Abstract
The increasing use of educational robotics prompted our study. The aim is to examine the attitudes of primary school teachers regarding its use in the classroom. Identifying the gap in the literature with the questionnaire developed and answered by 156 teachers at Greek primary schools. We focused on their views on the contribution of robotics in improving the learning process, the development of skills, and opportunities to enhance their involvement with robotic activities. As the results show, teachers are optimistic about its use, recognizing that it facilitates learning, is valuable and practical for teaching. They also recognize its contribution to developing technological, mathematical, social, and language skills. As educational robotics is a problematic field for most teachers to learn and apply, training is emerging.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference. Future of Learning Group Publication, 5(3), 438.
Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 63–71. Retrieved March 22, 2021, from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/148617/
Alimisis, D. (2019). Teacher training in educational robotics: The ROBOESL project paradigm. Tech Know Learn, 24, 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9357-0
Anwar, S., Bascou, N. A., Menekse, M., & Kardgar, A. (2019). A systematic review of studies on educational robotics. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 9(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1223
Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2017). A didactical model for educational robotics activities: A study on improving skills through strong or minimal guidance. In D. Alimisis, M. Moro & E. Menegatti (Eds.), Educational Robotics in the Makers Era. Edurobotics 2016. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (Vol. 560, pp. 58–72). Gewerbestr, Switzerland: Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55553-9_5
Burton-Jones, A., & Hubona, G. S. (2005). Individual differences and usage behavior: Revisiting a technology acceptance model assumption. Database for Advances in Information Systems, 36(2), 58–77.
Bergman, M. (1998). A theoretical note on the differences between attitudes, opinions, and values. Swiss Political Science Review, 4, 81–93.
Camilleri, P. (2017). Minding the gap. Proposing a teacher learning-training framework for the integration of robotics in primary schools. Informatics Education, 16, 165–179.
Chalmers, C. (2017). Preparing Teachers to Teach STEM through Robotics. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 25.
Chiazzese, G., Arrigo, M., Chifari, A., Lonati, V., & Tosto, C. (2019). Educational robotics in primary school: Measuring the development of computational thinking skills with the Bebras Tasks. Informatics, 6(4), 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics6040043
Choi, W., Stantic, B., & Jo, J. (2019). Educators’ perception on the use of robots in the early childhood environment. International Journal of Advanced Smart Convergence, 8(3), 138–144. https://doi.org/10.7236/IJASC.2019.8.3.138
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Di Battista, S., Pivetti, M., Moro, M., & Menegatti, E. (2020). Teachers’ opinions towards educational robotics for special needs students: An exploratory Italian study. Robotics, 9(3), 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics9030072
Estivill-Castro, V. (2020). Inviting teachers to use educational robotics to foster mathematical problem-solving. In M. Merdan, W. Lepuschitz, G. Koppensteiner, R. Balogh, & D. Obdržálek (Eds.), Robotics in Education (Vol. 1023). RiE 2019. Advances in intelligent systems and computing. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26945-6_22
Faisal, A., Kapila, V., & Iskander, M. G. (2012). Using Robotics to Promote Learning in Elementary Grades. Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--22196
Feurzeig, W., Papert, S., Bloom, M., Grant, R., & Solomon, C. (1970). Programming-languages as a conceptual framework for teaching mathematics. SIGCUE Outlook, 4(2), 13–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/965754.965757
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). Using SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (4th ed.). Pearson Education.
Guven, G., & Cakir, N. K. (2020). investigation of the opinions of teachers who received in-service training for Arduino-assisted robotic coding applications. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 15(1), 253–274. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2020.236.14
Kalogiannakis, Μ., Tzagkaraki, E., & Papadakis, St. (2021). A systematic review of the use of BBC Micro: Bit in primary school. In Proceedings of the 10th Virtual Edition of the International Conference New Perspectives in Science Education (pp. 379–384), Italy-Florence: Filodiritto-Pixel, 18–19 March 2021. https://doi.org/10.26352/F318_2384-9509
Kandlhofer, M., & Steinbauer, G. (2015). Evaluating the impact of educational robotics on pupils’ technical- and social-skills and science-related attitudes. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75B, 679–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.09.007
Karypi, S. (2018). Educational robotics application in primary and secondary education: A challenge for the Greek teachers society. Journal of Contemporary Education, Theory & Education Research, 2(1), 9–14.
Khanlari, A., & Kiaie, F. M. (2015) Using robotics for STEM education in primary/elementary schools: Teachers’ perceptions. In 10th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE 2015), Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge University, UK.
Khanlari, A. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and the challenges of integrating educational robots into primary/elementary curricula. European Journal of Engineering Education, 41(3), 320–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2015.1056106
Kim, S., & Lee, Y. (2016). The effect of robot programming education on attitudes towards robots. Indian journal of science and technology, 9.
Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R. B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. N. (2015). Robotics to promote elementary pre-service teachers’ STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers & Education, 91, 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.005
Kyriazopoulos, I., Koutromanos, G., Voudouri, A., & Galani, A. (2021). Educational robotics in primary education: A systematic literature review. In St. Papadakis & M. Kalogiannakis (Eds.), Handbook of research on using education robotics to facilitate student learning (pp. 377–401). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-6717-3.ch015
Negrini, L. (2020). Teachers’ attitudes towards educational robotics in compulsory school. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.17471/2499-4324/1136
Ninomiya, T., Fujita, A., Suzuki, D., & Umemuro, H. (2015). Development of the multi-dimensional robot attitude scale: Constructs of people’s attitudes towards domestic robots (pp. 482–491). Springer.
Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T., & Kato, K. (2008). Prediction of human behavior in human-robot interaction using psychological scales for anxiety and negative attitudes toward robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 24(2), 442–451. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2007.914004
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307
Papadakis, S., Vaiopoulou, J., Sifaki, E., Stamovlasis, D., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2021). Attitudes towards the use of educational robotics: Exploring pre-service and in-service early childhood teacher profiles. Education Sciences, 11, 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050204
Pickens, J. (2005). Attitudes and Perceptions. Organizational behavior in health care (pp. 43–75). Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Piedade, J., Dorotea, N., Pedro, A., & Matos, J. F. (2020). On teaching programming fundamentals and computational thinking with educational robotics: A didactic experience with pre-service teachers. Education Sciences, 10(9), 214. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090214
Reich-Stiebert N., Eyssel F. (2016). Robots in the classroom: What teachers think about teaching and learning with education robots. In: A. Agah, J. J. Cabibihan, A. Howard, M. Salichs & H. He (Eds.), Social Robotics (Vol. 9979). ICSR 2016, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47437-3
Rhodes, C., & Beneicke, S. (2003). Professional development support for poorly performing teachers: Challenges and opportunities for school managers in addressing teacher learning needs. Journal of In-service Education, 29, 123–140.
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Blackwell Publishers.
Sapounidis, T., & Alimisis, D. (2020). Educational robotics for STEM: A review of technologies and some educational considerations. In Science and mathematics education for 21st century citizens: Challenges and ways forward (pp. 167–190). Nova Science Publishers.
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.
Theodoropoulos, A., Antoniou, A., & Lepouras, G. (2016). Educational robotics in the service of CSE: A study based on the PanHellenic competition. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. ACM.
Toh, L. P. E., Causo, A., Tzuo, P. W., Chen, I. M., & Yeo, S. H. (2016). A review on the use of robots in education and young children. Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 148–163.
Tzagkaraki, E., Papadakis, St., & Kalogiannakis, Μ. (2021). Esxploring the use of educational robotics in primary school and its possible place in the curricula. In M. Malvezzi, D. Alimisis & M. Moro (Eds.), Education in & with robotics to foster 21st century skills. Proceedings of EDUROBOTICS 2020, Online Conference February 25–26, 216–229. Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77022-8_19
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 45(2), 186–204.
Vlasopoulou, M., Kalogiannakis, M., & Sifaki, E. (2021). Investigating teachers’ attitude and behavioral intentions for the impending integration of STEM education in primary school. In St. Papadakis & M. Kalogiannakis (Eds.), Handbook of research on using education robotics to facilitate student learning (pp. 235–256). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-6717-3.ch009
Weng, F., Yang, R.-J., Ho, H.-J., & Su, H.-M. (2018). A TAM-based study of the attitude towards use intention of multimedia among school teachers. Applied System Innovation, 1(3), 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi1030036
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 1
See Table 13.5.
Appendix 2
Factor analysis
Rotated Component Matrixa.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Q5 | 0.839 | ||||||
Q3 | 0.839 | ||||||
Q2 | 0.830 | ||||||
Q1 | 0.824 | ||||||
Q4 | 0.782 | ||||||
Q9 | 0.777 | ||||||
Q8 | 0.724 | ||||||
Q6 | 0.715 | ||||||
Q11 | 0.683 | ||||||
Q18 | 0.534 | 0.431 | |||||
Q29 | 0.509 | 0.422 | 0.407 | ||||
Q16 | −0.826 | ||||||
Q17 | −0.771 | ||||||
Q12 | −0.758 | ||||||
Q14 | −0.751 | ||||||
Q15 | −0.732 | ||||||
Q42 | 0.423 | 0.539 | 0.409 | ||||
Q41 | 0.520 | 0.477 | |||||
Q13 | −0.484 | ||||||
Q21 | 0.458 | ||||||
Q36 | 0.849 | ||||||
Q38 | 0.807 | ||||||
Q39 | 0.792 | ||||||
Q37 | 0.749 | ||||||
Q40 | 0.740 | ||||||
Q32 | 0.703 | ||||||
Q33 | 0.657 | 0.469 | |||||
Q31 | 0.596 | 0.548 | |||||
Q23 | 0.902 | ||||||
Q22 | 0.892 | ||||||
Q24 | 0.839 | ||||||
Q25 | 0.599 | ||||||
Q28 | 0.792 | ||||||
Q27 | 0.729 | ||||||
Q30 | 0.607 | ||||||
Q26 | 0.483 | ||||||
Q7 | 0.456 | 0.712 | |||||
Q19 | 0.710 | ||||||
Q10 | 0.465 | 0.682 | |||||
Q20 | 0.403 | 0.405 | 0.443 | ||||
Q35 | 0.792 | ||||||
Q34 | 00.676 | ||||||
Extraction method: principal component analysis | |||||||
Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization | |||||||
a. Rotation converged in 8 iterations |
KMO and Bartlett’s test | ||
|---|---|---|
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy | 0.884 | |
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity | Approx. Chi-Square | 5313.265 |
df | 861 | |
Sig | 0.000 |
Appendix 3
Construct | Item | Source |
|---|---|---|
Contribution (skills) | Q1. Learning can be fun Q2. Basic technological skills can be taught Q3. Curiosity and creativity are promoted Q4. Children can articulate adequately Q5. Problem-solving can be taught Q6. Allows children to relax Q7. Reading and writing can be taught Q8. Mathematical concepts can be taught Q9. Concepts can be taught from the field of Natural Sciences Q10. Foreign languages can be taught Q11. Programming/coding can be taught Q18. Educational robotics activities can help the child learn essential math skills such as measuring, recognizing numbers and shapes, comparing quantities, etc. Q19. Educational robotics activities can help the child learn essential reading and writing skills, such as understanding new words Q20. When a child learns math, reading, and writing, educational robotics applications are as crucial as other learning resources (such as reading books) Q21. The use of educational robotics in combination with the traditional model offers more stimuli and facilitates learning | (Kandlhofer & Steinbauer, 2015) |
Attitude Toward Using (Student’s development) | Q12. The use of educational robotics is harmful to children’s development Q13. Children do not need to know how to use robotic applications for their education Q14. Traditional educational material is better than educational robotics application material Q15. Educational robotics does not support children’s learning Q16. The use of educational robotics distracts children from other experiences that are important for their development Q17. The use of educational robotics leads the child to less social contact with other children | (Weng et al., 2018) |
Receptivity to training -professional development | Q22. I would like more information from experts on finding educational robotics applications to support my students’ learning Q23. I would like more information on the frequency of use of educational robotics to be beneficial for the development of my students / three Q24. I would like more information about the age at which my students are recommended to be involved in educational robotics Q25. I would like to introduce educational robotics in the school and use it in my students’ education Q41. Providing relevant training would encourage you to use educational robotics in teaching/learning Q42. Securing the necessary resources would encourage you to use educational robotics in teaching/learning | Rhodes and Beneicke (2003) |
Intention to use | Q26. I believe that using educational robotics would make my learning/teaching process more efficient Q27. I believe that using educational robotics would make my learning/teaching process more convenient Q28. I think I would save time using educational robotics while learning/teaching Q29. I believe that, in general, the use of educational robotics in my learning teaching process would be helpful Q30. Using an educational robot can improve my learning/teaching performance | (Burton-Jones & Hubona, 2005) (Davis, 1989) |
Ease of access | Q31. It is easy to learn/teach using educational robotics Q32. It is easy to learn how to use educational robotics for learning/teaching Q33. I think it would be easy to use educational robotics in my learning/teaching process Q34. I think using educational robots will be a waste of my time Q35. I think the use of educational robots is an inefficient way of learning/teaching Q36. Learning how to use educational robots is easy for me Q37. My interaction with robotic activities is clear and understandable Q38. I consider educational robots an easy-to-use tool Q39. I find it easy to get acquainted with educational robotics Q40. Learning how to operate an educational robot does not require much effort | (Burton-Jones & Hubona, 2005) (Davis, 1989) (Ninomiya et al., 2015) (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tzagaraki, E., Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M. (2022). Teachers’ Attitudes on the Use of Educational Robotics in Primary School. In: Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M. (eds) STEM, Robotics, Mobile Apps in Early Childhood and Primary Education. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0568-1_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0568-1_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-19-0567-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-19-0568-1
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)