Factors That Hinder in-Service Teachers from Incorporating

Educational Robotics into Their Daily or Future Teaching Practice

Stamatios Papadakis

, Julie Vaiopoulou

, Eirini Sifaki

, Dimitrios Stamovlasis

Michail Kalogiannakis

and Kostas Vassilakis

Department of Preschool Education, Faculty of Education, University of Crete, Greece

University of Nicosia, Cyprus & Democritus University of Thrace, Greece

Hellenic Open University, Greece

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Department of Philosophy and Education, Greece

Hellenic Mediterranean University, Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Greece

kostas@cs.hmu.gr

Keywords: Educational Robotics, in-Service Teachers, STEM, Preschool Education.

Abstract: As educational technology continually improves, there is an ongoing interest in using educational robotics

(ER) in preschool classrooms. The acquisition of STEM experience in young children's education has found

that it helps children get the appropriate tools crucial to any successful study. As the research recognizes that

children must participate in STEM education from an early age, ER provides a tangible interface that could

enhance the learning process by creating an enjoyable and engaging context. There is also a close relationship

between educators’ knowledge, views, and attitudes towards technology and how to adopt technology in early

childhood classrooms. Teachers' perceptions, attitudes, and technological competencies are considered the

primary determinants of technology adoption in curriculum and pedagogy. It is necessary to understand their

views, problems of ER’s utility, and acceptance in preschool education. This study aimed to examine

preschool educators' views regarding the factors that hinder them from incorporating the ER into their daily

teaching practice.

1 INTRODUCTION

Supporters of introducing creative thinking and

problem-solving in education argue for systematic

reform to primary and secondary schools that

encompass modern technology educational tools

demanded of students in the twenty-first century

(Karakoyun and Lindberg, 2020). In this context, the

scientific community regards technology in early

childhood education settings as a tool to prepare

students and future citizens for their role in society

(Kalogiannakis and Papadakis, 2017; Mertala, 2019).

Additionally, research supports that the preschool

classroom environment is rich in preschoolers'

connections and opportunities to engage actively in

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3184-1147

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1936-7502

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8342-3898

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0808-9065

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9124-2245

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3163-0094

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

(STEM) activities (MacDonald, Huser, Sikder, and

Danaia, 2020). Nowadays, there are numerous

educational tools available for preschool-age children

to engage them in STEM activities such as visual

block-based environments (e.g., ScratchJr), online

environments (e.g., Code.org), robotic devices (e.g.,

Bee-bot), and unplugged activities (Dorouka,

Papadakis and Kalogiannakis, 2020; Rose, 2019).

Educational robotics (ER) kits or robots in

Preschool Education offer a playful and enjoyable

experience to young children to engage in STEM

activities by constructing robots with or without

software applications using motors, sensors, and

various everyday materials. They can also acquire

Papadakis, S., Vaiopoulou, J., Sifaki, E., Stamovlasis, D., Kalogiannakis, M. and Vassilakis, K.

Factors That Hinder in-Service Teachers from Incorporating Educational Robotics into Their Daily or Future Teaching Practice.

DOI: 10.5220/0010413900550063

In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2021) - Volume 2, pages 55-63

ISBN: 978-989-758-502-9

 2021 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reser ved

Computational Thinking (CT) skills by exploring

algorithms, modularity, sequences, loops, and

variables (Sullivan, Bers, and Mihm, 2017). As

preschoolers are already familiar with digital devices

before entry into preschool (Kalogiannakis and

Papadakis, 2017), educators can easily engage

children in creative activities and physical play with

robotic kits. Thus, they can easily take advantage of

the latest technology based on children’s prior

experiences, logical arguments, or other empirical

evidence (MacDonald et al., 2020).

It is now widely recognized that a strong

relationship exists between early childhood educators’

attitudes towards technology and their actions in early

childhood settings (Kalogiannakis, Ampartzaki,

Papadakis, and Skaraki, 2018;

Vidal-Hall, Flewitt, and

Wyse, 2020). Educators’ self-efficacy beliefs and

knowledge in digital technologies, and lately, in STEM

activities and CT concepts, can significantly impact

their digital education experiences. Many educators

experience uncertainty or even fear concerning digital

and STEM content, which affects their confidence in

STEM and CT education practices (MacDonald et al.,

2020). On the other hand, Bers notes that robotics can

help teachers expand interest in STEM concepts and

make CT and STEM activities more appealing for

students and teachers. Teachers' earlier experience in

robotics education can help educators revisit their

instructional designs and integrate interactive teaching

approaches, such as student-centered teaching (Bers,

2008).

This paper's research study is focused on in-service

teachers’ perceptions regarding the factors that inhibit

them from incorporating ER in their daily teaching

practice (Hamed, Ezquerra, Porlán, and Rivero, 2020).

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

The rise of digital technologies brings new

opportunities, demands, and challenges for students

and teachers in the 21

-century (European

Commission, 2020). Research supports the beginning

of STEM experiences since preschool education as

these experiences function as a critical component of

their cognitive development and predictive of later

reading achievement (Heikkilä, 2020). Children's

developmentally appropriate STEM education

approaches in early years education contribute to a

positive STEM field attitude. Besides, they make

students believe that they can succeed in future

engagement in STEM (Çiftçi, Topçu, and Foulk,

2020). Furthermore, the research has proven that early

exposure to STEM experiences reduces gender-based

stereotypes of females' STEM career roles. This

assumption leads to an increased interest in engineer-

ing and relative disciplines later in their academic and

professional life (Bers and Sullivan, 2019).

For these reasons, in recent years, concepts such

as STEM, robotics, CT, and coding, have been

promoted by educational institutions and other

organizations as skills that are as fundamental for all

students with equal importance as numeracy and

literacy (Papadakis, Zaranis and Kalogiannakis,

2019). In preschool classrooms, the educational goal

is not to introduce coding literacy in separate subject

classes. Indeed, the aim is to teach students how to

use digital technologies as tools to produce well-

educated people. At the preschool education, the aim

is to ensure a broader focus so that students use the

digital technologies and the CT and coding activities

as learning opportunities for cognitive growth,

creative problem solving, and entrepreneurship

(Heikkilä and Mannila, 2018).

Especially, ER technologies offer hands-on

methods to young students about everything they

encounter on a typical day, such as sensors, batteries,

detectors, and lights. The term Educational Robotics

(ER) is used to define a broad area of knowledge-

based approaches requiring students to utilize their

reasoning skills either to program a robot or design

and create its part(s) and program it (Di Lieto et al.,

2017). For these reasons, ER is considered an

appropriate tool for early childhood development

because it helps children develop fine motor skills

and coordination, aids in cognitive development and

social and communication skills (Sullivan et al.,

2017). It also helps children understand cause and

effect and take their early imagination to a new level

while developing problem-solving, logical thinking,

and cognitive skills to acquire programming skills

(Toh, Causo, Tzuo, and Chen, 2016).

This shift has profound implications for teachers’

skills and practices as teachers are expected to find

creative approaches to teach children to read, write,

and develop mathematical skills and code and

programming (Atmatzidou and Demetriadis, 2016;

Barianos et al., 2019). Thus, we need to understand the

beliefs and reasoning that guide teachers’ ER

introduction and classroom practices. In this aspect,

before designing and introducing an ER, STEM, CT

integrated curriculum that effectively accommodates

preschoolers' needs is imperative to understand the

complex challenges teachers face in their daily

teaching practice. These challenges include inadequate

training, strict curricula, flawed methodologies, limited

educational content, and lack of infrastructure

(Reinoso, Delgado-Iglesias, and Fernández, 2019).

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

For many teachers, this is a considerable

challenge, and several studies highlight the gap

between teachers’ ability in technology use and the

actual technology use. Each tool requires an

understanding of its pedagogical potential and

classroom deployment options, as well as the

necessary facilities (Levy and Kucirkova, 2017).

Earlier research has revealed several obstacles

that could hinder a teacher from integrating

educational technology in the classroom

(Kalogiannakis and Papadakis, 2017). The

importance of teachers’ beliefs and attitudes for the

everyday use of educational technology in teaching

practice has been broadly addressed in the literature

(Vlasopoulou, Kalogiannakis, and Sifaki, 2021). For

instance, Vidal-Hall et al. (2020) highlight that

integrating digital technologies forms a challenge for

early childhood educators. In conjunction with

teachers' beliefs, these limitations can explain how in-

service teachers introduce ER in their classrooms and

how in-service teachers instruct students in CT and

ER activities (Cormas, 2020). Vidal-Hall et al. (2020)

comment on a British study result showing that 25

percent of the United Kingdom practitioners feel that

new forms of technology do not belong in the

preschool classroom.

A teacher’s positive or negative attitude towards

introducing educational technologies in the

classroom can either ease or hinder digital media use

in the daily teaching practice (Papadakis and

Orfanakis, 2016). Many educators experience

uncertainty or even fear concerning STEM content,

which affects their confidence in STEM education.

Besides, meaningful STEM professional

development contributes to positive effects on teacher

attitudes, increasing their confidence and enrollment

in relative fields (MacDonald et al., 2020). Tang,

Tung, and Cheng (2020) state that teachers outside of

technology-oriented fields may not have the technical

competencies to use ER. Furthermore, a lack of

technological infrastructure and training support

could prevent teachers from using new technology,

and teachers’ biased attitudes towards new

technology, namely their perceived utility and ease of

use, could be another hurdle.

For a shift in teachers’ beliefs toward STEM,

innovative approaches for effective training should be

applied to guarantee the practical implementation of

STEM concepts and educational technologies into the

classroom (Çiftçi et al., 2020). For this purpose, the

present study investigated the beliefs, skills, and

attitudes of a group of participants consisting of in-

service early childhood teachers’ before attending a

seminar relative to STEM integrated practices.

The research question guiding the study was:

(1) What are the educator’s beliefs on the factors that

inhibit ER use in early childhood education?

3 MATERIALS & METHODS

3.1 Methodology

In this study, the quantitative approach to data

collection and analysis was followed utilizing a

survey instrument designed for the present inquiry,

which had an exploratory character (Petousi and

Sifaki, 2021). The main aim was to gain insights

about in-service preschool teachers’ beliefs on the use

of Educational Robotics in preschool education and

specify which factors hinder their incorporation into

the formal curriculum.

3.2 Sampling

The sample consisted of in-service preschool teachers

(N=102) who attended a seminar on educational

technology, which complete the survey questionnaire

before the beginning of the session. The in-service

teachers were females with 10 to 25 years of teaching

experience in kindergartens in the region of Crete. It

is worth emphasizing that the in-service teachers had

not received a systematic education and training in

ER, CT, and STEM concepts and activities

previously, and for the majority, that seminar was

their first experience in ER, CT, and STEM.

3.3 Instrument

The survey questionnaire used for data collection

included, besides demographic items, questions sought

to determine the teachers’ thoughts on various aspects

hindering ER's implementation in daily teaching prac-

tice and items measuring their readiness to conduct ER.

The latter were eleven closed-ended items on a five-

point Likert scale of Strongly Agree (5), Agree (4),

Undecided (3), Disagree (2), and Strongly disagree (1).

3.4 Validity and Reliability Issues

To reserve validity and reliability issues, special

attention was paid to stating the appropriate and

straightforward questions. The items were developed

and checked by experienced educational technology

lecturers and scientists, who avoided any complicated

language unfamiliar to participants. Moreover, the

instrument’s factorial validity was verified by

Factors That Hinder in-Service Teachers from Incorporating Educational Robotics into Their Daily or Future Teaching Practice

Principal Components Analysis, and the Cronbach’s

alpha for internal consistency was measured.

However, in this report, we present only the

dimension of the negative (hindering) factor, and we

treat each item as a separate variable.

3.5 Limitations of the Research

A limitation of this study is the generalizability of the

findings to other contexts, given the opportunity

sampling and the relatively small sample size.

Besides, the participants were from the same

geographical area. Thus, the sample was not

representative of the in-service population. However,

given the exploratory characters, the finding is

considered indicative and informative on the primary

research questions.

3.6 Ethical Considerations

In this research context, national and international

research ethics guidelines were followed (Petousi and

Sifaki, 2021), such as the guidelines suggested by the

University of Crete code of Ethics & Research Ethics

Committee. We obtained informed and voluntary

consent from the teachers who participated in this

study. We also informed potential participants of the

importance of their participation and what would

happen to the information provided by them.

4 RESULTS

This article focuses on our analysis of in-service

teachers' responses to the factors that hinder them

from incorporating ER into their daily or future

teaching practice. The Statistical Package for Social

Sciences (SPSS™ Version 23.0; Chicago, III, USA)

software was used for data analysis. Next, we present

the results of specific analyses regarding the selected

research question.

Teachers were asked to rank order the reasons that

may hinder the use of educational Robotic. Figure 1

shows the frequencies of various choices taken from

a cross-tabulation. Among the five choices, the ‘lack

of infrastructure’ and the ‘lack of knowledge’ were

the first two most significant factors.

Teachers were asked to express their worries,

negative feelings, or positions towards educational

Robotics. Illustrations in Figure 2 depict the

frequency distribution of teacher responses to four

items of those positions. The histograms show a

relatively adequate variance in all cases, which

permits further inductive testing.

Figure 1: Frequencies of five choices are taken from a

cross-tabulation. Lack of infrastructure and lack of

knowledge were the first two most significant factors.

Figure 2: Frequency distribution of teacher responses to

four items regarding feeling and positions about the use of

educational Robotics.

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

Figure 2: Frequency distribution of teacher responses to

four items regarding feeling and positions about the use of

educational Robotics (cont.).

Table 1: Correlations between teachers' worries, negative

feelings, or positions with their level of robotics knowledge

and their knowledge of educational robotics.

Level of

robotics

knowledge

Knowledge

educational

robotics

Level of robotics knowledge 1 0,494**

Knowledge of educational

robotics

0,494** 1

N2. The use of educational

robotics in daily teaching

practice annoys me.

-0,027 -0,124

N5. Using robotics in my daily

teaching practice scares me

-0,049 -0,265**

N7. Robots do not favor the

learning of students because they

are not easy to handle

-0,105 -0,325**

N11. Robots do not seem useful

tools because they present

technical problems

0,022 -0,272**

**p<0.01

These items expressing worries, negative feelings,

or positions were correlated with several independent

variables such as the level of robotics knowledge and

the knowledge of educational robotics. Table 1 shows

the corresponding Pearson correlations. It is observed

that the knowledge of educational robotics is

negatively correlated with those items representing

worries and negative feelings.

Besides, in-service teachers’ responses to their

feelings were associated with age and their teaching

experience. The illustrations in Figures 3 show that

the elder and more experienced teachers express more

intense worries and have rather negative feelings

about educational robotic use in the formal

curriculum.

(a)

(b)

Figure 3: (a, b, c, d, e). Differences in the in-service

teachers' responses (worries, feelings, and positions) across

age and years of teaching experience.

Factors That Hinder in-Service Teachers from Incorporating Educational Robotics into Their Daily or Future Teaching Practice

(c)

(d)

Figure 3: (a, b, c, d, e). Differences in the in-service

teachers' responses (worries, feelings, and positions) across

age and years of teaching experience (cont.).

From Figure 3 (a, b, c, d, e), we can see that the elder

and more experienced teacher express more intense

worries and have a rather negative feeling and

positions about the use of educational robotic in the

formal curriculum.

5 DISCUSSION

Research demonstrates that early exposure in STEM

and CT fields contributes to developing significant

cognitive outcomes and critical skills, such as

executive functioning and fluid reasoning, leading to

later school success (Bustamante et al., 2020).

Robots, robotics kits are recognized as an effective

means of introducing CT, STEM, and 21st-century

skills to preschoolers. These tools are often combined

with mobile applications (apps) that utilize a smart

mobile device (Kalogiannakis, Nirgianaki, and

Papadakis, 2019). Since the combination of robotic

kits and related apps can make the instruction more

exciting, teachers must be trained and supported to

use these digital media effectively (Chan, 2019).

Nevertheless, the effective integration and use of

educational technologies into preschool education

remain a significant issue (Vidal-Hall et al., 2020). As

preschool teachers play a critical role in digital

technology integration in early childhood education

(Papadakis, Kalogiannakis, and Zaranis, 2018),

teachers need to acknowledge digital media necessity

(Vidal-Hall et al., 2020). In the published literature, it

has been found that teachers' attitudes to digital

technologies affect the use of technology in

educational practices. Thus, to effectively change

their teaching behavior, teachers must realize that

there is a clear benefit of using educational

technology to promote STEM learning. Teachers

need to understand emerging technology to

incorporate these modalities into their classrooms

(Chan, 2019). This follows Vidal-Hall et al.'s (2020)

findings, which showed that any attempt to integrate

digital technologies effectively is needed to consider

the teacher's pedagogical beliefs and practice.

In this study, similar to other studies, teachers were

open-minded towards integrating ER into the

curriculum (Çiftçi et al., 2020). Nevertheless, it was

also found that they must receive appropriate and

adequate pedagogical and technical support to build

confidence and self-esteem to integrate these

technologies into their daily practice (European

Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2019). Providing

teachers with knowledge and experience in using

innovative technology will help them develop a

positive attitude towards the new technology and

become more self-confident. A professional training

experience may affect their attitudes towards

technology use (Chan, 2019). Teachers must acquire

skills and practice to intentionally and systematically

use this digital pedagogy (Papadakis, Vaiopoulou,

Kalogiannakis, and Stamovlasis, 2020). Their efforts

should be focused on children's engagement in rich,

playful, and challenging activities, emphasizing the

critical ideas of early childhood development

(Dunphy, 2020). This study found that young teachers

are considered digital natives who can easily support

the effective integration of innovative technologies

into the preschool environment. On the contrary,

older teachers can be characterized as anxious about

technology use. This study's findings highlight this

generational dichotomy: it seems, therefore, that the

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

opinions of the younger teachers differ from those of,

the older teachers; Similar to other studies, the present

study revealed that younger teachers believe that the

integration of technologies such as robots into the

early childhood classroom improves student learning

outcomes (Chan, 2019).

Reflecting on our findings allows us to point to

some implications for teacher education. Firstly, we

suggest that teacher education programs should create

learning opportunities adapted to the teachers'

learning needs to understand and support educational

technologies in their daily teaching practice.

Moreover, we suggest that teacher training should be

a continuous process that commences at the initial

teacher education stage and continues with teaching

practice and ongoing learning (Hamed et al., 2020).

Thus, we suggest that teacher education programs

should create learning opportunities adapted to the

new learning environments that the teachers

experienced to understand and support teachers'

knowledge progression undergoing initial training.

Moreover, we suggest that teacher training should be

a continuous process that begins at the initial teacher

education stage and continues with teaching practice

and ongoing learning (Hamed et al., 2020). As Tang

et al. (2020) advise, the university administrators'

strategic visions of teaching and learning

enhancement would incentivize teachers to adopt ER

in curriculum and pedagogy. Thus, ER's holistic

integration may need to be considered at the

university-level rather than at the subject-level, as

expediting its use in one subject could hamper

students' learning in another subject.

6 CONCLUSIONS

Digital technology has revolutionized the world of

education, and children today grow up and live in a

world where technologies are ubiquitous. Innovative

digital technologies affect how education is delivered

and perceived, and they play their role in preparing

students for a high tech-enabled world (European

Commission, 2020).

Based on the present study results and our

educational experience, several recommendations

can be made to improve preschool classrooms' ER

integration further. Teachers must receive timely and

proper education from universities and educational

organizations to acquire CT and STEM literacy

(Reinoso et al., 2019). This can be done by using

problem-solving and constructivism across the

curriculum and creating stronger links between

theory and practice (Levy and Kucirkova, 2017).

Concerning the lack of experience and knowledge

among teachers, educational institutions must

organize conferences, seminars, and workshops to

familiarize themselves with CT, ER, and STEM

concepts. These actions can help teachers look

beyond the ‘traditional’ classroom and realize the

potential learning opportunities provided by

educational technology (Seow et al., 2017). Teacher

training must ensure that teachers understand the

objectives, goals, and outcomes of using educational

technology. These include the introduction of various

technologies into the preschool classroom to fit with

the curriculum properly. Teachers must realize how

all these components can be woven into high-quality

early learnings (McManis and Parks, 2011).

Given the limitations of research conducted in one

geographical area, the findings' generalizability to

other settings is uncertain. Thus, further research in

more geographical areas is needed to help the

researchers understand whether similar trends are

evident elsewhere. Such research would aim to

develop a professional learning model for integrating

digital technology in the preschool classroom.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing

students’ computational thinking skills through

educational robotics: A study on age and gender

relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous

Systems, 75, 661-670.

Bers, M. U. (2008). Blocks to Robots Learning with

Technology in the Early Childhood Classroom.

Teachers College Press.

Bustamante, A. S., Schlesinger, M., Begolli, K. N.,

Golinkoff, R. M., Shahidi, N., Zonji, S., & Hirsh-Pasek,

K. (2020). More than just a game: Transforming social

interaction and STEM play with Parkopolis.

Developmental Psychology.

Chan, K.K. (2020). Using Tangible Objects in Early

Childhood Classrooms: A Study of Macau Pre-service

Teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48,

441–450.

Çiftçi, A., Topçu, M.S., & Foulk, J.A. (2020). Preservice

early childhood teachers’ views on STEM education

and their STEM teaching practices. Research in Science

& Technological Education, 1-27.

Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2019). Digital Education

at School in Europe. Eurydice Report, Luxembourg:

Publication Office of the European Union.

Factors That Hinder in-Service Teachers from Incorporating Educational Robotics into Their Daily or Future Teaching Practice

https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/government-public-

sector-research/pdf/pwc-digital-skills-eng.pdf

Cormas, P. C. (2020). Preservice teachers’ beliefs in a

mathematics/science course. Research in Science &

Technological Education, 1-17.

Di Lieto, M. C., Inguaggiato, E., Castro, E., Cecchi, F.,

Cioni, G., Dell’Omo, M., & Dario, P. (2017).

Educational Robotics intervention on Executive

Functions in preschool children: A pilot study.

Computers in human behavior, 71, 16-23.

Dorouka, P., Papadakis, S., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2020).

Tablets and apps for promoting robotics, mathematics,

STEM education and literacy in early childhood

education. International Journal of Mobile Learning

and Organisation, 14(2), 255-274.

Dunphy, L. (2020). A Picture Book Pedagogy for Early

Childhood Mathematics Education. In STEM

Education Across the Learning Continuum (pp. 67-85).

Springer, Singapore.

European Commission. (2020). Resetting education and

training for the digital age. https://ec.europa.eu/

education/sites/education/files/document-library-docs/

deap-communication-sept2020_en.pdf

Hamed, S., Ezquerra, Á., Porlán, R., & Rivero, A. (2020).

Exploring preservice primary teachers’ progression

towards inquiry-based science learning. Educational

Research, 62(3), 357-374.

Heikkilä, M. (2020). What Happens When the Robot Gets

Eyelashes? Gender Perspective on Programming in

Preschool. In STEM Education Across the Learning

Continuum (pp. 29-44). Springer, Singapore.

Heikkilä, M., & Mannila, L. (2018). Debugging in

programming as a multimodal practice in early

childhood education settings. Multimodal Technologies

and Interaction, 2(3), 42.

Kalogiannakis, M., Ampartzaki, M., Papadakis, S., &

Skaraki, E. (2018). Teaching natural science concepts

to young children with mobile devices and hands-on

activities. A case study. International Journal of

Teaching and Case Studies, 9(2), 171-183.

Kalogiannakis, M., Nirgianaki, G. M., & Papadakis, S.

(2018). Teaching magnetism to preschool children: The

effectiveness of picture story reading. Early Childhood

Education Journal, 46(5), 535-546.

Kalogiannakis, M., Papadakis, S. (2017). Combining

mobile technologies in environmental education: a

Greek case study. International Journal of Mobile

Learning and Organisation, 11(2), 108-130.

Karakoyun, F., Lindberg, O. J. (2020). Preservice teachers’

views about the twenty-first century skills: A

qualitative survey study in Turkey and Sweden.

Education and Information Technologies, 1-17.

Levy, R., & Kucirkova, N. (2017). New technologies in the

primary and early years classroom. Beginning Teaching,

Beginning Learning in Early Years and Primary

Education (5e), London, Open University Press.

MacDonald, A., Huser, C., Sikder, S., & Danaia, L. (2020).

Effective early childhood STEM education: Findings

from the Little Scientists evaluation. Early Childhood

Education Journal, 48(3), 353-363.

McManis, L. D., & Parks, J. (2011). Evaluating technology

for early learners. E-book and toolkit. Winston-Salem,

NC: Hatch Early Learning. www. hatchearlychildhood.

com/toolkit.

Mertala, P. (2019). Digital technologies in early childhood

education–a frame analysis of preservice teachers’

perceptions. Early Child Development and Care,

189(8), 1228-1241.

Papadakis, S., & Orfanakis, V. (2016). The combined use

of Lego Mindstorms NXT and App Inventor for

teaching novice programmers. In International

Conference EduRobotics 2016 (pp. 193-204). Springer,

Cham.

Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Zaranis, N. (2018).

The effectiveness of computer and tablet assisted

intervention in early childhood students’ understanding

of numbers. An empirical study conducted in Greece.

Education and Information Technologies, 23(5), 1849-

1871.

Papadakis, S., Vaiopoulou, J., Kalogiannakis, M., &

Stamovlasis, D. (2020). Developing and Exploring an

Evaluation Tool for Educational Apps (ETEA)

Targeting Kindergarten Children. Sustainability,

12(10), 4201.

Papadakis, S., Zaranis, N., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2019).

Parental involvement and attitudes towards young

Greek children’s mobile usage. International Journal of

Child-Computer Interaction, 22, 100144.

Petousi, V., & Sifaki, E. (2021). Contextualizing harm in

the framework of research misconduct. Findings from

discourse analysis of scientific publications,

International Journal of Sustainable Development

(Forthcoming article).

Reinoso, R., J. Delgado-Iglesias, J., & Fernández, I. (2019).

Preservice teachers’ views on science teaching in Early

Childhood Education in Spain. European Early

Childhood Education Research Journal, 27(6), 801-

820.

Rose, S. (2019). Developing Children’s Computational

Thinking using Programming Games (Doctoral

dissertation, Sheffield Hallam University (United

Kingdom)).

Seow, P., Looi, C. K., Wadhwa, B., Wu, L., Liu, L., Kong,

S. C., ... & Li, K. (2017). Computational thinking and

coding initiatives in Singapore. In Conference

Proceedings of International Conference on

Computational Thinking Education (pp. 164-167).

Sullivan, A. A., Bers, M. U., & Mihm, C. (2017).

Imagining, playing, and coding with KIBO: using

robotics to foster computational thinking in young

children. Siu-cheung KONG The Education University

of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 110.

Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. (2019). Computer science

education in early childhood: the case of ScratchJr.

Journal of Information Technology Education:

Innovations in Practice, 18(1), 113-138.

Tang, A. L., Tung, V. W. S., & Cheng, T. O. (2020).

Teachers’ perceptions of the potential use of

educational robotics in management education.

Interactive Learning Environments, 1-12.

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

Toh, L. P. E., Causo, A., Tzuo, P. W., Chen, I. M., & Yeo,

S. H. (2016). A review on the use of robots in education

and young children. Journal of Educational Technology

& Society, 19(2), 148-163.

Vidakis, N., Barianos, A. K., Trampas, A. M., Papadakis,

S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Vassilakis, K. (2019).

Generating Education in-Game Data: The Case of an

Ancient Theatre Serious Game. In CSEDU 2019 (pp.

36-43).

Vidal-Hall, C., Flewitt, R., & Wyse, D. (2020). Early

childhood practitioner beliefs about digital media:

integrating technology into a child-centred classroom

environment. European Early Childhood Education

Research Journal, 28(2), 167-181.

Vlasopoulou, M., Kalogiannakis, M., & Sifaki, E. (2021).

Investigating Teachers' Attitude and Behavioral

Intentions for the Impending Integration of STEM

Education in Primary School. In St. Papadakis and M.

Kalogiannakis (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Using

Education Robotics to Facilitate Student Learning (pp.

235-256). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Doi: 10.4018/978-

1-7998-6717-3.ch009

Factors That Hinder in-Service Teachers from Incorporating Educational Robotics into Their Daily or Future Teaching Practice