The Impact of an Integrated Robotics STEM Course with a Sailboat Topic on High School Students’ Perceptions of Integrative STEM, Interest, and Career Orientation
Yiching Chen 1,  
More details
Hide details
Department of Technology Application and Human Resource Development, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, TAIWAN
Publish date: 2018-08-14
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(12):em1614
The robotics curriculum is one of the most common and popular curricula for stimulating students’ interest in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. The purpose of this study was to develop a robotics curriculum that highly integrates STEM and uses open software and hardware, and to test its effects on high school students’ learning outcomes, interest, and perceptions of STEM. The study involved 82 Grade 10 students; divided into two groups, the experimental group experienced an integrated robotics STEM course, whereas the comparison group participated in a curriculum with commercial robotics. After a semester, the quantitative and qualitative data showed that the experimental group reported significantly more positive perceptions of integrated STEM, with strengthened knowledge, interest, and career orientation towards related fields. The findings of this study provide suggestions for STEM curriculum development.
1. Abaid, N., Kopman, V., & Porfiri, M. (2013). An attraction toward engineering careers: The story of a Brooklyn outreach program for KuFFFD12 Students. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 20(2), 31-39.
2. Abdel-Salam, T., Sawaf, N. E., & Williamson, K. (2009). Robotics explorations to enhance information technology literacy in rural schools. Journal of Communication and Computer, 6(3), 55-63. Retrieved from
3. Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science & Technology Education, 6(1), 63-71. Retrieved from
4. Altin, H., & Pedaste, M. (2013). Learning approaches to applying robotics in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(3), 365-377. Retrieved from https://journals.indexcopernic...? icid=1054482.
5. Araújo, A., Portugal, D., Couceiro, M. S., & Rocha, R. P. (2015). Integrating Arduino-based educational mobile robots in ROS. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 77(2), 281-298.
6. Arduino. (2017). Retrieved on 20 March 2017 from
7. Avsec, S., Rihtaršič, D., & Kocijancic, S. (2014). A predictive study of learner attitudes toward open learning in a robotics class. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(5), 692-704.
8. Barak, M., & Zadok, Y. (2007). Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology and problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 289-307.
9. Barker, B. S., & Ansorge, J. (2007). Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 229-243.
10. Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 12(5/6), 23. Retrieved from page=article&op=view&path[]=1509.
11. Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978-988.
12. Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72(2014), 145-157.
13. Binns, I. C., Polly, D., Conrad, J., & Algozzine, B. (2016). Student perceptions of a summer ventures in science and mathematics camp experience. School Science and Mathematics, 116(8), 420-429.
14. Bybee, R. W. (2013). Case for STEM Education: Challenges and Opportunities. Arlington, VA, USA: National Science Teachers Association.
15. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37-46.
16. Cristoforis, P. D., Pedre, S., Nitsche, M., Fischer, T., Pessacg, F., & Pietro, C. D. (2013). A behavior-based approach for educational robotics activities. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(1), 61-66.
17. Doerschuk, P., Bahrim, C., Daniel, J., Kruger, J., Mann, J., & Martin, C. (2016). Closing the gaps and filling the STEM pipeline: A multidisciplinary approach. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1-14.
18. Eguchi, A. (2016). RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 692-699.
19. English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1-8.
20. Fernandes, A., Couceiro, M. S., Portugal, D., Machado Santos, J., & Rocha, R. P. (2015). Ad hoc communication in teams of mobile robots using zigbee technology. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 23(5), 733-745.
21. Fogarty, R., Stoehr, J., & Gardner, H. (2008). Integrating curricula with multiple intelligences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press A sage Publication Company.
22. Fortunati, L., Esposito, A., Ferrin, G., & Viel, M. (2014). Approaching social robots through playfulness and doing-it-yourself: Children in action. Cognitive Computation, 6(4), 789-801.
23. Galeriu, C., Edwards, S., & Esper, G. (2014). An Arduino investigation of simple harmonic motion. The Physics Teacher, 52, 157-159.
24. Gaudiello, I., & Zibetti, E. (2013). Using control heuristics as a means to explore the educational potential of robotics kits. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 15-28. Retrieved from
25. Gonzalez-Gomez, J., Valero-Gomez, A., Prieto-Moreno, A., & Abderrahim, M. (2012). A new open source 3D-printable mobile robotic platform for education. In U. Rückert, S. Joaquin, & W. Felix (Eds.), Advances in autonomous mini robots (pp. 49-62). Berlin Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
26. Hagedorn, L. S., & Purnamasari, A. V. (2012). A realistic look at STEM and the role of community colleges. Community College Review, 40(2), 145-164.
27. Hernandez, P., Bodin, R., Elliott, J., Ibrahim, B., Rambo-Hernandez, K., Chen, T., & Miranda, M. (2014). Connecting the STEM dots: Measuring the effect of an integrated engineering design intervention. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(1), 107-120.
28. Hussain, S., Lindh, J., & Shukur, G. (2006). The effect of Lego training on pupils’ school performance in mathematics, problem solving ability and attitude: Swedish data. Educational Technology & Society, 9(3), 182-194. Retrieved from
29. Jaulin, L., & Le Bars, F. (2013). An interval approach for stability analysis: Application to sailboat robotics. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 29(1), 282-287.
30. Jojoa, E. M. J., Bravo, E. C., & Cortes, E. B. B. (2010). Tool for experimenting with concepts of mobile robotics as applied to children’s education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 53(1), 88-95.
31. Kennedy, T. J., & Odell, M. R. L. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246-258. Retrieved from
32. King, A. (2010). ‘Membership matters’: Applying membership categorization analysis (MCA) to qualitative data using computer‐assisted qualitative data analysis (CAQDAS) software. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13(1), 1-16.
33. Kubilinskiene, S., Zilinskiene, I., Dagiene, V., & Sinkevièius, V. (2017). Applying Robotics in School Education: a Systematic Review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 5(1), 50-69.
34. Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011). STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future. ESA Issue Brief# 03-11. US Department of Commerce.
35. Lindh, J., & Holgersson, T. (2007). Does lego training stimulate pupils’ ability to solve logical problems? Computers & Education, 49(4), 1097-1111.
36. López-Rodríguez, F. M., & Cuesta, F. (2016). Andruino-A1: Low-cost educational mobile robot based on Android and Arduino. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 81(1), 63-76.
37. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(3), 43-59.
38. Merrill, M. D. (2009). Finding e³ (effective, efficient, and engaging) Instruction. Educational Technology, 49(3), 15-26. Retrieved from
39. Mitnik, R., Nussbaum, M., & Recabarren, M. (2009). Developing Cognition with Collaborative Robotic Activities. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 317-330. Retrieved from
40. Mondada, F., Bonani, M., Riedo, F., Briod, M., Pereyre, L., Rétornaz, P., & Magnenat, S. (2017). Bringing Robotics to Formal Education: The Thymio Open-Source Hardware Robot. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 24(1), 77-85.
41. Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Impact of robotics and geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 391-408.
42. Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Welch, G. (2016). Robotics camps, clubs, and competitions: Results from a US robotics project. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, Part B, 686-691.
43. Pa, P. S., & Wu, C. M. (2012). Design of a hexapod robot with a servo control and a man-machine interface. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 28(3), 351-358.
44. Park, I.W., & Kim, J.O. (2011). Philosophy and strategy of minimalism-based user created robots (UCRs) for educational robotics-education, technology and business viewpoint. International Journal of Robots, Education and Art, 1(1), 26-38.
45. Peppler, K. (2013). STEAM-powered computing education: Using e-textiles to integrate the arts and STEM. Computer, 46(9), 38-43.
46. Rihtaršič, D., Avsec, S., & Kocijancic, S. (2016). Experiential learning of electronics subject matter in middle school robotics courses. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(2), 205-224.
47. Rockland, R., Bloom, D. S., Carpinelli, J., Burr-Alexander, L., Hirsch, L. S., & Kimmel, H. (2010). Advancing the “E” in K-12 STEM education. Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 53-64.
48. Rusk, N., Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Pezalla-Granlund, M. (2008). New pathways into robotics: Strategies for broadening participation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1), 59-69.
49. Seul, J. (2013). Experiences in developing an experimental robotics course program for undergraduate education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(1), 129-136.
50. Slangen, L., van Keulen, H., & Gravemeijer, K. (2011). What pupils can learn from working with robotic direct manipulation environments. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(4), 449-469.
51. Somyürek, S. (2015). An effective educational tool: construction kits for fun and meaningful learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(1), 25-41.
52. Sullivan, F. R., & Heffernan, J. (2016). Robotic construction kits as computational manipulatives for learning in the STEM disciplines. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 105-128.
53. Sullivan, F. R., & Lin, X. (2012). The ideal science student: Exploring the relationship of Students’ perceptions to their problem solving activity in a robotics context. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 23(3), 1-36. Retrieved from
54. Sullivan, F. R., & Moriarty, M. A. (2009). Robotics and discovery learning: Pedagogical beliefs, teacher practice, and technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(1), 109-142. Retrieved from
55. Ucgul, M., & Cagiltay, K. (2014). Design and development issues for educational robotics training camps. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(2), 203-222.
56. Williams, D. C., Ma, Y., Prejean, L., Ford, M. J., & Lai, G. (2008). Acquisition of physics content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills in a robotics summer camp. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 201-216.
57. Yilmaz, M., Ozcelik, S., Yilmazer, N., & Nekovei, R. (2013). Design-oriented enhanced robotics curriculum. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(1), 137-144.
58. Yuen, T. T., Boecking, M., Stone, J., Tiger, E. P., Gomez, A., Guillen, A., & Arreguin, A. (2014). Group tasks, activities, dynamics, and interactions in collaborative robotics projects with elementary and middle school children. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 15(1), 39-45. Retrieved from