# data[].attributes.headline
Systematic literature review: Teaching novices programming using robots

# data[].attributes.subject
Systematic literature review: Teaching novices programming using robots

# data[].attributes.body
2012

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Systematic literature review: Teaching novices programming using robots - IET Conference Publication

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
IEEE Xplore, delivering full text access to the world's highest quality technical literature in engineering and technology. | IEEE Xplore

# data[].attributes.headline
Exploring the Educational Potential of Robotics in Schools: A Systematic Review

# data[].attributes.subject
Exploring the Educational Potential of Robotics in Schools: A Systematic Review

# data[].attributes.body
2012

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

This study reviews recently published scientific literature on the use of robotics in schools, in order to: (a) identify the potential contribution of the incorporation of robotics as educational tool in schools, (b) present a synthesis of the available empirical evidence on the educational effectiveness of robotics as an educational tool in schools, and (c) define future research perspectives concerning educational robotics. After systematically searching online bibliographic databases, ten relevant articles were located and included in the study. For each article, we analyze the purpose of the study, the content to be taught with the aid of robotics, the type of robot used, the research method used, and the sample characteristics (sample size, age range of students and/or level of education) and the results observed. The articles reviewed suggest that educational robotics usually acts as an element that enhances learning, however, this is not always the case, as there are studies that have reported situations in which there was no improvement in learning. The outcomes of the literature review are discussed in terms of their implications for future research, and can provide useful guidance for educators, practitioners and researchers in the area.

Highlights

► We performed a systematic review of studies with quantitative evidence of the use of robotics in schools. ► Studies indicate positive outcomes for teaching concepts related to the STEM areas. ► Nine important factors to increase the success of robotics as a teaching tool are presented. ► More research is needed about how to use robotics to develop new skills in students.

View full text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This study reviews recently published scientific literature on the use of robotics in schools, in order to: (a) identify the potential contribution of the incorporation of robotics as educational tool in schools, (b) present a synthesis of the available empirical evidence on the educational effectiveness of robotics as an educational tool in schools, and (c) define future research perspectives concerning educational robotics.

# data[].attributes.headline
La robotique éducationnelle : état des lieux et perspectives

# data[].attributes.subject
La robotique éducationnelle : état des lieux et perspectives

# data[].attributes.body
2013

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Résumé

La relation dyadique entre progrès technologique et finalités éducatives a récemment engendré un nouveau champ de recherche, à la croisée de la psychologie, des sciences de l'éducation et de l'intelligence artificielle : la robotique éducationnelle (RE). Cet article fournit un état de l'art critique sur la RE, ses origines et son positionnement au sein des technologies de l'information et de la communication pour l'enseignement (TICE). Il analyse les finalités éducatives atteignables en fonction du statu et des modalités d'apprentissage spécifiques aux différents types de robot. Parmi eux, une attention particulière est accordée aux kits robotiques. L'accent est mis sur le potentiel pédagogique qu'ils offrent, notamment en termes de transfert de compétences, et sur les limites à dépasser pour relever le défi de leur intégration en milieu scolaire.

Abstract

The dyadic relation between technological progress and educational objectives has recently engendered a new field of research at the crossroads of psychology, science education and artificial intelligence: Educational Robotics (ER). This article provides a critical state of the art about ER, its origins and its position in the world of ICTE. It analyzes the educational goals that are achievable according to the status and the specific learning modalities of the different types of robot. Among these different types, a special attention is paid to the robotics kits. Emphasis is given on the educational potential they offer, especially in terms of competences transfer, and on the limits to be overcome in order to meet the challenge of their integration in the school programs.

View full text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
La robotique éducationnelle : état des lieux et perspectives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
La relation dyadique entre progrès technologique et finalités éducatives a récemment engendré un nouveau champ de recherche, à la croisée de la psychologie, des sciences de l'éducation et de l'intelligence artificielle : la robotique éducationnelle (RE).

# data[].attributes.headline
A review of the applicability of robots in education

# data[].attributes.subject
A review of the applicability of robots in education

# data[].attributes.body
2013

# data[].attributes.headline
A review: Can robots reshape K-12 STEM education?

# data[].attributes.subject
A review: Can robots reshape K-12 STEM education?

# data[].attributes.body
2015

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A review: Can robots reshape K-12 STEM education? - IEEE Conference Publication

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
IEEE Xplore, delivering full text access to the world's highest quality technical literature in engineering and technology. | IEEE Xplore

# data[].attributes.headline
A Review on the Use of Robots in Education and Young Children

# data[].attributes.subject
A Review on the Use of Robots in Education and Young Children

# data[].attributes.body
2016

# data[].attributes.headline
The review of educational robotics research and the need for real-world interaction analysis

# data[].attributes.subject
The review of educational robotics research and the need for real-world interaction analysis

# data[].attributes.body
2016
Base de datos: Scopus, WOS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The review of educational robotics research and the need for real-world interaction analysis - IEEE Conference Publication

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
IEEE Xplore, delivering full text access to the world's highest quality technical literature in engineering and technology. | IEEE Xplore

# data[].attributes.headline
Systematic Review of Research Trends in Robotics Education for Young Children

# data[].attributes.subject
Systematic Review of Research Trends in Robotics Education for Young Children

# data[].attributes.body
2018
Base de datos: Scopus, WOS
Acceso Abierto

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Next Article in Journal

Next Article in Special Issue

Previous Article in Journal

Previous Article in Special Issue

You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.

Department of Educational Theory and Practice, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA

Department of Liberal Arts Education, Mokwon University, Daejeon 35349, Korea

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Received: 31 January 2018 / Revised: 6 March 2018 / Accepted: 13 March 2018 / Published: 21 March 2018

This study conducted a systematic and thematic review on existing literature in robotics education using robotics kits (not social robots) for young children (Pre-K and kindergarten through 5th grade). This study investigated: (1) the definition of robotics education; (2) thematic patterns of key findings; and (3) theoretical and methodological traits. The results of the review present a limitation of previous research in that it has focused on robotics education only as an instrumental means to support other subjects or STEM education. This study identifies that the findings of the existing research are weighted toward outcome-focused research. Lastly, this study addresses the fact that most of the existing studies used constructivist and constructionist frameworks not only to design and implement robotics curricula but also to analyze young children's engagement in robotics education. Relying on the findings of the review, this study suggests clarifying and specifying robotics-intensified knowledge, skills, and attitudes in defining robotics education in connection to computer science education. In addition, this study concludes that research agendas need to be diversified and the diversity of research participants needs to be broadened. To do this, this study suggests employing social and cultural theoretical frameworks and critical analytical lenses by considering children's historical, cultural, social, and institutional contexts in understanding young children's engagement in robotics education. View Full-Text

▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Jung, S.E.; Won, E.-S. Systematic Review of Research Trends in Robotics Education for Young Children. Sustainability 2018, 10, 905.

Show more citation formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

Back to Top Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Systematic Review of Research Trends in Robotics Education for Young Children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This study conducted a systematic and thematic review on existing literature in robotics education using robotics kits (not social robots) for young children (Pre-K and kindergarten through 5th grade). This study investigated: (1) the definition of robotics education; (2) thematic patterns of key findings; and (3) theoretical and methodological traits.

# data[].attributes.headline
Methodological system of educational robotics training: Systematic literature review

# data[].attributes.subject
Methodological system of educational robotics training: Systematic literature review

# data[].attributes.body
2018
Base de datos: Scopus
Acceso Abierto

# data[].attributes.headline
Exploring the potentials of educational robotics in the development of computational thinking: A summary of current research and practical proposal for future work

# data[].attributes.subject
Exploring the potentials of educational robotics in the development of computational thinking: A summary of current research and practical proposal for future work

# data[].attributes.body
2018
Base de datos: ERIC, Scopus, WOS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

References

1. Almeida, L. D., & Tacla, C. A. (2015). Supporting the Development of Computational Thinking: A Robotic Platform Controlled by Smartphone. In Learning and Collaboration Technologies: Second International Conference, LCT 2015, Held as Part of HCI International 2015, Los Angeles, CA, USA, August 2-7, 2015, Proceedings (Vol. 9192, p. 124). Springer.

2. Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada (pp. 1-25).

3. Czerkawski, B. (2015). Computational Thinking in Virtual Learning Environments. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2015 (pp. 993-997).

4. Eguchi, A. (2010). What is Educational Robotics? Theories behind it and practical implementation. In Society for information technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 4006-4014). Jacksonville: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

5. Eguchi, A. (2014b). Learning experience through RoboCupJunior: Promoting STEM education and 21st century skills with robotics competition. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference.

6. Franklin, D., Conrad, P., Boe, B., Nilsen, K., Hill, C., Len, M., ... & Laird, C. (2013). Assessment of computer science learning in a scratch-based outreach program. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 371-376). ACM.

7. Grover, S. (2011). Robotics and engineering for middle and high school students to develop computational thinking. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

8. Harel, I. E., & Papert, S. E. (1991). Constructionism. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

9. Ioannou, I., & Angeli, C. (2016). A Framework and an Instructional Design Model for the Development of Students' Computational and Algorithmic Thinking. In MCIS (p. 19). Chicago.

10. Koh, K. H., Basawapatna, A., Bennett, V., & Repenning, A. (2010). Towards the automatic recognition of computational thinking for adaptive visual language learning. In 2010 I.E. Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (pp. 59-66). IEEE.

11. National Research Council. (2010). Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Google Scholar

12. National Research Council. (2011). Report of a workshop of pedagogical aspects of computational thinking. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Google Scholar

13. Penmetcha, M. R. (2012). Exploring the effectiveness of robotics as a vehicle for computational thinking (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University).

14. Repenning, A., Webb, D., & Ioannidou, A. (2010) Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. In: Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on computer science education. Milwaukee, WI, pp 265-269.

15. Roschelle, J., Dimitriadis, Y., & Hoppe, U. (2013). Classroom orchestration: Synthesis. Computers and Education, 69, 523-526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.010.

Article Google Scholar

16. Schweikardt, E., & Gross, M. D. (2006). roBlocks: A robotic construction kit for mathematics and science education. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Multimodal interfaces (pp. 72-75). ACM.

17. Seiter, L., & Foreman, B. (2013). Modeling the learning progressions of computational thinking of primary grade students. In Proceedings of the ninth annual international ACM conference on International computing education research (pp. 59-66). ACM.

18. Sklar, E., Eguchi, A., & Johnson, J.. (2003). RoboCupJunior: Learning with educational robotics. RoboCup 2002: Robot soccer world cup VI, pp. 238-253.

Google Scholar

19. Virnes, M., Sutinen, E., & Kärnä-Lin, E. (2008). How children's individual needs challenge the design of educational robotics. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Interaction design and children (pp. 274-281). ACM.

20. Wilensky, U. (2001). Modeling nature's emergent patterns with multi-agent languages. In the Proceedings of EuroLogo, 1-6. Retrieved May 2015, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.294.8094&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

21. Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717-3725.

MathSciNet Article Google Scholar

22. Yadav, A., Zhou, N., Mayfield, C., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2011). Introducing computational thinking in education courses. In the Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 465-470). Retrieved February 2016, from http://cs4edu.cs.purdue.edu/_media/sigcse11-final.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Cyprus Interaction Lab, Cyprus University of Technology, 30 Archbishop Kyprianou Str., 3036, Lemesos, Cyprus

Andri Ioannou & Eria Makridou

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andri Ioannou.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

About this article

Cite this article

Ioannou, A., Makridou, E. Exploring the potentials of educational robotics in the development of computational thinking: A summary of current research and practical proposal for future work. Educ Inf Technol 23, 2531-2544 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9729-z
Download citation
Keywords

Computational thinking

Educational robotics

Robotics in education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Exploring the potentials of educational robotics in the development of computational thinking: A summary of current research and practical proposal for future work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Educational robotics are increasingly appearing in educational settings, being considered a useful supporting tool for the development of cognitive skills, including Computational Thinking (CT), for students of all ages.

# data[].attributes.headline
A study of the publications of educational robotics: A Systematic Review of Literature

# data[].attributes.subject
A study of the publications of educational robotics: A Systematic Review of Literature

# data[].attributes.body
2018
Base de datos: Scopus, WOS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A study of the publications of educational robotics: A Systematic Review of Literature - IEEE Journals & Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
IEEE Xplore, delivering full text access to the world's highest quality technical literature in engineering and technology. | IEEE Xplore

# data[].attributes.headline
A Systematic Review on the use of LEGO® Robotics in Education

# data[].attributes.subject
A Systematic Review on the use of LEGO® Robotics in Education

# data[].attributes.body
2018
Base de datos: Scopus, WOS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
IEEE Xplore, delivering full text access to the world's highest quality technical literature in engineering and technology. | IEEE Xplore

# data[].attributes.headline
Integrating Robotics In Education And Vice Versa; Shifting From Blackboard To Keyboard

# data[].attributes.subject
Integrating Robotics In Education And Vice Versa; Shifting From Blackboard To Keyboard

# data[].attributes.body
2019
Base de datos: Scopus

# data[].attributes.headline
A Systematic Review of Studies on Educational Robotics

# data[].attributes.subject
A Systematic Review of Studies on Educational Robotics

# data[].attributes.body
2019
Base de datos: ERIC, Scopus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

There has been a steady increase in the number of studies investigating educational robotics and its impact on academic and social skills of young learners. Educational robots are used both in and out of school environments to enhance K-12 students' interest, engagement, and academic achievement in various fields of STEM education. Some prior studies show evidence for the general benefits of educational robotics as being effective in providing impactful learning experiences. However, there appears to be a need to determine the specific benefits which have been achieved through robotics implementation in K-12 formal and informal learning settings. In this study, we present a systematic review of the literature on K-12 educational robotics. Based on our review process with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a repeatable method of systematic review, we found 147 studies published from the years 2000 to 2018. We classified these studies under five themes: (1) general effectiveness of educational robotics; (2) students' learning and transfer skills; (3) creativity and motivation; (4) diversity and broadening participation; and (5) teachers' professional development. The study outlines the research questions, presents the synthesis of literature, and discusses findings across themes. It also provides guidelines for educators, practitioners, and researchers in areas of educational robotics and STEM education, and presents dimensions of future research.

Recommended Citation

Anwar, S., Bascou, N. A., Menekse, M., & Kardgar, A. (2019). A Systematic Review of Studies on Educational Robotics. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 9(2), Article 2.
https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1223

DOWNLOADS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Systematic Review of Studies on Educational Robotics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There has been a steady increase in the number of studies investigating educational robotics and its impact on academic and social skills of young learners. Educational robots are used both in and out of school environments to enhance K-12 students' interest, engagement, and academic achievement in various fields of STEM education.

# data[].attributes.headline
Robotics Interventions for Improving Educational Outcomes - A Meta-analysis

# data[].attributes.subject
Robotics Interventions for Improving Educational Outcomes - A Meta-analysis

# data[].attributes.body
2019
Base de datos: Scopus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lito Athanasiou

Tassos A. Mikropoulos

Dimitrios Mavridis

Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 993)

Abstract

The present study reviews the literature in the field of educational robotics with the aim to identify its potential effects in students' academic performance. After a systematic search in various databases, we ended up with a total of 12 studies satisfying the eligibility criteria. The majority of studies were observational and only 4 of them were quasi-experimental. For each study we extracted data for the type of robot used, the research method used, the sample characteristics (sample size, age range of students and level of education) and the results observed in terms of scores. We synthesized results from these 12 studies using random-effects meta-analysis and found that robotic interventions have an overall positive effect in students' academic performance (0.7, 95% CI 0.283 to 1.112). We used the Cochrane Collaboration 'Risk of bias' tool to assess the quality of the 12 included studies. Most studies are at high risk of bias and this undermines the validity of results. Large, well-conducted randomized clinical trials are needed to answer the review question conclusively.

Keywords

Educational robotics Academic performance Lego

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Robotics Interventions for Improving Educational Outcomes - A Meta-analysis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lito Athanasiou Tassos A. Mikropoulos Dimitrios Mavridis Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 993) The present study reviews the literature in the field of educational robotics with the aim to identify its potential effects in students' academic performance.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Effect of Commercially Available Educational Robotics: A Systematic Review

# data[].attributes.subject
The Effect of Commercially Available Educational Robotics: A Systematic Review

# data[].attributes.body
2019
Base de datos: WOS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bjarke Kristian Maigaard Kjær Pedersen

Jørgen Christian Larsen

Jacob Nielsen

Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1023)

Abstract

Educational institutions planning to invest in Educational Robotics are faced with a wide selection of products. Yet, we have not been able to find any review studies on the effect of these products, to guide the institutions to get the most out of their investments. For this review, 29 Educational Robotics products were therefore selected, and eight major databases were searched for effect studies involving these. The search yielded 301 results, of which 17 were selected for synthesizing. The studies and their respective findings are discussed in the review. Unfortunately, there were not enough studies to compare the effect of the products and more research is therefore needed. In addition, the studies methodologies and design have been analyzed, and a series of recommendations for how future experimental/quasi-experimental studies within the field can be design and conducted, have been established.

Keywords

Review Robot Education Educational robotics Experimental Quasi-experimental Effect Computational thinking CT STEM K-12 Primary education Higher education Tertiary education LEGO mindstorms

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

1. Wing, J.M.: Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philos. Trans. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 366(1881), 3717-3725 (2008)

2. Allison, L., et al.: Students learn programming faster through robotic simulation. Tech Dir. 8(72), 16-19 (2013)

3. Korkmaz, Ö.: The effect of scratch- and Lego Mindstorms Ev3-based programming activities on academic achievement, problem-solving skills and logical-mathematical thinking skills of students. Malays. Online J. Educ. Sci. 4(3), 73-88 (2016)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Effect of Commercially Available Educational Robotics: A Systematic Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bjarke Kristian Maigaard Kjær Pedersen Jørgen Christian Larsen Jacob Nielsen Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1023) Educational institutions planning to invest in Educational Robotics are faced with a wide selection of products.

# data[].attributes.headline
Literature review of robotics learning devices to facilitate the development of computational thinking in early childhood

# data[].attributes.subject
Literature review of robotics learning devices to facilitate the development of computational thinking in early childhood

# data[].attributes.body
2019
Base de datos: Scopus
Acceso Abierto

# data[].attributes.headline
The contribution of robotics education in primary schools: Teaching and learning

# data[].attributes.subject
The contribution of robotics education in primary schools: Teaching and learning

# data[].attributes.body
2019
Base de datos: Scopus
Acceso Abierto

# data[].attributes.headline
Experiencias exitosas de enseñanza de programación y robótica en educación básica y media

# data[].attributes.subject
Experiencias exitosas de enseñanza de programación y robótica en educación básica y media

# data[].attributes.body
WOS: 000492038200397
Scopus
Editorial: IEEE
País: Colombia
Año: 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Experiencias exitosas de enseñanza de programación y robótica en educación básica y media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The accelerated evolution of technology in the world has generated great demand for professionals specialized in computer science, and particularly in programming and robotics. This implies that basic and secondary education include in the curricula and classroom plans activities for children to venture into the area in a practical, simple and contextualized manner.

# data[].attributes.body
2020
Base de datos: Scopus
Acceso Abierto

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Purpose of Review

With the growing interest for STEM/STEAM, new robotic platforms are being created with different characteristics, extras, and options. There are so many diverse solutions that it is difficult for a teacher/student to choose the ideal one. This paper intends to provide an analysis of the most common robotic platforms existent on the market. The same is happening regarding robotic events all around the world, with objectives so distinctive, and with complexity from easy to very difficult. This paper also describes some of those events which occur in many countries.

Recent Findings

As the literature is showing, there has been a visible effort from schools and educators to teach robotics from very young ages, not only because robotics is the future, but also as a tool to teach STEM/STEAM areas. But as time progresses, the options for the right platforms also evolve making difficult to choose amongst them. Some authors opt to first choose a robotic platform and carry on from there. Others choose first a development environment and then look for which robots can be programmed from it.

Summary

An actual review on learning robotics is here presented, firstly showing some literature background on history and trends of robotic platforms used in education in general, the different development environments for robotics, and finishing on competitions and events. A comprehensive characterization list of robotic platforms along with robotic competitions and events is also shown.

Introduction

Robotics in the past was considered rocket science created by scientists or high-skilled engineers. Nowadays, that is not the case anymore. The importance of learning robotics especially at early ages is visible by the amount of studies found in the literature. Although robotics started as machines that perform routine or dangerous tasks previously done by humans, it has evolved to autonomous and mobile robotics and lately is used to help improve student's knowledge and skills in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Arts was another area that took the opportunity to embrace robotics and thus the acronym became STEAM [ 1].

Kindergarten is the child's first school, and Evgenia Roussou successfully introduced computational thinking by playing with robotics at these children's level [ 2].

At the primary school level, a similar approach was experimented [ 3]. The focus was on the teacher's side providing them with a robotic kit to promote problem-solving and group work with their pupils. Teachers felt more confident and aware of teaching computational thinking concepts. Another study in primary schools was performed to introduce educational robotics (ER) by using a realistic mathematics approach [ 4]. Student's motivation was higher when compared with learning mathematics in a traditional way. At the K-12 level, in order to motivate students enrolling in technology areas, one school used their Project Area curricular unit to have groups of students participating in the RoboParty® event [ 5]. A standard robotics curriculum for K-16 students was proposed by Carlotta et al. [ 6] where a set of guiding principles for teaching robotics is drawn. These studies demonstrate the broad scope of ER in STEAM areas that can be reinforced with systematic reviews on ER for young children [ 7], K-12 [ 8, 9**], college students [ 10], and others [ 11, 12, 13, 14]. A technical database for K-12 detailing ER characteristics of robots was also found [ 15**]. Many universities also organize camps (summer and others) related to learning robotics for K-12 [ 16, 17].

As it has been shown, from young to college ages, there is a growing effort to create and develop educational programs of robotics or to integrate it as an aid to teach STEAM areas. Learning robotics is then an activity for all ages where a robotic platform (RP) and a development environment (DE) are essential. Some DEs have included graphical simulation of different robot platforms where the learner or developer does not need to acquire the hardware to learn or practice robotics in general or a specific robot platform.

Robotic Platforms

To start learning robotics, a basic robotic platform is necessary. For that, Lego® Mindstorms with its model RCX (Robot Command eXplorer) was one of the first commercial robotic platforms available for beginners [ 18]. This platform allowed an easy implementation of the basic robotic primitives such as the sense-plan-act (SPA) paradigm. Nowadays, the Lego® WeDo platform is commonly used for ER in primary schools [ 19] and the EV3 model for advanced school projects [ 20]. The advantage of these Lego® platforms is the easiness of building mechanical structures. For children, it is a normal evolution from their basic brick building blocks when toddlers. For advanced school projects, a special purpose robot is fast to build requiring low mechanical skills.

With the growing market of Lego® Mindstorms, the need for custom build simple robot platforms using cheap commercially available components moved authors to produce their own solutions for ER. At high school and college levels, Krzysztof Mianowski proposed the construction of an arm manipulator made of composite materials, servo-motors, and PIC controllers [ 21]. Many authors during this decade built their own robot platform with low-cost components for ER [ 22, 23]. It was also the decade where some ready-made robotic kits became commercially available such as the Bot'n Roll [ 24] and QFIX [ 25], amongst others. The advent of the ready-to-use microcontroller platform such as Arduino [ 26] defined the trends of robotic kits for the following decade (e.g., Andruino-A1 [ 27]). Everywhere, Arduino-based robotic kit platforms started to blossom until today. This microcontroller platform allowed basic SPA principles to be implemented, with the application of multiple sensors and actuators and basic process control. For more elaborated and advanced solutions, another platform was added based on a small single-board computer: the Raspberry Pi [ 28]. This add-on board allowed a great increase in processing capability to simple robots at a very low cost [ 29]. It also allowed the use of complex sensors (artificial vision) and also integrated wireless communications such as Wi-Fi IEEE802.11 and Bluetooth. ER now can sense (with simple or complex sensors), plan (with advanced control algorithms), act (with advanced motion controllers), and communicate (with latest wireless technologies), thus becoming a SPAC system. Communication allows collaborative tasks between robots as well as remote monitor and sensing for the developer.

Three other ER platforms should be mentioned in this review: BIOLOID [ 30] and DARwIn-OP [ 31] from ROBOTIS and NAO from SoftBank Robotics. These three platforms are not at the low-cost level, but they are still very important for ER. BIOLOID is an ER platform created to teach the principles of robot joints, kinetics, and inverse kinematics. It is an essential platform for learning robotics where understanding of links/joints or legged motion in different shapes and forms is necessary. Whereas BIOLOID can be assembled to achieve any legged robotic form (humanoid, spider, lizard, etc.), Darwin-OP has a fixed humanoid form walking on legs, and it is the acronym of Dynamic Anthropomorphic Robot with Intelligence-Open Platform. It is being used for humanoid autonomous motion robotic research, fully featured with computing processing and camera. NAO and Pepper are more advanced humanoid robots, also walking on legs or wheels and having two arms with end grips. These platforms have stereo cameras, microphones, tactile sensors, sonar rangefinder, inertial sensors, and distance infrared sensors with wireless communications. Its vast use in research is known from robotic soccer [ 32], artificial intelligence [ 33], autism spectrum disorder [ 34 *], etc.

Learning robotics with actual robot platforms is accessible to everyone and powerful as never been before. The motivational driver is now on the side of the DE, i.e., the software framework part.

Development Environments

A good DE is what makes the motivation for learning robotics easier. Some are graphical programming or block based (BB) and other text based (TB). Some also allow simulation. When Lego® Mindstorms was first launched, they introduced a DE that was based on BB called Robotics Invention System on the commercial version and Robolab on the educational version. The latter was based on National Instruments LabView. Many more DEs exist for this robotic platform both BB and TB. A comparison between them concluded that for beginners, a BB DE is better suited due to being more robust and supportive whereas for advanced learners, a TB DE is more powerful [ 35]. That difference has been dissipated lately as actual BB DEs have greatly improved. Comparison studies found little difference in the learning outcomes for both types [ 36 *] although there is still the stigma that BB is for novices and TB for advanced users.

BB DEs such as Scratch, Alice, and Snap! are conquering the market for novice programmers but still need some middleware to interface with robotic platforms [ 37]. Companies are producing their robotic platforms by adopting Scratch as their BB DE [ 38]. For TB DEs, C/C++, Java, Python, and Matlab are the common languages supported by the majority of the robotic platforms with their own software framework. RobotC was one of the first cross-platform DE for robotics that started with the Lego® RCX [ 39] and carried on to later models. It also supports robots from VEX robotics. Arduino IDE is the choice for Arduino-based robot platforms [ 40 *]. It is written in Java and based in Processing. It has the support of a vast community of developers for improving and evolving the Arduino library.

Google Blockly [ 41] and Open Roberta from Fraunhofer Institute [ 42] are BB/TB DEs where blocks and text code are put side by side. Users create their block programming, and the DE converts it to text code on the fly, helping youngsters to easily move from BB to TB. They are both open source and are used in many robotic platforms.

Some DEs do not use computers at all for programming. They were developed for kindergarten ages as a board game and are based on using physical pieces (wood, plastic, etc.) with symbols that correspond to robot actions. Examples are found in Table 1.

Table 1 Characterization list of robotic platforms

Many other DEs are proprietary and made specifically for use with robot platforms of their own maker, especially for industrial robots (ABB, Fanuc, Kuka, etc.).

Robot Operating System (ROS) is an open-source software framework and library managed by Willow Garage, and it can be integrated on a DE [ 43]. It creates an ecosystem that allows writing robotics software to be used on different robot platforms. This framework is under the continuous development of the robotics community with the support of a very large number of robot platforms. Robot makers create their own packages to include in the ROS library. This allows users to easily integrate these robots when developing a robotic solution.

Simulation (2D and 3D) is nowadays essential and necessary. Not only because it is fundamental for industrial robotics, but also because it is now an entry point for those starting to learn robotics. For a good integration with the ROS ecosystem, Gazebo and Morse are two 3D simulators that provide a realistic visual performance of the robot that is being programmed. In the case of multi-robot programming, it is important to validate robot positions, constraints, and collaborative behavior that could jeopardize the equipment in a real scenario [ 44]. With simulation, these factors can be analyzed in real-time and the robots reprogrammed to suit the needs. These are simulators for advanced users only.

For beginners, V-REP [ 45] and Webots [ 46] are more user-friendly packages where many robot platforms are included as standard to allow users to develop and simulate their code to reach 3D environments. If the platform is not available with the package, it can be created by the user defining all the hardware 3D model structure, sensors, and actuators. Creating a new platform on the simulator is not for beginners but advanced users can do it to simulate their own robot creation. All these simulators have a physics engine, and therefore, gravity, friction, materials, collisions, and others can be integrated into the simulation.

DEs have now achieved their maturity in order to comply with the demands of all types of users, skilled and unskilled ones. But in many cases, what drives new users to enroll in the robotics learning path is what drives humans to overcome challenges: competitions.

Robotic Competitions and Events

There is nothing like a good robotic competition to motivate humans in solving new challenges. A path to follow to start participating in competitions was already suggested [ 47] where a description of some competitions with increasing difficulty is presented.

Micromouse [ 48] is perhaps one of the oldest robotics competitions known or reported. Since the time of the Egyptians, solving mazes was always considered a challenge and in this competition, a small robot has to solve it autonomously by moving around the maze. It is based on a grid of 16 × 16 cells where walls are set randomly on each cell to produce a maze. This event is held worldwide. The challenge is not solving the maze but how fast the robot can do it. A first run is made for path discovery and optimization. It is on the second run when the robot already computed the optimal path that record times are achieved.

First Lego® League [ 49] was the first robotic competition designed for those starting in robotics at very young ages (9-14 years old). Different challenges were created every year to be solved by the participants that created their own robots made of a Lego® robotic platform.

Soccer or football is one of the sports that people are interested in worldwide. With that in mind, the RoboCup Federation [ 50] was created with the defined goal of promoting the research and development of AI and autonomous robots that could defeat in 2050 the human world champions. This promotion was based on a competition that is being held worldwide in different countries every year. The competition is divided into leagues, and its number has increased since the beginning. RoboCup has broadened its scope from Soccer only leagues to Rescue, Home, Logistics, Work, and Junior Leagues [ 51]. Apart from the Junior League, participants are usually college or post-graduate students that create teams with their professors or supervisors in order to participate in the event. In order to qualify for the annual event, teams participate in regional/country RoboCup Opens with the approval of the RoboCup Federation. Like in RoboCup, some robotic events also have associated with it a scientific conference such as FIRA and RoboMaster with its proceedings published.

The presented competitions have no prize money. On the other hand, the DARPA Challenges are high-prized competitions with irregular time spaced editions. First editions had the objective of promoting the autonomous driving of road vehicles [ 52]. It then went to promote humanoid robots able to execute complex tasks in difficult environments [ 53]. The latest edition promoted the development of adaptive vehicles for military purposes [ 54].

RoboParty is an educational robotic event, where more than one hundred teams of four people, during three non-stop days, learn by experience how to build the Bot'n Roll robotic platform (mechanics, soldering the electronic components, and assembling the parts) [ 55]. Workshop tutorials teach participants how to build the electronics, assemble the mechanics, and program the robot using Arduino DE. Three known challenges are then tried to test their robot and the developed algorithms. Participants can assess their robot and software performances and compare them with the results of other teams.

It is a learning cycle, and the essence of this pedagogical robotic event, where participants keep their robot after the event, is to further their robotic studies. With more than a decade of annual events in the same place, it was also realized in different countries as well as in some editions of the RoboCup competition. Figure 1 shows an image of the Bot'n Roll robotic platform specifically developed for RoboParty and a group picture of the participants of the event.

Left: Bot'n Roll One A educational robotic platform. Right: RoboParty educational event group picture

RoboParty has been changing student academic performance with relevant impact like the huge increase in the number of robotics clubs in the last 10 years (according to the ministry of education); some teachers even use the RoboParty lessons at their schools, and more students are registering into electronics/informatics university degrees (increasing the university entrance average grade).

This review has shown the general outlook of the literature focusing on the major aspects of each part: (a) educational robotics at different age ranges, (b) robotic platforms, (c) development environments, (d) robotics competitions and events. Next, detailed and classified lists of robotic platforms and robotics competitions and events are presented.

Characterization Lists

Due to the amount of data gathered, the following lists presented in Tables 1 and 2 had to be synthesized. For Table 1, column Locomotion (Loc.) uses the following acronyms: Legs (L), Wheels (W), Tracks (T), Spherical (S), Others (O), Legs (Humanoid type) (LH), Legs (Insect type) (LI), Wheels/Self-Balance (WS), Not Applicable (n.a.). For column Communications (Comms.): Bluetooth (B), USB (U), Wi-Fi (W), Zigbee (Z), Infra-Red (I), Ultrasound (S), Bluetooth via micro:bit (Bs), Bluetooth Extra (Be), Zigbee Extra (Ze). For column Build: Assembled (A), to build (B), to build (electronics plus mechanics) (B+). Column Modularity is represented by its short version (Mod.). It is important to point out that the Robot Name has a link to a YouTube video, and the Brand name has a link to the Robot Description web page. For Table 2, column Type: Competition (C), Demonstration (D), Educational (E). For column Robots: Remote Controlled (RC), Autonomous (A). For column Periodicity (Peri.): Annual (A), Biannual (B), On-request (R). It is important to point out that the Event name has a link to the Robotic event web page.

Table 2 Characterization list of Robotic Competitions and Events

Conclusions

STEAM education relates these five subjects, giving as a result a multidisciplinary learning process, through the development of real projects based in real-life situations. After building a robotic platform, the participation in a robotics event is very desirable since students can compare their work with other team's solutions. And apart from learning technological and engineering subjects, they also improve some social skills.

Robotic competitions are important in the learning process of youngsters, and it is becoming more and more usual in the last few years. The development of a robot, either from scratch or starting with an off-the-shelf platform, motivates and gives practical experience, forcing students to solve unexpected problems towards the success of a final goal.

Amongst the largest robotics events, there aren't many which are purely educational, with the exception of RoboParty.

The participation in robotic events requires from the students some characteristics like being proficient in Mathematics/Physics, writing and reading, having the will to learn more robotics/programming and mathematics, having a positive learning attitude, accepting to work integrated in a team, and enjoying technical hands-on projects. They also need to work hard, take risks, be perseverant, and take responsibility. Participation in robotics competitions will give the youngster some new hard skills like algorithm thinking, electronics basics, mechanical engineering, computer engineering and programming, system engineering, and also some soft skills like teamwork, leadership, communication, project planning, and high order of thinking.

The most relevant robots have been described and compared, in order to facilitate the correct choice for teaching in the classroom or at home. A group of the most known robotic events has been also compared with help students/teachers to select the right one to participate.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: * Of importance ** Of major importance

1. 12.
Major L, Kyriacou T, Brereton OP. Systematic literature review: teaching novices programming using robots. IET Softw. 2012;6(6):502-13.

Article Google Scholar

2. 36.
* Weintrop D, Wilensky U. How block-based, text-based, and hybrid block/text modalities shape novice programming practices. Int J Child-Computer Interact. 2018;17:83-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.04.005 This study shows how important is the choice of a development enviroment and the differences for novices when starting with a hybrid block/text one, being an essencial guide for those starting to program on Educational Robotics.

Article Google Scholar

3. 48.
Christiansen B. Announcing the amazing micromouse maze contest. IEEE Spectrum. 1977;14(5).

Article Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Author notes

A.Fernando Ribeiro and Gil Lopes contributed equally to this work.

Affiliations

Department of Industrial Electronics and Algoritmi Research Centre, University of Minho, Campus de Azurém, 4800-058, Guimarães, Portugal

A.Fernando Ribeiro & Gil Lopes

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A.Fernando Ribeiro.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Robotics in Manufacturing

About this article

Download citation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With the growing interest for STEM/STEAM, new robotic platforms are being created with different characteristics, extras, and options. There are so many diverse solutions that it is difficult for a teacher/student to choose the ideal one. This paper intends to provide an analysis of the most common robotic platforms existent on the market.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Systematic Review on Exploring the Potential of Educational Robotics in Mathematics Education

# data[].attributes.subject
A Systematic Review on Exploring the Potential of Educational Robotics in Mathematics Education

# data[].attributes.body
2020
Base de datos: ERIC, WOS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Funding

This work was financially supported by the "2011 Plan of Jiangsu: Collaborative Innovation Center for Strengthen Moral Education and Cultivate People, Nanjing Normal University".

Author information

Affiliations

School of Education Science, Nanjing Normal University, No. 122, Ninghai Road, Nanjing, 210097, Jiangsu, China

Baichang Zhong & Liying Xia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liying Xia.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 2 General information of the reviewed papers

Table 3 Study design and major findings

About this article

Cite this article

Zhong, B., Xia, L. A Systematic Review on Exploring the Potential of Educational Robotics in Mathematics Education. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 18, 79-101 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-09939-y
Download citation
Keywords

Educational robotics

Mathematics education

Teaching/learning strategies

Transdisciplinary issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Systematic Review on Exploring the Potential of Educational Robotics in Mathematics Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By providing students with a highly interactive and hands-on learning experience, robotics promises to inspire a new generation of mathematical learning. This paper aims to review the empirical evidence on the application of robotics in mathematics education and to define future research perspectives of robot-assisted mathematics education.

# data[].attributes.headline
Revisiting the roles of educational robotics in improving learners' computational thinking skills and their positive behaviour

# data[].attributes.subject
Revisiting the roles of educational robotics in improving learners' computational thinking skills and their positive behaviour

# data[].attributes.body
2020
Base de datos: Scopus
Acceso Abierto

# data[].attributes.headline
Empowering technology and engineering for STEM education through programming robots: a systematic literature review

# data[].attributes.subject
Empowering technology and engineering for STEM education through programming robots: a systematic literature review

# data[].attributes.body
2020
Base de datos: WOS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The purpose of this systematic review was (1) to synthesize findings from studies that provided programming experiences through robotics for children, between the ages of zero and eight, and for pre- or in-service teachers, of early childhood education and (2) to reveal the possible contributions of robotics programming for the integration of technology and engineering in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education. As a result of search and review processes, 23 research studies were included in the study. These studies were synthesized depending on some common characteristics, such as how they use educational robotics, initial results, subjects and the potential contributions of educational robotics to STEM education, in terms of technology and engineering, were discussed, and some educational implications were also provided. This review revealed that computer programming through robotics can be a promising educational tool and application for the integration of technology and engineering in early childhood STEM education.

Additional information

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Mustafa Çetin is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education at the Middle East Technical University and research assistant in the Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education at the Akdeniz University. His research interests focus on early childhood education, STEM education, technology in education and parent involvement.

H. Özlen Demircan is an assistant professor and head of Elementary and Early Childhood Department at Middle East Technical University. Her work focus on early childhood education, STEM education, parent involvement, mathematics education and developmentally appropriate practices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Empowering technology and engineering for STEM education through programming robots: a systematic literature review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The purpose of this systematic review was (1) to synthesize findings from studies that provided programming experiences through robotics for children, between the ages of zero and eight, and for pre- or in-service teachers, of early childhood education and (2) to reveal the possible contributions of robotics programming for the integration of technology and engineering in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education.

# data[].attributes.headline
La robótica desde las áreas STEM en Educación Primaria: una revisión sistemática

# data[].attributes.subject
La robótica desde las áreas STEM en Educación Primaria: una revisión sistemática

# data[].attributes.body
2020
Base de datos: WOS