Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using Collaborative Robotics as a Way to Engage Students

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Towards Extensible and Adaptable Methods in Computing

Abstract

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields are core technological underpinnings of an advanced society and they are also related to the economic competitiveness of nations. Many countries are suffering from low achievement and low interest among learners in STEM subjects compared to others. In this paper, we argue that the robots can be used not only for teaching schoolchildren and university students to learn the STEM subjects, but also in social and humanistic sciences to increase engagement in technology and facilitate acquisition of transdisciplinary knowledge. As a case study, we present an approach to educational robotics adopted in Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania. The approach allows to foster student creativity and improve their teamwork abilities, as well as knowledge in robotics and robot programming.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. European Commission. (2014). EU Skills Panorama. Skills challenges in Europe. Analytical Highlight.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Directorate general for internal policies. (2015). Encouraging STEM studies: Labour market situation and comparison of practices targeted at young people in different member states.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dobson, I. (2013). STEM: country comparisons–Europe. In A critical examination of existing solutions to the STEM skills shortage in comparable countries. Melbourne: Australian Council of Learned Academies.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Forsthuber, B., Motiejunaite, A., & de Almeida Coutinho, A. S. (2011). Science education in Europe: National policies, practices and research. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Flegg, J., Mallet, D., & Lupton, M. (2012). Students’ perceptions of the relevance of mathematics in engineering. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 43(6), 717–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors. Transcript Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Han, J. (2010). Robot-aided learning and r-learning services. In D. Chugo (Ed.), Human-robot interaction, Vol. 288. Croatia: INTECH.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Aidinlou, N. A., Alemi, M., Farjami, F., & Makhdoumi, M. (2014). Applications of robot assisted language learning (RALL) in language learning and teaching. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(3–1), 12–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Madden, M. E., Baxter, M., Beauchamp, H., Bouchard, K., Habermas, D., Huff, M., et al. (2013). Rethinking STEM education: An interdisciplinary STEAM curriculum. Complex Adaptive Systems, 2013, 541–546.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Zawieska, K., & Duffy, B. R. (2015). The social construction of creativity in educational robotics. Progress in Automation, Robotics and Measuring Techniques, 2, 329–338.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kac, E. (1997). Foundation and development of robotic art. Art Journal, 56(3); Digital reflections: The dialogue of art and technology (pp. 60–67).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hong, S. Y., & Hwang, Y. H. (2012). A study on smart curriculum utilizing intelligent robot simulation. In Issues in Information Systems, IACIS (Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 131–137).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hamner, E., & Cross, J. (2013). Arts & bots: techniques for distributing a STEAM robotics program through K-12 classrooms. In Proceedings of the Third IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference, Princeton, NJ, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rahman, A., Saleh, A., & Abdelbaki, N. (2017). Innovative human-robot interaction for a robot tutor in biology game. In 18th International Conference on Advanced Robotics (ICAR) (pp. 614–619).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Burbaite, R., Drasute, V., & Stuikys, V. (2018). Integration of computational thinking skills in STEM-driven computer science education. In IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON (pp. 1824–1832). https://doi.org/10.1109/educon.2018.8363456.

  16. Štuikys, V., Burbaite, R., Blažauskas, T., Barisas, D., & Binkis, M. (2017). Model for introducing STEM1 into high school computer science education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 33(5), 1684–1698.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Khanlari, A. (2013). Effects of educational robots on learning STEM and on students’ attitude toward STEM. In 2013 IEEE 5th Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED), Kuala Lumpur (pp. 62–66). https://doi.org/10.1109/iceed.2013.6908304.

  18. Daugherty, M. K. (2013). The Prospect of an ‘A’ in STEM education. The Journal of STEM Education, 10–15.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ioannou, M., & Bratitsis, T. (2017). Teaching the notion of speed in kindergarten using the sphero SPRK robot. In IEEE 17th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2017 (pp. 311–312). https://doi.org/10.1109/icalt.2017.70.

  20. Wang W. H. (2016). A mini experiment of offering STEM education to several age groups through the use of robots. In 2016 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC) (pp. 120–127), Princeton, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1109/isecon.2016.7457516.

  21. Plaza, P., Sancristobal, E., Carro, G., & Castro, M. (2017). Home-made robotic education, a new way to explore. In 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 132–136), Athens. https://doi.org/10.1109/educon.2017.7942837.

  22. Yamagata, H., & Morita, T. (2017). Design of contest for educational underwater robot for STEM: Learning applying modeling based on control engineering. Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics, 29(6), 957–968. https://doi.org/10.20965/jrm.2017.p0957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Frakes, W. B., & Kang, K. (2007). Software reuse research: Status and future. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(7), 529–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cleland-Huang, J., Hanmer, R. S., Supakkul, S., & Mirakhorli, M. (2013). The twin peaks of requirements and architecture. IEEE Software, 30(2), 24–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Schulte, C. (2012). Uncovering structure behind function: The experiment as teaching method in computer science education. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE ‘12) (pp. 40–47). New York, NY, USA: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Damasevicius, R. (2009). On the human, organizational, and technical aspects of software development and analysis. In Information systems development: Towards a service provision society (pp. 11–19). https://doi.org/10.1007/b137171_2.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Crutzen, C. K. M. (2000). Interaction, a world of differences. A vision on informatics from the perspective of gender studies. Open Universiteit Nederland.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Limanauskiene, V., Rutkauskiene, D. Kersiene, V., Bareisa, E., Damasevicius, R., Maskeliunas, & R., Targamadze, A. (2017). The study of gender equality in information sciences research institutions in Lithuania. In Information and Software Technologies, ICIST 2017; Communications in computer and information science (Vol. 756, pp. 499–511). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67642-5_42

    Google Scholar 

  29. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Di Maio, P. (2014). Towards a metamodel to support the joint optimization of socio technical systems. Systems, 2014(2), 273–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Katsioloudes, M. I. (1996). Socio-technical analysis: A Normative model for participatory planning. Human Systems Management, 15, 235–244.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hagen, M., & Bouchard, D. (2016). Developing and improving student non-technical skills in IT education. A Literature Review and Model, 3(7) (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cavalier, J. C., Klein, J. D., & Cavalier, F. J. (1995). Effects of cooperative learning on performance, attitude, and group behaviors in a technical team environment. Educational Technology Research Development, 43, 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Karaman, S., Anders, A., Boulet, M., Connor, J., Gregson, K., Guerra, W., & Vivilecchia, J. (2017). Project-based, collaborative, algorithmic robotics for high school students: Programming self-driving race cars at MIT. In 7th IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference ISEC 2017 (pp. 195–203). https://doi.org/10.1109/isecon.2017.7910242.

  35. Ziaeefard, S., Miller, M. H., Rastgaar, M., & Mahmoudian, N. (2017). Co-robotics hands-on activities: A gateway to engineering design and STEM learning. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 97, 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2017.07.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Horling, B., & Lesser, V. (2004). A survey of multi-agent organizational paradigms. Knowledge Engineering Review, 19(4), 281–316. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888905000317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Plauska, I., & Damasevicius, R. (2014). Educational robots for internet-of-things supported collaborative learning. In International Conference on Information and Software Technologies, ICIST 2014. Springer; Communications in computer and information science (Vol. 465, pp. 346–358). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11958-8_28.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Damasevicius, R., Narbutaitė, L., Plauska, I., & Blazauskas, T. (2017). Advances in the use of educational robots in project-based teaching. TEM Journal, 6(2), 342–348. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM62-20.

  39. Aseriskis, D., & Damasevicius, R. (2014). Gamification patterns for gamification applications. In 6th International Conference on Intelligent Human Computer Interaction, IHCI 2014, Évry, France, 8–10 Dec 2014; Procedia Computer Science 39, 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.11.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Plauska, I., Lukas, R., & Damasevicius, R. (2014). Reflections on using robots and visual programming environments for project-based teaching. Elektronika ir Elektrotechnika, 20(1), 71–74. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.eee.20.1.6169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Burbaite, R., & Stuikys, V., Damasevicius, R. (2013). Educational robots as collaborative learning objects for teaching computer science. In IEEE International Conference on System Science and Engineering, ICSSE 2013 (pp. 211–216). https://doi.org/10.1109/icsse.2013.6614661.

  42. Štuikys, V., Burbaite, R., & Damaševičius, R. (2013). Teaching of computer science topics using meta-programming-based GLOs and Lego robots. Informatics in Education, 12(1), 125–142.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Stuikys, V., Burbaite, R., Drasute, V., & Bespalova, K. (2016). Robot-oriented generative learning objects: An agent-based vision. In 10th KES International Conference on Agent and Multi-Agent Systems: Technology and Applications, KES-AMSTA; Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies (Vol. 58, pp. 247–257). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39883-9_20

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Software Engineering, Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania

    Lina Narbutaitė & Robertas Damaševičius

  2. Centre of Real Time Computer Systems, Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania

    Egidijus Kazanavičius

  3. Department of Electrical and Information Engineering, Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria

    Sanjay Misra

Authors
  1. Lina Narbutaitė
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robertas Damaševičius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Egidijus Kazanavičius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sanjay Misra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanjay Misra .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Engineering, Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India

    Shampa Chakraverty

  2. SAP Canada, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    Anil Goel

  3. Department of Electrical and Information Engineering, Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria

    Sanjay Misra

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Narbutaitė, L., Damaševičius, R., Kazanavičius, E., Misra, S. (2018). Using Collaborative Robotics as a Way to Engage Students. In: Chakraverty, S., Goel, A., Misra, S. (eds) Towards Extensible and Adaptable Methods in Computing. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2348-5_29

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2348-5_29

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-2347-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-2348-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation