Document Type : Review Paper
Authors
1
Department of Curriculum Studies, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
2
Humanities Faculty, West Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Background and Objective:As widespread changes have occurred in the community, the use of technology has also expanded. To effectively prepare for and cope with evolving of this century we need to design and develop special curricula. Educational robotics is an advanced technology that requires special attention. In the past few decades, robotics has attracted the attention of researchers and teachers as a valuable tool in developing cognitive / social skills of students and in supporting the learning of subjects in science, mathematics, language, and technology.
There are several important reasons why young students should be exposed to robotics. As our world becomes more and more technologically advanced, students need to early experience so that to feel comfortable with and be aware of technology. In addition, the inclusion of robotics in the school curriculum will help prepare students to enter the job market with technological literacy. Robotics is an attractive approach to technology training due to its interdisciplinary nature, which requires expertise in a wide range of fields from mathematics to aesthetics. This can attract the interest and engagement of students who have not been successful in traditional subject matters. The purpose of this paper is to explain the philosophical orientation and educational robotics foundations at the primary school level so that policymakers, engineers and curriculum developers can formulate curriculum models for implementation.
Methods: In this research, educational robotics was analyzed and synthesized using the synthesis research method. Valid documents and research from the last four decades have been selected and categorized using a criterion-based purposive sampling technique.
Findings: Synthesis findings indicate that robotics in schools work in two ways as an independent subject and as an educational enabler serving other topics. Logical justification of it is based on constructivist, including epistemological (personal and multidisciplinary), psychological (attention to motivation, creativity and etc.) and sociological foundations (interaction, predictability and etc.).
Conclusion: In order to design a curriculum, a planner must first pay attention to the nature of the subject or knowledge and then proceed to develop a plan based on the orientations of the curriculum. Because the subject is robotics training in elementary school, the planner must pay attention to its nature first. The findings of this synthesis showed that robotics can serve in schools at all levels as an independent subject or as an educational enabler in the service of other subjects. Therefore, it is necessary to differentiate between the concepts of robotic training and training robotics. In robotics training, the subject is robot training; but in educational robotics, the robot is considered as a method, tool or technique that is used to teach other subjects.
Highlights
[1] Mubin O, Stevens CJ, Shahid S, Al Mahmud A, Dong JJ. A review of the applicability of robots in education. Journal of Technology in Education and Learning. 2013; 1: 209-0015.
[2] Holmquist SK. A multi-case study of student interactions with educational robots and impact on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) learning and attitudes: University of South Florid; 2014.
[3] Rogers C, Portsmore M. Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research. 2004; 5(3/4): 17.
[4] Lough TFC. Robotics education: Teacher observations of the effect onstudent attitudes and learning. TIES Magazin; 2002.
[5] Cejka E, Rogers C, Portsmore M. Kindergarten robotics: Using robotics to motivate math, science, and engineering literacy in elementary school. International Journal of Engineering Education. 2006; 22(4): 711.
[6] Ornstein AC, Hunkins FP. Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues (7nd ed.): Pearson Education; 2016.
[7] Getz D. Event studies: Theory, research and policy for planned events (2nd ed.). New York: NY: Routledge; 2012
[8] Sandelowski M, Voils CI, Barroso J. Defining and designing mixed research synthesis studies. Research in the Schools. 2006; 13(1): 29.
[9] Cooper HM. Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews (Vol. 2): Sag; 1998.
[10] Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis: Russell Sage Foundatio; 2009.
[11] Nasr Esfahani AR [Translation of Educational research: an introduction] Gall MD, Borg WR, Gall JP (Author). Tehran: Samt.; 1996. Persian
[12] Ward SA. Knowledge structures and knowledge synthesis. In S. A. Ward & L. J. Reed (Eds.), Knowledge Structure and Use: Implications for Synthesis and Interpretation (pp. 21-42): Temple University Press; 1983.
[13] Thomaz S, Aglaé A, Fernandes C, Pitta R, Azevedo S, Burlamaqui A, . . . Gonçalves LM. RoboEduc: A pedagogical tool to support educational robotics. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference. FIE'09. 39th IEEE; 2009.
[14] De Cristoforis P, Pedre S, Nitsche M, Fischer T., Pessacg F, Di Pietro C. (2013). A behavior-based approach for educational robotics activities. IEEE Transactions on Education. 2013; 56(1): 61-66.
[15] Liu EZF. Early adolescents' perceptions of educational robots and learning of robotics. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2010; 41(3).
[16] Resnick M, Ocko S, Papert S. LEGO, Logo, and design. Children's Environments Quarterly. 1988; 14-18.
[17] Lye NC, Wong KW, Chio A. Framework for educational robotics: a multiphase approach to enhance user learning in a competitive arena Edutainment Technologies. Educational Games and VirtualReality/Augmented Reality Applications (pp. 317-325): Springer; 2011.
[18] Chin KY, Hong ZW, Chen YL. Impact of using an educational robot-based learning system on students’ motivation in elementary education. Learning Technologies, IEEE Transactions on. 2014; 7(4): 333-345.
[19] Chang CW, Lee JH, Chao PY, Wang CY, Chen GD. Exploring the possibility of using humanoid robots as instructional tools for teaching a second language in primary school. Educational Technology & Society. 2010; 13(2): 13-24.
[20] Meghdari A, Alemi M. Cognitive-Social Robotics: Mysteries and Needs. Iranian Journal of Engineering Education. 2016; 18(70): 55-76. Persian
[21] Costa MF, Ribeiro C, Coutinho C, Rocha M. A Study of educational robotics in elementary schools. Selected Papers on Hands-on Science. 2008; 1: 580-595.
[22] Portsmore M, Cyr M, Rogers C. Integrating the Internet, LabVIEW™, and Lego Bricks into Modular Data Acquisition and Analysis Software for K-College. Age. 2001; 5: 2.
[23] Nagchaudhuri A, Singh G, Kaur M, George S. LEGO robotics products boost student creativity in precollege programs at UMES. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education, 2002. FIE 2002. 32nd Annual; 2002.
[24] Mikropoulos TA, Bellou, I. Educational robotics as mindtools. Themes in Science and Technology Education. 2013; 6(1): 5-14.
[25] Lund HH, Pagliarini L. Robocup jr. with lego mindstorms. Paper presented at the Robotics and Automation, 2000. Proceedings. ICRA'00. IEEE International Conference on; 2000.
[26] Sklar E, Eguchi A Johnson J. RoboCupJunior: learning with educational robotics. AI Magazine. 2003; 24(2): 43.
[27] Malec J. Some thoughts on robotics for education. Paper presented at the 2001 AAAI Spring Symposium on Robotics and Education.; 2001
[28] Nabe S, Cowley SJ, Kanda T, Hiraki K, Ishiguro H, Hagita N. Robots as social mediators: coding for engineers. Paper presented at the Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2006. ROMAN 2006. The 15th IEEE International Symposium on; 2006.
[29] Wyrobek KA, Berger EH, Van der Loos HM, Salisbury JK. Towards a personal robotics development platform: Rationale and design of an intrinsically safe personal robot. Paper presented at theRobotics and Automation, 2008. ICRA 2008. IEEE International Conference on.
[30] Barnes DJ. Teaching introductory Java through LEGO MINDSTORMS models. Paper presented at the ACM SIGCSE Bulletin; 2002.
[31] Fagin B, Merkle L. Measuring the effectiveness of robots in teaching computer science. Paper presented at the ACM SIGCSE Bulletin; 2003.
[32] Beer RD, Chiel HJ, Drushel RF. Using autonomous robotics to teach science and engineering. Communications of the ACM. 1999; 42(6): 85-92.
[33] Nourbakhsh IR, Crowley K, Bhave A, Hamner E, Hsiu T, Perez-Bergquist A, . . . Wilkinson K. The robotic autonomy mobile robotics course: Robot design, curriculum design and educational assessment. Autonomous Robots. 2005; 18(1): 103-127.
[34] Moore VS. Robotics: Design through Geometry. Technology Teacher. 1999; 59(3): 17-22.
[35] Papert S. Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas: Basic Books, Inc.; 1980
[36] Mataric MJ, Koenig NP, Feil-Seifer D. Materials for Enabling Hands-On Robotics and STEM Education. Paper presented at the AAAI springsymposium: Semantic scientific knowledge integration.; 2007
[37] Teixeira J. Aplicações da robótica no ensino secundário: o sistema lego mindstorms e a física. Dissertação de Mestrado. Coimbra: Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia da Universidade de Coimbr; 2006.
[38] Barker BS, Ansorge J. Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2007; 39(3): 229-243.
[39] Bers M, Ponte I, Juelich K, Viera A, Schenker J. Teachers as designers: Integrating robotics in early childhood education. Information Technology in Childhood Education. 2002; 1: 123-145.
[40] Botelho SS, Braz LG, odrigues, RN. Exploring creativity and sociability with an accessible educational robotic kit. Paper presented at the Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Robotics in Education (RiE 2012), Prague, Czech Republic.
[41] Chu KH, Goldman R, Sklar E. Roboxap: an agent-based educational robotics simulator. Paper presented at the Agent-based Systems for Human Learning Workshop at AAMAS-2005.
[42] Elkin M, Sullivan A, Bers MU. Implementing a robotics curriculum in an early childhood Montessori classroom. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice. 2014; 13: 153-169.
[43] Faisal A, Kapila V, Iskander MG. Using robotics to promote learning in elementary grades. Paper presented at the 119th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition; 2012.
[44] Han J, Kim D. r-Learning services for elementary school students with a teaching assistant robot. Paper presented at the Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 2009 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on.
[45] Herrmann G, Pearson M, Lenz A, Bremner P, Spiers A, Leonards U. Social Robotics: 5th International Conference, ICSR 2013, Bristol, UK, October 27-29, 2013, Proceedings (Vol. 8239): Springer; 2013.
[46] Jeschke S, Kato A, Knipping L. The engineers of tomorrow: Teaching robotics to primary school children. Paper presented at the SEFI Annual Conference 2008.
[47] Miller D, Stein C. ‘So That’s What Pi is For!’and Other Educational Epiphanies from Hands on Robotics: Morgan Kaufmann; 2000.
[48] Stein SJ, McRobbie CJ, Ginns IS. Introducing technology education: Using teachers' questions as a platform for professional development. Research in Science Education. 1999; 29(4): 501-514.
[49] Vernado T. Robotics across the curriculum. Tech Directions. 2000; 60(4), 22.
[50] Mataric MJ. Robotics education for all ages.Paper presented at the Proc. AAAI Spring Symposium on Accessible, Hands-on AI and Robotics Education; 2004.
[51] Eguchi A. Educational Robotics Theories and Practice: Tips for how to do it Right. Robotics: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. 2013;193
[52] Ackermann E. Perspective-taking and object construction: Two keys to learning. Constructionism in practice: designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 25-35.; 1996
[53] Ackerman E. Piaget’s Constructivism. Papert’s Constructionism: What’s the difference.; 2001
[54] Piaget J. The child’s concept of the world. Londres, Routldge & Kegan Paul.; 1929
[55] Piaget J. The Construction of Reality in the Child. New York: Basic Books; 1954.
[56] Papert S. Constructionism: A new opportunity for elementary science education: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Media Laboratory, Epistemology and Learning Group; 1986.
[57] Papert SE, Harel IE. Constructionism. New York: Ablex Publishing; 1991.
[58] Bers MU. Blocks to robots: Learning with technology in the early childhood classroom. United States of America: Teachers College, Columbia University; 2008.
[59] Papert S. The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer: Basic Books; 1993.
[60] Ackermann EK. Constructing knowledge and transforming the world. A Learning Zone of one’s Own: Sharing Representations and Flow in Collaborative Learning. 2004; 10(1/2): 19-44.
[61] Vygotsky L. Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children. 1978; 23(3): 34-41.
[62] Kelly GA. The psychology of personal constructs. Volume 1: A theory of personality: WWNorton and Company; 1955.
[63] Kolb DA. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development; 1984
[64] Woffinden S, Packham J. Experiential learning, just do it! The Agricultural Education Magazine. 2001; 73(6): 8.
[65] Barrows HS. What Your Tutor May Never Tell You: A Medical Student's Guide to Problem-based Learning (PBL): Southern Illinois University School of Medicine; 1996.
[66] Pressley M. The Challenges of Instructional Scaffolding: The Challenges of InstructionThat Supports Student Thinking. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. 1996; 11(3): 138-146.
[67] Norman G, Schmidt HG. The psychological basis of problem-based learning: a review of the evidence. Academic Medicine. 1992; 67(9): 557-565.
[68] Albanese MA, Mitchell S. Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine. 1993; 68: 52-81.
[69] Hmelo CE, Gotterer GS, Bransford JD. A theory-driven approach to assessing the cognitive effectsof PBL. Instructional Science. 1997; 25(6): 387-408.
[70] Deen M, Bailey S, Parker L. View life skills.
[71] Slavin RE, Davis N. Educational psychology: Theory and practice; 2006
[72] Alimisis D. Robotics in education & education in robotics: Shifting focus from technology to pedagogy. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Robotics in Education; 2012.
[73] Fiorini P, Galvan S, Giuliari L, Pighi L. It Takes a Village... to do Science Education. Paper presented at the SIMPAR 2008, Intl. Conf. on Simulation, modeling and programming for autonomous robots.
[74] Hacker L. Robotics in education: ROBOLAB and robotic technology as tools for learning science and engineering [master’s thesis].Tufts University; 2003.
[75] Alimisis D, Kynigos C. Constructionism and Robotics in education. Teacher Education on Robotic-Enhanced Constructivist Pedagogical Methods. 2009; 11-26.
[76] Bers M, Ponte I, Juelich K, Viera A, Schenker J. Teachers as designers: Integrating robotics in early childhood education. Information Technology in Childhood Education. 2002; 1: 123-145.
[77] Bers MU, Urrea C. Technological prayers: Parents and children working with robotics and values. In A. Druin, & Hendler, J. A. (Ed.), Robots for kids: exploring new technologies for learning (pp. 193). Morgan: Kaufmann; 2000.
[78] Chambers JM, Carbonaro, M. Designing, developing, and implementing a course on LEGO robotics for technology teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 2003; 11(2): 209-242.
[79] Chang CW, Lee JH, Chao PY, Wang CY, Chen GD. Exploring the possibility of using humanoid robots as instructional tools for teaching a second language in primary school. Educational Technology & Society. 2010; 13(2): 13-24.
[80] Erwin B, Cyr M, Rogers C. Lego engineer and robolab: Teaching engineering with labview from kindergarten to graduate school. International Journal of Engineering Education. 2000; 16(3): 181-192.
[81] Resnick M, Silverman B. Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids. Paper presented at the the 2005 Conference on Interaction design and children; 2005.
[82] Rogers C, Portsmore M. Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research. 2004; 5(3/4): 17.
[83] Staszowski KJ, Bers M. The effects of peer interactions on the development of technological fluency in an early-childhood, robotic learning environment. Age. 2005; 10: 1.
[84] Faisal A, Kapila V, Iskander MG. Using robotics to promote learning in elementary grades. Paper presented at the 119th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition; 2012.
[85] Cejka E, Rogers C, Portsmore M. Kindergarten robotics: Using robotics to motivate math, science, and engineering literacy in elementary school. International Journal of Engineering Education. 2006; 22(4): 711.
[86] Costa MF, Ribeiro C, Coutinho C, Rocha M. A Study of educational robotics in elementary schools. Selected Papers on Hands-on Science. 2008; 1, 580-595.
[87] Mikropoulos TA, Bellou I. Educational robotics as mindtools. Themes in Science and Technology Education. 2013; 6(1): 5-14.
[88] Mikropoulos TA, Bellou J. The unique features of educational virtual environments. In Proceedings e-society, 122-128; 2006.
[89] Datteri E, Zecca L, Laudisa F, Castiglioni M. Explaining robotic behaviors: a case study on science education. Paper presented at the Proceedings of 3rd International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics Integrating Robotics in School Curriculum; 2012.
[90] Barker BS, Ansorge J. (Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2007; 39(3): 229-243.
[91] Thomaz S, Aglaé A, Fernandes C, Pitta R, Azevedo S, BurlamaquiA., . . . Gonçalves LM. RoboEduc: A pedagogical tool to support educational robotics. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference, 2009. FIE'09. 39th IEEE.
[92] O' Donnel AM, Reeve J, Smith JK. Educational psychology: Reflection for action. USA: Wiley; 2007.
[93] Schunk DH. Learning theories an educational perspective upper Saddle River,: NJ: Prentice-Hall; 2000.
[94] Richardson V. Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice. Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of new understandings. 1997; 3-14.
[95] Swan K. A constructivist model for thinking about learning online. Elements of quality online education: Engaging communities. 2005; 6: 13-31.
[96] Cavicchi E, Chiu SM, McDonnell F. Introductory paper on criticalexplorations in teaching art, science, and teacher education. The New Educator. 2009; 5(3): 189-204.
[97] Duckworth E. The having of wonderful ideas and other essays on teaching and learning: Teachers College Pres; 2006.
[98] Duckworth E. Critical exploration in the classroom. The New Educator. 2005; 1(4): 257-272.
[99] Eguchi A. Bringing Robotics in Classrooms Robotics in STEM Education (pp. 3-31): Springer; 2017.
[100] Hmelo-Silver CE. Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review. 2004; 16(3): 235-266.
[101] Alimisis D, Karatrantou A, Tachos N. Technical school students design and develop robotic gear-based constructions for the transmission of motion. Paper presented at the Eurologo, (pp. 76-86); 2005.
[102] Erwin B, Cyr M, Rogers C. Lego engineer and robolab: Teaching engineering with labview from kindergarten to graduate school. International Journal of Engineering Education. 2000; 16(3): 181-192.
[103] Mota MIG. Work in progress-using lego mindstorms and robolab as a mean to lowering dropout and failure rate in programming course. Paper presented at the Frontiers In Education Conference-Global Engineering: Knowledge Without Borders, Opportunities Without Passports, 2007. FIE'07. 37th Annual.
[104] Petre M, Price B. Using robotics to motivate ‘back door’learning. Education and Information Technologies. 2004; 9(2): 147-158.
[105] Shariatmadari A. Principles and Philosophy of Education. Tehran: Amir Kabir; 2002 Persian
[106] Cubberly E. Public school administration: A statement of the principles underlying the organization and administration of public education: Boston MA: Houghton Mifflin; 1916
[107] Nations U. United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child Article; 2001.
[108] National Center for Research in Teacher Learning, C. o. E. How teachers learn to engage students in active learning,”; 1993.
[109] Jonassen DH. Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking: Prentice Hall; 2000.
[110] Chambers JM, Carbonaro M. Designing, developing, and implementing a course on LEGO robotics for technology teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 2003; 11(2): 209-241.
[111] Papanikolaou K, Frangou S. Robotics as learning tool. Teacher Education on Robotics-enhanced Constructivist Pedagogical Models. 2009; 103-137.
[112] Datteri E, Zecca L, Laudisa F, Castiglioni M. Explaining robotic behaviors: a case study on science education. Paper presented at the Proceedings of 3rd International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics Integrating Robotics in School Curriculum; 2012.
[113] Cavas B, Kesercioglu T, Holbrook J, Rannikmae M, Ozdogru E, Gokler F. The effects of robotics club on the students’ performance on science process & scientific creativity skills and perceptions on robots, human and society. Paper presented at the Proceedings of 3rd International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics Integrating Robotics in School Curriculum, (pp. 40-50).; 2012
[114] Denis B, Hubert S. Collaborative learning in an educational robotics environment. Computers in Human Behavior. 2001; 17(5): 465-480.
[115] Vygotsky LS. Piaget's Theory of Child Language and Thought; 1962.
[116] Lewis R. Working and learning in distributed communities. Computer Supported Learning Environments, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid; 1996.
[117] Charlier B, Daele A, Cheffert JL, Peeters R, Lusalusa S. Learning collaboratively in a virtual campus: teachers’ experiences. Paper presented at the ISATT 99 conference, Dublin (Ireland); 1999.
[118] Charlier B, Docq F, Lebrun M, Lusalusa S, Peeters R, Deschryver N. Tuteurs en ligne: quels rôles, quelle formation? 1999
[119] Petters R. Learning collaboratively in a virtual campus. Learn-Nett, WP4; 1998.
[120] Ainscow M, Dyson A, Kerr K. Equity in education: mapping the territory: The first annual report of the Centre for Equity in Education. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester, Centre for Equity in Education; 2006
[121] Hirsch ED, Kett JF, Trefil JS. Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know: Vintage; 1988.
[122] Lave J, Wenger E. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation: Cambridge university press; 1991.
[123] Kozol J. The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America, Broadway Books; 2005
[124] Darling-Hammond L. New standards and old inequalities: School reform and the education of African American students. Black education: A transformative research and action agenda for the new century, 197-223; 2005.
[125] Ferguson R F. Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters. Harv. J. on Legis. 1991; 28: 465.
[126] Dreeben R. Closing the Divide: What Teachers and Administrators Can Do to Help Black Students Reach Their Reading Potential. American Educator: The Professional Journal of the American Federation of Teachers. 1987; 11(4): 28-35.
[127] Rykowski J. Robots in the Classroom: A Platform for Driving Interest in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Disciplines; 2013.
[128] Weinberg JB, Yu X. Low-cost platforms for teaching integrated systems. Robotics & Automation Magazine, IEEE.; 2003
[129] Bredenfeld A, Leimbach T. The roberta initiative. Paper presented at the Workshop Proceedings of Intl. Conf. on Simulation, Modeling and Programming for Autonomous Robots (SIMPAR 2010).
[130] Catlin D, Robertson S. Using educational robots to enhance the performance of minority students. Paper presented at the TRTWR 2012 Conference, Riva La Garda Italy.
[131] Lee CD. Intervention research based on current views of cognition and learning: Black education: A transformative research and action agenda for the new century: American Educational Research Association; 2005.
[132] Council NR. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition: National Academies Press; 2000.
[133] Nasir NIS., Rosebery AS, Warren B, Lee CD. Learning as a cultural process: Achieving equity through diversity.; 2006.
[134] Bouillion LM, Gomez LM. The case for considering cultural entailments and genres of attachment in the design of educational technologies. Paper presented at the Smart machines in education; 2001.
[135] Gay G. Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice: Teachers College Press.; 2000
[136] Alemi M, Meghdari A, Basiri NM, Taheri A. The effect of applying humanoid robots as teacher assistants to help Iranian autistic pupils learn English as a foreign language. Paper presented at the International Conference on Social Robotics; 2015.
[137] Gay G. Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice: Teachers College Press; 2010.
[138] Catlin D, Blamires M. The Principles of Educational Robotic Applications (ERA): A framework for understanding and developing educational robots and their activities; 2010.
[139] Simons G. Is man a robot? US: Wiley; 1986
[140] Goldman LR. Child's Play: Myth, Mimesis and Make-Believe: ERIC; 1998.
[141] Technology V. Robot Rally Race; 2009.
Keywords
Main Subjects
', './data/jte/coversheet/cover_en.jpg'))
Send comment about this article