Learning Mathematics Through Activities with Robots

  • Sanna Erika ForsströmEmail author
  • Geir Afdal


There are several countries that integrate programming into their mathematics curricula, thereby making robotics an interesting aspect of mathematics education. However, the benefits of using robotics for mathematics education are still unclear. This article addresses the use of mathematical tools with robot-based, problem-solving tasks by discussing how mathematical tools are used in robot-based tasks. This ethnographic intervention study took place in one secondary school in Norway as a part of an elective class in which videotaped data were gathered by observing the activity of groups of two or three students using Lego Mindstorm robots during an eight-week period. Through the use of activity system analysis in Cultural–Historical Activity Theory, we found that students used different kinds of mathematical tools. Furthermore, we found that mathematics can change its role from instrumental tool to object, that is, to an integrated aspect of the purpose of the activity.


Robots Mathematics education Cultural–historical activity theory Activity system analysis Mathematical tools Object of activity 



  1. Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science & Technology Education, 6(1), 63–71.Google Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Balanskat, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2015). Computing our future: Computer programming and coding—Priorities, school curricula and initiatives across Europe. Brussels: European Schoolnet Retrieved from Accessed 15 Dec 2018.Google Scholar
  4. Barak, M., & Assal, M. (2018). Robotics and STEM learning: students’ achievements in assignments according to the P3 task taxonomy—Practice, problem solving, and projects. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(1), 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartolini Bussi, M., & Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2015). Geometry in early years: sowing seeds for a mathematical definition of squares and rectangles. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(3), 391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benitti, F., & Spolaôr, N. (2017). How have robots supported STEM teaching? In M. Khine (Ed.), Robotics in STEM education: Redesigning the learning experience (pp. 103–129). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., & Earp, J. (2018). The Nordic approach to introducing computational thinking and programming in compulsory education. Retrieved from Accessed 15 Dec 2018.
  8. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  9. Engeström, Y. (2005). Developmental work research: Expanding activity theory in practice. Berlin: Lehmanns Media.Google Scholar
  10. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forsström, S. (2019). Role of teachers in students’ mathematics learning processes based on robotics integration. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 21, 378–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Karim, M., Lemaignan, S., & Mondada, F. (2015). A review: Can robots reshape K–12 STEM education? Paper presented at the 2015 IEEE international workshop on advanced robotics and its social impacts, Lyon, France (pp. 1–8). Retrieved from Accessed 15 Dec 2018.
  14. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human–computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human–computer interaction (pp. 17–40). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lindh, J., & Holgersson, T. (2007). Does Lego training stimulate pupils’ ability to solve logical problems? Computers & Education, 49(4), 1097–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Madden, R. (2017). 2nd edn. In Being ethnographic: A guide to the theory and practice of ethnography. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Roth, W.-M., & Radford, L. (2011). A cultural–historical perspective on mathematics teaching and learning. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ryan, J., & Williams, J. (2007). Children’s mathematics 4–15: Learning from errors and misconceptions. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  19. Savard, A., & Freiman, V. (2016). Investigating complexity to assess student learning from a robotics-based task. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 2(2), 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Savard, A., & Highfield, K. (2015). Teachers’ talk about robotics: Where is the mathematics? In M. Marshman, V. Geiger, & A. Bennison (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the mathematics education research Group of Australasia (pp. 540–546). Sunshine Coast: MERGA.Google Scholar
  21. Skårås, M. (2018). Focused ethnographic research on teaching and learning in conflict zones: History education in South Sudan. Forum for Development Studies, 45(2), 217–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2013). Læreplan i matematikk fellesfag. Retrieved from Accessed 15 Dec 2018.
  23. Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2018). Matematikk fellesfag. Retrieved from Accessed 15 Dec 2018.
  24. Yamagata-Lynch, L. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complex learning environments. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Østfold University CollegeHaldenNorway
  2. 2.MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and SocietyOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations