Using Educational Robotics with Primary Level Students

(6-12 Years Old) in Different Scholar Scenarios: Learned Lessons

Alfredo Pina

, Gabriel Rubio

and Ainhoa Moreno

Math & Computer Engineering department, Public University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain

Filology & Language Didactics department, Public University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain

Colegio Cardenal Ilundain, Avenida de Don Marcelo Celayeta, 117, 31014 Pamplona, Spain

Keywords: Educational Robotics, Real/Virtual Robots, Key Competences, Standard Curricula, Primary.

Abstract: In this paper, we describe the experiences we have been carrying out the last years using educational robotics

in classroom at the primary level, mainly with boys and girls from 6-7 to 12-14 years old. We have set up a

constructivist Problem Based Learning Approach in order to use robotics to teaching/learning key

competences and standard curricula topics. We have introduced the possibility of working with virtual robots

as well as with real robots. In order to achieve that, firstly we chose real robots (Beebot and Lego Mindstorms

NXT/EV3 respectively). Secondly we implemented software tools for the virtual robots using either our own

developed software or Scratch or Byob/Snap, and thirdly we designed different projects and materials that

could work with all those technological artifacts. Afterwards, and in order to validate such tools and such

methodological approach, we used all of them in three different educational environments: firstly in a series

of teacher’s training summer courses (11, 12 years old, in August from 2012 until 2016), secondly in the First

Lego League (FLL) contests (10-14 years old, which took place from 2009 until 2016) and then with a

teacher’s teams network we promoted (7-14 years old, consolidated in 2014- 2015 and still in place up to

date). The results are promising as we have managed to create a sustainable network of schools and a

significant group of people working in a coordinated way. The Educational authorities support our work and

we have set up a binding agreement between the university, the schools and the Planetarium of Pamplona, in

order to work both in the school and out of the school (the Planetarium plays the role of a Science and

Technological Museum).

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Context and Literature Review

Rocard’s report (where the main issue is that the

European countries are experiencing serious

shortages in the scientific labor market) claims that “a

reversal of school science-teaching pedagogy from

mainly deductive to inquiry-based methods provides

the means to increase interest in science”.

Teaching programming at the primary level is a

critical issue as it is stated in the Report of the joint

Informatics Europe & ACM Europe Working Group

(Informatics education: Europe cannot afford to miss

the boat, April 2013, http://europe.acm.org/iereport/).

The report (focused on primary level students) makes

a clear difference between Digital Literacy or Digital

Competencies and Education in Informatics (specific

science behind information technology, characterised

by its own concepts, methods, body of knowledge and

open issues).

In the last years, Educational Robotics has been

introduced as a powerful, flexible teaching/learning

tool stimulating learners to control the behaviour of

tangible models using specific programming

languages (graphical or textual) and involving them

actively in authentic problem-solving activities

(Alimisis et al, 2010).

Inquiry Based Learning, Problem Based

Learning, Constructivist or Constructionist learning

paths are valid approaches to manage Learning

through robotics (demo, Moro, Pina & Arlegui,

2012).

Nevertheless, we do not need always to use

physical robots to create real learning environments.

Scratch is a visual programming environment that

allows users (10-12 years old) to learn computer

programming while working on personally

196

Pina, A., Rubio, G. and Moreno, A.

Using Educational Robotics with Primary Level Students (6-12 Years Old) in Different Scholar Scenarios: Learned Lessons.

DOI: 10.5220/0006381501960208

In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2017) - Volume 1, pages 196-208

ISBN: 978-989-758-301-8; ISSN: 2184-5026

meaningful projects such as animated stories and

games (Maloney, Resnick, Rusk, Silverman, &

Eastmond, 2010). It has been shown in (Arlegui,

Moro & Pina a, 2012) through a sequence of

documented examples, some engaging learning

experiences for using Scratch to have an initial,

deeper robotic experience before starting with a

physical robot.

Using BYOB (Harvey & Möning, 2010)), through

the construction of suited custom blocks and, in some

cases, of supporting service scripts, and including

several fundamental robotic sensors, a rather

complete 2D robotic simulator has been presented in

(Arlegui, Moro & Pina b, 2012). Some practical

experiences were implemented using BYOB and

LEGO NXT robots for primary level are presented in

(Arlegui, Moro & Pina, 2013). Currently all these

tools have been adapted and extended to SNAP and

EV3.

Some of the different experiences of robotics

found in the literature, describe the kind of robots and

didactical approach they use, others focus on the

different applications contexts and there are a few that

describe research studies on using robotics in

Education. The literature review has been organized

in three main blocks related with scholar experiences,

robotics clubs/ camps or competitions and

miscellaneous aspects.

Benitti (2012) has shown that educational robotics

has an enormous potential as a learning tool,

including supporting the teaching of subjects that are

not closely related to the Robotics field. This study

points out that there are no studies on the experiences

of using robotics with students aged 11-12 (neither

for less age). Another important question for us is that

he demonstrates that there are no empirical research

involving the use of low cost robots in education

(most of the experiences are using Lego NXT).

Bers, Flannery, Kazakoff & Sullivan (2014) argue

that engaging in construction-based robotics

activities, children as young as four can help to learn

a range of concepts related with computational

thinking, robotics, programming and problem

solving. Even the early childhood classroom is not

typically a place where we find students

programming robots, with the availability of

developmentally appropriate technologies it is

possible, and the result may be the technological

fluency for our youth students. The authors show in

this paper that with age-appropriate technologies,

curriculum and pedagogies, young children can

actively be engaging in learning programming.

Parents, educators, policymakers and researchers are

responsible to assure that our children receive the

technological education needed for healthy

development and successful future.

Fridin (2014) presents “Kindergarten Social

Assistive Robotics (KindSAR)”, a novel technology

that offers kindergarten staff an innovative tool for

achieving educational aims through social

interaction. The basic principle of constructivist

education is that learning occurs when the learner is

actively involved in a process of knowledge

construction. In this study, storytelling was used as a

paradigm of a constructive educational activity. An

interactive robot served as a teacher assistant by

telling prerecorded stories to small groups of children

while incorporating song and motor activities in the

process. Their results show that the children enjoyed

interacting with the robot and accepted its authority.

Johnson (2003) was stating some questions

already not completely answered about teaching with

robotics at the schools. The main question he had at

that moment was: if we could show that robotics has

sustained potential in education, we should integrate

it into the curriculum. Currently a few scholar

curriculum include robotics. In Sweden for example,

in 2006 a study (Hussain et al, 2006) shown that it

was possible to use Robotics at school for improving

Maths learning and they were able to demonstrate that

it was true. Most of the issues in applying robotics as

a learning tool are today well known. For example,

Pitti et al. (2014) made a study in Latin America and

Spain about the perception of teachers (from Schools

and Universities) and most of the issues are explained

(like methodology, types of robots or teachers &

school’s needs). The results could be easily

generalized to other parts of the world. Focusing on

Europe in 2010 some experts (Bredenfeld et al, 2010)

were stating that the long-term goal is to make

robotics in education stronger, more serious and

evaluated and thus sustainable in order to achieve

increasing technology competence of young people

and to attract them for technical professional careers.

Some of the educative experiences in applying

robotics we can found are in schools like the study

that made Chin et al. in Taiwan (Kai-Yi Chin et al,

2014). The main conclusion was that using

educational robot-based learning systems in

classrooms demonstrates a significant advantage for

students, by improving overall learning interest and

motivation. We have several examples of educative

experiences for University undergraduate students

(Jung, 2013; Riek, 2013; Alvarez, Larrañaga, 2016),

but the results in such contexts cannot be applied to

primary school.

If we switch to other fields of application, robotics

has shown a great value in complementary education

Using Educational Robotics with Primary Level Students (6-12 Years Old) in Different Scholar Scenarios: Learned Lessons

197

through the use of it in Contests, Competitions, Clubs

or Tech Camps at earlier ages. The motivation to do

such activities can be that robotics can provide a

vehicle for guiding primary and secondary school

children toward an effective understanding of

programming and engineering principles (Petre et al,

2004: He et al, 2014)). It is a way to encourage and

promote computing and engineering education

among its young generations, and in particular for

female students (Alhumoud et al, 2014). The lack of

interest in Science and technology among young

people is a fact and robotic events help to try to

change such potential problem (Riedo et al a, 2012;

Chan et al, 2013).

There are other important issues to take into

account if we want to manage to introduce robotics

education at schools. Teacher’s schools training and

supporting is a key aspect and sometimes this can be

done out of the school, for example in robotic

festivals (Riedo et al b, 2012). Another key factor is

to get the engagement of the families in such

processes (Cuellar et al, 2013) or event to try to create

collaborations between universities and schools. In

(Bers et al, 2005) an example is given; the approach

involves the creation of partnerships between pre-

service early childhood and engineering students to

conceive, develop, implement and evaluate

curriculum in the area of math, science and

technology by using robotics. The type of robots we

can use is also very important. In general, we need to

have a robot every 3-4 students and the cost of it can

be high. In (Korsh et al, 2013) they present the 10

Dollar Robot Design Challenge to encourage new

designs for extremely low-cost robots that can be

made globally available to attract primary and

secondary- level student interest in engineering.

Related with that we may use also virtual robots (as

we propose in this paper). It has been stated the need

of having direct manipulation environments for

learning (Slangen et al, 2010), like robots.

Nevertheless, other virtual environments could be

used for such purposes.

1.1 Aims of Our Work

Analysing the previous state of the art we can observe

that only a few of the educational robotics initiatives

are addressing the target ages we are working with (6-

12 years old). So the double hypothesis of our paper

is, on the one hand, that learning using digital and real

technological artefacts (robots in this paper) can be

done at earlier ages and on the other hand this learning

can be done with almost all kind of students’ groups

and in different contexts and course formats.

In order to carry out such objectives we have

developed an Educational/Pedagogical theoretical

framework. Based on such framework we have

constructed a learning model producing specific

materials and proposing a methodology to be used

during the teaching/learning process.

In this paper we give an overview of such a model and

we show and discuss three practical cases where we

have applied it (first cycle of primary school, summer

course and the teachers’ team network). The results

are analysed and discussed in order to give answer to

the hypotheses and to summarise other findings and

reflections.

The rest of the paper outlines the theoretical

framework, explaining the didactical and

technological tools we use, and how we can create

materials for both virtual and real robotics

teaching/learning environments. Then we describe

the teaching/learning activities we have carried out,

showing the experimental results. The following

section (discussion) focus on how the results

contribute in reaching the stated research goals. The

paper ends with the conclusions and future work

section.

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

AND EDUCATIONAL

MATERIALS

2.1 The Didactical Approach &

Technological Tools

Our learning strategy consists of a Project Based

Learning (PBL) approach, which means that we will

be working on planned specific projects. Meanwhile,

our intention is to promote and carry out Inquiry

Based Learning (IBL) Activities. The methodological

approach is based on the Constructivism Theory of

Learning. The way to combine those three aspects is:

• to propose different Projects as the main

educational material,

• for every Project we need to propose several

Problems to be solved, starting from a simple

problem, and when the problem is solved we

propose the next one, very similar, but with one

additional issue to be solved/learnt: constructivist

path

• During the solving process we need to guide the

students, offering alternatives but not

solutions…just hints…. promoting self-learning

or Inquiry Based Learning.

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

198

We propose to use different technological tools

(software & hardware). In general, we use

Scratch/BYOB/Java simulator and BeeBot robots in

the first primary cycle (6-7 years old) and

BYOB/SNAP and Lego Mindstorms NXT/EV3

robots in the third cycle (10-11 years old). In both

cases we are using a graphical formal programming

language and we have several programming tools and

tips to make the necessary blocks or procedures

(primitives) in order to implement the previous

didactical approach.

More details of the didactical framework can be

found in (Arlegui et al, 2013); you can find also more

details on how to use Real Lego Robots, virtual robots

and sensors created with BYOB in order to make

constructivist PBL learning paths for 11-12 years old

students. We outline in the next section an example

of how we can do a similar thing for 6-7 years old

students, integrating PBL, IBL, soft skills, teamwork,

logical programming, key competencies and

curricular topics.

2.2 Example: First Primary Cycle

(6-7 Years Old)

The public school Cardenal Ilundain, one of the

schools we are working with belongs to the British

Educational Programme, which is worldwide

recognised as a leading educational centre of

excellence, and as a key innovator in British and

Spanish bilingual and multicultural education. British

schools in Spain must follow not only the Spanish

national curriculum but also the UK syllabus and

almost half of the lessons are taught in English;

mandatory those subjects: Science, Maths and

Literature. One of the key features of the Science

British syllabus is the importance it gives to apply the

scientific method, in which the educational robotic

experiences fits perfectly.

We have been working with the above mentioned

school for two years with Robotics in the first cycle

of Primary level (6-7 years). The first year only one

teacher participated in the program with one group of

24 students. In the second year there were 6 teachers

involved and 3 groups of students (75 students). The

robotic activities have been combined with

Programming in Scratch and with playing with

logical games. In fact one group is splitted in three

and in parallel they work in turns in one of the 3

activities proposed. Robotics is in this way integrated

with the rest of “thinking & programming” activities

and at the same time smaller groups work with any of

the activities. In this way you need more teachers and

more room; in fact, they are using the classrooms and

other common areas of the school (the hall) and at the

same time some parents are engaged in helping the

teachers in order to be able to monitor the different

groups.

We use the mini robot Bee-Bot, ad-hoc prepared mats

and Scratch (figures 1 & 2) in order to work with the

curricular topics and key competencies by means of

programming robots or simulators. Bee-bot is a big

bee with buttons on its back produced by the TTS

group. The bee can be programmed by pushing the

six buttons on its back to make it move forward or

backward (15 cm), turn left or right a quarter of a

circle (“a pizza” for the children), start to move after

one or several buttons have been pushed one after the

other or all of the previous commands can be deleted.

Scratch includes several features which can be

attributed to usual robotic behaviours. Carefully

exploiting these features makes it possible for a

student to have a significant experience of ‘virtual’

robotics in a ‘virtual’ environment. Therefore, before

working with a real robot, the most important aspects

of robotics can be easily taught. In our case we have

developed a simple simulator of Bee-Bot robots with

Scratch. It is very simple but it allows us to have an

alternative to real robots.

Figure 1 and 2: The BeeBot robot, one mat and both

integrated within the Scratch environment.

Bee-Bot is suitable when making linear movements,

but if we need to make curved trajectories the

physical Bee-bot robot is not valid (in general robots

are not very precise with curved trajectories). For that

we need to use Scratch to create primitives that can

follow curve trajectories (see figure 3)

Using Educational Robotics with Primary Level Students (6-12 Years Old) in Different Scholar Scenarios: Learned Lessons

199

Finally, we have implemented one complete Bee-

bot simulator with Java in order to be able to work

both in virtual or real environments. The main reason

for that is that we have a limited number of robots, so

the use of Scratch and/or the simulator helps to make

all the students to work on the same activity in

different stages. Before starting designing the

activities, there is a planning process to set the

contents, the objectives and the assessment. The main

goal is to be able to work on curricular topics, key

competences and soft skills (as mentioned before).

Figure 3: A “seasons” mat and one Scratch simulator for

curve trajectories using this mat.

Figure 4: Materials: dices, the robot and one mat.

We are using 12 Bee-bots, mats, spinning-wheels,

dices and counters (figure 4). Except the robots, all

the objects are “student made materials”. At this

moment we have several “educative kits” to work on

several topics: “Solar System”with mat and spinning

wheel;“Desert Island” with mat, dice and spinning-

wheel; “A Year Round”with mat and 2 spinning

wheels depending on the aim of the activity;

“Navarra, our region”with mat, dice and spinning

wheel;“Basic Maths” with mat and dice; “Easy

Geometry” with mat and counters; “Object relative

position” with mat and cards.

Flexibility is a key aspect of this approach,

allowing students to participate individually, in pairs

or small groups (see figure 5) in order to complete a

task guided by the teacher and working for an

extended period of time, to investigate and respond to

a simple or more complex questions, problems, or

challenges. Pupils are engaged in a rigorous process

of asking questions, using resources, and developing

answers. They are allowed to make some choices

(about the movements or paths) which contribute to

develop their knowledge on basis of exploration and

experiences.

Figure 5: Working in small groups & Observation as the

assessment process method.

The first day students meet the robot, PBL

methodology is again applied. The teacher does not

say anything so they show their own expectations,

then they have the opportunity of touching and also

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

200

they are guided through small challenges and

attainable goals. They discover different possibilities

that the Bee-bot offers or the lack of them (impossible

curved trajectories). Next step is to reach an

agreement and set the rules to use the robot: handle

with care, take turns....etc. Beginning in such way we

generate interest and curiosity, thus they are ready to

tackle future activities. Observation has been until

now the assessment tool used (figure 5).

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The employed research methodology is case study.

Using the previous didactical ideas, we have

organized/followed different learning activities in

order to collect data to support or no the paper

hypothesis.

3.1 Description of the Experiments

The three formats and different contexts we have

been working with are:

• First Lego League competition (FLL) (2010-

2015)

• Summer courses open to teachers and students

(10-12 years old) (2012-2014)

• Schools Network (and teacher’s teams) making

robotic projects at the primary level (10-12 years

old). In the network we have at least one case

where a team of teachers who are working at the

first cycle of primary level (6-7 years old). (2013-

2015).

The FIRST Lego League (also known by the acronym

FLL) is an international competition for elementary

and middle school students (ages 9-14 in the USA and

Canada, 9-16 elsewhere). In fact, in Navarra we have

mostly students between 10 and 14 years old.

Each year the contest focuses on a different real-

world topic related to Science. There is a scientific

project related to the chosen year´s topic to be

developed and presented. The robotics part of the

competition involves designing, building and

programming the Lego robots in order to complete

certain tasks. Once the tasks have been completed,

you get some points. The students work out solutions

to the various problems they are given and then go to

regional tournaments to share their knowledge,

compare ideas, and show their robots completing the

tasks.

We have a 2-week summer course. During the first

week “trainees” are trained by lecturers in a very

practical way (“making projects”), with several

theoretical reflections or insights. The second week

the trainees have to apply their newly acquired

knowledge with students (about 5 students for every

teacher) and they have to teach/guide them through

the project’s completion (4 days). Then the 5th and

last day we all gather at the Planetario of Pamplona,

where every group of teacher/students has to explain

what they have achieved by means of demos of the

virtual robot and the physical one. For that event the

families and general public are invited to participate.

The families of the students agree on participating

in such training teacher’s course by means of letting

their children to participate in the course and getting

involved in the learning process (in fact for the

students it was a kind of Tech Camp).

The courses have been organized in collaboration

with the Public University of Navarra, Planetarium of

Pamplona and the Education Department of the

Navarra Government (Educational Authorities).

After the first summer course (August 2012) we

have decided to deep dive in the experience but in this

case with the regular teachers and the regular classes

of the educational system in Navarra. The aim was to

involve not only teachers (we wanted more than the

summer course) but also the schools (including

school principals) and the Education department of

Navarra Government (educative authorities).

Trainers from UPNA participated as well.

The proposal was put forward for every academic

year and organized as follows:

 First stage (September-October): Trainee’s

training (Lecturers and Teachers)

 Second stage (November-December): The

teachers’ teams design a robotic project to be

carried out with their students at the schools.

 Third stage (January): All projects are discussed

in one seminar, where all the teachers participate.

At the end of this stage every team of teachers

know their project and also the materials needed

like software and robots.

 Fourth stage (February-May): every team of

teachers organises and teaches the practical

lessons with their students (an agreed number of

lessons).

 Fifth stage (June): All the completed projects are

discussed and shared during a seminar where all

the teacher’s teams participate.

3.2 Data Collection Process

After several years working we have collected data

related to those experiences; the main aspects we

have focused on and therefore measured (with

different surveys at different times) are:

Using Educational Robotics with Primary Level Students (6-12 Years Old) in Different Scholar Scenarios: Learned Lessons

201

• Gender, Age and Number of people participating

(students & teachers)

• Type of schools

• Frequency and amount of time they work on

robotics

• Relation with standard curriculum

• Motivation of the students towards science &

technology

• Methodology and learning strategies

• Competences they work

• Outcomes of the students

Table 1: Summer Course survey for teachers & for pupils.

Date of the

course Q8

Course

expectations Q1

How did you

like the course?

Q2 Timetable Q9 Contents Interes

Did you learn a

lot?

Lenght of

the course Q10 Course Syllabus Q3

What did you

miss?

Course

Location Q11 Speakers Rating Q4

Will you repeat

a summer

course?

Classrooms

facilities Q12

Material’s

quality Q5

If yes, on what

topic?

Technical

facilities Q13

Course

Interactivity

Personal

Attention

The participants in the surveys are teachers or

coaches involved in the robotic training activities

(Summer Courses, FLL and Schools Network), the

students that have been following the robotic

activities (Summer Courses and Schools Network)

and the families (Summer Courses).

In all the cases we have gathered all the

information about number, genre or age of the

persons involved, contextual scenarios and other

general information. Apart from that we have used

specific surveys for teaching-learning information.

We explain those surveys in the next paragraphs.

To collect data about the summer courses we have

used 2 questionnaires just at the end of the course, one

for the teachers another for the students.

Table 2: Summer Course survey for families (motivating

stem activities).

Q1 Have your son/daughter made similar courses afterwards?

Do you think that robotic activities have improved their

motivation on Maths and/or Sciences?

Do you think that robotic activities have improved their

motivation on technology and/or Computer Science and/or

Programming?

To complete that after the third edition (in 2014) we

have made a survey to the families, to know if the

course has been perceived by them as a turning point

in motivating the students towards science and

technology subjects. Moreover, we have also

measured separately the global satisfaction for

teachers and students after every course.

Regarding the First Lego League we have

collected qualitative and quantitative data regarding

the last tournament (2014-15) among the coaches.

The main specific questions are organized around

several topics like key competences involved in the

training, didactical approaches, curricular topics

related with the activity and outcomes of the students.

The following tables show the questions we have

used (the answers are in a 5-likert scale except in the

case of curricular topics; in this case the teachers used

check box being able to choose one or more topics).

Table 3: Key Competencies survey.

Q1 Linguistic communication

Mathematical competence and basic competences in

Science and Technology

Q3 Digital competence

Q4 Learning to learn

Q5 Social and Civic competencies

Q6 Sense of Iniciative and Entrepreuneurship

Q7 Cultural Awareness and Expression

Table 4: Didactical approaches survey (5-likert scale) &

Curriculum topics related with the robotic activities

(multiple checkbox).

Natural

Sciences

Q2 Social Sciences

Q1 Inquiry based Learning Q3 Mathematics

Q2 Structured Learning (step by step) Q4

Mother

language

Q3 Project Based Learning Q4

Foreign

languages

Q4 Problem Solving Based Learning Q5 Arts Education

Q6 Technology

Q7 Others

Finally, and related with the school’s network, we

have collected qualitative and quantitative data after

two complete years working with them. Nevertheless,

some of the schools were working before, and others

have been integrated within the network in the last

months. We have used the same questions that in the

previous case of the FLL that have been answered by

the teachers.

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

202

Table 5: Outcomes of students (gain in motivation,

competencies, skills, etc…).

Q1 Motivation towards Maths and/or Sciences

Motivation towards Technology and/or Computer

Science

Q3 Team work capacity

Q4 Analysis capacity (i.e. Problem decomposition)

Q5 Abstraction capacity (i.e. Generalizing solutions)

Q6 Initiative and Autonomy

Q7 Creativity and innovation when searching for solutions

Q8 Explaining and arguing problems and solutions

Persistency when achieving goals, overcoming

difficulties

Q10 Specific programming concepts (Loops, Ifs, etc..)

4 RESULTS

The three issues of the summer courses (August

2012-2013-2014) had a total number of 36 teachers

(average age of 34,52) and a total number of 126

pupils. The satisfaction degree for the teachers is 9,13

(10-scale) and 3,59 (4-scale) for the pupils.

During the FLL 2014-15 28 teams from Navarra,

Aragon and La Rioja were participating in Pamplona.

About 51 coaches were involved and the teams had

about 224 students.

4.1 General Results: Age, Gender,

Type of School and Working

Language

The age and gender information is shown in the next

figures. For the summer courses, the age of the

students has been evolving from 2012 (where we did

not have any students of 10 years old) to 2014 (where

some of the students from 2013 where repeating the

course during 2014). For the FLL we only have range

ages. The schools’ network is the only experience

where we have 7 years old pupils. In the case of

gender, we see that the results are clearly different

depending on the context of application.

Figure 6: Age comparison.

Figure 7: Gender comparison.

Navarra has a long history of private subsidized

schooling, and those schools are integrated in the

educational public system. They are similar to a

charter school, nevertheless they have to follow the

same general rules about curricular aspects that the

rest of the public schools. Another important feature

within the educational system in Navarra is that we

work with two official languages, Spanish and

Basque; in the last years English has also been

introduced as a third linguistic approach at the

schools.

Figure 8: Type of school comparison.

Using Educational Robotics with Primary Level Students (6-12 Years Old) in Different Scholar Scenarios: Learned Lessons

203

Figure 9: Working language comparison.

4.2 Teachers, Students and Families’

Feedback for the Summer Course

After every summer course edition, we get feedback

from students & teachers through tests. Teachers gave

us their opinion about course organization and

teaching learning contents. In general, they are happy

with both issues (between 3.5 and 4 and between 3

and 4, out of 4 respectively). Pupils are very happy

with the course and have different opinions on it

(figure 10). After the third issue (2014) we have made

a survey to the families in order to get some feedback

from them, a few years after the course in some of the

cases. Only 35% of the families answered to the

survey, and 60% of the families agree that the course

increased their motivation towards Math & Sciences

and technology & Computer Science.

Figure 10: Students survey for the summer courses.

4.3 Didactical Approach, Curricular

Topics, Key Competencies and

Students Outcomes for the Schools’

Network and the FLL

First of all, we can see in figure 11 (FLL in Blue) that

Educational Robotics can be a “tool for learning any

Key competency” (not only Digital or Math

competencies). And thus can be done using different

didactical approaches.

Secondly we can observe in figures 12 & 13 that

the teachers have managed to work several topics

(apart Computer Science and Math) through

Robotics. At the same time the teachers have

considered that the students, through the robotic

activities, are improving their outcomes in several

critical aspects that are not only related to Computer

Science nor to the Curriculum.

Figure 11: Competencies & Didactical approach.

Figure 12: Learning & Students Outcomes.

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

204

Figure 13: Learning & Students Outcomes (cont.).

5 DISCUSSION

We have categorized the results trying to answer two

broad questions: What is the student’s profile:

gender, age, language or kind of school? Influence on

the learning processes? Answering these two

questions will give us valuable information to

measure to what extent learning using digital and real

technological artefacts (robots in this paper) can be

done at an earlier age, with almost all kind of group

of students, and in different scenarios.

5.1 What Is the Student’S Profile:

Gender, Age, Language or Kind of

School?

For the first question, the results of the surveys that

have been carried out show clear differences.

Gender: the presence of female students in voluntary

experiences (as FLL or Summer Course) is small. For

the Summer Courses we had an enrollment of 21%

female students and 79 % male students. In FLL

teams we discovered that the female participation was

slightly higher than 30% while the male one was of

70%. In comparison, in the Network of Schools the

female presence was 50%. This data has to be

analyzed in close relationship with other questions

that were asked in the Network Survey and FLL

Survey: Girls and Boys are equally motivated? Here,

while the FLL coaches responded yes in 38% and no

in 31% of the answers, in the Network of School

teachers chose 52% of the answers were affirmative

and only 17% of them negative. Another 31% of

teachers said the answer depended on individual

features as: perseverance, curiosity...

Age: within the Network of schools, students are

younger. 50% of the FLL teams are in 10 to 12 range

and the rest (50%) up to 16. Nevertheless, most of the

students in Network of Schools scenario are from 7 to

11 years old (68,54%), and the rest are up to 13 or

early 14 (41,46%). So we are finding here a younger

population that is facing programming problems and

topics with teacher's guidance and at an appropriate

level for them. When we asked teachers if this

approach should be continued 100% of the teachers

said yes.

Type of school: the percentage of public schools

enrolled in the Network is 77,27%. That is the

opposite of what happened in FLL, as non-public

(charter schools) enrolled in it are 79,31%. Most of

the schools in Network of Schools are, therefore,

public schools whereas most of the schools enrolled

in FLL are non-public schools. From the point of

view of educational policies, this fact is remarkable

and supports the efforts done to spread educational

robotics through this Network, as the impact in areas

and population where charter schools are not reaching

now can be achieved

Working language: The surveys show differences in

this aspect, as well. According to the answers

received, most of the teams are working in Spanish in

the FLL (92,30%). Nevertheless, under the Network

of Schools, this percentage is lower (65,5%) and

reflects better the reality of the Navarrese educational

system, where Basque and English are strong

vehicular languages. Besides, in the case of Basque,

is one of the official languages in the region. For this

reason, it is quite relevant that 20,7% of students in

the Network of Schools has Basque as working

language, and 10,3% English.

5.2 Teaching/Learning Processes

For the second question, learning outcomes, the

surveys left interesting considerations. First of all, it

has to be said that by learning outcomes we are

including two major areas: basic competences (as

defined by the EU and the Spanish educational laws)

and a set of observable gains or general outcomes as

motivation towards Maths and/or Sciences,

motivation towards Technology and/or Computer

Science, team work capacity, analysis capacity (i.e.

Problem decomposition), abstraction capacity (i.e.

Generalizing solutions), initiative and autonomy,

creativity and innovation when searching for

solutions, explaining and arguing problems and

solutions, persistency when achieving goals,

overcoming difficulties, specific programming

concepts (Loops, Ifs, etc..). Teachers or coaches,

Using Educational Robotics with Primary Level Students (6-12 Years Old) in Different Scholar Scenarios: Learned Lessons

205

depending on the survey, selected in Likert scale up

to 5 the intensity they thought the educational

robotics program they were involved in was

impacting in their students or teams.

About general outcomes, FLL results show that

for most coaches, the learning outcomes observed

were more focused on teamwork (maybe an influence

of the competition context), whereas Network results

showed the importance of perseverance, which is an

important individual value that is responsible of most

of dropouts. As PISA (Program for International

Student Assessment) data shows, perseverance, drive

and motivation are essential for doing well in and out

of school (Skills for Social Progress: The Power of

Social and Emotional Skills, OECD Skills Studies,

OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/

10.1787/9789264226159-en). It is highly remarkable

that the second important outcome in both cases is

creativity and innovation. In Network Survey, student

autonomy scored very high too. We could say, from

the results, that the general learning outcomes that

arise working in both settings with educational

robotics, demonstrate that “hard skills” closely

related to computing or mathematics are only a small

part of the picture. In fact, social skills compound

another big part of the picture and further empiric

research should be done in this respect to discover

how these skills are influencing other areas of

learning in educational robotics programs.

Regarding basic competences, FLL results

highlighted STEM and entrepreneurship -influence of

contest rules probably-, and the Network results

preferred Digital Competence, which is speaking

about a more global approach to educational robotics

inside schools. In any case, both surveys selected in

second place the competence selected in first one in

the other survey. That points a total agreement about

the main competences impacted.

Table 6: learning Competences and Outcomes.



Competences

 First Second

Network Digital STEM

FLL STEM‐Entrepreneurship Digital

Outcomes

First Second

Perseverance

Initiative,

Creativity,

Autonomy

Teamwork

Creativity,

innovation

In order to provide more insights into this issue, it is

interesting to check the answers to the question

“Robotics for working curricular topics”. In the top

five list, in both scenarios Technology and Math are

at the top, as expected, but Mother Language is the

third one in Network Survey and fourth one in FLL

results. Again, we have to consider and shape

adequately this fact: learning through robotics implies

other transversal and social skills that have to be bore

in mind while planning and designing didactical

units.

Apart from these two big questions that have been

discussed, the results gave us relevant information

about the way teachers and coaches are organizing

their Teaching-Learning process. Although our

learning strategy preferred is Project Based Learning,

which means that we are going to work on projects

and we want to promote an Inquiry Based Learning,

with a constructivist/constructionist path in the

background, we discovered that structured or step by

step learning, is a popular strategy in both settings.

Maybe, the nature of the contest tends to organize

learning as projects but, then, uses step by step

learning as a way to scaffold teamer’s progress. In the

case of Network results, it has to be subject of further

research why step by step learning is so prominent.

Table 7: Didactical approach comparison.

 Motivation

 Math/Sciences Computing‐Tech

Network 96% 62%

FLL 61% 76,90%

Methodology

First Second

StructuredLearning

ProblemBased

Learning

ProjectBasedLearning StructuredLearning

6 CONCLUSIONS

All the participants agreed on the fact that the

educative materials end the proposed learning

methodology is suitable to be used in classroom or out

of the classroom. The trainees (school teachers) have

adapted the materials and methodology taught by

trainers (lecturers) to their own situation (schools

pupils).

The use of both technological tools with the

methodological approach, the constructivist PBL, has

allowed us to create flexible materials to teach the

school teachers who will also use them with the be

teaching learning activities used by pupils in the

classroom.

We have showed that it is possible to work with

such materials and methodology in several different

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

206

context. In all cases it was possible to work with

either standard curricula topics or key competencies.

Finally and hypothesis related, through the

description and analysis of the different experiences

we have find out that it is possible to do the

educational robotics we propose at earlier ages

(starting 6-7 years old) and in different contexts (in

school, out of the school, summer courses or tech

camps, competitions, etc…). Every scenario has his

own features and outcomes and all of them seem

necessary and complementary.

REFERENCES

Alimisis, Arlegui, Fava, Frangou, Ionita, Menegatti,

Monfalcon, Moro, Papanikolaou, Pina (2010).

Introducing robotics to teachers and schools:

experiences from the TERECoP project. Proceedings of

Constructionism 2010 (Aug. 2010).

Demo, G. B., Moro, M., Pina, A., &Arlegui, J. (2012). In

and out of the School Activities Implementing IBSE

and Constructionist Learning Methodologies by Means

of Robotics. In B. S. Barker, G. Nugent, n.

Grandgennet, & V. I. Adamchuk (Eds.), Robots in K-12

Education: A New Technology for Learning (pp. 66-

92). IGI Global.

J.Maloney, M. Resnick, N. Rusk, B. Silverman, and E.

Eastmond (2010). The Scratch Programming Language

and EnvironmentACM Transactions on Computing

Education, Vol. 10, No. 4, Article 16.

J. Arlegui, M. Moro and A.Pina (2012). How to enhance the

robotic experience with Scratch. Proceedings of

Constructionism 2012 (Aug. 2012).

B. Harvey, J. Mönig (2010). Bringing “No Ceiling” to

Scratch: Can One Language Serve Kids and Computer

Scientists?.Proceedings of Constructionism 2010 (Aug.

2010).

J. Arlegui, M. Moro and A.Pina (2012). Simulation of

Robotic Sensors in BYOB. Proceedings of Robotics In

Education 2012 (Sept. 2012).

J. Arlegui, M. Moro and A.Pina (2013). A PBL approach

using virtual and real robots (with BYOB and LEGO

NXT) to teaching learning key competences and

standard curricula in primary level. TEEM '13

Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing

Multiculturality (2013), pp 323-328.

Benitti, F.B.V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential

of robotics in schools: a systematic review. Computers

& Education, 58 (3), pp. 978-988.

Bers M. U, Flannery L., Kazakoff E.R., Sullivan A. (2014).

Computational thinking and tinkering: exploration of

an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers &

Education, 72 , pp. 145-157.

Fridin M. (2014). Storytelling by a kindergarten social

assistive robot: a tool for constructive learning in

preschool education. Computers & Education, 70 , pp.

53-64.

Johnson J. (2003). Children, robotics, and education. Artif

Life Robotics (2003) 7:16-21.

Hussain H. et al. (2006). The effect of LEGO Training on

Pupils’ School Performance in Mathematics, Problem

Solving Ability and Attitude: Swedish Data.

Educational Technology & Society, 9 (3), 182-194.

Kathia Pittí Patiño et al. (2014). Using Robotics as a

Learning Tool in Latin America and Spain. IEEE

Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del

Aprendizaje, VOL. 9, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2014.

Bredenfeld et al. (2010). Robotics in Education Initiatives

in Europe - Status, Shortcomings and Open Questions.

Proceedings of SIMPAR 2010 Workshops, Intl. Conf.

on Simulation, Modeling and Programming for

Autonomous Robots, Darmstadt (Germany) November

15-16, 2010, ISBN 978-3-00-032863-3, pp. 568-574.

Kai-Yi Chin et al. (2014). Impact of Using an Educational

Robot-Based Learning System on Students’ Motivation

in Elementary Education. IEEE Transactions on

Learning Technologies, VOL. 7, NO. 4, October-

December 2014, pp. 333-345.

Seul Jung (2013). Experiences in Developing an

Experimental Robotics Course Program for

Undergraduate Education. IEEE Transactions on

Education, VOL. 56, NO. 1, February 2013, pp. 129-

136.

Laurel D. Riek (2013). Embodied Computation: An Active-

Learning Approach to Mobile Robotics Education.

IEEE Transactions on Education, Vol. 56, NO. 1,

February 2013, pp.67- 72.

Ainhoa Alvarez & Mikel Larrañaga (2016), Experiences

Incorporating Lego Mindstorms Robots in the Basic

Programming Syllabus: Lessons Learned. J Intell Robot

Syst, DOI 10.1007/s10846-015-0202-6.

Petre et al. (2004). Using Robotics to Motivate ‘Back Door’

Learning, Education and Information Technologies 9:2,

147–158, 2004.

He et al. (2014). Teaching K-12 Students Robotics

Programming in Collaboration with the Robotics Club.

4th IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference.

AlHumoud et al. (2014). Using App Inventor and LEGO

mindstorm NXT in a Summer Camp to attract High

School Girls to Computing Fields. 2014 IEEE Global

Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), pp.

173-177.

Riedo et al. (2012). Analysis of Impact of an Annual

Robotics Festival, Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE

International Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its

Social Impacts, Technische Universität München,

Munich, Germany, May 21 - 23, 2012.

Chan et al. (2014). Integrated STEAM Education through

Global Robotics Art Festival (GRAF), 4th IEEE

Integrated STEM Education Conference.

Riedo et al. (2012). Involving and training public school

teachers in using robotics for education. Workshop on

Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts, Technische

Universität München, Munich, Germany, May 21 - 23,

2012, pp. 19-23.

Cuellar et al. (2013). Robotics Education Initiative for

Parent-Children Interaction. 2013 IEEE RO-MAN: The

Using Educational Robotics with Primary Level Students (6-12 Years Old) in Different Scholar Scenarios: Learned Lessons

207

22nd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and

Human Interactive Communication Gyeongju, Korea,

August 26-29, 2013. pp. 364-365.

Bers et al. (2005). Teaching Partnerships: Early Childhood

and Engineering Students Teaching Math and Science

Through Robotics. Journal of Science Education and

Technology, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2005, pp. 59-73.

Korsah et al. (2013). The African Robotics Network and the

10 Dollar Robot Design Challenge. IEEE Robotics &

Automation Magazine • March 2013, pp. 116-118.

Slangen et al. (2010). What pupils can learn from working

with robotic direct manipulation environments.

International Journal of Technology and Design

Education, Springer, Vol. 21, Issue: 4, Pages: 449-469.

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

208