Design and Impact of a Teacher Training Course, and Attitude Change Concerning Educational Robotics

Abstract

Current initiatives and laboratories concerning Educational Robotics (ER) are often not based on strong pedagogical backgrounds. Additionally, they are carried out by inadequately trained teachers, and are not evaluated properly in terms of effectiveness. Moreover, according to teachers, ER usability is often neglected. The main goal of the present article is to present a training course on ER (Edu.Ro.Co.), grounded in pedagogical insights, and to discuss the results of the course and teacher's opinion about ER in terms of: (i) teachers' attitudes and perceptions of using ER; (ii) the potential impact of ER on students' key competences for lifelong learning; and (iii) strengths and weaknesses of ER. These aspects were analysed by means of questionnaires specifically designed by the authors, and administered before and after the training course. A total of 339 teachers attended the training course and 254 completed the questionnaires. The article describes the methodology utilised in the realisation of the course and analyses the questionnaire's results. In particular, the number of teachers that considered themselves prepared to apply ER significantly improved after the training course. ER is considered by teachers an important tool for the improvement of students' motivation, planning skills, team working, problem solving and creativity development. Finally, the results from questionnaires indicate that teachers consider ER, a method that improves team-working abilities and motivation in the students. In contrast, the main disadvantage is the cost of the robotic kits. Based on these results, new directions for future research in ER are discussed.

Can educational robotics introduce young children to robotics and how can we measure it?

“…This study was developed in the RobEd project framework during the Edu.Ro.Co. training course (Castro et al, ). The project was conducted in Italy and represents the first attempt to develop an ER curriculum able to explore the ER potential in different areas contemporaneously (cognitive, metacognitive, emotional and motivational, STEM areas).…”

The impact of AI and robotics on physical, social‐emotional and intellectual learning outcomes: An integrated analytical framework

“…On the other hand, one of the challenges faced when developing learning designs at schools is that teachers need to receive technical training on AI and robotics, as well as pedagogical training on how to integrate the use of AI and robotics on diverse subjects. Castro et al (2018) also found that training teachers on educational robotics is an important factor for the successful introduction of robotics in education. Nevertheless, the learning designs presented in this study could be used as examples by educators.…”

An overview of teacher training programs in educational robotics: characteristics, best practices and recommendations

“…To be more precise, a lesson plan may be assigned as a follow-up activity after a training session (Nagchaudhuri and Mitra 2007) or the participants may be asked to create their own lesson plans and then discuss and/or present them in class (Kim et al ; Kim et al 2015). Participants may also be asked to create a pedagogical project to be applied in the classroom (Castro et al 2018), design their own robotics instructional materials for use in their future classes (Bers et al 2013), design worksheets that combine robotics and other subjects on the curriculum (Gilkes et al 2014) or develop multi-disciplinary didactic units and present them in class (Agatolio et al 2017). The training presented by Negrini (2019) moves a step further by suggesting that a database of robotics materials could be created and a community could be built to allow trainees to stay in contact after the training program has ended.…”

“…Preschool teacher training is not as common as primary and secondary school teacher training. In the studies reviewed, only three training programs are held exclusively for preschool teachers (Bers et al 2002;Bers et al 2013; Caballero-González and Muñoz-Repiso 2017), while four training programs are held for preschool teachers as well as primary and secondary school teachers (Bers and Portsmore 2005;Castro et al 2018;Negrini 2019;Scaradozzi et al 2019). Even less common are training programs for special needs teaching staff since only two relevant studies were found.…”

“…Some training programs were also based on the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), the Engineering Design Process (Goodale 2013;Kaya et al 2017) or the innovative didactic methodologies of Digital Storytelling and Classroom Debate (Scaradozzi et al 2019). Finally, two studies were based on the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) framework (Bers et al 2013;Castro et al 2018).…”