Next Article in Journal
An Exploratory Study of Mobile-Based Scenarios for Foreign Language Teaching in Early Childhood
Next Article in Special Issue
Pursuing Social Justice in Educational Robotics
Previous Article in Journal
Respecting the Voices of Individuals from Marginalised Communities in Research—“Who Is Listening and Who Isn’t?”
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effect of Robotics-Based Storytelling Activities on Primary School Students’ Computational Thinking
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Exploring the Features of Educational Robotics and STEM Research in Primary Education: A Systematic Literature Review

by
Sokratis Tselegkaridis
1 and
Theodosios Sapounidis
1,2,*
1
Department of Information and Electronic Engineering, International Hellenic University (IHU), 57400 Thessaloniki, Greece
2
School of Philosophy and Education, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12(5), 305; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12050305
Submission received: 7 April 2022 / Revised: 22 April 2022 / Accepted: 26 April 2022 / Published: 28 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Robot Programming in Early Childhood and Primary Education)

Abstract

:
STEM education programs with educational robotics are frequently used in formal or informal education, with participants ranging from kindergarten children up to university students. The widespread implementation of these programs in schools and the growing interest of researchers in the field has led several authors/researchers to review and summarize the characteristics of STEM research. However, the literature on the features of STEM research in primary education (kindergarten and primary school) is limited. Therefore, this article is a systematic literature review that tries to enrich the STEM agenda by answering the questions: (a) which study designs are commonly used in STEM interventions, (b) what the characteristics of the sample are (number/age of the students), (c) which equipment and user interfaces (tangible/graphical) are used, and (d) what are the characteristics of the studies (duration, intervention objectives, activities) and how studies’ data were recorded. For this review, 36 out of 337 articles were analyzed and emerged from eight databases, three search-keywords and six exclusion criteria. The examination of the reviewed articles showed, inter alia, that non-experimental design is usually used, that in half of the cases written evaluations are used and the sample size is almost equal between girls and boys. Finally, long-term research is restricted, therefore it is not safe to generalize the findings of these studies.

1. Introduction

The foundations of educational robotics (ER) and science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) lie in the learning theory of constructivism, by Piaget. According to Piaget, knowledge is an experience constructed by interaction with the environment [1]. Papert extended the theory of constructivism, stating that when real-world content is used, learning is more effective [2]. Moreover, some researchers claim that the use of robots in STEM teaching and learning might help students to understand related topics in more depth and engage them in complex problem solving [3].
Over the past several years, ER and STEM activities have entered into many schools around the globe. This is because some studies have shown that ER activities appear to increase students’ interest and motivation, fostering the learning process [4]. Moreover, ER activities might support teachers in an effort to make their lessons easier and more enjoyable [5,6]. The variety of ER activities seems to attract students and, in some cases, might have cognitive, social and metacognitive benefits at all levels of education [7,8,9,10]. Similarly, other studies argue that students might develop several skills such as computation thinking (CT), problem solving, collaboration and self-efficacy through ER [11]. These skills are essential, as they will help children cope with the challenges of their adult life [12].
On the contrary, there are studies such as Konijn and Hoorn [13], in which students who participated in ER activities did not show statistically significant differences compared to students who attended the standard curriculum. In other words, ER did not have a positive effect compared to classical teaching.
Based on the above, it becomes clear that in order to be able to draw safer conclusions about the value of using robots in STEM teaching, it is necessary to perform an in-depth analysis that will present the characteristics of the studies that have been undertaken in the specific scientific domain. Consequently, this article aims to summarize the features of STEM research in primary education (kindergarten and primary school). In this way, it provides researchers and educators with useful information for the implementation of STEM programs with ER.

Background

Many articles have been written about STEM education and its effect on the educational process. Hence, there are several reviews that have examined and analyzed the impact and benefits of STEM education. For instance, some authors focused on a specific topic (e.g., special education), while others dealt with specific features (e.g., CT assessments).
Benitti [14] used six databases from which he selected 10 articles, and he aimed at primary, middle and high schools. Benitti’s review considered that an article would be excluded if it presented only qualitative learning assessment. His research questions were: “(a) What topics (subjects) are taught through robotics in schools? (b) Is robotics an effective tool for teaching?”. The results showed that most studies focused on mathematics and physics topics. In addition, ER usually enhances learning, though there are several factors that can affect the outcome, such as the pedagogical approaches, the activities and the working group size.
Xia and Zhong [15] used 22 articles from one database and three rounds of snowballing approach (a snowballing approach uses the reference list of an article to find other articles), aimed at K-12 education. Their research questions were: “(a) How have robotics been incorporated into K-12? (b) What implications for teaching are indicated by these empirical studies?”. The results showed that most of the studies were conducted in elementary schools, lasted 8 weeks and up to 40 students were involved, using Lego. Finally, the design of most studies was non–experimental, while observations and questionnaires were used as measurement instruments.
Anwar et al. [16] used five databases from which they selected 147 articles published between 2000–2018. The authors’ aim was to determine the specific benefits of K–12 STEM education for student and teachers. Thus, they categorized the studies as “(a) general benefits of educational robots, (b) learning and transfer skills, (c) creativity and motivation, (d) diversity and broadening participation, (e) teachers’ professional development”. Their findings show that ER can be used as a learning tool even with students who do not show much interest in science and technology. In addition, ER enables a multidisciplinary approach, which helps students develop connections for STEM concepts. Students’ creativity and motivation can be enhanced with activities related to everyday life. Moreover, groups like minorities can benefit from ER by developing knowledge and skills. Lastly, the findings show that teachers rely on Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) for professional development.
Cutumisu et al. [17] used seven databases from which they selected 39 articles published 2014–2018, and they aimed at K-12 education. The review focused on CT, and especially on the feature classification of CT assessments. The results showed that most assignments aim at algorithmic skills, problem decomposition and logical thinking. In addition, assignments were aligned with STEM subjects, while most studies adopted a quasi-experimental design. Finally, the findings showed that most studies used selected-response items such as multiple-choice questions.
Gao et al. [18] aimed to review the assessment of student learning in STEM education. More specifically, they used 49 articles published between 2000–2019 and they did a double analysis: (a) they categorized the assessments as mono/inter/trans-disciplinary; (b) they categorized the learning objectives as knowledge, skill, practice or affective domain. Their research showed that although several programs aimed at interdisciplinary education, most assessments were monodisciplinary and targeted at knowledge.
Tlili et al. [19], based on activity theory [20] aimed at robot-assisted special education. Authors used eight databases from which 30 articles were selected for their analysis. In particular, they categorized aspects of studies such as disability types, use of robots, learning domains, activity types and type of performance measures. Their analysis showed the necessity for a stronger link between design/implementation and the needs of students with disabilities. On this basis, recommendations are provided to minimize omissions in future designs.
According to the above, the previous reviews dealt with ER and STEM research without focusing on primary education. Specifically, they include studies from kindergarten children up to university students. In addition, some reviews used articles from a specific time period, or examined a specific topic like CT assessments. Therefore, the purpose of our article is to deliver a systematic literature review of STEM research for young students in primary education. However, we do not focus on articles with specific topics (such as special education) or features (such as including quantitative evaluations).
Subsequently, this review tries to deepen the existing STEM literature providing useful information on current trends for educators and researchers. This way, a more detailed view will arise for the features of STEM research for students under 12 years old. To achieve this, multiple aspects of studies that were used in our review have been recorded. In more detail, we have recorded: the sample characteristics (age of students, number of girls/boys, prior experience), the school, the country, the subject of study, the intervention objectives, the study design, the duration of the intervention, the activities/tasks, the size of groups in collaborative learning, the user interface, the data type, the data source, the equipment type and the results of the intervention.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: first we list the methodology and the process of searches in databases. Following this, with the appropriate criteria, we are led to the articles that we use. Finally, our results are grouped and the findings of STEM research in primary education are discussed.

2. Methods

According to Okoli [21] there are four major stages to conduct any kind of systematic literature review:
  • Stage 1. Planning
  • Identify the purpose
  • Draft protocol and train the team
  • Stage 2. Selection
  • Apply practical screen
  • Search for literature
  • Stage 3. Extraction
  • Extract data
  • Appraise quality
  • Stage 4. Execution
  • Synthesize studies
  • Write the review
Planning and Selection (stage 1 and stage 2): The aim of this review is to investigate the features of STEM research in primary education, as the literature is limited for these students. More specifically, the research questions (RQs) are:
  • Research Question 1 (RQ1). Which study designs are commonly used in the STEM interventions?
  • Research Question 2 (RQ2). What are the characteristics of the sample?
  • Research Question 3 (RQ3). Which equipment and user interface are used?
  • Research Question 4 (RQ4). What are the characteristics and how were studies’ data recorded?
For the purpose of our article, a systematic literature review was undertaken in 2021. Eight databases were used: Scopus, IEEEXplore, ACM, ScienceDirect, ERIC, DOAJ, JSTOR and SpringerLink. The literature was searched with three different keywords, as shown in Table 1.
After each search, six exclusion criteria (EC) were used:
  • EC1. Study for teachers
  • EC2. Paper/study for framework
  • EC3. Study for older students than 12 years old
  • EC4. General paper for STEM (without intervention)
  • EC5. Review
  • EC6. Irrelevant paper
Extraction (stage 3): The articles were examined on the basis of their title, abstract and content. The articles had to be written in English and published in a journal. In total, 255 out of 337 articles were excluded. From the 82 included journal articles, 46 were duplicates. Therefore, 36 unique/selected articles dealing with STEM research in primary education emerged, as shown in Table 2.
In detail, the search results for each database are shown in Table 3.
In order to be able to organize and analyze the findings, we categorized some aspects of the studies. In detail, the subject of the study refers to the content to be taught, such as: physics, technology, mathematics, bioengineering, history, computer science or robotics (combination of computer science and engineering). The intervention objectives refer to the offered knowledge (such as programming), skills (such as CT, collaboration) and attitudes (such as motivation) that students can acquire. The activities refer to the nature of the tasks students are called to complete, which can be: mathematics, programming and/or engineering. The robotic system is programmed via tangible user interface (TUI), or graphical user interface (GUI). The type of data is qualitative, and/or quantitative. Quantitative data emerged from written evaluations like multiple choices, whereas qualitative data emerged from observation and/or interviews. The data source refers to how the data were recorded, like videos, observations, interviews and/or questionnaires. The study design according to Campbell and Stanley [22] can be represented with Χ for treatment/intervention, R for randomized assignment and O for observation/measurement. However, in order for qualitative and quantitative research to be presented in the same table, we propose that the representation for observation/measurement be made as follows:
  • O = measurement through questionnaires (quantitative)
  • Oq = observation through video, interview or observation by researchers (qualitative)
  • Om = mixed measurement/observation through quantitative and qualitative data
In addition, according to the taxonomy of Trochim and Donnelly [23] and Benitti [14] we classified the study design into three categories:
  • (true) experimental: a design with random assignment to groups
  • quasi-experimental: a design with no random assignment to groups
  • non-experimental: a design without groups
Finally, Table 4 shows three examples for each study design category and its representation.

3. Findings

Execution (stage 4): The results of the systematic literature review were sorted into tables, so that we could analyze and discuss them more efficiently. In particular, Table 5 lists the 36 studies, their category and design.
Twenty-eight studies (78%) were published from 2018 onwards, while only one study was published before 2016. Twenty-four studies (67%) use non-experimental design. Eleven studies (30%) use experimental design, while only in one case (3%) is quasi-experimental design used, as shown in Figure 1.
From the non-experimental category, we can observe that the researchers in 16 studies (67%) out of 24 preferred a design that contained a test and/or observation before and after the intervention. From the experimental category, we can observe that the researchers in 8 studies (73%) out of 11 preferred a design that contained a test and/or observation before and after the intervention. For the quasi-experimental category, there is only one study and it is not safe to draw conclusions.
Table 6 lists the sample characteristics for each study. In particular, we recorded the continent, the country, the school and the students’ age, gender and prior experience.
The studies were conducted in primary schools (64%), kindergartens (14%) or a combination of both (22%). A total of 49% of the studies were conducted in North America, 37% in Europe and 14% in Asia. The dispersion of the studies on the world map is shown in Figure 2.
The age of the students who took part in the studies is shown in Figure 3.
We can observe that 66% of the participants were older than 7, while 20% are kindergarten children. More specifically, from the total number of participants in all studies, 45% were girls and 55% were boys. Additionally, we can observe that in seven studies (19%) students had previous experience with ER. The distribution of the sample size is shown in Figure 4. We can see from Figure 4 that most of the studies had about 60 students.
Table 7 lists the materials and user interface used in each study. It is noteworthy that the equipment type in 18 studies (50%) was wheeled, in 12 studies (33.3%) was modular and in 2 studies (5.6%) a software application was used. In the remaining four studies, different equipment types were used. In addition, Lego robotic systems were used in 10 studies (27.8%), Bee-Bot in 6 studies (16.7%) and in 2 studies each (5.6%) Cubelets, KIBO and Dash were used. In the remaining 14 studies different systems were used.
Furthermore, in 50% of the studies GUIs were used, in 47% TUIs and in 3% a combination of the two, as shown in Figure 5.
Table 8 lists the study characteristics: subject, intervention objectives, study duration, activities and group size. The subject in 15 studies (42%) was robotics, in 11 studies (31%) computer science and in 4 studies (11%) mathematics.
The intervention objective in 11 studies (31%) was knowledge, in 6 studies (17%) attitudes and in 5 studies (14%) skills. In six studies (17%), there was a combination of skills and attitudes, in five studies (14%) a combination of knowledge and skills and in three studies (8%) a combination of knowledge and attitudes.
The distribution of the study duration is shown in Figure 6. The study duration peaks before 500 min, while only seven studies (19%) exceed 1000 min.
For the study activities, in 20 studies (56%) the activities were a combination of engineering and programming, in 12 studies (33%) they were programming, in 2 studies (6%) mathematics and in the remaining 2 studies (6%) programming and mathematics.
Moreover, Figure 7 shows the number of participants within a group. It can be observed that the children worked in groups of 3–4 in half of the studies.
Table 9 presents the intervention objectives of each study. We can see that in 19 cases (53%), the objective was knowledge, in 16 cases (44%) skills and in 15 cases (42%) the objective was attitudes.
Table 10 lists the data type and source and the intervention results for each study. The data type in 19 studies (52.8%) was quantitative, in 8 studies (22.2%) qualitative and in the remaining 9 studies (25%) quantitative and qualitative, as shown in Figure 8. As a source, questionnaires were used to record data in 52.8% of cases. Interviews were used in 18.9%, observations of researchers were used in 15.1% and video was used in 13.2% of cases.

4. Discussion

In this section, the results of the systematic literature review are examined, in an effort to find answers to our RQs.
Research Question 1. (RQ1). Which study design is commonly used in the STEM interventions? The majority of the researchers (67%) chose to use a non-experimental design. The review of Xia and Zhong [15] ended in similar conclusions, as in their findings 59% of the studies for ER in K–12 education were non-experimental. This may be related to the characteristics of the sample since we should not overlook the fact that in a study with young students, various difficulties and problems arise. For example, young students are easily distracted, thus, the use of a simpler design can facilitate research and lead to the successful completion of a study. On the contrary, the use of a more sophisticated and complex study design may lead to misleading results and study failure.
Based on our analysis, we have found that 23 out of the 36 studies included measurements and/or observations before and after the intervention. In these cases, there was a direct comparison of the impact of the intervention on students adding enhanced reliability to the findings. However, 13 out of the 36 study designs included measurements and/or observation only after the intervention. Therefore, in these studies, the effect of the intervention cannot be easily justified and supported since there is no corresponding data before the intervention.
Based on the above, it seems that the researchers avoided experimental design by not dividing the participants into groups. This prevented them from investigating the effects of the intervention on each group. To overcome this gap, they used pre/post-test/observation in order to give credibility to the results.
Research Question 2 (RQ2). What are the characteristics of the sample? We can see that the examined articles did not take place in South America, Africa or Oceania. In addition, Asia plays a small part, with only three countries. In contrast, most studies were implemented in North America. For several years, the USA has been investing in new technologies and education [57], and perhaps that is a reason for the flourishing of STEM programs in that country. However, this conclusion may be related to the keywords we used in our searches. In other words, through new searches and keywords in the same databases, articles from other countries might have emerged.
From the findings, it can be concluded that 2/3 of the participants were 7 years old or older. This is expected, as according to the intellectual developmental stages of Piaget, children from the age of 7 enter the concrete operational stage and can think in a more organized and logical way [58]. Consequently, STEM activities seem to be more suitable for these students. In any case, it looks like more research is needed to clarify this assumption.
Furthermore, the sample size did not exceed 50 students in the majority of the studies. The number of boys and girls shows a similar distribution with small variations. Although in some cases “boys reported significantly higher motivation than girls” [42], according to Sullivan and Bers [51] “the robotics curriculum impacted girls’ interest in engineering enough that they were just as interested as boys by the end of the intervention”. In addition, according to Zviel-Girshin et al. [34] “the majority of both boys and girls consider robotics education as fun and want to continue their robotic education in the next school year”. Therefore, it is important that both genders have the same opportunities in STEM education, without exclusion due to prejudices or stereotypes. However, the distribution of the sample size raises concerns about the reliability and depth of the studies, since a small sample size cannot lead to generalized conclusions. The review of Xia and Zhong [15] ended with similar conclusions as in their findings, up to 40 students participated in the interventions.
Finally, one out of five primary education students re-participated in similar STEM programs, which indicates the penetration of such technologies in education.
Research Question 3 (RQ3). Which equipment and user interface are used? Our findings show that GUI and TUI were used almost equally. Nevertheless, recent studies show that students express their preference and a positive attitude towards TUIs, as GUIs might create boundaries in their cooperation [59,60]. Based on our results, only in one case article were both interfaces used. In this unique case, using the creative hybrid environment for robotic programming (CHERP) children created tangible physical programs using interlocking wooden blocks and simultaneously were able to create programs onscreen using the same icons that represent commands to control their robots [56]. In the literature, studies combining interfaces are quite limited, yet it may be worthwhile to include such approaches in future designs, to gain a deeper knowledge of the effect of different interfaces on the STEM field.
In addition, from the results, we can observe a preference for the use of wheeled robotic systems. This is probably because researchers using cars or moving mechanisms might easily attract students’ interest and motivate them to engage with STEM topics.
Research Question 4 (RQ4). What are the characteristics and how were studies’ data recorded? According to the findings, we see that the main studies’ subjects are robotics and computer science. This finding contradicts Benitti [14] as his results “show that most of the studies (80%) explore topics related to the fields of physics and mathematics”. In addition, the use of robotic systems for teaching subjects that are not traditionally related to STEM topics (science, technology, engineering, mathematics), such as history (e.g., [32]), is noteworthy. This finding agrees with Anwar et al. [16], in which it is conceded that ER can be used as a learning tool for other sciences and domains like language and argumentation thinking.
Moreover, an important element of any educational process is the cooperation and learning of students in groups. In the majority of the studies, the students worked in groups, although in a significant proportion of studies (24%), the children participated in individual activities. As a result, they may have missed the opportunity to gain the benefits of collaborative learning [61].
The researchers, in more than half of the cases, preferred to record quantitative instead of qualitative data. Questionnaires were used as a measurement tool, although in some cases might have not been validated. In this way, researchers collected sufficient data to make statistical analyses. These analyses showed that in most cases, students who attended the ER activities had significantly improved results compared to students who participated in traditional activities. Therefore, it seems that the use of robots in short-term studies can offer significant benefits, at least in the first stage of the educational process. This conclusion might not be valid in long-term research. We argue that the sample size and duration of the examined studies are too limited to safely generalize the results, so long-term research is recommended in order to collect results with more depth and quality.
Finally, we observe that the three intervention objectives (knowledge, attitudes and skills) are investigated by researchers almost equally. A meta-analysis would be an interesting and challenging future research proposal, to find out which intervention objective is the most beneficial with the use of ER.

5. Conclusions

STEM research has been part of education research for years. Each researcher aims to explore specific topics or features. Thus, from the plethora of studies, several reviews have emerged. However, there is limited knowledge about STEM research in students under the age of 12, so the purpose of this article was to explore the features of STEM research in primary education. Therefore, a systematic literature review was conducted and our findings showed that the study design usually contained pre/post-intervention evaluation. Researchers also seem to prefer non-experimental designs. Most studies were conducted in primary schools and the number of girls and boys did not differ significantly. However, the overall sample was quite limited in size. Likewise, the duration of the studies was limited. The use of GUI and TUI was equal, while wheeled robotic systems were preferred. The researchers also preferred to form groups of 3–4 students; however, in several cases individual activities were used. Finally, in half of the cases, the data were recorded with questionnaires.
The findings of our work can be used in future research designs. More specifically, all of the above should be taken into account by a researcher to prepare their own intervention. Additionally, educators can use ER as an educational tool based on this article, enriching their teaching approaches.
Finally, although studies on STEM research in primary education have increased in recent years, there is still the need to increase the sample size and study duration, so that the findings can more easily be generalized.

Author Contributions

Investigation, S.T. and T.S.; methodology, T.S.; project administration, T.S.; resources, S.T.; writing—original draft, S.T.; writing—review & editing, T.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Huitt, W.; Hummel, J. Piagets Theory of Cognitive Development; Educational Psychology Interactive, Valdosta State University: Valdosta, GA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  2. Papert, S. Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas; Basic Books, Inc., Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1980; ISBN 0465046274. [Google Scholar]
  3. Melchior, A.; Cohen, F.; Cutter, T.; Leavitt, T. More than Robots: An Evaluation of the FIRST Robotics Competition Participant and Institutional Impacts; Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University: Manchester, NH, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  4. Sapounidis, T.; Alimisis, D. Educational Robotics Curricula: Current Trends and Shortcomings. In Educational Robotics International Conference; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 127–138. [Google Scholar]
  5. Chiazzese, G.; Arrigo, M.; Chifari, A.; Lonati, V.; Tosto, C. Educational robotics in primary school: Measuring the development of computational thinking skills with the bebras tasks. Informatics 2019, 6, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Sapounidis, T.; Stamelos, I.; Demetriadis, S. Tangible user interfaces for programming and education: A new field for innovation and entrepreneurship. Adv. Digit. Educ. Lifelong Learn. 2016, 2, 271–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. 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. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2018, 23, 2531–2544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Johnson, J. Children, robotics, and education. Artif. Life Robot. 2003, 7, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sapounidis, T.; Alimisis, D. 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; Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 167–190. [Google Scholar]
  10. Tselegkaridis, S.; Sapounidis, T. Simulators in educational robotics: A review. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gomoll, A.; Hmelo-Silver, C.E.; Šabanović, S.; Francisco, M. Dragons, Ladybugs, and Softballs: Girls’ STEM Engagement with Human-Centered Robotics. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2016, 25, 899–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Julià, C.; Antolí, J.Ò. Spatial ability learning through educational robotics. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2016, 26, 185–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Konijn, E.A.; Hoorn, J.F. Robot tutor and pupils’ educational ability: Teaching the times tables. Comput. Educ. 2020, 157, 103970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Benitti, F.B.V. Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Comput. Educ. 2012, 58, 978–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Xia, L.; Zhong, B. A systematic review on teaching and learning robotics content knowledge in K-12. Comput. Educ. 2018, 127, 267–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Anwar, S.; Bascou, N.A.; Menekse, M.; Kardgar, A. A systematic review of studies on educational robotics. J. Pre-College Eng. Educ. Res. 2019, 9, 19–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Cutumisu, M.; Adams, C.; Lu, C. A Scoping Review of Empirical Research on Recent Computational Thinking Assessments. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2019, 28, 651–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gao, X.; Li, P.; Shen, J.; Sun, H. Reviewing assessment of student learning in interdisciplinary STEM education. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2020, 7, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tlili, A.; Lin, V.; Chen, N.S.; Huang, R. Kinshuk A systematic review on robot-assisted special education from the activity theory perspective. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2020, 23, 95–109. [Google Scholar]
  20. Daniels, H.; Cole, T. The development of provision for young people with emotional and behavioural difficulties: An activity theory analysis. Oxford Rev. Educ. 2002, 28, 311–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Okoli, C. A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2015, 37, 879–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Campbell, D.T.; Stanley, J.C. Experimental And Quasi-Experiment Al Designs For Research; Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston, MA, USA, 1963; ISBN 0395307872. [Google Scholar]
  23. Trochim, W.M.K.; Donnelly, J.P. Research Methods Knowledge Base; Macmillan Publisching Company: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  24. Chevalier, M.; Giang, C.; Piatti, A.; Mondada, F. Fostering computational thinking through educational robotics: A model for creative computational problem solving. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2020, 7, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Vicente, F.R.; Llinares, A.Z.; Sánchez, N.M. “Sustainable City”: A Steam Project Using Robotics to Bring the City of the Future to Primary Education Students. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Angeli, C.; Valanides, N. Developing young children’s computational thinking with educational robotics: An interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Comput. Human Behav. 2020, 105, 105954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Muñoz, L.; Villarreal, V.; Morales, I.; Gonzalez, J.; Nielsen, M. Developing an interactive environment through the teaching of mathematics with small robots. Sensors 2020, 20, 1935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Cervera, N.; Diago, P.D.; Orcos, L.; Yáñez, D.F. The acquisition of computational thinking through mentoring: An exploratory study. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. La Paglia, F.; Francomano, M.M.; Riva, G.; LA BARBERA, D. Educational robotics to develop executive functions visual spatial abilities, planning and problem solving. Annu. Rev. CyberTherapy Telemed. 2018, 2018, 80–86. [Google Scholar]
  30. Di Lieto, M.C.; Inguaggiato, E.; Castro, E.; Cecchi, F.; Cioni, G.; Dell’Omo, M.; Laschi, C.; Pecini, C.; Santerini, G.; Sgandurra, G.; et al. Educational Robotics intervention on Executive Functions in preschool children: A pilot study. Comput. Human Behav. 2017, 71, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Arfé, B.; Vardanega, T.; Ronconi, L. The effects of coding on children’s planning and inhibition skills. Comput. Educ. 2020, 148, 103807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ioannou, M.; Ioannou, A. Technology-enhanced embodied learning: Designing and evaluating a new classroom experience. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2020, 23, 81–94. [Google Scholar]
  33. Bargagna, S.; Castro, E.; Cecchi, F.; Cioni, G.; Dario, P.; Dell’Omo, M.; Di Lieto, M.C.; Inguaggiato, E.; Martinelli, A.; Pecini, C.; et al. Educational Robotics in Down Syndrome: A Feasibility Study. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 2019, 24, 315–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zviel-Girshin, R.; Luria, A.; Shaham, C. Robotics as a Tool to Enhance Technological Thinking in Early Childhood. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2020, 29, 294–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sullivan, A.; Bers, M.U. Dancing robots: Integrating art, music, and robotics in Singapore’s early childhood centers. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2018, 28, 325–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Strawhacker, A.; Verish, C.; Shaer, O.; Bers, M. Young Children’s Learning of Bioengineering with CRISPEE: A Developmentally Appropriate Tangible User Interface. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2020, 29, 319–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sullivan, A.; Bers, M.U. Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2016, 26, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Boeve-de Pauw, J.; Ardies, J.; Hens, K.; Wullemen, A.; Van de Vyver, Y.; Rydant, T.; De Spiegeleer, L.; Verbraeken, H. Short and long term impact of a high-tech STEM intervention on pupils’ attitudes towards technology. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2020, 32, 825–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jung, S.E.; Lee, K.; Cherniak, S.; Cho, E. Non-sequential Learning in a Robotics Class: Insights from the Engagement of a Child with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 2020, 25, 63–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cho, E.; Lee, K.; Cherniak, S.; Jung, S.E. Heterogeneous Associations of Second-Graders’ Learning in Robotics Class. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 2017, 22, 465–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Metin, S. Activity-based unplugged coding during the preschool period. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2020, 32, 149–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Master, A.; Cheryan, S.; Moscatelli, A.; Meltzoff, A.N. Programming experience promotes higher STEM motivation among first-grade girls. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 2017, 160, 92–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Casey, J.; Gill, P.; Pennington, L.; Mireles, S.V. Lines, roamers, and squares: Oh my! using floor robots to enhance Hispanic students’ understanding of programming. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2018, 23, 1531–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Newton, K.J.; Leonard, J.; Buss, A.; Wright, C.G.; Barnes-Johnson, J. Informal STEM: Learning with robotics and game design in an urban context. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2020, 52, 129–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Baek, Y.; Wang, S.; Yang, D.; Ching, Y.-H.; Swanson, S.; Chittoori, B. Revisiting Second Graders’ Robotics with an Understand/Use-Modify-Create (U2MC) Strategy. Eur. J. STEM Educ. 2019, 4, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Popa, A.M. Development of the Children’s Abilities in School. A comparative study between the efficiency of the Robotics vs Applied Mathematics in Movement Transmission. J. Educ. Sci. 2020, 41, 47–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Moore, T.J.; Brophy, S.P.; Tank, K.M.; Lopez, R.D.; Johnston, A.C.; Hynes, M.M.; Gajdzik, E. Multiple Representations in Computational Thinking Tasks: A Clinical Study of Second-Grade Students. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2020, 29, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Üşengül, L.; Bahçeci, F. The Effect of Lego Wedo 2.0 Education on Academic Achievement and Attitudes and Computational Thinking Skills of Learners toward Science. World J. Educ. 2020, 10, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sisman, B.; Kucuk, S.; Yaman, Y. The Effects of Robotics Training on Children’s Spatial Ability and Attitude Toward STEM. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2020, 13, 379–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nemiro, J.E. Building Collaboration Skills in 4th- to 6th-Grade Students Through Robotics. J. Res. Child. Educ. 2020, 35, 351–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sullivan, A.; Bers, M.U. Investigating the use of robotics to increase girls’ interest in engineering during early elementary school. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2019, 29, 1033–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ching, Y.H.; Yang, D.; Wang, S.; Baek, Y.; Swanson, S.; Chittoori, B. Elementary School Student Development of STEM Attitudes and Perceived Learning in a STEM Integrated Robotics Curriculum. TechTrends 2019, 63, 590–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Taylor, M.S. Computer Programming With Pre-K Through First-Grade Students with Intellectual Disabilities. J. Spec. Educ. 2018, 52, 78–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sung, W.; Ahn, J.; Black, J.B. Introducing Computational Thinking to Young Learners: Practicing Computational Perspectives Through Embodiment in Mathematics Education. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 2017, 22, 443–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Taylor, M.S.; Vasquez, E.; Donehower, C. Computer Programming with Early Elementary Students with Down Syndrome. J. Spec. Educ. Technol. 2017, 32, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sullivan, A.; Bers, M.U. Gender differences in kindergarteners’ robotics and programming achievement. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2013, 23, 691–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kuenzi, J. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: Background, Federal Policy, and Legislative Action. Available online: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/crsdocs/35/ (accessed on 22 May 2021).
  58. Ripple, R.E.; Rockcastle, V.N. Piaget Rediscovered. A Report of the Conference on Cognitive Studies and Curriculum Development. Ithaca: New York, NY, USA,, 1964. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kurniawan, O.; Lee, N.T.S.; Datta, S.; Sockalingam, N.; Leong, P.K. Effectiveness of Physical Robot Versus Robot Simulator in Teaching Introductory Programming. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE), Wollongong, NSW, Australia, , 4–7 December 2018; pp. 486–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sapounidis, T.; Stamovlasis, D.; Demetriadis, S. Latent Class Modeling of Children’s Preference Profiles on Tangible and Graphical Robot Programming. IEEE Trans. Educ. 2019, 62, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Laal, M.; Ghodsi, S.M. Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 31, 486–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Study category.
Figure 1. Study category.
Education 12 00305 g001
Figure 2. Dispersion of the studies.
Figure 2. Dispersion of the studies.
Education 12 00305 g002
Figure 3. Students’ age.
Figure 3. Students’ age.
Education 12 00305 g003
Figure 4. Sample size.
Figure 4. Sample size.
Education 12 00305 g004
Figure 5. User interface.
Figure 5. User interface.
Education 12 00305 g005
Figure 6. Study duration.
Figure 6. Study duration.
Education 12 00305 g006
Figure 7. Group size.
Figure 7. Group size.
Education 12 00305 g007
Figure 8. Data type.
Figure 8. Data type.
Education 12 00305 g008
Table 1. Searches.
Table 1. Searches.
SearchKeyword
1“primary school” AND “educational robotics”
2(primary OR elementary) AND (educational OR education) AND (robotics OR robots) AND (STEM) AND (experimentation OR experiment)
3(primary OR elementary) AND (educational OR education) AND (robotics OR robots) AND (STEM)
Table 2. Excluded/included articles.
Table 2. Excluded/included articles.
SearchArticlesEC1EC2EC3EC4EC5EC6EC SumIncludedDuplicatedSelected
1698127510042271215
26571221534521376
3203263549231018161422715
Total337415977332322255824636
Table 3. Result of databases.
Table 3. Result of databases.
DatabaseArticlesExcludeInclude
Search 1Search 2Search 3SumSearch 1Search 2Search 3SumSearch 1Search 2Search 3Sum
Scopus1544059732939811120
IEEEXplore205710561001
ACM100110010000
ScienceDirect1818271406204127
ERIC776478465060311418
DOAJ9221342285005
JSTOR401530141001
SpringerLink135183147841681175101530
Total6965203337425216125527134282
Table 4. Examples for study design.
Table 4. Examples for study design.
CategoryDesignRepresentation *
Non-experimentalOne-shot post-test/observation onlyX Om
(true) ExperimentalRandomized post-observation onlyR X Oq
R Oq
Quasi-experimentalNonequivalent comparison groupN X O
N O
* X: treatment/intervention, O: quantitative measurement, Oq: qualitative observation, Om: quantitative and qualitative measurement/observation, R: random assignment, N: non-random assignment.
Table 5. Study design.
Table 5. Study design.
IDArticleCategoryDesignRepresentation **
1Chevalier et al., 2020 [24]ExperimentalRandomized post-observation onlyR X Oq R Oq
2Vicente et al., 2020 [25]Non-experimentalOne-shot pre/post-testO Χ O
3Angeli and Valanides, 2020 [26]ExperimentalRandomized pre/post-test control groupR O X1 O R O X2 O
4Muñoz et al., 2020 [27]Non-experimentalOne-shot pre/post-testO Χ O
5Cervera et al., 2020 [28]Non-experimentalOne-shot post-test/observation onlyX Om
6Chiazzese et al., 2019 [5]Quasi-experimentalNonequivalent comparison groupN X O N O
7La Paglia et al., 2018 [29]ExperimentalRandomized pre/post-testR O X O R O
8Julià and Antolí, 2016 [12]ExperimentalRandomized pre/post-testR O X O R O
9Di Lieto et al., 2017 [30]Non-experimentalOne-shot pre/post-testO Χ O
10Konijn and Hoorn, 2020 [13]ExperimentalRandomized pre/post-test control groupR O X1 O R O X2 O
11Arfé et al., 2020 [31]ExperimentalRandomized pre/post-testR O X O R O
12Ioannou and Ioannou, 2020 [32]Non-experimentalOne-shot pre/post-test/observationOm Χ Om
13 *Bargagna et al., 2019 [33]Non-experimentalOne-shot pre/post-observationOq Χ Oq
14Zviel-Girshin et al., 2020 [34]Non-experimentalOne-shot post-test/observation onlyX Om
15Sullivan and Bers, 2018 [35]Non-experimentalOne-shot mid/post-test/observationX Om Χ Om
16Strawhacker et al., 2020 [36]Non-experimentalOne-shot pre/post-test/observationOm Χ Om
17Sullivan and Bers, 2016 [37]Non-experimentalOne-shot post-test onlyX O
18Boeve-de Pauw et al., 2020 [38]Non-experimentalOne-shot pre/post-testO Χ O
19 *Jung et al., 2020 [39]Non-experimentalOne-shot post-observation onlyΧ Oq
20Cho et al., 2017 [40]Non-experimentalOne-shot post-observation onlyΧ Oq
21Metin, 2020 [41]Non-experimentalOne-shot pre/post-testO Χ O
22Master et al., 2017 [42]ExperimentalRandomized post-test onlyR X O R O
23Casey et al., 2018 [43]Non-experimentalOne-shot pre/post-testO Χ O
24Newton et al., 2020 [44]Non-experimentalOne-shot pre/post-test/observationOm Χ Om
25Baek et al., 2019 [45]Non-experimentalOne-shot pre/post-test/observationOm Χ Om
26Popa, 2020 [46]ExperimentalRandomized post-test/observation onlyR X OmR Om
27Moore et al., 2020 [47]Non-experimentalOne-shot post-observation onlyΧ Oq
28Üşengül and Bahçeci, 2020 [48]ExperimentalRandomized pre/post-testR O X O R O
29Sisman et al., 2020 [49]Non-experimentalOne-shot pre/post-testO Χ O
30Nemiro, 2020 [50]Non-experimentalOne-shot post-observation onlyΧ Oq
31Sullivan and Bers, 2019 [51]ExperimentalRandomized pre/post-testR O X O R O
32Ching et al., 2019 [52]Non-experimentalOne-shot pre/post-test/observationOm Χ Om
33 *Taylor, 2018 [53]Non-experimentalOne-shot pre/post-observationOq X Oq
34Sung et al., 2017 [54]ExperimentalRandomized pre/post-testR O X O R O
35 *Taylor et al., 2017 [55]Non-experimentalOne-shot pre/post-observationOq X Oq
36Sullivan and Bers, 2013 [56]Non-experimentalOne-shot post-test onlyΧ O
* Special education. ** R: random assignment, N: non-random assignment, X: treatment/program, O: quantitative measurement, Oq: qualitative observation, Om: quantitative and qualitative measurement/observation.
Table 6. Sample characteristics.
Table 6. Sample characteristics.
IDContinentCountrySchool(s) **Sample
AgeGirlsBoysSumPrior Experience
1EuropeSwitzerlandP9–10131629Yes
2EuropeSpainP10–11171330Yes
3EuropeCyprusK5–6262450No
4 *North AmericaPanamaK and P4–7nsns240No
5EuropeSpainP7–8nsns33Yes
6EuropeItalyP8–10305383ns
7EuropeItalyP10121830ns
8EuropeSpainP12101121ns
9EuropeItalyK5–67512No
10EuropeNetherlandsP8–10414586No
11 *EuropeItalyP69287179No
12EuropeCyprusP8–9171734Yes
13EuropeItalyP8,5268No
14 *AsiaIsraelK and P4–710295197No
15 *AsiaSingaporeK3–6nsns98No
16North AmericaUSAK and P4–761925No
17North AmericaUSAK and P4–7nsns60ns
18EuropeBelgiumP10–127187781496No
19North AmericaUSAP8011No
20North AmericaUSAP7–8121224ns
21AsiaTurkeyK516824No
22North AmericaUSAP6–7484896ns
23 *North AmericaUSAP9–11nsns257ns
24 *North AmericaUSAP8–11375693ns
25North AmericaUSAP7–891322Yes
26EuropeRomaniaP10–12nsns72ns
27North AmericaUSAP7–8213No
28AsiaTurkeyP10–11nsns36ns
29AsiaTurkeyP8–1253439Yes
30 *North AmericaUSAP9–129797194ns
31North AmericaUSAK and P5–7nsns105ns
32North AmericaUSAP9–1261218Yes
33North AmericaUSAK and P4–7213ns
34 *North AmericaUSAK and P5–7303666No
35North AmericaUSAP6–8213No
36North AmericaUSAK5–6252853ns
* More than one school participated in the program. ** K: kindergarten, P: primary.
Table 7. Materials and User Interface.
Table 7. Materials and User Interface.
IDEquipment TypeObjectUser Interface
1WheeledThymioGraphical (block-based)
2WheeledPrintBot RenacuajoGraphical (block-based)
3WheeledBee-BotTangible
4WheeledBee-BotTangible
5WheeledBee-BotTangible
6ModularLego® Education WeDo 2.0Graphical (block-based)
7ModularLego Mindstorms EV3Graphical (block-based)
8ModularFischertechnik setsGraphical (block-based)
9WheeledBee-BotTangible
10HumanoidNAOTangible
11SoftwareCode.orgGraphical (block-based)
12WheeledBee-BotTangible
13WheeledBee-BotTangible
14ModularLego robotics equipmentGraphical (block-based)
15WheeledKIBOTangible
16Game BoardCRISPEETangible
17WheeledKIWITangible
18WheeledTechno TrailerTangible
19ModularCubeletsTangible
20Wheeled and ModularBee-Bots and CubeletsTangible
21WheeledCubettoTangible
22WheeledAnimal robotGraphical (block-based)
23WheeledRoamerTangible
24Modular and SoftwareEV3 and NXT robotics kitsGraphical (block-based)
25ModularMindstorms EV3Graphical (block-based)
26ModularMindstorms EV3Graphical (block-based)
27WheeledCode and Go™ Robot Mouse Activity SetTangible
28ModularLego® Education WeDo 2.0Graphical (block-based)
29ModularThe Robotis Dream ER kitsGraphical (text-based)
30ModularLego robotics equipmentGraphical (block-based)
31WheeledKIBOTangible
32ModularLego MindstormsGraphical (block-based)
33WheeledDashGraphical (block-based)
34SoftwareScratch JrGraphical (block-based)
35WheeledDashGraphical (block-based)
36ModularLego MindstormsTangible and graphical
Table 8. Study characteristics.
Table 8. Study characteristics.
IDSubjectsIntervention Objectives *DurationActivities **Group Size
MinSessionsSum Min
1Computer scienceK45145P2–3
2PhysicsK, A5015750E, P3–4
3Computer scienceS40280Pindividual
4MathematicsK2019 school yearP, M3–5
5Computer scienceS, A45290P2–3
6RoboticsK, S1204480E, P4
7RoboticsS, A120101200E, P3–4
8RoboticsK, S6010600E, P3
9Computer scienceS, A7513975P3–4
10MathematicsK5315Mindividual
11Computer scienceK, S608480Pindividual
12HistoryK, A80180Pindividual, pairs
13Computer scienceS458360Pindividual
14TechnologyAOctober to May once a weekE, P2–4
15RoboticsK, S607420E, Ppairs or small groups
16BioengineeringA1803540E, P2–4, 4–6
17RoboticsK, S608480E, P2–3
18TechnologyA1-day intervention at schoolE, Pmaximum 15
19RoboticsK359315E, Pns
20RoboticsS359315E, P4
21Computer scienceK758600P2–5
22Computer scienceA20120Pindividual
23RoboticsA2016–2017 school yearE, P4, 8
24RoboticsS, A120202400E, Pindividual, 2–3
25RoboticsS608480E, P5
26MathematicsK2017–2019 school yearsMindividual
27Computer scienceK604240P2
28RoboticsS, Afall semester of 2018–2019 academic yearE, Pindividual
29RoboticsS, A240317440E, P3
30RoboticsS120607200E, Pns
31RoboticsA607420E, Pns
32PhysicsK, A90161440E, P3
33Computer scienceKnsnsnsPindividual
34MathematicsK605300P, Mindividual
35Computer scienceKnsnsnsPindividual
36RoboticsK18061080E, P4
* K: knowledge, A: attitudes, S: skills. ** P: programming, E: engineering, M: mathematics.
Table 9. Intervention objectives and studies.
Table 9. Intervention objectives and studies.
Intervention ObjectivesID
Knowledge1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 21, 26, 27, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36
Skills3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 20, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30
Attitudes3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32
Table 10. Data and results.
Table 10. Data and results.
IDData Type *Data Source **Results
ProvedNon-Proved
1qVKnowledge-
2QQKnowledge, Attitudes-
3QQSkills-
4QQKnowledge-
5Q + qQ, OSkills, Attitudes-
6QQKnowledge, Skills-
7QQSkills, Attitudes-
8QQSkillsKnowledge
9QQSkillsAttitudes
10QQ-Knowledge
11QQKnowledge, Skills-
12Q + qQ, OKnowledge, Attitudes-
13Q + qQ, OSkillsSkills
14Q + qQ, V, IAttitudes-
15Q + qQ, IKnowledge, Skills-
16Q + qQ, OAttitudes-
17QQKnowledge, Skills-
18QQAttitudes-
19qV, IKnowledge-
20qV, ISkills-
21QQKnowledge-
22QQAttitudes-
23QQAttitudes-
24Q + qQ, V, I, OSkills, AttitudesAttitudes
25Q + qQ, ISkills-
26Q + qQ, IKnowledge-
27qV, IKnowledge-
28QQSkills, Attitudes-
29QQSkills, Attitudes-
30qI, OSkills-
31QQAttitudes-
32Q + qQ, IKnowledge, Attitudes-
33qOKnowledge-
34QQKnowledge-
35qV, OKnowledge-
36QQ-Knowledge
* Q: quantitative, q: qualitative. ** V: video, I: interview, O: observation, Q: questionnaire.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tselegkaridis, S.; Sapounidis, T. Exploring the Features of Educational Robotics and STEM Research in Primary Education: A Systematic Literature Review. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 305. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12050305

AMA Style

Tselegkaridis S, Sapounidis T. Exploring the Features of Educational Robotics and STEM Research in Primary Education: A Systematic Literature Review. Education Sciences. 2022; 12(5):305. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12050305

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tselegkaridis, Sokratis, and Theodosios Sapounidis. 2022. "Exploring the Features of Educational Robotics and STEM Research in Primary Education: A Systematic Literature Review" Education Sciences 12, no. 5: 305. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12050305

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop