Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 279–290 | Cite as

Teacher Training in Educational Robotics: The ROBOESL Project Paradigm

  • Dimitris AlimisisEmail author
Original research


This paper presents the training curriculum for teachers developed in the context of the ERASMUS+ project, ROBOESL (2015–2017). The paper focuses on the robotics-based learning methodologies inspired by constructivism and project-based learning principles and implemented within the framework of the ROBOESL training and learning activities. The ROBOESL project ( is an innovative one in educational robotics (ER) in the sense that it introduces ER as a learning tool for children at risk of school failure and early school leaving (ESL). The ambition of the project is to engage students at risk of school failure in an attractive learning environment that can rebuild confidence, self-esteem and social skills and eventually offer a pathway to further schooling. Based on the belief that the role of teachers is crucial for the success of this endeavor, we developed a training curriculum that aims in enabling teachers to master the technical and pedagogical skills that are necessary in order to use the robotic technologies in school, enrich their teaching and learning activities in classrooms with robotics and, finally, become able to develop their own robotics activities by using innovative, student-centered and constructivist pedagogical approaches with a focus on preventing school failure and ESL. The paper presents the main innovative characteristics of the training curriculum and concludes with exemplary training activities for teachers in the form of ready to use worksheets.


Educational robotics Teacher training Curriculum ROBOESL project 



This paper has been authored in the context of the ROBOESL project. The ROBOESL Project (ERASMUS+/KA2 2015-1-IT02-KA201-015141) has been funded with support of the European Commission.


  1. Alimisis, D. (Ed.). (2009). Teacher education in robotics-enhanced constructivist pedagogical methods. Athens: ASPETE.Google Scholar
  2. Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 63–71.Google Scholar
  3. Alimisis, D., & Moro, M. (guest eds.). (2016). Special issue on educational robotics, robotics and autonomous systems, Vol. 77. Elsevier.
  4. Alimisis, D., Moro, M., & Menegatti, E. (Eds.). (2017). Educational robotics in the makers Era. Part of the advances in intelligent systems and computing book series (Vol. 560). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Alimisi, R. (Ed.). (2016). Robotics-based learning interventions for preventing school failure & early school leaving. In ROBOESL conference 2016 proceedings, EDUMOTIVA, Athens. Accessed 1 April 2018.
  6. Alimisi, R., Alimisis, D., & Zoulias, E. (2017). Curriculum for blended (online and face to face) training course for teachers. Accessed 1 April 2018.
  7. 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 L. Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez, & I. Candel Torres (Eds.), EDULEARN17 Proceedings. Published by IATED Academy,, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 0810–0818.Google Scholar
  8. Daniela, L., & Strods, S., (2017). Output 3: Validation of the impact of the learning activities. Accessed 1 April 2018.
  9. Karkazis, P., Balourdos, P., Pitsiakos, G., Asimakopoulos, K., Saranteas, J., Spiliou, T., et al. (2018). Application of educational robotics on an automated water management system. International Journal of Smart Education and Urban Society (IJSEUS), 9(1), 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Moro, M., Agatolio, F., & Menegatti, E. (2017). Curricula for 10 exemplary interdisciplinary robotics projects. Accessed 1 April 2018.
  11. Moro, M., Agatolio, F., & Menegatti, E. (2018). The RoboESL project: Development, evaluation and outcomes regarding the proposed robotic enhanced curricula. International Journal of Smart Education and Urban Society (IJSEUS), 9(1), 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism. New York, NY: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  13. Piaget, J. (1974). To understand is to invent. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.EDUMOTIVA-European Lab for Educational TechnologySpartaGreece

Personalised recommendations