The Evaluation of Robotics Activities for Facilitating STEM Learning

  • Ronit Ben-Bassat Levy
  • Mordechai Ben-Ari
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 630)


We used the theory of planned behavior to predict students’ intentions to choose STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) in the transition from middle school to high school after participating in robotics activities. We found that students’ attitudes towards STEM were not as high as expected, although most of them expressed an intention to choose future study of STEM. Then we interviewed teachers on their attitudes on the effect of robotics activities on choosing to study STEM, and checked if the activities actually led to an increase in students choosing STEM. We found positive results for both questions.


Robotics Theory of planned behavior STEM 



This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant 912/13).


  1. 1.
    Ajzen, I.: Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 32(4), 665–683 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ben-Bassat Levy, R., Ben-Ari, M.: Adapting and merging methodologies in doctoral research. Comput. Sci. Educ. 19(2), 51–67 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ben-Bassat Levy, R., Ben-Ari, M.: Robotics activities-is the investment worthwhile? In: 8th International Conference on Informatics in Schools, pp. 22–31 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carter, L.: Why students with an apparent aptitude for computer science don’t choose to major in computer science. SIGCSE Bull. 38(1), 27–31 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gibbons, S.J., Hirsh, L.S., Kimmel, H., Rockland, R., Bloom, J.: Middle school students’ attitudes to knowledge about engineering. In: International Conference on Engineering Education, pp. 1–6 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaloti-Hallak, F., Armoni, M., Ben-Ari, M.: The effectiveness of robotics competitions on students’ learning of computer science. Olympiads Inf. 9, 89–112 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaloti-Hallak, F., Armoni, M., Ben-Ari, M.: Students’ attitudes and motivation during robotics activities. In: Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, pp. 102–110 (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Margolis, J., Fisher, A.: Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Markham, S., King, K.: Experiences, outcomes, and attitudinal influences. In: 15th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, pp. 204–208 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McGill, M.: Learning to program with personal robots: influences on student motivation. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 12(1), 1–32 (2012). Article 4Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zur Barguri, I.: A new curriculum for junior-high in computer science. In: 17th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, pp. 204–208 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science TeachingWeizmann Insitute of ScienceRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations