The Robobo Project: Bringing Educational Robotics Closer to Real-World Applications

Systematic Review on Which Analytics and Learning Methodologies Are Applied in Primary and Secondary Education in the Learning of Robotics Sensors

“…We found articles where authors present their own robotics solutions: Balaji et al [ 74 ] present FastBot, Bellas et al [ 75 ] present the Robobo Project, Camargo et al [ 115 ] present a low-cost Android and Arduino-based mobile robot, Costa, Santos and Sousa [ 111 ] created the SquirlRob, and Vega and Canas [ 28 ] present the PiBoot Tool implementation. Although all of these articles present their own solutions, the objectives tend to differ.…”

“…In addition, Learning by doing or learning based on problem-solving in uncertain situations encourages students to be more aware of how problems in society can be solved with science, and to learn complex concepts requiring high cognitive ability in a relaxed way [ 52 , 57 ]. Moreover, neuroscience, augmented reality, virtual reality, and artificial intelligence [ 39 , 43 , 75 , 81 ] could play an important role in improving STEM learning [ 25 ].…”

“…Therefore, most of them are limited to learning basic skills. Usually, there is only time in the classroom to finish hardware and mechanical assembly [ 74 ], and the robots that students can construct are limited to a few possible applications quite far from reality [ 75 ]. Besides, for many schools in developing countries, the acquisition of these toolkits could become an economical barrier [ 73 ].…”

Programming for Young Children Using Tangible Tiles and Camera-Enabled Handheld Devices

“…The settings allow the user to choose between getting the picture from camera or from a file and also to specify the robot or platform to be used. Currently, three robots, namely Cozmo, Ozobot Evo and Robobo [8] are supported, plus Scratch and Python as the non-robotic platforms. In terms of computing platforms, the application works on Android, iOS, macOS and Windows.…”

“…Hort et al [7] present two tangible programming languages as well as the practical advantages of this approach, with initial studies revealing that children between the ages of 6 and 7 were capable of designing chains of actions, with some even finding bugs. In a subsequent study [8], the authors conducted a museum experiment, where the visitors classified the tangible and graphical interfaces as equally easy to use, but were significantly more likely to interact and collaborate with the tangible interface. In [9] Horn et al propose a hybrid approach between tangible and graphical interfaces in which teachers and students chose the best fit for each situation, given that both have strengths and limitations.…”