Factors Influencing the Sustainability of Robot Supported Math Learning in Basic School

  • Janika LeosteEmail author
  • Mati Heidmets
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1092)


Many countries are trying to enhance math learning by bringing technology into classroom. Educational robots are frequently considered as one of such technologies with the benefits of improving math learning motivation of students and helping them to acquire abstract math concepts. However, teachers often prefer traditional teaching methods, making innovation unsustainable. In this paper we used the feedback from 133 Estonian math teachers to study the factors that influence the sustainability of robot supported math teaching. Results indicate that there are two types of problems that teachers face when conducting robot supported math lessons. First, the problems that are caused by the initially inadequate method-related skills of teachers and students. These problems are fading over times, especially when teachers are able to use the help from a school-university partnership. Secondly, there are problems that cannot be eliminated by teachers or students by themselves, for example problems caused by shared use of robots. Our analysis of the experience of participating teachers indicates that making robot supported math teaching sustainable requires an additional systematic support from school management.


Educational robots Technology enhanced learning Robot supported learning School university partnership Math 



This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 669074.


  1. 1.
    Schwab, K.: The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means, how to respond. World Economic Forum (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The Commonwealth of Australia: Australia’s National Science Statement. Accessed 11 May 2019
  3. 3.
    European Commission: Employment and Social Developments in Europe Annual Review (2018). Accessed 11 May 2019
  4. 4.
    Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Loveless, T.: 20 Years of TIMSS: International Trends in Mathematics and Science Achievement, Curriculum, and Instruction. Boston College, Chestnut Hill (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    OECD: The Future of Education and Skills. Education 2030. OECD Publishing (2018). Accessed 11 May 2019
  6. 6.
    UNESCO: School and Teaching Practices for Twenty-First Century Challenges. Lessons from the Asia-Pacific Region - Regional Synthesis Report. UNESCO Bangkok (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bacchus, A.: New Microsoft research points to the declining interest of girls in STEM, ways to close the gender gap. OnMSFT (2018). Accessed 11 May 2019
  8. 8.
    Elliot, D.: STEM interest declining among teens. CBS Interactive Inc. (2013). Accessed 11 June 2019
  9. 9.
    Ernst & Young Global: Research Reveals Boys’ Interest in STEM Careers Declining; Girls’ Interest Unchanged. Ernst & Young Global Ltd. (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    OECD: PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education. PISA. OECD Publishing, Paris (2016).
  11. 11.
    Palu, A., Kikas, E.: Matemaatikapädevus. Kikas, E. (Toim.), Õppimine ja õpetamine kolmandas kooliastmes. Üldpädevused ja nende arendamine. Eesti Ülikoolide Kirjastus OÜ (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Willacy, H., Calder, N.: Making mathematics learning more engaging for students in health schools through the use of apps. Educ. Sci. 7(2), 48 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fielding-Wells, J., Makar, K.: Student (dis)engagement in mathematics. In: Conference Proceedings: Australian Association for Research in Education, At Brisbane, Australia (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Savard, A., Highfield, K.: Teachers’ talk about robotics: where is the mathematics? In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (2015). Accessed 11 June 2019
  15. 15.
    Gerretson, H., Howes, E., Campbell, S., Thompson, D.: Interdisciplinary mathematics and science education through robotics technology: its potential for education for sustainable development (a case study from the USA). J. Teach. Educ. Sustain. 10(1), 32–41 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Han, I.: Embodiment: a new perspective for evaluating physicality in learning. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 49(1), 41–59 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kennedy, J., Baxter, P., Belpaeme, T.: Comparing robot embodiments in a guided discovery learning interaction with children. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 7(2), 293–308 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kopcha, T.J., McGregor, J., Shin, S., Qian, Y., Choi, J., Hill, R., Mativo, J., Choi, I.: Developing an integrative STEM curriculum for robotics education through educational design research. J. Form. Des. Learn. 1(1), 31–44 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Werfel, J.: Embodied teachable agents: learning by teaching robots. In: Conference Proceedings (2014). Accessed 8 Aug 2018
  20. 20.
    Leoste, J., Heidmets, M.: Õpperobot matemaatikatunnis. MIKS.EE. Estonian Research Council (2019)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rasinen, A., Virtanen, S., Endepohls-Ulpe, M., Ikonen, P., Judith Ebach, J., Stahl-von Zabern, J.: Technology education for children in primary schools in Finland and Germany: different school systems, similar problems and how to overcome them. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 19, 367 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peters, V.: Preparing for Change and Uncertainty. The Oxford Handbook of Technology and Music Education. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2017)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Banke, J.: Technology Readiness Levels Demystified. NASA (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Arhar, J., Niesz, T., Brossmann, J., Koebley, S., O’Brien, K., Loe, D., Black, F.: Creating a ‘third space’ in the context of a university–school partnership: supporting teacher action research and the research preparation of doctoral students. Educ. Action Res. 21(2), 218–236 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Korthagen, F.: The gap between research and practice revisited. Educ. Res. Eval. 13(3), 303–310 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dimmock, C.: Conceptualising the research–practice–professional development nexus: mobilising schools as ‘research-engaged’ professional learning communities. Prof. Dev. Educ. 42(1), 36–53 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ley, T., Leoste, J., Poom-Valickis, K., Rodríguez-Triana, M. J., Gillet, D., Väljataga, T.: CEUR Workshop Proceedings (2018). Accessed 11 May 2019
  28. 28.
    HITSA: ProgeTiiger programmis toetuse saanud haridusasutused 2014–2018. Accessed 11 May 2019
  29. 29.
    Lorenz, B., Kikkas, K., Laanpere, M.: The role of educational technologist in implementing new technologies at school. In: Zaphiris, P., Ioannou, A. (eds.) Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Technology-Rich Environments for Learning and Collaboration. LCT 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8524. Springer, Cham (2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
    Estonian Ministry of Education and Research: 2017/2018 õppeaasta arvudes. Accessed 11 May 2019
  32. 32.
    Tõnisson, A.: Matemaatika – sidur, pidur, gaas. Õpetajate leht (2019)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Duriau, V.J., Reger, R.K., Pfarrer, M.D.: A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies: research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organ. Res. Methods 10, 5–34 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tallinn UniversityTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations