Towards a Definition of Educational Robotics: A Classification of Tools, Experiences and Assessments

  • David ScaradozziEmail author
  • Laura Screpanti
  • Lorenzo Cesaretti


Robotics in education (RiE) covers a variety of applications of robots to the world of teaching and learning. Despite all the benefits that robotics can bring to education, a clear definition of the purpose for introducing robotics in education is still missing. Authors aim at facing this issue proposing a classification of RiE experiences, stating the difference between RiE and educational robotics (ER). The need for this classification arises from the wide usage of ER to indicate a diverse range of activities using robots and from the lack of clarity when describing how ER impacts students’ curricula. Moreover, a definition of ER can impact the definition of the policies on the integration of ER into formal and non-formal education; it can also provide a basis for further studies whose aim is to provide clear evidence on the benefits of ER activities; finally, it can enhance the replicability of ER activities. To better characterise ER, authors propose two more classifications: one for the robotic tools used in the ER activities and one for the evaluation of ER activities. Drawing upon the proposed classifications, authors point out some distinctive features of ER comparing them to literature. This general outline aims at creating a starting point to open a debate on the definition of ER.


Educational robotics Curricular robotics Robotics in education Primary school Secondary school STEM Evaluation Assessment 


  1. Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference. Future of Learning Group Publication, 5(3), 438.Google Scholar
  2. Akagi, T., Fujimoto, S., Kuno, H., Araki, K., Yamada, S., & Dohta, S. (2015). Systematic educational program for robotics and mechatronics engineering in OUS using robot competition. Procedia Computer Science, 76, 2–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 63–71.Google Scholar
  4. Angel-Fernandez, J. M., & Vincze, M. (2018). Towards a formal definition of educational robotics. In P. Zech & J. Piater (Eds.), Proceedings of the austrian robotics workshop 2018 (Conference series). Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press. Scholar
  5. Asif, R., Merceron, A., Ali, S. A., & Haider, N. G. (2017). Analyzing undergraduate students’ performance using educational data mining. Computers & Education, 113, 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 661–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker, R.S., Corbett, A.T., & Koedinger, K. R. (2004). Detecting student misuse of intelligent tutoring systems. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 531–540).Google Scholar
  8. Beck, J. E., & Woolf, B. P. (2000). High-level student modeling with machine learning. In G. Gauthier, C. Frasson, & K. VanLehn (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (Lecture notes in computer science) (pp. 584–593). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bellas, F., Naya, M., Varela, G., Llamas, L., Prieto, A., Becerra, J. C., Bautista, M., Fain, A., & Duro, R. (2018). The Robobo project: Bringing educational robotics closer to real-world applications. In W. Lepuschitz, M. Merdan, G. Koppensteiner, R. Balogh, & D. Obdržálek (Eds.), Robotics in education. RiE 2017. Advances in intelligent systems and computing (Vol. 630). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B., & Tanaka, F. (2018). Social robots for education: A review. Science robotics, 3(21), eaat5954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berland, M., Martin, T., Benton, T., Petrick Smith, C., & Davis, D. (2013). Using learning analytics to understand the learning pathways of novice programmers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(4), 564–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Berland, M., Baker, R. S., & Blikstein, P. (2014). Educational data mining and learning analytics: Applications to constructionist research. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19(1–2), 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bharatharaj, J., Huang, L., Krägeloh, C., Elara, M. R., & Al-Jumaily, A. (2018). Social engagement of children with autism spectrum disorder in interaction with a parrot-inspired therapeutic robot. Procedia Computer Science, 133, 368–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Blikstein, P., & Worsley, M. (2016). Multimodal learning analytics and education data mining: Using computational technologies to measure complex learning tasks. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(2), 220–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Blikstein, P., Worsley, M., Piech, C., Sahami, M., Cooper, S., & Koller, D. (2014). Programming pluralism: Using learning analytics to detect patterns in the learning of computer programming. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 561–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Blikstein, P., Kabayadondo, Z., Martin, A., & Fields, D. (2017). An assessment instrument of technological literacies in makerspaces and FabLabs. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(1), 149–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Breazeal, C., Dautenhahn, K., & Kanda, T. (2016). Social robotics. In B. Siciliano & O. Khatib (Eds.), Springer handbook of robotics (pp. 1935–1972). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cannon, K. R., Panciera, K. A., & Papanikolopoulos, N. P. (2007). Second annual robotics summer camp for underrepresented students. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(3), 14–18. ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Valente, M., Buselli, E., Salvini, P., & Dario, P. (2018). Can educational robotics introduce young children to robotics and how can we measure it? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(6), 970–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cesaretti, L., Storti, M., Mazzieri, E., Screpanti, L., Paesani, A., Principi, P., & Scaradozzi, D. (2017). An innovative approach to school-work turnover programme with educational robotics. Mondo Digitale, 16(72), 2017–2015.Google Scholar
  24. Chalmers, C. (2018). Robotics and computational thinking in primary school. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 17, 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chang, C. W., Lee, J. H., Chao, P. Y., Wang, C. Y., & Chen, G. D. (2010). Exploring the possibility of using humanoid robots as instructional tools for teaching a second language in primary school. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(2), 13–24.Google Scholar
  26. Chen, X. (2019). How does participation in FIRST LEGO league robotics competition impact children’s problem-solving process? In W. Lepuschitz, M. Merdan, G. Koppensteiner, R. Balogh, & D. Obdržálek (Eds.), Robotics in education. RiE 2018. Advances in intelligent systems and computing (Vol. 829, pp. 162–167). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cook, A. M., Bentz, B., Harbottle, N., Lynch, C., & Miller, B. (2005). School-based use of a robotic arm system by children with disabilities. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 13(4), 452–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Costantini, R., Laura, L., Mazza, L., & Santilli, R. (2017). STEAM – un nuovo framework didattico per l’Alternanza Scuola Lavoro: Coding, robotica e design nel Milano Luiss Hub (STEAM – a new educational framework for the alternating school-work programme: Coding, robotics and design at the Milano Luiss Hub). In Proceedings of DIDAMATICA 2017.Google Scholar
  29. Cross, J. L., Hamner, E., Bartley, C., & Nourbakhsh, I. (2015). Arts & Bots: application and outcomes of a secondary school robotics program. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2015 IEEE (pp. 1–9). IEEE.Google Scholar
  30. Cross, J. L., Hamner, E., Zito, L., & Nourbakhsh, I. (2017). Student outcomes from the evaluation of a transdisciplinary middle school robotics program. In Proceedings of Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1–9). IEEE.Google Scholar
  31. Daniela, L., & Strods, R. (2018). Robot as agent in reducing risks of early school leaving. In L. Daniela (Ed.), Innovations, technologies and research in education (pp. 140–158). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN (10): 1-5275-0622-3.Google Scholar
  32. 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 Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (Edulearn17) (pp. 810–818). 3–5 July, 2017, Barcelona, Spain. ISBN 9788469737774. ISSN 2340-1117.Google Scholar
  33. Dann, R. (2014). Assessment as learning: Blurring the boundaries of assessment and learning for theory, policy and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(2), 149–166.Google Scholar
  34. Denicolai, L., Grimaldi, R., & Palmieri, S. (2018). Robotica e linguaggio audiovisivo: Quando le tecnologie si parlano (robotics and audio-visual language: When different technologies communicate with each other). In Proceedings of DIDAMATICA 2018. Cesena, Italy: AICA.Google Scholar
  35. Di Lieto, M. C., Inguaggiato, E., Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Cioni, G., Dell’Omo, M., Laschi, C., Pecini, C., Santerini, G., Sgandurra, G., & Dario, P. (2017). Educational robotics intervention on executive functions in preschool children: A pilot study. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 16–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Eguchi, A. (2014). Robotics as a learning tool for educational transformation. In Proceeding of 4th International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics & 5th International Conference Robotics in Education (pp. 27–34). Padova (Italy).Google Scholar
  37. Eguchi, A. (2015). Educational robotics to promote 21 st century skills and technological understanding among underprivileged undergraduate students. In Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC), 2015 IEEE (pp. 76–82). IEEE.Google Scholar
  38. Eguchi, A. (2016). RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 692–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Eguchi, A. (2017). Bringing robotics in classrooms. In M. Khine (Ed.), Robotics in STEM education (pp. 3–31). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ferrarelli, P., Villa, W., Attolini, M., Cesareni, D., Micale, F., Sansone, N., Pantaleone, L. C., & Iocchi, L. (2018). Improving students’ concepts about Newtonian mechanics using Mobile robots. In International conference on robotics and education (RiE) 2017 (pp. 113–124). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Frangou, S., Papanikolaou, K., Aravecchia, L., Montel, L., Ionita, S., Arlegui, J., Pina, A., Menegatti, E., Moro, M., Fava, N., & Monfalcon, S. (2008). Representative examples of implementing educational robotics in school based on the constructivist approach. In Workshop proceedings of SIMPAR (pp. 54–65).Google Scholar
  42. Fridin, M. (2014). Storytelling by a kindergarten social assistive robot: A tool for constructive learning in preschool education. Computers & Education, 70, 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Fridin, M., & Belokopytov, M. (2014). Acceptance of socially assistive humanoid robot by preschool and elementary school teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Goldman, R., Eguchi, A., & Sklar, E. (2004). Using educational robotics to engage inner-city students with technology. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on learning sciences (pp. 214–221). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  45. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Holt, R., Weightman, A., Gallagher, J., Preston, N., Levesley, M., Mon-Williams, M., & Bhakta, B. (2013). A system in the wild: Deploying a two player arm rehabilitation system for children with cerebral palsy in a school environment. Journal of Usability Studies, 8(4), 111–126.Google Scholar
  47. Horn, M. S., Solovey, E. T., & Jacob, R. J. (2008). Tangible programming and informal science learning: Making TUIs work for museums. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 194–201). ACM.Google Scholar
  48. Iacobelli, C. (2010). I robot a scuola: l’esperienza insegna (Robots at school: experience teaches). Retrieved from
  49. Iacobelli, C. and Spano A. (2011). Competizioni di robotica: Nuovi percorsi per la didattica (robotics competitions: New pathways for teaching and learning). In Proceedings of DIDAMATICA 2011. Turin, Italy. AICA.Google Scholar
  50. Jeon, M., FakhrHosseini, M., Barnes, J., Duford, Z., Zhang, R., Ryan, J., & Vasey, E. (2016). Making live theatre with multiple robots as actors: Bringing robots to rural schools to promote STEAM education for underserved students. In The 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction (pp. 445–446). IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  51. Jormanainen, I., & Sutinen, E. (2012). Using data mining to support teacher’s intervention in a robotics class. In Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (DIGITEL), 2012 IEEE Fourth International Conference on (pp. 39–46). IEEE.Google Scholar
  52. Jung, S. E., & Won, E. S. (2018). Systematic review of research trends in robotics education for young children. Sustainability, 10(4), 905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Junior, L. A., Neto, O. T., Hernandez, M. F., Martins, P. S., Roger, L. L., & Guerra, F. A. (2013). A low-cost and simple arduino-based educational robotics kit. Cyber Journals: Multidisciplinary Journals in Science and Technology, Journal of Selected Areas in Robotics and Control (JSRC), December edition, 3(12), 1–7.Google Scholar
  54. Kandlhofer, M., & Steinbauer, G. (2016). Evaluating the impact of educational robotics on pupils’ technical-and social-skills and science related attitudes. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 679–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R. B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. N. (2015). Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers’ STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers & Education, 91, 14–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kory Westlund, 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 the 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp. 383–390). IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  57. Kucuk, S., & Sisman, B. (2017). Behavioral patterns of elementary students and teachers in one-to-one robotics instruction. Computers & Education, 111, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lindh, J¸ Holgersson, T. (2007). Does lego training stimulate pupils ability to solve logical problems? Computers & Education, 49 (4), 1097–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lins, A. A., de Oliveira, J. M., Rodrigues, J. J., & de Albuquerque, V. H. C. (2018). Robot-assisted therapy for rehabilitation of children with cerebral palsy-a complementary and alternative approach. Computers in Human Behavior.
  60. Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Torrance, CA: Constructing modern knowledge press.Google Scholar
  61. Matarić, M. J., & Scassellati, B. (2016). Socially assistive robotics. In B. Siciliano & O. Khatib (Eds.), Springer handbook of robotics (pp. 1973–1994). Cham: Springer Handbooks. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mengoni, S. E., Irvine, K., Thakur, D., Barton, G., Dautenhahn, K., Guldberg, K., Robins, B., Wellsted, D., & Sharma, S. (2017). Feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness of using a humanoid robot to improve the social skills of children with autism spectrum disorder (Kaspar RCT): A study protocol. BMJ Open, 7(6), e017376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Merceron, A., & Yacef, K. (2004). Mining student data captured from a web-based tutoring tool: Initial exploration and results. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 15(4), 319–346.Google Scholar
  64. Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (1993). Vygotsky and Papert: Social-cognitive interactions within logo environments. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 96–109. Scholar
  65. Micotti, F., Fiocchi, E. and Giurato, M. (2017). Introdurre la robotica nelle scuole secondarie, un approccio progettuale (Introducing Robotics into secondary schools, a planning approach). In Proceedings of DIDAMATICA 2017.Google Scholar
  66. Miller, D. P., & Nourbakhsh, I. (2016). Robotics for education. In Springer handbook of robotics (pp. 2115–2134). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Montero, C. S., & Jormanainen, I. (2016). Theater meets robot–toward inclusive STEAM education. In International conference EduRobotics 2016 (pp. 34–40). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  68. 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
  69. Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., Al Mahmud, A., & Dong, J. J. (2013). A review of the applicability of robots in education. Journal of Technology in Education and Learning, 1(1–7), 13.Google Scholar
  70. Naya, M., Varela, G., Llamas, L., Bautista, M., Becerra, J. C., Bellas, F., Abraham Prieto, Alavaro Deibe & Duro, R. J. (2017). A versatile robotic platform for educational interaction. In Intelligent Data Acquisition and Advanced Computing Systems: Technology and Applications (IDAACS), 2017 9th IEEE International Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 138–144). IEEE.Google Scholar
  71. Oreggia, M., Chiorri, C., Pozzi, F., & Tacchella, A. (2016, July). Introducing Computer Engineering Curriculum to Upper Secondary Students: An Evaluation of Experiences Based on Educational Robotics. In 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) (pp. 293–294). IEEE.Google Scholar
  72. Ornelas, F., & Ordonez, C. (2017). Predicting student success: A Naïve Bayesian application to community college data. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(3), 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ospennikova, E., Ershov, M., & Iljin, I. (2015). Educational robotics as an innovative educational technology. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 214, 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ozgur, A. G., Wessel, M. J., Johal, W., Sharma, K., Özgür, A., Vuadens, P., Francesco Mondada, Friedhelm Christoph Hummel & Dillenbourg, P. (2018). Iterative design of an upper limb rehabilitation game with tangible robots. In ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (p. 187).Google Scholar
  75. Palsbo, S. E., & Hood-Szivek, P. (2012). Effect of robotic-assisted three-dimensional repetitive motion to improve hand motor function and control in children with handwriting deficits: A nonrandomized phase 2 device trial. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66(6), 682–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
  77. Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  78. Polishuk, A., & Verner, I. (2017). Student-robot interactions in museum workshops: Learning activities and outcomes. In M. Merdan, W. Lepuschitz, G. Koppensteiner, & R. Balogh (Eds.), Robotics in education. Advances in intelligent systems and computing (Vol. 457, pp. 233–244). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  79. Polishuk, A., Verner, I., Klein, Y., Inbar, E., Mir, R., & Wertheim, I. (2012). The challenge of robotics education in science museums. International Journal of Robots, Education and Art (IJREA), 2(1), 30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rusk, N., Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Pezalla-Granlund, M. (2008). New pathways into robotics: Strategies for broadening participation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1), 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ryu, G. J., Kang, J. B., Kim, C. G., & Song, B. S. (2013). Development of a robot remote support system for student with health impairment. In Proceedings of the 7th International Convention on Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology (p. 24). Singapore Therapeutic, Assistive & Rehabilitative Technologies (START) Centre.Google Scholar
  82. Sahin, A., Ayar, M. C., & Adiguzel, T. (2014). STEM related after-school program activities and associated outcomes on student learning. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 309–322.Google Scholar
  83. Scaradozzi, D., Cesaretti, L., Screpanti, L., Costa, D., Zingaretti, S., & Valzano, M. (in press). Innovative tools for teaching marine robotics, iot and control strategies since the primary school. In: Daniela, L. (Ed.), Smart learning with educational robotics – using robots to scaffold learning outcomes, Springer. ISBN 978-3-030-19912-8.Google Scholar
  84. Scaradozzi, D., Sorbi, L., Pedale, A., Valzano, M., & Vergine, C. (2015). Teaching robotics at the primary school: An innovative approach. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 3838–3846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Scaradozzi, D., Screpanti, L., Cesaretti, L., Mazzieri, E., Storti, M., Brandoni, M., & Longhi, A. (2016). Rethink Loreto: We build our smart city!” A stem education experience for introducing smart city concept with the educational robotics. In 9th annual international conference of education, research and innovation (ICERI 2016), Seville, Spain (pp. 750–758).Google Scholar
  86. Scaradozzi, D., Screpanti, L., Cesaretti, L., Storti, M., & Mazzieri, E. (2018). Implementation and assessment methodologies of teachers’ training courses for STEM activities. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1–21.Google Scholar
  87. Screpanti, L., Cesaretti, L., Storti, M., Mazzieri, E., & Longhi, A. (2018a). Advancing K12 education through Educational Robotics to shape the citizens of the future. In Proceedings of DIDAMATICA 2018. AICA.Google Scholar
  88. Screpanti, L., Cesaretti, L., Marchetti, L., Baione, A., Natalucci, I. N., & Scaradozzi, D. (2018b, July). An educational robotics activity to promote gender equality in STEM education. In Procedings of the eighteenth International Conference on Information, Communication Technologies in Education (ICICTE 2018) (pp. 336–346). Chania, Crete, Greece.Google Scholar
  89. Sullivan, F. R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 373–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Tapus, A., Peca, A., Aly, A., Pop, C., Jisa, L., Pintea, S., Rusu, A., & David, D. O. (2012). Children with autism social engagement in interaction with Nao, an imitative robot: A series of single case experiments. Interaction Studies, 13(3), 315–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tocháček, D., Lapeš, J., & Fuglík, V. (2016). Developing technological knowledge and programming skills of secondary schools students through the educational robotics projects. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 377–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Toh, E., Poh, L., Causo, A., Tzuo, P. W., Chen, I., & Yeo, S. H. (2016). A review on the use of robots in education and young children. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(2).Google Scholar
  93. Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1992). Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the concrete. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11(1), 3–33.Google Scholar
  94. Vitale, G., Bonarini, A., Matteucci, M., & Bascetta, L. (2016). Toward vocational robotics: An experience in post-secondary school education and job training through robotics. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 23(4), 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Vygotsky, L. S. (1968). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  96. Weinberg, J. B., Pettibone, J. C., Thomas, S. L., Stephen, M. L., & Stein, C. (2007). The impact of robot projects on girls’ attitudes toward science and engineering. In Workshop on research in robots for education (Vol. 3, pp. 1–5).Google Scholar
  97. West, J., Vadiee, N., Sutherland, E., Kaye, B., & Baker, K. (2018). Making STEM accessible and effective through NASA robotics programs. Tribal College Journal of American Indian Higher Education, 29(4).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Scaradozzi
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Laura Screpanti
    • 1
  • Lorenzo Cesaretti
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Informazione (DII)Università Politecnica delle MarcheAnconaItaly
  2. 2.LSIS – umr CNRS 6168, Laboratoire des Sciences de l’Information et des Systèmes, Equipe I&M (ESIL), Case 925 - 163MarseilleFrance
  3. 3.TALENT srlOsimoItaly

Personalised recommendations