Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Benitti FBV (2012) Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: a systematic review. Comput Educ 58(3):978–988
Alimisis D (2013) Educational robotics: open questions and new challenges. Themes Sci Technol Educ 6(1):63–71
Piaget J (1973) To understand is to invent: the future of education. Grossman, New York
Papert S (1980) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books Inc, New York
Papert S, Harel I (1991) Situating constructionism. Constructionism 36(2):1–11
Datteri E, Zecca L (2016) The game of science: an experiment in synthetic roboethology with primary school children. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 23(2):24–29
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
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):571
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 91:14–31
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):462–482
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):171–194
Maltese AV, Tai RH (2010) Eyeballs in the fridge: sources of early interest in science. Int J Sci Educ 32(5):669–685
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, Slovenia
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):109–128
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 733–736
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 568–574
Bogue R (2014) The future of robotics in Europe. Ind Robot Int J 41(6):487–492
Capuzza V, Picozza E, Spirito N (2016) La buona scuola: introduzione alla riforma dell’istruzione italiana. G Giappichelli Editore
Osborne J, Dillon J (2008) Science education in Europe: critical reflections, vol 13. The Nuffield Foundation, London
https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/PISA-2012-results-italy.pdf
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
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 99–102
Albirini A (2006) Teachers’ attitudes toward information and communication technologies: the case of Syrian EFL teachers. Comput Educ 47(4):373–398
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):1–22
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 59:105–108
Barker BS, Ansorge J (2007) Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. J Res Technol Educ 39(3):229–243
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 499–504
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 1–13
Elkin M, Sullivan A, Bers MU (2014) Implementing a robotics curriculum in an early childhood Montessori classroom. J Inf Technol Educ Innov Pract 13:153–169
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 3:1425–1431
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 19–23
Fridin M, Belokopytov M (2014) Acceptance of socially assistive humanoid robot by preschool and elementary school teachers. Comput Hum Behav 33:23–31
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):16–23
Rusk N, Resnick M, Berg R, Pezalla-Granlund M (2008) New pathways into robotics: strategies for broadening participation. J Sci Educ Technol 17(1):59–69
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. Press
Anderson ML (2003) Embodied cognition: a field guide. Artif Intell 149(1):91–130
Tobias S, Duffy TM (eds) (2009) Constructivist instruction: success or failure?. Routledge, Abingdon
Hattie JAC (2009) Visible learning: a synthesis of 800+ meta-analyses on achievement. Routledge, Abingdon
Prawat RS (1992) Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: a constructivist perspective. Am J Educ 100(3):354–395
Mishra P, Koehler MJ (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teach Coll Rec 108(6):1017
Hattie J (2012) Visible learning for teachers: maximizing impact on learning. Routledge, Abingdon
Merrill MD (2002) First principles of instruction. Educ Tech Res Dev 50(3):43–59
Allen WC (2006) Overview and evolution of the ADDIE training system. Adv Dev Hum Resour 8(4):430–441
Calvani A, Menichetti L (2015) Come fare un progetto didattico: gli errori da evitare. Carocci Faber
Bandura A (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 84(2):191
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 217–228
Gascoine L, Higgins S, Wall K (2017) The assessment of metacognition in children aged 4–16 years: a systematic review. Rev Educ 5(1):3–57
Acknowledgements
This work was partially funded by the Tuscany Region. The authors would like to thank all the teachers involved in the training course.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding:
This study was partially funded by the Tuscany Region.
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Salvini, P. et al. Design and Impact of a Teacher Training Course, and Attitude Change Concerning Educational Robotics. Int J of Soc Robotics 10, 669–685 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0475-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0475-6