Skip to main content

Robotics and information technologies in education: four countries from Alpe-Adria-Danube Region survey

Abstract

This paper presents the results of the survey that was conducted during 2018 in four countries: Bulgaria, Greece, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. The survey is a part of activities within the project “Increasing the well being of the population by RObotic and ICT based iNNovative education” (RONNI), funded by the Danube Strategic Project Fund (DSPF). The survey included two target groups: the teachers/experts and the parents; and the corresponding questionnaires (QR) were delivered to schools in each of the participating countries. A total of 428 subjects participated in the survey (231 parents and 197 teachers/experts). Seven hypotheses related to stakeholders attitudes and opinions were formed and tested in the work, showing highly favorable sentiment toward inclusion of robotics and information technology (IT) in the classroom but with some exceptions. The conclusions drawn, based on the analysis of the results, can be used for proposing strategies and methodologies aimed at boosting inclusion of IT in the teaching process, transferable across the regions to support effective learning as well as to identify possible problems with their implementation in relation to attitudes of stakeholders: teachers and parents.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Availability of data and material

English version of the full survey can be found at www.ir.bas.bg/RONNI/activity1.html, while data can be made available upon request.

Notes

  1. RoboCup (https://www.robocup.org/); First Lego League (http://firstlegoleague.org/about-fll); FIRA RoboWorld Cup (http://www.firaworldcup.org/VisitorPages/default.aspx?itemid=3); MakeX (http://www.makex.io/en).

  2. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2017-0051_EN.html#title1.

References

  • Altin, H., & Pedaste, M. (2013). Learning approaches to applying robotics in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12, 365–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andjić, B., Grujičić, R., & Mijanović Markuš, M. (2015). Robotics and its effects on the educational system of Montenegro. World Journal of Education, 5(4), 52–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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), 19–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers and Education, LVIII(3), 978–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers and Education, 72, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boonk, L., Gijselaers, H. J. M., Ritzen, H., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2018). A review of the relationship between parental involvement indicators and academic achievement. Educational Research Review, 24, 10–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruni, F., & Nisdeo, M. (2017). Educational robots and children’s imagery: A preliminary investigation in the first year of primary school. REM: Research on Education and Media, 9(1), 37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, D. (2019). Towards emotional intelligence in social robots designed for children. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society (AIES’19) (pp. 547–548).

  • Carifio, J., & Perla, R. J. (2007). Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert response formats and their antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2007.106.116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Causo, L. P. E., Tzuo, A., Chen, P. W., & Yeo, S. H. (2016). A review on the use of robots in education and young children. Educational Technology and Society, IXX(2), 148–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, C., Carter, M., Cooper, T., & Nason, R. (2017). Implementing “big ideas” to advance the teaching and learning of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(Supp 1), 25–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chevalier, M., Riedo, F., & Mondada, F. (2016). Pedagogical uses of thymio II: How do teachers perceive educational robots in formal education? IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 23(2), 16–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clopper, C. J., & Perason, E. S. (1934). The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika, 26, 404–413. https://doi.org/10.2307/2331986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conover, W. J. (1971). Practical nonparametric statistics (pp. 97–104). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, A. M., & Polgar, J. M. (2015). Assistive technologies: Principles and practice. St. Louis: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrova, M., Lekova, A., Kostova, S., Roumenin, C., Cherneva, M., Krastev, A., & Chavdarov, I. (2014). A multi-domain approach to design of CPS in special education: Issues of evaluation and adaptation. In Proceedings of the 5th workshop of the MOM4CPS COST action (pp. 196–205).

  • EU1. (2019). European coordinated plan on artificial intelligence: Conclusions on the coordinated plan on artificial intelligence. https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6177-2019-INIT/en/pdf. Accessed 18 February 2019.

  • EU2. (2018). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European economic and social committee and the Committee of the regions on the Digital Education Action Plan. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2018:22:FIN. Accessed 18 June 2019.

  • Eysenck, M. W., & Keane, M. T. (2000). Cognitive psychology: A student’s handbook (4th ed.). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiberger, R. M., & Robbins, N. (2014). Design of diverging stacked bar charts for Likert scales and other applications. Journal of Statistical Software, 57(5), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heintz, F., Mannila, L., & Farnqvist, T. (2016) A review of models for introducing computational thinking, computer science and computing in K–12 Education. In Proceedings of 2016 IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE) (pp. 1–9).

  • Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., & Robinson, A. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, S. E., & Won, E. (2018). Systematic review of research trends in robotics education for young children. Sustainability, 10(4), 905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanemune, S., Shirai, S., & Tani, S. (2017). Informatics and programming education at primary and secondary schools in Japan. Olympiads in Informatics, 11, 143–150. https://doi.org/10.15388/ioi.2017.11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karahoca, D., Karahoca, A., & Uzunboylu, H. (2011). Robotics teaching in primary school education by project based learning for supporting science and technology courses. Precedia Computer Science, 3, 1425–1431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, J., Lemaignan, S., & Belpaeme, T. (2016). The cautious attitude of teachers towards social robots in schools. In Robots 4 learning workshop at IEEE RO-MAN.

  • Kim, E., Berkovits, L., Bernier, E. P., Leyzberg, D., Shic, F., Paul, R., et al. (2013). Social robots as embedded reinforcers of social behavior in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 1038–1049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1645-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, S., Dimitrova, M., Saeva, S., Zamfirov, M., Kaburlasos, V., Vrochidou, E., Papakostas, G., Pachidis, T., Bonković, M., & Kružić, S., et al. (2018). Identifying needs of robotic and technological solutions for the classroom. In Proceedings of 26th international conference on software, telecommunications and computer networks.

  • Kubukunskiene, S., Zilinskiene, I., Dagiene, V., & Sinkevičius, S. (2017). Applying robotics in school education: A systematic review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing. https://doi.org/10.22364/bjmc.2017.5.1.04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavrakis, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods (Vol. 1-0). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963947.

  • Leite, I., McCoy, M., Lohani, M., Ullman, D., Salomons, N., Stokes, C., et al. (2017). Narratives with robots: The impact of interactive context and individual differences on story recall and emotional understanding. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 4, 29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKay, M. M., Lowes, S., Tirhali, D., & Camins, A. H. (2015). Student learning of STEM concepts using a challenge-based robotics curriculum. In Proceedings of 2015 ASEE annual conference and exposition.

  • Randall, N. (2019). A survey of robot-assisted language learning (RALL). ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 9(1), 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudovic, O., Lee, J., Mascarell-Maricic, L., Schuller, B. W., & Picard, R. W. (2017). Measuring engagment in robot-assisted autism therapy: A cross-cultural study. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 4, 36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharkey, A. J. (2016). Should we welcome robot teachers? Ethics and Information Technology, 18(4), 283–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiomi, M., Kanda, T., Howley, I., Hayashi, K., & Hagita, N. (2015). Can a social robot stimulate science curiosity in classrooms? International Journal of Social Robotics, 7, 641–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smyrnova-Trybulska, E., Morze, N., Kommers, P., Zuziak, W., & Gladun, M. (2016). Educational robots in primary school teachers’ and students’ opinion about STEM education for young learners. In Proceedings of international conferences ITS, ICEduTech and STE.

  • Stangor, C. (2013). Principles of social psychology. Flat World Knowledge. ISBN: 978-1-946135-20-9.

  • Thilmany, J. (2007). The emotional robot. Cognitive commputing and the quest for artificial intelligence. Science and Society, 8(11), 992–994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, J. B., Engel, G. L., Gu, K., Karacal, C., Smith, S. R., White, W. W., & Yu, X. (2001). A multidisciplinary model for using robotics in engineering education. In Proceedings of 2001 ASEE annual conference.

  • Westlund, K., Marie, 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 children in schools. In Proceedings of the eleventh ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction (pp. 383–390).

  • Wing, J. M. (2016). Computational thinking. Communication of the ACM, ILIX(3), 33–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education., 14(1), 173–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yasuichi, N., Yoshiaki, N., Yasushi, K., Wada, B. T., Hiroyasu, K., Masami, H., et al. (2018). Current situation of teachers of informatics at high schools in Japan. Olympiads in Informatics, 12, 177–185. https://doi.org/10.15388/ioi.2018.15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work has been supported, in part, by the Danube Strategic Project Fund (DSPF) and the city of Vienna, Project No. 07_ECVII_PA07_RONNI “Increasing the well being of the population by RObotic and ICT based iNNovative educatIon (RONNI)”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Josip Musić.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors declare no conflict of interest/competing interests.

Code availability

Data analysis was performed with R under Rstudio and code used can be made available upon request.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 3.

Table 3 Selected questions from the survey used in the analysis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Musić, J., Bonković, M., Kružić, S. et al. Robotics and information technologies in education: four countries from Alpe-Adria-Danube Region survey. Int J Technol Des Educ 32, 749–771 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09631-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09631-9

Keywords

  • Robotics
  • ICT
  • IT
  • Education
  • Survey
  • Stakeholders