The effects of robotics training on students’ creativity and learning in physics

  • Alireza BadelehEmail author


The ever-increasing advances in technology have made it necessary to make use of new educational methods in educational systems. Therefore, in this study, the effects of robotics training on students’ creativity and learning physics were investigated. The research design was pretest posttest quasi-experimental, including one control and one treatment groups. The participants of the study included 120 males and females from 11th grade, studying at different schools in Tehran, Iran (members of the robotic schools training plan) in the educational year 2016–17. They were selected and studied through multistage random cluster sampling. After an eight-session treatment period, the data were collected through employing the Torrance Creativity Questionnaire (1979) including four dimensions namely fluidity, flexibility, innovation, and detailed explanation in the format of 60 items, a test of 10 learning points, and a package of training on robotic constructs in physics. For data analysis, Covariance analysis was employed. The findings indicated that Robotics training influenced and improved creativity and learning in physics among the participants.


Robotics training Creativity Learning Students Physics 



  1. Abedy, J. (1993). Creativity and a new way of measuring it. Journal of Psychological Research, 1(2),46–54. Accessed 23 July2017
  2. Alemi, M., Meghdari, A., & Ghazisaedy, M. (2016). Impact of social robots as assistants for English language teaching in Iranian schools. Journal Sharif Mechanical Engineering, 32(1), 57–64. Accessed 18 September 2017
  3. Alinezhad, M. (2014). The process of e-learning studies in Iran, adopting a meta-analytic approach. Quarterly Journal of Research in School and Virtual Learning, 1(3), 9–28. [In Persian]. Accessed 23 September 2017
  4. Arghiani, M., Faizi, M., & Yazdanfar, A. (2017). Effect of physical dimensions of classroom on promotion of active participation in the learning process. Quarterly Journal Technology Education, 11(3), 183–196. [In Persian]. Accessed 5 December 2017
  5. Azimpoor, R., Eisavi, M., & Azimpoor, E. (2017). Effectiveness of the teaching-learning strategy concept mapping in science teaching on the students' creativity sixth grade elementary. Quarterly Journal Innovation and Creativity in Human Sciences, 6(4), 1–26. [In Persian]. Accessed 6 December 2017
  6. Barreto, F., & Benitti V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Journals Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988. Accessed 2 January 2017
  7. Bouvier, S., & Connors, K. (2011). Increasing student interest in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). America: Massachusetts Department of Higher Education publication. technology-engineering. Accessed 30 October 2017
  8. Bredenfeld, A., Hofmann, A., & Steinbauer, G. (2010). Robotics in education initiatives in Europe - status, shortcomings and open questions. Proceedings of SIMPAR 2010 Workshops Intl. Conference simulation modeling and programming for autonomous robots Darmstadt (Germany) (pp:568–574). Accessed 5 December 2017
  9. Cavas, B., Kesercioglu, T., Holbrook, J., Rannikmae, M., Ozdogru, E., & Gokler, F. (2012). The effects of robotics club on the students’ performance on science process & scientific creativity skills and perceptions on robots, human and society. Proceeding sof3rd International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics Integrating Robotics in School Curriculum Rivaled Garda (Trento,Italy) (pp:40–50). Accessed 2 January 2017
  10. Cejka, E., Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2006). Kindergarten robotics: Using robotics to motivate math, science, and engineering literacy in elementary school. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(4), 711. Accessed December 22 - August 2017
  11. Conole, G. (2010). Learning design – making practice explicit. In: Connect Ed Design Conference, 28 June - 2 July 2010, Sydney, Australia. Accessed 29 November 2017
  12. Danahy, E., Jay, B., Adam, C., Ben, S., & Chris, B. R. (2013). LEGO-based robotics in higher education: 15 years of student creativity. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 11(2),1–15. ( Accessed 10 July 2019
  13. Frangou, S., Papanikolaou, K., Aravecchia, L., Montel, L., Ionita, S., Arlegui, J., Pina, A., Menegatti, E., Moro, M., Fava, N., Monfalcon, S., & Pagello, I. (2008). Representative examples of implementing educational robotics in school based on the constructivist approach. Conference on simulation modeling and programing for autonomous robots Venice (Italy) (pp. 54–65). Accessed 10 December 2017
  14. Ghorbanlu, S. (2015). Creativity breeding. Tehran: Moballeghan publication. [In Persian]. Accessed 11 December 2017
  15. Halpern, D. F. (2008). Creating cooperative learning Environments. American psychological Society. Retrieved. Desember, (5). From Accessed 11 July 2019
  16. Han, J., Jo, M., Jones, J., & Jo, J. H. (2008). Comparative study on the educational use of home robots for children. Journal of Information Processing Systems, 4(4), 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoseini, A. (2015). The nature of creativity and breeding methods. Tehran: Be nashr publication. [In Persian]. Accessed 15 December 2017
  18. Iiori, O. & Watchorn, A. (2016). Inspiring next generation of engineers through service-learning robotics outreach and mentorship programme. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 1–7. Accessed 16 December 2017
  19. Kadivar, P. (2015). Educational Psychology. Tehran: Samt publication. [In Persian]. Accessed 16 December 2017
  20. Karahoca, D., Karahoca, A., & Uzunboylob, H. (2011). Robotics teaching in primary school education by project based learning for supporting science and technology courses. Journals Procedia Computer Science, 3, 1425–1431. Accessed 15 December 2017
  21. Karami, M., Rajaei, M., & Naamkhaah, M. (2014). Investigation of tendency toward critical thinking in secondary school teacher and its role on their teaching style. Research In Curriculum Planning, 11(13), 34–47. [In Persian]. Accessed 15 December 2017
  22. Kazemi Haghighi, N. (2016). Creativity. Tehran: taban khord publication. [In Persian]. Accessed 1 January 2017
  23. Kerr, B., & Gagliardi, A. (2006). Measuring creativity in research and practice. Arizona State University.
  24. Kharazi, K. (2006). Learning in the cognitive approach. Journal of Cognitive Sciences Fresh, 8(4), 86–89. [In Persian]. Accessed 28 November 2017
  25. Lough, T., & Fett, C. (2002). Robotics education: Teacher observations of the effect on student attitudes and learning. The Magazine of Design & Technology Education. Accessed 11 July 2019
  26. Mills-Tettey, G. A., Dias, M. B., Browning, B., & Amanquah, N. (2007). Teaching technical creativity through robotics: A case study in Ghana. In: Workshop on AI in ICT for Development, Int Conf. on AI. Accessed 12 July 2019
  27. Mogi, K., & Tokoro, M. (2014). Brain and creativity. Translators: Tabrizi, M., & Karimi R. Tehran: Danjeh publication. [In Persian]. Accessed 30 November2017
  28. Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., Al Mahmud, A., & Dong, J. (2013). A review of the applicability of robots in education. Journal Technology for Education and Learning, 1(3), 1–7.Google Scholar
  29. Najafi, M., Maghami, H., Hosseini, J., & Jafari, N. (2016). Modern educational technologies: Correlation with academic achievement of students. Journal Technology Education and Learning, 2(5), 81–106. [In Persian].\. Accessed 1 January 2017
  30. Nourbakhsh, I., Crowley, K., Bhave, A., Hamner, E., Hsiu, T., Bergquist, A., Richard, S., & Wilkinson, K. (2005). The robotic autonomy mobile robotics course: Robot design, curriculum design and educational assessment. Journals manufactured in the Netherlands, 18, 103–127. Accessed 29 November 2017
  31. Rahimimand, M., & Abbas Pour, A. (2105). The Effects of Employing New Teaching Methods on Creativity and Academic Achievement of Students. Innovation and creativity in human sciences, 8(4) 1-32. [In Persian].
  32. Robinson, M. (2005). Robotics-driven activities: Can they improve middle school science learning? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 25(1), 73–84. Accessed 3 February 2017
  33. Sangrà, A., Vlachopoulos, D., Cabrera, N., & Bravo, S. (2011). Towards an inclusive definition of e-learning. Barcelona: eLearning Center. UOC. Accessed 28 November 2017
  34. Sirt, M., & Lamimen, J. (2017). Creativity management. Translators: Faramarzi, M. Tehran: Avand danesh publication. [In Persian]. Accessed 16 December 2017
  35. Tetty, A., Dias, B., Browning, B., & Amanguah, N. (2007). Teaching technical creativity through robotics: A case study in Ghana. Carnegie Mellon University. Accessed 17 December 2017

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational SciencesFarhangian UniversityGolestanIran

Personalised recommendations