2022 Latin American Robotics Symposium (LARS), 2022 Brazilian Symposium on Robotics (SBR), and 2022 Workshop on Robotics
in Education (WRE) | 978-1-6654-6280-8/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/LARS/SBR/WRE56824.2022.9995734
Edubot Project: Post-pandemic remodeling of
in-person robotics classes
Luı́sa Gabriela Ferro da Frota
Mechatronics Engineering,
Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro,
Universidade de Brası́lia - Brası́lia, Brazil
211038772@aluno.unb.br
Gleyson José Xavier de Brito
Mechatronics Engineering,
Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro,
Universidade de Brası́lia - Brası́lia, Brazil
180017942@aluno.unb.br
Walker Dimitry Araujo Andrade
Mechatronics Engineering,
Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro,
Universidade de Brası́lia - Brası́lia, Brazil
walker.andrade@aluno.unb.br
Claudia Patricia Ochoa Diaz
Electronics Engineering,
Faculdade do Gama,
Universidade de Brası́lia - Brası́lia, Brazil
claudiaochoa@unb.br
Abstract—Following the 2 years of COVID-19 pandemic,
Project Edubot had to face the challenge to remodel classroom
methodologies for post pandemic conditions. To assess the effec-
tiveness of this adaptation a survey was developed in which new
students, who had never studied with Edubot before, could give
their opinion on affinity and quality regarding the new classes.
The answers indicate that although difficulties were found in
the re-adaptation phase of in-person lessons, all of the students
interviewed had a preference for this approach of teaching.
Index Terms—Education, Robotics, Presential learning, Re-
mote learning, COVID-19 pandemic
I. I NTRODUCTION
Robotics in Education is a teaching methodology that intro-
duces robots to the classroom, so that students have a more
enjoyable experience with science, specifically with some
principles of programming logic and some basic concepts on
robotics. The intent is to make the process of learning into
This project is partially funded by IEEE RAS Chapter Initiative Grant.
978-1-6654-6280-8/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE
401
Authorized licensed use limited to: FUDAN UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 25,2023 at 04:32:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Sheila de Lima Araújo
Computational engineering,
Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro,
Universidade de Brası́lia - Brası́lia, Brazil
190098406@aluno.unb.br
Lukas Araujo da Silva
Electronics Engineering,
Faculdade do Gama,
Universidade de Brası́lia - Brası́lia, Brazil
190033771@aluno.unb.br
Luiz Felipe Rodrigues e Silva
Electronics Engineering,
Faculdade do Gama,
Universidade de Brası́lia - Brası́lia, Brazil
180023110@aluno.unb.br
Roberto de Souza Baptista
Electronics Engineering,
Faculdade do Gama,
Universidade de Brası́lia - Brası́lia, Brazil
robertobaptista@unb.br
a more practical and didactic activity, demystifying robotics
to the future generations [6]. With that in mind, the Edubot
Project, which works with Robotics in Education (R-in-E),
comes to guide these students and encourage them to prac-
tice and to actively try to obtain more informations about
technology. Doing so, we hope that this kind of teaching
and communication with our students (all from public high
schools) presents to them possibilities within this field, either
as a spark of curiosity, either as a possibility to create a more
plural and diverse workfield in the future years yet to come
[6].
The Project aims to present and approximate robotics to
the student’s lives, in a way that inspires them to pursue this
field. By these methods, the objective is to instigate and inspire
high school students in the fields related to technology (with
the basic methods, tools and concepts) [6].
In the initial semester of 2022, classes were divided in intro-
duction to basic programming logic and robotics, along with
practical activities. These hands-on activities were performed
with a programmable Arduino STEM robot kit for kids, sold
by Arcbotics, called Sparki in Figure 1, which are Robots
purchased specifically for teaching [3].
Sparki consists of a two-wheeled robot developed on top
of an Arduino Leonardo, along with 4 Actuators, 17 Sensors,
and 16 Arduino Pins. The robot is designed to be a pleasant
teaching tool for kids and teenagers. Along with this, on
the Arcbotics site, there are more than a hundred pre-made
and well-explained lessons about the robot. Consequently,
because of its functionalities and resources available online,
this teaching robot is used in EDUBOT’s classes to facilitate
the teaching process.
Figure 1: Spaki robot used on classes.
The method of in-person teaching applied by Edubot un-
til the first trimester of 2020 (which included introductory
robotics modules, programming theory and practical activities)
was directly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which
caused the Brası́lia government to determinate remote educa-
tion in all schools in Brazil’s Federal District, via the Diário
Oficial do Distrito Federal (national press portal), in that same
year [7].
But in July of 2021 the Brası́lia government decreed in the
national press portal the return of classroom education, with
the proper changes specifically to each school [8].
And in this scenario, after the proper time of analysis and
discussion with the partner school, in the first quarter of 2022
the Edubot Project faced a new challenge: how to plan and put
in practice objective actions to deal with the post-pandemic
classroom education. Considering the shortage of volunteers
and the technical problems with the robotic kits (due to being
kept with no repairs for almost 2 years).
Therefore, the present paper aims to evaluate this new
methodology used by the Edubot Project right after the
COVID-19 pandemic. We will start with an explanation of the
methodology, then we present the post-pandemic classroom
assessment forms and end with an analysis of our results.
II. PROJECT’S HISTORY
The Edubot Project was established as part of the IEEE
Robotics and Automation Student Chapter of the University
402
Authorized licensed use limited to: FUDAN UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 25,2023 at 04:32:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
of Brasilia in 2014. The objective was to encourage students
from public schools to attend university in the future. Over the
years, the quality of the classes has improved, and the project
has grown by introducing ArcBotics’s Sparki educational kit
into the lessons. With the improvements, the intent became to
inspire students in academic life and encourage them to attend
engineering graduate courses at the university.
The team is formed by volunteer undergraduate students of
different degrees. They became teachers and mentors for the
High School students.
In addition to the educational program, the group gives
courses related to robotics at university events such as Uni-
versity Week and training courses for first-year students.
III. C OURSE S TRUCTURE
Due to social distancing caused by COVID-19 in 2020,
the project adapted its structure to fit into the online mode.
However, with the flexibilization of restrictions, early on
2022, classes were once again inside of a classroom. As a
consequence of it, rebuilding the course’s structure was a
requirement to, once again, attend an in-person mode.
In 2021, remote classes were divided into different modules:
definition of the robot concept; introduction to Algorithms;
basic programming in C; Arduino programming, sensors and
actuators; electric circuits and mechanics. It was used free and
accessible online tools, such as judge URI, TinkerCad from
AutoDesk and Google Classroom.
Nevertheless, in 2022, ideas were taken from both 2020
and 2019 classes (since this one followed a face-to-face
structure). Therefore, there were 4 modules: Introduction to
robotics; Algorithms: logic, sintax, variables and functions in
C; Electronic components; Sparki and Arduino. Beyond that,
dynamic videos were recorded in order to guide the volunteers
along the classes. In terms of the methodology itself, there’s
a chart that can be found in [12]. There were 4 volunteers
engaged with the Project, all of them being undergraduates
students from different engineering courses at the University
of Brasilia.
We were motivated by the heterogeneous arrangement of the
students in the classes, some of them had sufficient knowledge
based on mathematics, programming, and robotics, but some
of them did not. Therefore, intending to integrate all students,
we decided to approach every topic from the basics. The
class about programming logic started with the definition of
algorithm, for example. Furthermore, to introduce drawing on
paper with Sparki, we had to primarily explain geometry and
the angles that would be used on the loops.
Besides, in the classes, we used the official material granted
by Arcbotics, available on their website [2], in which we can
find explanations related to programming and to the robot
Sparki itself and its functionalities. This site was used as a
reference for all classes. Beyond this, we also used other online
materials, such as ”Blockly Games: Maze” [9], which is a site
that presents challenges that can be solved by using program-
ming logic. This site, among others, is straightforward and
useful to guide the students through the basics of mathematical
logic and algorithm.
To use this one, and other similar tools in the classroom, we
had to divide the students into groups of two or three people
who tried to solve the challenges together. The instructors were
around all the time, helping whoever needed instructions on
how to fulfill the practical exercises. This teaching mechanism
was a successful approach, give the fact that the students had
an active participation in the learning process.
In addition to the postulated so far, there were short videos
that were created and uploaded on YouTube [13] to be
presented in the beginning of classes introducing each specific
topic. However these visual resources couldn’t always be used
because of the lack of appropriate equipment available in the
school. For a practical example, the internet connection was
not reliable and the laptops available were not at disposal for
the robotics classes. Figure 2: Instructor teaching students about circuits.
In terms of the school we attended, since we had previously
worked with them, we managed to open 2 classes of new
students who have never worked with arduino before, both of new data inconsistent with the tone, collection, and analysis
of them held in 10th grade at the Centro Educacional Gisno. performed in our previous article [3].
One of the classes had 10 students and the other one had 15.
Questionnaire structure contains only Single Best Answer
Each class had only one current instructor and, eventually, a
Questions [1], which, like the Dichotomous Questions, give
monitor, who assisted the instructor during class. In Figure
less margin for errors related to the speaker’s unconscious
2, we can see a moment of class at school. The number of
intervention [5].
students increased compared to the pandemic period [3], even
though there were less schools participating in the Project. The tool chosen to implement the questions was Google
This year, due to the new Brazilian high school curriculum Forms because it makes the process easier for the students
[4], the Project was considered a regular class for the students, to understand and answer. In addition, it is important to fix
so it took place in the mornings, along with the other subjects. our effort to consider the affective aspect of learning since
This stimulated the students to engage with the Project. Going we believe in the social function of the Project and how it
further, because of the face-to-face circumstances, the Project improves the learning process [14]. After school hours, we
was presented personally to the students before the classes provide the questionnaire link, consisting of 12 questions and
started, which expanded their options and allowed them to individual completion. In total, seven students responded to
choose this course in their grade. the form.
But in spite of that, for the Edubot Project itself, it was in the
initial phase of return to in-person mode, after years, therefore
A. Structure
the number of classes and students who could participate was
limited in order to explore the new methodology. Consisting of three sections, we start the questionnaire with
The Project was planned to last a total of fourteen weeks, the identification of the respondent, where we got how the
attending one class per week. Each week a new activity was gender are distributed. In the next block there is the analysis
explored with the students, taking as much time as needed to of each students about the modality of the classes. Then, the
dive into the topics proposed. It was used online tools (such final section consists of questions about how the Project is
as BlocklyGames) and offline tools (such as the cmd in the meeting, or not, the student expectations.
computers or even robot Sparki itself) to enrich the learning
We start with the respondent Gender Distribution, which is
process.
a single question section, where we do have three possible
answers. Next, the Preference/Adaptation in Each Modality
IV. T HE S URVEY
block has five SBA Multiple choices Questions[11], all four
In order to obtain a reliable analysis, the chosen evaluation referring to the remote versus presential classes topic.
method was again a questionnaire, as in our article on adapting Finally, the last block of questions called Edubot Reper-
robotics classes to the remote environment [3]. In this way, it is cussion asks for an assessment of the Project’s eficiency and
possible to provide more complete compatibility in developing personal impact in student’s life. Again, we present Multiple
parallels between the considerations of our previous article [3] Choice Questions with a Single Best Answer, however, the
and this article. Ensuring concomitance between the evaluation predominant ones are CSAT questions, and the least an single
methods allows us to eliminate factors that make the reading one Dicotomic Question type.

403
Authorized licensed use limited to: FUDAN UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 25,2023 at 04:32:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Gender Distribution in Percentage Quality of In-person Distribution in Percentage
Masculine 57.1 Classes
Feminine 42.9 1 - Really Bad 0
Other 0 2 - Bad 14.3
3 - Mediocre 28.6
TABLE I: Gender Distribution 4 - Good 57.1
4 - Really Good 0

(a) Quality of in-person classes

B. Collected data Project’s choice of tools Distribution in Percentage
and softwares
As we can see, the disposition between genders, Table 1 - Really Bad 0
2 - Bad 0
I shows us the proportion between male, female, and also, 3 - Mediocre 14.3
”other” as option (it was not selected once, we find the choose 4 - Good 71.4
possibility important ). Here you can see that the proportion of 4 - Really Good 14.3
male is bigger than the female in engineering projects , even (b) Quality of tools and softwares avaliables
in the High School. We can assume that inequality in gender Experience with robotic Distribution in Percentage
distribution starts before the high school. before Edubot’s
No 28.6
Yes 71.4
Approach that promotes Distribution in Percentage
a better learning (c) Edubot’s impact on the interest in robotics
Online Classes 0 Edubot’s impact on the Distribution in Percentage
In-Person Classes 85.7 interest in robotics
Indifferent 14.3 1 - Unproductive 14.2
2 - A little Productive 0
(a) Which modality promotes a more productive learning 3 - Indifferent 28.6
More Productive Teaching Approach Distribution in Percentage 4 - Productive 28.6
Online synchronous classes 0 4 - Really Productive 28.6
Online Asynchronous Classes 0
In-Person Classes 100 (d) Previous experience with robotics before Edubot
Indifferent 0 Edubot’s impact on Distribution in Percentage
communication and
(b) Teaching modality preferred group dynamic
Deciding between the Distribution in Percentage 1 - Unproductive 0
two methods 2 - A little Productive 0
Online Classes 0 3 - Indifferent 14.3
In-Person Classes 100 4 - Productive 71.4
Indifferent 0 4 - Really Productive 14.3
(c) If it was possible to decide between the two classes of (e) Edubot’s impact on communication and group dynamic
modalities The impact of the Distribution in Percentage
project on your life
TABLE II: Adaptation/Preference Between Project’s Ap- Negative 0
proaches Positive 57.1
Indifferent 42.9

About the modality in which students learn more, in Table
IIa we can visualize the arrangement between synchronous,
asynchronous, in person classes or neither.
Student’s responses regarding the type of class in which they
feel they are more productive, whether online or in-person, are
expressed in Table IIb.
The Table IIc consists of the distribution graph about the
students’ choice of the class modality, if it were possible to
choose between face-to-face and virtual.
About the quality of the Project’s in-person classes is in
Table IIIa, where the students gave their opinion giving a grade
ranging from 0 (very bad) to 5 (great).
Table IIIb shows the satisfaction regarding the Project’s
tools and software, where students could choose numbers from
0 (very bad) to 5 (great).
Table IIIc configures the disposition of the students’ re-
sponses when they were asked about the growth of their
interest in robotics due to their participation in the Edubot
Project.
(f) The impact of the project on your life
TABLE III: Edubot’s impact
Table IIId shows the students responses about robot expe-
riences before the participation in this project, where students
could choose between positive and negative.
Regarding the ability to work in groups, which were given
by marking numbers between 1 and 5. Table IIIe shows the
arrangement of the answers.
Finally, Table IIIf shows us the answer about this project’s
impact on the students live, they were mostly positive, al-
though a considerable part was indifferent.
V. D ISCUSSION
We initiate this discussion analyzing the collected data in
Gender Distribution section, it shows a mostly male student
profile in our Project. Also, we’ve put not two, but three
options: male, female, and other, since gender discussion

404
Authorized licensed use limited to: FUDAN UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 25,2023 at 04:32:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
is getting bigger [10], we believe we do need to assure Among the ways we can improve, the major and most efficient
our politics in teach are consonant with students necessities. way is the content class and how it is presented. When we
In the second block of our survey we were looking after think about our target, which is the teenage student, and we
students preference between face-to-face and remote classes, think about our goal, which is to encourage them to pursue a
in addition an unexpected event occurred: in our previous 2021 STEM career, we get an idea of what we should do. We must
paper [3], Project’s students were divided between the two improve the content to make it fun and easy to understand.
modalities, although, this time in-person classes unanimously Build content with progression to captivate the student from
won the dispute. They affirm that this way robotics is easier start to finish. Besides, we need to have fun projects that spark
to understand, but when asked in which modality the learning curiosity and show what the robotics world is. Thus, we can
is more productive, a small amount was indifferent. Even improve the impact of edubot on robotics interest, table IIIc,
considering this, all other questions were one hundred percent in addition to improving the quality of teaching.
susceptible for in-person classes. For future studies some considerations may be raised. For
Students were mostly satisfied with course tools and struc- example, the questionnaire we elaborated had no questions
ture, in addition is evident that most of the students developed about ethnicity; gender identification and or sexual orienta-
greater interest in technological areas as a result of their tion, that would provide information about the diversity of
participation in the Project, as same in our previous paper. the portion of students that show some interest in robotics,
Answers about a possible skill gain in group work were considering that it is optional to participate in the classes
again rather scattered. Also about the the impact of Edubot provided by the Edubot volunteers.
in each students life, the main answer was positive again. Finally, teaching in the post-pandemic scenario is a brand
Therefore, we believe it is crucial to verify how well the new topic of discussion, Students are coming to in-person
Project is fulfilling its responsibility to offer and encourage classes after almost two years of online teaching. This aspect
education, since from this we can start the elaboration of will certainly impact the next years in education.
improvements that lead us to the success of the methodological
implementation, and the social and educational impacts that
we seek.
VI. C ONCLUSION
Considering the topics analyzed in this article, it is possible
to conclude that the objective of the Edubot Project was ful-
filled and our students had a general good evaluation about the
teaching methods implemented in the post-pandemic scenario.
However, it is fundamental to say that our database was short,
therefore our sample space may show some great discrepancy
if compared with the hypothetical scenario in what we could
find with a large number of students to collaborate with the
research.
With the answers collected about the preference of teaching
method (in-person mode or online mode) it is possible to
see that the students in general prefer the first methodology
and they think it provides an easier and more productive
learning. However, we did not include questions to investigate
the reason, which should enhance future work.
We can see by comparing our previous 2021 study [3] and
the current research, that both indicate that the participating
students in the Edubot Project tend to prefer in-person classes
rather than online learning, in the hypothetical situation where
the option is given to them. Considering this knowledge and
the fact that the first methodology was implemented in 2022
(only two years after the project had a severe impact caused by
a shortage of volunteers), it is reasonable to affirm that results
that were obtained were positive, The resulting structure
offer a productive introduction to principles of robotics and
technology to the students while instigating critical thinking
and demystifying robotics to young public school students.
Even with good results, the answers about the quality of
teaching in table IIIa show us that we still have to improve.

405
Authorized licensed use limited to: FUDAN UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 25,2023 at 04:32:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 R EFERENCES edisciplinas . usp . br / pluginfile . php / 3317710 / mod
[1] Suha A. Al Muhaissen et al. “Quantitative analysis resource / content / 2 / A % 5C % 20formacao % 5C %
of single best answer multiple choice questions in 20social%5C%20da%5C%20mente.pdf%7D.
pharmaceutics”. In: Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and
Learning 11.3 (2019), pp. 251–257.
[2] ArcBotics. ArcBotics - Sparki – Programmable Arduino
STEM Robot Kit for Kids. http://arcbotics.com/products/
sparki/. Accessed: 2022-10-02. 2012.
[3] G. Bottino et al. “Edubot Project: Analyzing the Adap-
tation of Robotics Classes to the Remote Environment”.
In: Anais do XIII Simpósio Brasileiro de Robótica e
XVIII Simpósio Latino Americano de Robótica. 2021,
pp. 366–370.
[4] Brasil. LEI Nº 13.415, DE 16 DE FEVEREIRO DE
2017. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil 03/ ato2015-
2018 / 2017 / lei / l13415 . htm. Accessed: 2022-07-21.
2017.
[5] A. T. R. Chagas. “O questionário na pesquisa
cientı́fica”. In: Administração On Line 1.1 (2000).
[6] Belen Curto and Vidal Moreno. “Robotics in educa-
tion,” in: Journal of Intelli- gent Robotic Systems 11
(2015), P. 81.
[7] Distrito Federal. “Decreto nº 40.817”. In: Diário Oficial
do Distrito Federal (May 22, 2020). URL: %5Curl %
7Bhttp : / / www . educacao . df . gov . br / wp - conteudo /
uploads/2020/05/Decreto- n%20%5C%%20c2%20%
5C%%20ba-40.817 22mai20.pdf%7D.
[8] Distrito Federal. “Decreto nº 42.253”. In: Diário Oficial
do Distrito Federal (July 1, 2021). URL: %5Curl %
7Bhttps : / / www . educacao . df . gov . br / wp - conteudo /
uploads/2021/08/DODF- 054- 01- 07- 2021- EDICAO-
EXTRA-A-1.pdf%7D.
[9] Google. Blockly Games - Maze. https://blockly.games/
maze. Accessed: 2022-10-02. 2019.
[10] Katherine W. Phillips on October. How Diversity Makes
Us Smarter. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/
how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/. Accessed: 2022-07-
21. 20147.
[11] Murat POLAT. “Analysis of Multiple-choice versus
Open-ended Questions in Language Tests According
to Different Cognitive Domain Levels”. In: Novitas-
ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language) 14(2)
(2020), P. 76–96.
[12] IEEE RAS UnB. Class Plans. https : / / docs .
google . com / spreadsheets / d / 1mTvoSiCQPEf
SRTos0WbvEniNWk2 Gl / edit ? usp = sharing & ouid =
101828235562345322053 & rtpof = true & sd = true. Ac-
cessed: 2022-10-03. 2022.
[13] IEEE RAS UnB. Playlist - Edubot. https : / /
www . youtube . com / watch ? v = OnSlHu1 - Sro &
list=PLp876M6RYFomjiH5EDFAlzsiDlgTjMeZY. Ac-
cessed: 2022-10-02. 2022.
[14] L. S. A Vygotsky. “(A Formação Social da Mente.
São Paulo, Martins Fontes”. In: Psicologia e Pedagogia
631 (1991), pp. 55–163. URL: %5Curl % 7Bhttps : / /

406
Authorized licensed use limited to: FUDAN UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 25,2023 at 04:32:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.