Design and Impact of a Teacher Training Course, and Attitude Change Concerning Educational Robotics
- 200 Downloads
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.
KeywordsEducational 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.
- 2.Alimisis D (2013) Educational robotics: open questions and new challenges. Themes Sci Technol Educ 6(1):63–71Google Scholar
- 3.Piaget J (1973) To understand is to invent: the future of education. Grossman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 4.Papert S (1980) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 5.Papert S, Harel I (1991) Situating constructionism. Constructionism 36(2):1–11Google Scholar
- 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. http://www.fisme.science.uu.nl/publicaties/literatuur/2011_european_schoolnet.pdf
- 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
- 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.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
- 18.Capuzza V, Picozza E, Spirito N (2016) La buona scuola: introduzione alla riforma dell’istruzione italiana. G Giappichelli EditoreGoogle Scholar
- 19.Osborne J, Dillon J (2008) Science education in Europe: critical reflections, vol 13. The Nuffield Foundation, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 22.Greenberg J, McKee A, Walsh K (2013) Teacher prep review: A review of the nation’s teacher preparation programs. Available at SSRN 2353894. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED543515.pdf
- 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
- 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.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
- 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.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.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
- 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
- 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
- 38.Tobias S, Duffy TM (eds) (2009) Constructivist instruction: success or failure?. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
- 39.Hattie JAC (2009) Visible learning: a synthesis of 800+ meta-analyses on achievement. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
- 45.Calvani A, Menichetti L (2015) Come fare un progetto didattico: gli errori da evitare. Carocci FaberGoogle Scholar
- 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