International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 669–685 | Cite as

Design and Impact of a Teacher Training Course, and Attitude Change Concerning Educational Robotics

  • Emanuela Castro
  • Francesca Cecchi
  • Pericle Salvini
  • Massimiliano Valente
  • Elisa Buselli
  • Laura Menichetti
  • Antonio Calvani
  • Paolo Dario


Current initiatives and laboratories concerning Educational Robotics (ER) are often not based on strong pedagogical backgrounds. Additionally, they are carried out by inadequately trained teachers, and are not evaluated properly in terms of effectiveness. Moreover, according to teachers, ER usability is often neglected. The main goal of the present article is to present a training course on ER (Edu.Ro.Co.), grounded in pedagogical insights, and to discuss the results of the course and teacher’s opinion about ER in terms of: (i) teachers’ attitudes and perceptions of using ER; (ii) the potential impact of ER on students’ key competences for lifelong learning; and (iii) strengths and weaknesses of ER. These aspects were analysed by means of questionnaires specifically designed by the authors, and administered before and after the training course. A total of 339 teachers attended the training course and 254 completed the questionnaires. The article describes the methodology utilised in the realisation of the course and analyses the questionnaire’s results. In particular, the number of teachers that considered themselves prepared to apply ER significantly improved after the training course. ER is considered by teachers an important tool for the improvement of students’ motivation, planning skills, team working, problem solving and creativity development. Finally, the results from questionnaires indicate that teachers consider ER, a method that improves team-working abilities and motivation in the students. In contrast, the main disadvantage is the cost of the robotic kits. Based on these results, new directions for future research in ER are discussed.


Educational Robotics Training course Pedagogy STEM Teacher attitude 



This work was partially funded by the Tuscany Region. The authors would like to thank all the teachers involved in the training course.

Compliance with Ethical Standards


This study was partially funded by the Tuscany Region.

Conflicts of Interest:

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Benitti FBV (2012) Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: a systematic review. Comput Educ 58(3):978–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alimisis D (2013) Educational robotics: open questions and new challenges. Themes Sci Technol Educ 6(1):63–71Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Piaget J (1973) To understand is to invent: the future of education. Grossman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Papert S (1980) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Papert S, Harel I (1991) Situating constructionism. Constructionism 36(2):1–11Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Datteri E, Zecca L (2016) The game of science: an experiment in synthetic roboethology with primary school children. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 23(2):24–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kearney C (2011) Efforts to increase students’ interests in pursuing science, technology, engineering and mathematics studies and careers. In: National measures taken by 21 of European Schoolnet’s Member Countries. European Schoolnet, Brussels.
  8. 8.
    Skinner EA, Belmont MJ (1993) Motivation in the classroom: reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. J Educ Psychol 85(4):571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim C, Kim D, Yuan J, Hill RB, Doshi P, Thai CN (2015) Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers’ STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Comput Educ 91:14–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greene BA, Miller RB, Crowson HM, Duke BL, Akey KL (2004) Predicting high school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement: contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation. Contemp Educ Psychol 29(4):462–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Archer L, DeWitt J, Osborne J, Dillon J, Willis B, Wong B (2013) Not girly, not sexy, not glamorous: primary school girls’ and parents’ constructions of science aspirations. Pedagogy Cult Soc 21(1):171–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maltese AV, Tai RH (2010) Eyeballs in the fridge: sources of early interest in science. Int J Sci Educ 32(5):669–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Palogiannidi E, Koutsakis P, Losif E, Potamianos, A (2016) Affective lexicon creation for the Greek language. In: 10th edition of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC), 23–28 May 2016, Portorož, SloveniaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kennedy J, Baxter P, Belpaeme T (2017) Nonverbal immediacy as a characterisation of social behaviour for human-robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot 9(1):109–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Castellano G, Paiva A, Kappas A, Aylett R, Hastie H, Barendregt W, Bull S (2013, July) Towards empathic virtual and robotic tutors. In: International conference on artificial intelligence in education. Springer, Berlin, pp 733–736Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bredenfeld A, Hofmann A, Steinbauer G (2010) Robotics in education initiatives in Europe-status, shortcomings and open questions. In: Proceedings of international conference on simulation, modeling and programming for autonomous robots (SIMPAR 2010) workshops, pp 568–574Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bogue R (2014) The future of robotics in Europe. Ind Robot Int J 41(6):487–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Capuzza V, Picozza E, Spirito N (2016) La buona scuola: introduzione alla riforma dell’istruzione italiana. G Giappichelli EditoreGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Osborne J, Dillon J (2008) Science education in Europe: critical reflections, vol 13. The Nuffield Foundation, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Greenberg J, McKee A, Walsh K (2013) Teacher prep review: A review of the nation’s teacher preparation programs. Available at SSRN 2353894.
  23. 23.
    Mataric MJ, Koenig NP, Feil-Seifer D (2007, March) Materials for enabling hands-on robotics and STEM education. In: AAAI spring symposium: semantic scientific knowledge integration. pp 99–102Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Albirini A (2006) Teachers’ attitudes toward information and communication technologies: the case of Syrian EFL teachers. Comput Educ 47(4):373–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Adams AE, Miller BG, Saul M, Pegg J (2014) Supporting elementary pre-service teachers to teach STEM through place-based teaching and learning experiences. Electron J Sci Educ 18(5):1–22Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim KH, Choi HS, Baek JE (2014) A study on the teachers’ perception of school curriculum implementation about robot-based education in Korea concept of robot-based education. Adv Sci Technol Lett 59:105–108Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Barker BS, Ansorge J (2007) Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. J Res Technol Educ 39(3):229–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kay JS, Moss JG, Engelman S, McKlin T (2014, March) Sneaking in through the back door: introducing K-12 teachers to robot programming. In: Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on computer science education. ACM, pp 499–504Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alimisis D, Arlegui J, Fava N, Frangou S, Ionita S, Menegatti E, Pina A (2010) Introducing robotics to teachers and schools: experiences from the TERECoP project. In: Proceedings for constructionism. pp 1–13Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Elkin M, Sullivan A, Bers MU (2014) Implementing a robotics curriculum in an early childhood Montessori classroom. J Inf Technol Educ Innov Pract 13:153–169Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Karahoca D, Karahoca A, Uzunboylub H (2011) Robotics teaching in primary school education by project based learning for supporting science and technology courses. Procedia Comput Sci 3:1425–1431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Riedo F, Freire M, Bonani M, Mondada F (2012, May) Involving and training public school teachers in using robotics for education. In: Advanced robotics and its social impacts (ARSO), 2012 IEEE workshop on. IEEE, pp 19–23Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fridin M, Belokopytov M (2014) Acceptance of socially assistive humanoid robot by preschool and elementary school teachers. Comput Hum Behav 33:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chevalier M, Riedo F, Mondada F (2016) Pedagogical uses of thymio II: how do teachers perceive educational robots in formal education? IEE Robot Autom Mag 23(2):16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rusk N, Resnick M, Berg R, Pezalla-Granlund M (2008) New pathways into robotics: strategies for broadening participation. J Sci Educ Technol 17(1):59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bruner J, Lucariello J (1989) Monologue as narrative of the world. In Nelson K (ed) Narratives from the crib. pp. 73–97. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. PressGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Anderson ML (2003) Embodied cognition: a field guide. Artif Intell 149(1):91–130MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tobias S, Duffy TM (eds) (2009) Constructivist instruction: success or failure?. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hattie JAC (2009) Visible learning: a synthesis of 800+ meta-analyses on achievement. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Prawat RS (1992) Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: a constructivist perspective. Am J Educ 100(3):354–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mishra P, Koehler MJ (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teach Coll Rec 108(6):1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hattie J (2012) Visible learning for teachers: maximizing impact on learning. Routledge, AbingdonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Merrill MD (2002) First principles of instruction. Educ Tech Res Dev 50(3):43–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Allen WC (2006) Overview and evolution of the ADDIE training system. Adv Dev Hum Resour 8(4):430–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Calvani A, Menichetti L (2015) Come fare un progetto didattico: gli errori da evitare. Carocci FaberGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bandura A (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 84(2):191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kradolfer S, Dubois S, Riedo F, Mondada F, Fassa F (2014, October) A sociological contribution to understanding the use of robots in schools: the thymio robot. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, pp 217–228Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gascoine L, Higgins S, Wall K (2017) The assessment of metacognition in children aged 4–16 years: a systematic review. Rev Educ 5(1):3–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emanuela Castro
    • 1
  • Francesca Cecchi
    • 1
  • Pericle Salvini
    • 1
  • Massimiliano Valente
    • 1
  • Elisa Buselli
    • 1
  • Laura Menichetti
    • 2
  • Antonio Calvani
    • 2
  • Paolo Dario
    • 1
  1. 1.The BioRobotics InstituteScuola Superiore Sant’AnnaPontedera, PisaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Educational Science and PsychologyUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations