A conceptual framework for the integration of educational robotics in school
Parole chiave:
Modello ERIM, robotica educativa, instructional alignment, scuola, educazioneAbstract
This work presents the Educational Robotics Integration Model (ERIM), a conceptual framework for the integration of educational robotics in school settings. It addresses the pedagogical, technical, and social dimensions that underpin effective implementation. The framework is structured around five interdependent dimensions considered important by research on educational robotics: learning objectives, instructional methods, learning artifacts, evaluation methods, and teachers training and community. These dimensions need to be purposefully designed to align with one another, ensuring a cohesive and systemic approach to the use of robotics in education that maximizes learning outcomes. Each dimension is introduced with a concise overview based on research literature. By addressing the challenges and opportunities of aligning pedagogical goals with technological capabilities, the framework offers actionable insights for advancing the field of educational robotics. It aims to provide educators, researchers, and policymakers with a structured and adaptable approach to integrating robotics into school curricula.
Riferimenti bibliografici
Agus, M., Marras, A., & Negrini, L. (2025). The Italian Version of the Robotics Learning Self-Efficacy Scale (RLSES-IT): Assessment of psychometric features in a sample of young students. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 11, 101646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101646
Alonso-García, S., Rodríguez Fuentes, A. V., Ramos Navas-Parejo, M., & Victoria-Maldonado, J. J. (2024). Enhancing computational thinking in early childhood education with educational robotics: A meta-analysis. Heliyon, 10(13). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33249
Antonenko, P. D., Dawson, K., & Sahay, S. (2017). A framework for aligning needs, abilities and affordances to inform design and practice of educational technologies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(4), 916–927. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12466
Ardito G., Mosley P., & Scollins L. (2014). We, robot: Using robotics to promote collaborative and mathematics learning in a middle school classroom. Middle Grades Research Journal, 9(3), 73-88.
Babazadeh, M., & Negrini, L. (2022). How is computational thinking assessed in European K-12 education? A systematic review. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 5(4), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v5i4.138
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006
Chang, C.-W., Lee, J.-H., Chao, P.-Y., Wang, C.-Y., & Chen, G.-D. (2010). Exploring the Possibility of Using Humanoid Robots as Instructional Tools for Teaching a Second Language in Primary School. Educational Technology & Society, 13(2),13–24. http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.13.2.13
Chevalier, M., Giang, C., Piatti, A., & Mondada, F. (2020). Fostering computational thinking through educational robotics: A model for creative computational problem solving. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00238-z
Chevalier, M., Riedo, F., & Mondada, F. (2016). Pedagogical uses of Thymio II: How do teachers perceive educational robots in formal education? IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 23(2), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2016.2535080
Cohen, S. A. (1987). Instructional alignment: searching for a magic bullet. Educational Researcher, 16(8), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X016008016
Ford, C. J., Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., & Usher, E. L. (2023). I Fail; Therefore, I Can: Failure Mindset and Robotics Self-Efficacy in Early Adolescence. Education Sciences, 13(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13101038
Giang, C. (2020). Towards the alignment of educational robotics learning systems with classroom activities [Doctoral dissertation, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne]. https://doi.org/10.5075/epfl-thesis-9563
Jonassen, D. H. (2004). Learning to solve problems: an instructional design guide. Pfeiffer.
Julià, C., & Antolí, J. O. (2016). Spatial ability learning through educational robotics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(2), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9307-2
Kilpatrick, W.H. (1918). The Project Method: The Use of the Purposeful Act in the Educative Process. Teachers College, Columbia University.
Korkmaz, Ö. Çakır, R., & Özden, M.Y. (2015). Computational thinking levels scale (CTLS) adaptation for secondary school level. Gazi Journal of Education Sciences, 1(2), 143–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.19.2.6.1
Lauwers, T. (2010). Aligning capabilities of interactive educational tools to learner goals [Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon Univer-sity]. https://doi.org/10.1184/R1/6714650.v1
Marcianò, G. (2017). Robot & scuola: guida per la progettazione, la realizzazione e la conduzione di un laboratorio di Robotica Educativa (LRE). Hoepli.
Marras, A., Negrini, L. & Pasqualotto, A. (2024). Educational Robotics in Schools: Exploring the Potential for Training Attentional Control and Executive Functions. Tech Know Learn . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09798-3
McGill, M., Decker, A. (2020). Construction of a taxonomy for tools, languages, and environments across computing education. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, (pp. 124–135). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3372782.3406258
Mitnik, R., Nussbaum, M., & Soto, A. (2008). An autonomous educational mobile robot mediator. Autonomous Robots, 25(4), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-008-9101-z
Myers, B. (1990). Taxonomies of visual programming and program visualization. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 1(1), 97-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1045-926X(05)80036-9
Negrini, L. (2019). Teacher training in educational robotics. An experience in Southern Switzerland: The PReSO project. In W. Lepuschitz, M. Merdan, G. Koppensteiner, R. Balogh, & D. Obdrzalek (Eds.), Robotics in Education: Methods and Applications for Teaching and Learning (pp. 92-97). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97085-1_10
Negrini L., Marras A., Giang C., Babazadeh M. (2024). Exploring Programming Language Choices to Boost Student Interest in Coding and Educational Robotics. In G. Casalino, R. Di Fuccio, G. Fulantelli, P. Raviolo, P. C. Rivoltella, D. Taibi, & G. A. Toto (Eds). Higher Education Learning Methodologies and Technologies Online (pp. 3-17). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-67351-1_1
Negrini, L., Marras. A., Giang, C. (2025). The Swiss Robotic Camp: an innovative nationwide teacher training format in educational robotics. Swiss Journal of Educational Research, 47(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.24452/sjer.47.1.2
Papadakis, S., Vaiopoulou, J., Sifaki, E., Stamovlasis, D., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2021). Attitudes towards the Use of Educational Ro-botics: Exploring Pre-Service and In-Service Early Childhood Teacher Profiles. Educ. Sci. 11, 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050204
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. Basic Book.
Reyes Mury, S., Negrini, L., Assaf, D., & Skweres, M. (2022). How to support teachers to carry out educational robotics activities in school? The case of Roteco, the Swiss robotic teacher community. Frontiers in Education, 7, 968675. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.968675
Román-González, M. (2015). Computational Thinking Test: Design Guidelines and Content Validation. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (EDULEARN 2015) (pp. 2436–2444). IATED. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4203.4329
Román-González, M., Moreno-León, J., Robles, G. (2019). Combining Assessment Tools for a Comprehensive Evaluation of Computational Thinking Interventions. In SC. Kong & H. Abelson, (Eds.) Computational Thinking Education (pp. 79-99). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6528-7_6
Sapounidis, T., Tselegkaridis, S., & Stamovlasis, D. (2023). Educational robotics and STEM in primary education: a review and a meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 56(4), 462–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2022.2160394
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. Educational Technology and Society, 19(2), 148–163. http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.19.2.148
Tsai, M. J., Wang, C. Y., Wu, A. H., & Hsiao, C. Y. (2021). The Development and Validation of the Robotics Learning Self-Efficacy Scale (RLSES). Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(6), 1056–1074. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633121992594
Wu, W. C. V., Wang, R. J., & Chen, N. S. (2015). Instructional design using an in-house built teaching assistant robot to enhance elementary school English-as-a-foreign-language learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(6), 696-714. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.792844
Yang, Y., Long, Y., Sun, D., Van Aalst, J., & Cheng, S. (2020). Fostering students’ creativity via educational robotics: an investigation of teachers’ pedagogical practices based on teacher interviews. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 51, 1826–1842. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12985
Zapata-Cáceres, M., Martín-Barroso, E., & Román-González, M. (2020). Computational thinking test for beginners: Design and content validation. In Proc. IEEE Glob. Eng. Educ. Conf. (pp. 1905–1914). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020.9125368
##submission.downloads##
Pubblicato
Come citare
Fascicolo
Sezione
Licenza
Copyright (c) 2025 Lucio Negrini, Christian Giang, Arianna Marras
Questo lavoro è fornito con la licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 4.0 Internazionale.
