Participants’ Perceptions About Their Learning with FIRST LEGO® League Competition – a Gender Study

  • Despoina SchinaEmail author
  • Mireia Usart
  • Vanessa Esteve-Gonzalez
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1023)


Robotics Competitions as FIRST LEGO® League (FLL) Competition are gaining more and more popularity, however, what are the participants learning? The present study investigates participants’ perceptions regarding their learning with FLL Competition. In particular, it explores participants’ perceptions about their learning about the world, learning to solve problems, learning to engage, learning to apply knowledge, learning to communicate, learning to apply the technology cycle, studies participants’ perceptions on the competition activities, but, more importantly, it explores gender differences in students’ perceptions about their learning in the competition. A quantitative methodology is used, a questionnaire collecting data on participants’ perceptions was first validated by a team of experts and then completed by 84 participants of the Finals of FLL Competition 2018 in Greece. Results show that participants’ perceptions on their learning are very positive: (a) they report that they enjoy taking part in the competition as they are engaged in activities of their preference, (b) participants consider the competition as a great opportunity for learning about real word problems and for the acquisition of skills in STEM areas of studies, (c) participants view that they acquire social, collaborative and communication skills and (d) regarding gender, females tend to be more engaged, enthusiastic, creative, eager to experiment and more likely to adopt collaborative strategies than males.


Educational Robotics FIRST® LEGO® League competition Gender studies 



This project received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 713679 and from the Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV). The authors thank eduACT - The Organization For Future Education for their support.


  1. 1.
    Shapiro, H., Østergård, S.F., Hougard, K.F.: Does the EU need more STEM graduates? Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Caprile, M., Palmén, R., Sanzé, P., Dente, G.: Encouraging STEM studies labour market situation and comparison of practices targeted at young people in different member states. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson, J.: Children, robotics, and education. Artif. Life Robot. 7(1–2), 16–21 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    Eguchi, A.: RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and technological advancement through robotics competition. Rob. Auton. Syst. 75, 692–699 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ribeiro, C.R., Coutinho, C.P., Costa, M.F.M.: Robotics in child storytelling. In: Science for All, Quest for Excellence. 6th International Proceedings on Hands-on Science, Ahmedabad, vol. 9, pp. 198–205 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benitti, F.B.V.: Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: a systematic review. Comput. Educ. 58(3), 978–988 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eguchi, A.: Educational robotics for promoting 21st century skills. J. Autom. Mob. Robot. Intell. Syst. 8(1), 5–11 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alimisis, D.: Educational robotics: open questions and new challenges. Themes Sci. Tecnol. Educ. 6(1), 63–71 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Petre, M., Price, B.: Using robotics to motivate ‘back door’ learning. Educ. Inf. Technol. 9(2), 147–158 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hendricks, C.C., Alemdar, M., Ogletree, T.W.: The impact of participation in Vex robotics competition on middle and high school students’ interest in pursuing STEM studies and STEM-related careers. In: 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Texas (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Welch, A.G.: Using the TOSRA to assess high school students’ attitudes toward science after competing in the first robotics competition: an exploratory study. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 6(3), 187–197 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Theodoropoulos, A., Antoniou, A., Lepouras, G.: Teacher and student views on educational robotics: the Pan-Hellenic competition case. Appl. Theory Comput. Technol. 2(4), 1–23 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosen, J.H.: FIRST LEGO League participation: perceptions of minority student participants and their FLL coaches. In: 120th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Welch, A.G.: The effect of robotics competition on high school students’ attitudes toward science. Sch. Sci. Math. 111(8), 416–424 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen, X.: How does participation in FIRST LEGO League robotics competition impact children’s problem-solving process? In: Lepuschitz, W., Merdan, M., Koppensteiner, G., Balogh, R., Obdržálek, D. (eds.) Robotics in Education. RiE 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 829. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Varnado, Τ.Ε.: The effects of a technological problem solving activity on FIRST LEGO League participants’ problem solving style and performance. Virginia Tech (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Melchior A., Cutter T., Cohen F.: Evaluation of FIRST LEGO league. Center for Youth and Communities, Heller Graduate School, Brandeis University, Waltham (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Milto, E., Rogers, C., Portsmore, M.: Gender differences in confidence levels, group interactions, and feelings about competition in an introductory robotics course. In: 32nd Annual Frontiers in Education. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bredenfeld, A.H., Leimbach, T.: The roberta initiative. In: Proceedings of SIMPAR 2010 Workshops International Conference on Simulation, Modeling and Programming for Autonomous Robots, Darmstadt, pp. 558–567 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Witherspoon, E.B., Schunn, C.D., Higashi, R.M., Baehr, E.C.: Gender, interest, and prior experience shape opportunities to learn programming in robotics competitions. Int. J. STEM Educ. 3(16), 18 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chalmers, C.: Learning with FIRST LEGO League. In: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE) Conference, pp. 5118–5124. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), New Orleans (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    eduACT Homepage. Accessed 23 Jan 2019
  24. 24.
    Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K.R.: Research Methods in Education, 6th edn. Routledge Falmer, London (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L.: Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 25(1), 127–147 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ball, C., Moller, F., Pau, R.: The mindstorm effect: a gender analysis on the influence of LEGO mindstorms in computer science education. In: Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, pp. 141–142. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dasgupta, N., Stout, J.G.: Girls and women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: STEMing the tide and broadening participation in STEM careers. Policy Insights Behav. Brain Sci. 1, 21–29 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kotsopoulos, D., Floyd, L., Khan, S., Namukasa, I.K., Somanath, S., Weber, J., Yiu, C.: A pedagogical framework for computational thinking. Digit. Exp. Math. Educ. 3(2), 154–171 (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universitat Rovira i VirgiliTarragonaSpain

Personalised recommendations