Research Article

Educational Robotics: Towards a Structured, Interdisciplinary Definition Based on the Curriculum in Greek Schools

Dialekti Athina Voutyrakou
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
* Corresponding author
Apostolos Panos
University of West Attica, Greece
DOI icon 10.24018/ejece.2022.6.2.432

Read Counter
893

Downloads
472

Citations

Share

Article Sidebar

Submitted 2022-03-22
Published 2022-04-13

Read counter = 893 times

Table of Contents

Article Main Content

Educational Robotics (ER) will shape the future of education. However, there are many limitations in the existing literature on this topic, mostly related to its definition and its possible fields of application. Previous studies have mainly focused on existing equipment for ER and the variety of educational scenarios that can be developed with it, along with their potential benefits for a child. Despite this interest, to the best of our knowledge, few studies have investigated classifications of a structured definition for ER along with all the domains that can be easily connected with it. The following research is based both on a review of the existing literature as well as results from studies conducted by the authors and aims to provide a structured interdisciplinary definition of ER. Specifically, the authors conducted two different studies based on the official curriculum of the Greek Schools. Through these studies, the influence of ER in cultivating pupils' digital and social skills was investigated and the results will be presented below. Moreover, as usually ER is considered a subset of STEM or STEAM, this research aims to identify possibilities of applying ER in every course of the School Curriculum.

Keywords: Educational Robotics, Engineering, STEAM, Robots in Education

References

  1. Ioannou A., Makridou E. Exploring the potentials of educational robotics in the development of computational thinking: A summary of current research and practical proposal for future work. Education and Information Technologies, 2018:23. doi:10.1007/s10639-018-9729-z.
     Google Scholar
  2. Screpanti L., Cesaretti L., Storti M., Mazzieri E., Longhi A., Brandoni M., Scaradozzi D. Advancing K12 education throughEducational Robotics to shape the citizens of the future. Proceedings of DIDAMATICA 2018, 2018.
     Google Scholar
  3. Eguchi A. Educational robotics for promoting 21st century skills. Journal of Automation Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems, 2014;8:5?11.
     Google Scholar
  4. Scaradozzi D., Screpanti L., Cesaretti L. Towards a definition of educational robotics: a classification of tools, experiences and assessments. Smart learning with educational robotics, 2019:63?92.
     Google Scholar
  5. Angel-Fernandez J.M., Vincze M. Towards a formal definition of educational robotics. Austrian Robotics Workshop 2018, 2018, Vol. 37.
     Google Scholar
  6. Tzagkaraki E., Papadakis S., Kalogiannakis M. Exploring the Use of Educational Robotics in primary school and its possible place in the curricula. Educational Robotics International Conference. Springer, 2021, pp. 216?229.
     Google Scholar
  7. Sapounidis T., Alimisis D. Educational robotics curricula: current trends and shortcomings. Educational Robotics International Conference. Springer, 2021, pp. 127?138.
     Google Scholar
  8. Benitti F.B.V. Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 2012;58:978?988.
     Google Scholar
  9. Spola?r N., Benitti F.B.V. Robotics applications grounded in learning theories on tertiary education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 2017;112:97?107.
     Google Scholar
  10. Larsen J.C., Nielsen J. The Effect of Commercially Available Educational Robotics: A Systematic Review. Robotics in Education: Current Research and Innovations, 2019;1023:14.
     Google Scholar
  11. Alimisis D., Kynigos C. Constructionism and robotics in education. Teacher education on robotic-enhanced constructivist pedagogical methods, 2009, pp. 11?26.
     Google Scholar
  12. Wood D.F. Problem based learning. Bmj, 2003, 326, 328?330.
     Google Scholar
  13. Krajcik J.S., Blumenfeld P.C. Project-based learning 2006.
     Google Scholar
  14. Solomon G. Project-based learning: A primer. Technology and learning-dayton, 2003, 23, 20?20.
     Google Scholar
  15. New Skills Labs. https://www.minedu.gov.gr/news/48500-26-04-21-ergastiria-deksiotiton-21-prosklisi-ypovolis-ekpaideftikoy-ylikoy. Accessed: 2021-10-13.
     Google Scholar
  16. Management and indicative planning Guide. http://iep.edu.gr/el/graf-b-yliko/geniko-lykeio. Accessed: 2021-03-08.
     Google Scholar
  17. Official Greek School Curriculum. http://www.pi-schools.gr/lessons/hellenic/. Accessed: 2021-09-30.
     Google Scholar
  18. Toffler A. Powershift. Revista de Filosof?a, 1992, pp. 175?178.
     Google Scholar
  19. Gartner Identifies Key Emerging Technologies Spurring Innovation Through Trust, Growth and Change. https://www.gartner. com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2021-08-23-gartner-identifies-key-emerging-technologies-spurring-innovation-through-trust-growth-and-change. Accessed: 2021-11-11.
     Google Scholar
  20. Nakamoto S. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Decentralized Business Review, 2008, p. 21260.
     Google Scholar
  21. Haber S., Stornetta W.S. How to time-stamp a digital document. Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptography. Springer, 1990, pp. 437?455.
     Google Scholar
  22. Panos A., Kapnissis G., Leligou H. The Blockchain and DLTs in the Maritime Industry: Potential and Barriers. European Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 2020, 4.
     Google Scholar
  23. Venkatesh V., Thong J.Y., Xu X. Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A synthesis and the road ahead. Journal of the association for Information Systems, 2016;17:328?376.
     Google Scholar