–– A Raspberry Pi unit (or a laptop) to act as 3D printing server and potential file
and/or web server. This unit runs the appropriate 3D printing software.
–– A 3D printer used for preparing customised physical components to be  inte-
grated in the creation-programming-sharing workflow.
–– Some extra networking equipment to facilitate the interconnection of the pilot
sites and provide further access to the Internet and project’s resources, like Wi-Fi
routers, access points and switches.
–– The necessary power supply equipment like power banks and small solar
panels.
4  Introducing Maker Movement in Educational Robotics: Beyond Prefabricated… 103

The selection of all the hardware components is intended to minimise the cost,
the size and the power consumption and maximise the reusability of materials and
electronics.

The Software Components

The most important parts of the eCraft2Learn soft ecosystem include:

–– Visual programming tools like the Snap! and its modified version Snap4Arduino
(2018) that allows RPi3-Arduino interoperation, custom visual block creation
and easily exportable/importable.xml code and cooperates with many web-based
tools for useful data exchange.
–– The native Arduino software (integrated development environment, compiler
and library). Although a visual, block-based environment is considered more
suitable for rapid prototyping and in terms of usability for children, familiarisation
with the Arduino software (and the wiring language) is useful since this is the
basis of Arduino programming and in many cases a prerequisite software package
for many visual programming tools.
–– The Ardublock (2018) tool is another tool that provides visual programming
functionality and stand-alone code generation. If the creation of minimalistic
autonomous artefacts is a priority, this tool is a necessary asset. The Ardublock
software is offering one of the most mature and stable set of blocks for visual
programming.
–– The very flexible MIT App Inventor (2018) environment. Indeed, as the vast
majority of today’s students are very familiar with smartphones and tablets, the
MIT App Inventor tool allows for rapid mobile programming even by
inexperienced users.
–– Simple necessary code blocks in the Python language offering server functional-
ity (e.g. general-purpose inputs/outputs specific or web-specific) on RPi3 units
and thus facilitating the interaction with the artefacts.
–– 3D modelling software allowing the design of models to be printed like the
FreeCAD (2018) or the easy to use by the beginners and web-based Tinkercad.
To complete the printing tasks, 3D printing (slicing) software is necessary as
well, like the Cura (2018) package.
–– Generic-purpose software packages allowing actions like file sharing (WinSCP
or FileZilla), remote access (PuTTY, VNC), web support and so on.
The software tools of the eCraft2Learn ecosystem have been selected to run on
the RPi3 environment, to have reduced need of installation or update of software
elements; to have a user-friendly interface; to be pedagogically meaningful, easy to
integrate with the external hardware, to be open source and free (or at least of low
cost); and finally to be capable to support advanced extensions based on artificial
intelligence (AI) cloud services. This basic set of software tools may be extended
with more tools dedicated to more advanced users.
104 D. Alimisis et al.

The RPi3 units are playing a principal role, as they are hosting the software tools
(or methods to access them) that students and teachers need, in their microSD cards.
Indeed, all the necessary software components are hosted (or accessed) via the
microSD card of the RPi3 units. This microSD card can be seen as one of the most
critical core components of the eCraft2Learn ecosystem.

The Unified User Interface (UUI)

The UUI (2018) is the main hub for using the eCraft2Learn ecosystem. Through the
UUI, it is possible to access all the tools (and the relevant instructions) that are
available  in the eCraft2Learn environment. The tools are represented by tiles
grouped in several categories based on the stages of the eCraft2Learn pedagogical
model. The educational extension of the UUI also provides services for
collecting learning analytics. Resources like code or data can be retrieved using the
cloud support.

Indicative Projects Realised During the Pilots

The Lighthouse Project

The lighthouse project was one of the first projects that was implemented by the
students. The main task of the students was to look online for information about the
functionality of the lighthouses, and to make their own functional lighthouse that
blinks only at dark (Fig. 4.2).
This project was proposed by the teachers as it was considered as an ideal start
towards exploring the available eCraft2Learn tools and technologies and a first
simple step towards becoming familiar with visual programming and electrical

Fig. 4.2  Different lighthouses created by the students

4  Introducing Maker Movement in Educational Robotics: Beyond Prefabricated… 105

circuit making. A worksheet was given to the students to support their engagement
in the eCraft2Learn process.
The scenario of this project offered students with opportunities to express their
creative skills and be involved into handcrafting. Some teams were noticed to make
drawings and mock-ups inspired by structures of lighthouse buildings that they
found online, while some others were making more abstractive or creative designs.
The project offered also opportunities for discussion, supported by the teachers,
which mainly revolved around the following topics: continuity and change of light-
houses over time, technological and scientific developments over long periods and
maritime history.
Time allocated:  Most of the groups completed the project within 3 hours.
Hardware and materials that were used:  Cardboards, recycled materials and
many different types of paper for making the structure, wooden sticks, wires and
LEDs, photoresistors, resistors, Arduino Uno boards.
Technical details and software used:  Students used Ardublock or Snap4Arduino
visual programming environments to program the Arduino board, so an LED is
blinked at specific on/off pattern, at a first stage, and, at a second stage, to eliminate
this activity only at dark. The basic idea was to periodically poll the photoresistor
(available via the A0 input of the Arduino) and compare these readings with an
experimentally defined threshold value. Whenever the readings were below that
threshold, the lighthouse LED was set to high and after that to low, for several mil-
liseconds, according to a characteristic blinking pattern.

The Sunflower Project

This project revolved around the phenomenon of phototropism: the orientation of

plants according to the location of light. The students were encouraged to discuss
this phenomenon in teams and to search for information online about phototropism
in sunflowers. They were then encouraged to use the available tools, technologies
and resources in order to simulate this phototropic response when the light stimulus
is present.
A worksheet was given to the students to support their engagement in the
eCraft2Learn process for this specific project. Some groups were noticed to make
plans on the paper (Fig. 4.3) and to keep notes related to their project (Fig. 4.4).
This project was chosen due to two main reasons:
–– It introduces students into the parallel use of photoresistor sensors and angle
servos, allowing the implementation of more complex functionalities from a
STEAM perspective. After becoming smoothly familiar with more complex
combinations of the eCraft2Learn tools and technologies, it was considered more
likely to pinpoint possible topics of interest and to take initiatives in working on
their own project ideas.
106 D. Alimisis et al.

Fig. 4.3  Students make a list of the materials that will be needed for the implementation of the
project

Fig. 4.4  Students break down the problem in the main subtasks

–– It provides excellent opportunities for opening discussion about the phenomenon

of phototropism and environmental factors that might cause a plant to move or
face a different direction. Thereby, it is ideally suited in the flexible zone of the
school curriculum for cross-thematic activities.
Time allocated:  Most of the teams completed the project within 4–5 hours.
Hardware and materials that were used:  Cardboards, recycled materials and
many different types of paper for making the flower, wooden sticks, metal wire,
buttons, knitting kit, photoresistors, resistors, wires, breadboards, angle servomo-
tors and Arduino Uno board (Fig. 4.5)
4  Introducing Maker Movement in Educational Robotics: Beyond Prefabricated… 107

Fig. 4.5  Different implementations under the sunflower topic

Technical details and software used:  Students, via the UUI, were able to have
access to information related to the Snap4Arduino or the Ardublock visual pro-
gramming tools, so as to proceed with this project. More specifically, the sunflower
project can be considered as an advanced version of the lighthouse project because
students are now challenged to experiment with two light sensors (photoresistor-
based ones) and give motion to a flower artefact to make this turn towards the direc-
tion with the highest light reading. For this purpose, the light sensor outputs were
directed to the A0 and A1 inputs of the Arduino board, respectively. The code on
Arduino periodically polled these two values, compared them to each other and
ordered an angle servomotor to turn towards the direction exhibiting the strongest
reading (Fig. 4.6). The servomotor had to be connected to a PWM-capable Arduino
digital PIN.

Evaluation: Did the Methodology Worked in Practice?

The eCraft2Learn learning ecosystem was designed to actively engage students

with the technical environment and the 5-stages learning methodology. To evaluate
the extent of the students’ engagement and the implementation of the proposed
paradigm in real settings, the method of the direct observation in the class was
adopted. One of the authors undertook the role of the observer monitoring and
recording field notes in each session using a written observation form which was
filled in during the sessions. The aim of the observation tool was to evaluate how the
teams worked in each of the five stages of the eCraft2Learn educational model as
well as the accomplishment of a final product by the students. The observer had to
respond to open and closed questions (categorical), together with any additional
comments (Table 4.2).
The results from the observation grid related to the 5-stage methodology are
presented in Table 4.3.
First, the observers found that it was difficult to observe always what exactly was
going on in each team as each team progressed at a different rate. Second, the progress
108 D. Alimisis et al.

Fig. 4.6  Indicative code for making the sunflower to direct towards the light

Table 4.2  The observation grid (shortened version)

Did the students go through this stage Comments/interesting
The 5 stages today? quotes
IDEATION Yes
Yes, but to a limited extent
No
PLANNING Yes
Yes, but to a limited extent
No
CREATION Yes
Yes, but to a limited extent
No
PROGRAMMING Yes
Yes, but to a limited extent
No
SHARING Yes
Yes, but to a limited extent
No
Project/artefact Yes
accomplished? In some extent
No
Educational resources used by the teachers/ (i.e. videos, web links, printouts)…
Needs emerged (if any)…
Overall workshop impressions…
4  Introducing Maker Movement in Educational Robotics: Beyond Prefabricated… 109

Table 4.3  Data from the observation grid filled in during the pilots
Stage First round Second round Total Percentage of subtotal
IDEATION teams teams teams
Yes 31 7 38 54.29%
Yes, but to a limited extent 14 5 19 27.14%
No 10 3 13 18.57%
Subtotal 70
PLANNING teams teams teams
Yes 28 7 35 48.61%
Yes, but to a limited extent 19 6 25 34.72%
No 8 4 12 16.67%
Subtotal 72
CREATION teams teams teams
Yes 49 11 60 81.08%
Yes, but to a limited extent 2 5 7 9.46%
No 4 3 7 9.46%
Subtotal 74
PROGRAM teams teams teams
Yes 50 8 58 80.56%
Yes, but to a limited extent 2 3 5 6.94%
No 0 9 9 12.50%
Subtotal 72
SHARE teams teams teams
Yes 31 3 34 53.97%
Yes, but to a limited extent 10 2 12 19.05%
No 5 12 17 26.98%
Subtotal 63
Project/artefact completion teams teams teams
Yes 42 1 43 57.33%
Yes, but to a limited extent 13 13 26 34.67%
No 0 6 6 8.00%
Subtotal 75

throughout the stages was not linear. The teams very often returned to a previous
stage or jumped to a later one without finalising the previous stages. This non-linear
process was well anticipated and even encouraged by the research team and the
teachers. We found out that learning by making is a dynamic process, which takes
often unpredictable paths and makes difficult both the observation and the coaching
task. In addition to this, the number of the participants was varying from session to
session, and this resulted in different number of teams observed in each session.
Finally, during the first round, we recorded observations for 8 sessions from 10
totally carried out (the first session was introductory and the final one was devoted
to students’ demonstrations) with around 7 teams per session and during the second
round observations for 4 sessions from a total of 5 sessions (the final one was again
devoted to students’ demonstrations) with around 5 teams per session.
110 D. Alimisis et al.

The analysis of the observation sheets revealed several interesting findings. In

general, it was found that in each session, more than a half of the teams did Ideation
(only 18.57% “No” responses), Planning (only 16.67% “No” responses), Creation
(81.08% “Yes” responses) and Programming (80.56% “Yes” responses). A signifi-
cant result of the analysis concerns Sharing. It was found that 53.97% did this stage,
19.05% did it to some extent and a worrying 26.98% did not share at all.
Finally, regarding the last question about “Project/artefact completion”, in all
sessions, the majority accomplished this goal fully (57.33%) or to a limited extent
(34.67%). The 6 observations  of not accomplished projects  (8.00%) in only the
second session does not reflect reality and there is an explanation. These six cases
camefrom the very first two sessions of the second round, which was about an open
project for students to develop where it was reasonable to complete Ideation and
possibly Planning but impossible to complete a project or artefact.
Regarding the question about educational resources used by the teachers,
the observers noted several times the following with different frequencies:
YouTube videos, online images, online information, paper-based sketches, work-
sheets, printouts, paper, pairs of scissors, glue, silicon, LEDs, resistors, Arduino,
Raspberry Pi, servomotors, sound sensors, motion sensors, handcraft, speakers,
wires, pictures of a chip, distance sensor, Snap4Arduino, Ardublock, Tinkercad,
Cura, AI blocks, microphone, web search, unified user interface
This list confirms the big variety of resources and materials that the teachers
provided for students’ projects. They included not only technical resources (e.g.
Arduino and Raspberry Pi boards, electronics and more) but also online resources
(YouTube videos, online images, online information) intended to help students use
effectively or understand tools and techniques necessary for their projects. The
resources included printed materials (e.g. paper-based sketches, worksheets, print-
outs) as well. Crafting tools like pairs of scissors, glue, silicon and so on are also
reported, providing evidence for the “traditional” crafting work made by hand or by
using only simple tools that took place in parallel with the assembly of electronic
circuits and computing.
As for the overall workshop impressions, a positive working atmosphere was
observed. The teams were working on their projects usually with high interest and
without serious problems. The teachers considered the stage of sharing very
important, and they tried hard to provide time for this. The students were also
enjoying this stage and spent some time on deciding together how to present their
work and talking about their project.
We have  also observed that for every piece of equipment provided during the
session, the teams assumed it was for immediate use and rushed to test it. When the
students had difficulties in using a new tool, they were inventive enough to select
other tools more convenient for them and  their work. In addition, cross-team
collaboration was observed taking place quite often among the teachers of different
teams as well as among students of different teams, with no intervention from the
4  Introducing Maker Movement in Educational Robotics: Beyond Prefabricated… 111

research team. In some cases, students were complaining for technical problems:
their Raspberry Pi board had crashed or the Snap4Arduino or Arduino programming
environment was very slow, the microphones did not work and so on. While the
research team usually found solutions in these cases, the delays were quite annoying
for students and teachers. Finally, during their projects, the students and the teachers
were observed many times taking pictures or video of their creations to share online
which has promoted the sharing stage.

Lessons Learnt from Pedagogical Perspective

During the pilots, we had the opportunity to test and review the applicability of the
eCraft2Learn hands-on, open-source learning environment intended for STEAM
education with a special focus on educational robotics and making practices. In
contrast with the commercially available robots that are often expensive and not
easy to modify for specific educational purposes, the eCraft2learn learning
ecosystem is of low cost and at the same time was found efficient, flexible and
reliable.
The eCraft2Learn platform allowed students to design 3D-printable parts for
their robots, to be creative using open-source mechanics and electronics, to construct
and modify iteratively their robotic artefacts, to program them with visual
programming tools and finally to develop interesting and meaningful projects.
However, the emphasis was put not on the final product but on the making pro-
cess. Students’ teams worked at their own pace to develop their projects without any
pressure to finish with a predefined product. The results of their work may be not
“spectacular”. They were rather simple projects but very inviting for novices, rele-
vant for the children involved including those with low technical background or
those coming from low status or immigrant profile families with poor skills. More
importantly, the students could proudly claim in the end ownership of their projects.
This became obvious during their presentations in the Athens Science Festival 2018
where the children were provided the opportunity to demonstrate their projects to
the public.
However, the simplicity of the student’s projects does not mean their work was
“easy fun”. We have observed learners working with passion to manage some
difficult tasks, going sometimes beyond their comfort zone. The process was not
without difficulties, frustration and some failures, especially in the cases when we
wanted to provide only minimal or none facilitation. In these cases, we have seen
some students (mainly those with less familiarisation and lower technical
background) to feel frustrated, eventually to withdraw from the technical work or to
leave the “hard work” (mostly circuits assembly or programming) for the high-­
achieving students and to “shelter” in the crafting corner to work with more familiar
cardstock-based tasks.
112 D. Alimisis et al.

Though trial-and-error efforts are welcome in the constructivist approach, and

some frustration is inevitable when we engage learners in open projects, we have
found, in good line with other researchers (Blikstein and Worsley 2016), that novices
coming into a robotics lab need a considerable amount of support and facilitation
before they can start making their own projects. Learners, especially the novices,
should be carefully introduced to the lab activities and not to be exposed to exces-
sive levels of frustration (Blikstein and Worsley 2016).
Furthermore, the technologies we put in students’ hands must be appropriate for
their age, knowledge and skills level. We have seen learners (and teachers as well)
struggling to use platforms such as Arduino or DIY electronics sets that come with
too many technical functions and services unnecessary for their learning tasks and
in too small dimensions and sizes, convenient for skilled professionals or hobbyists
but not for young learners. We have seen, for instance, one of our inventive teach-
ers to bring and use with her students a magnifying lens over their Arduino board
and electronic circuits trying to identify pins, wires and other small-size
components.
These findings are in line with the relevant literature (Blikstein and Worsley
2016; Alimisis et  al. 2017; Cesaretti et  al. 2017) arguing that technologies like
robotics or electronics kits intended for education should not come directly from
platforms intended for professionals or hobbyists; they should be specifically
designed for education, compatible with learners’ skills, needs and interests. The
challenge for platforms intended for professionals or hobbyists with a high learning
potential, like for instance the popular Arduino boards, is how to transform or adapt
before bringing them in the class to make convenient for learners to use in meaningful
ways that will serve the learning purposes. We conceive this transformation as an
abstraction that removes or keeps out of sight the unnecessary components while
highlights the useful parts in ways that make them clear and easy to use for learners.
Moreover, preparatory classes and well-designed materials should familiarise
learners with basic skills and knowledge in using electronics and boards before
exposing them to open projects.
Similar concerns have emerged from the pilots regarding the programming tools.
We need simple, visual, block-based environments like Scratch, Snap4Arduino,
Ardublock and so on, specifically designed for children instead of professional or
general-purpose programming languages.
Collaboration within the teams was observed to be good enough in most cases
and was shown as a crucial factor for successful project work. Most of the children
met others for first time in the lab; however, by the end of the pilots, they had formed
social groups and friendships surviving long after the pilots. Parents have evidenced
in oral communications that their kids became more social and self-esteemed during
the pilots and especially thanks to their participation in the Athens Science Festival
where they had proudly presented their projects. Kids from low-status and immigrant
profile were integrated  well in their teams and in the pilots in general which,
according to their mentors’ or parents’ evidence, helped them boost their self-­
esteem, social inclusion and interest for receiving more training in robotics and
STEAM technologies. However, social interaction within teams was not without
4  Introducing Maker Movement in Educational Robotics: Beyond Prefabricated… 113

problems. In some cases, a newcomer had upset the team until they find a common
language and a new balance. In other cases, a high achiever in electronics or in
programming had marginalised the others in the team in passive roles so that correc-
tive actions should have been taken.

Conclusions and Future Plans

In the eCraft2Learn pilots in Athens, we have seen the students planning their
robotics projects in teams, creating their own robotic artefacts collaboratively,
programming behaviours for their robots and finally sharing their projects with
the whole class and the community. We have seen a lot of hands-on activity in a
real making atmosphere with a lot of “trial and error”, shifts in the roles of the
students and good collaboration. The evaluation, still in progress, has provided
so far evidence for good acceptance of the eCraft2Learn ecosystem by teachers
and students, positive attitudes and curiosity to learn more about robots.
Interestingly, we have been informed by teachers or parents that children from
immigrant families or from low social status families living in Athens suburbs
have continued their robotic projects at home or in educational centres after the
end of the pilots.
In conclusion, this exemplary project has provided promising results and support
to our claim that the future of educational robotics should be envisioned in close
connection with the maker movement. Well-designed educational actions in robotics
and with robotics that incorporate the making culture and technologies can promote
knowledge and skills relevant not only to robotics but to a wide spectrum of
disciplines, understanding and acceptance of robotics by the young generations, and
finally can contribute to the development of a future robotics society.
In the short future, we plan new training courses for teachers and learning activi-
ties for children to explore further the learning potential of the eCraft2Learn ecosys-
tem and to disseminate its benefits to more children. Our plans include also the
communication of the ecosystem at European level and the establishment of
European summer schools in Athens that will receive in the eCraft2Learn lab
teachers/student-teachers and secondary school students from all the European
countries. The establishment of a master course specialised in the connection of
educational robotics with maker movement might offer a continuation of studies at
academic level for those of the teachers who will wish to deepen more in the topic
after their participation in the summer schools.

Acknowledgement  This research was supported by the eCraft2Learn project funded by the
European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Action under Grant Agreement No.
731345.
Disclaimer  This communication reflects the views only of the authors, and the European
Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information con-
tained therein.
114 D. Alimisis et al.

References

Alimisis, D., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Constructionism and robotics in education. In D. Alimisis
(Ed.), Teacher education on robotics enhanced constructivist pedagogical methods (pp. 11–26).
Αthens: School of Pedagogical and Technological Education.
Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science
and Technology Education, 6(1), 63–71.
Alimisis, D. (2014), Educational Robotics in Teacher Education: an Innovative Tool for Promoting
Quality Education, In L. Daniela, I. Lūka, L. Rutka and I. Žogla (Eds) “Teacher of the 21st
Century: Quality Education for Quality Teaching”, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle
upon Tyne, UK, p.14-27.
Alimisis, D., Moro, M., & Menegatti, E. (Eds.). (2017). Educational robotics in the makers era.
In Advances in intelligent systems and computing book series (Vol. 560). Springer Nature,
Switzerland.
Alimisis, R., Loukatos, D., Zoulias, E., & Alimisis, D. (2018). Introducing the making culture
in teacher education: The eCraft2Learn project. In M. Moro, D. Alimisis, & L. Iocchi (Eds.),
Educational robotics in the context of the maker movement. Springer Nature, Switzerland
(Pre-Print).
Ardublock. (2018). http://blog.ardublock.com. Accessed 21 October 2018.
Arduino Uno. (2018). https://www.arduino.cc/. Accessed 21 October 2018.
Asimakopoulos, K., Zoulias, E., Saranteas, I., Makaris, I. Sandali, G., & Spiliou, T. (2018). Τhe
eCraft2Learn project in 1st EPAL KORYDALLOS: Integrating a FabLab in the school cur-
riculum. Proceedings of the 11th Pan-Hellenic and international conference ICT in Education
(Accepted for publication).
Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of inven-
tion. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inven-
tors. Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers.
Blikstein, P., & Worsley, M. (2016). Children are not hackers: Building a culture of powerful ideas,
deep learning, and equity in the maker movement. In: Makeology: Makerspaces as learning
environments (Kindle ed., Kindle Locations 56–59, Vol. 1). Taylor and Francis. New  York,
Accessed 30 November 2018.
Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Valente, M., Buselli, E., Salvini, P., & Dario, P. (2018). Can Educational
Robotics introduce young children to robotics and how can we measure it? Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 34, 970–977. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12304.
Cesaretti, L., Storti, M., Mazzieri, E., Screpanti, L., Paesani, A., Principi, P., & Scaradozzi, D.
(2017). An innovative approach to School-Work turnover programme with Educational
Robotics. Mondo Digitale, 16(72), 2017-5.
Cura. (2018). https://ultimaker.com/en/products/cura-software. Accessed 21 October 2018.
Darrah, T. (2018). Design and development of a low-cost open-source robotics education platform.
Proceedings of the 50th International Symposium on Robotics, Munich.
eCraft2Learn. (2018). https://project.ecraft2learn.eu. Accessed 21 October 2018.
FreeCAD. (2018). https://www.freecadweb.org/. Accessed 21 October 2018.
Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2013). Towards a new end: New pedagogies for deep learning.
http://www.newpedagogies.nl/images/towards_a_new_end.pdf. Accessed 21 October 2018.
MIT App Inventor. (2018). http://appinventor.mit.edu/explore. Accessed 21 October 2018.
Moro, M., Agatolio, F., & Menegatti, E. (2018). The development of robotic enhanced curricula
for the RoboESL project: overall evaluation and expected outcomes. International Journal of
Smart Education and Urban Society, 9(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSEUS.
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism. New York: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Piaget, J. (1974). To understand is to invent. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Raspberry Pi. (2018). https://www.raspberrypi.org/. Accessed 21 October 2018.
4  Introducing Maker Movement in Educational Robotics: Beyond Prefabricated… 115

Scaradozzi, D., Sorbi, L., Pedale, A., Valzano, M., & Vergine, C. (2015). Teaching robotics at
the primary school: an innovative approach. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174,
3838–3846.
Schon, S., Ebner, M., & Kumar, S. (2014). The Maker Movement Implications from modern fab-
rication, new digital gadgets, and hacking for creative learning and teaching. In L. Canals &
P.A.U. Education (Eds.), eLearningPapers Special edition, Barcelona, (pp. 86–100).
Snap4Arduino. (2018). http://snap4arduino.rocks/. Accessed 21 October 2018.
Thingiverse. (2018). https://www.thingiverse.com/. Accessed 21 October 2018.
Tinkercad. (2018). https://www.Tinkercad.com/. Accessed 21 October 2018.
UUI. (2018). https://ecraft2learn.github.io/uui/index.html. Accessed 21 October 2018.
Chapter 5
Modbloq. Design of a Modular Robot
Made with 3D Printing for Educational
Purposes

Pedro de Oro and Silvia Nuere

Abstract  The main goal of this study is to design and build an open source-based
prototype of a modular educational robot, called Modbloq. We will achieve it by
subdividing the process into three phases.
First, a market survey is done comparing and studying tendencies and trends of
similar projects and products. We analyze strengths and weaknesses of these data,
once collected, to get better conclusions and help design a better product.
Later, we set the specifications of the modular robot and then design and develop
it. Arduino is the coding language used to program the product.
Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) 3D printing is used to make the prototype.
This technology will make it easy to produce the robot in a classroom for educa-
tional purposes.

Keywords  Educational Robot · Programming · Open Source · Modular Robot ·

Educational STEAM · Arduino · Creativity

Introduction

Nowadays, robotics or software programming are used as new and innovative ways
of problem solving. Papert (1980) proposes a combination of both to promote logi-
cal thinking at primary levels of education. This kind of approach in school curricu-
lum also entwines creativity. Other subjects of knowledge also result in a full
development of STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics)
disciplines and a whole new branch of education focusing on innovation, communi-
cation and real world problem solving.
We propose the design and manufacturing of a modular prototype educational
robot. The robot has a set of elements where functionalities are divided into units

P. de Oro · S. Nuere (*)

ETS de Ingeniería y Diseño Industrial, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 117

L. Daniela (ed.), Smart Learning with Educational Robotics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19913-5_5
118 P. de Oro and S. Nuere

that can work separately or combined. Students can quickly and easily arrange dif-
ferent shapes.
Students from 6 years old and above can develop and test new ideas to understand
the basic ideas of programming, physics and mathematics. They can also improve
their logic and computational skills as they build and program a robot. In a society
growing more focused on the digital world, this educational goal helps educators to
introduce technical skills and awareness in a different and entertaining way.
The aim is to share all the information in an open source web platform called
GitHub (2018). This platform enables users not currently involved in developing the
project to create alternative ones, vary existing content or contribute in many differ-
ent ways. Thus, making a community where anybody can share their knowledge in
a collaborative and altruist way.
The project is based on the Open Source idea (Perens 1999). This movement
aims to spread knowledge easily and without barriers, by contributing to develop-
ment of the technological human inheritance.
Therefore, the robot must perform these four features:
• Modular. Different combinations of the modules. The use has to be easy and fast,
allowing a large number of combinations.
• Open Source. All the elements of the robot, including the plans, designs, code,
and documentation, must be accessible for everyone. Any user should be able to
make their own robot.
• 3D printing technology. It is fundamental to share the physical parts through the
Internet.
• Programmable. The programming platform must be Open Source compatible
with Arduino (2018).

State of the Art

Educational Robotics Nowadays

Recently, computer programming and robotics in the curriculum of non-university

education has gradually begun to be generalized in many countries. In Spain, the
approach to teaching technological education is focused on a humanistic vision.
Students must participate in technical processes. They have to solve problems
and be actively involved in the development of projects. It is not only a matter of
personal needs but also collective interests. Additionally, not only is there a clear
interest in using robots in education but also for considering them as a tool to engage
students and keep them in school (Alimisis 2013). Robots are being incorporated in
our day-to-day life, and they can be introduced for the development and intellectual
growth of children (Mubin et al. 2013). The study of Mubin (2013) and his team
summarizes that robots provide a tangible and physical representation of learning
outcomes. The use of robots has become a valuable aspect to be used in education.
5  Modbloq. Design of a Modular Robot Made with 3D Printing for Educational… 119

There is a growing interest for teachers to incorporate these types of skills and tools
into their daily work due to the important educational benefit. Principles proposed
by Catlin and Blamires (2012 at the Educational Robotics Applications (ERA))
have been considered, and those that are a better fit were chosen. Students must
participate and interact in educational activities. Robots must facilitate engagement,
sustainable learning, and personalization.
The use of a robot is an experiential activity. As Eguchi (2017) says, educational
robots are linked with the constructionist learning theories engaging hands-on exer-
cises. Developing robotic projects improves the interest of students in learning, as
Moro, Agatolio and Menegatti (2018) point out. The use of educational robots also
increases their self-esteem. Students understand the world by building mental mod-
els from their experiences as a constructivist approach to education. They can assim-
ilate or allow new experiences into their existing ideas (Catlin and Blamires 2012).
There are many studies around Educational Robotics Relevance in education.
Some of them focus on robotics-based learning as a tool for preventing school fail-
ure and motivate students to improve their academic achievements as Daniela and
Strods point out (2018). It also becomes a useful tool and a good solution to prevent
early school leaving, as shown by Daniela, Strods, and Alimisis’ research “The
robotics activities were aimed at students’ getting actively involved in program-
ming, testing their knowledge and constructing new knowledge” (2017).
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) is not only a technological
tool of teaching–learning but has the faculty of awakening the interest and motiva-
tion of our students, especially those with a certain scientific–technological interest
(Ocaña 2012). The educational value of its incorporation does not reside exclusively
in contributing to favor the development of knowledge and skills within the STEAM
disciplines. Educational robotics and programming provide students, among other
skills and abilities, mental strategies to solve problems. Thus, the learning based on
challenges and the developments of what has come to be called computational think-
ing involve a new pedagogical scenario in which the programming of small robots
acquires full meaning. To help teachers in this task, there are different types of pro-
grammable robots on the market that use different programming languages. The
research of Cesaretti, Storti, Mazzieri, Screpanti, Paesani, Principi, and Scardozzi
(2017) presents an innovative approach to an alternate School–Work turnover pro-
gramme based on Educational Robotics and on project-based learning dealing with
different tools, such as Lego Mindstorms EV3 or the Arduino BYOR platform.
There are two ways of viewing the use of robots in schools symbolized by the
acronym TRTWR, referring to the 3rd International Workshop “Teaching Robotics,
Teaching with Robotics”, organized by Moro and Alimisis in 2012. Any of these
approaches can be selected with Modbloq Robot. Nowadays, teachers mostly use
two types of educational robots; those that need to be assembled before playing with
them and those that are already built. Within the first type of robots, a double clas-
sification can be made between those that have an open or flexible character and
those whose construction is oriented to obtain a predefined robot model. Students
must interact with robots, including with their hardware components and software,
source code, and programming environments. Physical robot programming projects
120 P. de Oro and S. Nuere

make it possible to achieve a level of significance and engagement from students. In

the end, the study of robotics can be sufficiently rewarding, intellectually and emo-
tionally, so they study with interest (Miller et al. 2008). An active Learning Model
applied to robotics education, as Saygin, Yuen, Shipley, Wan, and Akopian point out
(2012), keeps learners engaged, active, and motivated.
To facilitate the task of programming the robots, there are different programming
languages based on a graphic interface. They are what has come to be called pro-
gramming languages by blocks. The blocks are different elements related to vari-
ables, conditional, loop, and so on. To program you have to drag the corresponding
blocks to the work area and stack them. There are two common programming lan-
guages Scratch (2013) and Bitbloq (2015).

Open Source World

Following the open design approach, we will build our robot in Open Source; this is
a technology based on the idea of sharing knowledge freely and free of charge.
Hundreds of people working on the same code will improve and develop the soft-
ware faster. In addition, open software is linked to ethical and altruistic currents.
Sharing knowledge without limits defends four freedoms:
• Freedom to use the program at your leisure.
• Freedom to study or modify the operations of the program.
• Freedom to distribute copies of the program.
• Freedom to improve the program and make improvements publicly.
Thanks to initiatives like these, great software has been born that is used today
by millions of people, as for example Linux (2010). Although the Open Source
stream was born within the programming, it has jumped to other fields, examples of
which are initiatives, such as Thingiverse (2016), a repository of 3D objects, or
repositories like GitHub (2018), in which projects of all kinds can be found, in the
field of software or hardware.

3D Technologies

One of these new Open Source movements is the so-called Rep-Rap movement
(2018). This movement began in 2005, when the mathematician and engineer
Adrian Boywer, a professor at the University of Bath in the United Kingdom, began
the project. The 3D printer was capable of self-replicating because it could print
many of the items needed to make a new one. This was the beginning of the 3D
homemade printers.
In Spain, this movement came from the hand of Juan González Gómez (2012), a
Telecommunications Engineer from the UPM, under the name of Clone Wars
5  Modbloq. Design of a Modular Robot Made with 3D Printing for Educational… 121

(2017). This movement has created a community of thousands of people who share
this knowledge and open hardware, such as CNC machines and Cyclone PCB
Factory (García-Saura 2013). You can also find laser cutters or even printable robots,
such as Printbots, like Miniskybot (García-Saura & González-Gómez 2012).
Mostly, it is necessary to assign a license to the project to ensure that it remains open
and no one can take ownership of it. The most widespread license for this type of
projects is the Creative Commons License (2018) created by the non-profit organi-
zation with the same name.
The most used way to share this knowledge is through Wiki (González-Gomez
& Valero-Gómez 2008) or repositories platforms, such as Github (2018) or
Thingiverse (2016), where everyone can freely upload their projects and share them
with the community.
Owing to the open source nature of the design, it is essential the robot can be
printable in 3D. A 3D printer allows the manufacturing of pieces with a multitude
of materials, such as polymers, resins or ceramics. The previously designed object
can be printed quickly and economically. Fusion Deposition Modeling (FDM), the
technology for the creation of pieces, was chosen because it is the most
widespread.

Market Study

Before the design stage starts, an analysis of the main characteristics of other simi-
lar products is recommended. A market study has been done analyzing some of the
most relevant products for this project, educational robots with modularity. Some of
them are listed below.
Lego Mindstorm (Denmark)
• Age from 10 years old and above.
• Price from €399.
• Lego environment.
• Programming and control App.
• Lego specific programming environment.
• Few varieties of functional blocks.
• Blocks are connected by mechanical fit.
Cubelets (USA)
• Age from 4 years old and above.
• Price Twelve Cubelets $329.95.
• Plug and play.
• Lego compatibility.
• App.
• Educational Curriculum with 40 h of class material.
• Cubes with a large variety of functionalities.
122 P. de Oro and S. Nuere

• Blocks are connected by mechanical fit and by magnets.

Little Bits (USA)
• Age from 8 years old and above.
• Price from $34.95 to $1999.
• Heavily focused on education with a lot of class material.
• Several documented projects.
• Cloudbit.
• It has a large community.
• Blocks are connected by magnets.
Moss (USA)
• Age from 8 years old and above.
• Prices from $199.95 to $599.95.
• App.
• It is programmable with Scratch and C.
• Educational Curriculum with 40 h of class material.
• Blocks are connected by magnets.
Tinkerbots (Germany)
• Age from 6 years old and above.
• Price €249.95.
• App.
• Mix blocks with electronic and construction blocks.
• Programmable Arduino.
• Blocks are connected by mechanical fit.
Therefore, there are two main ways of connecting blocks, by magnets and by
mechanical fit.
Magnetic connection is used by Little bits, Cubelets, and Moss. After analyzing
the connections with a sample, the conclusion is the magnetic connection is strong
if the module is light (Little bits) but not strong enough if the module is heavy
(Cubelets).
Mechanical connection is used by Lego Mindstorm, Tinkerbots, and Cubelets.
This is the best way to connect as it has high durability and enables the creation of
large constructions. The major disadvantage is the manufacturing process. The
injection molding is the best way to ensure the high requirements in tolerance so
everything connects properly. At the moment, the 3D printing FDM technology can
not ensure this tolerance.
The final decision is to use a combination of mechanical and magnetic connec-
tion systems like Cubelets.
We consider these characteristics in this project:
• Locomotion blocks.
• Bluetooth connection so it can be use with an App.
• A wide variety of configuration possibilities, adding sensors and actuators.
5  Modbloq. Design of a Modular Robot Made with 3D Printing for Educational… 123

Table 5.1  Market study price comparison

Name Mindstorm Cubelets Little bits Moss Tinkerbots
Price €399 $329.95 $199.95 $199.95 249.95€

To ensure the competitiveness of the robot, the cost should be below € 200, as
shown in the market study price comparison (see Table 5.1). An average price has
been used to compare robots with similar possibilities.

Specifications

First, we classify our robot following the EduRobot Taxonomy made by Catlin,
Kandlhofer, and Holmquist (2018), as Build Bot: Maker Robots  - Manufactured
Parts with the tag of Expandable and Modular. It is a mobile robot from 3D print-
able parts. It uses open source mechanical and electronical parts that students can
modify or expand. The specifications, such as cost, public, market study or produc-
tion, will lay the foundations of the design.
This project is aimed at two groups, children and adolescents, both in the domes-
tic and school environment, interested in robotics and educational centers. Usually,
the interest is a technological product, robust, safe, ergonomic, flexible, open source,
and multifunctional. They like to develop different projects, with fundamental tech-
nological aspects encouraging creativity. The design must allow creating a complete
and affordable robot, not only for individual users but also for educational centers.
On the other hand, children are also going to use the robot. The special charac-
teristics of the robot make it advisable for use with those 8 and older. For this group,
the product has to be attractive, invite them to pick it up and play with it. This is
achieved by using curved geometries, with simple shapes, such as spheres, comple-
mentary and garish colors, not binding to any gender.
From the market prices, a price range between € 200 and 400 can be established.
For this study, it is possible to consider that our robot should be below € 200 to be
competitive.
The specifications of form and aesthetics:
• The shape is intended to be simple, minimalist, and polyvalent.
• Abstract construction, because it allows more space for imagination.
• Accessible and easy to understand with the use of simple shapes and visible
moving parts.
• Minimum personality to increase the possibility of personalization.
Among the different basic geometric bodies, the cube is the one chosen. Each
edge of the blocks will be rounded to avoid damage when being manipulated. The
blocks have to give a sensation of softness so students want to catch and use them.
Another important aspect to consider is the color. Color is more than an optical
phenomenon and a technical medium (Heller 2004). That is why you should not
124 P. de Oro and S. Nuere

choose stereotyped colors associated with gender. The robot has to produce a sense
of balance, harmony, and calm sensations before facing any constructive and
creative process. The studies carried out by Hallock (2003), in which he relates
colors and age or gender among other parameters, have been considered.
Reading the results of the research of Hallock (2003) and Heller (2004), it is
clear that the blue and green colors are preferred. Around 70% of potential users in
the sample preferred blue and green. The preference for males is 57% blue and 14%
green, and for females, the data are 35% blue and 14% green. Turquoise has been
chosen because it is a mixture between the two.
Owing to the Open Source character of the project, it is essential for the hardware
to be open. The ZUM Bloqs range of bq (2007) was chosen for the initial design and
manufacturing of the prototype. This range of electronic components is open and
compatible with Arduino (2018). In addition, the electronic components are condi-
tioned and mounted on Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs) within their own standard;
they have polarized connections using standard cables that facilitate the connection.
In addition, all hardware is not limited to a single supplier or manufacturer.
Manufacturing by 3D FDM printing fixes the design specifications using the
Open Source character of the robot (2016).
This issue involves a series of restrictions. The main specifications of the design
are the following:
• It is essential that the design be printable by 3D FDM printers.
• It has to be robust and support the continued use of the user.
• The modules and their unions must allow the cables of the items to pass through
them.
• The material has to be used in 3D FDM printing.
The material chosen for the mechanical parts of the robot must be a material used
in 3D printing. It is not necessary that the chosen material is especially resistant to
extreme temperature conditions. Of all the materials used in 3D printing by FDM
technology, Polylactic Acid (PLA) (Matbase 2017) was chosen since it is a biode-
gradable polymer (Scott 2002). It minimizes the environmental impact and achieves
a sustainable design, in line with the current trend, Eco-Design (Luttropp 2017).

Design

Designing a piece for 3D printing is not the same as designing it for manufacturing
by injection molding or other kinds of manufacturing and has its own restrictions.
3D printing technology has specific manufacturing tolerances that must be consid-
ered when designing. It is difficult to give concrete values of tolerance for this type
of manufacturing since each machine has its own tolerances. Most of them are
homemade machines and easily go out of adjustment. To solve this problem, the
tolerance values have been obtained from the printing of parts using different
machines, to obtain, in this way, an average tolerance value.
5  Modbloq. Design of a Modular Robot Made with 3D Printing for Educational… 125

Fig. 5.1 Maximum
inclination angle

• Hole-axis: −0.25 mm at the axis radius DIN ISO 2768 C.

• Pocket: −0.5 mm inside the box, on each side DIN ISO 2768 V.
In addition, each layer has to be supported by the previous layer; thus, it is neces-
sary to fix a minimum inclination between the base and the piece’s vertical face. For
the same reason, it is necessary to avoid the corbels since these only can be printed
by means of the use of supports. The angle α can be at most 30° with respect to the
base (see Fig. 5.1).
Another restriction to the design is the thickness of the walls. Unlike injection
molding where very small thicknesses can be achieved without affecting the integ-
rity of the piece, in 3D printing it is necessary to give higher values of thickness to
ensure good quality printing and durability.
As well as the considerations already mentioned, the following have been
considered:
• The use of standardized items, such as screws, nuts or other elements.
• Reduce the variety of screws to the minimum necessary.
• Minimize the size of the robot as much as possible.
The main board is the control system of the robot to which the rest of the com-
ponents and the power supply are connected. The program defined by the user is
executed on the controller board. This program receives the data by the sensors and
sends the control signals to the actuators according to the code written in the pro-
gram. Specific modules have been designed to house each type of component, such
as controller, sensors and actuators, servos and power.
All components are connected by cables to the controller board. To be able to
connect the modules without mounting problems, a connection system has been
designed. In this way the cables can pass through entire modules if necessary, until
they reach the controller board.
126 P. de Oro and S. Nuere

Mechanical and Structural Design

Joining System

The most important part of modular design is the joining system. As mentioned in
the section dedicated to market study, the solution chosen in the products analyzed
was the use of magnets, the mechanical union or both.
One of the difficulties that the development of this project has presented, specifi-
cally in the design of the different pieces, derives from its Open Source character
(2016). The chosen materials must be available to any user. Such is the case, for
example, of the screws and nuts, which must be available in ironmongery stores.
The union system (see Fig. 5.2) consists of a male part that contains a neodym-
ium magnet with strength of 3.2 kg. The female part is held with a screw clamped
by a nut (see Fig. 5.2). The screw, being a ferromagnetic element, allows enough
bond strength to be generated and to keep the pieces together through the magnetic
field of the magnet.
The male connection piece has to meet four requirements (see Fig. 5.3):
• It must hold a magnet inside.
• It must allow the passage of the cables of the components.

Fig. 5.2  Explosion of the joining system

Fig. 5.3  Male union piece

5  Modbloq. Design of a Modular Robot Made with 3D Printing for Educational… 127

Fig. 5.4  Insertion of the

magnet in the connection
piece

Fig. 5.5  Example of passage of the connector through the connecting piece

• It must have a shape that allows it to fit safely into the female module.
• It must be printable in 3D.
The solution achieved meets all these proposed requirements and also has a care-
ful aesthetic design.
On the one hand, the piece houses a neodymium magnet of 10 mm diameter by
5 mm in height. The magnet is introduced under pressure by one of the faces of the
piece (see Fig. 5.4). Once placed, the magnet is completely set in the piece.
To achieve this adjustment, the tolerance of the mortise described in the design
considerations was reduced, at the beginning of the chapter, by −0.25 mm inside the
box, for each side.
On the other hand, one of the design specifications is that the cables of the com-
ponents can pass through the modules and their joints (see Fig. 5.5). The cables of
the components have dimensions of 7.65 × 2.79 mm. To allow its passage through
the pieces, an opening space was designed in order not to compromise its structural
integrity.
The octagonal shape was chosen since it allows turns of 45°, enabling different
combinations intended to be built with the robot (see Fig. 5.6). As already explained,
for the piece to be printable it is required that there are no overhangs, so it was nec-
essary to join the center of the piece with the contour through a column.
This design allows an angle of rotation between two modules of 180° in case a
cable passes through both modules (see Fig. 5.7).
128 P. de Oro and S. Nuere

Fig. 5.6  Print 3D

simulation (Cura 3D,
Ultimaker 2017)

Fig. 5.7  Rotation diagram

of the union piece

The female union piece also has to meet four requirements (see Fig. 5.8):
• It must have a ferromagnetic contact.
• It must allow the passage of the cables of the components.
• It must have a shape that allows it to fit safely into the female module.
• It must be printable in 3D.
The solution achieved meets all these requirements.
The central hole of 1.75 mm in diameter allows screwing a M3 × 5 mm hexago-
nal head DIN 912 screw and is secured on the inside with an M3 nut. In this way a
ferromagnetic contact is provided (see Fig. 5.9).
5  Modbloq. Design of a Modular Robot Made with 3D Printing for Educational… 129

Fig. 5.8  Female union

piece

Fig. 5.9 Mounting
diagram of the screw and
nut

Fig. 5.10  Male union

piece fitted in the female
union piece

To allow the passage of the cables through the piece, the same shape was designed
as for the male connection piece. When both pieces fit the wires can pass freely (see
Fig. 5.10).
130 P. de Oro and S. Nuere

The piece is printable vertically with the inner column at a right angle to the
printing base. This being the best alternative, since in other arrangements it would
be necessary to use supports.

Modules

Once the bonding system is designed and defined, modules can be designed. As
seen before, the geometric body chosen is the cube since it has a series of
advantages:
• The inside space is optimized to house components.
• It allows the robot to develop in the 6 orthogonal directions of space.
In this way, organized growth is allowed in space and no empty spaces are left.
The size of the modules is conditioned by the larger parts that will be housed
inside (control board, servos). It is also conditioned by the size of the female union
piece. Therefore, the minimum unit size on which the modules will be built will be
the size of the female union piece (see Fig. 5.11). In this way the controller board
fits in a module of 2×2×1 basic units and the servo in one of 2×1×1 basic units.
The controller module must house the ZUM BT328 controller board (see
Fig. 5.12). The best module size for these dimensions is 2×2×1 basic units. It is also
compatible with the Arduino Uno Board and control boards from other manufactur-
ers (see Fig. 5.13).

Fig. 5.11 Measurements
of the size of the basic unit
in millimeters

Fig. 5.12  Dimensions of

the ZUM BT328 board in
millimeters
5  Modbloq. Design of a Modular Robot Made with 3D Printing for Educational… 131

Fig. 5.13 Controller
module

Fig. 5.14 (a, b) ZUM BT328 screwed to the module and inserts fixed in the module

Fig. 5.15  Module port

panel

Controller Module

The board is attached to the module by two M3 × 5 mm DIN 912 screws. The
screws can be screwed into two inserts M3 40/TH030H55 or two M3 nuts. The
module has been designed for both possibilities (see Fig. 5.14).
The ports of the controller board for power (DC Jack female) and programming
(micro USB type B female) must always be accessible from the outside of the mod-
ule. The connectors of the cables used by these ports are too large to be able to pass
through the female connection piece. Therefore, one side of this module cannot hold
module connections in order to give access to the ports (see Fig. 5.15).
132 P. de Oro and S. Nuere

Fig. 5.16  Placement of the lid

Fig. 5.17 Details

To be able to easily connect the components on the controller board, you must
have easy access to it. To solve this, a cover has been designed that is held by four
neodymium magnets of 6×5×2  mm and a clamping force of 600  g each (see
Fig. 5.16).
The magnet is placed in its housing using adhesive (see Fig. 5.17). The nut is
housed under pressure, so it is not necessary to use cyanoacrylate adhesive to
hold it.

Servo Module

The module that houses the servo motor must take into account a standard size (see
Fig. 5.18a, b). The best module size for these dimensions is 2×1×1 basic units. The
servo is fastened using 4 M3 × 5 DIN 912 screws. The screws are screwed into 4 M3
nuts embedded in the module.
5  Modbloq. Design of a Modular Robot Made with 3D Printing for Educational… 133

Fig. 5.18 (a, b) Servo module and servo SM-S4303R dimensions

Fig. 5.19 (a, b) ZUM Bloq and ZUM Bloq dimensions in millimeters

ZumBloq Module

This module is designed to house the ZUM Bloq (2018), and the best module size
for these dimensions is 1×1×1 basic units.
There are two sizes of ZUM Bloq (see Fig. 5.19a, b), each one with a different
separation between the holes destined to the board’s support. The design of the
module was made compatible with both sizes by adding two holes in each side (see
Fig. 5.20a, b).

L Module

The module in L is a structural module capable of joining or reinforcing the union

of the modules with one another (see Fig. 5.21a). The design of this piece is charac-
terized by having a rounded part, enabling rotating the piece to not interfere with the
close module (see Fig. 5.21b).
134 P. de Oro and S. Nuere

Fig. 5.20 (a, b) ZUM Kit module and dimensions between holes in both ZUM Bloq in
millimeters

Fig. 5.21 (a, b) L module and turned position of the module

Power Module

This module should house a battery compartment for eight standard size AAA bat-
teries (see Figs. 5.22 and 5.23). The best module size for these dimensions is 2×2×1
basic units.
The lid has been designed with ergonomic slits that facilitate its extraction. In
addition, to remove the power cable, there is a hole with the size of the DC Jack
connector of the battery compartment (see Fig. 5.24).

Wheels

The wheels must have a radius greater than the dimensions of the basic unit in order
to make contact with the ground.
Some grooves in the edge of the wheel to house three O-rings were added. The
O-rings ensure the correct friction with the ground, since the PLA does not have a
large enough coefficient of friction, which causes the wheel to slide with the ground
when turning (see Fig. 5.25a, b).
5  Modbloq. Design of a Modular Robot Made with 3D Printing for Educational… 135

Fig. 5.22  Power module

Fig. 5.23  Dimensions of

the battery compartment in
millimeters

Fig. 5.24  Assembly of the power module

The connection with the servo is made by the head in the form of a cross, attached
to the wheel by a specific screw. The screw and the head are included with the servo
as accessories. To ensure the rotation of the head together with the wheel and that it
does not slip, the head engages in a groove designed with its shape (see Fig. 5.26a, b).
The shape of these heads is standard.
136 P. de Oro and S. Nuere

Fig. 5.25 (a, b) Wheel and wheel dimensions

Fig. 5.26 (a, b) Assembly of O-rings and servo cross head

Possible Configurations and Activities

Some of the possible configurations that can be made with the different components
we previously mentioned are addressed below. There are some ideas to promote
creativity and ways of combining elements.
Teachers can start with the simplest one and continuing adding different features,
for example, the capacity of the robot to follow a line.
It is not only a matter of building a robot but also a matter of making them work
and therefore multiple choices can be found. We need to awake interest and curios-
ity and make students feel they can configure whatever they want to imagine.
Table 5.2 shows the average market price of the components needed to configure
the robot (Figs. 5.27 and 5.28).
5  Modbloq. Design of a Modular Robot Made with 3D Printing for Educational… 137

Table 5.2  Bill of materials and configurations cost

Description Quantity Unit average price Total price
3D printed parts 10.00 €
Controller module 1 1.00 € 1.00 €
Servo module 4 0.75 € 3.00 €
ZumBloq module 2 0.25 € 0.50 €
L module 6 0.25 € 1.50 €
Power module 1 1.00 € 1.00 €
Wheel 4 0.75 € 3.00 €
Ironmongery 32.28 €
M3 Nut 84 0.02 € 1.65 €
M3 × 5 mm Screw. DIN 912 86 0.02 € 1.72 €
Inserts 40/TH03OH055 2 0.01 € 0.02 €
O-ring 88 mm diameter 6 0.87 € 5.22 €
Neodymium magnet 10 mm, height 5 mm 20 0.63 € 12.40 €
Neodymium magnet 5 mm × 6 mm × 2 mm 4 0.31 € 1.24 €
Neodymium magnet 5 mm × 6 mm × 2 mm 4 0.31 € 1.24 €
Electronic components 91.00 €
Arduino board or ZUM BT328 1 30.00 € 30.00 €
Continuous rotation servo 4 14.00 € 56.00 €
Infrared sensor 2 2.50 € 5.00 €
Power supply 7.20 €
AAA batteries 8 0.90 € 7.20 €
TOTAL 140.48 €

Four-Wheel Drive Mobile Robot

Fig. 5.27  Four-wheel drive mobile robot

138 P. de Oro and S. Nuere

Mobile Robot Follows-Lines Two-Wheel Drive

Fig. 5.28  Mobile robot follows-lines, two-wheel drive

Fig. 5.29  Conveyor belt with infrared sensors at the end and start of the line

Conveyor Belt1 with Infrared Sensors at the End and Start of the Line

Wheels are not only made for locomotive means, they can also work in other pos-
sible configurations. As teachers we need to make students think and go further than
common thoughts (Fig. 5.29).

Traffic Light with Barrier

Occasionally, it will be necessary to include other elements, for example, the barrier
made from cardboard or designed in 3D, that they can print themselves (Fig. 5.30).

 The conveyor can be made with cardboard or cloth.

1
5  Modbloq. Design of a Modular Robot Made with 3D Printing for Educational… 139

Fig. 5.30  Traffic light with barrier

Control System

As mentioned, the main control board is based on Arduino. The rest of the compo-
nents, such as sensors and actuators, are connected to this main control board. The
robot programs are stored and performed from the controller board.
Arduino is an electronic open hardware platform. It consists of a simple board
with a micro controller that allows development of multiple prototypes and applica-
tions. They are powerful control boards and at the same time very economical. The
microcontroller is programmed from the PC through its own Arduino software
using its own programming language based on C++.
ZUM BT 328 (2017) is one of the versions of the original Arduino card, based on
the ATMEGA328P-AU microcontroller. This control board was chosen instead of
the boards officially distributed by Arduino since it presents significant improve-
ments. It has additional strings of pins that duplicate the analogue and digital out-
puts and inputs. These added pin strings include ground and voltage signals,
allowing a fast, safe, and simple connection of sensors and actuators.

Actuators

Servomotor
A Servo is a device composed of a motor, a power and control circuit, a potentiom-
eter, and a gear train. The potentiometer takes the position of the rotor shaft. The
control of the motors is carried out by pulse width modulation (PWM).
Spring RC SM-S4303R continuous rotation servos are used in this project, with
a torque of 3.3/5.1 Kg.cm (4.8 V/6 V).
Buzzer
The buzzer is a component capable of emitting a continuous buzzing of the same
tone. Its operation is simple; it is composed of an electromagnet and a steel sheet.
140 P. de Oro and S. Nuere

Sensors

Infrared sensor
The infrared sensor is typically used to measure distances or detect the passage of
an object in front of it.

Electrical Power Supply

Battery holder
The power supply of the robot is supported by AAA batteries. This solution was
chosen over others, such as using LiPo batteries, because it is the most accessible,
thus contributing to the Open Source character of the project. The battery holder
chosen is a standard model to house 8 AAA batteries in two floors. The battery can
provide a voltage of 12 V; it is enough to power all the components of the Kit with-
out losing effectiveness.

Prototype Manufacturing

The prototype manufacturing is carried out using an FDM printer, in this case
Hephestos 2 of bq (2018).
The first step is to export the 3D model in a format compatible with the slicing
programs. Most programs support the .stl format and the .obj format. In this case,
all the pieces were exported to the .stl format. The .stl format was created by the
company 3D Systems (1998) and was designed for use in rapid prototyping
machines. The abbreviations of STL refer to “Standard Triangle Language”,
which defines only the geometry of 3D objects excluding other typical properties
of CAD files.
The slicing consists of generating a set of commands called .gcode the machine
understands and uses for the manufacturing process (see Fig.  5.31). These com-
mands contain the information of positions, speeds, and settings that the 3D printer
will read and execute. Those commands are generated by cutting the object into
slices or more commonly called layers. The code is generated in a similar way as
that done for numerical control machines, such as lathes and milling machines.
There are many free-to-use or proprietary software that develop this function, the
best-known being 3D Cura (2011), Slic3r (2017) or Replicatorg (2011). In this
case, the 3D Cura software was used with the following main settings:
• Layer height: 0.2 mm
• Thickness of the walls: 1.2 mm
• Thickness of the upper part
• Temperature: 210 °C
5  Modbloq. Design of a Modular Robot Made with 3D Printing for Educational… 141

Fig. 5.31  Slicing of the pieces in Cura 3D Cura 3D, Ultimaker, 2017

Once sliced, the software shows us the route that will be made in each layer, and
the .gcode file can be generated. The piece is then ready to be manufactured in the
3D printer.

Control Programming

Thanks to the use of Arduino-based electronics, it is possible to program the robot

in a simple way. Two ways of programming are proposed, according to the knowl-
edge of user programming. Programming by blocks using the Bitbloq tool, designed
for use in school environments, and programming by code using Arduino, for
advanced users.
Bitbloq
Bitbloq (2018) is an online block programming tool created by the company bq. It
is a free tool that enables the programming of a large number of Arduino-based
boards easily.
A block contains a section of code referring to the role developed by it. In this
way it is not necessary for the user to learn the syntax of the programming language,
you should only understand its logic to be able to program (see Fig. 5.32).
Blocks are classified by their function. You can find blocks with specific func-
tions as variables, including logic or control ones.
Programming by blocks is therefore a powerful tool that greatly facilitates access
to programming by users without knowledge of programming languages. It is per-
fect to start and learn the fundamentals of programming, increasing the speed of
program creation.
142 P. de Oro and S. Nuere

Fig. 5.32  Example of a block and the matching code (Bitbloq, bq, 2017)

Arduino
The most advanced users with previous programming knowledge can program the
robot directly by writing the code. This allows greater freedom when programming.
The programming language of Arduino is actually C++ adding a series of libraries
with roles ready to control electronic units. Some of them are the position of a servo,
the reading of a sensor or turning on an LED.
To be able to write and load the code in the robot, a compiler is necessary. To
facilitate this task, Arduino offers its users a free compiler with all the tools to com-
pile their code and load the programs on the boards without any problems (see
Fig. 5.33).

Robot Cost

The cost of robot materials is broken down in Table 5.3. The total cost of the materi-
als needed to build a robot with all the configurations shown in section “Possible
Configurations and Activities” is €149.38.

Final Prototype

The final prototype has a configuration of two-wheel and follows-lines drive. It has
the possibility of including a sensor to detect a line drawn on the floor and follow it.
Students can see that with only two wheels the robot is stable and maintains balance
(See Fig. 5.34).
5  Modbloq. Design of a Modular Robot Made with 3D Printing for Educational… 143

Fig. 5.33  Arduino Integrated Development Environment (IDE) (Arduino 2018)

As seen in Fig. 5.35, the robot is easy and fast to assemble. Perhaps the only
d­ ifficulty you can find is the passage of the cables through the different modules,
and depending on the age of the student, they might need some help.
144 P. de Oro and S. Nuere

Table 5.3  Robot cost

Unit of Unit
Code measurement Description Quantity price Total price
01. Chapter 1 – Software 0.00 €
01.01 ud Cura 3D 1 0.00 € 0.00 €
01.02 ud Arduino IDE 1 0.00 € 0.00 €
02. Chapter 2 – Materials 32.28 €
02.01 Kg PLA 0.5 20.00 € 10.00 €
02.02 ud M3 Nut 84 0.02 € 1.65 €
02.03 ud M3 × 5 mm Screw. DIN 912 86 0.02 € 1.72 €
02.04 ud Inserts 40/TH030H055 2 0.01 € 0.02 €
02.05 ud O-ring 88mm diameter 6 0.87 € 5.22 €
02.06 ud Neodymium magnet 10 mm. 20 0.63 € 12.40 €
height 5 mm
02.07 ud Neodymium magnet 5 mm × 4 0.31 € 1.24 €
6 mm × 2 mm
03. Chapter 3 – Electronic 109.90 €
components
03.01 ud ZUM Kit bq 1 109.90 € 109.90 €
04. Chapter 4 – Power supply
04.01 ud AAA batteries 8 0.90 € 7.20 €
TOTAL 149.38 €

Fig. 5.34  Final prototype

in the configuration Mobile
robot follows-lines,
two-wheel drive

Fig. 5.35  Final prototype. Example of modularity

5  Modbloq. Design of a Modular Robot Made with 3D Printing for Educational… 145

Conclusions

This project had two main goals:

• To design a prototype of an educational robot whose cost is below the average of
the robots currently available on the market.
• To develop a replicable robot that any user with a 3D printer could reproduce
with cheap and easily acquired electronic components. Ultimately, the intention
was to create a robot whose cost would allow access to this technology to a
greater number of users. Also, considering the school environment, we find that
on many occasions, budget limits make it difficult to buy technological tools.
It has been possible to design a prototype with a price lower than the common
commercial educational robots with easy-to-obtain materials.
On the other hand, one of the values of this product is its dual functionality. It can
be used in a similar way to a robotics kit and it can be used to create robots equipped
with movement. This characteristic, together with its special design, makes this
material an open and multipurpose educational resource. It will enable its users to
develop personal technology projects, as well as research and experimentation.
Another value lies in the possibility of programming the electronic components
and, above all, the programming languages chosen with which this task can be car-
ried out. In that sense, it is worth mentioning the possibility of using Bitbloq, a
language based on graphic blocks. This option enables children to approach the
world of programming, avoiding in these ages the difficulties of the syntax of writ-
ten code. It favors developing computational thinking without the added difficulty
of writing lines of code. This enables the child to “get rid of” that difficulty and
focus more on creative aspects and elaborate strategies for solving problems.
The designed product, besides a domestic use or research tool, offers many edu-
cational possibilities in school environments. The physical characteristics of the
design, as well as the programming language chosen, make it interesting for both
Primary and Secondary educational purposes.

References

3D Systems. (1998). https://www.3dsystems.com/. Accessed 25 Apr 2017.

Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science
and Technology Education, 6(1), 63–71.
Arduino. (2018) https://www.arduino.cc/
BQ. Bitbloq. (2015). http://bitbloq.bq.com/#/. Accessed 15 Jan 2018.
Catlin, D. & Blamires, M. (2012). The principles of educational robotic applications (ERA). A
framework for understanding and developing educational robots and their activities. http://cre-
ate.canterbury.ac.uk/10970/2/ERA%2520Paper%2520for%2520Constructionsim%25202010.
pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2019.
Catlin, D, Kandlhofer, M. and Holmquist, S. (2018). EduRobot taxonomy. Classification of edu-
cational robots. https://www.researchgate.net/project/EduRobot-Taxonomy. Accessed 8 Jan
2019.
146 P. de Oro and S. Nuere

Cesaretti, L., Storti, M., Mazzieri, E., Screpanti, L., Paesani, A., Principi, P., & Scaradozzi, D.
(2017). An innovative approach to school-work turnover programme with educational robotics.
Mondo Digitale, 16(72), 2017–2015.
Creative Commons. (2018). https://creativecommons.org/. Accessed 17 Feb 2018.
Cura 3D Ultimaker. (2011). https://ultimaker.com/en/products/cura-software. Accessed 25 Apr
2017.
Daniela, L., & Strods, R. (2018). Robot as agent in reducing risks of early school leaving. In
L. Daniela (Ed.), Innovations, technologies and research in education (pp. 140–158). Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Daniela, L., Strods, R., & Alimisis, D. (2017). Analysis of robotics-based learning interventions for
preventing school failure and early school leaving in gender context. In 9th international con-
ference on education and new learning technologies (Edulearn17) (pp. 810–818). Barcelona:
Conference Proceedings Barcelona.
Eguchi, A. (2017). Bringing robotics in classrooms. In M. Khine (Ed.), Robotics in STEM educa-
tion (pp. 3–31). Cham: Springer.
García Saura, C. (2013). Cyclone PCB Factory – GitHub. https://github.com/CarlosGS/Cyclone-
PCB-Factory. Accessed 17 Feb 2018.
García-Saura, C., & González-Gómez, J. (2012). Low cost educational platform for robotics, using
open-source 3d printers and open-source hardware. ICERI 2012 proceedings (pp. 2699–2706).
Github. (2018). https://github.com/. Accessed 5 Feb 2018.
González-Gómez, J. (2012). http://www.iearobotics.com/blog/category/modular-robot/. Accessed
20 June 2017.
González-Gómez, J. (2017). Clone Wars – RepRap. http://www.reprap.org/wiki/Proyecto_Clone_
Wars. Accessed 20 Nov 2017.
González-Gómez, J., Valero Gómez, A. (2008) IEARobotics. http://www.iearobotics.com/.%20.
Accessed 20 Jun 2017.
Hallock, Joe. Colour assignment. (2003). http://www.joehallock.com/edu/COM498/preferences.
html. Accessed 20 Nov 2017.
Heller, E. (2004). Psicología del color. Cómo actúan los colores sobre los sentimientos y la razón.
[Color psychology. How do colors act on feelings and reason]. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, S.A.
Hephestos 2bq. (2018). https://www.bq.com/es/hephestos-2. Accessed 20 Apr 2018.
Linux. (2010). https://www.linux.org/. Accessed 15 Nov 2017.
Luttropp, C. (2017). 10 Golden Rules in EcoDesign. http://lpmc.lv/uploads/media/10_golden-
rules_in_eco-design.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2017.
Matbase. (2017) https://www.matbase.com/material-categories/natural-and-synthetic-polymers/
thermoplastics/agro-based-polymers/material-properties-of-polyactic-acid-copolymer-pla-c.
html#general. Accessed 20 Nov 2017.
Miller, D. P., Nourbakhsh, I. R., & Siegwart, R. (2008). Robots for education. In Springer hand-
book of robotics. Chapter 55 (pp. 1283–1301).
Moro, M. & Alimisis, D. (2012) Proceedings of 3rd international workshop teaching robotics,
Teaching with robotics. Integrating robotics in school curriculum. Riva del Garda (Trento,
Italy). http://www.terecop.eu/TRTWR2012/proceedings.htm. Accessed 7 Jan 2019.
Moro, M., Agatolio, F., & Menegatti, E. (2018). The Robo ESL project: development, evalua-
tion and outcomes regarding the proposed robotic enhanced curricula. International Journal of
Smart Education and Urban Society.
Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., Al Mahmud, A., & Dong, J. J. (2013). A review of the appli-
cability of robots in education. Technology for Education and Learning., 1, 1–7.
Ocaña Rebollo, G. (2012). Robótica como asignatura en enseñanza secundaria. Resultados de
una experiencia educativa. [Robotics as a subject in secondary school. Results from a learning
experience] Espiral. Cuadernos del Profesorado, 5(10), 56–64. http://ojs.ual.es/ojs/index.php/
ESPIRAL/article/view/940. Accessed 23 May 2017.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc.
5  Modbloq. Design of a Modular Robot Made with 3D Printing for Educational… 147

Perens, B. (1999). The open source definition. In Open sources: voices from the open source
revolution (Vol. 1, pp. 171–188).
Replicatorg. (2011). http://replicat.org/. Accessed 25 June 2017.
RepRap. (2018). http://www.reprap.org/wiki/RepRap. Accessed 15 Feb 2018.
Saygin, C., & Yuen, T. T., & Shipley, H. J., & Wan, H., &Akopian, D. (2012). Design, develop-
ment, and implementation of educational robotics activities for K-12 students. Paper presented
at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio. https://peer.asee.org/21162
Scott, G. (2002). Degradable polymers. Principles and applications. s.l. Kluwer Academic
Publishers. 1-4020-0790-6.
Scratch. (2013). https://scratch.mit.edu/. Accessed 24 Nov 2017.
Slic3r. (2017) http://slic3r.org/. Accessed 25 June 2017.
Thingiverse. (2016). Makerbot. https://www.thingiverse.com/. Accessed 20 Nov 2017.
ZUM Box. (2017). https://www.bq.com/es/zum-kit. Accessed 20 Jan 2018.
Chapter 6
Robotics in Primary School: A Realistic
Mathematics Approach

Francisco Bellas, María Salgado, Teresa F. Blanco, and Richard J. Duro

Abstract  Robots are technological tools of great interest in primary education for
many reasons, but mainly for their compatibility with science, technology, engi-
neering, and mathematics (STEM). However, it is very important to minimize the
impact of the technical issues associated to robotics on the teachers, providing sim-
ple and functional tools that allow them to focus their attention in the creation of
STEM content. To this end, this chapter presents a methodology, based on realistic
mathematics, for the integration of educational robotics in primary schools. This
methodology has been tested during one semester in the Sigüeiro Primary School
(Spain) in the subject of mathematics, with students of different ages ranging from
7 to 11 years old. Two different educational robots, with different features, were
used to highlight that the methodology is independent of the robotic platform used.
Motivation surveys were administered to the students after the classes. Surveys
reported highly successful results, which are discussed in the chapter.

Keywords  Educational Robots · STEM · Realistic Mathematics · Primary

Education · Robobo

Introduction

Educational robotics is a broad term typically associated with the use of real robots
in pre-university education. In the last 10 years, the introduction of robots as didac-
tical tools in primary and secondary schools has been very remarkable. The main
reason behind this boom comes from the decrease of hardware cost, and from the
development of programming environments adapted to younger students, mainly

F. Bellas (*) · R. J. Duro

Integrated Group for Engineering Research, Universidade da Coruña, A Coruña, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
M. Salgado · T. F. Blanco
Applied Didactics, Universidade de Santiago, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 149

L. Daniela (ed.), Smart Learning with Educational Robotics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19913-5_6
150 F. Bellas et al.

based on blocks. Robots are used in classes as highly motivating platforms where
students can learn programming, electronics, and basic mechanics.
But the fast development of educational robotics has led to different approaches
toward the integration of robots in general education. Different countries, regions,
or even single schools, have adopted their own didactical model that introduce
robots in different subjects, without a formal analysis of the most convenient way to
do it. As a consequence, nowadays one can find many educational robots in the
market, all of them in use, with different technological features, target ages, and
offering different learning options.
In primary schools, robots have been used mainly as platforms, alternative to
classic computers, in which to run computer programs. At this educational level, the
students acquire basic programming skills while they can observe the consequences
of their programs in a real device that, typically, can move, thus increasing their
motivation. Typical robots used in this age range are the Dash&Dot (https://www.
makewonder.com/robots/dash/), LEGO WEDO (https://education.lego.com/en-us),
Cubetto (https://www.primotoys.com), or Root (https://rootrobotics.com), which
are simple and robust, and which can be programmed using a block-based
language.
Here, a more formal perspective of educational robotics is presented. Robots are
a very powerful tool to introduce the STEM methodology in primary schools. To
this end, this chapter follows an approach where robots are introduced in the official
curriculum of the mathematics subject, in a progressive way from the first grades
and in particular topics. This approach makes it simpler to introduce robots in
schools right now, without requiring a profound reorganization of curriculums, like
the one proposed by Scaradozzi et  al. (2015). The objective of using robots in
classes should be acquiring basic competences of such subjects through the pro-
gramming of the robot and not just the programming itself.
As a first approach, the proposed methodology has been designed to be applied
in the subject of mathematics, so the aim is that students learn specific mathematics
contents with each robotics teaching unit. To reach such objective, they have to
apply many different abilities from different disciplines, as will be explained later in
detail. But, first of all, in the next section we will discuss why this practical approach
to mathematics has been chosen.

Realistic Mathematics

There are numerous methodological perspectives on the teaching and learning of

mathematics like those presented in Karampinis (2018), Karkazis et  al. (2018),
Daniela and Strods (2016), and Moro et al. (2018), but we are interested in high-
lighting realistic mathematics education (RME) (Freudenthal 1977). The aim is to
move away from classical, memory-based, and abstract learning in which the
teacher is limited to giving lessons and correcting written tests. Realistic mathemat-
ics proposes seeking, in an initial phase, real contexts for the meaningful
6  Robotics in Primary School: A Realistic Mathematics Approach 151

construction of mathematical learning, trying to make more concrete the abstract

contents of this subject. Realistic mathematics and cooperative learning are the two
pillars on which the theoretical foundations of this chapter are based, and where
robotics and mathematics walk hand in hand in primary classrooms.
According to Freudenthal (1971), in RME the teaching of mathematics is deter-
mined by an activity described as:
An activity of solving problems, of seeing the problems, but it is also an activity of organiz-
ing a discipline. This can be an issue of reality that has to be organized according to the
mathematical patterns if problems of reality have to be solved. It can also be a mathematical
matter, of new or old results, ours or of others, that have to be organized according to new
ideas, be better understood, in broader contexts or by an axiomatic approach. (Freudenthal
1971, 411)

Following Freudenthal ideas, later several authors (Alsina 2009; Alsina 2011;
Bressan et  al. 2004; Cobb et  al. 2008;  Martinez et  al. 2002; Van den Heuvel-­
Panhuizen 2000) have described the RME from of the following principles:
1. Activity: Mathematics conceived as a human activity. The purpose of mathemat-
ics is to mathematize (organize) the world around us.
2. Reality: Mathematics is learned by doing mathematics in real or realistic
contexts.
3. Levels: Students go through different levels of understanding: Situational (in the
context of the situation); referential (schematization through models, descrip-
tions, etc.), general (exploration, reflection, and generalization), formal (stan-
dard procedures and conventional notation).
4. Guided reinvention: A learning process that allows the reconstruction of formal
mathematical knowledge through mediation.
5. Interaction: The teaching of mathematics is considered a social activity. The
interaction between the students and between the students and the teachers can
cause each one to reflect on what others contribute and thus reach higher levels
of understanding.
6. Interconnection: Mathematical content blocks (numbering and calculation, alge-
bra, geometry, and so on) cannot be treated as separate entities.
Based on these principles, Alsina (2011) includes the characterization of the
most significant features of RME, and these are:
• Situations of everyday life or contextualized problems are used as a starting point
to learn mathematics.
• These situations are mathematized to form more formal relationships and abstract
structures.
• It is based on the interaction in the classroom among the students and between
the teacher and the students.
• Students are encouraged to interpret mathematics under the guidance of an adult,
rather than trying to transmit a pre-constructed mathematics to them.
Children must, therefore, learn mathematics in real and close contexts that have
meaning for them, from which to develop concepts and apply rules. This way the
152 F. Bellas et al.

need for mathematization arises: moving a problem from everyday life to the world
of mathematics, solving it, and returning it to the real world, which familiarizes the
student with the mathematical world.
Finally, it should be noted that, according to Freudenthal (Gravemeijer and
Tewuel 2000), the strongest argument that supports and justifies the existence and
importance of RME is that not all students will be mathematically mature, but
almost all of them will use those mathematics that help them solve problems of
daily life (Peters 2016). Robotics, as a support for teaching and learning mathemat-
ics, has obtained considerable contributions (Pinto Salamanca et al. 2010), making
it ideal for learning by playing in an interdisciplinary fashion.

Proposed Methodology

To clarify how this methodology can be realized in practical terms, this section
describes the specific experience carried out during the year 2018  in Spain. The
sample of participants is composed of all elementary students of the Sigüeiro pri-
mary school, a total of 233 students, with an age range from 6 to 12 years, as shown
in Table 6.1. All the gathered data from the participating students respect the ethical
implications of the projects in the educational field, which refer to, generally, the
establishment of an atmosphere of trust between the teaching staff and researchers,
and to the adequate treatment of the data of sensitive nature. Both of these aspects
are taken into account to be conveniently treated from the perspective of the socially
responsible research (SRR). For the treatment of the information obtained through
direct involvement with the students, authorizations were requested to the parents or
legal guardians of the minor in order to collect the data through audio and video as
well as in written form. In any case, it is maintained that the privacy of students is
respected in the publications derived from this study, always identifying them under
pseudonyms.
The proposed methodology for introducing educational robots in the existing
mathematics curricula of primary schools starts from the two following general
premises. First, on each primary school grade, some specific mathematics lessons
from the official curriculum are selected to be reinforced, or taught, using the robot
as a real-world application platform following the realistic mathematics methodol-
ogy. Such lessons were organized in the form of a practical workshop. Second, these
robotic classes were programmed in all the primary education grades, that is, the
robot was used as a long-term didactical tool as students grow, so they were acquired
technical knowledge about its operation in a progressive way.

Table 6.1  Details of the participants in the workshops that make up the proposed methodology
Course/Grade 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th TOTAL
N° students 48 18 24 48 48 47 233
6  Robotics in Primary School: A Realistic Mathematics Approach 153

Table 6.2  Specific topics selected for the workshop depending on the grade
Grade Workshop 1 Workshop 2 Workshop 3 Workshop 4
1ST Natural numbers Sequential Distances Open and closed
operations lines
2ND Natural numbers: Time units Straight and curved Planar figures
comparison movement
3RD Natural numbers: basic Distance units Angles Following a path
operations
4TH Decimal numbers Measuring distance Angles Basic algorithms
and time
5TH Decimal numbers Measuring distance Angles Symmetry
and time
6TH Integer numbers Measuring distance Angles Cartesian
and time coordinates

According to the methodology, the main aim is to organize which topics of math-
ematics will be covered in each school year. In this sense, Table 6.2 summarizes the
specific topics selected for each workshop in each of the six elementary grades
(from 6 to 11 years of age). These topics are organized according to the existing
curriculum. The table also includes a possible way to teach programming concepts.
Each workshop lasts 2 hours, which is the minimum time required to administer a
class like this. The number of robots per workshop depends on the number of stu-
dents and the number of teachers who control the workshop.
Two different educational robots were used in the workshops: the MBOT (www.
makeblock.com/STEM-kits/mbot) and the ROBOBO (http://theroboboproject.com/
en/), to show that the methodology can be applied independently of the specific
robotic platform the school has. This affects the specific challenge that can be car-
ried out, Of course, it affects the specific challenges that can be carried out, and the
teacher is the responsible to design the most appropriate ones according to the
selected robot.
The MBOT (Fig. 6.1) is a small mobile robot based on Arduino, which is cheap
and has many possible expansion options. It can be programmed using mblock, a
programming environment created by Makeblock, which is based on the Scratch
block-based language (http://scratch.mit.edu). It is equipped with two motors for
the wheels, one ultrasonic sensor and a line sensor. Students have to construct the
robot for the first time, which can be used as a part of the initial workshops. With
this robot, three workshops have been carried out for the fourth, fifth, and sixth
grades. Here, we will explain in detail of the one given in the fifth grade, focused on
symmetries.
The ROBOBO (Fig. 6.1) is an educational robot based on the combination of a
smartphone and a simple mobile base (Bellas et  al. 2017). The smartphone is
attached to the base as shown in Fig. 6.1 and linked by Bluetooth, so students can
program both elements from the computer as if they were a single robot. ROBOBO
has a much higher technological capability than the MBOT due to the smartphone’s
features, and the students can use advanced sensors like cameras, microphones,
154 F. Bellas et al.

Fig. 6.1  The two educational robots used in the workshops. The mBot (left) and the Robobo
(right)

gyroscope, accelerometer, and so on. In addition, the speaker, screen, and base
motors provide a large amount of interaction possibilities, so it is a very powerful
robotic platform for teaching human-robot interaction topics. This is the reason why
it was applied in the workshops for younger students, those in the first, second, and
third grades (between 6 and 9 years old). ROBOBO can be programmed, as well,
using the Scratch block-based language through the ScratchX environment (https://
scratchx.org). Here, we will explain in detail a case study within the second grade,
focused on geometry, specifically basic planar figures.
The workshop organization, which is an example of the methodology applica-
tion, will be described in detail in the following sub-sections.

Didactical Basis

From a didactical perspective, the workshops have been designed considering a

STEM project-based methodology.
Project Based  There is a challenge to be solved with the robot that students must
solve at the end of the workshop, and which is focused on the specific selected
mathematics topic. This global challenge must be divided by the teacher into small
robotic activities that lead to its completion in a progressive way. This division is
important in our methodology because it is crucial that students understand how to
face a complex problem in a hierarchical fashion. The mathematic concepts required
to solve the challenge should be introduced in previous classes, and students can use
in the workshop the sources of information that were provided.
To solve the challenge, it is required not only to solve the mathematical aspects,
but many others related to robotics: students must build an experimental environ-
ment or arena where the robot operates, they must manipulate different accessories
6  Robotics in Primary School: A Realistic Mathematics Approach 155

or tools like screws, insulating tape and so on, and, of course, they must program the
robot using the computer. All of these activities are inherent to the project-based
methodology, and it is very important that the teacher provides students with a gen-
eral view of the tasks they must face, in order to carry them out in an ordered
manner.
The solution to the activities, and global challenge, must be autonomously
obtained by the students, with the guidance of the teacher mainly in the correct
selection of steps to solve the problem, and not in the particular way it is solved.
STEM  Although the final objective of the workshop is stated within the subject of
mathematics, to solve it with the robot implies integrating knowledge from other
disciplines, like programming, physics (kinematics), mechanics (design, manipula-
tion), and, of course, robotics. A very relevant topic at this educational stage is that
of learning the basics of programming, which can fit in the mathematics curriculum
as well, as it trains logical reasoning. In this sense, the following considerations
must be made:
• Programming knowledge will be introduced in a progressive way during the dif-
ferent workshops. This is a very important aspect of this methodology, as it does
not require previous programming skills. They are acquired as the global chal-
lenge is addressed. Remember that this robotics methodology is opposite to the
traditional use of robots just to learn programming, so these skills are acquired as
they are required to solve the mathematics challenge, but they are not the main
didactic goal.
• Each activity requires programming the robot, which must be introduced by the
teacher following an adequate order, with the objective of teaching a complete
set of programming skills in a long-term setup, that is, during the whole primary
education. As a consequence, the proposed challenges must be adapted to the
programming complexity.
• The programming language at this age should be based on blocks, as it is simpler
for students and the learning stage is short.
• The programming concepts can be explained in different order, but here we pro-
pose adhering to the following one. We also indicate an optimal learning age:
• Programming basics: sequential operation, logical thinking, and basic blocks
usage (from 7 years old)
• Sensors and actions (from 7 years old)
• Conditionals (from 9 years old)
• Loops (from 9 years old)
• Variables (from 10 years old)
• Expressions (from 10 years old)
• Functions (from 10 years old)
Regarding robotics itself, there are many concepts that are specific to this disci-
pline and that will be introduced during the different learning stages. Specifically:
156 F. Bellas et al.

• Sensors: Understanding basic concepts of sensing like the magnitude to be mea-

sured, the data processing, the calibration, or the noise.
• Actuators: Understanding how the robot can act in the real world, mainly in
terms of motors and how they work.
• Reality gap: It is a key aspect when learning robotics, because students have to
understand that the real world where robots operate is complex and the transla-
tion between the program logic and its real consequence is not direct.
In addition to these general aspects, students must perform many physical
manipulation tasks, both with the robot but also with the experimental environment
where the robot performs the task, so teaching them basic manipulation skills like
screwing or gluing is very important. In fact, some challenges may imply a more
elaborate environment for the robot that students should construct in previous
classes, for instance, a small city created with streets the robot must travel.

Evaluation

The evaluation of the workshops is based on the analysis of the student’s notebooks
and on rubrics. An example of the used rubrics is that of Table 6.3, which allows the
teacher to evaluate the student’s competence and motivation in different aspects of
the workshop, as well as their knowledge in specific questions about the mathemat-
ics concepts treated during the workshop. Each student has their own notebook
(Fig. 6.2) where they must take notes about the steps followed to achieve the objec-
tive of the workshop, mainly those related to the challenge and activities proposed
by the teacher, but all they consider important. This notebook can be used to assess
what data each student collects and how they do it when they are doing the work-
shops. Likewise, it serves to complete, in the rubric, the aspect about the attention
placed in the classroom.
In addition, with the aim of evaluating the student’s motivation when working
with robots, a questionnaire with 12 items in a five-level rating scale (nothing, little,
something, enough, a lot) was created. The specific items are included in Appendix
1. This motivation questionnaire was applied at the end of each session so that each
student could fill it individually in the classroom. With respect to its analysis, the
first thing that we are going to indicate is the degree of satisfaction of the students
with the robotics session in which they participated. This is observed in the second
item (did you find the class fun?) and in the twelfth one (would you like to continue
learning with robots?). In general, the results of the class were positive for all levels,
which are discussed in the section “Motivation Questionnaire Analysis.”
6  Robotics in Primary School: A Realistic Mathematics Approach 157

Table 6.3  Proposal of possible rubrics that can be used for each student
Level (score)/
Aspects to be Partially Not yet competent
evaluated Expert (4) Competent (3) competent (2) (1)
Time Satisfactory use of Uses time well Has issues with Has serious issues
management time during the but can be time with time
entire workshop delayed in some management and management
aspects can cause delays
to the team
Design and Understands the Understands the Has doubts when Has great
construction of objective of the objective of the understanding difficulties to
the solution: workshop, and the workshop, but the what is the understand the
ability to path to reach it, path to reach the objective of the objective of the
understand the and to obtaining solution is workshop workshop
objective the solution of the unclear
activities
Mathematics Recognizes and Recognizes the Has difficulties Does not recognize
knowledge relates the concepts to recognize the majority of the
mathematical appropriately, some concepts mathematical
concepts involved although has involved in the concepts involved
in the workshop trouble workshop in the workshop
establishing
relations between
them
Attention in the Always pays Pays attention to Pays attention Does not pay
classroom attention to the the teacher’s but is frequently attention to the
teacher’s explanations and distracted material discussed
explanations and to everything in the classroom,
to everything discussed in class focusing on things
discussed in the most of the time that have no
classroom relation to the
teacher’s
explanation
Attitude: active Always Usually Often Does not
participation participates in an participates in an participates, only participate in class,
active and active manner in when asked to not even when
voluntary manner the classroom asked to
Problem Contributes with Usually Contributes with Hardly ever
solving: information and contributes with information and contributes with
practical ability abilities when information and abilities when information or
solving problems, abilities when solving abilities when
showing initiative, solving problems problems, only if solving problems
and fomenting showing initiative asked to
other’s work
158 F. Bellas et al.

Fig. 6.2  Examples of students’ personal notebook that they must use in the workshop

Classroom Organization and Equipment

The classroom organization and features where the workshops are carried out are
very important in this methodology. A properly organized teaching space as well as
different tool and practical elements are required for each group. In this sense,
Table  6.4 contains a specific list of elements that should be present in the
classroom:
The students of each class were divided into groups of four members per group.
Each group contemplates the following roles:
• Programmer: Responsible for programming the robot using the computer
• Robotician: Responsible for manipulating the robot (turning it on and off, mov-
ing it from the table to the moving area and so on) and taking care of it (control-
ling that is has enough battery charge for the workshop, that it is not damaged
during the class, etc.).
• Technician: Responsible for all the external elements and devices required to
carry out the workshop, for instance, measuring tape, obstacles, etc. If any ele-
ment must be constructed to carry out the lesson, it should be made before the
workshop period in order to optimize the existing time.
• Organizer: Responsible for managing the group activity, controlling the time
used on each activity, and interacting with the teacher in case of questions or
comments.
Each student can help others in a different role in case of necessity, with the aim
of all of them being active during the whole class. The teacher must assign to each
student in a group one of the previously mentioned roles before the workshop and
explain to them the main responsibilities associated with it. The roles must be inter-
changed during the four workshops that will be carried out during the school year,
so that each student in the group assumes each role at least once.
6  Robotics in Primary School: A Realistic Mathematics Approach 159

Table 6.4  Elements that should be present in the room and basic equipment
Room Equipment for each group
Round tables where students can work in teams of 4 or 5 1 educational robot, mBot or Robobo
Flat open space, in the floor or in an additional table, 1 computer (ideally a laptop)
where robots can move freely
Workshop space Connection cables and power supply
(power strip)
Wi-Fi connection available Screw, measuring tape, insulating
tape, and scissors
1 projector to show slides of the workshop contents
1 computer or laptop, for the teacher

Workshop Description

In the following two subsections, two specific workshops for each robot will be
explained in detail, in particular those marked in red in Table 6.2 corresponding to
the fifth and second grades.

Fifth Grade Workshop

First of all, students were organized before the workshop into groups of four mem-
bers with their specific roles previously assigned. Each group had its own table and
chairs, with one laptop and one robot, as can be observed in Fig. 6.3. The class starts
with the teacher presenting the robotics challenge they must face, in this case sum-
marized in the diagram displayed in Fig. 6.4. They must implement a program in
Scratch so that the robot can avoid a rectangular obstacle ahead. The specific
obstacle was the mBot box, which could be located in any position in front of the
robot, so it has to detect it using the sensors and then perform the movements dis-
played in Fig. 6.4.
Once the challenge is clearly understood, the student responsible for each role
starts preparing their own part: turning on the computer and launching the program-
ming environment (mBlock software in this case, which uses standard Scratch
blocks and additional blocks specific for the mBot robot), turning on the robot,
preparing the space on the floor, and preparing the additional elements, like the
measuring tape. To solve the challenge, each group must have the following addi-
tional elements: measuring tape, protractor, mBot box, adhesive tape, and scissors.
To guide students toward the completion of the challenge, the teacher proposes
the steps to be followed in the form of activities, and gives time to students in order
to carry them out. In this workshop, seven small activities were proposed:
1. Moving the robot to a certain distance: To move the mBot a certain distance,
students have to make a small program because this robot does not have any
160 F. Bellas et al.

Fig. 6.3  Classroom and groups organization

Fig. 6.4  Path that the robot must follow in the fifth grade workshop

predefined block to do that. Following the proposed methodology, first the

teacher shows students a program with a preliminary solution to this problem,
displayed in Fig. 6.5 left. Before they copy the program on to their computer and
execute it on the robot, the teacher must explain the behavior of the blocks if it is
the first time students use them. It is important to remember that, although the
objective of the workshop is not on the robotics part, students must understand
its basic operation. For instance, in this case the first block “- at speed -” makes
the robot move in different directions and with different speeds using the wheel
motors. There are two fields in this block the teacher should explain showing
their effect in the robot movement, and the physical reason of such effect. The
left field allows to select the robot direction between 4 options: “run forward”,
“run backward”, “turn right”, or “turn left”. The teacher should explain that
behind these pre-defined directions, the motor speeds are different for each
wheel, obtaining this way a different direction. The right field allows to choose
the robot speed, and it ranges from −100 to 100. The teacher should explain that
this is an arbitrary unit, it does not correspond to any standard speed unit like
cm/s or m/s. Moreover, the difference between using positive or negative values
must be remarked too, highlighting how the wheel turning direction creates for-
ward and backward movements. Summarizing, explaining the details of each
6  Robotics in Primary School: A Realistic Mathematics Approach 161

Fig. 6.5  Preliminary solution (left) and distance measurement procedure (right)

block and its relation with the robot response is very important in this methodol-
ogy to allow students to understand the robotics background and get used to it.
The third block in the program displayed in Fig. 6.5 is a “wait - secs” block,
which is a basic block in any programming language and has the effect of paus-
ing the program a predefined time. This time can be an integer or decimal value,
and it is important that students understand this difference. The fourth block is,
again, a movement block, in this case “run forward at speed 0”, which makes the
robot stop. So, once all the blocks are clear, the teacher must carry out an overall
explanation of the program logic before students try it: the robot starts moving
forward at speed 100, and 1 second later it stops.
To execute this particular program, students must first know how to download
the program to the robot using the USB cable or by Bluetooth. This is part of the
Robotician role in the group who, in addition, must put the robot on the floor and
leave free space in front of it. Moreover, they must fix a measuring tape to the
floor and make the robot move next to it, as displayed in Fig. 6.5 right. After
executing the program, the robot moves straight for 1 second at a speed of 100,
and the students must write down the distance covered by the robot in their note-
books. In this specific case, the distance covered by the mBot was about 5 cm. It
is important that the teacher emphasizes that the measurement must be reliable,
so the robot must start in the zero value of the tape, and they must be precise with
the measurement of the final position. Moreover, the program execution should
be carried out more than once in order to avoid punctual fluctuations. All of these
tips are very important to introduce students to the relevance of being technically
formal.
Next, students had to measure the box sides with the measuring tape and
annotate them again. Considering the distance covered by the robot when exe-
cuting the program shown in Fig. 6.5, and without changing the speed, students
had to adjust the time the robot moves in the “wait – secs” block in order to make
it advance these two distances (in the case the box is not a rectangle but a square,
they will have only one distance). Students at this level know the mathematical
concept of rule of three, so instead of trying different time values, they have to
162 F. Bellas et al.

calculate the right one, put it on the wait block, and test if the calculation was
right. Specifically, for a box of 22 × 22 cm side:
5 cm → 1 second
22 cm → x
So, the time they should try is 4.4  seconds. If the distance covered is not
exactly the expected one, students can slightly adapt it. Notice that in this initial
activity they worked with time and distance measurements, integer numbers, and
decimal numbers in an integrated fashion, as proposed.
2. Turning the robot 90°: Once the students know how to make the robot move
frontally the predefined distances, the second step toward the completion of
the challenge is to make it turn 90°. If you see the path displayed in Fig. 6.4,
the mBot must perform two 90° turns, one to the left and another to the right,
in order to avoid the obstacle. Again, the mBlock software does not have any
block that allows the robot to turn a specified value, so students must create
a program to do it. In this case, the teacher presents the program displayed in
Fig. 6.6, explaining that the only difference with respect to the previous one
is in the first block, where now the specified movement is “turn right”, so the
logic would be: the robot starts turning right at speed 100, and 1 second later
it stops.
Students copy this new program in the mBlock software, or modify the
previous one, and then they download it and execute it on the robot. To do it,
the one with the technician role must fix the protractor on the floor using the
adhesive tape, as shown in Fig. 6.6 right, and the robotician puts the robot on
top of the protractor. Students must measure the degrees rotated by the robot
in this specific case, and annotate this value in the notebook. From this value,
and using again a rule of three, students must now calculate the time required
in the “wait  – secs” block to make the robot turn 90° right. This value was
around 1.2  seconds with the selected speed. Finally, they must change the
program to make the robot turn 90° left, which implies changing the first block
and selecting “turn left at speed 100”, using the same value of 1.2 seconds for
the wait block.
3. Turning acute and obtuse angles: Now students have three small programs that
allow them to move straight a predefined distance and turn 90° right and left. The
next step to solve the challenge displayed in Fig. 6.4 is to perform a small turn to
the right and then to the left to return the robot to the original path. To do it, stu-
dents must understand the concept of acute angle. In a­ ddition, we introduce here
the concept of obtuse angle although it is not necessary in order to solve this
particular challenge (the diagram displayed in Fig. 6.7 is shown through the pro-
jector). So, in this activity, students must modify the previous program to make
the mBot turn an acute angle and then an obtuse angle (the specific values must
be selected by them) by changing the time in the “wait – secs” block.
They test their solution using the protractor and annotate the time in their
notebook. There are many possibilities on each case but, for instance, in the case
of the acute angle the time used in the block must be lower than 1.2 seconds.
6  Robotics in Primary School: A Realistic Mathematics Approach 163

Fig. 6.6  Preliminary solution (left) and protractor fixed to the floor (right)

Fig. 6.7  Example of acute

and obtuse angle turned by
the robot

4. Stopping the robot in front of the obstacle: The previous activities create small
programs that move or turn the robot a predefined value. This type of program is
not very useful in robotics, because the actions should rely on the sensing, that
is depending on what the robot perceives, it moves or turns in a different fash-
ion. To show that to students, they put the robot on the floor with the box in front
of it at a distance of 15 cm and they execute, again, the program displayed in
Fig. 6.5 using a time of 4.4 seconds, which corresponds to covering 22 cm. The
result is that the robot crashes with the box. Next, they put the box at a distance
of 40 cm from the robot and try the same program. The result now is that the
robot stops far away from the box. What the teacher must point out is that this
program depends on a predefined distance to the box, which is not useful in
many real cases, where the robot does not know, beforehand, where the obstacle
will be placed.
The solution is using a sensor that provides the distance to the box, in this
case, the ultrasonic one that is placed on the frontal part of the mBot. The teacher
shows the program displayed in Fig. 6.8 left, which makes the robot start moving
straight at speed 100, then it waits until the distance returned by the ultrasonic
sensor is lower than a threshold (the robot keeps moving), and then it stops.
Students copy and try this program placing the robot in front of the box at an
arbitrary distance. In fact, they should try the program with different distances to
realize that now the robot is really autonomous, that is, it stops without knowing
164 F. Bellas et al.

Fig. 6.8  Preliminary solution (left) and obstacle used in the workshop (right)

the distance to the box beforehand. The threshold value (10 cm in the example
shown by the teacher), must be adjusted by each group considering that the robot
must have enough free space to turn without crashing with the box (see Fig. 6.8
right). Once chosen, students must annotate it in their notebook.
5. Stopping the robot and avoiding the obstacle: At this point, students have all the
components of the global program, so they have to join them to create the solu-
tion to the challenge. Thus, starting from the program shown in Fig. 6.8 with the
threshold distance adjusted by each group, the first step is to concatenate it to the
program that performs a 90° left turn developed in activity 2 (step 2 in Fig. 6.5).
Second, students must add the program developed in activity 1, which moves the
robot straight for a distance equal to the box width, in order to overpass it, as
represented by step 3 in the diagram of Fig. 6.4. The third step is to use again the
program developed in activity 2 but now to perform a 90° right turn (step 4 in
Fig.  6.4). The solution to this activity is displayed in Fig.  6.9, and it must be
found by the students, which may require a period of thinking and reflection
before trying it on the robot. When executed, the robot finishes on the left side of
the box, which must be tested by all groups before moving to the next activity.
Although it is not mandatory to stop the robot after each single movement with
the block “run forward at speed 0”, it is interesting to do that at this level, in order
to show that the global movement is composed by discrete steps that are easier to
compose and control.
6 . Returning the robot to the original path: The steps required to complete the pro-
gram are those shown in Fig. 6.4 as 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9: moving the robot straight
until it overpasses the left side of the box, turning right at an acute angle, moving
straight until it reaches the original path, turning left at the same acute angle, and
finally moving straight a predefined distance. This final step has been included
just to show that the robot has avoided the obstacle and it can keep on moving.
These four steps can be carried out using the programs developed in previous
activities, but this is part of the student’s job, that is, it is important that they
understand the objective and how it is related to the previous steps, so they can
divide the whole problem into small ones by themselves in the future.

A possible solution to this activity is shown in Fig. 6.10, but each group can
perform their own variation. The execution of this program solves the global
6  Robotics in Primary School: A Realistic Mathematics Approach 165

Fig. 6.9  Partial solution to the fifth grade workshop

challenge, so it is important that the teacher emphasizes that it is important to

reach a valid solution in practice. They must recognize whether their solution is
successful, that is, if the robot returns to the original path or not, although high
precision is not required. The final movement of the robot could be recorded on
video by the students.
7. Symmetric movement: The main objective in this workshop was to solve the chal-
lenge displayed in Fig.  6.4, but with the aim of understanding the concept of
symmetry. So, at this point, the teacher can pose the following question to stu-
dents: why do you avoid the obstacle on the left part of the box? Why not on the
right? The typical answer is that, of course, it is possible to do that and it would
be a symmetric movement, as shown in Fig. 6.12 in red color. So now, the stu-
dents have to create a copy of the final program, and change it so that the robot
avoids the obstacle on the right (we do not show this solution because it is equal
to that of Fig. 6.11 but changing steps 2, 4, 6, and 8).
Summarizing, the proposed methodology has been clearly shown with this work-
shop example. The main didactical objective was understanding the concept of sym-
metry from a practical point of view, and it has been clearly achieved. To reach it,
many other mathematical concepts have been used: integer and decimal numbers,
time and distance measurements, rule of three, and angles. From an algorithmic
perspective, students have created a simple solution based on the sequential combi-
nation of small programs, which is very important in programming. Regarding specific
166 F. Bellas et al.

Fig. 6.10  Final solution to the fifth grade workshop

6  Robotics in Primary School: A Realistic Mathematics Approach 167

Fig. 6.11  Schematic view of the symmetric movement

Fig. 6.12 Representation
of the type of figure the 40 cm
robot must describe in its
movement

40 cm

programming topics, students have learned to reinforce basic blocks as “wait” or

“wait until”. Finally, from a robotics point of view, basic concepts of motor move-
ment and ultrasonic sensing have been used. As it can be seen, the STEM methodol-
ogy is clearly exploited in this type of workshop.

Second Grade Workshop

According to the proposed methodology, students were previously organized into

groups of four members with the specific roles previously assigned. Again, each
group used a round table with chairs, one laptop, and one robot. The class starts with
the teacher presenting the robotics challenge, in this case summarized in the dia-
gram displayed in Fig. 6.12: they must implement a program in Scratch so the robot
can move describing two simple planar figures, a square, and a diamond. Both fig-
ures will be drawn on the floor using masking tape, so the robot must follow this
path. Take into account that these students are younger than those of the previous
168 F. Bellas et al.

workshop, so the challenge is simpler. Following the STEM approach, to reach this
final didactic objective, many other topics will be necessary: natural numbers, dis-
tance and time measurements, simple sequential algorithms, or angles.
As in the previous workshop, once the challenge is clearly understood, the stu-
dent responsible for each role starts preparing his/her own part: turning on the com-
puter and launching the programming environment (ScratchX in this case, which
uses standard Scratch blocks plus specific Robobo blocks), turning on the robot,
preparing the space on the floor, and preparing the additional elements, in this case,
measuring tape, masking tape, a protractor, and scissors. Considering the student’s
age, the teacher must organize the workshop into very simple and clear activities so
the way toward the completion of the challenge can be easily followed. In this work-
shop, five small activities were proposed:
1. Moving forward and backwards: In this case, due to the students’ age, their pro-
gramming skills were very limited. As a consequence, the workshop does not use
the original Scratch blocks but custom blocks that the teacher must first create.
In this first activity, the goal was to move the robot forward and backward by
using the blocks shown in Fig. 6.13. These blocks are custom blocks defined by
the teacher in ScratchX (following the same procedure as in Scratch) as can be
seen in the bottom part of this figure. For instance, the “move forward – seconds”
block makes the robot advance in a straight line per the time specified in the
field. Internally, this custom block contains many interactive elements that
Robobo allows to use. Thus, the robot first says “forward” using the smart-
phone’s speaker, then it changes the robot emotion (facial expression) to “laugh-
ing”, and finally it turns on the frontal LEDs in magenta color. All of these
actions are performed before the robot starts moving with the command “move

Fig. 6.13  Custom blocks for activity 1 created by the teacher (top) and their internal code
(bottom)
6  Robotics in Primary School: A Realistic Mathematics Approach 169

wheels at speed R – L for – seconds”, which is responsible for moving the robot
wheels. When the movement is finished, the robot says “stop”, changes its emo-
tion to the normal state, and all the LEDs back to green. The “move backwards –
seconds” block is similar to this one and it can be observed on the right part of
Fig. 6.13. The specific interactive actions that have been included in this work-
shop are not relevant, and many others could be used. The most important aspect
here is that students perceive the change in the robot state when it moves or when
it stops.
Regarding the activity itself, students must execute the “move forward 1 sec-
onds” block and measure the distance covered by the robot. As in the previous
workshop, to do this they fix a measuring tape on the floor and place the robot at
the beginning, as displayed in Fig. 6.14, so they can measure the real displacement
of the robot. This value was annotated by students in their notebook (see Fig. 6.14),
and then the objective was to adapt the time field in this block to reach a 40 cm
displacement. At this grade level, students may not know the concept of centime-
ters, but it is not relevant because the key aspect here is that of the measurement
unit. That is, the teacher must emphasize that, to compare different distances, it is
required to have a reference one, and the measuring tape has some of them (m, cm,
and mm). So, although they do not understand the difference between these units,
they can use the centimeter marks in order to compare the robot movements. In
this case, as students did not know the rule of three as yet, this adjustment was
carried out by using a simple proportionality rule. In 1 second, Robobo covered
10 cm approximately, so students easily find out that they must use 4 seconds in
order to advance 40 cm. In this grade level, only natural numbers can be used, so
a more precise adjustment through decimal numbers is not possible.
2 . Turning left and right: Once the students know how to move the robot 40 cm in
a straight line, they learn how to turn the robot left and right an arbitrary angle.
To do it, again, the teacher must prepare simplified blocks that allow the robot to
rotate in place an angle that is specified as a parameter. The blocks used in this
activity were those displayed in Fig.  6.15. On the top, the custom blocks are
shown, with their corresponding internal blocks on the bottom. It can be seen
that now the robot says that it is turning left or right, and LEDs corresponding to

Fig. 6.14  Setup created by students to solve the challenge (left). Students writing results in their
notebooks (right)
170 F. Bellas et al.

Fig. 6.15  Custom blocks for activity 2 created by the teacher (top) and their internal code
(bottom)

this side are turned on. In the “move wheels” block, the time has been adjusted
using a simple rule of three, so the robot moves a time proportional to the speci-
fied turning degrees at a speed of 20 on each wheel.
In this activity, students must try 90° right and left, and annotate what hap-
pens, that is, how the robot finishes with respect to its initial orientation. To do it,
as in the previous workshop, each group must fix a protractor on the floor and put
the robot on top of it, as shown in Fig. 6.16. In the specific workshop carried out
at Sigüeiro school, it was the first time the students saw a protractor, and the
concept of rotation degrees was also new to them, but this was not a problem, and
all of them could follow the activity without trouble. As in the previous case, the
specific concept of degree is not as important as the concept of measurement
unit, and how the turns can be compared using it. Once the 90° rotation was
understood, the teacher explained the concept of acute and obtuse angle, and
students had to select a value to obtain such rotations in the robot, one larger than
90° and other smaller than 90°. These specific values were annotated by the stu-
dents at the end of this activity.
3 . Following a square: At this point, students know how to move the robot 40 cm in
a straight line and how to perform different types of rotations. In this activity,
they have to compose these two custom blocks in order to make Robobo follow
a square drawn on the floor with masking tape. Each group must create its own
square of 40 cm per side, implement the program in Scratch, and modify it until
they reach the solution, shown in Fig. 6.17. It is a simple solution that implies
repeating the same pattern of moving and turning four times. Once it is achieved,
students must annotate this solution and the teacher can record the real execution
on video. Figure 6.17 shows the same solution but using a very simple loop with
four repetitions. This program can be explained to the students so they have a
simple and clear introduction to the concept of loop in programming.
6  Robotics in Primary School: A Realistic Mathematics Approach 171

Fig. 6.16  Measurement of turned angles using the protractor

Fig. 6.17  Solution that makes the robot describe a square using (right) and not using (left) a loop

4. Following a diamond: With the square activity already finished, students must
solve the last activity, which is making Robobo follow a diamond drawn on the
floor with masking tape again. In this case, the angle that must be turned on each
vertex must be adjusted by measuring it with the protractor or by simple trial and
error. What is relevant is that students understand that the diamond requires two
turns larger than 90° (obtuse angles) and two smaller than 90° (acute angles).
Figure 6.18 shows the solution obtained by one of the groups, where the different
turns created by the students can be observed.
5. Optional (new figures): As an optional activity, in case the workshop still has
time, or some groups finish the diamond before the class ends, they can draw a
more complex planar figure on the floor and implement the Scratch program to
follow it. For instance, students can try to follow a pentagon, hexagon, etc.
This second workshop example is interesting to show how this robotics method-
ology can be introduced in early stages easily by adapting the topics to the level. In
172 F. Bellas et al.

Fig. 6.18  Example of a final diamond movement obtained by students

this sense, the mathematical concepts are imposed by the official curriculum and the
natural development at this age, so the main work of the teacher lies in adapting the
programming language and in seeking a simple challenge that does not require
advanced programming skills. The main didactical objective in this case was around
the concept of planar figure, which can be reduced to work with linear displace-
ments and turns, so the main concepts that students reinforce from a practical per-
spective are those of distances and angles. The programming topics were very
simple, focused on the use of simple motor commands and sequential operations.
Finally, regarding robotics, at this level, the most important aspect is that students
become familiar with this new tool, understand how to interact with it, and see some
of its limitations.

Motivation Questionnaire Analysis

The objective of this point is to verify whether robots can be considered or not a
motivating tool for the classrooms and the development of mathematical contents in
primary education. Motivation largely determines the performance of students. It
can be said that improving motivation is one of the two main purposes of schooling
as it can influence how and when they learn (Schunk 2001). There is a reciprocal
relationship between motivation, learning, and execution, so motivation influences
learning and execution and what students do and learn affects their motivation
(Pintrich and De Groot 1990). The sample of participants in this case was composed
of all elementary students of the CEIP school in Sigüeiro, a total of 233 students,
with an age range from 6 to 12 years. The instrument used was the questionnaire
presented in Appendix 1.
The analysis is presented through the components of motivation proposed by
Pintrich and de Groot (1990): (1) the value component, (2) the expectation compo-
nent, and (3) the affective-emotional component. The value component would be
related to the question “Why do I do this task?” It would include those motives,
purposes, and reasons why the student would carry out this activity. This is very
6  Robotics in Primary School: A Realistic Mathematics Approach 173

much linked to motivation since, depending on the weight of that reason for oneself,
the motivation will be greater or lesser. The expectation component is related to the
question “Am I capable of performing this task?” It would fit in with individual
perceptions and beliefs about one’s ability to perform the task. If a student believes
that he can do the task and that he hopes to do it well, he is likely to obtain good
performance, involving himself cognitively and persisting for a long time in the task
(Pintrich and Schunk 2006). The affective-emotional component is related to the
question “How do I feel when performing this task?” refers to the feelings and emo-
tions that arise when the activity is performed.

The Value Component

The value component is included in items 1, 8, 10, and 11. The following dimen-
sions are differentiated within the value component: the intrinsic value, the utility
value, and the cost value. The intrinsic value is related to the satisfaction that is
obtained during the activity. Many of the experiences on robotics in the classroom
coincide in that this methodology achieves a high degree of involvement in children,
pointing out the satisfaction that children obtain when carrying out the challenges
as one of the main reasons. From our observations, in general the boys and girls
were very committed to the task and many were implicated in the importance of
correctly carrying out the challenges. This could be observed every time they
checked their experiments and robots, as they placed themselves around or inside
the circuit, attentive to the robot, often nervous. Within this item, Krapp, Hidi, and
Renninger (1992) distinguish situational interest, influenced by factors such as nov-
elty or intensity, and topical interest. Without any doubt, the context created can be
considered as an important motivational factor. The novelty, the playful nature, and
the freedom and responsibility that was perceived generated great interest in the
children and thus great motivation. This was clearly expressed in the questionnaires,
for instance, analyzing the responses of item 10 shown in Fig. 6.19. It displays a bar
graph where the colored scale indicates the grades (from first to sixth) and the y-axis
corresponds to the average value for each grade considering the previously explained
scores (1-nothing, 2-little, 3-something, 4-enough, 5-a lot). So, in this case, Fig. 6.20
clearly shows that students feel they put interest when working with robots, a little
more as the age increases.
Regarding topical interest, it is related to the preferences of people for topics
such as educational robotics, tasks, or contexts. The first question of the question-
naire did not directly ask if robotics was among their interests or tastes, although we
can get an idea about that relationship assuming that those who had robotics among
their interests would consider themselves more knowledgeable about the subject. As
for the results in this case, they were those displayed in Fig.  6.20. The average
response to this item is 2.6, which translated into the established variables would be
between “something” and “a little,” meaning that most students do not have a clear
previous experience.
174 F. Bellas et al.

Fig. 6.19  Results item 10

Fig. 6.20  Results item 1

Regarding the utility value, in item number 11, the results displayed in Fig. 6.21
were obtained. The average value of the answers is close to 5; specifically 89.27%
of the all the children marked “a lot” in their questionnaire.
Finally, we consider the cost value, linked to the negative aspects that imply
commitment to the task. These trade-offs include anticipated negative emotional
states (e.g., anxiety and fear of both failure and success) as well as the amount of
effort needed to succeed in different tasks or activities (Wigfield and Eccles 2000).
In robotics, the realization of challenges is often hindered by the lack of precision
of the robots or difficulty. During the sessions, it is surprising to see that in spite of
the number of mistakes made, the children are still motivated.
6  Robotics in Primary School: A Realistic Mathematics Approach 175

Fig. 6.21  Results item 11

Fig. 6.22  Result items 3 (left) and 6 (right)

The Expectation Component

This component analyzes the perception of their own competence. Associated items
are 3, 4, and 6 in the questionnaire. Many studies, like Harter (1981), state that “stu-
dents with a positive perception show greater interest in learning, like challenges
and, in general, obtain better results in their academic performance.” In order to
analyze this component, we first consider the perception of the students regarding
the difficulty of the challenges. Such difficulty has a great impact in the academic
motivation and it can lead to a higher or lower motivation in the student. In this case,
items 3 and 4 refer to the difficulty of handling the robots, and item 6 refers to the
specific programming language. In both items the results were similar, the great
majority of the students answered to these two questions between “little” and “noth-
ing” (see Fig. 6.22).
176 F. Bellas et al.

The Affective-Emotional Component

The items related to this component are 5 (Fig. 6.23) and 9 (Fig. 6.24). By analyzing
the results, it can be seen how the vast majority of children felt comfortable, that is,
had a positive emotional response, although they felt “something” or “a little” con-
fused at some point in the class.
Going in depth into these responses of the students, a link can be established
between this item 9 and number 7 (“Do you think that programming robots is bor-
ing?”), shown in Fig. 6.25. Eighty-five percent of the children think that program-
ming robots is not boring. The relation of this with the previous item 9 is that
63.33% of those that concluded in their answer that to program the robots was
between a little and much of a pain also felt confused within that interval, that is,
they were between “a little” and “very confused.” So, it can be considered that the
programming process is one of the factors that lead children to feel confused and,
therefore, influence their motivation.
In general, the results show a high motivation of students, although there are
individuals who are not attentive to the task, who let themselves be carried away by
the ludic atmosphere of the classroom. The degree of satisfaction of the students
with the robotics session in which they participated was high. This is observed in the
results of items 2 and 12, displayed at Fig. 6.26. In general, the result of the class
was positive for all levels. The same goes for the twelfth item. In the last question
of the questionnaire, the answers also had a high degree of uniformity, so the data
was concentrated between “enough” and “a lot.”
Within the questionnaires, the students in the first grade were suggested to add a
small phrase to summarize their feeling about it. The great majority of the answers
were related to the questions we have just analyzed. Some of them are shown in
Fig. 6.27, and they clearly reflect the motivation of these young students in favor of
the robot.

Fig. 6.23  Results item 5

6  Robotics in Primary School: A Realistic Mathematics Approach 177

Fig. 6.24  Results item 9

Fig. 6.25  Results item 7

Fig. 6.26  Results of items 2 and 12

178 F. Bellas et al.

What I liked the most was Ro-

bobo because it does many
things and I would like to keep
working with robots

What I liked the most was the

robot race I would like to repeat

I want to keep working with

the robot

What I liked the most was

controlling the Robobo

I like to keep with robotics

I liked very much because

Robobo is very funny

Fig. 6.27  Some impressions about the workshop provided by first grade students

Conclusions

This chapter has presented a practical methodology for introducing robotics in pri-
mary education in a formal way through the subject of mathematics, and using a
realistic mathematics approach, as explained in section “Realistic Mathematics”. In
the section “Proposed Methodology,” the methodology has been detailed in terms of
didactical premises, evaluation, and class organization. Two specific workshops car-
ried out with second and fifth grade students were presented in the section “Workshop
Description,” showing specific challenges that have been solved by students with
high success.
One of the main conclusions of this study is that educational robotics has two
main motivation sources. The first one is the robot itself, which makes students to
be highly interested and curious, as shown in the results of the section “Motivation
Questionnaire Analysis.” But we must be careful with this result, because that moti-
vation can be derived for using a new element in classes, and not by the element
itself. The second source comes from the learning environment used to carry out the
6  Robotics in Primary School: A Realistic Mathematics Approach 179

workshops. It must be a comfortable and open space, where students can interact
between them and build their knowledge in an autonomous way.
After the implementation of this pilot experience in the Sigüeiro center during
the last academic year 2017–2018, the future perspective is very positive with regard
to robotics. The center managers, supported by the teaching staff, will create a
STEM classroom in the main building of the school and will provide it with non-­
expendable material (tables, stools, computers, screen, projector, and others) as well
as an Internet and Wi-Fi connection. On the other hand, for the next academic year,
they aim to teach robotics workshops throughout the course (every two weeks more
or less) in three educational levels: sixth grade infant education, fourth grade pri-
mary education, and sixth grade primary education. The reason for establishing the
workshop in three levels is to guarantee in the long term the opportunity for all the
students of the center to learn about, with, and through robots.
Moreover, the teaching staff of the center, considering the students’ enthusiasm,
supports the continuity and immersion of robotics in the school, as they believe in
the potential of the robot as an educational tool (Badía et al. 2015). To do this, they
propose to continue with robotics in the training plan of the school, thus training
teachers to be able to respond to student demand. In addition, the school manager
decided to request the regional government, XUNTA de Galicia, the increase of the
endowment of educational robots in the school, which at the moment has six mBot
and two Robobo.
Finally, it should be pointed out that, although the workshops were programmed
in coordination with the mathematics tutors, it is not stated whether the experience
had repercussions on the abstraction and comprehension of the mathematical con-
tents. For this reason, with a future perspective, evaluation is highlighted as a prior-
ity element in order to justify the final introduction of this tool in the center to
improve the mathematical knowledge of students.

Appendix 1

The specific questionnaire presented to the students at the end of the workshops is
included here.
180 F. Bellas et al.

References

Alsina, A. (2009). El aprendizaje realista: una contribución de la investigación en educación

matemática a la formación del profesorado (Realistic learning: a contribution of research in
mathematics education to teacher training). In M. J. González, M. T. González, & J. Murillo
(Eds.), Investigación en Educación Matemática XIII (pp. 119–127). Santander: SEIEM.
Alsina, A. (2011). Educación matemática en contexto: de 3 a 6 años (Mathematical education in
context: from 3 to 6 years) Cuadernos de educación n 62. Barcelona: Horsori.
Badia, A., et al. (2015). Factores que influyen en la percepción de los profesores de los beneficios
instruccionales de los medios educativos digitales (factors that influence teachers’ perception
6  Robotics in Primary School: A Realistic Mathematics Approach 181

of the instructional benefits of digital educational media). RELIEVE, 21(2), art. 1. https://doi.
org/10.7203/relieve.21.1.7204.
Bellas, F., et al. (2017). The Robobo project: Bringing educational robotics closer to real-world
applications. In W.  Lepuschitz, M.  Merdan, G.  Koppensteiner, R.  Balogh, & D.  Obdržálek
(Eds.), Robotics in education. RiE 2017. Advances in intelligent systems and computing (Vol.
630). Springer. Switzerland.
Bressan, A., Zolkower, B., & Gallego, F. (2004). Los principios de la educación matemática
realista. (The principles of realistic mathematical education) En Reflexiones Teóricas para la
Educación Matemática. Compilador: Alagia, H. y otros. Edito-rial Libros del Zorzal, Buenos
Aires, Argentina.
Cobb, P., Zhao, Q., & Visnovska, J. (2008). Learning from and adapting the theory of realistic
mathematics education. Éducation et didactique, 2(1), 105–124.
Daniela, L., & Strods, R. (2016). The role of robotics in promoting the learning motivation to
decrease the early school leaving risks, ROBOESL Conference, November 26, 2016. Athens,
Greece: Proceedings Athens, 2016. p.7–13.
Freudenthal, H. (1971). Geometry between the devil and the deep sea. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 3, 413–435.
Freudenthal, H. (1977). Antwoord door Prof. Dr H. Freudenthal na het verlenen van het eredoc-
toraat. (answer by Prof. Dr H. Freudenthal after granting the honorary doctorate). Euclides,
52, 336–338.
Gravemeijer, K., & Tewuel, J. (2000). Hans Freudenthal: A mathematician on didactics and cur-
riculum theory. Curriuculum Studies, 32(6), 777–796.
Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom:
Motivational and informational components. Developmental Psychology, 17(3), 300–312.
Karampinis, T. (2018). Activities and experiences through RoboESL project opportunities.
International Journal of Smart Education and Urban Society, 9(1), 13–24. https://doi.
org/10.4018/IJSEUS.
Karkazis, P., Balourdos, P., Pitsiakos, G., Asimakopoulos, K., Saranteas, I., Spiliou, T., &
Roussou, D. (2018). To water or not to water. The Arduino approach for the irrigation of a
field. International Journal of Smart Education and Urban Society, 9(1), 25–36. https://doi.
org/10.4018/IJSEUS.
Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K.  A. (1992). Interest, learning, and development. In K.  A.
Renninger, S.  Hidi, & A.  Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development
(pp. 3–25). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Martínez, M. A., Da Valle, N., Zolkower, B., & Bressan, A. (2002). La relevancia de los contextos
en los contextos en la Resolución de Problemas de Matemática: una experiencia para docentes
y sus capacitadores (The relevance of contexts in Mathematical Problem Solving contexts: an
experience for teachers and their trainers). Paradigma, 23(1), 59–94.
Moro, M., Agatolio, F., & Menegatti, E. (2018). The development of robotic enhanced curricula
for the RoboESL project: Overall evaluation and expected outcomes. International Journal of
Smart Education and Urban Society (IJSEUS), 9(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSEUS.
Peters, B. I. (2016). Realistic mathematics education and professional development: A case study
of the experiences of primary school mathematics teachers in Namibia (Doctoral dissertation).
Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch.
Pinto Salamanca, M. L., Barrera Lombana, N., & Pérez Holguín, J. (2010). Uso de la robótica edu-
cativa como herramienta en los procesos de enseñanza. Ingeniería Investigación y Desarrollo
(Use of educational robotics as a tool in teaching processes. Engineering Research and
Development), I2+D, 10(1), 15–23.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of
classroom academia performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
Pintrich, P.  R., & Schunk, D.  H. (2006). Motivación en contextos educativos: teoría, investig-
ación y aplicaciones (motivation in educational contexts: Theory, research and applications).
Madrid: Pearson Educación S.A.
182 F. Bellas et al.

Scaradozzi, D., Sorbi, L., Pedale, A., Valzano, M., & Vergine, C. (2015). Teaching robotics at
the primary school: An innovative approach. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174,
3838–3846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1122.
Schunk, D.  H. (2001). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.).
Pearson Education. Essex, UK.
Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2000). Mathematics education in the Netherlands: A guided tour.
Freudenthal Institute Cd-rom for ICME9. Utrecht: Utrecht University.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.  S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
Chapter 7
Crab Robot: A Comparative Study
Regarding the Use of Robotics in STEM
Education

Icleia Santos, Elaine Cristina Grebogy, and Luciano Frontino de Medeiros

Abstract  Educational robotics has proved to be a propulsive pedagogical tool for

the recovery of students’ interest, creativity, imagination, and logical reasoning, as
well as assisting in the development of critical thinking, motor coordination, team-
work, and problem solving through hits and errors. The objective of this study was
to verify the effectiveness of the use of Robotics as a pedagogical tool through a
qualitative–quantitative research study with students in the fourth year of primary
education, in the science discipline in an elementary public school in São José dos
Pinhais (South of Brazil), with content on invertebrate animals. The study was car-
ried out in two groups of the fourth year. Both underwent initial diagnostic evalua-
tions, and one received the content in a traditional way, while the other followed the
same planning but with the intervention of Robotics in parallel. The qualitative
analysis considered the students’ reports after the development of the activity.
Regarding the quantitative analysis, we used the statistical tests of hypotheses,
Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney medians and Student’s t-test, for comparison of means,
from which it was possible to show that the group that received the test content with
robotics had a better performance in relation to the appropriation of the content.

Keywords  Educational robotics · Sustainable robotics · Meaningful learning ·

STEM education · Elementary school

Introduction

Facing the need to fulfill a list of contents prescribed in the curricula, in many cases,
traditional teaching activities can limit the thinking, creating, and imagining that is
so necessary in elementary schools. In this scenario, the school must use some
means to encourage students’ interest with respect to the contents that are part of the
curriculum, always trying to make the most motivating classroom.

I. Santos · E. C. Grebogy · L. F. de Medeiros (*)

International University Center UNINTER, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 183

L. Daniela (ed.), Smart Learning with Educational Robotics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19913-5_7
184 I. Santos et al.

Motivation is one of the main factors that determine the behavior of human
beings. For Perrenoud (2000), the first step to learning is motivation. Classes that
include play activities are more enjoyable, captivating, and enable meaningful
learning by allowing the expression of the wishes and desires of students.
In this perspective, we sought to achieve this motivational aspect with the use of
robotics, in addition to the other benefits mentioned previously, so that there is a
better performance of the students and a greater involvement of these in the propos-
als of classes brought by the teachers. Robotics consists of an educational tool that
has a great and important potential to learn through the construction and testing of
educational robots (Romero 2016). STEM-based robotic projects can be found in
the literature (STEM–Science, Technology, Engineering and Math), exploring low-­
cost solutions, closer to real-world applications, from primary to high school levels
(Bellas et al. 2018; Daros et al. 2016; Karkazis et al. 2018; Moro et al. 2018; Saleiro
et al. 2013; Santos and De Medeiros 2017).
However, despite the wide availability of papers reporting the application of
robotics in the classroom, few investigations seek to show the effectiveness of inter-
ventions in a quantitative way, analyzing the evaluation of learning by the students
involved and applying tests statistical tools or analysis tools. A preliminary research
study in the CAPES1 Journal Portal with the keywords “robotics”, “sciences”, and
“education” revealed only 16 double-reviewed articles, none of which is related to
the application of robotics in science education.
Another fact pointed out by some authors is the lack of research that addresses
the use of some kind of quantitative methodology in the research community on
robotics. Although a number of benefits are achieved in terms of educational and
motivational aspects, more rigorous research on the quantitative approach is lacking
(Campos 2017, p. 2117). Methods of data analysis involving numbers can be quite
useful in understanding various educational problems. It can enrich the understand-
ing of events, facts, and processes by combining qualitative data with the quantita-
tive (Gatti 2004, p. 13).
Thus, this chapter details a causal–comparative research study in a 4th grade ele-
mentary school class in the science discipline, developed in a municipal public school
in São José dos Pinhais (South of Brazil), analyzing the activities developed with the
“Crab” robot and verifying the effectiveness of such practices. To achieve this goal,
we present a preamble on robotics applied to education, followed by a description of
the methodology adopted for the development of this work, the presentation and dis-
cussion of the quantitative and qualitative results, and the final considerations.

Educational Robotics and Meaningful Learning

According to Mataric (2014, p. 19), a robot is an autonomous system that exists in

physical reality, being able to sense its external environment as well as act on it to
reach objectives. Therefore, robotics is considered the science that studies the

 http://www.periodicos.capes.gov.br/
1
7  Crab Robot: A Comparative Study Regarding the Use of Robotics in STEM Education 185

assembly and programming of robots, which requires and combines knowledge

from several areas, thus making it a multidisciplinary science. Robotics began to be
used in the first quarter of the twentieth century, from the need to increase productiv-
ity and improve product quality. It is important to note that robotics is a very useful
tool that can be considered for other types of tasks. Its use has surpassed industrial
applications and expanded to other areas, including education (Lima et al. 2012).
As an effort to understand how children learn and think, Seymour Papert applied
the principles of robotics in education, using the computer to provide an attractive
facilitator in the process of learning mathematics for children. From the perspective
of Papert’s Constructionism, the student is seen as the protagonist of his learning,
building his own knowledge through some tool (Papert 2008). In this way, the inten-
tion of eventually bringing automated devices into classroom learning is that they
are cognitive artifacts, which students use to explore and express their own ideas.
They would be “an-object-to-think-with” (Papert 1985).
In education, the use of robotics tends to generate a number of benefits, such as
improving the quality of learning and new participatory methodologies. For stu-
dents, it is an excellent tool for exercising creativity, studying, and practicing con-
cepts related to different disciplines (Torcato 2012).
As a complementary tool to teaching, it can be said that there is a better signifi-
cance of the contents when they are combined with the use of robotics. When the
student experiences the theoretical concepts in practice, they become more mean-
ingful, giving him greater intellectual gain, as well as being a fun way to get stu-
dents to discover the workings of technology (Santos 2017).
In order to provide such content significance, this work is also based on David
Ausubel’s theory of meaningful learning. From a general concept, pre-existing in
the cognitive structure of the student, the construction of new knowledge relevant to
the relationship of new information is tied to the previous concepts. These prior
concepts are called anchors, anchorage points or anchorages. The result of such a
relationship of the material to the cognitive structure is reflected in the psychologi-
cal meaning that also embodies elements of the student’s way of being. Therefore,
for meaningful learning, the material of support must have the potential of significa-
tion for the student (Ausubel 2000, p. 1). Robotics is inserted in a peculiar way in
this context because it manifests high potential of content significance for the
apprentices.
For the development of the robotics application in the context of sustainability
advocated in this work, new and reused materials, such as bottle caps, EVA (ethyl-­
vinyl-­acetate rubber sheets), wires, DC motors, switches, and 3 V batteries, were
used. The engine to provide the Crab robot’s motion effect was removed from old or
non-operational cell phones and tablets.
The pedagogical goal for the construction of these robots was to awaken stu-
dents’ attention and creativity, promoting the motivation to learn certain content in
a pleasant and enchanting way, as well as encouraging the reuse of materials that
would simply be discarded. Thus, in addition to developing the aforementioned
capacities, we also take advantage of the opportunity to raise awareness of the pres-
ervation of the environment. In addition to the appropriation of the proposed con-
tent, one can teach the principles of robotics and introduce students to some
186 I. Santos et al.

technological knowledge through which they can learn the operation of motors,
batteries, and on-off switches. The democratization of technological knowledge is
promoted by using low-cost materials.

Methodology

This chapter considers a descriptive and causal–comparative research study

(Moreira and Caleffe 2008), in order to analyze the association between learning
and the use of robotics as a pedagogical tool for teaching science, in the content
“Invertebrate Animals”, in two classes of the 4th year of Elementary School of a
Municipal Public School in São José dos Pinhais. The classes A (experimental
group) and B (control group) have respectively 24 and 27 students, with ages
between 9 and 11 years old. The research followed ethical regulations, with all stu-
dents involved having acceptance terms signed by their parents.
Based on a qualitative and quantitative approach, besides the use of hypothesis
tests to compare the means of the evaluations of the studied groups, it was sought to
capture the phenomenon under study from the perspective of the people involved.
The relevant points of view were considered, such as the importance given to the
process and not only to the results, as well as the interpretive search for meanings
from the subjects’ perception in the observed context (Godoy 1995).
Table 7.1 shows the stages of development for the Crab robot project, including
the application related to the experimental and control groups.
Phase 1 contemplated the collection of the necessary materials for the construc-
tion of the robots. There was a successful collective action at the school for unused
cell phones, with strong community participation, from which the vibration motors
were removed and later used to give movement to the robots. In phase 2, a diagnos-
tic evaluation in both classes A (experimental group) and B (control group) was
applied, in order to investigate students’ previous knowledge about the proposed
content by means of a diagnostic evaluation. In phase 3, both classes received the
content in the traditional way from the teacher, using texts on blackboards, in

Table 7.1  Phases of pedagogical proposal for the Crab robot

Phase Experimental group (class A) Control group (class B)
1 Collective action in the school to collect unused waste or recyclable material needed for
the project.
2 Diagnostic evaluation to measure the previous knowledge on invertebrate animals of the
students through a written exam.
3 Teaching of invertebrate animals and proposal of Crab robot Teaching of invertebrate
construction. animals.
4 Evaluation of learning through a written exam.
5 Proposal of Crab robot
construction
6 Reports and testimonials about students’ experiences.
7  Crab Robot: A Comparative Study Regarding the Use of Robotics in STEM Education 187

textbooks, and illustrative images, besides talking and discussion sessions about the
subject. However, for group A, the proposal to construct a robot of an invertebrate
animal (a Crab) was presented and developed. Phase 4 included a subsequent assess-
ment in class A and class B to identify student learning differences. In phase 5, with
the intention of leveling both classes, group B was also exposed to the construction
of the same robot, but at this moment, without the intention to measure quantitative
results. In the last phase, the reports and testimonials were collected from the stu-
dents to do the qualitative analysis.
The work with the robots lasted approximately 12 h, distributed in four classes.
Each robot used by the students needed the following materials for its assembly:
• EVA circles
• Flexible wire
• Two black beads
• One 3 V vibration motor (taken from unused cell phones)
• One 3 V button battery
• 20 cm of 0.8 mm2 electric wire
• One on/off switch
It was also necessary to use the following tools: soldering iron, soldering tin, hot
glue gun, hot glue sticks, pliers, and scissors.
The assembly of the prototype was partially done by the teacher, especially at the
times using tools, such as hot glue, soldering iron and pliers, always thinking about
the student’s safety. The teacher set up the electric circuit outside of class hours,
following the electrical scheme shown in Fig. 7.1. After assembly and testing, the
electric circuit was brought to the classroom and was available for the students to
manipulate.
The students manipulated the materials and had the opportunity to see the opera-
tion of the vibration engine outside a cell phone and understand its function. They
assembled the prototype body, using EVA circumferences and pieces of flexible
wire for the legs, tweezers to put eye beads, as well as inserted the electric assembly
into the body of the prototype ensuring that he stood balanced on his paws. At the
end, the students were also encouraged to baptize their creation with a unique name,

Fig. 7.1  Electric circuit

used in the Crab robot
S1

3V
BAT M1
M cc
188 I. Santos et al.

Fig. 7.2  Photo of the Crab

robot totally assembled

which provided a feeling that the robots belonged to their creators. The assembled
and ready-to-use prototype is shown in Fig. 7.2.

Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis

Regarding qualitative results, according to Table 7.1, in phase 6 the students were

asked to write a text reporting their own experience with the Crab robot. There was
a unanimous request that more classes using robotics should be presented in the
school and that these would be extended to other classes and contents. In addition,
it is worth mentioning the students’ interest in assembling new creations based on
the knowledge they had acquired. The students brought several suggestions for
future work.
The contents of student’s reports were processed to create a “word cloud” in
order to show the most significant terms used in their writings. The result with the
words present in 80% or more of the texts is shown in Fig. 7.3.
For the students, the experience of “giving life” to their creation was remarkable
and a lot of fun “it’s cool to play with my crab robot, the vibration makes him move
in a very fun and very creative way” (real testimony of a student). Another issue
noticed in the students’ report was the reinforcement in their self-esteem: “I always
wanted to do a robot, and I still do not believe I got it” (a student’s actual testimony).
Another student reports that “before he was just a model, but I made him walk and
turn it into a robot.”
Figure 7.3 is a word cloud extracted from the student’s reports. One can notice a
series of words related to positive reception from the students. Another interesting
finding is the relationship between the words “robot” and “robotics” with those
related to the concepts of the theme worked (“crustacean”, “crab”, “crab-uçá” – a
local specimen of crab), reinforcing the context of meaningful learning.
7  Crab Robot: A Comparative Study Regarding the Use of Robotics in STEM Education 189

Fig. 7.3  Word cloud of student’s written reports

For the quantitative analysis, the individual results of each student (the grades
obtained from the written exams) were collected and tabulated during evaluation.
The information was recorded and processed using various Microsoft® Excel soft-
ware tools and R statistical software. From the construction of the histograms of the
classes and the boxplot graph of the statistical quantities, the Shapiro–Wilk
Normality Test was applied to verify that the data have normal distribution.
Subsequently, Hypothesis Tests were applied to identify if the means calculated
from the grades were equal between the classes and internally in the classes.
Figure 7.4 shows the flow of application of the Hypothesis Tests used here. In the
case of the distribution being normal, Snedecor’s F-test was applied to determine
the homogeneity of the variances and then the appropriate Student’s t-test was
chosen.
Aiming to reduce uncertainty on the statistical techniques used and to validate
the process, an incremental search was performed involving the terms related to the
techniques, strictly in the educational area. From this search, nine peer-reviewed
articles were considered near the statistical methodology planned here. These works
are described in Fig. 7.2, detailing the objective, method or tools, statistical tech-
niques, and the sample size.
Table 7.2 shows that the methodology in most of the studies used diagnostic and
subsequent evaluations, adequately characterizing the comparative causal study,
combined with the use of experimental and control groups and the use of a question-
naire. As for the statistical techniques employed, the Student’s t-test is the most
used, from which the adoption of the normal distribution in a broader manner is
assumed. Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney and Shapiro–Wilk tests are also mentioned in
some cases. Sample size also varies, in a range from 31 to 359 participants.
Therefore, the proposal presented here is close to these works, regarding the quan-
titative methodology employed and properly grounded by the use of statistical tech-
niques adopted in this work.
190 I. Santos et al.

Fig. 7.4  Flow adopted for Hypotheses Tests

The comparison of the evaluations results before and after the content’s presenta-
tion is visualized in the boxplot graph of Fig. 7.5. This type of graph allows a visual
comprehension of position, dispersion, asymmetry, tails, and discrepant data
(Bussab and Morettin 2017, p. 57). Students’ means grades are normalized in the
range [0,1]. It can be noticed that there is a greater dispersion of the notes in the
previous evaluations and smaller in the posterior ones in both classes. It is also note-
worthy that in the second evaluation, class A has an average value higher than class
B. Table 7.3 shows the means and standard deviations obtained for each class at
each moment.
Knowing that the mean grades of the written exam for class A were higher than
those for class B, the next step is to determine if this increase obtained in the means
of the evaluations is statistically significant. The hypothesis tests is applied for this
purpose, first referring to the determination of the data distribution’s characteristic
and then making the comparison tests themselves.
Before applying a hypothesis test for the comparison between classes A and B,
it is necessary to verify whether the scores constitute a normal distribution or not.
7  Crab Robot: A Comparative Study Regarding the Use of Robotics in STEM Education 191

Table 7.2  Kinds of statistical tests used in some articles

Sample
Article Objective Methods Techniques size
Bhagat et al. Effectiveness of the inverted Diagnostic and Student’s t-test 82
(2016) classroom in the learning of posterior evaluation;
mathematical concepts control and
experimental groups
Johnson and Comparison of teaching Control and Student’s t-test 169
Mighten strategies: Class notes experimental groups
(2005) combined with group
discussion × class only
Dilshad et al. Study of the impact of the use Diagnostic and Student’s t-test 60
(2016) of computer simulation in the posterior evaluation;
learning of secondary school control and
biology students experimental groups
Pérez-Marín Comparison of academic Diagnostic and Student’s t-test 162
et al. (2016) performance and level of posterior evaluation;
engagement in active learning control and
and collaborative knowledge experimental groups
construction
Wolbers et al. Comparison of writing Diagnostic and Wilcoxon– 31
(2018) performance of elementary posterior evaluation; Mann–
students receiving interactive control and Whitney’s test
and strategic writing experimental groups
instructions
Ramezani-­ Effectiveness of math Questionnaire Wilcoxon– 359
monfared teachers in student learning in Mann–
et al. (2015) terms of knowledge and Whitney’s test
understanding
Hohman Determination of students’ Diagnostic and Student’s t-test 137
et al. (2015) basic skills through the use of posterior evaluation;
motivational interviewing questionnaire
Mayer et al. Research of the active Control and Student’s t-test, 70
(2018) involvement of biostatistics experimental groups Wilcoxon–
students in the data collection Mann–
process for improvement in Whitney’s test
tests and motivation
Sungur and Effectiveness of problem-­ Questionnaire Shapiro–Wilk’s 61
Tekkaya based learning in relation to test
(2006) traditional instructional
approaches

For this, the normality test of Shapiro–Wilk (Bielefeldt et al. 2012) is used. If the
distribution is normal, then parametric Student’s T-test can be used to compare
medians. Otherwise, the nonparametric Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test should be
used for comparison (Larson and Farber 2015). By means of the Shapiro–Wilk nor-
mality test, the hypotheses are defined as follows:
192 I. Santos et al.

Fig. 7.5  Boxplot comparative graph with the grades of classes A and B, according to the results
obtained in the diagnostic evaluations before and after the content’s presentation

Table 7.3  Summary of statistical measurement of the classes

Classes A (Before) B (Before) A (After) B (After)
Average 0.6583 0.6212 0.7821 0.7259
Standard deviation 0.2416 0.2742 0.1389 0.1409

• Null Hypothesis: The sample comes from a normal distribution, with signifi-
cance level p ≥ 0.1.
• Alternative Hypothesis: The sample does not come from a normal distribution,
with significance level p < 0.1.
The results are shown in Table 7.4. As one can check, it is not possible to state
that the diagnostic evaluation follows a normal distribution, as well as in the
­evaluation after the written exam, there is no evidence that justifies the rejection of
the null hypothesis.
The Shapiro–Wilk test can be supplemented with a visual analysis of the histo-
grams as shown in Fig. 7.6. The histograms obtained from the diagnostic evaluation
(class A and B, before) do not represent an approximate distribution of the normal,
whereas the data related to the posterior evaluation seem to indicate such approxi-
mation. Figure 7.7 shows another graph that can aid in the interpretation of the data,
regarding the approximation of a normal distribution, the Q–Q (quantile–quantile)
7  Crab Robot: A Comparative Study Regarding the Use of Robotics in STEM Education 193

Table 7.4  Shapiro–Wilk normality tests

Shapiro–Wilk
test Class A (before) Class B (before) Class A (after) Class B (after)
Statistics W 0.91224 0.84143 0.94795 0.97542
p-value 0.03946 0.00078 0.24460 0.74770
Result Alternative Alternative Null Null
hypothesis hypothesis hypothesis hypothesis

Class A (Before) Class A (After)

8 10

8 10
9
7 7
Frequency

6 6

Frequency
6

6
4 4
4

2 4
1 1 1
2

2
0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Grades Grades

Class B (Before) Class B (After)

8 10

11
12

7
Frequency

6
Frequency

7 5
0 2 4 6 8

4
4 3
4

3 2
2
2
0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Grades Grades

Fig. 7.6  Classes’ histograms

plot. These graphs show the characteristic of normality if the samples are close to
the diagonal line representing the normal curve (Bussab and Morettin 2017, p. 55).
One can notice the greater approximation of classes’ grades in the posterior evalua-
tion than in the diagnosis phase. Thus, for the hypothesis tests, the diagnostic
­evaluations were evaluated from non-parametric tests, whereas in the later evalua-
tions, parametric tests were used.
In this way, the next step is to perform the hypothesis tests for the comparisons.
Two types of comparison were made: (i) internal comparison: the class (A or B) is
compared to itself, whether at the diagnostic evaluation (before teaching the con-
tents) or at the written exam (after teaching the contents); (ii) external comparison:
194 I. Santos et al.

Class A (Before) Class A (After)

0.9
0.8
Samples

Samples
0.7
0.4

0.5
0.0

-2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2

Class B (Before) Class B (After)

0.8

0.9
Samples

Samples
0.7
0.4

0.5
0.0

-2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2

Fig. 7.7  Q–Q plots

class A is compared with class B, considering both evaluation events (before and
after teaching the contents).
For the internal comparison, because one of the distributions for each class
(A and B) was characterized as not normal, for medians comparison the Wilcoxon–
Mann–Whitney’s (WMW) non-parametric test was used (Larson and Farber 2015).
For the external comparison, for the diagnostic evaluation of classes A and B
(before the application of the contents), the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test was also
used. For the comparison related to the posterior evaluation, since the distribution is
assumed to be normal, the Student’s t-test was used for comparison of means
(Bussab and Morettin 2017), assuming that the average of class A is higher than the
average of class B (as shown in Table 7.3, 0.6583 against 0.6212).
The hypotheses for the WMW Test, in this case are:
• Null Hypothesis: medians equal, with significance level p ≥ 0.1.
• Alternative Hypothesis: medians not equal, significance level p < 0.1.
For the Student’s T Test, the hypotheses are defined as follows:
• Null Hypothesis: the average of class A is not bigger than the average of class B,
with significance level p ≥ 0.1.
• Alternative Hypothesis: the average of class A is bigger than the average of class
B, with significance level p < 0.1.
7  Crab Robot: A Comparative Study Regarding the Use of Robotics in STEM Education 195

Two types of Student t-tests can be performed; one assumes the sample variances
are the same and the other that they are not. The Snedecor’s F-test is used to verify
the homogeneity of the variances (Bussab and Morettin 2017, pp. 379–380). After
calculating the W Statistic, the hypotheses tests for the comparison between classes
A and B become:
• Null Hypothesis: the variances for classes A and B are homogenous, with signifi-
cance level p ≥ 0.1.
• Alternative Hypothesis: the variances for classes A and B are not homogenous,
with significance level p < 0.1.
Table 7.5 shows the result for Snedecor’s F-test, with value p  =  0.9504, that
attests the homogeneity of variances between both classes. Thus, the Student’s t-test
is applied comparing the averages supposing the same variances.
Table 7.6 shows that the results of the internal comparisons of grades’ medians
demonstrated the alternative hypothesis, that is, even in the diagnostic evaluation
there is no way to affirm that the medians of the grades were equal according to
statistical criteria. Regarding the external comparison after the diagnostic evalua-
tion, there is no evidence to reject the null hypothesis, with the medians being statis-
tically equal. Regarding the external comparison after the posterior evaluation, the
last column of the table shows that the average of class A is higher than the average
of class B, statistically evidencing the increment in the evaluation due to the applica-
tion of robotics with the pedagogical proposal, with a level of significance of 0.1.
A final point to be made regarding the quantitative analysis refers to the value
adopted for the level of significance (the p-value item) of 0.1. According to Cramer
and Howitt (2004, p. 151), the probability level of 0.05 was historically adopted as
an arbitrary choice and has been accepted as a reasonable choice in most circum-
stances of use. However, the same authors state that if there is a reason for varying
the level of significance, it is acceptable to do so. Thus, a first justification for the
use of a value of 0.1 is given by the fact that any gain related to learning in the
Brazilian public educational context, in a causal–comparative research study, is
always desirable under any circumstance.
Another justification may be because quantitative, causal–comparative research
involving educational robotics is still incipient and that it would be necessary to
establish a larger body of related research for an in-depth analysis, including discus-
sion of a value for the level of significance for broad use. Therefore, establishment
of any criterion for assessing the level of significance that should be properly
adopted is still in the early stage.

Table 7.5  Results of Snedecor’s F-test Classes A × B (after)

Snedecor’s F-test for
Statistic F 0.97156
homogeneity of variances
p-value 0.9504
Result Null hypothesis
196 I. Santos et al.

Table 7.6  Results of Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney and Student’s t hypotheses tests

Internal External
Class A Class B Class A × B Class A × B
Comparison (before vs. after) (before vs. after) (before) (after)
Test WMW WMW WMW Student’s t
Statistic W 205 306 347.5 –
Statistic t – – – 1.4315
p-value 2.867e-05 1.886e-05 0.6637 0.0793
Results Alternative Alternative Null hypothesis Alternative
hypothesis hypothesis hypothesis

Conclusion

The use of robotics, as a pedagogical tool, has an inherent potential to motivate

students in the classroom when combined with the contents to be taught. The work
described here enabled us to highlight the improvement obtained, both in a quali-
tative way, evidenced from the positive reports of the students, as well as in a
quantitative way, from the result of statistical tests. One of the results obtained
with this work was to define an evaluation methodology that also contemplates
the quantitative aspects and that could be used later in new interventions.
It is noteworthy that the Crab robot design used has very low complexity, is
really inexpensive, has quick application, and enables students to engage in a
project that also reuses materials, making an appropriate connection between the
science discipline and environmental education. One can also identify that the con-
struction of new knowledge in this context occurs in a playful and affective way,
as can be noticed from some reports described here.
Furthermore, it is important to note that, in the comparative methodology adopted
here, care was taken that both the experimental and control groups were equalized
and received the same content with respect to the developed robotic activity, except
for moments that allowed the comparisons that were exposed. Later applications
of robotics, still in the context of STEM education, will naturally contemplate
the construction of robots based on other types of animals.

References

Ausubel, D. (2000). Aquisição e Retenção de Conhecimentos: Uma Perspectiva Cognitiva [The

Acquisition and Retention of Knowledge: a Cognitive View]. Plátano Edições Técnicas, 35.
Bellas, F., Naya, M., Varela, G., Llamas, L., Prieto, A., Becerra, J. C., et al. (2018). The robobo
project: Bringing educational robotics closer to real-world applications. In W.  Lepuschitz,
M.  Merdan, G.  Koppensteiner, R.  Balogh, & D.  Obdržálek (Eds.), Robotics in education
(pp. 226–237). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Bhagat, K. K., Chang, C., & Chang, C. (2016). The impact of the flipped classroom on mathematics
concept learning in high school. Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 134–142.
7  Crab Robot: A Comparative Study Regarding the Use of Robotics in STEM Education 197

Bielefeldt, V., Torman, L., Coster, R., & Riboldi, J. (2012). Normalidade de variáveis: Métodos
de verificação e comparação de alguns testes não-paramétricos por simulação [Normality of
variables: Methods of verification and comparison of some non-parametric tests by simula-
tion.]. Clinical & Biomedical Research, 32(2), 227–234.
Bussab, W. O., & Morettin, P. A. (2017). Estatística Básica (9a ed.) [Basic Statistics]. São Paulo:
Saraiva.
Campos, F. R. (2017). Robótica Educacional no Brasil: Questões em aberto, desafios e perspec-
tivas futuras [Robotics in Brazil: Open questions, challenges and future perspectives]. Revista
Iberoamericana de Estudos Em Educação, 12(4), 2108–2121. https://doi.org/10.21723/riaee.
v12.n4.out./dez.2017.8778.
Cramer, D., & Howitt, D. L. (2004). The SAGE dictionary of statistics: A practical resource
for students in the social sciences. London: SAGE Publications Ltd..
Daros, C.  R., da Rosa, C.  T. W., & Darroz, L.  M. (2016). A robótica educacional como apoio
para aulas de ciências no ensino fundamental: Relato de atividade envolvendo o estudo das
cores [Educational robotics as support for science classes in elementary school: Activity report
involving the study of colors]., 8(1), 57–68.
Dilshad, M., Malik, R., Tabassum, R., & Latif, M. I. (2016). Impact of computer simulation on
the achievement of biology students at secondary level. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences,
36(2), 1205–1214.
Gatti, B.  A. (2004). Estudos quantitativos em educação [Quantitative studies in education].
Educação e Pesquisa, 30(1), 11–30. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ep/v30n1/
a02v30n1.pdf.
Godoy, A.  S. (1995). Pesquisa Qualitativa: tipos fundamentais [Qualitative Research: funda-
mental types]. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 35(3), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9781107415324.004.
Hohman, M., Pierce, P., & Barnett, E. (2015). Motivational interviewing: An evidence-based prac-
tice for improving student practice skills. Journal of Social Work Education, 51(August 2013),
287–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2015.1012925.
Johnson, J. P., & Mighten, A. (2005). A comparison of teaching strategies: Lecture notes combined
with structured group discussion versus lecture only. Journal of Nursing Education, 44(7),
319–322.
Karkazis, P., Balourdos, P., Pitsiakos, G., Asimakopoulos, K., Saranteas, I., Spiliou, T., & Roussou,
D. (2018). Application of educational robotics on an automated water management system.
International Journal of Smart Education and Urban Society (IJSEUS), 9(1), 25–36. https://
doi.org/10.4018/IJSEUS.2018010103.
Larson, R., & Farber, B. (2015). Estatística Aplicada (6a ed.) [Applied statistics]. São Paulo:
Pearson Education do Brasil.
Lima, W. F., Paulo, J., Ic, C., & Garcia, T. M. (2012). A robótica educacional no ensino de Química,
elaboração, construção e aplicação de um robô imóvel no ensino de conceitos relacionados à
tabela periódica [Educational robotics in the teaching of Chemistry, elaboration, construction
and application of an immovable robot in the teaching of concepts related to the periodic table].
XVI Encontro Nacional de Ensino de Química.
Mataric, M. (2014). Introdução à Robótica [The Robotics Primer]. São Paulo: UNESP/Blucher.
Mayer, B., Braisch, U., Meule, M., Allgoewer, A., Richter, S., & Muche, R. (2018). Effect of
data self-collection as an activating teaching method in a statistical software course in medical
biometry – A pilot study. GMS Journal for Medical Education, 35(1), 1–14.
Moreira, H., & Caleffe, L.  G. (2008). In Lamparina (Ed.), Metodologia da Pesquisa para o
Professor Pesquisador (2a. Ed) [Research Methodology for the Researcher Professor]. Rio de
Janeiro: Lamparina.
Moro, M., Agatolio, F., & Menegatti, E. (2018). The development of robotic enhanced curri-
cula for the RoboESL project: Overall evaluation and expected outcomes. International
Journal of Smart Education and Urban Society, 9(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.4018/
IJSEUS.2018010105.
198 I. Santos et al.

Papert, S. (1985). LOGO: Computadores e Educação  [Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and

Powerful Ideas]. São Paulo: Brasiliense.
Papert, S. (2008). A Máquina das Crianças: repensando a escola na era da informática  [The
Children's Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer]. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
Pérez-Marín, D., Hijón-Neira, R., & Santacruz, L. (2016). Active learning through collaborative
knowledge building using an automatic free-text scoring system in a b-learning environment.
Behavior & Information Technology, 35(7), 572–585.
Perrenoud, P. (2000). Dez Novas Competências para Ensinar  [Ten New Competencies for
Teaching]. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
Ramezani-monfared, N., Shahvarani, A., & Behzadi, M.  H. (2015). The impact of math-
ematics teachers “effectiveness on students” learning in the two realms of: Knowledge and
understanding. Mathematics Education Trends and Research, 2015(1), 35–42. https://doi.
org/10.5899/2015/metr-00072.
Romero, M. (2016). La Robotique Pédagogique dans les Écoles de Québec [Pedagogical
Robotics in the Quebec Schools]. Retrieved from http://www.quebecnumerique.com/
robotique-dans-les-ecoles-de-quebec/.
Saleiro, M., Carmo, B., Rodrigues, J. M. F., & du Buf, J. M. H. (2013). A low-cost classroom-­
oriented educational robotics system (pp. 74–83). Springer International Publishing. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_8.
Santos, I. (2017). Contribuição da Robótica como Ferramenta Pedagógica no Ensino da
Matemática no Terceiro Ano do Ensino Fundamental [Contribution of Robotics as a Pedagogical
Tool in Teaching Mathematics in the Third Year of Primary Education]. Curitiba-PR: Centro
Universitário Internacional UNINTER.  Retrieved from https://www.uninter.com/mestrado/
mestrado-profissional-em-educacao-e-novas-tecnologias-dissertacoes-defendidas/.
Santos, I., & De Medeiros, L. F. (2017). Robótica com Materiais Recicláveis e a Aprendizagem
Significativa no Ensino da Matemática: Estudo Experimental no Ensino Fundamental [Robotics
with Recyclable Materials and Significant Learning in Mathematics Teaching: Experimental
Study in Elementary Education]. In Anais do Workshop de Informática na Escola (pp. 275–
284). WIE. https://doi.org/10.5753/cbie.wie.2017.275.
Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Effects of problem-based learning and traditional instruction on.
Journal of Educational Research, 99(5), 307–317. Retrieved from pre-test-post-test; ANCOVA.
Torcato, P. (2012). O Robô ajuda? Estudo do Impacto do uso de Robótica Educativa como
Estratégia de Aprendizagem na disciplina de Aplicações Informáticas B [Does the Robot help?
Study of the Impact of the use of Educational Robotics as a Learning Strategy in the discipline
of Computer Applications B]. Congresso Internacional de TIC e Educação, 2578–2583.
Wolbers, K. A., Dostal, H. M., Graham, S., Cihak, D., Kilpatrick, J. R., & Saulsburry, R. (2018).
The writing performance of elementary students receiving strategic and interactive writ-
ing instruction. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, (July), 385–398. https://doi.
org/10.1093/deafed/env022.
Chapter 8
Innovative Tools for Teaching Marine
Robotics, IoT and Control Strategies Since
the Primary School

David Scaradozzi, Lorenzo Cesaretti, Laura Screpanti, Daniele Costa,

Silvia Zingaretti, and Mariantonietta Valzano

Abstract  Digital skills are becoming increasingly central to the educational policy
of every country and educational systems are facing new challenges in the era of the
Fourth Industrial Revolution. All pupils should gain the knowledge, skills and com-
petences they need, as they determine an individual’s chance to succeed in the future
labour market and to have an active role in the future society. In the last decade, a
lot of projects showed how educational robotics (ER) can be a powerful tool for
teaching basic skills and STEAM (science, technology, engineering, art and math-
ematics) subjects.
This chapter will present OpenFISH.science, a project developed to teach robot-
ics, STEM and Internet of things (IoT). Moreover, by directly involving people in
themes about the marine environment, it will raise awareness and provide knowledge

David Scaradozzi, Lorenzo Cesaretti and Laura Screpanti contributed equally with all other
contributors.

D. Scaradozzi (*) · L. Screpanti · S. Zingaretti

Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Informazione (DII), Università Politecnica delle Marche,
Ancona, Italy
LSIS – umr CNRS 6168, Laboratoire des Sciences de l’Information et des Systèmes, Equipe
I&M (ESIL), Case 925 - 163, Marseille Cedex 9, France
e-mail: [email protected]
L. Cesaretti
Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Informazione (DII), Università Politecnica delle Marche,
Ancona, Italy
LSIS – umr CNRS 6168, Laboratoire des Sciences de l’Information et des Systèmes, Equipe
I&M (ESIL), Case 925 - 163, Marseille Cedex 9, France
TALENT srl, Osimo, Ancona, Italy
D. Costa
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale e Scienze Matematiche (DIISM), Università
Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
M. Valzano
ICS Largo Cocconi, Largo G. Cocconi, 10, Rome, Italy

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 199

L. Daniela (ed.), Smart Learning with Educational Robotics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19913-5_8
200 D. Scaradozzi et al.

on RoboEthics, blue careers and ocean literacy. OpenFISH.science could empower

students since the primary school to build and create distributed control systems and
experiences by means of lessons and its wireless electronic building blocks and
software.
Presenting curricula based on ER and constructionism that will use specific tool-
kits to engage (mainly) primary school kids (ages 6–12), this chapter is intended as
a contribution for researchers, policymakers and everyday teachers that endeavour
to help students in primary education to develop their mind and personality, as they
will be their best resources to participate actively, responsibly and successfully
throughout their lives in society.

Keywords  Educational robotics · Curricular robotics · Primary school ·

Secondary school · Science · Technology · Engineering · Math · STEM · Marine
robotics · IoT · Internet of things

Technical Terms and Abbreviations

ER Educational robotics
eSTrEM environment, Science, Technology, robotics, Engineering and Math
ISCED International Standard Classification of Education
IoT Internet of things
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
STEM Science, technology, engineering and mathematics
STEAM Science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

Introduction

Digital skills are becoming increasingly central to the educational policy of every
country. Educational systems are facing new challenges in the era of the Fourth
Industrial Revolution. All pupils should gain knowledge, skills and competences in
order to successfully enter the future labour market and to have an active role in the
future society. Key competences like literacy, numeracy and basic science knowl-
edge are essential skills for a successful professional and civic life.
In the last decade, a lot of projects showed how educational robotics (ER) can be
a powerful tool for teaching STEAM (science, technology, engineering, art and
mathematics) subjects. ER promotes and develops children’s creative thinking,
teamwork, problem-solving skills and motivation. The activity of programming and
8  Innovative Tools for Teaching Marine Robotics, IoT and Control Strategies Since the… 201

building robots is an ideal way to introduce technology and engineering skills: it can
help children to develop computational thinking or the ability to design products
and solutions. Moreover, ER can be a powerful tool for teaching fundamental skills
and to introduce children to other important application fields: environmental
awareness, human robot interaction, elderly people assistance, agricultural, crafts-
manship autonomous cleaning, flying robots for surveillance and more.
This chapter will present OpenFISH.science, a project developed to teach robot-
ics, STEM and Internet of things (IoT). Moreover, by directly involving people in
themes about the marine environment, it will raise awareness and provide knowl-
edge on RoboEthics, blue careers and ocean literacy. OpenFISH.science could
empower students since the primary school to build and create distributed control
systems and experiences by means of lessons and its wireless electronic building
blocks and software. The chapter will present how to create a curriculum based on
ER through a constructionist educational approach (Papert and Harel 1991) and the
design of a toolkit to engage (mainly) primary school kids (ages 6–12). The main
objective is to enhance the outcomes in STEAM subjects in primary school educa-
tion through the support of academic institutions. It is necessary to help primary
school students in the acquisition of knowledge about science and environment, in
participating actively, responsibly and successfully throughout their lives in society.
Marine environment topic is an example of how ethical considerations could be
inserted in an ER curriculum. As introduced, many other topics could be relevant
too. Authors, with OpenFISH.science, started with environmental awareness
(marine field mainly) because it is very relevant for children and because they have
competences on this field for kit developments and validation. Readers could easily
reimplement the curricula adapting them to other supplementary topics besides the
main robotics path and to enrich the educational programme.
By constructing and programming robots, pupils will be encouraged to use their
own creative ideas and solutions in their work, thus developing transversal skills
like rational thinking, creativity and innovativeness. Moreover, the chapter, thanks
to the presented toolkit and strategies, will provide a detailed description of how to
teach various aspects of the marine environment, thus raising awareness about the
sea and all the connected problematics.
On the first section of this chapter, authors will present the relevance of introduc-
ing the ER and environment education to support future citizens in the development
of a more positive attitude towards science and to help science in meeting citizens’
needs. The second section will report a full curriculum of robotics within primary
school education. It will provide insights of learning aims and activities on three
specializations within the robotics curriculum: environmental specialization, IoT
specialization and controls and automation specialization. The last section will pro-
vide the specific description of tools to implement such curriculum, with a special
focus on IoT and marine environmental tools as a good application example for
students in the last years.
202 D. Scaradozzi et al.

 he Relevance of Introducing Educational Robotics

T
and (Marine) Environmental Education Since Primary
Education

The vast amount of experiences in literature reporting successful implementation of

robotics into STEM education is based upon the pioneering work of Seymour
Papert, who saw the use of computers as an aid to learning, meaning that technology
is not the centre of learning, but it can be a support in the construction of knowledge,
which takes place when students build, make and publicly share meaningful objects.
Papert followed Piaget’s intuition that children playing is not only time pleasantly
spent but also a way of learning. Following this, children use technology to build
projects and teachers act as facilitators of the process (Ackermann 2001; Karim
et al. 2015; Papert 1980, 1993). Even though so many activities have been carried
out since Papert first introduced Logo and the robotic turtle (Karim et  al. 2015;
Screpanti et al. 2018a, b), robotics has not fully found its place into school’s curri-
cula yet. In Alimisis and Moro (2016), difficulties in incorporating robotics activi-
ties in school curricula are outlined and related to some features. Flexibility and
openness to novelty and creativity are missing in traditional schools. Moreover, in
many cases the activities of educational robotics include only building a robot pro-
viding step-by-step instruction rather than engaging students in a construction activ-
ity, which can give them the possibility of developing twenty-first-century skills.
Lastly, the lack of proper design of educational activities and the lack of the means
for their proper assessment is another reason for the usual absence of a strong robot-
ics’ curricula in schools. Moreover, each robotic project or course should have a
clear design and assessment of the learning goals to engage children effectively in
science and technology (Benitti 2012; Kandlhofer et al. 2012; Scaradozzi et al. in
press; Scaradozzi et al. 2016; Scaradozzi et al. 2018).
The authors, presenting their OpenFISH.science project, intend to propose an
innovative syllabus and new technological devices to teach eSTrEM (environment,
Science, Technology, robotics, Engineering and Math) at the primary school and
thus addressing creativity, problem-solving, teamwork and innovation capacity
skills. Robotics is an approach to realize a real integrated STEM education, and in
time it has developed its own methodologies and tools to effectively engage students
in the construction of knowledge. The connection of the acronym STEM and the
word RoboEthics is fundamental for the scientific community and society at large,
to acknowledge two important areas of study and societal issue. Just like those two
acknowledgements that were fundamental to focus on those issues, it is now neces-
sary to reconnect our culture to the environment that surrounds us. To do so, we can
link STEM education with a new way to design robots, which can be fully inte-
grated with the nature and human being (Veruggio et al. 2016). In the last years,
with the continuous advances of technology, different computer-assisted applica-
tions have been developed in the subject area of environmental education. For
example, “computer-aided environmental education” prepared by the North
American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE) involves the
8  Innovative Tools for Teaching Marine Robotics, IoT and Control Strategies Since the… 203

p­ roblems and promises of environmental hypermedia, computer simulation/model-

ling interactive software (Rohwedder 1990). In other studies, by the same author,
the usage of multimedia and online education in environmental education will be
very useful (Rohwedder and Alm 1994; Rohwedder 1999). The factors affecting
students’ environmental knowledge, attitude, awareness and behaviours are investi-
gated by scientists beginning from kindergarten to all levels of education. If school
curricula are taken into account, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)
framework (NGSS 2013) was developed in an effort to produce K–12 science stan-
dards. In this framework engineering is fundamental because it requires students to
model, plan and conduct investigations, analyse data, interpret data and hypothesize
explanations across different science disciplines. This will ultimately demonstrate
their understanding of core scientific ideas and taking this further to predicting
future developments, interventions and research (NGSS Lead States 2013).
There are few examples of marine robotics in STEM education as a means to
explore the environment and to teach students the underwater physics and dynam-
ics. Current available underwater robots are SeaGlide from MIT (Small-scale
underwater glider, n.d.), LEGO Waterbotics (Stambaugh 2015), MarineTech Project
(Verma et al. 2011) and the US nationwide project known as SeaPerch (Nelson et al.
2015). These examples of successful implementation of marine robotics education
in K–12 and the potential of ER into K–12 experiences stem the idea that a whole
curriculum on robotics and marine environmental subjects may provide children
with skills and competences that are going to be very useful in their future life as
citizens, jobseekers or job creators. However, this kind of training needs a specific
curriculum not only in an early stage of education. In fact, specific tools for a spe-
cific age level should be specified along with a validated methodology for teaching
and evaluating results of the implementation of such curriculum (Scaradozzi et al.
in press, 2018).

I ntroduction of Robotics, IoT and Control Strategies

as Curricular Subjects in School Programmes

Many researchers and teachers agree that the inclusion of STEM subjects in early
education provides a strong motivation and a great improvement in learning speed.
Most curricula in primary schools include several concepts that cover science and
math, but less effort is applied in teaching problem-solving, computer science, tech-
nology and robotics. The use of robotic systems and the introduction of robotics as
a curricular subject can bring the possibility of introducing the basics of technology
to children, giving them other kinds of human and organizational values. This work
presents a new scheme that could be introduced in primary schools, designed from
the Italian regular curriculum and tested for 8 years in the primary school thanks to
the collaboration between National Instruments, Università Politecnica delle
Marche, Istituto Comprensivo “Largo Cocconi”  – Roma (Municipio V) and the
204 D. Scaradozzi et al.

start-up Talent. In the proposed curriculum, the subjects robotics, RoboEthics, IoT
and control strategies become part of the primary school curricula for all the 5 years
of education. This kind of subjects might seem too complicated for this stage of
education, but the authors consider them fundamental for the development of the
twenty-first-century citizen; other researchers proposed a similar vision, consider-
ing the relevance of introducing modelling and simulation of dynamic systems for
K–12 education (Forrester 1994; Zuckerman and Resnick 2003).
The validation of the programme has been divided into two experimental stages.
For the first stage of validation, only robotics became part of the primary school
curriculum for all the 5 years of cycle: this approach allowed the tuning of the teach-
ers’ training and the improvement of the proposed activities.
The first stage demonstrated various aspects (Scaradozzi et al. 2015):
• The methodology to introduce robotics into the primary school curriculum is
sustainable for school and students.
• Children improve learning abilities, not only in mere technological aspects but
also in cooperation and teamwork (in the following sections, results will be
presented).
• At the fifth year, more advanced concepts could be introduced, preparing stu-
dents for the secondary school.
In the second stage, a partially different curriculum was designed. The curricu-
lum followed the same path designed for the first stage during the first part of the
primary cycle (about 3 years), but during the last 2 years, new concepts like IoT and
control strategies were introduced. The second stage has already started and some
examinations have been already carried out reporting promising results. Figure 8.1
shows the curriculum distribution in the 5 years of primary school for the first and
the second stage of validation.
The syllabus was developed to present a standard path for robotics with the
STrEM characterizing learning aims to achieve, competences to develop and activi-
ties to carry out. Within the proposed syllabus, other free choice learning aims to
achieve, competences to develop and activities to carry out have been suggested,
with the goal of enriching the educational proposal presenting concepts of
RoboEthics and marine environment awareness (eSTrEM), IoT and control and
automation. Marine environment topic is an example of how ethical considerations
could be inserted in parallel on an ER curriculum. ER can be a powerful tool for
teaching fundamental skills and to introduce children to other important application
fields: environmental awareness, human–robot interaction, elderly people assis-
tance, agriculture, craftsmanship, autonomous cleaning, flying robots for surveil-
lance and more. Authors, with OpenFISH.science, started with environmental
awareness (marine field mainly) because it is very relevant for children to talk about
oceans and their habitants and because authors have competences on this field for
kit developments and validation. Readers could be easily reimplement the curricula
adapting them to other supplementary topics besides the main robotics path and to
enrich the educational programme.
8  Innovative Tools for Teaching Marine Robotics, IoT and Control Strategies Since the… 205

Fig. 8.1  Curricula applied during verification and validation phases

The syllabus started from the basic knowledge and expertise and integrates them
with more specialized knowledge relative both to robotics and to environmental
education. The whole course was organized in different learning aims with the fol-
lowing scheme:
• Mandatory learning aims and competences from the regular Italian curriculum
• Characterizing learning aims and competences for introducing the robotics sub-
ject (for a STrEM curriculum)
• Free choice learning aims and competences characterizing the RoboEthics/envi-
ronmental awareness subject (for an eSTrEM curriculum)
• Free choice learning aims and competences to introduce IoT competences
• Free choice learning aims and competences to introduce control and automation
competences

 Suggested Syllabus for an Innovative ER Curriculum (Based

A
on the “National Italian Indications” Primary School Syllabus)

The first and main objective of presented syllabus concerns the introduction of
robotics at the primary school as a standard subject in the primary schools’ curri-
cula, besides being proposed as a lateral extracurricular activity to be performed out
206 D. Scaradozzi et al.

of the official school time. The project wants to increase children’s capabilities,
teaching them to program a machine and to consider robotics as an ordinary method
of working rather than an exceptional way of operating. With robotics, the students
can have a different opportunity for developing their logical ability and their creativ-
ity, features at the base of reasoning and critical thinking. The first experimental
work done in the last 8 years has covered a complete primary school cycle (5 years)
and the first 3 years of a new cycle; it has been performed with the priority of intro-
ducing the subject robotics as a curriculum component, improving the usual minis-
terial educational offer. This approach led to a change in the lesson plans, with a
new teaching discipline introduced during the school year, with an impact in the
weekly timetable and in the regular learning evaluation methods (robotics was
added in the final report card).
The regular Italian scholastic syllabus for the primary school is divided in 5
years, so in the following syllabus, the same scheme is proposed, by authors, adding
new learning aims to achieve with the respective competences to develop and activi-
ties to do in the classroom.

First Class: First Year

1.1 Lessons’ Learning Aims and Competences (from the Italian regular
curriculum)
1.1.1. Using the number to order and to define sets of objects
1.1.2. Characterizing and communicating the position of objects in a physical
space, with respect to a reference or to other objects/humans
1.1.3. Understanding and executing instructions
1.1.4. Communicating own experiences in a clear way
1.1.5. Listening and understanding read or listened texts
1.1.6. Recognizing problem-solving situations
1.1.7. Attributing a value of truth to logical assumptions
1.1.8. Observing, comparing and correlating elements of the surrounding
environment
1.1.9. Moving in the space recognizing precise references
1.1.10. Characterizing and applying physical measures
1.1.11. Doing a map localization
1.1.12. Collecting data and elaborating a functional diagram
1.1.13. Identifying a criterion to order objects
1.1.14. Interacting in a conversation formulating questions and giving perti-
nent answers presenting direct experiences
1.1.15. Participating actively to the games, collaborating with the others,

accepting the defeat, respecting the rules and accepting the
differences
1.1.16. Being able to get the main features of the materials
1.1.17. Recognizing plane and solid figures
8  Innovative Tools for Teaching Marine Robotics, IoT and Control Strategies Since the… 207

1.1.18. Recognizing the parts working in an object to observe and to manipu-

late them, finding their characteristics and the materials from which
they are made
1.1.19. Using knowledge associating objects and scopes
1.1.20. Knowing computers and their components
1.1.21. Being able to use computer programs, graphic programs and word pro-
cessing programs
1.1.22. Being able to associate purpose to an object
1.1 Lessons’ Learning Aims and Competences (specific for robotics)
1.1.23. Understanding the RoboEthics concepts and Asimov’s three laws of
robotics
1.1.24. Understanding the single mechanical elements: differences among

shapes, materials, colours and functionalities of the elements presented
on the market
1.1.25. Identifying professions involved on robot designing
1.1.26. Understanding the bases of verification concepts
1.2 Recommendation Aims for Practical Activities (specific for robotics)
1.2.1. Obtaining knowledge of the single mechanical elements through simpli-
fied ordering and planning tasks: the differences among shapes, materi-
als, colours and functionalities of the market available elements
1.2.2. Designing a simple static “robot” using LEGO WeDo system or recycled
materials
1.2.3. Measuring and mapping the positions of an entity in a real space
1.2.4. Understanding the bases of verification concepts

Second/Third Classes: Second/Third Years

2.1. Lessons’ Learning Aims and Competences (from the regular curriculum)
2.1.1. Reading, understanding and interpreting critical situations
2.1.2. Understanding the four operations algorithms
2.1.3. Collecting personal data and world data
2.1.4. Representing data by means of diagrams
2.1.5. Carrying out direct measurements using various measurement units
2.1.6. Representing problem-solving situations and searching coherent solv-
ing strategies
2.1.7. Observing the space and describing it graphically
2.1.8. Moving in space using defined paths
2.1.9. Fixing criteria according to order objects using various types of graph-
ical methods
2.1.10. Observing phenomena and formulating coherent hypotheses
208 D. Scaradozzi et al.

2.1.11. Comparing own hypotheses with those of the classmates and debate
the differences
2.1.12. Using conventional instruments to measure the time and to identify
temporal cycles
2.1.13. Collecting and analysing data
2.1.14. Identifying object characteristics by means of suitable tests and

comparison
2.1.15. Identifying the “structure–function” relationship of an object
2.1.16. Taking part of a debate in an adequate and pertinent way
2.1.17. Producing short texts
2.1.18. Identifying the relationship between facts, data and terms
2.1.19. Identifying temporal changes
2.1.20. Organizing a coherent and logical temporal sequence
2.1.21. Using knowledge to build objects
2.1.22. Designing objects estimating type of materials and scope
2.1.23. Being able to use computer programs, graphic programs and word pro-
cessing programs in finalized contexts

2.1. Lessons’ Learning Aims and Competences (specific for robotics)

Second Class: Second Year

2.1.24. Understanding the concept and definition of “robot” like a machine that
must complete a specific task in an autonomous way
2.1.25. Designing robots, estimating type of materials and scope
2.1.26. Understanding concept and definitions of sensors and actuators through the
comparison with human body system
2.1.27. Building a simple robot using LEGO WeDo system
2.1.28. Understanding verification strategies

Third Class: Third Year

2 .1.29. Understanding the concept of embedded devices

2.1.30. Building a simple robot:
A free choice from:
• Using LEGO NXT/EV3 system (characterizing STrEM curriculum)
• Using SAM Labs system (characterizing STrEM curriculum with IoT)
2.1.31. Understanding the bases of procedural programming in a visual program-
ming IDE
2.1.32. Designing with the RoboEthics concepts and understanding the operational
environment concept (free choice for eSTrEM curriculum)
2.1.33. Understanding the bases of verification and validation concepts
8  Innovative Tools for Teaching Marine Robotics, IoT and Control Strategies Since the… 209

2.2. Recommendation Aims for Practical Activities (specific for robotics)

Second Class: Second Year

2.2.1. Gaining knowledge of the concept and definition of “robot” like a machine
that must complete a specific task in an autonomous way
2.2.2. Gaining knowledge of the concept and definitions of sensors and actuators
through the comparison with human body system
2.2.3. Building a simple robot using LEGO WeDo system
2.2.4. Gaining knowledge of the concept of procedural programming in a visual
programming IDE
2.2.5. Designing a simple robot using LEGO WeDo system
2.2.6. Understanding verification concept for a robot in an operative environment

Third Class: Third Year

2.2.7. Gaining knowledge of programming embedded devices

2.2.8. A free choice from:
• Building a simple robot using LEGO EV3 / NXT system
(characterizing STrEM curriculum)
• Building a simple robot using SAM Labs system
(characterizing STrEM curriculum with IoT)
2.2.9. A free choice from:
• Design a simple robot using LEGO EV3 / NXT system
(characterizing STrEM curriculum)
• Design a simple robot using SAM Labs system
(characterizing STrEM curriculum with IoT)
2.2.10. Gaining knowledge of the concept and definitions of sensors and actuators
for a specific environment (i.e. marine environment) using LEGO EV3/
NXT or SAM Labs system (free choice for eSTrEM curriculum)
2.2.11. Understanding verification and validation concepts for a robot in an opera-
tive environment

Fourth/Fifth Classes: Fourth/Fifth Years

3.1. Lessons’ Learning Aims and Competences (from the regular curriculum)
3.1.1. Understanding definition and usage of natural, relative and decimal
numbers
3.1.2. Understanding how to use fractions in real cases
210 D. Scaradozzi et al.

3.1.3. Understanding how to use four operations algorithms with integers

and decimals
3.1.4. Identifying the right graphical method and strategies to solve
problems
3.1.5. Identifying problems with more than one solution
3.1.6. Designing problems and hypothetical situations with or without pre-
defined instructions
3.1.7. Understanding how to compare physical dimensions applying mea-
surement units correctly
3.1.8. Reading and understanding texts
3.1.9. Writing different types of text
3.1.10. Writing a text with predefined scheme and representing it with a flow
chart
3.1.11. Observing and characterizing a space from a point of view or a refer-
ence point
3.1.12.
Estimating and classifying an object following predefined
characteristics
3.1.13. Designing an object following predefined characteristics
3.1.14. Reengineering an object
3.1.15. Classifying objects in a space according to their characteristics
3.1.16. Being able to use hypertexts and graphic, word processing and presen-
tation manager programs in finalized contexts
3.1.17. Understanding the command line, file and data type concepts
3.1.18. Understanding the computer operative system concept
3.1.19. Identifying the right object for a predefined aim

3.1. Lessons’ Learning Aims and Competences (specific for robotics)

Fourth Class: Fourth Year

3.1.20. Building an autonomous robot that is able to communicate and react using:
• LEGO NXT/EV3 system (characterizing STrEM curriculum)
• SAM Labs system (characterizing STrEM curriculum with IoT)
3.1.21. Understanding the main program constructs: Start, Stop, Sequences,

Selection and Repetition
3.1.22. Designing with the RoboEthics concepts and understanding the robot oper-
ational environment (i.e. marine environment) (free choice for eSTrEM
curriculum)
3.1.23. Implementing verification and validation concepts
8  Innovative Tools for Teaching Marine Robotics, IoT and Control Strategies Since the… 211

Fifth Class: Fifth Year

3 .1.24. Understanding the concept of encapsulated coding

3.1.25. Understanding the concept of the sensory network
(characterizing STrEM curriculum with IoT)
3.1.26. Understanding the concept of distributed actuation
(characterizing STrEM curriculum with IoT)
3.1.27. Understanding the concept of control system and controller
3.1.28. Understanding the concept of centralized/distributed control system
(characterizing STrEM curriculum with control and automation
competences)
3.1.29. Building a robot:
A free choice from:
• Using LEGO NXT/EV3 system (characterizing STrEM curriculum)
• Using SAM Labs system (characterizing STrEM curriculum with IoT)
3.1.30. Building a distributed system:
A free choice from:
• Using LEGO NXT/EV3 system
(characterizing STrEM curriculum with control and automation
competences)
• Using SAM Labs system
(characterizing STrEM curriculum with IoT with control and automation
competences)
3.1.31. Designing with the RoboEthics concepts and understanding the robot oper-
ational environment (i.e. marine environment) (free choice for eSTrEM
curriculum):
A free choice from:
• Using OpenFISH.science kit – EV3 Version
(characterizing eSTrEM curriculum)
• Using OpenFISH.science kit – SAM Labs Version
(characterizing eSTrEM curriculum with IoT)
3.1.32. Applying of verification and validation concepts

3.2. Recommendation Aims for Practical Activities (specific for robotics)

Fourth Class: Fourth Year

3.2.1. Building an autonomous robot able to communicate and react using:

• LEGO NXT/EV3 system (characterizing STrEM curriculum)
• SAM Labs system (characterizing STrEM curriculum with IoT)
212 D. Scaradozzi et al.

3.2.2. Identifying the main program constructs (Start, Stop, Sequences, Selection
and Repetition) on some examples
3.2.3. Designing with the RoboEthics concepts and understanding the robot opera-
tional environment (i.e. marine environment) (free choice for eSTrEM
curriculum)
3.2.4. Implementing verification and validation concepts

Fifth Class: Fifth Year

3.2.5. Understanding the concept of re-usable coding and libraries

3.2.6. Building a sensory network
(characterizing STrEM curriculum with IoT)
3.2.7. Building an example of distributed actuation
(characterizing STrEM curriculum with IoT)
3.2.8. Identifying the control system and the controller in a robot
3.2.9. Building an example of centralized and a distributed control system
(characterizing STrEM curriculum with control and automation
competences)
3.2.10. Building a robot:
A free choice from:
• Using LEGO NXT/EV3 system (characterizing STrEM curriculum)
• Using SAM Labs system (characterizing STrEM curriculum with IoT)
3.2.11. Building a distributed system:
A free choice from
• Using LEGO NXT/EV3 system
(characterizing STrEM curriculum with control and automation
competences)
• Using SAM Labs system
(characterizing STrEM curriculum with IoT with control and automation
competences)
3.2.12. Designing with the RoboEthics concepts and understanding the robot oper-
ational environment (i.e. marine environment) (free choice for eSTrEM
curriculum):
A free choice from:
• Using OpenFISH.science kit – EV3 Version
(characterizing eSTrEM curriculum)
• Using OpenFISH.science kit – SAM Labs Version
(characterizing eSTrEM curriculum with IoT)
3.2.13. Applying of verification and validation concepts
8  Innovative Tools for Teaching Marine Robotics, IoT and Control Strategies Since the… 213

Table 8.1 summarizes how the syllabus mandatory, characterizing and free
choice learning aims to achieve, competences to transfer and activities to do have
been distributed.

Table 8.1 Syllabus mandatory, characterizing and free choice learning aims to achieve,
competences to transfer and activities to do distribution

Free
Free choice
Mandatory Subjects Free choice choice
subjects for
from characterizing subjects for subjects
Control and
regular STrEM IoT for
Automation
syllabus curriculum competences eSTrEM
competences
curriculum

Learning
1st aims and 22 4 / / /
CLASS competences
1st Activities
YEAR concerning \ 4 / / /
Robotics

Learning
2nd aims and 5 / / /
CLASS competences
2nd Activities
YEAR concerning 6 / / /
Robotics 23

Learning
3rd aims and 4 1 / 1
CLASS competences
3rd Activities
YEAR concerning \ 4 2 / 1
Robotics

Learning
4th aims and 3 1 / 1
CLASS competences
4th Activities
YEAR concerning 19 3 1 / 1
Robotics

5th Learning
CLASS aims and 4 6 2 1
competences
5th
YEAR Activities \ 4 5 2 1
concerning
214 D. Scaradozzi et al.

Examples of Educational Activities and Timing

The OpenFISH.science project’s syllabus, reported in the previous paragraph, has

been designed on the basis of the regular Italian scholastic syllabus for the primary
school, which is divided in 5 years. Authors planned new learning aims to achieve,
competences to develop and activities to do in the classroom. In this paragraph, an
example of educational activities and timing is reported for future developments in
the classroom. During the quinquennial of the educational training, the main objec-
tives have to be accomplished through different activities. The activities could be
scheduled in so-called didactic units (or learning objectives), different for each
school year and class. Each didactic unit could consist in specific aims and skills
connected to various activities, increasing and pursuing children competences (i.e.
the following scheme was adopted during the first experimentation, mentioned in
the previous section).
The first activity is aimed mainly at involving children in collecting changes in
the surrounding environment about the technology development. This activity has
to underline the relevance of the hands-on approach, trying to increase curiosity,
creativity and logic in the children. The evaluation of the accomplished knowledge
is checked asking children to realize a document filled with images about different
robot duties and aims useful for human being.
The second activity aims at the approach to the RoboEthics, guiding them to
analyse the necessity of the three laws of robotics and their connection with laws in
society. The purposes are to educate children to social values and to have respect for
others; moreover, it becomes important to underline the necessity of establishing
rules that save and increase the well-being of all people. Another aim is to perceive
technological progress as a positive aspect in life, not a distressful one, and to
increase collaboration with other subjects giving own contribution to the group.
Practically, teachers help children to learn and to apply the three robotics laws
working with pictures.
The third activity aims at planning and building a robot made of structured and
not structured materials, using LEGO WeDo for the first 2 years, LEGO NXT/EV3
or SAM Labs for the third and the fourth classes and custom hardware with compo-
nents off-the-shelf (i.e. OpenFISH.science kit) with an advanced programming lan-
guage (i.e. LabVIEW) for the last year. The objective is to increase logic by
discriminating and classifying materials, coherently increasing creativity in han-
dling different materials, and trying to build objects using the acquired skills.
At the end of each activity, children are individually asked to pass two final tests:
1 . Each student must correctly classify different robot pieces.
2. The student must order parts following some directives.
Other evaluation activity/activities is/are carried out in groups: each group must
assemble pieces and build a robot.
The fourth activity is about structuring a software to govern robot behaviours
with the aim to present theory and advices about programming using a simple and
8  Innovative Tools for Teaching Marine Robotics, IoT and Control Strategies Since the… 215

intuitive visual framework, and to discover other ways to consider computers and
their possibilities. It is important to stimulate children to modify the given robot
program. The skills developed with this work are the comprehension and the exe-
cution of instructions for understanding and communicating experiences in a
clear way, being able to use computer and graphic programs and lastly to attribute
purpose to an object. This work helps understanding the single blocks functions.
The teacher could support the children when needed, but the aim of this activity
relates to peer tutoring, so it would be advisable to let children be the tutors of
their own classmates.
The fifth activity aims at building and programming a robot, according to spe-
cific tasks. Activities are related to getting students confident with materials manip-
ulation and effects stimulating curiosity and dealing with new challenges: to identify
robot’s skills, to classify parts and functions and to apply verification and validation
concepts.
The final test of this second block of activities must concentrate on how the stu-
dents create the robot according to the assignment. They are required to produce a
text where the process is explained. The above composition can be done individu-
ally or collectively by the working group.
Other general aims of activities are understanding how to solve a problem or
mistake in what they did and to find alternative solutions and understanding the
necessity of respecting ethics and environment in building and programming robots.
In these phases, it is important to understand and feel the relevance of working in a
group towards a common goal.
After these compulsory activities, a final activity could be proposed asking the
class to elaborate a fantasy text in which the protagonists are the constructed robots.
The aims are collaborating with classmates, bringing positive contributions to the
group, debating other people’s ideas, respecting differences, understanding the
necessity of rules and, finally, increasing creativity and fantasy through the produc-
tion of a coherent text. The enhanced skills are the following: understanding and
executing assignments and instructions, communicating personal experiences in a
clear way, interacting in a conversation through questions and narrating direct expe-
riences and observing and comparing.
During the entire quinquennial period, it is mandatory to measure how students
increase their self-confidence regarding the understanding of the technologies and
how the competences are developed by students. This could be done offline by means
of static instruments (questionnaires, rubrics, evaluation grids, etc.) administered
before, during (to monitor the follow-up) and after the course (Scaradozzi et  al.
2018) or online using data loggers of activities and expert systems (Berland et al.
2013; Blikstein et  al. 2014; Jormanainen and Sutinen 2012; Scaradozzi et  al. in
press; Wang et al. 2017). In general, the proposed educational activities will empha-
size the importance of having prefixed goals and they will stimulate logic and the
analysis capacity. The requested continuous learning by doing will promote curiosity
in specific cognitive instruments, will reinforce the attention and concentration
capacity and will highlight the necessity to perform experiments using the scientific
method. During the first experimentation in Italy, the time established for these activ-
216 D. Scaradozzi et al.

ities is placed within the “hours for the optional disciplines” established by the
Ministry of Education, University and Research in the regular weekly scheduling.
The tested curriculum has been enriched with outside-the-classroom experiences, for
example, meetings with robotics experts and visit to science museums, to an engi-
neering faculty and to other exhibitions. During the closed cycle, two more experi-
ences have been conducted (not curricular but in a formal environment) involving the
general public and using students as tutors: the competition children/parents and the
competition children/grandparents. These events gave the students the opportunity to
strengthen their beliefs and positive attitude towards robotics by sharing meaningful
experiences with people that are their first role model and affections.

 ools for STEM, STrEM and eSTrEM Curricula

T
with a Special Focus on Marine Environment

The authors, presenting their OpenFISH.science project, intend to propose an inno-

vative syllabus and new technological devices to teach eSTrEM (environment,
Science, Technology, robotics, Engineering and Math) at the primary school and
thus addressing creativity, problem-solving, teamwork and innovation capacity
skills. Robotics is a demonstrated approach to realize a real integrated educational
programme within a lot of subjects important for the new generations. Authors, dur-
ing the verification phase and for the ongoing validation phase, identified and
designed a number of tools to effectively engage students in the construction of
knowledge.

 ools for Early-Stage Learning (First/Second Classes – First/

T
Second Years)

During the first 2 years of primary school, it is necessary to work with simple tools.
Solutions for early-stage learning are needed, and teachers have to use a playful
approach to open up the world of math, science and language skills. It is needed to
foster the love for discovery and investigation in young students and to help them
develop social and emotional skills so that they will be prepared for a lifetime of
successful learning.
There are several market-ready products promising to be the best solution for pri-
mary school, providing the engaging, hands-on experiences that students need to
explore core STEM concepts and to link them to real-life phenomenon. For most of
them, there is an integration with programming tools and a support lesson plans for
teachers (see Table 2 in Scaradozzi et al. in press). For this age group, it is very impor-
tant to propose a robot that must be assembled by students instead of robots already
assembled. The market has a lot of robots already assembled and combined with
proprietary software, but with this kind of product, it is not possible to present general
8  Innovative Tools for Teaching Marine Robotics, IoT and Control Strategies Since the… 217

Fig. 8.2  LEGO WeDo system used for first and second classes

mechatronic components, their functionality and structure. Few products allow to

leave students free to use their fantasy to explore simple cause/effect actions compo-
sition. The authors, for the experimentation, chose LEGO WeDo system (Fig. 8.2)
because it triggers students’ natural curiosity, helping them to develop essential com-
munication, creativity, collaboration and critical thinking skills in a funny and excit-
ing way. Students created original robotic artefacts solving problems and discovering
how science, technology, engineering and math affect their everyday life.
It was demonstrated by the authors’ experiences that, during the class activities,
it is better having students divided in teams made up of four members. The activities
usually started with the “brainstorming” modality: the teacher asks children to iden-
tify objects on the “robotic boxes”, trying to imagine all their possible uses. The
brainstorming phase, guided by teachers, has to take place after the theoretical les-
sons and before the technological lessons with the aim to collect ideas from the
students. It’s important to initially present to the students’ teams the final objective
of the lesson, with the aim of making them metacognitively aware: usually each
activity of the syllabus presented on the previous section has one final objective.
Firstly, the four roles of robotics designed by the authors are presented to the stu-
dents: the designer (responsible for the project and coordinator of the team, his/her
task is to communicate to the others members of the group the building instructions
of the robot), the warehouse worker (responsible for the robotic kit, his/her task is
to look for the LEGO pieces inside the box), the technical assembler (responsible
for the robot assembling, his/her task is to build the robot receiving instructions
from the designer and LEGO pieces from the technical assembler) and the validator
(responsible for checking the robot assembly, observing the instructions on the
computer). During the first period, students are asked to recognize single mechani-
cal elements through some simplified tasks of ordering and planning: pupils can
learn the differences among shapes, materials, colours and functionalities of the
elements present in the kit. During the first year, the activities are characterized by
the designing of a simple static “robot” using LEGO WeDo system or recycled
materials, measuring and mapping the positions of an entity in a real space and
understanding the bases of verification concepts. In general, if the teacher wants to
introduce environmental consideration, the alligator robot built with LEGO WeDo
kit could be a suitable choice.
218 D. Scaradozzi et al.

During the yearly activity, each student has to experience different teams and
tasks, as roles have to be switched during the year.
The activities should have two levels of learning share: a first level between stu-
dents in the classroom and a second level between students, teachers, citizens and
institutions. The last 15 min of each lesson, in fact, should be dedicated to debrief-
ing: students have to express their feelings about activities and teamwork, proposing
sometimes personal or collective suggestions for improvement. They also have to
explain their creations and ideas to other pupils, listening to advice and constructive
critiques during the discussion. Moreover, it could be useful to have some experi-
ences outside the classroom during the scholastic year.

 ools for Secondary-Level Learning (Third/Fourth Classes –

T
Third/Fourth Years)

Authors experimented that after 2 years of activities, students are ready to under-
stand more complex concepts from robotics.
The third and the fourth classes are the most important for the STrEM curriculum
because students could read and write, giving teachers the possibility to facilitate
the design of activities in which pupils can develop competences of coding and
mechatronics. In these years, the activities should promote the enhancement of stu-
dents’ competences, for example, building autonomous robots that are able to com-
municate and react thanks to their structured programs. A classic ER syllabus
(without IoT and (marine) environment activities) could be well implemented with
LEGO NXT/EV3 systems. The LEGO kits and their supporting IDE make building,
programming and commanding robot smarter and faster. The tool also has the pos-
sibility to rapid prototyping new software blocks thanks to its connection with
LabVIEW (National Instruments). This last characteristic gives researchers the pos-
sibility to assist teachers in creating personal educational kit.
Market presents other products, but authors choose LEGO EV3 (Fig. 8.3) for its
completeness (see Table 2 in Scaradozzi et al. in press).

Fig. 8.3  LEGO EV3 system used for third, fourth and fifth classes during the experimentation
8  Innovative Tools for Teaching Marine Robotics, IoT and Control Strategies Since the… 219

 ools for IoT and Control Strategies (Fourth/Fifth Classes –

T
Fourth/Fifth Years)

A variety of data sources and services are increasing every day and the availability,
type and reliability of information services are constantly changing. Therefore,
information is becoming increasingly difficult for a person or machine system to
collect, filter, evaluate and use in problem-solving. The problem of locating infor-
mation sources (sensors), accessing (communication devices), filtering (actuators)
and integrating information in support of decision-making, as well as coordinating
information retrieval and problem-solving efforts has become one of the big chal-
lenges of the future society. The notion of intelligent software agents has been pro-
posed to address this challenge (Sycara et al. 1996). Although a precise definition of
an intelligent agent is still forthcoming, the current working notion is that intelligent
software agents are programs that act on behalf of their human users in order to
perform laborious information gathering tasks, such as locating and accessing infor-
mation from various online information sources, resolving inconsistencies in the
retrieved information, filtering away irrelevant or unwanted information, integrating
information from heterogeneous information sources and adapting over time to
their human users’ information needs and the shape of the Infosphere. In the last
decade, a lot of researches and industry modified the world introducing simple and
low-cost machines that are able to react and reason in distributed intelligence.
Nowadays, our way to retrieve information (Albayrak et  al. 2005), to drive in a
place (Dresner and Stone 2005) and to live our houses (Morganti et  al. 2009) is
assisted by agents that act on an IoT world. These considerations move authors to
justify the introduction, since the primary school, of some competences related to
the technologies and definitions of distributed sensitivity, actuation and computa-
tion. In order to introduce IoT and the base of multi-agent system description,
authors explored the SAM Labs system (Fig. 8.4).
SAM Labs is an edtech company that empowers teachers with the most engaging
STEAM solution including lesson plans, apps and electronics. They provide every-
thing to deliver the most engaging STEAM learning experience with a different

Fig. 8.4  SAM Labs system as example of IoT learning tool

220 D. Scaradozzi et al.

point of view. SAM Labs kits are bursting with wireless electronic blocks that each
have a personality of their own. From lights to motors to sliders to buzzers, every
Bluetooth-enabled block can connect to the others via an app to do something dif-
ferent. With the app, students can code the behaviours of blocks or of the devices’
network enabling them to make anything from simple reactions spread on the real
world to complex creations in minutes. Students can use SAM Labs to design, write
and debug programs, applying sequencing, selection and iteration. They will use
logical reasoning to write algorithms, incorporating variables, inputs and outputs.
Using the blocks and app, they will learn to control and simulate physical systems.
The kits could be used instead of LEGO since the third class introduced both STrEM
and IoT curriculum. Thanks to their way to wake up, connect in a network and act in
a distributed way, SAM Labs are the right instrument to teach concepts like sensory
network, distributed actuation, and centralized and distributed control systems.

 ools for eSTrEM, Marine Robotics and RoboEthics (Fourth/

T
Fifth Classes – Fourth/Fifth Years)

After 4 years of activities, it is a good time to expand opportunities for science

learning, in formal, non-formal and informal settings. It is necessary to help stu-
dents in primary education to construct the required knowledge about science and
environment, to participate actively, responsibly and successfully throughout their
lives in the society. Society, including learners at different educational levels, should
be more involved in collaborative activities because collaboration is the key to suc-
cess in today’s world and the collaboration skills need to be assessed and evaluated.
More generally, social skills are a target themselves in the learning process. These
skills are a prerequisite for other activities as they can improve science learning and
ensure sustainability of open science. Considering the need to reform science edu-
cation as outlined by EU, in order to support European citizens in the development
of a more positive attitude towards science and environment and to help science in
meeting citizens’ needs, the authors started creating an educational platform for
incorporating marine robotics, RoboEthics and environment awareness since the
primary schools in the OpenFISH.science project. The OpenFISH.science kit has a
modular architecture, composed by several blocks, devised to resemble the anatomy
of a real fish. It incorporates different hardware and software components, custom-­
tailored to kids and capable to automatically collect data from children activities for
real-time measurement. Sensors and actuators could be added to the robot mecha-
tronic architecture by the students in order to better “sense” and “interact” in the
marine environment in a broader way. Figure 8.5 shows the structure of an assem-
bled model.
The fish could be assembled with the students or given to them partially assem-
bled in four main blocks: Head (1); Body with the Lateral Fin_Body block (2.1), the
Dislocating Mass block (2.2) and the Cerebellum block (2.3); Tail (3) and Brain (4).
8  Innovative Tools for Teaching Marine Robotics, IoT and Control Strategies Since the… 221

Fig. 8.5  OpenFISH.science structure

Authors decided to deeply describe here the structure in order to give an idea
about how the kit could be adopted. If the reader wants to introduce different ani-
mals (i.e. for presenting different environments awareness), the same scheme could
be applied. The fishbone skeleton is composed by aluminium profiles, cut and
assembled by means of angular connectors, custom bolts and screws. This solution
offers a wide range of combinations and thus allows to tailor the final structure to
different working environments and in cooperation with other school-level students
(i.e. secondary school’s students involved in outside-the-classroom experiences).
The fish ribs, head and lateral fins are manufactured in resin with an SLA 3D printer
in order to allow students of secondary schools to participate in the fish design and
upgrades. The same technology is used for the tail but with a rubber-like material.
Light sensors and buttons could be installed in the head. Button has been wrapped
in an insulating rubber covering the frontal part of the fish and extending the contact
surface. Light sensor has been embedded in the resin, trying to keep the light-­
dependent resistor (LDR) as external as possible. The ideal solution would be to
have more than one light sensor to create emotional effect. The central body houses
a power bank, a pressure sensor used as a depth gauge, a USB hub and a servo
attached to a weight by means of a transmission mechanism devised to transform
the rotation of the drive in the horizontal translation of the output. By means of this
solution, the position of the fish centre of mass can be artificially changed in order
to create a restoring torque and consequently change the robot pitch orientation to
swim upwards or downwards. The power bank serves as a power supply. The USB
hub sorts the various cables that come from the central cable connected to the
PC. The central cable will be passed under the belly of the fish (reducing the invol-
222 D. Scaradozzi et al.

Fig. 8.6  OpenFISH.science technologies

untary oscillations with respect to a thread on the crest of the fish) near the centre of
mass of the structure. With the USB hub (that could be substituted in the future with
an embedded board to receive information from the sensory systems and the spinal
cord and regulate motor movements like a cerebellum), the fish will be dependent
on the PC-Brain where students could develop the navigation, guidance and control
strategies. The idea is to use a tube, measuring either 80 × 40 or 90 × 40, as an inter-
nal compartment for the cerebellum and made the other technologies (servomotors,
sensors, etc.) IP68 water resistant up to 5 m depth. A second servomotor controls the
lateral fins which dynamically facilitate immersion and roll balance in water. A third
servomotor and the respective power supply (or power bank) will be housed in the
tail. The servomotor will have the task of activating the tail. The tail is shaped like a
fin, whose size depends on the actuator velocity, meaning that the slower the motor,
the larger must be the fin and vice versa.
Designers used three types of technology for creating the navigation, guidance
and control strategies: National Instruments LabVIEW and MyRIO board to work
with high school students, LEGO EV3 system to use the fish on eSTrEM curricula
and SAM Labs systems to use the fish on eSTrEM curricula with IoT competencies
(see Fig. 8.6).
With the LEGO EV3 system, the activities could be anticipated by a discussion
about the environment with the third classes, allowing students to use their creativ-
ity to design a bio-inspired robot shaped like animals, not necessarily waterproof
(see Fig. 8.7).

Conclusions and Final Remarks

By constructing and programming robots, pupils will be encouraged to use their

own creative ideas and solutions in their work, thus developing transversal skills
like rational thinking, creativity and innovativeness. These activities will help them
8  Innovative Tools for Teaching Marine Robotics, IoT and Control Strategies Since the… 223

Fig. 8.7  A bio-inspired robot designed during eSTrEM classroom activities

in developing synergy of knowledge gained in different subjects. The presented

syllabus and curriculum will constitute a sound opportunity both for school and
connected stakeholders (local institutions, parents, project partners, target groups,
etc.) to exchange practices, methodologies, approaches and tools. Introducing
STrEM curricula (with IoT, eSTrEM or control and automation subjects on the syl-
labus) will be useful to define and strengthen the strategic skills required to better
connect with the future labour market. The transnationality with more institutes that
would cooperate in an experimentation could give the opportunity to reinforce and
enlarge educational networks, increasing the school teachers’ capacity to operate at
the transnational level, sharing and confronting ideas, practices and methods within
the science for citizens. Moreover, it will be a great chance to analyse and compare
several “good practices” of ER intervention, especially on primary school students’
curriculum, providing an insight into different teaching strategies and paying atten-
tion to potential assessment methodologies.
The proposed OpenFISH.science toolkit, allowing students to use their creativity
to design a bio-inspired robot shaped like animals, will also provide a means to
teach various aspects of the marine environment, in addition to increasing aware-
ness about the sea and all the connected problematics.
The verification and validation of the programme with the schools’ cohort has
been divided in two experimental stages. At present, partners are at the first stage of
validation: only robotics (STrEM) became part of the primary school curriculum for
all the 5 years of cycle. The second stage (with the introduction of eSTrEM and
more advanced subjects) has already started, and some examinations have already
been carried out reporting positive results. For the first stage, it was decided to set
up the educational robotics experimentation dedicating 3 h a week to make students
224 D. Scaradozzi et al.

consider this workshop and “hands-on” method normal, rather than as an extracur-
ricular activity. Robotics has therefore become a discipline for the curriculum.
Following the ordinary Italian evaluation methods for primary school, it was
observed that the 5-year path of educational robotics allowed students to develop
the eight key competences for lifelong learning (please see them on Recommendation
of the European Parliament and of the Council 2006). The evaluation of the first
stage has been accomplished, demonstrating that robotics could be introduced in a
regular curriculum and the evaluation of acquired competencies was addressed with
different tools directly by the teachers: self-assessment questionnaires, open and
multiple-choice tests and ongoing observation. As any other regular subjects, teach-
ers evaluate the learning level of the robotics subject contents. At the end of each
year, a specific assessment of robotics was used to sum up all the skills achieved and
recorded in the Evaluation Document of each student, alongside all other curricu-
lum subjects. In order to validate the inclusion of robotics within the regular cur-
riculum and its effect on science, Italian and math subjects learning, the results of
the INVALSI tests obtained from the class involved in the project were analysed (in
order to understand this Italian evaluation test, please see INVALSI 2018). The
relevance of these INVALSI results are connected with the above-mentioned
Recommendation of the European Parliament and Council (2006) and with the
D.M. n. 13925 of 22-8-2007 of the Italian law that brings compulsory education to
10 years to give the chance to all citizens of acquiring knowledge and developing
key competences of active citizenship along different axes: language, mathematics,
science and technology, history and society. At the end of the fifth year, students
involved in STrEM curriculum had to face some national exams among which
INVALSI test of Italian and Mathematics for the fifth class of primary school.
Results from the school year 2014/2015 can be found in INVALSI (n.d.). The
INVALSI tests are formulated according to reliability and validity levels interna-
tionally acknowledged. Each item of the INVALSI 2015 test held a strong connec-
tion with the Italian administrative orders D.M. 31 luglio 2007 (see Indicazioni per
il curricolo 2007) and the D.M. n. 254 del 16 Novembre 2012 (see Indicazioni
nazionali per il curricolo 2012): they give direct indication on how curricula have to
be implemented and evaluated. The INVALSI test has two parts: one test about
Italian language and one test about mathematics. The Italian test is divided into
three sections: one providing a text reporting of a narration and the connected ques-
tions, one providing a text explaining of something and the connected questions and
one presenting ten grammar questions. The time at students’ disposal for answering
this test was 75 min. Regarding the mathematics test, the framework for primary
school is reported in the official Italian reference scheme named “Quadro di
Riferimento” (n.d.) that was based on the decree “Indicazioni nazionali per il cur-
ricolo” (2012) and took into account the comparative results from IEA-TIMSS and
OCSE PISA frameworks. Mathematics test assesses two dimensions: contents
dimension (knowledge of mathematics) and cognitive dimension (processes
involved in answering items). The contents dimension is subdivided into four cate-
gories: numbers, space, data and predictions and relation and functions. Each cate-
gory involves different processes on the basis of which items were formulated and
8  Innovative Tools for Teaching Marine Robotics, IoT and Control Strategies Since the… 225

Table 8.2  Mathematics and Italian Mathematics

Italian INVALSI results of
STrEM 64.1 59.5
the class experimenting
STrEM curriculum Lazio 56.3 52.9
Centre 57.4 54.7
Italy 56.6 54.6

loaded in different competences as reported in Table 3.4 in the Italian Ministry offi-

cial survey “Rilevazioni nazionali degli apprendimenti 2014–2015” (n.d.). The time
at students’ disposal for answering this test was 75  min. Table  8.2 shows mean
results in both areas of mathematics and Italian for the class experimenting STrEM
curriculum (STrEM), the region it belongs (Lazio), the area to which Lazio belongs
(centre) and Italy. Students in STrEM curriculum reported higher results in both
areas of INVALSI test. Moreover, the socio-economic background of students
involved in the STrEM curriculum was classified by the Italian Ministry of Education
by means of INVALSI statisticians as low. Results reported by STrEM students
were 6 points higher (Italian) and 3.9 points higher (mathematics) if compared with
students with a similar socio-economic background.
These results were really encouraging, so other schools and other classes from
the same school were willing to join for the second stage of experimentation. The
difficulties stated by Alimisis and Moro (2016) in integrating robotics into school
due to organizational issues unfortunately are still persistent in the Italian school
system, but some resilient teachers and determined principals succeeded in incorpo-
rating this curriculum in their schools.
From the obtained scores in Italian and mathematics subjects, it can be seen that
the average was higher than that of other schools in the Lazio region, in Italy’s cen-
tral area and throughout Italy, demonstrating how this approach is important not
only for STEM but also for the entire children education.

References

Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference.

Future of learning group publication, 5(3), 438.
Albayrak, S., Wollny, S., Varone, N., Lommatzsch, A., & Milosevic, D. (2005, March). Agent
technology for personalized information filtering: The PIA-system. In Proceedings of the 2005
ACM symposium on Applied computing (pp. 54–59). ACM.
Alimisis, D., & Moro, M. (2016). Special issue on educational robotics. Robotics and Autonomous
Systems, 77(C), 74–75.
Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic
review. Computers and Education, 58(3), 978–988.
Berland, M., Martin, T., Benton, T., Petrick Smith, C., & Davis, D. (2013). Using learning ana-
lytics to understand the learning pathways of novice programmers. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 22(4), 564–599.
Blikstein, P., Worsley, M., Piech, C., Sahami, M., Cooper, S., & Koller, D. (2014). Programming
pluralism: Using learning analytics to detect patterns in the learning of computer programming.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 561–599.
226 D. Scaradozzi et al.

Dresner, K., & Stone, P. (2005, July). Multiagent traffic management: An improved intersection
control mechanism. In Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous
agents and multiagent systems (pp. 471–477). ACM.
Forrester, J. W. (1994, June). Learning through system dynamics as preparation for the 21st cen-
tury. In Keynote address for systems thinking and dynamic modeling conference for K-12
education (pp. 27–29). Concord, MA: Concord Academy.
Indicazioni nazionali per il curricolo (2012). Italian Administrative Order 16/11/2012 n.
254 “National guidelines for the kindergarten (scuola dell’infanzia) and for the primary
school (scuola primaria)”. Retrieved from http://www.indicazioninazionali.it/2018/08/26/
indicazioni-2012/
Indicazioni per il curricolo (2007). Italian Administrative Order 31/07/2007 “National guidelines
for the kindergarten (scuola dell’infanzia) and primary school (scuola primaria)”. Retrieved
from https://archivio.pubblica.istruzione.it/news/2007/indicazioni_nazionali.shtml
INVALSI (2018). The INVALSI test according to INVALSI.  Retrieved from https://invalsi-
areaprove.cineca.it/docs/2018/INVALSI_tests_according_to_INVALSI.pdf
INVALSI (n.d.). Retrieved from https://invalsi-areaprove.cineca.it/index.
php?get=static&pag=precedenti_risultati
Jormanainen, I., & Sutinen, E. (2012, March). Using data mining to support teacher’s intervention
in a robotics class. In 2012 IEEE fourth international conference on Digital game and intel-
ligent toy enhanced learning (DIGITEL) (pp. 39–46). IEEE.
Kandlhofer, M., Steinbauer, G., Sundström, P., & Weiss, A. (2012). Evaluating the long-term
impact of RoboCupJunior: A first investigation. In D. Obdrzalek (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd
international conference on robotics in education, RiE2012 (pp. 87–94). Prague: MatfyzPress.
Karim, M. E., Lemaignan, S., & Mondada, F. (2015, June). A review: Can robots reshape K-12
STEM education? In 2015 IEEE international workshop on Advanced robotics and its social
impacts (ARSO) (pp. 1–8). IEEE.
Morganti, G., Perdon, A. M., Conte, G., & Scaradozzi, D. (2009). Multi-agent system theory for
modelling a home automation system. In J. Cabestany, F. Sandoval, A. Prieto, & J. M. Corchado
(Eds.), Bio-inspired systems: Computational and ambient intelligence. IWANN 2009. Lecture
Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 5517, pp. 585–593). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Nelson, S. G., Cooper, K. B., & Djapic, V. (2015, May). SeaPerch: How a start-up hands-on robot-
ics activity grew into a national program. In OCEANS 2015-Genova (pp. 1–3). IEEE.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms – Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York:
Basic Book.
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Construction, 36(2), 1–11.
Quadro di riferimento (n.d.). Italian Ministry of Education’s reference scheme for building a cur-
riculum. Retrieved from http://www.invalsi.it/snv2012/documenti/QDR/QdR_Mat_I_ciclo.pdf
Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council (2006). Retrieved from http://
data.europa.eu/eli/reco/2006/962/oj
Rilevazioni nazionali degli apprendimenti 2014-15 (n.d.). Italian Ministry of Education’s educa-
tion monitoring surveys. Retrieved from https://invalsi-areaprove.cineca.it/docs/attach/035_
Rapporto_Prove_INVALSI_2015.pdf
Rohwedder, W.J. (1990). Computer-aided environmental education. Series: Monographs in envi-
ronmental education and environmental studies. Grades: K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Post-Sec.
ENC-013496.
Rohwedder, W. J. (1999). Environmental education goes high-tech. Nature (Human), 4(1), 1–2.
Rohwedder, W. J., & Alm, A. (1994). Using computers in environmental education: Interactive
multimedia and on-line learning. The Environmental Education Toolbox--EE Toolbox
Workshop Resource Manual.
8  Innovative Tools for Teaching Marine Robotics, IoT and Control Strategies Since the… 227

Scaradozzi, D., Sorbi, L., Pedale, A., Valzano, M., & Vergine, C. (2015). Teaching robotics at
the primary school: An innovative approach. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174,
3838–3846.
Scaradozzi, D., Screpanti, L., Cesaretti, L., Mazzieri, E., Storti, M., Brandoni, M., & Longhi, A.
(2016). Rethink Loreto: We build our smart city! A stem education experience for introducing
smart city concept with the educational robotics. In 9th annual international conference of
education, research and innovation (ICERI 2016), Seville, Spain.
Scaradozzi, D., Screpanti, L., Cesaretti, L., Storti, M., & Mazzieri, E. (2018). Implementation
and assessment methodologies of teachers’ training courses for STEM activities. Technology,
Knowledge and Learning, 1–21.
Scaradozzi, D., Screpanti, L., Cesaretti, L. (in press) Towards a definition of educational robot-
ics: a classification of tools, experiences and assessments. In: Daniela, L. (Ed.),Smart learn-
ing with educational robotics  – using robots to scaffold learning outcomes, Springer. ISBN
978-3-030-19912-8.
Screpanti, L., Cesaretti, L., Storti, M., Mazzieri, E., & Longhi, A. (2018a). Advancing K12 edu-
cation through Educational Robotics to shape the citizens of the future. In Proceeding of
DIDAMATICA 2018. AICA.
Screpanti, L., Cesaretti, L., Marchetti, L., Baione, A., Natalucci, I. N., & Scaradozzi, D. (2018b).
An educational robotics activity to promote gender equality in STEM education. In Proccedings
of the eighteenth International Conference on Information, Communication Technologies in
Education (ICICTE 2018) (pp. 336–346), Chania, Crete, Greece.
Small-scale underwater glider (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.seaglide.net/about/
Stambaugh, B. (2015, April). Waterbotics: Pooling students to stem. In EGU General Assembly
Conference Abstracts (Vol. 17).
Sycara, K., Pannu, A., Williamson, M., Zeng, D., & Decker, K. (1996). Distributed intelligent
agents. IEEE Expert-Intelligent Systems and their Applications, 11(6), 36–46. https://doi.
org/10.1109/64.546581.
Verma, A. K., Dickerson, D., & McKinney, S. (2011). Engaging students in STEM careers with
project-based learning – MarineTech project. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 71(1), 25–31.
Veruggio, G., Operto, F., & Bekey, G. (2016). RoboEthics: Social and ethical implications. In
Springer handbook of robotics (pp. 2135–2160). Cham: Springer.
Wang, L., Sy, A., Liu, L., & Piech, C. (2017). Learning to represent student knowledge on pro-
gramming exercises using deep learning. In Proceedings of the 10th International conference
on educational data mining (pp. 324–329), Wuhan, China.
Zuckerman, O., & Resnick, M. (2003, April). A physical interface for system dynamics simulation.
In CHI’03 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 810–811). ACM.
Chapter 9
Robot Programming to Empower Higher
Cognitive Functions in Early Childhood

Maria Chiara Di Lieto, Chiara Pecini, Emanuela Castro,

Emanuela Inguaggiato, Francesca Cecchi, Paolo Dario,
Giuseppina Sgandurra, and Giovanni Cioni

Abstract  This chapter describes a new approach of educational robotics (ER)

aimed at empowering higher cognitive functions in school. As robot programming
requires mentally planning complex action sequences before the motor act, ER may
promote several crucial cognitive processes underlying learning. During robot
programming, the child has to first set the target, second sequentially think through
the steps needed to achieve that target, then verify the goal, and eventually reset the
plan. All these mental acts involve executive functions (EFs), which are complex
higher cognitive processes, crucial in early development because they are the base
for abstraction and logical reasoning, decision-making, sequential thinking, and
maintaining and updating information in memory and problem-solving. Robot
programming may empower EFs not only by improving top-down cognitive con-
trol, working memory, and inhibition skills but also by placing the child, more than
other passive thought technologies, in front of “objects to think with” in a group
setting that stimulates the use of EFs for social and emotional purposes. Recent
studies demonstrating, through a rigorous and scientific approach, the effect of ER
on EFs in typical and atypical development will be discussed.

Keywords  Educational Robotics · Robot Programming · Executive Functions ·

Early Childhood

M. C. Di Lieto · C. Pecini · E. Inguaggiato

Department of Developmental Neuroscience, IRCCS Fondazione Stella Maris, Pisa, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
E. Castro · F. Cecchi · P. Dario
The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
G. Sgandurra (*) · G. Cioni
Department of Developmental Neuroscience, IRCCS Fondazione Stella Maris, Pisa, Italy
Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 229

L. Daniela (ed.), Smart Learning with Educational Robotics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19913-5_9
230 M. C. Di Lieto et al.

Introduction

Educational robotics (ER) refers to a new learning method based on the program-
ming, designing, and/or assembling of robots through play and hands-on activities.
ER was developed at the end of the 1960s thanks to the integration of theories on
pedagogical learning and cognitive development, such as constructionism of
Seymour Papert and Jean Piaget (Papert 1980; Piaget and Inhelder 1966), but also
on theories of the relationship between the social world and cognitive development,
such as the social constructivism of Lev Semënovič Vygotskij and the social learn-
ing theory of Albert Bandura (Bandura 1986; Vygotsky 1980). Most in-school ER
studies examined the impact of ER activities on “STEM” areas (science, technol-
ogy, engineering, and mathematics), with particular focus on the design and assem-
bly of robots (Barker and Ansorge 2007; Conrad et al. 2018; Hussain et al. 2006;
Nugent et al. 2008; Nugent et al. 2010), while others aimed at using ER as an assis-
tive device for motor and social-communication problems and for inclusive educa-
tion (Daniela and Strods 2018; Daniela and Lytras 2018; Krebs et  al. 2012;
Srinivasan et al. 2016; Vanderborght et al. 2012).
However, ER activities may also promote other crucial learning processes such
as robot programming, which requires mentally planning complex sequences of
actions before the motor act. During robot programming, the child has to first set the
target, second sequentially think through the steps needed to achieve that target,
then programme actions, and finally verify behaviour. For example, if you want a
robot to reach one of the balls placed on a table, you must first decide which ball is
your target, after that you must choose the sequential steps needed to reach it, then
give the robot the correct commands, and finally verify the results. This task involves
several complex superior cognitive functions crucial in development, such as
abstraction and logical reasoning, decision-making, sequential thinking, maintain-
ing and updating information in memory, and finally problem-solving. In this
framework, ER activities focused on robot programming places the child, more than
any other passive thought technology, in front of “objects to think with” (Papert
1980) stimulating and empowering top-down cognitive control, and metacognition.
A few studies have recently tried to identify the role of robot programming in learn-
ing processes, describing changes after ER activities in auto-monitoring and reflec-
tion on math tasks, attention, decision-making, problem-solving representations,
computational thinking, visuo-spatial working memory, and inhibition skills (Di
Lieto et al. 2017b; Kazakoff and Bers 2014; la Paglia et al. 2011). However, none of
these studies were based on reliable designs with large samples, thus no conclusive
and exhaustive findings were available to clearly define the significant ER effect on
cognitive functions (Alimisis 2013; Benitti 2012). For this reason, our clinical and
scientific studies have attempted to verify and describe the ER effect, based on robot
programming activities, on superior cognitive processes in samples of children with
typical development or neurodevelopmental disorders. For this purpose, this chapter
will present executive functions (EFs), as higher cognitive processes involved in
robot programming activities and developed in early childhood, an intervention
9  Robot Programming to Empower Higher Cognitive Functions in Early Childhood 231

p­ roposal for cognitive empowerment through in-school ER laboratories based on

our previous experiences, and possible ER adaptations in terms of goals and meth-
ods in order to promote EFs in children with various neurodevelopmental disorders
and report on some of our clinical experiences.

 xecutive Functions: Higher Cognitive Processes Crucial

E
for Robot Programming

Some studies have only recently described the effects of ER activities on auto-­
monitoring and reflection on math tasks, attention, decision-making, problem-­
solving representations, computational thinking, visuo-spatial working memory,
and inhibition skills (Di Lieto et al. 2017b; Kazakoff and Bers 2014; la Paglia et al.
2011). However, most of these studies were not based on cognitive models of men-
tal functioning and development or on reliable designs with large samples; thus, no
conclusive and exhaustive findings have been provided to clearly define the signifi-
cant effect of ER on cognitive control (Alimisis 2013; Benitti 2012).
Higher cognitive processes involved in robot programming, such as problem
solving, cognitive control, and logical reasoning, belong to the EF cognitive domain,
which consists of a group of top-down cognitive functions important for adaptive
and goal-directed behaviour (Lehto et al. 2003; Miyake et al. 2000). Thanks to EFs,
people may “mentally play with ideas, take the time to think before acting, meet
novel, unanticipated challenges, resist temptations and stay focused” (Diamond
2013). There is agreement that EFs are made up of three main basic components
(Diamond 2013; Friedman and Miyake 2017; Lehto et al. 2003; Miyake et al. 2000):
(1) Inhibitory control: the ability to suppress an automatic response in favour of a
goal-appropriate action, when there are interference stimuli or predominant mental
representations, such as unwanted thoughts or memories. This ability requires us to
selectively focus on what we are doing, suppressing attention to other stimuli or
mental representations (e.g., a classmate talking or daydreaming while the teacher
is explaining something). Inhibition control plays an important role both in “cool”
EFs, the component of EFs evoked under relatively abstract, non-affective situa-
tions, as well as in “hot” EFs, elicited in settings that engender emotion, motivation,
and conflict between immediate gratification and long-term rewards (Zelazo and
Muller 2002; Zelazo et  al. 2005). Thus, inhibition control is crucial also for the
development of self-regulation capacity in situations which require cool as well as
hot EF components. (2) Working memory: the ability to mentally retain and elabo-
rate information (Baddeley and Hitch 1994; Smith and Jonides 1999). This is
important for complex cognitive activities, interpreting written or spoken language,
mentally reordering items (such as reorganizing a to-do list), translating instructions
into action plans, incorporating new information into thinking or action plans
(updating), considering alternatives and mentally relating information to derive a
general principle, or seeing relations between items or ideas (Diamond and Lee
232 M. C. Di Lieto et al.

2011). Research has documented the role of working memory in academic achieve-
ment, such as math and reading (Holmes et al. 2009; Van de Weijer-Bergsma et al.
2015), because it requires the child to pay attention to instructions or information,
to retain information and integrate that information so as to derive meaning from it.
(3) Cognitive Flexibility: the ability to switch between two or more tasks, mental
sets, or response rules. Cognitive flexibility is responsible for spatially or interper-
sonally changing perspectives, that is, to see something from a different point of
view, inhibiting previous perspectives and loading different ones into working
memory. Another aspect of this EF component involves changing how we think
about something (looking outside the box), adjusting priorities, or taking advantage
of sudden, unexpected opportunities.
These three EF components are strongly interrelated, and from these, high-order
EFs are constructed, such as reasoning, problem-solving, and planning (Collins and
Koechlin 2012; Diamond 2013; Lunt et al. 2012). These processes, that progres-
sively mature during child development, above all in the preschool and school ages,
are strongly associated with academic learning and must be continually challenged
during development. Robot programming may become a new tool to empower EFs,
because it requires inhibiting automatic responses in favour of goal-appropriate
actions, retaining and manipulating visuo-spatial and verbal information in working
memory, shifting or switching a mental set, if necessary, and reasoning and sequen-
tial programming before the motor act.

The Executive Functions Development in Early Childhood

The development of different EFs seems to partially happen in a sequential manner.

More complex cognitive abilities that emerge later are placed over already present
simpler fundamental ones. Studies suggest a unitary view of EFs in the preschool
period, whereas the multifaceted nature of EFs appears later in development
(Hughes et al. 2009).
Studies by Usai and colleagues indicate, more specifically, that the best fit for the
EFs organisation in 5–7-year-old children was a two-factor model, with inhibition
as a distinct dimension from a working memory-flexibility factor (Usai et al. 2014).
The differentiation between working memory and shifting may emerge later (Usai
et al. 2014).
EFs develop over a long period, beginning in the first year of life and continuing
up to late adolescence (Garon et al. 2008). The most impressive growth in EFs takes
place between the ages of 3 and 5 years (Garon et al. 2008). The significant age-­
related improvements in 5–7-year-old children appeared in all three EF components
and mainly in complex skills that implicate the management of simpler abilities
(Garon et al. 2008). According to Garon et al. (2008), there are two possible expla-
nations for this development pattern: according to the first, changes in this period
are simply quantitative for all EFs components and in the second hypothesis,
9  Robot Programming to Empower Higher Cognitive Functions in Early Childhood 233

n­ on-­mutually exclusive to the first, changes in an underlying factor, such as the

attentional system, could affect all aspects of EFs.

 lanning Education Robotic Laboratories Focused

P
on In-School Robot Programming: An Intervention Proposal

As in the processes involved in robot programming, planning ER laboratories

should follow the same steps: (1) identify and explicitly clarify the target, (2) pro-
gramme sequential steps needed to reach the target in a social and collaborative
setting, and (3) implement laboratories and verify their evolution. This intervention
proposal derives from our previous studies and experience with the in-school
ER and in clinical setting (Bargagna et al. 2018; Di Lieto et al. 2017b; Di Lieto
et al., submitted).
Regarding the first step, as in evidence-based rehabilitation setting, it is impor-
tant to choose and to explain the aims of planned activities. However, the need to
programme academic activities and the variability of cognitive, linguistic, and
social skills of children in sometimes large classrooms make the setting of targets
difficult and often inappropriate. Indeed, in several previous studies and scholastic
programmes employing ER laboratories the focus of planning was mainly oriented
around activities or the robot device rather than on clearly established hypotheses or
targets. ER aims may be short or long term and concern cognitive or robot program-
ming processes. Subdividing long-term goals into different short-term ones may be
useful in organizing activities and obtaining clear feedback about the achievement
of the first short-term goal before introducing the second one. ER aims may be dis-
tinguished according to the type of processes involved, such as specific cognitive
functions (e.g., visual imagery, inhibition, working memory) or robot programming
capacities (e.g., robot familiarization, complex visuo-spatial planning with the
robot).
The second step, concerning the organization of activities needed to reach the
target in a social and collaborative setting, is also crucial.
In accordance with recent literature on EFs training, some critical and method-
ological aspects have been highlighted in order to impose significant changes and
positive effects. The first of these changes was to create incremental challenging
activities based on adaptive and intensive paradigms (Klingberg et al. 2005; Thorell
et  al. 2009) and on the concept introduced by Lev Vygotsky (1987) of “zone of
proximal development”, that is, “the distance between the actual developmental
level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential devel-
opment as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collabo-
ration with more capable peers”. Other critical aspects consist of the following
points: (i) administration of longer training phases suitable for very young subjects
and actively monitoring participation levels during training (Diamond and Ling
2016; Wass 2015); (ii) the need to continually challenge EFs in order to induce
234 M. C. Di Lieto et al.

i­mprovements (Diamond and Ling 2016) through different and heterogeneous

activities with similar goals (Rueda et al. 2005; Wass et al. 2011); (iii) planning of
more enjoyable and social activities since benefits will be greater if emotional,
social, and physical needs are also addressed (Diamond and Ling 2016).
With these aspects in mind and through an approach based on the “errorless
learning” method (Warmington et al. 2013) and on an adaptive paradigm in a social
and collaborative setting, incremental more difficult ER activities should be planned,
so that children can gradually achieve more complex competencies in terms of cog-
nitive and robot programming goals.
Finally, the last step for planning ER laboratories focused on robot programming
should include implementation and assessment of classroom activities. Assessment
could be provided through concrete or verbal feedback to children in order to sus-
tain the gradual development of auto-monitoring and self-control, in addition to a
careful reflection about the established goals in order to evaluate the need for
changes or modifications. Moreover, at the end of the session it may be useful to
verify the attention and motivation of the children and their collaboration to see if
any other changes are necessary.

 xperiences of In-School Educational Robotics to Empower

E
Higher Cognitive Functions

Two experiences of in-school ER are reported: a pilot study with 12 children attend-
ing the last year of kindergarten (Di Lieto et al. 2017b) and a randomized study with
a sample of 187 children attending Grade 1 in several primary schools in Pisa, Italy
(Di Lieto et al., submitted). These research projects were approved by the Paediatric
Ethics Committee of the Tuscany Region and parents gave written consent for the
participation of their children and publication of results. Both studies aimed at
responding to the lack of quantitative evidence on how ER can increase learning in
students by providing intensive ER training to improve EFs in preschool and school-­
aged children, a crucial evolutionary window for the maturation of these functions
and for the acquisition of academic competences (Diamond 2013; Usai et al. 2014).
To pursue this aim, ER laboratories were organized with intensive, challenging,
enjoyable, and incrementally more difficult activities, with a child-friendly bee-­
shaped robot, called Bee-bot® (Campus Store), frequently used in lower primary
school-aged children (Janka 2008), and different colourful mats characterized by a
grid 15 × 15 cm to guide robot programming (Fig. 9.1). The Bee-bot consists of
seven colourful buttons positioned on its back: four orange buttons which move the
robot either forwards or backwards (15  cm), right or left (90°rotation); a central
green GO button which launches the programmed sequence; a blue CLEAR or X
button to erase memory; and another blue PAUSE or II button to program a short
interruption in the robot motion. Children control the Bee-bot by giving it a sequence
of instructions, using the seven commands, for a maximum of 40 potential instruc-
tions in one programmed sequence.
9  Robot Programming to Empower Higher Cognitive Functions in Early Childhood 235

Fig. 9.1  Bee-bot in one of its mats

ER laboratories were conducted twice a week for 6 weeks in the pilot study and
for 10  weeks in the randomized study; each session lasted about 60–75  min.
Incrementally more difficult activities were planned by the experimenters and pro-
posed to the children, allowing them to gradually achieve more complex competen-
cies in terms of cognitive and robot programming goals. Some additional and
optional activities, directed at consolidating learned abilities, were also included. A
metacognitive approach was encouraged, stimulating sequential reasoning, encour-
aging formulation of hypotheses and solutions, and favouring learning based on
collaboration and feedback among peers. Proposed ER activities were mainly
focused on visuo-spatial planning, response inhibition, interference control, work-
ing memory, and cognitive flexibility. An example of activities promoting working
memory was “Bee is hungry!”, in which the Bee-bot has to reach some flowers
represented by geometric shapes of different colours, shapes, and sizes on the mat
to pick up pollen. The child has to follow incremental challenging instructions given
by a teacher. For example, a simple instruction is “the best pollen is in red flowers”
while a more complex one would be “the best pollen is in big yellow flowers and in
little red ones” (see Di Lieto et al., submitted for a detailed description of weekly
goals and activities).
236 M. C. Di Lieto et al.

To pursue the aims of both studies, a set of neuropsychological tests were

administered to each child before and after training to verify differences within
groups (Di Lieto et al. 2017b) and with respect to a control group (Di Lieto et al.,
submitted). In particular, in the Randomized Controlled Study (RCT) study, accord-
ing to the design, children were randomly split into two groups (Custer A and
Cluster B) and sequentially participated in rollout training. The children were
assessed by a neuropsychological evaluation before the start of the training period.
The evaluation was made by standardized neuropsychological tests in order to
assess visuo-spatial memory, EFs such as working memory, response inhibition and
interference control, and cognitive flexibility. After the first evaluation, Cluster A
immediately began ER laboratories, while Cluster B continued their normal scho-
lastic program. After 10 weeks, a second evaluation was performed. Then, Cluster
B started ER laboratories and Cluster A continued their normal scholastic program.
At the end of the activities, a third follow-up and post-training assessment evalu-
ation of all the children was made for both clusters. Parametric analyses (p < 0.05)
comparing the two clusters demonstrated that intensive, challenging, and enjoyable
ER laboratories, with incrementally more difficult activities both in terms of cogni-
tive and robot programming goals, improve visuo-spatial working memory and
inhibition processes in 5–7-year-old children who performed ER laboratories with
respect to control group. Moreover, as emerged by repeated measure analyses within
Cluster A, the positive effects of training were still present 3 months later, as dem-
onstrated by the absence of differences in neuropsychological test scores at the three
evaluation time points of the group of children that immediately begin training.
Thus, this study documented for the first time, in a quantitative manner, the positive
and long-­term effects of ER activities focused on robot programming, working
memory, and inhibition EF components at school. This suggests the possibility of
including this approach for improving EFs in the early school years, if based on
rigorous methodological aspects and evidence-based methods. Moreover, the pos-
sibility of carrying out these laboratories in school could really be important in
order to directly empower scholastic performance and support children with EFs
deficit or impairment in a more ecological and social setting.

 romote Executive Functions in Neurodevelopmental

P
Disabilities with Educational Robotics

Neurodevelopmental disabilities are a group of disorders with an onset in the devel-

opmental period characterized by alterations of the central nervous system due to
early brain damage, genetic/chromosomal abnormalities, epilepsy or environmental
conditions which can give rise to intellectual disability, neuropsychological deficits,
specific learning deficits, movement and posture disorders, such as cerebral palsy,
and psychiatric disturbances. Other neurodevelopmental disorders frequently co-­
occur and determine impairments in personal, social, academic, and vocational func-
tioning (American Psychiatric Association 2013). Neurodevelopmental disabilities
9  Robot Programming to Empower Higher Cognitive Functions in Early Childhood 237

are currently studied on different description levels, that is, behavioural, cognitive,
an neural, within a cognitive neuroscience framework, very different from the adult
domain-specific modularization approach. The modern cognitive neuroscience
framework, fuelled by recent breakthroughs in the fields of brain connectivity and
genetics, posits that brain-behaviour relationships in childhood are best understood
as being subsumed by progressive specialization and localization of function within
the complex two-way interaction between genes and various environments. Within
this theoretical framework, it is crucial to investigate neurodevelopmental disorders
through different levels of description correlating, in the same patient, neuropsy-
chological, neurofunctional, and psychiatric evidence. Increasing research on EFs
for different neurodevelopmental disorders highlights the transversal role of EFs
in these different description levels, identifying their role in academic achievement
(Jenks et al. 2009), quality of life (Sharfi and Rosenblum 2016), psychopathological
problems (Schoemaker et al. 2010; Shimoni et al. 2012), and health.
Although EF deficits are typically found in children with attention deficits and
hyperactivity disorder (De La Fuente et  al. 2013) or traumatic brain injury
(Beauchamp and Anderson 2013), several studies suggest that EFs impairment may
be part of several neurodevelopmental disorders, such as specific learning disabili-
ties (Kudo et al. 2015), specific language impairment (Kapa and Plante 2015), intel-
lectual disabilities (Bexkens et  al. 2014; Costanzo et  al. 2013), autism spectrum
disorders (Chen et  al. 2016), and cerebral palsy, including spastic diplegia
(Bodimeade et al. 2013; Bottcher et al. 2010). Based on these findings, the interest
in studying the effect of EFs training in several neurodevelopmental disorders has
increased in the last years (Green et al. 2012; Grunewaldt et al. 2013; Klingberg
et al. 2005; Klingberg et al. 2002; Mak et al. 2017; Piovesana et al. 2017) Di Lieto
et al., submitted). Consistent with this new trend of studies, our recent clinical and
research experience has been oriented around adapting ER laboratories in terms of
goals and methods to some clinical developmental populations that need to improve
EFs: in particular, children with specific congenital spastic diplegia, Down syn-
drome (DS) and specific learning disorders. Moreover, in order to promote the inte-
gration of children with neurodevelopmental disabilities at school, some adaptation
and changes in ER laboratories were conducted in the classroom during the ran-
domized study (called e-Rob project) as shown below.

 xperiences of Educational Robotics in Different

E
Developmental Disorders: Aims and Methodological
Adaptations

Congenital Spastic Diplegia

Congenital spastic diplegia is a form of cerebral palsy which involves both sides of
the body with a predominance in lower limbs (Rosenbaum et  al. 2007). It com-
monly occurs in preterm children (preterm spastic diplegia, pSD) and it is generally
238 M. C. Di Lieto et al.

due to periventricular leukomalacia, a form of white matter brain injury typically

affecting neural pathways lying close to the lateral ventricles, such as the corticospi-
nal tract and optic radiations (Cioni 2000; Fazzi et al. 2009; Guzzetta et al. 2010;
Jacobson and Button 2000; Pavlova and Krägeloh-Mann 2013). Children with con-
genital spastic diplegia are consistently impaired in non-verbal intelligence and
visuo-perceptual and visuo-spatial abilities, while verbal abilities, as measured by
verbal IQ tests, are generally spared (Fazzi et al. 2009; Ito et al. 1996; Pavlova and
Krägeloh-Mann 2013; Sigurdardottir et al. 2008). Beyond visuo-spatial deficits and
impaired non-verbal intelligence, weak EFs have been also reported, such as the
inability to quickly process, maintain, update, and inhibit information (Di Lieto
et  al. 2017a; Pirila et  al. 2011; Pueyo et  al. 2009; Schatz et  al. 2001; White and
Christ 2005) and a multilevel organization of the neuropsychological profile has
been suggested beyond the common core visuo-spatial and sensory-motor deficits.
When congenital spastic diplegia is associated with thinning of the anterior/middle
corpus callosum, impairments in attention and EFs seemed to act as additional
factors in further affecting visuo-spatial, sensory-motor, and social skills (Di Lieto
et al. 2017a).
Due to the presence of common core visuo-spatial and sensory-motor deficits
and impairment in working memory and inhibition components of EFs in the spas-
tic diplegia population, ER activities have been used not only to promote robot
programming but also to improve impaired processes, such as visuo-motor integra-
tion (VMI), visuo-spatial processing, visuo-spatial working memory, inhibition,
and speed of processing.
A group of three preschool children (case G, case F, case E) diagnosed with con-
genital spastic diplegia were selected from a larger group of cerebral palsy children,
classified as spastic diplegia according to ICD-9 based register in 2014–2015 of the
Department of Developmental Neuroscience of IRCCS Stella Maris. The children
presented a neuroradiological diagnosis of periventricular leukomalacia documented
at brain MRI, mild to moderate upper limb functional impairment (from level I to
III) at the Manual Ability Classification System (MACS; Eliasson et al. 2006), and
a verbal intelligence level in the average range. Written consent was obtained from
participants’ parents to analyse research results. The ER laboratories were con-
ducted once a week for 12  weeks for about 75  min. Incremental and multidisci-
plinary activities were planned by neuropsychologists and psychomotor therapists,
allowing the children to gradually achieve more complex competencies in terms of
psychomotor, cognitive, and robot programming goals. Differently from the method
used with typically developing children, some methodological adaptations were
imposed, such as the need to repeat the same activities during ER laboratories to
strengthen competencies, to simplify sequences of robot programming due to defi-
cits in visuo-spatial processing, to suggest verbal strategies to compensate for visuo-
spatial difficulties, to employ mats with fewer visual elements and targets, and to
give a Bee-bot to each child because of frustration of waiting (Fig. 9.2).
A funny story, “The adventure of Bee-Bot: a special bee born with the wheel and
not with a wing”, created ad hoc was told at the beginning of each ER laboratory to
motivate and engage children. A metacognitive approach was encouraged, favour-
ing learning based on collaboration and feedback among peers.
9  Robot Programming to Empower Higher Cognitive Functions in Early Childhood 239

Fig. 9.2  ER Laboratory

Despite the initial adaptation difficulties due to anxiety separation from parents,
children progressively participated in the ER laboratories with motivation, interest,
and amusement, reciprocally helping each other during the activities.
At the end of the 3 months of ER laboratories, based on clinical needs of partici-
pants, two children (case G and case F) continued to exercise EFs through a new
home-based software training programme, specially created to promote working
memory, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility (MemoRan® Anastasis), and one
child (case E) started a commercial home-based software training programme
named Run the RAN ® (RANt, Anastasis; http://www.ridinet.it) to increase rapid
automatizated naming due to significant difficulties in visuo-verbal integration and
verbal fluency.
For both programmes, the training period lasted about 3 months with three to five
daily sessions lasting 10–15 min per week.
In order to verify and describe the effect of the programmes, a short test protocol
was administered before the ER laboratories and at the end of home-based training
(6 months later). This short test protocol assessed verbal and visuo-spatial working
memory (Digit and Corsi span, BVN 5-11), cognitive flexibility (Card Sort, FE-PS
2-6), cognitive inhibition with visuo-verbal stimuli (Inhibition subtest, NEPSY-II),
inhibition of motor responses (Little fishes play, FE-PS 2-6), and VMI.
Qualitative comparative analysis between pre- and post-assessments for each
child showed improvement performances in all three children in the speed of pro-
cessing both in cognitive and motor inhibition tasks and in the ability to spontane-
ously change their responses based on visual targets. Two children (case G and case
F), who performed home-based EFs training after ER laboratories, showed better
240 M. C. Di Lieto et al.

performances in verbal working memory at the end of the training period, while
case G also showed increased abilities in visuo-spatial working memory task.
Nevertheless, case F and case E presented higher performances in VMI test at the
end of the training period with respect to the beginning.
Although conducted on only a few children, this clinical experience clearly
indicates the practicality of including ER, if based on a rigorous methodology and
clinical needs, to promote EF components also in preschool children with congeni-
tal spastic diplegia.

Down Syndrome

An ER laboratory was ad hoc adapted for children with a diagnosis of DS. Eight
children were involved in the laboratory, selected from a larger group of DS chil-
dren referred to the Department of Developmental Neuroscience of IRCCS
Fondazione Stella Maris. Children were selected according to rigorous inclusion
criteria (Bargagna et al. 2018). The laboratory consisted of 45 min weekly sessions
for 8 weeks, using Bee-bot. The children were evaluated by a neuropsychological
assessment at the beginning and at the end of the ER laboratory. The adaptations of
the ER laboratory were multiple in order to respond to the cognitive, behavioural,
and attentional characteristics of the children. A highly structured format of time
and activities was created to maintain a simple narrative setting in order to facilitate
the engagement and attractiveness of activities. In addition, an easier narrative set-
ting with respect to the ones utilized for typical developing children was used and
the laboratories were organized in small groups or individual sessions. Because of
the limited attention span of the children involved in the laboratory, periodic pauses
in the activities were planned. Moreover, in order to focalize the attention of the
children, possible sources of distraction in the environment were eliminated. Finally,
a personalized positive reinforcement at the end of each session was organized in
order to maintain motivation.
This experience has enabled us to draw some conclusions concerning the appli-
cability of ER in children with a diagnosis of DS. Bee-bot turned out to be a very
attractive device, able to promote interest and capture the attention of the children
and favour relationships with adults and peers, acting as a mediator. Nevertheless,
the robotic kit was not always sufficient to obtain full compliance. In these situa-
tions, adaptations of activities resulted decisive to maintain the efficacy of laborato-
ries. In this sense, the possibility of organizing small work groups was fundamental
in order to maintain the attention of the children and promote imitation learning. A
critical aspect of ER laboratories is the duration: one weekly session per 8 weeks
resulted insufficient to consolidate learning. Longer periods of familiarization with
the Bee-bot may promote an easier access to the proposed activities. Nevertheless,
because all the children were able to perform ER activities, this first experience sug-
gested practicability in a DS population. However, because of the small sample size
and significant heterogeneity in terms of recorded results (e.g., not all the children
9  Robot Programming to Empower Higher Cognitive Functions in Early Childhood 241

were able to perform all the evaluations due to opposition behaviour), it is difficult
to draw general conclusions. Because of this, two representative case studies are
reported, in order to qualitatively describe two different experiences of children
involved in the ER laboratories: S and F.
S is a 7-year-old DS female with a mild/moderate intellectual disability. During
her experience in ER laboratories, behavioural and relational difficulties caused her
difficulties in participating in the activities. For example, S had problems in a peer-­
group setting, so individual sessions were frequently proposed. The goal of the
activities was shifted from the cognitive domain to the relational one. Bee-bot was
utilized as a mediator for relationships with adults and peers and to promote atten-
tion and motivation. Once S felt comfortable and once she was positively inserted in
a group setting, basic functions of the Bee-bot were proposed. At the end of the ER
laboratory programme, S was able to accept a play-group setting and was able to
perform a one-step forward movement with the Bee-bot. At the beginning of the
study, the abovementioned behavioural and relational problems made it impossible
for her to perform most of the neuropsychological evaluations. At the end of the
training, a greater collaboration was observed during assessment which indicates a
small enhancement in passive visuo-spatial span and spatial orientation on maps.
The second case study is represented by F, a 12-year-old DS male with a mild/
moderate intellectual disability. He was very passionate and infatuated by the ER
activities, up to the point of being unable to share the robot with peers. Therefore, it
was necessary to focalize the training goals on respect of turn and to promote a more
reflexive approach to the use of the robot. During the ER laboratories, F was easily
able to plan complex routes (e.g., forward and backward movements and left and
right turns) using his hand on the mat as a concrete support to guide robot program-
ming. During the training, F achieved adequate behaviour during play, collaborating
with peers and acting as a tutor if necessary. Pre- and post-assessments showed an
enhancement in the abilities of the passive visuo-spatial span. The boy achieved the
highest scores in most of the other tests in pre-evaluation, producing a ceiling effect.

Specific Learning Disorders

By definition, children are reported to be affected by a specific learning disorder if

they show developmental language or literacy impairments but normal non-verbal
intelligence in the absence of other neurological or clinical conditions. For many
years, this was seen as a consequence of a deficit either in perceptual processing or
in underlying language representations, depending on one’s theoretical persuasion.
More recently, however, there has been interest in the idea that the learning process
itself might be impaired and that language abilities are not “encapsulated” modules,
acquired and used without conscious effort, but rather that they interplay with more
controlled and deliberate operations probed by EFs (Bishop et al. 2014). Several
studies have documented EF deficits in specific learning disorders (Gooch et  al.
2011; de Jong 2006; Varvara et al. 2014) and the need to plan EF programmes with
242 M. C. Di Lieto et al.

the hypothesis that a high cognitive control may facilitate language learning across
modalities.
Within this framework, learning to plan a robot may represent a motivating
“extra-deficit” setting where children with language or literacy disorders exercise
those EFs that are usually impaired in these populations, such as sequential plan-
ning, updating in working memory, and inhibition of automatic responses.
Accordingly, we recently set up a three-month weekly programme where preschool
children with oral language deficit worked in small groups with the Bee-bot. Each
hourly session consisted of different activities in agreement with a multifactorial risk
model of learning disorder aimed at integrating cognitive control language produc-
tion or comprehension with visual elaboration and motor action. For example, in
order to improve motor-language integration, children had to imitate the movement
of the robot pre-planned by the operator, while they were mentally engaged in count-
ing each step. During this activity, children decreased the tendency to anticipate
robot movement and improved the ability to complete a language-motor dual task.
In another exercise, a pre-programmed robot would move on a floor covered with
animal shapes and children were instructed to pick up, as quickly as possible, all the
shapes different from those touched by the robot. For example, if the robot touched
a dog and an elephant, children would have to pick up all the other animal shapes
except those representing a dog or an elephant. Children were instructed to do this
quickly, before the robot had touched all the types of animals. During these activi-
ties, children learned to rapidly access semantic representations while using VMI. A
third exercise required a child to program the robot to move across different colour
squares while another child, next to the former, had to pronounce a word belonging
to a certain semantic category or a word starting with a certain sound when the robot
touched a specific colour or word from another category or a word with a different
sound for another colour. This exercise worked mainly on verbal fluency and visual
control. For each session, activities from about 20 different exercises were pre-­
planned in order to train different cognitive abilities. In each session, two psycholo-
gists recorded the performance online by means of medical notes and chose the next
exercise in order to vary the activities and training for the different cognitive abili-
ties. Although quantitative results are not available for this programme, qualitative
analysis suggests that it is suitable to be used in parallel with speech therapy in order
to reinforce what can be achieved by a specific-domain programme.

Educational Robotic Adaptations in Classroom

After these feasibility studies with specific populations, we aimed at verifying the
feasibility of ER laboratories in different special educational needs (SEN) children.
To pursue this aim, ER laboratories were organized at school and specific adapta-
tions were made. SEN children attending the first grade of primary school were
enrolled. The other children in the classes participated in the ER activities too. SEN
children participating in the study were divided into the following categories:
9  Robot Programming to Empower Higher Cognitive Functions in Early Childhood 243

• Motor or visual problems

• Linguistics problems
• Cognitive problems
• Relational problems
• Attentional problems
To choose the most appropriate robot for our research purposes, a search was
conducted individuating two models:
• Bee-bot (Campus Store, TTS Group), a bee-shaped robot with seven buttons on
its back for planning
• Pro-bot (Campus Store, TTS Group), a car-shaped robot with seven buttons on
its back for planning
After careful analysis of the two possibilities, the Bee-bot robot was selected for
the following conceptual and technical reasons:
• Bee-bot is one of the most utilized robots in the age-range considered (Janka 2008).
• Bee-bot is considered one of the most impressive hardware devices for kindergar-
ten and lower primary school children in educational technology (Janka 2008).
• Pro-Bot resulted more difficult to use for a SEN child in the first grade of the
primary school.
To carry out these activities, the children were divided into small groups in order
to favour imitation learning, collaboration, and involvement among peers. To stimu-
late attention and motivation, the proposed activities were made part of a narrative
setting. All the ER laboratory activities were organized with an increasing complex-
ity, both in terms of cognitive goals and in terms of robot programming ability. A
metacognitive approach to the activities was encouraged, stimulating reflection
about what was happening, encouraging the formulation of hypothesis and s­ olutions,
favouring an anxiety-free and fear-of-error-free learning environment, and promot-
ing collaboration and feedback among peers.
For SEN children, ad hoc adaptations of both the robots and activities were
proposed.
Bee-bot itself was adapted in order to respond to the needs of children with
motor or visual disabilities, for which a simple change in activities would have
resulted insufficient.
Regarding the adaptation to motor disabilities, it was necessary to make the robot
accessible to children who would have had difficulties in programming the Bee-bot
with the standard buttons. For this reason, a modification of the interface was car-
ried out using some specific sensors in place of the original ones. The sensors are
65 mm diameter on/off buttons (Jelly Bean, see Fig. 9.3).
These sensors allow for an easier and customizable access because they can be
freely positioned next to the child or inserted in a case that resembles the back of the
Bee-bot in order to facilitate motor planning. Moreover, the sensors can temporar-
ily be put offline, in order to limit the choices of planning, simplifying the activities.
In Fig. 9.4, it is possible to see the final adapted prototype.
244 M. C. Di Lieto et al.

Fig. 9.3  Jelly bean

Fig. 9.4  The adapted Bee-bots

Regarding the adaptation of activities, the general indications to perform the

activities with SEN children were as follows:
• To place the child in a small group.
• SEN children were positioned in a place with few distractions to foster working
with a partner and stimulate attention/motivation towards the activity.
Here are some examples of specific adaptations of the activities for SEN children.
For children with motor or visual problems, the use of the adapted Bee-bot was
proposed. For children with linguistic/cognitive problems, some instruction cards
were used to help the child understand the correct command. These cards repre-
sented the different buttons present on the Bee-bot. Gestural commands associated
with the oral ones were also encouraged. For children with attention problems,
frequent breaks and utilizing a token economy strategy helped to progressively
increase their attention span. Finally, for children with relational problems, particu-
lar attention was paid to promote imitation learning, collaboration, and involvement
among peers through relational reinforcements.
All the children were able to perform ER activities and therefore the results of
the study were promising in terms of feasibility. By inserting ER into a scholastic
system, it is possible to facilitate the inclusion of SEN children in learning ­programs,
exploiting the adaptability of the robots. Our aim was to familiarize the students to
new technologies, valorising the role of robotics not only in education but also as a
support for situations of discomfort, as in SEN children.
9  Robot Programming to Empower Higher Cognitive Functions in Early Childhood 245

Conclusions

Besides the historical use of ER to improve school engagement and STEM learning,
in recent years interest in investigating ER effects on cognitive processes underlying
learning has increased exponentially. This approach appears relevant not only for
teachers and pedagogues to enhance cognitive operations that are engaged and
strengthened by robot programming, but also for clinicians who would like to set up
new programmes in order to ameliorate cognitive control in several developmental
disorders. Indeed, within specific methodological characteristics, ER has the poten-
tial of becoming a tool that, by incorporating complexity, novelty, and diversity, is
highly suitable to improve EFs in children with congenital or specific disorders.
Nevertheless, so far, few studies have used a rigorous and scientific approach and
further research is needed in order to gather data on larger samples of children with
typical development or neurodevelopmental disorders. Furthermore, available evi-
dence has suggested that robot programming could be a powerful tool for improving
EFs. However, to be effective, it must be used by embedding EF exercises within the
cognitive area of major development for a certain age or within the domain that is
dysfunctional for a certain disorder. Indeed, for children unable to act properly in
the real word or who lack high order cognitive tools and thus struggle to access
complex elaborations, robots represent the chance to facilitate action, representa-
tion, and thinking. However, achieving this potential requires strong multidisci-
plinary collaboration. While developmental psychology and neuropsychiatry
address developmental trajectories of several typical and atypical cognitive
­processes, biotechnologies can adapt old and new robots to overcome sensory,
motor, and cognitive limitations that characterize many children with developmen-
tal disorders.

Acknowledgements  We would like to thank the children and parents who participated in this
study and the TIM Foundation for its support of the “e-ROB Project” (aimed at creating a platform
for ER through e-learning). We also thank Vincent Corsentino for English reviewing.

References

Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science
and Technology Education, 6(1), 63–71. Retrieved from http://earthlab.uoi.gr/theste/index.php/
theste/article/view/119.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(DSM-5®).
Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G.  J. (1994). Development in the concept of working memory.
Neuropsychology, 8, 485–493. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/neu/8/4/485.
html?uid=1995-04539-001.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action : a social cognitive theory / Albert
Bandura. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall, 1986. xiii, 617 pp.
246 M. C. Di Lieto et al.

Bargagna, S., Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Cioni, G., Dario, P., Dell’Omo, M., et al. (2018). Educational
robotics in down syndrome: A feasibility study. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9366-z.
Barker, B. S., & Ansorge, J. (2007). Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an infor-
mal learning environment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 229–243.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782481.
Beauchamp, M. H., & Anderson, V. (2013). Cognitive and psychopathological sequelae of pediat-
ric traumatic brain injury. In Handbook of clinical neurology (Vol. 112, pp. 913-920). Elsevier.
Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic
review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0360131511002508 LK - link%7C http://www.sciencedirect.com/sci-
ence/article/pii/S0360131511002508 SRC - BaiduScholar FG - 0.
Bexkens, A., Ruzzano, L., Collot d’ Escury-Koenigs, A. M. L., Van der Molen, M. W., & Huizenga,
H. M. (2014). Inhibition deficits in individuals with intellectual disability: A meta-regression
analysis. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12068.
Bishop, D., Nation, K., & Patterson, K. (2014). When words fail us: insights into language pro-
cessing from developmental and acquired disorders. Retrieved from http://rstb.royalsociety-
publishing.org/content/369/1634/20120403.short
Bodimeade, H.  L., Whittingham, K., Lloyd, O., & Boyd, R.  N. (2013). Executive function in
children and adolescents with unilateral cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine & Child
Neurology, 55(10), 926–933. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12195.
Bottcher, L., Flachs, E. M., & Uldall, P. (2010). Attentional and executive impairments in chil-
dren with spastic cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 52, e42–e47.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2009.03533.x.
Chen, S.  F., Chien, Y.  L., Wu, C.  T., Shang, C.  Y., Wu, Y.  Y., & Gau, S.  S. (2016). Deficits in
executive functions among youths with autism spectrum disorders: An age-stratified analysis.
Psychological Medicine, 46(8), 1625–1638. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291715002238.
Cioni, G. (2000). Correlation between visual function, neurodevelopmental outcome, and mag-
netic resonance imaging findings in infants with periventricular leucomalacia. Archives of
Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition, 82(2), 134F–140. https://doi.org/10.1136/
fn.82.2.F134.
Collins, A., & Koechlin, E. (2012). Reasoning, learning, and creativity: Frontal lobe function
and human decision-making. PLoS Biology, 10(3), e1001293. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pbio.1001293.
Conrad, J., Polly, D., Binns, I., & Algozzine, B. (2018). Student perceptions of a summer robotics
camp experience. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideals,
91(3), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2018.1436819.
Costanzo, F., Varuzza, C., Menghini, D., Addona, F., Gianesini, T., & Vicari, S. (2013). Executive
functions in intellectual disabilities: A comparison between Williams syndrome and Down syn-
drome. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(5), 1770–1780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ridd.2013.01.024.
Daniela, L., & Lytras, M.  D. (2018). Educational robotics for inclusive education. Technology,
Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9397-5.
Daniela, L., & Strods, R. (2018). Robot as agent in reducing risks of early school leaving.
Innovations, Technologies and Research in Education, 140–158. Retrieved from https://books.
google.it/books?hl=it&lr=&id=UJ9fDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA138&dq=Daniela,+%26+S
trods,+2018+robot&ots=tTctvNcwWq&sig=9Bbgv4npUuUN_Bvu2xI523gy6bU.
de Jong, P. F. (2006). Understanding normal and impaired reading development: A working mem-
ory perspective. In Working memory and education (pp. 33–60). Retrieved from https://books.
google.it/books?hl=it&lr=&id=J48mU2acHoYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA33&dq=Understanding+n
ormal+and+impaired+reading+development:+A+working+memory+perspective+PF+De+J
ong&ots=4AX88Bfg8T&sig=5x9PsQkiU_AzEJqSwtbOnaYJwvM
De La Fuente, A., Xia, S., Branch, C., & Li, X. (2013). A review of attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder from the perspective of brain networks. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00192.
9  Robot Programming to Empower Higher Cognitive Functions in Early Childhood 247

Di Lieto, M. C., Brovedani, P., Pecini, C., Chilosi, A. M., Belmonti, V., Fabbro, F., et al. (2017a).
Spastic diplegia in preterm-born children: Executive function impairment and neuroanatomi-
cal correlates. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 61, 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ridd.2016.12.006.
Di Lieto, M. C., Inguaggiato, E., Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Cioni, G., Dell’Omo, M., et al. (2017b).
Educational robotics intervention on executive functions in preschool children: A pilot study.
Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.018.
Di Lieto, M. C., Pecini, C., Castro, E., Inguaggiato, E., Cecchi, F., Dario, P., Cioni, G., & Sgandurra,
G. (submitted). Empowering executive functions in 5–6-year-old typically developing children
by educational robotics: An RCT study.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 135–168. https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750.
Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in
children 4 to 12 years old. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204529.
Diamond, A., & Ling, D. S. (2016). Conclusions about interventions, programs, and approaches for
improving executive functions that appear justified and those that, despite much hype, do not.
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2015.11.005.
Eliasson, A. C., Krumlinde-Sundholm, L., Rösblad, B., Beckung, E., Arner, M., Öhrvall, A. M., &
Rosenbaum, P. (2006). The Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) for children with
cerebral palsy: scale development and evidence of validity and reliability. Developmental med-
icine and child neurology, 48(7), 549–554.
Fazzi, E., Bova, S., Giovenzana, A., Signorini, S., Uggetti, C., & Bianchi, P. (2009). Cognitive visual
dysfunctions in preterm children with periventricular leukomalacia. Developmental Medicine
& Child Neurology, 51(12), 974–981. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2009.03272.x.
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2017). Unity and diversity of executive functions: Individual differ-
ences as a window on cognitive structure. Cortex. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.04.023.
Garon, N., Bryson, S., & Smith, I. (2008). Executive function in preschoolers; a review using an
integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 31–60. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.
org/record/2007-19419-002.
Gooch, D., Snowling, M., & Hulme, C. (2011). Time perception, phonological skills
and executive function in children with dyslexia and/or ADHD symptoms. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 52(2), 195–203. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02312.x.
Green, C.  T., Long, D.  L., Green, D., Iosif, A.-M., Dixon, J.  F., Miller, M.  R., et  al. (2012).
Will working memory training generalize to improve off-task behavior in children with
­attention-­deficit/hyperactivity disorder? Neurotherapeutics, 9(3), 639–648. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13311-012-0124-y.
Grunewaldt, K.  H., Løhaugen, G.  C. C., Austeng, D., Brubakk, A.-M., & Skranes, J.  (2013).
Working memory training improves cognitive function in VLBW preschoolers. Pediatrics.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-1965.
Guzzetta, A., Tinelli, F., Bancale, A., & Cioni, G. (2010). Visual and oculomotor disorders.
In The spastic forms of cerebral palsy (pp.  115–142). Milano: Springer Milan. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-88-470-1478-7_7.
Holmes, J., Gathercole, S.  E., & Dunning, D.  L. (2009). Adaptive training leads to sustained
enhancement of poor working memory in children. Developmental Science, 12(4), F9–F15.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00848.x.
Hughes, C., Ensor, R., Wilson, A., & Graham, A. (2009). Tracking executive function across
the transition to school: A latent variable approach. Developmental Neuropsychology, 35(1),
20–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565640903325691.
Hussain, S., Lindh, J., & Shukur, G. (2006). The effect of LEGO training on pupils’ school per-
formance in mathematics, problem solving ability and attitude: Swedish data. In Educational
Technology and Society (Vol. 9, pp. 182–194). https://doi.org/10.2307/jeductechsoci.9.3.182.
Ito, J., Araki, A., Tanaka, H., Tasaki, T., Cho, K., & Yamazaki, R. (1996). Muscle histopathology in
spastic cerebral palsy. Brain and Development. https://doi.org/10.1016/0387-7604(96)00006-X.
248 M. C. Di Lieto et al.

Jacobson, L.  K., & Button, G.  N. (2000). Periventricular leukomalacia: An important cause of
visual and ocular motility dysfunction in children. Survey of Ophthalmology. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0039-6257(00)00134-X.
Janka, P. (2008). Using a programmable toy at preschool age: why and how. … , International
Conference on Simulation, Modelling and …, (pp. 112–121). Retrieved from http://www.dei.
unipd.it/~emg/downloads/SIMPAR08-WorkshopProceedings/TeachingWithRobotics/pek-
arova.pdf
Jenks, K. M., De Moor, J., & Van Lieshout, E. C. D. M. (2009). Arithmetic difficulties in chil-
dren with cerebral palsy are related to executive function and working memory. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 50(7), 824–833. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02031.x.
Kapa, L. L., & Plante, E. (2015). Executive function in SLI: Recent advances and future direc-
tions. Current Developmental Disorders Reports, 2(3), 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40474-015-0050-x.
Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2014). Put your robot in, put your robot out: Sequencing through
programming robots in early childhood. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(4),
553–573. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.50.4.f.
Klingberg, T., Forssberg, H., & Westerberg, H. (2002). Increased brain activity in frontal and parietal
cortex underlies the development of visuospatial working memory capacity during childhood.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892902317205276.
Klingberg, T., Fernell, E., Olesen, P. J., Johnson, M., Gustafsson, P., Dahlström, K., et al. (2005).
Computerized training of working memory in children with ADHD--a randomized, controlled
trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry., 44(2), 177–186.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200502000-00010.
Krebs, H. I., Fasoli, S. E., Dipietro, L., Fragala-Pinkham, M., Hughes, R., Stein, J., & Hogan, N.
(2012). Motor learning characterizes habilitation of children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy.
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968311433427.
Kudo, M. F., Lussier, C. M., & Swanson, H. L. (2015). Reading disabilities in children: A selective
meta-analysis of the cognitive literature. Research in Developmental Disabilities. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ridd.2015.01.002.
la Paglia, F., Rizzo, R., & la Barbera, D. (2011). Use of robotics kits for the enhancement of meta-
cognitive skills of mathematics: A possible approach. Annual Review of CyberTherapy and
Telemedicine, 9(1), 22–25. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-766-6-26.
Lehto, J.  E., Juujärvi, P., Kooistra, L., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Dimensions of executive func-
tioning: Evidence from children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 59–80.
https://doi.org/10.1348/026151003321164627.
Lunt, L., Bramham, J., Morris, R. G., Bullock, P. R., Selway, R. P., Xenitidis, K., & David, A. S.
(2012). Prefrontal cortex dysfunction and “Jumping to Conclusions”: Bias or deficit? Journal
of Neuropsychology, 6(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-6653.2011.02005.x.
Mak, C., Whittingham, K., Cunnington, R., & Boyd, R. N. (2017). Efficacy of mindfulness-based
interventions for attention and executive function in children and adolescents—A systematic
review. Mindfulness. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0770-6.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000).
The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “fron-
tal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1006/
cogp.1999.0734.
Nugent, G., Barker, B., & Grandgenett, N. (2008). The effect of 4-H robotics and geospatial tech-
nologies on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and attitudes. In World
conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2008 (Vol. 2008,
pp. 447–452). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/28433/
Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Impact of robotics and geo-
spatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 42(4), 391–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782557.
9  Robot Programming to Empower Higher Cognitive Functions in Early Childhood 249

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, 12(4), 285–
286. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1095592%22 LK  - link%7Chttp://dl.
acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1095592%22 SRC - BaiduScholar FG - 0.
Pavlova, M. A., & Krägeloh-Mann, I. (2013). Limitations on the developing preterm brain: Impact
of periventricular white matter lesions on brain connectivity and cognition. Brain. https://doi.
org/10.1093/brain/aws334.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1966). Child., L’image mentale chez l’enfant./the mental image in the.
Presses Universitaires de France.
Piovesana, A., Ross, S., Lloyd, O., Whittingham, K., Ziviani, J., Ware, R. S., et al. (2017). A ran-
domised controlled trial of a web-based multi-modal therapy program to improve executive
functioning in children and adolescents with acquired brain injury. Clinical Rehabilitation,
31(10), 1351–1363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215517695373.
Pirila, S., Van Der Meere, J. J., Rantanen, K., Jokiluoma, M., & Eriksson, K. (2011). Executive
functions in youth with spastic cerebral palsy. Journal of Child Neurology, 26(7), 817–821.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0883073810392584.
Pueyo, R., Junqué, C., Vendrell, P., Narberhaus, A., & Segarra, D. (2009). Neuropsychologic
impairment in bilateral cerebral palsy. Pediatric Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pediatrneurol.2008.08.003.
Rosenbaum, P., Paneth, N., Leviton, A., Goldstein, M., Bax, M., Damiano, D., et al. (2007). A report:
The definition and classification of cerebral palsy April 2006. Developmental Medicine and
Child Neurology, 49(Suppl. 109), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.tb12610.x.
Rueda, M.  R., Rothbart, M.  K., McCandliss, B.  D., Saccomanno, L., & Posner, M.  I. (2005).
Training, maturation, and genetic influences on the development of executive attention. The
National Academy of Sciences, 102(2), 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0506897102.
Schatz, J., Craft, S., White, D., Park, T. S., & Figiel, G. S. (2001). Inhibition of return in children with
perinatal brain injury. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society: JINS, 7, 275–284.
Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-international-neu-
ropsychological-society/article/inhibition-of-return-in-children-with-perinatal-brain-injury/
D5595103DE1CB9F18B43056823B5F0F3.
Schoemaker, K., Bunte, T., Wiebe, S. A., Espy, K. A., Dekovic, M., & Matthys, W. (2010). Executive
functions in preschool children with ADHD and disruptive behavior disorders. European Child
& Adolescent Psychiatry, 19, S64–S65. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/
10.1080/87565641.2014.911875?casa_token=g5kZaOF_MZQAAAAA:TmFHNpIzgK8rnoIo
wMfY7rtPNTpk-Z3Z31FdaGO27wry3bL9BQzkba1CJCff4jRtiwia1xlBjWSe3A.
Sharfi, K., & Rosenblum, S. (2016). Executive functions, time organization and quality of life
among adults with learning disabilities. PLoS One, 11(12). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0166939.
Shimoni, M., Engel-Yeger, B., & Tirosh, E. (2012). Executive dysfunctions among boys with
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): Performance-based test and parents
report. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33(3), 858–865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ridd.2011.12.014.
Sigurdardottir, S., Eiriksdottir, A., Gunnarsdottir, E., Meintema, M., Arnadottir, U., & Vik, T.
(2008). Cognitive profile in young Icelandic children with cerebral palsy. Developmental
Medicine & Child Neurology, 50(5), 357–362. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.02046.x.
Smith, E. E., & Jonides, J. (1999). Neuroscience – Storage and executive processes in the frontal
lobes. Science, 283(5408), 1657–1661. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.283.5408.1657.
Srinivasan, S.  M., Eigsti, I.  M., Gifford, T., & Bhat, A.  N. (2016). The effects of embodied
rhythm and robotic interventions on the spontaneous and responsive verbal communica-
tion skills of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): A further outcome of a pilot
randomized controlled trial. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rasd.2016.04.001.
250 M. C. Di Lieto et al.

Thorell, L. B., Lindqvist, S., Bergman Nutley, S., Bohlin, G., & Klingberg, T. (2009). Training and
transfer effects of executive functions in preschool children. Developmental Science, 12(1),
106–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00745.x.
Usai, M.  C., Viterbori, P., Traverso, L., & De Franchis, V. (2014). Latent structure of execu-
tive function in five- and six-year-old children: A longitudinal study. European Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 11(4), 447–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2013.840578.
Van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2015). Verbal and visual-­
spatial working memory and mathematical ability in different domains throughout primary
school. Memory and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0480-4.
Vanderborght, B., Simut, R., Saldien, J., Pop, C., Rusu, A. S., Pintea, S., et al. (2012). Using the
social robot probo as a social story telling agent for children with ASD. Interaction Studies.
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.13.3.02van.
Varvara, P., Varuzza, C., Sorrentino, A. C. P., Vicari, S., & Menghini, D. (2014). Executive func-
tions in developmental dyslexia. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fnhum.2014.00120.
Vygotsky, L.  S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92784-6.
Vygotsky, L. (1987). Zone of proximal development. Mind in Society The Development of Higher
Psychological Processes, 157, 5291 SRC.
Warmington, M., Hitch, G. J., & Gathercole, S. E. (2013). Improving word learning in children
using an errorless technique. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114(3), 456–465.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.10.007.
Wass, S. V. (2015). Applying cognitive training to target executive functions during early develop-
ment. Child Neuropsychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2014.882888.
Wass, S., Porayska-Pomsta, K., & Johnson, M. H. (2011). Training attentional control in infancy.
Current Biology, 21(18), 1543–1547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.08.004.
White, D., & Christ, S. E. (2005). Executive control of learning and memory in children with bilat-
eral spastic cerebral palsy. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 11(07),
920–924. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617705051064.
Zelazo, P.  D., & Muller, U. (2002). Executive function in typical and atypical development. In
Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 445–469). Retrieved from https://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470996652.ch20
Zelazo, P. D., Qu, L., & Müller, U. (2005). Hot and cold aspects of executive functions: Relations
in early development. Young Children’s Cognitive Development: Interrelationships Among
Executive Function, Working Memory, Verbal Ability, and Theory of Mind, 71–93. Retrieved
from https://books.google.it/books?hl=it&lr=&id=Ob95AgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA71&dq
=Hot+and+cool+aspects+of+executive+function:+Relations+in+early+development&ots=pN
8ovlHvkf&sig=iOeiEJtBzQTubqgaZULN3xgPN4E.
Chapter 10
Activities with Educational Robotics:
Research Model and Tools for Evaluation
of Progress

Linda Daniela, Raimonds Strods, and Ilze France

Abstract  The use of robots in the learning process has been popular since S. Papert
developed his LOGO Turtle idea and argued that students can construct their own
knowledge, test their constructive solutions and be motivated to learn if they use
robotics in the learning process. Today, the idea of using elements of robotics in the
learning process is no longer new and innovative but there are still elements that can
be developed and issues that should be discussed. In this chapter, the authors pro-
vide the research model and five research tools (structured observation protocol,
evaluation of the possible risks of early school leaving to be filled in by teachers
before and after activities, students’ questionnaires to be filled in before and after
activities) for evaluating the outcomes of organized after-school robotics activities.
The research model and tools were tested and approbated with students who are at
risk of early school leaving and students who participate in robotics activities to
develop computational thinking.

Keywords  Educational robotics · Educational robotics curriculum · Early school

leaving · Computational thinking · After-school classes · Evaluation tools

Introduction

The use of robots in the world is no longer a novelty. There are some who think that
the origins of robotics came with the work of the Czech author Karel Capek’s RUR,
or Rossum’s Universal Robots, 1921, where the word ‘robot’ is first mentioned,
which means the term describing devices that do the work (Niku 2011). Others say
that robotics is beginning its success with Papert’s ideas that children need to learn

L. Daniela (*)
Faculty of Education, Psychology, & Art, University of Latvia, Rīga, Latvia
e-mail: [email protected]
R. Strods · I. France
University of Latvia, Rīga, Latvia
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 251

L. Daniela (ed.), Smart Learning with Educational Robotics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19913-5_10
252 L. Daniela et al.

computational thinking while working with computers and later developing the
LOGO turtle (1983). Three major directions in robotics could be distinguished at
this time:
• Industrial robots
• Educational robots
• Assistive robots
This chapter will analyse the use of educational robotics (ER) and the possible
evaluation of results. In general, it is clear that robots have become a part of our
daily lives, but to prepare the new generation for robots, to create new innovations,
to create new software and to be prepared for the challenges posed by robotization,
we need to develop computational thinking, but also to raise awareness of the side
effects of robotization of various processes, such as interactions between robotics
and inclusive education (Bargagna et al. 2018; Catlin and Blamires 2018; Daniela
and Lytras 2018; Jung et al. 2019; Ronsivalle et al. 2018), the possibilities of using
robotics to reduce early school leaving risks (Alimisis 2014; Daniela and Strods
2018; Karampinis 2018; Karkazis et al. 2018; Moro et al. 2018) and meeting the
risks of robotization, which are mentioned in the European Civil Law Rules in
Robotics (Nevejans 2017).

Theoretical Background

The use of ER in the learning process has been popular since the time Papert came
up with the idea that children themselves should be allowed to work with robots to
promote their computational thinking and defined this direction as constructionism
(1984). Currently, the ER learning process is widely used at various levels of educa-
tion − starting from preschool (Bers 2008; Cejka et al. 2006; Kazakoff and Bers
2012, 2014) to higher education (Danahy et  al. 2014; Sünderhauf et  al. 2018;
Sünderhauf et al. 2016) – in various fields and in various dimensions: science, tech-
nology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) (Williams et al. 2007), engineering
(Ariza et al. 2017; Zaldivar et al. 2013) and other branches of STEM (Eck et al.
2014; Witherspoon et al. 2018). The relationship between science and engineering
practice (Bell et al. 2012; Li et al. 2016) is described, but the relationship between
them should be clearly seen by the students as well and can be purposefully devel-
oped by supporting the development of computational thinking (Bocconi et  al.
2016) by developing such competencies as asking questions and defining problems;
developing and using models; planning and carrying out investigations; analysing
and interpreting data; using mathematics and algorithmical thinking; constructing
explanations and designing solutions; engaging in argument from evidence; and
obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information.
The issues of the use of ER have been actively thought about and studied over the
past decades, with a particular focus on mastering STEM as a whole. Many research-
ers are discussing what we understand today by integrated STEM education, which
10  Activities with Educational Robotics: Research Model and Tools for Evaluation… 253

dates back to 1990 in the USA. However, there is still a lot of focus on improving
science and mathematics as isolated disciplines (Kelley and Knowles 2016), with
less emphasis on teaching technology and engineering (Castro et  al. 2018).
Nowadays, with the advancement of technology, it is essential to promote the devel-
opment of both computational thinking (Bocconi et al. 2016) and thinking about the
possibilities of various activities with technology, to foster mutual cooperation
between students in order to strengthen the formation of social links that are essen-
tial to making the individual feel accepted in society.
Despite the recent emergence of more and more initiatives to use robotics cre-
atively, to use different robots to develop certain competencies, to promote the
development of an inclusive society and to strengthen the development of STEM
competencies, there are authors who point out that in the early stages, children are
offered too few activities to help them develop their STEM competencies in their
broader sense; more activities are focused on natural sciences through analysing
plants, animals, natural conditions and so on. Sullivan and Bers state that these
aspects are important in fostering children’s comprehensive knowledge, point out
the importance of preparing children for the world as it is today as well as preparing
for the progress that humans have created and therefore emphasize the need to pro-
mote the development of the competencies required for technology collaboration
(2016). There are many examples where the acquisition of STEM is associated with
robotics activities initially organized as after-school activities (Smyrnova-Trybulska
et  al. 2017), but which later try to include them in the compulsory curriculum
(Ntemngwa and Oliver 2018).

The Context

The research model and tools that are offered to the reader are originally designed
to meet the needs of the project ‘Robotics-based learning interventions for prevent-
ing school failure and early school leaving’, where Italy, Latvia and Greece jointly
implemented a project whose main objective was to reduce early school leaving
(ESL) risks using ER. The focus of this RoboESL project was more on the involve-
ment of pupils at risk of ESL, so it is important to remember that they are pupils
who often have low learning motivation, have lost the desire to actively engage in
the compulsory learning process because their learning needs are not being satisfied
and have a relatively negative attitude towards teachers. As a result of the project,
evidence was provided that purposefully organized robotics activities reduce the
risks of ESL, and original lesson descriptions for working with LEGO Mindstorm
robots were developed. The pupils involved in the project activities were selected
according to the methodology developed for the project (Daniela 2016), where
teachers had to assess the risks of social exclusion of pupils, and those students who
were at the highest risk of social exclusion and whose parents agreed that their chil-
dren would engage in such activities took part in the project. Robotic activities were
organized as after-school activities after a compulsory school day once a week.
254 L. Daniela et al.

Teachers working with pupils represented a variety of subjects − ICT teachers,

mathematics, physics, English, philosophy, home economics and so on. The partici-
pation of teachers in project activities was voluntary, where their benefit was the
opportunity to participate in an international project, participate in training
organized by the project team, and use innovative teaching methods in their work.
The evaluation tools were re-examined in the context of organized after-school
activities with LEGO Mindstorm educational robotics. The curriculum for after-­
school activities was developed by integrating elements of robotics, science and
maths. Students aged 11–13  years old were offered the chance to work with the
developed curriculum and were motivated by teachers to develop different LEGO
robotics constructions by themselves. This kind of activity is like an intermediate
step between the compulsory process in school, where students have to complete
certain tasks for which they receive assessment, and leisure time activities, where
children have full freedom in choosing the activities they want to do at a given
moment.
Students worked on an integrated curriculum that included science, mathematics
and programming. The total number of classes in the programme during the school
year is 56 lessons, each 120 min long. The programme can be used as a deepening
and extension of the school curriculum. In these classes, students engage volun-
tarily, but the learning process is structured and designed to achieve specific learn-
ing goals according to the programme developed.
The course included elements of engineering design process:
1 . Identify the need or problem.
2. Find the information to create a robot.
3. Design the idea and plan the activities.
4. Prototype the program.
5. Test and evaluate the program.
6. Provide feedback. Feedback can be asked for and/or given at any point during
engineering design.
7. Redesign the product to improve it.
In these robotics lessons, pupils were mostly given a problem, to which they
need to find a solution, except for the final lesson block − creating their own
project.

 esearch Model and Tools for Evaluation of Educational

R
Robotics Activities

In this section the authors offer a research model, tools and methodology on how
student activities and the outcomes reached can be evaluated during and after
educational robotics activities. Developed tools are designed to evaluate students’
attitude, motivation, collaboration, problem-solving skills and learning activity, so
they can also be used in other contexts.
10  Activities with Educational Robotics: Research Model and Tools for Evaluation… 255

Before the research is started, data are collected and further analysed and it is
imperative to have the parents’ permission for the researchers to obtain and analyse
the results of the study. It is also important to observe the principles of data ­protection
in data collection and use the obtained results only to improve the learning process
and reduce problems that can cause risks in order to promote the development of
certain competencies as well as to allow students to express their views on orga-
nized activities.
The first tool provides (see Appendix 1) the evaluation instrument, which con-
sists of several parts. In part one there are a few questions which can be used to
detect the learning subjects that are problematic for particular students and the
learning subjects in which these students achieve their best results. This information
can be used to evaluate intervention activities to find out whether they are effective
or whether additional intervention activities should be added to support the student.
Next, information is asked regarding the number of lessons that students are skip-
ping to find out whether there is a problem with truancy, and these data can be
analysed after specific activities are provided to conclude whether interventional
activities are successful or not. Moreover, there is a section where teachers assess
students’ difficulties that can influence the learning process. This part of the evalu-
ation tool can be used separately to detect risks of ESL in order to plan the activities
that are aimed at reducing such risks. The subsequent parts of the questionnaire
consist of statements where teachers have to evaluate students’ attitude, motivation,
behaviour and problem-solving skills on a Likert scale of 1−5, where 1 = never, 2 =
rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often and 5 = always.
The second tool (see Appendix 2) is the questionnaire for students, which should
be filled in before they start robotics activities. This tool is divided into several parts:
first, students give the information about themselves; second, they are asked to eval-
uate the statements about learning and achievements on a scale of 1−5, where 1 =
completely disagree, 2 = rarely agree, 3 = sometimes agree, 4 = mostly agree and 5
= completely agree. This is followed by the part where students are asked to evalu-
ate the statements about missed lessons on a scale of 1−5, where 1 = always, 2 =
often, 3 = sometimes, 4 = rarely and 5 = never. These questions are aimed at finding
out the reasons why they are skipping lessons and provide the opportunity to focus
on problems that are emerging for the students in order to find the best possible
solution. The last part of this questionnaire is to find out the students’ opinion about
the learning subjects that they like or don’t like. This information, together with the
information given by the teachers about the evaluation grades in particular subjects,
can help to provide an understanding of the linkage between students’ attitude and
learning outcomes.
The third tool (see Appendix 3) offers a structured observation protocol, which is
used by teachers to evaluate students’ outcomes during ER activities according to
the criteria, which have to be evaluated on a Likert scale as 0 = can’t be observed, 1
= low level, 2 = can be observed almost in all situations and 3 = does more than
expected. This tool can be used quite frequently to see the changes in students’
outcomes.
256 L. Daniela et al.

The fourth tool is a questionnaire that can be used after the activities (see
Appendix 4), whereby teachers fill in the information about changes in students’
attitude, motivation and problem-solving skills. These statements should be evalu-
ated on a scale of 1−5, where 1 = no changes at all, 2 = some signs of improvement
observed occasionally/rarely, 3 = some signs of improvement observed sometimes,
4 = signs of improvement observed in most situations and 5 = strong improvement
observed in all situations. Statements about the student’s behaviour should be evalu-
ated on a scale of 1−5, where 1 = no changes at all, 2 = some signs of positive
improvement observed occasionally/rarely, 3 = some signs of positive improvement
observed sometimes, 4 = signs of positive improvement observed in most situations
and 5 = strong positive improvement observed in all situations. This tool can be
used after a period of intervention activities to find out whether there are improve-
ments, but the authors suggest that the first minor changes can be observed after at
least 3 months of activities because the risks of ESL develop over a longer period of
time and reducing them is not a fast process.
The fifth tool (see Appendix 5) is the questionnaire for students which should be
filled in after participation in robotics activities to find out whether there are any
changes in students’ attitude to learning. The tool is organized into several parts
where the first part is to get the information about the students; the second part is to
get to know the students’ opinions about robotics activities to give teachers the
opportunity to understand whether there are any changes needed in organizing such
activities. The next part is organized as substatements about ‘learning with robots’
and the statement ‘Activities with robots helped me to improve my: . .’ where stu-

Early school leaving

Students’ activities with robotics
risk evaluation Teacher
& questionnaire after
Teacher activities
questionnaire
before activities
focus-based

evaluation
regular

Student Student
questionnaire questionnaire after
before activities Structured observation of students activities
activities

1st stage 2nd stage 3rd stage

Fig. 10.1  Research model

10  Activities with Educational Robotics: Research Model and Tools for Evaluation… 257

dents had to evaluate these substatements in a scale of 1−5, where 1 = completely

disagree, 2 = rarely agree, 3 = sometimes agree, 4 = mostly agree and 5 = com-
pletely agree. The last question in this questionnaire included the part where stu-
dents were asked to name three learning subjects where their learning outcomes
improved after participation in robotics activities.
The research model is summarized in Fig.10.1.

Discussion

The proposed research model and all suggested evaluation tools have been tested in
several contexts in Latvia, Italy and Greece. The results are summarized in several
articles that have already been published (Daniela 2016; Daniela and Strods 2016;
Daniela et  al. 2017), and one chapter, ‘Educational Robotics for Reducing Early
School Leaving from the Perspective of Sustainable Education’, is included in this
book where results are analysed from the perspective of sustainable development
− by Daniela and Strods. All these results confirmed that the research model and
tools can be used to work with students and evaluate their progress.
These tools have also been tested in another context where 11–13-year-old stu-
dents participated in organized after-school robotics activities to develop their com-
putational thinking.
The proposed research model can be replicated, and the developed tools can be
used in different contexts to evaluate outcomes such as learning motivation,
improved attitude to learning and improved behaviour and problem-solving skills.
To extend the usability of this set of tools, authors continue to work on the
­development of specific tools to evaluate knowledge improvement during robotics
activities.

Appendix 1

EVALUATION INSTRUMENT for detecting students who are at risk of ESL

EVALUATION INSTRUMENT
General information about student
Student ____________________________________________ (code of the
student)
____ (age)
Subject/s you teach for particular student _________________________________
☐ subject teacher ☐ class coordinator/class teacher ☐ robotics teacher
Average evaluation grade for the 1st term for all subjects _______
258 L. Daniela et al.

Three learning subjects with average Three learning subjects with average
LOWEST grade for the 1st term mark HIGHEST grade for the 1st term grade
(starting from the lowest): (starting from the highest):
1. 1.
2. 2.
3. 3.

Missed lessons 3 months before starting participation in Number of missed

activities lessons
1. Excused by doctor
2. Excused for other reasons (parents etc.)
3. Without an excuse

Difficulties which influence learning

Mark with ‘X’ if the statement characterizes the student
Has learning difficulties connected with reading
Has learning difficulties connected with calculation
Has difficulties in understanding graphs and schemes
Has other different learning difficulties
Has other special needs
Has attention concentration problems
Attitude to learning
Please evaluate these statements about the student on a scale of 1−5, where 1 = never, 2 = rarely,
3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = always
Completes homework
Cooperates with teachers in a positive way
Cooperates with classmates during lessons in a positive way
Is ready for work in lessons
Understands the connection between learning and achievements
Is ready to do extra assignments to improve achievements
Obeys behavioural rules in classroom
Is ready to join out-of-class/school activities together with other classmates
Is involved in sport/art activities not connected with learning at school
Knows that the learning is important for him/her
Problem-solving skills
Please evaluate these statements about the student on a scale of 1−5, where 1 = never, 2 = rarely,
3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = always
Solves the learning problems by himself/herself
Asks for help from teachers
Solves conflicts in a calm way
Motivation
Please evaluate these statements about the student on a scale of 1−5, where 1 = never, 2 = rarely,
3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = always
Is motivated to learn the subject you teach
Is motivated to understand his/her mistakes to correct them
10  Activities with Educational Robotics: Research Model and Tools for Evaluation… 259

Is motivated to improve achievements

Is motivated to overcome difficulties in learning
Has an aim and works to achieve it
Observed problems
Please evaluate these statements about the student on a scale of 1−5, where 1 = never, 2 = rarely,
3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = always
Is late for the beginning of lessons
Has problematic behaviour during recess (break)
Is aggressive to other students
Is aggressive to teachers
Uses rude language with classmates
Uses rude language with teachers
Refuses doing assignments during the lessons
In situation of conflict reacts aggressively

Appendix 2

Hello! You are going to learn how to work with Robots! Congratulations! It is
fun! Before starting learning, can you answer some questions? Your responses
are anonymous!
1. I am:
☐ boy ☐ girl
I am ______years old (your age)

2. Learning and achievements

Please evaluate these statements on a scale of 1−5, where 1 = completely disagree, 2 = rarely
agree, 3 = sometimes agree, 4 = mostly agree, 5 = completely agree
3.1. Learning is fun
3.2. My achievements depend on my learning
3.3. I do all the homework
3.4. I like to cooperate with my classmates in lessons
3.5. I like to work individually to do assignments
3.6. I like to do extra assignments
3.7. I like it when there are different activities in lessons
3.8. I like it when I can do something active in lessons
3.9. I like to solve learning problems by myself
3.10. I like to look for extra information needed for learning
3. If you miss lessons it happens because
Please evaluate these statements on a scale of 1−5, where 1 = always, 2 = often, 3 = sometimes,
4 = rarely, 5 = never
4.1. I was sick or had an appointment with the doctor
260 L. Daniela et al.

4.2. I had to participate in another activity – sports, art, etc.

4.3. I had to help my parents
4.4. It was an unpredictable situation
4.5. I had to work
4.6. I had to babysit my sister/brother
4.7. I did not want to go to school
4.8. I overslept
4.9. I did not want to meet my classmates
4.10. I do not like learning

5. Please write here the three learning subjects you like the most
5.1. _______________________________________
5.2. _______________________________________
5.3. _______________________________________
6. Please write here the three learning subjects you like the least
6.1. _______________________________________
6.2. _______________________________________
6.3. _______________________________________

Appendix 3

Protocol of observation
Teacher_________________________
Legend: 0 = can’t be observed, 1 = low level, 2 = can be observed almost in all
situations, 3 = can be observed during all projects, 4 = does more than expected
Code of the
student
Criteria
Cooperates with other members of the group during activities
in a positive way
Is ready to do extra assignments to improve achievements
Obeys behavioural rules during the projects
Knows the aim of the task and how to achieve it
Solves the faced problems by himself/herself
Asks for help from teachers
Solves problem situations in a calm way
Is motivated to overcome difficulties in doing tasks
Is motivated to understand mistakes to correct them
Does assignments during the robotics classes
Participates in group work
Helps peers in problem solving
10  Activities with Educational Robotics: Research Model and Tools for Evaluation… 261

Appendix 4

Dear Teacher,
Please assess the changes in the attitude of the student who has participated in the
activities. Use the same code for the student as was used before the activities. This
survey is very important. It will take approximately 5 min to fill in the question-
naire. Thank you in advance for your time.
Student _______________________________________________ (code)
Gender_____
Subject/s you teach _________________________________________________

Attitude to learning (statements are the same as in the first questionnaire, but evaluation is
based on changes in the student’s attitude)
Please evaluate these statements about the student’s attitude on a scale of 1−5, where:
1 = no changes at all
2 = some signs of improvement observed occasionally/rarely
3 = some signs of improvement observed sometimes
4 = signs of improvement observed in most situations
5 = strong improvement observed in all situations
Preparation of homework
Cooperation with teachers in a positive way
Cooperation with classmates during lessons in a positive way
Readiness for work in lessons
Understanding of the connection between learning and achievements
Readiness to do extra assignments to improve achievements
Following of the behavioural rules in the classroom
Readiness to join out-of-class/school activities together with other classmates
Readiness to join activities led by other classmates
Readiness to reach learning aims
Motivation (statements are the same as in the first questionnaire, but evaluation is based on
changes in the student’s motivation)
Please evaluate these statements about the student’s motivation on a scale of 1−5, where:
1 = no changes at all
2 = some signs of improvement observed occasionally/rarely
3 = some signs of improvement observed sometimes
4 = signs of improvement observed in most situations
5 = strong improvement observed in all situations
Motivation to learn the subject you teach
Motivation to understand his/her mistakes to correct them
Motivation to improve achievements
Motivation to overcome difficulties in learning
Readiness to work hard to achieve the aim
262 L. Daniela et al.

Observed problems (statements are the same as in the first questionnaire, but evaluation is
based on changes in the student’s behaviour)
Please evaluate these statements about the student’s behaviour on a scale of 1-5, where:
1 = no changes at all
2 = some signs of positive improvement observed occasionally/rarely
3 = some signs of positive improvement observed sometimes
4 = signs of positive improvement observed in most situations
5 = strong positive improvement observed in all situations
Being late for the beginning of lessons
Problematic behaviour during recess (break)
Aggressiveness to other students
Aggressiveness to teachers
Using rude language with classmates
Using rude language with teachers
Refuses to do assignments during the lessons
Aggressive reaction in situations of conflict
Problem-solving skills
Please evaluate these statements about the student on a scale of 1−5, where
1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = always
Solves the learning problems by himself/herself
Asks for help from teachers
Solves the conflicts in a calm way

Thank you!

Appendix 5

You had a wonderful opportunity to learn how to work with robotics. We hope
you enjoyed that! Can you answer some questions about your experience?
Your responses are anonymous!
1. I am:
☐ boy ☐ girl
2. I am ______years old (your age)
3. Which robotics activities did you like most? Please name at least three of them
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
10  Activities with Educational Robotics: Research Model and Tools for Evaluation… 263

4. Which robotics activities were most challenging? Please name them

____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________

5. Learning with robots

Please evaluate these statements on a scale of 1−5, where 1 = completely disagree, 2 = rarely
agree, 3 = sometimes agree, 4 = mostly agree, 5 = completely agree
5.1. Learning by using robots was fun
5.2. I have learned how to program robots
5.3. I liked to work in groups to do assignments with robots
5.4. I liked to make calculations for programming
5.5. I can use this knowledge in other activities
5.6. I liked to solve problems with programming by myself
5.7. I liked that others helped me to solve problems with programming
5.8. I liked to look for extra information needed for using robots
5.9. Other outcome (please name it)
6. Activities with robots helped me to improve my:
Please evaluate these statements on a scale of 1−5, where 1 = completely disagree, 2 = rarely
agree, 3 = somehow agree, 4 = mostly agree, 5 = completely agree
6.1. understanding of maths
6.2. understanding of physics
6.3. understanding of informatics and technologies
6.4 attitude to learning
6.5. cooperation skills with my classmates
6.6. cooperation skills with teachers
6.7. other outcome (please name it)

7. Please write here three learning subjects where your learning outcomes
improved
7.1. _______________________________________
7.2. _______________________________________
7.3. _______________________________________
264 L. Daniela et al.

References

Alimisis, D. (2014). Educational robotics in teacher education: An innovative tool for promoting
quality education. In L. Daniela, I. Lūka, L. Rutka, I. Žogla (Eds.), Teacher of the 21st century:
Quality education for quality teaching (pp. 28–39). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholar
Publishing. ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-5612-6.
Ariza, D. V., Palacio, A. M., Aragón, I. P., Pulido, C. M., Logreira, E. A., & McKinley, J. R. (2017).
Application of color sensor programming with LEGO-Mindstorms NXT 2.0 to recreate a sim-
plistic plague detection scenario. Scientia et Technica, 22(3), 268–272.
Bargagna, S., Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Cioni, G., Dario, P., Dell’Omo, M., et al. (2018). Educational
robotics in Down Syndrome: A feasibility study. Technology, knowledge and learning, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9366-z.
Bell, P., Bricker, L., Tzou, C., Lee, T., & Van Horne, K. (2012). Exploring the science framework:
Engaging learners in science practices related to obtaining, evaluating, and communicating
information. Science Scope, 36(3), 18–22.
Bers, M. (2008). Blocks to robots: Learning with technology in the early childhood classroom.
New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.
Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Dettori, D., Ferari, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2016). Developing com-
putational thinking in compulsory education. Retrieved from http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.
eu/repository/bitstream/
Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Valente, M., Buselli, E., Salvini, P., & Dario, P. (2018). Can educational
robotics introduce young children to robotics and how can we measure it? Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning., 34, 970–977. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12304.
Catlin, D., & Blamires, M. (2018) Designing robots for special needs education. Technology,
knowledge and learning, 1–23. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9378-8.
Cejka, E., Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2006). Kindergarten robotics: Using robotics to moti-
vate math, science, and engineering literacy. International Journal of Engineering Education,
22(4), 711–722.
Danahy, E., Wang, E., Brockman, J., Carberry, A., Shapiro, B., & Rogers, C. B. (2014). LEGO-­
based robotics in higher education: 15 years of student creativity. International Journal of
Advanced Robotic Systems. https://doi.org/10.5772/58249.
Daniela, L. (2016) Preliminary results of the project ‘Robotics-based learning interventions for
preventing school failure and early school leaving. ICERI 9th Annual International Conference
of Education, Research and Innovation Proceedings (pp. 4336–4344). ISBN: 978-084-0617-­
05895-01. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2016.
Daniela, L., & Lytras, M.  D. (2018). Educational robotics for inclusive education. Technology,
Knowledge and Learning, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9397-5.
Daniela, L., & Strods, R. (2016). The role of robotics in promoting the learning motivation to
decrease the early school leaving risks. References: p.13. ROBOESL Conference, November
26, 2016, Athens, Greece: Proceedings Athens, 2016, pp. 7–13. Retrieved from http://roboesl.
eu/conference/?page_id=508
Daniela, L., & Strods, R. (2018). Robot as agent in reducing risks of early school leaving. In
L. Daniela (Ed.), Innovations, technologies and research in education (pp. 140–158). Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN (10): 1-5275-0622.
Daniela, L., Strods, R., Alimisis, D. (2017) Analysis of robotics-based learning interventions
for preventing school failure and early school leaving in gender context // 9th International
Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (Edulearn17), 3rd-5th July, 2017,
Barcelona, Spain: Conference Proceedings Barcelona, pp.810–818. ISBN 9788469737774.
ISSN 2340-1117.
Eck, J., Hirschmugl-Gaisch, S., Kandlhofer, M., & Steinbauer, G. (2014). A cross-generational
robotics project day: Pre-school children, pupils and grandparents learn together. Journal of
Automation, Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems, 8(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.14313/
JAMRIS_1-2014/2.
10  Activities with Educational Robotics: Research Model and Tools for Evaluation… 265

Jung, S. E., Lee, K., Cherniak, S., & Cho, E. (2019). Non-sequential learning in a robotics class:
Insights from the engagement of a child with Autism spectrum disorder in technology, knowl-
edge and learning, pp. 1–19. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9394-8.
Karampinis, T. (2018). Activities and experiences through RoboESL project opportunities.
International Journal of Smart Education and Urban Society, 9(1), 13–24. https://doi.
org/10.4018/IJSEUS.
Karkazis, P., Balourdos, P., Pitsiakos, G., Asimakopoulos, K., Saranteas, I., Spiliou, T., &
Roussou, D. (2018). To water or not to water. The Arduino approach for the irrigation of a
field. International Journal of Smart Education and Urban Society, 9(1), 25–36. https://doi.
org/10.4018/IJSEUS.
Kazakoff, E., & Bers, M. (2012). Programming in a robotics context in the kindergarten classroom:
The impact on sequencing skills. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 21(4),
371–391.
Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2014). Put your robot in, put your robot out: Sequencing through
programming robots in early childhood. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(4),
553–573. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.50.4.f.
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education.
International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1). Retrieved from https://stemeducationjournal.
springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z.
Li, Y., Huang, Z., Jiang, M., & Chang, T. W. (2016). The effect on pupils’ science performance
and problem-solving ability through Lego: An engineering design-based modeling approach.
Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 143–156.
Moro, M., Agatolio, F., & Menegatti, E. (2018). The development of robotic enhanced curricula
for the RoboESL project: Overall evaluation and expected outcomes. International Journal of
Smart Education and Urban Society (IJSEUS), 9(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSEUS.
Nevejans, N. (2017). European civil law rules in robotics, European Commission. Retrieved from
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/fr/supporting-analyses-search.html
Niku, S. B. (2011). Introduction to robotics: Analysis, control, applications. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Ntemngwa, C., & Oliver, J. S. (2018). The implementation of integrated science technology, engi-
neering and mathematics (STEM) instruction using robotics in the middle school science class-
room. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (IJEMST),
6(1), 12–40. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.380617.
Papert, S. (1983). Talking Turtle. Horizon, Part 1 – 02:48 to 03:10. BBC and the Open University.
Retrieved from http://research.roamer-educational-robot.com/1983/12/14/talking-turtle/
Papert, S. (1984). New theories for new learnings. School Psychology Review, 13(4), 422–428.
Ronsivalle, G. B., Boldi, A., Gusella, V., Inama, C., & Carta, S. (2018). How to implement edu-
cational robotics’ programs in Italian schools: A brief guideline according to an instructional
design point of view in Technology, knowledge and learning (pp. 1–19). https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10758-018-9389-5.
Smyrnova-Trybulska, E., Morze, N., Kommers, P., Zuziak, W., & Gladun, M. (2017). Selected
aspects and conditions of the use of robots in STEM education for young learners as viewed by
teachers and students. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 14(4), 296–312. https://
doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-04-2017-0024.
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes
from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 3–20.
Sünderhauf, N., Leitner, J., & Milford, M. (2016). Robotics: Science and systems (RSS) work-
shop. Are the sceptics right? Limits and potentials of deep learning in robotics. Retrieved from
http://juxi.net/workshop/deep-learning-rss-2016/
Sünderhauf, N., Brock, O., Scheirer, W., Hadsell, R., Fox, D., Leitner, J., et al. (2018). The limits
and potentials of deep learning for robotics. The International Journal of Robotics Research,
37(4–5, 405), –420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364918770733.
266 L. Daniela et al.

Williams, D. C., Yuxin, M., Prejean, L., Ford, M. J., & Lai, G. (2007). Acquisition of physics con-
tent knowledge and scientific inquiry skills in a robotics summer camp. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 40(2), 201–216.
Witherspoon, E. B., Schunn, C. D., Higashi, R. M., & Shoop, R. (2018). Attending to structural
programming features predicts differences in learning and motivation. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 34(2), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12219.
Zaldivar, D., Cuevas, E., Pérez-Cisneros, M. A., Sossa, J. H., Rodríguez, J. G., & Palafox, E. O.
(2013). An educational fuzzy-based control platform using LEGO robots. International Journal
of Electrical Engineering Education, 50(2), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.7227/IJEEE.50.2.5.
Chapter 11
The Use of Robotics for STEM Education
in Primary Schools: Teachers’ Perceptions

Ahmad Khanlari

Abstract  This study aims to better understand elementary teachers’ perspective on

the use of robotics for STEM education. Through an 8-h workshop, the participants
engaged in hands-on activities and filled out a pre-survey and a post-survey. The
results indicated that the participants’ perceptions significantly changed as a result
of participating in the workshop, learning about robotics, and being involved in
hands-on robotics activities.

Keywords  Robotics · STEM education · Elementary schools · Professional

development

Introduction

STEM education aims to increase STEM literacy which includes “the knowledge
and understanding of scientific and mathematical concepts and processes required
for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and eco-
nomic productivity for all students” (National Research Science 2011, p.5). Another
goal of STEM education is to persuade students to explore degrees and careers in
STEM-related fields. A review of the literature shows that “[c]hildren undergo many
developmental changes between the ages of 6 and 12, particularly in terms of their
cognitive development” (Canadian Child Care Federation 2010, p.  6). Therefore,
STEM education is more effective if it starts in early education. As a result, it is
recommended to lay the foundations of science and technology and mathematics
education as early as the elementary grades (Marulcu 2010). Early engagement in
STEM education facilitates students’ understanding of subject matter (Marulcu
2010), reduces barriers for entering jobs related to STEM fields (Madill et al. 2007),

A. Khanlari (*)
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 267

L. Daniela (ed.), Smart Learning with Educational Robotics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19913-5_11
268 A. Khanlari

and diminishes the gender-based stereotypes about STEM careers (Metz 2007).
Although early STEM education is very important, educators pay little attention to
STEM education in early childhood classrooms (Bers 2008; Marulcu 2010).
Therefore, I have chosen to focus on STEM education in elementary schools to fill
this gap. I specifically focus on robotics, since it is a “gateway to STEM because it
integrates all these different disciplines in an applied way” (Kazakoff et al. 2013,
p. 246) and has “the potential to significantly impact the nature of engineering and
science education at all levels, from K–12 to graduate school” (Mataric 2004, p. 1).
Furthermore, Rogers and Portsmore (2004) found that one of the best ways for
improving students’ performance in mathematics and science is conducting simple
hands-on activities in elementary schools. Robotics offers students’ hands-on expe-
rience in a wide range of subjects, improves student knowledge of STEM-related
topics, and provides an alternative teaching method to traditional lecture-style
classes (Gura 2012).
Moreover, I have chosen to focus on teachers’ perceptions, because, while their
perceptions are very crucial and may encourage or discourage them from using
robotics in their class activities, there is limited research about teachers’ perceptions
of using robotics (Scaradozzi et al. 2018; Kim et al. 2015), especially in the elemen-
tary grades. Most of the studies have been conducted in other grades rather than
elementary grades, and some studies (e.g., Scaradozzi et al. 2018) had participants
from a variety of grades. Other researchers who focused on elementary schools (e.g.,
Kim et al. 2015) mainly focused on teachers’ engagements and learning, not their
perceptions. Thus, more exploration is needed to fill this gap in the existing literature
and explore what elementary teachers perceive about the use of robotics for STEM
education. Knowing the elementary teachers’ perceptions would help the research-
ers, educators, and policymakers to take the required actions to encourage them to
integrate robotics into their teaching activities for STEM education.
Studies (e.g., Gürcan-Namlu and Ceyhan 2003; Hallam 2008; Thorpe and
Brosnan 2008) show that teachers’ prior experience in using technologies decreases
their level of anxiety and motivates them to integrate technologies into their teach-
ing activities. Therefore, providing an opportunity for teachers to know more about
technologies like robotics and engaging them in hands-on activities may affect
teachers’ perceptions and may encourage them to integrate robotics into their les-
sons. The present study is the second phase of a study (Khanlari 2016a) conducted
to gauge elementary teachers’ perceptions of the use of robotics for STEM educa-
tion. In the first phase, the teachers were provided with an opportunity to explore
some materials about robotics and learn more about robotics, without being asked
to do hands-on activities. The teachers were asked to fill out a survey indicating the
kinds of needs and support they need in order to be able to integrate robotics into
their teaching activities. The participants indicated that one of the main challenges
is the lack of access to materials, including educational robotics kits and handbooks
(Khanlari 2016a). Also, the majority of participants believed that inadequate techni-
cal support and their lack of knowledge in making connections between robotics
11  The Use of Robotics for STEM Education in Primary Schools: Teachers’ Perceptions 269

and the subject matter are other major obstacles. The majority of the participants
expressed their needs in attending in-service professional development in order to
be able to use robotics in their classes. The present study aims to provide teachers
with the support they indicated they need through running a one-day robotics
­workshop. This workshop aims to provide an opportunity for teachers to engage in
hands-on robotics activities and explore their perceptions of the use of robotics for
STEM education. The research questions to be addressed in this study include:
1. To what extent do elementary teachers believe that robotics can help students to
learn STEM subjects?
2. To what extent do elementary teachers believe that using robotics in the class-
room will foster positive attitudes toward STEM disciplines in students, result-
ing in encouraging them to pursue their education and career in these fields?

State of Art

Along with robotics technology development, researchers, and educators in many

countries, including Canada, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the United States,
have employed robots to support education (Han 2012). Educational robots, as a new
type of manipulative learning, engages students in hands-on activities: students learn
concepts while they are doing some activities and projects. Hands-on nature of
robotics creates an active learning environment and increases conceptual under-
standing of subject matter (Adolphson 2005; Brosterman 1997). Robotics might be
used as a learning object or as a learning tool (Alimisis and Kynigos 2009). In the
first category (i.e., learning object), robotics on its own is studied as a subject, while
in the second category (i.e., learning tool), robotics is used as a tool for teaching and
learning other school subjects such as mathematics and science. Several studies
(e.g., Attard 2012; Bauerle and Gallagher 2003; Druin and Hendler 2000; Jeschke
et al. 2008; Khanlari 2016b) have shown that hands-on robotics is engaging, creates
authentic learning environments that are suitable for a better understanding of STEM
disciplines, has positive long-term effects such as attracting students to technologi-
cal and scientific studies, and leads students to a love of STEM subjects. A review of
the literature shows that robotics can help students to learn many subjects, including
mathematics, physics, science, mechanics, electronics, computer engineering, geog-
raphy, art, and biology (Eguchi 2007; Kolberg and Orlev 2001; Kazakoff et al. 2013;
Marulcu 2010; Oppliger 2002; Sklar et al. 2002; Sklar et al. 2003). Additional goals
and objectives of STEM education in Canada include developing positive attitudes
in students about STEM fields, promoting students’ interests toward STEM disci-
plines, and encouraging students to pursue education and careers in STEM-related
fields (Canadian Association of Science Centre 2010; STEM n.d.).
270 A. Khanlari

Method

The participants of this study included 58 elementary teachers (43 female and 15
male) who are participating in an in-service professional development program. As
parts of their professional development, the participants were provided with an
opportunity to participate in a one-week workshop and learn about integrating
technologies into their teaching activities. One day of this one-week workshop was
allocated to robotics and STEM education. During four sessions, each of which
lasted two hours, the participants were engaged in hands-on robotics activities. The
first session included a pre-survey about using robotics for teaching STEM-related
fields, a lecture on robotics, and some videos about the importance of robotics in
industry and education. Then, the educational robotics kits and the coding environ-
ment were introduced to the participants. The educational package used for this
workshop was LEGO® MINDSTORMS® EV3, which is a well-known robotics kit
in education settings. The instructors provided lectures on LEGO EV3 and its dif-
ferent parts, as well as the programming environment and the way the EV3 can be
programmed. Due to the time limitations, the workshop providers had pre-built
the LEGO bases, and they were ready to be used by the participants. In the second
session, the participants started doing some simple coding activities. Also, the
instructors provided the participants with a set of activities about exploring Mars
using their robots, which needs to be done by the participants. The workshop
instructors had mocked up the Mars rocky surface, and ask the participants to use
appropriate sensors and program their robots to do some activities, involving math
and science problems. Some of the activities included:
1. Write a code and download into the robot to move around and look for hills as
quickly as possible. While doing so, the participants should consider different
design considerations, such as the types of wheels required to move on the sur-
face, the size of the wheels, the suitable sensors, etc.
2. Calculate the time the robot spent to find the hills, measure the distance the
robots traveled, calculate the area the robot covered, and come up with some
ideas to improve their program so that the robot would spend less time and con-
sume lower energy.
Participants spent the sessions 2, 3, and 4 to do the activities. After 8 h of engage-
ment in learning about robotics (through lectures, handouts, and videos) and learn-
ing with robotics (through hands-on robotics activities), the participants were asked
to fill out an online post-survey (Fig. 11.1).

Data Presentation

The first few questions aimed to gauge teachers’ experience and knowledge in using
technologies in general and robotics in particular. According to the data collected as
the first question of the survey, the majority of the participants had no prior knowl-
edge/experience in using robotics in their teaching activities (Fig. 11.2).
11  The Use of Robotics for STEM Education in Primary Schools: Teachers’ Perceptions 271

Fig. 11.1  Mars rocky

surface and the explorer
robot

Fig. 11.2 Participants’
responses about their prior
experience/knowledge in
integrating robotics into
teaching activities

The survey also included 11 Likert scale questions, including two questions
about robotics and learning math, three questions about robotics and science and
technology literacy, two questions about robotics and interest toward STEM disci-
plines, and four general questions about the effects of robotics. Table 11.1 shows the
Likert scale questions.
The results of the pre-survey and post-survey are presented in Figs. 11.3 and
11.4.
272 A. Khanlari

Table 11.1  The Likert scale questions

Strongly Strongly
Likert scale questions disagree Disagree Neutral Agree agree
Q1. Robotics has the potential to facilitate
learning of mathematics.
Q2. Using robotics in mathematics can help
students to improve their mathematical
reasoning and problem-solving skills.
Q3. Robotics has the potential to facilitate
learning of science subjects.
Q4. Using robotics in schools can help
students in the process of scientific inquiry and
improving their skills for initiating and
planning, performing and recording, and
analyzing and interpreting.
Q5. Using robotics can develop a positive
attitude about STEM disciplines.
Q6. Using robotics can encourage students to
pursue their education and career in STEM-
related fields.
Q7. Robotics has the potential to improve
technology literacy in schools.
Q8. Overall, students will be more actively
involved in the lesson/unit in which robotics
technology is used, compared to the lessons/
units they are not involved in robotics
activities.
Q9. Overall, in robotics sessions, students’
different learning styles are better
accommodated than they are with comparable
lessons/units that don’t involve robotics
technologies.
Q10. Overall, in robotics activities, student
work would show a more in-depth
understanding of the content compared to the
lessons that robotics is not being used.
Q11. Overall, student work is more creative
when engaging in robotics activities, compared
to a class/unit in which robotics is not being
used.

Data Analysis

Robotics and Math Education

The results show that, while before the workshop 43% of the participants had posi-
tive perceptions (i.e., agree or strongly agree) and 48% had negative perceptions
(i.e., disagree or strongly disagree) on the effects of robotics on learning math sub-
jects (Q.1), after the workshop 78% of the participants had a positive perception on
11  The Use of Robotics for STEM Education in Primary Schools: Teachers’ Perceptions 273

Fig. 11.3  The results of the pre-survey

Fig. 11.4  The results of the post-survey

the positive effects of robotics for math education. Also, the perception of the par-
ticipants regarding the effects of robotics on mathematical reasoning and problem-­
solving (Q.2) has dramatically changed. Before the workshop, about 40% of the
participants had positive perceptions, and 50% of the participants had negative per-
ceptions, but after the workshop, 71% of the participants had positive attitudes
toward the effectiveness of robotics on problem-solving and mathematical
reasoning.
274 A. Khanlari

Robotics and Science and Technology Literacy

The results of the pre-survey show that before the workshop, 43% of the partici-
pants believed robotics has positive effects on learning of science subjects (Q3) and
on the process of scientific inquiry (Q.4). Also, 31% of the participants disagreed
with Q3’s statement, and 36% disagreed with Q4’s statement. However, after the
workshop, about 90% of the participants agreed or strongly agreed with these two
statements. Also, before the workshop, 74% of the participants believed that robot-
ics has the potential to improve technology literacy in schools (Q.5). After the work-
shop, however, 79% of the participants had a positive attitude about the positive
effects of robotics on technology literacy.

Robotics and STEM Education

Before the workshop, about 38% of the participants believed robotics can develop a
positive attitude on students about STEM (Q6) and can encourage them to pursue
their education and career in STEM-related field (Q7). After the workshop, about
84% of the participants agreed or highly agreed with Q6, and 74% of the partici-
pants agreed or highly agreed with Q7.

Overall Perceptions

The participants’ overall perceptions on the effectiveness of the robotics have sig-
nificantly changed; before the workshop, 38% of the participants agreed or highly
agreed that robotics can actively engage students in lessons (Q8), and 40% agreed
or highly agreed that robotics can support different learning styles (Q9). However,
after the workshop, these percentages changed to 84% and 55%, respectively. In
response to the last two questions, only 31% of the participants used to have posi-
tive attitudes about the robotics potential to provide a more in-depth understanding
of the content (Q10) and create more engaging activities (Q11). However, after the
workshop, 65% and 72% of the participants believed robotics has these
potentials.
The last question asked the participants whether they would like to integrate
robotics into their teaching activities for STEM education. In the pre-survey, the
majority of the participants (45%) indicated they are not sure, 22% of the partici-
pants answered yes, and 33% answered no. However, in the posttest, 24% indicated
they are not sure, 53% answered yes, and 22% answered no.
11  The Use of Robotics for STEM Education in Primary Schools: Teachers’ Perceptions 275

Discussions and Conclusion

The result of the analysis first highlights the importance of learning about robotics
and being engaged in hands-on activities with robotics, because the participants’
perceptions of the use of robotics have dramatically changed after being engaged in
the pre-service workshop.
The participants of this study, after participating in the robotics workshop, per-
ceived that robotics has the potential to facilitate learning of mathematics and can
help students to improve their mathematical reasoning and problem-solving skills.
Therefore, this study concurs with the studies that indicate robotics facilitates learn-
ing of mathematics subjects (e.g., Allen 2013; Bers and Portsmore 2005). Hussain,
Lindh, and Shukur (2006) in their research concluded that employing robotics in a
grade 5 class resulted in a better performance in mathematics. Faisal, Kapila, and
Iskander (2012) in their study examined the effects of using LEGO robotics on
engaging fourth-grade students in mathematics and enhancing their visual under-
standing of concepts. The analysis of their pre-assessment and post-assessment tests
revealed that robotics increases students’ performance: “the average performance of
the class increased from 36% to 92% after the activity” (p. 10). The authors also
reported that robotics helps 87% of students to learn and improves their understand-
ing of abstract concepts such as unit conversion. Mathematical skills, such as basic
algebra, trigonometry, counting, measuring, estimating, and geometry, are embed-
ded in designing and programming robots, and students can learn these subjects
during robotics projects (Gura 2012; Johnson 2002; Samuels and Haapasalo 2012).
A review of the literature surrounding mathematics learning shows that one of the
best ways for improving students’ performance in mathematics is conducting sim-
ple hands-on activities (Rogers and Portsmore 2004). The results of the present
study, along with the existing literature, confirm that hands-on robotics can actively
engage students in lessons and has the potential to provide an alternative teaching
method to traditional lecture-style classes in order to improve students’ understand-
ing of math concepts. In other words, educational robots, as a new type of manipula-
tive learning, have the potential to improve students’ understanding of mathematical
concepts.
Moreover, after attending the robotics workshop, the majority of the participants
believed that robotics has the potential to facilitate learning of science subjects; can
help students in the process of scientific inquiry; can improve students’ skills for
initiating and planning, performing and recording, and analyzing and interpreting;
and has the potential to improve technology literacy in schools. Therefore, the result
of this study is in agreement with the literature (e.g., Barker and Ansorge 2007; Bers
and Portsmore 2005; Bers et al. 2002; Grubbs 2013; Nugent et al. 2010) regarding
the positive effects of robotics on teaching and learning science and technology. For
example, Carbonaro, Rex, and Chambers (2004) conducted an action research proj-
ect to examine the effects of robotics on learning computer and science subjects.
276 A. Khanlari

The authors found that robotics provides a challenging learning environment in

which “the abstract levels of concepts (programs) are directly mapped to the
­concrete physical level (robots) and that students themselves can observe the results
of their designs at both levels” (p. 4549). The results of the present study, along with
other studies that examined the effects of educational robotics on learning science
and technology literacy, show that robotics has the potential to improve students’
scientific conceptual understanding and technology literacy.
Furthermore, the participants of this study, after attending in the robotics work-
shop, perceived that using robotics can develop a positive attitude about STEM
disciplines and has the potential to encourage students to pursue their education and
career in STEM-related fields. Therefore, this study is in agreement with the
reviewed literature surrounding the positive effects of robotics on STEM education.
For example, Grubbs (2013) has shown that robotics creates an exciting and authen-
tic environment that provides students with the opportunity to apply their knowl-
edge that they thought is unusable; therefore, robotics encourages students to pursue
a STEM field in the future and has the potential to increase the number of students
entering STEM fields. Allen (2013) in a study expressed that robotics has the poten-
tial to present a strong example of STEM education, is a powerful tool for changing
students’ perceptions of STEM fields, and leads students to “fall in love with these
subjects and all that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics make pos-
sible in our world” (p. 345). Allen also stated that robotics helps students to “see
themselves as future scientists, tech specialists, engineers, and mathematicians”
(p. 345) and can prepare students in all grade levels to succeed in the future that is
strongly STEM-based. In fact, the results of the present study show that running a
robotics workshop provided an opportunity for teachers to understand the effects of
robotics on STEM education, which may encourage them to integrate robotics into
their math curriculum. The implication of this study is that if the elementary teach-
ers are provided with the support they need (in this study, in-service professional
development), they would think of integrating robotics into their teaching activities,
which would be beneficial for students. Also, providing an opportunity for teachers
to engage in hands-on activities with technologies like robotics would diminish
their anxiety and would encourage them to integrate technologies into their teaching
activities. Another implication of this study is that robotics is well-suited for univer-
sal design for learning, because the majority of the participants, after attending the
workshop, perceived that robotics can create more engaging activities and can sup-
port different learning styles.
One of the limitations of this study is that as the study is done in a day-long
workshop about robotics, there was no opportunity to conduct an interview or focus
group. Therefore, the researcher was unable to ask some follow-up questions in
order to better understand the teachers’ perceptions. However, some of the partici-
pants have indicated their interest to be interviewed for further research and have
provided their contact information. Therefore, future work would be to contact the
interested participants and conduct face-to-face interviews. Another limitation is
that the majority of the participants were female teachers. This setting may have
influenced the results. For the future studies, it might be better to have an equal
number of male and female teachers.
11  The Use of Robotics for STEM Education in Primary Schools: Teachers’ Perceptions 277

References

Adolphson, K. (2005). Robotics as a context for meaningful mathematics. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology
of Mathematics Education, Roanoke.
Alimisis, D., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Constructionism and robotics in education. In D. Alimisis
(Ed.), Teacher education on robotics-enhanced constructivist pedagogical methods (pp. 11–26).
Athens: ASPETE.
Allen, K. C. (2013). Robots bring math-powered ideas to life. Mathematic Teaching in the Middle
School, 18(6), 340–347.
Attard, C. (2012). Teaching with technology: Exploring the use of robotics to teach mathemat-
ics. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 17(2), 31–32. Retrieved from http://eric.
ed.gov/?id=EJ978138.
Barker, B., & Ansorge, J. (2007). Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal
learning environment. Journal of Research on Technology Education, 39, 229–243.
Bauerle, A., & Gallagher, M. (2003). Toying with technology: Bridging the gap between education
and engineering. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technol-
ogy & teacher education international conference 2003 (pp. 3538–3541). Chesapeake: AACE.
Bers, M. U. (2008). Blocks to robots: Learning with technology in the early childhood classroom.
New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.
Bers, M., & Portsmore, M. (2005). Teaching partnerships: Early childhood and engineer-
ing students teaching math and science through robotics. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 14(1), 59–74.
Bers, M., Ponte, I., Juelich, K., Viera, A., & Schenker, J. (2002). Integrating robotics into early
childhood education. In Information technology in childhood education annual (pp. 123–145).
Brosterman, N. (1997). Inventing kindergarten. New York: H.N. Abrams.
Canadian Association of Science Centre. (2010). Youth STEM guidelines. Retrieved from http://
www.canadiansciencecentres.ca/?n=29-161-153&newsId=73
Canadian Child Care Federation and Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network. (2010).
Foundations for numeracy: An evidence-based toolkit for the effective mathematics teacher.
Retrieved from http://foundationsfornumeracy.cllrnet.ca/pdf/SY_NumeracyKit09_ENG.pdf
Carbonaro, M., Rex, M., & Chambers, J.  (2004). Exploring middle school children’s problem
solving during robot construction tasks. In R. Ferdig et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the society of
information technology and teacher education (pp. 4546–4550). Charlottesville: AACE.
Druin, A., & Hendler, J. (2000). Robots for kids: Exploring new technologies for learning. San
Diego: Academic Press.
Eguchi, A. (2007). Educational robotics for elementary school classroom. In R.  Carlsen et  al.
(Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international
conference (pp. 2542–2549). Chesapeake: AACE.
Faisal, A., Kapila, V., & Iskander, M. G. (2012). Using robotics to promote learning in elementary
grades. Paper presented at the 19th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposit.
Grubbs, M. (2013). Robotics intrigue middle school students and build STEM skills. Technology
and Engineering Teacher, 72(6), 12–16. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1006898.
Gura, M. (2012). Lego robotics: STEM sport of the mind. Learning and Leading with Technology,
40(1), 12–16. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ991224.
Gürcan-Namlu, A., & Ceyhan, E. (2003). Computer anxiety: Multidimensional analysis on teacher
candidates. Educational Sciences. Theory & Practice, 3(2), 401–432.
Hallam, T.A. (2008). Sociocultural influences on computer anxiety among preservice teachers: An
exploratory study. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Akron, Akron.
Han, J.  (2012). Emerging technologies: Robot assisted language learning. Language Learning
& Technology, 16(3), 1–9. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2012/emerging.pdf.
Hussain, S., Lindh, J., & Shukur, G. (2006). The effect of LEGO training on pupils’ school per-
formance in mathematics, problem solving ability and attitude: Swedish data. Educational
Technology & Society, 9(3), 182–194.
278 A. Khanlari

Jeschke, S., Kato, A., & Knipping, L. (2008). The engineers of tomorrow: Teaching robotics to
primary school children. Proceedings of the SEFI 36th Annual Conference, Aalborg, Denmark.
Kazakoff, E. R., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The effect of a classroom-based intensive
robotics and programming workshop on sequencing ability in early childhood. Journal of
Early childhood Education, 41, 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-012-0554-5.
Khanlari, A. (2016a). Teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and the challenges of integrating educa-
tional robots into primary/elementary curricula. European Journal of Engineering Education,
1–11.
Khanlari, A. (2016b). Robotics integration to create an authentic learning environment in engi-
neering education. In the proceedings of the IEEE conference on Frontiers in Education, 1–4.
Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R.  B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C.  N. (2015). Robotics to promote
elementary education pre-service teachers’ STEM engagement, learning, and teaching.
Computers & Education, 91, 14–31.
Kolberg, E., & Orlev, N. (2001). Robotics learning as a tool for integrating science-technology cur-
riculum in K-12 schools. 31st ASEE/IEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Reno.
Johnson, J. (2002). Children, robotics, and education. In the Proceedings of the 7th International
Symposium on Artificial Life and Robotics (491 – 496).
Madill, H., Campbell, R. G., Cullen, D. M., Armour, M. A., Einsiedel, A. A., Ciccocioppo, A. L.,
et al. (2007). Developing career commitment in STEM-related fields: myth versus reality. In
R. Burke, M. Mattis, & E. Elgar (Eds.), Women and minorities in science, technology, engi-
neering and mathematics: Upping the numbers (pp. 210–244). Northhampton: Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Marulcu, I. (2010). Investigating the impact of a LEGO(TM)-based, engineering-oriented cur-
riculum compared to an inquiry-based curriculum on fifth graders’ content learning of simple
machines. Doctoral dissertation.
Mataric, M. J. (2004). Robotics education for all ages. In Proceedings of American Association for
Artificial Intelligence Spring Symposium on Accessible, Hands-on AI and Robotics Education,
Palo Alto.
Metz, S. S. (2007). Attracting the engineering of 2020 today. In R. Burke, M. Mattis, & E. Elgar
(Eds.), Women and minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Upping
the numbers (pp. 184–209). Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuck, V. (2010). Impact of robotics and geospa-
tial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 42(4), 391–408.
Oppliger, D. (2002). Using FIRST LEGO league to enhance engineering education and to increase
the pool of future engineering students. 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference,
Boston.
Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM
Education, 5, 17–28.
Samuels, P. & Haapasalo, L. (2012). Real and virtual robotics in mathematics education at the
school–university transition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and
Technology, 43(3), 285–301.
Scaradozzi, D., Screpanti, L., Cesaretti, L., Storti, M., & Mazzieri, E. (2018). Implementation
and assessment methodologies of teachers’ training courses for STEM activities. Technology,
Knowledge and Learning, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9356-1.
Sklar, E., Eguchi, A., & Johnson, J. (2002). Children’s learning from team robotics: RoboCupJunior
2001. In Proceedings of RoboCup-2002. Robot Soccer World Cup VI.
Sklar, E., Eguchi, A., & Johnson, J. (2003). Scientific challenge award: RoboCupJunior – learning
with educational robotics. AI Magazine, 24(2), 43–46.
STEM NS. (n.d.). Growing a better tomorrow with STEM.  Retrieved from http://www.stemns.
com/index.html
Thorpe, S. J., & Brosnan, M. (2008). Does computer anxiety reach levels which conform to DSM
IV criteria for specific phobia? Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1258–1272.
Chapter 12
Using Robots to Introduce First-Year
College Students to the Field of Electrical
Engineering

Mounir Ben Ghalia

Abstract  Improving the retention of first-year college students has been the focus
of many engineering programs. Often, students declare an engineering major with-
out having an understanding of what that major entails or what their career goals
are. This lack of understanding combined with the absence of proper mentoring
results in a large percentage of students who either switch to other majors or drop
out of college without receiving a degree. To lessen the attrition rate among first-­
year engineering majors, the common initiative that has been adopted by many
engineering programs is to offer an introductory-level engineering course. The main
educational objective of these courses is to help students gain a better understanding
of the engineering field and what engineers do. At the University of Texas Rio
Grande Valley, located in the South Central Region of USA, we developed and
introduced a robot project in the curriculum of our introductory course for first-year
electrical engineering majors. Using the Pololu 3pi mobile robot, the project allows
students to experience a real-world engineering problem. To prepare students for the
robot project, we used the experiential learning model that aimed at engaging stu-
dents in hands-on learning experiences consisting of robot navigation examples.
Students gained a glimpse into the different technical subjects within the electrical
engineering field through their experience working with the robots. Data collected
over several semesters showed that educational robots contribute to keeping first-­
year students in the program.

Keywords  First-year college students · Educational robotics · Mobile robots ·

Using robots to learn engineering · Project-based learning · Student retention in
engineering

M. Ben Ghalia (*)
University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, TX, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 279

L. Daniela (ed.), Smart Learning with Educational Robotics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19913-5_12
280 M. Ben Ghalia

Introduction

Educators introduce robots in entry-level engineering courses as one of the tools to

improve student motivation (Aroca et al. 2016; Blanding and Meah 2014) and to
allow students learn about different engineering disciplines (Roth 2002). Several
engineering programs have developed introductory courses for their first-year col-
lege students (Mix and Balda 1997; Huettel et al. 2007; Mercede 2008; Blanding
and Meah 2014; Behrens et al. 2010; Carley et al. 2000). These courses provide an
introduction to the field of engineering and help students decide if they want to fol-
low a degree in engineering. The most reported successful approaches to introduc-
ing students to engineering are those that involve hands-on laboratory and
project-based learning. For instance, other engineering programs use robot kits such
as the LEGO MINDSTORMS for first-year course projects (Behrens et al. 2010;
Williams 2009; Roth 2002). Besides providing students insight into the technical
field of engineering, such projects also help students gain skills in teamwork and
communication (Behrens et  al. 2010). Engaging first-year students in hands-on
learning not only increases their motivation (Mix and Balda 1997; Huettel et  al.
2007; Behrens et al. 2010) but also helps to reduce attrition (Karam and Mounsef
2011).
This chapter describes a robot project introduced in the introductory-level course
offered for first-year electrical engineering students enrolled at the University of
Texas Rio Grande Valley1 (UTRGV). The chapter is organized as follows. Section
“The Introductory Engineering Course” describes the introductory engineering
course and provides the rationale for using robots as a tool to expose students to
different technical subjects within the field of electrical engineering. Section
“Preparing Students for the Robotics Project with Experimental Learning” explains
the motivation behind the use of the experiential learning model to introduce stu-
dents to robotics programming. The section also presents and discusses the series of
active hands-on learning experienced by our students. Section “Main Robotics
Project” presents the culminating main robot project. Section “Project Impact” dis-
cusses data that show the impact of the robot project on student performance.
Finally, Section “Conclusion” provides the overall conclusion of this study.

The Introductory Engineering Course

Course Description

The course, ELEE 1101,2 introduces first-year students to the field of electrical
engineering, its different specializations, and career paths. Typically, this is the first
engineering course that our students take in their first year with calculus and physics

 UTRGV is located in the South Central Region of USA.

1

 The course numbering at UTRGV consists of four letters followed by four digits. The letters
2
12  Using Robots to Introduce First-Year College Students to the Field of Electrical… 281

courses, which are prerequisites for advanced electrical engineering courses. The
topics of the introductory course include:
• Overview of specializations within the field of electrical engineering
• Electrical engineering as a career
• Introduction to digital systems
• Basic electrical laws
• Introduction to electrical laboratory instruments
• Graphical representation of data using the MATLAB software
• Engineering design cycle
• Mobile robot project
Our electrical engineering program schedules the course as a 160-minute weekly
laboratory meeting. The class meets either in a computer laboratory, the electric
circuit laboratory, or the robotics and controls laboratory, all housed in the electrical
engineering department. At the end of the course, students are expected to demon-
strate their ability to:
• Understand the differences between the engineering majors
• Identify the qualities of a successful engineering student
• List the different types of engineering job classifications
• Understand the purpose of internships and cooperative education
• Perform engineering calculation
• Graph data using the MATLAB software
• Understand basic digital circuit concepts
• Understand and apply the engineering design process
• Program a mobile robot using the programming language C++
• Carry out a reasonably complex navigation task
• Communicate project results verbally and in written reports
We introduced improvements to the course curriculum to include a project-based
learning experience that helps students gain a better insight into the different techni-
cal engineering subjects. These include electronics, controls, microprocessors, and
programming.

The 3pi Mobile Robot Project

One of the critical aspects of planning the course project was to select a mobile
robot that is affordable and easily programmable. After considering several alterna-
tives, we decided to use the Pololu 3pi robot shown in Fig. 12.1 (Pololu Corporation
2014). We bought several robots to allow a team of two students to share one robot.

indicate the subject (e.g., ELEE indicates electrical engineering and CSCI indicates computer sci-
ence). The first digit of the course number indicates the class year, and the second digit indicates
the number of credit hours.
282 M. Ben Ghalia

Fig. 12.1  The Pololu 3pi

robot

The 3pi robot is a wheeled mobile robot which is capable of speeds up to 100 cm/s.
The robot has two micro metal gearmotors, five infrared (IR) reflectance sensors,
and 8x2 LCD. The microcontroller of the 3pi robot is an ATmega328P from micro-
chip running at 20 Mhz and featuring 32 KB of a flash program, 2 KB RAM, and
1 KB of persistent EEPROM memory. To program the robot, we use the develop-
ment environment Atmel Studio and the free GNU C/C++ compiler (Fig. 12.2). The
robot software comes with an extensive set of libraries and a number of sample
programs which demonstrate the capabilities of the robot. To transfer a compiled
program on a computer to the robot, we use an in-system programmer (ISP) which
connects to the computer’s USB port via a USB-A to Micro-B cable. The program-
mer connects to the robot via a 6-pin ISP programming cable (Fig. 12.2).
The goal of introducing a challenging project in this introductory engineering
course is threefold:
1 . Allow students to experience working on a real engineering problem
2. Help students improve their problem-solving skills
3. Inform students which advanced coursework will teach them the technical details
of the mobile robot modules
We designed several short tutorials to help students become familiar with the
various modules of a mobile robot. Students who take this course in their first
semester do not have a background on the fundamental or advanced electrical engi-
neering curriculum. Also, most of our students have not received any formal training
12  Using Robots to Introduce First-Year College Students to the Field of Electrical… 283

Fig. 12.2  The development environment for the 3pi robot

in computer programming during their secondary education. Therefore, it is impor-

tant to design the tutorials to allow for a basic and qualitative understanding of how
the different modules of the robot are designed and how they work. Most impor-
tantly, in these short tutorials, we point to specific fundamental and advanced elec-
trical engineering courses that cover the topics needed to fully understand the robot
modules. This approach provides students with a glimpse at the curriculum of the
electrical engineering program. The tutorials include:
• The Robot Drive Module Tutorial: This tutorial explains in qualitative terms how
DC motors work and how software and hardware can control motor speed.
Fundamental courses that cover these topics include ELEE 2330 Digital Systems
I, ELEE 2305 Electric Circuits I, and ELEE 3301 Electronics I.  Advanced
courses that cover these topics include ELEE 3321 Signals and Systems, ELEE
3302 Electronics II, and ELEE 4328 Solid States.
• The Sensor Module Tutorial: This tutorial explains how an IR reflectance sensor
works and how the reflected energy is converted into a voltage signal. The t­ utorial
also explains the rationale for using IR reflectance sensors to allow the robot to
navigate along a black line. Courses that cover fundamental topics that are help-
ful to understand the working of IR reflectance sensors include ELEE 2305
Electric Circuits I, ELEE 3301 Electronics I, and ELEE 4328 Solid States.
• The Robot Microcontroller Tutorial: This tutorial provides a brief introduction to
the role of a microcontroller. The course ELEE 3435 Microprocessor Systems
284 M. Ben Ghalia

covers the software and hardware, architecture, and programming of micropro-

cessors. The course ELEE 4380 Computer Architecture covers advanced topics
in computer systems.
• The Robot Navigation Module: This tutorial provides an explanation of how the
robot can navigate following a black line. Qualitative description of the role of
the proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control strategy that uses the IR reflec-
tance sensor readings to compute the appropriate speeds of both motors to ensure
that the robot follows the black line is presented. Advanced courses that cover the
topic on automatic control include ELEE 3321 Signals and Systems and ELEE
4321 Automatic Control. Advanced topics in control design are offered in ELEE
4323 Rapid Control Prototyping that is offered as a technical elective course.
Applications to robotics are covered in ELEE 4325 Introduction to Robotics that
is also offered as a technical elective course.
• Computer Programming and the Use of the Development Environment Atmel
Studio: The introductory course does not provide formal teaching of computer
programming using the C++ language. However, we guide our students through
a set of samples of 3pi robot programs to give them a basic, yet relevant under-
standing of the robot programming as explained in section “Preparing Students
for the Robotics Project with Experimental Learning”. We use a step-by-step
tutorial and computer screenshots to teach students how to program the robot
using the development environment Atmel Studio. Students in our engineering
program learn the C++ programming language in CSCI 1380 Computer Science
I and the MATLAB language in ELEE 2319 Numerical Computation.

 reparing Students for the Robotics Project with Experiential

P
Learning

Most of the first-year college students enrolled in our engineering program have not
taken their first course in C/C++ programming or have not had a background in
computer programming in their secondary education. Therefore, preparing students
for the robotic project using a traditional lecture-based pedagogy, and within the
course time constraint, presents a significant challenge. This is why we opted for an
experiential learning model to actively engage students in hands-on learning that
progressively immerse them in programming the robot with incremental levels of
challenge. Our active experiential learning approach follows three phases. In the
first phase, a series of demonstrations of code examples range from the basic black
line following tasks to complex robot tasks such as robot navigation of a compli-
cated path to solve a maze. Through this direct experience, students learn the capa-
bilities of the robot and become better positioned to understand the commented
source codes of the examples that they have just experienced. After reflecting on the
experience with the provided robot application examples, students move to the sec-
ond phase of active learning by working on a series of mini-challenges. In this
12  Using Robots to Introduce First-Year College Students to the Field of Electrical… 285

second phase, students learn how to write short programs that allow a robot to stop
at junctions on a navigation track and make left and right turns. Finally, the third
phase of the project is the main challenge. In this phase, we ask students to solve the
challenge by designing and writing a program that allows the robot to autonomously
navigate through a mock-urban course containing traffic obstacles. In this last
phase, students solve the robot challenge on their own and the instructor provides
minimal support.
Several engineering programs (Conger et  al. 2010; Hajshirmohammadi 2017)
have promoted learning through experience following the Kolb’s model (Kolb
1984). Experiential learning is useful in meeting the needs of the 21st-century
industries that seek innovative and creative engineers to help them keep their com-
petitiveness. Courses that integrate experiential learning help students transition
from academia to the workplace where problems are often complex and require
multiple design iterations (Regev et al. 2008). Our goal is for the first-year college
students to gain new content knowledge and develop their problem-solving skills
through an active experience working with robots. The experiential learning model
actively involves students in their learning. Also, the experiential learning approach
is likely to help students in solving complex problems (Bernik and Žnidaršič 2012).
The basic experiential learning model follows three phases:
• Experience: In this phase, students perform an activity.
• Reflection: In this phase, students reflect on the experience and develop an under-
standing of the result of the experience or activity.
• Generalization: In this phase, students apply what they learned to solve new
problems.
Figure 12.3 shows the experiential learning model used in our engineering
course. The learning model aims at introducing students to robot programming
through a series of demos and mini-challenges. We specifically designed the tutori-
als and mini-challenges to prepare the student for a culminating project where we
ask them to demonstrate their understanding of robotic programming and their
problem-solving skills.
In the next sections, we describe the various demos and mini-challenges designed
to prepare students for the culminating robotic project.

Line Following Example

The line following example project was provided by Pololu (Pololu Corporation
2014). The application shows how to program the 3pi robot to follow a black line on
a white background. For students to experience this application, we built the line
following course shown in Fig. 12.4. We used black electric tape measuring ¾ inch
to trace the path line on a white poster board. We guided the students through mul-
tiple steps to compile and download the line following program to the robot. After
experiencing the demo, students reflected on how the robot followed the black line
286 M. Ben Ghalia

Fig. 12.3  Experiential learning process to help students solve the course robotics project

Fig. 12.4  Line following

course
12  Using Robots to Introduce First-Year College Students to the Field of Electrical… 287

without veering off at the junction. We conducted class discussions to help students
understand the role of the IR reflectance sensors further and how the PID controller
uses the readings of the sensors to calculate the speeds of the motors. The students
learned the controller is responsible for making the robot navigate along the black
line. The line following project was easy to understand and presented a good first
introduction to robot programming. We then asked students to read and study the
code of the line following application and reflect on the sections that deal with IR
sensor reading.

Maze Solver Example

The next example that students experienced was the maze solver project (Pololu
Corporation 2014). In this project, the 3pi robot navigates complicated paths of
intersecting black lines and can make sharp turns and 180-degree turns at dead ends.
The task of the robot is to navigate this complicated track (the maze) from a starting
location to a goal destination represented by a black circle (Fig. 12.5). The robot
navigates the maze and memorizes the paths that lead to dead ends. It continues its
search till it reaches the goal location. After the robot finishes exploring the maze
and reaches the goal destination, it memorizes the shortest path to the destination.
Students run the robot again to verify if it navigates to the goal destination following
the fastest and shortest path. The maze solver project provides students with a fur-
ther understanding of how IR sensors allow detecting intersections and dead ends.
Students study the maze code to learn how to control the robot motors to make left,
right, and 180-degree turns. This understanding is useful to tackle the next three
mini-challenges and the project main challenge.

Fig. 12.5  Maze course for the 3pi robot (Pololu Corporation 2014)
288 M. Ben Ghalia

Mini-Challenge 1

In this mini-challenge, we provide students the simple track shown in Fig. 12.6. We

ask them to write a program that makes the robot navigate from a starting location
to a dead-end destination where the robot must stop and display “Stopped.” Also,
the robot must detect the junction and display “Junction” on the LCD without
stopping.
This mini-challenge guides students to go through all steps of writing, compil-
ing, and downloading a C++ program to the robot microprocessor using the devel-
opment environment Atmel Studio. We provide hints and important sections of the
code to students to help them solve the mini-challenge. The hints provided are
reported in Table 12.1. Students could recognize most of the code because of the
reflective observation phase that they experienced during the line following and the
maze solver examples.

Mini-Challenge 2

This mini-challenge asks students to write a program that makes the robot navigate
the course shown in Fig. 12.7. The robot must start from location “S,” follow the
path marked by the solid arrows, and then stops at location “D.” The robot must
display “Junction” at location “C” and “Dead End” at location “D.” We provide a
sequence of hints, as shown in Figs. 12.8, 12.9, 12.10, and 12.11, to help students
solve the challenge.

Fig. 12.6  Track of mini-challenge 1

12  Using Robots to Introduce First-Year College Students to the Field of Electrical… 289

Table 12.1  Explanation of the main statements of the application code for mini-challenge 1
Program functions and
constructs Explanation and comments
initialize(); This function initializes the 3pi robot, displays the welcome
message on the LCD, and calibrates the reflectance sensors
follow_segment(); This function drives the 3pi robot straight along the black line
set_motors(40,40); This function sets the speeds of the left and right motors of the 3pi
robot
delay_ms(50); This function allows the 3pi to keep on moving for a certain
amount of time. In this example, the delay duration is set for 50ms
unsigned int This statement declares the name of the array, “sensors,” that will
sensors[5]; hold the readings of the 5 IR sensors
read_line(sensors, This function reads/updates the values received from the IR
IR_EMITTERS_ON); sensors and saves them in the array variable sensors
if(sensors[0] > This If-construct checks if either the leftmost sensor (Sensor 0) of
100 || the rightmost sensor (Sensor 4) detects a black line. If they do,
sensors[4] > 100) then this indicates that the 3pi robot has reached a junction. In this
{ situation, (1) the LCD is cleared and the message “Junction” is
clear(); displayed, and (2) the robot is allowed to keep on moving straight
print("Junction"); past the junction
set_motors(40,40);
delay_ms(1000);
clear();
}
If(sensors[1]<100 This If-constructs checks if the three middle IR sensors (sensors 1,
&& 2, and 3) detect white surface ahead. If they do, then (1) the 3pi is
sensors[2]<100 && stopped by setting the speed of both motors to 0, (2) the message
sensors[3]<100) “Stop” is displayed on the LCD, and (3) a break from the program
{ loop is executed
set_motors(0,0);
clear();
print("Stop");
break;
}

Mini-Challenge 3

This mini-challenge asks students to extend the solution to mini-challenge 2 to

make the robot take a 180-degree turn once it arrives at location “D.” The robot must
then continue to navigate the track back to location S following the path marked by
dashed arrows as shown in Fig. 12.12. Once it arrives at location S, the robot must
stop and display “Returned Home.” In this mini-challenge, we provide minimal
support to students and no extra hints. All student teams could complete this mini-­
challenge, demonstrating the effectiveness of the experiential learning model.
Fig. 12.7  Track for
mini-challenge 2

Fig. 12.8  Hint 1 for mini-challenge 2: detecting a T junction and taking a left turn

Fig. 12.9  Hint 2 for mini-challenge 2: detecting an L intersection and making a right turn
12  Using Robots to Introduce First-Year College Students to the Field of Electrical… 291

Fig. 12.10  Hint 3 for mini-challenge 2: detecting a + intersection and moving straight

Fig. 12.11  Hint 4 for mini-challenge 2: detecting a dead end and stopping
292 M. Ben Ghalia

Fig. 12.12  Track for

mini-challenge 3: dashed
arrows indicate the return
path of the robot

Main Robotics Project

Problem Statement

The culminating challenge was presented to students as follows: “Smart Highway

Corporation (SHC) hires you to join a team of engineers who are working on devel-
oping prototypes of the next generation cars with auto-navigation powers. Your
assignment is to develop a proof of concept where you will develop a software
application for the robot to autonomously navigate a mock-urban course with traffic
obstacles (Fig. 12.13).”
The detailed instructions given to students were as follows:
1. The robot must be placed at the START position before it starts moving through
traffic following the path shown with arrows. The case where all reflective sen-
sors are outside the START black position is an acceptable starting position.
2. The robot must stop at the STOP sign for 3 s and display STOP on its LCD.
3. The robot must stop at the traffic light for pedestrians for 3 s and display RED on
its LCD. The message must then change to GREEN right before the robot starts
moving again.
4. The robot must display RAILWAY CROSSING at the railway crossing sign, but
without stopping.
5. The robot must stop inside the FINISH location and display FINISH on its LCD.
12  Using Robots to Introduce First-Year College Students to the Field of Electrical… 293

Fig. 12.13  Track for the main robotics challenge

Project Requirements and Scoring

Besides the two weeks reserved for the demo examples and mini-challenges, we
assigned two laboratory sessions for about 5 h to allow students to design, develop,
implement, and test their programs. During the third lab period, students were given
the chance to make any final program adjustments and to conduct further testing
before the official runs. Each team was allowed two possible runs, and the highest
score achieved in the two runs is counted. The challenge scoring was based on the
miles traveled by the robot as shown in Fig. 12.13. For instance, if the robot reaches
the junction with the STOP sign, then the score obtained is 40 points (matching to
40 miles traveled). Therefore, a robot that reaches the FINISH line following the
marked path will receive 100 points. If the robot fails to stop or display the correct
message, then a 5-point deduction is applied for each instance.
We also ask each team to prepare a report that describes their step-by-step solu-
tion to the challenge. While there are of the track that students have seen in previous
examples and mini-challenges, new difficulties were introduced in the main project.
These difficulties consist of:
• The junction at the traffic light is not a perfect “T” junction.
• There is a white gap in the robot path before the railway crossing.
• The robot must stop at the destination location inside the black square.
294 M. Ben Ghalia

We purposely introduced the new difficulties to test students’ abilities to general-

ize the ideas they have learned following the experiential learning. About 80% of
student teams managed to solve the complete challenge, demonstrating their
improved problem-solving skills. We consider this to be remarkable because the
first-year students had not yet taken formal computer programming courses or fun-
damental engineering courses.

Project Impact

We introduced the Pololu 3pi project in the course for the first time in Spring 2013.
Figure 12.14 reports the total percentages of students who registered for the course
but who either failed, dropped, or withdrew from the university. The historical data
show that since introducing the robot project in the course curriculum, the percent-
age of fail, drop, and withdrawal has decreased for the next six academic semesters.
While several causes could affect student performance and the need to drop or with-
draw from the university, we believe the robot project has had a positive impact on
motivating the first-year students. We offer only one section of the course every
Spring semester, with an average enrollment of 20 students. The Fall semester
enrollment is higher. In fact, we have been offering two sections of the course every
Fall semester since 2013, with an average total enrollment of 50 students. In Spring
2013, we had only 13 students enrolled in the course and that could explain the 0%
of fail, drop, and withdrawal. We believe the smaller class size combined with the
exciting new robot project had a positive impact on student performance.
We have increased the complexity of the robot project since introducing it in the
course curriculum. We developed extra mini-challenge materials to guide the stu-

Fig. 12.14  Percentages of fail, drop, and withdrawal before and after introducing the robot
project
12  Using Robots to Introduce First-Year College Students to the Field of Electrical… 295

dents to solve the main project successfully as discussed in sections “Preparing

Students for the Robotics Project with Experimental Learning” and “Main Robotics
Project”. Even though we increased the complexity of the project challenge, the
percentage of drop, fail, and withdrawal has remained below 15% as shown in
Fig. 12.14.

Conclusion

This chapter described the curriculum of an introductory course for first-year stu-
dents in the electrical engineering program at the University of Texas Rio Grande
Valley. Besides basic laboratory experiments that introduce students to basic con-
cepts of electrical circuits and digital systems, the course robot project gives stu-
dents a glimpse into the different technical subjects within the electrical engineering
field. Although most of our first-year students did not have a background in robot
programming, we could guide them to write C++ programs that solved complex
robot navigation challenges. The limited time reserved for the project motivated us
to adopt the experiential learning model. We use this pedagogy to introduce students
to robot programming through a series of demos and mini-challenges. The course
main project allowed the students to demonstrate their understanding of robot pro-
gramming and their abilities to solve problems. Students were enthusiastic and
seemed motivated while working with the robots. We changed the time assigned for
the project so students had a chance to complete their work. In the latest course
offerings, we assigned four to five weeks to allow students to experience the demo
examples, the mini-challenges, and the main project.
Often, students declare an engineering major without having an understanding of
what that major entails or what their career goals are. This lack of understanding
combined with the absence of proper mentoring results in a large percentage of
students who either switch to other majors or drop out of college without receiving
a degree. We presented data to show that an exciting robot project could contribute
to keeping first-year students in the program. Robots provide a unique experience
for first-year students to learn what engineering is about. Using robots in the class-
room helps to support student learning and motivation – two important factors that
affect student retention.

Acknowledgments  The author would like to thank the following graduate students for their help
in the laboratory: Jose Escobar, David Flores, Edgar Gil, Eric Gonzalez, Hugo Herrera, Everardo
Ibarra, Christopher Martin, and Hector Trevino.
296 M. Ben Ghalia

References

Aroca, R. V., Watanabe, F. Y., Ávila, M. T. D., & Hernandes, A. C. (2016). Mobile robotics inte-
gration in introductory undergraduate engineering courses. 2016 XIII Latin American robotics
symposium and IV Brazilian robotics symposium (LARS/SBR) (pp. 139–144). 8–12 Oct. 2016.
Behrens, A., Atorf, L., Schwann, R., Neumann, B., Schnitzler, R., Balle, J., et al. (2010). MATLAB
meets LEGO mindstorms: A freshman introduction course into practical engineering. IEEE
Transactions on Education, 53(2), 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2009.2017272.
Bernik, M., & Žnidaršič, J. (2012). Solving complex problems with help of experiential learning.
Blanding, W., & Meah, K. (2014). Laboratory-based project-oriented introductory course for elec-
trical engineering. 8th international conference on electrical and computer engineering. 20–22
Dec. 2014. pp. 832–835.
Carley, L.  R., Khosla, P., & Unetich, R. (2000). Teaching “introduction to electrical and
computer engineering” in context. Proceedings of the IEEE, 88(1), 8–22. https://doi.
org/10.1109/5.811595.
Conger, A. J., Gilchrist, B., Holloway, J. P., Huang-Saad, A., Sick, V., & Zurbuchen, T. H. (2010).
Experiential learning programs for the future of engineering education. 2010 IEEE transform-
ing engineering education: Creating interdisciplinary skills for complex global environments
(pp. 1–14). 6–9 April 2010.
Hajshirmohammadi, A. (2017). Incorporating experiential learning in engineering courses. IEEE
Communications Magazine, 55(11), 166–169. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2017.1700373.
Huettel, L.  G., Brown, A.  S., Coonley, K.  D., Gustafson, M.  R., Kim, J., Ybarra, G.  A., et  al.
(2007). Fundamentals of ECE: A rigorous, integrated introduction to electrical and com-
puter engineering. IEEE Transactions on Education, 50(3), 174–181. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TE.2007.900020.
Karam, L.  J., & Mounsef, N. (2011). Increasing retention through introduction to engineering
design. 2011 digital signal processing and signal processing education meeting (DSP/SPE)
(pp. 186–191). 4–7 Jan. 2011.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experiences as the source of learning and development.
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Mercede, F. J. (2008). Hands-on projects to introduce electrical and computer engineering. 2008
38th annual frontiers in education conference (pp. F1F-9-F1F-14). 22–25 Oct. 2008.
Mix, D. F., & Balda, J. C. (1997). ELEG 1003-introduction to electrical engineering: An approach
to motivate and teach EE Freshmen. Proceedings frontiers in education 1997 27th annual
conference. Teaching and learning in an era of change (pp. 1215–1218, vol. 3). 5–8 Nov 1997.
Pololu Corporation. (2014). Polulu 3pi robot user’s guide. Available at: https://www.pololu.com/
docs/pdf/0J21/3pi.pdf.
Regev, G., Gause, D. C., & Wegmann, A. (2008). Requirements engineering education in the 21st
century, an experiential learning approach. 2008 16th IEEE international requirements engi-
neering conference pp. 85–94). 8–12 Sept. 2008.
Roth, Z. S. (2002). The role of robotics in freshmen engineering curricula. Proceedings of the 5th
biannual world automation congress (pp. 389–394). 9–13 June 2002.
Williams, D.  B. (2009) A Freshman ‘Introduction to ECE Design’ course based on the LEGO
mindstorms NXT. Digital signal processing workshop and 5th IEEE signal processing educa-
tion workshop, 2009. DSP/SPE 2009. IEEE 13th (pp. 435–439). 4–7 Jan. 2009.
Chapter 13
Designing a Competition Robot
as a Capstone Project for Electrical
and Computer Engineering Students

Samuel Roberts, Joshua Acosta, Salvador Garza, Mounir Ben Ghalia,

and Heinrich Foltz

Abstract Robotics-based capstone design projects provide unique educational

opportunities for engineering students and help prepare them as future professional
engineers. Robotics projects allow students to experience all steps of the engineer-
ing design cycle and to extend their knowledge in a wide range of subjects across
multiple disciplines that include electrical, mechanical, and computer engineering.
Designing and building robots for capstone design projects support a number of
student learning outcomes. These include (i) the ability to apply engineering design
to produce solutions that meet specified needs; (ii) the ability to function effectively
on a team whose members together provide leadership, create a collaborative and
inclusive environment, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet objectives; (iii) the abil-
ity to communicate effectively with a range of audiences; and (iv) the ability to
create and use software both as an analysis and design tool and as part of systems
containing hardware and software. Over the last 15 years, several engineering stu-
dent teams from our robotics lab built mobile robots and competed in the annual
robotics event organized by Region 5 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers [IEEE] is the world’s largest technical professional organization dedi-
cated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity (https://www.ieee.org).
IEEE is organized into ten regions worldwide. Region 5 is comprised of states
within the southwestern region of the United States that include Arkansas, Colorado,
Kansas, Illinois (southern), Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska (western), New Mexico
(southern), Oklahoma, South Dakota (western), Texas, and Wyoming (eastern)
(http://ieeer5.org)) of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, one of
the world’s largest technical professional organizations. Every year, the competition
theme is different and the event hosts more than 30 student teams from different
universities from Region 5. Robots designed for the competition are expected to
autonomously complete a specified number of tasks on a playing field. This chapter

S. Roberts · J. Acosta · S. Garza · M. Ben Ghalia (*) · H. Foltz

Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley,
Edinburg, TX, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 297

L. Daniela (ed.), Smart Learning with Educational Robotics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19913-5_13
298 S. Roberts et al.

presents an overview of our robotics lab educational program and chronicles the
experience of a team of engineering students who built a mobile robot as part of
their capstone design project for the 2018 robotics competition. The educational
values gained from working on a robotics-themed capstone project and the lessons
learned from the participation in the robotics competition are discussed.

Keywords  Educational robotics · Robotics competition · Autonomous robots ·

Capstone design · Engineering design process · Engineering education

Introduction

Robots have become an indispensable part of making several industries, worldwide,

competitive (Bekey and Yuh 2008). The word robot originated from robota which in
Czech means forced labor or servitude and was the main theme in Karel Capek’s
1921 play titled R.U.R, or Rossum’s Universal Robots (Niku 2011). The play intro-
duced the concept of manufacturing robots to do work. In the industrial sector,
General Motors pioneered the efforts in manufacturing robots and installed the first
industrial robot, Unimate, in one of its assembly lines over five decades ago
(Engelberger 1980). Rapid advances in technology have made it possible for robots
to cross over from automotive manufacturing to other applications such as health-
care, space exploration, and research and rescue. Technological progress made in
computing, data communication, and computer vision has led to the development of
surgical robots such as the da Vinci surgical robotic system that assists surgeons in
performing minimally invasive surgeries, resulting in less trauma to patients and
faster recovery times (Lanfranco et  al. 2004). While industrial manipulators and
surgical robots often work in a fixed environment and a constrained workspace,
free-roaming mobile robots have led to new specialized applications. The National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) developed several autonomous
mobile robots such as the Sojourner rover and the twin Mars exploration rovers,
Spirit and Opportunity, that successfully landed on Mars and contributed to the
exploration of the planet (Bajracharya et al. 2008). Mobile robots have found impor-
tant applications in search and rescue missions (Murphy 2012).
The market for robotics has been growing rapidly. Industrial robot sales is
expected to increase worldwide at an annual rate of 14% for the period 2019–2021,
with an estimated 2.1 million new industrial robots to be installed in factories in
Europe, North and South America, and Asia (International Federation of Robotics
2018a). Professional service robots are seeing continuous growth that is estimated
at 19% annually for the period 2019–2021 (International Federation of Robotics
2018b). The projected 5-year sales of service robots intended for domestic use and
those marketed for entertainment are expected to increase at the annual rate of 31%
and 12%, respectively (International Federation of Robotics 2018b).
The fast growing market for robots worldwide and the new robotics industries that
are being created have led to an increased supply of jobs (World Economic Forum
2018). This opportunity, however, presents a challenge for these new s­pecialized
13  Designing a Competition Robot as a Capstone Project for Electrical and Computer… 299

robotics industries that need to fill these positions with new types of skilled work-
force in order to sustain their growth and remain competitive. In the United States,
the Science and Engineering (S&E) proportion of all university undergraduate
degrees has been decreasing (President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) 2012). In order to meet the projected economic needs for S&E
professionals, it is estimated that the number of students graduating with S&E
degrees in the United States will need to increase by about 34% annually (President’s
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) 2012). Hence, to remain
the global leader in technology innovations, the United States must produce and
retain a higher number of S&E talent (National Science Board 2016). Robotics is an
interdisciplinary field of S&E that includes electrical and electronics engineering,
mechanical engineering, computer engineering, and computer science. Hence, it is
important for strategies to be developed to transform S&E education to train future
engineers and scientists in robotics in order to guarantee a continuing future supply
of a skilled workforce to meet the increasing number of job opportunities in the
robotics sector. Universities and education agencies play an important role in prepar-
ing the needed talent to meet the demand of the technology industries. A comprehen-
sive and cohesive educational program that engages students in S&E must become
the top mission of educators. Robotics presents a unique opportunity to motivate
students in kindergarten (Di Lieto et al. 2017), primary schools (Scaradozzi et al.
2015), secondary schools (Cesaretti et al. 2017), and college (Yilmaz et al. 2013) to
pursue S&E careers. Several robotics competitions are being held worldwide for
students at different learning stages with the underlying goal to inspire and motivate
students to pursue S&E studies and careers (Eguchi 2016; FIRST Robotics 2015).
This chapter presents initiatives taken at the University of Texas Rio Grande
Valley (located in South Texas, USA) robotics laboratory to educate and train engi-
neering students in the area of robotics. It chronicles the experience of a team of
engineering students who built a mobile robot as part of their capstone design proj-
ect for a regional robotics competition held in Spring 2018.
The main questions addressed in this chapter are:
• What key benefits and educational values do robotics competitions have on the
professional preparation of engineering students?
• How does the integration of robotics competition into a capstone design course
help motivate students to develop advanced solutions for their design problems?
The chapter is organized as follows. In section “Robotics in Education and
Competitions,” an overview of robotics in undergraduate education and the impor-
tance of competitions is presented. The section also highlights the robotics labora-
tory activities and participations in competitions. Section “The Chronicle of
Designing a Competition Robot” chronicles the experience and participation of a
team of our engineering students in the annual robotics competition organized by
IEEE Region 5, one of the world’s largest technical professional organizations.
Section “Lessons Learned from Participation in Robotics Competitions” ­summarizes
the educational values gained from working on a robotics-themed capstone project
and the lessons learned from the participation in the robotics competitions. Finally,
some concluding remarks are provided in section “Conclusions.”
300 S. Roberts et al.

Robotics in Education and Competitions

Robotics in Undergraduate Education

Robotics education has been increasingly offered at various engineering and com-
puter science programs around the world. To educate future robotics engineers and
researchers, several robotics departments and programs have been established since
the late 1970s. The first robotics department in any US university was the Robotics
Institute at Carnegie Mellon University which was established in 1979 (Robotics
Institute 2018). Its mission was to conduct robotics research in a wide variety of
applications. Training graduate students as future roboticists has been an integral
part of the institute’s mission. In Japan, one of the first Department of Robotics was
established at Ritsumeikan University in 1996 (Nagai 2001). Their robotics educa-
tional program offered several courses in the areas of robot hardware and software
and human-machine interfacing. Robotics could be taught in a traditional method
where lectures are augmented with laboratory experiments (Berry 2017). However,
because robotics is an interdisciplinary field that includes electrical and electronics
engineering, mechanical engineering, computer engineering, and computer science,
several programs have adopted design courses for their robotics program (Piepmeier
et al. 2003; Tur and Pfeiffer 2006; Bruder and Wedeward 2003; Jung 2013). In these
design courses, students are given open-ended problems and are required to design
their own robots. This practice exposes students to real-world problems and helps
them develop advanced skills in robotics.
In our engineering program, the course ELEE 4325 Introduction to Robotics has
been offered as an elective for senior students. The initial offering of the course
focused primarily on industrial robot manipulators. In this course, students learn the
kinematics and dynamics of a 6 degree of freedom (DOF) industrial robot arm, con-
duct computer simulations, and carry out experiments on an open-architecture 6
DOF robot arm located in our laboratory. However, there has been increasing inter-
est by our students to learn about mobile robots. Designing and building autonomous
robots requires funds and time. One way to make this possible in our undergraduate
curriculum is to give students the opportunity to experience all the steps of designing
and building a mobile robot as part of their capstone design project.

Participation of our Robotics Laboratory in Competitions

The Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology1 (ABET) that oversees the
accreditation of engineering programs requires that an engineering curriculum
include a culminating major engineering design experience that (1) incorporates

1
 ABET accredits postsecondary education programs in computing, engineering, and engineering
technology in 32 countries. The accreditation of these programs occurs mainly in the United States
(https://www.abet.org).
13  Designing a Competition Robot as a Capstone Project for Electrical and Computer… 301

appropriate engineering standards and multiple constraints and (2) is based on the
knowledge and skills acquired in earlier coursework (ABET 2018). Designing and
building robots for capstone design projects support a number of student learning
outcomes specified by ABET. These include2:
• The ability to apply engineering design to produce solutions that meet specified
needs with consideration of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as global,
cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors
• The ability to function effectively on a team whose members together provide
leadership, create a collaborative and inclusive environment, establish goals,
plan tasks, and meet objectives
• The ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences
• The ability to create and use software both as an analysis and design tool and as
part of systems containing hardware and software
Fifteen years ago, we decided to include the annual challenge proposed by the
IEEE Region 5 Robotics Competition as one of the capstone design projects for our
senior students. Students who are interested in robotics are given the opportunity
not only to design and build their own robots but also participate in the regional
robotics competition and compare their designs to those completed by students
from other universities. Because the theme and requirements of the annual robotics
competition change every year, this has allowed new student teams to come up with
their own new designs. Several studies have emphasized the importance of design
competitions as a tool for student learning (Bazylev et  al. 2014; Michieletto and
Pagello 2018; Murphy 2001; Chew et  al. 2000; Kaiser and Troxell 2005).
Competitions motivate students to excel in their designs and expose them to real-­
world scenarios where engineering companies strive to develop innovative new
products and compete to outperform their rivals.
Our initial participations did not result in wins. However, our participations have
allowed us to revise our strategy of mentoring students and to learn how to prepare
for a competition. This learning curve has paid off. The record of our robotics labo-
ratory in its participations in IEEE Region 5 robotics competitions includes:
• First place at the 2007 IEEE Region 5 Robotics Competition held in Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
• Second place at the 2007 IEEE Region 5 Robotics Competition held in
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
• First place at the 2008 IEEE Region 5 Robotics Competition held in Kansas City,
Missouri.
• Fourth place at the 2018 IEEE Region 5 Robotics Competition held in Austin,
Texas. This team also ranked first among the teams participating from Texas
universities.
In the next section, we chronicle the robot design and participation in the robot-
ics competition by our recent student robotics team.

2
 
Based on the ABET revised student learning outcomes that become effective in the
2019–2020 cycle.
302 S. Roberts et al.

The Chronicle of Designing a Competition Robot

The Challenge

The 2018 robotics competition was held on April 7, 2018, in Austin, Texas, and the
rules were made available in late August 2017 (IEEE R5 2018). The competition
challenged student teams to build and program an autonomous robot to complete a
set of tasks that involve picking up and placing a number of tokens on a playing field
shown in Fig. 13.1. The field is made from two 4 ft × 8 ft sheets of plywood. The
sheets are assembled together to create the 8 ft × 8 ft playing field. The black lines
are 0.5 in wide and are intended to be used by the robot for navigation. The four-line
boxes surrounding the center gray square are squares with sides that measure 2ft, 3
ft, 4 ft, and 5 ft.
The 24 gray disks represent shallow depressions that are cut into the playing
surface. The diameter of each depression measures 1  in and its depth measures
1/16 in. Six colored squares (red (R), green (G), blue (B), cyan (C), magenta (M),
and yellow (Y)) and two white squares (W) are located along the perimeter of the
field. A gray square (GY) is located at the center of the field. Each square measures
1 ft × 1 ft.
Tokens to be picked up by the robot have a cylindrical shape (Fig. 13.2). The
diameter of the base and the thickness of each token measure 1  in and 1/16 in,
respectively. Tokens are made of magnetic steel so that they may be picked up using
an electromagnet. Tokens are placed in the shallow circular depressions so that they
are flush with the surface of the playing field. A total of 24 tokens are used in the
competition. The top and the curved faces of all tokens are painted gray. The bottom
face of 18 tokens are painted in red, green blue, cyan, magenta, and yellow (three
each). The remaining 6 tokens are painted all gray.
The competition has three rounds with incremental difficulty and a possible
tiebreaker.

Fig. 13.1  Robot playing

field layout. (IEEE R5
2018)
13  Designing a Competition Robot as a Capstone Project for Electrical and Computer… 303

Fig. 13.2  Token. (IEEE R5 2018)

Round 1 Challenge and Scoring

Round 1 has a time limit of 5 minutes. In Round 1, a total of 12 tokens – 2 each of

red, green, blue, cyan, magenta, and yellow – are placed on the field in the depres-
sions with the colored face (front) down so that the color of the token cannot be seen
without lifting the token. The 12 tokens are distributed in random order along the 2
ft line square and 4 ft line square, except that no token will be placed along the line
from the center to its respective color square. The robot must start and end in one of
the 1 ft × 1 ft white squares located on the edge of the playing field.
The challenge is for the robot to autonomously navigate the playing field, locate
each of the 12 tokens, identify their color, and move the tokens and deposit them in
the corresponding colored squares (i.e., the red token must be moved and placed in
the red square). Each token correctly placed in its corresponding colored square
scores 3 points. A token placed in the wrong colored square or in the center gray
square scores only 1 point each. A bonus of 10 points is awarded if the robot success-
fully places all 12 tokens correctly in their corresponding squares. Another bonus
score of 10 points is awarded if the robot successfully returns to one of the white
squares. Hence, for Round 1 the maximum score awarded to a robot is 56 points.

Round 2 Challenge and Scoring

Round 2 has a time limit of 6 minutes. In Round 2, a total of 18 tokens – 3 each of

red, green, blue, cyan, magenta, and yellow – are placed on the field in the depres-
sions with the colored face (front) down so that the color of the token cannot be seen
without lifting the token. The 18 tokens are distributed in random order along the 2
ft line, 3 ft line square, and 4 ft line square, except that no token will be placed along
the line from the center to its respective color square. The robot must start and end
in one of the 1 ft × 1 ft white squares located on the edge of the playing field.
The challenge is the same as in Round 1; the robot has to navigate the playing
field, pick up and identify the colors of the tokens, and deposit them in their corre-
sponding colored squares. The scoring system is the same as that used in Round 1,
except for the bonus points and the introduction of a penalty. In this round, the
bonus for successfully placing all 18 tokens in their corresponding squares is worth
20 points and the bonus given for a robot that successfully returns to one of the
white squares located on the edge of the field is worth only 5 points. The robot
receives a penalty of -1 point if it places a token outside any of the colored squares
or the center gray square. The maximum score for Round 2 is 79 points.
304 S. Roberts et al.

Round 3 Challenge and Scoring

Round 3 has a time limit of 8 minutes and the robot has to deal with a total of 24
tokens. In addition to the 18 colored tokens used in Round 2, 6 all gray tokens are
introduced in Round 3. The 24 tokens are distributed in random order in the 24
depressions. The gray tokens have to be picked up, identified, and placed in the
center gray square. While the scoring system is almost similar to Round 2, there are
a few variations: (i) a token placed in the wrong square earns 0 points, (ii) the bonus
for successfully placing all 24 tokens in their corresponding squares is increased to
30 points, and (iii) a new penalty of –3 points is applied if the robot does not return
to one of the white squares. The maximum score for Round 3 is 102 points.
After completing the three rounds, the robots are ranked based on their cumula-
tive scores. The robot with the highest cumulative score is declared the winner. Two
additional awards are given to the second and third highest-scoring robots.

Tiebreaker Round

The tiebreaker round involves a total of 14 tokens: 2 each of red, green, blue, cyan,
magenta, yellow, and gray tokens. The 14 tokens are placed randomly in 14 of the
24 depressions. The time limit for this tiebreaker round is 4 minutes. The scoring
system for this round is simple. A robot scores 1 point for each token successfully
placed in its corresponding colored square. A bonus of 1 points is awarded if the
robot returns to one of the two white squares. Hence, the maximum points that can
be awarded for the tiebreaker round is 15 points.

Designing and Building the Robot

The Engineering Design Cycle

In addition to the description of the competition rounds, there are specific con-
straints regarding the robot to be designed by the student teams. The robot must be
completely autonomous, its dimensions must not exceed 11 in × 11 in × 11 in, and
its weight must not exceed 40 pounds. In previous competitions, student teams were
given the option to compete with a set of cooperative robots. However, in this com-
petition a system of swarm or multi-robotic system was not allowed.
When designing a solution to a complex problem, engineering students are
trained to follow the engineering design cycle which is an iterative process that
consists of multiple steps, providing a systematic guidance to solving the problem.
While variations of the engineering design cycle may contain different number of
steps, they always start with the identification of the problem and end with a solu-
tion to the problem. The engineering design cycle used in the robotics design is
shown in Fig. 13.3. It consists of the following steps: (1) study the competition rules
13  Designing a Competition Robot as a Capstone Project for Electrical and Computer… 305

Fig. 13.3  Engineering design cycle for designing the robot

and the delineated requirements and rules; (2) identify all the subsystems needed to
build the robot; (3) brainstorm possible design solutions; (4) build a robot proto-
type; (5) test and evaluate the prototype; (6) communicate the results; and (7)
improve the design based on the test results and the feedback from the advisors.

Robot Subsystems

The design of the robot started in early September 2017. The following four main
subsystems for the robot were identified: (1) navigation subsystem, (2) token
retrieval and deposit subsystem, (3) token storage onboard of the robot chassis, and
(4) color sensing subsystem. It was earlier on decided to use the Arduino microcon-
troller board because of its hardware and software capabilities. The overall block
diagram of the mobile robot system is shown in Fig. 13.4.
306 S. Roberts et al.

Fig. 13.4  Overall block diagram of the mobile robot system

Navigation Subsystem  One of the greatest challenges of constructing an autono-

mous robot is the navigation. Since the user is not permitted to input real-time com-
mands, the robot must be able to have quick decision-making capabilities that rely
on input from various sensors. For this competition, we deemed it prudent to use the
black lines forming a grid-like pattern on the playing field as a navigation tool.
These black lines link the tokens and designated drop-off points. An array of reflec-
tance sensors was used to follow a black line on a white background. The navigation
subsystem was further decomposed into two modules: (1) straight line following
and (2) detecting and maneuvering at junctions. The second navigation module is
also used to detect the presence of a possible token in a depression.
The navigation of the mobile robot is achieved by implementing a proportional-­
integral-­derivative (PID) control strategy. Readings received by the Arduino from
the reflectance sensors are used by the PID controller to adjust the speed and the
navigation of the mobile robot. In order to test the designed navigation subsystem,
it was important to design a first prototype for the robot shown in Fig. 13.5.
The line following and maneuvering at junctions were thoroughly tested on a
preliminary course built for the evaluation of the designed navigation subsystem
(Fig. 13.6). The testing results of the navigation subsystem were evaluated and used
to improve the navigation design.
13  Designing a Competition Robot as a Capstone Project for Electrical and Computer… 307

Fig. 13.5  Robot prototype

used to test the navigation
subsystem

Fig. 13.6  Testing of the navigation subsystem using a first robot prototype

Token Retrieval and Deposit Subsystem  This subsystem is responsible for pick-
ing up tokens and depositing them in the corresponding colored squares on the
playing field. Several design solutions were brainstormed and evaluated for their
advantages and disadvantages. The design that was selected consisted of a gear and
pinion system actuated by a servo motor. The subsystem, when actuated, generates
a vertical movement to lower or lift up an electromagnet that can pick up or drop off
the metal tokens. A number of fine tunings were necessary to make the subsystem
effective and reliable (Fig. 13.7).
Token Storage Subsystem  To meet the competition challenge, the team’s strategy
was to collect all tokens from the playing field and store them onboard the robot
before depositing them in their corresponding colored squares. This strategy was
thought to minimize the travel time of the robot and complete the rounds within the
time limits. Several design solutions were brainstormed. It was decided to use a
rotating carousel mounted on the robot chassis and actuated by a stepper motor. The
carousel has 9 positions: 7 are cylindrical containers for housing tokens of the 7
308 S. Roberts et al.

Fig. 13.7  A 3D model of the robot: gear and pinon system for retrieval and deposit of tokens (1),
electromagnet (2), reflectance sensor array for navigation (3), token storage carousel (4), stepper
motor to rotate the carousel (5), location of the color sensor (6)

d­ ifferent colors, 1 is for the color sensor, and 1 is a cutout from the base (Fig. 13.7).
The cutout position is the default or initial position of the carousel. When a junction
on the playing field is reached, the electromagnet will lower through this cutout to
the ground level, retrieve the token, and lift it above the height of the containers on
the carousel. Then the carousel will rotate so that the color sensor is beneath the
token. After the token’s color is ascertained, the carousel will rotate again until the
container assigned to that color is beneath the token. The electromagnet will then
release the token, depositing it into the container. Once all the tokens have been col-
lected, the robot will navigate to each colored square. When it reaches a colored
square, the carousel will rotate to the container that matches the color of the square,
and the electromagnet is lowered to reach the tokens in the container, pick them up
all at once, and lift them above the container. Lastly, the carousel will rotate to the
cutout, and the electromagnet will be lowered through the cutout and deposit the
tokens at ground level.
Color Sensing Subsystem  To detect the bottom colors of the tokens, an RGB color
sensor was used. The sensor has an array of photodiodes, which are subdivided into
four groups of 16 elements. Each group has a filter which only permits light of a
certain color to pass. There is a red, blue, green, and clear filter group allowing for
each base color to be measured. An Arduino code was developed to calibrate each
13  Designing a Competition Robot as a Capstone Project for Electrical and Computer… 309

of the photodiode group and to identify the different colored tokens used in the
competition. The color sensor module is placed on the carousel as shown in Fig. 13.7.

Final Robot Design

The design and construction of the robot was completed in late March 2018. A 3D
model of the designed robot is shown in Fig. 13.7 and the completely built robot is
shown in Fig. 13.8. Modular testing protocols were developed to extensively teach
each subsystem of the robot. It was important to check that all subsystems are work-
ing properly after being integrated together. The competition play field was con-
structed following instructions provided in the Robotics Competition Rules (IEEE
R5 2018). This allowed to test the performance of the robot in all three rounds.
Several runs of each round were performed to test the repeatability of the mobile
robot. Overall, the robot performed well in all three rounds. Several runs of each
round were successfully completed within the time limits. Hence, the robotics team
felt confident about their prospects of doing well at the competition.

Experience at the Competition

The robotics team transported the robot, equipment, and spare parts to Austin,
Texas, a day before the competition event. The plan was to have enough time to
conduct some practice runs on the playing fields provided by the competition orga-
nizers. Thirty-three teams from twelve universities participated in the competition.
Each team presents a different design solution for the competition. This is expected
for open-ended engineering designs and the real world of engineering. Figure 13.9
shows a selection of the competing robots. During the practice runs, our robotics
team encountered some issues with the robot that required some additional

Fig. 13.8  The final design

of the mobile robot
310 S. Roberts et al.

Fig. 13.9  Display of the robots competing at the 2018 R5 IEEE robotics event

adjustments to various subsystems. However, overall our team performed well in all
the three rounds during the practice runs. During the official runs as shown in
Fig. 13.10, our robotics team encountered a few difficulties with the depressions
holding the tokens on the playing field. In some instances the robot missed to
retrieve a token, identified an incorrect color of a token, or did not unload all tokens
from the storage carousel. After completing the three official rounds, our team was
ranked fourth, but first among all teams who participated from universities in Texas.
This was a great accomplishment given the degree of difficulty of the engineering
design challenge.
The competition provided a unique platform to compare design solutions and to
interact with students and faculty from other universities.
13  Designing a Competition Robot as a Capstone Project for Electrical and Computer… 311

Fig. 13.10  Official round

of our competing robotics
student team in Austin,
Texas

K-12 Outreach Activities

It has been a tradition in our robotics laboratory for our engineering students to
showcase their robots to their peers and to K-12 students. Our university is located
in Rio Grande Valley (RGV) of South Texas. Over 86% of the population in RGV is
Hispanic. Most of the students who study at our university come from the local
region and the majority of our student population are first-generation college stu-
dents (who are in the first generation of their families to pursue a postsecondary
education). Several outreach programs have been conducted to engage and motivate
K-12 students to pursue S&E education and careers. We have had several visits by
K-12 students and their teachers to our robotics laboratory. Over the years, our stu-
dent robotics teams visited several K-12 schools to demonstrate their robots and talk
about what it is like to be an engineer. Figure 13.11 shows our recent robotics stu-
dent team demonstrating their robot and interacting with fourth- and fifth-grade
level students in an elementary school located in Mission, Texas, during Career Day,
an event aimed at exposing K-12 students to different professions.
312 S. Roberts et al.

Fig. 13.11  Robotics team participation in an outreach event in an elementary school in Mission,
Texas

Lessons Learned from Participation in Robotics Competitions

Several lessons have been learned from our participation in the annual robotics
competition. In this section, we present the lessons learned from faculty advisors
and student teams. These lessons have helped our robotics laboratory achieve higher
performance at a number of competitions.
• Over several competition cycles, the faculty advisors observed that many project
teams did not initially plan sufficient time for reliability testing. In addition, the
test plans initially developed often underestimated the importance of repeated
13  Designing a Competition Robot as a Capstone Project for Electrical and Computer… 313

trials with a statistically significant number of samples, or used nominal condi-

tions rather than worst-case conditions. While the advisors did guide groups to
more rigorous test plans, it was still apparent that the prior curriculum preparing
students for senior design did not sufficiently emphasize these concepts.
• As a response, a project was modified in our third-year electrical engineering
design laboratory course which is a prerequisite for the senior capstone design
course. The original version of the project involved measurements on a simple
integrated circuit logic gate to observe quantities such as threshold voltage,
­maximum available output current, input bias current, rise and fall times, and
propagation delays. Measurements were conducted under nominal load and volt-
age levels. The modified version now requires students to determine, for each
test, the most stringent conditions permitted by the datasheet and conduct the
tests under those conditions. This requires students to analyze (for example)
whether a particular test should be conducted under the minimum or the maxi-
mum allowed power supply voltage, or both. This practice has been extended and
applied to various testing phases of the robotics design.
• When designing a robot for a competition, it is important to consider hardware
and software redundancy during the design phase. During an official round at a
robotics competition, a robot has only one chance to complete the challenge. If a
critical hardware component fails, then another subsystem can be activated to
carry over. Designing a fault-tolerant robotics system for a competition is consid-
ered essential.
• Forming an interdisciplinary student team to work on a robotics project has
resulted in better results at competitions. For instance, student teams that included
students from different engineering majors such as electrical, mechanical, and
computer engineering came up with higher-performing robotics designs. Hence,
we have made all possible efforts to form interdisciplinary student teams for the
robotics design projects.
• The environment in the laboratory is completely different than the one experi-
enced by students at the competition. Hence, we have learned that taking second
year and third year students enrolled in the university engineering program and
who have expressed interest in designing robots for their capstone design proj-
ects to the competition can help prepare them for what to expect when it’s their
turn to compete.
• Collaboration and time management between team members is important. Team
members may propose different design ideas for a subsystem. Hence, it is impor-
tant to promote communication and discussion of those ideas and select the best
idea to implement.
• Participation in robotics competitions costs money. Hence, it is beneficial to seek
industrial sponsors to help fund the cost of building the robot and the travel to the
competition.
314 S. Roberts et al.

Conclusions

This chapter provided an overview of the robotics laboratory educational activities

at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. The robotics lab has been providing
robotics-based educational experiences for electrical and computer engineering
senior students who select the topic of robotics for their capstone design projects.
Robotics provide unique educational opportunity for senior students to experience
all steps of the engineering design process and to extend their knowledge in a wide
range of subjects across multiple disciplines that include electrical, mechanical, and
computer engineering. Our educational efforts have aimed at training future engi-
neers in robotics in order to guarantee a continuing future supply of a skilled work-
force to meet the increasing number of job opportunities in the robotics sector.
This chapter also highlighted the achievements of our robotics laboratory in its
participations in the annual robotics competition organized by Region 5 of IEEE,
one of the world’s largest technical professional organizations. To provide an exam-
ple of our students’ achievements, the chapter chronicled the robotics design by our
recent student team that participated in the 2018 robotics competition. The chapter
also presented the valuable lessons learned by faculty advisors and students from
participation in the robotics competition.
The chapter emphasized the fact that robotics competitions motivate students to
excel in their designs and expose them to real-world scenarios where engineering
companies strive to develop innovative new products and compete to outperform
their rivals. The fact that the design and performance of the robots built by the com-
peting student teams from other universities are unknown prior to the competition
day has provided a self-motivation for our students to strive to design and build the
best possible robot that can have a chance to win the robotics competition. Our
competing students realize that building a working robot prototype would satisfy
the capstone senior design requirements of our engineering program. However, they
understand that merely having a working robot prototype would not be enough to
outperform the unpredictable competition. Over the years, the faculty advisors have
noticed that students who selected competition-based capstone design projects tend
to work harder and longer hours in the laboratories than noncompeting capstone
design student teams. While the faculty evaluate all capstone senior design projects
and assign course grades based on the completeness of the designed prototype, the
demonstration of the working prototype, the end of the academic year oral presenta-
tion, and the technical report documenting the design and the testing of the proto-
type, the robotics competition teams go through an additional evaluation that is
external, much stricter, and conducted in a high-pressure competition environment.
Our experience has shown that when a capstone design project is integrated with an
external competition, it pushes students to strive in developing advanced solutions
for their design problems.
13  Designing a Competition Robot as a Capstone Project for Electrical and Computer… 315

References

ABET. (2018). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Available at: https://www.abet.org.
Accessed 2018.
Bajracharya, M., Maimone, M. W., & Helmick, D. (2008). Autonomy for Mars Rovers: Past, pres-
ent, and future. Computer, 41(12), 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2008.479.
Bazylev, D., Margun, A., Zimenko, K., Kremlev, A., & Rukujzha, E. (2014). Participation in robot-
ics competition as motivation for learning1. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152,
835–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.330.
Bekey, G., & Yuh, J. (2008). The status of robotics. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 15(1),
80–86. https://doi.org/10.1109/M-RA.2007.907356.
Berry, C. A. (2017). Robotics education online flipping a traditional mobile robotics classroom.
2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 18–21 Oct. 2017. pp. 1–6.
Bruder, S., & Wedeward, K. (2003). Robotics in the classroom. IEEE Robotics & Automation
Magazine, 10(3), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2003.1233554.
Cesaretti, L., Storti, M., Mazzieri, E., Screpanti, L., & Paesani, A. (2017). An innovative approach
to School-Work turnover programme with Educational Robotics. Mondo Digitale, (72), 16.
Chew, M. T., Demidenko, S., Messom, C., & Gupta, G. S. (2000). Robotics competitions in engi-
neering eduction. 2009 4th International Conference on Autonomous Robots and Agents.
10–12 Feb. 2009. pp. 624–627.
Di Lieto, M. C., Inguaggiato, E., Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Cioni, G., Dell’Omo, M., et al. (2017).
Educational Robotics intervention on Executive Functions in preschool children: A pilot study.
Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.018.
Eguchi, A. (2016). RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and tech-
nological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75,
692–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.05.013.
Engelberger, J. F. (1980). Robot use in manufacturing. Boston, MA: Springer.
FIRST Robotics. (2015). FIRST alumni study: brief summary of findings. Available at: https://
www.firstinspires.org/sites/default/files/uploads/resource_library/impact/FIRST-Alumni-
Study-Summary-of-Finding.pdf
IEEE R5. (2018). IEEE Region 5 Conference: 2018 Competition Description and Rules. Available
at: http://r5conferences.org/documents/2018/04/robotics-rules-april2018.pdf
International Federation of Robotics. (2018a). Executive Summary World Robotics 2018 Industrial
Robots. Available at: https://www.ifr.org/downloads/press2018/Executive_Summary_
WR_2018_Industrial_Robots.pdf
International Federation of Robotics. (2018b). Executive Summary World Robotics 2018 Service
Robots. Available at: https://www.ifr.org/downloads/press2018/Executive_Summary_WR_
Service_Robots_2018.pdf
Jung, S. (2013). Experiences in developing an experimental robotics course program for under-
graduate education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(1), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TE.2012.2213601.
Kaiser, C., & Troxell, W. (2005). Student design competitions in undergraduate engineering edu-
cation. Proceedings Frontiers in Education 35th Annual Conference. 19–22 Oct. 2005. pp.
S3J–S3J.
Lanfranco, A.  R., Castellanos, A.  E., Desai, J.  P., & Meyers, W.  C. (2004). Robotic sur-
gery: a current perspective. Annals of Surgery, 239(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.
sla.0000103020.19595.7d.
Michieletto, S., & Pagello, E. (2018). Competitions and industrial tasks as a way to learn basic
concepts in robotics. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Autonomous Robot Systems and
Competitions (ICARSC). 25–27 April 2018. pp. 173–178.
Murphy, R.  R. (2001). “Competing” for a robotics education. IEEE Robotics & Automation
Magazine, 8(2), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1109/100.932757.
316 S. Roberts et al.

Murphy, R. R. (2012). A decade of rescue robots. 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on
Intelligent Robots and Systems. 7–12 Oct. 2012. pp. 5448–5449.
Nagai, K. (2001). Learning while doing: practical robotics education. IEEE Robotics & Automation
Magazine, 8(2), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1109/100.932756.
National Science Board. (2016). Science and Engineering Indicators 2016. Available at: https://
www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/report
Niku, S. B. (2011). Introduction to robotics: Analysis, control, applications. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley.
Piepmeier, J. A., Bishop, B. E., & Knowles, K. A. (2003). Modern robotics engineering instruc-
tion. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 10(2), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1109/
MRA.2003.1213614.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2012). Engage to excel:
Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engi-
neering, and mathematics. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/
files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_2-25-12.pdf
Robotics Institute. (2018). Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. https://www.ri.cmu.
edu/. Accessed 2018.
Scaradozzi, D., Sorbi, L., Pedale, A., Valzano, M., & Vergine, C. (2015). Teaching robotics at
the primary school: An innovative approach. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174,
3838–3846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1122.
Tur, J.  M. M., & Pfeiffer, C.  F. (2006). Mobile robot design in education. IEEE Robotics &
Automation Magazine, 13(1), 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2006.1598055.
World Economic Forum. (2018). The future of jobs report. Cologny/Geneva, Switzerland. Available
at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2018.pdf
Yilmaz, M., Ozcelik, S., Yilmazer, N., & Nekovei, R. (2013). Design-oriented enhanced robot-
ics curriculum. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(1), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TE.2012.2220775.
Chapter 14
Future Class Teachers and Educational
Robotics: Current State and Possible
Future Use

Ivana Đurđević Babić

Abstract  The teaching profession demands constant education and training, so it is

not surprising that study programmes that provide certain sets of skills to future
teachers are under constant change. In this chapter, the focus is on students of class
teacher studies who are trained for teaching educational programming languages,
but did not have a lot of or any opportunity to work with educational robots. Since
educational robotics is gaining more attention at all levels of education, it is almost
certain that they will not only have the desire but also the need to use educational
robotics in some segment of their future work.
Students’ overall attitudes regarding the integration of educational robotics into
higher education and primary school curriculum, including applicability of educa-
tional robots concerning different subjects in primary education and different uni-
versity classes, were examined. In addition, their general familiarity with educational
robotics, their motivation and interest for its use, subjective impression about their
own educational background in a sense of preparedness for future use of educa-
tional robots in classroom, their suggestions for improvement of their knowledge
and their estimation of potential positive impacts of educational robots use are pre-
sented. The aim of this chapter is to contribute to greater understanding of these
students’ needs and the challenges they face regarding this issue to help the students
to overcome them.

Keywords  Higher education · Class teacher students · Educational robots ·

Attitudes

I. Đurđević Babić (*)
University of Osijek, Osijek, Croatia
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 317

L. Daniela (ed.), Smart Learning with Educational Robotics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19913-5_14
318 I. Đurđević Babić

Introduction

Construction and programming of robots in education is generally referred to as

educational robotics (ER), and this term will be used in that context in this chapter.
In the past decade, researchers have reported about a globally increased interest for
ER in diverse countries (e.g. see Park et al. 2015; Alimisis 2013) and the growth of
activities which serve to promote robotics and engage students in ER (e.g. see
Petrovič and Balogh 2008). It is safe to say that the popularity of educational robot-
ics in Croatia is at its peak. Since the information technology (IT) sector had an
important role in the economic recovery from the recent global financial crisis and
still lacks a full workforce, it is easy to understand why science, technology, engi-
neering and mathematics (STEM) education has an important part in Croatia’s cur-
rent educational reform. This reform evidently tries to direct elementary school
pupils from early days towards STEM occupations, paying attention to the use of
information and communication technology (ICT), particularly programming. For
instance, in an experimental programme called “School for Life”, whose holder is
the Ministry of Science and Education of the Republic of Croatia, Informatics is a
course suggested for experimental implementation in formal education as early as
the 1st grade of elementary school (MZO 2018b). Later, upon completion of sec-
ondary education, with different scholarships, future university students are encour-
aged and motivated to get a degree in STEM fields of study (e.g. MZO 2018a).
It was revealed that teachers have an impact on the students’ eagerness towards
learning, and the teachers’ approach, along with their interest in a particular subject,
have been shown to be important in a classroom environment (Omolara and
Adebukola 2015). Besides, one could argue that implementation of educational
robotics in elementary education is closely related to implementation of educational
robotics in class teacher studies programmes, since teachers will hardly implement
something in their classrooms if they do not feel competent enough to use it on their
own. In Croatia, class teachers teach from 1st to 4th grade of primary school, and
this type of teaching is usually carried out by one teacher who teaches primary stu-
dents several subjects prescribed by the national curriculum (Eurydice - European
Commission 2018) in one classroom. The national law and regulations prescribe
what kind of professional qualifications class teachers must have to conduct class
teaching. Currently, the situation at the Faculty of Education University of Osijek is
such that students have only one compulsory course that enables them to teach edu-
cational programming languages (EPL) and to attract elementary school children to
computer programming. Even though educational robotics can also be used for
teaching programming, it is still not a part of their study programme. Students are
expected to have non-formal education from this area, and they have little or no
knowledge about it; therefore, the need for educational projects in this area still
exists. While presenting the “Teacher Education on Robotics-Enhanced
Constructivist Pedagogical Methods” (TERECoP) project, which recommends a
constructivist model of teacher education concerning the implementation of educa-
tional robotics, Alimisis et al. (2007) draw attention to a relatively small number of
projects that are engaged in the education of future and present school teachers
regarding educational robotics.
14  Future Class Teachers and Educational Robotics: Current State and Possible Future… 319

The rest of this chapter is organized as follows: a concise overview of the

conducted research from this area is given in the section “Literature Review”, meth-
odology of the performed research is stated in the section “Research Methodology
and Sample Description”, after which comes the section “Results and Discussion”,
followed by the “Conclusion” of this chapter.

Literature Review

A lot of research deals with the problem of the implementation of robotics in pri-
mary and secondary school education. Robotics is then perceived as a learning
object in robotics classes where robotics is taught as a subject or as a learning tool
in other subjects where it is used (Alimisis and Kynigos 2009). As pointed out by
Barak and Assal (2018), educational robotics is linked with the constructivism and
constructionism learning theories, which support an active environment where the
students can learn while working with robots. Eguchi (2017) indicated that there are
a variety of reasons preventing teachers from using robotics in classrooms, and in
that context, he underlined the fact that robotics is not a part of the ongoing formal
curriculum in average schools; therefore, the potential of educational robotics in
classes is not acknowledged. While considering the use of robotics in primary and
secondary education, researchers developed new educational robots (e.g. see Park
et al. 2015; Naya et al. 2017), used a robot and described its use through several
lessons (e.g. see Bellas et al. 2017), explored the impact of educational robotics on
early school leaving (e.g. Daniela et al. 2017; Daniela and Strods 2018), students’
attitudes or motivation towards STEM learning (e.g. see Holmquist 2014; Barak
and Assal 2018) and found evidence that the integration of ER has a beneficial influ-
ence on the students’ motivation towards learning (Chin et al. 2014) and the devel-
opment of different skills. For instance, it has been established that ER improves the
students’ fluency and originality (Park et al. 2015) and has a positive impact on the
development of spatial abilities (Julià and Antolí 2016). Polishuk and Verner (2017)
conducted a research study in which 346 elementary school students participated.
Students were divided into different groups in order to examine various influences
of educational robotics on students. As part of this research, researchers analysed
the development of systems thinking skills of 86 elementary school students who
participated in a robotics workshops “Animal-like robots”. They observed the sys-
tems thinking skills through structural, dynamic, generic, operational, scientific,
closed-loop and continuum thinking as described by Richmond (1993), and at the
end of the research study they detected an improvement of the students’ system
thinking skills.
Additionally, educational robotics was also explored in a higher education envi-
ronment. Working on robotics projects, university students gained problem-oriented
skills, and a positive impact on their theoretical knowledge was confirmed
(Damaševicius et al. 2017). College students, using robotics as a learning object,
expressed a positive learning experience during the course that altered their impres-
320 I. Đurđević Babić

sion of collaboration with fellow students, increased their interest in robotics and
technology and affected their problem-solving and creative thinking skills (Eguchi
2014). Furthermore, the usefulness of educational robotics in fostering pre-service
elementary school teachers’ enjoyment and interest in STEM is reported by Kim
et al. (2015).
Researchers also tackled the perception of different stakeholders in education
towards educational robotics. Liu (2010) put focus on elementary school students’
perception, namely early adolescents, while Lin et al. (2012) explored the percep-
tion of 39 parents whose children were enrolled in secondary school. Their research
revealed the parents’ positive attitudes towards the usefulness of educational robots
and their willingness to encourage their children towards activities concerning edu-
cational robotics. Khanlari (2013) investigated the robotic class teachers’ impres-
sions about educational robotics when it is used for learning STEM subjects. After
interviewing six teachers with experience in teaching robotics classes and analysing
their responses, he concluded that his participants believe that robotics is useful for
students when they learn STEM subjects and that it causes or strengthens their inter-
est in STEM subjects. Moreover, all participants in his study agreed that robotics
should be implemented in all grades of elementary school education. In a later con-
ducted research, in which 11 elementary school teachers participated, Khanlari
(2016) pointed out that the teachers perceived the positive effects of educational
robotics on the students’ problem-solving skills and interpersonal skills. As a major
barrier stopping them from using educational robotics, participants in his research
indicated the insufficient number of educational robots and that suitable programmes
were needed, as well as other physical components. Kaya et al. (2017) marked that
in their research, 11 pre-service elementary teachers changed their views towards
the nature of engineering (NOE) after working with robots. Smyrnova-Trybulska
et al. (2016) discussed some technical and legal points related to educational robot-
ics implementation in education in Poland. They presented the results of a research
study in which primary school teachers and those who are studying to become pri-
mary school teachers from Poland and Ukraine participated. In their research, a
small percent of participants from Poland (15.6%) and from Ukraine (7.8%) consid-
ered that robotics can be taught in school within the mandatory curricula.
Although teachers’ and future teachers’ viewpoints were covered in the existing
literature, owing to the relatively small number of conducted researches there is still
the need to address and explore these issues, which will result in better understand-
ing of the current situation concerning their education, assertiveness and enthusiasm
about educational robotics.

Research Methodology and Sample Description

The research study was conducted in the summer semester of the academic year
2017/2018  in which students from class teacher studies from the Faculty of
Education University of Osijek participated. From this targeted population, a total
14  Future Class Teachers and Educational Robotics: Current State and Possible Future… 321

Table 14.1  The students’ Study year N %

distribution according to
1. 22 18.49
enrolled study year
2. 21 17.65
3. 33 27.74
4. 23 19.33
5. 20 16.81

of 119 students from all study years took part. The distribution of these students by
year of study is presented in Table 14.1.
The vast majority of respondents (92.44%) were female and 7.56% were male,
which is considered a reasonably acceptable gender representativeness of students
enrolled at the Faculty of Education where, in general, more female students are
enrolled.
Since there are three study modules (developmental module, computer science,
foreign language) currently being carried out at the Faculty of Education, it was
important that the sample included representatives from all three modules as they
differ in some courses. Overall, 41.18% of respondents were enrolled in develop-
mental, 34.45% in computer science and 24.37% in the foreign language module.
An online questionnaire was used to gather data about the students’ perception
concerning educational robotics. This questionnaire was composed of questions
that could be classified into three blocks according to their objectives. The first
block was constructed of questions which examined demographic characteristics of
respondents (gender, study year, study module). The second block was used to
obtain the students’ general attitudes towards educational robotics as well as to
gather information about their previous knowledge and education from this field.
Questions and statements in the third block were used to acquire the students’ atti-
tudes and opinions regarding the use of educational robotics in their future profes-
sions. Before students started filling out the questionnaire, the term educational
robotics was shortly explained to all of them.

Results and Discussion

Related to the students’ familiarity with the term educational robotics, the results
showed that more than half of respondents (59.66%) had heard this term before
participating in the research, but 40.34% had not. The participants were asked to
assess their level of knowledge of educational robotics and educational program-
ming languages. Little more than 60% of the respondents self-assessed their
knowledge of educational robotics as insufficient (60.50%). This percentage
changes notably when it comes to the self-assessment of their knowledge of educa-
tional programming languages. Little more than one fifth of respondents (21.85%)
322 I. Đurđević Babić

Table 14.2  The frequency table of participants’ self-assessments about their knowledge from
EPL and ER
ER EPL
Assessed level of knowledge n % n %
Insufficient 72 60.50 26 21.85
Sufficient 26 21.85 35 29.41
Good 14 11.76 26 21.85
Very good 5 4.20 19 15.97
Excellent 2 1.68 13 10.92

assessed that they have insufficient knowledge from this area. The distribution of all
students’ responses regarding this question can be seen in Table 14.2.
More than 60% of students (61.34%) reported a generally positive attitude
towards the integration of educational robotics into the education of future teachers,
35.29% reported neutral and only 3.36% reported a negative attitude. On the basis
of the majority of the respondents’ opinion (63.87%), future teachers should know
how to work with educational robotic sets. However, more than one fourth of the
respondents (27.73%) do not know if future teachers should be provided with this
knowledge (see Fig. 14.1).
When it comes to their opinion within which group of subjects should educa-
tional robotics be taught in class teacher studies, more than half of the respondents
(57.14%) believe that it should be done within the computer science (informatics)
subject area.
Concerning their preparedness for efficient knowledge transfer, 47.90% of them
think that they did not adopt enough knowledge during their education (formal, non-­
formal and informal) to effectively teach younger school-age children how to use
educational programming languages. In addition, the majority of them (68.91%) see
the knowledge of how to use educational programming languages as a precondition
for the efficient use of educational robots, while 9.24% do not and 21.84% remained
neutral concerning this issue.
More students expressed themselves positively (27.73% are somewhat satisfied
and 14.29% are very satisfied with the level of their knowledge) towards their level
of knowledge of educational programming languages than negatively (11.76% are
very dissatisfied and 18.49% are somewhat dissatisfied with their level of knowl-
edge), while more than one fourth of respondents (27.73%) remained neutral (nei-
ther satisfied nor dissatisfied).
Although slightly more than half of participants believe that prior education pre-
pared them for the integration of educational robotics in primary school classrooms,
at least to some extent (24.37% satisfactory, 15.13% good, 8.40% very good and
2.52% excellent), almost half of participants (49.58%) believe that their prior
­education was inadequate. The vast majority of participants (92.44%) never had the
opportunity to work with an educational robot kit, and only one participant worked
with a humanoid robot. Thus, it is not surprising that the majority of them (81.51%)
feel that they should get additional education from the field of educational robotics
14  Future Class Teachers and Educational Robotics: Current State and Possible Future… 323

Fig. 14.1  Pie chart of Do not know, 27.73%

students’ responses on the
question “In your opinion,
do future teachers need to
know how to work with
educational robotic sets?” No, 8.40% Yes, 63.87%

60
52
50
40
40
No of obs

30

20
12
10
10
5
0
elective course compulsory course online course
educational workshops do not want to

Fig. 14.2  Graphical representation of students’ responses to the question “Indicate in which way
you would like to deepen your knowledge from educational robotics”

in order to improve and increase their knowledge. However, not the same percent-
age of students wants to get additional education; 68.91% of participants indicated
that they want to get additional education, 17.65% revealed that they do not want to
get additional education at the moment and 13.45% completely discarded the idea
of any form of additional education. Yet, when they were asked to indicate the way
they would like to deepen their knowledge of educational robotics, some of them
changed their mind (see Fig. 14.2) and almost the same number of students expressed
that they would like to do so during their studies as part of their study programme
(33.61% in an elective course and 10.08% in a compulsory course) and by attending
educational workshops (43.70%).
More than half of participants were not acquainted with the activities in educa-
tional robotics workshops for students (58.83%), and only a very low percentage of
participants indicated that they were partially (7.56%) and fully acquainted (2.52%).
Even a higher percentage of participants pointed out their unfamiliarity with educa-
tional robotic workshops that are specially intended for teachers (68.07% fully
unacquainted). The majority of participants were fully unfamiliar with the existence
and work of robotic camps (73.11%), 59.66% of participants were fully unac-
quainted with the existence of national and 62.18% with the existence of world
324 I. Đurđević Babić

robotic competitions. The participants also indicated low familiarity with the work
of civil society organizations that encourage programming and robotics (63.03%
fully unacquainted).
When participants were asked to indicate the importance of factors that would be
essential for them when acquiring an educational robotic kit to use in their future
primary classrooms, the majority of them indicated that price is an important factor
(38.66% somewhat important and 28.57% absolutely essential) as well as ease of
use (35.29% somewhat important and 38.66% absolutely essential) and availability
of instructional materials for teaching (41.18% somewhat important and 27.73%
absolutely essential). For 39.49% of participants, the appearance of the educational
kit is neither an important nor unimportant factor when acquiring an educational
robotic kit.
Furthermore, 47.90% of participants neither agreed nor disagreed with the state-
ment It is hard to choose an adequate educational robotics kit. More participants
expressed disagreement (18.49% strongly disagree and 23.52% somewhat disagree)
than agreement (14.29% somewhat agree and 5.88% strongly agree) with the idea
that Educational robotics should only be taught in some form of informal education.
The majority of participants agreed with the statement Working with an educational
robot kit has many positive effects on students (30.25% somewhat agree and 31.09%
strongly agree). Most of them consider and agree that it encourages individual
learning as well as teamwork (35.29% somewhat agree and 37.82% strongly agree),
enables young school children to learn programming easily (35.29% somewhat
agree and 36.97% strongly agree), empowers young students for successful prob-
lem solving and decision making (31.09% somewhat agree and 25.21% strongly
agree), encourages creativity in children (27.73% somewhat agree and 38.66%
strongly agree) and develops their competitive spirit (37.82% somewhat agree and
23.53% strongly agree). More results can be seen in Tables 14.3 and 14.4. Most of
the participants agreed that children have to think critically while working with the
educational robotics kit (36.97% somewhat agree and 29.41% strongly agree).
Their agreements with the individual Likert-type statements (1 – strongly dis-
agree to 5 – strongly agree) suggest that participants believe that children are moti-
vated to work with educational robots (33.61% somewhat agree and 31.93%
strongly agree), that educational robotics helps teachers to achieve educational
goals more easily (38.66% somewhat agree and 21.85% strongly agree), helps to
get young school children interested in the STEM area (28.57% somewhat agree
and 38.66% strongly agree) and stimulates inventive thinking (23.53% somewhat
agree and 40.34% strongly agree). Nearly half of participants (48.74%) neither
agree nor disagree with the statement Managing educational robots is quite simple,
and more than a third of participants neither agree nor disagree with the statement
Working with educational robots helps in the socialization of children (35.29%).
Slightly less than one third of participants are convinced that they can successfully
implement working with the educational robotics kit (20.17% somewhat agree and
12.61% strongly agree) in primary school teaching. Participants believe that it is the
teachers’ obligation to encourage the interest of younger school children in educa-
tional robotics (32.77% somewhat agree and 23.53% strongly agree) (see Fig. 14.3).
14  Future Class Teachers and Educational Robotics: Current State and Possible Future… 325

Table 14.3 Agreement and disagreement of students on individual statements that explore

students’ perception about potential benefits of working with educational robot kits
Disagree Agree
Working with an educational robot Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly
kit… (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
… has many positive effects on 2.52 6.72 29.41 30.25 31.09
students.
… encourages individual learning as 1.68 7.56 17.65 35.29 37.82
well as teamwork.
… enables young school children to 1.68 5.88 20.17 35.29 36.97
learn programming easily.
… empowers young students for 5.04 12.61 26.05 31.09 25.21
successful problem solving and
decision making.
…develops students’ competitive 5.88 5.88 26.89 37.82 23.53
spirit.
… encourages creativity in children. 4.20 5.88 23.53 27.73 38.66

Table 14.4  Students’ perception about additional usefulness of ER in education

Disagree Agree
Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly
Statement (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Children have to think critically 0.84 7.56 25.21 36.97 29.41
while working with the educational
robotics kit.
Educational robotics helps teachers 1.68 10.92 26.89 38.66 21.85
achieve educational goals more
easily.
Educational robotics helps to get 2.52 9.24 21.00 28.57 38.66
young school children interested in
the STEM area.
Educational robotics stimulates 1.66 6.72 27.73 23.53 40.34
inventive thinking.
Working with educational robots 6.72 13.45 35.29 31.09 13.45
helps in the socialization of
children.

However, a vast majority of them have the opinion that educational robotics is
not well known in the teaching profession (27.73% somewhat agree and 50.42%
strongly agree). Almost half of participants consider that it is necessary to introduce
educational robotics in the elementary school curriculum as soon as possible
(31.09% somewhat agree and 16.81% strongly agree). A little less than one third of
participants (10.92% strongly disagree and 21.85% somewhat disagree) disagreed
with the statement I am convinced that I can successfully implement the work with
326 I. Đurđević Babić

34% 32.77%

29%

25% 23.53%
22.69%
Percent of obs

21%
16.81%
17%

13%

8%
4.20%
4%

0%
strongly disagree neither agree nor disagree strongly agree
somewhat disagree somewhat agree

Fig. 14.3  Graphical representation of students’ agreement with the statement “It is the teachers’
obligation to encourage the interest of younger school children in educational robotics”

an educational robotic kit in my future teaching. A little more than 40% disagreed
(15.13% strongly disagreed and 25.21% somewhat disagreed) with the thought that
everybody can learn how to assemble and program an educational robot. More than
half of participants (33.61% somewhat agree and 24.37% strongly agree) trust that
it takes a lot of time and patience to learn how to do so. The majority of them are
convinced that teachers need to put in an extra effort if they want to use educational
robots in the classroom (38.66% somewhat agree and 39.50% strongly agree).
However, they mostly agree (25.21% somewhat agree and 45.38% strongly agree)
with statements By programming a robot, students develop creativity and Students
acquire important skills while working with the robotics kit (25.21% somewhat
agree and 44.54% strongly agree). Although, 42.01% of participants acknowledge
that they do not know how to implement educational robotics in classroom teaching
(25.21% somewhat agree and 16.81% strongly agree) and 46.22% (24.37% some-
what agree and 21.85% strongly agree) agree that it is fun to work with educational
robotic sets. Slightly more than half of participants agree (28.57% somewhat agree
and 21.85% strongly agree) that educational robotics helps in the realization of
inclusive education (see Table 14.5).
More than a third of participants think that educational robotics could currently
be most easily implemented in the fourth-grade curriculum (36.13%) and more than
half of participants consider that it could be done within the content of an elective
14  Future Class Teachers and Educational Robotics: Current State and Possible Future… 327

Table 14.5  Students’ opinion about the use of ER in their future profession
Disagree Agree
Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly
Statement (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Educational robotics is not well 3.36 5.88 12.61 27.73 50.42
known in the teaching profession.
It is necessary to introduce 5.88 13.44 32.77 31.09 16.81
educational robotics in the
elementary school curriculum as
soon as possible.
Everybody can learn how to 15.13 25.21 31.93 21.01 6.72
assemble and program an
educational robot.
It takes a lot of time and patience to 2.52 8.40 31.09 33.61 24.37
learn how to assemble and program
an educational robot.
Teachers need to put in an extra 1.68 4.20 15.97 38.66 39.50
effort if they want to use educational
robots in the classroom.
By programming a robot, students 1.68 7.56 20.17 25.21 45.38
develop creativity.
Students acquire important skills 2.52 6.72 21.00 25.21 44.54
while working with the educational
robotics kits.
I do not know how to implement 5.04 15.97 36.97 25.21 16.81
educational robotics in classroom
teaching.
It is fun to work with educational 4.20 8.40 41.18 24.37 21.85
robotic sets.
Educational robotics helps in the 3.36 9.24 36.97 28.57 21.85
realization of inclusive education.

course (57.98%) in lower grades of elementary school (see Fig. 14.4). The majority
of participants (64.71%) stated that they would like to use educational robotics
in educating young school children, and 66.39% of participants recognize their
inadequate education about the use of educational robotic kits as the biggest obsta-
cle in doing so.

Conclusion

This chapter gives insights into attitudes and viewpoints of students who are train-
ing to become class teachers regarding educational robotics in general, their knowl-
edge of it, as well as their previous education regarding it and their way of looking
at the use of educational robotics in the profession they are being educated for. In
other words, the integration of ER into elementary school education.
328 I. Đurđević Babić

70 69

60

50
No of obs

40

30
24
20

10 7 7
6
1 2 1 1 1
0
Mathematics elective course all courses Technical Education Art Culture
Nature and Society not sure homeroom class none new subject

Fig. 14.4  Students’ opinions regarding the subject in which educational robotics could be most
easily implemented in primary school class teaching

It can be said that the obtained results regarding the opinions and viewpoints of
students from class teacher studies are consistent with the conclusions and results
from previous research that have examined the views of different stakeholders in
education. For instance, with Khanlari (2016), regarding the perceived usefulness of
educational robotics in gaining valuable skills.
The results derived from the conducted research lead to the conclusion that future
teachers all in all have a positive opinion about educational robotics and its integra-
tion in elementary school education, acknowledge possible benefits of using educa-
tional robotics, believe that future teachers need to know how to work with
educational robotic kits and, although they are aware of their lack of knowledge
concerning educational robotics, they are not sufficiently familiar with the possibili-
ties of non-formal and informal education in this area. Therefore, it is necessary to
additionally familiarize students with the currently available informal and non-­
formal learning opportunities, as well as to include educational robotics in some
aspect of their formal education. Also, the results suggest that special attention
should be paid to increasing the students’ motivation for any form of additional
education to help them overcome their uncertainties and prejudices towards educa-
tional robotics. Research results confirm that students, regardless of their education,
still perceive the price of educational robotic kits as one of the biggest barriers that
would inhibit them from integrating educational robotics, although some low cost
educational robotics kits are available for class use.
The obtained results should be viewed in the context of the current situation in
Croatia’s primary education and the current class teacher studies programme that is
14  Future Class Teachers and Educational Robotics: Current State and Possible Future… 329

being conducted at the Faculty of Education, University of Osijek. These students

did not have educational robotics or computer programming as part of their lower
grades primary school curriculum while they were attending. The situation in
Croatia is changing with new educational reform and the experimental programme
“School for life” with the subject of Informatics where computer programming is
integrated in experimental programme curriculum from the first grade of primary
school (MZO 2018b). This experimental curriculum, which is now carried out in
some primary schools in Croatia, will become effective in the school year 2020/2021
for all lower grades (1st–4th) of primary schools (MZO 2018c). Also, in the recom-
mendations for achieving educational objectives in this national curriculum, even
for the first grade of primary school, it is suggested to use robots for visualization of
programming (MZO 2017).
As mentioned by Bredenfeld et al. (2010), some schools, e.g. in Germany, inte-
grated robotics into their curricula, but Alimisis (2013) noticed the lack of system-
atic introduction of robotics in European schools. Balanskat and Engelhardt (2014)
reported that programming has been part of England’s national curriculum since
2014 where computer programming is compulsory for students entering primary
school. In 2014, the situation was such that only two more counties in the European
Union (Estonia and Greece) participated in research integrated computer program-
ming and coding in their primary school educational system (Balanskat and
Engelhardt 2014). Balanskat and Engelhardt (2014) also reported that nine of the
countries which had integrated computer programming in the curriculum of primary
or secondary education supported teacher training in some manner (e.g. Cyprus and
Ireland have compulsory education as part of general initial teacher training or in-­
service training). At the Faculty of Education University of Osijek, computer pro-
gramming has been a part of the class teacher studies programme since 2005 as a
compulsory subject for all students when this faculty was still called the Faculty of
Teacher Education in Osijek and students who enrol in Computer Science module
at this faculty have one more mandatory computer programming course (Faculty of
Teacher Education in Osijek 2005). However, educational robotics is not integrated
in computer science courses currently being held at the Faculty of Education.
In their final report of the project “Creativity and Innovation in Education and
Training in the EU27 (ICEAC)”, Cachia et al. (2010) emphasized that teachers who
had training in ICT will have a more positive view of its benefits for learning and
suggested revision of teacher training programmes to encourage the use of innova-
tive teaching methods and development of digital competences among other things.
The results of their study also indicated that there is the need for enhancing teach-
ers’ ICT skills to exploit the possibilities of new technologies for creative learning
and innovative teaching. Numerous teacher education programmes are failing to
properly prepare their participants for technology integration (Fishman and Davis
2006; Moursund and Bielefeldt 1999; Willis and Mehlinger 1996; Zhao et al. 2002
as cited in So and Kim 2009). As shown by Zhu et al. (2013), teachers’ technologi-
cal competencies are positively related with their innovative teaching. Owing to its
educational benefits, robotics is used in various schools for innovative learning
330 I. Đurđević Babić

(Blanchard et al. 2010). Kvesko et al. (2018) note that robotics as a technology
can contribute to a better comprehension of theoretical and practical knowledge
underlying that “… the special course on robotics will allow to implement the
ideas of the cross-disciplinary complex, and to promote practical use of theoretical
knowledge…” (p. 3).
The limitations of this research are mostly related to sample size and profile;
therefore, future research should include a larger sample size and a more diverse
profile of students from various faculties that educate future teachers. Also, different
types of research could be conducted, including the comparison between the
students’ beliefs before working with ER and after its use.

References

Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science
and Technology Education, 6(1), 63–71.
Alimisis, D., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Constructionism and robotics in education. In D. Alimisis
(Ed.), Teacher education on robotic-enhanced constructivist pedagogical methods (pp. 11–26).
Athens: School of Pedagogical and Technological Education (ASPETE).
Alimisis, D., Moro, M., Arlegui, J., Pina, A., Frangou, S., & Papanikolaou, K. (2007, August).
Robotics & constructivism in education: The TERECoP project. In I. Kalas (Ed.), Proceedings
of the 11th European Logo Conference, Bratislava, Slovakia (Vol. 40, pp. 19–24). Bratislava:
Faculty of Methematics, Physics and Informatics Comenius University.
Balanskat, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2014). Computing our future: Computer programming and
coding-­Priorities, school curricula and initiatives across Europe. European Schoolnet. Brussels.
Belgium. http://www.allyouneediscode.eu/documents/12411/14644/Coding+initiative+report-
European+Schoolnet-October2014.pdf/66475be8-cc31-429c-a5cc-32767366c8c2
Barak, M., & Assal, M. (2018). Robotics and STEM learning: Students’ achievements in
assignments according to the P3 Task Taxonomy—Practice, problem solving, and projects.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(1), 121–144.
Bellas, F., Naya, M., Varela, G., Llamas, L., Prieto, A., Becerra, J.  C., et  al. (2017, April).
The Robobo project: Bringing educational robotics closer to real-world applications. In
W.  Lepuschitz, M.  Merdan, G.  Koppensteiner, R.  Balogh, & D.  Obdržálek (Eds.), Robotics
in education. RiE 2017. Advances in intelligent systems and computing (Vol. 630). Cham:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62875-2_20.
Blanchard, S., Freiman, V., & Lirrete-Pitre, N. (2010). Strategies used by elementary school-
children solving robotics-based complex tasks: Innovative potential of technology. Procedia-­
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2851–2857.
Bredenfeld, A., Hofmann, A., & Steinbauer, G. (2010). Robotics in education initiatives in
europe-status, shortcomings and open questions. Proceedings of SIMPAR 2010 Workshops.
International conference on simulation, modeling and programming for autonomous robots
(SIMPAR 2010) (pp.  568–574). Darmstadt, Germany, November 15–16, 2010. https://www.
sim.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de/simpar/ws/sites/TR-TWR-2010/22-TeachingRobotics.pdf
Cachia, R., Ferrari, A., Ala-Mutka, K. and Punie, Y. (2010). Creative learning and innovative
teaching: Final report on the study on creativity and innovation in education in the EU Member
States. Luxembourg.
Chin, K. Y., Hong, Z. W., & Chen, Y. L. (2014). Impact of using an educational robot-based learn-
ing system on students’ motivation in elementary education. IEEE Transactions on Learning
Technologies, 7(4), 333–345.
14  Future Class Teachers and Educational Robotics: Current State and Possible Future… 331

Damaševicius, R., Narbutaite, L., Plauska, I., & Blažauskas, T. (2017). Advances in the use of
educational robots in project-based teaching. TEM Journal, 6(2), 342.
Daniela, L., & Strods, R. (2018). Robot as agent in reducing risks of early school leaving. In
L. Daniela (Ed.), Innovations, technologies and research in education (pp. 138–156). Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Daniela, L., Strods, R., & Alimisis, D. (2017). Analysis of robotics-based learning interventions
for preventing school failure and early school leaving in gender context. 9th International
Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (Edulearn17), Proceedings, 9th
International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, 3–5 July, 2017,
Barcelona, Spain, pp. 810–818.
Eguchi, A. (2014). Educational robotics for promoting 21st century skills. Journal of Automation
Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems, 8(1), 5–11.
Eguchi, A. (2017). Bringing robotics in classrooms. In M. Khine (Ed.), Robotics in STEM educa-
tion (pp. 3–31). Cham: Springer.
Eurydice - European Commission. (2018). Initial education for teachers working in early child-
hood and school education. Retrieved from https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/
eurydice/content/initial-education-teachers-working-early-childhood-and-school-educa-
tion-14_en. January 3, 2019.
Faculty of Teacher Education in Osijek. (2005). Integrated undergraduate and graduate five-year
university Class teacher studies. Osijek.
Holmquist, S. (2014). A multi-case study of student interactions with educational robots and
impact on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) learning and attitudes.
(Graduate Theses and Dissertations). https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/5043
Julià, C., & Antolí, J. Ò. (2016). Spatial ability learning through educational robotics. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(2), 185–203.
Kaya, E., Newley, A., Deniz, H., Yesilyurt, E., & Newley, P. (2017). Introducing engineering design
to a science teaching methods course through educational robotics and exploring changes in
views of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of College Science Teaching, 47(2), 66–75.
Khanlari, A. (2013, December). Effects of educational robots on learning STEM and on stu-
dents’ attitude toward STEM. 2013 IEEE 5th Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED)
(pp. 62–66). IEEE. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEED.2013.6908304.
Khanlari, A. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and the challenges of integrating educa-
tional robots into primary/elementary curricula. European Journal of Engineering Education,
41(3), 320–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2015.1056106.
Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R. B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. N. (2015). Robotics to promote ele-
mentary education pre-service teachers' STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers
& Education, 91, 14–31.
Kvesko, S. B., Kvesko, N. G., Korniyenko, A. A., & Kabanova, N. N. (2018, May). Educational
robotics as an Innovative teaching practice using technology: minimization of risks. In IOP
Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 363, No. 1, p.  012004). IOP
Publishing.
Lin, C. H., Liu, E. Z. F., & Huang, Y. Y. (2012). Exploring parents' perceptions towards educational
robots: Gender and socio-economic differences. British Journal of Educational Technology,
43(1), E31–E34.
Liu, E. Z. F. (2010). Early adolescents' perceptions of educational robots and learning of robotics.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), E44–E47.
[MZO] Ministarstvo znanosti i obrazovanja Republike Hrvatske. (2017). Nacionalni kurikulum
nastavnog predmeta Informatika [National curriculum of school subject Informatics]. Retrieved
from: https://mzo.hr/sites/default/files/dokumenti/2017/OBRAZOVANJE/NACION-KURIK/
PREDMETNI-KURIK/Informatika/informatika2.pdf. January 3, 2019.
[MZO] Ministarstvo znanosti i obrazovanja Republike Hrvatske. (2018a). STEM stipendije
[STEM scholarships]. Retrived from https://stemstipendije.mzo.hr/. September 13, 2018.
332 I. Đurđević Babić

[MZO] Ministarstvo znanosti i obrazovanja Republike Hrvatske. (2018b). Eksperimentalni pro-

gram “Škola za život”. [Experimental program “School for Life”]. Retrived from https://mzo.
hr/sites/default/files/dokumenti/2018/OBRAZOVANJE/Nacionalni-kurikulumi/Skola-za-
zivot/eksperimentalni_program-skola_za_zivot.pdf. September 13, 2018.
[MZO] Ministarstvo znanosti i obrazovanja Republike Hrvatske. (2018c). Odluka o donošenju
kurikuluma za nastavni predmet Informatike za osnovne škole i gimnazije u Republici
Hrvatskoj [Decision on curriculum for subject Informatics for elementary schools and high
schools in the Republic of Croatia]. Retrived from https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluz-
beni/2018_03_22_436.html. January 3, 2019.
Naya, M., Varela, G., Llamas, L., Bautista, M., Becerra, J. C., Bellas, F., et al. (2017, September).
A versatile robotic platform for educational interaction. In Intelligent Data Acquisition and
Advanced Computing Systems: Technology and Applications (IDAACS), 2017 9th IEEE
International Conference on (Vol. 1, pp.  138–144). IEEE. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/
IDAACS.2017.8095065
Omolara, S. R., & Adebukola, O. R. (2015). Teachers’ attitudes: A great influence on teaching and
learning of social studies. Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization, 42, 131–137.
Park, I., Kim, D., Oh, J., Jang, Y., & Lim, K. (2015). Learning effects of pedagogical robots with
programming in elementary school environments in Korea. Indian Journal of Science and
Technology, 8(26).
Petrovič, P. & Balogh, R. (2008). Educational robotics initiatives in Slovakia. Workshop
Proceedings of SIMPAR 2008 International Conference on Simulation, Modeling and
Programming for Autonomous Robots, Venice, Italy 2008 November, 3–4, pp. 122–131.
Polishuk, A., & Verner, I. (2017). Student-robot interactions in museum workshops: Learning
activities and outcomes. In M. Merdan, W. Lepuschitz, G. Koppensteiner, & R. Balogh (Eds.),
Robotics in education.. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (Vol. 457, pp. 233–
244). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42975-5_21.
Richmond, B. (1993). Systems thinking: Critical thinking skills for the 1990s and beyond. System
Dynamics Review, 9(2), 113–133.
Smyrnova-Trybulska, E., Morze, N., Zuziak, W., & Gladun, M. (2016). Robots in elementary
school: Some educational, legal and technical aspects. In E.  Smyrnova-Trybulska (Ed.),
E-learning methodology–implementation and evaluation. Poland: Studio NOA for University
of Silesia in Katowice.
So, H.  J., & Kim, B. (2009). Learning about problem based learning: Student teachers inte-
grating technology, pedagogy and content knowledge. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 25(1), 101–116.
Zhu, C., Wang, D., Cai, Y., & Engels, N. (2013). What core competencies are related to teachers’
innovative teaching? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 9–27.
Chapter 15
EduRobot Taxonomy

Dave Catlin, Martin Kandlhofer, John-John Cabibihan, Julian Angel-­

Fernandez, Stephanie Holmquist, and Andrew Paul Csizmadia

Abstract  For many years you could count the number of companies selling educa-
tion robots on two hands. Since 2010, we’ve seen this number grow at an ever-­
increasing rate. What do these robots have in common and how do they differ?
Reading the literature focused on robots in education, we see authors using different
words for the same idea. We need a standard grammar. Education robots involve
multiple strands of intellectual effort, for example, from psychology to teaching
practice and classroom assessment to high-stakes testing. Trying to fit all these ideas
into one theory isn’t the way to solve the problem. We need to isolate and explore
different features. EduRobot is one strand: it’s concerned with the nature of robots –
not the way we use them or their benefits – other papers do that. This chapter briefly
explains EduRobot, its ideas and arguments before using it to classify some of the
robots cited in this book.

Keywords  Education robots · EduRobot taxonomy · Robot classification

D. Catlin (*)
Valiant Technology, London, UK
e-mail: [email protected]
M. Kandlhofer
Graz University of Technology, Graz, Styria, Austria
e-mail: [email protected]
J.-J. Cabibihan
Qatar University, Doha, Qatar
e-mail: [email protected]
J. Angel-Fernandez
Technische Universität Wien, Vienna, Austria
e-mail: [email protected]
S. Holmquist
University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
A. P. Csizmadia
Newman University, Birmingham, UK
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 333

L. Daniela (ed.), Smart Learning with Educational Robotics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19913-5_15
334 D. Catlin et al.

Introduction

Developing EduRobot needs an international effort. Its current authors represent the
USA, Europe, the Middle East and Asia.1 The first efforts showed a paper to the
Robotics in Education Conference held in Malta in 2018 (Catlin et al. 2018a). This
prompted the expert delegates to debate the issues and suggest improvements to
EduRobot. Later that year, the expanded team presented EduRobot version 2.01 to
the Constructionism Conference in Vilnius, Lithuania (Catlin et al. 2018b).
Both these conferences urged the authors to create EduRobot online which
they’ve done and you can access at www.robots-for-education.com. This site:
1 . Defines the terms used in EduRobot
2. Explains decisions about its nature and organisation
3. Presents an encyclopaedic list of education robots
4. Most importantly provides community forums to debate and develop EduRobot
and education robots
In this chapter, we present a brief description of EduRobot and then use it to clas-
sify the robots mentioned in the rest of the book. We finish with a short discussion
prompted by this classification effort.

About EduRobot

Life scientists worked thousands of years sorting out the living world. Yet, they’re
still improving their ideas – this against the slow backdrop of evolution. Animals
mutate from a common ancestor to different species. Technology diverges because
of innovation, but it also converges as people copy the best ideas from one design to
another. The breakneck pace of these technological changes sees exciting ideas
fleeting shine before heading off to the museum. Marketers have a habit of exag-
gerating and inventing new words for old ideas, just to make their product offerings
more attractive. None of this helps the serious scientific study of our topic.
EduRobot concerns itself with all education robots, including the extinct ones.
For our understanding of these robots to improve, we need stability. What does
innovation change? If a developer adds a new feature, or more radically revamps the
product, is it (in taxonomic terms) a different robot? Can we find a universally
accepted way of talking about education robots? A debate in the EduRobot forums
will lead to clarity by sorting out issues like this. As the community wrestles with
such matters we expect EduRobot to change.
Right now, our thinking behind EduRobot aims to preserve simplicity as shown
in Fig. 15.1.

1
 We’re actively seeking contributions from other parts of the world; contact info@robots-for-edu-
cation.com if you’re interested.
15  EduRobot Taxonomy 335

Fig. 15.1  Basic EduRobot

taxonomy. (Courtesy of
Robots for Education)

Classifying robots has three levels: type, class and subclass. Development
doesn’t change these: they describe the brand – the name of the robot – for example,
Lego Mindstorms. Characteristics add substance to our understanding of a robot,
but they don’t change its nature. By analogy, think of a man – he can be fat or thin –
and the fat man can become thin or the thin man become fat. None of these changes
stops him from being a man. So a developer adding, for example, Bluetooth to a
robot won’t alter the robot’s classification, but it does help you understand it.
Figure 15.2 shows EduRobot’s latest taxonomy.
One way to test and improve a taxonomy is to use it: what problems did it raise?
Table 15.1 classifies most of the robots mentioned in this book. Our efforts to clas-
sify them raised some issues which we highlight in the discussion.
Figure 15.3 shows an example of a full classification.

Discussion

This chapter presents the results of classification in action. It revealed a number of

insights that triggered a few issues in need of further debate.
Mark Pesce wrote about how technology would infiltrate a child’s world of play
(Pesce 2000). The EduRobot analysis reveals a significant number of toy companies
now producing products which can, at last, support their marketing department’s
claim that their product is educational. However, we do need more clarity about
what merits the label toy.
336 D. Catlin et al.

Fig. 15.2  The type, class and subclass for EduRobot version 2.02. (Courtesy of Robots for
Education)

A rule states you can’t classify a creature a mammal and a reptile – which is why
it took 70 years to sort out the duckbilled platypus. Our original classification of
Sphero called it a Turtle, but we’ve revised that decision and included it in the User
Bot Toy class. We can only consider our listing as provisional subject to a review
process which the EduRobot team need to develop.
Many of the walking robots hover between Use Bots and Social Bots. Forum
discussions have started with the aim of clarifying the difference.
The guidelines for the 300-character description of the robot are too vague. Our
aim is to keep present a factual description devoid of marketing excess.
15  EduRobot Taxonomy 337

Table 15.1  Classification of robots cited in this book according to EduRobot 2.02
Type Class Subclass Robots
Build
Bot
Build Build parts Little Bit Droid, Lego WeDo, Lego Mindstorms EV3,
systems Pi2Go, ROBO TX Explorer, Sam Lab Kits, BYOR
Modular parts Cubelets, Moss Robots, AirBlock
Maker Bots Computer
boards
Junk parts
Made parts Miniskybot
Robot kits Hobby kits Boe Bot, Pololu 3pi Robot, mBot Kits, Openrov 2.8
Toy kits Jimu, Angel Fish, Puffer Fish, Tinkerbots, RoboMaker
Pro
User Turtles Blue Bot, Bee Bot, Turtlea, Jessup Turtle, BBC Buggy,
Bots Tasman Turtle, Turtle Tot, Valiant Turtle, Roamer,
Thymio, Matatalab, Dash and Dot
Walking Humanoid
robots
Animal
Robot arms Kuka Youbot, Dobot Magician
Drones Parrot Mambo
Marine Boats
robots
Submarines
Toys Doc, Cubetto, Ozobot, Sphero, Codey Rocky, Mind
Designer
Social Humanoid Nao, RoboThespian, Alpha 1 Pro
Bots
Humanlike Kaspar
Animallike
Creatures
Telepresence Pebbles
Toys
The world’s first education robot invented by Seymour Papert in 1969
a

Continuing Research

EduRobot is an ongoing project and anyone wishing to contribute is welcome. They

can do this through the web site www.robots-for-education.com by:
1 . Classifying a robot and adding it to the library
2. Starting a debate in the forums on any relevant topic
338 D. Catlin et al.

Fig. 15.3  An example of a completed EduRobot classification. (Courtesy of Robots for Education)

References

Catlin, D., Kandlhofer, M., & Holmquist, S. (2018a). EduRobot taxonomy a provisional
schema for classifying educational robots. 9th International Conference Robotics in
Education. Qwara, Malta. Retrieved November 12, 2018, from https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/324786505_EduRobot_Taxonomy_A_Provisional_Schema_for_Classifying_
Educational_Robots
Catlin, D., Kandlhofer, M., Holmquist, S., Csizmadia, A. P., Angel-Fernandez, J., & Cabibihan,
J.  (2018b). Edurobot Taxonomy and Papert’s Paradigm. In V.  Dagienė, & E.  Jasutė (Ed.),
Constructionism 2018: Constructionism, computational thinking and innovation (pp.  151–
159). Vilnius, Lithuania. Retrieved November 12, 2018, from http://www.constructionism2018.
fsf.vu.lt/file/repository/Proceeding_2018_Constructionism.pdf
Pesce, M. (2000). The playful world. New York\Toronto: Ballantine Publishing Group.
Index

A Class teachers
Accreditation Board of Engineering and additional education, 323
Technology (ABET), 300 computer programming, 329
Anchorages, 185 digital competences, 329
Arduino, 130, 139, 141–143 educational programming languages, 321
Arduino BYOR platform, 119 educational robotic kit, 324
Artificial intelligence (AI), 6, 103 elementary school curriculum, 325
Assessment for learning (AfL), 35 elementary school education, 320
The Association of Computer Machinery, 2 formal, non-formal and informal, 322
ATMEGA328P-AU microcontroller, 139 higher education environment, 319
Attitudes, 320, 321, 327 inadequate education, 327
Autonomous robots individual Likert-type statements, 324
mobile robots, 298 informal and non-formal learning
undergraduate curriculum, 300 opportunities, 328
See also Capstone design innovative teaching, 329
in-service training, 329
learning object, 319
B learning tool, 319
Bee-bot, 234, 235, 238, 240–244 national curriculum, 318
Bitbloq, 141, 145 participants, 323, 324
Bolt, Beranek and Newman (BBN), 9 primary and secondary education, 319
Brain-behaviour relationships, 237 primary school classrooms, 322
professional qualification, 318
research methodology, 320, 321
C self-assessment, 321, 322
CAPES Journal Portal, 184 spatial abilities, 319
Capstone design stakeholders, 320, 328
autonomous robot, 302 students’ agreement, 326
round 1 challenge and scoring, 303 students’ attitudes, 319
round 2 challenge and scoring, 303 students’ opinions, 327, 328
round 3 challenge and scoring, 304 students’ perception, 325
tiebreaker round, 304 students’ responses, 322, 323
tokens, 302 systems thinking skills, 319
24 gray disks, 302 teaching profession, 325
Causal–comparative research, 184, 186 Classroom environment, 318

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 339

L. Daniela (ed.), Smart Learning with Educational Robotics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19913-5
340 Index

Cognitive development, 230 E

Computational thinking, 2, 4, 5, 8, 35, 119, Early childhood
252, 253 cognitive functions, 230
Congenital spastic diplegia, 237–240 EFs (see Executive functions (EFs))
Constructionism, 12, 13, 27, 36, 94, 95 in-school ER, 234–236
Constructionist learning theories, 119 planning ER laboratories, 233, 234
Constructionist pedagogical model, 96 robot programming, 230
Constructivism, 12, 13, 94 Early school leaving (ESL), 252, 253, 257
Control system, 125 categories, 44
Controller board, 125 computional thinking, 46
Costa Rican government, 26 correlations, 51, 52
Crab robot, 184 educational robotics, 44 (see also
applications, 196 Educational robotics (ER))
development stages, 186 extracurricular activities, 47
electrical circuit, 187 hands-on activities, 46
environmental education, 196 innovative pedagogies, 45
evaluation methodology, 196 metacognitive processes, 45
materials, 187 methodology, 48
phases, 186 motivation, 47
assessment, 187 programmes, 47
construction materials, 186 risk evaluation tools, 47
content, 186 risk factors, 44
diagnostic evaluation, 186 rotated component matrix
intention level, 187 first round, 50, 51
qualitative and quantitative analysis, 186 second round, 51, 53
boxplot graph, 190, 192 SDG, 44
causal–comparative research, 195 social links, 47
classes histograms, 193 students opinions
comparative causal study, 189 first and second rounds, 49, 50
hypothesis tests, 189, 190, 193, 196 teachers opinion
in-depth analysis, 195 assessment, 55
internal and external comparison, behaviour, 54
193, 194 ER programmes, 56
meaningful learning, 188 first and second rounds, 53, 54
null hypothesis, 192 opportunities, 57
Q–Q plots, 194 problem-solving, 55
self-esteem, 188 weakness of programmes, 56
statistical tests, 189, 191 teaching and learning process, 45
students’ interest, 188 technological progress and urbanisation, 45
WMW test, 194 eCraft2Learn project
word cloud, 188, 189 context, 96
tools, 187 crafting tools, 110
totally assembled, 188 creation, 110
Creativity, 117, 123, 136 cross-team collaboration, 110
Creativity and Innovation in Education and ecosystem, 113
Training in the EU27 (ICEAC), 329 educational resources, 110
frequencies, 110
hardware components, 101, 102
D ideation, 110
David Ausubel’s theory, 185 learning methodology (see Learning
Debugging, 16 methodology)
Degree of freedom (DOF), 300 lighthouse project, 104, 105
Digital fabrication, 95 non-linear process, 109
Down syndrome (DS), 240, 241 observation grid, 107, 108
Index 341

pedagogical perspective, 111–113 performance measurement, 69

pilot rounds, 96, 97 personal learning style, 76
planning, 110 play turtle, 18
program, 110 pre-university education, 149
sharing, 110 programmes, 47
software components, 103, 104 protocol of observation, 260
sunflower project, 105–107 public entity, 75
UUI, 104 qualitative, quantitative/mixed methods,
Education authorities, 29 67, 68
Educational data mining (EDM), 70–72, 74 research model and evaluation tools,
Educational programming languages (EPL), 318 254–257
Educational robotic adaptations, 242–244 responses, 55
Educational robotic application (ERA), 2, 21, risks of ESL, 59 (see also Robot
22, 119 classification)
Educational robotics (ER), 200, 202, 223, 230, robotic tools, 67
269, 318, 321 robotics laboratory, competitions, 300–301
academic achievement, 59 robots and willingness, 50
analogies, 17 school curriculum, 76
behaviour and attitude, 55 STEM, 252, 253
breaking Papert’s paradigm, 23, 24 student’s behaviours, 69
children’s comprehensive knowledge, 253 summative assessment, 69
classification, 65, 77–82, 84–86 tinkering, exploring and refining, 70
competencies, 252, 253 TMI model, 70
constructivist and constructivism theories, 76 tools
context, 253, 254 age, 68
curricular/non-curricular projects, 66 assembly feature, 68
data mining approach, 76 programming languages, 68
data on risk, 48 robot’s environment, 69
definition, 64, 65 undergraduate curriculum, 300
didactical approach, 76 white-box/black-and-white approach, 75
digital divide, 59 EduRobot taxonomy, 2, 19, 21
early robots, 19 (see also EduRobot guidelines, 336
taxonomy) innovation, 334
elements, 65 international effort, 334
ERA principles, 21, 22 stability, 334
ESL, 47 version 2.01, 334
essential features, 64 version 2.02, 336, 337
evaluation, 69, 75 EduRobot Taxonomy, 123
evaluation instrument, 257 Electrical engineering field
formal/non-formal learning environment, 66 Atmel Studio, 284
formative assessment, 69 course description, 280, 281
impact, 59 electrical circuits and digital systems, 295
innovations, 252 engineering programs, 280
interaction/physical/cognitive experiential learning
rehabilitation, 74 experience, 285
learning process, 252 generalization, 285
literature, 64 innovative and creative engineers, 285
logo development, 19 line following example project, 285
maker movement, 94 maze solver project, 287
motivation and engagement, 58 mini-challenge 1, 288
NIM, 17 mini-challenge 2, 288
offline/online method, 70 mini-challenge 3, 289
on-board keypad, 18 mock-urban course, 285
open-ended constructionist activities, 70 process, 286
342 Index

Electrical engineering field (cont.) F

reflection, 285 Faculty of Teacher Education in Osijek, 329
traditional lecture-based pedagogy, 284 Fleet Circus project, 16
hands-on laboratory, 280 Fusion deposition modeling (FDM), 121
LEGO MINDSTORMS, 280
problem statement, 293
project impact, 294 G
project requirements and scoring, 293–294 Gibson’s perceptual development theory, 23
project-based learning, 280 GitHub, 118
robot drive module tutorial, 283
robot microcontroller tutorial, 283
robot navigation module, 284 H
3pi mobile robot project, 281–283 Hands-on robotics, 269
sensor module tutorial, 283 Homemade machines, 124
student learning and motivation, 295 Human robot interaction (HRI), 21, 25, 26
Elementary education, 318 Human-computer interactions (HCI), 25
Elementary schools, 183, 184, 268
Embodiment principle, 21
Engineering design cycle, 304–305 I
Engineering design process, 254 Information and communication technology
achievements, 314 (ICT), 3, 19, 119, 318
cycle, 304, 305 Information retrieval, 219
multiple disciplines, 314 Information technology (IT), 318
prototype, 314 Inhibition control, 231
real-world scenarios, 314 In-service professional development, 269,
robot subsystems 270, 276
color sensing, 308 Instructionism, 10
navigation, 306 In-system programmer (ISP), 282
token retrieval and deposit, 307 Internet of things (IoT), 26, 201, 204, 205,
token storage, 307, 308 208–212, 218–220, 222, 223
Engineering education INVALSI tests, 224
ELEE 4325, 300 Italian evaluation methods, 224
K-12 outreach, 311
program, 300
robotics laboratory, competitions, 300 J
robotics sector, 299 Jeannette Wing’s revolution
S&E, 299 coding skills, 5, 6
Environment Science Technology robotics computational thinking, 2, 4, 5, 8
Engineering and Math (eSTrEM), economic need, 3
202, 204, 208–212, 216, 220, 222, 223 national curriculum, 3
ERA practical principle, 26 skilled knowledgeable citizens, 7
e-Rob project, 237 UK schools, 3
Errorless learning method, 234 wealth of information, 6, 7
Executive functions (EFs), 230 Just-in-time, 27
child development, 232
cognitive flexibility, 232
cognitive models, 231 K
components, 232 K-12 education, 7
early childhood, 232 Kuhn’s theory, 13
inhibitory control, 231
neurodevelopmental disabilities, 236, 237
robot programming, 231 L
working memory, 231 Latin American assembly, 27
Exploration, 28 Learning analytics (LA), 70
Index 343

Learning disorders, 241, 242 IEA-TIMSS and OCSE PISA

Learning methodology frameworks, 224
analysing ideas, 99, 100 IoT specialization, 201
artefact construction process, 100 Italian school system, 225
ice-breaking activities and setting primary school, 201, 223, 224
the rules, 98 school programmes (see School
implementation, 98, 99 programmes)
project-based, 97 Market study, 121–123
role allocation, 100 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
sharing, 100, 101 (MIT), 9
teachers, 101 Maxwell’s balanced approach, 28
teamwork, 97, 98 MBOT, 153
LEGO EV3 system, 222 Meaningful learning, 184–186, 188
LEGO Mindstorm educational Mechanical connection, 122
robotics, 254 Metacognitive approach, 235
Lego Mindstorms EV3, 71, 72, 74, Mobile robot, 281, 282
119, 270 Modbloq robot, 119
Light-dependent resistor (LDR), 221 Modular robot
Lighthouse project, 104, 105 actuators
Likert scale questions, 271, 272 buzzer, 139
Logical positivism, 26 servomotor, 139
Logo, 9, 10, 13–19, 27, 30, 34 battery holder, 140
configurations and activities
conveyor belt, 138
M four-wheel drive mobile
Machine learning, 2, 6, 25, 26, 35, 36, 70 robot, 137
Magnetic connection, 122 traffic light with barrier, 138, 139
Maker movement, 94, 95, 113 two-wheel drive mobile robot, 138
Manual ability classification system control programming
(MACS), 238 Arduino, 142
Marine environment Bitbloq, 141
early-stage learning control system, 139
brainstorming, 217 cost, 142, 144
LEGO WeDo system, 217 features, 118
primary school, 216 final prototype, 142, 144
robotic boxes, 217 functionalities, 117
eSTrEM, 220, 222 goals, 145
IoT and control strategies, 219 infrared sensor, 140
OpenFISH.science, 216 joining system, 126–128, 130
PC-Brain, 222 maximum inclination angle, 125
primary school, 220 modules
RoboEthics, 220 advantages, 130
secondary level learning controller, 131, 132
STrEM curriculum, 218 L, 133, 134
Marine robotics power, 134, 135
controls and automation specialization, 201 servo, 132, 133
educational systems, 200 ZUM Bloq, 133, 134
environment (see Marine environment) prototype manufacturing, 140, 141
environmental education and ER specifications, 123, 124
NGSS, 203 state of the art
primary school, 202 educational robotics, 118–120
RoboEthics, 202 3D printing technology, 124
STEM education, 202, 203 wheels, 134–136
environmental specialization, 201 Motivation, 184
344 Index

Motivation questionnaire analysis Pre-term spastic diplegia (pSD), 237

affective-emotional component, 176 Primary education, 152, 155, 172, 178, 179
expectation component, 175 Primary schools, 71, 75, 206, 216, 219
learning and execution, 172 classroom organization and equipment, 158
schooling, 172 didactical basis
value component, 173, 174 project-based, 154, 155
STEM, 155, 156
didactical model, 150
N educational level, 150
National Aeronautics and Space educational robots, 152
Administration (NASA), 298 elementary grades, 153
National Council for Education Technology evaluation, 156
(NCET), 30 5th grade workshop
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics avoid rectangular obstacle ahead, 159
(NCTM), 5 moving the robot to certain distance,
Nature of engineering (NOE), 320 159, 162
Neurodevelopmental disabilities, 236, 237 returning the robot to original path, 164
Newton’s laws of motion, 34 stopping the robot and avoiding the
Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), 203 obstacle, 164
North American Association for stopping the robot in front of obstacle,
Environmental Education 163, 164
(NAAEE), 202 symmetric movement, 165
turning acute and obtuse angles, 162
turning the robot 90 °, 162
O motivation (see Motivation questionnaire
On-the-job training approach, 27 analysis)
Open monitoring environment (OME), 70 programming environments, 149
Open source, 118, 120, 121, 123, 124, 140 RME, 150–152
OpenFISH.science, 201, 202, 204, 211, 212, 2nd grade workshop
214, 220, 223 following a diamond, 171
Opportunities, robots following a square, 170
classroom strategies, 32 moving forward and backwards,
vs. computers, 34 168, 169
cultural events, 33, 34 optional (new figures), 171
events, 33 STEM approach, 168
everyday lessons, 30, 31 turning left and right, 169, 170
prior knowledge, 32 SRR, 152
STEM methodology, 150
workshops, 153, 154
P Problem-solving efforts, 219
Papert’s approach, 1–2 Programmable toys, 30
Papert’s ideas, 26 Programmed data processor (PDP), 10
Papert’s vision, 2 Project/artefact completion, 110
Pebbles, 23 Project-based learning, 280, 281
Pedagogical learning, 230 Proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control
Pedagogical principle, 22, 28 strategy, 284, 306
Periphery of such a community, 8 Proposed Electronic Calculator, 5
Phototropism, 105
Pixie, 18
Pololu 3pi project, 294 Q
Pololu 3pi robot, 281, 282 Qualitative monitoring, 26
Polylactic acid (PLA), 124 Quantile-quantile (Q-Q), 192
President’s Council of Advisors on Science Quantitative methodology, 184
and Technology (PCAST), 299 Quantum computing, 6
Index 345

R 3rd class– 3rd year, 208–209

Raspberry Pi 3 (RPi3), 102 4th class– 4th year, 210–212
Realistic mathematics education (RME), 150–152 4th/5th classes– 4th/5th year, 209–210
Rep-Rap movement, 120 5th class– 5th year, 211–214
Rio Grande Valley (RGV), 311 primary school, 205
Robobo, 153, 168–171, 179 primary cycle, 204
RoboEthics, 201, 204, 207, 208, 210–212, primary school, 203
214, 220 RoboEthics and marine environment
Robot classification awareness, 204
Build Bot, 337 robotics and environmental education, 205
example, 335, 338 Science and engineering (S&E), 299
levels, 335 Science, technology, engineering and
Social Bots, 337 mathematics (STEM), 7, 65, 155, 179,
Sphero, 336 184, 201–203, 216, 225, 252, 318
User Bots, 337 Science, technology, engineering, art and
Robot programming, 230–236, 238, 241, mathematics (STEAM), 99, 117,
243, 245 200, 219
Robotic technologies, 94 Secondary school, 68, 204, 221
Robotics Seymour Papert
learning math, 271 and learning, 10, 11
learning object/tool, 269 child scientist, 11
and math education, 272 children and thinking, 12
science and technology literacy, 274 constructivism and constructionism, 12, 13
STEM education, 269, 274 education robots, 8
teachers’ perceptions, 268 learning revolution, 16, 17
Robotics competition Logo, 9, 10
collaboration and time management, 313 mathematical development, 8
costs, 313 paradigm, 13–16
design course, 313 racial ideas, 9
engineering program, 313 vs. wing, 16
experience, 309, 310 Shapiro–Wilk normality test, 189, 191, 193
final design, 309 Smart Highway Corporation (SHC), 292
hardware and software, 313 Snedecor F-test, 189, 195
reliability testing, 312 Social learning theory, 230
team work, 313 Social robots, 22, 23, 67, 76
Robotics courses, 95 Socially assistive robots, 67
Robotics in education (RiE), see Educational Socially responsible research (SRR), 152
robotics (ER) Software programming, 117
Robotics kits, 94 Special educational needs (SEN), 242, 243
Robotics-based learning, 51, 55 Standard Triangle Language (STL), 140
Robotics workshop, 275, 276 STEM-based robotic projects, 184
Robotization, 252 STEM education, 196
Rossum’s Universal Robots (RUR), 251 cognitive development, 267
data presentation, 270, 271
elementary schools, 268
S face-to-face interviews, 276
School curriculum, 117, 254 gender-based stereotypes, 268
School for life, 318, 329 goals, 267
School programmes hands-on robotics, 275
educational activities and timing, 214–216 learning environment, 276
ER curriculum LEGO robotics, 275
1st class– 1st year, 206–207 mathematical reasoning and problem-­
2nd class– 2nd year, 208, 209 solving skills, 275
2nd/3rd classes– 2nd/3rd year, 207–208 mathematical skills, 275
346 Index

STEM education (cont.) Teachers’ perceptions, 268, 276

method, 270 Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics
overall perceptions, 274 (TRTWR), 119
participants, 268 Time Team, 29
participants’ responses, 271 Trial and error, 112, 113
post-survey, 271, 273 Turtle Graphics, 17
pre-survey, 271, 273
robotics (see Robotics)
robotics workshop, 269 U
scientific inquiry, 275 Unified user interface (UUI),
state of art, 269 101, 104
students’ perceptions, 276 University of Texas Rio Grande Valley
students’ performance, 268, 275 (UTRGV), 280, 299, 314
teachers’ perceptions, 268 User Bots, 19
universal design, learning, 276
Sunflower project, 105–107
Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) V
borders/restrictions, 44 Visuo-motor integration (VMI),
feedback, 58 239, 242
goal, 46, 54, 58
innovative and fun activities, 58
W
The Wealth of information, 6
T Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test, 191
Teacher Education on Robotics-Enhanced
Constructivist Pedagogical
(TERECoP), 318 Z
Teacher training, 27 Zone of proximal development, 233