Stefanos Xefteris (Editor) - Handbook of Research On Integrating ICTs in STEAM Education-Information Science Reference (2022)

Handbook of Research on
Integrating ICTs in STEAM

Education
Stefanos Xefteris
University of Western Macedonia, Greece
A volume in the Advances in Educational

Technologies and Instructional Design (AETID)
Book Series
Published in the United States of America by
IGI Global
Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA, USA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: cust@igi-global.com
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com
Copyright © 2022 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or
companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Xefteris, Stefanos, 1977- editor.
Title: Handbook of research on integrating ICTs in STEAM education /
Stefanos Xefteris, editor.
Description: Hershey, PA : Information Science Reference, [2022] | Includes
bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “This book will provide
both practicing educators and researchers in the field of education
science with novel teaching scenarios and interventions as well as
frameworks of operation for integrating multiple technologies in novel
STEAM based scenarios”-- Provided by publisher.
Identifiers: LCCN 2022001256 (print) | LCCN 2022001257 (ebook) | ISBN
9781668438619 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781668438633 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Educational technology. | Education--Effect of
technological innovations on. | Computer-assisted instruction. |
Inquiry-based learning.
Classification: LCC LB1028.3 .P73 2022 (print) | LCC LB1028.3 (ebook) |
DDC 371.33--dc23/eng/20220209
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022001256
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022001257
This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (AE-
TID) (ISSN: 2326-8905; eISSN: 2326-8913)
British Cataloguing in Publication Data

A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.
All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.
For electronic access to this publication, please contact: eresources@igi-global.com.

Advances in Educational
Technologies and Instructional
Design (AETID) Book Series
Lawrence A. Tomei
Robert Morris University, USA
ISSN:2326-8905
EISSN:2326-8913
Mission
Education has undergone, and continues to undergo, immense changes in the way it is enacted and
distributed to both child and adult learners. In modern education, the traditional classroom learning
experience has evolved to include technological resources and to provide online classroom opportunities
to students of all ages regardless of their geographical locations. From distance education, Massive-
Open-Online-Courses (MOOCs), and electronic tablets in the classroom, technology is now an integral
part of learning and is also affecting the way educators communicate information to students.
The Advances in Educational Technologies & Instructional Design (AETID) Book Series explores
new research and theories for facilitating learning and improving educational performance utilizing
technological processes and resources. The series examines technologies that can be integrated into
K-12 classrooms to improve skills and learning abilities in all subjects including STEM education and
language learning. Additionally, it studies the emergence of fully online classrooms for young and adult
learners alike, and the communication and accountability challenges that can arise. Trending topics that
are covered include adaptive learning, game-based learning, virtual school environments, and social
media effects. School administrators, educators, academicians, researchers, and students will find this
series to be an excellent resource for the effective design and implementation of learning technologies
in their classes.
Coverage
• Curriculum Development
IGI Global is currently accepting manuscripts
• Virtual School Environments
for publication within this series. To submit a pro-
• Digital Divide in Education
posal for a volume in this series, please contact our
• Instructional Design Models
Acquisition Editors at Acquisitions@igi-global.com
• Bring-Your-Own-Device
or visit: http://www.igi-global.com/publish/.
• Game-Based Learning
• Educational Telecommunications
• Online Media in Classrooms
• Higher Education Technologies
• Adaptive Learning
The Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (AETID) Book Series (ISSN 2326-8905) is published by IGI Global,
701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033-1240, USA, www.igi-global.com. This series is composed of titles available for purchase indi-
vidually; each title is edited to be contextually exclusive from any other title within the series. For pricing and ordering information please visit
http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-educational-technologies-instructional-design/73678. Postmaster: Send all address changes
to above address. Copyright © 2022 IGI Global. All rights, including translation in other languages reserved by the publisher. No part of this
series may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means – graphics, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping,
or information and retrieval systems – without written permission from the publisher, except for non commercial, educational use, including
classroom teaching purposes. The views expressed in this series are those of the authors, but not necessarily of IGI Global.
Titles in this Series
For a list of additional titles in this series, please visit: www.igi-global.com/book-series
Assistive Technologies for Differently Abled Students

Sangeeta Dhamdhere-Rao (Modern College of Arts, Science and Commerce, India) and Frederic Andres (National
Insitute of Informatics, Japan)
Information Science Reference • © 2022 • 305pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781799847366) • US $195.00
Global Perspectives and Practices for Reform-Based Mathematics Teaching

Ozgul Kartal (University of Wisconsin, Whitewater, USA) Gorjana Popovic (Illinois Institute of Technology, USA)
and Susie Morrissey (Mercer University, USA)
Integrating Transparency in Learning and Teaching (TILT) An Effective Tool for Providing Equitable Op-
portunity in Higher Education
Devi Akella (Albany State University, USA) Laxmi Paudel (Albany State University, USA) Nadeepa Wickramage
(Albany State University, USA) Michael Rogers (Albany State University, USA) and Annalease Gibson (Albany
State University, USA)
Design and Measurement Strategies for Meaningful Learning

José Luis Gómez Ramos (University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain) and Isabel María Gómez-Barreto (University
of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain)
Technology-Supported Interventions for Students With Special Needs in the 21st Century
Xiongyi Liu (Cleveland State University, USA) and Patrick Wachira (Cleveland State University, USA)
Cases on Practical Applications for Remote, Hybrid, and Hyflex Teaching

Valerie Harlow Shinas (Lesley University, USA) Chu N. Ly (Framingham State University, USA) and Sule Yilmaz
Ozden (Sakarya Üniversitesi, Turkey)
Affordances of Film for Literacy Instruction

Jason D. DeHart (Appalachian State University, USA)
701 East Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033, USA

Tel: 717-533-8845 x100 • Fax: 717-533-8661
E-Mail: cust@igi-global.com • www.igi-global.com
This book is dedicated to my daughter, Katerina. May you always find solace in knowledge and won-
der in discovery.

Editorial Advisory Board
Tharrenos Bratitsis, University of Western Macedonia, Greece
Irene-Angelica Chounta, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Irini Geraniou, University College London, UK
Kostas Karpouzis, Panteion University, Greece
Elena Petelos, Charite University, Germany
Iro Voulgari, Institute of Digital Games, University of Malta, Malta

List of Contributors
Acar, Veli / Ozel Ege Lisesi, Turkey................................................................................................... 219

Arvanitakis, Ioannis / University of Western Macedonia, Greece.................................................... 132
Arvaniti, Virginia / Educational Association Anatolia, Greece......................................................... 61
Barroca, Ana / Projeto Schole LDA, Portugal.................................................................................... 61
Bratitsis, Tharrenos / University of Western Macedonia, Greece...................................................... 61
Brouzos, Ioannis / Challedu, Greece................................................................................................... 41
Brouzou, Asimina / Challedu, Greece................................................................................................ 41
Büyükdede, Mert / Ozel Ege Lisesi, Turkey...................................................................................... 219
Camilleri, Vanessa / University of Malta, Malta................................................................................... 1
Christoforou, Andri / European University, Cyprus.......................................................................... 41
Díaz, Arcadio Sotto / Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Spain................................................................. 61
Eng, Bob / Advisors for Good, USA................................................................................................... 390
Hartley, Thomas Francis / Independent Researcher, Australia......................................................... 361
Hatzikraniotis, Euripides / Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece........................................ 176
Kalemis, Georgios / Hellenic Open University, Greece.................................................................... 344
Karpouzis, Kostas / Panteion University of Social and Political Science, Greece......................... 1, 22
Koliakou, Iro / Educational Association Anatolia, Greece................................................................. 61
Korompili, Anastasia / University of Piraeus, Greece........................................................................ 22
Kostas, Apostolos / University of the Aegean, Greece....................................................................... 153
Kourias, Spyros / University of Thessaly, Greece............................................................................. 109
Kousloglou, Manolis / Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece................................................ 176
Lasica, Ilona-Elefteryja / University of the Aegean, Greece............................................................ 153
Manesis, Dionysios / National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece............................... 201
Meletiou-Mavrotheris, Maria / European University, Cyprus.......................................................... 41
Molohidis, Anastasios / Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.............................................. 176
Mpalafouti, Efthalia / National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece............................. 201
Pitsikalis, Stavros / University of the Aegean, Greece...................................................................... 153
Polatoglou, Hariton M. / Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece............................................. 296
Psycharis, Sarantos / ASPETE, Greece............................................................................................. 344
Raave, Doris Kristina / University of Tartu, Estonia......................................................................... 320
Roa, Eric Roldan / Univerisity of Tartu, Estonia............................................................................... 320
Roldan-Roa, Erika / Technische Universität Münche, Germany & EPFL Lausanne,
Switzerland.................................................................................................................................... 320
Roussou, Evgenia / Directorate of Primary Education of Piraeus, Greece........................................ 84
Rovshenov, Atajan / Ozel Ege Lisesi, Turkey.................................................................................... 219

Sarmento, Teresa / Centro de Engenharia d Desenvolvimento, Portugal........................................... 61

Sharma, Amartya / George Washington University, USA................................................................ 390
Sharma, Dinesh / Steam Works Studio, LLC, USA............................................................................ 390
Sitsanlis, Ilias / 1st General Lyceum of Alexandroupolis, Greece..................................................... 296
Stouraitis, Elias / Palladio School, Greece............................................................................................ 1
Stylianou, Elena / European University, Cyprus................................................................................. 41
Theocharopoulos, Ioannis / European School Brussels III, Belgium............................................... 265
Theofanellis, Timoleon / ASPETE, Greece....................................................................................... 239
Tobajas, Nuria Olga León / Ceipso Maestro Rodrigo, Spain.............................................................. 61
Tsolakis, Savvas / University of Thessaly, Greece............................................................................. 239
Vekiri, Ioanna / European University, Cyprus.................................................................................... 41
Vitsilaki, Chryssi / University of the Aegean, Greece....................................................................... 153
Voulgari, Evagelia / Experimental High School of Magnesia, Greece............................................. 239
Voulgari, Iro / University of Malta, Malta............................................................................................. 1
Xefteris, Stefanos / University of Western Macedonia, Greece......................................................... 132
Zacharis, Georgios / Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece................................................... 344
Zoupidis, Anastasios / Democritus University of Thrace, Greece.................................................... 176
Table of Contents
Preface................................................................................................................................................... xx
Chapter 1
Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Education and Literacy: Teacher Training for
Primary and Secondary Education Teachers........................................................................................... 1
Iro Voulgari, University of Malta, Malta
Elias Stouraitis, Palladio School, Greece
Vanessa Camilleri, University of Malta, Malta
Kostas Karpouzis, Panteion University of Social and Political Science, Greece
Chapter 2
An Early Childhood Introduction to Robotics as a Means to Motivate Girls to Stay With STEM
Disciplines............................................................................................................................................. 22
Anastasia Korompili, University of Piraeus, Greece
Kostas Karpouzis, Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, Greece
Chapter 3
Adopting a Role-Model, Game-Based Pedagogical Approach to Gender Equality in STEAM: The
FemSTEAM Mysteries Digital Game................................................................................................... 41
Ioanna Vekiri, European University, Cyprus
Maria Meletiou-Mavrotheris, European University, Cyprus
Asimina Brouzou, Challedu, Greece
Ioannis Brouzos, Challedu, Greece
Andri Christoforou, European University, Cyprus
Elena Stylianou, European University, Cyprus
Chapter 4
MiniOpenLab: Open Community and Hands-On Approach to Sustainable Development and
STEM Education – An Innovative Approach........................................................................................ 61
Iro Koliakou, Educational Association Anatolia, Greece
Arcadio Sotto Díaz, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Spain
Virginia Arvaniti, Educational Association Anatolia, Greece
Teresa Sarmento, Centro de Engenharia d Desenvolvimento, Portugal
Nuria Olga León Tobajas, Ceipso Maestro Rodrigo, Spain
Ana Barroca, Projeto Schole LDA, Portugal

Chapter 5
Computational Thinking and Robotics in Kindergarten: An Implemented Educational Scenario........ 84
Evgenia Roussou, Directorate of Primary Education of Piraeus, Greece
Chapter 6
Control Technologies as Mind-Tools: Emerging Mathematical Thinking Through Experiential
Coding Activities in the Preschool Classroom.................................................................................... 109
Spyros Kourias, University of Thessaly, Greece
Chapter 7
A Proposal for Creating Mixed Reality, Embodied Learning Interventions Integrating Robotics,
Scratch, and Makey-Makey.................................................................................................................. 132
Stefanos Xefteris, University of Western Macedonia, Greece
Ioannis Arvanitakis, University of Western Macedonia, Greece
Chapter 8
Preparing Teachers for the 21st Century: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of TPD Programs Under
the Lens of Emerging Technologies in STE(A)M Education.............................................................. 153
Stavros Pitsikalis, University of the Aegean, Greece
Ilona-Elefteryja Lasica, University of the Aegean, Greece
Apostolos Kostas, University of the Aegean, Greece
Chryssi Vitsilaki, University of the Aegean, Greece
Chapter 9
Enhancing Students’ Motivation by STEM-Oriented, Mobile, Inquiry-Based Learning.................... 176
Manolis Kousloglou, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Anastasios Zoupidis, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece
Anastasios Molohidis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Euripides Hatzikraniotis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Chapter 10
Junior High School Pupils’ Perceptions and Self-Efficacy of Using Mobile Devices in the
Learning Procedure.............................................................................................................................. 201
Dionysios Manesis, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
Efthalia Mpalafouti, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
Chapter 11
Integration of Educational Robotics to STEM Education................................................................... 219
Atajan Rovshenov, Ozel Ege Lisesi, Turkey
Mert Büyükdede, Ozel Ege Lisesi, Turkey
Veli Acar, Ozel Ege Lisesi, Turkey
Chapter 12
Introducing STEAM Through Tinkercad and Arduino....................................................................... 239
Savvas Tsolakis, University of Thessaly, Greece
Timoleon Theofanellis, ASPETE, Greece
Evagelia Voulgari, Experimental High School of Magnesia, Greece

Chapter 13
A Sound Design and Electronic Music Production STEAM Course for Secondary Education.......... 265
Ioannis Theocharopoulos, European School Brussels III, Belgium
Chapter 14
Designing a Set of Web-Based Simulations to Facilitate STEAM Activities on How to Travel
From Earth to Mars.............................................................................................................................. 296
Ilias Sitsanlis, 1st General Lyceum of Alexandroupolis, Greece
Hariton M. Polatoglou, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Chapter 15
Supporting Education in Marginalized Communities With Workshops Combining Music and
Mathematics......................................................................................................................................... 320
Eric Roldan Roa, Univerisity of Tartu, Estonia
Erika Roldan-Roa, Technische Universität Münche, Germany & EPFL Lausanne, Switzerland
Doris Kristina Raave, University of Tartu, Estonia
Chapter 16
Use of STEM Intervention Teaching Scenarios to Investigate Students’ Attitudes Toward STEM
Professions and Their Self-Evaluation of STEM Subjects.................................................................. 344
Georgios Kalemis, Hellenic Open University, Greece
Sarantos Psycharis, ASPETE, Greece
Georgios Zacharis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Chapter 17
A Teaching Sequence Proposal Using Microcontrollers Programmed With BASIC.......................... 361
Thomas Francis Hartley, Independent Researcher, Australia
Chapter 18
STEAM and Sustainability: Lessons From the Fourth Industrial Revolution..................................... 390
Dinesh Sharma, Steam Works Studio, LLC, USA
Bob Eng, Advisors for Good, USA
Amartya Sharma, George Washington University, USA
Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 408
About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 452
Index.................................................................................................................................................... 462
Detailed Table of Contents
Preface................................................................................................................................................... xx
Chapter 1
Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Education and Literacy: Teacher Training for
Primary and Secondary Education Teachers........................................................................................... 1
Iro Voulgari, University of Malta, Malta
Elias Stouraitis, Palladio School, Greece
Vanessa Camilleri, University of Malta, Malta
Kostas Karpouzis, Panteion University of Social and Political Science, Greece
Artificial intelligence (AI) education and literacy are gaining momentum over the past few years; AI
systems are permeating our daily lives and mediate our social, cultural, and political interactions. The
implications of AI extend beyond the technical aspects and involve ethical, cultural, and social issues
such as misinformation and bias. Understanding how an AI system works and critical thinking skills
have, therefore, become ever more crucial for children and young people in order to be able to identify
the benefits and challenges of AI. The role of the educators is, at this point, critical. This chapter is
situated in the context of AI education and literacy and aims to propose a framework for teacher training
on AI and ML education. The design of the teacher training courses and initial findings are described.
Through an exploratory approach, insights on the attitudes, the requirements, and the recommendations
of the teachers emerged.
Chapter 2
An Early Childhood Introduction to Robotics as a Means to Motivate Girls to Stay With STEM
Disciplines............................................................................................................................................. 22
Anastasia Korompili, University of Piraeus, Greece
Kostas Karpouzis, Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, Greece
This research examines the design, implementation, and impact of an educational robotics intervention
for first and second grade students. It controls for gender-related performance differences and compares
the interest shown towards robotics. The authors also examine if factors such as students’ stance towards
different professions can contribute to a difference in performance. In the course of its work, custom
designed worksheets for the UARO educational robotics product were used, as well as questionnaires
given to students after meetings. The results showed that all genders responded equally well and with
the same enthusiasm to the robotics activities and understood concepts of physics, mechanics, and
mathematics through them. Participants differ in how they use their leisure time and in their professional
orientation; however, this didn’t affect their performance in the robotics activities. These results highlight
need for further examination of the social institutions and factors that influence the formation of
the
gender orientations during the early childhood age.

Chapter 3
Adopting a Role-Model, Game-Based Pedagogical Approach to Gender Equality in STEAM: The
FemSTEAM Mysteries Digital Game................................................................................................... 41
Ioanna Vekiri, European University, Cyprus
Maria Meletiou-Mavrotheris, European University, Cyprus
Asimina Brouzou, Challedu, Greece
Ioannis Brouzos, Challedu, Greece
Andri Christoforou, European University, Cyprus
Elena Stylianou, European University, Cyprus
The aim of this chapter is to discuss the use of serious games in STEAM education and to present
FemSTEAM Mysteries, a serious game that was developed in the context of an EU-funded project.
The game is intended for teenagers (age 12-15) and its goal is to promote gender equality in STEAM
by inspiring all students to pursue STEAM careers, and to enhance the acquisition of key skills and
competences for STEAM studies. It is based on role-model STEAM pedagogy and introduces students
to important STEAM researchers and professionals in ways that challenge gender stereotypes as well
as stereotypes about the characteristics of scientists and artists. The chapter presents the design and
theoretical framework of the game which is based on both bibliographical and field research that was
carried out in the context of the FemSTEAM Mysteries project.
Chapter 4
MiniOpenLab: Open Community and Hands-On Approach to Sustainable Development and
STEM Education – An Innovative Approach........................................................................................ 61
Iro Koliakou, Educational Association Anatolia, Greece
Arcadio Sotto Díaz, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Spain
Virginia Arvaniti, Educational Association Anatolia, Greece
Teresa Sarmento, Centro de Engenharia d Desenvolvimento, Portugal
Nuria Olga León Tobajas, Ceipso Maestro Rodrigo, Spain
Ana Barroca, Projeto Schole LDA, Portugal
Education for sustainable development and STEM education are two major EU priorities. Both should
be addressed from an early age. At school, children must be motivated to learn maths and science and to
imagine working in these fields, and to learn about sustainability and develop attitudes and behaviours
that are in line with the UN’s SD Goals. Over the past years, children have taken interest in SD and in
some cases. By contrast, STEM is still regarded as difficult and unattractive by many children. Thus, it
may be beneficial to couple both these fields. The project MiniOpenLabs proposes to set-up and test a
different methodology with a higher prevalence of experiential learning and relying on the collaboration
between science and technology organisations, enterprises, and civil society to ensure relevant and
meaningful engagement of all societal actors with science and increase the uptake of science studies,
citizen science initiatives and science-based careers, employability, and competitiveness.

Chapter 5
Computational Thinking and Robotics in Kindergarten: An Implemented Educational Scenario........ 84
Evgenia Roussou, Directorate of Primary Education of Piraeus, Greece
Ever since technology became an integral part of human life, a range of new concepts have surfaced.
Computational thinking (CT) has been extensively discussed in the last 15 years and has been gaining
popularity in the educational world. Following an overview of the basic literature published on this
evasive new concept, an attempt is made to outline the connection between computational thinking and
programming with emphasis on tangible programming of educational robots. An implemented educational
programme, which attests to the positive impact of robotics on the acquisition of computational thinking
skills in early childhood, is presented and evaluated. The study took place in a typical Greek kindergarten
in 2017 and focused on the development of particular aspects of computational thinking with the use of
a programmable floor robot.
Chapter 6
Control Technologies as Mind-Tools: Emerging Mathematical Thinking Through Experiential
Coding Activities in the Preschool Classroom.................................................................................... 109
Spyros Kourias, University of Thessaly, Greece
In mathematics education, especially in early childhood that is considered the most formative period
in children’s lives, there is an always growing need to design, test, and validate tools and activities that
take advantage of recent pedagogical and technological advancements but still focus on the creative
learning process, instead of quantifying the outcomes and emphasizing numerical data and performance.
Educational robotics as a context for interdisciplinary problem-solving scenarios in preschool education
can be an interesting starting point, since modern control technologies are usually thought to provide a rich
variety of mind-tools that encourage active learning and children’s creative thinking. Such activities may
stimulate students to “do” mathematics in a seamless, creative, playful way in order to solve meaningful
and appealing (for them) problems. The study tries to explore and validate emerging preschoolers’
opportunities to unconsciously “mathematize” their environment in everyday playful robotics activities
in the context of brief teaching experiments.
Chapter 7
A Proposal for Creating Mixed Reality, Embodied Learning Interventions Integrating Robotics,
Scratch, and Makey-Makey.................................................................................................................. 132
Stefanos Xefteris, University of Western Macedonia, Greece
Ioannis Arvanitakis, University of Western Macedonia, Greece
In current research we observe a clear trend that calls for novel teaching practices that involve
multidisciplinary approaches that integrate information and communication technologies (ICT) into
“traditional” workflows, employing embodied affordances in multimodal learning interventions. The
educational process can therefore be augmented and transformed making use of available tools like
educational robotics, tinkering with electronics (such as Makey Makey), and programming environments like
Scratch to produce gamified versions of teaching sequences in a mixed reality context that “physicalizes”
abstract concepts and improves both “21st century skills” and knowledge of traditional classroom
material. Under the embodied cognition framework, the authors make use of robots as tangible agents
in a gamified mixed reality setting. In this chapter, they provide a proposal for creating educationally
effective, immersive, and engaging learning environments, as well as primary results from experimental
application in various multi- and transdisciplinary teaching interventions.

Chapter 8
Preparing Teachers for the 21st Century: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of TPD Programs Under
the Lens of Emerging Technologies in STE(A)M Education.............................................................. 153
Stavros Pitsikalis, University of the Aegean, Greece
Ilona-Elefteryja Lasica, University of the Aegean, Greece
Apostolos Kostas, University of the Aegean, Greece
Chryssi Vitsilaki, University of the Aegean, Greece
This chapter provides an overview of (1) the current situation concerning teacher professional development
(TPD) programs through studies referring to existing challenges; (2) the TPD programs under discussion
that have been implemented during the last three years (2018-2021) in the context of European projects,
including their structure and descriptions of the educational content; (3) teachers’ views and feedback
concerning the TPD program they attended, based on a specific evaluation framework, with focus on issues
relevant to emerging technologies. The researchers provide directions towards an effective framework for
horizontal TPD programs targeting large numbers of teachers, aiming to allow them to gain the appropriate
knowledge and skills in order to integrate emerging technologies as concepts in interdisciplinary STE(A)
M-based instructional scenarios, especially in the levels of Secondary general (Gymnasium and Lyceum
in Greece) and (post)secondary vocational education (EPAL and IEK in Greece).
Chapter 9
Enhancing Students’ Motivation by STEM-Oriented, Mobile, Inquiry-Based Learning.................... 176
Manolis Kousloglou, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Anastasios Zoupidis, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece
Anastasios Molohidis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Euripides Hatzikraniotis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
STEM education promotes scientific inquiry and engineering design, including mathematics, incorporating
appropriate technologies. Portable technologies motivate active learning of students and enable accessing
to learn resources, facilitating cross-disciplinary designing tasks. This chapter initially presents theoretical
approaches of STEM education, mobile learning, and inquiry-based learning, and then it describes an
inquiry-based short-term intervention that took advantage of portable digital devices in a STEM class. The
aim of the intervention was to study its affection on students’ motivation about physics. Results indicate
that students who participated in the activity had higher motivation scores than their classmates who
attended lessons with conventional teaching methods. The findings also show that the students involved
in a guided inquiry-based process became more profoundly engaged in STEM than their classmates who
followed a structured inquiry process. Other factors, such as grade point average (GPA) and gender, did
not seem to affect student motivation.
Chapter 10
Junior High School Pupils’ Perceptions and Self-Efficacy of Using Mobile Devices in the
Learning Procedure.............................................................................................................................. 201
Dionysios Manesis, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
Efthalia Mpalafouti, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
The study of this chapter investigated junior high school pupils’ perceptions and self-efficacy of using
mobile devices in the learning procedure. A 33-item questionnaire was administered to 91 pupils aged
12-15 years old in different Greek schools. Most of the pupils had showed favorable perceptions about

the use of mobile devices for educational purposes. Nevertheless, the majority of pupils had a relatively
medium degree of self-efficacy of using mobile devices in learning activities. Perceived usefulness
was indicated as the major factor in predicting the adoption and use of mobile devices for educational
purposes. The higher the level of perceived usefulness pupils have about mobile devices, the higher the
possibility to use mobile devices as a learning tool. Pupils were more interested in using mobile devices
for learning mathematics, history, English, and ancient Greek language. The findings of this study have
implications for secondary education instructors, policy makers, and researchers.
Chapter 11
Integration of Educational Robotics to STEM Education................................................................... 219
Atajan Rovshenov, Ozel Ege Lisesi, Turkey
Mert Büyükdede, Ozel Ege Lisesi, Turkey
Veli Acar, Ozel Ege Lisesi, Turkey
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education is integrated into education
programs in many countries because it benefits the national economy and raises qualified manpower.
During STEM-based activities, students increase their problem-solving and research skills by using
technology and engineering knowledge together with science and mathematics knowledge. When the
studies in the literature are examined, although it is seen that STEM education has positive contributions,
it is encountered that the current resources for teachers are limited. The lack of up-to-date resources
for teachers causes them to be insufficient in their field knowledge. Apart from this, teachers need to
follow current technologies to be able to correctly apply the technology and engineering steps in STEM
education and to have a high level of technological literacy. This study will provide information about
the integration of educational robots in the researches to be done in the field of STEM education and
give an idea to the studies to be done on the subject.
Chapter 12
Introducing STEAM Through Tinkercad and Arduino....................................................................... 239
Savvas Tsolakis, University of Thessaly, Greece
Timoleon Theofanellis, ASPETE, Greece
Evagelia Voulgari, Experimental High School of Magnesia, Greece
During the last years, educators were challenged to move their lessons from the physical classroom to
online classrooms due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to this situation, they had to come up with new
teaching methods and applications and even use ICT to implement hands-on activities. Teaching robotics,
a significant subject to promote STEAM education and computational thinking, had to be continued
under these circumstances. In this chapter, the work and the results of teaching robotics in online classes
are presented. Tinkercad simulation platform was used to teach robotics and plan projects that later were
implemented using the Arduino platform robotic system in the physical classroom as hands-on activities.
Chapter 13
A Sound Design and Electronic Music Production STEAM Course for Secondary Education.......... 265
Ioannis Theocharopoulos, European School Brussels III, Belgium
In this chapter, a music-centered STEAM course implemented in the European School (Schola Europaea)
Brussels III is presented. This course, driven by constructivist conversation pedagogy, aims at students
in secondary grade and is independent of their prior involvement in music. In the Sound Design module

of the course, which is presented in detail, students explore the world of electronic, software-based
instruments through the use of software synthesizers and subtractive synthesis. Visual programming
with Max/MSP is applied for the design and implementation of basic synthesizers although dedicated
software synthesizers are also used. In this chapter, a brief overview on the composition, arrangement,
production, mastering, and development modules of the course is also provided.
Chapter 14
From Earth to Mars.............................................................................................................................. 296
Ilias Sitsanlis, 1st General Lyceum of Alexandroupolis, Greece
Hariton M. Polatoglou, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
In this chapter, the authors analyze a subject that is suitable for STEAM education and design a set of
web-based simulations and material for blended learning to support STEAM activities on how to travel
from Earth to Mars. Interplanetary travel involves astronomy, biology, and physics for science; technology
to make it possible; engineering to optimize a possible solution; art to produce artwork based on the
orbits of planets and boost creativity; and mathematics to solve the differential equations, obtain data, and
perform data analysis to reach conclusions. Based on the ADDIE model, the presently related and available
simulations were analyzed and based on that analysis a set of streamlined simulations are proposed,
designed, developed, implemented, and evaluated. Similarly, a didactic sequence was implemented. The
evaluation of the didactic sequence and the streamlined simulations by expert educators testifies that
the proposed method to create STEAM inquiry and simulation-based activities is productive and can be
used with a variety of interesting STEAM integration subjects.
Chapter 15
Supporting Education in Marginalized Communities With Workshops Combining Music and
Mathematics......................................................................................................................................... 320
Eric Roldan Roa, Univerisity of Tartu, Estonia
Erika Roldan-Roa, Technische Universität Münche, Germany & EPFL Lausanne, Switzerland
Doris Kristina Raave, University of Tartu, Estonia
In this chapter, the authors present the experience of a series of workshops given in a marginalized
community in Mexico during the COVID pandemic as a mean to mitigate the educational gap lockdowns
provoked. The whole intervention consisted of 12 workshop sessions plus a closing activity. The workshops
aimed to jointly promote learners’ conceptual and procedural knowledge of basic mathematics and
develop musical rhythmic awareness and sensitivity in a collaborative problem-solving manner. Seventy
children, ranging from 8 to 12 years old, participated in the workshops facilitated by an educational
game, namely Musical Monkeys, consisting of a board game and an app. Using an initial evaluation,
the authors mapped students’ profiles in terms of background knowledge (procedural and conceptual) to
form balanced playing teams, including low and high achievers, and to adjust the workshops according
to students’ needs and levels. The setting, challenges encountered during the intervention, and future
research directions are discussed.

Chapter 16
Use of STEM Intervention Teaching Scenarios to Investigate Students’ Attitudes Toward STEM
Professions and Their Self-Evaluation of STEM Subjects.................................................................. 344
Georgios Kalemis, Hellenic Open University, Greece
Sarantos Psycharis, ASPETE, Greece
Georgios Zacharis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
The present research initiated from the hypothesis that students’ misconceptions can be resolved and
replaced with new knowledge that is structured and organized through robust hypothetically-driven
mental models. The assumption being that when students engage in teaching interventions that include
hypothesis building and testing through STEM teaching scenarios and constructions, and are given the
opportunity to discover the knowledge themselves, consequently, they enhance their attitudes towards
STEM courses and career pathways as well as their own self-evaluation in mathematics and science.
The quasi-experimental research methodology included a sample of 15-year-old students divided into
an experimental and control group. The teaching intervention consisted of three scenarios developed
primarily by the European Space Agency (ESA) but later adapted to meet the aptitude levels of students.
Results showed improved attitudes in certain STEM courses and career pathways and a positive change
in student’s self-evaluations in science.
Chapter 17
A Teaching Sequence Proposal Using Microcontrollers Programmed With BASIC.......................... 361
Thomas Francis Hartley, Independent Researcher, Australia
This chapter presents three electronics-based projects at increasing levels of sophistication. Two of
the projects use the PIC microcontroller-based MicroMite chip. One uses the new Raspberry Pi PICO
microcontroller board. All three deliver base level units that monitor atmospheric pressure (Projects 1
and 2) and ambient light levels (Project 3). All three communicate bidirectionally with an app on an
Android mobile phone via the popular and well supported Bluetooth protocols. In the final technical
section of the chapter, the content of those Bluetooth communications are ‘pushed’ onto a local IoT
intranet design. The chapter closes with a brief summary of the STEAM initiatives in Australia plus
a brief discussion of the importance of electronics in contemporary life which arguably justifies their
inclusion in STEAM curricula content.

Chapter 18
STEAM and Sustainability: Lessons From the Fourth Industrial Revolution..................................... 390
Dinesh Sharma, Steam Works Studio, LLC, USA
Bob Eng, Advisors for Good, USA
Amartya Sharma, George Washington University, USA
The educational challenge of sustainability remains unexplored in the development of children in the K-12
curriculum in the United States and potentially in the educational curriculum of many of the member
states of the United Nations. Using a case study method, this chapter shows how sustainability can be an
educational value and a public good, transmitted to students through everyday instruction. By conducting
a regional analysis in specific cultural groupings, using fieldwork and applied research methodology,
students can demonstrate competence for sustainable education on a whole host of issues relevant for the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 2030). With younger age groups consisting of students in middle
and elementary school, the chapter examines an activity-based approach for socializing young children
to issues of sustainability and preparing them for what is known as “the fourth industrial revolution.”
Finally, it is imperative that corporations adopt a socially responsible approach towards investing that is
environmentally conscious of long-term governance impact.
Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 408
About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 452
Index.................................................................................................................................................... 462
xx
Preface
Modern society gives great importance to scientific and technological literacy, development of the so-
called “21st century skills” and creating individuals that are not passive users of ICT tools but active
thinkers and even tinkerers. UNESCO in 2002 has identified ICT as being developed into one of the
pillars of modern society. It is a prevalent notion in modern educational frameworks that mastering ICT
related skills and meta-skills is as essential as reading, writing and arithmetic. Through the integration of
ICT tools in modern curricula, we aim to transform the educational process so that it does truly support
and develop the widely sought-after 21st century skills: From setting goals and making evidence-based
decisions, to thinking critically and solving problems while efficiently managing time and from using
technology to cooperating ethically and communicating effectively, the learning process is constantly
evolving to accommodate and facilitate students to acquire these skills.
The inclusion of ICT tools in education has a long history, which is full of great promises and fraught
with great disappointments. It is arguable that up till very recently, the impact of technology on the
way people learn had been rather minimal. Educators have long strived to deploy ICT-rich educational
interventions, but at the same time, quite often forgot a basic tenet: If the augmentation of a teaching
sequence with ICT tools has the same learning effect with a “traditional” approach, why did we use ICT
in the first place? Educators and researchers should never stop aiming higher: Transforming our teaching
sequences with ICT tools should and can have a measurable and improved learning impact compared
to traditional approaches.
In the wider inclusion of ICT tools in modern educational scenario, STEAM is the approach to
learning that uses concepts from natural sciences, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics like
springboards for the development of the skills of exploration, cooperation, communication, creativity,
and critical thinking. The desired result is students who participate in experiential learning, develop-
ing critical thinking skills, work together, and explore the learning environment within the context of
a creative process. In this framework, students stop begin passive receptacles of ex-cathedra presented
knowledge, and turn to active and engaged stakeholders, with the teacher in the role of facilitator and
mentor rather than presenter of material.
The Handbook of Research on Integrating ICTs in STEAM Education is a collection of both academia-
based research and actual practical applications from active educators, examining a multitude of differ-
ent aspects concerning the integration of STEAM and ICT educational practices, tools, workflows, and
frameworks of operation that encourage science skills, but also skills related to the arts and humanities
such as creativity, imagination, and reflection on ethical implications.
Covering topics ranging from early childhood education, machine learning education, and web-based
simulations, to secondary and higher education, with tools such as electronics and IoT, robotics and

Preface
Makey-Makey, educational software and coding platforms, tackling subjects such as the education of
educators themselves and facilitating STEAM inclusion for female students, this collective tome aims
to become an essential resource for active educators at all levels, for academics and researchers in the
field of education technology, engineers, libraries, pre-service teachers, as well as computer scientists.
Researchers can use this tome to find novel ideas, possible frameworks and testbeds to use in their future
experiments, educators can find valuable resources for applying full educational scenarios or using the
books’ examples as roadmaps and conceptual bases on which to build their own sequences, interven-
tions and workflows.
Chapter 1, named “Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Education and Literacy: Teacher
Training for Primary and Secondary Education Teachers,” tackles the issue of training educators in the
integration of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning concepts. The chapter provides a holistic
approach, examining both the technical aspects of AI and ML, as well as the implications of AI and
ML such as ethical, cultural, social and misinformation/bias dimensions. This chapter provides a solid
framework for teacher training on AI and ML education, also including a report on initial experimental
findings. The chapter also provides insights on attitudes, requirements and recommendations of the
teachers involved.
In Chapter 2, “An Early Childhood Introduction to Robotics as a Means to Motivate Girls to Stay
With STEM Disciplines,” the authors provide a much needed insight into the inclusion and engagement
of female students with STEM disciplines through educational robotics in early childhood. This research
introduces an educational robotics teaching intervention suitable for first and second grade students and
describes the design process, the implementation and the impact. This significant chapter tackles the
issues of gender-related performance differences and the examination of the highly interesting results
shows that there are no discernible gender-related differences in the overall response, interest and per-
formance of the students, but rather in the way they make use of their free time as well as their stated
“professional orientation”.
In Chapter 3, “Adopting a Role-Model, Game-Based Pedagogical Approach to Gender Equality in
STEAM: The FemSTEAM Mysteries Digital Game,” the authors present another highly interesting
and impactful approach to STEAM education aimed towards gender equality: The chapter presents and
discusses the use of a serious game called “FemSTEAM Mysteries”, which was the product of a funded
research project that comprised partners from Greece, Cyprus and Spain. The FemSTEAM Mysteries
serious game, introduces teenage students (age 12-15) to a role-model based STEAM framework, present-
ing important researchers and professionals in ways that challenge gender stereotypes and stereotypes
concerning characteristics of scientists and artists.
In Chapter 4, “MiniOpenLab: Open Community and Hands-On Approach to Sustainable Develop-
ment and STEM Education: An Innovative Approach,” the authors present another academic-based
work, part of the European Union funded MiniOpenLabs research project. This chapter takes a high-level
approach on the integration of ICT’s in modern curricula, focusing on the translation of extant policies
into significant and impactful actions.
The chapter focuses on and combines two major EU priorities, namely Education for Sustainable
Development and STEAM education, tackling the subject from an early age. In this chapter the authors
present the design and experimental application of a methodology based on experiential learning and
relying on a multi-faceted collaboration between science and technology organisations, enterprises and
civil services, in order to facilitate the students engagement with science and technology, as well as en-
vision working in the relevant fields under the umbrella of a sustainable development modus operandi.
xxi
Preface
This impactful research project aims at increasing locally in the partner countries the uptake of science
studies, citizen science initiatives and science-based careers, employability and competitiveness.
In Chapter 5, “Computational Thinking and Robotics in Kindergarten: An Implemented Educational
Scenario,” the author presents a research work implemented in real life conditions, concerning compu-
tational thinking skills through the application of educational robotics in kindergarten. Actual teaching
interventions from on-the-filed active teachers, are not rare in literature, but are often “steamrolled”
out, as academic researchers dominate publications. In this chapter, the author is an active kindergarten
teacher, with experience on STEAM and ICT in education, presenting a study conducted in a typical
Greek kindergarten, focusing on the highly significant aspects of computational thinking development
through the use of educational robots, attempting to emphasize on how tangibility facilitates the devel-
opment of computational thinking.
In Chapter 6, “Control Technologies as Mind-Tools: Emerging Mathematical Thinking Through
Experiential Coding Activities in Preschool Classroom,” the author focuses on the development of
mathematics related skills in early education, and attempts to integrate mathematics learning with a
creative learning process and coding activities with educational robotics affordances. The goal of this
interesting chapter is to transform mathematics learning through a playful set of activities which enables
students to -unconsciously- engage in “complex” (for their age) mathematical thinking and facilitate the
“mathematization” of their routine observation of their surroundings. In a seamless, creative and gami-
fied framework, pre-schoolers use ICT as the titular “mind-tools” and stimulated to “do” mathematics
in a fun and engaging environment.
In Chapter 7, “A Proposal for Creating Mixed Reality Embodied Learning Interventions Integrating
Robotics, Scratch, and Makey-Makey,” the authors aim to present a new kind of intervention-design
workflow, that combines multiple technologies and provides a fertile ground for the creation of immersive
and engaging teaching sequences, making use of multiple technologies. The authors integrate educational
robotics as tangible agents, with Makey-Makey enabled mixed reality surfaces augmented with Scratch
games through a projector. Teaching interventions are created using a game-based / treasure hunt-like
format, where robots act as the game protagonists and games include multi- and trans-disciplinary the-
matics; Mathematics and history, geography and history, English learning and coding, cryptography and
music are some of the published examples. The chapter provides the ground tools and description for
building such immersive teaching interventions as well as primary results from experimental application
of a number of sequences based on this format.
In Chapter 8, “Preparing Teachers for the 21st Century: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of TPD Pro-
grams Under the Lens of Emerging Technologies in STE(A)M Education,” takes the reader conceptu-
ally higher than practical application of ICTs in education and tackles the prominent issues of Teacher
Professional Development programs, the challenges they face, their recent curricula and the actual
participants evaluations on TPD programs. The research team provides also directions towards design
and implementation of effective TPD programs, aiming to facilitate 21st century teachers to integrate
STEAM concepts through ICT in their careers.
In Chapter 9, “Enhancing Student Motivation by STEM-Oriented, Mobile Inquiry-Based Learning,”
the authors begin with a theoretical background of STEM education, Mobile Learning and Inquiry-based
learning and then move on to the description of an inquiry-based learning intervention making use of
mobile devices. The intervention is built around a junior high school level physics class and the main goal
was to study the approach’s effect on students’ motivation on physics related subjects. The experiment
involved a technologically-excluded control group that was taught the same material with conventional
xxii
Preface
methods and the promising results discussed show a specific difference and higher motivation scores
among students who participated in the ICT augmented intervention.
In Chapter 10, “Junior High School Pupil Perceptions and Self-Efficacy of Using Mobile Devices
in the Learning Procedure,” the authors investigate how the students themselves perceive their efficacy
on the use of mobile devices during the learning process. The study was conducted via a 33-item ques-
tionnaire and had 91 junior high school students from different Greek schools participated. The highly
interesting result in this publication is that how students perceive the usefulness of mobile devices, di-
rectly correlates to the efficient use of them in educational settings. Thus, the study provides significant
findings that can be of high interest to a range of education-related professionals, such as policy makers,
educators and researchers.
In Chapter 11, “Integration of Educational Robotics to STEM Education,” we have another hands-on
experience from active teachers in a high-school in Turkey. The authors begin from the assertion that
STEM education has been increasingly integrated in school practice around the world, with a multitude of
available ICT affordances being integrated in teaching interventions. The authors identify a specific gap
in literature, concerning the lack of teacher-targeted available resources that facilitate the integration of
robotics in everyday school practice. Authors assert that while there is significant research activity from
higher education institutions, and STEAM affordances have been proven consistent in providing positive
outcomes, on the other hand “actionable” teacher resources are somewhat limited. So, the authors try
to bridge that gap, and provide a brief but succinct roadmap, that aims to be instrumental in providing
teachers in the field with a general outline on how to integrate educational robotics in their everyday
practice, as well as provide a general outline of recent research on the field. It is highly notable that while
academic researchers feel that the field of STEM is almost saturated with research, active teachers more
often than not feel that they don’t have real access to current material or feel excluded from it because
of its’ highly ‘academic” presentation style in conference and journal publications. This chapter aims to
be a simple yet effective introduction of how to integrate robotics in the classroom.
Chapter 12, “Introducing STEAM Through Tinkercad and Arduino,” is another school-tried, work
from active educators in secondary education, along with a highly current twist: How high school edu-
cators tackled STEAM education and Computational Thinking challenges in online classes during the
CoVid quarantine era in Greece. The move from physical to virtual classrooms has more often than not
negatively affected all aspects of the educational process. Educators on all levels strived to keep up with
course material, keep students engaged and immersed and many of them keep up with use of technological
tools they were not familiarized with. In this chapter the authors present their own interesting approach
of novel teaching methods and applications to implement activities in a STEAM framework, teaching
robotics through the Tinkercad simulation platform to design and save projects later implemented on
Arduino based boards in physical classrooms as hands-on activities. The chapter presents the relevant
work and discusses the results of this very interesting approach that signifies the quick “educational
reflexes” of active teachers on public schools in Greece.
In Chapter 13, “A Sound Design and Electronic Music Production STEAM Course for Secondary
Education,” the author, a teacher in the European School of Brussels in Belgium, describes a different
approach to STEAM based learning: One that integrates music in the teaching practice. This chapter also
is heavy on implementation details and presents the whole course material in a very detailed way, and
keeping it light in pedagogical background and theories – which may seem lacking for a publication in
a collective tome. On the other hand, one of the goals of the specific tome was to highlight active on-
the-filed educators along with researchers, and this means that some of the chapters while scientifically
xxiii
Preface
sound and highly interesting -such as this- may seem “unacademic” to some colleagues. Nevertheless,
this chapter provides a highly interesting and student-favorite educational approach to STEAM material.
The course is based on the constructivist conversation framework and makes use of electronic, software
based instruments, through the use of software synthesizers and subtractive synthesis. The course re-
quires no previous musical knowledge on behalf of the students. Through visual programming with Max/
MSP students program basic synthesizers along the use of pre-programmed ones. The chapter provides
a fascinating a overview of this highly successful course material and modules.
In Chapter 14, “Designing a Set of Web-Based Simulations to Facilitate STEAM Activities on How
to Travel From Earth to Mars,” the authors make use of web-based tools to simulate the design and
implementation of an Earth to Mars voyage. The authors provide the simulations and aterial designed
for blended learning activities in a STEAM framework, combining elements from astronomy, biology
and physics for overall design of the endeavor, technology and engineering for optimization of proposed
solutions, art and creativity for the creation of visuals based on astronomy, as well as mathematics to
obtain and perform data analysis to reach conclusions. The authors based on the ADDIE model to build
a set of streamlined simulations and evaluate them, through a didactic sequence. The chapter concludes
discussing the results of the evaluation sequence, indicating that the proposed teaching intervention is
effective and productive and can be used as a general roadmap to implement a variety of STEAM based
teaching sequences.
In Chapter 15, “Supporting Education in Marginalized Communities With Workshops Combining
Music and Mathematics,” authors from Estonian based research centers tackle an often overlooked but
very significant aspect of the deployment of STEAM based teaching interventions: How educators can
deploy impactful teaching scenaria in marginalized communities. The authors here present the experi-
ences they had, deploying a series of workshops in a marginalized community in Mexico, during the
CoVid pandemic. The workshops combined mathematics with music and were deployed in 12 sessions,
plus a final “closing” activity. The authors present a significant contribution concerning learning in
marginalized communities, describing workshops that aimed to promote the conceptual and procedural
awareness of basic mathematics notions among students in such communities, combined with the de-
velopment of musical and rhythmical awareness, all integrated in a collaborative environment rich with
problem-solving activities. Seventy children from 8 to 12 years old participated in this research, centered
around a musical game named “Musical Monkeys” consisting of a board game and an app. The authors
discuss the implementation, setting and encountered challenges, and give insightful remarks on future
research directions.
Chapter 16, “Use of STEM Intervention Teaching Scenarios to Investigate Student Attitudes To-
ward STEM Professions and Their Self-Evaluation of STEM Subjects” is built around the notion of
bringing forth and dissolving students’ misconceptions. The authors provide some groundwork in how
active participation and self-discovery foster the creation of new knowledge and facilitate students to
create conceptual anchors through STEM based teaching scenaria and constructs. The authors deployed
a European Space Agency-developed teaching sequence, modified to meet the aptitude level of their
students, engaging them with hypothesis-making and testing and discover knowledge themselves, in
order to evaluate their attitudes toward STEM-based career paths, as well as their own self-evaluation
of maths and science skills. The authors discuss their results which clearly indicate a positive impact on
the students’ perceived career pathways regarding STEM related fields, as well as improved attitudes
towards STEM related school courses.
xxiv
Preface
In Chapter 17, “A Teaching Sequence Proposal Using Microcontrollers Programmed With BASIC,”
the author presents a highly detailed, tutorial-style proposal for the deployment of three electronics
based projects of increasing difficulty in Australian high schools. Two of the projects make use of the
MicroMite chip and one uses the Raspberry Pi PICO microcontroller. The chapter is heavy in detail and
light in academic background, choosing to provide a much needed very detailed description of all pos-
sible minutiae involved in the implementation of the proposed projects, making this chapter accessible
to even the absolute beginner in the relevant technologies. The proposed projects communicate with
an Android based application and also include IoT capabilities. The chapter also briefly presents the
STEAM inclusion challenges in Australia curriculum.
Chapter 18, “STEAM and Sustainability: Lessons From the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” is the most
suitable conclusion to this -hopefully- very interesting collection of diverse approaches to the integra-
tion of ICT’s in educational context. The authors of the chapter focus their presentation mainly drawing
from experience in the United States of America, but similar remarks can without loss of generality be
applied to all countries. The authors of the paper tackle the issue of sustainability in education through
STEAM practices. In a case-study methodological approach, the authors try to approach the issue of
“teaching about sustainability” in modern curricula. The chapter “transforms” the notion of sustainability
to an “educational asset” or a “public good” that should and needs to be consistently and continuously
ingrained to students through all aspects of their education. Based on the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDG 2030) set in the United States, the authors describe a modus operandi employing regional analysis
in specific cultural groupings, fieldwork and applied research methodologies, in order to demonstrate
competence for sustainable education. The chapter authors examine relevant activities designed to fa-
miliarize students with sustainability issues and prepare them for what is known as the “fourth industrial
revolution” – the world of big data, full automation and ubiquitous machine learning and AI.
ICTs have been and continue to be a massive influence on our lives. Educational practice has been
also greatly impacted, but not always successfully or in a meaningful way. Education is the field where
academics and educators strive and aim to improve greatly in the near future, with ICTs transforming
the whole process top-to-bottom and bottom-up. ICT-enhanced models facilitate the development of
“old-fashioned” skills, but also provide a fertile ground on which to cultivate the much-sought after 21st
century skills -which the “digital natives” generation does not possess by default. It is time to transform
notions such as “critical thinking”, “computational and abstract thinking”, “social skills and teamwork”
and “design thinking” into concrete elements of multimodal and transdisciplinary teaching interven-
tions, fostering creativity, boosting immersiveness and engagement, motivating students to participate
in highly impactful and meaningful teaching interventions. In the same spirit, we should look higher up,
to prepare to educate the next generations of educators and make them tech-savvy and creative, foster-
ing their need for innovation and “escape” from the educational and didactic hurdles they experienced
as students themselves, providing them with the base material to create themselves the novel STEAM
and ICT based interventions their students need. In this publication, the editor and all authors, hope that
we did our best to provide both academics and educators with interesting material, giving them some
excellent groundwork on which to further build their own teaching interventions.
Stefanos Xefteris
April 2022
xxv
1
Chapter 1
Artificial Intelligence
and Machine Learning
Education and Literacy:
Teacher Training for Primary and
Secondary Education Teachers
Iro Voulgari
University of Malta, Malta
Elias Stouraitis
Palladio School, Greece
Vanessa Camilleri
University of Malta, Malta
Kostas Karpouzis
Panteion University of Social and Political Science, Greece
ABSTRACT
Artificial intelligence (AI) education and literacy are gaining momentum over the past few years; AI
systems are permeating our daily lives and mediate our social, cultural, and political interactions. The
implications of AI extend beyond the technical aspects and involve ethical, cultural, and social issues
such as misinformation and bias. Understanding how an AI system works and critical thinking skills
have, therefore, become ever more crucial for children and young people in order to be able to identify
the benefits and challenges of AI. The role of the educators is, at this point, critical. This chapter is situ-
ated in the context of AI education and literacy and aims to propose a framework for teacher training
on AI and ML education. The design of the teacher training courses and initial findings are described.
Through an exploratory approach, insights on the attitudes, the requirements, and the recommendations
of the teachers emerged.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-3861-9.ch001
Copyright © 2022, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Education and Literacy
INTRODUCTION
In this chapter a framework for teacher training in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML)
education and literacy, for primary and secondary education students is presented. The main components
of the framework are introduced and discussed, such as principles, relevant AI concepts and means to
communicate them, educational approaches, and educational material, as well as preliminary insights
from implemented teacher training workshops. AI refers to the processes and algorithms through which
an application learns to perform tasks such as problem-solving and decision-making. ML is a subset
of AI and involves a set of algorithms through which a system adapts and improves its performance by
processing and analyzing data (Webb et al., 2020). AI and ML applications are currently ubiquitous in
everyday life; they have a positive impact in areas such as healthcare and education; they further medi-
ate our social, cultural, and political interactions through, for example, search engines, voice and face
recognition applications, recommendation systems, and personalized information in newsfeeds and social
media (Rahwan et al., 2019; Webb et al., 2020). Concerns, though, have also been raised regarding the
role, the challenges, and the limitations of AI and ML in areas involving ethical decisions, autonomous
systems, and the delivery of information (Russell et al., 2015). AI education and literacy seems to be
even more critical now. Children and young people need to be able to understand how AI and ML works
and develop critical thinking skills for identifying the benefits and challenges of AI, access and assess
information and data, and recognize cultural and social bias embedded in the design of AI systems (Hsu
et al., 2018; Koltay, 2011). In this context, the goal of this chapter is to introduce a framework for the
training and support of teachers regarding AI and ML education and literacy of primary and secondary
education students.
Our framework aims to address understanding of the technical aspects, the key elements, concepts,
and principles of AI and ML such as Supervised Learning and Reinforcement learning, and also encour-
age critical thinking of students and teachers on the ethical, societal and cultural implications of AI. The
role, the benefits, and the challenges of AI could become clearer and more meaningful to students and
teachers if an interdisciplinary approach is adopted, highlighting the links between AI and a wide range
of fields such as sustainable development, healthcare, economy, history, mathematics, and art (Rahwan et
al., 2019; Vinuesa et al., 2020.) Therefore, our target group for this teacher training course was not only
computer science teachers but also other school subjects such as History, Arts, and Literature. For our
framework we considered the varied levels of AI or computer programming expertise and understanding
of educators, and the diversity of disciplines and education levels.
Work described in this chapter is situated in the context of the Erasmus+ Learn to Machine Learn
project (LearnML) which aims to develop a framework and a toolkit of AI and ML education through
game-based learning resources and activities. The LearnML project is a three-year Strategic Partnership
in the field of Education aiming to produce an innovative solution for the teaching and learning of crucial
21st century skills relating to digital literacy, computational thinking, AI, and ML. In the framework of
this project, the partners conducted workshops with teachers from primary and secondary education.
The consortium developed a network of stakeholders and particularly educators, so as to engage in
reflective discussions through meetings and workshops during the teacher training phase. This chapter
describes the process and the results of the teacher training phase; the materials and resources used to
further refine the teacher training process are further presented. The workshop participants’ ideas and
concerns about AI and ML were recorded. Data collected, such as participant observation notes, facili-
2

tators’ reports, surveys, the participants’ comments and responses, were analyzed qualitatively so as to
identify main themes and patterns.
Τhe scope of the chapter is to illustrate the outcomes from a project which has produced a number
of AI-resources as a support to teachers for their class-based practice as well as offer insights and best
practice recommendations to education stakeholders and policy makers. In this project we focus on the
design of teacher training programmers, resources, and material to help teachers and students develop
AI literacy skills and more broadly, digital literacy skills. Through the design and development of ap-
propriate material, resources, and practices, the critical thinking and AI literacy skills of students and
teachers on the factors that shape AI systems may be scaffolded. Appropriate material and resources may
further provide not only awareness and knowledge of AI and ML implications, but also practical tools
and ways to envision and bring about positive change, using AI and ML as drivers for systemic change.
BACKGROUND
Over the past few years, research and educational practice in AI education have expanded. AI education
is no longer limited to computer science graduate students and the technical aspects of AI, but further
considers young students, and awareness of the ethical and societal implications of AI systems. For
instance, in Kahn et al.’s (2018) study, 16-17 year old students explored AI concepts by developing AI
applications using Snap!, and in Bilstrup et al.’s (2020) workshops, high school students reflected upon
the ethical and moral dilemmas in ML systems, through a card-based game. Middle schoolers (12-13
years), in Vartiainen et al.’s study (2021), developed their own ML applications to solve real-world
problems such as facilitate the work of the teachers or help people with special needs. Even younger
children can explore abstract AI concepts through the appropriate methodologies and tools; 3-9 year old
children developed their datasets and trained models using Google’s Teachable Machine (Vartiainen et
al., 2020). PopBots is a toolkit and curriculum for teaching children aged 4-7 about AI through building
and programming (Williams et al., 2019) and MIT developed a curriculum and learning material on
AI, the technical concepts and relevant ethical implications, such as algorithmic bias, for middle school
students (Payne, 2019.) Some countries have already started addressing this need for emphasis to AI
in education, such as China that introduced AI into primary and secondary schools curricula, and USA
through an initiative to develop an AI education framework for K-12, sponsored by the Association for
the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) and the Computer Science Teachers Association
(CSTA) (Webb et al., 2020).
Introducing, though, advanced, abstract AI concepts to novices, younger students or students with
limited computer science expertise, is challenging. The critical role of supporting material and the guid-
ance of the teacher were discussed by Parker & Becker (2014) in their review of the learning effectiveness
of the game “ViPER” aiming to teach ML to middle-schoolers. Teacher guidance may help students
attain a better understanding of the concepts. Appropriate instructional design is also needed such as
design-based pedagogies rooted in Papert’s constructionism, collaboration, active learning, and problem
solving (Vartiainen et al., 2021.) In this context, the role of the educators is critical. It is important that
primary and secondary education teachers have the knowledge, the skills, and the resources to support
their students in developing AI and ML literacy skills. The role of the teachers is particularly important
if we further consider the design and application of AI-enhanced education systems, involving student
scoring, grading, selection, and management, and the emerging concerns about bias, representation, and
3

inclusiveness of students from different backgrounds (Baker & Hawn, 2021). Research so far, though, has
mainly focused on approaches and practices for teaching the students. Few initiatives focus on teacher
support, such as Camilleri et al.’s (2019) teacher’s guide which includes lesson plans, resources, and
worksheets for AI education. Considering the critical role of the teachers and the educational approaches
for the effectiveness of AI education in formal and non-formal education settings, we shift our focus to AI
education for the teachers. In the next sections, we present our teacher training approach and preliminary
insights from the teacher training courses implemented.
DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING THE TEACHER TRAINING COURSES
The first step of our educational design for the teacher training courses was the discussion with stakehold-
ers such as teachers, policy makers, researchers, and students. Nine focused reflective workshops were
organized in the three partner countries (Malta, Greece, Norway) during 2019-2020, with 73 participants
in total (51 adults such as teachers, university students, policy makers, researchers and 22 primary and
secondary education students). The workshops included a short introduction on the main concepts of
AI, discussions with the participants on their perceptions and attitudes towards AI, the requirements and
learning objectives for an effective implementation of AI in formal education, and design of educational
scenarios on AI education. Their duration was approximately 3 hours (see more details in Giannakos
and Papavlasopoulou, 2020). Specifically, the design of these preliminary workshops was as follows:
Phase 1 Introduction: Introductions of the participants, introduction to AI and ML, presentation of tools
and games for learning about AI and ML, presentation of AI applications and relevant implications
(e.g., social media, fake news, ethics, the algorithms “hidden” behind the use of internet.)
Phase 2 Discussion with the Participants: Participants were asked to record their answers (e.g., using
pen and paper, or discussion) on the current state in schools for the implementation of AI education
in the classroom, the potential learning objectives for AI education, challenges, and requirements
of infrastructure, and teacher and student skills.
Phase 3 Design of learning scenarios: The participants worked in groups of 3-4 and designed a potential
educational scenario (lesson plan) for classroom implementation.
Focusing specifically on the educators’ requirements, we examined their responses regarding the cur-
rent state in schools, AI topics and implications, and their perceptions and attitudes towards AI. The main
themes that emerged, which we further considered for the design of the Teacher Training Course, were:
• Enhance and support the participants’ knowledge and understanding of AI and ML regarding the
technical aspects, the ethical, social, and personal implications, and everyday life applications of
AI. Teachers, except for IT teachers, lack knowledge on IT and programming. Considering that AI
literacy and education is a cross-curricular topic for primary and secondary education, particular
attention should be paid to the more technical topics such as algorithms, and AI and ML functions.
• Guide the educators to the design of relevant lesson plans, considering the existing curricula and
their students’ background and interests. Students may come from different backgrounds, with
varied skills and expertise in coding and AI systems. Existing curricula do not include AI and ML,
and even IT courses may be limited to a few hours each week, particularly in primary education.
4

• Provide them with resources they can readily use in their classes such as games, reading material,
online tools, examples of applications. Infrastructure (computers, tablets) is often limited, espe-
cially in public schools. Resources for licensed software can be limited, restricting teachers and
students to software and tools freely available, with low processing requirements.
• Listen to the teachers’ insights, needs, requirements, concerns, and consider them for the design of
the material as well as for our suggestions for the implementation of AI education in formal edu-
cation curricula. The theme of a bottom-up approach for the design of material and curricula and
the consideration of the needs of students and teachers were recurring themes in these workshops.
The Teacher Training Courses were designed with these considerations in mind. Due to the COVID-19
restrictions, the courses had to be held online. For this purpose, the process, material, and activities had
to be designed accordingly. After the initial Teacher Training Course design, focus groups and a pilot
course were conducted with primary and secondary education teachers from a project partner school
in Greece. This allowed us to adjust our course design considering the teachers’ insights about online
training, their needs, and the introduction of AI-related concepts and themes. Specifically, as it emerged
from the pilot course and focus groups, emphasis should be put on the familiarization of the teachers
with the educational scenarios and their implementation in the classroom. One of the main challenges
was the active engagement of the participants for creating new content based on skills and knowledge
they acquired during the workshops. This had to be balanced with the duration of the courses; longer or
multiple sessions would be very demanding for teachers during the pandemic, combined with the online
teaching during lockdowns. In the next sections, the training course design is discussed, as well as the
findings and insights from its implementation in the three partner countries.
Teacher Training Course Design: Implementing AI

Education in Primary and Secondary Schools
The main emphasis in the design and content of the courses was on the background information about
AI and ML the familiarization of the participants (educators) with the concepts, and practical examples
of materials, tools, and activities. In each iteration of the course, we tried to adapt the pace and content
to the profile and background of the participants, after examining their previous experience and attitudes
towards AI and ML. In this section, the design of the course is described. For an outline, see Table 1.
Examining the participants’ profile: The participants are asked to complete an introductory survey
about their background and profile. These background information help adapt the presentation and activi-
ties to the profile of the participants. For instance, if the participants are history or preschool teachers,
relevant examples, applications, activities, and scenarios are presented and discussed; or if AI expertise
is low, the technical aspects of AI are discussed more in detail.
Exploring the participants perceptions of AI: The participants are asked to describe their percep-
tions about AI, what they know so far, and any examples of AI applications they may be familiar with.
This step provides more insights on the potential gaps or misconceptions about AI and acts as a bridge
for the next step, the presentation of AI concepts and applications.
Presentation of AI concepts, applications, and implications: The participants are introduced to
the meaning of AI, examples of applications, concepts of ML such as Supervised Learning, Reinforce-
ment Learning, algorithms, training data, and testing data. The facilitators, considering the results of
the initial surveys, introduce and discuss the following themes:
5

• Examples of AI applications such as recommendation systems (e.g., YouTube, Netflix), voice and
image recognition applications, search engines, personalized information in newsfeeds and social
media, self-driving vehicles
• Definition of AI and ML concepts, features, and elements such as reinforcement learning, su-
pervised learning, training dataset, testing dataset, learning rate, use experience, exploration, re-
wards, labeling (data)
• Presentation of positive and negative social, cultural, and ethical implications of AI and ML and
potential issues and challenges emerging, for instance, regarding diagnosis systems in health-
care, grading systems in education, work-automation, autonomous cars or weapons, filter bubbles,
disinformation
• Tools, applications, software, and games for teaching AI and ML to students (see more details in
the section Materials.)
Playing games about AI: Participants are introduced to the games developed in the framework of
the project (see more details in the section Materials.) The games are available online and aim to teach
concepts of Supervised Learning, Reinforcement Learning, and neural networks. They are separated
into groups (e.g., 3-6 members per group depending on the total number of participants.) The groups
join the dedicated virtual rooms and play the games. The participants then discuss about the games and
their potential.
Educational scenarios about AI and ML: Presentation of indicative educational scenarios (lesson
plans) of AI education, and discussion with the participants. Scenarios for primary and secondary educa-
tion are presented to the teachers. The scenarios constitute the basis for a semi-structured discussion with
the participants regarding the structure, the learning goals, the relevant learning subjects, their potential
for use in the classroom, possible adjustments that need to be made, links to existing curricula, relevance
to their students’ background and interests. The goals of this session are to familiarize the teachers with
the design of educational scenarios and school activities for AI education, and to provide insights on the
opportunities and challenges for the integration of AI literacy in formal education settings
Adapting an Educational Scenario: Participants are working in groups, using a shared document
or whiteboard, to adapt an existing educational scenario. They are given two scenarios from the guide-
book on AI education by Camilleri et al. (2019) and are asked to adapt them for their students. The main
questions were: Which scenario would you use in your classroom? What changes would you do in order
to adapt it in your classroom? Specifically, the educational scenarios provided were the “Rock, Paper,
Scissors” and “Making Machines Learn”. The participants are asked to note their teaching subject, cur-
riculum objectives, and country they teach in. The goal of this activity is to explore how AI and ML
education can fit into existing curricula and scaffold the practical experience of the teachers. After the
group activity, the participants are gathered back to the main room of the video conferencing environ-
ment and present their adapted scenarios.
Designing an Educational Scenario: This is a group session, with the groups in their own dedi-
cated virtual rooms and a shared document or whiteboard. Each group is given an educational scenario
template and design a scenario for the classroom. Ideally, the groups consist of educators of the same
teaching subject. Otherwise, they may try to collaboratively create an interdisciplinary scenario which
could be applied to different teaching subjects with small alterations. After the activity, participants
return to the main room, they present their scenarios, and peer-assess them focusing specifically on the
learning goals and procedure.
6

Exploring Change in Teachers’ Perceptions of AI: Repeating the process and questions of “Step
2 Exploring the participants perceptions of AI” (i.e., How would you describe what Artificial Intelli-
gence is? Do you use any AI applications?), with a new response form. The responses will allow for a
comparison between the perceptions of the teachers before and after the course, as a tool to assess its
effectiveness. Alternatively, the responses may be posted on the chat channel.
Table 1. Outline of the online teacher training course design
No. Step Description Materials Time

The participants are
• Online survey using tools such as
welcomed and are asked
Google Forms. Questions about gender
Examining the to complete a short survey.
1 (for demographic reasons), years of 5 minutes
participants’ profile Results of this survey help
teacher experience, specialty/field, their
adapt the content and pace of
AI expertise (5-point scale)
the course.
• Online survey using tools such as
Mapping background on AI Padlet, Google Forms, or the chat channel
Exploring the
of the participants. Basis of of the video conferencing system.
2 participants’ 5 minutes
discussion and presentation in Questions: How would you describe what
perceptions of AI
next step. Artificial Intelligence is? Do you use any
AI applications?
Presentation of AI concepts,
Presentation of AI
applications, social
3 concepts, applications, • Presentation 20 minutes
implications, examples of
and implications
educational material.
Group activity Playing the
• ArtBot game
games on AI developed by
4 Playing games about AI • Evolutionary Cars game 20 minutes
LearnML partners
• Evolutionary Flappy Bird game
Feedback and debriefing.
Presentation of indicative
educational scenarios (lesson • Presentation of the template and
Educational scenarios
5 plans) of AI education, indicative scenarios from Camilleri et al. 15 minutes
about AI and ML
and discussion with the (2019)
participants.
• The scenarios “Rock, Paper, Scissors”
and “Making Machines Learn” from
Camilleri et al. (2019)
Group activity • A shared document or whiteboard for
Adapting an
6 Participants adapt an existing each group 20 minutes
Educational Scenario
scenario for their classrooms. • Main questions: Which scenario would
you use in your classroom? What changes
would you do in order to adapt it in your
classroom?
Group activity • Template of educational scenario
Designing an
7 Participants design an • Shared document or whiteboard for 30 minutes
Educational Scenario
educational scenario. each group
• A new online survey using tools such
Exploring potential shifts as Padlet, Google Forms, or the chat
Exploring Change in
in the perceptions of the channel of the video conferencing system.
8 Teachers’ Perceptions 5 minutes
teachers before and after the Questions: How would you describe what
of AI
course. Artificial Intelligence is? Do you use any
AI applications?
Conclusions and end of
9 Total: 130 minutes
workshop
7

Materials
In this section, the materials used in the course, such as presentations, tools, games, are described.
Background Information
The presentation included examples of AI applications such as YouTube, Netflix, smart homes, face
recognition, social media (e.g., Facebook, Instagram), spam email recognition, Siri, Alexa, Google
search, self-driving cars. Their features and the role of AI were discussed. The terms Artificial Intel-
ligence, Machine Learning, Supervised Learning, Reinforcement Learning, data, training set, testing
set, classification, rewards, punishment, learning rate, use experience, and exploration were defined.
Implications such as algorithmic bias (e.g., in face recognition systems), human bias in data, bias
against gender and social status, equal representation and access, spread of information in social media,
filter bubbles based on personalized interests, decision making and accountability for self-driving vehicles
and weapons were presented as issues for further reflection both at a personal and at a societal level.
Tools, applications, software, and games for teaching AI and ML to students were presented and more
specifically: the Teachable Machine (Teachable Machine, n.d.), Microsoft’s Project Malmo involving
Minecraft (Project Malmo, n.d.), Semi-Conductor (Semi-Conductor, n.d.), Minecraft. Hour of Code:
AI for Good (Minecraft Hour of Code, n.d.), Machine Learning for Kids (Machine Learning for Kids,
n.d.), The Moral Machine (Moral Machine, n.d.), Akinator (Elokence.com, n.d.), Quick Draw! (Quick,
Draw!, n.d.), and AI for Oceans (AI for Oceans, n.d.).
Digital Games
The following games were developed in the framework of the LearnML project, by project partners.
ArtBot: The aim of the game is to introduce players to core principles and concepts of Artificial
Intelligence. Players have the quest to find and retrieve valuable art objects that have been stolen and
hidden. Through the first part of the game, the process of supervised learning is introduced; players
train their AI helper to recognize specific art objects (i.e., paintings and sculptures). They classify a set
of training data, experiment with different parameters, and then see how well the helper was trained by
observing how it classifies a set of testing data (see Figure 1.) This is where the players teach their helper
to recognize which objects they are looking for. During the second part of the game, the players and
their AI helper need to navigate through a series of dungeons, locate, and collect the stolen art objects.
In this part, the players are introduced to the processes of reinforcement learning; they guide their helper
by indicating what type of objects to look for and which ones to avoid (e.g., traps), by assigning rewards
to the right objects. The AI helper tries to find its path based on the parameters set by the players, such
as the exploration and exploitation rates. The players watch the process, they can pause or accelerate it,
and think what the optimal settings would be for helping the AI find as many objects as possible.
The game was designed by a team of educators, game developers, and AI experts with the aim to
support AI literacy of primary and secondary education students. Beyond the technical aspects of AI,
our goal was to trigger the critical thinking of players on the aspects, factors and bias that may shape the
architecture and behavior of AI agents and systems. The game guides the player through a set of actions,
but also provides opportunities for exploration, experimentation, and reflection; players are encouraged
to construct their knowledge by observing the outcomes of their actions, evaluate the results, make, and
8

test their hypotheses. Through the design of the game, we tried to avoid common stereotypes and ad-
dress students’ misconceptions of AI, such as the anthropomorphic nature of AI systems - the AI helper
is an unidentified artifact rather than a robot. Players, though, have the option to choose and modify the
avatar of the AI helper. By setting the game in the context of cultural heritage (art objects) our aim was
to address the application of AI systems in multiple different areas, beyond computing and program-
ming, such as archaeology, art, and transportation (see also Voulgari et al., 2021; Zammit et al., 2021.)
The game is available at http://art-bot.net/
Figure 1. Interface of the ArtBot game; the players classify cultural artifacts and train their AI agent
Evolutionary Cars: This game (original version by Coding Train, 2021) demonstrates how evolu-
tionary algorithms can guide a virtual car along an unknown racetrack (see Figure 2). The game starts
with a population of 100 cars, each of them equipped with a separate neural network; as the cars try to
navigate, they utilize a number of virtual sensor inputs, providing them with their distance from the edge
of the track. Based on this, they choose their speed and whether they should turn towards their right or
left, so as to avoid hitting the track boundaries and get eliminated. The initial parameters of the neural
networks which decide each car’s route are random; as a result, some of them survive for a longer period.
As soon as all cars are eliminated, the algorithm creates a new generation, based on the best performing
cars, and slightly alters their neural network brains (as per the evolutionary strategy of this approach).
As generations progress, the self-driving cars become better in navigating across the given track and are
quite competent when presented with a previously unseen one.
When interacting with the game, players can change the speed of the cars (mostly related to viewing
their course, not with the actual calculations), the mutation rate (i.e., the percentage of the neural network
parameters evolved with each generation, affecting the speed of the evolution process), the life span of
each car (the amount of frames or calculated decisions after which each car is forcibly eliminated to
trigger evolution) and the sight range (how far each virtual sensor can ‘see’ the track boundaries). As a
general rule, these parameters affect how quickly and efficiently the evolution process will generate a
self-steering car; it makes sense that tracks with sharper turns require more evolutionary generations to
adapt the initial random neural network, since it would take more complex and advanced maneuvers to
navigate across these turns.
9

Figure 2. Interface of the adapted Evolutionary Cars game; the different controls adapt the behavior
of the algorithm
Evolutionary Flappy Bird: Evolutionary Flappy Bird (original version from Geektoni, 2021) is
based on the popular “Flappy Bird” mobile and web game and uses an evolutionary algorithm to create
a bot that plays without any human input or competes with human players (see Figure 3). This imple-
mentation starts with a population of 30 birds, again equipped with a randomly initialized neural network
brain, which try to navigate an obstacle course. The inputs to this neural network consist of the distance
to the next pipe, the flight altitude, the position of the space between the pipes through which the birds
are supposed to navigate, and the speed of vertical motion of the pipes (if any). With each game frame,
birds choose to flap their wings and fly higher or change their course with gravity and go lower; if a
bird crashes into the ground or one of the vertical pipes, it is eliminated from the current generation
(Karpouzis & Yannakakis, 2016).
Figure 3. Evolutionary Flappy Bird interface
10

Again, some of the birds survive for a longer distance; the next generation will be based on the neural
networks guiding those birds, slightly evolved to cater for a possibly better performance. After a number
of generations, the evolved self-flying birds can navigate across every pipe pattern, even those that require
abrupt changes in their flying pattern. This game allows players to experiment with different parameters,
and also compete against evolved bot-birds (Human vs AI option). They can also enter an “Impossible”
game mode, where pipes move up and down, making navigation harder or “Freeze Weights” and store
the neural network evolved up to that point, using that in head-to-head competition.
A Case Study Implementation of the Teacher Training Courses
The courses were implemented from May until September 2021, with a total of 194 participants, using
the platforms Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Cisco Webex. For a summary of the courses see Table 2.
Athens Science Festival, online, Greece: the first two workshops were organized in the framework
of the Athens Science Festival in March 2021. It is one of the most prestigious and popular science
events for teachers and students in Greece. Due to the Covid-19 restrictions it was held online. In this
event, students, teachers, and the public had the opportunity to explore scientific and technological
advancements in an entertaining, innovative, and interactive way. The 2021 theme was “The Era of
Heroes” and several researchers, scientists, educators, and artists communicated science concepts and
current trends. AI was one of the major topics in this festival. Two training workshops were organized
for teachers and a parallel session for students. Each workshop lasted two hours. More than 65 teachers
had initially registered for these events.
Seminar for teachers organized by the 3rd Secondary Education Office in Attika, online,
Greece: Secondary Education Offices in Greece are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Educa-
tion, and their role is, among others, to manage, coordinate, monitor, and assess schools and teachers
within their area of control, supervise public and private schools, provide guidance and guidelines, and
take initiative regarding the implementation of new technologies in education, such as the organization
of seminars and workshops for teachers. Teacher training seems to be even more critical now, with the
implementation of the “Skill Labs 21+” program by the Ministry of Education and Religious affairs
(Institute of Educational Policy, Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs, Greece, 2022), introduc-
ing topics such as STEM, robotics, and digital literacy. The project partners were invited to organize a
teacher training workshop on AI and ML in education which was held in May 2021. The interest of the
teachers seemed to be quite high, as it was also commented by the organizers, officers of the Secondary
Education Office. Although this was organized by a secondary education institution, primary education
teachers -including preschool teachers- also participated, from various teaching fields such as Program-
ming, Science, Philology, Art, Mathematics, Biology and Chemistry. They were mainly teachers from
public schools with extensive teaching experience (N=66, M= 20.78 years). Previous experience and
knowledge of AI was heterogeneous, since Programming and IT teachers were familiar with the concept
and applications, while Social Sciences and Humanities teachers (Philology, Art, etc.) were not (M=2.27
in a 5-point scale.)
Science Centre Pembroke, online, Malta: This teachers’ training webinar was organized in July
2021 by the Science Centre within the Directorate for Learning and Assessment Programmes (DLAP).
The call for participation was distributed to the network of schools in Malta, and specifically to all heads
of the college network and heads of primary, middle and secondary schools (state and non-state). Again,
as discussed by the organizers, the interest and participation were high. Their teaching subjects included
11

Computer Science, Mathematics, Primary Education, Economics, Biology, Maltese, and Ethics/Religion;
their teaching experience was quite high as most of them had ten years of experience and three up to
twenty years (N=21, M=13 years), and they reported having a medium experience and knowledge of AI
and ML (M=2.43 in a 5-point scale). This session deviated slightly from the original time-schedule as
approximately 45 minutes were dedicated to the presentation of main concepts, processes, and examples
of AI to ensure that participants received an overview of the theory, before proceeding to the hands-on
part of the webinar (i.e., games and educational scenarios).
Teacher Training Course on Computing at the Norwegian University of Science and Technol-
ogy (NTNU), online, Norway: The workshop took place in the framework of a teacher training course
offered by the NTNU. The course offers programming as a subject and provides insight into how it can
be used to create digital solutions. Over the past few years, the Ministry of Education in Norway has
published a strategy requiring strengthening of digital skills, programming, and technology in all grades
(from primary to upper secondary education) as elective courses and as cross-curricular subjects in
Mathematics, Science, Music, and Arts and Crafts. This is particularly challenging for teachers lacking
digital competences. This course was the basis for the students (i.e., teachers) who may take a follow up
course focusing on how programming can be communicated to school students with a focus on creativity
and collaboration in problem solving. The participants were teachers from all Norway, with extensive
teaching experience (N=6, M=15,4 years), from varied teaching fields such Programming, English,
Mathematics, Science, and Arts. They had little or no experience with AI and ML (M=1.80 in a 5-point
scale), and they had never taught AI and ML concepts in their classrooms. 42 teachers participated in
the workshop, while the material was disseminated to more than 200 students attending the course. The
course was implemented in September 2021 and the duration was 45 minutes.
Table 2. Summary of the Teacher Training Courses implemented in the three partner countries. The
venue, number and profile of participants are outlined
No. of
Venue Profile of Participants
Participants
• Primary and secondary education teachers
Athens Science Festival, online, Greece (2
55 • Most of the participants were Computer Science teachers but there
workshops)
were also teachers from science education, linguistics and arts
• Primary and secondary education teachers mainly in public schools
• Variety of teaching subjects i.e., programming, science, philology,
art, mathematics, biology, chemistry, language
Seminar for teachers organized by the 3rd
• More women than men
Secondary Education Office in Attika, 75
• The majority had more than twenty years of teaching experience
online, Greece
and only four participants had less than ten years
• Most of the participants were not familiar or had medium
knowledge of AI
• Primary, middle, secondary education teachers, other stakeholders
(e.g., heads of school, school inspectors, researchers)
Science Centre Pembroke, online, Malta 22 • From state, private, and church schools
• Various teaching fields e.g., computing, technology, biology,
mathematics, Maltese, English, French.
Teacher Training Course on Computing at • Teachers in Programming, English, Mathematics, Science, Arts
the Norwegian University of Science and 42 • No or very little experience in AI and ML
Technology (NTNU), online, Norway • Extensive teaching experience
12

INSIGHTS FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

TEACHER TRAINING COURSES
For getting a better insight of the impact of the courses, a qualitative approach was adopted. The par-
ticipants’ comments and responses were recorded and analyzed thematically for identifying the positive
aspects, the challenges, and their suggestions in relation to the content and structure of the course, and
the potential of AI and ML education in formal learning settings (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003, p. 38.)
The analysis of the comments was conducted independently by two researchers and after discussion,
an agreement was reached concerning the categories that emerged (Campbell et al., 2013). The reports
of the facilitators of the courses were also considered for shedding light to the process of the courses.
Specifically, the three reports from the respective partners in the three countries were considered. We
further examined the input of the participants prior and after the course for examining potential changes
in attitudes and knowledge of AI applications. We describe our findings in relation to three axes: (a) the
perceptions of AI and ML, (b) the evaluation of the course content and structure, and (c) the challenges
for the implementation of AI and ML education in formal education.
Perceptions of AI and ML
Their first responses about the description of AI were vague and superficial while few of them gave
specific examples such as automated cars or robots. Nevertheless, in most of the comments, the par-
ticipants attempted to give a definition of AI. Very few reported that they had no perception of what AI
is. The comparison with and the metaphor of human cognition, behavior, and intelligence emerged as
a recurring theme. Human-like characteristics were attributed to AI. In most of the comments, AI was
described as a system, a piece of software, or a computer system that simulates human intelligence,
behavior, or cognitive functions. Some indicative excerpts:
Computer systems that mimic human behaviour in the fields of algorithmic thinking and learning.
A machine that is capable of reproducing human functions and solve problems
The way we can teach machines to react and behave like humans
AI was mainly defined through its outcomes and specifically problem-solving and decision-making.
The participants described AI as systems programmed or trained to solve problems or make decisions.
For instance:
The ability of the machines to make decisions
A computer program that solves problems and simulates human senses and behaviour.
Robotics also came up as a recurring theme. Teachers, particularly in the workshops in Greece, linked
AI to robotics. AI was described as “applications of robotics” or “robots”. Very few responses included
a more specific, objective, and technical definition of AI, as for example:
13

Artificial intelligence (AI) is intelligence demonstrated by machines. Leading AI textbooks define the
field as the study of intelligent agents: any system that perceives its environment and takes actions that
maximize its chance of achieving its goals.
When asked, though, about AI applications in their daily lives, most of the participants reported that
they had no experience with AI, except for the teachers in Malta who reported more examples of AI ap-
plications. Indicative applications reported are: ChatBots, robotic cleaners, speech-to-text, Quickdraw,
Thing Translator, autonomous cars, Amazon, Netflix, AI agents in games, Facebook, and Google Translate.
When the perceptions of the participants about AI after the workshops were analyzed, the human-
like aspects had receded, and more specific definitions and terms emerged. The participants used terms
such as algorithms, autonomy, predictions, data, training, machine learning, and rewards. Indicatively:
AI is integrated in a machine which can process data and make decisions
Training a machine to make decisions
Furthermore, they were able to identify more AI applications they used in their daily lives. Although
there were still negative responses (the participant reported that he/she had not used any AI applications),
more examples of AI applications emerged such as: YouTube, Google, “too many”, text auto-completion,
and face recognition. Indicatively, one of the teachers responded “Now that I know the variety of how
AI is included, yes most apps I use are through AI”.
Evaluation of the Courses
The interest of primary and secondary education teachers for the topic (AI education) was overwhelming
in most cases; high numbers of teachers enrolled and participated in the teacher training events (e.g., in
Greece, Workshop by Secondary Education Office, there were 115 initial registrations and 75 partici-
pated, and in Malta there were 43 initial registrations and 22 participated.) The participants’ comments
on the chat channel or on shared whiteboards further indicated their interest in the topic and in similar
courses and training in the future. Indicative comments: “You are giving us some wonderful ideas!!!”,
“This was a particularly pleasant and definitely illuminating seminar. I would be happy to participate
in the next one”.
The participants seemed to have acquired a better grasp of AI and its implications. They commented
that they received a general overview on what AI is, and they learnt more about concepts such as Super-
vised and Reinforcement Learning (e.g., “It helped us move away from the stereotype of artificial intel-
ligence [equals] robot”.) Nevertheless, as also commented by participants and facilitators, the teachers
need more training. As one of the facilitators reported “teachers are not yet prepared to incorporate AI
concepts into their teaching practice”. The limited duration of the courses didn’t seem to allow for more
in-depth discussion on the technical aspects, the social implications, and hands-on experience. It also did
not allow for the participants to study the material, think, and design their own scenarios, as commented
by facilitators and participants. One of the facilitators reported that “more emphasis on AI in education,
readymade examples / scenarios / lesson plans that target specific curricular learning outcomes, and
knowledge about AI per se” is needed. Another facilitator commented on the challenges of the online
format and of the limited time “[…] participants were separated into breakout rooms in order to create
14

their own scenarios, but this was not easy to happen because of the online situation and also because
of the fact that each participant had a different background. As such, we discussed only their general
ideas”. This comment further implies that the heterogeneity of the participants’ backgrounds presented
additional challenges.
They seemed to understand how education can be linked to the concept of AI, the significance of AI
education, and the need to introduce AI education interdisciplinary; the teaching subjects the teachers
mentioned were Mathematics, English, Computing, and also Social Sciences e.g., Philosophy, Linguis-
tics, and History. They further linked AI education to digital literacy (“I believe that it promotes the
empowerment of digital and critical literacy”.) They appreciated the ready-made material and scenarios
and, as commented by a facilitator, “Teachers found it easy to use in their classrooms and some teachers
from secondary education reported that they can use it for their early years of secondary education.”
More scenarios and practical examples would though benefit teachers more. As commented by the
participants “[we need more] semi-structured and structured lesson plans as inspiration to create our
own lesson plans”.
During the courses, in most cases, the participants took an active role; they engaged in discussion,
asked questions, commented, and shared their experiences and insights. The examples of AI applications
triggered their interest. For instance, as one facilitator reported, the Moral Machine triggered discussion
about Reinforcement Learning and autonomous vehicles, as well as the ethical implications and dilemmas
emerging. The game AI for Oceans and a relevant lesson plan triggered discussion on its potential to be
used in primary and early childhood education to introduce children to the process and implications of
Supervised Learning. The lesson plans, the practical examples, and the applications were helpful and
interesting for the participants and motivated them to engage in “reflective comments on how they can
use the educational scenarios in their classrooms”, as commented by a facilitator.
Challenges for the Implementation of AI and ML Education in Formal Education
For identifying the challenges, the participants’ and facilitators’ comments were reviewed. Three main
themes emerged: (a) public policy, (b) teacher training, and (c) school culture. More specifically, the
public policy for education and the curriculum may provide challenges and opportunities. Not all three
countries had equivalent education policies and conditions. When new policies for promoting digital
skills for students are introduced, such as the new IT and coding strategy in Norway and the “Skill Labs
21+” program in Greece, they present new challenges for the teachers who lack digital skills and edu-
cational material but also provide the framework for integrating AI education in the classroom. Even
when an IT and coding curriculum is established, further specialization to AI literacy is needed; as one
of the facilitators reported “[a public policy for AI in education] would provide guidelines to support
innovative ecosystems to nurture opportunities of AI in the field of education”. Another aspect of the
curriculum and the public policies commented by the participants was the exam-oriented culture of the
education system; a system that focuses on exams and tests results as the main form of student assess-
ment, specifically in secondary education, seems to constraint educators and limit flexibility for the
implementation of more innovative approaches and subjects.
Following up on the lack of digital skills and materials mentioned, the “professional preparation
of teachers/educators for AI powered education” constitutes a “major challenge” as reported by one of
the facilitators. Certainly, more teacher training and educational material are needed for the effective
integration of AI education in formal education. Teachers seem to be willing to expand their skills and
15

explore new and current topics with their students. Proper training, supporting material, concrete lesson
plans and activities that are flexible with alternative options (e.g., as one time activity for an academic
hour, or as self-study as part of a lab hour) and with the option to integrate them in different standard
curricula subjects, are crucial factors and prerequisites for AI education in the classroom.
The multidisciplinary aspect of AI, involving different disciplines such as IT, history, ethics, math-
ematics, arts, and language, can only be addressed by the collaboration of educators from different
teaching fields, for example the collaboration of the IT teacher with the Arts teacher. School culture and
the educational system may not always facilitate such collaborations, as reported by the participants.
A culture, as well as opportunities for collaboration, are needed, providing the infrastructure, the time,
and the space to the teachers to design and implement such interdisciplinary projects. Communities
of practice for the exchange of knowledge, expertise, and insights was also among the suggestions of
the participants. They expressed the need to participate in an ongoing dialogue with the community of
teachers and researchers involved in AI education, as this would facilitate their work, allow them to solve
problems, get ideas and inspiration, and share their practices.
Other issues that emerged, mainly from participants and facilitators in Malta, were data privacy and
security, and the establishment of a centralized institution for AI education. Specifically, it was commented
that “Investment in AI research to establish a national academic centre of excellence in AI, scholarships
and research network” is needed, and “Data privacy and security is the immediate question that comes
up in any discussion regarding data ethics. The challenge lies in using personal data while ensuring the
protection of individual privacy preferences and personally identifiable information”.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This chapter focused on the design and implementation of a teacher training course for AI education in
primary and secondary education. We presented the design of the course and insights from its imple-
mentation in different settings. Even though the online format of the workshops restricted the hands-on
participation and the interactions among facilitators and participants, we found that it allowed for a higher
participation of teachers from various, and even remote areas of the partner countries.
The heterogeneity of participants presented certain opportunities and challenges. It allowed for a
richer dialogue and exchange of knowledge, expertise, insights, and ideas among teachers from different
disciplines, different education levels (primary and secondary), and different IT and AI expertise levels.
But it also called for adjustments in the content and pace of the presentation of theory and background
information and presented difficulties in the collaborative design of lesson plans. This can probably be
addressed by the separation to homogeneous groups during the collaborative lesson plan design phase,
when possible. Although this was in our original considerations during the design of the courses, it was
not always possible due to the large numbers of participants and the time constraints. This heterogene-
ity, though, was among our objectives for highlighting our multidisciplinary approach to AI education
involving multiple fields, and for establishing a dialogue among the educators as a basis for a community
of practice.
In many cases, the interest of the participants was accompanied by a lack of confidence in their
competences to support the students in this topic, or by superficial knowledge and by concerns about AI
and its role in the students’ lives and society. Teachers from primary and secondary education, and par-
ticularly non-IT teachers, do not feel confident yet to explore concepts of AI and ML with their students.
16

They seemed willing to implement AI education activities in their classrooms, provided that they could
have more training and supporting educational material. Regarding the courses, enough time needs to
be allocated to the presentation of the background material, practical examples, study of material by the
educators, and hands-on training and experience in the design of learning activities relevant to their field.
Certainly, our findings regarding the attitudes of teachers towards AI education cannot be general-
ized to the population of teachers in all countries. The sample is rather biased, since the participation in
the courses was voluntary, and probably mainly teachers already interested in the topic and open to new
themes and approaches participated. Most of the courses, though, were advertised through open calls
to communities and networks of teachers, and participation was free and open to all. This allowed us
to attract a wide and varied audience and identify issues that may be relevant to educators of different
backgrounds and settings. To summarize the themes that emerged from this study regarding the design
and implementation of teacher training courses in AI education:
• The teacher training courses raised awareness of the teachers on AI applications, and the role and
implications of AI to daily life.
• The courses should promote discussions and the development of communities of practice, for the
exchange of good practices or challenges.
• Opportunities for a dialogue among teachers of different disciplines and expertise levels are need-
ed. This would facilitate further collaboration, necessary for a multidisciplinary approach in AI
education.
• The presentation and provision of a wide range of practical examples such as lesson plans, activi-
ties, and materials, ready to be used or adapted for the classroom is essential. The examples should
be simple, and relevant to teachers and students of different AI expertise, digital skills, levels of
education, and subjects.
• Emphasis and time should be allocated for practical, hands-on activities by the teachers, specifi-
cally in the design of lesson plans which can be later used in real classroom settings.
• Lesson plans and materials should be linked to the established curricula and to specific learning
goals for students of different age groups. This would facilitate integration of AI education in dif-
ferent settings and learning subjects.
This was an initial exploration of insights based on participants’ and facilitators’ comments. The
main goal of this chapter was to introduce an approach for the design of teacher training courses for
the implementation of AI education and literacy in formal education. Certainly, further implementation
of teacher training courses, development of educational material, and systematic research is needed,
but hopefully considerations and requirements were identified and discussed for the establishment of a
framework to support and facilitate AI education and literacy of teachers and students.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work is supported by the “Learn to Machine Learn” (LearnML) project, under the Erasmus+ Stra-
tegic Partnership program (Project Number: 2019-1-MT01-KA201-051220). The authors would like to
thank the participants, the organizers, and the facilitators of the workshops, Josmar Borg for organizing
17

the Malta teachers’ training, Georgios Yannakakis, Desiree Scicluna Bugeja, and Sofia Papavlasopoulou
for coordinating this project.
REFERENCES
AI for Oceans. (n.d.). Code.Org. Retrieved 1 February 2022, from https://code.org/oceans

Auerbach, C., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative Data: An Introduction to Coding and Analysis.
NYU Press.
Baker, R. S., & Hawn, A. (2021). Algorithmic Bias in Education. EdArXiv. doi:10.35542/osf.io/pbmvz
Bilstrup, K.-E. K., Kaspersen, M. H., & Petersen, M. G. (2020). Staging Reflections on Ethical Dilem-
mas in Machine Learning: A Card-Based Design Workshop for High School Students. Proceedings of
the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, 1211–1222. doi:10.1145/3357236.3395558
Camilleri, V., Dingli, A., & Montebello, M. (2019). AI in Education A Practical Guide for Teachers
and Young People. Department of AI, University of Malta. http://learnml.eu/docs/AI_in_Education.pdf
Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding In-depth Semistructured
Interviews: Problems of Unitization and Intercoder Reliability and Agreement. Sociological Methods
& Research, 42(3), 294–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475
Elokence.com. (n.d.). Akinator. Retrieved 1 February 2022, from https://en.akinator.com/
Geektoni. (2021). GitHub - geektoni/evolutionary-FlappyBird: Playing the (in)famous Flappy Bird game
using NEAT and Differential Evolution. GitHub. Retrieved February 2, 2022, from https://github.com/
geektoni/evolutionary-FlappyBird
Giannakos, M., & Papavlasopoulou, S. (2020). IO1: A LearnML Pedagogical Framework Development
(Intellectual Output 1). Technical Report, Learn to Machine Learn (LearnML), Erasmus+ Project.
Hsu, T. C., Chang, S. C., & Hung, Y. T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking:
Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296–310. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004
Kahn, K. M., Megasari, R., Piantari, E., & Junaeti, E. (2018). AI programming by children using Snap!
Block programming in a developing country. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:9a82b522-6f9f-4c67-
b20d-be6c53019b3b
Karpouzis, K., & Yannakakis, G. N. (2016). Emotion in Games. Springer.
Koltay, T. (2011). The media and the literacies: Media literacy, information literacy, digital literacy.
Media Culture & Society, 33(2), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443710393382
Machine Learning for Kids. (n.d.). Retrieved 1 February 2022, from https://machinelearningforkids.co.uk
Minecraft Hour of Code. Facilitator Training 2019. (n.d.). Microsoft Educator Center. Retrieved 1 Feb-
ruary 2022, from https://education.microsoft.com/en-us/course/beb9828a/0
18

Moral Machine. (n.d.). Moral Machine. Retrieved 1 February 2022, from http://moralmachine.mit.edu
Parker, J. R., & Becker, K. (2014). ViPER : Game That Teaches Machine Learning Concepts—A Post-
mortem. 2014 IEEE Games and Entertainment Media Conference (GEM), 5.
Payne, B. H. (2019). An Ethics of Artificial Intelligence Curriculum for Middle School Students. MIT
Media Lab. Retrieved 13 April 2021, from https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/ai-ethics-for-middle-
school/overview/
Project Malmo. (n.d.). Microsoft Research. Retrieved 1 February 2022, from https://www.microsoft.
com/en-us/research/project/project-malmo/
Quick, Draw! (n.d.). Retrieved 1 February 2022, from https://quickdraw.withgoogle.com/
Rahwan, I., Cebrian, M., Obradovich, N., Bongard, J., Bonnefon, J.-F., Breazeal, C., Crandall, J. W.,
Christakis, N. A., Couzin, I. D., Jackson, M. O., Jennings, N. R., Kamar, E., Kloumann, I. M., Laro-
chelle, H., Lazer, D., McElreath, R., Mislove, A., Parkes, D. C., & Pentland, A., … Wellman, M. (2019).
Machine behaviour. Nature, 568(7753), 477–486. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1138-y
Ray Casting. (2021). Coding Train. Retrieved February 2, 2022, from https://codingtrain.github.io/
NeuroEvolution-Vehicles/
Russell, S., Dewey, D., & Tegmark, M. (2015). Research Priorities for Robust and Beneficial Artificial
Intelligence. AI Magazine, 36(4), 105. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v36i4.2577
Semi-Conductor. (n.d.). Retrieved 1 February 2022, from https://semiconductor.withgoogle.com/
Teachable Machine. (n.d.). Retrieved 1 February 2022, from https://teachablemachine.withgoogle.com/
Vartiainen, H., Tedre, M., & Valtonen, T. (2020). Learning machine learning with very young children:
Who is teaching whom? International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 100182. doi:10.1016/j.
ijcci.2020.100182
Vartiainen, H., Toivonen, T., Jormanainen, I., Kahila, J., Tedre, M., & Valtonen, T. (2021). Machine
learning for middle schoolers: Learning through data-driven design. International Journal of Child-
Computer Interaction, 29, 100281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100281
Vinuesa, R., Azizpour, H., Leite, I., Balaam, M., Dignum, V., Domisch, S., Felländer, A., Langhans, S.
D., Tegmark, M., & Fuso Nerini, F. (2020). The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable
Development Goals. Nature Communications, 11(1), 233. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-14108-y
Voulgari, I., Zammit, M., Stouraitis, E., & Liapis, A. (2021). Learn to Machine Learn: Designing a
Game Based Approach for Teaching Machine Learning to Primary and Secondary Education Students.
Interaction Design and Children, 593–598. doi:10.1145/3459990.3465176
Webb, M. E., Fluck, A., Magenheim, J., Malyn-Smith, J., Waters, J., Deschênes, M., & Zagami, J.
(2020). Machine learning for human learners: Opportunities, issues, tensions and threats. Educational
Technology Research and Development. doi:10.1007/s11423-020-09858-2
19

Williams, R., Park, H. W., Oh, L., & Breazeal, C. (2019). PopBots: Designing an Artificial Intelligence
Curriculum for Early Childhood Education. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intel-
ligence, 33(01), 9729–9736. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33019729
Zammit, M., Voulgari, I., Liapis, A., & Yannakakis, G. (2021). The Road to AI Literacy Education:
From Pedagogical Needs to Tangible Game Design. Proceedings of the European Conference on Games
Based Learning, 10.
ADDITIONAL READING
Druga, S., Vu, S. T., Likhith, E., & Qiu, T. (2019). Inclusive AI literacy for kids around the world. Pro-
ceedings of FabLearn, 2019, 104–111. doi:10.1145/3311890.3311904
Giannakos, M., Voulgari, I., Papavlasopoulou, S., Papamitsiou, Z., & Yannakakis, G. (2020). Games for
Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Education: Review and Perspectives. In M. Giannakos (Ed.),
Non-Formal and Informal Science Learning in the ICT Era (pp. 117–133). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-
981-15-6747-6_7
Holmes, W., Porayska-Pomsta, K., Holstein, K., Sutherland, E., Baker, T., Shum, S. B., Santos, O. C.,
Rodrigo, M. T., Cukurova, M., Bittencourt, I. I., & Koedinger, K. R. (2021). Ethics of AI in Education:
Towards a Community-Wide Framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.
Advance online publication. doi:10.100740593-021-00239-1
Voulgari, I., Zammit, M., Stouraitis, E., Liapis, A., & Yannakakis, G. (2021). Learn to Machine Learn:
Designing a Game Based Approach for Teaching Machine Learning to Primary and Secondary Educa-
tion Students. Interaction Design and Children, 593–598. doi:10.1145/3459990.3465176
Webb, M. E., Fluck, A., Magenheim, J., Malyn-Smith, J., Waters, J., Deschênes, M., & Zagami, J.
(2020). Machine learning for human learners: Opportunities, issues, tensions and threats. Educational
Technology Research and Development. Advance online publication. doi:10.100711423-020-09858-2
Yannakakis, G. N., & Togelius, J. (2018). Artificial intelligence and games (Vol. 2). Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-63519-4
Zammit, M., Voulgari, I., Liapis, A., & Yannakakis, G. (2021). The Road to AI Literacy Education:
From Pedagogical Needs to Tangible Game Design. Proceedings of the European Conference on Games
Based Learning, 10.
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Artificial Intelligence: the study of computational processes that attempt to mimic what humans
do across several tasks including behavior, pattern recognition, decision making, cognitive processing,
and emotion recognition.
20

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Literacy: AI literacy involves skills and competencies for using AI tech-
nologies and applications as tools, viewing them critically, understanding their context and embedded
principles, and questioning their design and implementation.
Educational Scenario (Lesson Plan): A structured plan detailing the process, steps, content and learn-
ing objectives of a lesson or a course. It supports and guides the educators through the teaching process.
Evolutionary Algorithm: A global optimization type of algorithm inspired by the Darwinian evolu-
tion of living organisms that aims to solve problems through the evolution of a population of solutions
to a given task.
Machine Learning: Machine Learning is a field of Artificial Intelligence through which a computing
process progressively adapts and improves its performance in a specific task or set of tasks, by analyzing
large amounts of data. It largely involves the paradigms of unsupervised, supervised and reinforcement
learning.
Reinforcement Learning: Reinforcement learning is a machine learning paradigm in which the algo-
rithm learns through rewards and penalties. The system learns to take actions that maximize its rewards
(or minimize its penalties) by interacting with an environment that provides such rewards and penalties.
Supervised Learning: Supervised Learning is a machine learning paradigm in which the system
processes examples of data belonging to different categories (for example images of cats, dogs, or hu-
mans) and identifies similarities and differences among them so as to learn to identify the category of
unseen data.
21
22
Chapter 2
An Early Childhood Introduction
to Robotics as a Means
to Motivate Girls to Stay
With STEM Disciplines
Anastasia Korompili
University of Piraeus, Greece
Kostas Karpouzis
Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, Greece
ABSTRACT
This research examines the design, implementation, and impact of an educational robotics intervention
for first and second grade students. It controls for gender-related performance differences and compares
the interest shown towards robotics. The authors also examine if factors such as students’ stance towards
different professions can contribute to a difference in performance. In the course of its work, custom de-
signed worksheets for the UARO educational robotics product were used, as well as questionnaires given
to students after meetings. The results showed that all genders responded equally well and with the same
enthusiasm to the robotics activities and understood concepts of physics, mechanics, and mathematics
through them. Participants differ in how they use their leisure time and in their professional orienta-
tion; however, this didn’t affect their performance in the robotics activities. These results highlight the
need for further examination of the social institutions and factors that influence the formation of gender
orientations during the early childhood age.
INTRODUCTION
Means and approaches in childhood education advance and evolve rapidly, empowered by internet and
social media connectivity, as well as the abundance of inexpensive, readily available technology; Fried-
man states that innovative tools may enter our lives as quickly as every six months (Friedman, 2012).
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-3861-9.ch002

Early Childhood Introduction to Robotics as a Means to Motivate Girls to Stay With STEM Disciplines
In this context, research conducted as early as 1980 shows that girls fall behind in distance learning and
using educational software, and this may be attributed to the stereotype of technology being a boys-only
activity (Hilbert, 2011). This early gender gap leads to an even wider gap in STEM-related studies, which
only worsens in academia and high-level job posts related to Science and Engineering, even though the
interest shown by girls has increased recently (Makarova et al., 2019).
In order to tackle the STEM gender gap issue, many research and development efforts have focused
on primary and secondary education. However, there are only a few approaches fit to be deployed in pre-
school and early childhood (Sullivan, 2016). In our work, we investigate gender differences with respect
to interest and performance in STEM in children aged 6-7, as well as students’ outlook on STEM-related
professions, in general. To this end, we designed and tested a set of robotics and make-ing activities using
RoboRobo’s UARO platform [http://www.uaroedu.com/en] . We opted to use an educational robotics
platform, assorted with simple engineering and make-ing activities, since research has shown that it can
be used to advance cognitive and teamwork skills to young children, besides technical and scientific
subjects (Malatesta, 2009). More specifically, a wide range of experiments and tasks can be built using
an educational robotics platform, including introducing students to algorithmic thinking and problem
solving; such activities typically also require interaction and cooperation between students, leading to
their use as a team building activity (Nugent et al., 2014). With respect to ‘hard’ STEM skills, educational
robotics have been used to teach Physics, Mathematics and Geometry, Engineering and Technology,
History, and also interdisciplinary subjects, such as STEM combined with art or environmental studies.
Beyond these disciplines, educational robotics have been associated with a number of ‘soft’ skills,
both cognitive and emotional/social (Cowie et al., 2008; Cowie et al, 2011). Often termed ‘21st cen-
tury skills’, these include teamwork, problem solving (analysis, design and development of solutions,
experimentation, and evaluation), innovation, project management and scheduling, communication and
creativity. The pedagogical contribution of educational robotics is consistent with Piaget’s theory of af-
fective and cognitive development (Richmond, 2013), who suggested that learning is an active process
of constructing knowledge based on experiences from the real world; it also matches Vygotsky’s phi-
losophy of Constructivism (Liu, 2005) with respect to the social dimension of constructing knowledge.
In essence, both theories assume that learning is based on the experiences of students, their pre-existing
knowledge, and the ways to organize emerging learning experiences (Jonassen, 2000): in its foundation,
constructivism includes rich, user-focused interaction, dealing with authentic problems to be solved,
cooperative learning and the teaching experience of building new knowledge. Educational robotics is
especially instrumental to this approach, since it involves building and manipulating a tangible object or
simple machine, thus offering students the opportunity to work in groups and build mental models more
easily. In addition, they cater for exploration and creativity when it comes to how robot assemblies can
be built (Resnick, 2005) and offer important feedback about their functionality. According to Merkouris
et al. (2017), integrating a robot-related activity in learning is a four-step process: imagining and visual-
izing how to build a robot, develop the operating software using visual programming, downloading the
software to the robot, and executing the software.
An important aspect of our research has to do with investigating how and when the gender gap is
founded. Underrepresentation of women in STEM is a multi-faceted issue: according to NSF, women are
awarded 59% of Biology, 43% of Mathematics and 41% of Science degrees, but only 18% of Computer
Science and 19% of Engineering degrees. Research has shown that the gap across genders with respect
to STEM fields begins to appear as early as primary school (Ceci, 2010) and that targeted educational
interventions can be extremely effective in reducing it, by increasing engagement and self-esteem in
23

girls (Master, 2017). These interventions are also useful in terms of increasing interest towards technol-
ogy and interconnected devices, since boys seems to spend more time with them during that period,
interact in richer ways and, consequently, consider careers in Computer Science more often than girls
(Cheryan, 2017).
In the following sections we discuss robotics and its introduction to education. More specifically,
the terms ‘robotics’ and ‘educational’ robotics are being clarified, as well as the term ‘STEM’ and how
it is interconnected with robotics. There is also a section with the benefits and incentives that students
gain through such an educational process. Existing research on the attitude of girls with respect to sci-
ence and STEM is being analyzed; motivations and proposed practices of attracting girls to the world
of technology and science are also considered. Then, we discuss the proposed intervention, the research
questions, as well as the results that emerged. Finally, our conclusions and suggestions for future research
are being presented.
BACKGROUND
Educational Robotics as a Concept
Educational robotics can be considered as a specific and important field of educational informatics.
Its main tool is a programmable robot, an entity endowed with limited and pre-determined autonomy,
capable of fulfilling certain of the prior actions within a changing environment. A robot can be used in
school or out of school as an effective tool for the development of cognitive structures by children, while
the possibilities it offers for understanding technical concept cannot be ignored (Komis, 2004). The fact
that the average cost of obtaining a robotic device in terms of material (hardware) is declining rapidly,
in combination by developing new software tools capable of simulating robotic applications in virtual
worlds and the capability of designing a robot from scratch, make it clear that robotics constitutes a
teaching and creativity tool that’s equally accessible and affordable with existing, conventional teaching
aids (cf. Chatzopoulos et al., 2021; Plaza et al., 2019).
A wide range of experiments, covering ‘hard’ (i.e., related to concept taught in classroom, mostly related
to the STEM disciplines) and ‘soft’, A.K.A. social concepts can be performed with the help of robotic
structures, introducing students to programming and problem solving, in the process. The involvement
of students in hands-on activities, which require the solution of real problems ensures the most efficient
knowledge building. The students’ interaction, collaboration and expression are encouraged by teachers
aim for a more complete understanding of the underlying concepts. Educational robotics facilitates the
development of an environment of authentic activities, through involvement of students in the analysis,
design and implementation of robotic structures (Tzagkaraki et al., 2021).
Use of Educational Robotics Tools
The interest in robotics has grown at an astonishing rate in recent times years (Benitti, 2012) and is
currently considered as an option even in pre-school education (Schiffer & Ferrein, 2018). In general,
developments in technology are ubiquitous and are integrated into every aspect of our lives. Over the past
few years, mobile learning devices and computers have been widely used to enhance teaching. Although
their lives are full of different devices technology, students rarely think about how their devices work.
24

There have been several educational movements in recent years that encourage educational innovation,
such as the introduction of K-12 coding (codification of education for primary and secondary educa-
tion). During the Computer Science Training Week, in December 2013, a classroom coding initiative
was launched called “Hour of Code”. During this week, Code.org reported that 15 million students from
170 countries participated in this initiative. One in five US students participated. Modern measurements
show that about 100 million of students have visited the Hour of code website so far.
Educational robotics encourages students to explore the creative side of computer science through
activities such as coding computer programs (e.g., using a student-friendly environment such as Scratch)
and collaborating with other students in designing, building, and testing technological constructions,
including robots (Chalmers, 2018). The integration of computational thinking in the analytical program
of primary and secondary education is another movement that encourages K-12 coding. Katehi et al.
(2009), in their work titles “Engineering in K-12 training: Understanding the status and improving its
Perspectives” underline the importance of integration of engineering education in the curriculum of
primary and secondary education, claiming that it will also improve technological education as a whole.
STEM and Educational Robotics
The term STEM concerns the fields related to physical Sciences, Technology, Engineering and Math-
ematics. It was formally used by biologist Judith A. Ramaley in 2001; as director of the national Science
Foundation, Ramaley’s role was to develop new curricula. Using the term ‘STEM’, a reference is made
to the introduction of technology and engineering into the teaching of mathematics and physics, which
are necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the function of the physical world.
There is clear evidence that robotics programs are educational tools that successfully teach STEM
concepts (Barker et al., 2012). If robotics is to be used as the basis for a sustainable STEM pipeline, we
must first understand the basis of the effectiveness of robotics in promoting students’ interest in STEM
courses and careers.
The Benefits of using Robotics in Education
Robotics can be a fun and interesting activity that gives students the opportunity to engage in the action
and can be used across all levels of education to teach various concepts, mainly related to simple ma-
chines and engineering. However, robotics can also be useful in a wider range of school courses, such as:
• Physics (study of movement and the effect of friction on movement and direction, study and inter-
action of forces, energy transfer, etc.)
• Mathematics and Geometry (ratios and measurements, basic geometry entities and concepts,
e.g., circular motions or circle perimeters, etc.)
• Engineering and Technology (constructions, auditing and evaluation of mechanical structures,
technology literacy)
• History (ancient technology and engineering, e.g., the Archimedes catapult or the Maidservant
of Philon)
• Interdisciplinary subjects, such as STEM combined with art or environmental studies
25

21st Century Skills
Educational Robotics has positive effects not only with respect to hard skills, but also to emotional
(self-esteem, self-confidence) and social (socialization) competencies (Kandlhofer & Steinbauer, 2016;
Ponticorvo et al., 2020). With the help of robotics, teachers can focus on the development:
• Teamwork
• Problem solving (analysis, design, implementation, testing and experimentation, evaluation)
• Innovation
• Project management (time management, project and resource allocation, etc.)
• Planning
• Communication skills
• Valuable mental skills (analytical and synthetic thinking, creativity, critical thinking, etc.)
Educational Robotics, STEM and Gender Perspective
The gender gap in STEM is large and exists to this day. This gap is significantly larger in technological
fields, such as computer science and engineering, than in mathematics and science. Gender differences
start early: young girls report less interest and self-efficacy in technology compared to boys in elemen-
tary school. In their study, Master et al. (2017) evaluated a sample of 96 children about the stereotypes
of 6-year-olds about STEM fields and examined an intervention to develop girls’ STEM motivation
despite these stereotypes. First graders reported stereotypes that boys were better than girls in robotics
and programming, but this did not apply to math and science. Girls reported well-founded stereotypes
about robotics and programming, recounting lower interest and self-efficacy in these areas.
Sullivan & Bers (2012) examined gender differences using the TangibleK Robotics Program to deter-
mine if boys and girls in kindergarten were equally successful in a range of construction and program-
ming tasks, following up with an 8-week curriculum (Sullivan & Bers, 2016). The TangibleK program
consists of a six-month robotics course and curriculum applied to three different kindergarten classes in
a sample of 53 students. Although previous research has shown that boys outperform girls in robotic and
programming fields, it is assumed that the young age of participants and their limited gender stereotypes
will allow boys and girls to be equal success in the activities. Although boys scored higher than girls
on more than half of the tasks, very few of these differences were statistically significant. Boys scored
significantly higher than girls in only two areas: proper placement of robotic materials and program-
ming using IF statements. Overall, both boys and girls were able to successfully complete the program.
Causes of Gender gap in Technology
Why are there gender gaps regarding motivation to study or pursue a career computer science and engi-
neering? The following constitute the key social and structural factors that influence girls’ involvement
in computation, often preventing them from choosing a future education or career in technology (UniteIT
Gender Equality workgroup, 2014).
• Social acceptance that computer technology is “masculine”: Any hypothesis that women are
inherently a worse fit for science and technology has been repeatedly rejected by research. Any
26

biological differences do not function to prevent girls from participating in technology or com-
puter science disciplines. Many studies show that when gender discrimination is low, girls have
comparable performance as boys.
• Stereotypical attitude of the media: The way IT and technology are portrayed in magazines, on
the internet, on television and in movies, influences ideas of who is suitable for computer work
when certain types of people are showed doing specific tasks: coders, makers, hackers are typi-
cally Caucasian or Asian males, often distanced from society or even antisocial.
• Absence of female role models: But where can a girl find such technologically advanced female
models? At home, fathers are more likely to be considered computer experts or makers than moth-
ers. Actual female role models are very rarely promoted by larger media outlets.
• Lack of early experiences - racial segregation of toys: Studies have shown that early computer
use improves success in future computer classes. More males report early exposure to home com-
puters: 63% men versus 37% women. And when it comes to creating content or software with
technology and not just using it, studies have shown that boys typically have earlier experience
with programming than girls. Another possible reason why girls may show lower motivation than
boys for computer science and engineering is the fact that they have less experience with technol-
ogy to build their interest and build self-efficacy (Nugent et al., 2014; Martin & Dinella, 2002).
Many see gaming as a very promising way to promote interest in computers at a very early age.
While boys have spent more time playing games in the past, recent findings show that this gap is
narrowing (Karpouzis and Yannakakis, 2016).
• Stereotype threat: Gender stereotypes have a negative effect on girls’ performance in STEM, a
phenomenon known as the “stereotype threat” (Flore & Wicherts, 2015; Régner et al., 2014) and
on adult motivation in STEM (Thoman et al., 2013). The prevalence of STEM gender stereotypes
can be an important social factor influencing girls’ interest in STEM (Kessels, 2015; Master et al.,
2016). STEM stereotypes can work as “gatekeepers” and prevent girls from pursuing interests in
computer science and engineering (Cheryan et al., 2015). If children have stereotypes that boys
are better than girls in computer science and engineering, girls can predict that they are perform-
ing poorly and are prevented from engaging in related activities.
• Lack of understanding of what ICT jobs entail: Girls (and often boys) still have limited knowl-
edge or inaccuracies about what IT careers entail. In general, girls find that careers in computer
science have little or no interaction with others, and that IT workers are obsessed with computers.
RESEARCH PROCESS
Research Approach
The global problem of low participation of women in technology highlights the need to examine the
evolution of this issue over the years, as well as the need for ongoing research into the reasons why this
is happening; this is essential to come up with good practices that will reduce the gender gap in the
technology sector. This study seeks to achieve the following: a) to check if there is a difference between
boys and girls in the ability to understand technological and mechanical concepts and processes, b) to
check for the technological gender gap specifically in the early school years, c) to check the suitability of
27

the UARO educational robotic product for technological interventions and d) to record the professional
aspirations and approaches of all genders in the first school age.
The UARO Platform
UARO is an educational robotics solution, integrated with programming and design software. Its main
educational elements help children develop creativity, reasoning, problem solving and understanding,
while assembling and programming robots on their own. UARO is designed to be easy to use for children,
since it consists of large pieces with vivid colors, which helps coordinate the eyes and hands and develop
motor skills through the assembly process. Students can also practice coding and algorithmic thinking,
as well as pattern recognition depending on image, shape, and color. It consists of 4 complementary
training kits: kit 1 introduces basic parts of a construction or simple machine, kit 2 brings in a motorized
controller, a CPU processor, and a distance sensor, kit 3 gives students the opportunity to program the
movement of the robot through a specialized programming device and associated command blocks, while
kit 4 allows for visualization and representation of a robot on a mobile device running iOS or Android.
Figure 1. UARO platform
28

Figure 2. Construction
Research Questions
The Research Questions (RQ) that this research aims to answer are:
RQ1: Is there a difference in performance across genders in technology and engineering. Null hypothesis:
there is no difference Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in performance
RQ2: Does the students’ stance towards different professions affect their performance in engineering
and technology Null hypothesis: there is no difference Alternative hypothesis: there is a differ-
ence in performance
RQ3: Is the UARO platform suitable to teach STEM subjects in early school years?
Research Measurement Tools
Worksheets and a questionnaire given after the meetings were used to collect data related to the research
questions. The worksheet is based on is the theory of discovery learning (Bruner, 2009), where students
acquire knowledge through exploratory processes and exploratory strategies. Teachers aim to help students
practice and at the same time acquire specific knowledge about the subject they are examining. Usually,
these principles are associated with collaborative teaching and the development of critical thinking, fol-
lowing the social requirement for the formation of critical and autonomous citizens.
Within the framework of this research, four different worksheets were created, appropriately designed
for primary school children. The first stage of the worksheets introduces students to the construction
process: they are invited to cooperate in small group to create the respective construction, always fol-
lowing instructions in printed form. The success of this stage depends on whether the student teams will
cooperate and whether they will concentrate on performing the steps.
29

The second stage is that of exploration: children are asked to answer questions related to concepts of
physics, technology, engineering and mathematics through testing and observation of structures.
Figure 3. Exploration
During the third stage, the young students experiment with the robots they built; this was, as they
reported, the most fun part of the process. Their familiarity with technology comes in handy, as well as
perception and problem-solving skills.
Figure 4. Robot operations
30

At the end of each meeting, students are asked to evaluate their experience based on their interest
and engagement.
In order to introduce students to physics-related concepts (i.e., energy) and allow them to experiment
with how their design choices affect the robot’s operation and performance, we designed the “Rob the
Robot” worksheet. “Max the Crane” helps children get acquainted with the sizes of the pieces used for
construction and compare different lengths experimenting with the robot’s axis. With “Bonnie the Dog”,
students learn to orient and practice with directions (front, back, left, right), while with “Miss butterfly”,
children explore the concept of symmetry.
Figure 5. Evaluation of the process
These specially designed worksheets were used to evaluate the performance of the participating students.
During the last meeting, students were given a questionnaire appropriately designed to answer our
research questions.
Student Profile-Sampling
Our research was conducted in a public Primary School in the region of Attica, Greece. A total of 4 meet-
ings took place during March and April 2018 with 16 first grade (6 years old) children and 38 second
grade (7 years old) children divided into groups. The first grade class consists 8 boys and 8 girls, the
first group of the second grade class consists of 9 boys and 10 girls, while the second group consists of
11 boys and 8 girls. Therefore, our sample in total consists of 28 boys and 26 girls.
31

Data Analysis
SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science) was used to analyze the data (answers to the student work-
sheets, and questionnaire responses) and extract the results. Each student obtained an anonymous ID
and blank answers were entered as missing values. When analyzing the answers, wrong answers gave
the student 0 points, incomplete answers contributed 1 point, while correct answers added 2 points. A
total score was created for each worksheet that includes the total points that the students collected from
their correct answers.
Gender and Performance
After a normal distribution test with K-S Normality Test, it was found that the performance of boys and
girls in all four worksheets does not follow a normal distribution, therefore a Mann-Whitney test is suitable.
“Rob the Robot” Worksheet
After analyzing the answers of the children in the first worksheet, (questions related to energy, e.g.,
“Circle where the robot gets its energy from”), girls averaged 6.82 points, while boys averaged 6.7.
Results from this worksheet are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. It is observed that Sig 0.777>0.05 so we
accept the null hypothesis for RQ1, that there is no statistically significant difference in the performance
of the two genders.
Figure 6. UARO- Robot constructions
“Max the Crane” Worksheet
In this worksheet, girls averaged 7.45 points, while boys 7.10. Results from this worksheet are shown
in Table 3 and Table 4.
Table 1. Mann-Whitney U Test - “Rob the Robot” worksheet
Gender N Mean rank Sum of ranks

Girl 22 25.61 563.50
Boy 27 24.50 661.50
32

Table 2. Statistics from activity 1
Test statistics Score

Mann-Whitney U 283.50
Wilcoxon W 661.50
Z -0.283
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.777
Grouping variable Gender
Table 3. Mann-Whitney U Test - “Max the Crane” worksheet

Girl 22 22.34 491.50
Boy 20 20.58 411.50

Wilcoxon W 411.50
Z -0.606
Again, Sig 0.545> 0.05, so we accept the null hypothesis for RQ1, that there is no statistically sig-
nificant difference in the performance of the two genders.
“Bonnie the Dog” Worksheet
This worksheet consists of one question, so the maximum grade a student can get is 2. Here, girls have a
slight lead over the boys with an average of 1.71 versus 1.65. Table 5 and Table 6 show the results from
this activity. It is observed that Sig 0.867> 0.05 so we accept the null hypothesis for RQ1 and there is
no statistically significant difference in the performance of the two genders.
“Miss Butterfly” Worksheet
The “Miss Butterfly” worksheet consists of two questions, consequently the maximum score is 4. Girls
scored 3.23 points on average, while boys performed slightly better with 3.41 points on average. Results
from this activity are shown in Table 7 and Table 8.
We observe from the above table that Sig 0.462 > 0.05 so we accept the null hypothesis for RQ1 and
there is no statistically significant difference in the performance of the two genders.
33

Table 5. Mann-Whitney U Test - “Bonnie the Dog” worksheet

Girl 24 24.25 582.00
Boy 23 23.74 546.00

Wilcoxon W 546.00
Z -0.168
Table 7. Mann-Whitney U Test - “Miss Butterfly” worksheet

Girl 22 23.48 516.50
Boy 27 26.24 708.50

Wilcoxon W 516.50
Z -0.736
Suitability of the UARO Platform
In the last questionnaire, students were asked questions about any difficulties they may have encoun-
tered during the activities. 80% of girls and 80.8% of boys answered positively to the question “Were
the constructions easy for you?”, while 15% of girls and 10.3% of boys gave a negative answer to the
question “Were the instructions easy for you?”. Finally, 20% of girls and 15.4% of boys reported that
they encountered difficulties with the questionnaires related to the construction tasks.
34

Gender and Interest in Educational Robotics
All girls responded positively to the question “Did you like Robotics?” and only one boy answered
that the process was not interesting for him. In addition, all kids answered that they would love to get
involved in robotics activities, as shown by their answers to the question “Would you participate again
in robotics activities?”. They also mentioned that the gained new knowledge from the activity sheet
(90% of girls, 92,3% of boys).
The questionnaire also included an open question: “What is your favorite game/toy1?”. Children had
the opportunity to answer how they like to spend their free time. After processing the collected data
‘Constructions with LEGO bricks’ and ‘Role-playing games with dolls’ have prominent positions in the
preferences of girls, while for boys ‘electronic toys’ and the ‘constructions with LEGO bricks’ were the
most popular choices. In the open question “What profession do you want to do when you grow up?”,
the most common answers of girls are ‘I do not know’ with 26.3% as well as ‘Teacher / Kindergarten
Teacher’ with 21.1%. The most common answers of the boys are ‘Policeman’ (20%), ‘Soccer player’
(15%) and ‘Astronaut’ (10%).
OVERVIEW OF RESULTS
The educational intervention was tested with 54 children (28 boys, 26 girls), aged 5-6 (16 5-year-olds,
38 6-year-olds). The first questions in the questionnaire revolved around the experience and stance of
the young students towards robotics: the gender gap already exists at this early age, with 72.4% of the
boys mentioning that they had previously built a robot before the intervention, while only 44% of girls
indicating some experience in the field. This is consistent with a difference in use of technology and
engineering activities in the students’ free time: 47% of boys stated that digital games are their favorite
pastime, followed by construction games (such as LEGOs and Playmobil), while only 25% of girls
share the same hobby. Regarding the students’ stance towards their future profession, boys mentioned
‘police officer’, ‘soccer player’ and ‘astronaut’ as possible careers with a few of them adding ‘video
game designer’ as a possibility. The most popular answer from girls was kindergarten/primary school
teacher, followed by ‘I don’t know’; none of the girls who participated in the intervention brought up a
career in STEM.
Regarding the interest and performance of the young students, almost all of them (all girls and all
but one boy) stated that they enjoyed the experience and all of them would definitely like to participate
again in a similar activity. They also mentioned that they gained new knowledge from the activity sheet
(90% of girls, 92.3% of boys). The vast majority of the students (80%) thought that the activity sheets
were straightforward and easy to comprehend and that the robots given to them were easy to build. Girls
also found it easier to work in groups (80%, compared to 74.1% for boys) and performed slightly better;
a Mann-Whitney U test, though, showed that this difference was not significant, and as a result, the null
hypothesis stands for RQ1 and for all four activity sheets. The other two Research Questions were an-
swered through the students’ responses in the questionnaire: even though there is a noticeable difference
between the interests and stance towards STEM and robotics among boys and girls, this did not affect
their performance, while the suitability of UARO to teach STEM subjects in early schoolers was shown
by the participants’ engagement and the success they had in building the constructions described in the
activity sheets and the answers in the questions they contained.
35

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND STUDY
Since this is one of the few studies which discusses robotics and STEM at such a young age, possible
extensions are numerous: the UARO product could be used by a larger number of students and compared
to other educational robotic products, while the same research could also be conducted in the presence of
a control group for more reliable results (cf. Vargianniti and Karpouzis, 2019 or Chiotaki and Karpouzis,
2020). Finally, it would be very profitable to control for the students’ socio-economic background, against
their performance, interests and inclinations or career aspirations.
Regarding the focus of this study, which is the investigation of gender issues associated with STEM
activities and careers in the context of early education, our experiment confirmed that even at this very
young age, girls rarely see themselves as working in science or technology. This may very well be an
issue related to representation (Piatek-Jimenez et al., 2018), since there are hardly any female scientists,
engineers, innovators, or entrepreneurs in the news, so as to inspire young girls and make them realize
their potential and imagine themselves following in their footsteps. Even in toys or literature targeted
at this young age, females are rarely portrayed as professionals in these fields, helping to establish ste-
reotypes so early and powerfully that they’re almost impossible to fight (Bian et al., 2017). From the
point of view of performance, our study found that there is no statistically significant difference across
genders when it comes to robotics; this finding also supports the claim that the lack of representation is
fundamental in building and maintaining such stereotypes. In order to tackle this issue, not only female
scientists and professionals in STEM disciplines should be presented with more opportunities to advance
through the ranks, but also their achievements should be better advertised, and their work-life balance
assisted through policies and interventions (Tan-Wilson & Stamp, 2015).
CONCLUSION
We described a rare educational intervention involving educational robotics in early schoolers, investi-
gating the suitability of the proposed activities and the existence and effect of the gender gap towards
STEM. Besides investigating the appropriateness of the intervention using qualitative methods, such as
questionnaires, we also tested for its efficacy in terms of learning outcomes. Our findings are consistent
with the literature and verify that the gender gap is already founded in the students’ early years; this,
however, does not affect the girls’ performance, meaning that their interest and engagement can be in-
creased through targeted interventions. In addition, educational robotics can be used to constructively
teach STEM subjects in early school years, without the need to opt for expensive platforms, heavy on
computational methods and requirements.
REFERENCES
Barker, B., Nugent, G., Grandgenett, N., Adamchuk, V., Mead, R., Thomas, S., & Weinberg, J. (2012).
From Grade School to Grad School. In Robots in K-12 Education (pp. 302-325). Academic Press.
Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review.
Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006
36

Bian, L., Leslie, S. J., & Cimpian, A. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and
influence children’s interests. Science, 355(6323), 389–391. doi:10.1126cience.aah6524 PMID:28126816
Bornstein, M. H., Putnick, D. L., Deater-Deckard, K., Lansford, J. E., & Bradley, R. H. (2016). Gender in
low-and middle-income countries: Reflections, limitations, directions, and implications. Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development, 81(1), 123–144. doi:10.1111/mono.12229 PMID:29568138
Bruner, J. S. (2009). The process of education. Harvard university press. doi:10.2307/j.ctvk12qst
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2010). Sex differences in math-intensive fields. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 19(5), 275–279. doi:10.1177/0963721410383241 PMID:21152367
Chalmers, C. (2018). Robotics and computational thinking in primary school. International Journal of
Child-Computer Interaction, 17, 93–100. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.06.005
Chatzopoulos, A., Kalogiannakis, M., Papadakis, S., Papoutsidakis, M., Elza, D., & Psycharis, S. (2021).
DuBot: An open-source, low-cost robot for STEM and educational robotics. In Research Anthology on
Usage and Development of Open Source Software (pp. 329-353). IGI Global.
Cheryan, S., Master, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2015). Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: Increasing girls’
interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 49.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00049 PMID:25717308
Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender
balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 1–35. doi:10.1037/bul0000052 PMID:27732018
Chiotaki, D., & Karpouzis, K. (2020). Open and cultural data games for learning. In International Con-
ference on the Foundations of Digital Games (pp. 1-7). 10.1145/3402942.3409621
Code.org. Anybody can learn. (2013). http://codeorg.tumblr.com/post/70175643054/stats
Cowie, R., Cox, C., Martin, J. C., Batliner, A., Heylen, D., & Karpouzis, K. (2011). Issues in data label-
ling. In Emotion-oriented systems (pp. 213–241). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15184-2_13
Cowie, R., Douglas-Cowie, E., Karpouzis, K., Caridakis, G., Wallace, M., & Kollias, S. (2008). Rec-
ognition of emotional states in natural human-computer interaction. In Multimodal user interfaces (pp.
119–153). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78345-9_6
Fleming, L. (2015). Worlds of making: Best practices for establishing a makerspace for your school.
Corwin Press.
Friedman, T. L. (2012). The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. Farrar, Straus
& Giroux.
Hilbert, M. (2011, November). Digital gender divide or technologically empowered women in develop-
ing countries? A typical case of lies, damned lies, and statistics. Women’s Studies International Forum,
34(6), 479–489. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2011.07.001
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-centered learn-
ing environments. Theoretical foundations of learning environments, 89-121.
37

Kandlhofer, M., & Steinbauer, G. (2016). Evaluating the impact of educational robotics on pupils’
technical-and social-skills and science related attitudes. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 679–685.
doi:10.1016/j.robot.2015.09.007
Karpouzis, K., & Yannakakis, G. N. (2016). Emotion in Games. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41316-7
Katehi, L., & ... . (2009). Engineering in K–12 Education: Understanding the status and improving the
prospects. The National Academies Press.
Kessels, U. (2015). Bridging the gap by enhancing the fit: How stereotypes about STEM clash with
stereotypes about girls. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 7, 280–296.
Komis, B. (2004). Introduction to Educational Applications of Information and Communication Tech-
nologies. New Technologies Publications.
Liu, C. H., & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s Philosophy: Constructivism and Its Criticisms Examined.
International Education Journal, 6(3), 386–399.
Makarova, E., Aeschlimann, B., & Herzog, W. (2019). The Gender Gap in STEM Fields: The Impact
of the Gender Stereotype of Math and Science on Secondary Students’ Career Aspirations. Frontiers in
Education, 4, 60. doi:10.3389/feduc.2019.00060
Malatesta, L., Murray, J., Raouzaiou, A., Hiolle, A., Cañamero, L., & Karpouzis, K. (2009). Emotion
modelling and facial affect recognition in human-computer and human-robot interaction. IntechOpen.
doi:10.5772/6648
Master, A., Cheryan, S., Moscatelli, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2017). Programming experience promotes
higher STEM motivation among first-grade girls. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 160,
92–106. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2017.03.013 PMID:28433822
Merkouris, A., Chorianopoulos, K., & Kameas, A. (2017). Teaching programming in secondary educa-
tion through embodied computing platforms: Robotics and wearables. [TOCE]. ACM Transactions on
Computing Education, 17(2), 1–22.
De Clercq, L. (2014). Why are so few girls attracted to study IT? https://www.unite-it.eu/profiles/blogs/
why-are-so-few-girls-attracted-to-study-ict
Mikropoulos, T. A., & Bellou, J. (2006). The Unique Features of Educational Virtual Environments.
International Association for Development of the Information Society, 1, 122–128.
Nugent, G. C., Barker, B. S., & Grandgenett, N. (2014). The impact of educational robotics on student
STEM learning, attitudes, and workplace skills. In Robotics: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and ap-
plications. IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4607-0.ch070
Paulette, F., & Jelte, W. (2015). Does stereotype threat influence performance of girls in stereotyped
domains? A meta-analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 25–44. PMID:25636259
Piatek-Jimenez, K., Cribbs, J., & Gill, N. (2018). College students’ perceptions of gender stereotypes:
Making connections to the underrepresentation of women in STEM fields. International Journal of
Science Education, 40(12), 1432–1454. doi:10.1080/09500693.2018.1482027
38

Plaza, P., Sancristobal, E., Carro, G., Blazquez, M., García-Loro, F., Muñoz, M., & Castro, M. (2019,
April). STEM and educational robotics using scratch. In 2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education
Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 330-336). IEEE. 10.1109/EDUCON.2019.8725028
Ponticorvo, M., Rubinacci, F., Marocco, D., Truglio, F., & Miglino, O. (2020). Educational robotics to
foster and assess social relations in students’ groups. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 7, 78. doi:10.3389/
frobt.2020.00078 PMID:33501245
Resnick, M., & Silverman, B. (2005). Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids. Proceed-
ings of the 2005 conference on Interaction design and children, (pp. 117-122). 10.1145/1109540.1109556
Schiffer, S., & Ferrein, A. (2018). ERIKA—Early Robotics Introduction at Kindergarten Age. Multimodal
Technologies and Interaction, 2(4), 64. doi:10.3390/mti2040064
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes
from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International Journal
of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 3–20. doi:10.100710798-015-9304-5
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2012). Gender differences in kindergarteners’ robotics and programming
achievement. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Advance online publication.
doi:10.100710798-012-9210-z
Tan-Wilson, A., & Stamp, N. (2015). College students’ views of work–life balance in STEM research
careers: Addressing negative preconceptions. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(3), es5. doi:10.1187/
cbe.14-11-0210 PMID:26163564
Thoman, D. B., Smith, J. L., Brown, E. R., Chase, J., & Lee, J. Y. K. (2013). Beyond performance: A
Motivational Experiences Model of Stereotype Threat. Educational Psychology Review, 25(2), 211–243.
doi:10.100710648-013-9219-1 PMID:23894223
Tzagkaraki, E., Papadakis, S., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2021). Exploring the Use of Educational Robotics
in primary school and its possible place in the curricula. In Educational Robotics International Confer-
ence (pp. 216-229). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-030-77022-8_19
Vargianniti, I., & Karpouzis, K. (2019). Effects of game-based learning on academic performance and
student interest. In International Conference on Games and Learning Alliance (pp. 332-341). Springer.
10.1007/978-3-030-34350-7_32
ADDITIONAL READING
Bers, M. U., & Horn, M. S. (2010). Tangible programming in early childhood. High-Tech Tots: Child-
hood in a Digital World, 49, 49-70.
Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinker-
ing: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145–157.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020
39

Cejka, E., Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2006). Kindergarten robotics: Using robotics to motivate math,
science, and engineering literacy in elementary school. International Journal of Engineering Education,
22(4), 711.
Jung, S. E., & Won, E. S. (2018). Systematic review of research trends in robotics education for young
children. Sustainability, 10(4), 905. doi:10.3390u10040905
Kazakoff, E., & Bers, M. (2012). Programming in a robotics context in the kindergarten classroom:
The impact on sequencing skills. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 21(4), 371–391.
Lee, K. T., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). Collaboration by design: Using robotics to foster social
interaction in kindergarten. Computers in the Schools, 30(3), 271–281. doi:10.1080/07380569.2013.805676
Control Group: A group of people participating in research who do not engage in the activity to be
evaluated; useful to estimate the effect of the proposed activity
Educational Intervention: An organized activity orchestrated by the teacher, utilizing concepts and
material from books or other sources, leading towards a predefined set of learning objectives.
Educational Robotics: In- or after-school activities which aim to introduce students to engineering
and programming concepts by building a robot, often using it in the context of other STEM subjects.
Gender Stereotype: The presumption that some professions, school courses, activities or even toys
are better suited for a particular gender than others.
Make-Ing: Engaging in tinkering activities, using inexpensive electronics and circuitry materials,
resulting in putting together larger constructions which work on batteries.
Soft Skills: Skills and knowledge related to communication, interaction, cooperation, coping mecha-
nisms, etc., as opposed to skills related to a profession or academic discipline (‘hard skills’).
STEM: A wide variety of courses and concepts related to Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics, often in after school activities or complementing the school curriculum.
ENDNOTE
1
We use the same word for game (digital/analog) or toy in Greek, so we made no distinction here.
40
41
Chapter 3
Adopting a Role-Model, Game-
Based Pedagogical Approach
to Gender Equality in STEAM:
The FemSTEAM Mysteries Digital Game
Ioanna Vekiri Ioannis Brouzos

European University, Cyprus Challedu, Greece
Maria Meletiou-Mavrotheris Andri Christoforou

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6749-3266 European University, Cyprus
European University, Cyprus
Elena Stylianou
Asimina Brouzou European University, Cyprus
Challedu, Greece
ABSTRACT
The aim of this chapter is to discuss the use of serious games in STEAM education and to present
FemSTEAM Mysteries, a serious game that was developed in the context of an EU-funded project.
The game is intended for teenagers (age 12-15) and its goal is to promote gender equality in STEAM
by inspiring all students to pursue STEAM careers, and to enhance the acquisition of key skills and
competences for STEAM studies. It is based on role-model STEAM pedagogy and introduces students
to important STEAM researchers and professionals in ways that challenge gender stereotypes as well
as stereotypes about the characteristics of scientists and artists. The chapter presents the design and
theoretical framework of the game which is based on both bibliographical and field research that was
carried out in the context of the FemSTEAM Mysteries project.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-3861-9.ch003

Adopting a Role-Model, Game-Based Pedagogical Approach to Gender Equality in STEAM
INTRODUCTION
It is a common ground, supported by international surveys (e.g., European Institute for Gender Equality,
2018; OECD, 2020), that females are underrepresented in scientific fields during school and university
education, and career development. Girls appear to lose interest in STEM subjects with age (AT Kerney,
2016), and by the time they reach late adolescence they become reluctant to follow STEM careers (under
35% enroll in scientific fields at European level) and instead tend to choose the fields of education, health,
and welfare (OECD, 2020). Women’s underrepresentation in STEM fields limits their opportunities for
employment in engineering- and technology-related professions, which are in great demand and have
higher pay-levels (EIGE, 2018; OECD, 2016) and, therefore, it perpetuates economic gender inequali-
ties. Also, it deprives STEM fields from the breath of human resources which can lead to research-based
innovations that support economic development (European Commission, 2019).
In this chapter we discuss how serious games can serve the goals and pedagogical approaches of
STEAM education, and, more specifically, explain how they can be used to promote gender equality in
STEAM. The chapter will focus on FemSTEAM Mysteries, which is a serious game that was developed in
the context of an EU-funded project (Nov 2020-Oct 2022) with the aim to challenge gender stereotypes
about STEAM careers and to inspire more students, particularly females, to pursue studies in STEAM.
After examining the use of serious games in education, we discuss the theoretical framework and key
findings from field research that guided the development of the FemSTEAM Mysteries game, and then
present its design and gameplay.
SERIOUS GAMES IN STEAM EDUCATION
Learning games are digital games that aim at supporting specific learning goals (Klopfer, Osterweil,
& Salen, 2009). They differ from entertainment games because, although the latter can be utilized in
the classroom and can support knowledge learning, let alone the development of a wide range of skills
(Boyle et al., 2016; Prensky, 2005), their primary purpose is entertainment. “Serious games” is another
term that is used to characterize lerning games, although there are diverse views about its exact meaning
(Blumberg, Almonte, Antony, & Hashimoto, 2013). The term may refer to games which are designed
to be used for educational and training purposes but differ from “drill and practice” edutainment games
whose purpose is also educational, because serious games engage students more actively and support
higher levels of learning than knowledge acquisition through repetition (Ke, 2016). According to a broader
definition of serious games however, the category includes even commercial off-the-shelf games such
as World of Warcraft or SimCity (Blumberg et al., 2013) that may also teach players knowledge and
skills and can be integrated in classroom learning (Van Eck, 2009). “Game-based learning” is a term
that refers to the use of a fully-fledged serious game in the learning process, not to be confused with the
term “gamified learning”, which involves augmenting the learning process by adding game elements
(Sailer & Hommer, 2020).
Serious games have all the characteristics of other types of digital games, such as rules and con-
straints, challenge, constant feedback, competition, autonomy, and fantasy (Alessi & Trollip, 2001),
most of which are considered to contribute significantly to their motivational appeal (Blumberg et al.,
2013; Wouters, Van Nimwegen, Van Oostendorp, & Van Der Spek, 2013). In addition, modern serious
games capitalize on computer technology and state-of-the-art graphics to provide interactive simulations
42

of real-life environments and situations, in which students can participate by taking specific roles or
perspectives. Activities in modern serious games are typically complex and authentic, often requiring
students to respond to problems and situations that relate to the real world. As players, learners need
to make knowledge-based decisions that can influence the storyline, which enables them to experience
agency, to experiment, and to observe the consequences of their actions, without however having to
suffer their real-life emotional or physical impact (Barab, Gresalfi, & Arici, 2009; Klopfer et al., 2009).
Various taxonomies and criteria have been proposed to classify learning games (e.g., Blumberg et
al., 2012; Breuer & Bente, 2010; Prensky, 2005), although a game may have characteristics from more
than one category. A recent taxonomy proposed by Ke (2016) uses two criteria, which determine how
players interact with the game (the gameplay). These criteria are (a) the characteristics of game narra-
tive, which include setting, plot, and characters, and (b) game mechanics, that is, the rules and actions
of gameplay. Examples of categories include adventure, strategy, role playing, construction, and simula-
tion games. Escape rooms is another category that is becoming popular, which is based on the physical
game. Physical escape rooms are collaborative games in which players work together to solve puzzles
(i.e. problems, challenges or activities) in a limited amount of time, so as to achieve a common goal that
is embedded in a story/narrative (Nicholson, 2015). Puzzles may depend on thinking skills and logic,
they may involve the manipulation of artifacts or they may require the solution of other puzzles (in which
case they are called meta-puzzles)(Veldkamp et al., 2020). Escape rooms require a diverse set of skills,
such as the ability to search for clues and to discern important information, to recognize patterns, and to
relate various pieces of information (Wiemker, Elumir, & Clare, 2015). A good escape room includes a
variety of puzzles that require different types of skills, which is important when the game is collabora-
tive because it enables all team members to contribute to its solution.
Research has shown that, due to their characteristics, serious games can be more effective than other
forms of instruction, such as conventional instruction and simulations, in terms of learning and motiva-
tion. According to recent literature reviews and meta-analyses (Boyle et al., 2016; Clark, Tanner-Smith,
& Killingsworth, 2016; Lamb, Annetta, Firestone, & Etopio, 2018; Wouters et al., 2013) some of their
advantages include engagement in learning and increased “flow experience”, a state in which learners are
immersed in the activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), as well as improved content understanding, retention
of information, and the development of problem-solving and social skills. As such, serious games have
the potential to advance several STEAM goals, including motivation to learn STEAM content, interest
in STEAM fields, and the development of problem solving and inquiry skills (Gao, Li, & Sun, 2020).
Also, serious games can be easily integrated in STEAM curricula and projects because they can support
authentic learning activities as well as inquiry and problem-based approaches to learning, which are
compatible with STEAM pedagogy (Bush & Cook, 2019).
There are various challenges and barriers, however, in game-based learning (Klopfer et al., 2009).
One important challenge is the design of quality educational games, which are games that help students
achieve specific learning goals and at the same time provide an enjoyable and engaging experience
(Prensky, 2005). An important characteristic of effective educational games is the level of “intrinsic
integration” between gameplay and learning content (Alessi & Trollip, 2001; Habgood & Ainsworth,
2011; Ke, 2016). This level is high when the learning activities in the fantasy world of the game are
quite similar to what the learner would actually have to do in a comparable situation in the real world.
Intrinsic integration can foster learning because it appears to enhance intrinsic motivation and a state
of “flow”, in which learners are more focused, aroused, and task persistent because they are deeply
engaged in the game (Habgood & Ainsworth, 2011). Other game characteristics that may contribute
43

positively to learners’ flow experience are clear goals, immediate and clear feedback, opportunities for
social interaction, adequate levels of challenge and autonomy, and perceived usability and knowledge
improvement (Fu, Su, & Yu, 2009; Petri, von Wangenheim, & Borgatto, 2016).
Other challenges in using serious games in the classroom relate to teachers’ perceptions of the value
of games, their own gaming experiences, their knowledge of appropriate games for their students and for
the grade-level they teach as well as their familiarity with appropriate game-based learning pedagogical
techniques (Dickey, 2015; Hsu, Liang, Chai, & Tsai, 2013; Meletiou-Mavrotheris & Prodromou, 2016;
Proctor & Marks, 2013). Finally, in order to integrate a game into their regular classroom teaching, teach-
ers need to resolve logistical problems relative to student access to computers and the time structure of a
typical school day, depending on the time needed to complete and discuss the game (Klopfer et al., 2009).
These are all issues that should be considered in the design of educational games. For example, games
that can be broken up into individual parts or sections, to be played on separate days, can be integrated
more easily into a regular school lesson. Also, serious games should be accompanied with teacher guides
and resources that describe their learning objectives and potential alignment with curriculum goals and/
or learning value, as well as provide content background information and educational scenarios to guide
teachers on how to use the games in the classroom.
THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE FEMSTEAM MYSTERIES GAME
Women’s Underrepresentation in STEM
Over the past decades research has established that women’s underrepresentation in STEM/STEAM
fields cannot be attributed to differences in cognitive abilities and academic achievement (OECD, 2019;
Wang & Degol, 2017). As various international assessments and meta-analyses of relevant studies show
(Mullis, Martin, Foy, Kelly, & Fishbein, 2020; OECD, 2019; Siddiq & Scherer, 2019), adolescent girls
have caught up with adolescent boys in science, mathematics, and ICT literacy. However, according to
PISA 2018 results (OECD, 2019), on average across OECD countries only 14% of the girls who were
top performers in science or mathematics reported that they expected to work as professionals who use
science and engineering training, as opposed to more than 26% of top performing boys. In other words,
female students who perform well in science and mathematics are highly unlikely to pursue studies in
STEM fields.
Student academic choices and career aspirations are influenced by gendered psychological processes,
which include students’ subjective perceptions of their abilities and of the value of certain academic
subjects as well as cultural values, stereotypes, and family expectations (Bleeker & Jacobs, 2004; Eccles,
2007; Gunderson, Ramirez, Levine, & Beilock, 2012; Wang & Degol, 2017). To pursue a particular
academic subject, students need to think that they can succeed in learning it as well as that it is interest-
ing, important, and useful to them (Eccles, 2007). These perceptions are influenced by students’ own
interpretations of their learning experiences and by the opinions and expectations communicated by
important socialization agents, which are often based on cultural stereotypes and misconceptions (Bleeker
and Jacobs, 2004; Gunderson et al., 2012). Hence, female students may underestimate their abilities in
certain academic subjects even when they perform well academically (Sáinz & Eccles, 2012; Wach,
Spengler, Gottschling, & Spinath, 2015). Several studies have shown, for example, that adolescent girls
tend as a group to express lower confidence in their math and ICT abilities even when they perform
44

equally well with adolescent boys (Sáinz & Eccles, 2012; Wach et al., 2015). Students may also have
inaccurate understandings of the nature and scope of STEM professions and, as a result, think that taking
math, and science courses at school is not useful and important to them (Eccles, 2007; Mann, Denis,
Schleicher, Ekhtiari, Forsyth, Liu, & Chambers, 2020).
According to gender stereotypes women are considered suited for low-status roles that involve car-
ing for others and they are expected to place more priority on their family than on their professional
achievement. The opposite, however, is expected by men, who, due to their physical strength, are seen
as predisposed for high status roles that require agency (Ellemers, 2018). In educational contexts,
STEM fields are considered “masculine” because they are supposed to require innate intellectual talent
(e.g., abstract thinking) and agentic traits, such as leadership skills, independence, persistence, and risk
taking, which are linked to men (Carli, Alawa, Lee, Zhao, & Kim, 2016; Leslie, Cimpian, Meyer, &
Freeland, 2015). Women are perceived to possess higher levels of communal traits, and, therefore, they
are considered more suitable for fields that allegedly require more empathy and/or hard work (Carli, et
al., 2016; Leslie et al., 2015).
Gender stereotypes are still pervasive in social discourse and can be found even in textbooks and
educational resources, reinforcing the view that STEM fields are masculine (Kerkhoven, Russo, Land-
Zandstra, Saxena, & Rodenburg, 2016; Moser & Hannover, 2014). Research has shown that gender
stereotypes create psychological obstacles for women and influence their academic and career choices
(Dicke, Safavian, & Eccles, 2019; Ertl, Luttenberger, & Paechter, 2017; Flore & Wicherts, 2015). Female
students who internalize gender stereotypes about STEM tend to underestimate their ability to succeed
in STEM fields and are less likely to aspire to and to pursue careers in STEM fields (Dicke et al., 2019;
Ertl et al., 2017). In a longitudinal study Dicke et al. (2019) found that women who had endorsed tradi-
tional gender-role views in adolescence acquired lower levels of education in adulthood and were less
likely to have occupations within male-typed STEM domains at age 42, compared with women who
did not endorse such stereotypes when they were adolescent students. However, even if they do not
espouse gender stereotypes themselves, female students are susceptible to a phenomenon that is called
“stereotype-threat”: due to physiological stress caused by the possibility to confirm gender stereotypes,
they may perform bellow their ability level in STEM tasks, especially in contexts where gender bias is
salient (Flore & Wicherts, 2015).
Students’ educational and occupational choices may be influenced by negative stereotypes about the
nature of STEM fields (Cheryan, Master, & Meltzoff, 2015; Ehlinger, Plant, Hartwig, Vossen, Columb,
& Brewer, 2018). Non-specialists, including teachers, parents, and students, often have inaccurate un-
derstandings of the types, settings, and ethics of STEM research and professional activities and may
hold stereotypical views of STEM researchers and professionals (Christidou, Hatzinikita, & Samaras,
2012; DeWitt, Archer, & Osborn, 2013; Sáinz, Pálmen, & García-Cuesta, 2012). They may perceive
math, science, and computing as impersonal, non-creative, and mechanistic activities, or even as morally
ambiguous activities motivated by self-interest, and they may view STEM researchers and professionals
as eccentric geniuses who have no social skills and personal lives (Christidou et al., 2012; Critchley,
2008; DeWitt et al., 2013; Sáinz et al., 2012).
Such stereotypes about STEM fields and professionals may discourage students from aspiring to
STEM/STEAM careers, especially if they are interested in jobs that are creative, provide opportunities
for social interaction and enable them to benefit society. This is particularly important for female students
who, due to their socialization, are more likely than males to place importance on humanistic job char-
acteristics (Guzdial, Ericson, McKlin, & Engleman, 2012; Weisgram, Dinella, & Fulcher, 2011). Also,
45

many female and male students, who think that only exceptionally smart people or “nerds” pursue stud-
ies in STEM, may feel that they do not themselves belong in STEM (Erlinger et al., 2018). On the other
hand, research has shown that students who hold non-stereotypical images of STEM professionals tend
to perceive higher identity compatibility between themselves and STEM as well as to be more likely to
intend to major in a STEM field (Nguyen & Riegle-Crumb, 2021; Shin, Levy, & London, 2016). These
research findings indicate that students need exposure to a variety of images and role models that present
a more balanced view of STEM researchers and professionals (Cheryan et al., 2015; DeWitt et al., 2013).
The Importance of Role Models in Students’ Academic and Career Choices
Parents and teachers as well as other adults can influence young people’s aspirations and study choices
by acting as role models. Several theories, such as social cognitive theory (Bussey & Bandura, 1999)
and social role theory (Eagly & Wood, 2016), have highlighted the importance of role models, and more
particularly of same-gender role models, on children’s development. According to social role theory (Ea-
gly & Wood, 2016), young people attribute the differences they observe in the gendered distribution of
social roles to inherent characteristics and, as a result, perceive certain behaviors to be more appropriate
for their gender. Observing men and women in gender stereotypical roles (either directly through social
interactions or indirectly, e.g. through mass media) gives rise to gender stereotypes which then promote
aspirations and behaviors that are considered gender congruent. In industrialized economies, for example,
women are more likely to hold caretaking jobs and men to hold leadership positions. Finding that only
a few women have STEM professions and leadership roles may signal to adolescent girls that they do
not have the skills and traits to succeed in these domains or that these domains are not appropriate for
them. Research has shown that students’ exposure to STEM-related stereotypical role models is associ-
ated with the endorsement of gender stereotypes (Beilock, Gunderson, Ramirez, & Levine, 2010) while
exposure to role models that challenge stereotypes can change students’ perceptions (Shin et al., 2016;
Van Camp, Gilbert, O’Brien, 2019). In a recent literature review, Olson and Martiny (2018) concluded
that interventions that aim at targeting women’s underrepresentation in male-typed academic fields using
exposure to countersterotypical role models, such as successful female scientists, can influence females’
aspirations and gender-related views even if the duration of these interventions is brief.
Based on the literature reviewed so far, research has shown that stereotypes about the nature of
STEM fields and professions and their suitability for women have a negative impact on female students’
career aspirations and study choices. Therefore, to increase the number of women in STEM fields, it is
important to overhaul gender stereotypes and to diversify the images of STEM fields and professionals,
so that students, both female and male, do not feel that they need to fit a particular prototype to succeed
and to be satisfied as students and professionals in these fields (Cheryan et al., 2015; Wang & Degol,
2017). Based on several promising studies (Olson & Martiny, 2018; Shin et al., 2016; Van Camp et al.,
2019), it appears that one way to break down gender stereotypes and stereotypical images of STEM
professionals is to expose students to diverse images of scientists as well as to both female and male
STEM role-models. It is also essential that, as important socializers and role-models, teachers become
aware of the impact of gender stereotypes and of their own expectations and behaviors in shaping young
people’s academic interests and career aspirations (DeWitt et al., 2013; Sáinz et al., 2012; Vekiri, 2012).
Finally, teachers need to have access to learning materials and resources that will help them both reflect
on their own classroom practices and provide students with appropriate learning experiences.
46

Gender Equity and STEAM Education
STEAM education is a new pedagogical approach that combines STEM subjects with Art(s). Accord-
ing to a dominant approach, among several alternative perspectives (Perignat & Katz-Buonincontro,
2019), regarding the definition of “A” in STEAM, A stands for various art forms, including dance,
theater, music, visual and media arts (Martinez, 2017). It is expected that integrating the arts in STEM
learning will help students develop a unique set of diverse skills, such as problem solving and algorith-
mic thinking as well as creativity and trans-disciplinary thinking, that are considered important in 21st
century (Henriksen, 2014; Meletiou-Mavrotheris, 2019; Perignat & Katz-Buonincontro, 2019). Further,
STEAM education is expected to increase innovation in STEM fields (Perignat & Katz-Buonincontro,
2019). Many important STEM thinkers, including many Nobel Prize winners, had multiple talents and
artistic avocations which helped them develop skills useful in their research, such as visual imagination
and aesthetic sensibility (Root-Bernstein et al., 2008). Therefore, adding artistic and design concepts to
STEM learning is expected to facilitate the development of thinking processes required in STEM, such
as deductive and analogical reasoning (Henriksen, 2014; Wajnkurt & Sloan, 2019).
Another approach regarding the definition and purpose of A(rts) in the STEAM acronym proposes
that, in addition to various art forms, liberal arts and humanities are also a part of “A” and should thus
be included in STEAM (Perignat & Katz-Buonincontro, 2019). An advantage of this approach is that,
besides preparing the future workforce for STEM jobs and facilitating a more holistic understanding
of complex topics, combining the arts and humanities with STEM subjects may attract more students,
particularly females, to STEM studies and careers. STEAM education may help them better understand
the connection between STEM and real-world problems and situations, and, therefore, appreciate the
value and social contributions of STEM fields (Wajnkurt & Sloan, 2019).
Another reason why STEAM education is expected to attract more students to STEM fields is because
it employs pedagogical approaches which can increase student motivation. Research has shown that stu-
dents’ motivational beliefs can increase with the use of inquiry-oriented, problem solving or construction
activities that are personally relevant, and by pedagogical practices that create links between academic
subjects and encourage collaboration and creativity (Carbonaro, Szafron, Cutumisu, & Schaeffer, 2010;
Chi, Wang, & Liu, 2021; Hazari, Sonnert, Saddler, Shanahan, 2010; Vekiri, 2013). These pedagogical
approaches and practices have been found to influence positively not only female students’ interest in
and enjoyment of STEM subjects but also their intention to pursue STEM studies and careers (Hazari et
al., 2010; Sharma, Torrado, Gómez, & Jaccheri, 2021). In STEAM education projects students engage
in investigations about authentic, ill-structured problems which often originate in situations that they
encounter in their everyday lives (Bush & Cook, 2019; Martinez, 2017; Roehring, Dare, Ring-Whalen,
& Wieselmann, 2021). This may help students recognize the relevance of STEAM knowledge and skills
to the real world and develop a better understanding of STEM/STEAM fields and professional activities
(Cairns, 2019; Chi et al., 2021): their diversity, their collaborative and creative nature, their relevance
to everyday life, and their contribution to society. In STEAM educational scenarios students have op-
portunities to experience several aspects of STEAM professional and research activities: they work in
groups and therefore they need to explain and negotiate their ideas with others, they need to search for
and to analyze information, carry out experiments and design algorithms and products as solutions to
problems, and, finally, they need to present their conclusions and solutions and to convince others about
the quality of their ideas.
47

FIELD RESEARCH ON STUDENTS’ VIEWS AND EXPERIENCES
As part of the FemSTEAM Mysteries project a survey was carried out, involving adolescent students
(ages 12-15) from 3 schools in Cyprus, Spain, and Greece (n = 361). The purpose of the survey was
to gather information about students’ backgrounds, experiences, and views, which would be utilized in
the development of the project methodological guidelines and the design of the FemSTEAM Mysteries
game. The instrument addressed various topics about STEM/STEAM studies and careers, student views
about gender and STEM/STEAM studies and careers, and their school and after-school experiences.
In this section only some key findings of this study will be presented, as a detailed presentation of data
analysis and results will appear in other project publications.
Overall, the results of the field study are consistent with the main conclusions of the literature review.
One interesting finding is that students are being encouraged to take higher-level math or science courses
by their family (n=240, 66.7%) and that the percentages of boys and girls who receive encouragement
to take higher-level math or science courses are quite similar (e.g. 68.9% of boys and 65.1% of girls
reported receiving parental encouragement). However, only about half of the students reported knowing
about STEAM/STEAM careers (n=146, 40.5%) and how to find information about them (n=161, 44.7%).
Also, they seem to rely a lot on the media to get career advice, and mostly on the internet (n=310, 85.9%)
and on social media (n=105, 29.1%) which provide access to information sources that are not necessar-
ily trustworthy. In addition, significant proportions of students expressed stereotypes about the nature
of STEM professions and provided responses showing that they were not aware of the job prospects in
STEM. For example, several students agreed or strongly agreed with the statements “science, technol-
ogy, or engineering related jobs are monotonous” (28% of boys and 23% of girls) and that “science,
technology, or engineering related jobs are rather solitary” (33% of boys and 26% of girls). Also, only
a little more than half of the students thought that “science, technology, or engineering related jobs pay
higher wages” (58.8% of all students) and that “there are many interesting STEM related jobs” (59.8%
of all students). Finally, although students overall did not endorse gender stereotypes about the ability
of women to succeed in STEM studies, a considerable proportion of male students expressed conserva-
tive views regarding the role of women in STEM careers and the impact that a STEM career might have
on their family responsibilities. For example, around one-third (31.1%) of male students (vs. 17.7% of
female students) agreed with the statement that “a woman who is really dedicated to a career in science,
technology, or engineering would not be able to devote much time or energy to her family”.
Taken together, the above findings highlight the need to provide both male and female students with
learning experiences that will challenge stereotypes about gender and STEM careers as well as stereo-
types about the nature of STEM research and professional activities. Also, students do not seem to be
adequately informed on the scope and prospects of STEM/STEAM studies and careers and will therefore
benefit from learning experiences and resources that will help them improve their understanding and
make informed study and career choices.
48

THE DESIGN OF THE FEMSTEAM MYSTERIES GAME
The Purpose of the Game and its Pedagogical Design
The FemSTEAM Mysteries game has been developed in the context of the FemSTEAM Mysteries proj-
ect (REF.#: 2020-1-CY01-KA201-066058), an EU-funded two-year project (November 2020-October
2022) which focuses on gender equality in the fields of STEAM. Τhe game is addressed to teenagers
(age 12-15) and aims at creating a new culture and attitude amongst teachers and students that will: (i)
bring out the important role of women in STEAM; (ii) fight stereotypes of students and teachers; (iii)
inspire young girls to follow STEAM careers; (iv) enhance acquisition of key skills and competences for
STEAM studies and careers of all students (boys and girls); (v) enhance teachers’ skills in dealing with
gender equality in STEAM. Based on role-model STEAM pedagogy, the game introduces students to
important female and male scientists and artists, so as to challenge stereotypes about the characteristics
of STEAM fields and about their appropriateness for females.
FemSTEAM Mysteries is a story-telling digital game including 8 escape rooms, each dedicated to a
specific female or male personality who, for the purpose of the game, serves as a STEAM role model.
Two personalities are represented from each project partner country (Cyprus, Spain, Greece, and Ger-
many), who were selected due to both their contributions to their respective fields as well as their leading
role in activities and/or institutions aiming at promoting gender equality. Examples of these personali-
ties include Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard, a German biochemist who won a Nobel prize in Medicine for
her research in genetics and embryology and who established a foundation to support promising young
female scientists, and Eleni Stroulia, an award-winning Greek computer scientist who, in addition to her
scientific research at the University of Alberta, founded a support group for women and other disadvan-
taged groups among computing students. Also, some of these personalities, such as Tefcros Michaelidis
and Carlos Pacheco Perujo, have academic and professional backgrounds in both STEM and the Arts:
Tefcros Michaelidis is a Cypriot math teacher with a PhD in mathematics as well as an award-winning
writer of crime novels that combine mathematics with mystery stories, and Carlos Pacheco Perujo is an
award-winning Spanish comic book artist with a background in biochemistry and molecular biology.
To solve the mystery of each escape room, game players need to study the biography of each role
model and collect information regarding their studies, scientific and professional contributions and
accomplishments, and their activities relative to the promotion of gender equality. It is expected that
learning about these personalities will challenge students’ stereotypes about gender and STEAM fields
as well as about the characteristics of scientists and artists and the nature of their work. Students may
realize that there are several distinguished female scientists who made significant contributions to their
fields and who were also successful at combining their career with a fulfilling personal life. This infor-
mation challenges stereotypes about the intellectual talents of women relative to STEM fields as well
as about the appropriateness of STEM/STEAM careers for women, due to the conflict of such careers
with women’s stereotypical social roles. At the same time, students may become aware of the gender bias
and the various types of difficulties that women may face when pursuing careers in STEAM and, also,
acknowledge the need to fight against stereotypes that create obstacles for women. Providing a variety of
STEAM biographies is expected to increase the possibility that female students may relate with particular
STEAM role-models that they consider a better fit for them (e.g., due to common country of origin or
interests), so as to get inspired for their future studies and career. Also, playing the game may help both
female and male students learn about the variety of careers and career paths that are available to students
49

who pursue studies in STEAM after completing compulsory education. Finally, by requiring students
to find, associate and put together pieces of information to solve the 8 mysteries, the game contributes
to the development of various cognitive skills, such as search, observation, reasoning, problem-solving
skills and critical thinking (Wiemker et al., 2015), which are important in STEAM studies and beyond.
Figure 1. A snapshot of the lab space assigned to Christiane Nusslein-Volhard
Figure 2. A close-up of the lab space assigned to Christiane Nusslein-Volhard
50

Figure 3. A snapshot of the notebook tool
FemSTEAM Mysteries Gameplay
In the FemSTEAM Mysteries game, players undertake the role of investigators, to resolve a mystery
involving 8 STEAM scholars and professionals who lost their memories. When they start the game
students are informed that a great magician, who claims that he can erase people’s memories, uses a
big STEAM Conference that attracts many famous scientists and artists as an opportunity to prove his
abilities. The magician manages to erase the memory of everyone in the building which hosts the confer-
ence and provides accommodation for its participants. Game players, that is, students and their teacher,
survived this magic trick and are therefore asked to find the identities of the 8 leading scientists and art-
ists working or staying in the building, to give them back their memory. To do so students need to visit
the rooms of these STEAM personalities (the 8 escape rooms) and find information to figure out their
identities. The design of each room (space, furniture, objects, puzzles, and clues) is based on the field
of expertise, achievements, contributions, and studies of the personality who stays or works in the room.
After getting into a room, players can use a variety of ways to move around and interact with objects
(e.g. letters, email messages, photos, presentations, invitations), to find clues about the scientist or artist
who uses the room. For example, players can look at a specific point or object from different angles,
zoom in on an object, open cabinets and drawers to find hidden objects, and take objects for their inven-
tory, for later use. To win a room, students must use the clues provided in some of these objects and fill
in the correct information in a notebook, describing the profile of the scientist or artist who they think
uses the room. If players solve all puzzles and correctly identify the personality living/working in the
room, then his/her name, field, title of presentation, and country of origin appears automatically in the
STEAM Conference agenda and one piece of the mystery is solved. Snapshots of the game are shown in
Figures 1-3. In Figure 1 we can see the room (lab space) that is assigned to Christiane Nusslein-Volhard.
Players can look around to search for clues (see Figure 2) and if they find a useful object they can save
it in their backpack (that appears on the upper-left corner of Figures 1 and 2). Using the clues that they
51

have collected students can visit their notebook (that appears on the lower right corner of the screen in
Figure 1) to fill in information regarding the specific role model, such as his/her country of origin, field
of expertise and significant accomplishments. A screenshot of a Notebook page appears in Figure 3.
FemSTEAM Mysteries in the Classroom
Escape room games have become popular in education because they are problem-based, require col-
laboration, improve motivation, support the development of cognitive skills, involve students actively in
learning and encourage them to think unconventionally (Vidergor, 2021; Wiemker et al., 2015). Recent
reviews (e.g., Fotaris & Mastoras, 2019) indicate that educators show preference for physical rooms,
which they find easy to develop, while digital or hybrid escape room games (offering both virtual and
physical objects) are less common. Also, it seems that escape room games have not found their way in
secondary or elementary school settings, as most relevant published studies focus on higher education
(Fotaris & Mastoras, 2019; Vidergor, 2021). One challenge of implementing physical escape room
games, that may partly explain teachers’ reluctance to integrate them in classroom activities, is that
student teams who work in the same space may distract each other, while having student teams work in
multiple separate spaces simultaneously is very difficult for teachers to manage. Another challenge is
that designing and setting up physical games and clearing away activities is time demanding for teach-
ers (Fotaris & Mastoras, 2019; Veldkamp et al., 2020). Using digital games, however, can help teachers
overcome these challenges because setting up the game is much easier, and all student teams can work
synchronously in the same physical space or from a distance (e.g., from home).
FemSTEAM Mysteries is a digital game and as such it can be played in a variety of physical and social
settings. Students need approximately 15-20 minutes to solve the puzzles and exit one room, so it is easy
to play and discuss one complete part of the game within one class period. FemSTEAM Mysteries will
be available in English as well as in three other languages (Greek, Spanish, and German, which are the
official languages of the four project partner countries) and will be accompanied by a teacher guidebook.
In the guidebook teachers may find information about the allocation of the 8 escape rooms as well as
about the 8 role models. This enables them to select and assign specific rooms to students, to play either
in one class period or as a homework assignment at home. Also, teachers have the option to use only
one or a few rooms instead of the entire game, to support the learning objectives of a particular lesson.
In addition to the guidebook, various other resources will be available to secondary school teachers to
support the use of the digital game in the classroom. These include a collection of STEAM educational
scenarios, providing ideas and recommendations both for integrating the game in the classroom and for
extension activities, and a Library with learning materials for role-model and game-based pedagogy as
well as with resources on legendary female scientists.
Finally, given the important role of teachers in the enactment of STEAM pedagogy and in the develop-
ment of students’ beliefs and academic aspirations, as well as the fact that teachers are often unfamiliar
or uncomfortable with incorporating STEAM activities, professional development is a key priority of
the FemSTEAM Mysteries project. A blended professional development course on promoting gender
equality in STEAM through serious games, game-based activities and tools, and role-models has been
developed. Participating teachers were familiarized with the FemSTEAM Mysteries pedagogical ap-
proach, so as to use the FemSTEAM Mysteries game and to create accompanying STEAM educational
scenarios to implement in their classrooms. The professional development course initially targeted
secondary school STEAM teachers in partner countries. However, the course material and resources
52

will be revised based upon feedback received from the pilot testing and follow-up experimentations in
participating teachers’ classrooms and will be released for independent use by any interested stakeholder
across Europe and internationally.
CONCLUSION
Serious games have the potential to advance several goals of STEAM education, including motivation
to learn STEAM content, interest in STEAM fields, and the development of 21st century skills, such as
creative thinking as well as reasoning, problem solving and inquiry skills (Boyle et al., 2016; Clark et
al., 2016; Lamb et al., 2018; Vidergor, 2021; Vogel et al., 2006; Wouters et al., 2013. Although there
are several quality commercial off-the-shelf games that can be used in the classroom (Van Eck, 2009),
it is quite challenging for teachers to integrate a commercial game in a way that its use serves specific
curriculum and lesson goals and does not distract from learning (Marklund & Alklind Taylor, 2016;
Romero & Barma, 2015). Therefore, there is a need for learning games which are aligned with the cur-
riculum and support students to achieve specific learning goals while at the same time also providing
students with an enjoyable and engaging experience. By presenting the design of an educational escape
room game, this book chapter highlights several game design issues that should be taken into account,
to support effective game-based learning in STEAM.
First of all, good learning games should be fun to play, and this is an issue that was taken into account
in the FemSTEAM Mysteries game which was designed to have the characteristics of an escape room
game, to engage and motivate learners: a challenge including puzzles and meta-puzzles embedded in a
narrative, “intrinsic integration” between gameplay and learning content, as puzzles in the game world
are relatively similar to what the player would have to do in the real world, interesting graphics, fantasy,
interactivity, and continuous feedback. In addition, it is important that game design is based on a solid
theoretical framework that justifies the educational value of the game and supports its pedagogical ap-
proach. The pedagogical design of the FemSTEAM Mysteries game draws upon several bodies of litera-
ture and addresses an important educational and societal problem (the underrepresentation of females
in STEM/STEAM) using a pedagogical approach (role-model education, STEAM education) that is
based on a thorough analysis of the problem. Finally, the design of learning games that are intended for
classroom integration needs to consider several of the contextual factors that may constitute barriers to
game-based learning. These factors may include logistical challenges, relative to school schedules and
infrastructure, as well as teacher knowledge, views, and attitudes. As explained in the previous section,
the FemSTEAM Mysteries game was designed so as to be easily integrated in the typical daily school
program or to be played at home. Also, it is accompanied by a teacher’s guidebook and various learn-
ing resources for teachers (including educational scenarios and professional development materials) to
support its effective implementation in the classroom.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was supported by the European Commission [grant number 2020-1-CY01-KA201-066058].
53

REFERENCES
Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development. Allyn & Bacon.
Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M., & Arici, A. (2009). Why educators should care about games. Educational
Leadership, 67(1), 76–80.
Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., & Levine, S. C. (2010). Female teachers’ math anxiety
affects girls’ math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, 107(5), 1060–1063.
doi:10.1073/pnas.0910967107 PMID:20133834
Bleeker, M. M., & Jacobs, J. E. (2004). Achievement in math and science: Do mothers’ beliefs matter
12 years later? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 97–109. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.97
Blumberg, F. C., Almonte, D. E., Antony, J. S., & Hashimoto, N. (2013). Serious games: What are they?
What do they do? Why should we play them? In The Oxford handbook of media psychology (pp. 334-
351). Oxford University Press.
Boyle, E. A., Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Gray, G., Earp, J., Ott, M., Lim, T., Ninaus, M., Ribeiro, C., &
Pereira, J. (2016). An update to the systematic literature review of empirical evidence of the impacts and
outcomes of computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 94, 178–192. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2015.11.003
Breuer, J., & Bente, G. (2010). Why so serious? On the relation of serious games and learning. Journal
for Computer Game Culture, 4(1), 7–24. doi:10.7557/23.6111
Bush, S. B., & Cook, K. L. (2019). Structuring STEAM inquiries: Lessons learned from practice. In
M. S. Khine & S. Areepattamannil (Eds.), STEAM Education (pp. 19–35). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-
3-030-04003-1_2
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation.
Psychological Review, 106(4), 676–713. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676 PMID:10560326
Cairns, D. (2019). Investigating the relationship between instructional practices and science achieve-
ment in an inquiry-based learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 41(15),
2113–2135. doi:10.1080/09500693.2019.1660927
Carbonaro, M., Szafron, D., Cutumisu, M., & Schaeffer, J. (2010). Computer-game construction: A
gender-neutral attractor to computing science. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1098–1111. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2010.05.007
Carli, L. L., Alawa, L., Lee, Y., Zhao, B., & Kim, E. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science:
Women≠scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 244–260. doi:10.1177/0361684315622645
Cheryan, S., Master, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2015). Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: Increasing girls’
interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 49.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00049 PMID:25717308
54

Chi, S., Wang, Z., & Liu, X. (2021). Moderating the effects of teacher feedback on the associations
among inquiry-based science practices and students’ science-related attitudes and beliefs. International
Journal of Science Education, 43(14), 1–31. doi:10.1080/09500693.2021.1968532
Christidou, V., Hatzinikita, V., & Samaras, G. (2012). The image of scientific researchers and their
activity in Greek adolescents’ drawings. Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England), 21(5),
626–647. doi:10.1177/0963662510383101 PMID:23823169
Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learn-
ing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122.
doi:10.3102/0034654315582065 PMID:26937054
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
DeWitt, J., Archer, L., & Osborne, J. (2013). Nerdy, brainy and normal: Children’s and parents’ construc-
tions of those who are highly engaged with science. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1455–1476.
doi:10.100711165-012-9315-0
Dicke, A.-L., Safavian, N., & Eccles, J. S. (2019). Traditional gender role beliefs and career attain-
ment in STEM: A gendered story? Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1053. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01053
PMID:31139116
Dickey, M. D. (2015). K-12 teachers encounter digital games: A qualitative investigation of teachers’
perceptions of the potential of digital games for K-12 education. Interactive Learning Environments,
23(4), 485–495. doi:10.1080/10494820.2013.788036
Eccles, J. S. (2007). Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in physical science and
engineering. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science?: top research-
ers debate the evidence (pp. 199–210). American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11546-016
Ehlinger, J., Plant, E. A., Hartwig, M. K., Vossen, J. J., Columb, C. J., & Brewer, L. E. (2018). Do
gender differences in perceived prototypical computer scientists and engineers contribute to gender
gaps in computer science and engineering? Sex Roles, 78(1-2), 40–51. doi:10.100711199-017-0763-x
PMID:29367799
Elemers, N. (2018). Gender stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(1), 275–298. doi:10.1146/
annurev-psych-122216-011719 PMID:28961059
Ertl, B., Luttenberger, S., & Paechter, M. (2017). The impact of gender stereotypes on the self-concept
of female students in STEM subjects with an under-representation of females. Frontiers in Psychology,
8, 703. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00703 PMID:28567022
European Commission. (2019). She Figures 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/she-fig-
ures-2018_en
European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). (2018). Study and work in the EU: Set apart by gender.
https://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/20173992_kina26893enn_pdf.pdf
55

Flore, P. C., & Wicherts, J. M. (2015). Does stereotype threat influence performance of girls in stereotyped
domains? A meta-analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 53(1), 25–44. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2014.10.002
PMID:25636259
Fotaris, P., & Mastoras, T. (2019). Escape rooms for learning: A systematic review. In Proceedings of
the European Conference on Games Based Learning (pp. 235-243). Academic Conferences and Pub-
lishing Ltd.
Fu, F. L., Su, R. C., & Yu, S. C. (2009). EGameFlow: A scale to measure learners’ enjoyment of e-learning
games. Computers & Education, 52(1), 101–112. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.004
Gao, F., Li, L., & Sun, Y. (2020). A systematic review of mobile game-based learning in STEM education.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1791–1827. doi:10.100711423-020-09787-0
Gunderson, E., Ramirez, G., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). The role of parents and teachers
in the development of gender-related math attitudes. Sex Roles, 66(3-4), 153–166. doi:10.100711199-
011-9996-2
Guzdial, M., Ericson, B., McKlin, T., & Engleman, S. (2012). A statewide survey on computing educa-
tion pathways and influences: factors in broadening participation in computing. In ACM International
Computing Education Research Conference Proceedings (pp. 143–150). ACM. 10.1145/2361276.2361304
Habgood, M. J., & Ainsworth, S. E. (2011). Motivating children to learn effectively: Exploring the value
of intrinsic integration in educational games. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 169–206. doi:1
0.1080/10508406.2010.508029
Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Shanahan, M.-C. (2010). Connecting high school physics ex-
periences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 978–1003. doi:10.1002/tea.20363
Henriksen, D. (2014). Full STEAM ahead: Creativity in excellent STEM teaching practices. The STEAM
Journal, 1(2), Article 15.
Hsu, C. Y., Liang, J. C., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Exploring preschool teachers’ technological
pedagogical content knowledge of educational games. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
49(4), 461–479. doi:10.2190/EC.49.4.c
Ke, F. (2016). Designing and integrating purposeful learning in game play: A systematic review. Edu-
cational Technology Research and Development, 64(2), 219–244. doi:10.100711423-015-9418-1
Kerkhoven, A. H., Russo, P., Land-Zandstra, A. M., Saxena, A., & Rodenburg, F. J. (2016). Gender
stereotypes in science education resources: A visual content analysis. PLoS One, 11(11), e0165037.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0165037 PMID:27851759
Kerney, A. T. (2016). Tough choices. The real reasons A-level students are steering clear of science and
maths. A report developed by A.T. Kearney in partnership with the Your Life Campaign. https://www.city-
women.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/YL-ATK-Tough-Choices-Research-Report-FINAL-3-02-16.
pdf
56

Kim, H. (2011). Inquiry-based science and technology enrichment program: Green earth enhanced with
inquiry and technology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(6), 803–814. doi:10.100710956-
011-9334-z
Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., & Salen, K. (2009). Moving learning games forward: Obstacles, opportuni-
ties, & openness. The Education Arcade. http://education.mit.edu/papers/MovingLearningGamesFor-
ward_EdArcade.pdf
Lamb, R. L., Annetta, L., Firestone, J., & Etopio, E. (2018). A meta-analysis with examination of modera-
tors of student cognition, affect, and learning outcomes while using serious educational games, serious
games, and simulations. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 158–167. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.040
Leslie, S. J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender
distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 262–265. doi:10.1126cience.1261375
PMID:25593183
Mann, A., Denis, V., Schleicher, A., Ekhtiari, H., Forsyth, T., Liu, E., & Chambers, N. (2020). Dream
jobs? Teenagers’ career aspirations and the future of work. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/
dream-jobs-teenagers-career-aspirations-and-the-future-of-work.htm
Martinez, J. E. (2017). The search for method in STEAM education. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-
55822-6
Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M. (2019). Augmented reality in STEAM Education. In M. A. Peters & R. He-
raud (Eds.), Encyclopedia of educational innovation (pp. 1–6). doi:10.1007/978-981-13-2262-4_128-1
Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., & Prodromou, T. (2016). Pre-servive teacher training on game-enhanced math-
ematics teaching and learning. Technology Knowledge and Learning, 21(3), 379–399. doi:10.100710758-
016-9275-y
Moser, F., & Hannover, B. (2014). How gender fair are German schoolbooks in the twenty-first century?
An analysis of language and illustrations in schoolbooks for mathematics and German. European Journal
of Psychology of Education, 29(3), 387–407. doi:10.100710212-013-0204-3
Nguyen, U., & Riegle-Crumb, C. (2021). Who is a scientist? The relationship between counter-stereotypical
beliefs about scientists and the STEM major intentions of Black and Latinx male and female students.
International Journal of STEM Education, 8(28), 1–18. doi:10.118640594-021-00288-x
Nicholson, S. (2015). Peeking behind the locked door: A survey of escape room facilities. https://
scottnicholson.com/pubs/erfacwhite.pdf
OECD. (2016). Fields of education, gender, and the labour market. Education Indicators in Focus, 45.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1787/22267077
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Vol. 2). Where All Students Can Succeed. doi:10.1787/b5fd1b8f-
OECD. (2020). How have women’s participation and fields of study choice in higher education evolved
over time? Education Indicators in Focus, 74. Advance online publication. doi:10.1787/22267077
57

Olson, M., & Martiny, S. E. (2018). Does exposure to countersterotypical role models influence girls’
and women’s gender stereotypes and career choices? A review of social psychological research. Frontiers
in Psychology, 9, 2264. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02264 PMID:30581398
Perignat, E., & Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2019). STEAM in practice and research: An integrative literature
review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 31–43. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2018.10.002
Petri, G., von Wangenheim, C. G., & Borgatto, A. F. (2016). MEEGA+: An evolution of a model for the
evaluation of educational games. Brazilian Institute for Digital Convergence. Technical Report INCoD/
GQS.3.2016.E. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Giani-Petri/publication/309031701_MEEGA_An_
Evolution_of_a_Model_for_the_Evaluation_of_Educational_Games/links/57fe4b5208ae727564015b28/
MEEGA-An-Evolution-of-a-Model-for-the-Evaluation-of-Educational-Games.pdf
Prensky, M. (2005). Computer games and learning: Digital game-based learning. In J. Raessens & J.
Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of computer game Studies (pp. 97–122). The MIT Press.
Proctor, M. D., & Marks, Y. (2013). A survey of exemplar teachers’ perceptions, use, and access of
computer-based games and technology for classroom instruction. Computers & Education, 62, 171–180.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.022
Roehring, G. H., Dare, E. A., Ring-Whalen, E., & Wieselmann, J. R. (2021). Understanding coherence
and integration in integrated STEM curriculum. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(2), 1–21.
Romero, M., & Barma, S. (2015). Teaching pre-service teachers to integrate Serious Games in the pri-
mary education curriculum. International Journal of Serious Games, 2(1). Advance online publication.
doi:10.17083/ijsg.v2i1.43
Root-Bernstein, R., Allen, L., Beach, L., Bhadula, R., Fast, J., Hosey, C., Kremkow, B., Lapp, J., Lonc,
K., Pawelec, K., Podufaly, A., Russ, C., Tennant, L., Vrtis, E., & Weinlander, S. (2008). Arts foster sci-
entific success: Avocations of Nobel, National Academy, Royal Society, and Sigma Xi members. Journal
of Psychology of Science and Technology, 1(2), 51–63. doi:10.1891/1939-7054.1.2.51
Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020). The gamification of learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychol-
ogy Review, 32(1), 77–112. doi:10.100710648-019-09498-w
Sáinz, M., & Eccles, J. (2012). Self-concept of computer and math ability. Gender implications across time
and within ICT studies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 486–499. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.08.005
Sáinz, M., Pálmen, R., & García-Cuesta, S. (2012). Parental and secondary school teachers’ percep-
tions of ICT professionals, gender differences and their role in the choice of studies. Sex Roles, 66(3-4),
235–249. doi:10.100711199-011-0055-9
Sharma, K., Torrado, J. C., Gómez, J., & Jaccheri, L. (2021). Improving girls’ perception of computer
science as a viable career option through game playing and design: Lesson from a systematic literature
review. Entertainment Computing, 36, 100387. doi:10.1016/j.entcom.2020.100387
Shin, J. E. L., Levy, S. R., & London, B. (2016). Effects of role model exposure on STEM and non-STEM
student engagement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(7), 410–427. doi:10.1111/jasp.12371
58

Van Camp, A. R., Gilbert, P. N., & O’Brien, L. T. (2019). Testing the effects of a role model intervention
on women’s STEM outcomes. Social Psychology of Education, 22(3), 649–671. doi:10.100711218-019-
09498-2
Van Eck, R. (2008). COTS in the classroom: A teacher’s guide to integrating commercial off-the-shelf
(COTS) games. In R. E. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education
(pp. 179–199). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-808-6.ch011
Vekiri, I. (2010). Users and experts: Greek primary teachers’ views about boys, girls, ICTs and comput-
ing. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(1), 73–87. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2012.753779
Vekiri, I. (2013). Information science instruction and changes in girls’ and boy’s expectancy and value
beliefs: In search of gender-equitable pedagogical practices. Computers & Education, 64, 104–115.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.01.011
Veldkamp, A., Daemen, J., Teekens, S., Koelewijn, S., Knippels, M.-C. P. J., & van Joolingen, W. R.
(2020). Escape boxes: Bringing escape room experience into the classroom. British Journal of Educa-
tional Technology, 51(4), 1220–1239. doi:10.1111/bjet.12935
Vidergor, H. E. (2021). Effects of digital escape room on gameful experience, collaboration, and motivation
of elementary school students. Computers & Education, 166, 104156. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104156
Wach, F.-S., Spengler, M., Gottschling, J., & Spinath, F. M. (2015). Sex differences in secondary school
achievement-The contribution of self-perceived abilities and fear of failure. Learning and Instruction,
36, 104–112. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.01.005
Wajngurt, C., & Sloan, P. J. (2019). Overcoming gender bias in STEM: The effect of adding the arts
(STEAM). InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 14, 13-28.
Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2017). Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educational Psy-
chology Review, 29(1), 119–140. doi:10.100710648-015-9355-x PMID:28458499
Weisgram, E. S., Dinella, L. M., & Fulcher, M. (2011). The role of masculinity/femininity, values, and
occupational value affordances in shaping young men’s and women’s occupational choices. Sex Roles,
65(3-4), 243–258. doi:10.100711199-011-9998-0
Wiemker, M., Elumir, E., & Clare, A. (2015). Escape room games: “Can you transform an unpleasant
situation into a pleasant one?” In J. Haag, J. Weißenböck, M. W. Gruber, M. Christian, & F. Freisleben-
Teutscher (Eds.), Game based learning (pp. 55–68). St. Pölten, Austria: Fachhochschule st Pölten GmbH.
Wouters, P., Van Nimwegen, C., Van Oostendorp, H., & Van Der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis
of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2),
249–265. doi:10.1037/a0031311
59

ADDITIONAL READING
Bado, N. (2019). Game-based learning pedagogy: A review of the literature. Interactive Learning En-
vironments, 1–13. doi:10.1080/10494820.2019.1683587
Bamberger, Y. M. (2014). Girls into science and technology with feminine role model: Does this work?
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(4), 546–561. doi:10.100710956-014-9487-7
Gladstone, J. R., & Cimpian, A. (2021). Which role models are effective for which students? A sys-
tematic review and four recommendations for maximizing the effectiveness of role models in STEM.
International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1–20. doi:10.118640594-021-00315-x PMID:34868806
Good, J. J., Woodzicka, J. A., & Wingfield, L. C. (2010). The effects of gender stereotypic and counter-
stereotypic textbook images on science performance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 150(2), 132–147.
doi:10.1080/00224540903366552 PMID:20397590
Marklund, B. B., & Taylor, A. S. A. (2016). Educational games in practice: The challenges involved in
conducting a game-based curriculum. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14(2), 122-135.
Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of game-based learning. Educational
Psychologist, 50(4), 258–283. doi:10.1080/00461520.2015.1122533
Quigley, C. F., & Herro, D. (2019). An educator’s guide to STEAM: Engaging students using real-world
problems. Teachers College Press.
Tobias, S., Fletcher, J. D., & Wind, A. P. (2014). Game-based learning. In Handbook of Research on
Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 485-503). New York: Springer Science+Business
Media. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_38
Escape Room: A game type which involves solving a challenge that is embedded in a narrative and
includes many puzzles.
Game-Based Learning: A pedagogical approach to integrating games in the teaching and learning
process, which involves playing a fully developed game.
Gender Stereotypes: Expectations about gender-appropriate roles and behaviors that are attributed
to biological differences.
Learning Games: Games that are developed to support specific learning goals.
Role Model Pedagogy: A pedagogical approach that involves using role models to demonstrate the
execution of a task or to inspire and motivate students by showing that a goal is desirable and attainable.
Role Models: Individuals who serve as good examples of the attributes and traits (or of the values,
attitudes, and behaviors) associated with a role.
Serious Games: Complex digital games whose entertainment quality is used for educational, train-
ing, and/or communication purposes.
60
61
Chapter 4
MiniOpenLab:
Open Community and Hands-On
Approach to Sustainable Development and
STEM Education – An Innovative Approach
Tharrenos Bratitsis Virginia Arvaniti

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4257-2755 Educational Association Anatolia, Greece
Teresa Sarmento
Iro Koliakou Centro de Engenharia d Desenvolvimento,
Educational Association Anatolia, Greece Portugal
Arcadio Sotto Díaz Nuria Olga León Tobajas

Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Spain Ceipso Maestro Rodrigo, Spain
Ana Barroca
Projeto Schole LDA, Portugal
ABSTRACT
Education for sustainable development and STEM education are two major EU priorities. Both should
be addressed from an early age. At school, children must be motivated to learn maths and science and to
imagine working in these fields, and to learn about sustainability and develop attitudes and behaviours
that are in line with the UN’s SD Goals. Over the past years, children have taken interest in SD and in
some cases. By contrast, STEM is still regarded as difficult and unattractive by many children. Thus, it
may be beneficial to couple both these fields. The project MiniOpenLabs proposes to set-up and test a
different methodology with a higher prevalence of experiential learning and relying on the collabora-
tion between science and technology organisations, enterprises, and civil society to ensure relevant and
meaningful engagement of all societal actors with science and increase the uptake of science studies,
citizen science initiatives and science-based careers, employability, and competitiveness.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-3861-9.ch004

MiniOpenLab
INTRODUCTION
The Education for Sustainable Development and STEM Education are 2 major priorities for the EU.
As climate change, overpopulation, and inequalities begin to take their toll on our planet and on global
human development, the Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) emerged as a response in order
to change attitudes and behaviours and mobilize people around the objective of Sustainability.
On the Other hand, Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education is key
for an increasingly complex knowledge-based society. “Knowledge of and about science are integral to
preparing our population to be actively engaged and responsible citizens, creative and innovative, able
to work collaboratively and fully aware of and conversant with the complex challenges facing society”
(Science Education for Responsible Citizenship, EC, 2015).
Both Sustainable Development (SD) and STEM should be addressed from an early age. At school,
children must be motivated to learn maths and science and to imagine working in these fields, and to
learn about sustainability and develop attitudes and behaviours that are in line with the UN’s SD Goals.
However, the way children perceive and react to these 2 fields is generally different. Over the past
few years, children have taken a great and genuine interest in SD and in some cases, they are even in the
forefront of the battle for a more sustainable world. By contrast, STEM is still regarded as difficult and
unattractive by the majority of children.
Having this in mind, it may be beneficial to couple both these fields. If, in one hand, SD needs to
look at science and technology for answers, on the other hand, STEM education can be made more
interesting and appealing if applied to a specific field that gathers particular interest, like SD. Thus, the
general interest in SD can be used to attract children to STEM. If coupling these areas of education might
be beneficial, it is not enough to gather children’s interest if the learning methodologies don’t step up
and respond to the needs of children. The dominant approach to STEM Education and ESD in schools
is still teacher-driven. This, in part, is responsible for the students’ lack of interest in pursuing STEM
studies and careers and for not exploring to a greater length the genuine interest of children in SD topics.
In this context, education of STEM and Sustainable topics must take on new models with a higher
prevalence of experiential learning and that can bring together schools and other actors in the local
community.
The MiniOpenLabs project, an EU Erasmus+ KA201 project, proposes to set-up and test a different
methodology with a higher prevalence of experiential learning and relying on the collaboration between
science and technology organisations, enterprises and civil society, to ensure relevant and meaningful
engagement of all societal actors with science and increase the uptake of science studies, citizen science
initiatives and science-based careers, employability and competitiveness. This chapter reflects upon the
MiniOpenLabs concept as it was initially conceptualized by the consortium members and refined by the
qualitative research carried out via the focus groups. The methodology followed will be described and
insights gathered will be reported.
The remaining of the chapter is structured as follows: initially a brief theoretical background is pre-
sented, justifying the significance of the involved disciplinary areas. Then the research methodology is
described, followed by a reflective report of the findings. The chapter concludes with a discussion and
a brief presentation of the MiniOpenLabs concept.
62

MiniOpenLab
BACKGROUND
In this section, a brief overview of the involved disciplinary areas and the corresponding terminology is
presented. Two main pillars consist the background of the project, namely STEM Education and ESD.
STEM Education
The term STEM was first introduced by Judith Ramalay, a biologist, head of the National Foundation of
Sciences (NSF) in the USA, in 2001(Breiner et al., 2012). The acronym refers to science, mathematics,
engineering and technology. The initial idea was to see how the T and E constituents could be used to
teach S and M, deriving from earlier educational attempts and policies in the USA in the late 80s-early
90s which aimed at enhancing S and M education (Sanders, 2009). Originally, SMET was introduced
as the corresponding term (e.g. NSFDE, 1980).
Since then, the term has gained significant momentum, although many cases can be found in which
the S, M and T constituent terms are used with the STEM term interchangeably. The latter has been a
rather important problem in the educational (mainly) but also the research community. Until recently,
STEM education has been ill-defined, and even those involved in STEM-related careers often cannot
adequately identify how STEM connects to their career, how they use STEM on a day-to-day basis, or
the impact STEM has on their given field (Breiner et al., 2012). Many educators mainly seem to focus
on the disciplinary area they treat, especially in secondary education, also integrating ate least one of the
other constituents of STEM (Breiner et al., 2012), a misconception which merely still exists. Besides,
Holmlud et al. (2018) state that STEM education can be considered a single or multi-disciplinary field,
and in the case of the latter, no clear consensus exists on the nature of the content and pedagogic interplay
among the STEM fields. They justify their claim by explaining that although Science and Mathematics
education are well-defined, although separate, entities across the curricula, mainly Engineering and
Technology education concerned higher levels of education until recently.
Bybee (2010) provides five (5) different STEM definitions as follows:
1. a general term referring to education (of all ages) in STEM-related fields,

2. a “slogan” used in the marketing of education services worldwide,
3. a term that has replaced the reference to mathematics and the sciences in general,
4. market opportunities for graduates of the faculties and sciences of education; and
5. a holistic approach to the teaching of science in the school environment and not only.
These definitions are broad and cover the issues addressed in the education of minors and adults, their
vocational rehabilitation and the reference to the term. In fact, STEM has been used as a term in many
context and in many ways that its meaning can be considered ambiguous (Bybee, 2013; Sanders, 2009).
STEM programs in schools can differ significantly with each other. Depending on the infrastructure
(e.g. access to robotics, 3D printers, computers, etc), their program can focus on the T of STEM but
have little to no incorporation of engineering or science and math. Another school can have very little
technology but have students ideating, building, and conversing about real-world problems. As there is
no universal definition of STEM, there is a wide variety of ways in which it is being incorporated into
schools (Ansorger, 2020).
63

MiniOpenLab
Attempting to fully conceptualize STEM Breiner et al. (2012) examine it from an educational, a po-
litical - societal and a personal perspective. Mainly focusing on the former, they state “STEM is often
considered a traditional disciplinary coursework (science, mathematics, technology, and engineering)
lacking an integrated approach”. Thus, they follow the term integrated STEM, as originally proposed by
Sanders (2009) or Labov et al. (2010) who claim that “STEM is the purposeful integration of the various
disciplines as used in solving real-world problems”. Following this approach, all four disciplines would
be treated as one unit, a cohesive entity for the purpose of solving realistic problems, with the mindset of
“purposeful design and inquiry” which combines technical design with scientific inquiry (Sanders, 2009:
21). As Sanders (2009) explains, the reason is that in the world outside of schools, “design and scientific
inquiry are routinely employed concurrently in the engineering of solutions to real-world problems.
This fully complies with the definition of STEM provided by the Southwest Regional STEM Network
(Nathan & Nilsen, 2009), which is “STEM education is an interdisciplinary approach to learning where
rigorous academic concepts are coupled with real world lessons as students apply science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics in contexts that make connections between school, community, work,
and the global enterprise enabling the development of STEM literacy and with it the ability to compete
in the new economy”. This definition opens up to the societal aspects of STEM education, connecting
it with competence development in order to become a useful citizen and a valued professional in the
contemporary society and economy.
Kelley & Knowles (2016) define integrated STEM as incorporating two or more STEM subjects and
using STEM practices in an authentic context which connects the content in a way which supports student
learning. Following this approach, each subject can interact with and affect the others, thus further en-
hancing the perspective of examining STEM as what Stergiopoulou et al. (2017) refer to as “an invisible
whole”. Wang et al. (2011), differentiate between interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches. In
the latter, concepts and skills of a subject are learned separately in each discipline. Students need to link
the content from different subjects by themselves. An interdisciplinary approach, starts with problems
or real-world problems and emphasis on interdisciplinary content and skills such as critical thinking and
problem-solving, instead of subject-specific content and skills (Arifin & Mahmud, 2021). Stohlmann et
al. (2012), describe the merging of disciplines into one activity, a common practice in STEM approaches,
as content integration and the teaching of the content of one discipline that uses contexts from other
disciplines to make content more relevant as context integration.
In the case of integrated STEM, mainly the term refers to the creation of explicit relationships across
the 4 disciplines via the combination of some or all four disciplines of science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics into one class, unit, or lesson based on the relationship between subjects and real-world
problems (Moore et al., 2014). On a wider perspective, referring to the whole curriculum, Breiner et al.
(2012) refer to the integration of concepts of the four disciplines in a way that reflects STEM profes-
sional practice to encourage students to pursue the STEM profession. For Kelley & Knowles (2016) but
also Schnittka (2016), STEM integration in school settings refers to scientific research practices which
involve students in constructing their own questions and investigations, technological literacy in which
students use instruments, engineering design to provide a systematic approach to problem solving, and
mathematical solutions.
Despite the term definition, most researchers agree on the importance of STEM Education. Smith,
Douglas & Cox (2009) for that matter focus on interactive learning and innovation. More specifically,
they explain that with STEM teachers are allowed to:
64

MiniOpenLab
• Increase student participation,

• Improve their teaching methods,
• Increase interest,
• Apply the methods of inclusive education.
Moreover, Subotnik, Edmiston, & Rayhack (2007) describe STEM based programs that mainly
concern students from disadvantaged groups or students with excellent performance. Foltz, Gannon, &
Kirschmann (2014) also focus on students belonging to minorities, who analyze how STEM can affect
and be used with such categories of students, regardless of age. They identify a tendency of minorities
to choose STEM studies, considering that it will offer them a higher social status. But, at the same time,
they observe that social order affects the understanding of social phenomena and, therefore, the course
of these individuals, both professional and social. It is also reported that the more familiar children are
with concepts related to technology and science, the greater their chances of success in these areas. For
this reason, it is emphasized that the study of STEM concerns, indeed, both the field of technological
education and sciences, as well as tools, practical and didactic approaches.
Freeman, Dorph, & Chi (2009) explain that the STEM approach is very significant in the modern
business environment, since it allows the emergence of new sciences. They introduce the term “STEM
- Literate - Workforce”, a term which refers to whether one has sufficient knowledge in the above areas
(technology, science, engineering and mathematics), as well as the methods by which a student learns.
For Freeman, Dorph & Chi (2009), STEM can be applied:
• Within the classroom as a tool,

• Outside the classroom (for studying),
• In the macroeconomic environment, especially if one studies the demand for skilled jhuman
resources.
Thus, one can define STEM as “the ability of the individual to study and understand science”. This
definition is derived from the overall analysis of the study by Freeman, Dorph & Chi, (2009), as well
as the definitions provided by Sanders (2009), Breiner et al. (2012), Smith, Douglas & Cox (2009),
Subotnik, Edmiston, & Rayhack (2007) and Foltz, Gannon, & Kirschmann (2014). Besides, as Bybee
(2010) described, the STEM integration approach can be applied to solve global problems on energy,
health and the environment, population growth, environmental problems, agricultural productions and
many more. It requires a global approach supported by in-depth research in science and technology to
address this issue (Thomas & Watters, 2015). The traditional way of thinking is not enough to deeply
understand the complex problems that can affect the environmental, social and economic domains (Davis
& Stroink, 2016). Sampurno, Sari & Wijaya (2015) focus on the contribution of STEM in creating com-
petitive professional, and therefore the impact of education on the economy, development and research /
technology, in the future. For researchers, investing in this field will have the following positive effects:
• The observation and critical ability of pupils and students will increase,
• Students will be encouraged to engage in an active dialogue about the real problems facing society
today
65

MiniOpenLab
Thus, the benefits are both economic and social but, mainly, are found in the field of education
(Sampurno, Sari, & Wijaya, 2015). The key point, seems to concern how one can integrate these tools
in the existing educational process.
Rosicka (2016) highlights the importance of including in STEM Education definitions also different
teaching methods and procedures used to help students understand scientific theories, and to acquire
problem-solving and analytical thinking skills. Prinsley & Johnston (2015) believe that, in order for edu-
cation to evolve as a sector and for teachers to be able to offer a high level of knowledge to students, it is
necessary to invest in STEM approaches, starting from Primary Education. Research shows that various
models exist for the content and instructional practices associated with STEM education (Holmlund et
al., 2018). These include the incorporation of an engineering design process into the curriculum (Lesseig
et al. 2017; Ring et al. 2017; Roehrig et al. 2012), a thematic approach centered around contemporary
issues or problems that integrates two or more STEM areas (Bybee 2010; Zollman 2012), and maker-
oriented programs such as robotics, coding, and Maker Faires, which may occur outside of the regular
school curriculum (Bevan et al. 2014).
Overall, one cannot deny the significance of STEM Education, despite the diverse approaches in
defining or implementing it. Likewise, the fact that STEM Education can lead to the development of
competences related to the understanding of complex real-life problems and the acquisition of systematic
ways to solving them cannot be disputed. Thus, the MiniOpenLabs conceptual approach attempts to
address these issues in an innovative way, extending STEM Education outside the traditional classroom
settings, as described later in this chapter.
Education for Sustainable Development
Education for sustainable development (ESD) is defined as education that encourages changes in students’
competences (defined as sets of knowledge, skills, values and attitudes) to enable a more sustainable and
just society for all (UNESCO, 2013a). It empowers learners of all ages with the competences to address
the interconnected global challenges we are facing, including climate change, environmental degrada-
tion, loss of biodiversity, poverty and inequality. According to UNESCO (2013a), learning must prepare
students and learners of all ages to find solutions for the challenges of today and the future. It aims at
equipping current and future generations to meet their needs using a balanced and integrated approach
to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development (UNESCO, 2018).
ESD is an indispensable and transformative component of the international agenda on Quality Edu-
cation and Lifelong Learning (SDG 4.7 – Human Rights Education). ESD is a key element of the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development. As it integrates the goals of SDG 4.7, it is considered a driver for
the achievements of all 17 SDGs. It supports learners, educators, schools and their communities vis-à-vis
global societal and challenges by focusing on the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes that people need
to be active citizens and contribute to the well-being of people and the planet. ESD empowers everyone
to make informed decisions in favour of environmental integrity, economic viability and a just society
for present and future generations. It aims to provide the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values neces-
sary to address sustainable development challenges. Furthermore, it strives to integrate issues related to
all dimensions of sustainable development in curricula, pedagogical approaches, learning materials and
teacher education and strengthen evidence-based approaches. UNESCO has identified ESD as a crucial
element in preparing for and tackling global crises such as COVID-19.
66

MiniOpenLab
Figure 1. ESD process (UNESCO, 2013b)

Source: UNESCO, 2013b
The concept of ESD emerged from the need for education to address the growing and changing
environmental challenges facing the planet (UNESCO, 2018). As societies around the world struggle
to keep pace with the progress of technology and globalization, they encounter many new challenges.
These include (among others) increasing complexity and uncertainty, more individualization and social
diversity, expanding economic and cultural uniformity, degradation of the ecosystem services upon which
they depend and greater vulnerability and exposure to natural and technological hazards. Moreover, a
huge amount of information is available to today’s citizens, having the tendency to increase significantly
over time. All these conditions require creative and self-organized action as the complexity of such situ-
ations surpass basic problem-solving processes that go strictly according to plan. People must learn to
understand the complex world in which they live. They need to be able to collaborate, speak up and act
for positive change (UNESCO, 2015). These people are called “sustainability citizens” (Wals, 2015;
Wals and Lenglet, 2016).
In UNESCO (2017), a concrete set of key competences for sustainability is described. These are:
systems thinking competence, anticipatory competency, normative competency, strategic competency,
collaboration competency, critical thinking competency, self-awareness competency and integrated
problem-solving competency. The sustainability key competencies represent what sustainability citizens
particularly need to deal with today’s complex challenges. They are relevant to all SDGs and also enable
individuals to relate the different SDGs to each other, according to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development.
67

MiniOpenLab
The SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) is a set of 17 goals introduced in the 2030 Agenda
Framework, describing major development challenges for humanity. The aim of the 17 SDGs is to secure
a sustainable, peaceful, prosperous and equitable life on earth for everyone now and in the future. The
goals cover global challenges that are crucial for the survival of humanity. They set environmental limits
and set critical thresholds for the use of natural resources. The goals recognize that ending poverty must
go hand-in-hand with strategies that build economic development. They address a range of social needs
including education, health, social protection and job opportunities while tackling climate change and
environmental protection. The SDGs address key systemic barriers to sustainable development such as
inequality, unsustainable consumption patterns, weak institutional capacity and environmental degrada-
tion. The 17 SDGs are enlisted in Table 1.
For each one of the SDGs, UNESCO (2017) describes the specific learning objectives in the cogni-
tive, socio-emotional and behavioural domains. The cognitive domain comprises knowledge and thinking
skills necessary to better understand the SDG and the challenges in achieving it. The socio-emotional
domain includes social skills that enable learners to collaborate, negotiate and communicate to promote
the SDGs as well as self-reflection skills, values, attitudes and motivations that enable learners to de-
velop themselves. The behavioural domain describes action competencies. Additionally, for each SDG,
indicative topics and pedagogical approaches are outlined.
Education must be strengthened in all agendas, programs, and activities that promote sustainable
development. Sustainable development must be integrated into education and education must be inte-
grated into sustainable development (UNESCO, 2014). ESD is holistic and transformational education
that addresses learning content and outcomes, pedagogy and the learning environment. Thus, ESD does
not only integrate contents such as climate change, poverty and sustainable consumption into the cur-
riculum; it also creates interactive, learner-centred teaching and learning settings. What ESD requires is
a shift from teaching to learning. It asks for an action-oriented, transformative pedagogy, which supports
self-directed learning, participation and collaboration, problem-orientation, inter- and transdisciplinarity
and the linking of formal and informal learning. Only such pedagogical approaches make possible the
development of the key competencies needed for promoting sustainable development (UNESCO, 2017).
ESD promotes the integration of critical sustainability issues in local and global contexts into the cur-
riculum to prepare learners to understand and respond to the changing world. It aims to produce learning
outcomes that include core competencies such as critical and systematic thinking, collaborative decision-
making, and taking responsibility for the present and future generations (UNESCO, 2013). Traditional
knowledge delivery seems to not be sufficient to inspire learners to take action as responsible citizens.
Thus, ESD entails rethinking the learning environment, physical and virtual. The learning environment
itself must adapt and apply a whole-institution approach to embed the philosophy of sustainable develop-
ment. Building the capacity of educators and policy support at international, regional, national and local
levels helps drive changes in learning institutions. Empowered youth and local communities interacting
with education institutions become key actors in advancing sustainable development (UNESCO, 2013).
Overall, ESD is about real-life problems, not to say future life problems. As such, they fully comply
with the STEM approaches described in the previous section, providing context for STEM problems,
but also complementing the competence cultivation through STEM approaches by providing ground for
knowledge applicability. What is also important to note is the way of ESD delivery which is described in
UNESCO (2017), which states that ESD is not only about teaching sustainable development and adding
new content to courses and training. Educational entities should see themselves as places of learning and
experience for sustainable development and should therefore orient all their processes towards principles
68

MiniOpenLab
of sustainability. They should reconsider and redesign themselves, rethinking the curriculum, campus
operations, organizational culture, student participation, leadership and management, community re-
lationships and research (UNESCO, 2014). Fig. 2 presents the “whole-institution” idea of UNESCO,
which describes the interconnection of an educational entity or a training facility with the community,
formal education and society. The MiniOpenLab idea is grounded on this approach, as it supports its
connection with society both on a local and a global perspective.
Table 1. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
SDG Asynchronous E-Learning

1 No Poverty – End poverty in all its forms everywhere
2 Zero Hunger – End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
3 Good Health and Well-Being – Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
4 Quality Education – Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
5 Gender Equality – Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
6 Clean Water and Sanitation – Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
7 Affordable and Clean Energy – Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and clean energy for all
Decent Work and Economic Growth – Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive
8
employment and decent work for all
Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure – Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and
9
foster innovation
10 Reduced Inequalities – Reduce inequality within and among countries
11 Sustainable Cities and Communities – Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
12 Responsible Consumption and Production – Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
13 Climate Action – Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
14 Life below Water – Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
Life on Land – Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat
15
desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions – Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access
16
to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
Partnerships for the Goals – Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable
17
development
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
What becomes apparent from the previous section of this chapter is that both STEM and ESD play a
significant role in children’s cognitive and overall development, but also that they should be addressed
properly from a very early age. The literature indicates the significance of familiarizing students with
the UN’s 17 SDGs through also activities which are extended outside the typical classroom walls, con-
nected with society on a local and global level.
69

MiniOpenLab
Figure 2. The whole-institution approach (UNESCO, 2014)

Source: UNESCO, 2014
However, the way children perceive and react to these 2 fields is generally different. Over the past
few years, children have taken a great and genuine interest in SD and in some cases, they are even in the
forefront of the battle for a more sustainable world. By contrast, STEM is still regarded as difficult and
unattractive by the majority of children.
Having this in mind, it seems beneficial to couple both these educational fields. If, on one hand, SD
needs to look at science and technology for answers, on the other hand, STEM education can be made
more interesting and appealing if applied to a specific field that gathers particular interest, like SD. Thus,
the general interest in SD can be used to attract children to STEM. If coupling these areas of education
might be beneficial, it is not enough to gather children’s interest if the learning methodologies don’t
step up and respond to the needs of children. The dominant approach to STEM Education and Educa-
tion for Sustainable Development in schools is still teacher-driven. This in part is responsible for the
students’ lack of interest in pursuing STEM studies and careers and for not exploring to a greater length
the genuine interest of children in SD topics.
For these reasons, the idea of the MiniOpenLabs approach emerged within the consortium. Although
a general idea was already formulated, a mixed-method research approach was applied within the first
70

MiniOpenLab
output of the MiniOpenLabs project in order to provide grounds for its development. On one hand a
desk-research was carried out in order to identify and analyse similar approaches within the literature,
including living laboratories, makers spaces, fablabs, etc. As the idea of the MiniOpenLabs extends
learning also outside the typical classroom walls, other approaches were studied in order to identify struc-
tural and qualitative elements that could further enhance the approach. On the other hand, a qualitative
research approach was designed in order to acquire insights from the potential end-users and experts on
the corresponding fields (STEM and SD). This chapter reflects only upon this study. The participating
teachers were mainly from Elementary School, as the project’s main target group is children aged 6 to
12 years old.
The Focus Groups
In the MiniOpenLabs project 6 partners from 3 countries are involved, namely a school and a higher
education or research institution. Overall it was decided to form 3 focus groups, one in each country,
with at least 24 participants overall. The initial idea was to not have the focus groups meet only once,
but as many times as needed in order to elaborate on the expressed ideas. Each focus group included a
moderator from the higher education or research institution, an assistant and the participants.
The Greek focus group comprised of 1 moderator, 1 assistant and 24 participants. The latter were
school teachers (8), STEM instructors (10) and educational coordinators (6). The Spanish focus group
comprised of 1 moderator and 10 participants, covering all the STEM areas as experts (university teaching
staff and/or researchers) or school teachers. The Portuguese focus group comprised of 1 moderator and
6 participants, teachers, experts on the corresponding areas and policy makers (on a municipal level).
Thus overall, 41 people participated in the 3 focus groups.
A basic question structure was available for the conduction of the focus groups, starting from the
participants’ perception of what STEM and SD are. Then, their perception of the community’s involve-
ment, thus extending the corresponding teaching activities outside the school premises was examined,
focusing on the significance, the way of realization and strategies of engagement. In the final part of
the discussions, the idea of the MiniOpenLabs was brought up, asking the participants to freely express
their ideas and perceptions of its infrastructure, function and overall contribution to both students and
the community.
The answers were transcribed and examined following a thematical analysis approach in order for
them to be coded and correlated with the initial idea of the MiniOpenLabs concept. This approach al-
lowed the consortium to further elaborate on this concept and reach its final and definite description
which is presented in the corresponding section of this chapter.
Insights
In this section, a brief overview of the insights provided by the participants of the focus groups will be
presented, following a summative approach.
Regarding their perception of STEM (or STEAM which is commonly used nowadays, also including
Arts as the 5th constituent), most of the participants (but mainly the school teachers) intuitively provide
the most common definition which is that STEM is the combination of the 4 constituent disciplinary
areas. An indicative example was the statement “STEAM is an educational approach to learning that
uses Science, Technology, Engineering, the Arts and Mathematics”. Another stated that “I think I do
71

MiniOpenLab
[know what STEAM is] but there is always something more”. This is an indication of the transversality
of STEAM and the fact that not all people, even if they claim to be experts of a certain level on the topic,
are fully aware of its complexity and applicability. Moreover, one participant stated that “STEAM is a
cross-curricular educational approach which involves students’ active participation” and another that
“[STEAM] … five subjects with a common goal to create knowledge as you face up with problems”.
It is obvious that all the initial attempts to provide a definition which highlighted the participants’ un-
derstanding of what STEAM is were rather generic, although more or less correct. It is to be noted that
throughout the focus groups and some more elaborative discussion, many of the participants leaned
towards a more accurate definition of STEM which is “STEM is an approach for addressing realistic
problems, utilizing competences from the Science and Math domains, following the Engineering ap-
proach of solving problems and making use of Technological means”. This was evident by statements
such as “STEAM is about facing with problems which are to be solved by combining competences from
several of the corresponding disciplinary areas”.
Thus, a first conclusion from the focus groups is that it seems important within the MiniOpenLabs
approach to highlight the need to introduce end-users in realistic (better said, real life) problems to be
solved. Also it is important to facilitate the understanding that Engineering refers mainly to a process
of analyzing and solving problems (through the Engineering Design Process) rather than referring to
constructing artifacts, for example, which is a very common misconception. Indeed, the concept of the
Engineering Design Process as a problem analysis and solving approach is not very easy for teachers
and of course the students to acquire and utilize. This would further enhance by demonstration of its
usefulness, the added value of STEM in real life situations
In one of the focus groups (as there were minor differences in the final set of questions asked, based
on the evolvement of each active discussion) was asked to comment upon the relevance of the proposed
STEM model with Sustainable Development. The relevance was commented upon as obvious, especially
focusing on the contextualization of STEM activities via SD. For example, one participant explained
that he always found it difficult to “explain Physics concepts without children being able to actually
touch anything”. This abstract way of teaching complex notions and concepts can be addressed by the
meaning making that issues of sustainability provide, but also they seem to provide means of designing
experiential learning activities as well. As the same participant clearly stated “… obviously that hav-
ing tools of experimentation there will be numerous case studies numerous applications in the area of
sustainability – whether at sea, whether environment or mobility or carbon or there is a lot of topics that
can be addressed almost transversally – now what’s really critical is the ability to get our hands dirty
and that’s the decisive aspect of this – and mini labs represent that.”
Another participant explained how the local municipality designed and implemented learning work-
shops for children, through which they would develop what he referred to as scientific literacy; “… get-
ting children to ask questions to develop a strategy, to collect data for the scientific questions that have
to read the data and discuss the data and conclusions”. All these workshops were connected to issues
related to sustainability (e.g. the sea life) which were also tightly connected to that country’s economy
and tradition. Thus, it seems that the participants were able to visualize the synergy between STEM and
SD within teaching activities.
The participants were also asked about the ways in which the communities could be actively involved
in STEM activities. Various interesting ideas emerged. As aforementioned, the local authorities (e.g.
municipalities could play an active role by either designing or supporting such attempts, which would be
characterized by their open nature. Openness refers mainly to accessibility. Another significant parameter
72

MiniOpenLab
was that of proper contextualization of the STEM activities and their connection to local areas of interest
(e.g. economy, history, culture, tradition, nature, etc). In the case of the Portuguese focus group, more
concrete examples were provided as the local municipality had been running similar open programs for
their citizens, connecting them with elements of local interest such as the sea, the canning process of
fish (especially sardines) or even more generic issues such as the turn to cleaner energy consumption
by shifting to more electric devices, air pollution, ecology, etc.
In other focus groups, the connection to the local environment was brought up for this matter with
statements such as “real-world applications” or “the local community may share problems or questions
to solve”. These statements refer to the realistic nature of the proposed problems to be solved and thus
to a direct link to the local community by providing meaningful solutions for the students’ everyday life
which would be better conceptualized experientially. Parents were mentioned within this perception as
a fundamental part of a school-community collaboration to further extent STEAM education towards
the community.
Other interesting ideas regarding ways to open up to the community were mentioned, like STEM
festivals, STEM marathon activities and open classes (which resemble the realized activities mentioned in
the case of the Portuguese focus group). All these ideas describe open access activities for a wider target
group, involving also parents and other stakeholders. Thus, the open approach which is proposed also by
the MiniOpenLabs approach was raised as important and it is safe to conclude that openness is crucial.
Also, a connection with the local community in matters of providing realistic context to the activities
to by conducted via the MiniOpenLabs approach seems to be of importance, as it would provide added
value to the concept and enhance the bonding with the local communities. It is understandable that such
bonds lead to the adoption of open approaches by local communities, as they provide insights of “why
is it useful to have something of this kind in our area” and further enhance visits and even expansion of
the hosted activities. It refers to making meaning out of the existence of an OpenLab in an area which
would also contribute to further bonding of the visitors to their community overall.
The significance of connecting such a space with the community is also highlighted by statements
which were made when the discussion focused on the subject, such as “…the subject of STEAM is based
on the real world and has a goal to serve the community…”, “…they will gain a unique opportunity to
solve local issues …”, “…STEAM connects theory [referring to school teaching] with practice, thus
school practice with community reality” Thus the participants seemed to value this connection of the
MiniOpenLabs with the community on multiple levels, although initially and intuitively they focused on
typical teaching and learning. As another participant stated, a different strategy should be followed in
this case in order to highlight this issue; “I would say that there has to be an exogenous thing ... it’s not
bringing people in... the problem is to go there to people”. Thus, an important element seems to be how
to demonstrate to the members of the community the significance of having a MiniOpenLab available
and what the added value of that would be in their everyday lives. This issue is highlighted in the focus
group discussions, as a lot of time was spent on describing teaching scenario and material examples in
all three countries, focusing on the teacher who would then have more tools available for teaching STEM
concepts. Thus, not all teachers and other types of end-users, at extent, are intuitively able to connect
STEM practices and the wider community, since the experts in this focus group appeared to have some
difficulties in doing so and that has to be stated clearly by the MiniOpenLab approach.
Further examining the community aspect of the MiniOpenLabs approach, the participants were asked
to reflect on the pros and cons of the community engagement in STEM activities. Regarding the cons,
the issue of complexity was raised referring to the uneven background of the potential end-users. This,
73

MiniOpenLab
in a way, reflects again on the professional nature of the participants being educators, who often think
as having to “teach”, although a teacher stated that “direct communication of students with professions
of the local community” could be an interesting approach to follow. Thus, an interesting attribute for
the MiniOpenLabs concept would be to demonstrate that STEM activities can be implemented in a
simple way and that anyone can solve a problem despite of his/her social and cognitive capital, when
the proposed activities are meaningful for the end-users and provide added value for them and the local
community as a whole.
Finally, the participants were asked to envision the MiniOpenLabs concept and reflect upon its struc-
ture and activities. Attempting to not replicate statements already made, it is important to note that the
use of simple materials was mentioned, reflecting on a low cost of setting up such a space. Furthermore
the space would have to be attractive (in the sense of being able to also have a fun time there), possibly
portable, easy to replicate or move to other locations and provide coherent activities. Being able to
hold teaching activities both inside and outside, in the natural environment, was also mentioned as an
interesting aspect.
Overall, the focus groups provided valuable insights for the design of the MiniOpenLabs concept,
as they highlighted issues that need to be addressed beforehand (e.g. common misconceptions of the
potential stakeholders), but also interesting ideas to be incorporated.
THE MiniOpenlabs CONCEPT
Building upon the findings from the focus groups but also on those from an intensive desk research for
existing approaches which have commonalities with the originally envisioned idea of the MiniOpenLabs,
the consortium formulated a concrete description of them. Up to the point where this chapter was written,
the final refinements were being made in order to finalize the conceptualization of the MiniOpenLabs,
also by creating an activity book to accompany them. Since this is a bilateral connection, as the selected
activities reflect on the required design and the materials to be used, until they are fully tested for the
parameters set also during the focus groups (e.g. openness, fun, simplicity, of local community interest,
etc), the MiniOpenLabs concept is dynamic and will be refined during the lifespan of the project. Thus,
in this section a brief description of the basic elements is provided.
To start with, the MiniOpenLabs are small laboratories, open to the local community, where children,
under the guidance of teachers and other educators (including parents), may engage in STEM-based
projects on Sustainable Development. Furthermore, these laboratories need to be actual functioning ones,
but of small dimensions. This would contribute to their accessibility, portability and even replication if
needed. The main target group for the MiniOpenLabs is students 6-12 years old and the initial spaces
will be setup in schools.
Regarding the conceptual basis of the MiniOpenLabs, this relies merely on the Agency by Design
(AbD) model (figure 3), as proposed by Harvard University’s Project Zero research group (www.agency-
bydesign.org). This approach is divided into three strands, namely: literature review; interviews and site
visits; concept development and action research. Thus far, the consortium finalized strand 1, is finalizing
strand 2 and is initiating strand 3. The idea behind this approach is that in order to make empowerment
one has to look closely, explore complexity and find opportunities. Making empowerment means to
74

MiniOpenLab
have a sensitivity to the designed dimension of the objects and systems along with the inclination and
capacity to shape one ´ s world through building, tinkering, re/designing and/or hacking. According to
the AbD, this definition focusing on the triad of sensitivity, inclination, and capacity, extends a concept
of dispositional behavior developed at Project Zero (Perkins, Jay, & Tishman, 1993; Perkins & Tish-
man, 2006; Tishman, 2001) proposing that ability alone is not enough to ensure action. One has to have
the ability to do something, the motivation to do it, and the sensitivity to appropriate occasions to do it.
Looking closely is about observing the interconnection among elements (e.g. in our case the existing
approaches and how they interact with the communities). Exploring complexity regards considering the
people, interactions, and motivations associated with objects and systems. Finding opportunity is about
noticing if and where there are opportunities for imagining how an object or system might be otherwise.
Figure 3. The Agency by Design model

Source: www.agencybydesign.org
Following this idea, the MiniOpenLabs approach seeks provide basic STEM knowledge, empower
STEM related attitudes by highlighting their connection to real life problems, to the community, but
also the applicability of acquired knowledge along with the underlying simplicity once the correspond-
ing concepts are fully understood. The MiniOpenLabs concept includes the Lab’s mission, goals and
learning areas.
Although the general concept of the MiniOpenLabs is the same for all the partnership countries, each
Lab may focus on specific SD areas to respond to local needs and will be highlighted in the mission and
goals statement of each laboratory. A draft schematic of this concept is depicted in figure 4.
The working framework (Figure 5) includes the Lab’s management structure, working schedule,
basic resources, characteristics of the space, type of activities/services, safety rules, etc. The latter will
be provided also in the form of guidelines for teachers mainly who will be the core facilitators of the
laboratory activities. An additional activity book will be provided.
75

MiniOpenLab
Figure 4. The MiniOpenLabs model
Figure 5. The MiniOpenLabs working framework
As for the teaching/learning approach, the basic concept is that the MiniOpenLabs will be designed
from a constructionism perspective, as Papert (1986) introduced. “From constructivist theories of psy-
chology we take a view of learning as a reconstruction rather than as a transmission of knowledge. Then
we extend the idea of manipulative materials to the idea that learning is most effective when part of an
activity the learner experiences as constructing a meaningful product”. Connecting this with the AbD
model, three key concepts are considered: a) Making which is about the active role construction plays
in learning. The maker has a product in mind when working with tools and materials; b) Tinkering
which is a mindset, a playful way to approach and solve problems through direct experience, iteration,
experimentation and discovery; and c) Engineering which extracts principles from direct experience.
It builds a bridge between intuition and the formal aspects of science by being able to better explain,
measure and predict the world around us.
76

MiniOpenLab
Overall the principal of learning by doing will be incorporated, following the Maker-Centered Learn-
ing approach (Clapp et al., 2016). The main benefits of this approach are:
1. Primary benefits of maker centered learning

a. Developing student agency
i. Stuff making: finding opportunities to make things that are meaningful to oneself and
taking ownership over that process of making
ii. Community making: finding opportunities to make things that are meaningful to one ´
s community and taking ownership of that process of making, either independently or
with others
b. Building character
i. Self making: building competence as a maker, building confidence in one ´ s maker
abilities, forming a maker identity
ii. General thinking dispositions: supporting various patterns of thinking that are perceived
as being beneficial across domains
2. Secondary benefits of maker centered learning
a. Cultivating discipline specific knowledge and skills
i. Fostering the development of knowledge and skills within the STEM subjects and other
disciplines
b. Cultivating maker specific knowledge and skills
i. Fostering the development of knowledge and skills with regard to maker specific tools
and technologies
ii. Fostering the development of knowledge and skills with regard to maker specific pro-
cesses and practices
Thus, the MiniOpenLabs will be a Makerspace that is “public workshop where makers can share
tools and knowledge” (Taylor et al., 2016). This complies with the openness of the concept as already
discussed. As Taylor et al. (2016) state “It is clear, then, that makerspaces are not just homes for 3D
printers and laser cutters. Rather, they are public resources dedicated to creativity, learning and open-
ness. This comes at a time when many communities do not have a community spaces and where civic
life is often seen as being in decline”. Thus, a space such as this may also serve as a community meeting
space which would facilitate socializing, apart from learning.
Following this idea, the MiniOpenLabs approach also aspired to facilitate another community element,
that of local history and tradition preservation through the designed activities. Throughout the human
history, people crafted and made artifacts to serve specific actions and needs. However, eventually such
crafts often came with a story, usually a cultural one which highlighted aspects of a localized community.
Thus, stories are often told through objects and historical/social capital is preserved. Consequently, within
the MiniOpenLabs activities, a concrete section of historical and social information will be included, in
the form of “Did you know…” element.
Regarding the structure of the MiniOpenLabs, various ideas are being considered. In the case of
Spain, the proposal is to have them organized in two different blocks. The first block will regard Science
and Mathematics. The second block will regard Engineering and Technology. The idea is to utilize 1st
block activities for enabling students to create a solid conceptual base that will help them understand
and be able to explain environment phenomena, such as the movement of the moon, the colour of the
77

MiniOpenLab
sky, the mechanism in a domestic device, etc. The 2nd block activities will make students apply all the
concepts they have worked in Block 1. For example, they will have to use the concepts learnt in science
to build a gadget related to a sustainability issue. The initial idea (to be tested) is for students 6-9 years
old to focus more on block 1 and those 9-12 years old on block 2 activities. One of the four STEM areas
will act as the conductive axis, the center of the experience and the rest of them will act as tools, or will
be of secondary importance. For this reason the MiniOpenLabs were conceived as having two distinct
blocks. Similar approaches will be followed in the other countries, adapted to their specificities.
Regarding content, the Spanish MiniOpenLab intends to focus mainly on environmental issues,
including fossil creation and studying. The Portuguese MiniOpenLab intends to focus on smart and sus-
tainable cities, mobility and the ocean. The Greek MiniOpenLab intends to focus on renewable energy
and environmental issues.
Finally, each MiniOpenLab will incorporate an Activity Book which will include complete lesson
plans with experiments. Children can investigate the world around them and learn mathematics and sci-
ence in action. Using the technology, they will progressively resolve tasks (experiments) with increasing
difficulty degree. Once the required concepts have been acquired by them, they will manage and develop
novel engineering projects. The book will include helpful descriptions and explanations to clearly show
how the experiments should be accomplished. Striking artwork and photographs will illustrate all of
the projects with clarity. In addition, an index is included indicating the experiment sections: materials,
methods and experimental procedure. The presentation of the Activity Books is out of the scope of this
chapter, as the books are not yet finalized while this was being written.
DISCUSSION
As already stated, ESD and STEM are 2 major EU priorities. Following the idea that both SD and STEM
should be addressed from an early age, motivating children to acquire scientific knowledge but also
cultivate competences related to that are in line with the UN’s SD Goals, the MiniOpenLabs concept
emerged. On one hand sustainability is an issue tightly connected with everyday life. The mass media
make use of terms related to sustainability constantly and practical implications of it are easier be un-
derstood, even by young children. On the other hand, STEM is still regarded as difficult and unattractive
by the majority of children. Having this in mind, the MiniOpenLabs consortium attempts to couple both
these educational fields so that SD looks at science and technology for answers and STEM education
can be made more interesting and appealing if applied to a specific field that gathers particular interest,
like SD. Thus, the general interest in SD can be used to attract children to STEM.
The project MiniOpenLabs proposes to set-up and test a different methodology with a higher preva-
lence of experiential learning and relying on the collaboration between science and technology organisa-
tions, enterprises and civil society, to ensure relevant and meaningful engagement of all societal actors
with science and increase the uptake of science studies, citizen science initiatives and science-based
careers, employability and competitiveness. It follows the Makerspace approach, conceptualized under
the Agency by Design model.
The main goal of the project is to set-up and test an open community and hands-on approach to
Sustainable Development and STEM Education of children (6-12 years old). To define this concept
and working framework, partners conducted a benchmark analysis and focus groups with end-users
78

MiniOpenLab
and experts. The benchmark analysis mainly consisted of desk research to identify and analyse similar
structures (e.g. living labs, makers spaces, fablabs, etc.) in order to learn from these experiences.
The focus groups allowed to get insights from end-users and experts that are critical to create a new
concept of MiniOpenLabs that responds to specific needs in SD and STEM education in each of the
countries/local areas. In total 3 focus groups were formed, one in each country (namely Greece, Spain
and Portugal). The focus groups were organized by a University partner and supported by a school
partner in each country.
Overall, the findings led to the conceptualization of the MiniOpenLabs are small laboratories, open
to the local community, where children (6-12 yo), under the guidance of teachers or other educators
(including parents), may engage in STEM-based projects or activities about sustainable development
topics. The labs will be implemented within the partner schools’ facilities and will be stocked with basic
equipment (e.g. laser cutter, 3D printer, minirobots) and materials (e.g. wood planks, electronic sensors,
etc.). Both indoor and outdoor activities will be designed to be hosted in the MiniOpenLabs, focusing
also on local community interest in order to provide a realistic environment for addressing STEM and
SD issues. The overall goal is to offer both an educational but also a social environment where children
will familiarize themselves in these fields in a meaningful way for the sociocultural environment in
which they develop as citizens.
This output is highly innovative as it promotes a hands-on and open/community approach to STEM
education and Education for SD, as opposed to the more traditional and teacher- driven methodologies
used in most of the classrooms in Europe. This will allow children to experience STEM and SD topics
in an experiential and engaging way, making a stronger case for STEM studies and careers, especially
in fields related to sustainability.
The innovation also resides in the fact that the activities for an accompanying Activity Book will be
co-created with the involvement of teachers, pupils and researchers, thus increasing for their feasibility
and novelty.
As this is an ongoing effort, more information can be hereinafter found on the project’s website
(https://miniopenlabstem.com/), including the full specifications of the laboratories, the activity books
and research-based results from their utilization.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was co-funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union, Action KA2 for School
Education, Project Νο: 2019-1-PL01- KA201-065695 “MiniOpenLabs”.
REFERENCES
Ansorger, J. (2020). STEM Beyond the Acronym: Ethical Considerations in Standardizing STEM Edu-
cation in K-12. In B. Brown, V. Roberts, M. Jacobsen, & C. Hurrell (Eds.), Ethical Use of Technology
in Digital Learning Environments: Graduate Student Perspectives (pp. 87–103). University of Calgary.
https://openeducationalberta.ca/educationaltechnologyethics/
79

MiniOpenLab
Arifin, N. R., & Mahmud, S. N. D. (2021). A Systematic Literature Review of Design Thinking Ap-
plication in STEM Integration. Creative Education, 12(7), 1558–1571. doi:10.4236/ce.2021.127118
Bevan, B., Gutwill, J. P., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2014). Learning through STEM-rich tinker-
ing: Findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Science Education, 99(1),
98–120. doi:10.1002ce.21151
Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion
about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1),
3–11. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x
Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher,
70(1), 30.
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for Stem education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA Press.
Clapp, E., Ross, J., O’Ryan, J., & Tishman, S. (2016). Maker-Centered Learning: Empowering Young
People to Shape Their Worlds. Jossey-Bass.
Davis, A. C., & Stroink, M. L. (2016). The Relationship between Systems Thinking and the New Eco-
logical Paradigm. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 33(4), 575–586. doi:10.1002res.2371
Foltz, L. G., Gannon, S., & Kirschmann, S. L. (2014). Factors that contribute to the persistence of mi-
nority students in STEM Fields. Planning for Higher Education, 42(4), 1–13.
Freeman, J., Dorph, R., & Chi, B. (2009). Strengthening after-school STEM staff development. University
of California. https://www.informalscience.org/sites/default/files/Strengthening_After-School_STEM_
Staff_Development.pdf
Holmlund, T. D., Lesseig, K., & Slavit, D. (2018). Making sense of “STEM education” in K-12 contexts.
International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 32–51. doi:10.118640594-018-0127-2 PMID:30631722
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. Inter-
national Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–11. doi:10.118640594-016-0046-z
Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., & Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science
education: A new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE Life Sciences Education, 9(1),
10–16. doi:10.1187/cbe.09-12-0092 PMID:20194802
Lesseig, K., Slavit, D., & Nelson, T. H. (2017). Jumping on the STEM bandwagon: How middle grades
students and teachers can benefit from STEM experiences. Middle School Journal, 48(3), 15–24. doi:
10.1080/00940771.2017.1297663
Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014).
Implementation and Integration of Engineering in K-12 STEM Education. Purdue University Press.
doi:10.2307/j.ctt6wq7bh.7
Nathan, B. R., & Nilsen, L. (2009). Southwestern Pennsylvania STEM Network long range plan. South-
west Pennsylvania Regional STEM Network.
80

MiniOpenLab
National Science Foundation & Department of Education. (1980). Science & Engineering Education for
the 1980’s and Beyond (NSF Publication No.80-78). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Perkins, D. N., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of thinking.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39(1), 1–21.
Perkins, D. N. & Tishman, S. (2006). Learning that matters: Towards a dispositional perspective on
education and its research needs. A report prepared for the Spencer Foundation.
Prinsley, R., & Johnston, E. (2015). Transforming STEM teaching in Australian primary schools: Ev-
erybody’s business. Australian Government. Office of the Chief Scientist. Position Paper.
Ring, E. A., Dare, E. A., Crotty, E. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2017). The evolution of teacher conceptions
of STEM education throughout an intensive professional development experience. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 28(5), 444–467. doi:10.1080/1046560X.2017.1356671
Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating
the impact of K-12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science
and Mathematics, 112(1), 31–44. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00112.x
Rosicka, C. (2016). Translating STEM education research into practice. Acer.
Sampurno, P. J., Sari, Y. A., & Wijaya, A. D. (2015). Integrating STEM (Science, Technology, Engineer-
ing, Mathematics) and Disaster (STEM-D) education for building students’ disaster literacy. International
Journal of Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 73–76. doi:10.18178/ijlt.1.1.73-76
Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEM mania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.
Schnittka, C. (2016). STEM Road Map: A Framework for Integrated STEM Education. The Journal of
Educational Research, 110(3), 317–317. doi:10.1080/00220671.2016.1253949
Smith, K. A., Douglas, T. C., & Cox, M. F. (2009). Supportive teaching and learning strategies in STEM
education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2009(117), 19–32. doi:10.1002/tl.341
Stergiopoulou, M., Karatrantou, A., & Panagiotakopoulos, C. (2017). Educational robotics and STEM
education: A pilot study using the H&S electronic systems platform. Advances in Intelligent Systems
and Computing, 560, 88–103. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-55553-9_7
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM educa-
tion. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34. doi:10.5703/1288284314653
Subotnik, R. F., Edmiston, A. M., & Rayhack, K. M. (2007). Developing national policies in STEM
talent development: Obstacles and opportunities. Nato Security Through Science Series E Human and
Societal Dynamics, 16, 28.
Thomas, B., & Watters, J. J. (2015). Perspectives on Australian, Indian and Malaysian Approaches
to STEM Education. International Journal of Educational Development, 45, 42–53. doi:10.1016/j.
ijedudev.2015.08.002
81

MiniOpenLab
Tishman, S. (2001). Added value: A dispositional perspective on thinking. In A. Costa (Ed.), Develop-
ing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (3rd ed., pp. 72–75). Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
UNESCO. (2013a). Education for Sustainable Development. https://en.unesco.org/themes/education-
sustainable-development
UNESCO. (2013b). What is Education for Sustainable Development? https://en.unesco.org/themes/
education-sustainable-development/what-is-esd
UNESCO. (2014). Shaping the Future We Want. UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development
(2005-2014). Final Report. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002301/230171e.pdf
UNESCO. (2015). Rethinking Education. Towards a global common good? https://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0023/002325/232555e.pdf
UNESCO. (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives. United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
UNESCO. (2018). Issues and trends in Education for Sustainable Development. United Nations Edu-
cational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Wals, A. E. J. (2015). Beyond unreasonable doubt. Education and learning for socio-ecological
sustainability in the Anthropocene. Wageningen University. https://arjenwals.files.wordpress.
com/2016/02/8412100972_rvb_inauguratie-wals_oratieboekje_v02.pdf
Wals, A. E. J., & Lenglet, F. (2016). Sustainability citizens: collaborative and disruptive social learning.
In R. Horne, J. Fien, B.B. Beza, & A. Nelson (Eds.), Sustainability Citizenship in Cities: Theory and
Practice (pp. 52-66). London: Routledge.
Wang, H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions
and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 1(2).
Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Math-
ematics, 112(1), 12–19. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00101.x
ADDITIONAL READING
Ansorger, J. (2020). STEM Beyond the Acronym: Ethical Considerations in Standardizing STEM Edu-
cation in K-12. In B. Brown, V. Roberts, M. Jacobsen, & C. Hurrell (Eds.), Ethical Use of Technology
in Digital Learning Environments: Graduate Student Perspectives (pp. 87–103). University of Calgary.
https://openeducationalberta.ca/educationaltechnologyethics/
Arifin, N. R., & Mahmud, S. N. D. (2021). A Systematic Literature Review of Design Thinking Ap-
plication in STEM Integration. Creative Education, 12(7), 1558–1571. doi:10.4236/ce.2021.127118
82

MiniOpenLab
Bevan, B., Gutwill, J. P., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2014). Learning through STEM-rich tinker-
ing: Findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Science Education, 99(1),
98–120. doi:10.1002ce.21151
3–11. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x
Clapp, E., Ross, J., O’Ryan, J., & Tishman, S. (2016). Maker-Centered Learning: Empowering Young
People to Shape Their Worlds. Jossey-Bass.
UNESCO. (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives. United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
UNESCO. (2018). Issues and trends in Education for Sustainable Development. United Nations Edu-
cational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Constructionism: A theory of learning, teaching and design which supports that knowledge is better
gained when students construct it by themselves while they construct artifacts that can be shared and
probed to the world.
Education for Sustainable Development: Education that encourages changes in students’ compe-
tences (defined as sets of knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes) to enable a more sustainable and just
society for all.
MakerSpace: Public workshop where makers can share tools and knowledge.
MiniOpenLab: Small laboratory, open to the local community, where children (6-12 yo), under the
guidance of teachers or other educators (including parents), may engage in STEM-based projects or
activities about sustainable development topics.
SDGs: Are 17 goals with 169 targets that all UN Member States have agreed to work towards achiev-
ing by the year 2030.
STEM: An approach for addressing realistic problems, utilizing competences from the Science and
Math domains, following the Engineering approach of solving problems and making use of Technologi-
cal means.
Sustainable Development: An organizing principle for meeting human development goals while
also sustaining the ability of natural systems to provide the natural resources and ecosystem services on
which the economy and society depend.
83
84
Chapter 5
Computational Thinking and
Robotics in Kindergarten:
An Implemented Educational Scenario
Evgenia Roussou
Directorate of Primary Education of Piraeus, Greece
ABSTRACT
Ever since technology became an integral part of human life, a range of new concepts have surfaced.
Computational thinking (CT) has been extensively discussed in the last 15 years and has been gaining
popularity in the educational world. Following an overview of the basic literature published on this
evasive new concept, an attempt is made to outline the connection between computational thinking and
programming with emphasis on tangible programming of educational robots. An implemented educa-
tional programme, which attests to the positive impact of robotics on the acquisition of computational
thinking skills in early childhood, is presented and evaluated. The study took place in a typical Greek
kindergarten in 2017 and focused on the development of particular aspects of computational thinking
with the use of a programmable floor robot.
INTRODUCTION
Technology is rapidly evolving and bombarding our world with inventions that change people’s lifestyles,
requiring flexibility and constant adaptation of our skills. And while in everyday life, on an individual
level, this flexibility is perhaps possible, education meets enormous difficulties: it takes copious study,
effective planning, long-term research and pilot implementation of new programs before the official
Curricula can be updated. However, current developments are cataclysmic therefore, the global scientific
and academic community in collaboration with policy makers are making special efforts to speed up
the process so that schools will provide students with the necessary 21st century skills. Collaboration,
communication and thinking skills are at the heart of modern educational pursuits. Einstein’s famous
view that we cannot solve problems using the same way of thinking we had when we created them, just
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-3861-9.ch005

Computational Thinking and Robotics in Kindergarten
highlights the need to expand and develop new aspects of human thought. This chapter aims to pres-
ent an educational scenario which was designed and implemented in a typical kindergarten classroom,
as part of a Master’s Thesis case study. A detailed description of all robotic activities, together with
analytical information on student response and behavior is provided. Available research data indicate
that using the robot in a developmentally appropriate, playful way leads to remarkable increase in the
kindergartners’ targeted computational skills, which is consistent with the findings of similar interna-
tional studies. Moreover, student observation offers interesting insights on the impact of an educational
robotics program on young children’s social skills and interactions.
BACKGROUND
Computational Thinking (CT)
Prensky (2001: 1) proposed the insightful term digital natives to describe the “generation born and raised
in an environment where digital media is ubiquitous” which results in fundamental differences in the
way students think and process information; differences that educators are just beginning to comprehend.
In 2006, Karl Fisch pinpointed one of the greatest challenges educational systems face nowadays: “We
are currently preparing students for jobs and technologies that don’t yet exist in order to solve problems
we don’t even know are problems yet”. His inspirational video has had more than 21 million views on
YouTube and triggered spirited discussions among educators worldwide.
Modern School Curricula around the world are gradually including the development of Computa-
tional Thinking (CT), a term coined by Wing (2006: 33) when she stated that “computational thinking
involves solving problems, designing systems, and understanding human behavior, by drawing on the
concepts fundamental to computer science”. Although CT has various definitions, it is widely accepted
that it “encompasses a broad of analytic and problem-solving skills, dispositions, habits, and approaches
used in computer science” (Sullivan & Bers 2015: 5). The British Royal Society (2012: 29) defines
CT as “the process of recognizing aspects of computation in the world that surrounds us, and applying
tools and techniques from Computer Science to understand and reason about both natural and artifi-
cial systems and processes”, based on Papert’s views (1980, 1991) that computers enable children to
develop procedural thinking (i.e. CT) through programming and solving problems - by generating ideas,
analyzing problems and explaining the relations between problems and their solutions. Scientists have
since tried to further clarify the concept of CT but consensus has not been reached yet; nevertheless,
there is academic agreement that CT is a thinking process, therefore not dependent on technology, and
it involves specific problem-solving skills which can be used by a computer, a human or a combination
of both (Bocconi, Chioccariello, Dettori, Ferrari & Engelhardt, 2016). According to Perković, Settle,
Hwang & Jones (2010), CT also offers new ways of understanding natural and social phenomena and
promotes creativity and innovation. Therefore, attempts have been made to introduce activities for the
development of CT skills even in primary education as it is considered equally important with the tra-
ditional three R’s (reading, writing, arithmetic).
85

Computational Thinking and Programming
Since Papert’s groundbreaking work with LOGO, programming has been considered the most effective
way to develop CT skills because it uses strategies such as algorithms, subtraction and debugging (Dede,
Mishra & Voogt, 2013). Also, CT skills acquisition has been regarded, to some extent, as a fortunate
‘side effect’ of learning how to code: in addition to mastering programming languages, computer scien-
tists have been found to possess high-level skills, applicable outside the field of computing (Howland,
Good & Nicholson, 2009). Brennan & Resnick (2012) point out that educational activities focusing on
design, and particularly interactive media programming, promote CT development among youngsters
and children. Moreover, Kafai (2016) stresses that coding is a social and creative process: as members
of a wider learning community, today’s children write software programs e.g. to create video games
or interactive stories; their main motivation is the opportunity to create something they can share with
others in an increasingly digital world. It seems that “CT is more than programming, in the same way
that language literacy is more than writing; programming, like writing, is a means of expression and
an entry point for developing new ways of thinking” (NRC, 2010: 13). It is widely accepted that speech
both expresses and stimulates thinking; respectively coding and CT could be considered similarly inter-
connected. However, although programming is highly related to the acquisition of CT skills, a learning
environment rich in age-appropriate educational tools, motivating activities and a collaborative classroom
culture also play a key role (Allan et al., 2010).
Research on programming for children began decades ago at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
(LOGO Lab), when Papert developed a floor turtle that children could control using the text-based LOGO
programming language (Bers, 2008). Studies on the LOGO language showed that, when introduced in a
structured way, programming enabled young children to improve their visual memory and number sense,
as well as develop problem-solving techniques and language skills (Clements & Meredith, 1993). Papert
(1980) believed that programming was instrumental to the development of children’s cognitive skills
because he noticed that student programmers had integrated specific computational models into their
thinking and way of learning thus increasing their academic potential and opportunities for professional
development. More recently Resnick (2013: 1-2) highlighted that when children learn a programming
language, they are not ‘‘just learning to code, they are coding to learn’’ because they don’t just learn
about variables, conditionals or other mathematical concepts, they actually learn how to solve problems,
design projects, create content and communicate their ideas using the digital media.
International researchers (Grover & Pea, 2013; Fessakis, Gouli & Mavroudi, 2013; Portelance &
Bers, 2015; Papadakis, Kalogiannakis & Zaranis, 2016) seem to agree on the positive influence of
programming on the development of basic mental skills, e.g. related with the mathematical ability and
the development of logical thinking among preschool and primary school children, because it requires
structured thinking. In the UK, where teaching programming at pre-school became compulsory in 2013,
there is a number of coding platforms and applications, such as Tynker, Hopscotch, aspiring to introduce
children to programming in a way that is compatible with their developmental level. There is growing
research evidence that even preschoolers have the ability to understand several basic programming con-
cepts, name and comprehend commands, sequence events and also create simple programs to achieve
hypothetical goals as long as age-appropriate educational activities are implemented (Brennan, 2011;
Flannery et al., 2013; Kandroudi & Bratitsis, 2016) and robotics seem the ideal tool for such activities.
86

Educational Robotics (ER)
For decades, early childhood Curricula have focused on literacy and numeracy with some attention paid
to science, particularly the natural world. While understanding the natural world is important, developing
children’s knowledge of the human-made world is also necessary (Bers, 2008). Young children’s innate
curiosity facilitates science instruction; their creative and inquisitive nature welcomes engineering in-
struction and technological literacy: most children enjoy designing and building things as much as they
enjoy taking things apart to see how they work (Resnick, 2007). ER enables children to develop new
ways of thinking, comprehend the connection between the real world and the digital one but also access
concepts which are traditionally considered intellectually appropriate for adults (Resnick, 1996). Misirli
& Komis (2014) stress that robotics can be integrated into a variety of educational contexts allowing
children to implement problem-solving, exploration and experimentation strategies. Further research has
shown that ER contributes to the development of young children’s spatial awareness, sense of direction,
algorithmic thinking and early mathematical skills (Highfield, Mulligan & Hedberg, 2008; Highfield,
2010; Komis & Misirli, 2013; Kazakoff & Bers, 2014; Misirli, Komis & Ravanis, 2019).
Researchers stress that ER involves imagination, collaboration, innovative design, Science, Tech-
nology, Engineering, Mathematics, even the Arts (STEM/STEAM) in an effective, playful learning
context (Bers, Ponte, Juelich, Viera & Schenker, 2002; Johnson, 2003; Flannery & Bers, 2013). More
recent studies concur that the interdisciplinary nature of robotics allows it to be successfully integrated
into a variety of school subjects such as Science (Robinson, 2005; Ioannou & Bratitsis, 2017; Sullivan,
Strawhacker & Bers, 2017), Language (Burke & Kafai, 2010; Karkani, 2017) even EFL teaching (Ko-
rosidou, Meditskou & Bratitsis, 2013; Alemi, Meghdari & Ghazisaedy, 2015) thus offering learners
the possibility to reap all benefits of this innovative approach while developing important 21st century
technological and social skills.
Unlike usual computer activities, which often require sitting alone in front of a screen, robotic
manipulatives promote collaboration and teamwork (Lee, Sullivan & Bers, 2013). Using objects to
think and learn has been a longstanding, preschool tradition. As early as 1800, Montessori and Fröbel
designed a number of wooden materials (e.g. pattern blocks, beads, etc.) to help children develop a
deeper understanding of mathematical concepts. Robotics can easily become the modern generation
of such learning manipulatives which facilitate children’s understanding of mathematical concepts and
offer them the opportunity to participate in social interactions and learn to play / play to learn while
being creative (Resnick, 2003). What is more, robotic technologies with a Tangible User Interface (TUI)
are becoming increasingly popular as they minimize children’s exposure to screentime in accordance
with pediatric advice worldwide (Pugnali, Sullivan & Bers, 2017). For more than a decade, TUI floor
roamers – like the popular Bee-bot – have proved to be a powerful learning tool for the development
of young children’s technological, programming and problem-solving skills as they motivate students
to explore their potential while acquiring knowledge in a playful and meaningful way; they can make
abstract ideas more concrete because children immediately see how their commands affect the actions
of the robotic device, thus comprehending cause-effect relations (Markelis, Atmatzidou & Demetriades,
2009; Sullivan, Kazakoff & Bers, 2013).
Furthermore, as João-Monteiro, Cristóvão-Morgado, Bulas-Cruz & Morgado (2003) rightly point
out, robots literally have inexhaustible patience, which makes them ideal tools for learning through trial
and error, a method essential for knowledge build-up. They give children endless opportunities to iden-
tify mistakes, backtrack and repeat the sequence of commands as many times as necessary to achieve
87

their goal. Robots offer positive reinforcement on an emotional level since they are never judgmental or
dismissive; moreover, during collaborative play, an older child (or the educator) can give explanations
/ instructions or demonstrate how to achieve the intended goal, thus acting within Vygotsky’s Zone of
Proximal Development and contributing to progress that may not have occurred otherwise (Vygotsky,
1978).
Additionally, age-appropriate educational activities involving children and adolescents have proved
that ER contributes to the development of both metacognitive and computational thinking skills (La
Paglia, Rizzo, La Barbera, & Cardaci, 2010; Atmatzidou & Demetriadis, 2016; Sullivan, Bers & Mihm,
2017). Significant research on ER and CT has been carried out in Tufts Univesity: Bers and her col-
leagues developed prototype devices which could be programmed haptically using especially designed
wooden blocks which were developmentally appropriate for children aged 4 to 7 – the TangibleK pro-
gram (Bers, 2010). Published findings indicate that, despite their young age, children who participated
in research courses easily learned to build and program robots, thus exploring engineering, technology
and computer programming while also developing their CT skills (Sullivan et al., 2013; Bers, Flannery,
Kazakoff & Sullivan, 2014); more specifically, they became better at comprehending and expressing
sequence, using conditionals and applying debugging strategies (Kazakoff & Bers, 2012; Sullivan &
Bers, 2015; Elkin, Sullivan & Bers, 2016).
THE CASE STUDY
As the aim of this chapter is to present a detailed educational scenario which brings ER to the center
of the learning process, with respect to space limitations, only a short summary of the research work
connected to this scenario is outlined here.
Research Focus
Inspired by the above international research findings and aspiring to explore how CT is affected by
educational robotics in authentic classroom settings in a typical public kindergarten in Greece, the case
study was designed to focus on the acquisition of four key aspects of CT:
1. Comprehending causality - It is fundamental to programming because a program is a series of

sequential commands executed by a computer / robot as instructed by the programmer, who knows
exactly which command triggers which action/response. Lack of this understanding would lead to
random computer / robot behaviors, thus revealing limited or non-existent programming skill.
2. Making and expressing hypotheses - It is connected to the ability to notice the possible relation
between objects / actions / events in order to make deductions and decide on the appropriate course
of action through checking – correcting – rechecking.
3. Understanding sequence and sequencing - objects or actions. It is highly important and directly
related to basic concepts of time, such as before and after. Therefore, it is an integral part of the
preschool Curriculum connected not only to mathematics but also to language, since sequencing
phonemes and words leads to the development of speech and the acquisition of reading.
88

4. Problem solving (Debugging) - It is considered a key computational practice as it focuses on

understanding any malfunction by identifying causal relationships between events and deciding
on corrective action. The process actually encompasses four steps (Bers et al., 2014):
a. recognize that something is not working / meeting the stated goal.
b. decide to keep the original goal or switch to a suitable alternative.
c. generate a hypothesis about the cause of the problem
d. attempt to solve it.
Research Tools
The main research tool was a picture questionnaire (Roussou & Rangoussi, 2020: 37-38) consisting of 4
units which correspond to the four targeted CT aspects. It was administered individually, to all students,
before the educational intervention to determine the existing level of the targeted CT skills and after the
completion of the educational intervention to measure any changes in the level of the targeted CT skills
among students. Throughout the intervention, ER activities were constantly video-recorded to provide
the teacher/researcher with all information about student performance and behavior during the tasks;
there was no research assistant or even teacher assistant in class during the activities so without the
video, valuable evidence could easily go unnoticed. Daily analysis of the video recordings throughout the
intervention and systematic completion of observation sheets provided interesting data on programming
skills development, children’s linguistic and social interaction, their engagement and participation levels
but also their emotional well-being during the activities. Prior to the beginning of the study, a formal
parental consent concerning each child’s participation was obtained; it included parental approval of both
the video-recording and the academic use of all data collected for the purposes of the research. Finally,
individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with the students in order to reveal their views/
experiences about the implemented activities and with the parents in order to obtain further information
about the impact of the robotics activities on their children.
Contribution and Findings
The main contribution of this research lies in the fact that it was conducted in an authentic school envi-
ronment and robotic activities involved all students daily for a period of 11 weeks whereas the majority
of prior research was conducted in laboratory settings and/or for shorter periods of time. Furthermore, in
contrast with most reported interventions which use ER as a motivating means to teach various subjects,
this study focuses on children’s engagement with the robot in a playful but goal-oriented setting in order
to determine if and how ER affects the development of children’s specific CT skills; the main hypothesis
being that programming the floor roamer systematically for a respectable period of time would enhance
children’s CT skills in correlation with existing literature. The analysis of the data collected (Roussou &
Rangoussi, 2020: 40-42) indicates that student participation in the ER activities lead to notable increase
of their tested CT skills; their improvement ranged between 11% and 42% in all 4 units of the picture
questionnaire (post-test). The limited nature of this small-scale study does not allow for any generaliza-
tions but its findings are in accordance with prior research (e.g. Kazakoff & Bers, 2012; Bers et al.,
2014; Elkin et al., 2016; Pugnali et al. 2017). Further, large-scale work in authentic classroom settings
is required to reach conclusions which would be statistically significant; in that case, this educational
scenario may prove useful for educators wishing to integrate ER in their class practices.
89

EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTION
Learning Objectives
A plethora of traditional and technologically innovative activities aiming to develop mathematical thinking
skills are available to kindergarten students; mainly because mathematics, alongside language develop-
ment, are at the core of most early childhood educators’ pursuits. However, fully organized lesson plans
aiming to develop CT skills via collaboration, creativity and ICT are scarce. CT skills are acquired and
developed when children participate in age-appropriate activities designed to maximize experiential
learning, game-based learning and learning by doing or by trial-and-error.
The educational programme presented here was primarily designed to promote the development of
specific CT skills by combining unplugged activities, such as fairy tales and roleplay, with robotic and
coding technologies. On a secondary level, children worked on spatial concepts (more particularly dis-
tinguishing between right and left) and practised their reflection & self-evaluation skills. Equally, they
had the opportunity to develop verbal communication and scientific skills (by observing and recording
their experimentation) but also their social skills as they participated in group game-like activities which
required following rules, behaving respectfully and acknowledging different perspectives.
The core pursuits of this scenario are in full compliance with the Greek Kindergarten Curriculum
(2014) which focuses on 21st century life skills and children’s full development and they include:
• digital literacy and

• creative thinking
• understanding basic functions of programmable toys and controlling them successfully
• using ICT to communicate and work together towards a common goal
• using technology to explore / experiment on / solve problems
Learning Environment: Skills Required
This educational scenario was designed for a Greek kindergarten class consisting of 12 five-year-olds
and 6 four-year-olds. Activities were implemented in plenary, in pairs and in small groups (3-4 children)
in order to promote collaboration. The intervention began in the penultimate week of March and ended
in the second week of June 2018 which is the end of the school year in Greece (see Table 1). Kinder-
gartners had the opportunity to interact with the robotic device for about 60 minutes a day on average.
All activities took place in a typical kindergarten classroom where a new learning center was created:
the “Mouse House” where Colby, the mouse robot, took up residence (see Figure 1). While there is a
significant number of robotic devices and educational robotic kits available (Misirli & Komis, 2014:
101-102), floor roamers (such as Bee-bot) are considered most appropriate for preschoolers. Therefore,
the robot selected for this intervention was “Learning Resources - Code and GoTM Robot Mouse Activity
Set” mainly because it is easy to use and affordable enough for the underfunded Greek kindergartens.
The set contains sixteen (16) plastic tiles, which can easily be rearranged to create various paths, route
cards of increasing difficulty and command cards, which depict the keys on Colby’s back. These cards
can be used by the children while planning Colby’s trip to his ‘cheese’: they help them map out their
thinking in order to program the robotic device more efficiently; the use of “a pseudo-language, through
a series of graphical representation of commands on cards contributes to the visualization of program-
90

ming procedures providing children with the opportunity to not only visualize a program but also reflect
on it and correct its content” (Misirli & Komis, 2014: 110).
Table 1. Activities calendar
Week Date Description

1st March 26-30 Pre-test in individual sessions.
March 31 – April 15: Easter Vacation
2nd April 16-20 Robot tales and experiential role-play to acquaint children with the concept of programming (giving
3rd April 23-27 & receiving commands).
4th April 30 – May 4 Introducing the robotic device via individual play in plenary so that students learn how the robot
5th
May 7-11 works. Creating ‘Colby’s house’.
6th May 14 -18

Forming random teams to familiarize children with the device during free play at ‘Colby’s house’.
7th May 21-25
8th May 28 – June 1
Forming final teams to train for the games: daily group ‘practice’ with systematic track recordings.
9th
June 4-8
10th June 11-15 Robot Olympics.
11th June 18-22 Post-test and evaluation interviews.
Students were familiar with the classroom and its activity centers. Also, they had developed the social
skills necessary to participate in the activities: they showed respect and a willingness to cooperate, they
had learned to wait their turn and handle the educational material of the classroom carefully, following
the instructions for use.
As for the robotic device, they did not need any prior knowledge because the educational scenario
already included familiarization activities with the robot and its operation. In fact, complete lack of any
experience with robots and coding was desirable in order to keep the pre-test scores as uncontaminated
as possible.
Lesson Methodology: Learner/Teacher Roles
All activities in this intervention were experiential and playful; students were at the heart of the learn-
ing process, having the opportunity to learn through play and practice, which is in line with Dewey’s
(1966) pedagogical theories of “learning by doing”. The children assumed control of the way and the
pace at which they took part in the activities. Through trial and error, they built their own skills: not so
much to operate the robotic device itself but mainly to achieve the goal of successfully completing each
route and lead the mouse to its prize. In fact, as they worked in small groups, they could fully benefit
from the collaborative method that Vygotsky described and their efforts were amplified by the help and
advice of their team.
Emotionally, the satisfaction they got each time they achieved their goal, despite the increasingly
challenging paths, and the enthusiasm their team expressed, motivated them to continue their efforts
thus practicing the target skills of this scenario.
91

Figure 1. The Mouse House with Colby and its components
According to the Curriculum, the main teacher role is to assess the children’s learning needs, choose
the appropriate tools that will facilitate each student to achieve his/her learning goals and to promote
exploratory and experiential learning by creating the appropriate educational framework. In this scenario,
the teacher initially presented the material and coordinated the children to use it. She stimulated reflec-
tion on the difficulties that groups encountered while interacting with the robotic device and encouraged
children to engage in conversations with each other so as to draw on the experiences of their classmates
who worked in other groups. She also acted as a guide and supporter whenever needed, with the ultimate
goal of eventually becoming redundant when the children gained their independence and worked with
the robot based mainly on the support of their team.
LESSON OUTLINE
Stage 1: Unplugged Activities
Fairy tale reading is at the core of kindergarten activities because stories can set behavioral patterns,
promote friendship and cooperation and, of course, supplement any study topic. Seeking a playful in-
troduction to robotics, Valerie Thomas’s tale “Winnie’s big bad robot” was selected. The children were
fascinated by the adventures of the witch who brought a paper robot to life and struggled unsuccessfully
to control it. The narration was followed by a discussion about the existence and role of robots in real life
and their possible forms and characteristics, with the aim of exploring student views / prior knowledge
on the subject. A poster presenting these views was posted in a prominent place in the classroom (see
Table 2) and the following day, after a brief discussion about what a robot can do, the children were
asked to draw a robot (see Appendix), name it and give it some special skills. Finally, students were
given the opportunity to role play by ‘turning’ into robots and moving around in class to the sounds of
electronic music.
92

Table 2. Sample student views on robots before the intervention
“What do you think a robot is?” “What do you think a robot can do?”
Α1: Something like a remote controlled, my daddy can make
robots. Α1: I would lie down and it sweeps and mops the floor and pretend
Α3: It is a device like a human but it is not real, that is, it does to be a mermaid.
not eat. Α3: Open the door, sweep and mop and do all the housework.
A4: They have some buttons on the remote control and you have Α4: Take me to school, serve my food, take off my clothes, iron, fix
to press a button and it goes where we take the remote control. the TV when it breaks down, do laundry.
Τ5: From a machine and all people make them with iron and set Τ5: Put away all the toys and me, cook.
them up Τ6: It can cook and I have a bath.
Τ6: They don’t move.
A few days later, Manos Kontoleon’s story “Me and my robot” was read; in it, an ordinary man buys
a technologically advanced robot and tries it out. The story led to a discussion / reflection on the inde-
pendence of robots from humans and their ability to act autonomously or make decisions. Kindergartners
concluded that humans actually control the robot and determine its actions and movements. So, children
were encouraged to play a game in pairs, in which one student would be the human and the other, the
robot. The aim was for each ‘human’ to lead his ‘robot’ from point A of the class to point B, avoiding
all obstacles. The ‘robot’ was blind-folded and relied completely on its human’s instructions as he/she
could not see and act on its own. The ‘human’ was not allowed to touch his/her robot; he/she could only
give verbal instructions: go forward / move to the (other) side / go back in order to guide the robot to
the end of the designed path. Each command ‘translated’ to one robot step. The path was designed on
the class floor using A3 paper (see Figure 2).
The first paths were straight lines, easy and safe for the children, but as time went by and students
got better at choosing the right commands and communicating, the paths became longer and more com-
plex. Children loved this game and often played it during the week, so everybody had the opportunity
to be both the ‘robot’ and the ‘programmer’ several times. Once they familiarized themselves with this
roleplay and comprehended the connection between the command and the robot’s movement (response),
the students were ready to welcome a real robot in class.
Figure 2. Roleplay “The Programmer and the Robot”
93

Stage 2: Robotic Activities in Plenary
At the beginning of the 4th week, a box arrived and the children speculated on its content. When they
learned it was a robot, they were encouraged to speculate about its form and features. Finally, the box
was opened and the children got the chance to observe Colby, the robotic mouse, trying to guess how it
works; then the teacher showed them how it receives instructions and how it moves.
Colby’s square plastic tiles were arranged on the floor and partitions were used to create the first
path: a simple straight line so that the children would have the satisfaction to complete it successfully.
Then, the robot-mouse was placed at the beginning of the path and its cheese at the end and a student
came forward for the first attempt; he/she was asked to select and press the appropriate buttons in order
to lead the mouse to the cheese (see Figure 3).
During the first days, the robot routes were straight lines so that kindergarteners could learn how
to use the robot and rejoice in their successful attempts. Gradually, however, the routes became more
complicated, providing the opportunity to introduce the programming cards and explain how they could
help the children achieve their goal. Some students used them immediately, others ignored them trying
to complete Colby’s route correctly without them. The teacher tried to highlight the usefulness of the
programming cards by emphasizing their contribution to the successful effort of the children who had
chosen to use them, but did not impose their use on the children who did not choose them, leaving them
to decide for themselves, through trial and error, if they actually needed them or not (see Figure 4). In
these first few days with Colby, all children were completely engaged in the activity, whether playing
themselves or waiting their turn while others played.
So, around the middle of the 5th week, after all the children had learned how to program the device,
it was time to move the robot to its ‘house’ so that students could select it during free play. As expected,
everybody wanted to play at Colby’s house, hence the need for a mini daily schedule: all interested stu-
dents were asked to write their name on the list and they could take turns playing with Colby individually
for a few minutes every day.
Figure 3. First attempts to program the robot (straight routes)
94

Figure 4. Programming the robot for more difficult routes using the programming cards (or not)
Stage 3: Robotic Activities in Groups
During the 6th and 7th week, group play was introduced to allow children to devote more time to the
robot. Groups of four were formed randomly, according to the order that names were written on Colby’s
list daily. Each group was given approximately twenty minutes, during which children got the opportunity
to interact with each other, observe their peers’ choices and offer improvement tips or optimize their
own programming choices when it was their turn to play.
At this stage the teacher:
a. supported by giving advice/guidance when requested

b. coordinated, ensuring that all students respect the allotted time, and
c. encouraged students’ emerging collaboration skills by praising them when they gave or received
advice/help from their classmates in order to program the robot properly.
As expected, discussions in class about Colby were frequent because the robot fascinated students.
They expressed great joy when Colby arrived at his ‘cheese’ and they realized how much better they
were at programming the robot: day by day, they managed to complete more difficult routes, making
fewer mistakes. Therefore, an idea was put forward: to hold an end-of-the-year robot championship where
student teams would compete for the title of ‘Best Programmer’. The proposal was enthusiastically ac-
cepted and all children were eager to officially register for the championship, named “Robot Olympics”.
The children selected their teammates and the next two weeks were dedicated to training: each team
was given 20 minutes every morning to work with Colby systematically so that they could practise their
coding and collaboration skills in order to get the best possible results in the Games. So, during the 8th
and 9th week, the children worked intensively together trying to program the robot in order to complete
increasingly complex routes without errors and with the fewest possible movements. They were encour-
95

aged to think and plan collectively, using the programming cards, then try out their plan and record it
on paper using color-coding (similarly to Colby’s buttons) in order to count the number of movements
in each attempt and finally decide on the fastest/most effective itinerary. Once they found it, each team
member had the opportunity to press the buttons and program Colby following the instructions of the
‘secretary’ who ‘read’ the commands recorded on paper. On average, each team managed to complete
two routes a day during the time they had at their disposal (see Figure 5).
EVALUATION
In all educational scenarios, evaluation activities are fundamental in order to determine whether the desired
objectives are achieved and to reveal strengths/weaknesses for future improvement. The research tools,
outlined earlier in the chapter, offered valuable evidence of children’s programming skills development
and their enthusiastic participation in all activities. Additionally, comparison of their perceptions and
drawings about robots before and after the intervention revealed cognitive changes concerning not only
a robot’s nature and abilities but also its socialization aspect (compare Tables 2 & 4, see Appendix).
During the intervention, formative evaluation was constant: through discussions and student interaction
with the materials and with each other, the teacher systematically monitored each child’s development,
planned improvement actions and / or redefined the type and level of difficulty of the proposed activities.
Implementing this scenario depended on the reactions and educational needs of the students to whom it
was addressed. The result of students’ work and interaction was constantly visible via the video record-
ings so, the teacher had a clear picture of the course of the activities and the evolution of their thinking.
Figure 5. The teams are training for the Robot Olympics and rejoicing at their success. Notice the notes
of the ‘secretary’ which are highlighted in red circles
96

Evaluating Learners’ Programming Skills (Robot Olympics)
Assessing the acquisition of basic programming skills could be determined by a simple individual pro-
gramming task, however such a process is not considered developmentally appropriate for preschool
children. Additionally, children’s work with the robotic device was overall a playful group activity and it
should be evaluated as such. Therefore, the decision to give the form of Robot Games to the evaluation
of the children’s programming skills aimed to keep this process in harmony with the social and playful
nature of the whole intervention. Moreover, the element of competition, which was vital to the Games but
completely lacking during training stages, added to student motivation and enhanced their engagement.
The ‘Robot Olympics’ took place during the 10th week of the program in the form of a champion-
ship as each team had to face three (3) opponents in separate games so, in total, there were six (6) races
per day on the same route though (see Figure 6). The first team to finish won five (5) points and the
second team won three (3) points. Each team was entitled to three (3) attempts per game but each wrong
attempt cost them one (1) point. For example, if a team finished first after one incorrect attempt, they
gained four (4) points whereas if they finished second after one incorrect attempt, they gained two (2)
points. If they did not manage to send Colby to the cheese after all three attempts, they just scored zero
(0) points. All the points each team collected, were recorded on a special ‘Games Board” (see Table
3). At the end of the day, there was a class discussion about the course of the games and ideas were
exchanged on how to deal with the difficulties encountered; also, the total score and the ranking order
of each team were announced.
At the end of the fourth day, when all races finished, after a public count of the total points collected,
the final ranking of the winners was announced. All participants were deemed winners as long as their
team had won at least one (1) point in the ‘Robot Olympics’; the only difference was in the ranking order
written on the ‘Participation Certificate’. Medals and Cups were awarded to the children on the next day,
which was the last of the school year.
Figure 6. Teams competing against each other at the ‘Robot Olympics’
97

Table 3. Each team’s score per day indicating successful attempts and race outcomes
Team Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4

“Superman” 1 4 0 5 5 5 5 3 3 2 2 3
“Run & Go” 0 0 3 1 4 5 1 5 5 4 2 3
“Strong” 4 3 0 0 3 5 4 4 5 5 5 5
“Butterfly” 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 2 3 5 3 5
Upon the completion of the intervention, there was a new discussion about the children’s views on
robots and their role in our lives. Their responses were also recorded and compared to the ones given at
the beginning of the programme, revealing the cognitive changes which occurred during this time. The
main difference observed is that the majority of children verbally highlighted the feature of program-
ming: that the robot is controlled by its operators (see Table 4). As for the drawings, the robot had taken
a specific form (Colby’s, as expected) and it was mostly depicted among children which reflects the
group nature of the activities and their recent experience from the ‘Robot Olympics’ (see Appendix).
Table 4. Student views on robots after the intervention
“What is a robot and what can it do in our lives?”

Α1: It does what you tell it to do, it comes if you tell it so and it cleans.
Α3: It does what we tell it to do and does all the work until it breaks down but you have to press the buttons to control it.
Α4: If we tell it to dance, it will dance. If we tell it to sleep, it will sleep. If we tell it to open the curtains, it will open them. If we tell it
to fall in the swimming pool, it will fall. If we tell it to come and bathe me, it will bathe me. A robot can do mom’s chores so mom can
rest... it can set the table, make food...
Τ5: You can program it to go right and left and forward and back, to go to work and when it returns to prepare, cook, make the bed and
go to sleep.
Τ6: They are a bit rhythmic and have a lot of wires and it is a bit electric and we always have to turn it off at night.
Evaluating the Intervention: Discussion
Student interest in the robot remained high throughout the intervention. Only the youngest children
showed signs of fatigue at the end of the first stage, when they played in plenary and had to wait their
turn, which is expected because this activity greatly outlasted the maximum 20-minute attention span
of 5-year-olds. This fatigue was actually what marked the end of the first stage. However, it is worth
noting that most older children (5,5 – 6 years old) remained focused on each player, especially if he/
she was a good friend, and tried to help him/her make the right choices and achieve the goal. Especially
the children who were the last to play often managed to complete each route without any mistakes,
precisely because they had observed their classmates and identified which buttons they had to press. As
days went by, an increasing number of students seemed to learn through ‘trial and error’ – their class-
mates’ errors, not their own. Therefore, although initially the first stage was considered a ‘necessary
evil’ (all children needed to learn the robot function but waiting their turn was boring), finally it proved
to be particularly important because it offered learners the opportunity to observe, think and discover
the correct sequence of the programming commands for each route through the mistakes of their peers.
Of course, this realization led to modifications of the second stage: the original idea was for each child
98

to play in Colby’s corner individually but it became clear that group play might lead to better student
performance. Moreover, the robot’s popularity led to the decision to play in small groups, based on the
order of arrival at ‘Colby’s house’.
Unfortunately though, most children remained at ‘Colby’s house’ until it was their turn to program
the robot, but as soon as they finished, they left to play elsewhere. They watched their peers’ efforts
but showed no interest in giving advice or learning from them. During this stage, nobody managed to
complete a flawless command sequence after observing previous erroneous attempts. A possible expla-
nation might be that learners only watched a limited number of attempts because groups consisted of
3-4 members and only spent 10-15 minutes on the activity whereas, in stage 1, they had the chance to
watch around 20 attempts in 35-40 minutes. The random composition of each group seemed to have an
additional inhibiting effect: more substantial interactions were observed when friends found themselves
in ‘Colby’s house’ at the same time; they helped each other and rejoiced when their friends succeeded
thus, they remained more engaged throughout the activity. Having noticed these group dynamics, for the
next and most demanding stage of the program, it was decided that each group should consist of friends
and be fixed throughout the rest of the activities. So, children had to decide which friends they would
choose as their teammates for the Games.
Indeed, creating teams of friends acted as a catalyst, increasing student interest and boosting their
cooperation. Moreover, the thrill of the upcoming Games and the desire to win motivated most children
to make conscious efforts in order to achieve effective and fast route-planning. There were certainly some
initial difficulties before they understood how to use the programming cards together in order to plan the
route more quickly, taking advantage of everyone’s suggestions especially about left/right turns which
were most troublesome. Also, there were some conflicts over who would act as the team secretary and
record their attempts or who would press Colby’s buttons. Some children tried to assume leadership and
took initiatives that the rest did not approve of, while others attempted to monopolize all responsibili-
ties and the rest of the team complained about not having the opportunity to make decisions or choices.
Two teams (“Superman” and “Run & Go”) managed to reach a good level of cooperation during
training, despite their disagreements and ‘power’ struggles as they consisted of dynamic members, while
the other two teams (“Strong” and “Butterfly”) trained calmly and without much conflict, they finally
developed a strategy based mainly on individual initiative rather than actual collaboration.
Group Dynamics and Social Skills
During the Games, group dynamics within each team ultimately determined the outcome of the matches.
It seems that the stress to quickly program the robot’s route and get victory points negatively affected
the teams in a distinctive way.
In the first days of the games, the teams consisting of members with strong personalities and high
programming skills, who had managed to cooperate well in training and get excellent results, found it
very difficult to finish in first place as they all tried to impose their own ideas: one member would often
undo the other member’s right choices believing he/she could do it better. Thus, they lost valuable time
or ended up failing an attempt, which cost them points. This is why they found themselves in 2nd and 3rd
place in the final ranking.
99

The “Butterfly” team, which consisted of quiet, low-key children, initially tried to implement the
individual approach they had used during training: each member in turn attempted to program the robot
once. They soon realized that this was not a good strategy since on the first day of the ‘Robot Olym-
pics’ they did not complete any route correctly and remained at zero points. However, they gradually
understood that working together had better results so, they started thinking collectively and discussing
their choices, which allowed them to improve steadily and even achieve several victories, especially on
the last day (see Table 3). An interesting fact is that they discovered the advantages of this collaborative
approach during the Games. It is possible that the frustration caused by the initial consecutive failures
combined with the desire for victory spurred them to discover the most effective approach and score
winning points. Before the ‘Robot Olympics’, they were content with just planning and completing each
training route on their own, no matter how much effort/time was needed. But when this behavior led
to repeated defeats in the Games, they felt annoyed enough to reconsider their approach and motivated
enough to explore various options and pursue victory. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that the Games
were the key factor which enabled them to collaborate effectively.
In contrast, the “Strong” team (which also continued implementing the individual approach they
had chosen during training) finally ranked 1st, having achieved the most victories and the most flawless
routes because its members actually chose not to cooperate at all: namely the two members (T1 and T2)
recognized early on the highly developed programming skills of the third member (A2), so they selected
him to take initiative and complete each route alone, keeping for themselves a supportive role and of
course the joy of victory. When the other teams quarreled over who would select the cards and who
would press the buttons and blamed each other for the mistakes and delays, the “Strong” team entrusted
the whole game to A2 and then congratulated each other and celebrated the victory together.
CONCLUSION
Students were enthusiastic about the robotics program; most of them preferred to ‘work’ with Colby or
watch others do it rather than play in another activity center. The children always watched in suspense
as Colby tried to reach its ‘cheese’ and every successful programming attempt was always met with ap-
plause and cheers, while mistakes lead to reflection, discussion, and a return to the programming cards
for debugging and correction. Overall, the activities designed and implemented seem to have had a
positive impact on all students and affect various learning areas. The related case study results indicate
notable improvement of the target CT skills in all participants (Roussou & Rangoussi, 2020). Addition-
ally, observation of student behaviour reveals significant development of several social skills, such as
team work, collaboration, negotiation and compromise, which are fundamental to building meaningful
social relationships. Discussion with students during the post-test sessions shows progress in language
skills such as oral communication, use of conditionals, picture description and expression/justification
of ideas. Last but not least, the kindergartners’ joy and commitment were consistently high and virtually
undiminished throughout the activities with Colby which attests to the success of this educational scenario.
100

REFERENCES
Alemi, M., Meghdari, A., & Ghazisaedy, M. (2015). The Impact of Social Robotics on L2 Learners’
Anxiety and Attitude in English Vocabulary Acquisition. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(4),
523–535. doi:10.100712369-015-0286-y
Allan, W., Coulter, B., Denner, J., Erickson, J., Lee, I., Malyn-Smith, J., & Martin, F. (2010). Computa-
tional Thinking for Youth. ITEST Small Working Group on Computational Thinking. Available at http://
stelar.edc.org/sites/stelar.edc.org/files/Computational_Thinking_paper.pdf
Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through
educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems,
75, 661–670. doi:10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.008
Bers, M. (2008). Blocks to Robots: Learning with technology in the early childhood classroom. Teach-
ers College Press.
Bers, M., Ponte, I., Juelich, K., Viera, A., & Schenker, J. (2002). Teachers as Designers: Integrating
Robotics in Early Childhood Education. Information Technology in Childhood Education. AACE.
Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children.
Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(2).
Bers, M. U., Flannery, E. L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tin-
kering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145–157.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020
Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Dettori, G., Ferrari, A. & Engelhardt, K. (2016). Developing compu-
tational thinking in compulsory education – Implications for policy and practice. EUR 28295 EN.
doi:10.2791/792158
Brennan, K. (2011). Creative computing: A design-based introduction to computational thinking. Avail-
able at https://scratched.gse.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/curriculumguide-v20110923.pdf
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). Using artifact-based interviews to study the development of compu-
tational thinking in interactive media design. Paper presented at annual American Educational Research
Association Meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Burke, Q., & Kafai, Y. B. (2010). Programming & storytelling: opportunities for learning about coding
& composition. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on interaction design and children.
(pp. 348- 351). Barcelona: ACM. 10.1145/1810543.1810611
Clements, D. H., & Meredith, J. S. (1993). Research on LOGO: Effects and efficacy. Journal of Com-
puting in Childhood Education, 4, 263–290.
Dede, C., Mishra, P., & Voogt, J. (2013). Advancing computational thinking in 21st century learning.
EDUsummIT 2013, International summit on ICT in education.
Dewey, J. (1966). Experience and Education. In F. W. Garforth (Ed.), John Dewey: Selected Educational
Writings. Heinemann.
101

Elkin, M., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Programming with the KIBO Robotics Kit in preschool
classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 33(3), 169–186. doi:10.1080/07380569.2016.1216251
Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5-6 year-old kindergarten children in
a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education, 63, 87–97. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2012.11.016
Fisch, K., & McLeod, S. (2007). Did you know? Available at https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=pMcfrLYDm2U
Flannery, L. P., & Bers, M. U. (2013). Let’s Dance the “Robot Hokey-Pokey!”: Children’s programming
approaches and achievement throughout early cognitive development. Journal of Research on Technol-
ogy in Education, 46(1), 81–101. doi:10.1080/15391523.2013.10782614
Flannery, L.-P., Kazakoff, E.-R., Bontá, P., Silverman, B., Bers, M.-U., & Resnick, M. (2013) Designing
ScratchJr: support for early childhood learning through computer programming. In Proceedings of the 12th
International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ’13), ACM. 10.1145/2485760.2485785
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Edu-
cational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. doi:10.3102/0013189X12463051
Highfield, K. (2010). Robotic toys as a catalyst for mathematical problem solving. Australian Primary
Mathematics Classroom, 15(2), 22–27.
Highfield, K., Mulligan, J., & Hedberg, J. (2008). Early mathematics learning through exploration with
programmable toys. Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME 32 and PME-NA XXX, 3, 169-176.
Howland, K., Good, J., & Nicholson, K. (2009). Language-based support for computational thinking.
IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC 2009), 147–150.
10.1109/VLHCC.2009.5295278
Institute of Educational Policy. (2014). Kindergarten Curriculum (revised edition). Author.
Ioannou, M., & Bratitsis, T. (2017). Teaching the Notion of Speed in Kindergarten Using the Sphero
SPRK Robot. 17th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT).
10.1109/ICALT.2017.70
João-Monteiro, M., Cristóvão-Morgado, R., Bulas-Cruz, M., & Morgado, L. (2003). A robot in kinder-
garten. Proceedings Eurologo’2003 – Re-inventing technology on education.
Johnson, J. (2003). Children, robotics, and education. Artificial Life and Robotics, 7(1/2), 16–21.
doi:10.1007/BF02480880
Kafai, Y. (2016). From computational thinking to computational participation in K–12 education. Com-
munications of the ACM, 59(8), 26–27. doi:10.1145/2955114
102

Kandroudi, M., & Bratitsis, T. (2016). Διδάσκοντας προγραμματισμό σε μικρές ηλικίες με φορητές
συσκευές μέσω του παιχνιδιού Kodable και του ScratchJr: Mελέτη περίπτωσης [Teaching programming
at an early age with mobile devices through Kodable and ScratchJr: Case study]. In T.A. Mikropoulos,
A Tsiara, & P. Chalki (Eds.), Proceedings 8th Panhellenic Conference «Διδακτική της Πληροφορικής»
(pp 133-140). ETΠE.
Karkani, E. (2017). H εκπαιδευτική ρομποτική ως αφόρμηση για τη διδασκαλία γλωσσικών μαθημάτων
στην πρωτοβάθμια εκπαίδευση [Educational robotics as an impetus for the teaching of language courses
in primary education]. Proceedings of 5th Panhellenic Conference «Ένταξη και Xρήση των TΠE στην
Eκπαιδευτική Διαδικασία», 604-614.
Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2014). Put your robot in, Put your robot out: Sequencing through
programming robots in early childhood. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(4), 553–573.
doi:10.2190/EC.50.4.f
Komis, V., & Misirli, A. (2013). Étude des processus de construction d’algorithmes et de programmes
par les petits enfants à l’aide de jouets programmables [Study of the processes of construction of algo-
rithms and programs by small children using programmable toys]. Dans Sciences et technologies de
l’information et de la communication (STIC) en milieu éducatif: Objets et méthodes d’enseignement et
d’apprentissage, de la maternelle à l’université.
Korosidou, E., Meditskou, E. & Bratitsis. (2013). Παραγωγή και λήψη οδηγιών κίνησης στο χώρο κατά
την εκμάθηση της Aγγλικής ως ξένης γλώσσας με το ρομπότ BeeBot. Proceedings 3rd Panhellenic
Conference «Ένταξη και χρήση των TΠE στην εκπαιδευτική διαδικασία».
La Paglia, F., Rizzo, R., La Barbera, D., & Cardaci, M. (2010). Using robotics construction kits as meta-
cognitive tools: Research in an Italian primary school. Annual Review of Cybertherapy and Telemedicine.
Advanced Technologies in the Behavioral. Social Neuroscience, 154, 110–114.
Lee, K., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). Collaboration by design: Using robotics to foster social in-
teraction in kindergarten. Computers in the Schools, 30(3), 271–281. doi:10.1080/07380569.2013.805676
Markelis, I., Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2009). Introduction of educational robotics in primary
and secondary education: reflections on practice and theory. In D. Alimisis, K. Papanikolaou, S. Fr-
angou, & M. Kantonidou (Eds.), Lessons Learnt from The TERECOP Project and new Pathways into
Educational Robotics Across Europe (pp. 25–26). Academic Press.
Misirli, A., & Komis, V. (2014). Robotics and Programming Concepts in Early Childhood Education:
A Conceptual Framework for Designing Educational Scenarios. In C. Karagiannidis, P. Politis, & I.
Karasavvidis (Eds.), Research on e-Learning and ICT in Education. Springer.
Misirli, A., Komis, V., & Ravanis, K. (2019). The Construction of Spatial Awareness in Early Child-
hood: The Effect of an Educational Scenario-Based Programming Environment. Rev. Sci. Math. ICT
Educ., 13, 111–124.
103

National Research Council. (2010). Committee for the Workshops on Computational Thinking: Report
of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. Washington, DC: National Academies
Press. Available at https://www.nap.edu/read/12840/chapter/3#13
Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Zaranis, N. (2016). ‘Developing fundamental programming con-
cepts and computational thinking with ScratchJr in preschool education: A case study’, Int. J. Mobile
Learning and Organisation, 10(3), 187–202. doi:10.1504/IJMLO.2016.077867
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11).
Ablex.
Perković, L., Settle, A., Hwang, S., & Jones, J. (2010). A framework for computational thinking across
the curriculum. In Proceedings of the 15th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer
science education. ACM. 10.1145/1822090.1822126
Portelance, D.-J., & Bers, M.-U. (2015). Code and tell: assessing young children’s learning of compu-
tational thinking using peer video interviews with ScratchJr. In Proceedings of the 14th International
Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ’15). ACM. 10.1145/2771839.2771894
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
doi:10.1108/10748120110424816
Pugnali, A., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2017). The impact of user interface on young children’s compu-
tational thinking. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 16, 171–193.
doi:10.28945/3768
Resnick, M. (1996). Programmable bricks: Toys to think with. IBM Systems Journal, 35(3 & 4), •••.
Resnick, M. (2003). Playful learning and creative societies. Educator’s Update, 8(6).
Resnick, M. (2007). Sowing the seeds for a more creative society. Learning and Leading with Technol-
ogy, 35(4), 18–22.
Resnick, M. (2013, May). Learn to Code, Code to Learn. EdSurge.
Robinson, M. (2005). Robotics-Driven Activities: Can They Improve Middle School Science Learning?
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 25(1), 73–84. doi:10.1177/0270467604271244
Roussou, E., & Rangoussi, M. (2020). On the Use of Robotics for the Development of Computational
Thinking in Kindergarten: Educational Intervention and Evaluation. In M. Merdan, W. Lepuschitz, G.
Koppensteiner, R. Balogh, & D. Obdržálek (Eds.), Robotics in Education. RiE 2019. Advances in In-
telligent Systems and Computing (Vol. 1023, pp. 33–44). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-26945-6_3
Royal Society. (2012). Shut down or restart: The way forward for computing in UK schools. Available
at https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/computing-in-schools/report/
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2015). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes
from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International Journal
of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 3–20. doi:10.100710798-015-9304-5
104

Sullivan, A., Bers, M. U., & Mihm, C. (2017). Imagining, Playing, & Coding with KIBO: Using KIBO
Robotics to Foster Computational Thinking in Young Children. Proceedings of the International Con-
ference on Computational Thinking Education.
Sullivan, A., Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The wheels on the bot go round and round: Robotics
curriculum in pre-kindergarten. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice,
12, 203–219. doi:10.28945/1887
Sullivan, A., Strawhacker, A., & Bers, M. U. (2017). Dancing, drawing, and dramatic robots: Integrating
robotics and the arts to teach foundational STEAM concepts to young children. In Robotics in STEM
Education: Redesigning the Learning Experience. (pp. 231-260). Springer Publishing.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard
University Press.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
doi:10.1145/1118178.1118215
ADDITIONAL READING
Aho, A. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832–835.
doi:10.1093/comjnl/bxs074
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved
and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54.
doi:10.1145/1929887.1929905
Nickerson, R. S. (1982). Computer programming as a vehicle for teaching thinking skills. Thinking: The
Journal of Philosophy for Children, 4, 42–48.
Wing, J. (2016). Computational thinking, 10 years later. Microsoft Research Blog. Available at https://
www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/computational-thinking-10-years-later/
Activity Center: It is also called learning ‘corner’. A specific area in the classroom equipped with
educational materials targeting specific skills. For instance, the writing learning corner is at a quiet spot
and offers a selection of writing materials (i.e., pencils, papers, letter shapes, picture-letter flashcards,
etc.) to any child who feels like working with letters.
Compromise Skills: The ability to accept that one’s suggestions are not adopted (or desires are not
met) by their team and still work to achieve goals without shouting, pouting, undermining others, leaving
the group, or looking to the teacher for mediation.
Free Play: The kindergarten Curriculum allocates specific time during the day when children are
allowed to choose which activity center they want to play at, alone or with their friends.
105

In Plenary: Tasks, discussions or games which are addressed to all the students. They take place at
the designated classroom area that is equipped with seats for everyone so that they can present work,
express ideas, share experiences and make decisions as one group.
Negotiation Skills: The ability to discuss differences by respectfully presenting own views and trying
to convince others to adopt them. For instance, saying “I believe it would be better to press the orange
button because Colby must go left here! If we press the purple one, it won’t go correctly” instead of the
usual behavior of shouting, pouting, grabbing the object of disagreement or looking to the teacher for
mediation.
Preschooler/Kindergartner: A child who attends the official pre-primary school programme at a
school. In Greece, these children’s age ranges aged between 4 and 6 years.
Tangible (or Haptic) Programming: The programmer uses available keys/buttons or blocks to create
the desired code. It is closely connected with robotic devices, and it does not require any kind of screen.
106
APPENDIX
Table 5. Children’s drawings about robots
Robot Before the Intervention Robot After the Intervention

The robot is depicted in mouse form – it mostly looks exactly like Colby
The robot is mostly depicted in human form and it is usually
(blue with colored buttons on its back) and it is usually surrounded by
alone.
children.
Robot Games
Robot Games
continues on following page
107
Table 5. Continued
Robot Before the Intervention Robot After the Intervention
Robot Games
Robot Games
Robot Games
108
109
Chapter 6
Control Technologies
as Mind-Tools:
Emerging Mathematical Thinking
Through Experiential Coding Activities
in the Preschool Classroom
Spyros Kourias
University of Thessaly, Greece
ABSTRACT
In mathematics education, especially in early childhood that is considered the most formative period
in children’s lives, there is an always growing need to design, test, and validate tools and activities that
take advantage of recent pedagogical and technological advancements but still focus on the creative
learning process, instead of quantifying the outcomes and emphasizing numerical data and perfor-
mance. Educational robotics as a context for interdisciplinary problem-solving scenarios in preschool
education can be an interesting starting point, since modern control technologies are usually thought
to provide a rich variety of mind-tools that encourage active learning and children’s creative thinking.
Such activities may stimulate students to “do” mathematics in a seamless, creative, playful way in order
to solve meaningful and appealing (for them) problems. The study tries to explore and validate emerg-
ing preschoolers’ opportunities to unconsciously “mathematize” their environment in everyday playful
robotics activities in the context of brief teaching experiments.
INTRODUCTION
Educational Robotics (ER) is a rather recent learning approach that is known mainly for its effects on
scientific (academic) subjects such as Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM).
Interest in educational applications of robotics has risen sharply in the last 20 years or so, culminating in
the most recent decade, mainly thanks to the advent of more advanced, affordable devices and special-
ized software. The increased and more complex possibilities offered as well as the wider availability of
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-3861-9.ch006

Control Technologies as Mind-Tools
new tools and applications based on “open architecture” and cheaper material resources, allow further
experimentation and dissemination of the “makers” philosophy and practices to a wider age base of users.
The use of robotics and programming has a long-standing history in mathematics education as
well with tools such as “turtle” geometry or Logo explored in classrooms for almost 50 years (Papert,
1980). In the late 1960s, Papert and his floor turtle “launched” the field of educational robotics based
on tangible tools and artefacts, giving children the ability to not only process materials and create struc-
tures, but also to define and control their behavior. Since then, a new kind of hands-on material, either
tangible or digital (digital manipulatives) has made its appearance and is constantly evolving, offering
the opportunity to kids and their teachers to experiment with dynamic ideas and affordances that other
traditional tools, actually, have never been able to offer (Moyer- Packenham et al., 2015; Skoumpourdi,
2010). It should be mentioned, however, that the use of artificial intelligence and robotic devices and
constructions implies a connection with tangible tools that, since the time of Fröebel and Montessori,
still support learning through exploration and experiential practices (Brosterman & Togashi, 1997).
There also seems to be a direct link with Resnick & Rosenbaum’s (2013) “tinkering approach” which
refers to activity that engages children in a playful, experiential and iterative way of doing things with
or even without the aid of advanced technology.
For the above reasons, the trend of ER deliberately focuses on a range of control-technology edu-
cational tools in a variety of fields, addressing a variety of learning objectives (Keren & Fridin, 2014;
Benitti, 2012 Eguchi, 2010; Nugent et al. 2010) and outcomes such as improving problem-solving skills
(Alimisis, 2013; Benitti, 2012), cultivating cognitive flexibility and metacognitive practices in early
and late childhood (Mioduser & Levy, 2010; Sullivan, 2008) as well as encouraging a positive attitude
towards the STEM field (Lindh & Holgersson 2007; La Paglia et al, 2011) etc. In addition, recent studies
have assessed the effects of robot programming on cognitive and learning processes, such as decision-
making, self-awareness, problem-solving, and computational thinking (La Paglia et al., 2011; Kazakoff
and Bers, 2014; Atmatzidou et al., 2018; Tuomi et al., 2018; Atmatzidou & Demetriadis, 2016 · Eguchi,
2014 · Keren & Fridin, 2014 · Alimisis, 2013 · Bers et al., 2014).
In this chapter, through our research work, we intend to point out that teaching experiments based on
ER in preschool classrooms, are indeed capable of generating an infinite variety of tangible representations
and mediators that encourage experimentation with mathematical concepts and facilitate mathematical
thinking in its whole. Our aim is to investigate how ER contexts can potentially lead to concrete math-
ematical constructs which can retain their dual role either as tools that model real world processes and
events, or as means of (logical) reasoning. Our study explores emerging preschoolers’ “mathematizing
opportunities” in everyday robotics play activities in the context of brief teaching experiments. Building
on an ethnomethodological and multimodal discourse analytic framework, we suggest that mathematics
(i.e. representations, spatiality, spatial reasoning, basic arithmetic operations such as addition, subtraction
and even multiplication etc.) are expressed and actualized in children’s verbal and embodied interaction
with their peers, material environment and more “experienced others”. We argue that new understand-
ings and powerful ways of reasoning become possible on the basis of culturally mediated mathematical
constructs produced in the context of creative and collaborative play of preschoolers with robots (floor
turtles and more complex kits), coding and open-ended scenarios. As an additional supportive tool, the
multiple implications of Vygotsky’s theoretical work, and especially the approaches that have emerged
concerning the analysis of classroom interaction, such as the work of Rogoff (2003) and Kumpulainen
& Wray (2002) can clearly complement teachers’ concerns and work. Basic concepts and pillars of our
110

interpretive framework are the importance of the “more experienced other” in the contextualization of
knowledge, the dynamics of interactions, the social framework, the tools for “mediating” thinking and
cognitive processes.
BACKGROUND
In our experiments we consider modern control technologies as the most “up-to-date” learning tools and
their implementation context as a sophisticated “mathland” even more effective and close to children’s
playfulness and needs than even Papert -who coined the term in his seminal book “Minstorms” (1980)-
had ever imagined. Creating from scratch or deploying ready-made “mathlands”, means that children
get the opportunity to collaboratively experiment with mathematical phenomena in their real-world
environments using tangible objects in ways that afford situated learning, embodied interaction and
playful constructionism. Current programmable kits and coding environments, through the advanced
capabilities they offer, highlight new opportunities for learning, including different ways to promote
creativity, cognitive development and social interaction (Kozima et al., 2009) and encourage a stronger
understanding of concepts and processes that surround children.
Regarding preschool, a field that is of particular concern to our own research, we stress the fact that
the lack of extensively documented research focusing on young children (4-6 years old) may be due to
the complexity of mainstream robotics kits (eg EV3, Mindstorms, Arduino, etc.) that is associated with
richer cognitive experiences and skills usually expected from children over 7-8 years old. However, it
seems that during the last decade, interest has increased sharply and significantly based on the notion
that “early robotics” and easily accessible robotic toys can be associated with an almost “effortless”,
playful and unconscious interaction of preschoolers with a variety of processes and powerful STEM
ideas (Bers et al. 2014; Kazakoff et al. 2013; Chronaki & Kourias, 2012).
Therefore, it is argued that ER as a modern manipulative, can help make abstract ideas more spe-
cific, as the child can observe directly the impact of his/her programming commands on the immediate
actions of the robot (Bers, 2008). Moreover, interaction with this type of control technologies seems to
be appropriate for preschool children (Bers et al., 2014), as they are engaged in processes that activate
and improve the innate tendency to explore, fine motor skills, embedded experience in the environment,
observation and mathematical logic (Frye et al., 1996) without engaging in static interaction exclusively
with the computer environment in front of a screen. In particular, Bers et al. (2014) and Kazakoff et al.
(2013) verify the improvement of children’s procedural thinking and classification skills as well as sort-
ing, measuring and recognizing patterns. Besides, classification is a component of design and involves
placing objects or actions in the correct order (Zelazo et al. 1997) such as representing a story in a logical
sequence, placing numbers in the correct order, and understanding the sequence of activities. of a day.
Sequences, along with sorting, measuring, and recognizing patterns, are considered the “building blocks”
of a child’s emerging logical thinking that begins to examine the world around him/her in the light of
mathematics (Sarama & Clements, 2009). This seems to be further confirmed by other research stud-
ies as well, in which children along with adults in a collaborative effort to program and control a robot
seem to come “effortlessly” in contact with mathematical ideas such as representation, symbolization,
and modeling of movement (Chronaki & Kourias, 2012). Elkin et al. (2016) emphasize the evolution of
children’s knowledge in relation to fundamental programming concepts through tangible programming
111

blocks. Last but not least, Di Lieto et al. (2017) suggest that the engagement of preschool children in ER
activities leads to a significant improvement in both the retention of information in short-term spatial
memory and the development of algorithmic thinking and programming skills.
EDUCATIONAL ROBOTICS AS MIND-TOOLS THAT MEDIATE

LEARNING AND ENCOURAGE CONCEPTUALIZATION
AND ENGAGEMENT WITH POWERFUL IDEAS
The contribution and added learning value of ER especially for young children is mainly about active
participation, immediate interaction with the environment and the relations that it encompasses, as well
as the feedback that it generates and the processes that encourage the development of mental models.
Following Piaget’s constructivist theoretical model which implies that learning is indeed an active process
of constructing experience-based knowledge, as well as Vygotsky’s theory on socially “crafted” learning,
Papert envisioned coding, robotics and educational computing in general as a “next-generation” kind of
mind-tools, as “objects-to-think-with” (Papert, 1980). The central insight of Papert’s constructionism
is that when learning takes place in a meaningful and playful context, the learner is expected to recur
to the direct feedback and outcome that is generated from the environment in relation to the intended
goal, in order to improve their reactions and work out a better solution without the need for further ex-
ternal guidance or extrinsic teacher intervention (Laurillard, 2012). Papert also seems to share one of
Vygotsky’s fundamental ideas regarding the importance of physical (tangible) and mental engagement
with educational tools in order for the cognitive development processes to be facilitated.
According to Vygotsky (1978), (mental) tools are able to significantly improve the learning behav-
ior of the individual as well as to play a key role in his/her mental development. The importance of
(educational) tools in teaching and learning processes seems to emerge more and more recently (Meira,
1998) and is often associated with supporting effective classroom communication (Mercer & Sams,
2006), the development of critical thinking, computational skills and practices (Jacobs & Kusiak, 2006)
and the exploration of new ideas (Pimm, 1995). Learning processes are based on spontaneous, often
temperamental motivations that can be structured and organized more effectively with the help of tools
that lead to a more “responsible”, autonomous learning model with future references and extensions.
For this reason, the absence of tools is considered to have long-term consequences in relation to learn-
ing because they are able to deeply affect the level of understanding of abstract concepts on the part of
children. Without such tools, many children may interpret and reformulate several scientific phenomena,
but they will result unable to transfer and apply existing knowledge to other problems and related fields
(Bodrova & Leong, 1996). Moreover, according to Vygotsky (cited in Cole et al., 1978), mental tools
are equally important and useful with physical-mechanical tools because they can be invented ad lib,
used, reused and taught to be used by others.
Following this, a child needs to actively explore, sense the environment and its components, make
comparisons, discuss, relate, design and redesign the arrangement of objects until he/she builds his/her
own knowledge and understand concepts before integrating them into their pre-existing cognitive load.
In any case, every educational object or material does not automatically reveal its “tool status”, which it
acquires if and when the individual himself/herself becomes able to integrate it meaningfully into his/
her activity through the creation of new mental shapes or its attachment to pre-existing ones. Within this
“tooling” or “tool genesis” process, as it is called by Zbiek et al. (2007), the individual interacts with
112

artefacts and builds “fresh” knowledge in order to achieve specific goals. According to Pimm (1995),
however, the selection and integration of even the theoretically most appropriate mind-tool into a learning
practice does not automatically lead to the understanding of concepts and learning. In the “dialectical”
relationship with the environment and (educational) artefacts, it is necessary to frame activities that will
be meaningful for children and will be enhanced by the discreet support and feedback of the teacher
who will scaffold the whole process. Skoubourdi (2010) considers that educational materials can be
turned into useful mind-tools for learning especially mathematical concepts as long as their integration
undergoes careful planning coupled with good knowledge of both their “hidden” features and potential
connections to concepts and (mathematical) ideas. In addition, to ensure the prospect of turning an object
into a useful mind-tool in the hands of children, it is important to be aware of the possibilities it provides
for supporting gradual movement towards abstract thinking.
In the context of the present study, we suggest that (mind)tools like those generated in ER and control
technology contexts, help children to form their motor, cognitive and emotional behaviors, to react to
processes based on specific patterns, to design, solve problems and activate their memory and in general
take on the role of “mediator”, more like a cognitive amplifier and “intellectual partner”. We argue that
ER acts like a rich context that is able to empower children to discover or invent mind-tools since it frames
similar principles through the design-thinking process in which participants have to reflect on a problem,
collaboratively design meaningful projects, manipulate objects, tinker, reflect, test and validate solutions
as well as associate concepts through cause-effect relations. Moreover, ER and especially more recent
and open-architecture oriented tools (e.g. Arduino, Makey Makey etc.) go a step beyond by emphasizing
real world processes and making practices out of the computer screen and without the need for testing
and validating outcomes exclusively in digital environments. As Mikropoulos & Bellou (2013) suggest,
working with robots, students shorten or even eliminate the distance between the “objects of the world”
and the “computational objects” such as variables. The existence of robotic artefacts as physical and
concrete objects offers the tangible tool to the children to work with and construct their mental models
more easily and effectively. We firmly believe that educational robots bring into effect the constructiv-
ist and constructionist principles as a result of the combination of both their tangible (hardware) and
intangible (software) components. Resnick and Silverman (2005) also suggest that control technologies
that engage children in tinkering with objects and materials, empower the exploration of the ideas and
concepts that underlie their creations and for this reason they should be regarded as powerful mind-tools
(Bers et al., 2013).
METHODOLOGY: DESCRIPTION OF THE EXPERIMENTS
Our research consists of different episodes that we have collected at different times between 2012-2019
in various kindergarten schools located in typical urban settings (Volos, central Greece). It is clearly
influenced by the sociocultural theoretical framework (Cole, 1978; Rogoff, 2003; Kumpulainen & Wray,
2002) within which, the dominant elements are those of peer-to-peer learning, tangible, hands-on expe-
rience, scaffolded exploration and understanding of the environment and the relationships that emerge
within it as well as the importance of mental tools that mediate concepts and processes.
The research involves -gradually and equally distributed in groups/sessions- 90 children, (50) boys
and (40) girls aged between 4.5-6 years and their selection was always done randomly with no personal
opinion of the researcher or suggestion of the teachers to be taken into account. Each time, the teach-
113

ing experiment was implemented in four distinct stages, each of which was designed to lead to data
that could potentially answer our research questions. The complete flowchart of the research process
with the individual phases and their connection with the research protocol, is fully reflected in figure
1. Stage 1 served as an introductory meeting with the children and at the same time as a preparatory
activity for the class to get acquainted with the research tools. In Stage 2, a semi-structured individual
interview was conducted in combination with spatial micro-tasks with each child separately. The aim
was to explore any previous experiences and mental patterns of children in relation to both space and
the use of technologies and programmable systems before the implementation of the main group activi-
ties. Stage 3 was actually the teaching intervention per se, that lasted, each time, two days and a total
of four teaching hours with each of the groups of children. Stage 4 resulted to the final semi-structured
individual assessment interviews through which we had the chance to understand if and how children
could transfer and apply newly acquired spatial knowledge and skills in open-ended spatial challenges
in a digital environment (Lightbot application).
Figure 1. Teaching experiment workflow
The broader organization of our teaching experiments is based on the importance of the social con-
text as a significant factor that contributes to defining cognitive practices and strategies but also as an
“enhancer” of potential Zones of Proximal Development (Cole et al., 1978). Therefore, the approach of
learning in this light, influences both the design of the teaching experiments and the activities that are
expected to facilitate the development of children’s mathematical thinking and tangible experience of
space, the emergence of the dynamics of mental tools (pre-defined or emerging) and (verbal, symbolic,
graphic, etc.) representations as mediating conceptual means. The same applies to the qualitative analysis
and interpretation of our research data which is based on an ad-hoc analysis tool that draws its inspira-
114

tion from Rogoff’s “Three Foci of Analysis” (1998) and Kumpulainen and Wray’s theory on analyzing
classroom interaction (2002).
Following this theoretical framework, emphasis is placed on the utilization of ER not as an “enhancer”
of techno-centric skills but as a means of creating multifaceted representations of space and collabora-
tive construction of mathematical concepts. More specifically, our research aims to identify mainly
which spatial skills and “powerful ideas” and under what conditions can be encouraged and enhanced
with the aid of modern control technologies, while trying to make sense of the dynamics contained in
the combined and representational rich use of relevant tools mainly through tangible programming and
code synthesis in mixed environments (physical and digital). All this grounded in a broader qualitative
approach and more specifically in the teaching experiment practice which is already widely tested in
the field of mathematics education and allows the micro-ethnographic recording and interpretation of
“events” within the classroom community (Kelly & Lesh, 2012 · Glasersfeld, 2006) Cobb et al., 2003)
putting an emphasis on communication events rather than strictly on the final (quantitative) performance
of children.
In each teaching experiment, the problem-solving practice was rather “modular”, as the engagement
with the research tools concerned individual action initially, went on with work in pairs and ended up
with group work. The activities were all open-ended based on the use of programmable devices (Bee-Bot,
Lego NXT) in different - robot design and movement coding- scenarios in the context of a small-scale
model that represented an urban environment. In the first stage, based on a short story, we asked each
team to program their robot to reach a specific point in the model. Each child should study and draw
with a marker on a worksheet a suggested route and then present it to the rest of the group for discussing,
comparing and picking the most appropriate-shortest route. At a later stage, children had to represent
the same route, this time using tangible, puzzle-like code-blocks. In essence, it all goes down to a sort
of visual programming processes through the use of print-out cards, each of which represented simple
movement and activity commands (“go straight”, “go backwards”, “turn right”, “turn left”). The final
results (visualized movement scripts) of each preschooler’s work represented a step-by-step route plan
of the robot’s movement and could expose children both individually and collaboratively in conditions
of open solution of a spatial problem until the selection of the optimal choice. In each stage of our re-
search, for the first-encounter activities, we used the “Bee-Bot” programmable “floor turtle” while for
the rest of the experimentation, we resorted to a pre-constructed simple Lego NXT robotic vehicle and
the appropriate accompanying software which implies processes of pseudocode design and develop-
ment for programming the behavior and movement of our experimental robots in a small-scale model.
The Bee-Bot roamer is directly linked to the philosophy of use and affordances of the early Logo turtle.
It is considered (DeMichele et al. 2008, Stoeckelmayr, 2011) suitable for either familiarizing children
aged 5-7 years old with basic aspects of computational thinking or encouraging spatial thinking. As can
be seen in Figure 2, it is essentially a device that is being programmed through its 7 built-in keys, each
of which has a different and representative symbol of movement or activity and corresponds to a specific
command each time (forward-backward direction, right-left turn, pause of one second, clear memory,
program execution). The width of each step of the Bee-Bot is 15 cm and to facilitate the procedures of
measuring and estimating distance on the part of children, it is equivalent to the length of a standard
marker. In addition, it is almost equivalent to the length of its own body, which is especially useful in
overlapping measurement scenarios. It does not need to be connected to a computer to be programmed
and it is based on the LOGO commands logic, however the execution of pseudocode, i.e. the movement
115

is a process that is not visualized in a dedicated screen but gets executed in a real environment, thus
seems more abstract.
Figure 2. Bee-bot: one of the teaching experiment’s educational robotics tools
For the activities of the second day of our teaching experiments, we resorted to the use of one fully
programmable, pre-constructed (earlier from us) Lego NXT robot vehicle with its corresponding software
that clearly refers to programming processes through blocks (images) and concerns the planning and execu-
tion of movement in space and beyond. The accompanying programming interface is a flowchart-based
environment that allows the user to code using icons representing all data types and basic commands and
programming structures in a symbolic format without the use of conventional commands. The coding
practice is rather understandable since it requires only dragging and dropping of each block from the
command palette (bottom of the screen) to a dedicated coding grid. We made sure that the NXT robot
had a total length as much as the Bee-Bot (15 cm) and therefore exactly as much as each quarter of the
surface of the small-scale city model. This was done in order to enable children to develop mental shapes
and strategies for managing movement and space with common references to both of the aforementioned
tools. Therefore, in the same light, we made sure that each step of the NXT robot was equivalent to 15
cm, which is the same as the step of Bee-Bot and the quarters of the floor on which it would perform
the respective movement. For this reason and in order not to engage children in complex and frustrating
programming processes, we decided to provide pre-configured movement commands whose icons were
replaced by custom representations that resembled the ones children would use to represent Bee-Bot’s
movement. Our intention was for these to be immediately understood without further misinterpretation.
116

It is necessary to point out that the choice of the two main tools (Lego NXT & Bee-Bot) of the teach-
ing experiment, which are also based on different ways of interaction between children and each device,
aimed at highlighting the different approach required for movement planning every time. It therefore
concerns the different strategies that children had to develop in order to perceive and deal with space
around them. Therefore, the emerging multiplicity of mediators and the diversity of the symbolic code
that emerges through the planning processes of the movement and functions as a “scaffolding” were
equally important to us. Regarding the special features of both basic tools that we chose, we could say
that in the case of NXT, the ease of composing a program using the mouse and simply placing icons
on the screen was of particular importance, even if we had to adapt the tools to the range of skills of
preschool children. On the other hand, in the case of Bee-Bot, an important feature was its resemblance
to toys familiar to children (shape, colors, figure, etc.) as well as the “safe” tangible interaction required
to plan its movement.
THE EFFECTS OF DEPLOYING EDUCATIONAL ROBOTICS AS MIND-TOOLS
Encouraging Preschoolers’ Mathematical Thinking
In our teaching experiments, we thought that the context of planning and coding the correct route of a
robot in a given small-scale three-dimensional urban landscape model would clearly encourage children
to think out of the box in a collaborative way, to explore, invent and reinvent a variety of mind-tools
while resorting to mathematical thinking for solving simple spatial problems. Besides, movement is a
way to interact with the external world and the physical placement of a body or an object (programmable
or not) in space as well as the mental and sensational feedback associated with movement are keys to
how humans shape, perceive and interpret their surroundings and what mediators they make use of in
order to better understand spatial interactions. The robotics-enhanced learning environments that we
have devised in the context of our research not only gave to children access to (mental) tools that favor
the development of spatial thinking and orientation skills through planning, testing and verifying routes
but they also opened up significant opportunities for “mathematizing” their environment on the basis of
spatial processes, crucial for solving problems related to the movement of a floor turtle such as Bee-Bot
or a robotic construction like NXT in a given small-scale space. All this leads to the use of environment
and context elements as informal tools for measuring and comparing distances as well as resorting to
simple operations such as addition, subtraction etc in a natural and seamless way.
In some of the episodes that we singled out, it seems that the value of involving children in such
spatial experiences and interactions lies exactly in the visualization of a rather abstract activity (move-
ment in space) and its perception as a single process which however consists of several intermediate
steps that are often “invisible” to preschoolers unless they are intrigued to explore them. It is therefore
obvious that during the initial planning of such activities it is rather necessary for children to be engaged
in a discussion regarding the semiotics of movement in space in order for them to explore how people
move through their surrounding and interact with objects. One of the most efficient ways to encourage
such a discussion was the coding sequences (coding cards and drawings) that we asked children to cre-
ate in an “alternative programming canvas” that would act in parallel as a graphical representation and
visualization of their decisions and thoughts about specific movement in space. At a later stage this very
“pseudocode” should be transferred to the “brain” of both Bee-Bot and the NXT in order for it to be
117

executed in the model environment. Moreover, especially the nature of a Bee-Bot, which contains the
tangible programming buttons on its body while it totally lacks a screen in which to display the children’s
“coding” options, in contrast to the NXT, led us to the need to represent the steps in an alternative way
so that they become visible in case of trial-error and debugging processes. For that reason, children were
asked to plan the robot’s movements by putting together flow-charts based on card-based sequences that
represented the robot’s step-by-step route which would later on be “executed” by Bee-Bot (sequence of
button pressing) or NXT (sequence of code-blocks in a programming environment).
According to what we observed throughout our experiments, in episodes just like the one that follows
next, when we ask from children to design and test their “movement diagram/sketch-up” of choice, this
usually acts as a powerful “mental tool” since it favors at the same time both the process of children’s
reflection on space and the “evolution” of the tool itself granted it is gradually improved -through trial
and error processes- regarding its efficiency in achieving the final goal of the route. It may be the most
important mental aid among those we have indirectly suggested to the children to use as, each time, it
triggered the emergence of practices necessary for solving a (spatial) problem, namely observation and
debugging (visualization and easier highlighting of the error), collaborative renegotiation of concepts
of space, reorganization of sequences, pattern discovery, argumentation and perception of movement as
a single serial process consisting in separate but interconnected steps.
RESEARCHER (R): Let’s see!! Did he do it right?

DANAE (D): Yes!! He went forward-forward-forward-turn-forward-forward-forward-turn-forward-
forward-turns and “Go”. (At the same time, she shows the icons with her hand meaning that she
tries to provide explanation, representation of an idea but also self-evaluation)
R: Let us check the program again for a while! Did we forget anything? ...
D: Oops, now I found it! (After thinking about it for a while and after observing the coding cards)
R: What should we do?
D: We have to follow this! (She shows us the “coding flow-chart/representation” in order to express her
point of view which emerged after observation. Danae begins to reorganize the steps carefully ob-
serving the “coding script” but at the point of the second left turn, due to her different point of view,
she stops and thinks about it. This is where Nico helps by pointing the right step with his finger).
R: Fine!! Let’s see! Shouldn’t she turn here? (We try to point out the point of confusion with a reinforc-
ing question)
D: Oh, come on! We should use an arrow like this. (Indicates direction but confuses “straight” and
“turn” icons)
NICO (N): Wait a minute! We did something wrong! Here it must turn. (changes the direction of the
straight-line icon so as to lead to a right turn).
There have also been certain scenarios in which the teacher invited the children to choose the shortest
of the routes for the robot to take in order to reach its destination. As a means of preventing the tem-
peramental and mainly egocentric way of thinking of children, which at an early stage lacks any rational
justification and is dictated mainly by enthusiasm, competition and dominant roles within the group, we
asked them to explain the differences between the suggested paths. This way we encouraged children to
indirectly explore, compare, discover and perceive the existence of any informal tools of measurement
and comparison that would naturally lead to the “mathematization” and quantification of an otherwise
temperamental and abstract- process, through operations of addition and subtraction. Such operations
118

seemed to encourage comparative processes regarding relations of inequalities, e.g. “greater than vs less
than”, “farther vs nearer”, “faster vs slower” and so forth, exactly as it is reflected in the following episode.
RESEARCHER (R): Think about it, how did we measure the bee’s steps yesterday? Think about which
of the routes is the fastest?
CHRISTINE (C): This one!
R: Well, yes, but without counting? Thanos, how many steps does our robot have to take up to here?
THANOS (T): 4, up here. 1 … 2 .... 3 .... 4 ... (Counts while pointing his finger on the floor plan)
NEFELI (N): It needs 5.
R: 5 eh? Let’s see! How did you measure them Nefeli?
N: I started off with this box.
R: This one is the starting point though! It should be left out. Well….
N: Hmm, 1 .... 2 .... 3 .... 4 .... 5 .... (Counts following the steps with her finger on the floor plan)
E: OK, 5! But what if we leave out this box?
N: Then it is 4!!
R: This route has 4 steps, this one too!! George’s route, how many steps does it have? (We attempt to
compare works that will trigger mathematical thinking and further discussion)
C: 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 4 ... 5 ... 6 ... 7 ... 8 ... (Counts following the steps with her finger on the floor plan)
R: 8! Christina, let’s see. Christina, how many steps does it take to get here?
C: It will be 4!!
R: Why do you say that? What made you think something like this?
C: She did what Nefeli did!
R: Aaah, then it is the same route?
C: Yes!
Q: Fine, which one do you suggest we should choose? Remember that we need a fast route.
C: Thanos’ route.
R: Why’s that?
C: Because it has 4 and is the shortest.
Such informal measuring tools were the Bee-Bot programming command cards (which represented
individual steps and quantified movement into measurable units as well as comparable numerical sets),
the NXT code-blocks (in the digital programming environment) as well as the quadrants of the small-
scale model that deliberately marked the surface on which the robots moved around as we can see in
figure 3. In the next episode, based on such “seamless” measuring and calculation tools, it was possible
to create the appropriate framework for all those mathematical operations and processes that in turn led
the children to find solutions to the respective spatial-programming problem of the “missions” that they
were assigned to them. Our main effort with children was to inspire them with the importance of a logi-
cal quantification of the elements that were at the same time part of the correct programming process
as well as to draw comparative conclusions based on operations and reasoned calculations and not on
random, abstract thinking.
RESEARCHER (R): I want you to measure the steps our robot needs to take. Do you remember how
we measured the steps?
THEODORE (T): Oh yes! With the arrows.
119

R: The arrows or something?

ATHENA (A): Maybe with the computer?
T: 7, 7!! (He looks at us with great confidence and we noticed him counting the steps as we formulated
the question)
R: How did you count them? Can you show me?
T: 1...2..3..4..5..6..7! (Counts while indicating the squares-steps to be taken based on the suggested
route suggested)
R: Let’s look here on the map to get a little more help. I want you to tell me if you can notice here (on
the surface of the model) how we can count the steps.
NASIA (N): Me sir! 6!
R: 6? How did you count it?
N & A: 1.2.3.4.5.6 (They count the steps in the model using their fingers)
A: I have 4!
T & N: 1.2.3.4.5.6
R: What does Athena say? See, what could we measure?
A: Maybe we should put 5. (Renegotiation through observation).
R: How did you think of that, Athena?
A: 1...2..3..4 ..5. (She counts the quadrants of the floor-plan of the small-scale model)
R: Wait a minute. What did you measure in order to tell us that it is 5?
A: Look, these. One “box”, another box and another and another.... (She clearly refers to the quarters
of the model’s floor-plan)
R: Well, nice idea. So, count the “boxes” and then write the number on your sheets. (After comparing
everybody’s suggested routes in relation to the final destination of the robot, the children end up
with “5”)
We rather think that the emerging development of children’s ability to decide upon routes and identify
various spatial relationships by quantifying the environment through spontaneous invention and use of
informal and/or pre-designed (by the researchers) tools, should be considered of high learning value. The
majority of the recorded episodes concern an absolutely quantitative approach through the use of informal
and ad lib measuring instruments and this probably implies a significant frequency of practices that favor
the experiential and multifaceted approach of mathematical thinking. We firmly believe that without
these practices, children would find it particularly difficult to develop the correct “coding scripts” for
route planning since a necessary component for defining complete and correct movement in the small-
scale model environment was initially the numerical correlation of the steps-commands (programming
block) with the respective quarters into which the floor route was evenly divided. We had already taken
into account the division of the route into “boxes” of dimensions equal to the step of both Bee-Bot and
the NXT, a fact that made it “obvious” but also necessary to quantify the whole process on the part of
the children. This is exactly what is also reflected in the short episode that follows and was recorded in
the context of the 1st day of one of the teaching experiments and in a phase when children got to know
the tools and the activities of the teaching experiment. Throughout the interaction with children, it is
obvious that their behavior shifts from abstract reasoning to the use of solid argumentation that can
adequately explain both the way they thought and their final choices in the movement planning process.
120

Figure 3. Tangible, hand-drawn and digital movement flow-charts that trigger mathematical thinking
RESEARCHER (R): Let me ask. How did you measure the steps?
CHRIS (C): We saw the road. (Without further explanation)
R: Is there a way to measure this?
C: Yes!
R: How?
C: By measuring .... With the ruler. (Spontaneously recalling the use of a formal tool)
R: That is, if we do not have a measure, how else can we count how many steps the
Bee should take?
C: Eight!!!
R: Eight? How did you figure this out?
C: I counted the arrows and the boxes. (Chris and Thanos count the command-icons with their fingers.
It seems that our question triggered exploration)
Encouraging Preschoolers’ Spatial Thinking
Spatial thinking is a rather complex process related to the use of spatial code, reasoning (finding paths,
spatial correlations, creating representations, discovering spatio-temporal relationships, etc.) and trans-
formations (change of perspective, orientation, change of size and scale, transformation of shapes, etc.)
121

especially for preschoolers (Piaget & Inhelder, 1967; Everett, 2000) although it seems that such dif-
ficulties can be potentially tackled with the use of ER (Francis et al., 2016). Based on the analysis of
group activity episodes, it seems that our teaching experiments address a broad variety of mental tools
that encourage spatial thinking.
In the following episode, our group of preschoolers is still at the beginning of both designing the Bee-
Bot movement and “negotiating” key space concepts. At the same time, the researcher tries to help them
either understand the ways and strategies of representing position in space, or how to make connections
with experiences already developed in similar recent activities. The children are asked to design an ad
hoc map that graphically depicts the environment of the 3D model. After providing explanations on the
objective of such an activity, we try to make them correlate the value of such a tool with the movement
“script” we would develop later on in order for the Bee-Bot to move successfully toward its destination.
From our introductory question addressed to the group, it is obvious that the attempt is to trigger col-
laboration as well as help recall previous experiences both individually and collectively. On the other
hand, the attempt is to invite children to focus on a new solution (map design) and to refer to the use of
tools (plan) that act as reference points in the context of giving exact directions to someone else (coding
instructions, Bee-Bot). At a later stage, when the researcher tries to elicit detailed explanations for the
proposed routes, the children’s descriptions seem to drift away from the mere use of gestures to a com-
bination of gestures and correlation of the environment with their own drawings and maps. It is quite
interesting that the process of maps and route plans design and then the attempt of children to explain
their drawings, kicks off a dialogue which completely lacks spatial descriptions and vocabulary at least at
this initial stage. However, it activates them significantly in the field of perception of space with the help
of intense use of non-verbal elements such as gestures and the use of the body as a point of self-reference
and comparison with other reference points in space. In addition, it seems to encourage meaningful op-
portunities for the correlation of a real-world environment (3D model) with its graphic representation
(2D map drawing) and the position of the individual in relation to both. Such patterns now serve as
reference points and correlations of the abstract with visible and tangible elements (Steinbring, 2000).
RESEARCHER (R) How can we help Bee-Bot to get where we want since it does not know the way?
Daphne: She can go this way and that way. (shows the route over the model with her hands.)
R: Yes, but you know the way! The Bee-Bot doesn’t. What do we do when we get lost? Do we need any
maps? .... Would you like to draw one and help our little bee remember the road? (We hand out
blank pages and crayons in order for children to draw the map of the suggested route…
(R): Let’s see Alexia. Can you explain to me what you have done here?
ALEXIA: The bee goes from here and turns and here it turns again. (As she speaks, she follows with
her finger the path she has drawn. She uses non-verbal means and gestures, but always in relation
to the ad lib map and the 3D model environment.)
R: Giannis, what have you done?
GIANNIS: She goes there, then there, then there and there. (while talking, he follows the path with his
finger)
R: What about you Danae? Where does the bee start from?
DANAE: From here, it goes straight, then it turns, straight again. (Uses non-verbal means and gestures
but leaves the description incomplete)
122

Figure 4. Route planning patterns prior to coding
On one of the first days of the teaching intervention children come in contact with the Bee-Bot for
the second time, but in this case, they are able to make use of additional tools. In the episode that fol-
lows, they understand how to use the directional keys/buttons not in an abstract and casual way but in
combination with the route pre-planning (maps) and the representation of the potential movement with
the help of coding cards as per figure 4. At this stage they seem to realize the functional value of the
coding cards but also their importance as an informal measurement unit as they help to estimate and
accurately calculate the distance from the starting point to the final destination we have defined in the
context of the mission. Figure 5 contains a fine example of such practice.
123

RESEARCHER (R): But do we have to learn to talk a little better with the bee? Can we help her un-
derstand your map? What do you say; Do you want us to show her some cards?
ALL TOGETHER: Yes!!
R: Do you remember the bee buttons?
Daphne (D): Right-Left-Up-Down (shows the buttons on the back of the Bee-Bot)
R: Would you like me to give you these cards? How can you tell the bee where to go following these cards?
D: This here is the same with that. (shows us two directional arrows)
Nick (N): This is different.
Modestus (M): I want a “5”! (Obviously Modestus implies that he will have to get as many cards as
the steps of Bee-Bot)
R: So there are numbers here or arrows? A “5”?
M: Numbers… .arrows…
Q: Is her house far or near here?
N: Far.
D: Very near!!
Q: How do we know if it is far or near? How can you figure it out, is there a way?
N: From the “squares”. (He means the quadrants of the surface of the small-scale model environment,
each one of which is equivalent to a complete Bee-Bot step)
D: We make the road and help the bee. Then we use the arrows…
Figure 5. The environment as a generator of mind-tools
124

In the following episode, one of the groups gets to use for the first time our NXT robotic vehicle.
We feel that since movement and coding is mediated for the first time by a digital environment, thus the
software that is needed for developing actual code, it is useful to remind to the team about the new way
of “human-robot” interaction” and the more complex programming processes. The significance of such
a reminder lies in the fact that the “new” processes of interaction with the NXT are no longer based on
direct tangible coding (by the press of a button) but on the use of the mouse and the transfer of digital
code from the software screen to a real environment. As part of the group engagement process, we ask
children to explain us if they understand how important computer mediation is in the NXT movement
processes and how this fits with the “coding cards” planning we have already done while actually plan-
ning the robot’s possible routes. Alexia is activated from the beginning in the use of the computer and
the relevant software in order to create a first executable script which acts as a basis for discussion with
the rest of the group. Following is a continuous and evolving effort by the team to optimize and identify
the pre-designed route (representation with cards) and the rest of the accompanying tools (maps and
plans designed by the children themselves) with the digital coding interface of the NXT software and
finally with the movement of the NXT itself in the small-scale space of the model.
RESEARCHER (R): Listen, I want us to send our robot to refuel. What should we do, just think about it?
ELENI (E): I know…Turn, go from here, go from here and then refuel.
R: What do you mean? Do you want to show us with a program? (Children gather around the computer)
ALEXIA (A): I know! (Alexia has tried to create the executable script in the coding app while we try
with the team to explore possible routes)
R: Not there, not on the computer. Work with the cards first. We have the cards.
A: I did it sir!
R: Let me see! Is the code correct?
KEVIN (K): Oh, no!!
A: Should we try it? (Meanwhile, the robot executes the script)
K: What? (Kevin expresses his surprise)
A: She had to turn! (Alexia finds out for herself by observing the NXT while it moves)
K: Alexia, you did it wrong!
MARIA (M): Let’s delete it!!
R: Fine! Listen for a while. We said that we must first create a script with the cards. Why don’t you all
come over here and help.
E: Here is a turn! (Eleni passes a right turn icon)
M: Where, here? Hmm, I know what is needed. There! Give me another “turn”! (Maria asks for and
places another icon to complete the “executable script”)
E: Yes, I found it!
K: Thank God!
E: Okay!
R: And after she turns, how many more steps does she have to take to turn to the gas station? (As we
speak we represent the movement of the NXT with our hand to help children understand better)
K: One more step.
M: Give it to me. Here!
R: Now, let me ask something? Look here. She turns right, takes a step. How many steps does it take
to get to the corner here? One?
125

M: Yes, one.
K: Two!
Q: Eleni? What do you think?
E: 1..2..3..4..5 .. (Eleni counts all the steps until the end of the route)
K: Another one maybe?
R: So something is missing here?
E: Yes!
R: And that is?
E: One step forward!
Q: Okay, let’s try it then.
The variety of so many representational tools almost in parallel seems to give the group but also to
each child individually the “safety” and confidence for effortless experimentation and implementation
of their ideas (trial-error process) in real-world environment until they approach an optimal solution.
In addition, the coexistence of multiple tools that essentially serve the same purpose of understand-
ing, visualizing and organizing movement, especially through actual collaborative coding practices -as
depicted in figure 6- offers children the ability to appreciate the value of (pre) planning strategies and
debugging practices that favor both justification and comparison as well as the importance of a trial-
and-error strategy towards the right solution to a (mathematical, spatial) problem.
Figure 6. Peer-to-peer coding
126

CONCLUSION
The inspiration and starting point for our research is the traditional “LOGO turtle geometry”, which aimed
to introduce mathematical concepts in the context of coding processes and was to change the way we talk
today about young children build knowledge and their ability to be actively involved in the experiential
classroom culture. Our findings highlight the affordances of ER regarding the development of skills that
allow children to recognize and describe, directly or with the aid of various forms of feedback, topologi-
cal/spatial relationships in the environment that surrounds them (inside, out, left, right, next, between,
close, far, round, front, back, side by side, down / over, etc.). In addition, the ability to approach and
measure spatial relations by quantifying space and topology through the invention and use of informal
and ad lib tools, is clearly demonstrated thanks to the exploitation of “coding” practices required for
developing efficient pseudocode (e.g. use of programming cards and blocks in software environment,
justification of choices by matching each step of the robot with every single programming command
etc.). Other elements that emerge from the data analysis of our research work are the development of
skills of understanding and deploying spatial code as well as orientation skills in space when different
points of reference exist, through embodiment-based strategies. In addition, one more interesting find-
ing, which mainly concerns the strategies for solving a spatial problem, is that most children in many
cases have gone through self-assessment processes and redefined the solution to each problem, adapted
to new data, altered their initial attempts and often moved between other-self-regulation as a natural
consequence of the above processes.
Based on the research experience so far (DeMichele et al. 2008, Chronaki & Kourias, 2011), the sug-
gestion of the mind-tools and practices of our research is considered suitable for supporting familiarization
with the broader computational practices as well as encouraging the development of spatial and wider
mathematical thinking of children aged between 5-6 years old. It also seems that the provision of basic
visible and tangible tools (route plan, small and large cards with directional representation, photo-plan
of the small space) as well as the initially guided visualization of spatial concepts and processes in a
way that emerges through free play leads to the spontaneous invention of new tools and the emergence
of multiple representational means of the environment (eg the quadrants and landmarks of the model,
the correlation of the 3D environment with its 2D representation, the body position and orientation etc.)
during the course of activities. The non-serial, uncompromised and almost random interplay of tools
scaffolds cognitive evolution and exploration and supports children’s mathematical improvisation and
spatial thinking through peer-to-peer trial-error processes. We could also argue that children perceive
experientially the value of trial-error strategies, the importance of both existing or ad lib powerful tools,
the usefulness of the combined and near-parallel utilization of multiple representational media as well
as the central role of the use of our own body not only as a means of egocentric perception of space but
also as a kinesthetic tool for drawing experiential conclusions through comparisons and correlations of
environmental elements.
REFERENCES
Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and
Technology Education, 6(1), 63-71. https://bit.ly/2CgpXpZ
127

Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through
educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems,
75, 661–670. doi:10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.008
Atmatzidou, S., Demetriadis, S., & Nika, P. (2018). How Does the Degree of Guidance Support Students’
Metacognitive and Problem Solving Skills in Educational Robotics? Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 27(1), 70–85. doi:10.100710956-017-9709-x
Computers and Education. https://bit.ly/2P0GWTG
Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinker-
ing: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers and Education, 72, 145-157.
https://bit.ly/2QQnvKK
Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children.
Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(2).
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (1996). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood
education. Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Brosterman, N., & Togashi, K. (1997). Inventing kindergarten. HN Abrams.
Chronaki A. & Kourias, S. (2012). Playing Robots: Doing Mathematics and Doing Gender. Paper for
CIEAEM 64 Conference «Mathematics Education and Democracy: learning and teaching practices»,
Rhodes, Greece.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational
research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13. doi:10.3102/0013189X032001009
Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E. (1978). Mind in society. Mind in society the
development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
De Michele, M. S., Demo, G. B., & Siega, S. (2008, November). A piedmont schoolnet for a k-12 mini-
robots programming project: Experiences in primary schools. Proc. TERECoP Workshop «Teaching
with robotics, Conference SIMPAR.
Di Lieto, M. C., Inguaggiato, E., Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Cioni, G., Dell’Omo, M., Laschi, C., Pecini,
C., Santerini, G., Sgandurra, G., & Dario, P. (2017). Educational Robotics intervention on Executive
Functions in preschool children: A pilot study. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 16–23. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2017.01.018
Eguchi, A. (2010). What is Educational Robotics? Theories behind it and practical implementation. In
Society for information technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 4006-4014). As-
sociation for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Eguchi, A. (2014, July). Robotics as a learning tool for educational transformation. Proceeding of 4th
International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics & 5th International Conference
Robotics in Education.
128

Elkonin, D. B. (1977). Toward the problem of stages in the mental development of the child. In M. Cole
(Ed.), Soviet developmental psychology. M.E. Sharpe.
Everett, S. (2000). Spatial thinking strategies. Science and Children, 37(7), 36–39.
Hermer-Vazques, L., Moffet, A., & Munkholm, P. (2001). Language, space, and the development of
cognitive flexibility in humans: The case of two spatial memory tasks. Cognition, 79(3), 263–299.
Francis, K., Khan, S., & Davis, B. (2016). Enactivism, spatial reasoning and coding. Digital Experiences
in Mathematics Education, 2(1), 1–20. doi:10.100740751-015-0010-4
Frye, D., Zelazo, P. D., Brooks, P. J., & Samuels, M. C. (1996). Inference and action in early causal
reasoning. Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 120–131. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.1.120
Gal’perin, P. Y. (1969). Stages in the development of mental acts. A Handbook of Contemporary Soviet
Psychol., 249-273.
Glasersfeld, E. (Ed.). (2006). Radical constructivism in mathematics education (Vol. 7). Springer Sci-
ence & Business Media.
Jacobs, R. V., & Kusiak, J. (2006). Got tools? Exploring children’s use of mathematics tools during
problem solving. Teaching Children Mathematics, 12(9), 470–477.
Kazakoff, E. R., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The effect of a classroom-based intensive robot-
ics and programming workshop on sequencing ability in early childhood. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 41(4), 245e255.
Kelly, A. E., & Lesh, R. A. (2012). Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education.
Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781410602725
Keren, G., & Fridin, M. (2014). Kindergarten social assistive robot (KindSAR) for children’s geometric
thinking and metacognitive development in preschool education: A pilot study. Computers in Human
Behavior, 35, 400-412.
Kozima, H., Michalowski, M. P., & Nakagawa, C. (2009). Keepon. International Journal of Social
Robotics, 1(1), 3–18. doi:10.100712369-008-0009-8
Kumpulainen, K., & Wray, D. (Eds.). (2002). Classroom Interaction and Social Learning. From Theory
to Practice. London: Routledge/Falmer.
La Paglia, F., Rizzo, R., & La Barbera, D. (2011). Use of robotics kits for the enhancement of metacog-
nitive skills of mathematics: A possible approach. Stud Health Technol Inform, 167, 26-30.
Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and
Technology. Routledge.
Lindh, J., & Holgersson, T. (2007). Does lego training stimulate pupils’ ability to solve logical problems?
129

Meira, L. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: The emergence of transparency in mathematical
activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 121–142. doi:10.2307/749895
Mercer, N., & Sams, C. (2006). Teaching children how to use language to solve maths problems. Lan-
guage and Education, 20(6), 507–528. doi:10.2167/le678.0
Mikropoulos, T. A., & Bellou, I. (2013). Educational robotics as mindtools. Themes in Science and
Technology Education, 6(1), 5–14.
Mioduser, D., & Levy, S. T. (2010). Making sense by building sense: Kindergarten children’s construction
and understanding of adaptive robot behaviors. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical
Learning, 15(2), 99-127.
Moyer-Packenham, P. S., Shumway, J. F., Bullock, E., Tucker, S. I., Anderson-Pence, K. L., Westenskow,
A., & ... . (2015). Young children’s learning performance and efficiency when using virtual manipula-
tive mathematics iPad apps. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 34(1), 41–69.
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.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. Harvest Press.
Piaget, J. I., & Inhelder, B. (1967). The Child’s Conception of Space. The Child’s Conception of Space
WW Norton.
Pimm, D. (1995). Symbols and meanings in school mathematics. Routledge.
Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Designing for tinkerability. In Design, make, play (pp. 181–199).
Routledge.
Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative crocess. In Cognition, perceptions and language, 5th
Edition. Handbook of Child Psychology (pp. 679-744). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press.
Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). «Concrete» computer manipulatives in mathematics education.
Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 145–150. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00095.x
Skoumpourdi, C. (2010). Kindergarten mathematics with ‘Pepe the Rabbit’: How kindergartners use
auxiliary means to solve problems. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(3),
149–157. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2010.500070
Steinbring, H. (2000). Interaction analysis of mathematical communication in primary teaching: The
epistemological perspective. ZDM. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 32(5), 138–148. doi:10.1007/
BF02655653
Stoeckelmayr, K., Tesar, M., & Hofmann, A. (2011, September). Kindergarten children programming
robots: a first attempt. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Robotics in Education (RIE).
130

Sullivan, F. R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems
understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Associa-
tion for Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 373–394. doi:10.1002/tea.20238
Tuomi, P., Multisilta, J., Saarikoski, P., & Suominen, J. (2018). Coding skills as a success factor for a
society. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1), 419–434. doi:10.100710639-017-9611-4
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of
children, 34-41.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The problem of the environment. The Vygotsky Reader, 338-354.
Zacharia, Z. C., Olympiou, G., & Papaevripidou, M. (2008). Effects of experimenting with physical
and virtual manipulatives on students’ conceptual understanding in heat and temperature. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching, 45(9), 1021–1035. doi:10.1002/tea.20260
Zbiek, R., Heid, M., Blume, G., & Dick, T. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education.
In F. Lester (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning A project of
the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 1169–1207). Information Age Publishing.
131
132
Chapter 7
A Proposal for Creating
Mixed Reality, Embodied
Learning Interventions
Integrating Robotics, Scratch,
and Makey-Makey
Stefanos Xefteris
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2448-4970
Ioannis Arvanitakis
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3024-6007
ABSTRACT
In current research we observe a clear trend that calls for novel teaching practices that involve multidis-
ciplinary approaches that integrate information and communication technologies (ICT) into “traditional”
workflows, employing embodied affordances in multimodal learning interventions. The educational process
can therefore be augmented and transformed making use of available tools like educational robotics,
tinkering with electronics (such as Makey Makey), and programming environments like Scratch to produce
gamified versions of teaching sequences in a mixed reality context that “physicalizes” abstract concepts
and improves both “21st century skills” and knowledge of traditional classroom material. Under the
embodied cognition framework, the authors make use of robots as tangible agents in a gamified mixed
reality setting. In this chapter, they provide a proposal for creating educationally effective, immersive,
and engaging learning environments, as well as primary results from experimental application in vari-
ous multi- and transdisciplinary teaching interventions.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-3861-9.ch007

A Proposal for Creating Mixed Reality, Embodied Learning Interventions Integrating Robotics
INTRODUCTION
Human cognition has been shown to be inextricably linked with the manifestation of objects around us.
How we act directly influences the way we think and the way we interact with physical objects directly
shapes our perception and understanding of concrete or abstract notions. From the time of the abacus
to the era of virtual and augmented reality, embodied interaction has been consistently proved a fertile
ground on which to build learning interventions that provide learners with conceptual anchors. The
STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts Mathematics) approach to learning employs inter-
disciplinary concepts from the Natural Science, Engineering, Technology, Arts and Mathematics as a
base for developing and honing 21st century skills such as critical thinking, creativity, communication
and cooperation in a framework that facilitates inquiry based experiential learning. Using a creative
process (Nemiro, Larriva, & Jawaharlal, 2017), the STEAM approach enables students to develop their
problem solving skills, engage in the design and evaluation process -facilitating design based thinking
(Alimisis, Moro, & Menegatti, 2017; Jaipal-Jamani & Angeli, 2017; Khanlari, 2016), and advance their
computational intelligence skills while cooperating and engaging in science-based dialogue.
The ultimate goal of employing STEAM learning scenarios is that students are familiarized with both
concrete and abstract notions from engineering (simple and complex machines), advance their ability
to think algorithmically (programming devices), design and build robots that perform a variety of tasks
(Bers, Flannery, Kazakoff, & Sullivan, 2014).
In recent years, the virtual deluge of novel advancements in ICT has greatly improved our fundamental
grounds of developing single- or multimodal and more importantly multidisciplinary teaching interven-
tions. Mixed and augmented reality applications (Fleck, Hachet, & Bastien, 2015), virtual models and
3D representations (Sun, Lin, & Wang, 2010), tangible manipulatives and ubiquitous interfaces (Mpi-
laderi, Palaigeorgiou, & Lemonidis, 2016) as well as educational robotics (Alimisis et al., 2017; Karim,
Lemaignan, & Mondada, 2015), have consistently proven to be great tools for leveraging conceptual
change (Bonito & Almeida, 2016; D de la Hera, Sigman, & Calero, 2018).
Deploying ICT tools to develop multimodal and multidisciplinary teaching scenarios has been
consistently providing highly praised outcomes, there has been so far a specific vital aspect that many
applications miss, due to the nature itself of the employed mediums: Tangibility. More often than not,
recent research has been shown to employ intangible representations of concepts, thus -not failing, but-
limiting access to the full potential the availability of multiple and ubiquitous technologies offers to us.
The use of physical manipulatives which the learner can use, tinker, build and feel, the use of embodied
learning affordances can greatly and further advance the creation of conceptual anchors: The physical-
ization and operalization of processes, turns abstract, and possibly inaccessible from our POV. concepts
(such as Earth’s trajectory) to concrete instances with which learners can interact.
In this context, this chapter proposes the integration of multiple technologies, combined to provide
a rich ground for the design, development and evaluation of STEAM learning scenarios. Mixing edu-
cational robots as tangible agents and interfaces with the digital world, Scratch programs to provide a
gamified background and Makey-Makey hubs to facilitate interaction, this chapters aims at describing a
concept of developing learning interventions where physical objects merge with digital representations
to provide natural interaction, on which learners can build new knowledge (Xefteris, 2019; Xefteris &
Palaigeorgiou, 2019a; Xefteris, Palaigeorgiou, & Zoumpourtikoudi, 2019).
The proposed frame of operation has been tested in multiple experiments, with 4 of them having
been published in conferences and journals and others having been tested only unofficially during the
133

undergraduate course “STEAM scenarios using educational robotics” in the Elementary education de-
partment of the University of Western Macedonia, Greece. In the published experiments the examined
variables for the learning interventions covered multiple aspects: The researchers conducted pre- and
post-cognitive tests to assess the efficacy of the learning paradigm and usability/user acceptance ques-
tionnaires to assess ease of use, user stimulation and identity, autotelic experience etc.
LITERATURE REVIEW
According to the framework implemented under the embodied cognition theory, there is an unbreakable
bond between our actions and our thoughts (Abrahamson & Lindgren, 2014). Our perception of space,
of objects and even abstract notions depends on our bodily interactions, our tangible contact with them.
We formulate and sustain mental representations after interacting with the world with our body, with all
our senses, not just our vision. Full body interaction has been shown to support learning by involving
participants at different mental and corporeal levels, such as the affective aspect, the cognitive aspect, as
well as the whole sensorimotor experience the user of a framework gets. Thus, building new knowledge
has been shown to be influenced by students who create “conceptual anchors” while acting out and
“physicalize” relationships between abstract and concrete notions and operations (Lindgren, Tscholl,
Wang, & Johnson, 2016). New ICT tools, facilitating improved Human-Computer interaction technolo-
gies, with ubiquitous interfaces serve as conceptual leverage (Lindgren et al., 2016). The development
and integration of novel modalities in teaching interventions, making use of embodied affordances,
plays a vital role in the transformation of the teaching paradigm and the development of novel frame-
works that improve learning. learning environments created under the embodied cognition framework
aim to facilitate the creation of embodied experiences that represent abstractions as concrete instances
or transform inaccessible -to the point of view of the participants- phenomena and actions to tangible,
physicalized representations.
Novel ICT tools such as mixed reality (Kazanidis, Palaigeorgiou, & Bazinas, 2018), tangible inter-
faces (Xefteris, Palaigeorgiou, & Tsorbari, 2018) and educational robotics (Eguchi, 2015) provide us
nowadays with new opportunities to develop teaching interventions combining many disciplines under
the common umbrella of a gamified and immersive experience. The creation of such interventions is an
emerging area in recent research and to our knowledge not yet fully systematized. There are three main
research domains that underlie the creation of the proposed framework of operation:
1. Creating STEAM learning scenarios

2. Tangible maps and ubiquitous human computer interfaces and
3. Educational robotics and the use of robots as tangible agents linking the physical world with a
digital one in a mixed reality setting.
Considering tangible maps recent literature suggests that maps in both forms electronic and paper
do provide learning opportunities and advantages but also induce sometimes barriers in the honing of
spatial thinking skills (Collins, 2018). The transformation from the three dimensional world we live in
to the two dimensional world of a projected or printed map does induce barriers in the mental repre-
sentation of topographical details by making learners perform mental representations in order to create
new knowledge (Li, Willett, Sharlin, & Sousa, 2017). The addition of ubiquitous digital interaction
134

with printed or projected maps, their transformation into tangible 3D maps has been shown to improve
to improve learning especially in the context of disciplines such as geography in an embodied frame-
work (Palaigeorgiou, Karakostas, & Skenderidou, 2017). In other disciplines, such as history, literature
suggests that including ICT tools to create tangible interactions in mixed reality settings in the design
of teaching interventions, augments motivation and engagement and makes the learning process more
enjoyable for students. Through the use of gamified mixed reality learning scenarios we can facilitate
the development of not only 21st century skills but also transform the experience of learning to a more
constructive and inquiry based one (Blanco-Fernández et al., 2014).
There is significant traction in the use of virtual worlds and augmented reality in the development
of teaching scenarios for disciplines ranging from astronomy to history and from mathematics to lan-
guage learning (Mpiladeri et al., 2016;Xefteris et al., 2018;Xefteris et al., 2019; Xu & Ke, 2016). From
depictions of historical battles, ancient sites and cities to representations of number lines or the solar
system, the teaching paradigm faces a specific shift from the usual static representations to interactive
virtual ones. Gamifying the learning experience, inducing affective factors, inquiry based methodologies
and role playing capabilities has been shown to enhance immersion, motivation and engagement and
transform the learning process enhancing efficacy and helping students to create end retain knowledge
(Blanco-Fernández et al., 2014; Cai, Liu, Yang, & Liang, 2019; Huang et al., 2019). But although digi-
tally enhanced experiences in virtual or augmented teaching spaces are being constantly deployed buy
schools public installations or museum there are so far few examples of embodied learning in mixed real-
ity settings with tangible interfaces (Savenije & de Bruijn, 2017). For example, in the context of history
learning the FingerTrips paradigm was deployed as an augmented 3D tangible model of a historical site
in a learning scenario where students could interact and learn historical content through a virtual field
trip. In this application the intervention was evaluated by 26 6th grade students who’s answers revealed
improved motivation and engagement as well as better immersiveness and creation of new knowledge
while being made to feel as active participants in the historical events presented (Palaigeorgiou, Kara-
kostas, et al., 2017).
Moving on from tangible interfaces and 3D augmented maps, the inclusion of educational robotics
affordances into everyday teaching practices can facilitate educators to implement seamlessly multiple
educational approaches to the creation of their teaching sequences: competition based learning (Sklar,
Eguchi, & Johnson, 2002), inquiry based learning, problem solving (Alimisis, Frangou, & Papanikolaou,
2009), and discovery learning (Sullivan, Sullivan, & Moriarty, 2009). So far in recent research, educa-
tional robotics is used and viewed as a tool mostly related to facilitating the development of 21st century
skills such as computational thinking algorithmic thinking and design based thinking (Khanlari, 2016).
And albeit truly significant for these aspects, using educational robotics affordances in a slightly differ-
ent framework can provide teachers with a specific dynamic to enhance and induce multidisciplinary
learning capabilities in a STEAM context, while of course retaining the dynamic for the development
of computational thinking etc. From the creation of a catapult for the enactment of a historical battle
or a water dam in the area they inhabit, to the creation of an orery or a model to ascertain the gravity
acceleration coefficient educational robotics offers a rich ground on which to build learning scenarios.
There are also examples of integration of robots and drones in teaching scenarios alongside mixed or
augmented reality environment and wearables (Palaigeorgiou, Malandrakis, & Tsolopani, 2017).
There is thus a rising trend to develop teaching scenarios integrating multimodal and ubiquitous tangible
interfaces with technologies such as robotics, in mixed reality settings in order to create authentic and
immersive learning experiences under the precepts of experiential learning (Xefteris & Palaigeorgiou,
135

2019b). Digital worlds provide students especially elementary school students with a fascination rarely
found in a regular teaching sequence in an everyday classroom. Through the integration of multiple
technologies for inducing ubiquitous human computer interaction with tangible interfaces, through the
use of robotics in mixed reality settings, we have the ability to create exciting and immersive learning
experiences, although this paradigm is right now for sure somewhat far away from every day classrooms.
Mixed reality, virtual reality and augmented reality applications are highly interactive and very attractive
to modern children whose everyday routine is saturated with technological advancements. The addition
of tangible interactivity in virtual words, in the context of an interactive gamified storytelling experi-
ence, manipulating familiar- or less familiar- physical objects can facilitate the merging of multiple
technologies and the transformation of different modalities of ICT tools into novel teaching scenarios.
This framework enables students to become inherent and integral parts of the mechanisms and opera-
tions they are examining, become actors in the story that is unfolding in the learning scenario and have
the opportunity to both monitor and evaluate vendor lying relationships of the domain they are studying
(Wang et al., 2010).
FRAME OF OPERATION
As indicated in the literature review, lack of tangibility is a consistent issue with many aspects of employ-
able ICTs. Educational robots on the other hand, solve the issue of tangibility but are mainly focused
on developing computational thinking skills and not -more often than not- used as representations or
“tangible agents” to facilitate the physicalization of non-programming or computational thinking related
concepts. In this chapter the proposed framework aims at providing a mixed reality background employ-
ing educational robotics, Makey-Makey and Scratch, designed on the following axes:
1. Implement and deploy embodied learning concepts through the creation of tangible objects and
ubiquitous interfaces.
2. Create a mixed reality background environment to improve immersion and employ gamified sce-
narios where problem solving skills, scientific thinking and inquiry learning are combined.
3. Employ educational robots as tangible agents, merging the digital with the physical world in seam-
less interaction with the mixed reality environment.
The proposed integration of technologies is designed so that the produced learning environments
are easily reproducible, with hardware and materials available publicly and to a great measure easily
affordable by schools or university departments.
The fundamental hardware for creating the learning interventions include a canvas (dimensions usually
at 1.7mx2.0m), a projector (short throw capabilities usually best for our purposes), a laptop with Scratch
(installed or web-based), a Makey-Makey board and an EV3 robot, as well as regular sundries for hand
crafting extra props, some extra cables, tape etc. The projector is placed perpendicular to the floor, so
that it projects downwards, and under it we place the canvas, where a Scratch game is projected, thus
creating an “augmented floor”, as seen in Figure 1. The canvas is riddled with Makey-Makey “touch
bases” in specific “places of interest”. When the robot reaches each base, the Makey-Makey interface is
triggered, sends a key message and the Scratch program responds accordingly.
136

Figure 1. The basic framework setup
The canvas “game floor” is rigged with Makey-Makey connected touch-pads which, when pressed, act
as buttons that interact with Scratch, to advance the learning scenario. The Scratch game is programmed
so that it is partitioned into “questions” that correspond to the learning plan’s activities. So, for example
in Activity 1, the robot should reach Base 1. If Base 1 is reached, then Makey-Makey sends the letter “A”
which is the correct response to the question posed in activity 1. If any other base, or no base is reached
then Scratch prompts the user to try again, re-programming the robot to reach its intended destination,
beginning from its original starting place. Thus, the gamified scenario can support multiple activities,
each corresponding to a “touch base” on the canvas and each one corresponding to a single, specific
trigger key that enables the game to continue
The learning scenario is thus built around a series of “missions” that hide knowledge assessment,
knowledge acquisition, inquiry-based learning, experimentation and evaluation and depending on the
scenario, competition between teams. An EV3 robot acts as the protagonist of the scenario, with students
programming it to perform tasks that correspond to the game missions. In this context, students not only
perform programming tasks to achieve their goals, but also use the robot as a tangible simulation agent to
hypothesize, experiment on and verify or disprove their theories. Depending on the underlying learning
topic (or topics) and the design of the game, the deployed intervention implements various combinations
of aforementioned tasks. Honing computational thinking skills, algorithmic thinking and facilitating the
learner’s contact with programming tasks is usually in the background of the proposed interventions,
with other disciplines and learning subjects taking the foreground.
In Table 1 a short description of so-far deployed experiments based on the proposed framework can
be found, briefly highlighting the aforementioned concept. All interventions tackle elementary educa-
tion level lessons
EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION AND RESULTS
As seen in Table 1, there have been so far 8 distinct deployments of teaching interventions under the
proposed guidelines of the specific framework, with four of them having already been published in
conferences and journals and one more publication, describing the course design for the undergraduate
137

course that gave birth to these instances (Xefteris, 2019; Xefteris & Palaigeorgiou, 2019a; Xefteris,
Palaigeorgiou, & Zoumpourtikoudi, 2019, Xefteris, Palaigeorgiou, & Tsorbari, 2018)
Table 1. Deployed interventions using the mixed reality framework
# Learning goals Published results?

• Yes, experiments on elementary school students
1 • Astronomy – The day/night cycle – seasons
conducted, in 8 gaming sessions of two participants
• European History/ Geography [Double setup with FingerTrips • Yes, experiments on 23 undergraduate students of
2
board] Elementary education department
• Yes, but only as a teaching scenario approach due to
3 • Mathematics - Fractions
COVID19 measures that prohibited contact
• Yes, but only as a teaching scenario approach due to
4 • English as a second language – Giving directions vocabulary
COVID19 measures that prohibited contact
5 • Traffic education • No, implemented as final assignment
• No, implemented as final assignment
6 • Greece’s music history / Coding notes with colors
.
7 • The legend of Theseus / The Minotaur’s maze / Cretan artifacts • No, implemented as final assignment
8 • Catapults and sieges • No, implemented as final assignment
The Day/Night Cycle and Seasons
This implementation aims at helping elementary school students recall previous knowledge and bring
forth and clear misconceptions regarding the day/night cycle and the seasonal change on Earth. The
Scratch game is deployed on a background displaying the space between Earth and the Sun. There is
also a natural model of the Sun and an EV3 robotic model of the Earth, capable of performing four
programmable movements and one “stealth” movement using five motors: Rotation (around itself),
circumnavigation (around the Sun), tilting of the axis and the “stealth” movement which keeps the axis
stable with respect to the Sun. The specific setup is depicted in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The scenario also
makes use of a tangible interface built with Makey-Makey board -instead of touch pads on the canvas-.
During the scenario the students in pairs of two are asked to answer questions through the touch interface,
hypothesize and test them through programming the earth to rotate around itself and revolve around the
Sun to experimentally verify their preconceived notions about the day/night cycle. During the game, a
virtual assistant and info-pop ups guide the students on how to perform their experiments or point out
clues that can aid them make better ones. In the final and more difficult assignments of the scenario,
students test different axial tilts of the Earth and find out that the northern hemisphere -where they live-
is actually closer to the Sun during winter, but what makes it colder, is the axial tilt of the Earth not the
absolute distance from the Sun.
The scenario narrator introduced the basic concepts of the examined phenomena: The Earth’s position
relative to the Sun, its movements around itself and on its trajectory around the sun, as well as why we
have seasons. Then the learning sequence begins and students have to participate in twelve activities of
increasing difficulty. The activities examine every aspect of the day/night cycle, ranging from the direction
of the earth’s rotation to complex notions on which they harbor naïve knowledge and misconceptions,
138

such as the different time zones and the height of the Sun at noon during seasonal change. The students
are called to hypothesize on how much the Earth should turn according to the posed question, and then
program the robot-Earth to move as much in order to verify their hypotheses. Thus, the students are
facilitated to perform mathematical calculations on abstractions they have difficulty in grasping, such
as the representation of the 24 hour cycle with decimals and fractions and link them to absolute hours
duration, or fractions of the earth’s rotation (i.e 12 hours = half a day=half a rotation = 0.5 rotations in
the programming block). In order to put more weight in the main teaching goals, “myblocks” instances
were used to reduce the complexity of the needed programming. Thus, students only had to perform
mental calculations and input only the final amount of rotations instead of configuring speed or blocks
that would add unnecessary complexity to the operation.
Figure 2. The scenario setup with the Earth robot and the model sun
Figure 3. The Earth at the “Summer” position with correct axial tilt. The scenario instructor is visible
at the right
139

In this experiment the participants were 16 elementary school students of the fifth and sixth grade,
with two per session. This intervention was evaluated using pre and post/cognitive tests, an attitude
questionnaire examining the students’ perception on usability and the environment’s design, as well as
semi-formal interviews. Summarily, there was a significant statistical difference in pre- and post-cognitive
tests with questionnaires and interviews consistently showing the students’ vocal preference to the setup
and design of the intervention as well as their perception of the scenario’s efficacy. Comprehensive
results can be found in the relevant publication (Xefteris, Palaigeorgiou, & Zoumpourtikoudi, (2019).
Teaching European History and Geography
In this study the mixed reality framework was deployed in a learning scenario to teach European history,
geography as well as basic programming skills, making use of EV3 vehicles. This approach made use
of two augmented spaces which were conceptually linked and students swapped between them as the
scenario progressed: The game begins with two teams of two students, on a tabletop augmented map
built using the FingerTrips approach as seen in Figure 4: Students here “travelled” on the map tracing
their fingers over the relief of an embossed geomorphological path. In a treasure hunt scenario, students
move from city to city passing over mountain ranges.
Figure 4. The FingerTrips augmented space
Each session began on the FingerTrips augmented 3D map, where all participants interact as one
team. The first station is Corfu, and students had to travel through 6 of the major European cities, with
their fingers tracing routes over the embossed map relief, which was studded with Makey-Makey touch
points, along major geographical features such as mountain ranges and along the way find clues that
point to the next major station. During these trips the game prompted students with questions answered
by all participants via tangible interface.
140

As soon as students arrived at a major point on the embossed map, they needed to break down into
two teams and compete against each other hunting for possession of the next clue with their robots on
the floor based track. There, the robots acted as competing adventurers who searched for hidden clues
in historical sites across Europe (Valle dei Tempi in Sicily, the Colosseum and the baths of Caracalla,
piazza San Marco in Venice, etc.). in each of these stations the robot adventurers had to follow a pro-
jected route and reach their destination first in order to collect their reward. The program tasks where of
increasing difficulty, ranging from introductory actions such as simply moving forward and backward to
more advanced actions that require the use of distance or color sensors in four separate substages. The
robotics track who was equipped with Makey-Makey “touch-bases” detecting if and when each robot
reached its destinations, as seen in Figure 5. During each assignment, programming instructions were
provided in the form of preprinted hint cards. this intervention integrated a multimodal continuous ex-
change of activities from traveling through Europe on the fingertips map to traveling on the augmented
robotic track with robots, employing a challenge-based learning scheme.
The intervention sequence can be seen in Figure 6, and the two augmented floors together in Figure 7.
Figure 5. Example levels of the robotics track
Figure 6. The game sequence
141

Figure 7. Combined view of the augmented spaces
This intervention was conducted on 23 undergraduate students of the Elementary Education de-
partment and each session comprised two teams of two. The evaluation was conducted with the same
methodology as the previous one (pre- and post- cognitive tests, attitude questionnaires and semi-formal
interviews). Consistent with the Day/Night cycle experiment, the results showed significant statistical
difference in pre- and post- cognitive tests, high perception of efficacy, motivation and engagement, and
vocal affirmation of the intervention’s usefulness and practical application (Xefteris, Palaigeorgiou, &
Tsorbari, 2018)
Teaching Fractions
This implementation along with the next one, was published only as a teaching scenario proposal in a
Greek conference without experimental results on actual students, as the CoVid19 pandemic quaran-
tine prohibited all possible contact between researchers and students. Nonetheless, based on previous
findings and following the same core precepts, researchers postulate that this also would elicit similar
experimental results. In this instance, the augmented space takes the form of a fantasy kingdom, where
a princess is abducted. The noble prince mounted on his EV3 horse, must solve a series of puzzles on
fractions, calculate results and program the horse to travel on projected number lines to reach the inter-
mediate stations of his hunt where the next clue of the princess’s location is found.
This educational scenario is addressed to 6th grade students. Based on the school textbook, it deploys
concepts included various chapters: In the 19th chapter: Fractions of the same name and heteronyms
“What creature is this… fraction”, in the 20th: The fraction as an exact quotient of division “Who will
help me in the division”, in the 21st: Equivalent fractions “I can I say the same in other words! “, and in
the 22nd: Comparison-arrangement of fractions” How will we get in order?” “Whatever he does, I will
multiply.” It is therefore aimed exclusively at students with this level of knowledge.
The narrator and backstory is implemented in Scratch. Students listen to the narrative, which describes
the story of Prince Christopher and Queen Emelia. Evil Monica managed to kidnap Queen Emelia and
now Christopher with the help of little mathematicians must free her. The students are asked, based
on the story, to program the robot by following the orders of the evil Monica, in order to help Prince
Christopher reach Emelia.
What students have to do is listen carefully to the commands from the narrative and then plan and
check if they have executed each command correctly. The robot in this case is used not only as a pro-
gramming learning tool, but also as a tool for learning and dealing with concepts of fractions (fraction
operations, equivalence etc.)
142

In the sequence, students are called to calculate how much the robot-prince will move on the number
line to reach each intermediate station. So, to calculate how much the robot will have to move, they take
into account the actual distance on the track, then do the fractional operation and then find how many
turns of the robot wheel correspond to this distance.
In the script, the robot is used as a “simulator” and its role is to confirm the calculations that children
perform. When students make a mistake and do not reach their goal, or over-calculate and move further,
they return to the start line of each station and re-calculate, trying again to fulfil their assignment.
Figure 8. The intervention augmented board setup with a projected number line (screenshot from Scratch)
Teaching English as a Second Language: Directions Vocabulary
Concurrently with the previous intervention, another one was designed, concerning teaching English
as a second language, and more specifically, teaching directions in two dimensional, three-dimensional
space and cardinal points. It also included a drone apart from the robot. The scenario here concerns a
Robot (an EV3 Riley Rover model)that wants to fly, so the students must program the hero of the story to
navigate in the city, until it reaches the Inventor’s Shack, were the inventor turns it into a drone. Students
here program the robot initially to perform basic movements, while learning the relevant vocabulary.
Then when in drone form, students are called to program the drone to fly up, down, tilt and turn, and
land again. Since this intervention also coincided with the CoVid19 pandemic, it was also published as
a teaching scenario proposal, without experimental findings.
The teaching sequence concerned 5th grade elementary school students and incorporated the section
“Unit 3, Places” and more specifically lesson 2, “How can I get to…?”. The narrator asks the students
questions (in English), and they answer using a Makey-Makey interface. The path they have chosen is
displayed on the floor and if it is the correct one, they are asked to program the robot to execute the com-
mands that they gave through the interface. The game is designed so that the interface selects a sequence
143

of commands if needed (e.g. Go straight, Turn left, go straight, turn right, turn around). To simplify the
teaching sequence and to focus only on the directions, the track was created with calculated distances
and “myblock” was used in the EV3 environment, which contained only the direction expressions.
The plan was divided to 10 activities of increasing difficulty. In the first 6, the robot, prompted by
the narrator, travels to different destinations in the city. In these activities students get familiar with the
vocabulary related to directions (turn, right, left, forward, backwards). In the last 4, the robot arrives in
the garage and turns into a drone, so we proceed to learn directions in 3d space, programming through
Scratch 2.0 the drone Tello to perform take-off, landing and already programmed maneuvers such as “Flip”.
The vocabulary covered here includes expressions related to the flight (fly / up, down, land, take off).
Figure 9. The scenario augmented space, with the robot and the drone
The rest of the implemented scenarios were built as final assignments of an undergraduate courses
and have been presented in a publication describing the curriculum (Xefteris, 2019).
Traffic Education
A scenario where students built an augmented floor with a city, through which the robot must navigate
and obey to traffic signs, avoid pedestrians (physical objects-distance sensor), stop at traffic lights
(color detection), and park at specific spots (color detection). In thus scenario the augmented space was
depicting a city, with various points in it harboring Makey-Makey interfaces that were used as triggers
to prompt the sequence of the assignments. Appropriately color coded squares were put on the map,
depicting either assigned parking spaces (blue) or traffic lights (green-red). Traffic light changes were
implemented with just changing the colored squares, since a changing light source could not be easily
integrated on the augmented floor.
144

Figure 10. The traffic education assignment
Greece’s Music History: Coding notes with Colors
A scenario in which the robot must gather encoded pieces of a melody in the form of printed squares of
color, travelling through various locations in Greece, birthplaces of Greek composers. When the final
piece of the melody is gathered, the students program the robot to play it, by assigning the 7 recogniz-
able colors by EV3 to each note of the octave. The scenario follows the style of a treasure hunt too. In
this one, students are informed that the notes of a well known melody have been hidden in the homes
where Greek composers were born. After finding out the city on which each one was born, the robot
adventurer must go from city to city and reach the Makey-Makey touch bases. Then, a short clip is played
with information about each composer, a famous melody of his as well as a short musical quiz that
examines knowledge on music history, or music itself (notes, octaves, scales etc). As soon as students
have responded, the next melody note is presented, along with its assigned color, and students are given
a printed square with it. As soon as they have collected all notes and their color assignments, they build
the musical sequence -which is actually the song “Twinkle little star”, which occupies one octave, so the
EV3 detected colors are adequate. Afterwards, by adding the color sensor on their robot, they program
it with the colors and the corresponding notes, and “play” the melody with the robot moving over the
sequence and playing each note as soon as each color is detected.
The Minotaur’s Maze: Cretan Artifacts
A scenario in which Theseus rides a robot through the Labyrinth and with it discovers clues and solves
puzzles regarding Minoan Artifacts to follow the fabled String of Ariadne and escape from the Minotaur.
The hero is placed at one edge of the Labyrinth and has to pass through various intermediate stations
where he has to answer riddles (questions from Greek mythology) and identify artifacts with multiple
choice questions. After each riddle or question is answered, a short clip is played on the maze, with the
narrator making clarifications and instructing students how to program their robot to reach its next goal.
145

Figure 11. The Greek music history assignment (Translation: did you know that Manos Hadjidakis is
from Xanthi?)
Figure 12. The Labyrinth assignment
Catapults and Sieges
In this scenario, students were called not only to simply program, but to also research and build a “fan-
tasy” trebuchet with line following capabilities, that would travel from Venice to Constantinople and
lay siege on the walls of the city. The students engaged in a design phase, with various pre-printed cards
given to them, highlighting the construction challenges and various implementations of catapults and
siege engines. In this scenario, the main focus was thus the engineering aspect of the construction, as
well as tests and experiments on various designs of catapults, taking into consideration the practicality
of the design, its effectiveness, its maneuverability, and of course its attacking result. Moreover, students
engaged in experiments testing how far the catapult stone would fall, or what were the limits of the cata-
pult’s weight lifting ability-trying different counterweights, or different “projectiles”. The most successful
experiment was one using the EV3 smart brick itself as a counterweight, following a complicated but
146

effective standard “trebuchet” mode. It was taken into account that this specific scenario could not pos-
sibly be used in the context of a history course, especially targeting elementary school students, in order
to avoid creating confusion with historical fact. The scenario would be mainly used as a background to
evaluate different catapult designs and build a “smart” catapult that would avoid obstacles and detect
enemy walls, stop at the right distance and fire.
Figure 13. The Catapults and sieges assignment
DISCUSSION
The integration of multiple ICT technologies in mixed reality environments to deploy successful teaching
interventions apart from opportunities for great results and transformation of learning paradigm, also
presents specific caveats: Researchers and educators always face the danger of misusing technology and
ending up distracting students with impressive environments but missing out on teaching effectiveness. In
the design process of the proposed framework, educators should always keep in mind the learning goals
and match the scenario activities to them, avoiding to just mix and match ICT tools in order to motivate
their students. In this era, even elementary school students have been brought up in a highly technological
environment, some are even skilled users of multiple ICT tools already. Thus, if the content itself fails
to address the underlying teaching goals, “simple” immersiveness and engagement are not adequate.
147

CONCLUSION
In this chapter a proposal for creating multimodal and multidisciplinary teaching interventions using
robotics, Makey-Makey and Scratch in mixed reality environments was presented. Based on recent re-
search on the practical use of integrating various ICT’s in STEAM education scenarios, it is postulated
that this proposal may indeed provide novel ideas in the creation of learning scenarios and more efficient
achievement of teaching goals.
The preliminary experimental outcomes of the deployment of teaching interventions built in this
frame, have proven that this approach can become a significantly helpful canvas that can aid educators
in creating a multitude of different scenarios. The conducted experiments have clearly shown that stu-
dents both think that tangible interactions, educational robotics and mixed reality can positively affect
their performance, with cognitive test metrics corroborating their interview answers. Thus, consider-
ing the available evidence so far, such learning interventions can indeed provide a solid background
for effectively conveying new knowledge, reassessing old one and facilitating the development of 21st
century skills. The combination of robotic tangible agents, Makey-Makey and Scratch in mixed reality
scenarios seems to provide an interesting and effective background on which researchers can build novel
and multidisciplinary teaching experiments and interventions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Dr. George Palaigeorgiou, former Assistant professor in the Elementary
Education Department of Florina and the director of CrInTe lab, professor Tharrenos Bratitsis in the
department of Early Childhood Education of Florina.
We would also like to thank the Elementary Education and Early Childhood Education departments
of University of Western Macedonia for providing continuous and substantial support to the creation
and development of the CrInTe Laboratory.
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, D., & Lindgren, R. (2014). Embodiment and embodied design. The Cambridge Handbook
of the Learning Sciences, 2, 358–376.
Alimisis, D., Frangou, S., & Papanikolaou, K. (2009). A constructivist methodology for teacher training
in educational robotics: The TERECoP course in Greece through trainees’ eyes. Proceedings - 2009
9th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2009, 24–28. 10.1109/
ICALT.2009.86
Alimisis, D., Moro, M., & Menegatti, E. (2017). Educational Robotics in the Makers Era (D. Alimisis,
M. Moro, & E. Menegatti, Eds.). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-55553-9
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, 145–157. Advance
online publication. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020
148

Blanco-Fernández, Y., López-Nores, M., Pazos-Arias, J. J., Gil-Solla, A., Ramos-Cabrer, M., & García-
Duque, J. (2014). REENACT: A step forward in immersive learning about Human History by augmented
reality, role playing and social networking. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(10), 4811–4828.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.02.018
Bonito, T., & Almeida, A. (2016). The Role of ICT to change misconceptions of some astronomy concepts
in children of primary school. Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2015 Conference. Science Educa-
tion Research: Engaging Learners for a Sustainable Future, Part/Strand. Retrieved from https://www.
researchgate.net/profile/Antonio_Almeida16/publication/301659892_Bonito_T_Almeida_A_2016_
The_Role_of_ICT_to_change_misconceptions_of_some_astronomy_concepts_in_children_of_pri-
mary_school_In_O_Finlayson_R_Pinto_Co-editors_Learning_science_Conce
Cai, S., Liu, E., Yang, Y., & Liang, J.-C. (2019). Tablet-based AR technology: Impacts on students’
conceptions and approaches to learning mathematics according to their self-efficacy. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 50(1), 248–263. doi:10.1111/bjet.12718
Collins, L. (2018). The Impact of Paper Versus Digital Map Technology on Students’ Spatial Thinking
Skill Acquisition. The Journal of Geography, 117(4), 137–152. doi:10.1080/00221341.2017.1374990
de la Hera, D. D., Sigman, M., & Calero, C. I. (2018). Social interaction and conceptual change in children:
Paving the way away from misconceptions about the Earth. Retrieved from https://osf.io/djsva/download
Eguchi, A. (2015). Educational Robotics as a Learning Tool for Promoting Rich Environments for Active
Learning (REALs). In Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 740–767). doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8789-9.ch033
Fleck, S., Hachet, M., & Bastien, J. M. C. (2015). Marker-based augmented reality. Proceedings of the 14th
International Conference on Interaction Design and Children - IDC ’15, 21–28. 10.1145/2771839.2771842
Huang, K. T., Ball, C., Francis, J., Ratan, R., Boumis, J., & Fordham, J. (2019). Augmented versus
virtual reality in education: An exploratory study examining science knowledge retention when using
augmented reality/virtual reality mobile applications. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Network-
ing, 22(2), 105–110. doi:10.1089/cyber.2018.0150 PMID:30657334
Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Angeli, C. (2017). Effect of Robotics on Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Self-
Efficacy, Science Learning, and Computational Thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
26(2), 175–192. doi:10.100710956-016-9663-z
Karim, M. E., Lemaignan, S., & Mondada, F. (2015). A review: Can robots reshape K-12 STEM educa-
tion? 2015 IEEE International Workshop on Advanced Robotics and Its Social Impacts (ARSO), 1–8.
10.1109/ARSO.2015.7428217
Kazanidis, I., Palaigeorgiou, G., & Bazinas, C. (2018). Dynamic interactive number lines for fraction
learning in a mixed reality environment. South-East Europe Design Automation, Computer Engineer-
ing, Computer Networks and Social Media Conference, SEEDA_CECNSM 2018. 10.23919/SEEDA-
CECNSM.2018.8544927
Khanlari, A. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and the challenges of integrating educational
robots into primary/elementary curricula. European Journal of Engineering Education, 41(3), 320–330.
doi:10.1080/03043797.2015.1056106
149

Li, N., Willett, W., Sharlin, E., & Sousa, M. C. (2017). Visibility perception and dynamic viewsheds for
topographic maps and models. ACM Reference, 9, 39–47. doi:10.1145/3131277.3132178
Lindgren, R., Tscholl, M., Wang, S., & Johnson, E. (2016). Enhancing learning and engagement
through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation. Computers & Education, 95, 174–187.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.001
Mpiladeri, M., Palaigeorgiou, G., & Lemonidis, C. (2016). Fractangi: A Tangible Learning Environ-
ment for Learning about Fractions with an Interactive Number Line. International Association for the
Development of the Information Society.
Nemiro, J., Larriva, C., & Jawaharlal, M. (2017). Developing Creative Behavior in Elementary School
Students with Robotics. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(1), 70–90. doi:10.1002/jocb.87
Palaigeorgiou, G., Karakostas, A., & Skenderidou, K. (2017). FingerTrips: Learning Geography through
Tangible Finger Trips into 3D Augmented Maps. Proceedings - IEEE 17th International Conference on
Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2017, 170–172. 10.1109/ICALT.2017.118
Palaigeorgiou, G., Malandrakis, G., & Tsolopani, C. (2017). Learning with Drones: Flying Windows for
Classroom Virtual Field Trips. Proceedings - IEEE 17th International Conference on Advanced Learn-
ing Technologies, ICALT 2017, 338–342. 10.1109/ICALT.2017.116
Savenije, G. M., & de Bruijn, P. (2017). Historical empathy in a museum: uniting contextualisation and
emotional engagement. doi:10.1080/13527258.2017.1339108
Sklar, E., Eguchi, A., & Johnson, J. (2002). RoboCupJunior: Learning with Educational Robotics. Lecture
Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 2752, 238–253. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-45135-8_18
Sullivan, F. R., Sullivan, F. R., & Moriarty, M. A. (2009). Robotics and Discovery Learning: Pedagogi-
cal Beliefs, Teacher Practice, and.... Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(1), 109–142.
Sun, K.-T., Lin, C.-L., & Wang, S.-M. (2010). A 3D virtual reality model of the sun and the moon for
e-learning at elementary schools. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(4),
689–710. doi:10.100710763-009-9181-z
Wang, C.-Y., Chen, G.-D., Chen, C.-H., Wu, C.-J., Chi, Y.-L., & Lee, J.-H. (2010). Constructing a Digital
Authentic Learning Playground by a Mixed Reality Platform and a Robot. Retrieved from https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/228991052
Xefteris, S. (2019). Developing STEAM Educational Scenarios in Pedagogical Studies using Robotics:
An Undergraduate Course for Elementary School Teachers. Engineering, Technology & Applied Sci-
ence Research.
Xefteris, S., Palaigeorgiou, G., & Zoumpourtikoudi, E. (2019). Educational Robotics For Creating Tan-
gible Simulations: A Mixed Reality Space For Learning The Day/night Cycle. In Interactive Mobile
Communication, Technologies and Learning. Springer.
Xefteris, S., & Palaigeorgiou, G. (2019a). Mixing Educational Robotics, Tangibles and Mixed Reality
Environments for the Interdisciplinary Learning of Geography and History. International Journal of
Engineering Pedagogy, 9(2), 82–98. doi:10.3991/ijep.v9i2.9950
150

Xefteris, S., & Palaigeorgiou, G. (2019b). Mixing Educational Robotics, Tangibles and Mixed Reality
Environments for the Interdisciplinary Learning of Geography and History. International Journal of
Engineering Pedagogy, 9(2), 82. doi:10.3991/ijep.v9i2.9950
Xefteris, S., Palaigeorgiou, G., & Tsorbari, A. (2018). A learning environment for geography and history
using mixed reality, tangible interfaces and educational robotics. International Conference on Interactive
Collaborative Learning, 106–117. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/George_Palai-
georgiou/publication/328417221_A_learning_environment_for_geography_and_history_using_mixed_
reality_tangible_interfaces_and_educational_robotics/links/5bcd10e8299bf17a1c661739/A-learning-
environment-for-geo
Xu, X., & Ke, F. (2016). Designing a Virtual-Reality-Based, Gamelike Math Learning Environment.
American Journal of Distance Education, 30(1), 27–38. doi:10.1080/08923647.2016.1119621
ADDITIONAL READING
Garcia-Ruiz, M. A., Santana-Mancilla, P. C., & Gaytan-Lugo, L. S. (2018). Integrating microcontroller-
based projects in a human-computer interaction course. Int. J. Comput. Inf. Eng, 12(10), 946–950.
Hsu, Y. C., Ching, Y. H., & Baldwin, S. (2018). Physical computing for STEAM education: Maker-
Educators’ experiences in an online graduate course. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science
Teaching, 37(1), 53–67.
Keengwe, J., & Tran, Y. (2020). Handbook of research on equity in computer science in P-16 education.
IGI Global.
Mikropoulos, T. A., & Bellou, I. (2013). Educational robotics as mindtools. Themes in Science and
Papadakis, S., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2020). Handbook of Research on Using Educational Robotics to
Facilitate Student Learning. IGI Global.
Yamamori, K. (2019). Classroom practices of low-cost STEM education using scratch. Journal of Ad-
vanced Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 4(6), 192–198.
Computational Thinking (CT): A set of problem-solving methods that involve expressing problems
and their solutions in ways that a computer could also execute. It involves automation of processes, but
also using computing to explore, analyze, and understand processes (natural and artificial).
Educational Robotics: A discipline designed to introduce students to Robotics and Programming
interactively from a very early age.
151

Embodied Learning: An educational method that has been around for a while in (primary) educa-
tion. In this method, one does not only offer an intellectual way of teaching, but also involve the whole
body. One can think of doing mathematics while throwing small bags of sand to each other.
ICT: Information and communications technology (or technologies), is the infrastructure and com-
ponents that enable modern computing.
Makey-Makey: MaKey MaKey lets you transform everyday objects into computer interfaces. Make a
game pad out of Play-Doh, a musical instrument out of bananas, or any other invention you can imagine.
It’s a little USB device you plug into your computer, and you use it to make your own switches that act
like keys on the keyboard.
Mixed Reality: A blend of physical and digital worlds, unlocking natural and intuitive 3D human,
computer, and environmental interactions.
Scratch: Scratch is the world’s largest coding community for children and a coding language with a
simple visual interface that allows young people to create digital stories, games, and animations.
STEAM Education: An approach to learning that uses Science, Technology, Engineering, the Arts
and Mathematics as access points for guiding student inquiry, dialogue, and critical thinking.
152
153
Chapter 8
Preparing Teachers for
the 21st Century:
A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of TPD
Programs Under the Lens of Emerging
Technologies in STE(A)M Education
Stavros Pitsikalis Apostolos Kostas

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3051-2555 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1567-2649
University of the Aegean, Greece University of the Aegean, Greece
Ilona-Elefteryja Lasica Chryssi Vitsilaki

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6842-9901 University of the Aegean, Greece
University of the Aegean, Greece
ABSTRACT
This chapter provides an overview of (1) the current situation concerning teacher professional develop-
ment (TPD) programs through studies referring to existing challenges; (2) the TPD programs under
discussion that have been implemented during the last three years (2018-2021) in the context of European
projects, including their structure and descriptions of the educational content; (3) teachers’ views and
feedback concerning the TPD program they attended, based on a specific evaluation framework, with
focus on issues relevant to emerging technologies. The researchers provide directions towards an effec-
tive framework for horizontal TPD programs targeting large numbers of teachers, aiming to allow them
to gain the appropriate knowledge and skills in order to integrate emerging technologies as concepts in
interdisciplinary STE(A)M-based instructional scenarios, especially in the levels of Secondary general
(Gymnasium and Lyceum in Greece) and (post)secondary vocational education (EPAL and IEK in Greece).
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-3861-9.ch008

Preparing Teachers for the 21st Century
INTRODUCTION
This chapter aims to provide practicing educators, teacher trainers and researchers in the field of educa-
tional science with directions for designing TPD programs for integrating emerging technologies, such
as Augmented Reality (AR), in interdisciplinary STE(A)M based instructional scenarios, especially in
the level of Secondary general (Gymnasium and Lyceum in Greece) and (Post)Secondary Vocational
Education (EPAL - Vocational Lyceum) and IEK (Institution of Vocational Training in Greece). The
suggested directions arise as a result of the evaluation process of specific components of TPD programs,
where the authors have been involved in the evaluation process.
The chapter begins with an overview of the current situation concerning the trends for transformation
and evolution of teaching practices through innovative pedagogical approaches and emerging technologies
(Adnan & Tondeur, 2018; Darling-Hammond, 2017; Ramírez-Montoya, Andrade-Vargas, Rivera-Rogel,
D & Portuguez-Castro, 2021; Tarling & Ng’ambi, 2016). Changing teaching practices is proving difficult
to achieve, while it seems that many teachers (at least at European level) remain unprepared to effec-
tively employ technology-enhanced teaching practices. This is a fact that has been highlighted in many
studies (Cochran-Smith & Maria Villegas, 2015; Dotong, De Castro, Dolot & Prenda, 2016; Kaufman,
2014) and has recently emerged, during the global situation of the pandemic COVID-19 (Whalen, 2020;
Winter, Costello, O’Brien & Hickey, 2021), where critical issues have raised concerning the need for
ready-to-instruct teachers in the 21st century. Teachers attend numerous training programs on a variety
of topics, including STE(A)M education, ICT in education, interdisciplinarity in education, 21st century
skills etc. As a result, they gain fragmented knowledge having difficulties in connecting it and bringing
it to practice (Santos, Franco, Leon, Ovigli & Donizete Colombo Jr, 2017). The main question that still
needs to be answered is whether nowadays teachers are appropriately prepared to support their students
to strengthen their 21st century skills and become human resources responding to the demands of the
modern labor market. Teachers face challenges in deploying smart learning environments, since the de-
velopment pace of information and communication technologies (ICT) and devices that could be applied
in education, far exceeds the development pace of educational studies concerning the effectiveness of
each technological innovation integration within the educational process (Lasica, Meletiou-Mavrotheris
& Katzis, 2020a). Emerging technologies as well as any innovative tool introduced into the educational
process, should be treated as a concept, taking into consideration numerous factors, rather than a sole
technological tool offering new teaching and learning opportunities (Vitsilaki & Pitsikalis, 2017). It is
critical not only for teachers, but also for those involved in the educational process (researchers, designers
and developers of educational content, decision makers in education, school administrative staff etc.) to
have opportunities for adequate training.
Taking the above mentioned into consideration, existing TPD programs have been evaluated, in
which authors of the current chapter were involved during the design, development, implementation
and/or evaluation phases, including: (a) “train the trainer” programs, targeted to teacher trainers in the
context of the National Project “Training of teachers/trainers in Apprenticeship topics” (Pitsikalis, Lasica
& Roussos, 2020) in Greece, (b) a TPD in the context of a European project (i.e. Enlivened Labora-
tories within STEM Education – EL-STEM), targeted to Secondary Education teachers from Greece,
Cyprus and Estonia (Mavrotheris, Lasica, Pitsikalis & Meletiou-Mavrotheris, 2018). It is important to
declare that the current research is part of the wider studies, implemented in the context of the relevant
projects, including internal and external evaluations, as well as qualitative and quantitative data. The
current chapter focuses on the book’s main topics towards practical approaches to integrating ICTs in
154

STEAM education and the authors’ perspectives through their experience and involvement in the TPD
programs. The TPD evaluation process is based on Guskey’s (2002a) and the Merchie, Tuytens, Devos
and Vanderlinde (2018) evaluation frameworks, applied through the different data collection methods.
The TPD programs under investigation, focused on applying emerging technologies in education and
supporting the educational process through blended approaches. More specifically, the TPD programs in
Greece were open to teacher trainers, that were expected to train teachers in the context of the National
Project “Training of teachers/trainers in Apprenticeship topics”, i.e. Secondary general and (Post)Sec-
ondary Vocational Education and Training, aiming to support the integration of Augmented Reality, as
well as other collaboration tools (i.e. MS Teams), suggested by the Ministry of Education and Religious
Affairs during the pandemic COVID-19. The EU project’s TPD program focused on the technology of
Augmented Reality for Secondary Education teachers with students of specific age groups (12-15). All
TPD programs were provided both synchronously and asynchronously, allowing the attending teachers
to study the available educational material on their own pace and at the same time, promoting immedi-
ate communication with the instructors and other participants through face-to-face or online meetings.
The educational material was structured in relevant units, including theoretical content, practical content
(tutorials and workshop activities), suggested additional content, as well as collaboration activities,
where teachers were encouraged to discuss their experience and share their work with others, creating
a digital community and exchanging best practices between them. The TPD programs treated the sug-
gested technologies as concepts rather than individual tools, taking into consideration other aspects and
correlations, such as the Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), and Technological
Knowledge (TK) (TPACK) (Chai, Koh & Tsai, 2010). In addition, the successful completion of the TPD
programs under discussion was accompanied with the submission of an educational scenario, in which
the teachers were asked to integrate the emerging technologies into interdisciplinary scenarios.
The chapter contributes to the existing work by applying a suggested Extended Teachers’ Professional
Development evaluative framework (Merchie et al, 2018), specifically for programs towards integrating
emerging technologies into the educational process. Through this evaluation, directions for high quality
TPD programs derive, which could be taken into consideration during the design of a similar program.
BACKGROUND
Considering issues like “what it entails to teach in the 21st-century?” in the context of embracing Fourth
Industrial Revolution (4IR) by education professionals, there is a need to understand that teacher profes-
sion is evolving towards new innovative and responsive teaching methods, capable of preparing students
for the 4IR as well (Naidoo, 2021). 4IR is explained as the assimilation of the physical and virtual world,
where Internet of Things (IoT), robotics, artificial intelligence (AI) and mixed reality (XR) are rapidly
evolving and transforming societies. And it is evident, that the 4IR involves advanced proficiencies for
people and machines and signifies new means in which technology becomes entrenched within society
(Schwab, 2016).
To succeed within the 4IR embracement, educational sector ought to adapt (Naidoo, 2021); students
would need to be exposed to and be stimulated to learn through technology-enabled pedagogy and tools,
and teachers would also need to be proficient in using technology-enabled pedagogy and tools, as well.
To prepare the required capacity for this upcoming pedagogical and digital transformation, educational
settings ought to adapt quickly since the demand for remote and virtual pedagogy globally is increasing
155

and progressing and teachers are required to possess critical skills to achieve success within the 21st-
century educational environment. These skills include critical thinking, communication, collaboration,
problem-solving and creativity (Fadel, 2008).
Moreover, this transformation ought to consider that including technology-based tools within the
educational environment is not adequate to supplement a transformed pedagogy, but instead, the edu-
cational environment needs to be flexible to inform best practices, and tangible learning spaces need
to be restructured to support interactive educational environments (Boothe & Clark, 2014). Catering
and supporting interactive educational environments also require curriculum reforms and curriculum
material ought to link content knowledge to real-world applications and problems that enable students
to perceive how their learning relates to real world and what it is relevant and realistic for them (Beers,
2011). Education needs to integrate content for various subjects and disciplines as well as skills for the
21st century including critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, communication, information literacy,
media literacy, technology literacy and flexibility (Beers, 2011; Fadel, 2008). Thus, curriculum revision
needs to include content material that links crucial knowledge and skills for the 21st century to relevant
real-world problems and applications, so that students may envision the importance and relevance of
what they are learning with aspects of their lives and the real world (Beers, 2011).
But, to use revised curriculums effectively in the 21st-century educational contexts, teacher develop-
ment needs to be encouraged. The 21st-century teacher needs to be competent with using innovative
technologies, since this is an integral part of successful teaching and learning (Jan, 2017), because tech-
nology can enhance student’s achievement if used suitably (Sarkar, 2012). Thus, teacher development is
essential to ensure that teachers are aware of curriculum revisions and emerging technologies, capable
of supporting teaching and learning in the 21st century.
The role of the teacher as a guide or facilitator is vital within these new educational arrangements like
flipped or blended classrooms, a combination of the traditional teaching approach with the integration
of technology-based tools and resources within the classroom environment (Jan, 2017). Teachers need
to guide students’ “learning by-doing” and sustain a supportive and safe classroom environment that
encourages collaboration and supports problem-based learning (Murphy, 2010). The notion of problem-
based learning is vital to incorporate within 21st-century teaching and learning as this is an essential
approach for developing independent thinking among students. Thus, teachers need to make teaching
relevant and authentic by promoting thinking skills, encouraging communication and collaboration,
tackling misconceptions, and making efficient and purposeful use of technology (Tican & Deniz, 2018).
Conclusively, teachers ought to be comfortable with the use of technology-enabled pedagogy within
their educational environments, and they need to be proficient at using 21st-century skills and knowledge
within their teaching. The 21st-century teacher needs to be adept at conveying critical skills and knowledge
to their students to better prepare them for work and life in the future. Teaching in the 21st-century while
acknowledging the notions of the Fourth Industrial Revolution brings about exciting opportunities and
experiences. Teachers need to partake in professional development initiatives (formal and informal) that
demonstrate how technology may be integrated into authentic educational environments and cultivate their
own personal learning environments (PLEs) via peer networking, to share 21st-century pedagogic strate-
gies with other colleagues and expand their personal technology skills and practices (Kaufman, 2013).
156

Teachers’ Professional Development Initiatives
Any successful TPD program, besides a grounded training needs analysis, presupposes a clear understand-
ing of what is “teacher professionalism” and its contextual characteristics, considering postmodernism,
21st Century skills initiative and digital transformation of education. Profession as a concept reflects
key features both at professional and personal level and entails the key concepts “professionalism” and
“professionalization”. Professionalism reflects teacher’s professional identity, competence, and capac-
ity to operate in terms of quality and sense of duty, while professionalization states teachers’ profession
upgrade in terms of self and social perception (Hargreaves, 2000).
According to Hargreaves (2000), teachers’ professionalism is now traversing the fourth evolution
phase (postmodernism 2000-today), characterized by digitization, convergence, and globalization. The
differences that have occurred in the organization of social subsystems, and therefore of the educational
subsystem, are currently forming a new dialogue around teacher professionalism, which is subject both
to timeless changes (society, economy, institutions) and contemporary factors, such as the use of digital
technologies in education, the need for teachers to develop digital skills, to expand school community
beyond its narrow boundaries and cultivate one’s individual, social and scientific background (White-
house, McClosky & Ketelhut, 2010).
Now, being a teacher is more than just “teaching in the classroom”, as they own a collective responsi-
bility, work with parents and the local community, evaluate, and adapt their teaching practice by analyz-
ing the learning needs of their students and actively participates in Lifelong Learning. However, at the
same time, the transition from “old” to “new” professionalism obliges in-service teachers to conform to
the needs for continuous professional development, a concept which is ambiguously defined reflecting
upon the various attempts for its conceptual delimitation (Helleve, 2010).
According to Darling-Hammond (2017) TPD is a continuous developmental process of strengthening
the teacher’s professional status through cultivation of the awareness and cognitive background. Kelly
(2006) approaches TPD (a) through the lens of “learning as a cognitive process” implying that training
is the appropriate method for professional development and (b) through the lens of “situated learning”,
where teacher’s development is strengthened through reflective, collaborative, and inclusive activities.
Bell & Gilbert (1994) prefer the term “learning” arguing that the term “development” reflects a passive
process, when in fact it is an ongoing process, on a personal, professional, and social level. Schlager &
Fusco (2003) refer to TPD as the process of learning how to relate knowledge to practice through active
involvement in the practice itself within peer-to-peer communities. Helleve (2010) states that professional
development is a continuous reflective learning process where teachers and educators are involved in
learning how to adapt their teaching to the learning needs of their students.
Professional development, as a complex process, depends on various factors, such as teacher’s
decision-making ability, perception of its professional identity, self-perception, work environment and
cultivation of a self-learning culture. These factors potentially influence teachers’ attitudes towards
self-improvement. Thus, it has been observed that while initially the participation of teachers in TPD
activities is based on in-service formal obligations, or some type of accreditation/certification, finally it
is guided by internal motivations as a means of self-improvement, professional satisfaction, knowledge
acquisition, status, hierarchical development (Beijaard, Verloop & Vermunt, 2000; Guskey, 2002b).
Finally, successful TPD needs to be continuous and reflective, problem-solving oriented, provide op-
portunities for collaboration, bring together innovation, technology and teaching practice and promotes
creation and sharing of learning resources (Ifanti & Fotopoulou, 2013).
157

Teachers’ professional development programs could entail numerous activities, such as workshops,
seminars, trainings, thus, there are many approaches in the literature, towards this direction (Goodson,
2002; Hendriks, Luyten, Sleegers & Steen, 2011; Kulshrestha & Pandey, 2013; Ur, 1997; Vermunt,
2014) depending on the training’s characteristics including:
• teachers’ status (e.g. pre-service, in-service),

• motivation (e.g. imposed from the Ministry of education, initiated by the teacher),
• expected results (e.g. aiming to strengthen teachers’ cognitive background in a specific field, aim-
ing to enhance specific skills),
• program structure (e.g. pre-determined structure, structure determined through the training
process),
• program syllabus (e.g. externally determined by experts, teachers in collaboration with their train-
ers co-shape the syllabus),
• evaluation (e.g. self-evaluation, strict evaluation process, in case the training leads to an accredita-
tion and/or certificate),
• formality (e.g. formal training provided by the Ministry of Education and/or other authorities,
informal training provided by any training provider).
In the context of this chapter, the authors refer to Teachers’ Professional Development programs,
provided in Greece, in the context of specific projects, targeting in-service teachers (without excluding
pre-service) self-motivated to attend, aiming to enhance specific skills, with ta pre-determined structure,
where the teachers could intervene in the syllabus in collaboration with their trainers, without a strict
evaluation process, but providing teachers with feedback concerning the educational scenarios developed
at the end of the programs.
Teachers’ Professional Development Evaluation Frameworks
The research literature identifies a number of frameworks for evaluating TPD initiatives, as it is of ad-
ditional value to gain a deeper understanding of the results of such programs and guide reform efforts,
towards increasing effectiveness and attractiveness for the teachers addressed (Guskey, 2000). These
frameworks, usually have some common axes, since most of them focus on particular factors before,
during and after the completion of a TPD program, sometimes also taking into consideration other fac-
tors (contextual factors, personal characteristics etc.) that could affect the effectiveness of a program
(Merchie et al, 2018).
One of the most cited frameworks is Guskey’s Five Levels of Professional Development evaluation
(Guskey, 2000; Guskey, 2002a). These evaluation levels are hierarchically arranged and the process of
gathering data gets more complex from one level to another (Guskey, 2002a), thus, multiple data col-
lection tools should probably be applied to enhance levels of validity and reliability. Moreover, each
level suggests questions that could be addressed in the context described. Level one refers to teachers’
reactions concerning the TPD program. Questions of this level should address teachers’ satisfaction
with the training experience in total, including questions about the instructors, the learning sessions, the
training material, even details concerning the training location, such as coffee breaks. Level two should
include questions concerning teachers’ learning, thus, the knowledge, skills and attitudes gained during
the TPD program. At level 3, the focus shifts from the teachers to the organization, the provider of the
158

training. Questions should refer to organizational issues, time plan, policy etc. Level four consists of a
critical level, as it returns the focus to teachers and their intention to apply/ use the new knowledge and
skills in their real classrooms, laboratories etc. It has been highlighted in the literature (Vermunt, 2014)
that although teachers attend TPD programs, they tend to strengthen their theoretical backgrounds but
hesitate to apply new knowledge in the educational process. Thus, evaluating the future application in
the educational process, as well as the challenges towards this direction, could be of additional value for
the topics of a TPD program. Finally, level five refers to students and changes on the learning outcomes
and/or their behavior (e.g. interest towards the educational process, motivation to attend), when actu-
ally a teacher applies the new knowledge and skills gained during a TPD program, in a real classroom.
A more recent TPD evaluation framework has been suggested by Desimone (2009) and illustrates
interactive relationships between four main dimensions, affected by contextual factors (curriculum,
educational policy, school administration, socioeconomic factors, school autonomy etc.) and teachers’
personal characteristics (gender, age, educational level, technological background, previous experience,
personal motivation etc.). These dimensions include: (a) features of professional development, such as
content, structure, duration, even provider of the training program and trainers’ quality, (b) increase
of teacher quality (knowledge, skills and changes in attitudes/beliefs), (c) change in teaching behavior
(instructional strategies, practices, as well as behavior among teachers and behavior towards students)
and (d) improvement of students’ results (knowledge, skills and changes in attitudes/beliefs).
Parallels have been drawn between Guskey’s (2000) and Desimone’s (2009) models, thus, an extended
model has been suggested by Merchie et al. (2018), which unites views on important components in
TPD evaluation and evaluation models and methods of professional development. The extended evalu-
ative framework is illustrated in Figure 1 (Merchie et al., 2018), including detailed descriptions and
sub-categories for each component of the initial framework by Desimone (2009).
In the context of this chapter, the authors applied the Merchie et al. (2018) extended evaluative frame-
work, as the main pathway to guide the evaluation process and enhance the presentation of the relevant
results, focusing on issues relevant to the integration of emerging technologies into the educational process.
Pedagogical Frameworks in TPD Programs
Different pedagogical frameworks for TPD programs focused on technology integration have been pro-
posed in the literature (Desimone, 2009; Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). One such framework is TPACK,
suggested by Mishra and Koehler (2006), which has been extended by Phillips (2013). TPACK consists
of a deep understanding that emerges from the interactions among Technology, Content and Pedagogy
Knowledge, as well as all possible individual correlations between all aspects, such as the Content
Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), Technological Knowledge (TK) and Content Pedagogi-
cal Knowledge (CPK). Phillips (2013) also focused on the contexts in which the TPACK framework is
implemented, including sociocultural influences on pedagogical technology practices and on identity
transformations, adding the key role of the place where the TPACK framework is implemented.
Similarly to Merchie et al. (2018) in their evaluation framework, Phillips (2013) in his pedagogical
framework, highlights the importance of the context. In this chapter, the authors refer to the Phillips
(2013) extended pedagogical framework, applied as the main pathway to guide the design and imple-
mentation process of the TPD programs’ structure under discussion, focusing on issues relevant to the
integration of emerging technologies into the educational process. This approach allows description of
159

specific directions for designing TPD programs, especially when focusing on the expected impact on
teachers’ knowledge.
Figure 1. Extended teachers’ professional development evaluative framework (based on Desimone 2009;
Guskey, 2000)
Source: Merchie, Tuytens, Devos & Vanderlinde, (2018)
Teachers’ Professional Development Programs’ Description
The following sections provide detailed descriptions of the TPD programs implemented in the context
of this research and the evaluation applied, through the data collection and analysis processes, based on
the background already described above.
“Train the Trainer” Programs Targeted to Teacher Trainers in the Context of the
National Project “Training of Teachers/Trainers in Apprenticeship Topics” in Greece
The TPD programs under investigation, focused on the “train the trainers” (multipliers), specifically
those trainers that were going to take over topics in their fields in the context of the National Project
“Training of teachers/trainers in Apprenticeship topics” (Pitsikalis et al., 2020) in Greece, and train other
teachers/trainers on apprenticeship issues, aiming to support the “Apprenticeship Year” and lead to its
smooth implementation, responding to the needs of the modern labor market.
160

The educational content for the TPD program has been developed by experts in the relevant fields
(Table 1), following the specifications prepared by the project’s scientific team at the Institute of Edu-
cational Policy for face-to-face (Mavrikakis, Sirigos & Farantou, 2018a) and online educational content
(Mavrikakis, Sirigos & Farantou, 2018b). Trainers were provided with the official educational content
for each module; thus, the main aim of their training was to enhance them with the necessary knowledge
and skills on how to teach the specific content in their field through a blended approach and of course,
how to integrate innovative technologies in VET and Apprenticeship.
Focusing on the integration of emerging technologies, the main objective of this TPD program was
to encourage the trainers and prepare fertile ground to apply emerging technologies - such as digital
realities (Virtual, Augmented, Mixed Reality), Internet of Things, Artificial Intelligence, etc., putting
emphasis on Augmented Reality - in their classrooms and/or laboratories. Through this program, partici-
pants got familiarized not only with concepts of the emerging technologies as individual tools (Vitsilaki
& Pitsikalis, 2017), but also, integrated in the context of innovative teaching and training approaches
(e.g. inquiry-based learning, game-based learning, project-based learning), 21st century skills necessary
to support nowadays demanding labor market and interdisciplinarity, as an authentic approach to deal
with real-life situations and professional challenges. As far as the Augmented Reality software/ tools
are concerned, trainers got familiarized with HaloAR, Doodle Lens, Metaverse, CoSpace, ARloopa,
ZapWorks, BlippAR and Unity/ Vufora, among others that they chose to investigate on their own.
Module 9 initially included only Big Blue Button (BBB) as a tool for synchronous training, but since
the pandemic of COVID-19 (February 2020), the circumstances changed radically, and the Hellenic
Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs, included among others, the MS Teams platform, as a strong
suggestion for synchronous online meetings.
Table 1 summarizes the modules of the “train the trainers” programs. Modules M1-M7 addressed
trainers depending on their field and the topic they were expected to teach (e.g. the apprenticeship frame-
work, the relevant curriculums, principles of adults’ education, innovation in teaching and training and
safety issues), while modules M8-M10 addressed all participants.
Table 1. TPD topics
Module Description
M1 Institutional framework for Apprenticeships
M2 Apprenticeships Curriculums
M3 Health and safety at work
M4 Basic Principles of Adult Education/ Innovative Teaching Approaches in Vocational Education and Training
M5 Counselling and Career Guidance and Information
M6 Entrepreneurship
M7 Best Practices – Preparing Didactical Scenarios
M8 Using Moodle for asynchronous training
M9 Using BigBlueButton - MS Teams for synchronous training
M10 Applying emerging technologies in VET and Apprenticeship, with emphasis on Augmented Reality
161

The specific “train the trainers” programs’ duration was thirty (30) hours, three for each module. How-
ever, since there was a high interest on specific topics, including emerging technologies (M10), trainers
were encouraged to attend wider programs (220 hours), deepening on the module’s topics and concepts.
A blended approach has been designed and adopted (at least as an initial approach, before COVID-19
affected the training circumstances). Face-to-face training workshops encouraged communication, al-
lowed the development of a personal connection with the participants and practical familiarization with
Augmented Reality technology, supported by mobile devices. Online modules offered trainers time
flexibility and ease of access to additional educational content (articles, videos, tutorials etc.). Since the
TPD program targeted teachers and trainers in a national level, the online modules enhanced attendance
from different regions, overcoming location difficulties, such as islands, isolated areas etc., as well as
restrictions that emerged due to COVID-19 protection measures.
The specific “train the trainer” program has been repeated four (4) times between 2018-2021, equally
to the number of implementation cycles of the National Project “Training of teachers/trainers in Ap-
prenticeship topics”. More than two hundred trainers were trained as multiplies, training in their turn
more than three thousand teachers/ trainers of VET. The first two times, as already mentioned, were
based on a blended approach. However, the last two implementations, took place during 2020 and 2021,
when restrictions due to COVID-19 arose (Viner et al., 2020). Thus, both the “train the trainer” and the
National Project programs, took place exclusively online.
The EL-STEM TPD Program
The EL-STEM project, targeted students of secondary general education, aiming to (Mavrotheris et al.,
2018): (a) attract those who might not be interested in STEM related studies/careers and enhance the
interest of those who have already chosen this field of studies/careers, and (b) improve performance in
courses related to STEM education. The TPD program, designed and developed in the context of this
project, aimed to motivate Secondary general Education teachers (Gymnasium and Lyceum in Greece
and Cyprus) of STEM-related courses on effectively integrating AR with core STEM curricular ideas
to transform their classrooms and/or laboratories into a smart-learning environment both by (a) using
existing AR Learning Objects (LOs) and (b) creating their own AR LOs and Lesson Plans (LPs) with
appropriate tools (Lasica, Meletiou-Mavrotheris, Katzis, Dimopoulos & Mavrotheris, 2018). The theoreti-
cal approach of the TPD program as well as the educational content have been developed by the project
consortium’s experts in the relevant fields (Table 2), following the TPACK framework (Lasica et al.,
2018), under the concepts of Problem-Based Learning and Inquiry-Based and Contemporary Learning
Approach, promoting scaffolding and collaboration in STE(A)M education (Pedaste et al., 2015).
Focusing on the integration of emerging technologies, the main objective of this TPD program was to
encourage teachers and prepare fertile ground to apply emerging technologies in their classrooms and/or
laboratories, with specific emphasis on Augmented Reality. Through this program, teachers got trained
on how to implement inquiry-based learning LPs supported by AR in their STEM-related courses and
got familiarized with different software/ tools for developing AR LOs, such as HP Reveal, ARTutor,
ZapWorks, EON Experience, Scratch and Unity (Lasica, Meletiou-Mavrotheris & Katzis, 2020b). Table
2 summarizes the modules of the EL-STEM TPD program.
A blended approach has been designed and adopted of a total duration of thirty (30) hours, including
fifteen (15) hours of workshops and about fifteen (15) hours for the online training, depending on each
teacher’s pace and degree of depth into each topic. Face-to-face training workshops provided ample op-
162

portunities for interactive and collaborative training through the use of Augmented Reality and related
equipment, encouraged authentic collaborative educational activities and allowed the development of
a personal connection between the trainers and the participant teachers (Lasica et al., 2020b). Online
modules offered trainers time flexibility and ease of access to additional educational content (articles,
videos, tutorials etc.), allowing participating teachers to share content, ideas, and instructional strategies
and deepen their knowledge.
Table 2. EL-STEM TPD topics
Module Description
M1 Introduction to the EL-STEM project
M2 Enlivened Laboratory Methodological Guidelines (ELMG) (Part 1 - Who, Where, Why)
M3 Enlivened Laboratory Methodological Guidelines (Part 2 - What)
M4 Enlivened Laboratory Methodological Guidelines (Part 3 - How)
M5 Using the EL-STEM Platform
M6 Evaluating the Augmented Reality STEM Teacher
M7 Getting Ready for the Pilot AR/MR STEM Laboratories! (guided-field practice)
The face-to-face trainings with teachers have been repeated many times in the consortium countries
(Greece, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Portugal), while in Greece they took place twice, during 2019 and
2020 (just before COVID-19 pandemic affected schools’ operation). More than fifty teachers have been
trained in the context of the EL-STEM TPD program, acting as multipliers in their schools and engaging
even more teachers in the technology of Augmented Reality.
METHODOLOGY
The current chapter focuses on the book’s main topics towards practical approaches to integrating ICTs
in STEAM education and the authors’ perspectives through their experience and involvement in the
TPD programs. The TPD evaluation process is based on Guskey’s (2002a – Table 3) and the Merchie,
Tuytens, Devos and Vanderlinde (2018 – Figure 1) evaluation frameworks, applied through the different
data collection methods.
The researchers of this study focus on qualitative research, as they have observed part of the TPD pro-
grams and collected data from interviews with the teachers, open-ended questions of the TPD programs’
evaluation questionnaires and open-ended discussions (face-to-face and forum discussions), between the
teachers and the researchers. Quantitative data have also been collected; however, they are not discussed
in the context of this chapter (e.g. as descriptive statistics), due to extent restrictions. It is important to
mention that the current research is part of the wider studies, implemented in the context of the relevant
projects, including internal and external evaluations, as well as both qualitative and quantitative data.
The total number of the participant teachers was fifty-five (55), including only those that have pro-
vided at least one reply in the open-ended questions and/or have attended at least a discussion and/or have
designed/ implemented an educational scenario supported by Augmented Reality. In order to strengthen
163

the research evidence, the authors have also included in their evaluation data, parts of the educational
scenarios that were designed and submitted by the teachers.
Data Collection and Analysis Methods
The following sections provide details about the method implemented by the authors to evaluate the
TPD programs described in this chapter. Gall, Gall and Borg (2007) have identified five (5) tools for
collecting both qualitative and quantitative data within an educational research, including questionnaires,
self-reports, interviews, performance assessments, and observations. Merchie et al. (2018), based on their
extended evaluative framework, suggest a consistent set of data collection methods and instruments to
apply the evaluation of TPD programs in a focused systematic way. These include rubrics, observations
(video or audio recorded), questionnaires, interviews, digital logs, knowledge sets, self-reports, portfolios,
policy documents, school and/or other records, etc., and could be applied in each of their framework’s
component individually, partially or in total, depending on the available resources (Merchie et al., 2018).
Taking the above mentioned into consideration, the current research focuses on qualitative data,
collected from open-ended questions of the TPD programs’ evaluation questionnaires, interviews con-
ducted, open-ended discussions (face-to-face and forum discussions), observations by the researchers as
well as evaluation data, i.e. parts of the educational scenarios that were designed and submitted and/or
implemented by the teachers. The data collected have been triangulated to enhance the levels of validity
and reliability of the research. Moreover, concurrent, parallel, iterative and retrospective analysis was
undertaken, with the purpose of triangulation and expansion (Guest, 2013).
The total number of the participant teachers was fifty-five (55), including only those that have pro-
vided at least one reply in the open-ended questions and/or have attended at least a discussion and/or
have designed/ implemented an educational scenario supported by Augmented Reality. It is important to
mention that the current data were collected as part of wider studies in the context of the relevant proj-
ects, including internal and external evaluations, as well as qualitative and quantitative data. The current
chapter focuses on the book’s main topics towards practical approaches to integrating ICTs in STEAM
education and the authors’ perspective through their experience and contribution to the TPD programs.
Questionnaires
All teachers/trainers participating in the TPD programs described, were asked to complete an anonymous
online questionnaire for the program’s evaluation. The questionnaires have been developed with the
Lime Survey tool and have been distributed online, to enhance the data analysis process. Referring to the
questions, the authors applied Guskey’s levels (Table 3) to design and develop the core structure for each
TPD program’s evaluation questionnaire (Guskey, 2002a). Since the TPD programs were implemented
more than once, they were similar but not identical, due to characteristics that differentiated them, such
as implementation by different trainers, during periods with specific characteristics (e.g. COVID-19
pandemic), with different targeted teachers, and in some cases, with different educational content (e.g.
M8 in the “train the trainers” program). Table 3 displays the five levels of the questionnaires described
and main focus of the relevant questions. As already mentioned, in the context of this study, quantitative
data from open-ended questions have been collected.
164

Table 3. Levels of questions for each TPD program’s evaluation questionnaire
Level (Guskey, 2002a) Questions’ Focus

1. Teachers’ reactions/ Teachers’ reactions concerning the TPD programs’ trainers, learning session(s), educational resources,
feedback workshops’ location (if applicable) and online course.
2. Learning Results Knowledge, skills gained and possible changes in attitudes achieved during the TPD program.
3. Support by the Training Sufficient support by the training provider, concerning technical issues, the educational material provided,
provider the implementation process etc.
4. Application of Intention to apply the knowledge and skills gained, in their classrooms/ laboratories etc. Possible change in
knowledge/ skills gained technology (i.e. Augmented Reality) acceptance.
Impact on students’ learning results and behavior, including interest towards the educational process,
5. Students
motivation etc.
Interviews and Open-Ended Discussions
Additionally to the questionnaires, semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions were conducted
with teachers/trainers, who expressed their willingness to share their experience concerning the TPD
programs. Semi-structured interviews are flexible and allowed the researchers to focus on specific is-
sues, especially patterns that emerged concerning emerging technologies (Cohen, Manion & Morrison,
2013). The interviews took place either face-to-face, at the TPD workshops’ locations, or online, through
BBB or MS Teams. All interviews were anonymous and conducted in Greek, to encourage the feeling
of comfort and trust to the researchers and allow expressions without possible language restrictions
(Cohen et al., 2013).
Moreover, open-ended discussions have been included in the data collection, such as discussions
developed through emails with feedback (including both positive and negative comments), forum discus-
sions (in the online educational platforms) and finally, face-to-face discussions during the TPD programs,
where teachers felt more comfortable and replied spontaneously.
Observation and Evaluation Data (Educational Scenarios)
Observation involves active looking, informal interviewing (mini-interviews) and taking detailed notes
(Kawulich,2005). Researchers of this study participated some of the TPD programs as evaluators, thus,
with a discrete presence without intervening the training process. Desimone’s (2009) evaluation framework
has been applied as a guide to address the topics under investigation, focusing on emerging technologies.
Finally, evaluation data, specifically the educational scenarios designed, developed and in some
cases, implemented by teachers in their real classrooms, have been collected, to strengthen the research
discussion and relevant conclusions.
165

Data Analysis
The collected data were analyzed both retrospectively and simultaneously while being collected (Schoo-
nenboom & Johnson, 2017). The data analysis process begun with equal attention given to all data col-
lected, while it gradually focused on the emerging themes, patterns, correlations and theoretical properties
(Guest, 2013). Simultaneous analysis occurred mainly during the observation, where on-the-spot ideas
raised. Interviews were analyzed both during and shortly after their implementation.
It is important to mention that the current data were analyzed as part of wider studies in the context of
the relevant projects, including internal and external evaluations, as well as qualitative and quantitative
data. The current chapter focuses on the book’s main topics towards practical approaches to integrating
ICTs in STEAM education and the authors’ perspective through their experience and contribution to
the TPD programs.
RESULTS
In order to present the results of this research, the Merchie et al. (2018) extended evaluative framework
has been applied as the main pathway to guide the discussion and enhance the presentation of the rel-
evant results (see Figure 1). Authors of the current research focus on issues relevant to the integration
of emerging technologies into the educational process. Thus, the suggested directions follow in the table
below (Table 4), framing an innovative approach of designing TPD programs for integrating emerg-
ing technologies, such as Augmented Reality (AR), in interdisciplinary STE(A)M based instructional
scenarios, especially in the level of Secondary general (Gymnasium and Lyceum in Greece) and (Post)
Secondary Vocational Education (EPAL - Vocational Lyceum) and IEK (Institution of Vocational Train-
ing in Greece).
Features of the TPD Program
As far as the features of the TPD program are concerned, and specifically, the core content, emerging
technologies should be treated as concepts rather than individual technological tools, thus, be accompa-
nied with relevant educational approaches, highlighting the pedagogical added value of the technological
tool under study. Enhancing students’ 21st century skills is of high importance, however, teachers of this
study focused on the category of digital skills, usually underestimating the rest of the 21st century skills,
such as problem solving, creativity, critical thinking etc. It is also critical for the teachers to understand
that there are already real examples and use cases, thus, emerging technologies in education and train-
ing are not a science fiction scenario. Engagement in the development of educational content, could
enhance the familiarization with a technological tool. For example, there are numerous tools, that could
be applied by teachers without programming skills, to develop an Augmented Reality learning object.
Through this process, they could more easily understand the way the specific technology works and
could support the educational process.
166

Table 4. Directions for designing TPD programs for integrating emerging technologies
Component Directions
Core content
- Treat emerging technologies as concepts rather than individual technological tools
- Include real examples and use-cases, even in demo modes
- Engage teachers in the design and development of educational content, supported by emerging technologies (if
possible)
Structure
- The duration of TPD program should consist of a motivation (e.g. accredited professional development
Features of the TPD experience)
program - Enhance collaboration between teachers of different fields and interdisciplinarity
- Enhance active learning, teachers should get in touch with the emerging technologies under
- Allow trainings at the teachers’ schools, instead of other locations to strengthen confidence
Trainers’ quality
- Prefer trainers with previous experience on emerging technologies
- Prefer trainers with portfolio on developing interactive educational content
- Update and provide specific instructions on how to author innovative educational content (format, digitalization
specifications etc.)
Expected impact on:
(a) Knowledge
- Content Knowledge (CK – teachers’ knowledge on a subject to be taught or learned)
- Pedagogical Knowledge (PK – teachers’ knowledge on the methods, practices and processes to teach and learn),
- Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK – teachers’ knowledge of the pedagogy applicable to the teaching of a
specific subject)
- Technological Knowledge (TK - the ways a teacher thinks or works with any technological tool and resource)
Teacher Quality - TPACK – a combination of all the above mentioned
(b) Skills
- Attend workshops to get familiarized with the technology under study
- Gain general digital skills to enhance self-confidence and independence when applying an innovative
technology
(c) Attitudes/ Beliefs
- Understand the additional educational value of the emerging technology under study
- Strengthen the intention to apply emerging technology in education and training
When teachers in their turn, teach in their classroom, they need to have been prepared on how to:
- Treat emerging technologies as concepts rather than individual technological tools
Teaching Behavior - Adapt pedagogies applicable to the teaching of a specific subject
- Feel confident with integrating emerging technologies
- Collaborate with other teachers
Expected impact on students’:
- domain specific knowledge
- digital skills, specifically focusing on the technology under study
Students’ Results
- 21st century skills, including problem solving, creativity, critical thinking, collaboration etc.
- intention to apply emerging technologies
- response to the modern labor market
Referring to the structure of a TPD program, the duration seems to be a factor of high value. For
example, a duration that is officially recognized and could be included as previous professional devel-
opment experience seems to affect teachers’ intention to attend a TPD program. In Greece, depending
on the case each time, programs longer than 300 hours or nine months could offer additional scoring
in the teachers’ CVs, while programs shorter than 25 hours, usually do not count in the total training
time. Thus, teachers prefer long TPD program, accredited as previous training experience. Another more
flexible alternative that teachers mentioned was the choice to attend a total of shorter TPD programs
(jigsaw programs) that could consist of a wider one (e.g. five programs of sixty hours, which could lead
to a wide certification of 300 hours). As mentioned by a teacher “such TPD programs are more feasible
167

in a manner of time and budget”. In Greece, especially in the level of Secondary general (Gymnasium
and Lyceum in Greece) and (Post)Secondary Vocational Education (EPAL - Vocational Lyceum) and
IEK (Institution of Vocational Training in Greece), the teaching fields are individual and only limited
interaction between teachers of different fields exists. One of the characteristic statements, among others,
that highlight the necessity of collaboration between teachers of different fields during a TPD program,
was “Why should I know what are they (here: students) doing during their Computer Science lesson?
I am teaching Physics; they don’t need Word or Excel to study Physics”. This teacher treated the Com-
puter Science lesson as an independent one, focused on using office software, completely irrelevant to
Physics. This was probably not surprising, since most of the existing TPD programs for teachers, also
address target groups of the same specialty. Thus, interdisciplinary approaches in the structure of a TPD
program, should be applied, aiming to lead to similar practices when teaching. This is also closely related
to active learning, thus, teachers should be introduced to emerging technologies in real-life situations
and issues, their students are expected to face in their future works, instead of being trained in theory
and hypothetical applications. Finally, some teachers mentioned that they felt more confident when a
training concerning innovative technologies took place at their school, instead of another location, since
they could test their existing infrastructure (e.g. Wi-Fi connection, school computers, other devices) and
ensure the functionality of the technology under study.
Teacher Quality
Trainers also consist of a core feature of the TPD program, thus, their quality, including communication
skills, familiarization with emerging technologies as well as previous experience on developing interac-
tive educational content, seem to affect a TPD program’s quality. Many teachers mentioned that they
prefer to attend TPD programs with activities and interactive content, while getting feedback from an
“active” trainer is also motivational, however, such programs are much more time consuming to be suc-
cessfully completed. Teachers with weaker technological backgrounds, seemed quite hesitant to attend
more interactive programs, and preferred “traditional” trainers, providing educational content in text
format, so that they study on their own pace. In turn, teachers’ trainers mentioned about the quality of
the educational content, that they usually get specific instructions on how to develop it, however, these
instructions still refer to word files specifications, additional content such as videos and external read-
ings and educational content in format of the “past decades”. “I never follow these instructions, if I did,
we wouldn’t now discuss about innovation in education”, a teacher mentioned, highlighting the fact that
creating innovative educational content is closely related to the trainer’s quality.
Teacher quality is the second component that needs to be treated with attention, to achieve positive
impact on the gained knowledge, skills and attitudes. When designing a TPD program, especially a
program focused on emerging technologies, TPACK could be a guide to develop the relevant content
and the teachers’ evaluation process. A teacher should definitely be aware of the subjects to be taught
(CK), for example, in order to teach the Tower of Pisa as a STEAM topic, each teacher (Maths, Physics,
History, Arts etc.) should have deep knowledge of their fields and of course, realize how they integrate
in a single subject. Pedagogical knowledge (PK) is critical; a number of this study’s participating teach-
ers, mentioned that they applied innovative methods and practices (e.g. problem solving, inquiry-based
learning), however, during the observation it was noticed that they kept seated on the teachers’ desk
giving a lecture. In addition, they mentioned that they taught STEAM topics in collaboration with other
teachers, but they actually taught their individual lesson, in the context of a wide STEAM topic (e.g. in
168

the case of the Tower of Pisa, the Physics teacher taught the concept of gravity during the physics hour,
the mathematics teacher taught the concepts of angles, etc., keeping separately the different dimensions).
Thus, moving on to the Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) and the pedagogy applicable to the
teaching of a specific subject, it would be of additional value for the teachers to be taught specific sub-
jects with the method they are expected to apply in their classroom (active learning). Finally, as already
mentioned before, the technological knowledge should be integrated as a concept in the educational
process combining an emerging technology with the content and pedagogy to be applied. Referring to
teachers’ skills, there is an obvious need to attend workshops, aiming to get teachers into touch with the
technology under study and get familiarized with the usage of relevant equipment, software, applications
etc. Moreover, the need to enhance digital skills in general arose in this research, as a number of teach-
ers mentioned that “I feel more confident when I have the support of the Computer Science teacher”.
Thus, it would be of additional value to include modules for teacher of any technological background, to
enhance self-confidence and independence when applying an innovative technology in their classroom.
Teaching Behavior
Moving to the third component, changing teaching behavior after having successfully completed a TPD
program is important. As already mentioned, when teachers in their turn go back to their classroom,
they need to feel confident with integrating emerging technologies, they should have been prepared on
how to treat an emerging technology as a concept rather than an individual technological tool, adapt in
action pedagogies applicable to the teaching of their subjects and collaborate with other teachers.
Students’ Results
The teachers’ interventions in their real classrooms consist of a validation method of a TPD program’s
impact on students’ results. These results should not only be evident on students’ specific knowledge in
a domain, but also, digital skills focusing on the technology under study (e.g. in the case of Augmented
Reality, what is this technology, which tools can be used to apply it, how can students deal with techni-
cal issues) and 21st century skills in general (problem solving, creativity, critical thinking, collaboration
etc.). Moreover, the impact could be measured through the students’ intention to apply emerging tech-
nologies in learning, training and other activities, apart from entertainment, responding to the needs of
the modern labor market.
Other Components
Finally, as mentioned by Merchie et al. (2018), contextual factors and teachers’ personal characteristics
could affect a TPD (esp. focused on integrating emerging technologies) program’s success. This research
highlighted among other contextual factors: compatibility with the curriculum standards, policy direc-
tions, the TPD program provider, school administration and support, school facilities and equipment,
implementation time during the school year (e.g. exam period), financial resources and teachers’ ap-
praisal. As far as the teachers’ personal characteristics are concerned, this research revealed: age, gender,
technological background, motivation, internal motivation for personal development, time restrictions,
personal issues (e.g. family) and health issues.
169

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
As highlighted through this study, there is a need to understand that teacher profession is evolving to-
wards new innovative and responsive teaching methods, capable of preparing students for the Fourth
Industrial Revolution (4IR). Thus, teachers need to participate in professional development initiatives
that promote technology integration into authentic educational environments and cultivate their personal
teaching approaches to expand their technological skills and practices. The specific chapter aims to con-
tribute to the core book’s theme of “Practical Approaches to Integrating ICTs in STEAM Education”, by
providing directions for an effective framework for horizontal TPD programs targeting large numbers of
teachers, aiming to allow them to gain the appropriate knowledge and skills, in order to integrate emerg-
ing technologies as concepts in interdisciplinary STE(A)M based instructional scenarios, especially in
the levels of Secondary general (Gymnasium and Lyceum in Greece) and (Post)Secondary vocational
Education (EPAL and IEK in Greece).
Future research opportunities could focus on teachers of all educational levels in different countries,
conducting both qualitative and quantitative research with large scale data. Moreover, a generic evalu-
ation framework, accompanied with suggested methods and tools to measure the expected impact of a
TPD program towards integrating emerging technologies, could be of additional value for TPD provid-
ers, to re-frame their programs and provide high quality training, responding to the need for 21st century
ready-to-teach teachers.
CONCLUSION
This chapter provides an overview of the current situation concerning TPD programs, highlighting the
need for initiatives towards the effective integration of emerging technologies into education and train-
ing. Moreover, specific TPD programs in the context of European projects are described, including their
structure and evaluation process. The researchers provide directions towards horizontal TPD programs,
aiming to allow teachers to gain the appropriate knowledge and skills, in order to integrate emerging
technologies as concepts in interdisciplinary STE(A)M based instructional scenarios, especially in the
levels of Secondary general (Gymnasium and Lyceum in Greece) and (Post)Secondary vocational Edu-
cation (EPAL and IEK in Greece).
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This study was partially supported by the EU, under the Erasmus+ Key Action 2 program [Enlivened
Laboratories within STEM Education (EL-STEM)—Motivating EU students to choose STEM studies
and careers and improving their performance in courses related to STEM education/Project No.2017-1-
CY01-KA201-026775]; and by the European Social Fund (ESF) within the framework of the Operational
Programme “Human Resources Development, Education and Lifelong Learning 2014-2020” [MIS
5008057]. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations presented in this paper are those
of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the EU or the relevant organizations/ institutions.
170

REFERENCES
Adnan, M., & Tondeur, J. (2018). Preparing the next generation for effective technology integration in
education: Teacher educators’ perspective. The Age (Melbourne, Vic.), 25(34), 2.
Beers, S. Z. (2011). 21st century skills: Preparing students for their future. STEM: Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics, 1–6.
Beijaard, D., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of professional identity: An
exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(7),
749–764. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00023-8
Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1994). Teacher development as professional, personal, and social development.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(5), 483–497. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(94)90002-7
Boothe, D., & Clark, L. (2014). The 21st century classroom: Creating a culture of innovation in ICT.
Conference Proceedings. ICT for Language Learning.
Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers’ development of techno-
logical, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
13(4), 63–73.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Maria Villegas, A. (2015). Studying teacher preparation: The questions that drive
research. European Educational Research Journal, 14(5), 379–394. doi:10.1177/1474904115590211
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203720967
Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international
practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291–309. doi:10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better con-
ceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. doi:10.3102/0013189X08331140
Dotong, C. I., De Castro, E. L., Dolot, J. A., & Prenda, M. T. B. (2016). Barriers for educational tech-
nology integration in contemporary classroom environment. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. Arts
and Sciences, 3(2), 13–20.
Fadel, C. (2008). 21st Century skills: How can you prepare students for the new Global Economy?
Partnerships for 21st Century Skills. https://www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/40756908.pdf
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Collecting research data with questionnaires and inter-
views. Educational research: An introduction, 227-261.
Goodson, I. F. (2002). Teachers’ professional lives (Vol. 3). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203453988
Guest, G. (2013). Describing mixed methods research: An alternative to typologies. Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, 7(2), 141–151. doi:10.1177/1558689812461179
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Corwin press.
171

Guskey, T. R. (2002a). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational

Leadership, 59(6), 45.
Guskey, T. R. (2002b). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3),
381–391. doi:10.1080/135406002100000512
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of Professionalism and Professional Learning. Teachers and Teaching:
History and Practice, 6(2), 151–182. doi:10.1080/713698714
Helleve, I. (2010). Theoretical Foundations of Teachers’ Professional Development. In J. O. Lindberg &
A. D. Olofsson (Eds.), Online Learning Communities and Teacher Professional Development: Methods
for Improved Education Delivery (pp. 1–19). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-780-5.ch001
Hendriks, M., Luyten, H., Sleegers, P., & Steen, R. (2011). Teachers’ professional development: Europe
in international comparison (J. Scheerens, Ed.). Dictus Publ.
Ifanti, A., & Fotopoulou, V. (2013). Teachers’ Perceptions of Professionalism and Professional Develop-
ment: A Case Study in Greece. World Journal of Education, 1(1), 40–51.
Jan, H. (2017). Teacher of 21st century: Characteristics and development. Research on Humanities and
Social Sciences, 7(9), 50–54.
Kaufman, K. (2013). 21 ways to 21st century skills: Why students need them and ideas for practical
implementation. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 49(2), 78–83. doi:10.1080/00228958.2013.786594
Kaufman, K. (2014). Information Communication Technology: Challenges & Some Prospects from
Pre-Service Education to the Classroom. Mid-Atlantic Education Review, 2(1).
Kawulich, B. B. (2005, May). Participant observation as a data collection method. In Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2).
Kelly, P. (2006). What is teacher learning? A socio-cultural perspective. Oxford Review of Education,
32(4), 505–519. doi:10.1080/03054980600884227
Kulshrestha, A. K., & Pandey, K. (2013). Teachers training and professional competencies. Voice of
Research, 1(4), 29-33.
Lasica, I. E., Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., & Katzis, K. (2020a). A Teacher Professional Development
Program on Teaching STEM-Related Topics Using Augmented Reality in Secondary Education. In
Emerging Technologies and Pedagogies in the Curriculum (pp. 113–126). Springer.
Lasica, I. E., Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., & Katzis, K. (2020b). Augmented Reality in Lower Secondary
Education: A Teacher Professional Development Program in Cyprus and Greece. Education Sciences,
10(4), 121. doi:10.3390/educsci10040121
Lasica, I. E., Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., Katzis, K., Dimopoulos, C., & Mavrotheris, E. (2018). Design-
ing a Teacher Training Program on the integration of Augmented and Mixed Reality technologies within
the educational process. 12th annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference.
10.21125/inted.2018.2181
172

Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into
teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of
Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614. doi:10.3102/0034654307309921
Mavrikakis, E., Sirigos, E., & Farantou, E. D. (2018a). Specifications for educational content (face-
to-face). http://www.iep.edu.gr/images/IEP/EPISTIMONIKI_YPIRESIA/Epist_Monades/B_Kyklos/
Tee/2018/2018-03-26_prodiagrafes_ey_mathiteias_dia_zosis.pdf
Mavrikakis, E., Sirigos, E., & Farantou, E. D. (2018b). Specifications for educational content. http://
www.iep.edu.gr/images/IEP/EPISTIMONIKI_YPIRESIA/Epist_Monades/B_Kyklos/Tee/2018/2018-
03-26_prodiagrafes_ey_mathiteias_ex_apostaseos.pdf
Mavrotheris, E., Lasica, I. E., Pitsikalis, S., & Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M. (2018). Project EL-STEM:
Enlivened laboratories within STEM education. INTED2018 Proceedings, 9099-9107.
Merchie, E., Tuytens, M., Devos, G., & Vanderlinde, R. (2018). Evaluating teachers’ professional devel-
opment initiatives: Towards an extended evaluative framework. Research Papers in Education, 33(2),
143–168. doi:10.1080/02671522.2016.1271003
Murphy, T. (2010). Conversations on engaged pedagogies, independent thinking skills and active citizen-
ship. Issues in Educational Research, 20(1), 39–46. http://www.iier.org.au/iier20/murphy.pdf
Naidoo, J. (2021). Eplroing Teaching and Learning in the 21st Century. In J. Naidoo (Ed.), Teaching
and Learning in the 21st Century Embracing the Fourth Industrial Revolution (pp. 1–12). Brill Sense.
doi:10.1163/9789004460386_001
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C.,
Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and inquiry
cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
Phillips, M. (2013). Investigating in-service teachers’ workplace TPACK development. Australian Edu-
cational Computing, 28(2).
Pitsikalis, S., Lasica, I. E., & Roussos, I. (2020). Apprenticeship in Greece: Focusing on E-Learning of
a Blended Learning Approach for Training VET Teachers And Trainers. In EDULEARN20 Proceedings
(pp. 2012-2018). IATED Digital Library.
Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., Andrade-Vargas, L., Rivera-Rogel, D., & Portuguez-Castro, M. (2021).
Trends for the future of education programs for professional development. Sustainability, 13(13), 7244.
doi:10.3390u13137244
Santos, C. M., Franco, R. A., Leon, D., Ovigli, D. B., & Donizete Colombo Jr, P. (2017). Interdisciplinar-
ity in Education: Overcoming Fragmentation in the Teaching-Learning Process. International Education
Studies, 10(10), 71–77. doi:10.5539/ies.v10n10p71
Sarkar, S. (2012). The role of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in higher education
for the 21st century. The Science Probe, 1(1), 30–40.
173

Schlager, M. S., & Fusco, J. (2003). Teacher professional development, technology, and communi-
ties of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse? The Information Society, 19(3), 203–220.
doi:10.1080/01972240309464
Schoonenboom, J., & Johnson, R. B. (2017). How to construct a mixed methods research design. KZfSS
Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69(2), 107–131. doi:10.100711577-017-0454-1
PMID:28989188
Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum.
Tarling, I., & Ng’ambi, D. (2016). Teachers pedagogical change framework: A diagnostic tool for
changing teachers’ uses of emerging technologies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(3),
554–572. doi:10.1111/bjet.12454
Tican, C., & Deniz, S. (2018). Pre-service teachers’ opinions about the use of 21st century learner and
21st century teacher skills. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(1), 181–197. doi:10.12973/
eu-jer.8.1.181
Ur, P. (1997). Teacher training and teacher development: A useful dichotomy. The Language Teacher.
https://jalt-publications.org/old_tlt/files/97/oct/ur.html
Vermunt, J. D. (2014). Teacher learning and professional development. In Teachers’ professional devel-
opment (pp. 79–95). Brill Sense. doi:10.1007/978-94-6209-536-6_6
Viner, R. M., Russell, S. J., Croker, H., Packer, J., Ward, J., Stansfield, C., Mytton, O., Bonell, C., &
Booy, R. (2020). School closure and management practices during coronavirus outbreaks including CO-
VID-19: A rapid systematic review. The Lancet. Child & Adolescent Health, 4(5), 397–404. doi:10.1016/
S2352-4642(20)30095-X PMID:32272089
Vitsilaki, C., & Pitsikalis, S. (2017). Modern Curricula in Higher Education and Training supported by
the technologies of Augmented and Mixed Reality: Overview and Recognition of Research Issues. Proc.
of 9th International Conference in Open and Distance Learning (ICODL).
Whalen, J. (2020). Should teachers be trained in emergency remote teaching? Lessons learned from the
COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 189–199.
Whitehouse, McClosky, & Ketelhut. (2010). Online Pedagogy Design and Development: New Models for
21st Century Online Teacher Professional Development. In Online Learning Communities and Teacher
Professional Development: Methods for Improved Education Delivery (pp. 247-262). New York: IGI
Global.
Winter, E., Costello, A., O’Brien, M., & Hickey, G. (2021). Teachers’ use of technology and the impact
of Covid-19. Irish Educational Studies, 40(2), 1–12. doi:10.1080/03323315.2021.1916559
174

ADDITIONAL READING
Astuti, A. P., Aziz, A., Sumarti, S. S., & Bharati, D. A. L. (2019, June). Preparing 21st century teachers:
Implementation of 4C character’s pre-service teacher through teaching practice. Journal of Physics:
Conference Series, 1233(1), 012109. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1233/1/012109
Compen, B., De Witte, K., & Schelfhout, W. (2019). The role of teacher professional development in
financial literacy education: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 26, 16–31.
doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2018.12.001
Heap, T., Thompson, R., & Fein, A. (2021). Designing teacher professional development programs
to support a rapid shift to digital. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(1), 35–38.
doi:10.100711423-020-09863-5 PMID:33223780
Malik, R. S. (2018). Educational challenges in 21st century and sustainable development. Journal of
Sustainable Development Education and Research, 2(1), 9–20. doi:10.17509/jsder.v2i1.12266
Oke, A., & Fernandes, F. A. P. (2020). Innovations in teaching and learning: Exploring the perceptions
of the education sector on the 4th industrial revolution (4IR). Journal of Open Innovation, 6(2), 31.
doi:10.3390/joitmc6020031
Augmented Reality (AR): An emerging technology where the real world is supplemented with digital
objects (usually 3D objects superimposed on the top of real objects) and the user can interact with them
while still remaining in contact with the real world.
Emerging Technologies: New technologies under continuing development, such as Virtual/Aug-
mented/Mixed Realities, Internet of Things, Artificial Intelligence, 3D printing, etc.
EPAL: The acronym for Epaggelmatika Lykeia (Vocational High Schools) in Greek language. EPALs
belong to Secondary Vocational Education for students until the age of 18, while the Post-secondary
year – Apprenticeship Class (Metalykeiako etos – Taksi Mathiteias) belongs to Post-Secondary Non-
Tertiary Education.
Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR): Refers to the current period of rapid technological growth,
which is fundamentally changing our everyday life.
IEK: The acronym for Institouta Epaggelmatikis Katartisis (Vocational Training Institutions) in
Greek language. They belong to Post-Secondary Non-Tertiary Education.
Mixed Reality (MR/XR): An emerging technology where the real world meets the digital world in
a completely integrated way, as real and digital objects cannot be distinguished.
STEAM: Is the acronym for Science Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics. In this study,
it refers to the integrated way of teaching and learning, no matter which individual subjects are included
in the educational process.
175
176
Chapter 9
Enhancing Students’ Motivation
by STEM-Oriented, Mobile,
Inquiry-Based Learning
Manolis Kousloglou
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Anastasios Zoupidis
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3097-9451
Democritus University of Thrace, Greece
Anastasios Molohidis
Euripides Hatzikraniotis
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9516-4037
ABSTRACT
STEM education promotes scientific inquiry and engineering design, including mathematics, incorpo-
rating appropriate technologies. Portable technologies motivate active learning of students and enable
accessing to learn resources, facilitating cross-disciplinary designing tasks. This chapter initially presents
theoretical approaches of STEM education, mobile learning, and inquiry-based learning, and then it
describes an inquiry-based short-term intervention that took advantage of portable digital devices in a
STEM class. The aim of the intervention was to study its affection on students’ motivation about physics.
Results indicate that students who participated in the activity had higher motivation scores than their
classmates who attended lessons with conventional teaching methods. The findings also show that the
students involved in a guided inquiry-based process became more profoundly engaged in STEM than
their classmates who followed a structured inquiry process. Other factors, such as grade point average
(GPA) and gender, did not seem to affect student motivation.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-3861-9.ch009

Enhancing Students’ Motivation by STEM-Oriented, Mobile, Inquiry-Based Learning
INTRODUCTION
Education in the 21st century has been driven by teaching and learning processes regarding STEM ap-
proaches that provide students with skills in integrating all aspects of learning. STEM education leads
students to easily gain knowledge of concepts in authentic problems, using technology, deploying scien-
tific knowledge, managing data by mathematical reasoning, and practicing engineering (Prasongsap et
al., 2020). As ICT competency is an important skill that should be developed as one of the 21st century
skills, any form of integration in today’s situation is incomplete without the digitalization of classrooms
(Deák et al., 2021). Especially, mobile technology, namely tablets, smartphones, or wireless sensors,
motivates an active, exploratory, and inquiry-based learner-centered learning, as well as collaborative
work and creativity (Prasongsap et al., 2020). Although increasing attention on the importance of STEM
education has been worldwide stated, difficulties related to lack of time, resources and trained instructors
greatly hinder the potential of developing and implementing STEM activities. Thus, it is suggested that
ICT, especially mobile technologies, could overcome these difficulties and complement the practice of
different activities under formal and informal learning settings (Yeung & Sun, 2019).
We could define Inquiry-based learning as a process in which students propose questions, formulate
hypotheses, investigate, and test experiments or observations (Pedaste et al., 2015). Inquiry-based learn-
ing is a self-directed learning process which emphasizes active participation and students’ responsibility
for discovering knowledge (Wilhelm & Beishuizen, 2003). The future of pedagogy in STEM classrooms
will be governed by how efficiently educators can present their content knowledge in collaboration with
e-learning tools and develop inquiry-based learning in classrooms (Deák et al., 2021). Mobile technolo-
gies in inquiry-based STEM learning can give observable benefits to the learning process of students in
several aspects and their achievement (Yeung & Sun, 2019).
Mobile inquiry-based learning (mIBL) aims to exploit mobile technology to aid the inquiry process,
exchange information, and motivate learners to obtain knowledge building and sharing procedures
(Yang et al., 2020). Thus, in this framework, motivation can be defined as an individual’s desire to
learn concepts or complete learning tasks in mobile Inquiry-based Learning (mIBL). Especially in a
science-learning context, the motivation is a crucial issue as it could be described as an internal state that
stimulates, conducts, and assists science-learning behavior (Glynn et al., 2011). MIBL should be used
with appropriate technology support and teaching strategies, as STEM education, in order to promote
students’ motivation (Yang et al., 2020).
In this book-chapter we start by a brief Literature Review on the concepts of Inquiry-Based Learning
(IBL), Mobile Learning (m-Learning), Mobile technology-supported Inquiry-based Learning (mIBL),
STEM education and especially their integration and its advantages. Then a STEM-driven mIBL inter-
vention held in the 3rd High School of Kavala, in Greece, and its effect on student motivation will be
presented and analyzed.
BACKROUND
The Background consists of a brief literature survey on the various aspects of STEM education and
Inquiry-based Learning in the Mobile Area and on the methods for enhancing the students’ motivation.
177

STEM and Inquiry in the Mobile Era
The literature survey can be depicted as a set of three inter-sectioned circles, one for STEM, one for IBL
and one for m-Learning. The literature survey will cover the main circles and their intersections (figure 1).
Figure 1. The framework of the literature survey
STEM Education
STEM education refers to teaching and learning in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics with the aim of improving students’ ability and skills to apply cross-disciplinary knowl-
edge effectively in order to solve problems. Besides the well-known terms “Science” and “Maths”, the
acronym STEM includes Technology, which is the utilization of knowledge to develop products out of
the given resources and Engineering that refers to the use of mathematical and scientific knowledge to
develop and modify the three fundamental resources that humankind has available for the benefit of
mankind: energy, materials, and information (Tantu, 2017).
According to Deák et al. (2021), the last two decades’ trends in article publications about STEM
show a significant rise in approaches towards integration on pedagogy and subjects in STEM education.
However, it is stated that designing STEM activities as well as proposing innovative learning tools or
technologies in STEM education remain a challenge (Hwang, 2020).
178

STEM education is more than a simple integration of its four disciplines. It encompasses real-world,
project-, problem- or inquiry-based learning that integrates the disciplines through active teaching and
learning approaches. STEM programs also have explicit course objectives, content domains and learning
indicators. They provide student-centered learning experiences, stress the connection and integration
of STEM knowledge, and cultivate high-level thinking such as logical thinking, problem solving, and
critical thinking (Lai, 2018). The students learn how the concepts, principles, and techniques of the four
STEM’s disciplines are used in the development of products, processes, and systems used in everyday
life. In this way, STEM education prepares students for the challenges of the 21st century, namely Digi-
tal Age Literacy, Inventive Thinking, Effective communication, and High productivity (Hwang, 2020;
Mutambara & Bayaga, 2020; Yuliati et al, 2018).
Daher & Shahbari (2020) mention four levels of integration among the subjects in STEM education:
In the first level, STEM activities involve just two subjects, where the first is the dominant one, while
the second subject’s concepts support the emergence of concepts from the first one. The second level is
similar to the first, but STEM activities are the combination of three subjects or more, from which one
subject is dominant, while the other two support the emergence of concepts from the dominant one. The
third level involves two equivalent subjects, the concepts of which emerge as a result of their integra-
tion. The fourth level is similar to the third, but involves at least three subjects, where concepts from at
least two of them emerge together, while the rest of the subjects support these emergences (figure 2).
Figure 2. The four levels of integration among the subjects in STEM education
179

Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL)
Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is a constructivist approach in which students are placed in the position of
scientists by developing their own questions, formulating appropriate hypotheses, designing activities
and experiments to test them, analyzing, understanding, and explaining the results from their experi-
ments, drawing conclusions, and finally reflecting and communicating their findings. Thus, they conduct
investigations creating new knowledge based on the collected evidence (Liu et al., 2021; Tijani at al.,
2021; Yuliati et al, 2018).
There are four main levels of IBL outlined in Table 1. The levels, form a continuum of guidance
that students are provided by their teacher: a) confirmation, at which teacher provides the questions,
procedures and solutions or conclusions in a predefined-prescribed way, b) structured inquiry, at which
teacher provides the questions and procedures, c) guided inquiry, at which teacher provides only the
questions, and d) open inquiry, at which the students develop their own questions, design the procedures
and generate the solutions (Liu et al., 2021).
Table 1. The four levels of IBL according to students’ guidance
Level of IBL Confirmation Structured inquiry Guided inquiry Open inquiry

Question Given Given Given Open
Procedure Given Given Open Open
Solution Given Open Open Open
Many researchers have agreed on the positive effect of inquiry-based learning on students’ conceptual
understanding, their problem-solving and collaborative abilities, as well as their Higher-Level Thinking
Skills, such as discovering information, and making decisions. Inquiry-based learning has the potential to
engage students in an actual scientific discovery process, by giving them an idea of classroom learning
achievement making learning more joyful, and thus it is recommended as a critical element in science
pedagogy (Deák et al., 2021; Hwang, 2020; Tijani at al., 2021).
Mobile Learning (m-Learning)
Mobile learning could be defined as learning in multiple contexts, through social interactions, but also
content, using personal digital mobile devices (Crompton, 2015). Mobile learning refers to the use of
mobile technology, such as smartphones, laptops, and tablet devices to facilitate learning. Many concepts
are related to m-Learning, such as (Hwang, 2020; Liu et al., 2021; Tantu, 2017; Thongsri et al., 2020;):
• ubiquitous learning which refers to the notion “learning anywhere and at any time”,
• context-aware ubiquitous learning which emphasize the use of mobile technologies to support
learning across contexts,
• authentic learning that targets real-world problems to make attractive learning environment,
• customization of access to information in order to build new skills and meet specific educational
goals,
180

• personalization of accessing knowledge, collaboration among learners,

• interactivity and seamless bridging between contexts in both formal and informal learning.
Mobile-Learning changes a teacher-centered approach to a learner-centered one, which can stimulate

deep holistic learning experiences (Mutambara & Bayaga, 2020). Natural sciences, by their very nature,
are based on the exploration of the physical world, and digital mobile devices are considered appropriate
to support this exploration (Suarez et al., 2018) since they offer the tools to make it more accessible but
also ubiquitous (Crompton et al., 2017).
Mobile Inquiry-Based Learning (mIBL)
Mobile technology-supported inquiry-based learning (Mobile Inquiry-based Learning - mIBL) aims to

employ mobile technologies to facilitate inquiry process and motivate learners to build and share their
knowledge (Looi, 1998). Scanlon et al. (2011) state that mIBL improves IBL in terms of mobility and
rapidity of feedback and has a positive impact on interaction among students and teachers. Liu et al.
(2021) identified five main types of mIBL: authentic scientific inquiry, abductive scientific inquiry,
collaborative inquiry, collective whole-class inquiry, and inquiry with a game component (figure 3).
Authentic scientific inquiry (AUI) occurs when, among others, students take advantage of mobile
technology to conduct hands-on investigations collecting and analysing data and making conclusions
towards real-life problems. Abductive science inquiry (ABI) refers to inquiry activities where students
develop plausible hypotheses based on theories and observation and offer explanations using critical
thinking with assistance of mobile technology. In collaborative inquiry (CAI), students work in groups/
pairs engaging in investigations of problems. They collect and interpret data and try to answer questions
by generating evidence-based explanations. Collective whole-class inquiry (CEI) involves students as a
whole class in working for a common goal and developing community knowledge based on each other’s
ideas with the assistance of mobile Inquiry. In an inquiry with game component process (GCI) students
participate using a game as learning material and conduct investigations for addressing a problem with
the assistance of mobile technology. Also, the benefits and constraints of mIBL can be divided into
three main groups: micro, meso and macro levels, under which different themes emerge. At the micro
level, themes include efficiency, effectiveness, learnability, perceived usefulness, and cognitive load. At
the meso level, themes focus on attitude, attention, motivation, learning performance, group work and
cognitive processes, while the macro-level theme focuses on motivation (Liu et al., 2021).
As m-Learning has an immense potential to promote learning in inquiry-based designed environments
(Thongsri et al., 2020), mIBL is one of the most popular pedagogical approaches utilized in secondary
mathematics and science education. Nevertheless, there is a lack of understanding of mIBL in second-
ary science education. More evidence-based insights are needed into how using handheld devices might
facilitate the engagement of students in various levels of inquiry and enhance their science learning (Liu
et al., 2021).
STEM Education and IBL
STEM activities can be categorized into project-based tasks and inquiry-based tasks (Hwang, 2020).
According to Deák et al. (2021), the future of pedagogy will be defined by how efficiently instructors
present their knowledge in collaboration with e-learning tools and develop inquiry-based learning (IBL),
181

Figure 3. The five main types of mIBL
especially in STEM classrooms. Scholars suggest that IBL should be used to promote technology explora-
tion and strengthen the effect of STEM teaching (Lai, 2018). Deák et al. (2021) state that IBL could be
the torchbearer approach to teaching higher education STEM-based research in science and technology
and bridge the big knowledge gap between knowing (Ideas – Conceptualization) and doing (Actions –
Analysis with expert opinions). In STEM education, inquiry-based methods have enormous potential in
deepening students’ knowledge and skills, while the activities can be supported by technologies which
provide new forms of inquiry and research (Yeung & Sun, 2019). It has been shown that IBL is an ef-
fective method for raising students’ motivation in STEM subjects, influencing their concept achievement
as well as their scientific literacy, enhancing their creative and critical thinking skills, directing the at-
tention and motivation to learn concepts and skills through cognitive processes and resulting in a deeper
understanding of real-world phenomena (Daher & Shahbari, 2020; Tijani at al., 2021; Yuliati et al, 2018).
Sutoyo et al. (2019) developed a 6-phase model for Inquiry integrated with STEM, in order to explain
the students’ training for critical thinking skills. In phase 1 (Initiation), interpretation skills, motivation
and concept mastery are developed. Phases 2 (Selection) and 3 (Formulation) trains students’ interpre-
tation skills. Phase 4 (Collection) trains students’ analysis skills. In phase 5 (Presentation) students are
trained about critical thinking skills in analysis, inference, and explanation indicators. Finally, phase 6
(Assessment) gives chance to train critical thinking skills and deepens students’ concept understanding.
Daher & Shahbari (2020) suggest that the design of STEM activities could take into consideration
two aspects, namely the inquiry level in the activity (confirmation, structured, guided, and open) and the
integration type of the activity: combination of two subjects with one dominant subject, combination of
at least three subjects with one dominant subject, combination of two dominant subjects, and combina-
tion of at least three subjects, where two of them are dominant.
STEM Education and m-Learning
In the last few years there has been an increase in attention on the importance of STEM Education.
However, difficulties are reported in the full integration of STEM activities in normal setting classes,
182

due to lack of time, resources, and trained manpower. Hence, it is suggested that mobile technologies
can support the practice of different activities under informal learning settings (Yeung & Sun, 2019).
Mutambara & Bayaga (2020) state that poor-performing education systems, poor quality of teaching, lack
of STEM teaching and learning resources, and lack of science laboratories are the main reasons for the
emergence of m-learning, due to its potential to improve the quality of STEM education in rural areas.
Besides, STEM education and mobile learning share similar pedagogies such as, student-directed,
problem-based, authenticity-based, and collaborative learning (Schuck et al., 2018). Publications about
the integration of mobile technology in STEM education has been increasing over the decades, as this
technology can support students’ learning anytime and anywhere and can lead to a pedagogy that sup-
port the learning of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (Prasongsap et al., 2020). For
instance, mobile technologies provide supplementary materials to science learners whenever they need
to observe in the field. Moreover, in mathematics and engineering courses, several mobile apps can
guide learners to implement a task, or to control a device via programming. Therefore, the benefit of m-
learning has significant potential in facilitating STEM learning (Hwang, 2020). Considering the above
affordances of mobile technologies, it is important for a STEM educator to employ mobile devices for
any educational intervention (Tantu, 2017).
Enhancing Students’ Motivation
Social cognitive theory considers students’ learning as most effective when it is self-regulated, which
among others, means that students control their motivation and behavior. In this theory, motivation is
described as an internal state that stimulates, conducts, and assists a behavior which is goal oriented (Glynn
et al., 2011). According to Prasongsap et al. (2020), many researchers intend to integrate mobile technol-
ogy into STEM education, as a way to enhance students’ learning. Liu et al. (2021) in their systematic
review find that students are motivated towards science learning when they have an enjoyable learning
experience using mobile technology. Data visualization and collaborative opportunities foster students’
interest in science, create feelings of excitement in their learning, leading as a consequence to enhanced
engagement in addressing inquiry problems. The autonomy that students enjoy in their mIBL activities
permits them to be more participative in science learning process. Furthermore, the psychological need
to develop competence, and engagement in a relevant inquiry problem, motivates students to perform
mIBL activities, while only a small number of studies report on students finding mIBL boring or tiring.
For instance, Nouri et al. (2013) in their study about collaborative scaffolding and performance in mIBL
observed that students participated in interesting context-related discussions, which is an indication of
a higher reflection on the school subject, generated by an intrinsic motivation. Yang et al. (2020) also
declare that mIBL can increase learners’ motivation or participation more than traditional approaches
by providing opportunities such as interaction between learners and their peers or their instructors, via
the use of mobile devices. Novak & Krajick (2006) articulate that motivating investigative techniques,
such as probes, modeling, Web 2.0, mobile technology, and visualization tools, which are used in the
inquiry process enhance the effectiveness of laboratory practices
Motivation must be considered as a complex multidimensional construct that interacts with cognition
to influence learning (Salta & Koulougliotis, 2014). Motivation’s components are intrinsic motivation,
which is defined as learning science for its inherent satisfaction rather than for some separable conse-
quence; self-determination, which refers to the ability students believe they must manage their learning
of science; self-efficacy, which refers to students’ belief in their capacity to achieve well in science; and
183

extrinsic motivation, which involves learning science as a means to an actual end, such as a career or
a grade. Extrinsic motivation can be divided into two factors, grade motivation and career motivation,
which target more precisely the actual ‘‘ends’’ on which students focus. For instance, grades are important
short-term goals because they are a criterion of learning accomplishment and part of the entry criteria
for many careers (Glynn et al., 2011).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Rationale and Research Questions
The rationale of the intervention described in this paper is displayed in Figure 4. The students in the
Science class were involved in a STEM intervention, which focused on the design of an experimental
setup for the study of Friction. They worked in small groups, applying elements of M-learning. The
process was conducted in the pedagogical context of inquiry-based learning.
Figure 4. The rationale of the intervention
In our research, the effect of mIBL STEM activities on students’ motivation towards science was ex-
plored. The research questions are whether the mIBL STEM activities enhance the students’ motivation
towards science, and the correlation between the motivational characteristics. It is crucial to mention
that, in Greece there has been no systematic research so far which address the students’ motivation to
learn physics.
184

The Participants
The research methodology follows the control - experimental group scheme. Both groups come from
Northern Greece; the experimental group from the city of Kavala, and the control group from New Pera-
mos (a small city in the district of Kavala). The participants were secondary school students of the 8th
grade, aged 13-14 years old. The control group consists of 70 students who have followed a traditional
teaching for friction, whereas the experimental group consist of 71 students who have been taught the
same subject with STEM-oriented mIBL activities, described below. The distribution of students in the
two groups in terms of their grade point averages in Science was tested and found to be similar. Both
the students and their parents were informed about the aim of this research and students in both groups
participated voluntarily.
The Tools
In this study, the motivation of secondary school students to learn physics in school was investigated,
from the perspective of social cognitive theory. We have chosen the Science Motivation Question-
naire II (SMQ II), developed by Glynn et al. (2011). It is a broadly accepted questionnaire, based on a
theoretical formulation of motivational constructs, it functionalizes the motivational construct with a
range of indicators, and it demonstrates various psychometric properties (Salta & Koulougliotis, 2014).
SMQ-II can serve to investigate students’ motivation to learn science, the correlation between motiva-
tional characteristics, and can be used in relating the students’ motivation with instructional methods.
The original questionnaire consists of 25 items, which are grouped into five factors: grade motivation
(GM), self-efficacy (SE), self-determination (SD), career motivation (CM) and intrinsic motivation (IM).
Originally, the SMQ-II was developed to assess the motivation of college students, both science majors
and non-science majors, and the scales were found to be useful. In our case, the questions related with
factor CM were omitted, since we believe that is too early for students on the 8th grade to have a clear
view on whether Physics would help them to get a better job, advance their career and if their future job
would involve Physics. Therefore, we consider that students might reply by a pure guess in these items.
The SMQ-II questionnaire used in this study was translated, adapted, validated, and applied by Salta &
Koulougliotis (2014) for the domain of chemistry. The translation and adaptation process were conducted
taking into consideration the Hambleton comments on International Test Commission (ITC) guidelines.
The selected questionnaire was validated via Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), a procedure that
provides evidence for the validity of SMQ-II, as well as for configural, metric and scalar invariance, and
hence allows relevant comparisons between groups.
The students of both schools anonymously completed the translated SQM-II questionnaire. Their
answers to all items were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale: never (0), rarely (1), sometimes (2),
often (3), always (4). The Statistical Program for the Social Sciences, version 17.0 (SPSS, Inc., 2008),
was used for the statistical analysis of the findings, while the CFA was performed with JASP, an open-
source project supported by the University of Amsterdam.
The STEM-Oriented mIBL Intervention
In Greece, science teaching starts at the 5th grade. The science courses include some experiments,
inquiry-based learning is limited in the classroom, while STEM is practically not applied in the Greek
185

curriculum. The students in the experimental group performed hands-on friction experiments using
both conventional setups and mobile devices, i.e., mobile phones with their embedded sensors as part
of the measurement setup and tablets to record and analyze the results. These hands-on experiments
adopted an Inquiry based Science Learning methodology (mIBL), according to the following phases:
Orientation, Conceptualization, Investigation, Conclusion & Reflection (Pedaste et al., 2015). During the
same period, the students in the control group have been taught the same topic with traditional teaching
methods (chalk and blackboard or PowerPoint-type lecture with simple demonstration experiments).
The experiments were designed within the STEM framework, as they combine Science (friction),
Technology (conventional experimental setups and smartphones’ sensors), Engineering (designing ex-
perimental setup using laboratory equipment) and Mathematics (data analysis their tablets). From the
perspective of subject’s integration in STEM education (Daher & Shahbari, 2020), the students partici-
pated in a second level STEM activity, as four subjects were involved, from which one subject (physics)
was dominant, while the other ones supported the emergence of concepts from the first.
As part of STEM education, students were expected to participate in processes and tasks similar to
those faced by engineers. They had to ask questions to identify the engineering problem, to design many
solutions, to set criteria for a solution that will be considered successful, and to identify limitations. Fol-
lowing procedures similar to those of scientists, they conducted data collection research that would help
them determine design criteria to test their designs. In this way, they had to identify the relevant variables,
decide how to measure them, collect and analyze data. In conducting their research, the students used
models to analyze the proposed solutions, in order to identify possible shortcomings and thus identify
the strengths and limitations of their designs. Such an approach provided students with a way to practice,
applying their understanding of how science, technology, and engineering are interconnected. Concisely,
the steps followed by the students were: (a) Research the need, (b) Develop possible solutions, (c) Select
the best possible solution, (d) Construct a prototype, (e) Test and evaluate the solution, (f) Communicate
the solution. A discussion between the students of all groups and the teacher has followed, aiming to
evaluate the different ideas and designs, and altogether ended up selecting the laboratory setup that could
check all the factors (variables) that probably influence friction.
The Implementation of the STEM-Oriented mIBL Activities
The Inquiry-based STEM activities are shown schematically in Figure 5. They follow the five-stage
inquiry-based learning: Orientation, Conceptualization, Investigation, Conclusion and Reflection (Ped-
aste et al., 2015). The laboratory activities lasted 3 weeks and were developed into six teaching-sessions,
each one lasting one class hour.
The first teaching-session corresponds to the “Orientation & Conceptualization”, the next three ones
to the “Investigation”, and the last two sessions to the “Conclusion & Reflection” phases of the Pedaste
scheme. Students worked in small groups of 4 or 5, with the aid of worksheets, which were structured
and were designed taking into account students’ limited experience in group work, in conducting experi-
ments, in inquiry-based learning, and in Mobile Learning applications.
The 1st teaching-session aimed in the orientation & conceptualization of the problem. The worksheet
in the orientation phase, started with a fictional story from everyday life for stimulating the students’
curiosity and addressing a learning challenge:
186

Figure 5. The six teaching-sessions of the laboratory activities
In our house, on a chair, there were various objects, such as a cup, a booklet-calorie counter, a kettle …
even our mobile phone! We lift the chair from one side so that our father can pull the carpet underneath
and… great damage: Some objects were slipped on the chair and fell to the floor
Students were guided to form testable questions, related to the fictional story and generate hypotheses
regarding the stated problem. This corresponds to the conceptualization stage of the Pedaste model, i.e.,
the process of stating theory-based questions or hypotheses.
The 2nd teaching session aimed in exploring the fictional story. This is the first of the three investigation
sessions, where curiosity that has been developed in the orientation stage, was turned into action in order
to respond to the stated research questions or hypotheses. Students were prompted to test their questions
experimentally using their smartphones. The objective was to determine the maximum coefficient of
static friction. At the beginning, the students discussed and recorded their predictions about the sliding
behavior of their smartphones, placed on an inclined chair. Then, test measurements were performed to
familiarize the students with the lab activity and make the experimental data more reliable. Finally, the
experiment took place by handling smartphones and exploiting the Phyphox software (https://phyphox.
org/). Each group of students performed the experiment storing the data in .xls format on Google Drive
through the “export data” capability of Phyphox. The aim of this activity was to further analyze the
data, using their tablets, and share the data with other groups. When the procedure was completed, the
groups announced and compared the results of their measurements. Students were surprised to notice
the wide range of angles that the smartphones began to slip. When the smartphone was left to slide with
the case, the values range from 11o to 49o, while without the case they range from 4o to 16o. Therefore,
the students were introduced to the necessity of a systematic study of the friction, before they would
explore the factors that affect it. Students with low lab-experience were thus trained in observation as
187

well as in developing thinking and analytical skills. More details for the smartphone experiment can be
found on Kousloglou et al. (in press).
In the next two teaching-sessions students studied experimentally the phenomenon of friction (3rd
session) and the factors that affect the friction (4th session), using conventional lab equipment. In these
two investigation sessions, the findings of the previous session and the necessity of a more systematic
study of the friction refined the questions to be explored. Students explored/observed, changed variables,
made predictions, and interpreted outcomes. Experimentation involved the design and implementation
of the investigative activities, and an intermediate outcome was the design of the experiment. During
these two teaching-sessions, students, worked either with the Structured or with the Guided Inquiry
scheme. In both types of inquiry, the teacher poses the problem to be investigated; in Structured Inquiry
the students follow a prescribed experimental procedure, whereas in Guided Inquiry the students select
and design appropriately the procedure themselves.
The basic experimental setup for the determination of the maximum static friction (session 3) consists
of a wooden block on a horizontal melamine desk, as depicted in Figure 6. The block is attached on a
laboratory spring scale, which acts as a force sensor. The other end of the spring scale is attached on a
suspended weight, an empty bottle, which students gradually fill with water, and observe the threshold
value of the force needed to produce the motion of the block. The experimental setup is easily modi-
fied for session 4, adding weight on the block, changing the contact surface area and consequently the
surface roughness, by attaching several materials (sandpaper, velvet cloth, plastic sheet, etc.) on it, using
double sided scotch tape.
The students then formulated hypotheses in terms of the testable question “which are the factors
that affect friction” that they had previously put forward: The friction may depend on (a) the roughness/
smoothness of the surface, (b) the surface area of the contact, and/or (c) the mass of the sliding body. In
the 4th teaching session, the students were prompted to choose the appropriate lab equipment, that was
available in the school’s lab, and design an experimental setup to check their hypotheses. In other words,
the students were engaged in engineering-practice by designing and constructing a proper experimenta-
tion setup within the STEM framework. Due to the large amount of experimental work required to test
all hypotheses, students were divided into smaller groups and each group chose one of the variables to
investigate. Students were introduced to the control-of-variables strategy, by changing one variable (the
one they have chosen), keeping all other variables constant.
Similar to the 2nd teaching-session, students used their tablets to record and analyze the data, and at
the end of the experimentation, all groups announced the results of their measurements and compared
them in plenary. Finally, in the last two teaching-sessions the students analyzed and evaluated their data
and communicated their results in the class receiving feedback and comments from their peers. The
procedure was accomplished by the comparison of the results to the initial hypotheses and the formula-
tion of the conclusions. During the entire process, the students reflected on the procedure, evaluated the
experimental setup, and completed their reflection report at home. Reflection has been mainly focused
on the inquiry-based learning process (What did I do and why?), while communication has been focused
on the experiment-related outcomes (What did I find?).
Summarizing the process, first the students were oriented through a fictional story from everyday
life; Then they experimented and observed that when they lifted a chair the mobile phones placed on it
slide with different inclination angles of the chair. So, they questioned themselves what factors influ-
ence the slide. The next step was to hypothesize possible answers to their questions and to record their
hypotheses for further investigation. Afterwards, they designed an experimentation setup with their
188

teacher’s support, and they experimented, investigating their hypotheses. Then, the students analyzed
their data with their tablets and recorded their overall conclusions about Friction. They also evaluated
the process (design, errors, experimental setup, suggestions for improvement, etc.). Finally, they dis-
cussed and came up with communicating their research to their peers and schoolteachers. During the
whole lab activity, they completed a Reflection Report at home.
Figure 6. The basic setup for the friction experiment (schematic and in classroom conditions)
RESULTS
The Results on the Intervention
As already mentioned, during the phases of the STEM intervention the students in the experimental group
used their smartphones as well as conventional equipment (Technology) in order to find the solution
to a hypothetical problem, related to the phenomenon and the factors which affect friction (Science).
The students were prompted to design and implement an experimental setup using the lab equipment
(Engineering) and proceeded with data analysis applying mathematical formulation (Math).
Each of the investigation phases consists of three steps of experimentation, namely, the design and
setup of the experiment, the measurements, and the conclusion. Obviously, the time devoted in each of
the steps is related to the guidance provided. In order to investigate this, during the third phase, half of
the students (group1) in the experimental group followed a Structured Inquiry process, while the other
half (group2) applied a Guided Inquiry process. In the fourth phase, all students followed the Guided
inquiry process.
Figure 7 shows the comparison of the two groups (Structured & Guided Inquiry), performing the same
experiment in 3rd phase. The graph shows the time spend during the experimental procedure, divided
in the three stages: the time required to complete the design & setup of the experiment, the time for the
189

measurements and the time for the students to draw the conclusion. As can be seen, in Figure 7a, the total
time is practically the same for both groups, however with different distribution between the various steps
of experimentation. As expected, the amount of time devoted in the “design & setup” step, is much larger
in the group which followed the Guided Inquiry process, since in this process, students had to design the
experiment themselves. On the other hand, for the group that followed the Structured Inquiry process,
a considerable amount of time has been devoted in taking the measurements, while this time is much
less for the group which followed the Guided one. It seems that the total time is “balanced” between
these two steps, and time for “measurements” is less when students design the experiment themselves.
Figure 7. (a) Duration of experimentation procedure and (b) Student verbal interaction Time (3rd Phase)
The verbal interaction of the students within the group for the two types if inquiry process is presented
in Figure 7b. The time for student-talking was increased from 20 min for the Structured Inquiry sub-
group to 30 min for the Guided Inquiry one, for the same experiment. As can be seen, the time for both
groups for the measurement & conclusion steps are identical, while the 50% more time in the Guided
inquiry process, is due to the more time required by the students for the design stage. During the Guided
Inquiry process the students were much more active in talking, and apparently dealt more deeply with the
Engineering part of STEM (design & setup) than their schoolmates who followed a Structured inquiry
process and student-talking was almost limited in setting up of the experiment.
The Results on Motivation
The administrated questionnaire is presented in the Appendix. The questionnaire was checked for the
internal reliability with Cronbach-α. A significance of p=0.05 was accepted as a conventional level.
One-way ANOVA analysis was applied to identify any significant difference. The correlation coeffi-
cient was interpreted in terms of its statistical significance, indicate that the results are unlikely to have
occurred by chance.
Table 2 shows the values of Cronbach-α for each factor, for both groups. The values range from 0.68
to 0.86 per factor in the two groups. When the two samples are added together (N=141) the Cronbach-a
is increased, ranging from 0.77 to 0.85. According to DeVellis (2003), a coefficient above 0.80 is “very
190

good,” 0.70 to 0.80 is “respectable,” 0.60 to 0.69 is “undesirable to minimally acceptable,” and below
0.60 is “unacceptable”. The total Cronbach-a of the whole questionnaire is considerably high, and
invariant from one school to the other. The similar values are recorded for both groups, indicate that
the questions were perceived in the same way by both groups, and therefore the groups may be added
together for further analysis.
Table 2. The values of Cronbach-α for each factor’s set of questions, for both schools
Reliability of internal consistencies - Cronbach’s alpha

Control Group Experimental Group Total
Factor (questions) Factor name
N = 70 N = 71 (n = 141)
F1 (2,4,8,20,24) Grade Motivation (GM) 0.74 0.79 0.77
F2 (9,14,15,18,21) Self-Efficacy (SE) 0.81 0.88 0.88
F3 (5,6,11, 16,22) Self-Determination (SD) 0.85 0.74 0.80
F4 (1,3,12,17,19) Intrinsic Motivation (IM) 0.81 0.68 0.81
Total 0.91 0.92 0.92
Performing Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with the JASP software, on the questionnaires from
both groups (N=141), we verified the model presented by Glynn. CFA is a statistical technique which
allows to test the existence of a specific relationship (model) between the observed variables (questions)
and their underlying latent constructs (factors). Circles in Figure 8 represent the unobserved latent factors
and squares the observed variables. Single-headed straight arrows represent the impact (the loading)
of one variable on another, and double-headed bended arrows represent covariance between a pair of
variables [Byrne, 2005]. In our case, CFA depicts that:
• There are four factors indicated by circles, labeled as GM (Grade Motivation), SE (Self Efficacy),
SD (Self Determination) and IM (Intrinsic Motivation). The 4 factors are intercorrelated as indi-
cated by the 6 two-headed arrows.
• There are 20 observed variables (questions), which load on the factors in the following pattern:
the factor GM groups the students’ responses on the questions 02, 04, 08, 20, and 24; the factor
SE on the questions 09, 14, 15, 18, and 21; the factor SD on the questions 05, 06, 11, 16, and 22;
and the factor IM on the questions 01, 03, 12, 17, and 19. Each observed variable loads on one
and only one factor.
• Errors associated with each observed variable are uncorrelated, i.e., there are no double-headed
arrows connecting any two error terms.
To access the “goodness of fit” we examine the fit indices. For example, the Comparative Fit Index
(CFI) is found 0.9, the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) is 0.8, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA) index is 0.09, and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residuals (SRMSR) index is 0.09,
which are marginally below the acceptable limit, and are due to the small size of the sample (Leite &
Stalpeton, 2011). The acceptable values are CFI>0.9, TLI>0.9, RMSEA<.08, SRMR:<.08. Omitting
from the analysis the questions with low loading factors (Q2, Q4, Q16), the “goodness of fit” indices
191

are improved (CFI: .92, TLI: .91, RMSEA: .075, SRMR: .076). Thus, the SMQ-II questionnaire ana-
lyzed, consists of 17 questions, and the questions omitted from the analysis appear as strikethrough in
Appendix. The results for the final CFA model are presented in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Confirmatory factor analysis of both groups (N=141): Standardized factor loadings and cor-
relations. GM: grade motivation, SE: self-efficacy, SD: self-determination, IM: intrinsic motivation, @:
questionnaire item; e: error term.
Table 3 shows the factor covariances, as calculated from CFA, along with the corresponding values,
as presented in the original paper of Glynn et.al. Three factors appear strongly correlated, i.e., intrinsic
motivation with self-efficacy (0.74) and with grade motivation (0.53) which is also correlated with
self-determination (0.57). Similar to the original SMQ-II questionnaire, our students show the highest
factor covariance between IM and SE, though significantly higher in our case (0.74 to 0.65). The next
higher correlation in both our case and the original SMQ-II is between GM and SD, with similar factor
covariances. However, in our case, factor covariances between IM and GM is high (0.53) whereas in
the original SMQ-II is low (0.22), as well as between SE and GM (0.40 in our case, 0.23 in the original
SMQ-II). In other cases, the opposite occurs; between IM and SD: 0.30 in our case - 0.45 in the original
SMQ-II, and between SE and SD: 0.17 in our case - 0.38 in the original SMQ-II. This indicates that
though the same questionnaire is applied, and the same model is verified in both cases, the factor covari-
ances can be quite different, depending on the age of the groups, the cultural differences, and possibly
on the ways that Physics is taught.
Analyzing the answers, we found that the mean value of all the questions of SMQ-II is higher in
the experimental group (3.83) compared with the control group (3.40). In addition, we investigated the
students’ performance on the individual factors of the questionnaire in order to determine if any of them
show greater differences. Figure 9 shows the mean values of all factors in the two groups. As can be
seen, the mean values in both groups are practically the same for the factor “self-determination” (SD).
This factor detects the way students study Physics at home, the effort they put and the time they devote.
In this aspect both groups are identical. Similarly, “grade motivation” (GM) does not show any signifi-
cant difference between the two groups. This finding strongly suggests that the two groups are identi-
192

cal in how important is for them the grade they get in Physics. In the other two factors, “self-efficacy”
(SE) and “intrinsic motivation” (IM), the students at the experimental group (3rd Junior High School of
Kavala) expressed more positive attitudes. Students in the experimental group are more confident that
they would do well on physics and believe that they understand physics better and they master physics
knowledge better than their peers in the control group. Furthermore, students in the experimental group,
enjoy more learning physics and they find that physics is interesting and relevant to their life, while they
express curiosity about the discoveries in physics. Both factors are clearly affected by the intervention.
Though we cannot establish a causal relation between intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy, these two
factors are strongly correlated, as shown from CFA.
Table 3. Factor covariances for CFA model
Estimate Std. Error z-value p Glynn et. al.

Grade Motivation ↔ Self Efficacy 0.403 0.082 4.931 < .001 0.23
Grade Motivation ↔ Self Determination 0.566 0.072 7.904 < .001 0.55
Grade Motivation ↔ Itrinsic Motivation 0.528 0.076 6.921 < .001 0.22
Self Efficacy ↔ Self Determination 0.167 0.095 1.762 0.078 0.38
Self Efficacy ↔ Itrinsic Motivation 0.736 0.054 13.537 < .001 0.65
Self Determination ↔ Itrinsic Motivation 0.300 0.093 3.213 0.001 0.45
Figure 9. Comparison of factors’ mean values
To determine whether other factors affect student motivation, we tested both the effect of students’
gender, as well as their science grade point averages (GPAs). Our findings showed that there are no
statistically significant differences between male and female students (sig.> 0.05). In contrast, refer-
ring to their GPAs, there are significant differences, with students achieving higher GPA to have higher
motivation scores on all factors. However, since the distribution of students in the two schools in terms
193

of their GPA is similar, it indicates that the difference in motivation between the students of the two
groups is not affected by their GPA. These findings suggest that the main reason for the difference in
motivation of the students of the two schools is probably due to the STEM-oriented mIBL activities that
students had performed in the experimental group.
DISCUSSION
This chapter discusses the application of a sequence of Teaching/Learning activities to promote students’
motivation. The activities were STEM-oriented using Inquiry-based Learning with the employment
of mobile devices. Students, in their comments seem to have enjoyed the teaching/learning activities.
Enjoyment is a key issue to motivation (Liu et al. 2021). All students in the experimental group have
successfully completed the sequence, although they were not familiar with the Inquiry-based learning,
or using mobile devices in the experimentation, and were inexperienced in STEM-oriented topics.
The students’ motivation, as examined with CFA, revealed four latent factors, namely the Grade
Motivation, the Self-Efficacy, the Self-Determination and the Intrinsic Motivation for the total of stu-
dents, i.e., both the control and the experimental group. The factors are intercorrelated with the strongest
covariance between Self-Efficacy and Intrinsic Motivation. Grade Motivation is also strongly correlated
to Intrinsic Motivation and to Self Determination. Self-Efficacy refers to students’ belief that they can
achieve well in science (Lawson, 2007), while the Intrinsic Motivation involves the inherent satisfac-
tion in learning science for its own sake (Eccles, 2006). Comparing the answers of the students in the
experimental group with the control one, we note higher motivation in the experimental group. This
higher motivation derives from statistically significant higher ratings for the Self-Efficacy and Intrinsic
Motivation latent factors. This indicates that students who have followed STEM-oriented activities with
Inquiry-based Learning and mobile devices, appear to believe that they can achieve better in science and
show inherent satisfaction in learning science, than their peers who have followed traditional teaching.
In our case, no statistically significant difference was observed based on gender of the students, though,
usually men had higher self-efficacy than women, and women had higher self-determination than men
(Glynn et al., 2011).
Clearly, the enhanced motivation can be attributed to Inquiry-based Learning or to STEM, or to the
use of mobile devices. In order to examine which of the three factors has the major influence on students’
motivation, we will explore the impact of each one separately. As already stated, in the STEM framework,
students were participating in processes and tasks similar to those faced by scientists and engineers; they
had to ask questions, to identify the problem, to determine design criteria for an experiment and proceed
with data collection that would help them to reach conclusions. Working in the STEM framework was
a brand-new experience for them and potentially contributed to their motivation.
On the other hand, several researchers (Kempler, 2006).; Blumenfeld et al., 2006) point out that
inquiry-based activities might boost students’ motivation. Our Teaching/Learning activities could be
identified as a combination of three types of IBL, according to Liu et al. (2021): The students developed
plausible hypotheses based on observation and offered explanations using critical thinking (ABI); they
conducted hands-on investigations collecting and analyzing data and drawing conclusions regarding
real-life problems (AUI). The students also worked in groups engaging in investigations (CAI). The
process of IBL was unusual to students and could lead to enhanced motivation.
194

Another novel experience for the students in the experimental group is the use of mobile devices
either as part of the experimental setup (mobile phones), or for the recording and analysis of the results
(tablets). The use of modern everyday technology is believed to have a positive influence on the moti-
vation, as outlined by several researchers. For example, Shih et al. (2010) observed enhanced learning
motivation due to the students’ use of their PDAs.
Summarizing, we cannot distinguish which of the three, i.e., the framework (STEM), or the method
(Inquiry-based Learning) or the tool (mobile devices) had the strongest impact on students’ motiva-
tion. We believe it is the combination of the three, since the structure of the activities seems to play an
important role in the motivation. Our work incorporates motivating features like real world questions,
collaboration, technology, and lesson variety in the STEM framework. The use of authentic problems for
students’ orientation, has been stressed by several authors. Research findings showed that interest and
efficacy were enhanced when teachers use practices that make sense to the students (Kempler, 2006).
Implications suggest that teachers need to use explicit scaffolding in inquiry-based strategies. Though
IBL is not limited in experimentation, the experiment is an organic and integral part of teaching Natural
Sciences. It is a very powerful educational tool in the hands of teachers, which acquires even greater
value when the students themselves are involved in it (Halkia, 2000; Lefkos et al., 2005). It is also crucial
for students to be involved in collaborative learning, e.g., in activities where students work together in
small groups of 2-5, where everyone participates in a clearly defined group task/activity (Cohen, 1994).
CONCLUSION
STEM education encourages students to be curious and experiment as lifelong learners. Furthermore,
STEM and experimentation (STEM Labs) promote collaboration and exploratory learning. Students
enjoy hands-on-learning activities that allow them to apply technology, science, math, and engineering
skills as they enjoy a 21st-century learning experience. As Inquiry is the process of answering questions
and solving problems based on facts and observations, Inquiry-based learning naturally fits with STEM
since it promotes critical thinking and innovation.
This paper presents a theoretical approach of Mobile learning, Inquiry-based learning, and STEM
learning concepts, as well as their correlations. It also describes a mobile inquiry-based STEM learning
intervention held during the school year 2020–21, at the 3rd Junior High School of Kavala (experimental
group) in Greece. The students were prompted to predict what would happen in an experimental procedure.
Then during the in-lab activities, they were prompted to pose questions, formulate their hypotheses, design
an experimental setup, observe, and analyze the outcomes. The students showed enthusiasm to participate
in the experiments and devoted time to the design of the experimental process. At first, it seems that the
students involved in a Guided inquiry-based process spent more time experimenting and became more
deeply involved with STEM than their classmates who followed a structured inquiry procedure. Results
on the motivation indicate that students of the experimental group (3rd Junior high School of Kavala)
expressed more positive views in the of SMQ-II questionnaire, than their schoolmates of the Junior high
School of N. Peramos (control group). Further analysis pointed out that other parameters such gender or
GPA did not affect these views, which is an indication that the mobile Inquiry-based STEM intervention
was the determinant factor for the enhanced students’ motivation.
195

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Authors would like to express their sincere thanks to Mr. George Mpatsiolas (M.Sc) for his help with
CFA, and to the school teachers Dr. Dimitris Theodorides and Mr. Christos Christides for their help with
the questionnaire sharing in the Junior High School of N. Peramos.
REFERENCES
Blumenfeld, P., Kempler, T., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Motivation and Cognitive Engagement in Learning
Environments. The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences.
Byrne, B. M. (2005). Factor Analytic Models: Viewing the Structure of an Assessment Instrument From
Three Perspectives. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85(1), 17–32. doi:10.120715327752jpa8501_02
PMID:16083381
Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for Productive small Groups. Review of
Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35. doi:10.3102/00346543064001001
Crompton, H. (2015). A Historical Overview of M-Learning. Handb. Mob. Learn., 10204. Advance
online publication. doi:10.4324/9780203118764.ch1
Crompton, H., Burke, D., & Gregory, K. H. (2017). The use of mobile learning in PK-12 education: A
systematic review. Comput. Educ., 110, 51–63. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.013
Daher, W., & Shahbari, J. A. (2020). Design of STEM activities: Experiences and perceptions of pro-
spective secondary school teachers. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(4),
112–128. doi:10.3991/ijet.v15i04.11689
Deák, C., Kumar, B., Szabó, I., Nagy, G., & Szentesi, S. (2021). Evolution of New Approaches in Peda-
gogy and STEM with Inquiry-Based Learning and Post-Pandemic Scenarios. Education in Science,
11(7), 319. doi:10.3390/educsci11070319
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Sage.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychol-
ogy, 53(1), 109–132. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153 PMID:11752481
Glynn, S. M., Brickman, P., Armstrong, N., & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2011). Science motivation question-
naire II: Validation with science majors and nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
48(10), 1159–1176. doi:10.1002/tea.20442
Halkia, K. (2000). The Experiment in Physics: Commentary and Highlights on its role and importance.
Educational Approaches for the Natural Sciences, 6, 12-18.
Hwang, G.-J., Li, K.-C., & Lai, C.-L. (2020). Trends and strategies for conducting effective STEM
research and applications: A mobile and ubiquitous learning perspective. Int. J. Mobile Learning and
Organisation, 14(2), 161–183. doi:10.1504/IJMLO.2020.106166
196

Kempler, T. M. (2006). Optimizing students’ motivation in inquiry-based learning environments: The

role of instructional practices [Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan]. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.
edu/abs/2006PhDT........95K/abstract
Kousloglou, M., Molohidis, A., Nikolopoulou, K., & Hatzikraniotis, E. (in press). Mobile Inquiry-based
Science Learning (m-IBSL): Employment of the Phyphox application for an experimental study of fric-
tion. Teaching Science.
Lai, C. (2018). Using inquiry-based strategies for enhancing students’ STEM education learning. Journal
of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 4(1), 110–117. doi:10.21891/jeseh.389740
Lawson, A. E., Banks, D. L., & Logvin, M. (2007). Self-efficacy, reasoning ability, and achievement
in college biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 706–724. doi:10.1002/tea.20172
Lefkos, I., Psillos, D., Hatzikraniotis, E., & Papadopoulos, A. (2005). A proposal for the laboratory
support of the teaching of Thermal Radiation with combined use of ICT tools. Proceeding of the 3rd
Panhellenic Conference on ICT “Utilization of Information and Communication Technologies in Teach-
ing Practice”, 114-120.
Leite, W. L., & Stapleton, L. M. (2011). Detecting Growth Shape Misspecifications in Latent Growth
Models: An Evaluation of Fit Indexes. Journal of Experimental Education, 79(4), 361–381. doi:10.10
80/00220973.2010.509369
Liu, C., Zowghi, D., Kearney, M., & Bano, M. (2021). Inquiry-based mobile learning in secondary
school science education: A systematic review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(1), 1–23.
doi:10.1111/jcal.12505
Looi, C. K. (1998). Interactive learning environments for promoting inquiry learning. Journal of Edu-
cational Technology Systems, 27(1), 3–22. doi:10.2190/L4Q4-8QMM-QPJ3-B5LJ
Mutambara, D., & Bayaga, A. (2021, January). Determinants of Mobile Learning Acceptance for
STEM Education in Rural Areas. Computers & Education, 160, 104010. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104010
Nouri, J., Cerrato-Pargman, T., & Zetali, K. (2013). Mobile inquiry-based learning: A study of collabora-
tive scaffolding and performance. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8005, 464–473. doi:10.1007/978-
3-642-39262-7_53
Novak, A. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Using Technology To Support Inquiry In Middle School Science.
In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science. Science & Technology
Education Library (Vol. 25). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-5814-1_5
Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry
cycle. Educational Research Review, 14(February), 47–61. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
Prasongsap, B., Khaokhajorn, W., & Srisawasdi, N. (2020). Mobile learning in informal science educa-
tion: A systematic review from 2010 to 2019. ICCE 2020 - 28th International Conference on Computers
in Education Proceedings, 2, 425–431.
197

Salta, K., & Koulougliotis, D. (2014). Assessing motivation to learn chemistry: Adaptation and valida-
tion of Science Motivation Questionnaire II with Greek secondary school students. Chemistry Education
Research and Practice, 15(2), 168–183.
Scanlon, E., Anastopoulou, S., Kerawalla, L., & Mulholland, P. (2011). How technology resources can
be used to represent personal inquiry and support students’ understanding of it across contexts. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(6), 516–529. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00414.x
Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., Burden, K., & Brindley, S. (2018). Mobile STEM Learning Scenarios. Un-
certainty in Teacher Education Futures, 177–203. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-8246-7_11
Shih, J. L., Chuang, C. W., & Hwang, G. J. (2010). An inquiry-based mobile learning approach to enhanc-
ing social science learning effectiveness. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 50–62.
SPSS, Inc. (2008). SPSS Base 17.0 user’s guide. SPSS, Inc.
Suárez, Á., Specht, M., Prinsen, F., Kalz, M., & Ternier, S. (2018). A review of the types of mobile
activities in mobile inquiry-based learning. Computers & Education, 118, 38–55. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2017.11.004
Sutoyo, S., Azizah, U., & Allamin, S. (2019). Effectiveness of the Guided Inquiry Model Integrated with
STEM to Improve the Student Critical Thinking Skills in Chemistry Learning. International Journal of
Innovative Science and Research Technology, 4(12).
Tantu, O. (2017). Evaluating mobile apps for STEM Education with in-service teachers [Master of Sci-
ence thesis]. Middle East Technical University. https://open.metu.edu.tr/handle/11511/26447
Thongsri, P., Prasongsap, B., Panjaburee, P., & Srisawasdi, N. (2020). Mobile technology facilitated
physics learning course: A systematic review from 2010 to 2019. ICCE 2020 - 28th International Con-
ference on Computers in Education Proceedings, 2, 438–443.
Tijani, B., Madu, N., Falade, T., & Dele-Ajayi, O. (2021). Teacher Training during Covid-19: A Case
Study of the Virtual STEM Project in Africa. doi:10.1109/EDUCON46332.2021.9453920
Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2003). Content effects in self-directed inductive learning. Learning
and Instruction, 13(4), 381–402. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00013-0
Yang, J. M., Sung, Y. T., & Chang, K. E. (2020). Use of Meta-Analysis to Uncover the Critical Issues
of Mobile Inquiry-Based Learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(4), 715–746.
doi:10.1177/0735633119879366
Yeung, W. K., & Sun, D. (2019). A study of inquiry-based STEM learning supported by mobile tech-
nologies. In C. K. Looi, J. L. Shih, L. Huang, Q. Liu, S. Liu, D. Wu, N. Zheng, Z. Zhuang, J. Guo, S.
Yang, Y. Wen, C. Liao, S. Huang, L. Lin, Y. Song, Y. Wei, Z. Liang, & M. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of
the 23rd Global Chinese Conference on Computers in Education (GCCCE2019) (pp. 179-183). Central
China Normal University.
Yuliati, L., Parno, P., Hapsari, A. A., Nurhidayah, F., & Halim, L. (2018). Building Scientific Literacy
and Physics Problem Solving Skills through Inquiry-Based Learning for STEM Education. Journal of
Physics: Conference Series, 1108(1). Advance online publication. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1835/1/012012
198

ADDITIONAL READING
Ally, M. (2009). Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education & training. AU Press.
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: challenges and opportunities. NSTA Press.
Chu, S. K. W., Reynolds, R. B., Tavares, N. J., Notari, M., & Lee, C. W. Y. (2016). 21st century skills
development through inquiry-based learning: From theory to practice. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-
10-2481-8
Hong, J. C., Hsiao, H. S., Chen, P. H., Lu, C. C., & Tsai, C. R. (2021). Critical attitude and ability associ-
ated with students’ self-confidence and attitude toward “predict-observe-explain” online science inquiry
learning. Computers & Education, 166(6), 104172. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104172
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Traxler, J. (2005). Mobile Learning: A Handbook for Educators and Trainers.
Routledge.
Martín‐Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales‐Palacios, F. J., & Vílchez‐González, J. M. (2019). What are we
talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education., 103(4),
799–822. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002ce.21522
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K12 science education: Practices, cross
cutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
Pedro, L. F. M. G., Barbosa, C. M. M., & Santos, C. M. (2018). A critical review of mobile learning
integration in formal educational contexts. Int J Educ Technol High Educ, 15(1), 10. doi:10.118641239-
018-0091-4
21st Century Skills: Abilities that today’s students need to succeed in their careers during the Infor-
mation Age.
High-Level Thinking: Thinking on a level that is higher than memorizing or understanding facts.
The higher thinking levels are analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.
Inquiry-Based Learning: A constructivist approach in which students are placed in the position of
scientists.
Mobile Inquiry-Based Learning: The employment of mobile technologies to facilitate inquiry process.
Mobile Learning: Learning in multiple contexts, through social interactions, using personal digital
mobile devices.
Motivation: An individual’s desire to learn concepts or complete learning tasks.
Scaffolding: A variety of instructional techniques utilized to move students progressively toward
better understanding and greater independence in the learning process.
STEM Education: Teaching and learning in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics with the aim of improving students’ skills to apply cross-disciplinary knowledge effectively
in order to solve problems.
199
APPENDIX
The SQM questionnaire administered. The questions in strikethrough are omitted in the analysis, due
to low loading factors.
Items Factors
02. I like to do better than other students on physics tests
04. Getting a good physics grade is important to me
08. It is important that I get an ‘‘A’’ in physics grade motivation (GM)
20. I think about the grade I will get in physics
24. Scoring high on physics tests and labs matters to me
09. I am confident I will do well on physics tests
14. I am confident I will do well on physics labs and projects
15. I believe I can master physics knowledge and skills self-efficacy (SE)
18. I believe I can earn a grade of ‘‘A’’ in physics
21. I am sure I can understand physics
05. I put enough effort into learning physics
06. I use strategies to learn physics well
11. I spend a lot of time learning physics self-determination (SD)
16. I prepare well for physics tests and labs
22. I study hard to learn physics
01. The physics I learn is relevant to my life
03. Learning physics is interesting
12. Learning physics makes my life more meaningful intrinsic motivation (IM)
17. I am curious about discoveries in physics
19. I enjoy learning physics
200
201
Chapter 10
Junior High School Pupils’
Perceptions and Self-Efficacy
of Using Mobile Devices in
the Learning Procedure
Dionysios Manesis
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
Efthalia Mpalafouti
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
ABSTRACT
mobile devices in the learning procedure. A 33-item questionnaire was administered to 91 pupils aged
12-15 years old in different Greek schools. Most of the pupils had showed favorable perceptions about
the use of mobile devices for educational purposes. Nevertheless, the majority of pupils had a relatively
medium degree of self-efficacy of using mobile devices in learning activities. Perceived usefulness was
indicated as the major factor in predicting the adoption and use of mobile devices for educational
purposes. The higher the level of perceived usefulness pupils have about mobile devices, the higher the
possibility to use mobile devices as a learning tool. Pupils were more interested in using mobile devices
for learning mathematics, history, English, and ancient Greek language. The findings of this study have
implications for secondary education instructors, policy makers, and researchers.
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, the use of mobile technology, such as smartphones and tablets, in all levels of education, has
gained the interest of many researchers/institutions. The advanced features of these devices include many
sophisticated applications, such as Global Positioning System (GPS), smart sensors, activity trackers,
navigation, capturing objects and events and accessing web-based information (Nikolopoulou, 2019).
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-3861-9.ch010

Junior High School Pupils’ Perceptions and Self-Efficacy of Using Mobile Devices in Learning Procedure
These functions, combined with the new synchronous communication/group meetings capabilities, have
made mobile devices (MD) very popular among pupils (Lee et al., 2019; Mehdipour & Zerehkafi, 2013).
As a result, literature focuses on how the use of MD can be embodied in formal learning environments
to facilitate pupils’ learning procedure (Bartholomew & Reeve, 2018; Domingo & Garganté, 2016;
Nikolopoulou & Gialamas, 2017; Nikolopoulou, 2019).
The use of MD for educational purposes is also called “mobile learning”. Mobile learning aims not
only at facilitating teaching and learning procedure, but also at improving students’ attitudes toward the
usage of MD in learning environments (Wu et al., 2012; Jones et al., 2013; Nikolopoulou & Gialamas,
2017).
Mobile learning possesses the potential to extend the reach of learning procedure, and make it even
more widely available and accessible (Mehdipour & Zerehkafi, 2013; Nikolopoulou & Gialamas, 2017).
Therefore, the implementation of mobile learning in the classroom include several benefits compared
to traditional learning environments (Asabere, 2013; Liu et al., 2014; Mehdipour & Zerehkafi, 2013;
Sung, Hou, Liu, & Chang 2010; Vishwakarma, 2015):
• Mobile learning can be used anytime, and learning content can be accessed anywhere.
• Mobile learning enhances interaction between instructors and learners
• Mobile learning promotes collaboration among students and teachers
• Mobile learning assists students to improve their literacy and numeracy skills, and also to recog-
nize their learning abilities
• Mobile learning improves language and content learning and attitudes toward learning
• Mobile learning increases the time dedicated to learning away from the classroom settings
• Mobile learning extends the interaction among peers as far as problem-solving strategies concerns
• Mobile learning helps to make the learning experience more enjoyable, and therefore, attracts
hesitant students
• The use of mobile learning for communication, also focuses on a larger learning activity
• Mobile learning supports and enhances students’ self-efficacy
The potential of the educational usage of MD, may include gathering and sharing information (Kaliisa,
Palmer & Miller, 2019), skills and knowledge construction (Hwang & Chang, 2021; Zhai et al., 2019),
collaborative learning (Caballé, Xhafa & Barolli, 2010; Fakomogbon & Bolaji, 2017), and systematic
lifelong learning experience (Nordin, Embi & Yunus, 2010).
Collaborative learning, as far as the use of MD among pupils concerns, refers to the educational
method of teaching and learning within groups of students working together to solve a problem, com-
plete a homework, or create a project (Rodríguez, Riaza, & Gómez, 2017). Learners who participate
in collaborative practices, have the opportunity to talk to peers, share ideas, exchange information.
Therefore, collaborative learning via MD usage is very important mainly because help students to be
actively engaged in the procedure of construct their knowledge (Marjan, & Mozhgan, 2012; Rodríguez,
Riaza, & Gómez, 2017).
Especially in high school, there are several aspects of MD usage aiming at enhancing pupils’ learn-
ing. Students can clearly define their learning objectives as well as the educational activities in their
classroom, in which they want to be involved (Nikolopoulou & Gialamas, 2017; Nikolopoulou, 2019;
Wan Hamzah et al., 2020). Moreover, the use of effective mobile applications encourages engagement
to the learning procedure, interaction, and collaboration among pupils (Nikolopoulou, 2019; Miller &
202

Cuevas, 2017). Pupils who collaborating with each other may improvise as far as the kind of their in-
teractions concerns, and at the same time maintain control over the way MD could affect their learning
(Rodríguez, Riaza, & Gómez, 2017).
Also, the use of mobile learning applications in high school, increases motivation to study (Miller
& Cuevas, 2017; Nikou & Economides, 2018; Seifert, 2015). Most pupils are familiar with the use of
MD and like to use them. As a result, pupils pay more attention in the lesson. Furthermore, high school
students are more willing to study certain subjects that make it difficult and stressful for them, mainly
due to the procedure of carrying out complex calculations. These subjects include math, physics, and
chemistry (Nikolopoulou, 2019; Parmigiani, Traverso, & Pennazio, 2015; Taleb, Ahmadi, & Musavi,
2015). In addition, the usage of MD for learning purposes improvises pupils to engage in a variety of
different learning online activities such as internet searching, downloading pictures and video, chatting,
playing games, and communicating via social networking (Joyce-Gibbon et al., 2017).
Pupils’ self-efficacy, perceptions and attitudes toward MD are major factors that could affect the
successful incorporation of MD into the learning environment, and the exploitation of MD advantages
regarding knowledge acquisition (Briz-Ponce et al., 2017; Rau, Gao, & Wu, 2008; Tsai, Tsai & Hwang,
2010; Wang & Wang, 2008). For example, pupils with more positive attitudes toward the use of MD in
their lessons, may have a positive effect on their motivation, interests and performance in mobile-based
learning applications (Nikolopoulou & Gialamas, 2017). Therefore, it is essential to investigate pupils’
perceptions about the use of mobile learning in high school, as some perceptions may lead in excluding
MD’s instructional benefits in the classroom.
This study aims at shed some light on high school students’ perceptions of MD’s inclusion in educa-
tional settings. The results of this research are expected to highlight the issues and concerns regarding
the importance of pupils’ perceived self-efficacy and perceptions about the use of MD in secondary
education. Useful frameworks and guidelines will be discussed about high school’s policy and practices
regarding mobile learning.
The study explored the following research questions:
1. What are the pupils’ perceptions regarding the use of mobile devices?
2. What is the pupils’ degree of self-efficacy when using mobile devices?
3. How pupils’ perceptions and self-efficacy about MD are connected?
4. In which lessons pupils are using MD?
5. What are the effects of pupils’ individual characteristics (gender, age class, frequency of MD use)
on their perceptions?
BACKGROUND
Perception is related to attitudes. Views, perceptions and beliefs are considered as the cognitive compo-
nents of attitudes (Ma, Anderson, & Streith, 2005). Ajzen, 2006, in order to explain how perceptions/
views, intentions, and bahaviour are connected, established the rule that the more favorable the views,
the stronger should be a person’s intention to perform the behavior in question. Students’ subjective per-
ception of the usefulness of MD, may have an effect on their behavior to accept and use mobile learning
for educational purposes (Bartholomew & Reeve, 2018). In the educational context, favorable percep-
tions and positive views can lead to more positive attitudes toward MD, and this in turn will improve
203

not only the learning procedure but other associated activities (Garland & Noyes, 2005; Nikolopoulou
& Gialamas, 2017).
Self-efficacy refers to one’s belief of one’s ability to succeed in specific situations (Bandura, 1997).
This kind of belief have a positive effect on his/her choice of innovations, and the degree of effort he/
she will expend in order to overcome his/her fears and succeed in whatever he/she is carrying out.
(Bandura, 1993).
The term self-efficacy in the ability of using MD in the learning procedure concerns the junior high
school pupils’ beliefs in their own capabilities with regard to their perspectives towards using MD for
learning purposes, in and out of the classroom. Pupils with a strong sense of self-efficacy of using MD in
the learning procedure, are more likely to accept innovation arising from Information and Communication
Technologies, and use the potential of acquiring knowledge with MD (Wang & Wang, 2008). Students’
self-efficacy contributes to their cognitive development by regulating their own way of learning and by
determining their motivations, aspirations, and academic achievements (Bandura, 1993). Self-efficacious
pupils will put forth a higher degree of effort so as to correspond to the new needs of primary education.
Pupils with low self-esteem, on the other hand, cannot improve themselves educationally.
Students’ perceived self-efficacy in utilizing MD in their homework, at all levels of education, has
gained growing interest among educational researchers (Wang & Wang, 2008; Tsai, Tsai & Hwang, 2010;
Cheon et al., 2012; Mahat, Ayub, & Luan, 2012; Poll, 2014; Hur et al., 2015; Sung, Chang & Liu, 2016;
Nikolopoulou & Gialamas, 2016; Nikolopoulou & Gialamas, 2017; Bartholomew, S. R., & Reeve, E.,
2018; Nikolopoulou, 2019; Polydoros, 2021).
Wang and Wang (2008) developed and validated a multidimensional instrument for measuring learners’
mobile computing self-efficacy, and stated that students with higher self-efficacy in accepting mobile
computers have a critical influence on using them.
Tsai, Tsai & Hwang (2010) investigated 414 elementary school students’ attitudes and self-efficacy
of using personal digital assistants (PDAs) in ubiquitous learning. The results indicated that the students,
in general, had positive attitudes and adequate self-efficacy in terms of using PDAs. Gender differences
existed only in the pupils’ self-efficacy of using PDAs for Internet related functions, with the male stu-
dents expressing significantly higher confidence in using PDAs for Internet-related functions than the
female students. Furthermore, the pupils in lower grades had a tendency to use PDAs more frequently
and to have more positive views of using PDAs than the higher grade students.
Cheon et al. (2012) investigated 177 students’ perceptions toward using mobile learning as a new form
of learning. They used a conceptual model, based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB), explaining
how students’ beliefs influence their intention to adopt mobile devices in their coursework. The findings
showed that attitudes, subjective norm, and behavioral control positively influenced students’ intention
to adopt mobile learning.
Mahat, Ayub, & Luan (2012) using a sample of 137 students assessed learners’ perceptions, self-
efficacy, readiness, and personal innovativeness toward using mobile learning in the future. The results
indicated that students expressed their interest on the integration of new technology innovation by their
teachers in the classroom. It was also found that the respondents had a high level of personal innovative-
ness and mobile readiness, but their level of mobile self-efficacy was only moderate.
Poll (2014) investigated 2.252 elementary and high school pupils’ current ownership and usage of
mobile devices, the way students use mobile devices for school work, pupils’ attitudes toward MD for
learning, with a special focus on tablets, and students’ preferences for different types of digital devices
during reading, studying, taking notes, and doing other school-related activities. The results showed that
204

across all grade levels, proximately one in three students considered themselves as “early adopters”,
meaning they are first to try a new electronic device at school. The majority of students at all grade levels
would like to use mobile devices more often in the classroom, and this was especially true for younger
students. High school students were the most likely to be satisfied with their current usage level. Pupils
at all grade levels felt that tablets make learning enjoyable, help them to enhance their learning acquiring
in the classroom, and to learn in a way that fits them better. Younger students were more likely to agree
on the advantages of tablets for learning. Across grade levels, most pupils expressed the opinion that
they know more about tablets and other computers than their teachers, and about 75% of high school
students said that they know more about new technology than their teachers.
Hur et al. (2015) examined pre-service teachers’ perceptions about MD integration in classrooms.
A total sample of 386 student teachers participated in an online survey, and the model was tested using
structural equation modeling. The findings demonstrated that 72,5% of variance in students’ intention to
use mobile learning were explained by perceived usefulness and self-efficacy for technology integration.
Perceived usefulness was the strongest predictor. The results also indicated that constructivist beliefs
and perceived ease of use had an indirect effect on student teachers’ intention to use MD for teaching.
Sung, Chang & Liu (2016) performed a meta-analysis and research synthesis of the effects of in-
tegrated mobile devices in teaching and learning, in which 110 experimental and quasi experimental
journal articles published during the period 1993–2013 were analyzed. The study indicated that most of
the researchers mostly investigated students in higher education, whilst most research used MD mainly
as an enhancement tool to stimulate motivation and strengthen engagement in the learning procedure.
Overall, the effect size was larger for using MD in outside school environment and informal settings,
rather than in the classrooms. Students’ MD ownership linked with wireless communication, which
enabled more self-regulated reading.
Nikolopoulou & Gialamas (2016) explored secondary school pupils’ computer and MD engage-
ment, with a sample of 246 adolescents (12 - 15 years old) of an experimental school, in Greece. Factor
analysis revealed four factors: “MD self-concept”, “social exposure to MD”, “interest in computers”
and “interest in mobile devices”. Most of the pupils expressed strong interest toward mobile devices.
Over 90% of the adolescents believed that the internet was very useful to find practical information for
their studies, that they can handle mobile phones properly, and that they know how to download new
applications for a mobile phone. Gender was statistically significant correlated to “MD self-concept” and
“social exposure to MD”. Male pupils had higher mean values in comparison to females. The frequency
of MD usage had positive correlations with the factors “MD self-concept”, “social exposure to MDT”
and “interest in computers”.
Nikolopoulou & Gialamas (2017) investigated junior high school pupils’ attitudes and self-efficacy
of using mobile devices, using a sample of 260 pupils aged 12-15 years old, in Greece. Pupils’ attitudes
were generally, positive. Factor analysis indicated the extraction of four factors, “perceived usefulness”,
“affection”, “perceived control” and “behavior”. As far as pupils’ self-efficacy concerns, one factor
was revealed and this was significantly correlated with all attitude factors. The majority of the students
expressed high self-efficacy in using MD. Higher levels of self-efficacy were connected with positive
perspectives and feelings, to greater willingness to use MD, and to favorable perceptions toward their
independent control. Gender or age differences in attitudes were very small.
Bartholomew & Reeve (2018) surveyed 458 middle-school students’ perceptions of how they would
like to use MD, if given the opportunity, during school. Perceptions of how MD would be used and the
actual use by students were discriminated. The majority of students (over 80%) stated that MD should be
205

allowed in classrooms, yet, when given the opportunity, most of the of students used MD less than 5% of
the time. Students also reported that the use of MD was not limited only for communication purposes.
Acquiring new skills was the most commonly reported usage of MD by students.
Nikolopoulou (2019) examined junior high school pupils’ opinions on motivation and mobile de-
vices’ usage at school, with a sample of 179 pupils aged 13-15 years old, in a state experimental school
in Greece. Most of the pupils believed that MD were a motivation for learning, due to their potential in
aiding for searching for information, comprehending the concepts, and in completing school tasks. Pupils
were more interested in using MD for learning mathematics, physics, and history.
Polydoros (2021) investigated teachers’ and sixth grade students’ perceptions on the impact of using
MD in teaching and learning mathematics. The sample consisted of 10 teachers and 30 students in an
elementary school in Attica. The overall findings demonstrated that the use of MD had a positive effect
on both teaching activities and learning in mathematics. Students stated that only teachers who embrace
innovations, can use MD to provide authentic learning experiences in a digital school environment. Both
students and instructors believed that the most of the students are not in the position to adopt the usage
of MD for educational purposes. Students also reported the need of teachers’ training courses in order
to develop sufficient knowledge and skills in promoting learning, using MD.
In light of MD acceptance and development in education, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM,
Davis, 1985), and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and the Use of Technology (UTAUT2 model, Ven-
katesh et al. 2012) has become an active research field as far as the mobile learning concerns (Cheng et
al. 2020; Nikolopoulou, Gialamas, & Lavidas, 2020).
TAM is based on the assumption that when users are about to use a new Information and Communi-
cation Technology, there are three key factors that can influence their decision on whether they adopt it
or not. The first factor is Perceived Usefulness (PU), the second is the Perceived Ease of Use (PEoU),
and the third determinant is attitude toward usage (ATT) (Davis, 1989).
PU of a mobile device in the learning procedure is the degree to which a student believes in mobile
device ability to provide with all means necessary, to motivate him/her in numerous activities. For ex-
ample, to engage students in online study groups, to access to a variety of academic websites, graphics,
video simulations and films, and to communicate with each other (Joyce-Gibbon et al., 2017; Mugo,
Njagi, Chemwei, & Motanya, 2017). One of the most important benefit, as far as the educational use
of MD concerns, is that in this way MD provide opportunity for increasing accessing and download-
ing learning content any time anywhere, providing chances for individualized learning (Mugo, Njagi,
Chemwei, & Motanya, 2017). In addition, students who perceive MD as a useful learning tool, get the
most out of mobile applications, such as cameras, video players, calculators, email, sound recorder, and
dictionaries. Thus, students’ participation in performing tasks specific to curriculum engagements, is
significantly increased (Valk, Ahmed Rashid, & Laurent, 2010).
PEoU of a mobile device in the learning procedure is the degree to which a student considers that
using MD would be effortless. In other words, MD have an easy to use operating system which manages
its hardware and applications (Mugo, Njagi, Chemwei, & Motanya, 2017). The student does not require
any kind of formal training to operate mobile device interface. Mobile device home screen displays the
main menu, and applications. The student can easily customize the home screen, increasing the degrees
of freedom of arranging properly the applications. Moreover, MD have large internal memory, a lot of
slots, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, GPS, and 4G/5G facilities. These characteristics support students to download
and share files and data, concerning their learning, without plugging extra hardware (Mugo, Njagi,
Chemwei, & Motanya, 2017).
206

ATT, as mentioned before is the most critical factor in determining MD acceptance. Students with
more positive attitudes toward the use of MD for educational purposes, are able to change their percep-
tion towards the mobile learning, making them embrace its utilization (Abu-Al-Aish, & Steve, 2013).
In the present study, the construction of the questionnaire was not entirely based on TAM. Only the
items of “PU” were used in order to measure how pupils perceive MD usefulness. The PU, according
to the study of Tsai, Tsai & Hwang (2010), is considered as the key factor in predicting the acceptance
and usage of MD for learning purposes. A high level of students’ PU leads to the adoption of MD as
educational tools.
UTAUT2 model was validated by Venkatesh et al. (2012), including Performance Expectancy, Effort
Expectancy, Social Influence, and Facilitating Conditions, as the four core determinants of intention
to accept technology. In addition, the UTAUT2 model was enriched with Habit, Hedonic Motivation,
and Price Value in order to predict students’ behavioral intention to use mobile phones in their studies.
METHODOLOGY
Sample
The sample consisted of 91 junior high school pupils of several high schools in Athens, Greece. 52%
were boys and 48% were girls. All pupils had access to a smartphone, and 53.8% of the sample had also
a tablet. Regarding the frequency of smartphone use, 13.2% of the pupils reported 1-2 hours per day,
36,3% reported 2-3 hours per day, and 39,6% reported more than 3 hours per day. As far as the frequency
of tablet use concerns, 60,4% of the pupils who possessed a tablet, reported no use at all, while 34,1%
reported 0-1 hour per week. 27.1% of the pupils mentioned that they would like to use MD to learn
Mathematics, 16.3% to learn History, 16.3% to learn English, and 9.3% to learn ancient Greek language.
There was a significant difference in relation to the age group, as far as the category “2-3 hours per day
use of smartphone” [χ2 (df = 6, N = 91) = 13.86, p = 0.031]. 14-15 year-old pupils stated significantly
more frequent smartphone use per day (67.7%), compared to the other age groups (32.3%, and 24.1%
for age groups 12-13, and 13-14 respectively).
The Research Instrument
An online questionnaire was used at the beginning of the academic year 2019-2020. Pupils were informed
that the responses were anonymous, and that the data collected will be used solely for research purposes.
The questionnaire consisted of two sections. The first section involved statements regarding pupils’
demographic and individual characteristics, and a statement regarding which lessons, pupils would like
to use smartphone and tablet in order to learn. The second section contained 11 items to investigate
pupils’ self-efficacy of using MD, and 22 items to measure pupils’ perceptions about the educational
usage of MD. The 11 statements to assess pupils’ self-efficacy, as long as the 16 statements in order to
measure social interaction using MD, and interest in the MD, were taken and adapted from the study of
Zylka et al. (2015). The 6 statements to measure perceived usefulness were taken and slightly adapted
from the study of Tsai, Tsai & Hwang (2010).
207

Data Analysis
SPSS version 25.0 was used for conducting the data analyses. Monte Carlo PCA for Parallel analysis
(Watkins, 2000) was used to perform Parallel analysis.
RESULTS
Descriptive Measures for Pupils’ Perceptions, Self-Efficacy

and Factorial Structure of the Questionnaire
In order to investigate pupils’ perceptions and self-efficacy of using MD in the learning procedure, a
descriptive analysis was conducted. Table 1 depicts pupils’ response rates (%) on the 33 items of the
questionnaire.
Table 1. Pupils’ response rates (%) on the 33 items
Strongly Νeither disagree Strongly

Items Disagree Agree
disagree nor agree agree
If I am faced with a mobile device problem, I often don’t
23.1 37.4 22.0 19.8 7.7
know what to do
Given appropriate time, I can solve mobile device problems
4.4 14.2 20.9 51.6 8.8
on my own
I can handle the majority of my mobile device programs
5.5 19.8 24.2 29.7 20.9
confidently
I am able to install new programs on my mobile device
4.4 15.4 16.5 41.8 22.0
without assist
It’s easy for me to get familiar with new mobile device
8.8 12.1 23.1 39.6 16.5
programs/applications
I believe that I can use a mobile device independently,
4.4 9.9 12.1 46.2 27.5
without getting help from others
I get on with mobile devices that I normally never use 6.6 15.4 28.6 34.1 15.4
I think that most of the mobile device programs are easy to
5.5 8.8 31.9 46.2 7.7
understand
If my mobile device doesn’t work, I soon get tired of dealing
11.0 26.4 24.2 30.8 7.7
with the mobile device
If I have problems operating my mobile device, I can’t solve
24.2 31.9 11.0 22.0 11.0
them
With my mobile device at home, I get on easily 6.6 9.9 12.1 34.1 37.4
A mobile device can help me to attain more ideas 4.4 8.8 16.5 45.1 25.3
A mobile device is helpful for my learning 3.3 7.7 12.1 53.8 23.1
A mobile device can enhance my desire to learn 7.7 8.8 14.3 47.3 22.0
A mobile device can allows me to do more interesting and
6.6 7.7 12.1 51.6 22.0
imaginative work
The materials are clarified when using a mobile device 9.9 18.7 16.5 42.9 12.1
208

Table 1. Continued
Strongly Νeither disagree Strongly

Items Disagree Agree
disagree nor agree agree
A mobile device provides me with another way to learn 6.6 11.0 15.4 45.1 22.0
I go to mobile device fairs with friends 61.5 18.7 11.0 8.8 0.0
Sometimes I go to a party with my mobile device 15.4 2.2 8.8 41.8 31.9
I like to talk to my friends/classmates about recent
47.3 23.1 12.1 14.3 3.3
developments in mobile devices
I like dealing with mobile device topics 15.4 24.2 14.3 27.5 18.7
I member or was a member in a union of mobile device
62.6 23.1 6.6 0.0 7.7
players
I discuss with others in internet platforms, how to solve
29.7 24.2 19.8 25.3 1.1
mobile device problems
To learn news about mobile device, I like to talk with my
22.0 23.1 11.0 24.2 19.8
friends/classmates
I am very interested when friends show me new things on
12.1 23.1 12.1 39.6 13.2
the mobile device
I discuss with friends when I have a question about my
11.0 24.2 13.2 37.4 14.3
mobile phone
I am interested in the latest mobile phones and smartphones 7.7 12.1 16.5 41.8 22.0
I think that I can handle tablet computers (e.g. iPad)
4.4 9.9 8.8 42.9 34.1
confidently
I think that I can handle mobile phones confidently 3.3 4.4 11.0 41.8 39.6
I am interested in tablet computers (e.g. iPad) 8.8 15.4 18.7 40.7 16.5
I am always curious when new smartphones are released 9.9 16.5 14.3 42.9 16.5
I know how to download new apps for a mobile phone from
4.4 6.6 12.1 51.6 25.3
the internet
On internet platforms, I exchange views with others on
13.2 26.4 15.4 34.1 11.0
computers, videogames or mobile phones
The majority of the students had a medium degree of self-efficacy of using MD in the learning
procedure. Most of the pupils had showed strong interest toward the use of MD. On the contrary, most
of the pupils had a minor extent to which they made MD a topic of interpersonal communication and
interaction, as far as their social interaction concerns.
An exploratory factor analysis was conducted, with the use of PAF (Principal Axis Factoring) method
together with the direct OKN (Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization) as the rotation method, to explore
the factorial validity of the questionnaire. To ensure that high values correspond to favorable perceptions
and positive views, the scores of the negative worded items were reversed. PAF revealed a four factor
structure of the administrated questionnaire (Table 2), based on the inspection of the scree plot of factor
variances. A parallel analysis was performed 10 times for determining the number of factors retained
from PAF. The comparisons of eigenvalues between the OKN method and the parallel analysis technique
also suggested a four-factor structure, explaining 55.17% of the total variance. The first factor (F1) was
labeled “self-efficacy of using MD”, the second factor (F2) was labeled “perceived usefulness”, the third
factor (F3) was labelled “social interaction using MD”, and the fourth factor (F4) was labelled “interest
209

in the MD”. Table 2 depicts the loadings and the Cronbach-a coefficient for the internal consistency for
each factor (F1 to F4). All factors had acceptable internal consistency: Cronbach-a coefficient ranged
from 0.71 to 0.86. Each item had a factor loading over the threshold of 0.45 (Hair et al., 2006) on only
one factor.
Inter-factor correlations were small to mediocre with a positive sign (Table 3).
Table 2. Factor loadings per item
Factors
Items
F1 F2 F3 F4
I can handle the majority of my mobile device programs confidently .808
It’s easy for me to get familiar with new mobile device programs .743
I am able to install new programs on my mobile device without assist .698
Given appropriate time, I can solve mobile device problems on my own .663
I believe that I can use a mobile device independently, without getting help from others .643
I think that most of the mobile device programs are easy to understand .623
If my mobile device doesn’t work, I soon get tired of dealing with the mobile device .603
If I have problems operating my mobile device, I can’t solve them .595
With my mobile device at home, I get on easily .555
I get on with mobile devices that I normally never use .514
If I am faced with a mobile device problem, I often don’t know what to do .484
A mobile device can enhance my desire to learn .729
A mobile device is helpful for my learning .680
A mobile device provides me with another way to learn .653
A mobile device can allows me to do more interesting and imaginative work .611
A mobile device can help me to attain more ideas .540
The materials are clarified when using a mobile device .476
I like to talk to my friends/classmates about recent developments in mobile devices .659
Sometimes I go to a party with my mobile device .637
I like dealing with mobile device topics .633
I go to mobile device fairs with friends .601
To learn news about mobile device, I like to talk with my friends/classmates .592
I discuss with others in internet platforms, how to solve mobile device problems .548
I member or was a member in a union of mobile device players .468
I am interested in the latest mobile phones and smartphones .806
I am always curious when new smartphones are released .743
I am interested in tablet computers (e.g. iPad) .693
I am very interested when friends show me new things on the mobile device .667
I think that I can handle mobile phones confidently .619
On internet platforms, I exchange views with others on computers, videogames or mobile phones .600
210

Table 2. Continued
Factors
Items
F1 F2 F3 F4
I think that I can handle tablet computers (e.g. iPad) confidently .588
I know how to download new apps for a mobile phone from the internet .496
I discuss with friends when I have a question about my mobile phone .461
Cronbach-a .86 .80 .73 .71
All responses range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
Factor 1 (F1): “self-efficacy of using MD”, Factor 2 (F2): “perceived usefulness”, Factor 3 (F3):” social interaction using MD”, Factor 4
(F4):” interest in the MD”
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Direct Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization
Table 3. Correlations, means and std. deviation among factors
Component (F1) (F2) (F3) Mean Std. Deviation

Self-efficacy of using MD (F1) 2.70 .74
Perceived usefulness (F2) .231** 4.16 .98
Social interaction using MD (F3) .396** .144* 2.81 .87
Interest in the MD (F4) .273** .357** .369** 3.48 .94
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Differences in Pupils’ Perceptions and Self-efficacy Regarding

Gender, Grade, and Frequency of Smartphone use
A series of one-way analyses of variances were performed, each of which had as dependent variable
the factors’ (F1 to F4) scores, and as independent variables the gender and the grade. Male and female
pupils did not show significant differences. This finding implies that both male and female pupils, tend
to have similar perceptions about the educational use of MDs. For example, a high rate of both boys and
girls agreed that a MD can allow them to do more interesting and imaginative schoolwork.
There were also no significant differences between the scores of the four factors and the grade of
the pupils (three grade levels). On the contrary, there was found a significant difference between the
scores of the factor “social interaction using MD” and the frequency of smartphone use [F (3,87) = 4.49,
p = 0.014]. Pupils with more frequent use of their smartphones, tend to have a greater degree of social
interaction with peers, as far as communicate and exchange information and news about MD, with their
friends/classmates concerns.
In addition, a significant difference was found between the scores of the factor “self-efficacy of using
MD” and the frequency of smartphone use [F (3,87) = 5.15, p = 0.003]. Pupils with more frequent use
of their smartphones, tend to have a higher level of self-efficacy with MD, in relation to how confident
perceive themselves in using MD for their learning.
211

CONCLUSION
mobile devices in the learning procedure. This study also highlighted the issues and concerns about
the importance of pupils’ perceived self-efficacy and perceptions about the use of MD in secondary
education. Thus, the outcomes of this study contributed to the existing body of the relevant literature.
The most widespread mobile device among pupils was smartphone, and then tablet. Pupils also used
smartphones more frequently than tablets for their learning. This finding is in agreement with other
similar studies (Nikolopoulou, & Gialamas, 2017).
With reference to the results of the factor analysis, there were four components in the 33-item ques-
tionnaire. Perceived usefulness was indicated as the major factor in predicting the adoption and use of
MD for educational purposes. The higher the level of perceived usefulness pupils have about MD, the
higher the possibility to use MD as a learning tool. This is in agreement with the study of Tsai, Tsai
& Hwang (2010), revealing that there are similar perceptions across different populations (Greece and
Taiwanese pupils).
Male and female pupils did not show significant differences in the scores of any factor scores. This
finding implies that both male and female pupils, have the same perceptions about the educational us-
age of MD. Moreover, both boys and girls consider that a mobile device is helpful for their learning
procedure, and can significantly enhance their desire to learn. There were also no significant differences
between the scores of the four factors and the grade of the pupils. On the contrary, 14-15 year-old pupils
reported significantly more frequent smartphone use per day (68%), compared to the other age groups
(32%, and 24% for age groups 12-13, and 13-14 respectively).
With regard to the first research question, most of the pupils had showed favorable perceptions about
the use of MD for educational purposes. For example, they had expressed interest toward the use of MD
in their learning. This finding is in agreement with other similar studies (Tsai, Tsai & Hwang, 2010;
Zylka et al., 2015; Nikolopoulou, & Gialamas, 2016, 2017). Nevertheless, over a half of pupils had a
minor extent to which they made MD a tool for their social interaction.
With regard to the second research question, the majority of pupils had a relatively medium degree
of self-efficacy of using MD in learning activities. This is in contrast with other similar studies (Tsai,
Tsai & Hwang, 2010; Zylka et al., 2015; Nikolopoulou, & Gialamas, 2017).
With regard to the third research question, perceptions and self-efficacy about MD are significantly
positively connected. The more favorable pupils’ perceptions the higher their level of self-efficacy of
using MD as an independent learning medium, in relation to other innovative learning technologies. This
finding is in agreement with other similar studies (Tsai & Hwang, 2010; Nikolopoulou, & Gialamas,
2017; Bartholomew & Reeve, 2018).
Regarding the fourth research question, almost one third of the pupils were willing to use MD to learn
Mathematics, and lower percentages to learn History, English, and Ancient Greek Language.
Regarding the fifth research question, concerning the impact of individual characteristics on pupils’
perceptions and self-efficacy of utilizing MD in their studies, there were only found significant differ-
ences between the scores of the social interaction using MD, self-efficacy of using MD and the frequency
of smartphone use. Pupils with more frequent use of their smartphones, tend to use MD as a medium
of interpersonal interaction, communication, and activities with peers, and have a higher degree of self-
efficacy with MD. This finding is in agreement with other studies (Zylka et al., 2015; Nikolopoulou, &
Gialamas, 2017).
212

Limitations of the study include the use of a relatively small sample, with great homogeneity. The
specific limitation makes difficult to compare the study hypotheses with other similar studies. Pupils’
perceptions could be further explored using interviews and observations. Future research could explore
the impact of TAM and UTAUT2 constructs on using MD in the learning procedure.
The findings of this study have implications for secondary education instructors, policy makers, and
researchers. Junior High School teachers must be aware of the possibilities and importance of MDs in
developing pupils’ learning in various subjects. Future teacher training programmes should be carefully
designed and conducted in order to help teachers to provide pupils all that is needed to integrate MD
into learning activities.
Junior high school teachers need to take into account the fact that pupils acknowledge the potential of
mobile technologies in comprehending various subjects, and in accomplishing their school assignments.
Hence, teachers must be able to provide pupils with motivations and experiences in appropriate learning
environments, and at the same time to enhance their skills as far as the educational use of MD concerns.
On the other hand, education policy makers, need to be aware of pupils’ perceptions of using mobile
devices. This will contribute to the design of appropriate new curriculum, in order not only to promote
but to assess the use of MD in secondary schools.
A practical implication is that the school’s policy must encourages teachers to accept and embrace
pupils’ perceptions in order to design and apply effective mobile learning activities into the secondary
school classroom.
The results of this study also indicates that the parents of secondary school pupils should pay more
attention to enhancing pupils’ confidence in using MDs in the learning procedure. Future quantitative
and qualitative studies with greater samples may be conducted to explore how pupils’ perceptions and
self-efficacy about the use of MD, influence their behaviors, and their learning processes/performances.
The overall findings of this research could influence pupils’ behavior toward the implementation
of mobile technologies for learning, and this in turn could contribute to make secondary education to
promote MD acceptance and usage in the class. This is without a doubt a major key factor to achieve
a better quality in secondary education, as it is certain that new mobile educational technologies will
make their presence felt in the future.
REFERENCES
Abu-Al-Aish, A., & Steve, L. (2013). Factors influencing students’ acceptance of m-learning: An inves-
tigation in higher education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,
14(5). Advance online publication. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v14i5.1631
Ajzen, I. (2006). Constructing a theory of planned behavior questionnaire. Academic Press.
Asabere, N. Y. (2013). Benefits and challenges of mobile learning implementation: Story of developing
nations. International Journal of Computers and Applications, 73(1).
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational
Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. doi:10.120715326985ep2802_3
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
213

Bartholomew, S. R., & Reeve, E. (2018). Middle School Student Perceptions and Actual Use of Mobile
Devices: Highlighting Disconnects in Student Planned and Actual Usage of Mobile Devices in Class.
Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 48–58.
Briz-Ponce, L., Pereira, A., Carvalho, L., Juanes-Méndez, J. A., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2017). Learning
with mobile technologies–Students’ behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 612–620. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2016.05.027
Caballé, S., Xhafa, F., & Barolli, L. (2010). Using mobile devices to support online collaborative learn-
ing. Mobile Information Systems, 6(1), 27-47.
Cheng, Y., Sharma, S., Sharma, P., & Kulathunga, K. (2020). Role of personalization in continuous use
intention of Mobile news apps in India: Extending the UTAUT2 model. Information (Basel), 11(1), 33.
doi:10.3390/info11010033
Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M., & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness in
higher education based on the theory of planned behavior. Computers & Education, 59(3), 1054–1064.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.015
Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information
systems: Theory and results (Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi:10.2307/249008
Domingo, M. G., & Garganté, A. B. (2016). Exploring the use of educational technology in primary
education: Teachers’ perception of mobile technology learning impacts and applications’ use in the
classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 21–28. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.023
Fakomogbon, M. A., & Bolaji, H. O. (2017). Effects of collaborative learning styles on performance of
students in a ubiquitous collaborative mobile learning environment. Contemporary Educational Tech-
nology, 8(3), 268–279.
Garland, K. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2005). Attitudes and confidence towards computers and books as learn-
ing tools: A cross-sectional study of student cohorts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1),
85–91. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2004.00440.x
Gress, C. L., Fior, M., Hadwin, A. F., & Winne, P. H. (2010). Measurement and assessment in com-
puter-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 806–814. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2007.05.012
Hair, J. F. Jr, Black, W. C., Babid, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data
analysis (6th ed.). Pearson.
Hur, J. W., Wang, Y., Kale, U., & Cullen, T. (2015). An exploration of pre-service teachers’ intention
to use mobile devices for teaching. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 7(3), 1–17.
doi:10.4018/IJMBL.2015070101
214

Hwang, G. J., & Chang, S. C. (2021). Facilitating knowledge construction in mobile learning contexts:
A bi‐directional peer‐assessment approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(1), 337–357.
doi:10.1111/bjet.13001
Jones, A. C., Scanlon, E., & Clough, G. (2013). Mobile learning: Two case studies of supporting inquiry
learning in informal and semiformal settings. Computers & Education, 61(1), 21–32. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2012.08.008
Joyce-Gibbons, A., Galloway, D., Mollel, A., Mgoma, S., Pima, M., & Deogratias, E. (2018). Mobile
phone use in two secondary schools in Tanzania. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1), 73–92.
doi:10.100710639-017-9586-1
Kaliisa, R., Palmer, E., & Miller, J. (2019). Mobile learning in higher education: A comparative analy-
sis of developed and developing country contexts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2),
546–561. doi:10.1111/bjet.12583
Lee, U., Han, K., Cho, H., Chung, K. M., Hong, H., Lee, S. J., Noh, Y., Park, S., & Carroll, J. M. (2019).
Intelligent positive computing with mobile, wearable, and IoT devices: Literature review and research
directions. Ad Hoc Networks, 83, 8–24. doi:10.1016/j.adhoc.2018.08.021
Liu, M., Scordino, R., Geurtz, R., Navarrete, C., Ko, Y. J., & Lim, M. H. (2014). A Look at research on
mobile learning in K12 education from 2007 to present. Journal of Research on Technology in Educa-
tion, 46(4), 325–372. doi:10.1080/15391523.2014.925681
Ma, W., Anderson, R., & Streith, K. (2005). Examining user acceptance of computer technology: An
empirical study of student teachers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(6), 387–395. doi:10.1111/
j.1365-2729.2005.00145.x
Mahat, J., Ayub, A. F. M., Luan, S., & Wong. (2012). An assessment of students’ mobile self-efficacy,
readiness and personal innovativeness towards mobile learning in higher education in Malaysia. Procedia:
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 284–290. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.033
Marjan, L., & Mozhgan, L. (2012). Collaborative Learning: What is it? Procedia: Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 31, 491–495. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.092
Mehdipour, Y., & Zerehkafi, H. (2013). Mobile learning for education: Benefits and challenges. Inter-
national Journal of Computational Engineering Research, 3(6), 93–101.
Miller, H. B., & Cuevas, J. A. (2017). Mobile Learning and its Effects on Academic Achievement and
Student Motivation. International Journal for the Scholarship of Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(2),
91–110.
Mugo, D. G., Njagi, K., Chemwei, B., & Motanya, J. O. (2017). The technology acceptance model (TAM)
and its application to the utilization of mobile learning technologies. British Journal of Mathematics &
Computer Science, 20(4), 1–8. doi:10.9734/BJMCS/2017/29015
Nikolopoulou, K. (2019). Motivation and mobile devices’ usage at school: Pupils’ opinions. Información
Tecnológica, 3(1), 6–11. doi:10.11648/j.ajeit.20190301.12
215

Nikolopoulou, K., & Gialamas, V. (2016). Exploring Secondary School Pupils’ ICT Engagement: A
Validation Study. Creative Education, 7(04), 567–573. doi:10.4236/ce.2016.74059
Nikolopoulou, K., & Gialamas, V. (2017). High school pupils’ attitudes and self-efficacy of using mobile
devices. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 10(2), 53–67.
Nikolopoulou, K., Gialamas, V., & Lavidas, K. (2020). Acceptance of mobile phone by university students
for their studies: An investigation applying UTAUT2 model. Education and Information Technologies,
25(5), 4139–4155. doi:10.100710639-020-10157-9
Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2018). Mobile‐Based micro‐Learning and Assessment: Impact on
learning performance and motivation of high school students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
34(3), 269–278. doi:10.1111/jcal.12240
Nordin, N., Embi, M. A., & Yunus, M. M. (2010). Mobile learning framework for lifelong learning.
Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7, 130–138. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.10.019
Parmigiani, D., Traverso, A., & Pennazio, V. (2015). Mobile devices as factor for the development of
motivation and concentration in the upper secondary school. The students’ and parents’ point of view.
In Conference Paper (pp. 172-179). Academic Press.
Poll, H. (2014). Pearson student mobile device survey 2014. National Report: Students in Grades 4-12.
Pearson. Retrieved 06 December 2021, from https://www.pearsoned.com/wp-content/uploads/Pearson-
K12-Student-Mobile-Device-Survey-050914-PUBLIC-Report.pdf
Polydoros, G. (2021). Teaching and learning mathematics with mobile devices. Journal of Research and
Opinion, 8(7), 2978–2985. doi:10.15520/jro.v8i7.113
Rau, P. L. P., Gao, Q., & Wu, L. M. (2008). Using mobile communication technology in high school
education: Motivation, pressure, and learning performance. Computers & Education, 50(1), 1–22.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.03.008
Rodríguez, A. I., Riaza, B. G., & Gómez, M. C. S. (2017). Collaborative learning and mobile devices: An
educational experience in Primary Education. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 664–677. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2016.07.019
Seifert, T. (2015). Pedagogical applications of smartphone integration in teaching: Lecturers, pre-service
teachers and pupils’ perspectives. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 7(2), 1–16.
doi:10.4018/ijmbl.2015040101
Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Liu, T.-C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching
and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers &
Education, 94, 252–275. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008
Sung, Y. T., Hou, H. T., Liu, C. K., & Chang, K. E. (2010). Mobile guide system using problem-solving
strategy for museum learning: A sequential learning behavioral pattern analysis. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 26(2), 106–115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00345.x
Taleb, Z., Ahmadi, A., & Musavi, M. (2015). The effect of m-learning on mathematics learning. Pro-
cedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 171, 83–89. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.092
216

Tsai, P. S., Tsai, C. C., & Hwang, G. H. (2010). Elementary school students’ attitudes and self-efficacy
of using PDAs in a ubiquitous learning context. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3).
Advance online publication. doi:10.14742/ajet.1076
Valk, J. H., Ahmed Rashid, T., & Laurent, E. (2010). Using mobile phones to improve educational
outcomes: An analysis of evidence from Asia. The International Review of Research in Open and Dis-
tributed Learning, 11(1), 117–140. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v11i1.794
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology:
Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. doi:10.2307/41410412
Vishwakarma, A. (2015). Benefits and challenges of mobile learning in education. In Promoting ac-
tive learning through the integration of mobile and ubiquitous technologies (pp. 24–36). IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6343-5.ch002
Wan Hamzah, W., Yusoff, M., Ismail, I., & Yacob, A. (2020). The Behavioural Intentions of Secondary
School Students to Use Tablet as a Mobile Learning Device. International Association of Online Engi-
neering. Retrieved September 21, 2021 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/217845/
Wang, Y. S., & Wang, H. Y. (2008). Developing and validating an instrument for measuring mobile
computing self-efficacy. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 405–413. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0061
PMID:18721088
Watkins, M. W. (2000). Monte Carlo PCA for Parallel Analysis (Computer Software). Ed & Psych As-
sociates.
Wu, W.-H., Wu, Y.-C. J., Chen, C.-Y., Kao, H.-Y., & Lin, C.-H. (2012). Review of trends from mobile
learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 817–827. doi:10.1016/j.compe-
du.2012.03.016
Zhai, X., Zhang, M., Li, M., & Zhang, X. (2019). Understanding the relationship between levels of
mobile technology use in high school physics classrooms and the learning outcome. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 50(2), 750–766. doi:10.1111/bjet.12700
Zylka, J., Christoph, G., Kroehne, U., Hartig, J., & Goldhammer, F. (2015). Moving beyond Cognitive
Elements of ICT Literacy: First Evidence on the Structure of ICT Engagement. Computers in Human
Behavior, 53, 149–160. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.008
ADDITIONAL READING
Chao, C. M. (2019). Factors determining the behavioral intention to use mobile learning: An application
and extension of the UTAUT model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1652. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01652
PMID:31379679
Gao, F., Li, L., & Sun, Y. (2020). A systematic review of mobile game-based learning in STEM education.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1791–1827. doi:10.100711423-020-09787-0
217

Heflin, H., Shewmaker, J., & Nguyen, J. (2017). Impact of mobile technology on student attitudes,
engagement, and learning. Computers & Education, 107, 91–99. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.006
Joo, Y. J., Park, S., & Lim, E. (2018). Factors influencing preservice teachers’ intention to use technology:
TPACK, teacher self-efficacy, and technology acceptance model. Journal of Educational Technology
& Society, 21(3), 48–59.
Nikolopoulou, K. (2018). Mobile learning usage and acceptance: Perceptions of secondary school stu-
dents. Journal of Computers in Education, 5(4), 499–519. doi:10.100740692-018-0127-8
Perry, D. R., & Steck, A. K. (2015). Increasing student engagement, self-efficacy, and meta-cognitive
self-regulation in the high school geometry classroom: Do iPads help? Computers in the Schools, 32(2),
122–143. doi:10.1080/07380569.2015.1036650
Razzaq, A., Samiha, Y. T., & Anshari, M. (2018). Smartphone habits and behaviors in supporting students
self-efficacy. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13(2), 94. Advance online
publication. doi:10.3991/ijet.v13i02.7685
Soffer, T., & Yaron, E. (2017). Perceived learning and students’ perceptions toward using tablets for
learning: The mediating role of perceived engagement among high school students. Journal of Educa-
tional Computing Research, 55(7), 951–973. doi:10.1177/0735633117689892
Attitude: A learned predisposition to respond positively or negatively to a specific object, situation,

concept, or person.
Collaborative Learning: An educational method of learning within groups of students working
together to solve a problem, do homework, or create a project.
Factor Analysis: A procedure to describe variability among observed variables, in terms of a poten-
tially lower number of unobserved variables.
Mobile Learning: The use of mobile devices for educational purposes.
Perceived Ease of Use: The degree to which a student considers that using mobile devices would
be without effort.
Perceived Usefulness: The degree to which a student believes in mobile device ability to provide
with all means necessary, to motivate him/her in numerous activities.
Perceptions: The identification, organization, and interpretation of information to understand the
presented information or environment.
Self-Efficacy: A one’s belief of one’s ability to succeed in specific situations.
218
219
Chapter 11
Integration of Educational
Robotics to STEM Education
Atajan Rovshenov
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9189-3438
Ozel Ege Lisesi, Turkey
Mert Büyükdede
Veli Acar
ABSTRACT
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education is integrated into education pro-
grams in many countries because it benefits the national economy and raises qualified manpower. During
STEM-based activities, students increase their problem-solving and research skills by using technology
and engineering knowledge together with science and mathematics knowledge. When the studies in the
literature are examined, although it is seen that STEM education has positive contributions, it is encoun-
tered that the current resources for teachers are limited. The lack of up-to-date resources for teachers
causes them to be insufficient in their field knowledge. Apart from this, teachers need to follow current
technologies to be able to correctly apply the technology and engineering steps in STEM education and
to have a high level of technological literacy. This study will provide information about the integration
of educational robots in the researches to be done in the field of STEM education and give an idea to
the studies to be done on the subject.
INTRODUCTION
This section will examine the paradigm shift in education and its effects in detail. In addition, the readers
will be informed about the reason for the emergence of STEM education.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-3861-9.ch011

Integration of Educational Robotics to STEM Education
Technological developments cause changes in every aspect of social life. These changes also affect
the structure and functions of educational institutions. Many social systems such as industry, economy,
and communication expect academic institutions to train individuals using technology (Deb, 2014).
This expectation includes teaching the use of technology and using them in teaching activities. Today,
where technology triggers changes in every field, education is one of the areas where changes are expe-
rienced. Societies are working to ensure that individuals raised through education become individuals
who command technology, access, and use information. These studies, which are carried out to ensure
that every individual has the right to access information and communication technologies, to provide
individuals with information and technology literacy, and to enable individuals to use these competencies
throughout their lives, are considered among the essential goals in the education policies of countries
(Asunda, 2012). This process, called a new paradigm in teaching, aims to use these technologies and a
more effective learning process by including current technologies in teaching environments and educa-
tion programs (Williams, 2009).
The technology of our age presents us with industrial and economic needs. At every level of educa-
tion, studies are carried out to meet the needs of today and the future. Contrary to previous years, these
different conditions, which we have encountered frequently recently, have also changed the demands in
the world (Baygin, Yetis, Karakose & Akin, 2016). Policies, employers, educators, students interact with
the needs of the real world. This period, which is stated as the 21st century, brings several knowledge
and skills that individuals should have. Technology, which we interact with from early childhood to
adulthood, presents many innovations in our daily lives.
In the 21st century world, where innovation gains importance, changes are observed in both the nature
and methods of science. This change affects teaching in school and out-of-school settings. Countries
need to increase their workforce in STEM fields to be included in the global economic race and reach the
capacity to compete in the 21st-century world. In the current century, the desire of individuals to pursue
a career in STEM fields is changing. in the same way, a significant change was observed in their ability
to adapt to the conditions of the age. With these skills, individuals are expected to gain various problem-
solving abilities and meet the needs of society (Johnson, 2012; Lynch, Peters-Burton & Ford, 2015).
Introducing innovations with the integration process of technology in education is highly compatible
with the nature of STEM education. In recent years, STEM education has been one of the accepted ap-
proaches regarding gaining 21st-century skills to students and how to measure them. In this context, it
is possible to equip the generations with the necessary competencies to keep the countries alive in the
world of the 21st century with STEM education. STEM education provides opportunities for students
to develop 21st-century skills. 21st-century skills are defined within the framework of STEM literacy
and are associated with the social, economic, cultural, and political problems of today’s competitive
world. Accordingly, the requirements of individuals to develop these skills and use them in daily life
make STEM literacy even more critical (Barcelona, 2014; Rifandi & Rahmi, 2019).
Furthermore, creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, and communication are accepted as 21st-
century skills essential in future professions. For this reason, these skills will allow students to be success-
ful in occupations that will require STEM knowledge in the future. Therefore, based on the information
mentioned above, STEM education is essential to educate individuals who will form the workforce of
the future world with 21st-century skills.
220

MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER
This study provides a roadmap for decision-makers and practitioners in integrating educational robotics
into STEM education in terms of engagement, exploration, explaining, elaboration, and evaluation of
informal learning environments by employing 5E instructional models with designing and teaching-
learning activities. In this study, it is believed that educational robotics are not adequately integrated
into STEM education, and practitioners lack resources in this topic.
With the worry about designing and teaching-learning activities, this chapter provides a road map.
It aims to identify while integrating educational robotics to STEM considering the content of courses to
ensure quality assurance. Hence, this study mainly focuses on the followings:
1. How have educational paradigms changed in recent years, and what are their effects?
2. How should technology integration be done for effective STEM education?
3. How to make practical use of educational robots in STEM education for teachers?
4. How to improve the integration of educational robotics into the STEM education context of previ-
ous research?
In the following section, theoretical and practical applications that constitute the reasons for the
research questions will be described and discussed briefly.
STEM Education
When we look at the history of the last 20 years, it is seen that scientific and technological developments
have progressed very rapidly. Along with these developments, our personal and social life is constantly
changing as a dynamic. To meet the needs of today’s world, the demand for qualified individuals has
increased (Akaygün & Aslan-Tutak, 2016; Yamak, Bulut & Dündar, 2014). The way to keep up with
these changes and to meet the need for qualified people is undoubtedly through education.
In the 21st century, we live in what is expected from qualified people; It is an individual who pro-
duces research questions, has critical thinking and problem-solving skills, can make practical and quick
decisions, communicates effectively, and has information and technology literacy. For individuals to
reveal these skills, education and training programs need to be planned and implemented according to
today’s needs. Developments in science and technology are practical in almost every aspect of our social
life. Undoubtedly, education is the most critical factor that enables us to keep up with these changes.
Therefore, among the aims of education is the training of qualified people who can adapt to today’s
conditions (Koç & Kayacan, 2018).
One of these reforms in education has been STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math-
ematics) education in recent years. STEM education can be defined as a teaching system that integrates
four essential disciplines such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, including an
interdisciplinary and application-oriented approach. In addition, STEM education can be defined as an
educational approach carried out by integrating the courses by collaborating both interdisciplinary and
interdisciplinary, instead of using science, technology, engineering, and mathematics separately. The
STEM education approach has an infrastructure that emphasizes engineering and technology. It offers
a comprehensive interdisciplinary perspective to the students and that the knowledge learned in the
lessons is put into practice, making the STEM education approach important. (Akgündüz et al., 2015).
221

The importance of technological development for countries is increasing day by day, and in parallel,
countries are developing innovative policies. Many developed and developing countries aware of these
technological developments and want to have a say in technology products in the future have focused
on science, mathematics, technology, and engineering (Bybee, 2009). Many countries, especially the
United States of America, have initiated innovative education reforms in this direction. One of these
reform movements is the program that discusses how to teach science, published by the National Re-
search Society in 1996 (NRC, 1996). With this program, a step has been taken regarding how to research
and inquiry-based learning will take place. In the report published in Europe in 2007, it is observed
that the interest in science, technology and mathematics has decreased significantly, especially among
young individuals. It is stated that with some effective action plans, the long-term innovation capacity
of Europe will decrease significantly. STEM education is among the most important of the innovative
policies made in education in recent years. Since STEM education is an educational approach in which
the fields of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics are given, it increases the importance
of professions in these fields. As mentioned before, the need for qualified human resources in the areas
of Science, Technology, Mathematics, and Engineering is increasing day by day. For this reason, coun-
tries have positioned the STEM education approach at the center of their education programs to meet
the need for qualified human resources.
It is stated that teachers who conduct STEM education only have field knowledge will not be suf-
ficient to train qualified individuals needed (Çorlu, Capraro, & Capraro, 2014). Teachers should have
teaching knowledge and skills as well as field knowledge. Teachers who are expected to apply STEM
education, which is gaining more and more critical in contemporary education, should also have the
necessary knowledge and skills about STEM education. The training of teachers who know and can apply
STEM education is very important for the effective use of STEM education in Primary and Secondary
Education classes and achieving successful results. It is thought that when a prospective teacher who
can meet STEM education needs starts the teaching profession, STEM applications in the classroom
will be very beneficial for students. Teachers should have the ability to associate STEM education with
existing programs and have sufficient equipment related to the field. However, most of today’s teachers
do not have the expected level of proficiency in this field (Stohlmann, Roehrig, & Moore, 2014).
For this reason, it is thought that it would be beneficial to actively introduce future teachers studying
in education faculties with STEM applications. In this context, a sample STEM lesson plan was prepared
for teachers and prospective teachers to use in their classrooms. Integrated STEM education approach
and 5E learning method as a learning-teaching method were used to prepare this lesson plan.
Integrated STEM Education shows remarkable similarities with John Dewey’s constructivist approach.
In this model, courses are taught using at least two disciplines from science, technology, engineering, or
mathematics. It combines disciplines, classes, units, or practices that connect the subject to be covered
and real life. The purpose of combining disciplines in this way is to ensure that learning is meaningful
and permanent for students (Akay, 2018).
5E Learning Model in STEM Education
It can be said that the constructivist learning approach has a severe impact on STEM education. Con-
sidering the contents and outputs of STEM education and constructivist learning approach, it is seen
that STEM education is suitable for constructivist learning approach. Some of these are Project-Based
Learning, Mastery Learning Model, problem-based learning, and 5E Learning Model. The 5E Learning
222

Model was developed by Roger Bybee, one of the researchers of The Biological Science Curriculum
Study (BSCS) (Bıyıklı &Yağcı, 2014). The Learning Ring Model developed by Robert Karplus is a
method of developing and executing a program based on Piaget’s theory of mental development.
On the other hand, Roger Bybee developed these models and brought the 5E Learning Model to light.
The 5E Learning Model consists of various applications that increase the research interest, seek answers
to questions about the content, and aim to use the knowledge and abilities of the student actively. The
5E Learning Model consists of five primary stages. These are: Engage, Explore, Explanation, Elabora-
tion, and Evaluate.
Engage
Various studies are carried out to focus students’ attention and interest on the problem, based on a prob-
lem posed in the 5E Learning Model step. At this stage, the teacher should stimulate the students’ sense
of curiosity about the subject’s content without explaining the problem situation and should ask the
students to use their prior knowledge. When the teacher comes to the lesson, he enters the class with a
material related to the subject and starts the task in this way, and it can attract the attention and interest
of the students more efficiently.
Explore
Students research the problem situation and reveal misunderstandings at this stage. Students are asked
to do studies such as making observations, determining variables, forming hypotheses, performing the
experimental settings, and making inferences on the obtained data. This research forms the basis of the
model formed, and studies are carried out at this stage with accurate inventories.
Explain
In this step, theories, laws, models are given to the student, and the student is expected to make their
deductions with what is shown. In addition, during the explanation phase, the student is expected to
explain the information they have learned in a scientific language. This step of the 5E Learning Model
is teacher-centered and can contribute to students at the basic knowledge level if needed. In the process
up to this step, the subject related to the problem situation is tried to be given. In the 5E Learning Model,
the integration of STEM education is carried out in the Elaboration step.
Elaborate
At this stage, students should pose new problems related to their daily lives and are expected to ap-
ply this knowledge to the issues they have posed in line with the knowledge they have acquired before
(Bybee, 2009). From this point of view, in STEM education, students are asked to produce solutions to
the problems they may encounter in daily life. In this context, this step is an essential step concerning
STEM education. The reason is that students complete the process by associating the knowledge they
have acquired at this step with other related disciplines according to their problem situations.
223

Evaluation
While making the evaluation at this step, an evaluation is made by looking at the situation of the students
during the education process and at the end of the education. Especially in the 5E Learning Model, there is
an evaluation if we look at each step separately. Alternative assessment and evaluation approaches should
be used in the process and traditional assessment. Based on this situation, it can be said that students are
evaluated in many dimensions. The products created during STEM education are evaluated according
to certain criteria. Frankly, it can be said that this stage is the stage in which the products created by
the students in STEM education are evaluated. However, it should not be forgotten that the process of
STEM education is more important than the result. The purpose of evaluating the product that emerges
in STEM education is to give feedback to the student about the product and help the student develop the
product or to realize situations that may require reworking the product in light of the feedback received.
At the end of this book chapter, a lesson plan prepared in accordance with the 5E teaching technique,
which is not given in the main body, is presented to the teachers as a guide.
STEM Education and Technology Integration
Technology integration in STEM applications occurs in two ways. The first is to include existing tech-
nological products in the process, and the second is to create products as a result of engineering design
processes using science and mathematics knowledge (Yıldırım, 2020). The main point to be considered
here is planning a course design that focuses on the learning outcomes. For example, a physics teacher who
intends to provide technological integration in the subject of thrust and momentum should do outcome-
oriented planning that centers the target discipline with the question “How can I integrate technology
into the teaching process of impulse and momentum.” In this planning process, existing technological
tools, technologies specific to physics that make scientific measurements, and simulations can be used. In
addition, designs can be created according to the needs and criteria determined by the problem situation
in line with the data obtained with these technologies. In recent years, the spread of educational robots
may have had an important place in creating the technology and engineering step of STEM education.
Therefore, it is thought that preparing a lesson plan where these educational robots, which everyone
can easily access, can also be used by teachers, will facilitate the use of the STEM education approach
and increase the attractiveness and efficiency of the lesson. Therefore, the Technology step, which is
included in the lesson plan that we will present as an example in this book chapter, is planned to involve
existing technological products (educational robots) in the process.
ROBOTICS AND GENERAL INFORMATION’S
There are many definitions of robots in literature. Robots, which we see primarily in industrial applica-
tions, have now appeared in the medical field, military, and even social life. Robots can be described
as an electro-mechanical device that can perform autonomous or preprogrammed tasks (Bell, Floyd &
Kelly, 2017). When we look at the descriptions, it is seen that the keywords such as independent and
automation are especially emphasized. Robots perceive their environment through sensors. The sensor
can detect environmental data such as the object’s color, the amount of light, sound intensity, humidity,
distance ratio, and weight and interpret it with its processors (Cicolani, 2021). Based on these situa-
224

tions, robots can be defined as machines that can perceive their environment and produce independent
responses by interpreting what they perceive. With the widespread use of robots, robotics has begun to
be considered a discipline (Redfield, 2019). Although robotics has been in great demand in many fields,
from engineering sciences to education, the realization of educational robotics and STEM education
has become popular in recent years. It is thought that educational robotics can bring significant benefits
for all levels of education (Johnson, 2003). Educational robotics, which provides a space for teachers to
integrate science and technology and realize more effective and permanent learning by blending robotics
and advanced technology, is indispensable in science and engineering fields (Wood, 2003).
History of Educational Robotics
The interest in robotics has started to attract not only the attention of society but also the educators
(Benitti, 2012). Although, however, the use of robots in learning environments has increased in recent
years, its history dates to ancient times. The idea of using robots in the learning environment came to
the fore with Seymour Papert’s work, the Logo programming language (Lachney & Foster, 2020; Seid-
man, 2017). The foundations of educational robots are based on the theory of constructionism (Beynon,
2016). Papert defines the theory of constructionism as learning by doing. According to Papert, construc-
tionism theory includes the constructivist approach and expands the learning-by-doing dimension of
the constructivist approach. Constructionism theory sees students in the status of actively constructing
knowledge, not passively receiving information from outside, as is also included in the constructivist
approach. However, constructionism theory gives more importance to external concrete objects and
activities with peers in the teaching process than constructivist theory. To make the learning process
effective, learners should be supported with materials to apply what they have learned by touching with
their hands (Ackermann, 2001; Bers, 2008). For this reason, the use of robotics, especially in science,
mathematics, and engineering education, is a perfect opportunity for educators. Robotics is a teaching
tool that is significantly effective in learning by doing, developing metacognitive and high-level thinking
skills (Papert, 1980), and science and mathematics achievements.
Before Papert (1980) introduced the LOGO programming language and Floor Turtle (a robot that
can perform location recognition when connected to a computer) in the 1960s, making robotics an
educational issue, robotics universities mainly used only educational objects (Altin & Pedaste, 2013).
However, using the Turtle robot (Floor Turtle robot), a moving trajectory can be followed on the ground,
and trigonometric shapes can be drawn on the basis thanks to this ability. This robot was also developed
with Marvin Minsky in the MIT Children’s Laboratory to encourage children to use robotics, and a
control system was integrated into LOGO together (Stager, 2016).
In the 1980s, educational robotics was transferred to LEGO’s Educational Products Department. Then,
the name of this department was changed to LEGO Dacta, which was expected to add educational features
to LEGO toys. When Lego Dacta’s name evolved into Lego Education (Lego Education) and produced
Lego Mindstorms, considered the pioneer of educational robotics in 1998, studies on educational robotics
also increased worldwide. The basic version of Lego Mindstorms, the RCX, consists of an intelligent
and programmable LEGO brick. This educational robotics frenzy, which started successfully with the
RCX, has also attracted the attention of other companies interested in educational robotics products such
as Fischer Technik, Robotis Bioloid, and Robotis Ollo. This process was taken to a new level in 2007
with the NXT robot that LEGO would propose to replace the RCX, with Mindstorms NXT allowing
users to integrate with newer motors, more sensors, and more complex programming languages, NXT-G
225

and LabVIEW. Finally, this process took its final form with the release of the LEGO Mindstorms EV3
Education Set in 2013 (Kunduracıoğlu, 2018; Üçgül, 2013).
The Usage of Educational Robotics in Learning Environments
It has been used in learning environments of educational robots, including university courses, starting
from preschool. Based on the literature, it is essential to examine how educational robots are used to
ensure effective learning and correct technology integration in learning environments.
There are two basic approaches to the use of robots in education. In the first approach, the robot and
robot-related topics are included in the purpose of teaching; In the second approach, robots in teaching
subjects such as mathematics, science, and technology that are not directly related to robots are used as
a teaching tool. Robots prepared for the second purpose are called robots. Educational robots, learners’
hands-on program robot sets that they can make (Alimisis & Kynigos, 2009; Üçgül, 2017). Robotic
technology is an educational tool that increases students’ motivation and learning due to its interdisci-
plinary nature, bringing together a computer, engineering, and science (Rockland, Bloom, Carpinelli,
Burr-Alexander, Hirsch, & Kimmel, 2010).
Since educational robots are found exciting and fun by students, they make the learning process ef-
ficient. Students who act only in a traditional classroom environment according to the instructions given
by the teacher, working with educational robots requires students to design by focusing on the solution
of the problem (Aris & Orcos, 2009; Julia & Antoli, 2019). With the teaching activities in which edu-
cational robots are integrated, techniques such as project-based learning, problem-based learning, and
student-centered approach can enable students to learn the subject quickly and permanently (Cappeleri
& Vitoroulis, 2012). Experts recommend that students work in small groups or encourage them to work
effectively with educational robots in formal and informal learning environments (Ucgul & Cagiltay,
2014). Thus, it becomes easier for students to work in small numbers to acquire the skills necessary
for collaborative work. In the study process, where educational robots are used, the goal of which is to
produce projects, it is seen that students are satisfied and motivated by sharing their ideas with their
peers, making joint decisions, and making mutual criticisms (Anwar, Bascou, Menekse & Kardgar, 2014;
Denis & Hubert, 2001). Educational robots significantly develop literacy skills such as technological
literacy, mathematics, science, and engineering that emerged in the 21st century (Eguchi, 2014; Jäggle,
Lammer, Hieber & Vincze, 2019).
Recently, there has been an increasing interest in robots in STEM education (Altin & Pedaste, 2013),
but some studies show that robotics is not well integrated into educational programs (Papanikolaou,
Frangou, & Alimisis, 2009; Sapounidis & Alimisis, 2021). If robotics does not become a part of the
curriculum, its impact will be minimal (Altin & Pedaste, 2013). As a result, educational robots should
be integrated into curricula as learning objects and learning tools. Robotics projects are a pedagogi-
cal educational tool that is intriguing and can teach STEM concepts successfully (Mead, Thomas, &
Weinberg, 2012). In addition, some studies show that robotics is an effective tool for teaching STEM
education topics and activities with active participation (Benitti, 2012; Eguchi, 2010; Jim, 2010; Mataric,
Koenic, & Feil-Seifer, 2007).
226

Educational Robots and Robotics Competitions
Educational robotics projects can successfully teach STEM concepts, and it is a vital pedagogical
educational tool (Mead, Thomas, & Weinberg, 2012). Also, teaching STEM and 21st-century skills of
educational robotics activities in the literature are stated that it has an important place in the curriculum
context. Still, it is seen that teachers face difficulties in integrating it into their curriculum. In this sec-
tion, the author will give brief information about robots that can be used in learning environments so
that STEM teachers and prospective teachers can integrate educational robots or robotics kits suitable
for their needs. Furthermore, in the summary information about educational robots, information will be
given to teachers and prospective teachers about different international robotics competitions they can
participate in with their students.
Robots are one of the vital instructional materials used in learning environments. A single type of robot
model should not be considered when it comes to an educational robot. Robots with different features
can be created by using the components included in the programmable kits. For example, Lego Mind-
storms Sets (NXT and EV3), VEX IQ Sets, Fischertechnik Sets (Fischertechnik Introduction to STEM
I and II), Robotis Sets (DREAM, STEM), Dash and Dot, Makeblock (mbot) sets as well as Arduino and
Raspberry Different models of robots and structures can be created with microcontrollers and micro-
computers (Green, Wagner & Green, 2018). Robot programming languages and environments; Examples
include ROBOT C and Parallax Propeller C, Microsoft Robotics Developer Studio R4, Mindstorm Nxt
Education, Robotis R+ Task 2.0, Microsoft Small Basic, Microsoft Touch Develop, S4A, Arduino IDE,
Mblock (Numanoğlu & Keser, 2017). Fischer Technik, Arduino, Thymio, Root, Cubelets, Dash&Dot,
Ozobot Bit, and mBot robotic products used in educational robotics such as Lego robots were in this
area used in 90% of studies (Benitti, 2012).
In the appendices at the end of the chapter, educational robots that teachers and parents can use are
classified according to their features without making any comparisons. (See, Appendix C).
Due to the increasing tendency towards using robots in educational environments and the growing
competition among manufacturers, these materials have different properties. Although manufacturers
claim that their products will contribute positively to the development of cognitive abilities in the edu-
cational robot market, there are no criteria that investigate the effect of these robotic sets on the skills
mentioned above or that are accepted by educational scientists. Apart from this, there is no compre-
hensive information about how teachers and parents can use it to develop cognitive skills and for which
development area they can benefit from in the user manuals of the products available on the market.
From a critical point of view, before using any educational robot, it should be examined with criteria
such as price, programmable interface, supported operating system, suitable age group, examples of how
to integrate it into teaching activities by the manufacturer. Apart from this, the results of experimental
studies in which educational robots are tested should be examined frequently, especially by teachers. It
is crucial for developing children who are candidates to purchase these products. The researchers test
every product in the educational robot market impartially with experimental research results.
After making necessary suggestions about the educational robots, they can use them for teachers
and teacher candidates. Finally, the authors will give information about the competitions organized at
the international level for their students to participate in various tournaments and competitions. With
the widespread use of educational robots, the number of STEM and robotics competitions/tournaments
organized by international organizations and national organizations in each country is increasing. These
competitions aim to provide students with the ability to work collaboratively, develop their problem-
227

solving skills, and make them aware of their abilities. In addition, another purpose of these competitions
is to encourage students to create small projects (Costa & Fernandes, 2008).
Examples of the most common competitions among students and teachers are First Lego League
Discover for 4-6-year-olds, First Lego League Explore for 6-10-year-olds, First Lego League Challenge
for 9-16-year-olds organized by First and Lego foundation competition can be shown. Students form a
team of 4-10 people in this tournament and enable their robots to perform their duties on a tournament
table updated every year (First Lego League, 2021).
Another international robotics competition is the World Robot Olympiad. The World Robot Olympiad
(WRO) aims to increase young people’s interest in robotics and science. WRO develops ideas and problem-
solving skills of all students from primary school to university worldwide by organizing thoughtful and
educational robot tournaments and activities. In the Asian continent, the games that started with only 12
countries continue with the participation of approximately 90 countries. Each season, a theme that will
keep the participants’ excitement alive is announced in the program. In each classification, the teams
perform different tasks within the scope of the determined theme. Each season lasts from February to
November and the final is held in another country in the world each year.
Another competition, MIT Zero Robotics, is held at the International Space Station building. The
pre-selection of the competition starts online, and the finalists who pass the pre-selection participate
in the final held at the International Space Station building. The competition is held in summer school
format for middle school students and October-December for high school students. Applications for the
competition are free of charge, and teams can be made up of 5-20 members and can participate in the
presence of a mentor. During the match, the students are given the problem to be solved using robots by
DARPA, NASA, and MIT. Then, according to the given situation, students create the necessary programs
and commands to control robots in space (Zero Robotics, 2021).
Botball is a competition for embedded autonomous robots for middle school students. Students
control the robots with the codes they write in C, C++, and Java programming languages and compete
with their opponents. The site’s official page explained that the participants who learned robot program-
ming continued to program robots regardless of their learning environment. The botball robot kit also
provides students and teachers with guides on using it in the classroom and resources for teachers to
integrate activities into their curriculum. Before participating in the competition, students can also join
in 7-9-week study programs organized by the manufacturer (Botball, 2021).
RoboCup is an international tournament held since 1997 in which humanoid robots compete in teams
for 10 minutes. The dimensions of the field are 9 meters by 6 meters. Robots and the ball are tracked using
four cameras placed 4 meters above the area. The standard imaging system sends the images from these
four cameras to the artificial intelligence computers of the teams in coordinates. Participants can apply
for the competition, which will be held every year, by following the official website (Robocup, 2021).
Robofest is one of the international robotics tournaments organized to improve students’ STEM skills.
Participants can participate in the competition with the robotic set they want and program their robots
using the programming language. Students can participate in the contest following age groups such as
junior, senior, and college divisions. Participation in the competition, held since 2000, is increasing
every year (Robofest, 2021).
When we look at the purpose of the organized robotics tournaments, we see that they encourage
students to learn project-based, think critically, and develop their STEM skills (Nugent, Barker, Grand-
genett & Welch, 2016). For teachers and prospective teachers to participate in these competitions with
their students, it can be suggested that they follow the official pages of the organizations organizing the
228

organization and communicate with the local authority of the organization that manages the organization.
In addition, teachers must attend the necessary vocational training about the sets used in international
competitions and create classes suitable for using these sets in their schools.
Based on all these, on educational robotics in STEM education. To increase and develop the studies
carried out, research on application examples makes suggestions by both teacher candidates and students
investing in a future with a qualified workforce by improving engineering skills.
SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Technology integration in education is a multidimensional process. There are suggestions in the literature
about starting this process with teacher education (Kim et al., 2013). In this way of technology integra-
tion, technological tools (educational robots) become teaching material. In-service training, supportive
courses, and technical team are needed for teacher-centered technology integration. It is recommended
that institutions and teachers who plan to integrate robotic technologies into stem education pay attention
to the details below. It has been observed that the use of robots in stem education increases students’
interest, motivation, and success in the lesson (Demirer & Yolcu, 2017).
It can be recommended to share the current results of experimental research on the subject with teachers
and relevant institutions. Furthermore, especially in science (physics, chemistry, biology), teachers can
prepare lesson plans for different units using educational robots. The preparation of these lesson plans
according to contemporary teaching methods that will cover the science, technology, and engineering
stages of STEM education will make an essential contribution to the literature.
CONCLUSION
In this book chapter, a sample lesson plan has been prepared that teachers can apply in their lessons. It
is thought that the lesson plan designed according to the STEM education approach and the 5E learn-
ing model will increase the students’ interest in the class and increase their interdisciplinary working
skills. For example, in the engineering step included in the STEM education approach, the students were
asked to make a design that could solve a daily life problem. While making this design, students were
asked to use educational robots. In this way, the technology step in STEM education; was using existing
technological equipment.
The use and integration of technology in STEM education are becoming increasingly common. For
technology integration to be qualified, the scope and purpose of the integration process must be clearly
defined. In STEM education given at different educational levels, technologies suitable for the develop-
mental characteristics of learners should be preferred. Robot sets teachers will use in STEM education
should be flexible, accessible, ideal for learning environments, and easy for students. Integrating robots
into STEM education improves students’ ability to use technology, design, solve problems, and work
collaboratively.
229

REFERENCES
Akay, M. (2018). The development of mathematics based STEM activities to be used in the education of
gifted students [Unpublished master’s thesis dissertation]. Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey.
Akaygün, S., & Aslan-Tutak, F. (2016). STEM images revealing stem conceptions of preservice chemistry
and mathematics teachers. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology,
4(1), 56–71.
Akgündüz, D., Aydeniz, M., Çakmakçı, G., Çavaş, B., Çorlu, M. S., Öner, T., & Özdemir, S. (2015).
STEM eğitimi Türkiye raporu: Günün modası mı yoksa gereksinim mi? [A report on STEM Education
in Turkey: A provisional agenda or a necessity?] [White Paper]. İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi STEM
Merkezi ve Eğitim Fakültesi.
Alimisis, D., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Constructionism and robotics in education. In D. Alimisis (Ed.),
Teacher Education on Robotic-Enhanced Constructivist Pedagogical Methods (pp. 11–26). ASPETE.
Altin, H., & Pedaste, M. (2013). Learning approaches to applying robotics in science education. Journal
of Baltic Science Education, 12(3), 365–377. doi:10.33225/jbse/13.12.365
Anwar, S., Bascou, N. A., Menekse, M., & Kardgar, A. (2019). A systematic review of studies on edu-
cational robotics. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 9(2), 1-24.
Arís, N., & Orcos, L. (2019). Educational robotics in the stage of secondary education: Empirical study
on motivation and STEM skills. Education Sciences, 9(2), 73. doi:10.3390/educsci9020073
Asunda, P. A. (2012). Standards for Technological Literacy and STEM Education Delivery through Ca-
reer and Technical Education Programs. Journal of Technology Education, 23(2), 44–60. doi:10.21061/
jte.v23i2.a.3
Barcelona, K. (2014). 21st century curriculum change initiative: A focus on STEM education as an inte-
grated approach to teaching and learning. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(10), 862–875.
doi:10.12691/education-2-10-4
Baygin, M., Yetis, H., Karakose, M., & Akin, E. (2016, September). An effect analysis of industry 4.0
to higher education. In 2016 15th international conference on information technology based higher
education and training (ITHET) (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
Bell, M., Floyd, J., & Kelly, J. F. (2017). Lego Mindstorms EV3. Apress. doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-2262-1
Beynon, M. (2016, November). Mindstorms Revisited: Making New Construals of Seymour Papert’s
Legacy. In International Conference EduRobotics 2016 (pp. 3-19). Springer.
Bıyıklı, C., & Yağcı, E. (2014). The Effect of 5e Learning Model Designed According to Learning,
Experiences on The Science Process Skills. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 15(1), 45–79. doi:10.12984/eed.59097
Botball. (2021). https://www.kipr.org/botball/what-is-botball
Bybee, R. W. (2009). The BSCS 5E instructional model and 21st century skills. BSCS, 24.
230

Cappelleri, D. J., & Vitoroulis, N. (2012). The robotic decathlon: Project-based learning labs and cur-
riculum design for an introductory robotics course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(1), 73–81.
doi:10.1109/TE.2012.2215329
Cicolani, J. (2021). Beginning Robotics with Raspberry Pi and Arduino. Appress. doi:10.1007/978-1-
4842-6891-9
Çorlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2014). Introducing STEM Education: Implications for
Educating Our Teachers For the Age of Innovation. Education Sciences, 39(171), 74–85.
Deb, S. (2014). Information technology, its impact on society and its future. Advances in Computers,
4(1), 25–29.
Denis, B., & Hubert, S. (2001). Collaborative learning in an educational robotics environment. Comput-
ers in Human Behavior, 17(5-6), 465–480. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00018-8
Eguchi, A. (2012). Educational robotics theories and practice: Tips for how to do it right. In B. S. Barker,
G. Nugent, N. Grandgenett, & V. I. Adamchuk (Eds.), Robots in K-12 education: A new technology for
learning (pp. 1–30). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-0182-6.ch001
Eguchi, A. (2014). Educational robotics for promoting 21st century skills. Journal of Automation, Mobile
Robotics, and Intelligent Systems, 5-11.
First Lego League. (2021). www.firstlegoleague.org/about
Frangou, S., Papanikolaou, K., Aravecchia, L., Montel, L., Ionita, S., Arlegui, J., & Monfalcon, S. (2008).
Representative examples of implementing educational robotics in school based on the constructivist
approach. Workshop Proceedings of Simulation, Modeling and Programming for Autonomous Robots
(SIMPAR), 54-65.
Green, T., Wagner, R., & Green, J. (2018). A look at robots and programmable devices for the K-12
classroom. TechTrends, 62(4), 414–422. doi:10.100711528-018-0297-2
Jäggle, G., Lammer, L., Hieber, H., & Vincze, M. (2019, April). Technological literacy through outreach
with educational robotics. In International Conference on Robotics in Education (RiE) (pp. 114-125).
Springer.
Johnson, C. C. (2012). Implementation of STEM education policy: Challenges, progress, and lessons
learned. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 45–55. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00110.x
Julià, C., & Antolí, J. Ò. (2019). Impact of implementing a long-term STEM-based active learning course
on students’ motivation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(2), 303–327.
doi:10.100710798-018-9441-8
Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology
integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005
Koç, R. S., & Kayacan, K. (2018). The Views of Science Teachers about Engineering Design Skills.
Electronic Turkish Studies, 13(19).
231

Kunduracıoğlu, I. (2018). Examining the interface of Lego Mindstorms EV3 robot programming. Journal
of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 1(1), 28–46. doi:10.31681/jetol.372826
Lachney, M., & Foster, E. K. (2020). Historicizing making and doing: Seymour Papert, Sherry Turkle,
and epistemological foundations of the maker movement. History and Technology, 36(1), 54–82. doi:
10.1080/07341512.2020.1759302
Lynch, S. J., Peters-Burton, E., & Ford, M. (2015). Building STEM Opportunities for All. Educational
Leadership, 72(4), 54–60.
NRC (National Research Council). (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact,
change, learn. National Academy Press.
Numanoğlu, M., & Keser, H. (2017). Robot usage in programmıng teachıng-mbot example. Bartın
University Journal of Faculty of Education, 6(2), 497–515.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc.
Redfield, S. (2019). A definition for robotics as an academic discipline. Nature Machine Intelligence,
1(6), 263–264. doi:10.103842256-019-0064-x
Rifandi, R., & Rahmi, Y. L. (2019, October). STEM education to fulfil the 21st century demand: A literature
review. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1317(1), 012208. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1317/1/012208
Robocup. (2021). https://www.robocup.org/join_robocup
Robofest. (2021). https://www.robofest.net/index.php/about/about
Rockland, R., Bloom, D. S., Carpinelli, J., Burr-Alexander, L., Hirsch, L. S., & Kimmel, H. (2010).
Advancing the “E” in K-12 STEM education. The Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 53–64.
Sapounidis, T., & Alimisis, D. (2021, February). Educational robotics curricula: current trends and
shortcomings. In Educational Robotics International Conference (pp. 127-138). Springer. 10.1007/978-
3-030-77022-8_12
Seidman, R. H. (2017). Tribute to Seymour Papert (1928–2016). Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 55(4), 447–448. doi:10.1177/0735633117710860
Stager, G. S. (2016). Seymour Papert (1928–2016). Nature, 537(7620), 308–308. doi:10.1038/537308a
PMID:27629633
Staple, D. (2021). Learn Robotics Programming. Packt Publishing Ltd.
Stohlmann, M. S., Roehrig, G. H., & Moore, T. J. (2014). The need for STEM teacher education devel-
opment. Stem Education How to train 21st Century Teachers. Nova Publisher.
Üçgül, M. (2013). History and educational potential of Lego Mindstorms NXT. Mersin Üniversitesi
Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), 127–137.
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. doi:10.100710798-013-9253-9
232

Wang, H. H. (2012). A new era of science education: science teachers’ perceptions and class room
practices of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) integration [Unpublished PhD
thesis]. Minnesota University.
Williams, P. J. (2009). Technological literacy: A multiliteracies approach for democracy. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 237–254. doi:10.100710798-007-9046-0
Wood, S. (2003). Robotics in the classroom: A teaching tool for K-12 educators. Symposium of Growing
up with Science and Technology in the 21st Century.
Yamak, H., Bulut, N., & Dündar, S. (2014). The Impact of STEM Activities on 5th Grade Students’
Scientific Process Skills and Their Attitudes Towards Science. Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Der-
gisi, 34(2), 249–265.
Yıldırım, B. (2020). A Model Proposal for Teacher Training: STEM Teacher Institutes Training Model.
PAU Journal of Education, 50(49), 70–98.
Yolcu, V., & Demirer, V. (2017). A Review on the Studies about the Use of Robotic Technologies in
Education. SDU International Journal of Educational Studies, 4(2), 127–139.
Zero Robotics. (2021). http://zerorobotics.mit.edu/what-is-zr/
ADDITIONAL READING
Çetin, M., & Demircan, H. Ö. (2020). Empowering technology and engineering for STEM education
through programming robots: A systematic literature review. Early Child Development and Care, 190(9),
1323–1335. doi:10.1080/03004430.2018.1534844
Green, T., Wagner, R., & Green, J. (2018). A look at robots and programmable devices for the K-12
classroom. TechTrends, 62(4), 414–422. doi:10.100711528-018-0297-2
Hsu, Y. C., Baldwin, S., & Ching, Y. H. (2017). Learning through making and maker education. Tech-
Trends, 61(6), 589–594. doi:10.100711528-017-0172-6
Merdan, M., Lepuschitz, W., Koppensteiner, G., & Balogh, R. (Eds.). (2016). Robotics in education:
Research and practices for robotics in STEM education (Vol. 457). Springer.
Miller, D. P., & Nourbakhsh, I. (2016). Robotics for education. In Springer handbook of robotics (pp.
2115–2134). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-32552-1_79
Tuluri, F. (2017). STEM Education by Exploring Robotics. In Robotics in STEM education (pp. 195–209).
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-57786-9_8
Yu, J., & Roque, R. (2019). A review of computational toys and kits for young children. International
Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 21, 17–36. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.04.001
233

5E Learning Model: The 5E Model of Instruction includes five phases: Engage, Explore, Explain,
Elaborate, and Evaluate. It provides a carefully planned sequence of instruction that places students at
the center of learning.
Robot: Autonomous or mechanical device that operates on commands previously entered by the user.
STEM: STEM is a curriculum based on the idea of educating students in four specific disciplines—
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—in an interdisciplinary and applied approach.
Technology Integration: Integration of technology in education simply refers to the use of technol-
ogy to enhance the student learning experience. Utilizing different types of technology in the classroom,
including a virtual classroom, creates learners who are actively engaged with learning objectives.
234
APPENDIX A
Table 1. Electromagnetic Waves Subject STEM education lesson plan
Part I
Lesson Midterm T+P (Hour) Credit
Physics 2 2+2 4
Unit: Wave Mechanics

Subject: Electromagnetic Waves
Introduce the electromagnetic spectrum and the concept of electromagnetic energy.
Students should understand that:
- Different parts of the EM spectrum have different wavelengths.
Learning Goals: - Different wavelengths have different energies.
-Common explanations of electromagnetic waves. The founder of Maxwell’s app is
highlighted.
-Explain the electromagnetic spectrum by relating it to everyday examples.
Discovering the characteristics of electromagnetic waves and developing a STEM
Objective:
material that can be used in daily life.
At the end of this lesson, students will:
1. be able to explain the concepts electromagnetic waves (remembering)
2. be able to different parts of the EM spectrum have different wavelengths.
3. be able to discuss on the concepts which they developed by using the Arduino
software program.
Outcomes:
4. (creating, valuing, adaptation, origination)
5. be able to design a mechanical system for electromagnetic waves topics. (Create
STEM Material)
6. be able to explain ARDUINO development board components
7. be able to Programs in the ARDUINO IDE development environment.
Concept of Unit: Electromagnetic wave, electromagnetic spectrum.
Educational philosophy: Progressivism (Pragmatism)
STEM education (Science, Technology and Mathematics levels will be used)
Constructivist Teaching Approach
Teaching-Learning Method and
Model 5E
Techniques:
Discussion method
Demonstration model
Time: 40+40+40+40 min.
1.Must have a Arduino IDE Program
Pre-requirements of the lesson
2.Must have Equipment to be used in Arduino circuit
1. In this part, the functionality of the sterilization units made by the students will be
Evaluation
evaluated.
Classroom Activities (hour) 2+2 hour
235
APPENDIX B
Table 2. Electromagnetic Waves Subject STEM education lesson plan Part II
Part II
A lesson plan for the use of educational robots in STEM education (5E Teaching Model)
Phase Activity Implementation Environment Figures
The teacher primarily tries to draw the attention of the students to the subject. While doing this,
he first asks the students the question stated in the problem situation and asks the students to
think. The following are questions for students to discuss in class:
Engage
How can the Covid 19 virus be sterilized by which methods?
What is UV light?
By asking these questions to the students, a discussion environment is created in the classroom.
The teacher first divides the students into groups of 5-6 people. In this section, students are
asked to collect information about the covid 19 virus, UV rays. Each student presents the answer
to each question to the other groups in the class, accompanied by a spokesperson, by combining
Explore
the information they have found with other groupmates. At this stage, the teacher listens to the
answers to each question from the students and explains the missing or incorrect parts in the
class.
The teacher gathers the information presented and explains the subject of electromagnetic waves
to the students. He transfers this lecture to the students within the framework of Science and
Mathematics, which is included in the steps of STEM education. It specifically talks about UV
rays, which are also included in the electromagnetic spectrum. Thus, the missing parts of the
information presented in the class are completed.
In the science level, the concepts related to the subject are explained, while in the mathematics
Explain
level, the mathematical model of the subject is emphasized. In addition, the wavelength, wave
speed and frequency calculations of electromagnetic waves are made in the mathematical step.
In order to prepare the students for the next step (deepening) of the 5E Model, they are asked
to do research on the internet and source books about the systems using UV rays in Covid-19 Front View of
sterilization until the next lesson. Each group is asked to design a setup for a sterilization unit Prototype
using UV LEDs until the next lesson.
At this stage, the teacher moves from theory to practice. A transition will be made from the
STEM education steps to the Engineering level. To students, How can we sterilize the products
we bring into our homes to protect ourselves from the Covid 19 virus? They are asked to find a
solution by giving the problem situation. Students divided into groups will make a sterilization
unit using educational robots. Students are asked to present their designs/products in the
Elaborate classroom. Front View of
Students will make a short presentation about the electronic circuit diagram they set up while Prototype
preparing the sterilization unit and the software they wrote for the operation of the circuit.
In the presentation, they will be asked to focus on scientific and mathematical models of the
sterilization time of UV rays. In addition, the mechanism presented by the students will be
discussed with the class and the missing and faulty parts of the mechanism will be determined.
PCB Design of
Proposed Model
Evaulate In this part, the functionality of the sterilization units made by the students will be evaluated.
236
APPENDIX C
Table 3. Educational Robotics for STEM Education
Robots Price Description

Dash
• User Programmable LEDs and Sensors

• IR Receiver Support for Connecting with other Robotic Kits
• Potentiometer and Dual Support for providing accurate position
180$
• Bluetooth Support for Connecting with mobile devices
• Microphones and Speakers for sound and voice related operations
• Powered wheels for navigation and distance tracking operations
Cue
• Bluetooth Connection with Mobile Devices such as iPad and Android Tablets
• Microphone and Speaker Devices for Recording and Playing Multimedia Files
• Strong processor and sensor for operating complex problems and programs
200$
• 2xWheels for easily navigating everywhere
• IR Receiver for connecting with other robotic devices
• Proximity Sensor for object detection operations
Lego Minstorms
• Strong motor and sensor support for conducting detailed robotic projects
• 550+ Programmable Bricks for designing various projects
• Control support by smart devices
450-500£
• Bluetooth and Wi-Fi connection for easily programming
• Extra SD Memory Slot for expanding RAM
• iOS and Android Operation System Support
Arduino UNO
• Digital input and output support
• Various technical support for providing easily programming of microcontroller
• USB and External Power Supply Support
20$
• Compatible with other open-sourced programmable sensors
• Communication with other Arduino devices or computers
• Compatible with Windows, macOS and Linux operation systems
Raspberry Pi
• Low cost and open-sourced
• Supports HDMI and USB ports
35$ • Compatible with Windows and Linux Operation Systems
• Compatible with other open-sourced programmable sensors
• Supports large sized multimedia files and computer vision operations
237
Table 3. Cotninued
Robots Price Description

BBC Microbit
• ARM-based embedded processor supports various sensors

• LCD Display support
15$ • Can be charged with USB or Power Supply
• Supports many code editors like Microsoft Block Editor and Python
• Compatible with block-based programming languages
LittleBits
• Various LED and sensors for maker activities
• Student and Teacher Guide Support
• Building blocks that aims inventions for learners
• Compatible for collaborative learning activities
MakeBlock
• Main Control board for controlling robotic device and integrated sensors
50$ • Bluetooth support for connecting with other devices
• Ultrasonic sensor for distance detecting
MakeyMakey
• Allows designing simple electric circuits with conductive materials

50$ • Supports any programming environment that supports keyboard and mouse
• USB port compatible
Squishy Circuits
• Allows to design electric circuits with conductive materials

35$ • Includes doughs, LED, buzzers, motors and etc.
• Simply designed for teaching engineering concepts
238
239
Chapter 12
Introducing STEAM Through
Tinkercad and Arduino
Savvas Tsolakis
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9259-5467
University of Thessaly, Greece
Timoleon Theofanellis
ASPETE, Greece
Evagelia Voulgari
Experimental High School of Magnesia, Greece
ABSTRACT
During the last years, educators were challenged to move their lessons from the physical classroom to
online classrooms due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to this situation, they had to come up with new
teaching methods and applications and even use ICT to implement hands-on activities. Teaching robot-
ics, a significant subject to promote STEAM education and computational thinking, had to be continued
under these circumstances. In this chapter, the work and the results of teaching robotics in online classes
are presented. Tinkercad simulation platform was used to teach robotics and plan projects that later were
implemented using the Arduino platform robotic system in the physical classroom as hands-on activities.
INTRODUCTION
Our new digital age imposes a life where Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) domi-
nate and have changed our communication habits, our relationships and our perception. A significant
consequence is in the way we obtain information and as a result in the way we conquer knowledge and
teach. (de Souza, & Elisiario, 2019). On the other hand, students of the new digital generation have to
develop not only digital skills but also team working and collaborative skills, flexibility and adaptiveness
to problem solving, creativity, critical thinking etc.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-3861-9.ch012

Introducing STEAM Through Tinkercad and Arduino
A strong education in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and even Art (STEAM) is
important in recent years (Thibaut et al., 2018), (Madden et al., 2016). STEM education aims to prepare
students in multidimensional capabilities to use in modern life (Rifandi & Rahmi, 2019). It raises their
competitiveness, increases critical thinking skills, creativity and their spirit of innovation and improves
problem solving abilities necessary in everyday life and therefore their computational thinking (CT)
skills (Eryilmaz & Deniz, 2021).
STEAM education aims to connect different learning areas and emerge the relationship among
divergent subjects (Ah-Fur, Chien-Hung, & Horng-Yih, 2018, July). According to Madden (2016), Ri-
fandi (2019) and Tsolakis et al. (2021) STEM education is important as it affects and impacts a variety
of skills that educators need to improve in students: Problem-solving, innovation, self-esteem, logical
thinking, technological literature, communication and team working skills. STEM teaching is supported
by educational robotics (ER) through problem solving tasks and on-hands activities developing thus
students’ CT skills.
Therefore, introducing robotic activities in students’ curriculum is essential. However, during the
COVID-19 pandemic, teaching robotics seemed to be difficult or even impossible as traditional classes
changed to on-line classes. In order to continue ER teaching, instructors should resort to solutions that
could be supported by the on-line classes. Tsolakis et al. (2021) state that the Arduino platform is suit-
able for STEAM introduction, it’s online simulation tool can be used interchangeably as an alternative
solution for the ER on-line classes.
BACKGROUND
Teaching educational robotics (ER) in order to promote Computational thinking (CT) is a challenging
and desired process for our era. Students are challenged to work in teams to develop artifacts in order to
discover new knowledge while educators are their mentors, just like Papert indicates in his constructivist
theory (Papert, 1980).
A well-formed educational procedure must be held along with the project-based methodology so
students are driven to conquer knowledge through an experimental process. The problem arises when
no physical equipment is available, so computer simulation programs should be used. That problem may
arise not only due to lack of equipment but also due to a situation similar to the one faced during the
Covid-19 era. In this case, when classes were transferred to online, nobody knew how much this would
last. The need of teaching ER even online emerged the need of looking for appropriate solutions. Thus
a simulation program, which could be used in the online classes and would allow students to catch up
with hands-on projects when back to school, seemed ideal
This chapter presents a simulation program which was used in replacement of the physical equip-
ment due to difficulties that was arisen from the Covid-19 pandemic and the consequent lock down, as
well as the way this effort evolved when students were back to physical classrooms and could therefore
work with the available equipment. Thus, a hybrid (mixed) intervention is presented, which consists of
a 3 on-line and 4 in-class sessions, along with the results of this transition.
240

Learning Theories
According to Thibaut et al., (2018) who have examined the underlying learning theories, most STEM
teaching approaches are not strongly connected with theories for instructional practices. On the contrary
STEM learning theories have to do with social constructivism. According to this theory, knowledge
is not transmitted from the teacher to the students. Acquiring knowledge is a process of building new
ideas based on existing ideas and past experiences. Moreover, it is not a result of individual work, but
an output of combining shared experience.
Moreover, the Situated Learning Theory created by Jane Lave and Etienne Wenger (Lave & Wenger,
1991) perceives learning as a high social and interactive activity. Through this interaction, students co-
operate with each other in order to build new knowledge while teachers are their mentors.
Project Based Learning (PBL) engages learners to real world problems (Petrosino et al., 2020). It is
mainly associated with robotics. PBL implies a methodological model of teaching intervention, which
includes five stages: engagement, exploration, investigation, creation and sharing (Carbonaro et al.,
2004). In this work the researchers followed the project based learning methodology and each stage is
referred respectively.
Computational Thinking
The term Computational thinking (CT) refers to a variety of skills attitude and approaches that can be
used in a problem solving situation. It allows us to deal with complex problems by understanding it and
developing possible solutions. It includes all the stages, starting from the problem definition and under-
standing up to its solution (Lee et al., 2011). It does not only refer to computer science and programming
tasks but it extends to any business, to any real-world problem.
There are four backbones to CT: Decomposition, pattern recognition, abstraction and algorithms
(Introduction to computational thinking, 2020)
Decomposition involves breaking down a complex problem into smaller parts which can be managed
and solved easier (Rich et al., 2018). When each part of the problem has been solved, all the pieces can
be combined through the solution of the complex problem
Pattern recognition has to do with finding similarities among the smaller problems or even among
different problems. After similarities-patterns have be recognized, the same solution can be applied to
all the patterns (Chalmers, 2018).
Abstraction is the process of filtering out characteristics and details that we do not need and concen-
trating on these that we do.
Finally, the algorithm indicates how the problem is solved using a set of step-by-step, well-defined
instructions that when followed precisely you get a solution. Again the word ‘Algorithm’ has not always
to do and is not always related to a computer.
Teaching STEAM using Arduino
STEAM education emphasizes in applying perceived knowledge to every-day real-life problems. (Tsolakis
et al., 2021) Students are involved to problem-solving activities through experimentation using robotic
platforms such as the Arduino platform.
241

Arduino is a suitable platform to introduce high-school students to STEAM in an easy and com-
prehensive way through hands-on projects (Tsolakis et al., 2021) The Arduino platform consists of a
microcontroller board, on which a variety of components such as sensors, motors and display devices
can be plugged in, and a development language that is used to program the attached equipment on the
board controlling their input or their output (Galadima, 2014). Even if Arduino is not a computer (no
operating system can be installed on the microcontroller) the developed program can finally be executed
as a stand-alone program without the support of a computer.
Using the platform, students use their knowledge in the field of maths and physics, design artifacts,
try to solve technical problems. By combining a technical, digital solution with physical world through
the artifacts, participants explore and understand complex ideas in a tangible way (Xefteris, et al., 2019).
They are forced to engage engineering principles and thinking to design and implement their project,
promoting thus the STEM education.
Arduino is selected for a variety of reasons, including both pedagogical and practical aspects
• Affordable cost of hardware purchasing

• Open-source software
• Free download software
• Easy setup
• Easy to learn IDE educational programming language
• Supported by block-based programming languages, suitable for younger and novice students
• Quick prototyping
• Supports a great variety of sensors
• Active and wide Community of users
• Easiness in building a wide range of artifacts
• Multiplatform Environment
The electronic platform of Arduino is very popular today in educational classroom because it is very
cheap, therefore affordable, and easy to manage so students can easily use it to make constructions or
to do an experiment (Anderson, 2012). Not only the hardware but also the software is free to download
and use without paying any license fees.
This platform can offer teachers the opportunity to teach the lesson of robotics and computational
thinking in a more interesting way and to adapt to it modern educational learning methodologies, such
as constructive and social cultural theory (Roscoe et al., 2014). Arduino allow students to constructively
and collaboratively build a construction with low cost materials and get in touch with the scientific com-
munity of robotics, computer science, mathematics, physics and artifact, in other words students will be
able to get to know the world of STEM (Martin-Ramos et al., 2016).
However, the most important advantage of Arduino is that it provides the ability to distinguish between
the construction and the programming sector so that students understand the need for the application of
programming and control of construction automation. (Severance, 2015). The Arduino programming
environment is Arduino IDE and the language used –wiring- is an extension of the programming envi-
ronment of C++ which is enriched with a set of C++ libraries containing the appropriate commands
to handle the Arduino hardware. So in this way roles are created in a creative student group, such as
builder, designer and programmer engineer.
242

Of course, there are many proponents of the DIY theory (Do It Yourself), who have created websites
by uploading construction plans with instructions for writing application programs (Severance, 2015).
These community of users, most of whom are educators, want to promote the use of the open source
software such as the Arduino IDE and the dissemination of good educational practices. Furthermore,
one can easily get help on difficult or problematic situations from others in the community who may
have encountered he same problem (Galadima, 2014). So students have enough tools due to the use of
platform Arduino to gain motivation that will encourage them to acquire new knowledge (Rubio et al.,
2013), experiment with new construction models and experience different representations to help them
choose the role that suits them (Ainsworth, 2004).
The use of the Arduino controller arouses the curiosity of students to enter the process of learning
electronic components, circuits, design and implementation of programming models. On the other hand,
there is a group of students that may be disappointed due to a construction or programming mistake
that they may make that leads to not doing the desired project. In this case it would be useful to precede
a simulation model from experimentation or construction and this gap can be filled by the simulation
program of Tinkercad.
Though, even if Arduino microcontroller is a low cost platform, Tinkercad can be used as a suitable
Arduino emulator or simulator as a startup for educational purposes. Using a simulation program simply
requires a computer and an internet connection. Therefore, there is no need of electronic material or
construction tools and the learning process is neither costly nor time consuming (Thibaut et al., 2018).
Apart from that, the era of COVID-19 and the consequent need for distance teaching and learning,
demanded more flexible learning methodologies and tools. Teaching practical issues to e-learning classes
demand suitable emulators (Amalia et al., 2020)
Tinkercad and Arduino
Designing and programming computing-electronic solutions requires a step-by-step thinking process and
involves both hardware and software abilities. Designing the physical device and then programming it may
sometimes turn to be a complex and discouraging task for the novice student (Vidal-Silva, et al., 2019).
Computer simulation can be used in cases that students have no experience in handling even the
simplest electronic circuit (Ah-Fur et al., 2018). The simulation program can save time as any error can
be identified and corrected more easily. Apart from that, when physical equipment is used in the training
procedure, there is always a loss of a part of it due to careless use and operation during the hands-on
activities. The waste of this equipment can be avoided through the computer based simulation program.
Finally, students have the opportunity to drill-down any case and repeat any activity without harming
equipment.
Tinkercad is an online platform which can be used either for 3D design or for building virtual electronic
circuits that assemble the Arduino platform. As Greece were facing the Covid-19 lockdown, teaching
Robotics using Arduino was practically impossible and the authors could not carry out practical parts
of the robotic activities. In order to overcome these difficulties Tinkercad was used.
In recent years, teachers using computers have been using modern teaching methods such as explor-
atory learning with the help of new computer simulation programs. In the simulation environment it is
possible for students to experiment in various concepts of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics and
computer science, thus escaping the classical learning methods and getting to know science in the pleas-
ant way of images, shapes, representations and of the virtual results of an experiment (McKean, 2017).
243

Universities and schools use simulation environments instead of actually conducting experiments to
avoid the destruction of laboratory materials, students’ better understanding of scientific concepts, the
rapid development of an experiment, and greater material cost savings (Kantrowitz, 2019). So teachers
use the Tinkercad educational platform which is open source, is free to access by teachers and students
and provides the opportunity to create and organize specialized educational communities.
The simulation environment is located on the website https://www.tinkercad.com and provides the
user with an environment for learning the basics of electronic components, wiring circuits and learning
the programming language C++ with the help of an intermediate programming environment of Ardu-
block. (Autodesk, 2019).
The web platform of Tinkercad appears as a suitable platform that integrates and simulates both
the designing and the programming process of the Arduino microcontroller. It can be used with intro-
ductory classes for novice students to overcome their initial fear of managing electronic circuits and
programming them using an advanced programming language such as C++ (Vidal-Silva, et al., 2019).
Early problems that can arise with hardware connections can be solved in the simulation tool. A variety
of sensors, motors and other devices are available in its library and can be easily used to build and test
a required circuit (Mohapatra, et al., 2020). Therefore, students get the desired feedback and examine
different possibilities before proceeding to the real hardware construction (Mohapatra, et al., 2020).
The criteria supported by Alimisis & Loukatos, (2018) on their work in relation to their critique of
the use of modern integrated learning environments, are met by Tinckercad (Liu et al. 2013):
• pedagogically meaningful as students learn new knowledge and acquire new skills while studying
and using an electronic circuit
• runnable on the hardware environment because it provides a simulation environment that is im-
mediately executable
• reduced need for installation/update of software elements. In practice Tinkercad needs no instal-
lation as everything runs and is saved on the cloud
• user friendly interface. Everything is organized in groups, circuits are built by dragging and drop-
ping parts in the designing workspace
• easily integrated with the external hardware. The C code produced by Tinkercad can be down-
loaded as a .ino file that can then be opened in Arduino IDE and loaded to the Arduino board
• open source
• no cost required for subscription.
Practical Experience
In the last fifteen (15) years most of the teacher education held in Greece is focused on educational
scenarios. An educational scenario is the description of teaching with a focused cognitive object, spe-
cific educational goals, teaching principles, and practices. An educational scenario lasts more than one
teaching hour. The scenario forces its designer to focus on aims/outcomes, teaching techniques, tools,
and evaluation. There are many ways to present a scenario as there are many ways to share it. Many
platforms were created such as photodentro, aesop, mitida, proteas, ifigeneia, there are special sessions
in conferences and many teacher web pages or blogs that present scenarios. This sharing and opportunity
to evaluate and comment is important as educators share material, but this can go even further, under
specific conditions and can lead to the creation of an online learning community.
244

Scenarios can be implemented through webquest platforms, many slightly different forms to present
a scenario, or even specialized platforms.
Most of the teachers were trained through in-service training of teachers in the utilization and ap-
plication of digital technologies in the teaching practice (A and B level of ICT teacher training). The
training was implemented on behalf of the Ministry of Education, Research and Religious Affairs by the
Computer Technology Institute and Press (CTI), and teachers were certified through it.
The latest teacher training (April to June 2021) is an accelerated (crash course) training for teachers
in distance learning. The purpose of the action is to utilize the acquired of distance education and to
further cultivate the knowledge and digital skills of teachers in pedagogical and didactic approaches,
with the support of modern digital media, used in conditions of technologically enriched living education
as well as in distance learning. The training program utilized current (teleconferencing) and asynchro-
nous distance learning technologies (eClass and e-Me platform). The trainees were evaluated through
an educational scenario both self and by the trainer using an evaluation rubric. An important aspect
of the creation of scenarios is the possibility of sharing their results and ideas in learning communi-
ties. Educational scenarios can be reused, exchanged, modified to fit different needs and be improved
(Wichmann et al., 2010).
EDUCATIONAL SCENARIO
Over the decade (2004-2013) the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) international
community has significantly promoted: (a) the theoretical framework for understanding the operation
of collaboration scenarios; formalization), design, editing, and deployment of tools and environments to
support screenwriting. In the process, the specific effort to support screenwriting was combined, and often
incorporated, into the more general context of developing technological environments for learning design.
The term “learning design” can be approached pedagogically and technologically. From a pedagogi-
cal point of view, it is attributed as “learning or educational design” and stresses the systematic effort
of the teacher to identify and coordinate efficiently all the factors related to the design of an educational
experience (individual lesson, course, etc.). The concept is described as a “general term that includes
the process, representation, sharing and evaluation of plans for learning from the lowest to the highest
level, i.e. that of designing a comprehensive curriculum.
When designing a scenario Gagné suggests a series of events and that can be used as a guideline.
Gagne’s research suggested that all learning is based on previous learning and that there is a hierarchy
to learning and that, when placed in sequence, learners move through each step in the process of ac-
quiring new information and skills (Donohue, 2021). The nine events of instruction are in conjunction
with Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy and mean to help educators design scenarios that are engaging and
meaningful (Gagné et al., 1992). When the steps are completed in sequence, learners become engaged
in the learning process and retain the information or skill being taught, allowing them to benefit from
learning opportunities (Donohue, 2021).
The Learning Designer is a software application supported by an intelligent inferencing engine that
assists teachers in designing learning experiences for their students. The teacher-designer inputs infor-
mation about the types of ‘teaching and learning activities’ (TLAs) that they wish to incorporate into a
learning ‘session’ and how long learners are expected to spend on each one. This nomenclature relating
to how ‘sessions’ (such as lectures) may involve ‘TLAs’ (such as group practical activities) has been
245

devised by the team to disambiguate the various levels of analysis, and the terminology itself has been
evaluated in workshops. Each TLA has two sets of predefined properties that the user can edit (Bower
et al. 2011):
• Nature of the learning experience: personalised (i.e., unique to each student), social (e.g., a small
group activity), or one-size-fits-all (e.g. a lecture).
• Proportions of different forms of learning (cognitive activities) that the TLA supports: acquisi-
tion, inquiry, discussion, practice, and production (justification and explication of categories to be
provided in Laurillard, forthcoming).
This information both enable teachers to map out their learning designs and allow the Learning De-
signer to generate visualizations of the learning designs that teachers can use to analyze their approach
(Bower et al., 2011).
The learning designer platform is used to design teaching and learning activities using the six learn-
ing types. It provides feedback on the design by showing the user the proportion of each of the different
learning types in your eventual design in the form of a pie chart, so they can see where adjustments
might be needed. It also offers a way of sharing with peers.
The next step is to determine the learning objectives. The “Learning designer” platform helps edu-
cators specify the teaching aims and outcomes as they are categorized according to Bloom’s (1994)
taxonomy of educational objectives (Figure 1). Learning designer offers a visually structured approach
to learning design.
Figure 1. Bloom’s taxonomy as shown in learning designer
246

For example, in the evaluation category, the appropriate verbs are suggested and this may be very
helpful (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Verbs to implement Bloom’s taxonomy
The platform that can be useful for science subjects is the “Open discovery space” as it offers many
tools and ideas such as the presentation of the correspondence between the problem-solving processes
and the stages of inquiry (Figure 3). The ODS aims to provide social features for building and sustain-
ing web-based educational communities and communities of best teaching practices from European
schools (Nikolas et al., 2014). Educational communities are a common model for teacher development,
but simply bringing teachers together does not ensure community development. Van Es (2012) offers
a framework for the development of a teacher learning community. Such a community can serve as the
place to share, discuss and finally improve educational scenarios.
It is important to utilize the strengths the platform offers and learn to participate in online learning
communities and to learn by sharing, discussing, and exchanging ideas.
In this case, the authors, having in mind that they had to teach on-line lessons they decided to use the
learning designer application to develop the educational scenarios to be thought. These scenarios were
available to the students so that they were able to repeat or review any activity. They were also available
to other teachers to view, use and offer feedback on their experience of their own teaching.
Learning Designer was used to present the seven sub-projects that each lasted two hours. The first
three were implemented using Tinkercad simulator before actually using the Arduino as a physical means.
The Learning Designer provides teachers and educational designers with an interactive modeling
environment for representing the pedagogically pertinent components of their learning design and pro-
viding analytic feedback so that they can better understand the implications of their designs, particularly
in relation to their use of technology-enhanced learning (Bower et al., 2011).
247

Figure 3. Questions to check for testing hypothesis
Introducing the Arduino
Working with an Arduino microcontroller is not straightforward. The authors started by presenting to
the students videos on how Arduino works and progress with very simple projects having in mind a final
project that will combine all or most of the previous activities. Students learn to use the breadboard to
connect devices such as resistances, the battery and the LED. The methodology of fading scaffolding
is used. Incrementally the lesson is built on more complicated activities and students are given more
degrees of freedom as they gain experience and confidence. It is an important element when gaining
problem-solving skills (Tawfik et al., 2018). Initially all these ideas are implemented in Tinkercad, so
that students are not frustrated by any mistakes that may arise when using the physical device. When they
are ready they try some of these concepts outside Tinkercad, on the Arduino microcontroller. Finally,
the final project was discussed and the teams were let to start implementing.
The project method is an educational activity in which students solve a practical problem over a spe-
cific period that may vary from hours to weeks. The projects are usually suggested by the teacher, but are
planned and executed as far as possible by the students themselves, working in groups. The actual work
focuses on applying specific knowledge or skills, and on improving student involvement and motivation
in order to foster independent thinking, self-confidence, and social responsibility (Katz & Chard, 1989).
The project methodology helps to achieve a meaningful engagement through implementing projects.
Such projects link to reality, where students have a say in helping to define how to address issues that
matter to their society are best for learning (Yakman, 2019). The final project that was chosen was a
solar panel greenhouse.
248

The rest of the article continues presenting the work that has been done with a group of students of
age 12-14 in a peripheral public school in Greece. The students had no experience either with Arduino
microcontroller or with the C++ language. Moreover, the lessons had been programmed to start while
the country was facing a school lock-down due to the COVID-19 pandemia.
The students started working in Tinkercad through the e-learning period for three two-hours synchro-
nous lessons. Teaching programming through Tinkercad is appealing to high school students (Tsolakis
et al. 2021).
Then when they came back to school they felt confident in building and programming the Arduino
platform in an effortless way. That process just needed a two-hour lesson.
At the end they were able to do more complex constructions, working in groups during a period of
three two-hours lessons.
Tinkercad Online Platform
As already mentioned, the Tinkercad part of teaching was three two-hour lessons. The first goal was
to make participants familiar to the Arduino platform, its peripheral devices and the way they are con-
nected on the board even if the lock-down situation didn’t let as work with the physical device. So simple
circuits were chosen to be included for the beginning and teach every single step and ended up to more
sophisticated that the participants had to build by their own using some basic instructions they had been
given, a survey in the internet with limited surveillance by the teacher.
The second goal was to introduce them to C/C++ programming language. Consequently, while the
simple circuits demanded simple coding, gradually more sophisticated code was added that illustrated
decision –if’- and loop – ‘for’- statements, variables, even the use of external libraries. By doing so
participant got familiar with the C/C++ language in an easy and comprehensive procedure.
The research was conducted in the robotics team of a high school (1st high school of Almyros, Mag-
nesia) a small town in the province and involved 34 students aged 13 to 14 years. The students were
divided into 10 groups with the aim of constructing 10 projects that are beneficial to our society. The
socio-cultural teaching method of learning was used. The idea was to organize the students into groups,
give them the learning tools such as the Tinkercad simulation website and the Arduino’s electronic
platform with the appropriate electronic components that they must adapt and connect to the Arduino
board. Then students would explore the simulation environment, discuss, research, learn and create the
desired project using the appropriate code in the Arduino ide programming environment. Unfortunately,
the Covid-19 lock down occurred before the lessons could start. So the project ended up with Tinckercad
on-line lessons and went on with classroom activities when the lockdown ended.
Out of the thirty-four students declared their participation to the lessons and had initially been added
to the Tinckercad classroom, twenty-six of them really joined the classroom. So our sample consists of
26 students, 13 boys and 13 girls, age 12 to 14.
A brief description of the activities done during the on-line and the physical classroom lessons fol-
low, apart with the results of the educational activities. A more detailed description can be found in the
Appendix.
249

Brief Description of the Activities
Setting up the Environment
Initially the virtual class was set up so students can join the class. Joining a class is an easy way to get
access to the platform, just by providing the class code. Moreover, teachers can access any circuit a
student of the class have constructed and even make desired changes.
Basic Introductory Activities: Day 1
Students were let get familiar with the environment, the contents of the pallet, the way the pallet objects
are used before starting with the activities.
First activity: A simple circuit

The first activity was introductory. A simple led, a battery and then a resistor was used. The goal was
to refresh previous knowledge on the use of appropriate resistor in a circuit
Second activity: Introducing the microcontroller

The next activity was to introduce an Arduino microcontroller component. This was a great opportunity
to present it, as they are more clearly shown on the simulation program. They were also introduced to
the breadboard so that the virtual circuit that would build will assemble best to the physical one. This
was necessary for a smoother transition from the simulation to the physical equipment in the future.
Students were asked to construct a circuit with a led and a resistor.
The process went on by examining the code that Tinkercad automatically generates. Both the block-
based programming interface and the C++ code that is generated were discussed. As both block-based
and command line C++ programming can be used interchangeably in Tinkercad it is easy for novice
students to be introduced to the C++ programming language.
Finally, students were assigned a homework. The activity was chosen for two reasons. Firstly, it is a
good example of a problem that should be decomposed to smaller parts. Each part has the same pattern,
similar to the previous activity. It practically fits to the idea of CT.
The second reason was that in an online lesson, it is difficult for a teacher to get a proper feedback
as students hesitate to ask questions and the lack of visual contact prevents teachers from making any
conclusions. So the true purpose of the assignment was for us to make sure that our students had con-
ceived this initial introduction to electrical circuits and the programmable part of them as well as the
degree of interest that was developed.
More Complex Activities: Day 2
The second say started by discussing the home activity focusing on those who had minor or major dif-
ficulties in the coding. This triggered a discussion about the community of users and the assistance one
can get from the internet.
250

Third activity: The pseudo-analog port and the fading led

In this second day activity, the project to build was a LED flashing with constantly changing intensity.
The first goal was to familiarize students with the use of Arduino pseudo-analog outputs and the
concept of variable voltage leading to variable LED brightness. The program introduces the repeat com-
mand in programming. Furthermore, they were introduced to more sophisticated programming concepts
like variables and repeating structures introducing the ‘for’ loop statement in C++ programming.
Fourth activity: The sensors

This next activity has to do with sensors. The Tinkercad’s palette is appropriate for demonstrating the
great variety of sensors available for Arduino. The authors tried, in this way, to make them familiar with
the corresponding physical devices even if we were teaching from a distance.
At this point students had to build the construction and the code by their own. The idea is that it
is practical impossible to teach every detail that each sensor requires. The way one works is by using
information available in the internet.
More Complex Activities II: Day 3
Fifth activity: The Servo Motor

In the last activity the servo motor was demonstrated, a device that rotates a plastic arm on top of it in
an angle of 0o to 180o. The value of the ankle is determined by the use of a potentiometer that is also
attached on the board.
Back to School: Day 4
After a long period of lock down educators and students were back to classroom giving them the op-
portunity to work using the physical device platform of Arduino. All the students were present to that
lesson, including those who hadn’t participated to the online classes.
The tree-led activity was chosen in order to reinitialize the class and make them familiar to the physi-
cal equipment
The rest of the lesson went on by discussing ideas on the final construction.
Continuing with Arduino: Day 5
This fifth lesson was dedicated to the ultrasonic sensor and the servo motor. Once again the groups had to
do the circuits on the physical device, programming it on the IDE and experiment with their construction.
Our role was restricted to consult and mentor them as they had already constructed and programming
the circuits in the simulation tool.
Finally, the role of each group to the final construction was determined and the exact construct each
would do so that for the instructors to be prepared with the appropriate equipment for the next lesson.
251

The Final Project: Day 6 and 7
Students had decided to construct a greenhouse for their final project using multiple automations. In
day six each group worked separately on a sub-project while in day seven they put all together to build
the final project.
Results
During the first day, the first activity was successfully done by all students while 24 out of the 26 stu-
dents managed to construct a right circuit on activity two. Not all of them ended with right coding. In
particular, there were 7 excellent attempts, 11 quite good attempts while there were 6 students that failed
to build a well working program.
In day two, half of the students managed to build the circuit properly while only one of them failed
with the code. The other half of them did a quite poor job.
The challenge of day three ended up with 14 excellent or well-built programs (out of 26). More than
half of the participants managed to complete successfully the tasks that were assigned to them. The
coding part in each activity was the most difficult part of the activity for some of them.
Figure 4 shows the percentage completion of the circuit – the design part of each activity - and the
coding in each activity.
Figure 4. Completion of design and coding for each activity
Day four and five activities shown that it was much easier, especially for those who had participated
in the online lessons to complete their job. It was also good for us to see that they were relieved of any
fear about damaging the equipment and could handle it easily.
252

Finally, all the groups managed to complete their subprojects in day six. They also did their best in
the last day. Even those who hadn’t participated to the online classes and had therefore more difficulties
in their groups they contributed in the artistic part of the construction. This is equally desired in this
kind of projects and is part of the STEAM philosophy.
Both the sub-projects and the final project proved that there was no significant difference in their
efficiency between boys and girls, the learning results and the way each sex perceived the courses.
The initial use of Tinkercad simulation program was proved a good choice. First of all, students cough
up with hands-on projects very easily. There was no need to re-introduce the platform, its characteristics
and the way it’s peripherals are plugged. A great part of the programming process had also been covered
to the online classes. Therefor students had no or limited difficulties with the C++ environment. As the
come back to school was made a bit late, time was pressing and students wouldn’t have enough time to
finish with their projects if they hadn’t participated in the online classes
It is highly recommended that Tinkercad should be used in the introduction of the Arduino robotic les-
sons. It can also be used for teaching programming languages when teachers select technology tool.
Tinkercad and Arduino are proposed to be included to the students’ curriculum for learning computer
programming to foster student learning.
The main goal of the research is the contribution of the simulation platform to the learning process in a
group of students of a particular age using a defined process. The question raised is how older or younger
children could benefit by this. It remains to be found out by working with these age groups.
CONCLUSION
To sum up, the students participated to the Tinkercad activities managed to complete their work for the
most part. It is a useful simulation tool that helped students to be introduced to the Arduino platform,
to experiment and obtain new knowledge. The classroom lessons were transferred successfully to the
online environment without losing the goal of the learning process. Appling this solution proved that
Tinkercad is interesting and very useful when in school or at home. The difficulty was increased gradu-
ally and students were able to collaborate effectively and helped each other understand, whenever they
faced any problem. They coped very well with the hands-on activities which they proved to be within
their capabilities.
Tinkercad is a tool that offers the freedom to experiment especially useful for beginners and warm-
up activities. It is also useful when there is luck of appropriate equipment to actually implement such
projects for numerus groups of students. A wise solution for such cases is to implement on one actual
Arduino physical device having the students take turns on it, while everybody uses Tinkercad to design
the circuit and implement the program.
253

Tinkercad proved to be a significant tool that contributed students to be organized in groups according
to the sociocultural learning theory. It contributed to the success of the final project.
REFERENCES
Ah-Fur, L., Chien-Hung, C., & Horng-Yih, L. (2018, July). Developing an Arduino simulation-based
learning system and evaluating its suitability. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
E-Education, E-Business and E-Technology (pp. 38-42). 10.1145/3241748.3241764
Ainsworth, S., & Van Labeke, N. (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and In-
struction, 14(3), 241–255. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.002
Alimisis, D., & Loukatos, D. (2018, June). STEM education post-graduate students’ training in the
eCraft2Learn ecosystem. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Innovating STEM
Education (pp. 22-24). Academic Press.
Amalia, D., Ka, I., Septiani, V., & Fazal, M. R. (2020). Designing of Mikrokontroler E-Learning Course:
Using Arduino and TinkerCad. Journal of Airport Engineering Technology, 1(1), 8–14. doi:10.52989/
jaet.v1i1.2
Anderson, C. (2012). Makers: The New Industrial Revolution. Crown Publishing.
Autodesk. (2019). Tinkercad. Retrieved from https://www.tinkercad.com/
Bloom, B. S. (1994). Bloom’s Taxonomy. University of Chicago Press.
Bower, M., Craft, B., Laurillard, D., & Masterman, L. (2011). Using the Learning Designer to develop
a conceptual framework for linking learning design tools and systems. Academic Press.
Carbonaro, M., Rex, M., & Chambers, J. (2004). Using LEGO robotics in a project-based learning envi-
ronment. The Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning, 6(1), 55–70.
Chalmers, C. (2018). Robotics and computational thinking in primary school. International Journal of
Child-Computer Interaction, 17, 93–100. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.06.005
de Souza, T. L., & Elisiario, L. S. (2019, October). Educational robotics teaching with Arduino and
3d print based on stem projects. In 2019 Latin American Robotics Symposium (LARS), 2019 Brazilian
Symposium on Robotics (SBR) and 2019 Workshop on Robotics in Education (WRE) (pp. 407-410).
IEEE. 10.1109/LARS-SBR-WRE48964.2019.00078
Donohue, D. (2021). Applying Gagne’s nine levels of learning in the training classroom. Retrieved
in 15/7/2021 from url: https://www.firefighternation.com/firerescue/applying-gagnes-nine-levels-of-
learning-in-the-training-classroom/#gref
Eryilmaz, S., & Deniz, G. (2021). Effect of Tinkercad on students’ computational thinking skills and
perceptions: A case of Ankara province. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET,
20(1), 25–38.
254

Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Galadima, A. A. (2014, September). Arduino as a learning tool. In 2014 11th International Conference
on Electronics, Computer and Computation (ICECCO) (pp. 1-4). IEEE. 10.1109/ICECCO.2014.6997577
Introduction to Computational Thinking. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/
zp92mp3/revision/1
Kantrowitz, A. (2019). Maker Ed in the Art Studio: Preparing Pre-Service Artist/Educators to Integrate
Maker Education into P-12 Art Studio/Classrooms. Retrieved from: https://nyc2019.fablearn.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/04/FL2019_paper_109.pdf
Katz, L. G., & Chard, S. C. (1989). Engaging Children’s Minds: the project approach. Ablex.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge uni-
versity press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., & Werner, L. (2011). Computational
thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads, 2(1), 32–37. doi:10.1145/1929887.1929902
Liu, A., Newsom, J., Schunn, C., & Shoop, R. (2013). Students Learn Programming Faster through
Robotic Simulation. Tech Directions, 72(8), 16–19.
Madden, L., Beyers, J., & O’Brien, S. (2016). The importance of STEM education in the elementary
grades: Learning from pre-service and novice teachers’ perspectives. The Electronic Journal for Research
in Science & Mathematics Education, 20(5).
Martín-Ramos, P., da Silva, M. M. L., Lopes, M. J., & Silva, M. R. (2016, November). Student2student:
Arduino project-based learning. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological
Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 79-84). 10.1145/3012430.3012500
McKean, R. (2017). Heritage Perth and the mixed reality makeover. Education Technology Solutions,
78, 44–46.
Mohapatra, B. N., Mohapatra, R. K., Jijnyasa, J., & Shruti, Z. (2020). Easy performance based learning of
arduino and sensors through Tinkercad. International Journal of Open Information Technologies, 8(10).
Nikolas, A., Sotiriou, S., Zervas, P., & Sampson, D. (2014). The Open Discovery Space Portal: A So-
cially-Powered and Open Federated Infrastructure. In D. Sampson, D. Ifenthaler, J. Spector, & P. Isaias
(Eds.), Digital Systems for Open Access to Formal and Informal Learning. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-
3-319-02264-2_2
Petrosino, A. J., Sherard, M. K., & Tharayil, S. A. (2020). The education philosophy, theories and models
that enable STEM policy integration. In STEM in the Technopolis: The Power of STEM Education in
Regional Technology Policy (pp. 51–63). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39851-4_3
255

Rich, K. M., Binkowski, T. A., Strickland, C., & Franklin, D. (2018). Decomposition: A k-8 computational
thinking learning trajectory. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing
Education Research (pp. 124-132). 10.1145/3230977.3230979
Rifandi, R., & Rahmi, Y. L. (2019, October). STEM education to fulfil the 21st century demand: A literature
review. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1317(1), 012208. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1317/1/012208
Roscoe, R. D. (2014). Self-monitoring and knowledge-building in learning by teaching. Instructional
Science, 42(3), 327–351. doi:10.100711251-013-9283-4
Rubio, M. A., Hierro, C. M., & Pablo, A. P. D. M. (2013, July). Using arduino to enhance computer
programming courses in science and engineering. In Proceedings of EDULEARN13 conference (pp.
1-3). IATED.
Severance, C. (2015). Python for Everybody. Coursera. Retrieved from https://www.coursera.org/spe-
cializations/python
Tawfik, A., Law, V., Ge, X., Xing, W., & Kim, K. (2018). The effect of sustained vs. faded scaffold-
ing on students’ argumentation in ill-structured problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 87,
436–449. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.035
Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., Boeve-de Pauw, J.,
Dehaene, W., Deprez, J., De Cock, M., Hellinckx, L., Knipprath, H., Langie, G., Struyven, K., Van de
Velde, D., Van Petegem, P., & Depaepe, F. (2018). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review
of instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 2.
doi:10.20897/ejsteme/85525
Tsolakis, S., Theofanellis, T., & Voulgari, E. (2021). Fostering Computational Thinking With Arduino
and Lego Mindstorms. In Handbook of Research on Using Educational Robotics to Facilitate Student
Learning (pp. 183–208). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-6717-3.ch007
Van Es, E. A. (2012). Examining the development of a teacher learning community: The case of a video
club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 182–192. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.005
Vidal-Silva, C., Serrano-Malebran, J., & Pereira, F. (2019). Scratch and Arduino for Effectively Devel-
oping Programming and Computing-Electronic Competences in Primary School Children. In 2019 38th
International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC) (pp. 1-7). IEEE. 10.1109/
SCCC49216.2019.8966401
Wichmann, A., Engler, J., & Hoppe, H. U. (2010). Sharing educational scenario designs in practitioner
communities. ICLS ’10: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, 1,
750–757.
Xefteris, S., Palaigeorgiou, G., & Zoumpourtikoudi, H. (2019, October). Educational robotics for creat-
ing “tangible simulations”: a mixed reality space for learning the day/night cycle. In Interactive Mobile
Communication, Technologies and Learning (pp. 971–982). Springer.
Yakman, G. (2019). STEAM-An Educational Framework to Relate Things To Each Other And Reality.
K12Digest.
256

Arduino: An open-source electronics platform or board and the software used to program it.
Computational Thinking: Techniques help with the tasks of solving a problem, the problem itself
and the ways in which it could be resolved and understood.
Educational Scenario: An instructional design model for a specific subject under a special situation.
It defines what learners and the teacher should do with a given set of resources and tools.
Learning Theories: Explain the processes that people engage in as they make sense of information,
and how they integrate that information into their mental models so that it becomes new knowledge.
As such they provide teachers the models to develop scenarios that facilitate better learning. They also
examine what motivates people to learn.
Project-Based Learning: A technique that engages students in learning making it deep and long-
lasting.
STEAM: An educational approach that incorporates the arts into the more-familiar STEM model
(science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). STEAM programs can include any of the visual
or performing arts, such as dance, design, painting, photography, and writing.
Tinkercad: Designs can utilize motion and light by using the built-in circuit features. The virtual
circuits offer a way to learn before making it in real life. Also, built-in code blocks or custom C++
simulate circuit components.
257
APPENDIX: DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIVITIES
Setting up the Environment
Prior to the first lesson, the virtual class was set up.
Students have two options for entering the environment; signing up or joining a class throw a class
code that is assigned to each class by the system and is then announced to students.
Signing up means that everyone should create an account or should use his/her social media account.
On the other hand, joining a class is easier, just by providing a code. Moreover, teachers can access any
circuit a student of the class have constructed and even make desired changes.
The second methodology was chosen so prior the beginning of the online lessons, an account was
created on the online Tinkercad platform by registering, using the educator’s role option, in the system.
The educator’s role gave us administrative rights in our classrooms. The classroom was created declar-
ing its characteristics and the thirty-four students, that had enquired to participate in the group, were
added. Each student was able to enter the classroom by using the classroom’s code and his/her nickname
and had its own workspace which teachers could enter any time. This is an important advantage of the
platform. It gives the instructors the opportunity to online supervise the design and the corresponding
code by just clicking ‘Tinker this’ on a student’s circuit.
Basic Introductory Activities: Day1
In the very beginning the authors announced the class code and the nickname to each student, made a
brief introduction to the platform and went on to build the first circuit. Students were let get familiar
with the environment, the contents of the pallet, the way the pallet objects are used.
First Activity: A Simple Circuit
The first activity started by using a buttery and a led. Connecting the buttery to the led, without using a
resistor, ends up with a burned out led. So students had to use their previous knowledge in physics and
add the resistor in their circuits. At this point some interesting remarks were discussed:
• a led is polarized but a resistor not.

• a resistor can be connected to either the positive or to the negative part of the led
Changing the resistance of the resistor from 1pΩ to some GΩ, its colors change accordingly. In this
case one can end up with a burned out led, a led that works properly or a led that emits no light at all.
The importance of using meaningful names to our files or objects, following coloring conventions for
the wirings was stretched. A red wire is the positive part, a black the negative.
258
Second Activity: Introducing the Microcontroller
The next activity was to introduce an Arduino microcontroller component by placing it in our workspace.
This was a great opportunity to present its serial and analog ports, the 5V port and the ground port.
Students were asked to construct a circuit with a led and a resistor.
Prior to this once again the polarization of the led was stretched out. This means that the led works
properly only in case that it is connected in a certain way. Thus the positive leg, the anode, which is
longer must be wired to the Arduino’s output pin, while the sorter negative leg, the cathode, is connected
to ground, without forgetting the resistor among the connection in either part.
The process went on by examining the code that Tinkercad automatically generates. The participants
initially examined the block-based programming interface and then the C++ code that is generated ac-
cordingly. After making just a few changes to adjust the pins they had used all of the participants could
run a successful simulation and have their led blinking. As both block-based and command line C++
programming can be used interchangeably in Tinkercad it is easy for novice students to be introduced
to the C++ programming language.
In this face students were given time to experiment with the code and the wiring. A lot of them ex-
perimented mainly with the program by changing the delay parameter or even omitting it.
Having in mind a homework activity and the fact that in the future participants will deal with physi-
cal components, they were introduced to the breadboard so that the virtual circuit will assemble best to
the physical one. Students were asked to place a breadboard in their workspace and notice the implied
connections among its pins. They were asked to reproduce the previous circuit using connections and
doing their wiring through it. For some of them was a bit confusing in the beginning, but finally all of
them managed to have a well working circuit.
Finally, students were assigned a homework. They had to build a similar circuit using three leds that
would blink the one after the other simulating the traffic lights.
This activity was chosen for two reasons. Firstly, it is a good example of a problem that should be
decomposed to smaller parts. Each part has the same pattern, similar to the previous activity. It practi-
cally fits to the idea of CT.
The second reason was that in an online lesson, it is difficult for a teacher to get a proper feedback
as students hesitate to ask questions and the lack of visual contact prevents teachers from making any
conclusions. So the true purpose of the assignment was for us to make sure that our students had con-
ceived this initial introduction to electrical circuits and the programmable part of them as well as the
degree of interest that was developed.
The circuit and the corresponding code are shown in Figure 5.
More Complex Activities: Day 2
The second say started by discussing the home activity focusing on those who had minor or major dif-
ficulties in the coding. This triggered a discussion about the community of users and the assistance one
can get from the internet. Students were encouraged to use the internet for new ideas on Arduino. Actu-
ally that was going to happen later in the day. Two activities were designed for that lesson. One that was
totally explained and a second one that students had to do by seeking information on the internet, with
limited guidance and surveillance by their instructors.
259
Figure 5. The 3-Led Circuit and the corresponding code
Third Activity: The Pseudo-Analog Port and the Fading LED
Arduino has 14 digital ports numbered from 0 to 13. Some of them can output, through the technique
called PWM (Pulse Width Modulation), volt values other than 0 or 5 volts in an artificial way. In par-
ticular, the pins can output 256 different levels. This is accomplished by changing the time period that
the port outputs 0 or 5V during consecutive circles. The more time the port outputs 0V during a time
period the less bright is the led.
In this second day activity, the project to build was a LED flashing with constantly changing intensity.
The first goal was to familiarize students with the use of Arduino pseudo-analog outputs and the
concept of variable voltage leading to variable LED brightness. The program will use a repeat command
that is executed for a certain number of times, changing the value of a variable.
To do this, the so called PWM pins were initially explained. The PWM pins are marked using tildes
next to the pin number. Students were asked to use the same circuit used in the second activity by simply
choosing a pseudo-analog port.
Furthermore, they were introduced to more sophisticated programming concepts like variables and
repeating structures introducing the ‘for’ loop statement in C++ programming.
In Figure 6 we place the circuit along with the C++ code for this case.
On most Arduino microcontrollers, the PWM pins are ports ~3, ~5, ~6, ~9, ~10 and ~11 all signed
with tildes in front of the number.
The analogWrite() function uses PWM, and can take any value from 0 to 255 as a second argument.
The analog writing is implemented by calling repeatedly the function using successive values from 0 to
255 or vice versa – with a slight delay for the purpose of the human eye to perceive a continues change
in brightness.
260
Figure 6. The fading led circuit and C++ code
Fourth Activity: The Sensors
This next activity has to do with sensors. The Tinkercad’s palette is appropriate for demonstrating the
great variety of sensors available for Arduino. The authors tried, in this way, to make them familiar with
the corresponding physical devices even if we were teaching from a distance.
The HC-SR04 ultrasonic distance sensor was further used in order to construct a circuit and the
appropriate programming code. The sensor consists of an ultrasound transmitter, the ‘trig” pin, and a
receiver, the “echo” pin. The sensor emits an ultrasonic signal – a high frequency sound - and receives
the reflected sound back when it meets an obstacle. By measuring the time interval between the trans-
mission and the reception of the signal the distance of the obstacle can be calculated using some simple
calculations (speed of sound in the air * time interval / 2).
At this point students had to build the construction and the code by their own. The idea is that it
is practical impossible to teach every detail that each sensor requires. The way one works is by using
information available in the internet. The result is Figure 7.
More Complex Activities II: Day 3
Fifth Activity: The Servo Motor
In the last activity the servo motor was demonstrated, a device that rotates a plastic arm on top of it in
an angle of 0o to 180o. In order for the motor to rotate a control signal is sent through a PWM pin.
The value of the ankle is determined by the use of a potentiometer that is also attached on the board.
By rotating the potentiometer, it outputs a value between 0 and 1023 in an analog Arduino port. This
is an input for the Arduino program, which is mapped to the values 0-180. This activity introduced the
last 6 pins, pins A0 to A5, which are the Arduino Analog ports and which must be used in order to get
the analog input given by the potentiometer.
261
Figure 7. The ultrasonic sensor circuit and code
The PWM control signal is sent with the help of the Arduino corresponding Servo library and the
appropriate function included in the library. Once again, this is a good example to introduce the C/C++
header files concept.
The alternative choice to rotate the servo motor by gradually increasing or decreasing a value in the
range 0-180 and the use of a ‘for’ loop was presented. That was an opportunity to discuss once again
the ‘for’ C statement. This second simplest alternative was the day’s task. Students had to go back to
the third activity, revise the ‘for’ loop statement and write down the appropriate code (see Figure 8).
262
Figure 8. The servo motor circuit and code
Back to School: Day 4
After a long period of lock down educators and students were back to classroom giving them the op-
portunity to work using the physical device platform of Arduino. All the students were present to that
lesson, including those who hadn’t participated to the online classes.
The 34 students were divided into 10 working groups of three or four students. The classroom was
reinitialized by letting students get familiar to the microcontroller, the breadboard and all the peripheral
devices they had used in the simulation program. The three LEDS activity was chose to begin with, in
order for them to familiarize with the physical device wiring and the Arduino IDE logic. In the very
beginning some students found it difficult to adapt as wiring it seemed a little different from that they
were used on Tinkercad simulation, but fortunately they quickly get used to it. In fact some of them were
afraid of damaging the equipment. Eventually all the groups managed to complete the circuit correctly
and had a lot of fun. As this construction had been taught in Tinkercad it took no time to explain the
program. They all copied it to the IDE and had just to worry for the way it is compiled and downloaded
to the microcontroller, a pretty easy job.
The rest of the lesson went on by discussing ideas on the final construction.
Continuing with Arduino: Day 5
This fifth lesson was dedicated to the ultrasonic sensor and the servo motor. Once again the groups had to
do the circuits on the physical device, programming it on the IDE and experiment with their construction.
Our role was restricted to consult and mentor them as they had already constructed and programming
the circuits in the simulation tool. It was much easier, especially for those who had participated in the
online lessons to complete their job. It was also good for us to see that they were relieved of any fear
about damaging the equipment and could handle it easily.
Finally, the role of each group to the final construction was determined and the exact construct each
would do so that for the instructors to be prepared with the appropriate equipment for the next lesson.
263
The Final Project: Day 6
Students had decided to construct a greenhouse for their final project using multiple automations. Each
group would implement a separate task and finally all would be put together. So each team got the ap-
propriate material and equipment.
The ten sub-projects to be implemented were:
• A temperature measuring device

• A soil moisture controller
• A brightness controller
• A photovoltaic panel controller that would adjust the photovoltaic panel to the proper position
with the help of two servomotors
• An anemometer using three distance sensors
• A device measuring the amount of rain
• A device measuring the amount of CO2 in the air
• A device measuring the turbidity of the water
• A flame detector device.
• The presentation of the above results on an LCD screen.
All the groups managed to complete their subprojects in time so that to be ready for the final project.
Putting it all Together: Day 7
The day was dedicated to put all the constructions together and have the results of the measurements
displayed on the LCD screen. All the students did their best that day. Even those who hadn’t participated
to the online classes and had therefore more difficulties in their groups they contributed in the artistic part
of the construction. This is equally desired in this kind of projects and is part of the STEAM philosophy.
264
265
Chapter 13
A Sound Design and Electronic
Music Production STEAM
Course for Secondary Education
Ioannis Theocharopoulos
European School Brussels III, Belgium
ABSTRACT
In this chapter, a music-centered STEAM course implemented in the European School (Schola Europaea)
Brussels III is presented. This course, driven by constructivist conversation pedagogy, aims at students
in secondary grade and is independent of their prior involvement in music. In the Sound Design mod-
ule of the course, which is presented in detail, students explore the world of electronic, software-based
instruments through the use of software synthesizers and subtractive synthesis. Visual programming
with Max/MSP is applied for the design and implementation of basic synthesizers although dedicated
software synthesizers are also used. In this chapter, a brief overview on the composition, arrangement,
production, mastering, and development modules of the course is also provided.
INTRODUCTION
As hardware virtualization and simulation become increasingly efficient and accessible, it is possible
to emulate electronic devices within the hardware limitations of personal computers. One of the areas
where hardware emulation has become successful during the last two decades is sound design and music
production. It is now possible to assemble a virtual production studio capable of operating nearly identi-
cally to an actual studio even with common laptop multicore processors. Software cost can be controlled
even with medium budget, due to the existence of alongside free applications, while many professional
platforms offer special educational discounts. Moreover, all inclusive, subscription-based platforms, offer
integrated suites of software and sample libraries at accessible prices to anyone who seeks to develop
skills in the field. Interestingly enough, the technical learning curve seems to be manageable due to the
existence of a plethora of online learning resources that can cover almost every demand.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-3861-9.ch013

A Sound Design and Electronic Music Production STEAM Course for Secondary Education
As the accessibility threshold of sound and music production technologies reaches school level, a
STEAM course on sound design and music production can be implemented. Such a course can offer a
genuine blend of technology, science and art that can motivate students to explore, engage and take on
further challenges. Creating electronic music on software-based platforms can become a very creative
form of self-expression and can serve as an entry point to the world of art. On some occasions it can
open the gate for professional development in related areas.
MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER
As technology advances and redefines areas of human activity, it is important that at school level, STEAM
courses are designed to serve as entry points to this emerging and evolving ecosystem. With musical
sound as the central theme, the proposed course blends science, mathematics and ICT to develop intu-
ition in the world of synthetic sounds and virtual instruments of modern electronic music soundscapes.
The scope of this chapter is to propose STEAM tools that can drive the exploration and establish skills
in computational, algorithmic, physical and mathematical aspects of synthesized sound.
Issues, Controversies, Problems
The biggest issue in creating a STEAM course in synthesized sound is the amount of complexity at-
tenuation required to adapt a professional course to school level. If complexity attenuation is too high,
learning is mechanized to heuristics and rules of thumb, and students’ interest may retreat. If complexity
attenuation is limited, students might get overwhelmed and eventually abandon. Obtaining the right bal-
ance is challenging and requires proprietary tools and methodologies. Furthermore, music is generally
considered an artistic form of expression driven mainly by talent. It is really challenging to reveal the
strict mathematical, computational and physical principles that govern the generation of electronic music
and at the same time preserve its artistic character. It is also challenging to design a STEAM course that
can engage students with no musical background alongside students with experience in music.
BACKGROUND
STEAM was initially perceived as an attempt to enhance STEM with the involvement of art. According
to this viewpoint, the infusion of art can make STEM more acceptable and appealing to students but
as Bequette & Bequette (2012) point out, more interesting STEAM curricula can be developed if art
can be also seen as an end goal. As the typical music consumer transforms to a prosumer (producer +
consumer), classroom activities that focus on the production part of the music can foster both creativity
and collaboration (Clauhs et al., 2019). Student interaction with music and digital content in general
has evolved and this gives the opportunity to explore additional possibilities in student engagement
with music at the school level (Tobias, 2013), thus making the STEAM approach an additional source
of differentiation.
STEM has fueled the maker movement in education. Incorporating pedagogical strategies informed
by arts in the maker movement expands the creativity process and extends STEM projects and artifacts
(Lindberg et al., 2020). Orchestrating a balanced synergy between STEM and Arts can potentially in-
266

crease emphasis on aesthetics and creativity without sacrificing the focus on the core STEM skills. The
proposed STEAM course contributes to this direction while attempting to develop algorithmic thinking,
engineering skills, problem solving and computational thinking by designing creative interventions on
the aesthetics of synthesized sound.
STEAM Pedagogical Considerations
STEM pedagogies have been extensively explored and documented. It seems that the most favorable
pedagogies for STEM education are student-centered (Connor et al., 2015) and inquiry-based (Crippen
& Archambault, 2012). Traditional teaching does not seem to be preferable for STEM education, as
non-formal approaches seem to be more successful. Both problem-based and project-based pedagogies
are referenced as appropriate for STEM education (Fernández-Limón et al., 2018). Regarding the social
aspect of STEM pedagogy, both DIY (Do It Yourself) and DIT (Do It Together) approaches apply, al-
though Participatory Problem Solving seems to be more appropriate (Honma, 2017). Student-centered
pedagogies have been the norm for art education, so when we shift from STEM to STEAM, a common
systemic pedagogical that can lead to engaging cross disciplinary learning approach should be established.
Andreotti and Frans (2019) proposed a STEAM pedagogical model grounded in interdisciplinarity rather
than integration. Such a model combines pedagogical practices which are typical of different disciplines,
without sacrificing the individual nature of each discipline.
The characteristics of a pedagogy appropriate for a STEAM course seem to favor a) student autonomy
and empowerment, b) an interdisciplinary architecture, c) a context that provides opportunities for peer
reflection and d) an inquiry driven framework. To fulfill the above requirements, Gordon Pask’s Conversa-
tion Theory (Pask, 1976) is applied as the basis of developing a domain independent pedagogy that can
handle the complexity of an authentic STEAM course. Conversation Theory is based on the emergence
of meaning through structured interactions. According to this cybernetic theory, learning is the result
of an evolving and adaptive conversation between the participants and a learning topic or set of topics.
Conversation Theory is, in its foundation, a radical constructivist theory that favors communication
(Scott, 2001). Conversation Theory is close to the second-order cybernetic and General System Theory
approach of learning as an adaptive control function rather than a mere cognitive representation of an
external reality (Skyttner, 2005). Figure 1 presents the elements of a typical conversation. Conversation
Theory, as a cybernetic theory, is case-independent so agents 1 and 2 can be persons, groups or any other
entity capable of learning. It is also evident that this theory is symmetric in the sense that it does not give
to any participant a dominant position. Regarding the teacher-student conversation, this theory describes
a synergy where these roles alternate constantly until the common entailment mesh, or ontology is built.
Although originating from the initial steps of cybernetics, Conversation Theory is very relevant to
today’s multidimensional learning landscape where technology has extended the boundaries of learning
and has enabled machines and networks to become learning agents. According to Pask (1976), successful
learning conversations have two basic prerequisites: a) a technological facility that hosts model building
and inquiry driven tasks and b) an evolving network of concepts and representations where the explicit
knowledge of the conversation emerges during the conversation process. The technological platform is
referred to as the cognitive reflection platform and the ontology as the entailment mesh. The entailment
mesh provides the basis for establishing or extending a specific context-based communication language
L, shared between the participants during the learning process. In the proposed STEAM course, cogni-
tive reflection facilities vary according to the learning topic or module. In the sound design module,
267

for example, a set of synthesizers with evolving complexity is developed enabling students to exercise
learning conversations in the form of experiments. The entailment mesh is being constructed through
task-based activities that provide a loose guide to the students during learning conversations.
Figure 1. Learning conversation between two agents
The choice of a cybernetic – systemic approach to organize the learning effort seems appropriate in
complex learning situations met in STEM and STEAM education. As these courses are basically informal,
students have to handle a broader input in complexity and variety since multiple technologies, disciplines
and learning styles have to blend together in a productive way. Cybernetics offers a conceptual frame-
work for compensating complexity, absorbing variety and achieving operational viability (Ashby, 1956).
Pask’s Conversation Theory, being an authentic cybernetic theory is by default linked to Computational
and Algorithmic Thinking (CT and AT). Both these skills are in the core of the development of STEM
and STEAM courses and are referred to extensively in the proposed course as parts of its pedagogy. CT
refers to an integrative skill capable of combining scientific thinking with the development and imple-
mentation of computer models and simulations (Dolgopolovas, & Dagienė, 2021). AT refers to the skill
of generating the steps required to transform a specific input to a desired output (Doleck et al., 2017). In
this course, AT is required to develop processes in specific music production operations such as mixing
and mastering. Computational thinking is applied in more specific and quantitative operations such as
choosing the correct route for a signal or shaping the harmonic content of a signal.
STEAM Relevance
• Science: Physics provides the scientific basis for capturing most of the concepts and processes
involved in sound design and processing. Important concepts such as oscillators, harmonics, sig-
nal routing, loudness control, compression, frequency spectrum, saturation, phase delay, phase
cancelling, equalization, modulation, detuning, filtering, resonance, dynamic range, velocity, etc.,
require some form of reference to physics to become cognitive tools. In this context, laboratory
268

specific concepts, such as dependent, independent, controlled variables, random variation and
data modeling, become relevant. Biology and chemistry can be involved too, especially in the
sonification module of the course.
• Technology: The technological footprint of the course is multidimensional as it involves music
technology, music software, software development platforms, multimedia development platforms,
music interfacing technologies and music production and distribution technologies (Table 1).
• Engineering: Applied AT and CT, is a core element in this course. It relates to sound engineer-
ing, as well as hardware interfaces, software interfaces, signal processing, virtual instruments and
hardware engineering, including sonification interfaces.
• Art: Music provides the artistic element. The output of the course will be musical artifacts based
on virtual instruments.
• Mathematics: The mathematical requirements of the course extend in three directions. In the
first direction, the close relation of music and mathematics is used to explain the development of
scales, timing, synchronization and generation of rhythm. In the second dimension, computational
techniques such as sequences generated by random numbers and automata (simple rule systems),
are explored. In the third dimension, elementary signal processing mathematics are presented.
Table 1. The technological framework of the course
• Software synthesizers (analog, wavetable, sample-based, hybrid).

• Digital audio workstations.
• Digital recording.
Music technology
• Sequencers and composition aids.
• Loopers and samplers.
• Mixing and mastering instruments (limiters, compressors, equalizers, bus strips, etc.).
• Max/MSP.
• SuperCollider.
Software development
• Pure Data.
platforms
• Flowstone Graphical Programming.
• Arduino C.
• Arduino.
Hardware development
• Raspberry Pi.
platforms
• DIY analog synthesizer kits (e.g. MFOS DIY project).
• Microsoft Teams.
Online and collaboration
• SoundCloud.
technologies
• Various online learning resources such (e.g. Hooktheory platform).
In Figure 2 we present the course structure ontology in terms of the constituents of STEAM.
Following Pask’s Conversation Theory, each learning topic is prepared in a manner that facilitates
a constructive conversation. In this course, task-based workbooks guide students towards the construc-
tion of the entailment mesh of concepts relative to the topic, while a toolbox of selected software and
hardware tools host cognitive reflection and discussion for participants (Table 2).
269

Figure 2. Course constituents
Table 2. The workstation setup of the course
Graphical developing platform Max/MSP, Pure Data, Flowstone

Programming development SuperCollider, C++
Digital audio workstation Ableton Live by Ableton.
Embedded software synthesizer PG-8X by ML-VST.
VST mastering plugins Free FX bundles by Melda Production.
Recording and sample processing software Audacity open-source platform.
Modular synthesizer Voltage by Cherry audio, VCV rack
Software analog synthesizer Sylenth1 by Lennar Digital.
External midi keyboard 49-key midi controllers.
Live recording device PCM digital recording device.
Monitoring headphones Open monitoring headphones.
The course is divided in two parts. The first part contains the core modules of the course (Table 3),
namely sound design, composition, mixing and producing, while the second part contains the develop-
ment modules (Table 4). The core modules lead to the production of musical artifacts of variable length
270

and complexity. The course favors embedded ambient music but students are free to explore other genres.
The scope of the developer modules is to introduce pathways to sound design and music production
from a developer’s perspective. We have made every effort to incorporate a professional’s viewpoint
throughout the course so that the students can explore potential careers in the fields. Creating a bond
with the professional space can be considered a good practice in STEAM and STEM courses.
Table 3. Core modules of the course
Topic Indicative Entailment Mesh Concepts Cognitive Reflection Options

• Traditional instruments as mechanical sound computers.
• The virtual instrument as a sound computer.
• Oscillator as banks of harmonics.
• Harmonics as elements of timbre.
• Visual music computation languages.
• Time envelope as a tool for describing the time behavior of an
• Analog software synthesizers.
Sound design instrument.
• Midi controllers.
• Modulation and variation as tools for inducing realism to a sound.
• Oscilloscopes – spectrum analyzers.
• Synthesizers as signal processors.
• Virtual instruments.
• Subtractive synthesis
• Sampled instruments and sample libraries.
• Basic music theory on harmony (scales, chord progressions and
melodies).
• Basic music theory on time (tempo, rhythm synchronicity).
Educational or free versions of popular
Composition • Basic structure of embedded music.
DAWs.
• Digital Audio Workstations.
• Midi files and piano rolls.
• Individual musical elements (sessions).
• Arrangement in the time dimension (narration of the musical piece).
• Arrangement in the frequency dimension (distributing frequency
bands to different instruments).
• Free and open-source production and
• Arrangement in the dynamic range or loudness dimension (Shaping
mixing utilities (Plugins or VSTs).
Mixing the amplitude of the instruments).
• Native DAW mixing utilities.
• Channel compression.
• Predefined construction kits.
• Channel equalization.
• Channel saturation.
• Channel automation.
• Homogenizing sound, adding effects and creating the final sound
stage.
• Reverb.
• Free and open-source production
• Delay.
Mastering utilities.
• Compression.
• Native DAW production utilities.
• Stereo image.
• Phase cancelations.
• Loudness and dynamic range.
THE SOUND DESIGN MODULE
Sound design refers to the numerical synthesis of virtual instruments with a specified sonic character that
can be used in orchestrating electronic music. Students are required to combine concepts from physics,
mathematics, music and ICT and develop the required computational skills for the effective programming
of a software or hardware synthesizer. Musical theory requirements include very basic concepts such as
271

notes and octaves. Some basic knowledge of harmony can help students explore the sonic characteristics
of the virtual instruments they design.
Table 4. Development modules of the course
Topic Indicative Entailment Mesh Concepts Tools for Cognitive Reflection

• Recording instrument sessions.
• Combining recorded sessions with virtual midi driven
instruments. • Audacity.
Recording • Voice shaping. • Educational versions of commercial
• Denoising. recording platforms
• Phase difference issues.
• Stereophonic image.
•Interfacing with external sensors through Arduino,
Raspberry pi or proprietary electronics. • Arduino C.
Sonification
• “Listening” to temperature, pressure and subatomic • Raspberry pi Python.
particles.
• Fourier analysis.
Mathematics of sound • Wolfram Alpha.
• Filters.
processing • Python SciPy.
• Digital Sound Processing.
• Oscillators.
DIY kits offer the opportunity to create
• Filters.
Hardware synthesizers synthesizers by composing the essential parts
• ADSR modules.
presented in the core module of the course.
• LFO modules.
Graphical development • Flowstone. Respective SDKs (Software Development
platforms • Pure Data. Kits).
VST programming • C++ .
Respective SDKs.
development • SuperCollider.
• Distribution and streaming platforms.
• Loudness shaping for maximum compatibility.
Production and
• Distribution formats MP3, WAV etc. Popular platforms such as SoundCloud.
distribution
• Sampling.
• Dithering.
• Combining music with sound effects.
Multimedia productions Max/MSP.
• Driving music with visual elements.
Ontology of the Sound Design Module
During the ignition of the learning conversations, a protolanguage Lp (Pask, 1984) must be constructed
in the form of an ontology, to ensure an alignment of the participants’ prior concepts. For example, in
this module the output of a synthesizer is referred to as a “virtual instrument”. In many online resources
the outputs created by the synthesizers are referred to as a “sounds” or “presets”, “patches” or even
“samples”. To avoid conflict, a common language should be established.
Students that can play a musical instrument have a physical perception of the concept of an instru-
ment, which might deviate considerably from the computational definition required in the course. In the
course for example, a guitar computes and generates a set of predefined harmonics in a mathematical
sequence. This can be unfamiliar to the common perception of a guitar as an instrument for making
music. In Figure 3 we have the basic ontology for sound design.
272

Figure 3. Ontology of sound design
In this protolanguage, we define an instrument as a computational device for musical sounds and the
synthesizer as a form of a Turing universal constructor of instruments. In our ontology, a typical tradi-
tional instrument is seen as a mechanical computer that generates sound with specific attributes when
a computational sequence is activated. This sequence is actually embedded in the instrument by design
and is implemented by the musician. Since there is no universal mechanical instrument constructor, i.e. a
unique mechanical device that can construct the sound signature of any mechanical instrument, we need
to have a variety of dedicated mechanical instruments. In Figure 4, we see the taxonomy of mechani-
cal instruments that are encountered in traditional soundscapes. Virtual instruments extend the class of
mechanical instruments to include software instruments created by a universal constructor, defined, in
our case, as a synthesizer capable of subtractive synthesis. Having established a common level of com-
munication, the protolanguage Lp will be extended and enriched as the course evolves. To indicate this,
ontologies throughout the presentation of the course are proposed.
The Simple Sine Wave Oscillator
In an attempt to focus on the computational, mathematical, scientific and algorithmic aspects of sound
design, a scaffolding approach is used. Using Max/MSP visual object-oriented programming language,
a series of synthesizers with gradually increasing functionality are created, thus enabling the students
to explore more complex aspects of synthesized sound. Used in professional and learning context, Max/
MSP is an integrated environment for exploring the principles of sound synthesis. In this chapter, the
Max 8 platform by Cycling ’74 will be the platform to utilize Max/MSP.
The “Hello World” Synthesizer
The preliminary concept in the sound design module is that of a sine wave oscillator for generating the
note frequencies. Students can change the frequency of the sine oscillator and simultaneously obtain
audio and visual feedback in an oscilloscope and a spectrum analyzer. In the spectrum analyzer, both
linear and logarithmic scales are used, so that the students can observe differences in the visualization
of the amplitude of the signal. As the course evolves, the linear scale will be eliminated and only rela-
273

tive logarithmic amplitudes will be presented. As a controller for the oscillator, students can use either
a midi keyboard that triggers predefined notes or a direct frequency input.
Figure 4. Classification of mechanical instruments
Having established a way to create notes the next step is that of creating timbre. To do this, the notions
of odd and even harmonics of a note and the physical process of interference have to be introduced. In
a computational level we add a number of identical oscillators that will generate note harmonics. Each
oscillator is equipped with a multiplier so we can create harmonics in different octaves. By superpos-
ing the signals of the tone to the signals of the harmonics, the students can experiment with timbre and
create their first primitive virtual instruments. In Figure 5, we have the interface of the “Hello world”
synthesizer. This synthesizer is programmed in Max/MSP and is the initial platform for exploring pitch
and timbre. Students can create variations of this proto-synthesizer or even program their own. In Table
6, some sample activities on the “Hello world” synthesizer are exhibited. In all the proposed activities,
the pedagogical value is indicated in the description: CT=Computational Thinking, AT= Algorithmic
Thinking, ST= Scientific Thinking, MT=Mathematical Thinking.
274

Figure 5. The “Hello world” synthesizer
Table 5. Indicative tasks for the “Hello world” synthesizer
Description Remarks
Establish a pattern that combines the change of frequency The period of the sound gets shorter as the frequency
Task 1
and the corresponding change in waveform (ST). increases.
Establish a pattern that combines the change of oscillator
The tone shifts to the right of the spectrum analyzer as the
Task 2 frequency and the change observed in the spectrum analyzer
frequency increases.
(ST, MT).
Establish a pattern for the change of oscillator amplitude and
The change of amplitude is evident as change of height in
Task 3 the output in the oscilloscope and spectrum analyzer (ST,
both the oscilloscope and the spectrum analyzer.
MT).
Generate the frequencies of the notes in the 220-440 Hz scale
using the equal temperament tuning mathematical formula Students can explore other possibilities by changing the
(MT, AT): mathematical formula. They can input the frequencies
Task 4
1 directly. They can even create buttons and get a sense of
f n = 220 ⋅ (212 )n , n = 0 …11 tuning algorithms.
A set of tuning forks can be used. Tuning forks are

Compare the pitch of the notes created virtually to the pitch
Task 5 mechanical instruments that create pure sine wave
of the notes generated physically (ST).
oscillations.
Use the virtual midi keyboard as an alternative to buttons The virtual keyboard generates MIDI signals that drive
Task 6
(CT). the oscillators.
Students should verify through the spectrum display that
Task 7 Generate the odd harmonics of a note (AT). the both the square and the triangle waveforms generate
odd harmonics.
Explore the harmonic content of a complex waveform (CT, Students should be able to relate changes in waveform to
Task 8
AT, MT). changes in the frequency spectrum.
275

Creating Harmonic Content: Τhe Basic Oscillators
The “Hello World 2” Synthesizer
Next, the triangle, saw and square generators will be introduced as banks of harmonic content (Figure 5).
A mathematical representation of the whole process as a Fourier analysis can be presented as an option
to students that have been taught mathematical series. The initial “Hello world” synthesizer is modified
by adding three additional oscillators (Figure 6) to create the “Hello world 2” synthesizer (Figure 7).
Students can experiment with the harmonic content of the different oscillators. Mixing oscillator
signals results in mixing the harmonic content in a controlled manner (Table 6).
Figure 6. Classification of different types of oscillators based on their harmonic content
Sculpting the Harmonic Content: Filters
With the use of a filter, the harmonic content of a signal is shaped in an attempt to further modify timbre
and sonic character. The notion of the filter is extremely important and will be present in any future
sound design attempt. The term subtractive synthesis in analog software synthesizers indicates the use
of filters to subtract harmonics from the total harmonic content of a signal created in the superposition
276

stage. Subtractive synthesis in a way resembles sculpting as the raw sonic content is transformed to the
desired output (Figure 9).
Figure 7. Ontology of the “Hello world 2” synthesizer
Table 6. Indicative tasks for the “Hello world 2” synthesizer
Description Remarks
Visualize the sine wave signal and its harmonic Figure 8 Sine waveform and harmonic content. Students should
Task 1
content (MT, AT). observe the single note.
Visualize the triangle signal and its harmonic Figure 8 Triangle waveform and harmonic content. Students should
Task 2
content (MT, AT). observe that this oscillator generates harmonics alongside the note.
Figure 8 Square waveform and harmonic content. Students should
Visualize the square signal and its harmonic
Task 3 observe that both the square and the triangle have the same harmonic
content (MT, CT).
content but in different amplitude.
Visualize the saw signal and its harmonic content Figure 8 Saw waveform and harmonic content. Students should
Task 4
(MT, CT). observe the existence of the even harmonics.
Identify the difference in logarithmic and linear In the linear scale only the tone harmonic is visible whereas in the
Task 5
scale in the frequency analyzer (MT). logarithmic scale most of the harmonics are visible.
The “Hello world 3” synthesizer has a low pass and a high pass filter for each oscillator (Figure 10).
Apart from observing the change in the waveform and harmonic content in each oscillator as in the pre-
vious editions of the synthesizer, in this edition we can observe the form of the final signal that reaches
the DAC. In this edition, a white noise generator is also added.
277

Figure 8. Waveforms and harmonic content for tasks 1,2,3 and 4
Figure 9. Ontology of a filter
278

Figure 10. Interface of the “Hello world 3” synthesizer
Students can design experiments to create a correlation between sound patterns and filter parameters.
They can observe changes in both the waveform and the harmonic content during the manipulations of
the filters (Table 7).
Event Time Shaping: The Time Envelope
Synthesizers should be able to create virtual instruments with a variety of time behavior. Every synthe-
sizer has a versatile tool to handle time shaping. This is the ADSR time envelope tool (Figure 12). The
ADSR time envelope is constructed by three time parameters: Attack, Decay and Release, and one level
parameter, Sustain. After having decided on the Sustain, that is the loudness level of the signal when
the key is pressed, we can decide on the time it takes to reach maximum loudness (Attack) once the
key is pressed, the time to reach sustain loudness (Decay) and the time it takes to reach zero loudness
once the key is released (Release). ADSR envelopes are used in various stages in a typical synthesizer
to shape time behavior. ADSR envelopes can be further used, for example, to control the application of
a filter on a signal.
279

Table 7: Indicative tasks on filters for the “Hello world 3” synthesizer
Description Remarks
There is no evident effect as the signal has very little
Explore the effect of changing the cutoff frequency in a harmonic content (internally generated by the oscillator) apart
Task 1
pure sine wave signal (ST, MT). from the note. Applying cutoff frequency equal to the sine
frequency cancels the signal.
Explore the effect of continuously changing the cutoff Students can recognize one of the basic ways to create tension
Task 2
frequency in a triangle signal (ST, MT). in modern music.
Explore the effect of continuously changing the cutoff The waveform loses and gains harmonics. As a result, the
Task 3
frequency in a square signal (ST, MT). timbre changes.
The sound shifts to the note waveform so all oscillators sound
Explore the application of a cutoff frequency in the high
alike. Students should be able to derive that if the timbre
Task 4 pass filter close to the frequency of the note in the saw,
harmonics are eliminated all instruments sound the same in
triangle and square oscillator (ST MT).
the same note.
Observe the white noise generator. Propose a Superposition of the sine wave signals of the complete
Task 5
methodology to generate noise (CT, AT). spectrum in equal intensity.
Use the noise generator. Explain why all notes in the midi Students should observe the lack of a dominant frequency in
Task 6
keyboard sound the same (CT). white noise.
Students should observe and describe changes, for example,
Task 7 Explore the effect of a filter on the noise oscillator (ST).
before and after applying a high pass filter (Figure 11).
Figure 11. Effect of a high pass filter on the noise signal
Figure 12. Ontology and interface of a time envelope
280

In this version of the experimental synthesizer, an ADSR module is added. In this stage, the monophonic
synthesizer starts to produce interesting sounds as the basic elements work together: multiple oscillators
that provide the raw harmonic content, filters that sculpt this content to create timbre and ADSR enve-
lopes that control the time behavior of trigger events such as midi key presses. Creating an intuition of
how the time envelope shapes the triggered midi events is very important in any type of sound synthesis.
Table 8 exhibits some sample tasks to assist this.
Description Remarks
Students can use the noise oscillator and high values of Attack
Task 1 Create a sea wave effect (ST, AT).
and Release.
Task 2 Create a clicking tone (AT). Students can use any oscillator with zero Attack and Release.
Create a natural keystroke to resemble a piano pluck
Task 3 Students adjust the ADSR parameters accordingly.
(AT).
Observe the waveform of the signal and register the effect For example, fast release compared to slow release (Figure
Task 4
of each ADSR parameter on the signal (ST, MT) 13).
Students should be able to distinguish the two fundamental
Does the ADSR envelope affect the harmonic content?
Task 5 and independent dimensions in sound design, time dimension
Create an experiment to find out (ST).
and frequency dimension.
Create your first instrument, for example, a background Students can now use all the parameters developed so far to
Task 6
sustain instrument (AT, CT). create an instrument.
Figure 13. Fast release compared to slow release on the same waveform
281

Making Virtual Instruments More Realistic: Adding

Modulation With the Low Frequency Oscillator (LFO)
In this step, a source of auxiliary modulation will be added to the filter cutoff frequency and waveform
amplitude in an attempt to add variation to the virtual instruments’ sound. In more advanced modulation
options, we can have internal signals modulating other internal signals which can create very interesting
effects. We can even generate feedback effects with signals affecting the parameters of the same signal
giving us unlimited possibilities for variation. The module responsible to create variation is the LFO
(Low Frequency Oscillator) module that adds sinusoidal time modulation to sound parameters. This type
of modulation infuses realism and novelty to the generated sound. The LFO frequency usually is in the
range 0.1 to 10 Hz, but it can be adjusted accordingly. Higher frequency LFO oscillation can alter note
pitch, an interesting aspect for students to explore.
The “Hello World 5” is the final version of this monophonic exploratory synthesizer (Figure 14). The
two LFO oscillators emulate volume and timbre variations of an instrument. Adding these imperfec-
tions in the sound makes it more natural and interesting. In this synthesizer, the LFO waveforms are
sinusoidal but other waveforms, such as square and triangular, can be explored (Figure 15). In this part,
students can create more complex instruments using the offered degrees of freedom (Table 9). They
are also encouraged to compensate complexity by representing instruments as mathematical matrices.
Figure 14. Ontology of the “Hello world 5” synthesizer
282

Description Remarks
Explore the effect of the LFO on the volume of the
Task 1 master signal. Observe the outcome in the oscilloscope Variations in the amplitude should be observed.
and frequency analyzer (ST, MT).
Explore the effect of the LFO on the cutoff frequency
Task 2 of the master signal. Observe the outcome in the Variations in the time domain should be observed.
oscilloscope and frequency analyzer (ST, MT).
This instrument has a slow Attack but a fast Release. A
Task 3 Emulate a flute with tremolo (CT, AT).
relatively fast volume LFO should be chosen.
Create an instrument using all the sound design
Students should be able to select the key numerical
Task 4 parameters applied so far and encode it as a mathematical
values that can reproduce this instrument.
list (CT, AT, MT).
The “Low” aspect is important in this part. Students
Explore an effective range in frequency for the LFO
Task 5 should observe that if the frequency is too high, then it
oscillator (ST).
interferes with the note frequency.
Figure 15. Interface of the finalized synthesizer
283

Extending the Basic Synthesizer: Modular Synthesis
Setting up the Voltage Modular Synthesizer
In this part of the sound design course, students learn to identify the basic modules or building blocks
(Oscillators, Filters, Time Envelopes, Amplifiers and LFOs) in real and virtual synthesizer. Students
are introduced to the virtual rack where discrete modules can be arranged in a manner that can give
the desired sound output. Students are encouraged to predict the outcome of specific arrangements of
modules. Cherry Audio’s Voltage synthesizer is a modular synthesizer that can train students in a very
realistic virtual environment. Students can choose modules from the software library and combine them.
Although this synthesizer can function as a standalone synthesizer without the need for a host, it can be
embedded it in the Max/MSP platform to generate constant optical feedback of the output, similar to
the one in the “Hello world” synthesizers (Figure 16).
Figure 16. Voltage modular VST embedded in Max/MSP
There are a lot of creative tasks that can be implemented with a modular synthesizer. At this point
the recreation of the “Hello world” series of synthesizers in a modular design could be attempted as a
way to establish Algorithmic Thinking in engaging to virtual instrument design (Table 10).
The Real World: Third Party Synthesizers
In this step, students are introduced to the complexity of standalone virtual subtractive synthesizers.
As software developers uses different interfaces, it is important for students to be able to identify the
computational modules of any synthesizer and be able to organize successful workflows that generate
virtual instruments.
284

Table 10. Indicative tasks for the modular synthesizer
Description Remarks
Students should route the signal of the LFO to the
Task 1 Visualize an LFO waveform (AT, CT).
oscilloscope.
Use an LFO to modulate another LFO – what do you observe? In this double loop thinking task students should be
Task 2
(AT, CT). able to predict the sound output.
Students should be able to observe the changes in wave
Task 3 Use an LFO to modulate volume in a square signal (AT, CT).
amplitude.
Students are given a predefined signal and are asked to create a This tasked requires the capability of reverse
Task 4
sequence of modules that can generate the signal (AT, CT). engineering.
Students should decompose Hello World 2 into its
Redesign the Hello World 2 synthesizer in the modular
Task 5 components, select the corresponding modules and
platform.
finally arrange them in the correct sequence.
Τhe PG-8X Synthesizer
This hardware emulator synthesizer can be embedded in the Max/MSP platform so that a midi keyboard
can be attached and the generated signal can be monitored through both an oscilloscope and a spectrum
analyzer (Figure 17). This synthesizer is of moderate complexity and is ideal for exploration and ap-
plication of the preceding subtractive synthesis algorithms.
Figure 17. PG-8X synthesizer VST embedded in Max/MSP
The Sylenth 1 Synthesizer
In this step, students are introduced to the complexity of a professional virtual subtractive synthesizer.
Sylenth 1 by Lennar Digital (Figure 18) is a versatile, yet simple to use, professional virtual multi-
voice subtractive synthesizer. This synthesizer has five functional modules, the amplifier module, the
additive module featuring four independent oscillators, the subtractive module for sound shaping, the
285

modulation module for adding variation to the instruments and the effect rack, in which post processing
of the sound is achieved in both space (reverb) and time (delay) dimensions.
In this stage students can design more complex virtual instruments. They can even emulate real in-
struments or recreate signature genre specific sounds, for example, ambient cinematic pads.
Figure 18. Modular structure of the Sylenth 1 software synthesizer
Designing and Implementing Virtual Instruments
In Figure 19 the taxonomy of the most frequent instruments found in electronic music can be seen,
especially in the genre of ambient music on which we will focus at this point.
In Figure 20, an example of the basic parametric structure of a generic instrument organized in a data
table is exhibited. In this manner, focus is given on both the computation and the algorithmic structure
of a virtual instrument. Students can exchange instruments between them, not on the basis of software
presets but on the basis of parameters. We can also give students predefined tables to try. Sylenth 1 has
an information window that displays the values of each parameter so we can incorporate them in the
table. Other synthesizers can be used and similar mathematical values can be extracted in various ways.
The representation of an instrument in both the mathematical and the physical space can give valuable
insight to organizing sound. In this part of the course students can create a library of virtual instruments
that will be used in the next module, the composition module. Students can also create emulations of
traditional instruments.
286

Figure 19. Taxonomy of virtual instruments for electronic music
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A Brief Overview on the Sound Design and

Electronic Music Production Course
The full Sound Design and Electronic Music Production course was developed over a timeframe of two
years in parallel with its application. Twenty-three students were enrolled, 12 of which completed at
least one full module (Table 11). The integrated course with all the modules requires about 120 class
periods. During development, student reactions and needs were closely monitored and the course was
constantly and continuously optimized to meet the pedagogical expectations. Furthermore, there was a
constant attempt to improve the value proposition of the course so that it could appeal to future students.
More experienced students typically start from the sound design topic to gain an insight of how things
work in the music production sector. Students who have a background in music or can play an instrument
prefer to start from the composition module. Students who have experience in music production may
want to start exploring advanced topics such as modular and hybrid synthesis or Frequency Modulation
synthesis. Students with a developer mentality would like to try visual programming or even using the
C++ SDKs. Students with a tendency towards exploring hardware favor the sonification topic. Some
students just want to explore sound technology out of curiosity without ever engaging in a learning
conversation, while others who have decided to follow a related career want to invest in the knowledge
provided. The mean time invested by the students was about 20 periods. Eleven of the students preferred
to get an overview of as many modules as possible and did not finalize any module while the rest final-
ized at least one module. Mixing and mastering were the most popular modules but sound design had
the most completed modules.
287

Figure 20. Data representation of a virtual instrument
288

Table 11. Student engagement in a period of two school years, X=full participation in the module,
x=partial participation in the module. Capital letter in students indicates prior involvement in music
Age Group 11-14 15-16 17-18
Class Group S1-S3 S4-S5 S6-S7
Student A b C d E a B c D e F g h i a B c D e F g h I
Sound design x x X X X X X X x
Composition x x X X X X x x x X x
Modules
Mixing x x x x x X x x x X x
Mastering x x X x x x x x
Development x X x x x
Results and Discussion on the Sound Design Module
The sound design module presented in this chapter represents 20% of the course duration. The basic scope
of the sound design module is to help students create a mathematical, ontological and object-oriented
computational representation of the virtual instrument, which is the central concept in electronic music.
The expected output requires students to be in position to: a) analyze an electronic instrument in three
dimensions, i.e. harmonic content, time envelope and time variation, b) construct an instrument using a
computational-mathematical ontology (filters, ADSR, LFO), c) establish connection between the wave-
form and frequency profile of a signal and its sound content, d) give physical explanations to functions
like filters and time envelopes and e) realize musical harmony as a sequence of predefined frequencies,
the superposition of which creates pleasing soundscapes for the listener. Nine students enrolled in the
sound design module, 5 of which had a prior knowledge of music and could play an instrument and 4
had no prior experience in music other than the basic musical education provided by the school. Six
of the students finalized the course and 3 students decided to move to other modules after completing
about 50% of the course.
In the inaugural meeting students were interviewed to identify cognitive differences relative to the
course between those that were already engaged in music the ones with no experience. No significant
difference was found as most of the students lacked a defined ontological model for the musical instru-
ment. For example, when students were presented with the sound of a flute and the sound of a guitar
in the same note, they were able to identify the different instruments but were generally unable to de-
scribe the difference in the sound signature in an operational manner. After the course they were able
to attribute the differences in computational terms like attack time, sustain level, harmonic content and
amplitude variation and were able to describe the sound of a flute as having long attack, high sustain
and short release as opposed to the short attack, short sustain and long release of the guitar. They could
also attribute the sound signature to the harmonic content as the unique hardware construction of the
instruments acted as a filter.
The course was implemented in an asynchronous manner at the school’s STEM Lab, available to the
students during predefined periods each school day. Participation time varied between 1 and 2 periods
per week. Due to hardware and software limitations, only 5 seats were available simultaneously. No
specific teaching time was allocated but the students had access to support if they needed it. Instruc-
tion was based on workbooks with tasks and experiments as mentioned in the preceded paragraphs. To
289

induce continuity, each student was provided with a folder where all the concluded worksheets were
kept. In this manner, even if participation is fragmented, the sense of consistency is preserved. When the
course was finalized and all the worksheets were concluded, the students had the option to get a course
certificate. Prior to the certificate, an “exit ticket” was required in the form of a competency test. In this
test, students were asked to analyze the instruments heard in an electronic musical abstract and recreate
them using a software synthesizer.
It is more than evident that the key success factor in a STEAM course like this is student engage-
ment and consistent participation on a voluntary base. The sound design course is allocated for the first
semester which covers six months, from September to February. Vacations, examination weeks and
breaks leave a period of 16 weeks of attendance. The measured time required for completing the course
in the STEM lab varies from a minimum of 10 periods to a maximum of 24. The basic factor that af-
fects this time is student engagement at home. Some students continue to work at home on their own
projects. To be able to establish reliable metrics for the evolution of the course and ensure a minimum
of in situ presence, the students of this first cohort were not given the worksheets in advance. All the
course work had to be implemented in situ. Any unfinished workbooks were left in the STEM lab. In
total, 8 workbooks were given to the students with tasks similar to the ones described in the preceding
paragraphs. New workbooks were provided only if the previous ones were successfully completed. In
Table 12 a comprehensive output of the course relative to the pedagogy applied is presented.
Upon completing the sound design module, the students were given one final task, that of the evaluation
of the conversation pedagogy of the course and its impact on their pursuit of skills in electronic music.
The scope of the evaluation is to adjust the pedagogy accordingly. The evaluation task was in the form
of 5 open questions, intended to reveal their thoughts in aspects of the pedagogy. The questions were:
1. Indicate differences of the course in comparison to online tutorials you have watched for the same
topics.
2. Indicate the list of the key concepts you encountered in the course.
3. Which of the topics of the course do you intend to explore further? (Visual programming, algo-
rithmic and mathematical structure of sound and music, filters, effects, etc.)
4. Which topics in sound design would you include in future versions of the course? (Samples, wa-
vetables, signal processing algorithms, etc.)
5. How would you further enhance the exploration experience offered by the course?
Based on the final evaluation task, the overall perception of the course conversation pedagogy was
positive. Students indicated the key differences in regard to tutorials offered online on the same topics
as being in terminology cohesiveness (entailment mesh), extended experimentation and instant visual
and audio feedback (cognitive reflection) and scientific-mathematical structure. The overall feeling was
that as they were exploring the mechanics of sound, they were establishing a functional vocabulary and a
case independent set of analytical and computational skills. When asked to, students were able to rebuild
the entailment mesh at a 60-70% of the 50+ concepts involved. Students felt that they should further
explore the use of filters and frequency modulation and that samples should be included in future versions
along with hardware synthesizers. They also felt that the reusability of the resources was one of the main
advantages of on-line tutorials when compared to the offered STEAM course. Most of the students felt
that visual signal programming was interesting, but did not intend to develop further in the near future,
290

although they found the algorithmic-mathematical aspect of music highly motivating and stimulating
and were eager to see the insight they gained at work in chord progression, rhythm and melody design.
Table 12. Comprehensive output of the course
Basic Analog and

Banks of
elements of modular
harmonics: Subtractive Event
synthesis: Variations: synthesizers:
Learning Sawtooth synthesis: response:
Notes, Frequency and Signal
conversation topics triangle Filters, noise ADSR, time
harmonics, amplitude LFO. routing,
and square generator. envelope.
virtual virtual
waveforms.
instruments. instruments.
Allocated periods 2-3 2-3 1-2 2-3 1-2 3-5
Analog and
Cognitive reflection Hello world Hello world 2 Hello world 3 Hello world 4 Hello world 5 modular
platform synthesizer synthesizer synthesizer synthesizer synthesizer software
synthesizers
Computational
thinking. Describe the Distinguish
Mix signals Shape the Realize an
Sound as a basic signal Modify the time volume and
to generate harmonic instrument
process. routing in dimension of a frequency
a predefined content of a as a signal
Focus is given on the simple signal. parameters in a
signal. complex signal. computer.
the route of the synthesizer. note frequency.
signal.
Algorithmic
thinking.
Sound as Design a
Describe the Construct
workflow. Create a note Emulate a real Define the type sequence
steps to acquire a generic
Focus is on sequence instrument by of filter required to emulate
a specific time workflow for
workflow for following an mixing wave to synthesize a frequency drifts
behavior of an creating an
synthesizing algorithm. oscillators. specific sound. and volume
instrument. instrument.
sound with variations.
specific
parameters.
Milestones
Mathematical
thinking.
Establish a Describe a Describe the
Sound as data. Realize the
numerical frequency mathematical Differentiate the Define and
Focus is on mathematical
connection distribution function of frequency of an describe an
describing function of the
between graph - analog a filter in LFO oscillator to instrument as a
the numerical ADSR time
waveform and and logarithmic reducing that of a note. data structure.
properties of parameters.
frequency. graphs. harmonics.
the synthesized
signal.
Scientific
Establish a
thinking. Establish the
connection Create timbre Describe the
Sound as concept of Establish the Classify an
between by manipulating time signature
a physical superposition of concepts of electronic
waveform, filters. Describe of common
phenomenon. signals. Explain Amplitude instrument
pitch and white noise as sounds with
Focus is on the physical and Frequency based on
volume. the equivalent the ADSR
describing difference variation in the physical
Define a of white light terminology, for
the physical of the note terms of physical properties of
difference in the sound example, sound
properties of the compared to its properties. its sound.
in pitch and domain. of a sea wave.
sound content of harmonics.
frequency.
a signal.
291

Based on the Sound Design module of the Electronic Music Production course presented in this chapter
some interesting research directions can be proposed.
• Direction One: Visual programming can be further explored. In this course, visual programming
proved very capable at introducing complex concepts.
• Direction Two: Cybernetic principles such as complexity compensation, emergence and evolu-
tion can be explored in a STEAM context.
• Direction Three: A similar STEAM course in video editing and multimedia can be implemented.
Max/MSP can support sound and video integration.
• Direction Four: STEAM courses and their capability to explore future careers that combine art
and technology can be further developed.
• Direction Five: STEAM courses as spinoffs of professional multimedia courses can be further
explored. This might include courses on video editing, photography, sound and light staging and
VR visual experiences.
CONCLUSION
A STEAM course for Sound Design and Electronic Music Production can appeal to students who want
a connection with music, either as a means for expression or a way for generating embedded content.
Students who create digital content or students who are considering careers in sound engineering or rel-
evant subjects are quite likely to become involved. Conversation-based constructivist approaches seem to
be capable to drive learning in a diverse and multipurpose course as the one provided. Max/MSP visual
programming environment can be a good choice as it proved to be capable for designing environments
that reveal the physical and mathematical structure of synthetic sounds, providing a firm passage to
dedicated software and hardware synthesizers. The complexity of sound design offers an opportunity for
simultaneous development of the fundamental technology related skills. Computational and algorithmic
thinking are promoted throughout the course as students need to explore sound in many dimensions to
capture the essence of sound design. The results were very promising as many of the capabilities set as
milestones were met by the students that fulfilled the course.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I wish to thank my colleagues Malcolm Parry and George Kambouroglou for their valuable insight in
blending Music with Physics.
REFERENCES
Andreotti, E., & Frans, R. (2019). The connection between physics, engineering and music as an example
of STEAM education. Physics Education, 54(4), 045016. doi:10.1088/1361-6552/ab246a
292

Ashby, R. W. (1956). An introduction to Cybernetics. John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.5962/bhl.title.5851

Bequette, J. W., & Bequette, M. B. (2012). A Place for Art and Design Education in the STEM Conver-
sation. Art Education, 65(2), 40–47. doi:10.1080/00043125.2012.11519167
Clauhs, M., Franco, B., & Cremata, R. (2019). Mixing It Up: Sound Recording and Music Production
in School Music Programs. Music Educators Journal, 106(1), 55–63. doi:10.1177/0027432119856085
Connor, A. M., Karmokar, S., & Whittington, C. (2015). From STEM to STEAM: Strategies for En-
hancing Engineering & Technology Education. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 5(2),
37–47. doi:10.3991/ijep.v5i2.4458
Crippen, K. J., & Archambault, L. (2012). Scaffolded Inquiry-Based Instruction with Technology: A
Signature Pedagogy for STEM Education. Computers in the Schools, 29(1–2), 157–173. doi:10.1080/
07380569.2012.658733
Doleck, T., Bazelais, P., Lemay, D. J., Saxena, A., & Basnet, R. B. (2017). Algorithmic thinking, coop-
erativity, creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving: Exploring the relationship between compu-
tational thinking skills and academic performance. Journal of Computers in Education, 4(4), 355–369.
doi:10.100740692-017-0090-9
Dolgopolovas, V., & Dagienė, V. (2021). Computational thinking: Enhancing STEAM and engineer-
ing education, from theory to practice. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 5–11.
doi:10.1002/cae.22382
Fernández-Limón, C., Fernández-Cárdenas, J. M., & Gómez Galindo, A. A. (2018). The role of non-
formal contexts in teacher education for STEM: The case of horno3 science and technology interactive
centre. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(1), 71–89. doi:10.1080/02607476.2018.1422623
Honma, T. (2017). Advancing Alternative Pathways to Science: Community Partnership, Do-It-Yourself
(DIY)/Do-It-Together (DIT) Collaboration, and STEM Learning “from Below.”. Transformations: The
Journal of Inclusive Scholarship and Pedagogy, 27(1), 41–50. doi:10.1353/tnf.2017.0004
Lindberg, L., Fields, D. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2020). STEAM Maker Education: Conceal/Reveal of Per-
sonal, Artistic and Computational Dimensions in High School Student Projects. Frontiers in Education,
5. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/feduc.2020.00051
Pask, G. (1976). Conversation Theory: Applications in Education and Epistemology. Elsevier Science.
Pask, G. (1984). Review of conversation theory and a protologic (or protolanguage), Lp. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 32(1), 3–40. doi:10.1007/BF02768767
Scott, B. (2001). Gordon Pask’s Conversation Theory: A Domain Independent Constructivist Model of
Human Knowing. Foundations of Science, 6(4), 343–360. doi:10.1023/A:1011667022540
Skyttner, L. (2006). General Systems Theory: Problems, Perspectives, Practice (2nd ed.). World Sci-
entific. doi:10.1142/5871
Tobias, E. S. (2013). Toward Convergence: Adapting Music Education to Contemporary Society and
Participatory Culture. Music Educators Journal, 99(4), 29–36. doi:10.1177/0027432113483318
293

ADDITIONAL READING
Cipriani, A., & Giri, M. (2010). Electronic Music and Sound Design—Theory and Practice with Max/
MSP (Vol. 1). Contemponet.
Farnell, A. (2010). Designing Sound. The MIT Press.
Filimowicz, M. (Ed.). (2019). Foundations in Sound Design for Embedded Media: A Multidisciplinary
Approach. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315106359
Manzo, V. J. (2011). Max/MSP/Jitter for Music: A Practical Guide to Developing Interactive Music
Systems for Education and More. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780199777679.001.0001
Manzo, V. J., & Kuhn, W. (2015). Interactive Composition: Strategies Using Ableton Live and Max for
Live. Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J.-L. (2020). Principles of Game Audio and Sound Design: Sound Design and Audio Imple-
mentation for Interactive and Immersive Media. Focal Press. doi:10.4324/9781315184432
Tierno, M. (2020). Location and Postproduction Sound for Low-Budget Filmmakers. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780429331305
Wilson, S., Cottle, D., & Collins, N. (Eds.). (2011). The SuperCollider Book. The MIT Press.
Yadav, A., & Berthelsen, U. (Eds.). (2021). Computational Thinking in Education. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9781003102991
Conversation Theory: A cybernetic agent-based theory that models both human and machine learn-
ing on the same conceptual basis.
Cybernetics: Progenitor of information theory focusing on the formal modeling of communication
and control.
Digital Audio Workstation (DAW): Software that hosts virtual instruments and devices and orga-
nizes music production.
Digital to Analog Converter: (DAC): A software or hardware module that converts a digital signal
to an analogue equivalent.
Fourier Analysis: A mathematical algorithm that decomposes a complex waveform to its discrete
harmonics.
Frequency of a Note: The numerical (physical) value of the pitch of a note.
General Systems Theory: A theory that attempts to create a common ontology based on disciplines’
interrelated concepts.
Harmonics: Sinusoidal functions with frequencies that are integer multiples of the note frequency.
Max/MSP: A graphical programming language aimed at multimedia production.
Musical Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI): Technological protocol used for interconnecting
different electronic devices during music production.
294

Modular Synthesis: A technique that applies a combination of autonomous modules to modify the
sound signal thus offering more freedom in routing. Non modular synthesizers have predefined sound
signal routes.
Musical Instrument: Any device, real or virtual, capable of generating acoustic signals in an orga-
nized, controlled, and predefined way as dictated by musical theory.
Noise Signal: A noise signal is composed of random uncorrelated frequencies. In a white noise signal
the frequencies have equal intensities.
Ontology: A structured relation of concepts capable of being embedded in Information Systems.
Oscilloscope: A physical or virtual instrument used to visualize the waveform of a sound signal.
Overtones: Resonant frequencies above the fundamental frequency. Often used interchangeably
with harmonics.
Pitch: The musical interpretation of frequency. Pitch refers to the recognizable sound characteristics
of a note.
Software Development Kit (SDK): Set of dedicated software libraries for application development
in a specific domain.
Sonification: The process of generating musical sounds and sequences triggered by events which
are not necessarily related to sound.
Spectrum Analysis: The process of analyzing a sound to its discrete harmonics.
Subtractive Synthesis: A method of creating music by sculpting the harmonic content of analog
signals.
Synthesizer: A virtual or real electronic device capable of creating musical instruments.
Timbre: The characteristic sonic signature that differentiates two instruments even if they are play-
ing the same note.
Virtual Studio Technology (VST): Technology platform for creating software modules that emulate
devices found in real production studios.
295
296
Chapter 14
Designing a Set of Web-
Based Simulations to Facilitate
STEAM Activities on How to
Travel From Earth to Mars
Ilias Sitsanlis
1st General Lyceum of Alexandroupolis, Greece
Hariton M. Polatoglou
ABSTRACT
In this chapter, the authors analyze a subject that is suitable for STEAM education and design a set of
web-based simulations and material for blended learning to support STEAM activities on how to travel
from Earth to Mars. Interplanetary travel involves astronomy, biology, and physics for science; technol-
ogy to make it possible; engineering to optimize a possible solution; art to produce artwork based on
the orbits of planets and boost creativity; and mathematics to solve the differential equations, obtain
data, and perform data analysis to reach conclusions. Based on the ADDIE model, the presently related
and available simulations were analyzed and based on that analysis a set of streamlined simulations are
proposed, designed, developed, implemented, and evaluated. Similarly, a didactic sequence was imple-
mented. The evaluation of the didactic sequence and the streamlined simulations by expert educators
testifies that the proposed method to create STEAM inquiry and simulation-based activities is productive
and can be used with a variety of interesting STEAM integration subjects.
INTRODUCTION
A lot of missions to study Mars have been accomplished, sparked by the human interest to study a
planet close to Earth but so much different concerning the sustainability of life (Ezell, E, Ezell, L, 1984,
Changela, H., at. al., 2021). Currently there are many active missions on Mars, like the Perseverance,
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-3861-9.ch014

Opportunity, and many more are programmed for the near future (NASA, 2021). Additionally, a lot of
interest and discussion is placed on the prospect of sending humans to Mars. The endeavor has many
challenges and could be a rich source for STEAM integration subjects. Examples of such subjects can
be a) how to sustain live during the travel or on Mars and b) which trajectory to choose for the travel.
Concerning the latter little can be found in educational literature.
One can find some work on some aspects of planetary motions for university students placing empha-
sis on the mathematical aspects. For example, in the work of Youssef (Youssef, 2017) the mathematical
foundation of the Hohmann transfer is presented. The work of Woolley and Whetsel (Woolley & Whet-
sel, 2013) presents a representation of the transfer trajectories and through that they study in detail the
transfer process. On the educational side Yu, Sahami and Denn (Sahami & Denn, 2017) examine the
perceptions of university students concerning the planetary orbits and propose ways to teach that subject.
The work of Lyra (Lyra, 2020) presents a proposal for teaching the Kepler’s 2nd Law by explaining the
historical necessity of introducing the Law.
Due to the spatial and time scale of the planetary motion and the interplanetary travel its necessary
in STEAM activities for the students to include simulations. On the internet one can find at least eleven
simulations, each one of which simulates some aspects of the possible orbits of bodies under their mu-
tual gravitational force. In the introduction three of them will be presented. The first one can be found
is the Gravity and Orbit (Gravity and Orbits, 2021). One can select the mass of the star and the mass
of the planet. Using the mouse one can change the magnitude and the direction of the planet’s velocity
vector and thus produce different orbits. It is difficult to obtain the period of an orbit and to precisely
set the velocity vector.
The second one can be found in the site NASA (NASA, 2021) and is a 3D simulation of our planetary
system by NASA. And the third one can be found in (Planetary Transfer Calculator, 2021), and it is a
3D application to calculate the transfer trajectory of a spacecraft from one planet to another, or from a
planet to a natural satellite, alas with very little insight.
Motion of two bodies under their mutual gravitational force, although of great importance and interest
is not simple to teach or include in STEAM activities and in practice it is customary to resort on assump-
tions which make the results easier to comprehend but on the other hand restricting the possibilities for
an inquiry-based learning. It is obvious that the subject has many aspects and is suitable as a STEAM
integration subject (Ozkan & Umdu Topsakal, 2021). The science part includes space science, astronomy,
and physics. Engineering and Technology is necessary for the design and the optimization of the space
travel and Mathematics for the possible orbits of two bodies due to their mutual gravitational force. Art
is always important as can shape the artifacts needed for the endeavor, embody, and communicate ideas
and boost creativity. The aim of this chapter is to propose, explore and evaluate a method to produce
a streamlined set of web-based simulations and a didactic sequence to facilitate STEAM activities on
interplanetary travel at the middle and high school level. Both the simulations and the didactic sequence
are intended for blended learning and to be complementary to formal education.
MOTIVATION
The magnitudes on the astronomical scale are enormous compared to those on Earth. The human mind
and especially of a child is very difficult to perceive such scales. At such scales it is impossible for stu-
dents to make measurements and study the motions of the planets. For these scales we need tools such
297

as interactive simulations to investigate astronomical phenomena (Barab, Hay, Barnett, & Keating, 2000;
Barnett, Yamagata-Lynch, Keating, Barab, & Hay, 2005)
From a study by Sharma et al. (2004) of 200 seniors before university found that there were miscon-
ceptions about the existence of gravity on a satellite and the conditions of weightlessness.
Students believe that gravity exists in the presence of atmosphere and that in space there is no grav-
ity, with the force of gravity decreases dramatically with increasing height (Kavanagh & Sneider, 2004)
Research has shown that interactive simulations can effectively facilitate learning and engagement
in science (D’Angelo et al., 2014; National Research Council, 2011; Rutten, van Joolingen, & van der
Veen, 2012; Smetana & Bell, 2012).
In intervention, 138 students taking introductory astronomy classes, were divided into 4 groups. The
experimental class included 19 technology professors, 83 humanities college students, 14 prospective
high school students, and 22 prospective elementary school teachers. It has been showed that there are
many misconceptions about astronomy regarding the Earth, the solar system, scale, gravity, day-night
succession, and seasons. (Trumper, 2006).
A survey of 102 students aged 11-13 showed that students have views that Earth is stationary and
the Sun and Moon move around it, confusing the duration of Earth’s rotation around its axis with the
time of rotation around the Sun. An important intervention based on virtual environments was found to
greatly facilitate the conceptual change (Bakas, Mikropoulos, 2003).
In the work of Wee et al (Wee et All, 2011) simulations were used based on the free software Easy
Java Simulation, although by now the software no longer works on modern computers or mobile phones.
In this work, 4 simulations were developed regarding geostatic satellites, for the motion of a body be-
tween the gravitational field of the Earth and the Moon, the motion of a body between two bodies that
are considered stationary and the motion of planets in the solar system.
A similar issue regarding interplanetary travel and STEM education is presented in the work of
Capece & Gazley (Capece & Gazley, 2021). This is a research involving graduate students shortly before
entering college. The aim was to familiarize the pre-college students with STEM subjects. To achieve
this they asked the students to plan an interplanetary trip to Venus with Hohmann transfer. The basis
was a python program, which was prepared by the researchers, utilizing a simple algorithm to integrate
Newton’s equations for the motion of Earth and Mars under the gravitational field of the Sun and make
a 2D plot of the orbits. The students by making simple changes to the python program, like setting the
value of a variable or introducing a control condition, were asked to determine the conditions for the
Hohmann transfer between Earth and Venus. There was no mention to the purpose of the Hohmann
transfer, which is to minimize the fuel consumption. From this research it was observed a reduced loss of
students from STEM education after the implementation of the program, a very encouraging observation.
From the above it seems that technology rich environments can help students understand difficult
astronomical concepts. There is no much research how to proceed educating students on subjects like
reaching other planets or objects of the solar system, especially students of the 10-12th grades who have
already the pertinent knowledge and skills from formal education. Therefore there is a need to develop
a set of simulations that on one hand will be based on knowledge provided by formal education and on
the other hand provide an inquiry rich environment to facilitate the extension of that knowledge and
encompass more phenomena or provide solutions for space explorations and for problems. Examples of
problems and challenges are the possible collision of an asteroid or some other body with Earth (Ravan,
S., De Groeve, T., Mani, L. et al., 2022), how to mine minerals from asteroids (Xie, R., Saydam, S., &
298

Dempster, A., 2022), cleaning Earth orbiting junk that would eventually hazard current and future space
explorations and is a potent danger for life on Earth (Witze, A.,2018).
It is conceivable that the design of the simulations as will be described below and the proposed cur-
riculum could not directly applied to students by the research team. For such intervention to be effective,
freedom should be allowed to volunteering educators to customize the curriculum to the needs, knowledge
and background of their students. Therefore, at first we are aiming at organizing a professional develop-
ment (PD) program. A pilot such PD is currently under way. The PD comprises of seven modules, one
module per week for asynchronous distance learning and an hour synchronous distance discussion on
the module of the week and a presentation and discussion of the next week’s module (Yeo, M., 2021)
The PD commenced with a synchronous distance session where the program was introduced, and an
initial questionnaire was filled by the educators. The educators are participating voluntarily and applied
to participate after a national wide call. The initial questionnaire apart from the demographic data, it
has questions related to the subject matter of the designed simulations. The incorrect answers and their
percentage are displayed on Table 1.
Table 1. Incorrect answers and their percentage based on the initial questionnaire to educators partici-
pating in a pilot blended distance learning professional development
Misconception percent
The planetary orbits are very elliptic 26.7%
There is no relation between the period of planetary motion and the larger semiaxis 26.7%
Definition of Eccentricity 37.9%
What is perihelium 10.3%
Order of magnitude of planetary orbital velocities 31.0%
Difficulty to recognize the problems associated by choosing a particular orbit for the spacecraft 44.0%
Time duration of an interplanetary orbit 24.1%
Duration of the operation of the spacecraft engine to achieve a given orbit 23.0%
Time window to perform an orbit with the least amount of fuel from one planet to another 55.0%
We notice that even the educators have many misconceptions leading to incorrect answers and also
some useful knowledge is missing. Thus, the PD is also important to update and consolidate their knowl-
edge and get accustomed with the problems connected to the interplanetary travel.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND FOR THE PLANETARY

MOTION AND INTERPLANETARY TRAVEL
Students’ knowledge of the circular motion around a body of much larger mass enables students to derive
the necessary equations for the study of an interplanetary mission with simple operations. In Table 2
there are all the pertinent equations and all the particular values of the necessary quantities
299

Table 2. Pertinent equations and values of important quantities for when moving a spaceship from
Earth’s orbit to Mars’s orbit
Description Equation
Mm
Gravitational Force F =G
r2
Velocity for circular motion of a body with mass m around a body M

with mass M≫m υ= G
r
Period of the circular motion of a body with mass m around a body a3

with mass M≫m T = 2π
GM
Velocity of Earth on a circular orbit around the Sun 𝜐E = 29.79km/s
The required speed to transfer from Earth’s orbit to an elliptical
𝜐1 = 32.73km/s
orbit with aphelion on Mars orbit
The required speed change to transfer from Earth’s orbit to an
Δ𝜐1 = +2.94km/s
elliptical orbit with aphelion on Mars orbit
Velocity of Mars on a circular orbit around the Sun 𝜐M = 24.13km/s
The velocity of the spacecraft at the aphelion of the elliptical
𝜐2 = 21.48km/s
transfer orbit from Earth’s to Mars’s orbit
The change in velocity of the spacecraft at the aphelion of the
elliptical transfer orbit from Earth’s to Mars’s orbit to acquire the Δ𝜐2 = +2.65km/s
same orbital velocity as Mars
(R + RE )
3
Duration of the transfer elliptical orbit ”t = π = 8.5 months

M
8GM
The trailing angle of Earth relative to Mars at the start of the
elliptical transfer orbit, such as the spacecraft at the aphelion will Δϕ = 44.4°
meet Mars
The time interval between two consecutive fulfilments of the TMTE

t= = 2.14 years
previous condition TM − TE
Hohmann Transfer
Sending a spacecraft from Earth to another planet has a very high cost and even higher for a spaceship
carrying humans. Therefore, we must engineer the path of the spaceship in such a way as to find the
path with the minimum cost. In the following we will take into consideration only the energy that is
needed to accelerate the spacecraft from a cyclic orbit around Earth on a path to meet Mars and when
it reaches Mars to accelerate it again to reach the orbital velocity of Mars around the Sun. To keep the
calculation as simple as possible one can assume that both Earth and Mars have a cyclic orbit around
the Sun. The spacecraft while on Earth or on orbit around her it has almost the same velocity as that of
the Earth, i.e., 𝜐E. We must accelerate the spacecraft to a new speed, i.e., 𝜐1 to reach Mars with no other
path correction and after some time traveling with the engines shut to cross the orbit of Mars with a
300

velocity 𝜐2. At this point the engines should start again to accelerate the spacecraft to reach the orbital
velocity of Mars, i.e., 𝜐M.
As it is mentioned above there are only four options for an orbit in the gravitational field of the massive
body. The path that can take the spacecraft from an orbit around the Earth to an orbit around Mars with
minimum change of velocity is that of a half elliptic orbit around the Sun with the closest point of the
orbit at the start of the acceleration and the farthest when it reaches Mars. This is depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Hohmann Transfer
STEAM ACTIVITIES FOR FORMAL AND INFORMAL

INQUIRY BASED LEARNING
Students are exposed to science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics (STEAM) at every mo-
ment of their everyday live. Yet they do not recognize the importance of each discipline and even less
the importance of combining them to solve everyday problems that the world is facing. Furthermore,
they are experiencing pandemics, extreme weather phenomena due to climate change and pollution.
Students through the media can be aware of the problems in other areas of the world related to the most
fundamental aspects of life, like hunger or poverty etc. The above reality is absent to a large extent from
the formal educational systems of most countries and there is little hope that this can change without
great effort (National Science Board 2016; Holdren et al., 2013). The educational system is organized to
teach separately subjects like physics, mathematics and ignores subjects like engineering and technology
(Martin, 2004). Going to a given subject, i.e., physics, it is often taught mostly so that the students learn
301

basic laws and apply them to situations not connected to their everyday experience. The result is that
the students are frustrated, feel their low self-efficacy, bored and gaining an antipathy to physics and
science in general (Henriksen, 2014). As a consequence they are not likely to choose careers related to
STEM, careers which are of great demand (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017). The various disciplines
have been evolved and produced educational material and methods particular to each discipline. Therefore
the educators in pursuing STEM activities face great difficulties in taking away the borders between the
disciplines and producing a streamlined cross-disciplinary integration. The position of the present chapter
is that by setting appropriate specifications in the development of curricula based on suitable real-life
problems and simulations to support inquiry-based learning could alleviate some of these difficulties.
Organizing the Course (Thematic Groups)
For the educator together with the students to achieve their goals it is of upmost importance that the
educational process to follow some appropriate framework. In the present chapter the ADDIE model is
followed. This model comprises of five phases, i.e., Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation
and Evaluation. (Budoya, 2019).
Figure 2. ADDIE Model
Analyze
In this phase the educational problem is defined, the teaching targets and the pedagogical method. As
already stated, the subject matter is a mission of a spacecraft to Mars. Since this subject involves sci-
ence, technology, engineering, art and mathematics it is deemed appropriate to choose the inquiry-based
learning. Due to the scale of the problem, it is necessary to base the inquiry on simulations.
Simulations related to the notions involved in the subject matter have been sought in an internet
search and there was a selection process finding the ones that can be run online without the need to
install software on the computer and related to the presently chosen subject. The following simulations
were found to meet the selection criteria:
302

S1. Gravity and Orbits: This simulation allows to define masses of the two-body system, i.e., the
mass of the central star and the mass of the planet. For a given distance of the planet from the star
and different choices of the velocity vector we can inquire on the possible orbits of a planet. It is
difficult to measure the period of an orbit and can only be achieved when one selects to view a
grid. Velocity does not have an associated scale for measuring its value and the orbit period can
only be roughly estimated (Gravity and Orbits, 2021).
S2. Elliptical Orbits & Kepler’s 2nd Law: In this simulation we can change the magnitude of the
velocity of a planet and the big semiaxis of an elliptical orbit. After setting those parameters we can
view the orbit, as well as the area swept by the line connecting the planet with the star. (Elliptical
Orbits & Kepler’s 2nd Law, 2021).
S3. Kepler’s Law: This 2D simulations aims at the visualization of the possible orbits of a planet rela-
tive to the Sun by changing the velocity vector while it does not provide the opportunity to make
measurements or to obtain numerical data. (Fowler, 2021a).
S4. Kepler’s Second Law: A 2D simulation where one can choose a planet and visualize its orbit. In
addition, one can for the same planet set its distance from the sun and the eccentricity of its orbit.
The scale of the simulation adapts to our setting, and this is a source of misinterpretation because
it looks as if the orbit is not affected by our set values. (Fendt, 2021).
S5. The Planets Today: A 2D simulation that shows the position of the planets at the present time.
(The Planets Today, 2021).
S6. Gravity Lab: A 2D simulation where the user can introduce bodies and set them in motion. Then
the bodies are moving under their mutual gravitational force and one can observe their path with
nothing else whatsoever. (Gravity, Lab 2021).
S7. Gravity Simulator: A 2D simulation where the user can introduce bodies and set them in motion
in the gravitational field of one or more stars. There are arbitrary units for the physical quantities,
for example one can set a velocity of 10 and a distance 2 (Gravity Simulator, 2021)
S8. Launch To Mars: A 2D simulation, where one can set the launch velocity of a spacecraft relative
to Earth in accepted physical units. The user does not have the position of the other planets at the
launch time to verify that the spacecraft will rich Mars and neither are given any other pertinent
values to enable her to reach some quantitative conclusions (Fowler, 2021b)
S9. Planetary Transfer Calculator: A 3D simulation which visualizes the orbits of the actual planets
and can calculate the best orbit of the minimum energy cost to transfer a spacecraft between any
pair of planets. The date of launch can be set by the user (Planetary Transfer Calculator, 2021)
S10. 3D Solar System Simulator: A 3D simulation that presents the orbits of our solar system planets
as well as of the comets. (3D Solar System Simulator, 2021).
S11. Solar System Exploration: A 3D simulation provided by NASA that presents the orbits of our
solar system planets. (NASA, 2021)
Simulations [S1]-[S8] are 2D and [S9]-[S11] are 3D and simulations [S5]-[S6] allow for the creation
of virtual systems of planets and stars.
Each simulation has a different aim concerning the students’ level, pedagogical utilization, and the
utility to be used for the inquiry method. Apart from the above comments by looking at the user inter-
face it is noticed that there is no common ground, they were created with different tools, they may not
be suited for the range of the mobile devices that are available today and they use different standards.
Other simulations do not allow students to obtain pertinent quantities and can be used only for the quali-
303

tative description of the phenomenon under consideration. On the other hand, some simulations do not
have the provision of viewing the phenomenon under different time and spatial scales. Furthermore,
the units used for the different physical quantities are not based on the conventional units appropriate
for those kinds of phenomena and therefore increase the load of converting not conventional units to
conventional ones. Many of the above are contrary to the scientific method and the principle of be able
to communicate and compare results.
INQUIRY CONTINUUM
Inquiry based learning is a complex method and process and has many different realizations. One way
to systematize the method is through the inquiry continuum. It is obvious that inquiry learning method
can be facilitated with worksheets. There are four phases of the method, i.e., stating a problem, posing
research questions, procedures to answer the questions and formulating conclusions. Depending on who
prepares which phase we have the different levels of the inquiry continuum. This is exemplified in Table
3. Specific examples for the different inquiry levels are given in Table 4.
Concerning the phase of designing procedures to answer the research questions, the tools we propose
for all the inquiry levels are provided by the proposed set of simulations in the present chapter. One of
the requirements set for the design of the simulations, was that the simulations to be as general as pos-
sible thus allowing different ways of answering the posed research questions.
Table 3. The levels of inquiry-based learning
Problem Questions Procedures Conclusions Level

1 Educator Educator Educator Educator Closed - Confirmation
2 Educator Educator Educator students Structured
3 Educator Educator Students Students Guided
4 Educator Students Students Students Open
Simulation and Inquiry Continuum
The simulations were designed with the requirement to allow the IEP prototype (Illustrations-Explorations-
Problem). Compliance of the simulations to the IEP prototype will enable the educator to either use the
simulation as an educational tool in science classroom during the teaching phases or for the facilitation of
inquiry by the students as well as an assessment tool (Michaloudis & Hatzikraniotis, 2017). The method
was developed according to the inquiry method of Peffer (Peffer et al, 2015).
Illustrations
The educator utilizes a simulation with the aim to “present” a phenomenon. By setting some parameters
to appropriate values and changing some others can show how a phenomenon evolves not only in the way
we could possibly observe but in many other ways with the purpose to elucidate the driving elements of
304

Table 4. One example for each level of the inquiry continuum
Level Inquiry
The students will be asked to verify the universal law of gravitational force
m1 m2
1 Closed - Confirmation F =G by using a simulation with steps described in the worksheet and
r2
answer the questions at the last section of the worksheet (Confirmation)
The students will be asked to find the mathematical relation between the gravitational
force and the distance between two bodies. The steps are given in the worksheet, while
2 Structured
answers to the questions at the end of the workbook will summarize their finding
(Structured).
The students will be asked to design a procedure to answer the following posed research
question: from what factors and by which way does the gravitational force of two bodies
3 Guided
depend. Describe each research step, including a hypothesis, a research procedure, the
analysis of the collected data and the pertinent conclusions (Guided)
Design research concerning the gravitational force. Additional to the guided inquiry the
4 Open
students will be asked to pose the research question (Open)
the phenomenon. Also, the educator can set the parameters in such a way as to show different qualitative
aspects of the phenomenon. A specially designed simulation can fill this job nicely and effortlessly for
the part of the educator.
Explorations
In this case there is a need to have a clear view of the parameters, be able to systematically change one
of them while keeping the others constant and give students the opportunity through suitable structured
worksheets to take measurements and reach scientifically sound conclusions.
Problems
Another utilization of a simulation is to treat the simulation as a problem for investigation. In that case
the student based on the given simulation will state a research question, design a research procedure to
answer the research question and reach scientifically sound conclusions. It can also be used to assess
the knowledge and skills acquired through inquiry.
Organizing the Course (Thematic Groups)
To tailor the worksheets with the inquiry method, they are organized in four main sections.
Predict
In this section students are asked to state what they believe is going to be the outcome of the inquiry.
Students have views for possible outcomes which can be different from the scientific knowledge and
methodology. This section helps the students to express their views and contrast them with the inquiry
outcomes and hopefully correct their views.
305

Explore
At this section students either decide to set some parameters to suitable values and how to change one
parameter or follow their teacher’s proposal. Then by running the simulation the students will gather
data and consequently analyze the data to prove or disprove their hypothesis.
Conclusion
All the research should reach a scientifically sound conclusion based on the empirical findings.
Discussion
It is practical, economical but also for learning purposes for students to work in groups. Each group will
present their results to the other groups and the issued interaction between peers through discussions will
lead to a rethinking of all the work done and pinpoint possible shortcomings and amendments.
A particular attention is paid on the students’ perception of gravity by consulting the relevant litera-
ture (Develaki, 2012), (Lehavi & Galili, 2009) and on Kepler’s laws, where most of the students believe
that the planetary orbits are elliptical with eccentricity approaching one. This misconception has been
attributed to perspective view used to present our planetary system (Sahami & Denn, 2017). That biblio-
graphic information led us to design some of the simulations to be 3D, so students can look at different
angles and notice that the same planetary system can look different depending on the angle of view.
DESIGN
Following the conclusions of the analysis phase concerning the simulations and the instruction/teaching
models leads to the definition of the specifications concerning at first the pedagogical framework and
followed in sequence with the specifications of the parameters, the background calculation machine and
the interface of the set of simulations. A lot of these specification bear on the experience of one of the
authors (IS) in building physics simulations for the age of 13-18 using free/open software and with great
success and appreciation from educators in Greece. The physics simulations can be found in the follow-
ing reference (Sitsanlis, 2021a) and cover all the subjects one can expect from a physics curriculum for
the above ages. Additionally, 150 of those physics’ simulations can be found translated in English and
some other languages in Go-Lab (golabz, 2021). In this way they can be imported as virtual laboratories
in the Graasp platform (Graasp, 2021).
As mentioned above that the utilization of simulations from different sources poses many difficul-
ties in many levels (pedagogical, human computer interaction, method of teaching) and to the educator
and the students, which are due to the lack of standardization in educational technology. To keep the
cognitive load as low as possible while having to do a STEAM activity, which is very demanding as it
involves the cross interdisciplinarity of so many components and keep the individual character of each
discipline it poses the difficult task of breaking the whole process into meaningful junks of activities.
There is need for much research in this area to standardize the process. For the present case a lot of ef-
fort was placed to achieve this, the results are encouraging and seems that the proposed method is in the
right track. The analysis phase has shown that when a subject/STEAM activity is complex instead of
306

building a simulation to cover all aspects, parameters and possible uses it is more realistic and desirable
to make simulations aimed at a specific subset of activities. The main reason being to avoid building a
complicated interface and the presence of many functionalities to encompass all the activities and thus
producing a complex and difficult to use simulation. By producing a streamlined set of simpler simula-
tions, it is helpful at the pedagogical level by showing the students how it is possible to achieve a greater
goal by breaking it into a subset of goals.
Figure 3. An overview of the organization of informal curriculum for the inquiry-based learning of
interplanetary travel
The above can be summarized by the following specifications:
• The simulations should have a standardized way of use so as the students will have to be trained
once and be familiar to the interface of all the simulations
• The user interface must be clear and require a minimum cognitive effort to use it.
307

• The user interface should have standardized and have designated areas for the control of variables,
of the different functionalities and view of data
• To allow taking measurements as close as possible to laboratory practices
• Each simulation must be as independent as possible and to be suitable for well-defined contexts
• To be suitable for synchronous/asynchronous distance and blended learning or self-learning or
flipped classroom strategies
• To have enough generality thus allowing to combine them in various ways and to support a variety
of scenarios
• Balanced challenge, going from the first level of inquiry progressively to the fourth level
• Choices of action to achieve a goal, i.e., different paths could be followed using the simulation
DEVELOPMENT
The development of the simulations and the interface is based on free software. For the development
of the basic 3D simulation we used the libraries Three.js – JavaScript 3D library (Three.js, 2021) for
2D CreateJS (CreateJS, 2021) and for the user interface jQuery (jQuerry, 2021), jQuery UI (jQuery UI,
2021), Icon Font for jQuery-UI (Icon Font for jQuery-UI, 2021)
The simulations are written in HTML-5 and can run on all the device, like smartphone, tablet, laptop
and desktop and for all the operating systems, a browser suffices.
In Figure 4 there is a snapshot of a typical interface of a developed simulation. In this, one can note at
the top line starting from the left the buttons for controlling the motion of the bodies (Basic buttons). A
column on the leftmost part of the interface is reserved for the variables (Variable’s area). Furthermore,
a float menu with some additional settings can appear when the designated space is not enough (Float
menu), the values of the dependent variables are displayed at the bottom line (Values), left justified and
the area where there is a representation of the phenomenon as it evolves (Main window). This format
has evolved after years of producing simulations for the curriculum of physics. From the experience
gathered from producing and making publicly more than a hundred of simulations for all the physics
subjects of the physics curriculum along with the feedback from educators and students.
Figure 4. An example of the developed user interface and its organization
308

The didactic sequence is organized in seven units
1. Gravitational force between two bodies

a. Inquiry questions
i. What is the relation between force and distance?
ii. What is the direction of the gravitational force?
iii. How the gravitational force depends on the masses of the bodies?
b. Simulation to be used
i. Newton’s law of universal gravitation – for qualitative and quantitative study
ii. Newton’s law of universal gravitation – used to solve a problem
2. Motion of two bodies
i. What is the motion of two bodies interacting through gravitational force?
m
ii. Limit of ®0
M
iii. Open orbits (Parabolic, Hyperbolic)
iv. Closed orbits (cyclic, elliptic)
v. Eccentricity
b. Simulations to be used
i. Two-body problem
ii. Kepler’s Laws
iii. Ellipse
3. Characteristics of closed orbits
i. Perihelion
ii. Aphelion
iii. Velocities at perihelion and aphelion and their relations
iv. The notion of larger half axis and measuring it
v. Orbit type of a given planet (1st Law of Kepler)
i. Kepler Paths
ii. Solar System
4. Satellites
i. Satellite speed for a cyclic orbit
ii. Period of a satellite
iii. 3rd Law of Kepler
iv. How different orbits’ periods differ
v. Conjunction of Sun, Earth and Mars
i. Kepler Orbits
ii. Best Line
iii. Solar System
309

5. Orbit mechanics
i. What change of the velocity of a body is required to change from a cyclic orbit to a
specific elliptical one
ii. Relative speed
i. Relative Velocity
ii. Best Line
iii. Hohmann Transfer
6. Plan to travel from Earth to Mars
i. Launch window
ii. Period of the occurrence of the launch window
i. Hohmann Transfer
7. Optimization
a. Inquiry question
i. Optimization of the Hohmann transfer
i. Hohmann Transfer
ii. Solar System and spacecraft
To explore all the above problems, seven simulations have developed following the requirements set
in the design phase. In the following we describe each simulation and indicate the parameters that are
available, the use we prescribe for the didactic sequence units. Of course, each simulation can be used
in many ways and contexts, and it is the educator along with the students who can decide on the matter.
• Newton’s law of universal gravitation: As it is clear from the name its aim is to explore of two
bodies under the influence of their mutual gravitational force. It is possible to set different values
for the two bodies masses, and the position of the bodies. The application calculates and plots the
force as a vector for the given positions of the bodies. The students by setting different positions
and masses they get acquainted with the qualitative aspects of gravitational force, such as the oc-
currence in pairs of forces with the same magnitude on each body and that the forces get smaller
at greater distance (Sitsanlis, 2021b).
• Newton’s law of universal gravitation – problem: This is to be used as an assessment exercise.
Its aim is two-fold: to assess the ability of students to measure distances on the screen using a
ruler and to assess if they can determine the ratio of two distance that would result a give ratio of
gravitational forces. The simulation gives two bodies at an arbitrary distance and shows the forces.
Then the students are asked to find a new distance of the two bodies such that the force could be
the one fourth of the force at the present distance (Sitsanlis, 2021c).
• Two-body problem: With this simulation we study the motion of two bodies that interact only
with gravitational forces. The initial positions can be set by moving the body on the simulation
surface and similarly the initial vectors of the velocities by moving the end points of the default
310

velocity vectors. The main purpose of the simulation is to investigate the case where one body has
a much larger mass than the other (Sitsanlis, 2021d).
• Kepler’s Laws: This simulation is designed to allow the study of a body orbiting a star (a large
mass body) such as the Sun aiming to simulate the planetary motion. As before we can set the
mass of the star, the mass of the second body, i.e., a planet, as well as, the position and its velocity,
by moving the planet to the desired position and the velocity by fixing the end point of the veloc-
ity vector. Alternative one can set the values of the vector components of the position and of the
velocity. All the above, can allow to simulate any planetary system whether it exists or not. Since
our planetary system is of particular interest, we have incorporated the option to choose an actual
planet and automatically assume the appropriate parameters (Sitsanlis 2021e).
• Ellipse: This application draws an ellipse to visualize the shape an ellipse for different values
of the set of parameters scientists use to describe a planetary orbit. The available parameters are
eccentricity, the large and small half axis, the focal distance and the angle defined by the planet,
the sun and the positive x axis of a cartesian system centered on the Sun. This visualization is
very helpful to recognize that most of the planets have elliptic orbits very close to circular orbits
(Sitsanlis 2021f).
• Satellite: This application is 3D and allows to study the motion of satellites having circular orbits.
We can set a satellite at a distance from the surface of the Earth and by observing its motion one
can determine its period. This is very useful since we can describe many actual satellite orbits
(Sitsanlis 2021g).
• Hohmann Transfer: The aim of this application is to assess the amount of energy to use for the
Hohmann transfer of a spacecraft from Earth to Mars. As mentioned before the orbits of Earth
and Mars are almost circular and it is a good approximation to take the orbits to be circular. We
can choose a change in the velocity for the spacecraft so to transfer it from circular orbit around
the sun, which effectively performs while orbiting Earth, to an elliptical orbit. This elliptical or-
bit will have its perihelion at the point of the Earth orbit where one changes the velocity and its
aphelion desirably at a point of Mars orbit. Therefore, if the change in velocity and the time it
happens are correct the spacecraft will meet at some later time Mars. One by observing the path of
the spacecraft can assess if it has achieved the correct change in velocity and the time it happens.
When this happens the orbit Mars on its almost circular orbit and the perihelion of the spacecraft
at a particular time they will coincide. At this point one must transfer from an elliptical orbit to
the circular orbit of Mars, which can be achieved by increasing again the speed of the spacecraft.
The cost per kilogram of the spacecraft in fuel is related to the two changes in the velocity of the
spacecraft to complete the Hohmann transfer. The amount of fuel per kilogram used in each trial
to accomplish the Hohmann transfer is calculated by the application and is presented by the fuel
left in the predetermined amount of fuel for the Hohmann transfer (Sitsanlis 2021h).
• Relative Velocity: The notion of relative velocity is central to the Hohmann transfer and a com-
mon student misconception. For the spacecraft to complete the Hohmann transfer it must have
the same orbital velocity as Mars, therefore zero relative velocity. The application presents a train
which is moving at a constant speed relative to a train station and a passenger who wants to get
aboard the train. The passenger should acquire the speed of the train to achieve this safely. By set-
ting different speeds for the passenger the student tries to match the unknown speed of the train
and succeed boarding the train (Sitsanlis 2021i).
311

• Solar System: This is an exact 3D replica of our planetary system with planets orbiting the sun
as time passes by. We can set a date (year, month, and day) of the past, present or the future and
observe tbe positions of the planets and how the planets move from that date on. For each planet
we can acquire a position, a velocity, and observe the relative position of the planets. The 3D char-
acter of the simulation is important for the students to realize that the orbits seem to have different
shapes depending on the angle of observation of our planetary system (Sitsanlis 2021j).
• Solar System and spacecraft: Based on the previous simulation, this simulation can help one
inquire the motion of a spacecraft relative to the actual motion of the planets. After one determines
the date of launch, the magnitude of the velocity and the angle of launch and then starts the simu-
lation, it is possible to observe the position of the spacecraft as time goes on (Sitsanlis 2021k).
IMPLEMENTATION
There many choices for the implementation phase and is for the educator to decide which ones are suit-
able for her educational goals. It is desirable to promote STEAM education as complementary to the
formal education. For the present project aiming at a professional development of educators and the
consequently at STEAM activities of students, it was decided that the best vehicle is a blended scheme.
To organize this there are two components, i.e., the content and its implementation on a LMS (Learning
Management System).
CONTENT
The content is decided to be in the form of worksheets shaped to promote the inquiry continuum. A
method to achieve this is the one comprised of the phases: Predict, Explore, Conclusions and Discussions
(Pedaste et al., 2015). The developed worksheets can also serve the purpose of exemplar worksheets for
educators to develop their own content that suits their goals and utilization of the presently developed
set of simulations.
Each worksheet deals with a unit of the didactic sequence and has well defined objectives. To achieve
each goal an exploration should be followed. In this exploration the students are asked to make a predic-
tion so that in essence to they express their opinion, and to make a verifiable hypothesis. Then they are
provided with the tools (the simulation and/or procedures) on which they rely to extract their data. The
last three steps are related to the data analysis, to come up with a scientifically valid conclusion and the
discussion with peers and to consolidate the acquired knowledge.
An example is the first worksheet where students will deal with gravity. Initially comes an introduc-
tory question to provoke student’s interest,
“What causes bodies to fall freely?” What makes the moon revolve around the Earth? Are the two
causes related? “
Then following is a brief overview of the concept of force that causes a change in the kinetic state of
a body and the connection that the free fall of bodies and the motion of the moon and planets are due to
the same cause, that of the force of universal gravity between bodies. The stated objectives of the unit are:
• Implement the control-of-variables strategy to check if the force depends on the distance.
312

• Investigate and discover the dependence of gravitational force on the distance between bodies
through a simulation.
• Investigate whether the force depends on the angle formed by the line joining the two bodies in
relation to, for example, an arbitrary but fixed axis.
• Apply the same method to investigate the dependence of force on the bodies’ mass.
In the first activity, students are asked to observe a figure and find out from what they see and the
variables of the problem. The figure is taken from a simulation. At this first activity the simulation is
used as a presentation (illustration). The second activity asks the students to create the previous image
by setting the proper values in the simulation. In this activity we have the use of the simulation for ex-
ploration. To create the image, they must “move” the second body by themselves to observe the change
of force, i.e., is a guided investigation. The conclusion comes with the formulation of a conclusion and
about the variables of the problem related to the first objective of the unit.
In the next activity, after the students having identified the dependence of the force on the distance,
it is asked to make a prediction on how the force depends on the distance. They are first asked to make
a hypothesis about the dependence of force on distance and then using the simulation they are asked to
verify or disprove this hypothesis. In this activity students perform a structured investigation in which
the general problem is given, the question (if the distance is doubled how the distance changes) and
the process (change the distance). They are also asked to use the simulation as an exploratory (explore)
means and to arrive at a relation.
The next activity is on whether the gravitational force depends on the angle (orientation) of the bodies
as well as on the masses of the bodies is a guided inquiry, where students can find out for themselves
the procedures they need to follow and perform the exploration. The evaluation section uses a slightly
modified version of the first simulation to be utilized as a problem.
The next questions are related to how big or small forces are between bodies of everyday life, i.e., if
these forces can be measured in the laboratory with a dynamometer.
INTERACTIVE LEARNING SPACE
The development of an exemplar Interactive Learning Space (ILS) for blended professional development
and student inquiry-based learning was created in the Go-Lab authoring environment (graasp, 2021).
The Graasp environment is designed to support inquiry-based learning both for individual students or
groups of students and professional development. The same environment makes it possible through a
desktop application to anonymize and analyze learning analytics and data (insights.graasp.org). That
is essential for the planned utilization of the ILS for blended professional development and later by the
trained educators for students in non-formal STEM activities complementary to subjects taught in their
formal education. Educators as well as students can connect anonymously to the platform or by signing
up. An important component of the platform is that it allows collaborative work, therefore educators
and students can collaborate in groups making use of the available communication tools. In Graasp the
learning sequence content is organized in seven sections. To fill the worksheets mainly the “Text Input”
tool is used, with which the student can enter his/her answer.
For the Greek educators and students, the e-class (GUnet, 2021) platform is preferred because every
educator and student own by default an account and can login without revealing any personal data. E-class
313

is maintained by the National Kapodistrian University of Athens and most of the students and educa-
tors are frequent users and are accustomed with the platform. In that platform there are tools for groups
to be organized, forums and collaborative tools. The worksheets were organized in e-Class in the form
of sections. There are seven sections each representing a unit of the learning sequence. The training is
asynchronous distance learning so that each student can better allocate her time.
EVALUATION
The evaluation at the present stage involves on one hand the pedagogical and scientific aspects of the
simulations and on the other hand the same for the components of the didactic sequence and worksheets.
A central point of the evaluation was whether the set of simulations was suitable for STEAM integration
based on the inquiry-based learning. The exemplar ILS can be found at page From Earth to Mars. To
evaluate the above aspects four experienced educators were asked to run the exemplar learning sequence,
answer a set of questions, make comments, suggest amendments, and give interviews. The questions
asked were related to whether: the simulations and the units can be used in the science classroom, the
interface would be easily assimilated and be used by the students, if the units are distinct but do not
have gaps between them, the goals are appropriate and feasible, if they can produce a different didactic
unit than the proposed one but based on the same simulations, if the simulations can support STEAM
activities based on the inquiry based learning, and also other STEAM activities than the proposed ones.
From the answers, the experience from running the didactic sequence and the pertinent simulation,
and the interviews of the four expert educators’ amendments were made. Those concern the correction
of some typographical and expressive errors, the addition of more explanations to facilitate the process
of filling in the worksheets, and some procedures that were deemed to be exceeding the required time
were removed.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, it is considered the possibility of designing, developing and implementing a set of web-
based streamlined simulations to facilitate STEAM activities on how to travel from Earth to Mars.
Motion under the gravitational field is a rich area for addressing of timely, public interest, but as well
as scientific, technological, engineering and mathematical important problems. The ADDIE (Analyze,
Design, Develop, Implement and Evaluate) is followed in the process. In the analysis phase the internet
and the bibliography is searched and it is found that little has been done on this highly interesting subject
which can serve as a STEAM integration subject.
To tackle STEAM activities in a pedagogical, didactic proper way for interplanetary travel of
spacecrafts there is a need for many simulations. Therefore, it is not possible to combine some of them
and create a didactic sequence which will not have drawbacks and a great overhead and cognitive load
for the educator and the students. This led to the design of a streamlined set of simulations by setting
the desired specifications from pedagogical, didactic, interface and technological aspects. Among the
specifications a notable one is that the streamlined simulations will allow to perform activities based
on the inquiry continuum.
314

The development is based on free software and the simulations were determined to run on any
mobile device, requiring only a web browser. Following the specifications, it became apparent that the
whole inquiry didactic sequence can be divided into seven distinct units and that can be facilitated by
appropriately combining seven simulations. There is not a one-to-one correspondence of the didactic
sequence units and the simulations, it is just a number coincidence.
The implementation involved the preparation of the worksheets which comprise of four sections and
integrating them in a LMS platform. Two different platforms were used with the same content but in
different language, one in English for educators and students from all the world (Graasp), and the other
in Greek for the Greek educators and students (e-Class) which is currently provided by the ministry of
education for distance learning and blended learning and almost all the educators and students have an
account.
The evaluation phase is conducted by asking four expert educators to evaluate the streamlined set of
simulations and their implementation for blended professional development and inquiry-based learning
STEAM activities. Each expert was asked to answer a questionnaire, write a report with comments and
amendments, and give an interview. The overall evaluation is positive, and the reports helped amend
some of the shortcomings of the first implementation.
The proposed and explored method of producing a streamlined set of simulations can be applied to
other STEAM topics in the same vein as how to use the gravity field of planet and accelerate/deaccelerate
a spacecraft, how to reach other planets, apart from Mars, how to change the speed vector of an asteroid
to avoid its trajectory to intercept Earth, and many more.
REFERENCES
Bakas, C., & Mikropoulos, T. A. (2003). Design of virtual environments for the comprehension of plan-
etary phenomena based on students’ ideas. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 949–967.
doi:10.1080/09500690305027
Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M., & Keating, T. (2000). Virtual solar system project: Building
understanding through model building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 719–756.
doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7<719::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-V
Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Keating, T., Barab, S. A., & Hay, K. E. (2005). Using virtualreality
computer models to support student understanding of astronomical concepts. Journal of Computers in
Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(4), 333–356.
Budoya, C. M., Kissaka, M., & Mtebe, J. (2019). Instructional Design Enabled Agile Method Using
ADDIE Model and Feature Driven Development Process. International Journal of Education and De-
velopment Using Information and Communication Technology, 15(1), 35–54.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021, December 1). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.
gov/opub/ted/2017/8-point-8-million-science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem-jobs-in-
may-2016.htm
315

Changela, H., Chatzitheodoridis, E., Antunes, A., Beaty, D., Bouw, K., Bridges, J., & Hallsworth, J.
(2021). Mars: New insights and unresolved questions. International Journal of Astrobiology, 20(6),
394–426. doi:10.1017/S1473550421000276
Create, J. S. (2021, December 1). CreateJS. https://createjs.com
D’Angelo, C., Rutstein, D., Harris, C., Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., & Haertel, G. (2014). Simulations
for STEM learning: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SRI International.
Develaki, M. (2012). Integrating Scientific Methods and Knowledge into the Teaching of Newton’s
Theory of Gravitation: An Instructional Sequence for Teachers’ and Students’ Nature of Science Educa-
tion. Science and Education, 21(6), 853–879. doi:10.100711191-010-9243-1
Elliptical Orbits & Kepler’s 2nd Law. (2021, December 1). Physics: Interactive Physics Simulations.
https://ophysics.com/f6.html
Ezell, E., & Ezell, L. (1984). On Mars: Exploration of the Red Planet, 1958-1978. NASA.
Fendt, W. (2021, December 1). Kepler’s Second Law. Apps zur Physik. https://www.walter-fendt.de/
html5/phen/keplerlaw2_en.htm
Fowler, M. (2021a, December 1). Kepler’s Law. Fowler’s Physics Applets. https://galileoandeinstein.
phys.virginia.edu/more_stuff/Applets/Kepler/kepler.html
Fowler, M. (2021b, December 1). Launch To Mars. Trip to Mars. https://galileoandeinstein.phys.virginia.
edu/more_stuff/Applets/ShootMars/shootmars.html
From Earth to Mars. (2021, December 1). Graasp. https://graasp.eu/s/cibtbp
Graasp. (2021, December 1). Graasp-A space for everything. https://graasp.eu/
Gravity and Orbits. (2021, December 1). Phet Interactive Simulations. https://phet.colrado.edu/sims/
html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_en.html
Gravity Lab. (2021, December 1). National Science & Technology Medals Foundation. https://lab.
nationalmedals.org/gravity.php
Gravity Simulator. (2021, December 1). Test Tube Games. https://www.testtubegames.com/gravity.html
GUnet. (2021, December 1). Open eclass. https://www.openeclass.org/en/
Henriksen, D. (2014). Full STEAM Ahead: Creativity in Excellent STEM Teaching Practices. Steam,
1(2), 1–9. doi:10.5642team.20140102.15
Holdren, J. P., Marrett, C., & Suresh, S. (2013). Federal science, technology, engineering and mathemat-
ics education 5-year strategic plan. Executive Office of the President, Committee on STEM Education
National Science and Technology Council.
Icon Font for jQuery-UI. (2021 December 1). Icon Font for jQuery-UI. https://mkkeck.github.io/jquery-
ui-iconfont/
jQuery. (2021 December 1). jQuery. https://jquery.com/
316

jQuery UI. (2021 December 1). jQuery user interface. https://jqueryui.com/

Kavanagh, C., Sneider, C., & Bar, V. (2011). Learning about Seasons: A Guide for Teachers and Cur-
riculum Developers. Astronomy Education Review, 10(1). doi:10.3847/aer2010035
Lehavi, Y., & Galili, I. (2009). The status of Galileo’s law of free-fall and its implications for physics
education. American Journal of Physics, 77(5), 417–423. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3096643
Lin, C. L., & Tsai, C. Y. (2021). The Effect of a Pedagogical STEAM Model on Students’ Project
Competence and Learning Motivation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(1), 112–124.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09885-x
Martin, L. M. W. (2004). An emerging research framework for studying informal learning and schools.
Science Education, 88(1), S71–S82.
Michaloudis, A., & Hatzikraniotis, E. (2017). Fostering Students’ Understanding with Web-Based Simu-
lations in an Inquiry Continuum Framework. Research on E-Learning and ICT in Education, 105–117.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-34127-9_8
NASA. (2021, December 1). Solar System Exploration. NASA Science. https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/
solar-system/our-solar-system/overview/
National Research Council. (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations. Com-
mittee on science learning: computer games, simulations, and education. In M. A. Honey & M. L.
Hilton (Eds.), Board on science education, division of behavioral and social sciences and education.
The National Academies Press.
National Science Board. (2016). Science and Engineering Indicators Digest, 2016, 898.
Ozkan, G., & Umdu Topsakal, U. (2021). Exploring the effectiveness of STEAM design processes on
middle school students’ creativity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(1),
95–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09547-z
Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry
cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
Peffer, M. E., Beckler, M. L., Schunn, C., Renken, M., & Revak, A. (2015). Science Classroom Inquiry
(SCI) simulations: A novel method to scaffold science learning. PLoS One, 10(3), 1–14. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120638
Planetary Transfer Calculator. (2021, December 1). Transfercalculator. https://transfercalculator.com/
Ravan, S., De Groeve, T., & Mani, L. (2022). When It Strikes, Are We Ready? Lessons Identified at the
7th Planetary Defense Conference in Preparing for a Near-Earth Object Impact Scenario. Int J Disaster
Risk Sci, 13, 151–159. doi:10.1007/s13753-021-00389-9
Rutten, N., Van Joolingen, W. R., & Van Der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer
simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2011.07.017
317

Sharma, M., Millar, R., Smith, A., & Sefton, I. (2004). Students’ Understandings of Gravity in an Orbit-
ing Space-Ship. Research in Science Education, 34(3), 267.
SitsanlisI. (2021a, December 1). Physics and Photography. https://www.seilias.gr
Sitsanlis, I. (2021b, December 1). Newton’s law of universal gravitation. https://seilias.gr/igi/gravityLaw.
html
Sitsanlis, I. (2021c, December 1). Newton’s law of universal gravitation – problem. https://seilias.gr/
igi/gravityLawProblem.html
Sitsanlis, I. (2021d, December 1). Two-body problem. https://seilias.gr/igi/twoBodies.html
Sitsanlis, I. (2021e, December 1). Kepler’s Laws. https://seilias.gr/igi/keplerPaths.html
Sitsanlis, I. (2021f, December 1). Ellipse. https://seilias.gr/igi/ellipse.html
Sitsanlis, I. (2021g, December 1). Satellite. https://seilias .gr/igi/satellite3D.html
Sitsanlis, I. (2021h, December 1). Hohmann Transfer. https://seilias.gr/igi/hohmannTransfer.html
Sitsanlis, I. (2021i, December 1). Relative Velocity. https://seilias.gr/igi/relativeVelocity.html
Sitsanlis, I. (2021j, December 1). Solar System. https://seilias.gr/igi/planets.html
Sitsanlis, I. (2021k, December 1). Solar System and spacecraft. https://seilias.gr/igi/marsTrip3D.html
Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer Simulations to Support Science Instruction and Learn-
ing: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337–1370.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.605182
Solar System Simulator. (2021, December 1). The Sky Live. https://theskylive.com/3dsolarsystem
The Planets Today. (2021, December 1). A Live View of the solar system and planetary positions today.
https://www.theplanetstoday.com
Three.js. (2021, December 1). JavaScript 3D library. https://threejs.org/
Trumper, R. (2006). Teaching future teachers basic astronomy concepts–Sun-Earth-Moon relative move-
ments–at a time of reform in science education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 24(1),
85–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140500485407
Wee, L. Goh, G., & Chew, C. (2011). Enabling Gravity Physics by Inquiry using Easy Java Simulation.
Academic Press.
Witze, A. (2018). The quest to conquer Earth’s space junk problem. Nature, 561(7721), 24–27.
Xie, R., Saydam, S., & Dempster, A. (2022). A framework for campaign level asteroid mining pre-
feasibility study. In AIAA SCITECH 2022 Forum (p. 2583). Academic Press.
Yeo, M. (2021). Case Study 3, Singapore: “To Blend or Not to Blend—That Is Not the Question”—Blended
Delivery to ASEAN Teachers of English. In Language Learning with Technology (pp. 101–112). Springer.
318

Youssef, M. H. A. (2017). The Solution of Optimal Two-Impulse Transfer between Elliptical Orbits
with Plane Change. International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 07(03), 125–132. https://doi.
org/10.4236/ijaa.2017.73010
Yu, K. C., Sahami, K., & Dove, J. (2017). Learning about the scale of the solar system using digital plan-
etarium visualizations. American Journal of Physics, 85(7), 550–556. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4984812
ADDITIONAL READING
Curtis, H. D. (2021). Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students. doi:10.1016/C2020-0-01873-6

Meeus, J. (1988). Astronomical Formulæ for Calculators (4th ed.). Willmann-Bell.
Meeus, J. (1991). Astronomical Algorithms. Willmann-Bell.
Meeus, J. (1998). Astronomical Algorithms (2nd ed.). Willmann-Bell.
Woolley, R. C., & Whetsel, C. W. (2013). On the nature of earth-mars porkchop plots. Advances in the
Astronautical Sciences, 148, 413–426.
Zhang, Y. (2022). Analysis on Mars Exploration for the Prospect of Future Mars Migration Plan and
Society Development. Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Social Development and
Media Communication (SDMC 2021), 631, 981–985. 10.2991/assehr.k.220105.181
ADDIE: Is an acronym for Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate and those are the
steps guiding an educational design.
Hohmann Transfer: It is the trajectory of a spacecraft that moves from one circular orbit to another.
This transfer is the most efficient transfer, and the spacecraft uses the least possible fuel.
IEP: Is an acronym for Illustrations, Explorations, Problem and shows how to use a simulation.
Inquiry Continuum: It is a student-centered teaching approach that is based on inquiry. Depending
on who conducts the questions, procedures, and tools one can have the different levels of inquiry. The
student using all the above and following the scientific method formulates the conclusions of his research.
NASA: Is an acronym for National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Simulation: Simulation is the process of using a software that simulates a natural phenomenon based
on a model. The user through a user interface can change certain variables and watch on her computer
screen how the phenomenon evolves.
STEAM: Is an approach to learning that uses Science, Technology, Engineering, the Arts and Math-
ematics as access points for guiding student inquiry, dialogue, and critical thinking.
319
320
Chapter 15
Supporting Education in
Marginalized Communities
With Workshops Combining
Music and Mathematics
Eric Roldan Roa
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7519-4933
Univerisity of Tartu, Estonia
Erika Roldan-Roa
Technische Universität Münche, Germany & EPFL Lausanne, Switzerland
Doris Kristina Raave

University of Tartu, Estonia
ABSTRACT
In this chapter, the authors present the experience of a series of workshops given in a marginalized com-
munity in Mexico during the COVID pandemic as a mean to mitigate the educational gap lockdowns
provoked. The whole intervention consisted of 12 workshop sessions plus a closing activity. The work-
shops aimed to jointly promote learners’ conceptual and procedural knowledge of basic mathematics and
develop musical rhythmic awareness and sensitivity in a collaborative problem-solving manner. Seventy
children, ranging from 8 to 12 years old, participated in the workshops facilitated by an educational
game, namely Musical Monkeys, consisting of a board game and an app. Using an initial evaluation,
the authors mapped students’ profiles in terms of background knowledge (procedural and conceptual) to
form balanced playing teams, including low and high achievers, and to adjust the workshops according
to students’ needs and levels. The setting, challenges encountered during the intervention, and future
research directions are discussed.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-3861-9.ch015

Supporting Education in Marginalized Communities With Workshops Combining Music and Mathematics
INTRODUCTION
Non-traditional mathematical curricula learning activities can contribute towards reducing mathematical
anxiety and the achievement gap among students (Tobias & Weissbroad, 1980). Instructional designs that
combine music and mathematics for creativity-driven learning experiences could elicit the aforementioned
benefits. MusicMath (Roldan et al., 2020) (https://musicmath.mx/en/home) is an educational research
project that explores how to combine music and mathematics to support learning in basic school contexts.
During summer 2021, in partnership with the Social Responsibility department of HP Inc Mexico, the
MusicMath team conducted a series of workshops intending to support elementary students with con-
ceptual and procedural knowledge of basic mathematics and musical rhythmic awareness and sensitivity
in a collaborative-problem solving manner. On this occasion, workshops were given in the community
of Mezcala de Asunción (Hereafter referred to as Mezcala). Mezcala is a marginalized community in
the state of Jalisco facing challenges such as internet connectivity, infrastructure, and economic barriers.
COVID-19 pandemic emphasized the latter difficulties due to the forced lockdowns. In response, this
series of workshops aimed to support students to better cope with the beginning of the new academic year.
A special edition of the educational game “Musical Monkeys “1 was designed to facilitate the work-
shops targeting basic algebraic thinking, geometric literacy, and musical rhythm awareness. Additionally,
tuned tube instruments to motivate and engage students while promoting their musicality were used.
Regarding collaboration, the Musical monkeys game requires students to play in small teams, and it is
an example of a setting where technology facilitates and scaffolds the learning processes (Stahl et al.,
2005). As part of the pedagogical strategies in the game, instructors prompt the students to use (or be-
come aware of) collaborative problem-solving skills. It is essential to mention that measuring students’
collaborative skills was not the aim of the intervention and requires further studies.
Since it was the first time the MusicMath team ran a workshop with a marginalized community,
this chapter discusses the challenges and eventualities that could not be foreseen in the initial planning.
Therefore, the researchers elaborate on the following:
1. Educational workshop setting.

2. What challenges can be expected and linked when carrying out educational workshops combining
music and mathematics in marginalized communities like Mezcala?
3. Solutions, recommendations, and future research directions.
The rest of the chapter is structured as follows. First, in the theoretical background, the authors present
literature from which the educational game draws its pedagogical design and related literature on margin-
alized communities. Then, the setting of the educational workshop is described, including participants’
general demographics, workshop materials, and protocol. Next, the authors discuss the faced challenges
and recommended solutions. Finally, the authors elaborate on the limitations of this educational inter-
vention, propose future work and research directions, and present the concluding remark of the chapter.
321

BACKGROUND
Music and Mathematics
Several benefits have been identified when using arts as a pedagogical vehicle to promote mathematical
learning. These benefits are linked to art being able to (i) promote communication among students; (ii)
transform learning environments; (iii) reach students that otherwise may not be reachable; (iv) offer new
challenges to successful students; (v) decrease curricula fragmentation; (vi) connect in-school learning
with real-world, among others (Song et al., 2013). Interdisciplinary links allow students to make sense
of mathematics and apply their mathematical skills in meaningful ways (An et al., 2013).
Music and mathematics are highly interlinked, as music is founded on mathematical concepts (Vaughn,
2000). Synthesizing music and mathematics in the same lesson has been empirically proven to improve
students’ attitudes toward the latter and increase their academic proficiency on multiple occasions (An
et al., 2008; An et al., 2011; Bratitis et al., 2012; Hamilton et al., 2018, Milne & Calilhanna, 2019).
Music may motivate kids to study mathematics in a fun and meaningful manner and present and con-
struct mathematical problems in non-traditional ways (An et al., 2013), whilst traditional mathematics
instruction has been seemed to cause subject-related anxiety (Furner & Berman, 2005). Consequently,
multiple mathematical abilities and attitudes can develop positively (An et al., 2013), such as a sense of
abstraction, structural identification, and curiosity (Montiel & Gomez, 2014).
Active, experiential learning supports concretizing the abstract and is thus a base for developing
complex thinking and problem-solving skills (Edelson & Johnson, 2003). For the context of the work-
shops, the authors wanted to combine music and mathematics by using an educational game that could
support students’ cognitive development while boosting their motivation and desire to complete the
learning tasks (Rajić, 2020).
Collaboration
Another vital component of the educational game is that it promotes collaboration. According to Dil-
lenbourg (1999), when two or more people attempt to learn something together, collaborative learning
is happening. Previous research indicated that collaboration improves learning outcomes compared to
individuals working alone through supporting remembering information and processes via idea co-
construction and opportunities for questions and explanations (Andrews & Rapp, 2015).
When technology is used to control and scaffold a part or whole of the collaborative activities, this
setting may be referred to as a computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) activity (Stahl et al.,
2005). For the workshops, the authors built on a CSCL approach combining music and mathematics, in
which students reinforce their conceptual and procedural knowledge of arithmetic in the form of first-
grade equations and musical rhythm sense (Roldan et al., 2020). As used in the work of Matsuda and
colleagues (2018), procedural mathematical knowledge is defined as the awareness and correct application
of steps in a given well-defined problem (i.e., solving an equation) and conceptual mathematical knowl-
edge as the identification of elements and verbalization of processes in a given mathematical scenario.
322

Gamification
Gamification indicated the incorporation of game elements into non-game settings (Faiella & Ricciardi,
2015) and is, based on an extensive literature review, most used in the context of education (Nurtanto et
al., 2021). Various literature reviews and meta-analyses conclude gamification to be an effective tool for
increasing student learning outcomes and enhancing deep learning as it improves students’ engagement,
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, interest, contentment, as well as critical thinking, social, communica-
tion, and collaboration skills affecting thus also students’ self-efficacy, image, and sense of belonging
(e.g., Hamari et al., 2014; Buckley & Doyle, 2015; Faiella & Ricciardi, 2015; Sailer & Homner, 2019;
Huang et al., 2020; Nurtanto et al., 2021). In our case, the design of the educational game contemplates
a gamified element included in the learning narrative. Participants get banana tokens instead of “scores”
when solving and engaging in workshops’ activities. The motivational implications of the Musical Mon-
keys educational game are studied elsewhere (Rajić, 2020).
Supporting Education in Marginalized Communities
Social disparities and inequality are on the rise, aggravated even more by the COVID-19 pandemic,
resulting in the need for innovative solutions to enhance social and educational processes to include
marginalized communities (Massó-Guijarro et al., 2021). Although the definition of the concept of
marginalization is under a broad debate (Danaher et al., 2013), based on Lotz et al. (2019), marginalized
communities indicate groups of people with lower socioeconomic levels living in adverse circumstances,
often resulting amongst other things in getting lower-quality education. Moreover, students from these
communities often drop out of school at greater rates than the national norm, thus limiting their social
chances furthermore (Agnihotra & Chawdrhy, 2013).
When researching education with marginalized communities, it has been stated that best applied is
the empowerment-based approach, also known as the strength-based approach (Danaher et al., 2013).
According to Gardner & Toope (2011), the latter thrives upon ‘recognizing students-in-context, criti-
cally engaging strengths and positivity, nurturing democratic relations, and enacting creative and flexible
pedagogies’ (p. 88). Under this approach, a recommended practice is transformative research, investiga-
tion of the actual circumstances that lead to injustice and obstructing self-determination that ultimately
contributes to generating reflective knowledge that enables individuals to recognize their circumstances
and, as a result, supports agency for improving these circumstances (Danaher et al., 2013).
Frequently related to action research, as it is specifically concerned with questions of power and the
need to give research participants a voice through which they may articulate their educational aspirations
and experiences, this research, therefore, involves planning, acting, observing, and reflecting, focusing
on cooperation and interaction amongst researchers, participants, and people who may be informed or
impacted by the findings and those who may have supported the research (Danaher et al., 2013). These
practices have been kept in mind in the design of this research to tackle the challenges of marginalized
communities. On this occasion, via an initial evaluation, instructors were able to get a quick look at
participants’ prior knowledge and voice when answering a survey targeted to have a reference on their
motivational stand.
323

EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOP SETTING
Participants
Participants were elementary students between 8 to 13 years old. Based on the registration process (de-
scribed in the next section), first-day workshop attendance (43), and participants’ age, the instructors
assigned the participants to four different groups: A:10, B:12, C:14, and D:7. The first two groups (A
and B) were formed with students whose ages corresponded to 4th grade. Then, group C corresponded
to 5th and D to 6th grade age students. It is important to mention that the registration process was not
anticipated to be a continuous process. In other words, some new participants needed to be registered
and assigned to their corresponding group every week. In total, 70 different children participated in the
whole series of workshops, but only 43 were mapped with the initial evaluation.
Nevertheless, there was no need to add or split the initially formed groups since C and D groups never
reached more than 20 participants for more than three consecutive days. Two MusicMath instructors
were present in each session carrying out the planned activities. Instructors were experienced musicians
(10+ years) with solid mathematical training to carry out the workshops. Moreover, by the time of the
intervention, they had three years’ experience giving workshops to elementary students in private schools.
Materials
Registration and Consent Forms
For the workshops’ advertisement, printed flyers and public announcements2 were used to spread an
open invitation to the targeted participants. All children matching the age range could sign up for the
workshops. A registration desk was set three weeks before the inaugural session, and participants could
register during the day. An adult was required to attend and sign the consent form during registration.
There were cases when the students showed up alone or accompanied by another minor in which a
pre-registration was granted but with the condition to return the consent form signed by their parent
or legal guardian. The consent form included acceptance of MusicMath workshop participation terms
and conditions and permission to collect and use participants’ data for research and publicity purposes.
Procedural and Conceptual Knowledge Initial Evaluation
The Musical Monkeys educational game is designed to be played in teams where low and high perform-
ers are balanced. To that end, during the first day of the workshops, students were asked to answer an
initial evaluation to map their conceptual and procedural understanding of basic arithmetic mathematical
principles. Thus, from there, MusicMath instructors could form the teams accordingly. Additionally,
students were asked to answer a survey targeting their attitudes towards mathematics and music. The
aim of this survey was twofold: (i) get insights about participants’ motivational stand about music and
mathematics, and (ii) to serve as an information source for instructors to further balanced playing teams
according to participants’ like or disliking of music and mathematics. The survey is described in the
following subsection. All parts of the initial evaluation were answered in a paper and pencil format.
324

First, the procedural evaluation consisted of 30 items divided evenly between addition, subtraction,
and multiplication. The test had three columns for each operator, and children were given ten minutes
to answer this part. Secondly, the conceptual test consisted of five questions. The first two of which
targeted participants’ understanding between operators and operands. In this case, participants were
asked to circle the operators or operands in a given an example accordingly. The rest of the questions
were open-ended, where participants had to describe the process of answering, in their own words, an
addition, a subtraction, and a multiplication. Again, children could use 10 minutes to answer this part
of the evaluation. The reader may see the initial evaluation translated version of the instruments in the
Appendix A section.
Attitudes Towards Math and Music Survey
In the last part of the initial evaluation, participants were asked to answer a survey targeting their at-
titude and motivation towards music and mathematics. The instrument consisted of five Likert items
ranging from one to five, where one indicated not agreeing at all and five for strongly agreeing. It is
important to mention that the survey was not based nor adapted from the existing literature. Instead, the
questions aimed to map participants’ potential motivational barriers regarding music and mathematics
and give instructors additional information on the children to form the playing teams. The questions
that comprised the survey were:
1. How much do you like mathematics?

2. How confident do you feel with mathematics?
3. Do you like music?
4. Are music and mathematics alike?
5. If someone tells you that music is mathematical, do you believe it?
Educational Game
The “Musical Monkey” board game and application were used for the workshop. The board game depicted
in Figure 1, consists of a series of worksheets and tokens students use during two kinds of rounds, namely
“math round” and “music round”. Regarding the math round, children had to answer five exercises in
the form of A + B = C, where A or B was given along with the C value. With the app’s help, one of the
instructors established the game’s difficulty level in intervals of a hundred so that the program could
generate the C variable values within the selected range. For example, if the difficulty level was set to
500, the generated C value could range between 400 and 500.
Once the settings were selected, instructors could send the exercises to tablets teams had (one per
team). Students were not allowed to use paper and pencil to solve the exercises; instead, they used coin-
like tokens with assigned values that they could organize in the board game sheets to reach a consensus
of the answer and tap it on the app interface. The allocated time for the math round was 10 minutes each
turn. Each turn, students needed to answer between 5 and 10 exercises. The instructor played a musi-
cal rhythm using a drum-machine instrument in the second round. Children were asked to identify and
represent the musical pattern into geometric figures by placing monkey-like tokens in either vertex and/
or segments in the board game. For example, if the instructor played four quarter notes, students needed
to put the tokens in all four vertexes of a square figure.
325

Regarding the technology, as previously mentioned, a digital app complementing the board game was
used as an orchestration tool for delivering the tasks and receiving participants’ performance data. The
technology-enhanced setting consisted of up to five teams, each having a subordinate tablet to play the
game. In both rounds, children were asked to discuss and reach a consensus in the board game to later
confirm and insert their results on their corresponding tablets. Each time teams entered a correct solu-
tion, points were granted in the form of banana tokens. Thus, the quantity of gained bananas reflected
the team’s performance in each round. In all Musical Monkeys sessions, the bananas were stored in a
global counting for each team.
Finally, tuned plastic tubes (https://boomwhackers.com/) depicted in Figure 2 were used to reinforce
their rhythmic musical notation while promoting an embodiment activity. In this case, students were
asked to play the tubes from a given instruction corresponding to vertexes or segments to transfer and
practically apply geometric concepts into musical expression.
Figure 1. Musical Monkeys educational game
Figure 2. Tuned plastic tubes (Boomwhackers) activity
326

Workshop Sessions and Closing Event
During four consecutive weeks, a total of 48 sessions (12 per group) were carried out, plus a closing
event (depicted in Figure 3 and Figure 4) held right after the last workshop in which all students were
invited to participate. Instructors stayed in the community from Thursdays to Saturdays and gave one
session per group on each day. Sessions were planned to take between 45 and 50 minutes long. All ses-
sions were conducted in one classroom of the community’s development center, except for the closing
activity held in the center’s outdoor facilities.
In the first session, instructors introduced themselves and gave a general overview of the workshop
activities to the students. Then, instructors applied the initial evaluation to map students’ procedural
and conceptual understanding (hereafter referred to as PK and CK, respectively). Finally, instructors
asked participants to answer the survey about their general attitude and motivation towards music and
mathematics. In the PK evaluation, 43 participants answered a test consisting of three columns where
each column was assigned to an arithmetic operator (i.e., +, -, x). Then, for the CK, the same students
were asked to answer multiple-choice questions. Finally, they were asked to answer the Likert five-point
scale survey. The reader may see the aforementioned instruments in Appendix A.
From sessions 2 to 11, students participate in PK and CK reinforcement activities, Musical Monkeys’
gaming math and music rounds, and practical musical activities with the plastic tubes. Finally, on the last
day of workshops, for both the morning workshops and closing event, students were asked to complete
a rally consisting of one math round, one music round, perform one exercise with the plastic tubes, and
answer conceptual knowledge questions. The main difference between the closing event and regular
workshops was that all students (of all groups) were waiting for their turn to participate in the rally in
the former. Table 1 presents the planning of all twelve sessions.
Figure 3. Closing event
327

Figure 4. Closing event
Table 1. Workshop’s sessions
Session ID Date Activities

1 2021-08-19 Introduction and mapping of student’s profile with the initial evaluation
2 2021-08-20 Conceptual and procedural knowledge (CK)(PK) reinforcement workshop
3 2021-08-21 Introduction to Musical Monkeys (MM) game / first game tournament
4 2021-08-26 MM game rounds’ practice
8 2021-09-04 Plastic tubes practice
9 2021-09-05 MM game tournament and plastic tubes practice
10 2021-09-09 CK and PK reinforcement workshop, MM game - board game only, and Plastic tubes practice
11 2021-09-10 CK and PK reinforcement workshop, MM game - board game only, and Plastic tubes practice
12 2021-09-11 Practice for and closing event rally
CHALLENGES FACED AND INSIGHTS DURING MEZCALA WORKSHOPS
Participants’ Attendance
Table 2 and Figure 5 present the attendance frequency for the twelve workshop sessions per group. The
first challenge the instructors encountered was that only for the first week of the intervention, that is, the
first three workshops’ sessions, the number of participants was steady, and the same children attended.
Then, afterward, participant attendance was unpredictable. From experience, the authors can share
the following reasons explaining the attendance fluctuation between the first and the second week: (i)
328

instructors discovered that some children were not aware of the initial week of the workshop, and (ii)
some children showed up for the second week after being invited by other participants. Next, for the third
week, due to the beginning of the new academic year (starting the first week of September), Thursday
and Friday’s workshop sessions needed to be moved to an afternoon schedule. The latter impacted at-
tendance in two ways: (i) it was noticed that some participants could not come for Thursday and Friday
sessions because they were going to school on the afternoon swift; and (ii) children going to the school
in the morning invited their peers, compensating for the students not being able to participate anymore
in the afternoon schedule.
Interestingly, instructors found that although they told and agreed with the participants about the
change in the schedule, this created confusion for some children who still showed up in the morning.
MusicMath instructors noticed this because the personnel of the community’s center told them. Finally,
in the last week, more participants came in general. Instructors attributed this to the excitement of the
closing activity planned for the last day, where participants could exchange points gained (banana tokens)
for physical artifacts.
Table 2. Attendance frequency
Week 1 2 3 4
Sessions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Groups Attendance (number of participants)
A 10 10 10 13 13 12 10 6 9 11 10 11
B 12 12 12 16 19 20 13 20 21 15 23 23
C 14 14 14 13 12 15 8 11 10 12 12 15
D 7 7 7 11 11 12 12 17 12 12 14 21
Figure 5. Attendance frequency
329

Balancing Playing Teams Considering Students’ Attendance Fluctuance
To play the educational game, instructors needed to form teams purposefully. To that end, during the
first session of the workshops, participants were asked to answer an initial evaluation so instructors
could balance the playing teams with low and high achievers based on their conceptual and procedural
prior knowledge. Figure 6 presents the results of the procedural knowledge test applied during the ini-
tial evaluation to the 43 students that attended the inaugural day of the workshops. The reader may see
a complete information on students’ scores in Appendix B. Instructors faced two different challenges
related to participants’ prior knowledge and attendance fluctuation.
Regarding participants’ prior knowledge, instructors found that students were mainly familiar only
with addition and subtraction at a low level when grading students’ tests. It is worth mentioning that the
instructors noted that the multiplication and division operators were not alien to them, but conceptually
and procedurally, they lacked understanding. The workshops included multiplication and division as,
according to the official curricula in Mexico, those operators are usually introduced in third grade. The
instructors faced the challenge to quickly adapt and decided to consider only participants’ initial evalu-
ation addition scores (score = correct answers out of 10) and set the learning goals of the workshop to
that arithmetic operator when solving first-grade equations. Overall, participants’ procedural knowledge
score to solve basic addition was satisfactory (mean. = 7.42, SD = 2.12). It can also be observed that
students’ conceptual understanding (Figure 8) mark on the initial evaluation was very low, suggesting
that participants did not understand the difference between operators and operands and had trouble
verbalizing and describing their mathematical solving processes. Furthermore, the test’s scores suggest
that children were applying mechanical solving approaches without understanding the logic behind the
arithmetic operator.
Figure 6. Procedural knowledge initial evaluation scores
330

Figure 7. Conceptual knowledge initial evaluation scores
The second challenge instructors had to sort out was the attendance fluctuance and the formed playing
teams. The initial evaluation was for instructors to purposefully form teams where collaboration between
low and high performers could be promoted. However, instructors could not anticipate how many and
which participants would show up to the workshop’s sessions after the first week. The latter required
improvisation and random guesses to keep the planned team formation strategy as much as possible.
Consequently, the instructors’ default strategy was to balance male and female team members. Addition-
ally, it was clear that when new participants showed up, other children recognized them and asked if the
new participants could join their team. In most instances where the latter happened, instructors decided
to assign the new participants to a different team, at least on a class management bet.
In total, children played the educational game six out of the twelve sessions with the app, and three
out of twelve used only the board game. In Figure 8, the reader can observe teams’ performance, in
terms of gaming score, for the six sessions where that app was used. The board game only sessions made
sure students were not incurring in gaming the system behaviors (i.e., guessing randomly) and using the
coin-like tokens to prove their answers. The way they could incur in gaming the system action was by
misusing a binary (correct or wrong) feedback feature in the app. This feature gave students one banana
token each time they could answer one equation correctly. When having the board game-only sessions,
instructors could see if students were actively applying their mathematical reasoning instead of random
answers. The game’s difficulty level increased every week (Figure 9), and teams responded above the
fourth score mark in four consecutive sessions. There was a low mark during the fifth session, which
matches the week students entered the new academic year, and new children came to the workshop with-
out any prior experience. However, in the last session, groups B, C, and D adjusted their score marks to
change their performance direction. The latter was not the case for the B group.
Finally, on the playing sessions, including the app, the reader can observe that team’s performance
was stable with a positive tendency during the first three weeks, despite the attendance fluctuation. The
authors cannot account for teams’ game performance resulting from the good collaboration. The latter
may also be attributed to destructive collaborative behaviors such as the bullying syndrome and the free-
rider (Slavin, 1986), which requires further investigation.
331

Figure 8. Game Performance
Figure 9. Difficulty level
Insights About Participants’ Attitudes Towards Music and Mathematics
As part of the authors’ research interest, it was essential to see if participants in a marginalized com-
munity like Mezcala would experience a workshop combining music and mathematics with a similar
attitude. In other words, if the combination of the subjects would motivate them and whether that interest
was uniform in all school levels. Moreover, the survey was also planned as an additional tool to help
instructors balance playing teams with children expressing more liking towards music or mathematics.
Table 3, Figures 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 present participants’ average marks on the attitudes survey. From
children’s answers, their attitude towards mathematics and music was high (Q1, 2, and 3). However,
all groups expressed to be a bit lower regarding their self-confidence (Q2) in comparison to how much
they liked mathematics.
332

One of the motivational questions the instructors had was if participants’ interest in music and math-
ematics would result uniformly in all featured school levels, as the difference in maturity and interest
may vary substantially from one school year to another. Fortunately, all participants expressed to like
music and mathematics, and no adaptation was needed in this regard. Finally, concerning questions four
and five, students were unsure of their stand and tended to respond neutrally. The latter suggests that
activities combining music and mathematics can surprise and motivate students in elementary education.
Despite that, the survey’s aim was rather practical on this occasion. The authors acknowledge there is
much more to explore around motivation and participants’ attitudes when music and mathematics are
combined. For instance, further studies could be focused on understanding how music impacts partici-
pants’ experience and situational interest.
Q1. How much do you like mathematics?

Q2. How confident do you feel with mathematics?
Q3. Do you like music?
Q4. Are music and mathematics alike?
Q5. If someone tells you that music is mathematical, do you believe it?
Table 3. Attitudes towards music and mathematics mean scores
Group Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
A 4.1 (SD=0.83) 4.0 (SD=0.77) 3.7 (SD=1.84) 3.9 (SD=1.3) 3.8 (SD=1.47)
B 4.58 (SD=0.64) 3.58 (SD=1.38) 4.91 (SD=0.27) 3.75 (SD=1.16) 4.0 (SD=1)
C 4.21 (SD=0.67) 3.57 (SD=1.18) 5.0 (SD=0) 2.64 (SD=1.34) 2.0 (SD=1.36)
D 3.28 (SD=0.69) 3.42 (SD=0.72) 4.85 (SD=0.34) 3.0 (SD=1.41) 2.85 (SD=1.35)
Figure 10. Attitudes survey question 1
333

Overall, the results suggest that instructors can expect difficulty ensuring steady and controlled attendance
when running a workshop in a marginalized community like Mezcala. This is a multivariable situation
that is difficult to control. Thus, instructors need to recognize students in context and enact creative
and flexible pedagogies (Gardner & Toope, 2011). Adopting a flexible pedagogy approach is essential
in a marginalized community. Instructors will need to quickly adopt newcomers to the sessions, which
require special guidance to match other participants’ understanding and knowledge. For instance, using
the learning by teaching paradigm (Duran, 2016), experienced students could be prompted to teach and
explain how to play to their new team members. By having participants engaging in teaching newcom-
334

ers, instructors could observe and support students trying to verbalize the concepts methods and, when
required, intervene to assist experienced students in their teaching tasks. The authors hypothesized that
instructors could overcome newcomers’ challenge and turn it into learning opportunities by establishing
new learning by teaching roles or dynamics in the Musical Monkeys game.
Based on the experience, conducting an initial evaluation of workshops participants in a marginal
community like Mezcala is an excellent measure to adopt the planned learning activities. Expected
prior knowledge needs to be double-checked to prevent potential disengagement, learning anxiety, and
frustration. The authors also recommend considering both a conceptual and procedural initial evalua-
tion to recognize mechanical solving patterns among participants. Thus, instructors could better support
students by asking them to verbalize their thinking process.
335

From this experience, it is also recommended to conduct a survey to map and quickly overview
the intended activities that will motivate and be in the interest of all participants when different ages
are involved. In this case, the combination of music and mathematics showed to be in the participants’
interest across all ages. The latter aligns with literature showing that music may motivate kids to study
mathematics in a fun and meaningful manner and present and construct mathematical problems in non-
traditional ways (An et al., 2013).
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Since it was the first time MusicMath ran a workshop in a community like Mezcala, several limitations
were faced. First is the attendance factor, which could cause frustration to experienced children (par-
ticipants with a stable attendance record). Although the researchers did not directly observe frustration
in experienced students, some children were timid and silent, possibly for the same reason described
above. Further studies are required to shed light on these psychological aspects. Secondly, instructors
could not apply the initial evaluation to all participants (only 43) because only the first session could be
allocated to that activity. Thus, the data could have benefited the team formation process by mapping
all 70 participants.
Moreover, no musical background skills were considered part of the initial evaluation. Thirdly, no
instrument was used to assess collaborative skills formally. Considering that the educational game used
in this intervention is designed to be collaborative, exploring further the implications underpinning col-
laboration within the playing teams makes sense.
Further studies are needed to build on the experience with the Mezcala community. In particular, the
researchers envision (i) designing a specific instrument to measure collaborative skills, (ii) incorporating
new game rules to take advantage of pedagogical approaches such as the learning by teaching paradigm
(Duran, 2016), (iii) incorporating a measurement instrument to assess musical rhythm improvement, and
(iv) to further explore and report on motivational and attitudinal aspects of the workshop.
CONCLUSION
Based on the experience, three main challenges can be found when carrying out an educational work-
shop in a marginalized community like Mezcala, Mexico. First, instructors can expect the attendance of
participants to fluctuate, making it challenging to ensure continuity with planned learning objectives.
However, it is also an opportunity to implement flexible pedagogical strategies, such as the learning by
teaching paradigm, to promote interactivity between newcomers and experimented participants. Secondly,
applying tests or surveys to measure, analyze, or compare targeted variables is logistically challenging
because the initial sample may change drastically at the end. Building on this experience, the researchers
suggest a dedicated instructor should keep rigorous control so all participants can answer the selected
instruments. Thirdly, doing an intervention at the beginning of a school year will fluctuate more in at-
tendance. Despite the discussed challenges in this chapter, the MusicMath team found it necessary to sup-
port marginalized communities to mitigate the children’s educational gap lockdowns that may have been
provoked during the COVID pandemic. Marginalized children participating in these series of workshops
expressed to be open to and curious about using educational games combining music and mathematics.
336

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The MusicMath team would like to thank the Social Responsibility department of HP Inc (Mexico) for
making this educational intervention possible. Additionally, the team wants to express profound grati-
tude to the community of Mezcala de Asunción, government local authorities, and Dare foundation for
all their support.
The authors would like to thank Irene-Angelica Chounta for her help, suggestions, and support during
the writing process of this chapter.
This project received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 754462.
REFERENCES
Agnihotra, N., & Chawdrhy, V. (2013). Development and Empowerment of Marginalised Communities
through English. In P. Powell-Davies, & P. Gunashekar (Eds.), Third International Teacher Educators
Conference (209-2013). British Council.
An, S., Capraro, M. M., & Tillman, D. A. (2013). Elementary Teachers Integrate Music Activities into
Regular Mathematics Lessons: Effects on Students’ Mathematical Abilities. Journal for Learning through
the Arts: A Research Journal on Arts Integration in Schools and Communities, 9(1). doi:10.21977/
D99112867
An, S. A., Kulm, G. O., & Ma, T. (2008). The effects of a music composition activity on Chinese students’
attitudes and beliefs towards mathematics: An exploratory study. Journal of Mathematics Education,
1(1), 91–108.
An, S. A., Ma, T., & Capraro, M. M. (2011). Preservice Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitude About Teaching
and Learning Mathematics Through Music: An Intervention Study. School Science and Mathematics,
111(5), 236–248. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00082.x
Andrews, J. J., & Rapp, D. N. (2015). Benefits, costs, and challenges of collaboration for learning and
memory. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1(2), 182–191. doi:10.1037/tps0000025
Bratitsis, T., Tatsis, K., & Amanatidou, A. (2012). Counting Sounds: An ICT Musical Approach for
Teaching the Concept of the Angle in Kindergarten. 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Ad-
vanced Learning Technologies. 10.1109/ICALT.2012.150
Buckley, P., & Doyle, E. (2014). Gamification and student motivation. Interactive Learning Environ-
ments, 24(6), 1162–1175. doi:10.1080/10494820.2014.964263
Danaher, M., Cook, J., & Coombes, P. (2013). Researching Education with Marginalised Communities.
Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137012685
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collab-
orative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Elsevier.
337

Duran, D. (2016). Learning-by-teaching. Evidence and implications as a pedagogical mechanism. Inno-

vations in Education and Teaching International, 54(5), 476–484. doi:10.1080/14703297.2016.1156011
Edelson, R. J., & Johnson, G. (2003). Music Makes Math Meaningful. Childhood Education, 80(2),
65–70. doi:10.1080/00094056.2004.10521259
Faiella, F., & Ricciardi, M. (2015). Gamification and learning: A review of issues and research. Journal
of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 11(3). Advance online publication. doi:10.20368/1971-8829/1072
Furner, J., & Berman, B. (2005). Confidence in Their Ability to do Mathematics: The need to eradicate
math anxiety so our future students can successfully compete in a high-tech globally competitive world.
Dimensions in Mathematics, 18(1), 28–31.
Gardner, M., & Toope, D. (2011). A social justice perspective on strengths-based approaches: Exploring
educators’ perspectives and practices. Canadian Journal of Education, 34(3), 86–102.
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does Gamification Work? — A Literature Review of Em-
pirical Studies on Gamification. In R. Sprague (Ed.), 47th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences (3025–3034). IEEE. 10.1109/HICSS.2014.377
Hamilton, T. J., Doai, J., Milne, A., Saisanas, V., Calilhanna, A., Hilton, C., Goldwater, M., & Cohn,
R. (2018). Teaching Mathematics with Music: A Pilot Study. 2018 IEEE International Conference on
Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE). 10.1109/TALE.2018.8615262
Huang, R., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Sommer, M., Zhu, J., Stephen, A., Valle, N., Hampton, J., & Li, J. (2020).
The impact of gamification in educational settings on student learning outcomes: A meta-analysis.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1875–1901. doi:10.100711423-020-09807-z
Lotz, N., Thomas, B., Fernández Cárdenas, J. M., Reynaga Peña, C., Díaz de León Lastras, A., Cortes
Capetillo, A., González Nieto, N., Santamaría-Cid de León, D., López, F., Machado, R., & Hayhoe,
S. (2019). Co-creating FabLab La Campana: Empowering a marginalised community in the North of
Mexico. In M. Evans, A. Saw, R. Cooper, & J. Hoo Na (Eds.), IASDR 2019 The International Associa-
tion of Societies of Design Research (pp. 31-50). White Rose.
Massó-Guijarro, B., Pérez-García, P., & Cruz-González, C. (2021). Applied Theatre as a strategy for
intervention with disadvantaged groups: A qualitative synthesis. Educational Research, 63(3), 337–356.
doi:10.1080/00131881.2021.1945476
Matsuda, N., Sekar, V. P. C., & Wall, N. (2018). Metacognitive Scaffolding Amplifies the Effect
of Learning by Teaching a Teachable Agent. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 10947, 311–323.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-93843-1_23
Milne, A. J., & Calilhanna, A. M. (2019). Teaching Music with Mathematics: A Pilot Study. Mathemat-
ics and Computation in Music, 383–389. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-21392-3_34
Montiel, M., & Gómez, F. (2014). Music in the pedagogy of mathematics. Journal of Mathematics &
Music, 8(2), 151–166. doi:10.1080/17459737.2014.936109
338

Nurtanto, M., Kholifah, N., Ahdhianto, E., Samsudin, A., & Isnantyo, F. D. (2021). A Review of Gami-
fication Impact on Student Behavioural and Learning Outcomes. International Journal of Interactive
Mobile Technologies, 15(21), 22. doi:10.3991/ijim.v15i21.24381
Rajić, S. (2019). Mathematics and music game in the function of child’s cognitive development, moti-
vation and activity. Early Child Development and Care, 191(9), 1468–1480. doi:10.1080/03004430.2
019.1656620
Roldán Roa, E., Roldán Roa, E., & Chounta, I. A. (2020). Learning Music and Math, Together as One:
Towards a Collaborative Approach for Practicing Math Skills with Music. Collaboration Technologies
and Social Computing, 143–156. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58157-2_10
Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2019). The Gamification of Learning: A Meta-analysis. Educational Psychol-
ogy Review, 32(1), 77–112. doi:10.100710648-019-09498-w
Slavin, R. E. (1986). Cooperative learning: Engineering social psychology in the classroom. In R. S.
Feldman (Ed.), The social psychology of education: Current research and theory (pp. 153–171). Cam-
bridge Press.
Song, D., Loyle-Langholz, A., Higbee, J. L., & Zhou, Z. (2013). Achieving Course Objectives And
Student Learning Outcomes: Seeking Student Feedback On Their Progress. Contemporary Issues in
Education Research, 6(3), 289–298. doi:10.19030/cier.v6i3.7898
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2005). Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. In R.
Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 409–426). CUP., doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511816833.025
Tobias, S., & Weissbrod, C. (1980). Anxiety and Mathematics: An Update. Harvard Educational Review,
50(1), 63–70. doi:10.17763/haer.50.1.xw483257j6035084
Vaughn, K. (2000). Music and Mathematics: Modest Support for the Oft-Claimed Relationship. Journal
of Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4), 149. doi:10.2307/3333641
ADDITIONAL READING
Blau, I., Shamir-Inbal, T., & Avdiel, O. (2020). How does the pedagogical design of a technology-en-
hanced collaborative academic course promote digital literacies, self-regulation, and perceived learning
of students? The Internet and Higher Education, 45, 100722. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100722
Boelens, R., de Wever, B., & Voet, M. (2017). Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A
systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 1–18. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2017.06.001
Fonseca, D., Kompen, R., Labrador, E., & Villegas, E. (2018). Technology-Enhanced Learning: Good
Educational Practices. In F. J. García-Peñalvo (Ed.). Global Implications of Emerging Technology
Trends (Advances in IT Standards and Standardization Research (AITSSR)) (pp. 93–114). IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-4944-4.ch006
339

Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven Affordances of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learn-
ing: How to Support Collaborative Learning? How Can Technologies Help? Educational Psychologist,
51(2), 247–265. doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1158654
Kintu, M. J., Zhu, C., & Kagambe, E. (2017). Blended learning effectiveness: The relationship between
student characteristics, design features, and outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology
in Higher Education, 14(1), 7. Advance online publication. doi:10.118641239-017-0043-4
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2013). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education:
What is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology,
39(1), 6–36. doi:10.1080/17439884.2013.770404
Lusa, H., Adnan, A., & Yurniwati, Y. (2021). Effect of Blended Learning on Students’ Learning Out-
comes: A Meta-Analysis. Jurnal Pendidikan Progresif, 11(2), 309–325. doi:10.23960/jpp.v11.i2.202113
Wekerle, C., Daumiller, M., & Kollar, I. (2020). Using digital technology to promote higher education
learning: The importance of different learning activities and their relations to learning outcomes. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 54(1), 1–17. doi:10.1080/15391523.2020.1799455
Yeung, K. L., Carpenter, S. K., & Corral, D. (2021). A Comprehensive Review of Educational Technol-
ogy on Objective Learning Outcomes in Academic Contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4),
1583–1630. doi:10.100710648-020-09592-4
Conceptual Knowledge: Conscious ability to recognize, identify and verbalize pieces or strings of
knowledge.
Educational Games: Learning activities that follow several gaming mechanisms formats in which
students learn by playing.
Educational Workshop: One or a series of structured learning experiences to engage participants
in hands-on activities.
Marginalize Communities: Communities that face communication, infrastructure, educational, and
economic challenges.
Procedural Knowledge: Conscious ability to recognize a situation where an acquired solving strategy
or method can—and is—applied to reach the desired solution.
STEAM Practices: Educational experiences that aim to teach, share, and motivate students’ aware-
ness, identity, and knowledge about science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics.
Technology-Enhanced Learning: Educational settings where technology serves, facilitates, and
supports learning processes.
340

ENDNOTES
1
Musical Monkeys is an educational game created by Eric Roldán Roa and further developed by
the MusicMath team.
2
The community of Mezcala has a sound system installed on the top of one house that is used to
share the news with the entire community.
3
Boomwhackers plastic tubes instruments were used during the workshops.
341
APPENDIX A
The initial evaluation consisted of three parts: A. Procedural, B. Conceptual, and C. Attitude survey (fully
described in Materials subsection). Reader may see the translated version (From Spanish to English) of
the procedural and conceptual test instruments in the following sections:
Part A. Procedural mathematical knowledge initial evaluation
Solve the following operations.
30 + 4 = 30 – 4 = 2 x 4 =
4 + 30 = 47 – 30 = 13 x 2 =
23 + 12 = 23 – 12 = 5 x 7 =
5 + 10 = 145 – 104 = 2 x 25 =
3 + 18 = 39 – 18 = 11 x 4 =
154 + 203 = 232 – 76 = 30 x ? = 120
16 + ? = 39 ? – 34 = 16 ? x 6 = 48
27 + 76 = 27 – 76 = 3 x 7 =
? + 56 = 97 78 - ? = 8 120 x 10 =
245 +. 174 = 78 – 56 = 36 x 5 =
Part B. Conceptual mathematical knowledge initial evaluation
Answer the following questions.
1. Encircle the operators in the following operations.
3 + 5 = ? 3 x 5 – 45
2. Encircle the operands in the following operations.
3 + 5 = ? 3 x 5 – 45
3. In your own words, how to solve addition?

4. In your own words, how to solve a subtraction?
5. In your own words, what is multiplication?
342
APPENDIX B
All scores from participants that came to the initial evaluation are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Procedural and conceptual understanding

initial evaluation scores
Participant Participant
Group PK score CK score Group PK score CK score
ID ID
1 A 9 0 24 C 9 0
2 A 8 0 25 C 10 0
3 A 7 0 26 C 8 4
4 A 8 0 27 C 7 2
5 A 8 0 28 C 10 0
6 A 9 0 29 C 9 0
7 A 8 0 30 C 6 0
8 A 8 0 31 C 8 4
9 A 3 0 32 C 8 2
10 A 4 2 33 C 8 0
11 B 5 0 34 C 7 0
12 B 0 0 35 C 8 0
13 B 7 0 36 C 10 0
14 B 2 0 37 D 10 0
15 B 7 4 38 D 9 0
16 B 6 2 39 D 6 0
17 B 6 0 40 D 7 6
18 B 7 0 41 D 10 4
19 B 9 4 42 D 6 0
20 B 10 0 43 D 7 0
21 B 8 0 M=7.42, M=.88,
Mean and standard deviation
22 B 8 2 SD=2.12 SD=1.57
23 C 9 2
343
344
Chapter 16
Use of STEM Intervention
Teaching Scenarios to
Investigate Students’
Attitudes Toward STEM
Professions and Their Self-
Evaluation of STEM Subjects
Georgios Kalemis
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2154-5109
Hellenic Open University, Greece
Sarantos Psycharis
ASPETE, Greece
Georgios Zacharis
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1158-9175
ABSTRACT
The present research initiated from the hypothesis that students’ misconceptions can be resolved and
replaced with new knowledge that is structured and organized through robust hypothetically-driven
mental models. The assumption being that when students engage in teaching interventions that include
hypothesis building and testing through STEM teaching scenarios and constructions, and are given the
opportunity to discover the knowledge themselves, consequently, they enhance their attitudes towards
STEM courses and career pathways as well as their own self-evaluation in mathematics and science.
The quasi-experimental research methodology included a sample of 15-year-old students divided into
an experimental and control group. The teaching intervention consisted of three scenarios developed
primarily by the European Space Agency (ESA) but later adapted to meet the aptitude levels of students.
Results showed improved attitudes in certain STEM courses and career pathways and a positive change
in student’s self-evaluations in science.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-3861-9.ch016

Use of STEM Intervention Teaching Scenarios to Investigate Students’ Attitudes Toward STEM Professions
INTRODUCTION
We live in a world that relies on technology and it is vital for young students to learn relevant skills for
navigating an increasingly computerized society. Some of the necessary skills for the 21st century students
are creativity, collaboration, critical thinking and problem solving (Trilling & Fadel, 2009). STEM is
the acronym for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics that was popularized by educators,
policy makers, and researchers in the early 2000’s. STEM has become the buzzword in United States
stakeholders where high school and college graduates prepare with new skills according to the aspects
of STEM acronym in order to compete globally. Activities involving mathematics, science, technology
and engineering have been proven to contribute to the development of these skills and at the same time
increase the interests of students in the field of science and professions associated with STEM (Benitti,
2012). Learning in a STEM environment engages students how to learn about natural phenomena and
engineering challenges via science investigation and engineering design, increasing their understand-
ing of how the world works. Investigation and design are more effective for supporting learning than
traditional teaching methods. They engage students in doing science and engineering, increase their
conceptual knowledge of science and engineering, and improve their reasoning and problem-solving
skills. In several educational systems, curricula have been developed focusing on research skills, problem-
solving, critical thinking, creativity, innovation through disciplined teaching methodology (Kelley &
Knowles, 2016) and embedding STEM programs with excellent results (English, 2016). Educators by
introducing STEM interventions into their educational practices hope to increase students’ interest in
all aspects of STEM acronyms.
Unfortunately, many K-12 curriculum standards do not include the skills to introduce STEM interven-
tions (Feldhausen et al., 2018). For this reason, the European Space Committee (ESA) has developed
educational materials and STEM programs that are addressed to from pre-school students up to university
students as it has been demonstrated by the literature that the contact of students with STEM programs
has positive learning outcomes and cultivates skills necessary in the 21st century (Benitti, 2012; Verner
& Revzin, 2017).
The current study looks at changes in Junior High School student attitudes toward STEM subjects
after their engagement in programming, robotics and science-related activities and scenarios developed
by the European Space Agency (ESA), and compares their attitude toward STEM career pathways pre-
and post-intervention.
The authors attempted to answer the following three research questions:
1. When STEM-based activities are incorporated in teaching, to what extent do students’ attitudes
toward Mathematics, Technology and Engineering, and Physics change?
2. When STEM-based activities are incorporated in teaching, to what extent do students’ self-evaluation
in 21st century skills and attitudes toward science, health and environmental careers change?
3. When STEM-based activities are incorporated in teaching, to what extent do students’ self-evaluation
in Mathematics and Physics change?
345

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The key idea behind constructivist learning theories is that students are presented with learning opportuni-
ties that build their problem-solving skills (Barrows, 1996). Therefore, learners are active in the develop-
ment of their own knowledge and use cognitive and metacognitive skills as they work through various
norms and practices. As such, problem-based learning has six defining characteristics (Barrows, 1996):
1. Learning is student-centered.
2. Learning occurs in small groups.
3. The teacher is on-site, however serves as a guide or assistant.
4. Authentic problems are presented at the very beginning of the learning process, without any prior
involvement or specific teaching approach.
5. The problems encountered can be considered as active tools enabling students to gain insights in
knowledge and be engaged in the development of skills in order to solve real problems.
6. New forms of knowledge occur by self-learning
Key elements to the above characteristics include the selection of authentic problems, teacher support
and cooperation among students.
The Role of Authentic STEM Learning Experiences
The objective of authentic learning experiences is to boost the transferability of learning by contextual-
izing knowledge, which enables long-term retention, increases students’ motivation, builds their character
and improves learning via targeted and essential knowledge (Edelson and Reiser, 2006).
In line with this objective, the authenticity of STEM-based problems follows a framework of sci-
entific reasoning, that is, problems that IT experts and engineers encounter in their day-to-day work.
Real problems of the real world are often unstructured, complex, irregular, and broad in scope and as
such, are unsuitable for students because there are no straightforward solutions. Students would need a
significant amount of cognitive, metacognitive and emotional support which in fact comes to contradict
the fundamental principles of Barrows’ theory (Jonassen, 2007). The latter argues that students should
indeed be exposed to such problems, however not with the intention to solve them but to gain experience
from real challenges. The aim is to solve age and level appropriate “authentic problems” on their own.
Authentic problem solving encourages students not only to develop knowledge on distinct concepts,
but also to understand and apply multifaceted cognitive and metacognitive skills required in real-world
problem solving. Additionally, engaging in authentic problem solving encourages students to meet STEM
standards and endorse its practices by providing them with opportunities to think as real-life scientists.
Support: The Teacher as an Assistant
According to Barrows (1996), the teacher, while present, serves as a guide, helper or assistant, instead of
the provider of knowledge and solutions. Poorly structured problems presented to students are complex
and broad in scope and should be avoided as they will require significant involvement from the teacher
and as such, many of the principles of the learning methodology will have been violated. Teacher sup-
port is provided temporarily and only if required, as and when essential skills or knowledge are lacking.
346

The aim is to bridge the skills and knowledge of students with respective requirements to accomplish a
specific step in the process, instead of determining the overall solution (Vygotsky, 1978). Teacher support
is deemed appropriate when it helps students succeed and boosts their competitiveness in new areas as
they gradually increase their ability to learn, strengthen their metacognitive, as well as reasoning skills
(Dori et al., 2018). Students who are exposed to “authentic problems” for the first time are unlikely to
have developed the methodological thinking expected to solve them. Therefore, when planning an activity,
it is recommended to divide it into individual steps that will guide the gradual development of students’
cognitive and metacognitive skills. Each step should contain elements enabling students to search for
information and create knowledge-based building blocks. This idea is not unique, seeing that problems
have already been separately designed for each STEM subject (Dori et al., 2018).
Collaboration: Teamwork is a Coordinated Effort
“Collaboration” with reference to the problem-solving process “is a coordinated, synchronous activity
that is the result of a continuous attempt to construct and maintain a shared conception of a problem”
(Roschelle & Teasley, 1995, p. 70). The important question therefore arising from this definition is: How
can STEM teachers design scenarios that present learning opportunities where language and cognition
interact? Simply placing students in groups or allowing students to group themselves does not guarantee
effective collaborative learning. The teacher must create groups based on students’ profiles and skills,
and place members with different abilities and skills in a single group. In cases where the group does
not perform as expected, the teacher can choose distinct roles for each member assigning specific rights
and obligations to each of them (Palincsar & Herrenkohl, 1999). Carefully designed worksheets also
ensure that students are supported in co-constructing knowledge as they work together to solve a problem.
The STEM Interdisciplinary Model
STEM education is an intradisciplinary or interdisciplinary approach, the aim of which is to solve com-
plex real-world problems by engaging in Scientific and Engineering practices for a richer transversal
educational experience (Psycharis et al., 2020). There is no distinction among subject areas and bound-
aries between cognitive representations do not exist - the objective being authentic problem solving,
therefore single cognitive representations contribute to form a holistic learning experience (Burke et
al., 2014; Honey et al., 2014; Moore & Smith, 2014; Psycharis, 2018; Psycharis et al., 2020; Rennie &
Heard, 2012; Vasquez, 2014/2015; Vasquez et al., 2013).
A creative knowledge-based approach founded on constructivism and constructionism was first
developed by Papert, as reported and later endorsed by Bybee, et al. (2006). This approach is known as
the BSCS 5E Instructional Model (Engagement, Exploration, Explanation, Elaboration, Evaluation).
According to English (2016) and Psycharis et al. (2018), the extent of a holistic learning experience
in STEM teaching is more likely guaranteed when the design of scenarios includes computer-based
experiments, an interdisciplinary approach and where exploratory learning is sought during the execu-
tion. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model is also based on the theory of constructionism – a theory with a
growing research base that empirically argues its effectiveness and, to date, has had a significant impact
on science education. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model has become the foundation for a large number
of school science curriculums and therefore has shown a significant impact on science teaching and
learning internationally (Bybee, 2019).
347

Milestones in basic education such as reading comprehension and math remain essential for any task.
However, newer skills such as teamwork and critical thinking are equally important factors for success-
ful task performance (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006), not to mention the development of reasoning
skills via the use of natural phenomena models (Sherin, 2001; Sengupta & Wilensky, 2011).
STEM-based learning seems to improve cooperation and teamwork, the mentee-mentor relationship,
and challenges the view that STEM careers are intended primarily for men (Dave et al., 2010). More-
over, as opposed to traditional teaching methods, it seems to improve student performance (Dave et al.,
2010; Nugent et al., 2008; Koskey, 2018) in science courses mainly when integrated (transdisciplinary)
teaching is applied (Hurley, 2001). Nonetheless, students’ attitudes toward STEM career pathways vary.
Dave et al. (2010) for example, found improved student attitudes toward STEM careers, in contrast to
Koskey’s (2018) research, where no change was observed.
METHODOLOGY
Sample
56 junior high school students (26 boys and 30 girls) enrolled in the 2019-2020 academic year participated
in the research study. The students were in their last year (Year 3) of junior high school and specifically
selected because of their maturity level, the fact that they would be enrolling in senior high school the
following year that would in turn lead them in deciding on the course of study they would like to pursue
in Higher Education and as a future career. Additionally, the selected age group is in a better position to
answer the instrument’s survey compared to younger students. Finally, the study’s intervention required
knowledge of Physics concepts that had been taught in all three grades of Junior High school and for
this reason its execution took place from February to April, i.e., towards the end of the academic year. It
is important to note that the students in our sample come from families of higher social, economic and
educational status, often speak several foreign languages and are comfortable with the use of new tech-
nologies as they have previously attended STEM education programs. Finally, their parents and careers
actively encourage them to pursue future professions of high social-economic and occupational prestige.
The control group consisted of 34 students while the experimental group included 22.
Research Instrument
It goes without saying that any scientific instrument must be valid. This means it’s capable of generating
similar results when administered several times and over different time periods. It must also be reliable,
i.e., it measures what it is supposed to measure. In other words, the power of any instrument is the extent
to which all its items demonstrate the intended interpretation of the test results in line with the proposed
purpose (Creswell, 2011). In our case, the survey’s validity and reliability was confirmed by Faber et al.
(2013) who used a factors analysis on each independent section of the survey and on all sections taken as
a whole. During their pilot studies the questions were formulated in such a way as to prevent repetition,
negative wording and ensure the use of appropriate vocabulary. The instrument (survey) was translated
from English into Greek and initially given to two language experts who checked its grammatical and
syntactic accuracy and confirmed its comprehension according to the aptitude level of the student sample.
348

The Faber et al. (2013) instrument was selected as the most comprehensive, seeing that it collects
information about the attitudes and interests of students per STEM subject. The instrument was developed
gradually along with continuous feedback from multiple pilot applications and in collaboration with
the University of South Carolina. The authors removed any gender-biased items such as “I would like
to learn how to make safer cosmetics”. They developed new questions to include words like “design,”
“create,” and “imagine” as well as words like “build” and “fix.”. They renamed the engineering section
“Engineering and Technology” to reflect the new focus on the work of not only engineers but also of
technologists and other skilled workers. It was decided that the work of technologists and engineers is
interconnected and interchangeable enough that the survey validity would increase more by placing these
items in a single construct, instead of in two separate constructs. Minor vocabulary differences produced
two versions of the instrument suitable for Upper Elementary School and Middle/High School respectively.
Faber et al. (2013), in their pilot analysis used principal axis factoring and promax rotation to al-
low factors to be correlated, and the researchers classified item loadings above 0.40 as significant. The
researchers used the Kaiser Criterion as well as scree plots and interpretability to select the number of
factors. The evaluators also used factor analysis on each independent section of the survey. For example,
factor analysis was performed separately in the attitudes category on “Engineering and Technology” and
separately in the attitudes category on “Mathematics”. For instance, factor analysis was used separately
on the engineering attitudes section and on the math attitudes section. The researchers also used factor
analysis on all the attitudes questions taken as a whole (the attitudes toward science, math, engineering,
and 21st century skills) with the hope that the results would indicate that each survey section does act
as a single construct. Finally, a factor analysis was conducted on the career section to determine how
students tended to group careers based upon interest. In that way each factor revealed by the analysis
defined a group of careers that were similar.”
This specific instrument was chosen because it is suitable for students of secondary education and
is divided into six sections. Three of the sections are related to STEM subjects including 8 items on
Mathematics, 9 on Physics and 9 on Technology and Engineering. Students respond to each statement on
a seven-point Likert scale with the anchors ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” which
measures students’ attitude toward STEM subjects. The last sections recorded student demographics.
The fourth section on “21st Century Skills” includes 11 items such as “I believe I can deliver high
quality work” or “I know I can help my classmates.” Students respond on a seven-point Likert scale,
which measures students’ attitudes toward 21st century skills. The fifth section entitled “My future”
measures students’ interest in science and the careers they wish to pursue. Students respond to items on
a seven-point Likert scale encompassing 12 different scientific fields. For example, “Physics is the study
of basic physical laws governing motion, energy, structure and interactions of matter.”
Intervention
The experimental teaching intervention used scenarios created by the ESA which were translated, cor-
rected, modified to ensure suitability for the final year students (Year 3) of Greek Junior High School and
adapted so that can be completed in 12 teaching hours. The three teaching scenarios were, “Introduction
to Arduino”, “Plants on Mars” and “Am I communicating with the Earth?”. Two non-randomly distrib-
uted groups of participants were created from existing classrooms. The control group was subjected to
the traditional teaching method only, while the experimental group was equally exposed to traditional
teaching but complemented by the study’s educational intervention. The students of both groups were
349

given the instrument’s evaluation survey both before (pre-test) and after the intervention (post-test).
The pre- and post-evaluation method allows to control variables, so as to conclude that any possible
measured difference between the control and experimental groups is due to the teaching intervention.
Due to the non-random selection of participants as well as the special teaching protocol administered to
the experimental group, the use of the instrument before and after, as well as a regression analysis, the
teaching intervention was appropriately designed to account for any latent variables (Creswell, 2011).
The teaching intervention was based on the principles of constructionism (Papert & Harel, 1991) and
was divided into three modules 1. Introduction to Arduino, 2. Plants on Mars and 3. Hello, am I speak-
ing to Planet Earth? in which the principles of constructionism and the BSCS 5E Instructional Model
were fully applied. The teaching intervention started in January and was discontinued in March 2020 as
schools were ordered to shut down due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but was later resumed in May once
schools were once again operational.
RESULTS
Software package SPSS 26 generated the data analysis. The survey had been tested for validity in a
pilot study with 25 students who were not part of the control or experimental groups. Cronbach’s alpha
reliability coefficient was determined for the survey taken as a whole (a> 0.95) in addition to its five
independent sections (a> 0.72).
Due to the number of questions, 37 questions among the first four sections and 112 items from the
pre and post tests were subjected to Principal Components Analysis (PCA) in order to reduce a larger
set of variables into a smaller set of “artificial” variables called principle components which account
for most of the variance in the original variables.
Factor analysis by the PCA with varimax rotation method was performed to detect any correlations
among factors, where loadings above 0.40 were recorded as significant. The Kaiser (1974) criterion
(KMO = 0.873> 0.8, p <0.05) led to four significant factors. Following reanalysis results showed that
these four factors could explain 64.12% of the total variance. In addition, the Rotated Components Matrix
could interpret the four-factor result. Varimax orthogonal rotation was used to aid interpretation. The
rotation found a “clear factor structure” (Thurstone, 1947). The interpretation of the data was consistent
with the characteristics of students’ interest toward the STEM fields as well as 21st century skills that
the survey was intended to measure. Factor 1 leaned toward 21st century skills, Factor 2 toward Natural
Sciences, Factor 3 toward Technology and Engineering and Factor 4 toward Mathematics.
A similar analysis was performed on all 12 items related to students’ preferred career pathway. Factor
analysis by the PCA with varimax rotation method was performed to detect any correlations among fac-
tors, where loadings above 0.40 were recorded as significant. The team used the Kaiser criterion (1974)
(KMO = 0.850> 0.8, p <0.05) as well as scree plots and selected three factors as significant. Following
reanalysis the results showed that these three factors could explain 24.23%, 23.52%, and 23.32% of the
total variance, respectively.
A three-factor result could be interpreted from the Rotated Components Matrix table which explained
71.07% of the total variance. Varimax orthogonal rotation was used to interpret the data showing consis-
tency with the characteristics of STEM career pathways that the survey was designed to measure, with
Factor 1 leaning toward the hard sciences, Factor 2 toward the health sciences and Factor 3 toward the
environmental sciences.
350

No intervention was administered to the control group. The different analyses are based on whether or
not the variable was continuous. For continuous variables we performed a t-test while for the constructs
we administered a Mann-Whitney U-test.
The following results demonstrate students ’attitudes towards STEM subjects following their engage-
ment in programming, robotics and STEM activities.
Changing Students’ Attitudes toward Science,

Technology and Engineering and Mathematics
An independent-samples t-test set out to determine any differences in students’ attitudes towards Science.
There were no outliers in the data, as per the Boxplot analysis. Engagement scores for each group were
normally distributed, as confimed by the Shapiro-Wilk’s test (p > .05), and there was a homogeneity of
variances, as determined by Levene’s test for equality of variances (p = .134), as shown in Table 2. Ac-
cording to the results from Table 1, the attitudes were slightly improved in the experimental group (M
= 0.22, SD = 1.19) than the control group (M = 0.16, SD = 1.64), but without a statistically significant
difference, M = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.74], t(54) = -0.156, p = .877.
Table 1. Students’ attitudes Var S (Science), Var TE (Technology and Engineering), Var M (Mathematics)
Team N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Control 34 ,1569 1,63601 ,28057
Var S
Experiment 22 ,2200 1,18756 ,25319
Control 34 ,2326 1,15277 ,19770
Var TE
Experiment 22 -,6372 1,05521 ,22497
Control 34 ,1746 1,26850 ,21755
Var M
Experiment 22 ,1517 1,10720 ,23605
Table 2. Independent samples test – students’ attitudes toward science, technology and engineering and
mathematics
Levene’s Test for 95% Confidence interval of

t-test for Equality of Means
Equality of Variances the Difference
Sig. Std. Error

F Sig. t df. Mean Difference Lower Upper
(2-tailed) Difference
Equal variances
2,315 ,134 -,156 54 ,877 -,06312 ,40437 -,87383 ,74760
assumed
Var S
Equal variances
-,167 53,196 ,868 -,06312 ,37792 -,82107 ,69484
not assumed
Equal variances
1,056 ,309 2,849 54 ,006 ,86986 ,30531 ,25775 1,48199
assumed
Var TE
Equal variances
2,904 47,812 ,006 ,86986 ,29949 ,26763 1,47210
not assumed
Equal variances
,691 ,409 ,069 54 ,945 ,02284 ,33062 -,64001 ,68570
assumed
Var M
Equal variances
,071 49,224 ,944 ,02284 ,32101 -,62218 ,66786
not assumed
351

An independent-samples t-test set out to determine any differences in students’ attitudes towards
Technology and Engineering. There were no outliers in the data, as per the Boxplot analysis. Engage-
ment scores for each group were normally distributed, as confirmed by the Shapiro-Wilk’s test (p > .05),
and there was a homogeneity of variances, as determines by Levene’s test for equality of variances (p =
.309), as shown in Table 2. According to the results from Table 1, the attitudes differ significant in the
pre- and post-surveys for the experimental group (M = -0.64, SD = 1.06) compared to the control group
(M = 0.23, SD = 1.15), with a statistical difference, M = -0.87, 95% CI [0.26, 1.48], t (54) = 2.849, p =
.006. To determine if the experimental group showed greater improvement in their attitudes compared
to the control group, a unilateral test was performed. Since t> 0 and seeing that we set out to determine
if there was a difference between the two groups, p = (1-0.006)/2=0.497> 0.05 hence no statistically
significant difference between the groups.
An independent-samples t-test set out to determine any differences in students’ attitudes towards
Mathematics. There were no outliers in the data, as per the Boxplot analysis. Engagement scores for
each group were normally distributed, as confirmed by the Shapiro-Wilk’s test (p > .05), and there was
homogeneity of variances, as determined by Levene’s test for equality of variances (p = .409), as shown
in Table 2. According to the results from Table 1, the attitudes of the experimental group (M = .15, SD
= 1.11) against the control group (M = 0.17, SD = 1.27), did not show a statistically significant differ-
ence, M = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.68], t (54) = 0.069, p = .945
Changing Students’ Attitudes Toward Self-Evaluation in 21st

Century Skills and Science, Health, and Environmental Careers
An independent-samples t-test set out to determine any differences in students’ self-evaluations of 21st
century skills. There were no outliers in the data, as per the Boxplot analysis. Engagement scores for each
group were normally distributed, as confirmed by the Shapiro-Wilk’s test (p > .05), and there was a homo-
geneity of variances, as determined by Levene’s test for equality of variances (p = .674), as shown in Table
4. According to the results from Table 3, the self-evaluation of the 21st century skills was improved in the
experimental group (M = 0.37, SD = 1.03) as opposed to the control group (M = -0.19, SD = 1.14), with
a statistically significant difference, M = 0.56, 95% CI [-1.16, - 0.04], t (54) = -1.860, p = .068.
Table 3. Students’ attitudes Var SK (21st Century Skills), Var SCIENCE (Careers in Science Profes-
sions), Var HEALTH (Careers in Health Professions), Var ENVIRONMENT (Careers in Environment
related Professions)
Team N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Control 34 -,1867 1,14173 ,19581
Var SK
Experiment 22 ,3725 1,102763 ,21909
Control 34 -,1645 1,40963 ,24175
Var SCIENCE
Experiment 22 -4847 1,10094 ,23472
Control 34 ,0716 1,21914 ,20908
Var HEALTH
Experiment 22 ,6517 ,93494 ,19933
Control 34 -,1550 1,46280 ,25087
Var ENVIRONMENT
Experiment 22 ,5391 ,91120 ,19427
352

Table 4. Independent samples test – students’ attitudes toward self-evaluation in 21st century skills and
science, health and environmental careers
Levene’s Test
95% Confidence interval of
for Equality of t-test for Equality of Means
the Difference
Variances
Sig. Mean Std. Error

F Sig. t df. Lower Upper
(2-tailed) Difference Difference
Equal
variances ,0179 ,674 -1,860 54 ,068 -,55919 ,30064 -,1.16194 ,04356
assumed
Var SK
Equal
variances not -1,903 48,325 ,063 -,55919 ,29384 -1,14989 ,03151
assumed
Equal
variances 1,408 .241 ,901 54 ,371 ,32016 ,35525 -,39206 1,03239
assumed
Var
SCIENCE
Equal
variances not ,950 51,969 ,346 ,32016 ,33695 -,35599 ,99632
assumed
Equal
variances 1,902 ,173 -1,898 54 ,063 -,54011 ,30570 -1,19300 ,03277
assumed
Var
HEALTH
Equal
variances not -2,008 52,234 ,050 -,568011 ,28887 -1,15969 -,00053
assumed
Equal
variances 5,555 ,022 -2,141 54 ,037 -,74808 ,34939 -1,44856 -,04760
assumed
Var ENVIRONMENT
Equal
variances not -2,358 53,955 ,022 -74808 ,31729 -1,38423 -,11194
assumed
An independent-samples t-test set out to determine any differences in students’ attitudes toward careers
in the Hard Sciences. There were no outliers in the data, as per the Boxplot analysis. Engagement scores
for each group were normally distributed, as confirmed by the Shapiro-Wilk’s test (p > .05), and there
was a homogeneity of variances, as determined by Levene’s test for equality of variances (p = .241), as
shown in Table 4. According to the results from Table 3, the attitudes of the experimental group (M =
-0.48, SD = 1.10) compared to the control group (M = -0.19, SD = 1.14), did not show a statistically
significant difference, M = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.03], t (54) = 0,901, p = .371.
An independent-samples t-test set out to determine any differences in students’ attitudes toward career
pathways in Health. There were no outliers in the data, as per the Boxplot analysis. Engagement scores
for each group were normally distributed, as confirmed by the Shapiro-Wilk’s test (p > .05), and there
was a homogeneity of variances, as determined by Levene’s test for equality of variances (p = .173),
as shown in Table 4. According to the results from Table 3, the attitudes of the experimental group (M
= .65, SD = 0.93) compared to the control group (M = 0.07, SD = 1.22), did not state a statistically
significant difference, M = 0.58, 95% CI [-1.19, 0.33], t (54) = -1.898, p = 0.063 in the pre and post-
survey, however a unilateral test was performed and since t < 0 and seeing that we set out to determine
improvement in the experimental group compared to the control group a significant difference was
recorded, p = 0.063/2 = 0.032.
An independent-samples t-test set out to determine any differences in students’ attitudes toward career
pathways in the Environmental Sciences. There were no outliers in the data, as per the Boxplot analysis.
Engagement scores for each group were normally distributed, as confirmed by the Shapiro-Wilk’s test
353

(p > .05), and there wasn’t a homogeneity of variances, as determined by Levene’s test for equality of
variances (p = .022), as shown in Table 4. According to the results from Table 3, the attitudes of the
experimental group (M = 0.59, SD = 0.91) compared to the control group (M = -0.16, SD = 1.46),
showed a statistically significant difference, M = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.38, - 0.11], t (54) = -2.358, p = .022.
Improving Students’ Self-Evaluation in Mathematics and Physics
A Mann-Whitney U test set out to determine any differences in the self-evaluation scores between the
control and experimental groups in Mathematics. Distributions of the self-evaluation scores for the
control and experimental groups were similar, as assessed by visual inspection (Figure 1). As shown in
Table 5, Self-evaluation scores were not statistically significantly different between the control (Mdn
= 28.59) and experimental (Mdn = 28.36) groups, U = 371, z = -0.052, p = .959, after using an exact
sampling distribution for U (Dineen & Blakesley, 1973).
Figure 1. Students’ self-evaluation score in Mathematics
Table 5. Man-Whitney U Test – mathematics self-evaluation across groups
Total N 56
Mann-Whitney U 371,000
Wilicoxon W 624,000
Test Statistic 371,000
Standard Error 57,990
Standardized Test Statistic -,052
Asymptotic Sig.(2-sided test) .959
354

A Mann-Whitney U test set out to determine any differences in self-evaluation scores between the
control and experimental groups in Science. Distributions of the self-evaluation scores for the control
and experimental groups were similar, as assessed by visual inspection (Figure 2). As shown in Table
6, Self-evaluation scores were statistically significantly different between the control (Mdn = 24.91)
and experimental (Mdn = 34.05) groups, U = 371, z = -0.052, p = .959, after using an exact sampling
distribution for U (Dineen & Blakesley, 1973).
Figure 2. Students’ self-evaluation score in science
Table 6. Man-Whitney U Test - science self-evaluation across groups
Total N 56
Mann-Whitney U 496,000
Wilicoxon W 749,000
Test Statistic 496,000
Standard Error 57,229
Standardized Test Statistic 2,132
Asymptotic Sig.(2-sided test) ,033
DISCUSSION
The aim of the study was to investigate changes in Junior High School students’ attitudes toward STEM
subjects, and future careers when introducing STEM teaching interventions, in particular programming,
robotics as well as STEM activities and scenarios developed by the ESA. In particular, the teaching
355

intervention was based on the 5E Instructional Model and the science-based scenarios completed by
the experimental team were “Introduction to Arduino”, “Plants on Mars” and “Hello, am I speaking to
planet Earth?” which provided students with multiple opportunities to build, plan and solve authentic
problems relevant to the natural sciences, mathematics, technology and engineering.
The results showed that the two groups (control and experimental) while initially showed similar
attitudes, differed on some variables after the teaching intervention: the experimental group showed
greater self-evaluation improvement as well as attitude change toward STEM careers in the health and
environmental sectors, also confirmed by the research of Nugent et al. (2008). Additionally, after the
teaching intervention the experimental group showed improved self-evaluation in science subjects,
similarly demonstrated by Hurley’s study (2008). With regards to changes in attitudes toward STEM
subjects, no differences were observed between the two groups, similar to Koskey’s (2018) research.
Throughout the teaching intervention, students developed numerous skills as they engaged in
electronic circuits and programming, enhanced their interaction and teamwork abilities and gradually
students fulfilled, in turn, the requirements of the teaching intervention scenarios as also demonstrated
by the research of Wilensky (2011). According to post-intervention teacher interviews, improvements
were observed in formulating ideas, where students explained concepts with a greater ability to argue
and negotiate. Students were also exposed to materials and technologies, which they had not come in
contact with until the teaching intervention. This exposure sparked their curiosity, increased their inter-
est and triggered feelings of creativity and enjoyment, as was the case in the research of Sherin (2001).
Students shared that interaction and the means through which they created this interaction were the
method with which they wanted to acquire knowledge because they felt that they were in control of their
own discovery and creativity, and that the knowledge built held a firmer foundation and would more
sustainable in the long term.
Through classroom discussions, critical thinking and metacognition skills were observed since the
student-built knowledge, at any given stage, could be used to solve new problems or construct more
complex mechanical structures with greater ease and speed.
Improving students’ attitudes toward STEM careers, as well as their self-evaluation in STEM subjects,
through STEM related activities administered to a greater number of students or implemented in all
schools, can reverse the downward trend observed from the PISA indicators, and grant Greek students
with broader perspectives to find effective solutions to 21st century challenges.
The study presents several limitations that could be addressed in future research. The teaching interven-
tion took place from January 2020 with students in their final year of Junior High School. The study’s
expected end date was April 10, 2020, but school closures in early March 2020 to prevent the spread of
the pandemic did not allow for the study’s fruitful completion. An end to the lockdown period allowed
to complete the teaching intervention and therefore the post-test surveys were not handed to students
until mid-May 2020 once schools had reopened. Consequently, the post-test surveys were answered
more than two months after the teaching intervention. To our knowledge, non-completion of all teaching
scenarios as well as students’ late post-test responses resulted in distorted research results. An attempt
to repeat the study and re-evaluate the results is a worthy consideration. Even better would be to avoid
convenient sampling but assign the sample to entire classrooms throughout the program’s duration to
356

further increase the reliability of results. It would also be useful to implement the instrument across
more schools from different parts of Greece in order to assess the overall usefulness of STEM actions.
CONCLUSION
Greece’s educational system is shifting from a traditional environment that focuses on the teacher as a
provider of knowledge, to a modern one centered on students and their needs, where knowledge is built
with the teacher as a guide and mentor. Encouraging students to engage in STEM activities is a step in
this direction. Constructivism (Papert & Harel, 1991) together with an applied 5E Instructional Model
generates results as demonstrated empirically, and the STEM-based scenarios in the teaching interven-
tions were suitable for Year 3 students of Junior High School. The cost of materials was insignificant,
and the software used in the intervention was open source, therefore free of charge. Additionally, these
science-based scenarios could very well be used in computer science classes or science laboratories with
senior high school students. They are simple for the teacher to administer and increase interest among
students while building essential knowledge and life skills.
REFERENCES
Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond. In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gi-
jselaers (Eds.), New directions for teaching and learning. Bringing problem-based learning to higher
education: Theory and practice (pp. 3–13). Jossey-Bass.
Burke, L., Francis, K., & Shanahan, M. (2014). A horizon of possibilities: a definition of STEM educa-
tion. In STEM 2014 Conference (pp. 12-15). Academic Press.
Bybee, R. W. (2019). Using the BSCS 5E instructional model to introduce STEM disciplines. Science
and Children, 56(6), 8–12. doi:10.2505/4c19_056_06_8
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N.
(2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. BSCS, 5, 88–98.
Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers’ perspectives on
the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century US workforce. Partnership
for 21st Century Skills.
Dave, V., Blasko, D., Holliday-Darr, K., Kremer, J. T., Edwards, R., Ford, M., Lenhardt, L., & Hido, B.
(2010). Re-enJEANeering STEM Education: Math Options Summer Camp. The Journal of Technology
Studies, 36(1), 35–45. doi:10.21061/jots.v36i1.a.5
Dori, Y. J., Mevarech, Z., & Baker, D. (2018). Cognition, metacognition and culture in STEM education.
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-66659-4
357

Edelson, D. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners: Design challenges
and strategies. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 335–354).
Cambridge University Press.
English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of
STEM Education, 3(1), 3. doi:10.118640594-016-0036-1
Faber, M., Unfried, A., Wiebe, E. N., Corn, J., Townsend, L. W., & Collins, T. L. (2013, June). Student
attitudes toward STEM: The development of upper elementary school and middle/high school student
surveys. Proceedings of the 120th American Society of Engineering Education Conference.
Feldhausen, R., Weese, J. L., & Bean, N. H. (2018). Increasing Student Self-Efficacy in Computational
Thinking via STEM Outreach Programs. Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Com-
puter Science Education, 302–307. 10.1145/3159450.3159593
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education:
Status, prospects, and an agenda for research (Vol. 500). National Academies Press.
Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Learning to solve complex, scientific problems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. Inter-
national Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 11. doi:10.118640594-016-0046-z
Koskey, K. L., Ahmed, W., Makki, N., Garafolo, N., Kruggel, B. G., & Visco, D. P. (2018, June). Board
154: Zipping to STEM: Integrating Engineering Design in Middle School Science. 2018 ASEE Annual
Conference & Exposition. 10.18260/1-2--29957
Moore, T. J., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Advancing the state of the art of STEM integration. Journal of
STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 15(1), 5.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Science and Engineering for Grades
6–12: Investigation and Design at the Center. The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/25216
Nugent, G., Barker, B., & Grandgenett, N. (2008, June). The effect of 4-H robotics and geospatial tech-
nologies on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and attitudes. In EdMedia+
Innovate Learning (pp. 447-452). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Palincsar, A. S., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (1999). Designing collaborative contexts: Lessons from three
research programs. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp.
151–177). Erlbaum.
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36(2), 1–11.
Psycharis, S. (2018, September). Computational thinking, engineering epistemology and STEM epis-
temology: A primary approach to computational pedagogy. In International Conference on Interactive
Collaborative Learning (pp. 689-698). Springer.
Psycharis, S., Kalovrektis, K., Sakellaridi, E., Korres, K., & Mastorodimos, D. (2018). Unfolding the
Curriculum: Physical Computing, Computational Thinking and Computational Experiment in STEM’s
Transdisciplinary Approach. European Journal of Engineering Research and Science, 19-24.
358

Psycharis, S., Kalovrektis, K., & Xenakis, A. (2020). A Conceptual Framework for Computational
Pedagogy in STEAM education: Determinants and perspectives. Hellenic Journal of STEM Education,
1(1), 17–32.
Rennie, L. J., & Heard, M. R. (2012). Scientists in Schools: Benefits of Working Together. 2nd Inter-
national STEM in Education Conference.
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solv-
ing. In C. E. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Springer-Verlag.
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-85098-1_5
Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2011). Lowering the learning threshold: Multi-agent-based models learn-
ing electricity. In Models and Modeling (pp. 141–171). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0449-7_7
Sherin, B. L. (2001). How students understand physics equations. Cognition and Instruction, 19(4),
479–541. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1904_3
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons.
Vasquez, J. A. (2014). Developing STEM site-based teacher and administrator leadership. Exemplary
STEM Programs.
Vasquez, J. A. (2015). STEM-Beyond the Acronym. Educational Leadership, 72(4), 10–15.
Vasquez, J. A., Sneider, C. I., & Comer, M. W. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3-8: Integrating
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Heinemann.
Verner, I. M., & Revzin, L. B. (2017). Robotics in school chemistry laboratories. In Robotics in educa-
tion (pp. 127–136). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-42975-5_12
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard
University Press.
ADDITIONAL READING
Alimisis, D., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Constructionism and robotics in education. Teacher Education on
Robotic-Enhanced Constructivist Pedagogical Methods, 11-26.
3–11. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x
Crippen, K. J., & Antonenko, P. D. (2018). Designing for collaborative problem solving in STEM cy-
berlearning. In Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education. Springer.
359

English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal
of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 5–24. doi:10.100710763-017-9802-x
Khine, M. S. (2017). Robotics in STEM Education: Redesigning the Learning Experience. Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-57786-9
Psycharis, S. (2016). The Impact of Computational Experiment and Formative Assessment in Inquiry
Based Teaching and Learning Approach in STEM Education. Journal of Science Education and Tech-
nology, 25(2), 316–326. doi:10.100710956-015-9595-z
Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions
and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 1(2), 2.
Attitude: A positive or negative feeling toward a particular subject or object (e.g., STEM education,
Information and Communication Technologies).
Education: The process of facilitating learning, or the acquisition of knowledge, skills, values,
beliefs, and habits.
ESA: The European Space Agent is an intergovernmental organization dedicated to the exploration
of space.
Intervention: A set of skills-building activities which the student completes during a portion of the
school day to help improve academic abilities such as reading, writing, or math.
Perception: The process by which a person combine knowledge and idea has gained as a result of
having an experience in relation to a topic.
Principal Component Analysis (PCA): A statistical procedure that is used to identify which items
or factors in a questionnaire are highly correlated with each other.
Problem-Based Learning: A learning approach in which learners inquire into real problems about
important questions and issues that have no clear answers.
STEM: A teaching philosophy that integrates all four disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering,
Mathematics) into a single, cross-disciplinary program which offers instruction in real-world applica-
tions and teaching methods.
360
361
Chapter 17
A Teaching Sequence Proposal
Using Microcontrollers
Programmed With BASIC
Thomas Francis Hartley
Independent Researcher, Australia
ABSTRACT
This chapter presents three electronics-based projects at increasing levels of sophistication. Two of
the projects use the PIC microcontroller-based MicroMite chip. One uses the new Raspberry Pi PICO
microcontroller board. All three deliver base level units that monitor atmospheric pressure (Projects
1 and 2) and ambient light levels (Project 3). All three communicate bidirectionally with an app on an
Android mobile phone via the popular and well supported Bluetooth protocols. In the final technical
section of the chapter, the content of those Bluetooth communications are ‘pushed’ onto a local IoT
intranet design. The chapter closes with a brief summary of the STEAM initiatives in Australia plus
a brief discussion of the importance of electronics in contemporary life which arguably justifies their
inclusion in STEAM curricula content.
INTRODUCTION
In the current age, it is indisputable that Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) have
permeated our lives and are ubiquitous in every aspect of our daily routine. Since the early 20th century,
technology has been envisioned as and promised to be a perfect tool that will transform the way we
interact with learning material, change the way we learn and make teaching sequences more interesting,
immersive and successful. In the course of integrating technology with learning sequences there have
been many successful stories, but this integration also ended in quite a few disappointments.
Students nowadays are “digital natives” and significantly familiar with many aspects of ICT. It is
clearly important for this generation, to acquire the so-called 21st century skills (Geisinger, 2016).
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-3861-9.ch017

A Teaching Sequence Proposal Using Microcontrollers Programmed With BASIC
Science, Technology Engineering Arts and Mathematics (STEAM) education affordances have been
increasingly integrated in modern curricula, aiming to provide students with not only “core” knowledge
from the various disciplines but also teach them problem solving skills, critical thinking, creativity,
communication skills and in general digital and information literacy (Khine & Areepattamannil, 2019;
Taylor, 2016; Xefteris, 2019).
The STEAM framework has been shown to be instrumental in reconceptualizing instructional strate-
gies and models, focusing educators and students on “learning how to think and learning how to learn”
(Ge, Ifenthaler, & Spector, 2015). The framework is targeted towards transdisciplinary and multimodal
contexts of presenting learning material, combining different learning areas and uncovering hitherto
“hidden” relationships among different disciplines (Hayman, 2017).
In this context, the introduction of programming activities in curricula is a promising and highly
versatile tool that enables educators to formulate the sought-after transdisciplinary and highly engaging
learning activities. There are many approaches and different formulations of courses using microcon-
trollers or micro PCs to engage students in project based activities under a STEAM framework, tackling
different aspects and using one or more modalities such as educational robotics, Arduino, Raspberry Pi
etc. (de Souza & Elisiario, 2019; Zhong & Liang, 2016).
In this chapter a teaching sequence is proposed, based on the use of microcontrollers that are pro-
grammed using ‘Basic’. The core materials of the presented projects include the new Raspberry Pi
Pico board and the PIC microcontroller based MicroMite chip. The teaching sequence consists of three
projects at increasing levels of sophistication. Projects 1 and 2 deliver an atmospheric pressure monitor
and project 3 delivers an ambient light level monitor. All projects communicate bidirectionaly with an
Android mobile app via a Bluetooth connection. In the final section, measurements are pushed onto a
local IOT intranet. The teaching sequence aims at inducing a problem based learning activity, emphasiz-
ing on evaluation of results.
BACKGROUND
STEAM Education in Australia
The Australian Science Curriculum outlines perspectives on how to engage students with material that
facilitates basic uni-disciplinary knowledge and skills but also highlights the significance of the acquisition
of higher-order skills for functioning in a highly and constantly evolving technology saturated environment.
In this, the Australian Science Curriculum provides a roadmap that urges educators to create learning
sequences that make use of multiple modalities and engage students in developing inquiry skills through
the conceptual acquisition of scientific concepts (“The Australian Curriculum,” 2021) In this context,
Australia’s chief scientist has called for educational reforms that facilitate the students’ engagement
with STEM disciplines, in order to future-proof Australia’s high tech digital workforce (Taylor, 2016).
Although STEAM education aspires to be Australia’s nationwide focus for innovation and for arming
students with much desired 21st century skills, including the ability to “think smart and creatively, solve
problems, take risks, have strong digital skills and collaborate effectively” (PriceWaterhouseCoopers,
2015) it seems there is much to be desired for considering the state of education in the nation’s schools,
especially at the secondary level, where STEAM based curriculum resources are scarce. A report by
362

(Deloitte, 2015) outlines that educators need to embrace and add the “A” in STEM in order to foster the
students’ creative design and performance.
The uptake of the STEAM initiative in Australia is at an early stage. The two largest States – Victoria
and New South Wales – have documentation on their Educational Department websites around the need
for STEM to become a reality in their Years K to 12 curricula(“About STEM education in Victoria,” 2021;
“STEM Education in New South Wales,” 2021). The documentation tackle issues around the migration
from existing science and mathematics curricula to a STEM focus and the pedagogical arguments for
the migration. State based activities for trainers to up skill in this area are also covered. Unfortunately, it
would seem that the Coronavirus Pandemic which started in 2019 meant that such events did not proceed.
So at this point in time there does not appear to be an across the board position statement that one could
make about STEM in Australia, with the “A” of STEAM largely missing from online.
Following on from this position that there is a ‘foundation’ skills requirement, the approach in this
Chapter has been to provide launch pads for the students’ ideas. It just so happens that they are all elec-
tronic but in reality, so much in contemporary life now revolves around an ‘electro-mechanical device’
of some sort. Explicit developments or even suggestions as to how the Project Boards can be used have
purposely been avoided. Commentary was made in the previous paragraph that documentation around
STEAM is still embryonic at the ‘Educational Departmental’ level but this does not mean there is none
available in the Australian environment. For example, the company LAPtek which is based in Mount
Waverley, Victoria Australia have ten titles in their ‘Victorian Curriculum Design and Technologies
STEM-D and STEAM (Years 5 – 10)’ series(“Victorian Curriculum Design & Technologies Stem-D and
STEAM (Years 5 to 10),” 2021). These are all written in formats that match the conventional teaching
and learning outcomes required by educators. Everton Park State High School in Queensland, Austra-
lia, have posted their powerpoint on STEAM into STEM: Linking to the Australian Curriculum online
(STEAM into STEM: Linking to the Australian Curriculum, 2021). In Australia there are two magazines
that can be considered good resources for students. DIYODE magazine (“DIYODE Magazine,” 2021)
has been publishing hard copy and e-copy since July 2017. They intentionally publish items that are
relevant to electronics in STEAM at all levels. Content in each issue tends to be rather mixed but given
that they have nearly 5 years of back issues students should be able to locate several items of interest
and/or assistance. SILICON CHIP is more technical magazine that covers a broader range of amateur
and professional electronic topics and projects. They have been publishing since November 1987 and
have an extensive archive of back issues (“Silicon Chip Online,” 2021). They also produce printed circuit
boards for almost all of their projects which means that a student could very quickly get a head start with
a project built on a proven and stable baseboard.
Teaching STEM With Microcontrollers
In the recent years, there is a significant trend for educators using microcontrollers in teaching sequences
integrating a veritable plethora of modalities: IOT, game design and robotics, Arduino, Raspberry,
Micro:Bit etc are used to create novel and highly interesting educational sequences (Fidai et al., 2019;
Tsai, Hsiao, Yu, & Lin, 2021; Yasin, Prima, & Sholihin, 2018). Lately, microcontrollers manufacturers
have been steadily focusing on the premise that “the application is more important than the program”.
That the end result, the solution to the problem, is more significant for the learning experience of the
students than simply learning a programming language. To get an insight into this one only has to re-
view how microcontroller manufacturers have supported the educational sector around the World with
363

literature and user forums which are definitely biased towards applications. For example, the distributors
of the PICAXE microcontroller (picaxe.com), which is popular in the UK and Europe, provide support
educators and forums for users. The PICAXE is programmed in their version of BASIC via a conven-
tional text based editor and compiler, but they have also provided a visual programming environment
‘Blockly for PICAXE’. Visual programming portals were launched originally by Google in an attempt
to make programming more approachable. Visual programming moves the programmer away from hav-
ing to master a ‘language’ and instead approach programming as a construct of interlocking modules.
These initiatives have now been taken under the umbrella of various prestigious organisations with the
most prominent being the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) which has developed Scratch,
ScratchJr, StarLogo and Godot. The BBC micro:bit is another microcontroller popular in the UK and
Europe. Their website (“Lessons | micro:bit,” 2021)provides a wealth of ‘lessons’ that provide a well
balanced curriculum of coding and applications. Visual programming is also possible with the micro:bit;
their recommended visual programming application is Microsoft’s Make Code. The Arduino which is
more of a microcontroller board than a bare bones microcontroller has a huge international following
and educational resources that cover students from 11 years old to tertiary. Because of its long history
in the market place the Arduino is predominantly programmed using a text based IDE but it can also be
programmed using the visual programming tools - Scratch and Snap!. Finally mention has to be made
of Raspberry Pi. This was brought onto the market with the intention of providing an alternative to the
Arduino. This has not happened because the Raspberry Pi is a microcomputer board which has been
purposely fitted with multiple digital and analog input pins to give it the appearance of a microcontroller.
In reality it is a fully fledged Linux computer running a version a of Debian Linux called Raspian. An-
other reason it has not surpassed the Arduino is that the cost has ballooned out to approximately five
times the cost of an Arduino. Raspberry Pi are also fully committed to educators (“Teach computing
and digital making – Raspberry Pi,” 2021; Zhong & Liang, 2016)but the majority of their focus is on
information technology. To offset this higher end focus, there are other simpler Raspberry Pi hardware
devices and in this chapter their ‘lowest specification’ device marketed to date, the Raspberry Pi Nano,
is included as it truly is a bare bones microcontroller module. The chapter aims at providing a highly
detailed teaching sequence in tutorial form, avoiding overcomplicated designs on circuits boards that
more often than not end up in “birds nest” wiring that frustrates novice students from further using the
paradigm, as seen in Figure 1.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TEACHING SEQUENCE
Educational Objective
The aim of the proposed teaching sequence is to introduce students to the PIC family of microcontrollers
with the minimum prerequisites for high level construction or programming skills. The prime objective
is to facilitate the students’ engagement through the implementation of a “real life” problem to be solved,
minimizing the “conceptual clutter” of intricate construction, wiring and highly complicated program-
ming, emphasizing on the evaluation of the end result.
364

Figure 1. An example of an Arduino based breathalyzer circuit implementation
Desirable Pre-Existing Skills
Reasonable manual dexterity and some familiarity with handling integrated circuits and soldering
simple components like resistors to Veroboard. Students with some intention tremor may find soldering
more of a challenge in which case some relief can be achieved by using larger pieces of circuit board
and spacing the components further apart. In Project 1 the items are firmly located by gluing them to
Leg bricks with double sided mounting tape. This approach is recommended for younger students and
those with dexterity problems. Soldering items that are mechanically stable and easily accessible are
significantly easier to work with.
Intended Learning Outcomes
Because the construction aspects of the projects are simple, they can be completed in short periods of
time. This will leave the students with more time to concentrate on the important tasks of:
• IOT sensor sensor selection and location design,

• microcontroller programming beyond the basic capabilities of the three projects described in this
chapter
• deployment of mechanically and programatically sound IOT devices.
365

Material Requirements
The basic equipment list for the implementation of the proposed projects is as follows:
1. Materials
◦◦ Access to a Windows or Linux PC
◦◦ Access to an Android mobile phone with a Bluetooth serial terminal app.
◦◦ A soldering iron
◦◦ Small hand tools including a Veroboard copper track cutting tool
◦◦ Alkaline cell batteries
◦◦ Integrated circuits:
◦◦ MicroMite PIC integrated circuit chip
◦◦ USB-TTL converter module
◦◦ HC-05 Bluetooth module
◦◦ Real Time Clock module
◦◦ Atmospheric Pressure module
◦◦ Light Dependent Resistor (LDR) module
◦◦ Low voltage power supply module
◦◦ Solid core hookup wire
◦◦ Screw Terminal blocks
◦◦ Lego style baseboards and bricks
◦◦ Small pieces of Veroboard
◦◦ 10X magnification hand lens
2. MicroMite and the Raspberry Pi Pico
The MicroMite was invented by Geoff Graham. He pioneered the porting of the BASIC programming
language interpreter into the protected memory space of a PIC microcontroller. His objective was to make
it simpler for users to program the PIC microcontroller using a high-level programming language which
has been in use since the very early days of personal computers. He has added commands that make it
simple to access the analog, digital and serial I/O pins of the chip. The other significant advantage of
his solution is that there is absolutely no requirement for the user to load additional software onto their
computer in order to work with these chips. All that is required is a conventional VT100 terminal emulator
program – TerraTerm for Windows PCs and PuTTY for Linux, Several versions of PIC microcontrollers
can be used in this way. This chapter is restricted to the 28 pin DIL package: PIC32MX150F128B-50I/SP.
The Raspberry Pi PICO when loaded with Geoff Graham’s MMBASIC interpreter is referred to as
the PicoMite.
The MicroMite is programmed in a version of BASIC that is almost identical to Microsoft’s original
GWBasic of the 1980’s. Additional commands have been added by the developer, Geoff Graham, so as to
facilitate programs to interact with the pins on the microcontroller. In addition, there are additional com-
mands and functions that facilitate the use of sensors that communicate via an I2C protocol, the 1-Wire
protocol or the SPI protocol. The projects described in this chapter use an atmospheric pressure sensor
and a real time clock module that both communicate with the microcontroller using the I2C protocol.
366

The MMBASIC interpreter that Geoff Graham has developed for the Raspberry Pi PICO has gone
even further and the version of BASIC that can be loaded onto that hardware has extended the commands
to make it particularly suited to graphical displays.
THE PROJECTS
Project 1: A Simple MicroMite Based Design
The objective of this project is to demonstrate that the MicroMite can be used as a simple and inexpen-
sive standalone IOT device. This has been achieved by programming a MicroMite 28 pin chip via the
conventional PC USB connection to the Editor. Then disconnecting it from the PC and transmitting the
MicroMite’s terminal output data stream over Bluetooth into an Android App running on an inexpensive
mobile phone.
The required components for the project are:
• MicroMite 28 pin PIC Controller chip preloaded with MMBASIC and a tantalum capacitor as
recommended by Geoff Graham.
• An HC-05 Bluetooth module preferably one with an ‘Enable’ push button key.
• A USB to TTL converter
• A BMP180 atmospheric pressure sensor
• A short USB male to female converter cable.
• A 4 X AA battery holder modified by tapping the output voltages at 3V and
• 4.5V. (The fourth battery is not needed and that position can be left empty.)
• A small piece of Veroboard.
• A Veroboard copper track cutting tool.
• Short strips of Arduino style header pins
• Hook up wire
• An Android mobile phone with the Bluetooth Terminal App by Kai Morich Installed
There are three groups of tasks to complete:
• Construct the core circuit board that contains MicroMite PIC controller chip.
• Select a suitable VT100 serial terminal emulator to run on your PC. For Windows users TeraTerm
appears to be the most favoured. For Linux users PuTTY SSH Client is recommended. Construct
a simple circuit to set the correct baud rate etc. for the HC-05 Bluetooth Module
• Add the USB-TTL converter, HC-05 Bluetooth module and the BMP180 Atmospheric Pressure
module at optimum positions around the core circuit board. Type in the BASIC program read and
decode all the data stream from the BMP180 sensor. Load the Bluetooth Terminal App onto an
Android mobile phone to view the sensor’s output without needing any physical connection to a
PC.
367

Task 1: In this task the PIC microcontroller preloaded with the MicroMite BASIC interpreter is
mounted on a small rectangle of Veroboard and wired up so that it forms the core circuit board ver-
satile enough to be relocated into other MicroMite based projects. Refer to Figure 2 during this task.
It will assist in understanding the how the components are best located. Refer to Figure 3 and Figure
4 to understand which pins on the MicroMite controller are being referred to. Select a small piece of
Veroboard; 16 holes wide by 20 holes long is the minimum size. The copper tracks should be parallel
to the short edge. Insert the MicroMite chip 3 rows down from the short edge; (these three rows will be
referred to later as rows {a}, {b}, and {c}). The small semicircular indentation in the MicroMite chip
should be closest to this same edge of the Veroboard. Carefully solder each leg of the MicroMite chip
to the copper tracks underneath. Using the Veroboard track cutting tool cut the 14 tracks between the
legs of the MicroMite chip so that the legs of the chip are not shorted to each other. 2 rows away from
the legs of MicroMite chip solder two strips of 14 Arduino style header pins with their long leg point-
ing up from the non-copper strips side of the Veroboard. Solder these two strips to the copper tracks
underneath. Solder 2 more pins adjacent to pin 11 and 12 of the MicroMite chip. The MicroMite chip
is usually supplied with a 47 µF tantalum capacitor and this should be soldered across pins 19 and 20 of
the MicroMite chip. Note that the capacitor is polarised i.e. it has a positive and negative wire. Ensure
that the positive wire of this capacitor is soldered to pin 20’s copper track.
The following point to point wiring is required:
{b} to MicroMite pin 8

{a} to MicroMite pin 13
{a} to the +ve 3V tapping in the battery pack
{b} to the -ve point in the battery pack
The core circuit board is now complete. A suggestion is that it is now glued to some Lego blocks us-
ing double sided mounting tape and the assembly located at a convenient point on a piece of Lego base
board. Firmly mounting items in this way is particularly suited to younger students because it locates
the items firmly while soldering wires between them.
Task 2: In this task the HC-05 module is setup before mounting it onto the Project 1 Lego baseboard
and wired to the core circuit board. The HC-05 has to be setup so that it runs at the correct baud rate for
the MicroMite chip. The USB-TTL converter module is wired to the core circuit board.
Install a VT100 compatible terminal software onto a PC. Follow the instructions provided by the
serial terminal software publisher that apply to that PC’s hardware and operating system.
The HC-05 Bluetooth module has many similarities to a modem. The first step is to supply the module
with the appropriate commands to set up the baud rate etc. These are sent as ‘AT’ commands. To do this
you have to connect the module to your computer as per the diagram in Figure 5. Because this circuit
is not permanent a convenient solution is to use double end female Arduino patch leads. The 5V supply
required for the HC-05 module can often be picked up from the USB-TTL converter but if that is not
possible a battery will have to be used as shown in Figure 5.
368

Figure 2. Topside view of the Project 1 board
Figure 3. The 28 Pin DIL PIC32MX150F128B-50I/SP Micromite Chip and Wiring for the Project 1
Core Board
Startup your terminal program on your PC and plug the USB to TTL converter into a convenient
USB port on your PC using a short USB male to female USB cable.
The terminal software will require information about which USB port it should connect to. This is
done in Windows using the device manager. In Linux, when there are no other USB devices plugged into
the computer, then the usual USB designation usually defaults to /dev/ttyUSB0. If other USB devices are
already plugged into the PC then this address could be anything between ttyUSB0 and tyUSBN where
N is the number of USB ports on the PC minus one.
369

Figure 4. Project 1 wiring diagram
Figure 5. Circuit Required to Communicate with the HC-05 Module During Setup
370

Hold down the button on the HC-05 module and turn the switch on the battery box to the ‘ON’ po-
sition. If the battery box is not being used then unplug the USB-TTL converter – HC-05 combination
and then while holding the button on the HC-05 module plug the combination back in. Wait a couple of
seconds before releasing the button. The red LED on the HC-05 module should flash slowly.
Now type in AT on the computer terminal program and the module should respond with OK. If it
does not then there is probably a baud rate mismatch so check that the terminal is communicating with
the HC-05 at 9,600 baud, 8 bits, No parity, 1 stop bit, no flow control. Also the Enter Key on your PC
needs to be mapped as a carriage return plus line feed usually signified in the terminal software as CR/
LF. The other baud rate to try is 38,400. Different manufacturers have different default baud rates on
first use so it may be necessary to consult the device manufacturer’s data sheet for that item. Once you
have an OK on the PC’s screen then proceed to enter these two commands:
AT+UART=38400,1,0
AT+NAME=MMITE01
If both commands have been successful then then an OK should have been received after each one.
Check that the required settings have been recorded into the module by typing in
AT+UART which should get the response 38400,1,0

AT+NAME which should get the response MMITE01
Dismantle the HC-05 module from the temporary wiring. Take a six way long legged header socket
and glue it to a suitable sized Lego brick using double sided mounting tape. Place that brick at a suitable
location on the Lego baseboard e.g. as shown in Figure 2. Plug the HC-05 into that header. Use a self
adhesive label to mark out the pin names in their correct positions and stick that to the header. Proceed
to use short lengths of hook up wire to connect:
• HC-05 Rx to MicroMite Pin 11 core circuit board

• HC-05 Tx to MicroMite Pin 12 core circuit board
• HC-05 GND to Row {b} core circuit board
• HC-05 Vcc to +4.5V wire from the Battery Pack
The procedure for wiring the USB-TTL module to the core circuit board is similar. Take a six way
long legged header socket and glue it to a suitable sized Lego brick using double sided mounting tape.
Place that brick at a suitable location on the Lego baseboard e.g. As shown in Figure 2. Plug the USB-
TTL module into that header. If the pin assignments are not visible from the topside use a self-adhesive
label to mark out the pin names in their correct positions and stick that to the header. Proceed to use
short lengths of hook up wire to connect:
• USB-TTL Rx MicroMite Pin 11 core circuit board

• USB-TTL Tx MicroMite Pin 12 core circuit board
• USB-TTL GND MicroMite Pin 8 core circuit board
371

The Project Board should now closely resemble the arrangement in Figure 2 but without the BMP180
module in place. At this point the battery pack can be glued to the underside of the Leg base board and
the Project powered up. Connect the USBTTL module to the PC running the VT100 terminal emulation
program. Press the CTRL and C keys simultaneously on the PC keyboard and the terminal program
should then display the MicroMites’ “>” command prompt symbol. If not refer to the debugging section
for this Project 1.
Task 3. This section describes the wiring up of the BMP180 Atmospheric Pressure sensor module
to the core circuit board followed by the programmatic setup for that sensor.
The procedure for wiring the BMP180 module to the core circuit board is similar to that already
described above. The schematic can be seen in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Inter connections of the modules in project 1
Take a six way long legged header socket and glue it to a suitable sized Lego brick using double sided
mounting tape. Place that brick at a suitable location on the Lego baseboard e.g. As shown in Figure 2.
Plug the BMP180 module into that header. If the pin assignments are not visible from the topside use
a self-adhesive label to mark out the pin names in their correct positions and stick that to the header.
Proceed to use short lengths of hook up wire to connect:
• BMP180 SDA to MicroMite Pin 18 core circuit board

• BMP180 SCL to MicroMite Pin 17 core circuit board
• BMP180 GND to Row {b} core circuit board
• BMP180 VCC to Row {a} core circuit board
The BMP180 sensor is an I2C device and this means that it is a serial communications device that sends
and receives information via special format of ‘words’. At this point it is not necessary to understand that
format but just to load and edit the the program written by Jim Rowe which is available free of charge
from the Silicon Chip Shop webpage [ http://www.siliconchip.com.au/Shop/Download/4521/8992 ].
372

Edit out all lines which pertain to formatting and/or displaying information on the LCD screen that
is presumed to be connected to the MicroMite in that program. Replace all of that detail with simple
Print commands. Run the program and confirm that it all performs correctly in the usual PC ‘RUN’
terminal mode. Shutdown the PC terminal and unplug the Project 1 board from the PC’s USB port.
Install the Bluetooth Terminal App on your mobile phone. Power up the Project Board. Notice that the
red LED on the HC-05 module is flashing rapidly. Follow the instructions for connecting a bluetooth
device to the Bluetooth Terminal App on your phone. The steps involve registering the HC-05 with the
phone’s Bluetooth devices list. It will first show up as a alphanumeric address similar to an IP address
but segmented into several pairs of hexadecimal characters. Once you provide the password of 0000 or
1234 your HC-05 should then appear on the list as MMITE01. Return to the Bluetooth Serial App on
the phone and select MMITE01 as the required device to connect with. Successful connection to the
HC05 will be detectable by the flashing LED having slowed down considerably. The App should also
be displaying exactly as has been observed previously seen on the PC’s terminal screen. If not then turn
the battery power to the Project 1 board off and on again. Whenever the Project 1 board is powered down
and up the the Bluetooth Terminal App will report it has lost the connection. Tap on the connect icon in
the App and connection should be re-established without any further need for user inputs or adjustments.
A typical screen on the mobile phone is shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Example of bluetooth connection to micromite via the android phone app
373

This particular App has a data Log option so all input and output communications can be recorded
for later reference and use e.g. pasting into Excel and plotting graphs. There is also another advantage
from using this particular Bluetooth Terminal App – it adds the current date and time to every line of
data received thereby making it unnecessary to build a RTC module into Project 1. In fact, now that the
data is resident in the mobile phone there are now opportunities to exploit the computing capabilities
of the mobile phone by downloading or writing Apps that work with these data. When the MicroMite
is programmed to AutoStart it does so before the HC-05 has had time to complete its communication
stream with the Bluetooth serial terminal app on the Android mobile phone. As a result, it appears as
though there is no communication with the project. In fact, the communication is probably all OK and
a stop and restart of the MicroMite will resolve this problem. To stop the MicroMite send a CTRL-C
combination from the Bluetooth terminal program on the mobile phone. If the recommended serial ter-
minal app is being used then it possible to program a macro key (M1) to store the CTRL-C code under
that location; see Figure 8.
Figure 8. Programming a macro key on the android Bluetooth serial terminal app
Project 2: A more Versatile MicroMite Based Design
This project takes the design in Project 1 to a more permanent and versatile configuration by adding
a dual voltage power supply, a real time clock and a terminal strip that brings many of the useful in-
terface pins of the MicroMite to the edge of the circuit board. Sensors can then be quickly and easily
connected via fly leads to this terminal strip. That also means that the placements of the IOT sensors
374

are not confined to the circuit board and, for example, can now be arranged in appropriate positions on
some scientific apparatus being used in a STEAM experiment. The real time clock provides for true time
and date data for your programs. The timer available under MMBASIC can only provide the elapsed
time since the onboard program was first started. Robust IOT data logging applications need access to
the true time and date in order to add a timestamp to readings as and when they are collected. (Under
MMBASIC it is possible to set the date and time within the program but if the requirement is for the
program to autostart without a pause for an operator to input the current date and time, then a real time
clock module is essential.)
The design requires some additional components to those required for Project 1:
• Veroboard style copper track board: 95mm wide by 152 mm long with holes
• spaced 2.5 mm apart. This board has holes that occupy 60 columns by 34 rows.
• A Real Time Clock module
• PCB mount style terminal strip
• A Breadboard style power module
• 3- and 6-way stackable headers; pins should be approximately 11 mm long.
• A 4 X AA battery holder with an on/off switch and a short cable terminated with DC connector
– centre pin positive.
The circuit is simple and is shown in Figure 9. The objective is to build it in such a way that all
components are connected via ‘point to point’ wiring above the strip board. One of the major causes of
wiring errors in electronics projects is that the circuit diagram is a topside view of how the components
are connected. When under board wiring is used it is very easy to get disorientated; if you tip the circuit
board in a ‘bottom to top’ direction then what is ‘bottom’ on the circuit diagram is now ‘top’. The fool-
proof solution is to create a printed circuit but that is beyond the scope of these projects. Our objective
is to get circuits built as quickly as possible so that more time can be devoted to the intended application.
Hence the ‘point to point’ above board wiring up approach has been followed here.
Figure 9. Project 2 Circuit Diagram
375

Task 1: The power supply module is designed to easily plug into a breadboard and in order to make
it mechanically stable when plugged into the breadboard it has three pins per voltage rail. In this project
the power supply is being used in a different orientation from that intended by the manufacturer so eight
of these pins have to be cut off before soldering it to the strip board. The correct pins to cut off when
viewed from below and the power module on the right-hand upper corner are described in Table 1
Table 1. Underside of the power module
Underside of the Power Module

3.3 Volt Output End 5 Volt Output End
x x 5V x
3.3 V x x x
x GND x GND
Push the pins into the strip board in the top left hand position as shown in Figure 10. Check that the 4
X AA battery pack intended for connection to the power supply has the correct design of plug to match
this power supply module and that the centre of its plug is at +ve 6 volts. When switched on the LEDs
on the module should light up and the voltages on the strip board should be +3.3 volts and +5 volts. If
there are 5 volts on both strips then that indicates either incorrect wiring/pin removal or that the voltage
selector on the power module has been switched across to the 5V position. The latter is easily corrected.
Figure 10. Project 2: Topside view of the completed board
376

Figure 11. Project 2: Underside view
Task 2: Turn off the battery pack and unplug it from the power module.
Carefully bend the pins on the three long pin headers selected for use with the modules. Then solder
them into convenient locations on the strip board; Figure 9 indicates suitable positions on the recom-
mended size of strip board.
Solder the 28-way DIL socket into a convenient position near the centre of the strip board. Solder the
15-position terminal strip as close as practical to the right had edge of the strip board.
Solder in the tantalum capacitor across pins 19 and 20 of the DIL socket taking care to observe the
polarity requirement – refer to Figure 3.
Task 3: Plug in the three modules into their respective headers. Figure 4 and Figure 10 show the pin
assignments on the three modules used by the author. Be aware that these pin assignments are not uni-
versal, and they should be checked against the actual pin assignments on the locally supplied modules.
Task 4: Turn over the strip board and cut the copper strips according to the recommended plan shown
in Figure 11 and schematically in Figure 12. This can be done using a 1/8-inch twist drill bit but is best
done using the Veroboard track cutting tool designed for this purpose.
Complete all the point to point above wiring according to that shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10. If
wiring differences have been identified during Task #3 then ensure that these are implemented correctly.
Task 5: The HC-05 bluetooth module needs to be programmed as previously described in Task 2 of
Project 1. Once that has been completed plug the HC-05 module, the USB – TTL module and the real
time clock into their headers. Plug in the 4 X AA battery pack with switch into this project board and
then turn the power on. The LEDs on these three modules should light up if all is correct.
Turn the power off.
Carefully insert the MicroMite microcontroller into the DIL socket taking care to ensure that it is in
the correct orientation; the semicircular indentation on the top of the chip needs to be at the top closest
to the power module.
377

Figure 12. Project 2 Copper track cutting guide
Plug the male / female USB cable used in Project 1 into the PC and into this project board. Power up
the project board and start the terminal program on the PC. The > prompt should appear on the terminal.
If not send a CTRL-C key combination from the terminal.
Task 6: The Real Time Clock (RTC) needs to be setup. Because this uses the I2C protocol it is not
as straight forward as the HC-05 module setup. It should be completed via the MicroMite MMBASIC
command line and simple MMBASIC programming.
The first task is to identify the I2C address of the real time module. This has been set by the manu-
facturer of the module and can vary from supplier to supplier. To interrogate the module for its address
program #2 in the Appendix. needs to be run. (This is a useful program to keep in mind whenever a new
I2C device is connected to this Project Board. Run the program before connecting the new device, note
all the occupied addresses. Plug in the new module and run it again and note the additional addresses
that have been detected. Those will be required in the programs written to access the new module.)
The Project 2 Board is now ready for use with sensors; the same program as shown in Table 1 for
Project 1 will run on this setup. Additional lines can be added that read date and time from the RTC and
report them via the Bluetooth App.
Project 3: Project 1 Implemented on the New Raspberry PI Pico
At the time of writing the Raspberry Pi Pico had only been available for a matter of months. This project
was designed to provide a comparative alternative to the MicroMite board described in Project 1. The
end point is a small self-powered board that is ready for the connection of the sensors required for the
student’s project. In Section 2a the additional commands available in MicroMite BASIC were highlighted.
378

The Raspberry Pi Pico is supplied as a 20 X 20 Dual in Line (DIL) package with pin spacings at 2.5
mm. This makes it compatible with breadboards and Veroboard. Overall dimensions are 51mm x 21mm.
It can be supplied with or without header pins soldered on. For this project, the board without headers is
required. This is because the reverse side of the DIL package has all the pins clearly labelled as to their
function. This makes it almost impossible to make mistakes when coming to nominate pin numbers and
their functional assignment in a design specification.
The design requires some additional components:
• A Raspberry Pi PICO module without presoldered header pins

• A small piece of Veroboard, 95 X 75 mm.
• Two rows Arduino style female header strip, each 20 sockets long
• Two rows of Arduino style header pins, each 20 pins long
• One three pin long leg stackable header
• One six pin long leg stackable header
• An HC-05 Bluetooth Module
• A Light Dependent Resistor (LDR) module
• A red LED and a 330 ꭥ resistor
• A micro Momentary Single Pole Single Throw (SPST) switch
• A nine-way terminal strip; (usually supplied in sets of three ways).
• A small mobile phone power bank, 5000 mAh will be adequate
• A short mobile phone USB charging cable
• Hook up wire
• A small breadboard, one with 30 rows will be adequate.
• A copy of the MMBASIC interpreter for the PICO which should be downloaded from and its
contents extracted into a dedicated folder on your PC.
• An Android mobile phone with the Bluetooth Terminal App by Kai Morich installed, as for the
previous two projects.
There are seven tasks:
1. Select a suitable VT100 terminal emulator to run on your PC. For Windows users TeraTerm ap-
pears to be the most favoured. For Linux users PuTTY SSH Client is recommended, Task 1.
2. Construct a simple circuit to set the correct baud rate etc. for the HC-05 Bluetooth Module, Task
2.
3. Load the MMBASIC Interpreter into the Raspberry Pi PICO, Task 3.
4. Assemble the electronics onto a small piece of Veroboard. There are nine steps ((a) to (i)) involved
in this, Task 4.
5. Load the Bluetooth Terminal App onto an Android mobile phone.
6. Confirm all components are functioning correctly on first power up.
7. Enter the BASIC program necessary to monitor the light levels detected by the LDR.
Task 1 and Task 2 are as for Project 1.

Task 3: This step presumes that the MMBASIC interpreter has been downloaded as a .zip file and
stored in a dedicated folder on your PC.
379

Take the Raspberry Pi PICO module as received from the supplier and plug in the short mobile
phone USB charger cable. With the PICO in the student’s left hand they need to hold down the tiny but-
ton labelled BOOTSEL on the topside of the PICO with their thumb; (this will put the PICO into USB
drive mode as designed by the manufacturers). With the student’s right hand holding the other end of
the USB cable plug that into a convenient USB port on your computer. Release the BOOTSEL button
and place the PICO on a piece of paper (the unmounted PICO circuit board should always be placed on
non electrically conducting surfaces). Open a File Finder application on the PC and locate an entry for
a USB drive on the USB port that the PICO has been plugged into; on Linux it appears as /media/sand-
fly/RPI-RP2. Copy and paste the PicoMiteV5.07.00b22.uf2 MMBASIC interpreter file into the PICO.
Unplug the PICO, pause for 5 seconds before plugging it back into the same USB port.
Open the VT100 terminal program on the PC and attempt to connect to the PICO. At the time of
writing the PICO modules currently in circulation appear as a ttyACM0 USB device; in Linux it usually
appeared as dev/ttyACM0 but it could be another number because the USB ports are numbered from
zero to N where N is the number of USB ports on your PC minus one. Connection parameters are 38400
baud, 8 bits, 1 stop bit, No parity, No flow control.
Once the correct connection parameters are in place the “>” prompt should be visible and typing in
> Print “HELLO”
should produce the response
HELLO
Task 4: This design of this Project is shown in Figure 13 and has been built on Veroboard. The sug-
gested layout is shown in Figure 14. Veroboard layouts do not accommodate ‘point to point’ wiring as
easily as does plain perforated circuit board but it does make for tidier looking end products. The thing
to keep in mind when using Veroboard is that paths to circuit elements have to follow paths that have
right angles in them.
The recommended sequence of construction is:
1. Solder Header Pins onto the Raspberry Pi PICO module. Start by placing two rows of 20 header
pins into a small breadboard spaced so that the PICO module sits topside down and exactly on
top of them. Placing the PICO module topside down makes it very easy to see the pin allocations
because they are silk screened onto the circuit board. It does, however, make it more difficult to
access the BOOTSEL push button switch. Because the MMBASIC interpreter has already been
loaded under Task 3 there will be no need to access this button again. Remove the PICO with its
soldered on pins from the breadboard and push two rows Arduino style female header strips, each
20 sockets long, onto the pins. This assembly will be referred to as the ‘mounted PICO’.
2. The piece of Veroboard used in this construction had 29 holes (columns) along the short side and
34 holes (rows) down the long side. The copper tracks should be running parallel to this short
side. Place the mounted PICO so that it is at right angles to the short edge of the Veroboard with
its USB connector facing outwards. The left hand row of PICO should be inserted at row 10 along
the short side of the Veroboard. Turn the Veroboard over and solder the mounted PICO unit to the
Veroboard.
380

Figure 13. Project 3:Design of project 1 implemented on the new Raspberry Pi Pico microcontroller
Figure 14. Veroboard layout diagram for Project 3
3. Take the six pin long leg stackable header and plug the HC-05 Bluetooth module into it. Carefully
bend each of the six long legs at right angles so when inserted into the Veroboard the ST pin of
the module goes into the hole located at column 5 row 22. Temporarily keep the module and its
socket in place by using a piece of BluTac or similar. Turn the board over and solder the socket in
place. Trim off any excess pin lengths.
381

4. Take the three pin long leg stackable header and plug in the LDR module. Carefully bend each of
the three long legs at right angles so when inserted into the Veroboard the GND pin of the module
goes into the hole located at column 5 row 32. Temporarily keep the module a its socket in place
by using a piece of BluTac or similar. Turn the board over and solder the socket in place. Trim off
any excess pin lengths.
5. Use solid core hookup wire to make all the connections shown in Figure 15 and Figure 16. Use a
short piece of rainbow cable to connect the GP pins of the mounted PICO module to the terminal
strip. The selection of PICO pins taken over to the terminal strip are a suggestion. Depending on
the intended use of the Project Board other pins may have been more appropriate to take across to
the terminal strip.
Figure 15. Topside view of completed project 3
6. Use some double-sided tape or a small drop of adhesive to secure the micro Momentary Single
Pole Single Throw (SPST) switch to the edge of the Veroboard. Solder pieces of hookup wire to
the RUN track and the GND track two rows below the RUN track.
7. Figure 14 has small crosses to indicate where the Veroboard’s copper tracks underneath must be
cut so as to complete the circuits correctly between the components. Remember this is a topside
view. To ensure that the correct track is cut using the Veroboard Track Cutting tool it is suggested
that a piece of wire is poked through at each location so that when the board is turned over to view
the copper tracks side it is obvious where the track targeted for cutting is.
382

Figure 16. Underside view of completed project 3
8. Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the topside and underside of the Project completed according to these
suggestions. Note that the the LED and resistor were located in a position that was mechanically
more convenient than in the schematic. These two components are not critical – they are there to
provide a dummy load for the small mobile phone power bank. These power banks are designed
for use with mobile phones and have built in circuitry that detects the current flow. If that flow
falls below a certain limit then the unit disconnects. There are suggestions that some units can have
this overridden by holding their power on button for a significant length of time. Experience has
proven this to be unreliable and the reliable solution is to provide a dummy load. If spontaneous
power down proves to be a problem then add another LED resistor circuit to increase the current
drain.
9. Take a 10X magnifying glass and check every soldered point for completeness and re-solder any
that look dubious. Check every copper track for accidental solder bridges between tracks; cut them
with a sharp blade or mounted needle tool.
Task 5: Install the Android Bluetooth Terminal App onto an Android mobile phone as in Project 1.
Task 6: Plug the completed project board into the mobile phone power bank via the USB connector
on the mounted PICO module. The PICO’s green LED should flash continuously, the dummy load LED
should shine steadily and the LED on the HC-05 should flash rapidly indicating that it has not paired
with a Bluetooth device. Turn on the Bluetooth Terminal App on the mobile phone, scan for the Project
module and pair with it usually by typing in 0000 or 1234.
383

Task 7: Unplug the project board from the power bank and plug it back into the PC that is used to
program the PICO. Once the Terraterm or Putty serial terminal program is up and running enter the
following after the > prompt symbol:
OPTION AUTORUN
This will ensure than any program saved from this point onwards will automatically restart on pow-
ering up Project 3.
Enter the program in Table 3 and save it. This is a simple script that reads the voltage from the LDR
once every second for ten repeats. If this all runs as expected then the Project 3 board is ready for use in
other projects. Remember that an AUTORUN program is unlikely to start in such a way that the Android
Serial Terminal App gets an intelligible response on the first powering up of the Project 3 board. Re-read
(f) in the construction notes to understand why after first power up it is necessary wait 10 seconds and
then to push the momentary SPST switch. The program should then restart and intelligible messages
etc. will appear on the phone running the Android Serial App.
Using Project Sensors as IOT Devices
In this section, the project sensor data is broadcast into a private intranet, in an IOT framework. To achieve
these objectives students will have to be prepared to install the TINY webserver on their Android mobile
phone and also program a simple Python script using the Android App Pydroid 3. Figure 17 illustrates
the functional arrangement of the basic building blocks required for this intranet based IOT network.
The tasks required to get this up and running are as follows:
Task 1: Making the Connections
Install the Tiny Web Server App. Open the App and change the default page to
storage/emulated/0/Android/data/de.kai_morich.serial_bluetooth_terminal/files
To do this in the correct place, open the top left hand menu in the App and select Settings then Misc.
Settings then Save + log folder.
Turn on the mains powered WiFi Router.
Turn on WiFi on the mobile phone and ensure it connects to the mains powered WiFi Router.
Tap the Start Server button on the Tiny Web Server App. That should connect it to the mains powered
WiFi Router directly. Success can be detected by observing that the IP address in the Tiny Web Server
changes to a subnet IP address of the router e.g. 192.168.1.101 Write this down and take it to any PC
connected to the same router as the mobile phone.
Open a browser on that PC and type in that IP address with the addition of:8080 at the end e.g.
192.168.1.101:8080
The browser should display the files in the directory that was defined under (a) above. eg.
Index of /
Name Size
<Parent Directory>
joiner.py 543 B
384

serial_20211207_160006.txt 1 KB
LRusso WebServer/3.6 (Android) Server at 192.168.1.101 Port 8080
Figure 17. Functional diagram of basic IOT intranet
The content shown will vary according to whether or not the Logging feature on Serial Terminal
App has been used before. Notice that the Serial Terminal App automatically creates filenames in the
following format serial_yearmonthday_hourminutesecond.txt
Install the Pydroid 3 App and use it to create the following script:
print(“THIS PROGRAM ADDS HTML TAGS TO THE START AND END OF BLUETOOTH TERMINAL
LOG FILE SO THAT IT WILL DISPLAY PROPERLY IN YOUR BROWSER \n”)
print(“Name of Log File you wish to process ?”)
LOGFILE=input()
385

header = “<HTML><BODY><font size=6><B><PRE>\n”

footer = “\n</PRE></BODY></HTML>\n”
fileIN = open(LOGFILE, “r”)
logdata = fileIN.read()
print(logdata)
fileIN.close
webfile = header + logdata + footer
webfilename = LOGFILE + “.html”
fout = open(webfilename, “w”)
fout.write(webfile)
fout.close()
print(webfile)
print(“Done.........”)
Save it in the same directory on the phone as has already been defined under (a) above and name it
joiner.py.
Task 2: Running the IOT system.
These operations need to be followed at each data logging session.
• Turn on the mains powered WiFi Router.

• Turn on the Project board.
• Turn WiFi on on the phone. And ensure it is connected to the correct WiFi Router.
• Turn on the Serial Terminal App and ensure it is communicating properly with the Project board
via Bluetooth.
• Turn on the Tiny Web Server App and start the server.
• Turn Data Logging on on the Serial Terminal App.
Task 3: Closing off the Data Logging and create the web page.
• Turn Data Logging off on the Serial Terminal App on the phone.
• Open the Pydroid 3 App on the phone and load the joiner.py script that resides in the phone di-
rectory specified in Task 1 (a). It will ask for the filename of the logging session – enter the full
filename including the ‘.txt’ .
• Go to the PC as defined above in Task 1 (e) ie. that PC connected to the same router as the mobile
phone. Presuming it is still running the same page in the browser press the F5 key on its keyboard
to refresh the page. The page should show the extra webpage file just created by the Python
‘joiner.py’ script eg.
Index of /
Name Size
<Parent Directory>
joiner.py 543 B
serial_20211207_160006.txt.html 1 KB
386

serial_20211207_160006.txt 1 KB
LRusso WebServer/3.6 (Android) Server at 192.168.1.101 Port 8080
Double click on that new file ie. the one like serial_20211207_160006.txt.html and it should open
up as a easy to read web page. In Appendix 1 we can see an example of the webpage displayed in Opera
browser on a PC running Linux Mint version 1.9.
The complete codes for the proposed projects can be are publicly available in the author’s website :
http://medlabstats.com/IGI/HartleyCode.html
CONCLUSION
As previously discussed, the uptake of STEAM teaching practices in Australian curriculum is gaining
traction but educators still in many cases lack appropriate insights and material that will help them in-
tegrate STEAM based activities in their teaching practice.
In this chapter a highly detailed description of a teaching sequence using highly available microcon-
trollers has been presented, in three projects of mounting difficulty. This exhaustive tutorial is meant to
be both a detailed description of a teaching sequence that will aid students in building, programming
and evaluating three projects, but also function as a springboard on which educators can build upon
and further exploit the microcontrollers’ capabilities, to foster their students’ engagement with highly
interesting and practical projects.
REFERENCES
About STEM education in Victoria. (2021). Retrieved February 19, 2022, from https://www.education.
vic.gov.au/about/programs/learningdev/vicstem/Pages/about.aspx
de Souza, T. L., & Elisiario, L. S. (2019). Educational robotics teaching with Arduino and 3D print based
on STEM projects. 2019 Latin American Robotics Symposium (LARS), 2019 Brazilian Symposium on
Robotics (SBR) and 2019 Workshop on Robotics in Education (WRE), 407–410. 10.1109/LARS-SBR-
WRE48964.2019.00078
Deloitte. (2015). The fusion of business and IT. Author.
Diyode Magazine. (2021). Retrieved February 19, 2022, from https://diyodemag.com/
Fidai, A., Kwon, H., Buettner, G., Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., Jarvis, C., . . . Verma, S. (2019).
Internet of things (IoT) instructional devices in STEM classrooms: Past, present and future directions.
2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 1–9.
Ge, X., Ifenthaler, D., & Spector, J. M. (2015). Moving Forward with STEAM Education Research. In
X. Ge, D. Ifenthaler, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Emerging Technologies for STEAM Education: Full STEAM
Ahead (pp. 383–395). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02573-5_20
Geisinger, K. F. (2016). 21st Century Skills: What Are They and How Do We Assess Them? Applied
Measurement in Education, 29(4), 245–249. doi:10.1080/08957347.2016.1209207
387

Hayman, S. L. (2017). Investigating STEAM: Integrating Art and STEM to Spark Innovation. Academic
Press.
Khine, M., & Areepattamannil, S. (2019). Steam education. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-04003-1
Lessons | micro:bit. (2021). Retrieved February 19, 2022, from https://microbit.org/lessons/
PriceWaterhouseCoopers. (2015). A smart move : Future-proofing Australia’s workforce by growing
skills in science, technology, engineering and maths. STEM.
Silicon Chip Online. (2021). Retrieved February 19, 2022, from https://www.siliconchip.com.au/
STEM Education in New South Wales. (2021). Retrieved February 19, 2022, from https://education.
nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/curriculum/key-learning-areas/stem
Taylor, P. C. (2016). Why is a STEAM curriculum perspective crucial to the 21st century? Academic Press.
Teach computing and digital making – Raspberry Pi. (2021). Retrieved February 19, 2022, from https://
www.raspberrypi.org/teach/
The Australian Curriculum. (2021). Retrieved February 19, 2022, from https://www.australiancurricu-
lum.edu.au/
Tsai, F.-H., Hsiao, H.-S., Yu, K.-C., & Lin, K.-Y. (2021). Development and effectiveness evaluation of
a STEM-based game-design project for preservice primary teacher education. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education, 1–22.
Victorian Curriculum Design & Technologies Stem-D and STEAM (Years 5 to 10). (2021). Retrieved
February 19, 2022, from https://www.laptek.com.au/store/Victorian-Curriculum-Design-&-Technolo-
giesStem-D-and-STEAM-Years-5-to-10-c14025473
Xefteris, S. (2019). Developing STEAM Educational Scenarios in Pedagogical Studies using Robotics:
An Undergraduate Course for Elementary School Teachers. Engineering, Technology & Applied Sci-
ence Research.
Yasin, A. I., Prima, E. C., & Sholihin, H. (2018). Learning Electricity Using Arduino-Android Based
Game to Improve STEM Literacy. Journal of Science Learning, 1(3), 77–94.
Zhong, X., & Liang, Y. (2016). Raspberry Pi: An effective vehicle in teaching the internet of things in
computer science and engineering. Electronics (Basel), 5(3), 56.
ADDITIONAL READING
Kurkovsky, S., & Williams, C. (2017, June). Raspberry Pi as a platform for the Internet of things projects:
Experiences and lessons. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology
in Computer Science Education (pp. 64-69). 10.1145/3059009.3059028
Robinson, A., & Cook, M. (2013). Raspberry Pi Projects. John Wiley & Sons.
388

Shovic, J. C., & Shovic, J. C. (2016). Raspberry pi IoT projects. Apress. doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-1377-3
Blockly: A client-side library for the programming language JavaScript for creating block-based
visual programming languages (VPLs) and editors. A project of Google, it is free and open-source soft-
ware released under the Apache License 2.0. It typically runs in a web browser, and visually resembles
the language Scratch. It is also being implemented for the mobile operating systems Android and iOS,
though not all of its browser-based features will be available on those platforms.
Computational Thinking (CT): A set of problem-solving methods that involve expressing problems
and their solutions in ways that a computer could also execute. It involves automation of processes, but
also using computing to explore, analyze, and understand processes (natural and artificial).
ICT: Or information and communications technology (or technologies), is the infrastructure and
components that enable modern computing.
IoT: The internet of things (IoT) refers to a system of interrelated, internet-connected objects that are
able to collect and transfer data over a wireless network without human intervention.
Micromite: The Micromite is a Microchip PIC32 microcontroller programmed with the free MMBa-
sic firmware.
Raspberry Pi: A tiny and affordable computer that you can use to learn programming through fun,
practical projects.
STEAM Education: An approach to learning that uses Science, Technology, Engineering, the Arts
and Mathematics as access points for guiding student inquiry, dialogue, and critical thinking.
Veroboard: A brand of stripboard, a pre-formed circuit board material of copper strips on an insu-
lating bonded paper board which was originated and developed in the early 1960s by the Electronics
Department of Vero Precision Engineering Ltd (VPE). It was introduced as a general-purpose material
for use in constructing electronic circuits - differing from purpose-designed printed circuit boards (PCBs)
in that a variety of electronics circuits may be constructed using a standard wiring board.
389
390
Chapter 18
STEAM and Sustainability:
Lessons From the Fourth
Industrial Revolution
Dinesh Sharma
Steam Works Studio, LLC, USA
Bob Eng
Advisors for Good, USA
Amartya Sharma
George Washington University, USA
ABSTRACT
The educational challenge of sustainability remains unexplored in the development of children in the
K-12 curriculum in the United States and potentially in the educational curriculum of many of the
member states of the United Nations. Using a case study method, this chapter shows how sustainability
can be an educational value and a public good, transmitted to students through everyday instruction.
By conducting a regional analysis in specific cultural groupings, using fieldwork and applied research
methodology, students can demonstrate competence for sustainable education on a whole host of issues
relevant for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 2030). With younger age groups consisting of
students in middle and elementary school, the chapter examines an activity-based approach for social-
izing young children to issues of sustainability and preparing them for what is known as “the fourth
industrial revolution.” Finally, it is imperative that corporations adopt a socially responsible approach
towards investing that is environmentally conscious of long-term governance impact.
INTRODUCTION
When the UN (United Nations) announced the SDGs in 2015, mostly economists and diplomats or
country representatives and ambassadors immediately grasped the importance of the goals for future
generations. Most educators still struggle with how to make the direct connection between STEM edu-
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-3861-9.ch018

STEAM and Sustainability
cational goals and the concepts entailed in the multilayered construct of sustainability. STEM focuses
explicitly on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math to introduce innovation in the educational
system in mostly the Western countries that are facing post-industrial or post-manufacturing decline;
while sustainability suggests that there is more to STEM than just tinkering with recent technology tools,
social media, robots, and gadgets. STEM outlines the educational principles for a scientifically literate
and technologically advanced society in the 21st century. Sustainability on the other hand suggests the
scientific models of the previous centuries, fueling the growth of the industrial age and the spread of
globalization -- with unlimited horizons for labor and markets -- have been falling short for most of the
populations around the world. Can these two visions, one of STEAM education and the other of sustain-
ability, meet on a common ground or do they inherently clash? In this paper, we argue that the recent
upsurge in the STEM and STEAM educational curriculum -- the added emphasis on Arts and Humani-
ties is critical -- and the global emphasis on sustainability are the two faces of the same coin related to
the post-industrial decline in the West and the failures of the neo-liberal vision of society, culture, and
environment. For science education to fully embrace the challenges of the 21st century, STEAM would
have to be integrated with sustainability. Likewise, the business and investor class would have to join
with government and non-government sectors to transform our society.
The educational pathways to STEAM curriculum can also be confusing to children and parents if it is
not fully clear what STEAM truly stands for. Like other science education programs, STEAM can stop
short of its best manifestation without a full implementation. STEAM should be an integrated approach
to learning; there must be intentional connections between standards, assessments, and lesson design.
Multiple standards of assessment and experience can be used to foster learning in subjects focused on
Science, Technology, Engineering, Math, and the Arts. Techniques and assessment can be conducted
in and through different modes of inquiry, with an emphasis on process-based learning where students
are allowed to work across disciplines. Process learning and “making” is at the heart of the STEAM
approach. Thus, utilizing and leveraging the integrity of the arts, history, humanities, and culture is es-
sential to an authentic STEAM initiative.
On the other hand, sustainable development has been defined as development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainable
development calls for concerted efforts towards building an inclusive, sustainable, and resilient future for
the people and the planet. For sustainable development to be fully achieved, it is crucial to harmonize
four core elements or the 4E’s: Economic growth that is fair; Equality or social inclusion; Education or
universal literacy; and Environmental protections against climate change. These elements are intercon-
nected and all four are crucial for the well-being of individuals, societies, and our planet. As outlined by
the UN goals, the 4E’s are crucial for any society to advance into the 21st century: Economy, Equality,
Education, and the Environment.
Eradicating poverty is related to economic development; this is another significant goal of the UN
mission, originally part of the MDG (Millennium Development Goals) universal goals, in all its forms
and dimensions is an indispensable requirement for sustainable development and significantly correlated
with the 4E’s mentioned above. To this end, there must be promotion of sustainable, inclusive, and
equitable economic growth, creating greater opportunities for all, reducing inequalities, raising basic
standards of living, fostering equitable social development, and promoting integrated and sustainable
management of natural resources and ecosystems. How we handle these challenges will reshape our
past and determine our future.
391

Post-industrial decline and the rise of STEAM and sustainability are interconnected. As humanity
lurches towards what has been called the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” (Schwab, 2017) we need to take
stock of where we have been, where we stand today, and how we can navigate the future. The previous
century witnessed a massive rise in incomes, health, and well-being, but also a huge rise in inequality in
the last quarter century (Milanovic, 2016; Pinker, 2018; Sachs, 2015). As the globe’s population reaches
9 billion by mid-century, we need ideas of sustainability to manage and drive the future. Thus, key ideas
of STEAM education for sustainability must be to balance growth, inclusiveness, and climate action.
As Jeffrey Sachs (2015) of Columbia University’s Earth Institute has said, we want growth that is fair,
leaves no one behind, and based on clean energy that protects the environment.
Thus, both the ideas of STEAM and sustainability are correlated with the post-industrial decline in
the developed world with implications for our new global reality. The dawning of STEAM education has
been to fight against the post-industrial decline in education standards in the US and EU. As economies
move away from industrial growth to information technology, new ways of constructing and transmit-
ting knowledge are needed even as the very same recent technologies have made this transition possible
and accelerated the building of global information networks, connecting cultures and people together.
Joseph Murphy, Dean of Vanderbilt University, has argued convincingly that American education
model that has been in place since the age of industrialization is now feeling pressures from within the
education system (i.e., high dropouts, excessive costs etc.) and from external forces (i.e., global compe-
tition) challenging us to transform the very nature of education (Murphy, 2021). He suggests we went
through a similar systemic change in the education system when Americans moved from farm families to
urban communities. As scientific and technological change grips our lives in an immediate and personal
way through social media and personalized tools, we need to prepare for total change in the value chain
and distribution of the educational goods we impart to the younger generation.
There is the issue of justice in education. Due to the post-industrial policies and changes in many
urban areas hit with blight and migration, sustainability has become a mantra for development experts
and economists. The planet cannot support endless growth at the expense of environmental degradation
and the downward spiral in the lives of everyday folks. Thus, STEAM must be focused on providing
solutions for saving the planet and its everyday inhabitants, while spreading the benefits of the Fourth
Industrial Revolution to the mass of humanity. Moreover, in most of the underdeveloped world, where
we still struggle to fight for literacy – reading, writing and numeracy – STEAM needs to incorporate the
STREAM curriculum with the added emphasis on the “R” for reading and writing. Just as digital literacy
can be central to navigating in the world of social media and the emerging digital workplace, in the eco-
nomically underdeveloped world the added emphasis on digital literacy initiatives can lead to changes
in the economy and the workforce sector including the expansion of the working and middle classes.
The recent report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics points out that American society is caught
amid the technological change demanding high STEAM skills. There has been concern regarding the
dearth of STEAM workers to meet the demands of the information economy. While many experts have
also asserted the evidence of STEAM labor surplus in specific industries. “A comprehensive literature
review, in conjunction with employment statistics, newspaper articles, and our own interviews with
company recruiters, reveals a significant heterogeneity in the STEM labor market: the academic sector
is generally oversupplied, while the government sector and private industry have shortages in specific
areas” (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015).
392

CASE STUDY 1: STEAM AND SUSTAINABILITY IN AMERICAN EDUCATION
There is a silent revolution taking place in action-based learning and project-based approaches to holistic
education or what has also been called the portfolio learning and assessment tools, driven partly by the
personal technology revolution, graphic design, and some of the advances in social media. Similarly,
the makers-movement invites children to avoid screen time and start building with their imagination,
minds, and hands – tinkering with the engineering tools of today and emerging technologies – which
will take them much further in individual development as well as potentially in the evolutionary scale
of human development.
The maker’s movement has significant implications for education in terms of deploying: 1) contem-
porary digital tools, prototyping methods and computer platforms that make project development easier
to manage and execute; 2) infrastructural resources including online communities, in-person spaces and
events; and 3) the mindset that engages and cultivates making, with certain aesthetic appeals and habits
of mind that are valued within the communities of interest.
According to Harvard’s Project Zero, “Students learn a tremendous amount through maker-centered
learning experiences, whether these experiences take place inside or outside of makerspaces and tinker-
ing studios. There is no doubt that students learn new skills and technologies as they build, tinker, re/
design, and hack, especially when they do these things together. However, the most important benefits
of maker education are neither STEM skills nor technical preparation for the next industrial revolution.
Though these benefits may accrue along the way, the most salient benefits of maker-centered learning
for young people have to do with developing a sense of self and a sense of community that empower
them to engage with and shape the designed dimension of their world” (Project Zero, 2015).
Data from projects conducted at Tufts University suggests that even with noticeably young children,
robotics modules can transform the children’s early understanding of coding, programming, and build-
ing. When children were assessed on their knowledge of basic robotics and programming concepts
upon completion of the structured curriculum, children were able to demonstrate basic robotics and
programming skills even in pre-kindergarten. Older children were able to demonstrate increasingly
complex concepts using the same robotics kits in the same amount of time. This has clear implications
for developmentally appropriate design of technology, as well as structure and pace of the robotics cur-
riculum for young children at home or in school.
In her work with children Umaschi Bers describes coding as a playground, a place where language
games and creative problem solving can take place. It offers “many opportunities for learning and personal
growth, exploration and creativity, mastery of new skills, and ways of thinking” (Bers, 2017). We do not
always take children to the playground. Skills may be developed using other tools and methods. Coding
can be a developmentally appropriate space to enhance certain concrete and abstract skills. Bers argues
from the framework of positive technological development, where developmental milestones and playful
learning experiences can lead to developing computational thinking and exploring powerful ideas. Cod-
ing as play can turn children into producers, and not merely recipients in our technologically rich world.
The playground dimension of coding moves the conversation forward. The traditional view of cod-
ing as a technical skill is limited when it comes to children’s development. Coding is a form of literacy,
which invites new ways of thinking. Coding carries the ability to produce an artifact detached from its
creator, with its own meaning.
In terms of ownership, children when they are coding can be producers with an intention; their pas-
sion and desire to communicate can lead to new discoveries. Coding is like writing; it is a medium of
393

human expression. Through this expressive process, children can learn to think, feel, and communicate
in new ways. Problem solving is only one aspect of teaching young children to code. Instead, coding
can support personal expression and style.
Technologically, young children create their own projects to communicate ideas and express who they
are when they are coding. They need developmentally appropriate tools like Scratch Jr. (Scratch, 2021),
or We Do 2.0 (LEGO, 2021), or a coding script with games and modules. As they engage in problem
solving and storytelling, they acquire sequencing skills and algorithmic thinking. They learn about the
design process from an early idea, concept development, beta testing and generating a final product.
Psychologically, they also learn how to manage failures, frustration, and the process of finding a solu-
tion, rather than giving up they learn to find solutions to a challenge by trial and error. They may learn
to test their projects and refine strategies for debugging. They learn teamwork; to collaborate with others
they learn new skills of communication. If children have fun while learning their hearts and minds will
continue to grow. They can fail several times and learn to start all over again. Coding teaches children
stamina in the process of working.
In terms of computer science, the coding playground offers children powerful ideas that can be useful
for future programmers and engineers, but also other types of scientists. Coding can be seen to achieve
literacy in the 21st century, not unlike reading and writing in the earlier era. When started early, it can
be a multiplier. Today, those who can produce digital technologies, and not only consume them, will
oversee their own destiny. Literacy is a medium of human power. Those who know how to read and write
can assert their voices. Those who do not are disfranchised. Will this be true for those who cannot code?
For those who cannot think computationally. Thus, the digital divide highlights the need for bridging
the educational and technological gap.
In terms of adaptation, it is our responsibility to introduce children to coding and computational thinking
when they are young. We know that as a form of literacy coding can open doors. We also know that these
young coders are still children, who are learning new skills every day. It is not enough to simply copy
codes or use models of computer science education developed for elementary or high school students.
It is important that programming languages are age-appropriate and enhance children’s early develop-
ment. As teachers, we need technologies and curriculum specifically designed for young children that
take into consideration their cognitive, social, and emotional needs. This is novel territory. Therefore,
these children are our best collaborators, as they can guide us through the complexity of their thinking.
As researchers, we need to explore the developmental stages of learning to code, and the learning
trajectories associated with computational thinking. We must understand what is truly happening when
a four-year-old programs her robot to dance the Hokey Pokey, and a five-year-old makes an animation.
While there is a growing movement towards STEAM—science, technology, engineering, arts, and
mathematics—education and research methodologies from those disciplines, we also look at research
on literacy to elucidate some of these learning processes. Coding can be studied not only as a problem-
solving mechanism, but as a process that allows the creation of a shareable product of human expression.
As teachers all over the world begin to incorporate coding and computational thinking in early child-
hood education, we need information to understand how educational technology can be integrated into
early childhood educational practices. We need to see children in their totality -- as individuals with
their own voices and stories to tell -- and not simply as cognitive agents or problem solvers. We need to
encourage and support their playfulness as a way of learning.
In our applied work as an instructor and manager of a STEAM education learning center, we have
observed hundreds of children using STEAM based robotics technology at an early age, without the
394

excessive screen time, while actively engaged with robotic projects, coding simple or complex programs,
and establishing wireless communication between objects using programming code. We have found pre-k,
first and second graders to be very adaptable and quick to learn basic procedures and coding instructions
of building basic robotics objects.
Each child tends to display different aptitudes for a different skill set: coding, programming, building
robotics, graphic design, applied sciences, gaming, digital storyboarding and film animation, web design
and internet technology. All the children are enamored by innovative technology, drawn in by the allure
of new toys; attractive-looking technological gadgets make children think about manipulating objects
with their own hands and minds. But each child has a special ability or their own way of playing with
code or building robotic objects. Based on their inherent strengths and weaknesses, each child develops
a deep sense of individual learning for STEAM skills and sustainability.
In the process of transferring STEAM skills, we can stimulate the children to think about sustainable
projects: solar, wind, alternative sources of energy, and green technology. For example, working on the
WeDo 2.0 projects students can build windmills, solar panels, and smart city designs. Through scaffolding
we can provide children with exposure to concepts of sustainability. When we ask children to convert a
LEGO based WeDo 2.0 cooling fan into the windmill, the children can explain what they did – add ad-
ditional blades to the cooling fan, make the windmill taller and longer, or give the windmill additional
horsepower – aimed to convert it into an object that approximates the shape and size of a windmill.
With first and second graders we might get a fuller description of what a windmill does and how it
generates energy, which can be later used for repurposing a wind farm. While pre-k children may not
be able to provide a fuller description, first and second graders are able to explain why we need more
windmills for energy conservation. Based on actual hands-on learning experience, children may explore
and develop a rich scientific understanding of the energy grid that relies on wind as a source of power.
When contextualized within a lesson plan, with detailed information about the power of windmills,
students can begin to critically think about the strengths and weaknesses of wind power.
At this stage, we provide children with an actual windmill kit. Children can assemble a wind turbine
complete with an electric generator and adjustable rotor blades. The blades are designed with complex
aerodynamic curves to look and work like modern-day wind turbine blades. We ask them to conduct
experiments with their wind turbine, including experiments to optimize its performance by adjusting
the angle of the blades and the placement of the turbine. They use the wind turbine to light up a LED
bulb and charge a rechargeable battery; and convert the wind turbine into an electric fan by using the
electric generator as a motor. They are able to build additional models with the parts included: electric
car, electric helicopter, and electric truck.
Observational data suggests that the discussion about sustainability is not only relevant, but beneficial
towards building deep scientific knowledge and adaptive skills for everyday problem solving related to our
current environmental challenges. For example, one of our eight years old students, who is in third grade
and has been involved in the First Lego League challenge, wanted to build an underwater robotics project
to present at a science fair. She took interest in this project from her own initiative; she had researched
the process of building robots for underwater exploration and wanted to build a home-made device that
can clean the debris in the oceans. This is of course a uniquely bright student, very driven and motivated
towards acquiring STEAM skills, but may not be atypical as we advance towards a sustainable society.
During the online research process, she learned that there are different underwater robots: Remotely
operated vehicles (or ROVs) are connected to a cable that allows a human to control the robot from a
ship or boat on the ocean surface or from within the robot. Autonomous underwater vehicles (or AUVs)
395

are controlled by computers on board the robot and can operate without being connected to the surface.
Because both ROV and AUV robots contain computers and electronic equipment, underwater robots
need to be waterproof. This means that water cannot damage the equipment because it is inside a cover-
ing that prevents water from coming in.
In this robotics engineering project, she built an underwater robot, an ROV that moves up and down
using a motor, propeller, and a plastic clothes hanger. Before she started the project, she figured out
how and where to test the robot. She tested it in a large container of water. If you decide to test the robot
in a large container, make sure that the container is deep enough and large enough to hold the clothes
hanger. Since the motor is a piece of electrical equipment, you will have to waterproof it by using a
balloon to cover the motor and making sure that the edges of the balloon are glued to the surface of the
motor (you can learn more about electricity from many online science resources). After putting these
pieces together, you will have a cool robot that works underwater and is lots of fun to experiment with.
Thus, she learned about the engineering design process: how to use a DC volt motor; how to wa-
terproof the motor; and by attaching it to a plastic coat hanger she was able to get the robot to move in
a pool of water. She presented the underwater robot at a local science fair and was recognized for her
skills and inquisitiveness.
Another group of students have been working to build a space mission to the moon, again as part of
a FIRST Lego League competition (FIRST, 2021). Their challenge has been to settle the moon as a liv-
able environment, and what sources of energy would they need to make that work for human habitation?
What do you need to know about the Moon to live there? What will you eat and drink? How will you get
energy? How will you breathe? What will you do for fun? What other problems will you have to solve?
Guided by adult coaches, the team explored a real-world solution to the moon challenge. Then they
created a science poster that illustrated their journey of discovery and introduced their team. They also
constructed a motorized model of what they learned using LEGO elements. In the process, teams learned
about teamwork, the wonders of science and technology, and the FIRST Core Values (FIRST, 2021),
which include respect, sharing, and critical thinking. At the close of each season, teams come together
at Expos to strut their stuff, share ideas, celebrate, and have fun!
The group of students researched NASA websites for energy sources they would need to work on the
moon and how the conditions on the moon can be challenging for human settlement; where will they
get the water resources, where will the daily source of food and supplies come from, where will they
go to have fun and rest. By engaging these questions, students expand their horizons for exploration in
science and technology.
Students worked together as a team for a year to build their solutions to survive on the moon. They
were able to present their project at three different events and expos, with added dimensionality and de-
tails. By working as a team, they learned the skills of project management and leadership. They learned
how a project over an extended period of time can be refined and built in an iterative process. Their final
project was much improved and fully developed, reflecting their improvement.
In all these challenges (windmills, underwater robot, moon mission) by engaging questions about the
environment in a holistic manner students can learn about the opportunities to explore their immediate
environment and the biosphere, and the constraints placed on them by the limited resources in their en-
vironment. By directly engaging questions of technology use, ocean life, and life on the moon students
are asking deep questions about human nature as well and its malleability.
Initiatives at the state level to enhance and integrate sustainability education are showing encourag-
ing promise. In our home state of New Jersey, its 581 local school boards, 87 charter school boards of
396

trustees with almost 5,000 members studied steam and sustainability in the state-wide schools. These
school boards govern public schools, which educate approximately 1.4 million students ages 3 to 21.
Prior to 2011, one could not find sustainability measures in New Jersey schools. As a handful of schools
began to pioneer sustainability initiatives over the past decade, the advantages became clear. The schools
were able to: 1) lower their operational costs, 2) redirect those savings to other educational priorities, 3)
recognized the potential opportunity and impact that sustainability initiatives could have, and 4) learned
how to manage challenging economic times and increased state mandates. Key decision-makers began
to incorporate processes used by schools and districts that had successfully incorporated sustainability
into their short and long-term planning.
With additional training in 2011, as a critical first step, board members increased their “understand-
ing of how to integrate sustainability throughout school operations into areas such as finance, buildings
and grounds, curriculum, policy and other areas involved in the day-to-day and long-term functions of a
school” (NJSBA, 2021). As more systematic data was needed to support and justify sustainability efforts,
the state’s education boards undertook an extensive study. Given there was little accessible information
on greening existing schools, particularly regarding the leadership decisions that facilitated change and
how connections to the classroom, if any, impacted teaching and learning, the New Jersey Sustainable
Schools Project was created to address a single, guiding question: “Is sustainability a factor in contribut-
ing to the success of New Jersey schools?”
The intent of the project was to document the impact that sustainability has on schools, capture
the process for implementing sustainable practices, and provide the results to district decision makers
throughout New Jersey. Implementing sustainability is not a one-size-fits-all process. Data from multiple
types of schools — inner city, urban, suburban, and rural — was needed to accurately capture the variety
of methods that were successful, as well as those that did not work. Numerous detailed success stories,
as well as reports about challenges were key components of this project. Sustainability does positively
impact the success of New Jersey schools, in both the academic and the financial arena. Innovative sus-
tainability measures resulted in cost savings, enabling funds to be used for other educational purposes.
Sustainability measures also resulted in healthier learning environments.
CASE STUDY 2: SUSTAINABILITY IN SOUTH ASIA
The United States and Europe have been at the forefront of the Industrial Revolutions over the last two
and a half centuries. All Asian countries, except Japan, were latecomers to these revolutions. Neverthe-
less, many of them, including the Big-7 economies in Asia (China, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong,
Taiwan, India, Indonesia, and Malaysia) made considerable progress by the end of the Third Industrial
Revolution. What follows is a brief description of the involvement of the South Asian region at the be-
ginnings of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, wrestling with the challenges of sustainability.
STEAM education, new social media tools and AI (Artificial Intelligence) have risen to the forefront
of public discourse in recent years. This breakthrough has generated a development path that has fur-
ther propelled innovations in innovative technologies, including cloud computing, big data, Internet of
Things, and virtual reality. As a convergence of a widening spectrum of frontier technologies, STEAM,
new social media, and AI has garnered the potential to bring new possibilities for global development
and societal change. The transformative power of the new tools crosses all economic and social sec-
tors, including the education sector. STEAM education, social media tools and AI have the potential to
397

accelerate the process of achieving Sustainable Development Goal 4, quality education. It promises to
reduce barriers to access education, automate management processes, analyze learning patterns, and
optimize learning processes with a view to improving learning outcomes. However, the penetration of
AI in education comes with concerns about ethics, security, and human rights. Without policy interven-
tion, the commercial deployment of AI will also exacerbate digital divides and deepen existing income
and learning inequalities, as marginalized and disadvantaged groups are more likely to be excluded from
AI powered education.
In South Asia, with the demographic dividend of younger people and the growing STEAM gradu-
ates, sustainability education is an emerging issue. South Asia is one of the most densely populated geo-
graphic regions in the world, with one third of the entire world’s population living together in harmony.
The South Asian region is filled with several natural resources, ranging from minerals to spices to tea.
With an enterprising population and numerous natural resources, South Asia has been able to sustain a
growing economy in the past few decades. The entire region has a significant geopolitical and economic
location, and it has historically been extorted for its natural resources. Will the region grow along the
path of sustainability? It remains to be seen.
Today, South Asia has established itself as one of the booming economic centers of the world. Dubbed
the “world’s fastest growing region” (World Bank, 2016), economic growth in the region is forecasted
to gradually accelerate to 6.3 percent in 2023. Like several regions in the world today, South Asia has
a small elite harboring most of the wealth and power along with a growing middle class driving the
change. The economic inequality in South Asia is particularly alarming, given the region harbors half of
the entire world’s poor. In 1997, the Human Development Center called the region “the poorest, the most
illiterate, the most malnourished, and the least gender-sensitive--indeed the most deprived--region of the
world”v (UNDP, 1998). Plagued with problems, such as, lack of sanitation, gender inequality, and extreme
poverty, the economic inequality in the region has gotten only worse. The newly articulated Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) can help the South Asian region focus on specific goals to reduce income
inequality and improve gender equality, leading to better living standards. In many ways, the region is
ideal for building STEAM educational resources and sustainable development goals.
The United Nations established the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000, eight goals
each with its specific targets as a way for the international community to eradicate inequalities together.
The SDGs, 17 unique goals, some taken from the MDGs, were created in 2015 as a replacement for
the MDGs. The SDGs were designed to advance the global goals MDGs were unable to accomplish.
Throughout this section, we will discuss the effects of the MDGs in furthering economic equality in
South Asia, the limitations of the MDGs, why we believe the SDGs may be more effective set of goals,
and how the UN should act as a facilitator of the global goals, rather than the enforcer, which can lead
to more local success in countries adopting the SDGs.
As per the UN official report in 2015, the MDGs made great achievements in some areas, but in-
creased efforts are needed in many other areas. The level of extreme poverty in South Asia dramatically
decreased from 52% to 17% from 1990 to 2015, with the rate of reduction only increasing from 2008
onwards (UNESCAP, 2015). India has played a significant role in the reduction of poverty in the region.
Women’s representation has also increased in South Asia. Gender parity regarding primary and
secondary education could also be seen in South Asia, with 103 girls enrolled for every 100 boys. Ad-
ditionally, from 2000 to 2015, the proportion of seats held by women in single or lower houses of national
parliament increased from 7% to 18%. When women work, economies can further expand; and women
398

can only get in the labor force through literacy and education. Women’s representation in the labor force
is key to faster economic growth and equality; the two-work hand in hand.
The MDGs, however, lacked in several ways. There are millions of people in South Asia who are still
suffering from extreme poverty. More than half the population in South Asia still lacks access to improved
sanitation. There is still a severe problem with regards to discrimination against women, though there is
an increase in their education and parliament representation. Looking towards the SDGs is the only way
to move forward. The SDGs are a more thought-out and well-structured set of goals. The eight goals
chosen by the MDGs were not chosen in a thorough analysis of the current global economic situation.
The complexity of world stability and sustainability was not reflected in the MDGs.
The SDGs provide a full framework of all the areas needed to work on the 17 distinct, yet correlated
and intertwined goals. The necessity to take a comprehensive approach is present within the SDGs, and
to look at the bigger picture of long-term sustainable development is something the MDGs have lacked.
With a large population at-risk, South Asians cannot afford to be left behind in the race for a sustainable
planet. South Asia’s success is key to the SDGs success; they are one in the same.
The South Asian countries are a mix of different populations, economies, and developmental con-
straints; they are all developing countries but have remarkably varied challenges. Five of those countries
have unique development needs. Maldives is a Small Island Developing State (SIDS). Bangladesh is a
least developed country (LDC). Afghanistan, Bhutan, and Nepal are landlocked least developed coun-
tries (LLDC).
When we rank countries by GDP, GDP per capita and population size, South Asia can be grouped
into various clusters of countries (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Size of the South Asian economies and income levels. Source: UNESCAP based on World De-
velopment Indicators, World Bank (accessed on 17 July 2016). Notes: LLDCs = Landlocked Developing
Countries, LMICs = Lower-middle income countries, SIDS= Small Island Developing States
399

Based on income, GNI classifications, South Asia has low-income and lower-middle income countries;
Maldives being the exception to the rule. The range of average per capita incomes vary between $6670
for the Maldives to only $630 for Afghanistan, with the mean around $1533 in 2015.
As suggested earlier, South Asia faces fundamental gaps in sustainable development goals in meeting
basic needs and services. The SDGs can provide South Asia a timely opportunity to make its economic
growth more inclusive and sustainable; closing the development gap between rich and poor people, and
majority versus minority populations is a worthy ambition.
The SDG agenda represents culmination of several years of consultation and review at the local-
societal level, national, regional, sub-regional and global goal setting process among 193 member states
to be examined for the next fifteen years. Civil society, business and industry have also added to the
global goals. The goals consist of a cross-matrix review of economic, social, and environmental domains.
The 17 SDGs consist of 169 targets adopted by the world leaders on Sep 25, 2015, to be tracked
through the year 2030. As mentioned above, some of the goals are carried over from the MDGs, but the
emphasis on environmental goals is new. SDGs 1 to 7 focus on providing basic needs and services to
the underserved populations that began with the MDGs. Given South Asia has the largest concentration
of poverty, hunger, and deprivation in the world, we still have a long way to go. Unlike MDGs, SDGs
aim “to leave no one behind” (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Sustainable Development Goals – Source Wikimedia Commons: https://bit.ly/3v4dlNJ
SDGs 8 to 10 focus on the drivers of change that are interoperable across economic, societal, and
environmental domains: jobs and decent work; infrastructure and sustainable industrialization; and
promoting income equality. South Asia faces huge problems in infrastructure development, but there is
political will and popular support for investment in these development projects currently. Thus, SDGs
provide an ideal context for policy makers to piggyback on the global goals.
400

SDGs 11 to 15 work to enhance conservation and sustainability across various dimensions of the
biosphere: make cities more resilient; enhance sustainable consumption and production; promote climate
action; conserve ocean life; and conserve life on land. As South Asia embraces greater industrial reforms,
ensuring long-term sustainability would be paramount. Finally, SDGs 16 and 17 foster exchange and
partnerships for harnessing sustainability between agencies and NGOs (Nongovernment Organizations).
Ending Hunger
In South Asia one out of every five persons is in malnourished condition (Goal 2); given the large popula-
tion size, the region is the largest hunger hotspot on the planet, 281 million undernourished (16% of the
population). With improved infrastructure (Goal 9), South Asian countries can improve food productivity
and distribution. However, reduction in anemia, zinc, and vitamin A deficiency, common in the region,
can only occur with better health policies (Goal 3) (World Hunger, 2015). Given agriculture employs
more than half of the population, any improvements in the agriculture sector will impact hunger directly.
Better technologies in sustainable agribusiness, with better seeds and irrigation methods, can have a
positive impact on poverty reduction (Goal 1), job creation (Goal 8) and equality (Goal 10).
Sharing in the Growth
While South Asia has shown remarkable improvements in reducing inequality, the recent growth in
the economy has not been broadly shared across different socioeconomic and rural-urban segments.
According to UN data, South Asia remains one of the least inclusive sub-regions in the Asia-Pacific
countries (UNESCAP, 2017). For example, India’s billionaire community has increased 12-fold in the
last 15 years, and they have twice the monetary resources to eliminate extreme poverty (Goal 1), but the
wealth has not been shared and it has not trickled down (Goal 10).
As Jeffery Sachs states, in his recent book The Age of Sustainability, “Ours is a world of fabulous
wealth and extreme poverty: billions of people enjoy longevity and good health unimaginable in previous
generations, yet at least 1 billion people live in such abject poverty that they struggle for mere survival
every day” (Sachs, 2015).
Access to Education and Health
South Asia met the MDG targets for universal primary education. Yet, at 59% the region lags the global
average of 65% primary education enrollment (Goal 4). Pakistan and Afghanistan have exceptionally low
rates of primary education for girls, and children in lower socioeconomic segments also lag significantly
behind children from other regions. Investments in universal primary education are sorely needed; public
expenditure in Bangladesh is 2% of the GDP, 3.8% in India, 2.5% in Pakistan, and 1.6% in Sri Lanka,
which is much lower than the recommended 6%. Similarly, in terms of health outcomes 67% reduction
in maternal mortality has been significant, but South Asia still lags the MDG target of 75% reduction
in maternal mortality (Goal 3) (UNESCO, 2016).
401

Gender Equality
While South Asia reached gender parity in primary education between boys and girls, as per the MDG
targets, the region still lags on multiple measures of gender equality (Goal 5). On three key measures of
gender equality, South Asia shows a significant lag: Global Gender Gap produced by the World Economic
Forum, Gender Development Index and Gender Inequality Index produced by the Human Development
Report. The Global Gender Gap Report also provides gender inequality scores on countries’ performance
against four sub-indices, namely education, health, political empowerment, and economic participation.
Sri Lanka has the best ranking among the South Asian countries, while Afghanistan and Pakistan find
themselves at the bottom of these indices (World Economic Forum, 2021).
Decent Jobs and Wages
It is indeed significant South Asia has emerged as the fastest growing sub-region in Asia-Pacific eco-
nomically; however, it is yet to scale the high economic growth rate witnessed before the onset of the
global fiscal crisis in 2008. Economic growth has been central to the 2030 SDG agenda, as outlined in
Goal 8; Goal 9 is also important as it is focused on jobs and industrialization, while Goal 1 is focused
on poverty reduction. Job creation in South Asia has been stagnant or declining, averaged around 1.8%
annually in India and 2.6% annually in the rest of South Asia between 1992 and 2012. While GDP growth
has been three times faster than employment growth in India (6.8% annually) and 1.8 times faster than
employment growth in the rest of South Asia, the result has been that prosperity has not been widely
shared (Kumar et al, 2016).
Infrastructure Development
South Asian countries are characterized by huge infrastructure gaps. Even India, when compared with
Asian tigers, finds itself at a poor level in the recent global ranking of countries’ infrastructure develop-
ment (with inadequate availability of transport infrastructure, electricity and information and commu-
nications technology services). South Asia lags in terms of transport infrastructure (SDG 9) and basic
needs infrastructure, such as, access to sanitation (SDG 6) and access to electricity (SDG 7).
Access to basic infrastructure services influences other SDG targets. For instance, improved sanitation
can lead to better health outcomes in terms of a reduced under-five mortality rate. Access to roads can
affect health outcomes and drive down the high maternal mortality ratio. Likewise, access to electricity
can promote educational goals and overall human development.
Closing infrastructure gaps in South Asia will require large-scale resources, approximately $2.5 tril-
lion (about $7,700 per person in the US) by 2020, and $4 trillion (about $12,000 per person in the US)
to $5 trillion (about $15,000 per person in the US) by 2030, according to recent UNDP (United Nations
Development Programme) estimates. India alone is investing $1 trillion (about $3,100 per person in the
US) in infrastructure, which is undertaken by the Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012-2017); South Asian
countries are also part of the initiatives led by the Asian Development Bank and BRICS Bank (Andres
et al., 2013).
402

Renewable Energy
South Asia must take the lead on renewable sources of energy (Goal 13). Countries like India can not
only address the energy scarcities; they must actively save valuable foreign exchange from imports of
hydrocarbons and develop sustainable green solutions. Nepal suffers from power scarcities, cutting
power for 14 hours a day in the city of Kathmandu. The country situated in the Himalayan foothills is
endowed with hydroelectric generation potential, but green technology is scarce. Bhutan, on the other
hand, has harnessed hydropower potential, embraced sustainable growth, and higher levels of happiness.
Vast solar and wind energy sources must be streamlined in South Asia; these countries can also switch
over to cleaner fuels, natural gas and clean coal technologies. Advancing a unified energy market, linked
by energy grids and pipelines will help the sub-region leapfrog towards enhancing energy conservation
into the 21st century (Goal 11) (Kumar et al, 2016).
CONCLUSION
This summer, the United Nations issued a report classifying global climate change as a present, and
now seemingly irreversible, threat. Such scientific consensus has led entities in the financial sector (i.e.,
influential companies and individuals) to consider ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) fac-
tors in the investment process. But what exactly does ESG mean? More importantly, how has it allowed
companies and other financial conglomerates to contribute to the larger fight against climate change
in a substantive way? Firstly, the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) Institute describes ESG as “non-
financial factors regarding sustainability which investors and companies apply as a part of their analysis
process to identify material risks and growth opportunities.” Now, many institutions have been formed
to create guidelines “and define materiality to facilitate incorporation of [ESG] factors into the invest-
ment process” (CFA Institute, 2021).
Furthermore, as new research has uncovered links between rising global temperatures and the spread
of Covid-19, some of the biggest financial players, like JPMorgan, have been motivated to get into the
ESG game as of late. The world’s largest underwriter of green bonds, JPMorgan hopes to link sustain-
ability to each form and level of finance (Bloomberg, 2021)
Financial Technology, or FinTech, also ‘grew greener’ this summer when Aspiration Partners, an LA-
based digital bank became the first publicly traded fintech company primarily centered around socially
responsible and sustainable spending, saving, and investing. Also, “Aspiration offers its own managed
IRAs and taxable accounts investing in 100% fossil fuel-free companies,” (Forbes, 2021) earning the
moniker, fintech for environmentalists.
Engine No. 1, a small hedge fund with just 0.02% stake in Exxon was able to successfully nudge the
company’s board of directors, pushing them to diversify beyond oil (Bloomberg, 2021). Literalizing the
political struggle between an underdog and a powerful big business – a dynamic which many activists
know all too well – Engine No. 1’s feat shows that ESG issues are mainstream and of concern to many.
Moreover, a recent report from Bank of America recorded that ESG assets grew to $329 billion (about
$1,000 per person in the US) this past July. While progress on curbing climate change may have been
stifled in the past by a minority of ‘deniers’ enthralled in political tribalism, recent climate developments
have compelled the private sector -- whose gatekeepers arguably have contributed to global climate
403

change more than any other powerful aggregate – to claim a stake in the fight for an environmentally
friendly future.
We would like to conclude with our experience at the United Nations, reflecting on the inefficiency
in implementing sustainable policies, and on the role of the UN. Through a greater emphasis on the
UN’s role as a facilitator and mediator, instead of an enforcer, we believe the SDGs can be even more
successful in the US education, South Asian region, and the entire world.
The United Nations has a profound and terribly difficult mission to sustain peace and secure a better
future for all. Our main critique of the system would be the inability to act and steps towards implemen-
tation. It has been more than established what needs to be achieved, so it is time to act. The conversa-
tions should now shift from the problems to ingenious, tangible solutions. Linking STEAM, AI with
sustainability is a way forward.
As mentioned earlier, those in power, the representatives of member states, civil service organizations,
NGOs, etc., are the ones having many necessary conversations. Part of the problem may be producing
concrete solutions; those in a position of privilege and power do not know what the problems are at
the local, community level. Advances in STEAM education and AI are needed in many of the poorer
member states.
This is where the UN’s role is key in partnership with the NGOs. The UN can start by giving a voice
to those who do not have it, and to those who require help the most. It is those most behind that we
must now think about first. The UN, as the international organization for upholding the law and peace,
should be facilitating and supporting conversations at a local level. By building resources in many of
the innovative areas of science and technology, the UN can help advance digital literacy and universal
goals of education.
It is the local citizen’s voice that needs to be amplified, and the UN can provide the means to make
this possible. A problem with the inability for countries to fully adopt SDGs is the element of enforce-
ment or imposition attached to them. With local ownership of these goals, it is likely they will be more
successful. The UN should be encouraged to give a larger voice to those at the ground level and to the
sociocultural realities of the local worlds. It is the people on the ground who these global goals are de-
signed to help. Thus, STEAM and sustainability can be best implemented by local schools and educators.
REFERENCES
Andrés, L., Biller, D., & Dappe, M. H. (2013). Reducing Poverty by Closing South Asia’s Infrastructure
Gap. World Bank.
Bers, U. M. (2017, Sep 29). Why kids should code. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://now.
tufts.edu/articles/manifesto-kids-code
Bloomberg. (2021). JP Morgan plots a derivative path into ESG finance. Accessed online on Nov 15,
2021 from: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-16/jpmorgan-plots-derivatives-path-
into-new-era-of-esg-finance
Bloomberg. (2021). Engine-1’s Exxon win signals turning point for ESG investors. Accessed online on
Nov 15, 2021from:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-27/engine-no-1-s-exxon-win-
signals-turning-point-for-esg-investors
404

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). STEAM crisis or STEM surplus. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021
from: https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/article/stem-crisis-or-stem-surplus-yes-and-yes.htm
CFA Institute. (2021). What is ESG investing? Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://www.
cfainstitute.org/en/research/esg-investing
FIRST. (2021). FIRST Core Values. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://www.firstinspires.
org/robotics/fll/core-values
Forbes. (2021). Fintech grows greener. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://www.forbes.com/
sites/jonathanponciano/2021/08/18/fintech-grows-greener-sustainability-focused-aspiration-lands-23-
billion-deal-to-go-public-via-spac/?sh=1de26d13ad30
Kumar, N., Hammill, M., Raihan, S., & Panda, S. (2016). Strategies for Achieving the Sustainable De-
velopment Goals (SDGs) in South Asia. South and South-West Asia Development Papers 1601.
LEGO Education. (2021). LEGO WeDo-2.0. https://education.lego.com/en-us/products/lego-education-
wedo-2-0-core-set/45300#wedo-20
Milanovic, B. (2016, May 13). Why the global 1% and the Asian middle class have gained the most from
globalization. Harvard Business Review. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://hbr.org/2016/05/
why-the-global-1-and-the-asian-middle-class-have-gained-the-most-from-globalization
Murphy, J. (2021). Schooling in the post-industrial age. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://
peabody.vanderbilt.edu/docs/pdf/lpo/schooling_post_industrial_murphy.pdf
NJSBA. (2011). New Jersey Sustainable Schools. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://www.
njsba.org/services/sustainability/njssp-guidebook/executive-summary/
Pinker, S. (2018). Enlightenment now. Viking.
Project Zero. (2015). Maker-centered learning and the development of the self. Accessed online on
Nov 15, 2021 from: http://www.pz.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Maker-Centered-Learning-and-the-
Development-of-Self_AbD_Jan-2015.pdf
Sachs, J. (2015). The age of sustainable development. Columbia University Press. doi:10.7312ach17314
Schwab, K. (2017). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Crown Publishing Group.
Scratch. (2021). Scratch coding. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://education.lego.com/
en-us/products/lego-education-wedo-2-0-core-set/45300#wedo-20
UNDP. (2017). Human Development in South Asia. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://hdr.
undp.org/sites/default/files/en_2019_hdr_press_release_-_asia-pacific_-_final.pdf
UNESCO. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: http://data.
uis.unesco.org/
World Bank. (2016). South Asia Remains World’s Fastest Growing Region, but Should Be Vigilant to
Fading Tailwinds. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-
release/2016/04/09/south-asia-fastest-growing-region-world-vigilant-fading-tailwinds
405

World Economic Forum. (2015). The Global Gender Gap Index. Accessed on Sep 7, 2017. http://reports.
weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2015/the-global-gender-gap-index-2015/
World Hunger. (2015). Asia Hunger facts. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://www.world-
hunger.org/asia-hunger-facts/
ADDITIONAL READING
Campbell, C., & Speldewinde, C. (2022). Early Childhood STEM Education for Sustainable Develop-
ment. Sustainability, 14(6), 3524. doi:10.3390u14063524
Gamage, K. A., Ekanayake, S. Y., & Dehideniya, S. C. (2022). Embedding Sustainability in Learning
and Teaching: Lessons Learned and Moving Forward—Approaches in STEM Higher Education Pro-
grammes. Education Sciences, 12(3), 225. doi:10.3390/educsci12030225
Nguyen, T. P. L., Nguyen, T. H., & Tran, T. K. (2020). STEM education in secondary schools: Teach-
ers’ perspective towards sustainable development. Sustainability, 12(21), 8865. doi:10.3390u12218865
Rogers, M., Pfaff, T., Hamilton, J., & Erkan, A. (2015). Using sustainability themes and multidisciplinary
approaches to enhance STEM education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,
16(4), 523–536. doi:10.1108/IJSHE-02-2013-0018
Schelly, C., & Pearce, J. (2019). Bridging the social and environmental dimensions of global sustain-
ability in STEM education with additive manufacturing. In Integrating 3D Printing into Teaching and
Learning (pp. 155–172). Brill.
Smith, C., & Watson, J. (2018). STEM: Silver bullet for a viable future or just more flatland. Journal
of Futures Studies, 22(4), 25–44.
Smith, C., & Watson, J. (2019). Does the rise of STEM education mean the demise of sustainability
education? Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 35(1), 1–11. doi:10.1017/aee.2018.51
Maker Education/Movement: Maker education and the maker movement is based on project-based
and problem-based learning affordances. To demonstrate learning, the maker’s movement relies on
hands-on, collaborative experiences where projects focus on solving real-world problems.
Non-Government Organisation (NGO): Nonprofit organisations that are not affiliated with govern-
ments or similar bodies, usually formed to address issues of sociopolitical nature.
Problem-Based Learning: According to this teaching methodology, in order to promote critical
thinking and facilitate the development of meta-cognitive abilities, the students engage in -shorter than
project-based learning- real world projects.
Project-Based Learning: In project-based learning students learn by actively engaging in real world
problems. Students work on a project that engages them in fixing a real-world problem or answering
406

a challenging question over a long period of time – from a week to a semester. They demonstrate their
knowledge and abilities by producing a public product or giving presentations. Project-based learning
instills a contagious sense of creativity in both students and teachers.
STEM/STEAM: A note about terminology is increasingly relevant. STEM education may be ap-
propriately termed STEAM for the added emphasis on the Arts and Humanities. Most liberal Western
democracies enjoy the arts education in the public schools to varying degrees, an emphasis that is
somewhat variable or lacking in most developing societies; as the arts, humanities and broadly social
sciences are seen as softer disciplines they invariably attract much less public and private investments.
In hopes to reclaim the pinnacle in science and technology leadership, which the US and EU have en-
joyed for decades if not for the past two-three centuries, the application of STEAM curriculum in some
adaptive form has become a mainstay in American and European schools. As Asian countries in the
Pacific have begun to liberalize their economies and dominate in the fields of science, technology and
computing in the past two-three decades, there has been a parallel decline in science and math scores in
the US and EU and an increase in high school drop-out rates in public schools. There are many reasons
for this decline: breakdown of the family, urban blight, relative lack of investment in education, shifts
in jobs and industries, the rise of information technology, and many others. The emphasis on arts and
humanities may serve as the bridge to the discussions on sustainability within the STEAM fields. As a
common complaint heard from many educators, STEAM does not fully incorporate the arts and humani-
ties at the heart of the liberal arts educational program. Since STEAM education is focused on literate
societies that are already economically developed and advanced, the calls for arts and humanities are of
different kinds from many educators around the world. Mostly, in the EU and US where the educational
standards have been somewhat challenged, the arts and humanities educators don’t want to jettison the
liberal spirit of their local cultures. Among other factors this is in reaction to the rise of Asia, where
the Asian tigers have been ramping up the training in sciences and technology, and fighting to gain and
protect intellectual property (IP) values. Conversely, in most of the underdeveloped world, where we
still struggle to fight for literacy – reading, writing and numeracy – STEAM needs to incorporate the
STREAM curriculum with the added emphasis on the “R” for reading and writing.
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): The United Nations approved the Sustainable Develop-
ment Goals (SDGs), also known as the Global Goals, in 2015 as a universal call to action to end poverty,
safeguard the environment, and ensure that by 2030, everyone lives in peace and prosperity.
United Nations (UN): The United Nations is a global organization that was established in 1945. The
United Nations, which now has 193 member states, is driven by the values and objectives outlined in its
founding Charter. The United Nations has changed over time to keep up with a continuously changing
planet.
407
408
Compilation of References
Ray Casting. (2021). Coding Train. Retrieved February 2, 2022, from https://codingtrain.github.io/NeuroEvolution-Vehicles/
About STEM education in Victoria. (2021). Retrieved February 19, 2022, from https://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/
programs/learningdev/vicstem/Pages/about.aspx
Abrahamson, D., & Lindgren, R. (2014). Embodiment and embodied design. The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning
Sciences, 2, 358–376.
Abu-Al-Aish, A., & Steve, L. (2013). Factors influencing students’ acceptance of m-learning: An investigation in higher
education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(5). Advance online publication.
doi:10.19173/irrodl.v14i5.1631
Adnan, M., & Tondeur, J. (2018). Preparing the next generation for effective technology integration in education: Teacher
educators’ perspective. The Age (Melbourne, Vic.), 25(34), 2.
Agnihotra, N., & Chawdrhy, V. (2013). Development and Empowerment of Marginalised Communities through English. In
P. Powell-Davies, & P. Gunashekar (Eds.), Third International Teacher Educators Conference (209-2013). British Council.
Ah-Fur, L., Chien-Hung, C., & Horng-Yih, L. (2018, July). Developing an Arduino simulation-based learning system
and evaluating its suitability. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on E-Education, E-Business and E-
Technology (pp. 38-42). 10.1145/3241748.3241764
AI for Oceans. (n.d.). Code.Org. Retrieved 1 February 2022, from https://code.org/oceans
Ainsworth, S., & Van Labeke, N. (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and Instruction, 14(3),
241–255. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.002
Ajzen, I. (2006). Constructing a theory of planned behavior questionnaire. Academic Press.
Akay, M. (2018). The development of mathematics based STEM activities to be used in the education of gifted students
[Unpublished master’s thesis dissertation]. Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey.
Akaygün, S., & Aslan-Tutak, F. (2016). STEM images revealing stem conceptions of preservice chemistry and mathemat-
ics teachers. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4(1), 56–71.
Akgündüz, D., Aydeniz, M., Çakmakçı, G., Çavaş, B., Çorlu, M. S., Öner, T., & Özdemir, S. (2015). STEM eğitimi
Türkiye raporu: Günün modası mı yoksa gereksinim mi? [A report on STEM Education in Turkey: A provisional agenda
or a necessity?] [White Paper]. İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi STEM Merkezi ve Eğitim Fakültesi.
Alemi, M., Meghdari, A., & Ghazisaedy, M. (2015). The Impact of Social Robotics on L2 Learners’ Anxiety and Attitude
in English Vocabulary Acquisition. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(4), 523–535. doi:10.100712369-015-0286-y

Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development. Allyn & Bacon.
Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology
Education, 6(1), 63-71. https://bit.ly/2CgpXpZ
Alimisis, D., & Loukatos, D. (2018, June). STEM education post-graduate students’ training in the eCraft2Learn ecosys-
tem. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Innovating STEM Education (pp. 22-24). Academic Press.
Alimisis, D., Frangou, S., & Papanikolaou, K. (2009). A constructivist methodology for teacher training in educational
robotics: The TERECoP course in Greece through trainees’ eyes. Proceedings - 2009 9th IEEE International Conference
on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2009, 24–28. 10.1109/ICALT.2009.86
Alimisis, D., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Constructionism and robotics in education. In D. Alimisis (Ed.), Teacher Education
on Robotic-Enhanced Constructivist Pedagogical Methods (pp. 11–26). ASPETE.
Alimisis, D., Moro, M., & Menegatti, E. (2017). Educational Robotics in the Makers Era (D. Alimisis, M. Moro, & E.
Menegatti, Eds.). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-55553-9
Allan, W., Coulter, B., Denner, J., Erickson, J., Lee, I., Malyn-Smith, J., & Martin, F. (2010). Computational Thinking
for Youth. ITEST Small Working Group on Computational Thinking. Available at http://stelar.edc.org/sites/stelar.edc.
org/files/Computational_Thinking_paper.pdf
Altin, H., & Pedaste, M. (2013). Learning approaches to applying robotics in science education. Journal of Baltic Sci-
ence Education, 12(3), 365–377. doi:10.33225/jbse/13.12.365
Amalia, D., Ka, I., Septiani, V., & Fazal, M. R. (2020). Designing of Mikrokontroler E-Learning Course: Using Arduino
and TinkerCad. Journal of Airport Engineering Technology, 1(1), 8–14. doi:10.52989/jaet.v1i1.2
An, S., Capraro, M. M., & Tillman, D. A. (2013). Elementary Teachers Integrate Music Activities into Regular Mathemat-
ics Lessons: Effects on Students’ Mathematical Abilities. Journal for Learning through the Arts: A Research Journal on
Arts Integration in Schools and Communities, 9(1). doi:10.21977/D99112867
Anderson, C. (2012). Makers: The New Industrial Revolution. Crown Publishing.
Andreotti, E., & Frans, R. (2019). The connection between physics, engineering and music as an example of STEAM
education. Physics Education, 54(4), 045016. doi:10.1088/1361-6552/ab246a
Andrés, L., Biller, D., & Dappe, M. H. (2013). Reducing Poverty by Closing South Asia’s Infrastructure Gap. World Bank.
Andrews, J. J., & Rapp, D. N. (2015). Benefits, costs, and challenges of collaboration for learning and memory. Trans-
lational Issues in Psychological Science, 1(2), 182–191. doi:10.1037/tps0000025
An, S. A., Kulm, G. O., & Ma, T. (2008). The effects of a music composition activity on Chinese students’ attitudes and
beliefs towards mathematics: An exploratory study. Journal of Mathematics Education, 1(1), 91–108.
An, S. A., Ma, T., & Capraro, M. M. (2011). Preservice Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitude About Teaching and Learning
Mathematics Through Music: An Intervention Study. School Science and Mathematics, 111(5), 236–248. doi:10.1111/
j.1949-8594.2011.00082.x
Ansorger, J. (2020). STEM Beyond the Acronym: Ethical Considerations in Standardizing STEM Education in K-12. In
B. Brown, V. Roberts, M. Jacobsen, & C. Hurrell (Eds.), Ethical Use of Technology in Digital Learning Environments:
Graduate Student Perspectives (pp. 87–103). University of Calgary. https://openeducationalberta.ca/educationaltech-
nologyethics/
409
Anwar, S., Bascou, N. A., Menekse, M., & Kardgar, A. (2019). A systematic review of studies on educational robotics.
Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 9(2), 1-24.
Arifin, N. R., & Mahmud, S. N. D. (2021). A Systematic Literature Review of Design Thinking Application in STEM
Integration. Creative Education, 12(7), 1558–1571. doi:10.4236/ce.2021.127118
Arís, N., & Orcos, L. (2019). Educational robotics in the stage of secondary education: Empirical study on motivation
and STEM skills. Education Sciences, 9(2), 73. doi:10.3390/educsci9020073
Asabere, N. Y. (2013). Benefits and challenges of mobile learning implementation: Story of developing nations. Inter-
national Journal of Computers and Applications, 73(1).
Ashby, R. W. (1956). An introduction to Cybernetics. John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.5962/bhl.title.5851
Asunda, P. A. (2012). Standards for Technological Literacy and STEM Education Delivery through Career and Technical
Education Programs. Journal of Technology Education, 23(2), 44–60. doi:10.21061/jte.v23i2.a.3
Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational ro-
botics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 661–670. doi:10.1016/j.
robot.2015.10.008
Atmatzidou, S., Demetriadis, S., & Nika, P. (2018). How Does the Degree of Guidance Support Students’ Metacogni-
tive and Problem Solving Skills in Educational Robotics? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(1), 70–85.
doi:10.100710956-017-9709-x
Auerbach, C., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative Data: An Introduction to Coding and Analysis. NYU Press.
Autodesk. (2019). Tinkercad. Retrieved from https://www.tinkercad.com/
Bakas, C., & Mikropoulos, T. A. (2003). Design of virtual environments for the comprehension of planetary phenomena
based on students’ ideas. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 949–967. doi:10.1080/09500690305027
Baker, R. S., & Hawn, A. (2021). Algorithmic Bias in Education. EdArXiv. doi:10.35542/osf.io/pbmvz
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2),
117–148. doi:10.120715326985ep2802_3
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M., & Arici, A. (2009). Why educators should care about games. Educational Leadership, 67(1),
76–80.
Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M., & Keating, T. (2000). Virtual solar system project: Building understanding through
model building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 719–756. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7<719::AID-
TEA6>3.0.CO;2-V
Barcelona, K. (2014). 21st century curriculum change initiative: A focus on STEM education as an integrated approach
to teaching and learning. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(10), 862–875. doi:10.12691/education-2-10-4
Barker, B., Nugent, G., Grandgenett, N., Adamchuk, V., Mead, R., Thomas, S., & Weinberg, J. (2012). From Grade
School to Grad School. In Robots in K-12 Education (pp. 302-325). Academic Press.
Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Keating, T., Barab, S. A., & Hay, K. E. (2005). Using virtualreality computer models
to support student understanding of astronomical concepts. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teach-
ing, 24(4), 333–356.
410
Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond. In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.),
New directions for teaching and learning. Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice
(pp. 3–13). Jossey-Bass.
Bartholomew, S. R., & Reeve, E. (2018). Middle School Student Perceptions and Actual Use of Mobile Devices:
Highlighting Disconnects in Student Planned and Actual Usage of Mobile Devices in Class. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 21(1), 48–58.
Baygin, M., Yetis, H., Karakose, M., & Akin, E. (2016, September). An effect analysis of industry 4.0 to higher educa-
tion. In 2016 15th international conference on information technology based higher education and training (ITHET)
(pp. 1-4). IEEE.
Beers, S. Z. (2011). 21st century skills: Preparing students for their future. STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering
and Mathematics, 1–6.
Beijaard, D., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of professional identity: An exploratory
study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(7), 749–764. doi:10.1016/S0742-
051X(00)00023-8
Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., & Levine, S. C. (2010). Female teachers’ math anxiety affects girls’ math
achievement. Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, 107(5), 1060–1063. doi:10.1073/pnas.0910967107
PMID:20133834
Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1994). Teacher development as professional, personal, and social development. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 10(5), 483–497. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(94)90002-7
Bell, M., Floyd, J., & Kelly, J. F. (2017). Lego Mindstorms EV3. Apress. doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-2262-1
Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers and
Education. https://bit.ly/2P0GWTG
Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers &
Education, 58(3), 978–988. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006
Bequette, J. W., & Bequette, M. B. (2012). A Place for Art and Design Education in the STEM Conversation. Art Educa-
tion, 65(2), 40–47. doi:10.1080/00043125.2012.11519167
Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of
an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers and Education, 72, 145-157. https://bit.ly/2QQnvKK
Bers, U. M. (2017, Sep 29). Why kids should code. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://now.tufts.edu/articles/
manifesto-kids-code
Bers, M. (2008). Blocks to Robots: Learning with technology in the early childhood classroom. Teachers College Press.
Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Child-
hood Research & Practice, 12(2).
Bers, M. U., Flannery, E. L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration
of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145–157. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020
Bers, M., Ponte, I., Juelich, K., Viera, A., & Schenker, J. (2002). Teachers as Designers: Integrating Robotics in Early
Childhood Education. Information Technology in Childhood Education. AACE.
411
Bevan, B., Gutwill, J. P., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2014). Learning through STEM-rich tinkering: Findings from a
jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Science Education, 99(1), 98–120. doi:10.1002ce.21151
Beynon, M. (2016, November). Mindstorms Revisited: Making New Construals of Seymour Papert’s Legacy. In Inter-
national Conference EduRobotics 2016 (pp. 3-19). Springer.
Bian, L., Leslie, S. J., & Cimpian, A. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence
children’s interests. Science, 355(6323), 389–391. doi:10.1126cience.aah6524 PMID:28126816
Bilstrup, K.-E. K., Kaspersen, M. H., & Petersen, M. G. (2020). Staging Reflections on Ethical Dilemmas in Machine
Learning: A Card-Based Design Workshop for High School Students. Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interac-
tive Systems Conference, 1211–1222. doi:10.1145/3357236.3395558
Bıyıklı, C., & Yağcı, E. (2014). The Effect of 5e Learning Model Designed According to Learning, Experiences on The
Science Process Skills. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 15(1), 45–79. doi:10.12984/eed.59097
Blanco-Fernández, Y., López-Nores, M., Pazos-Arias, J. J., Gil-Solla, A., Ramos-Cabrer, M., & García-Duque, J. (2014).
REENACT: A step forward in immersive learning about Human History by augmented reality, role playing and social
networking. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(10), 4811–4828. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.02.018
Bleeker, M. M., & Jacobs, J. E. (2004). Achievement in math and science: Do mothers’ beliefs matter 12 years later?
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 97–109. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.97
Bloom, B. S. (1994). Bloom’s Taxonomy. University of Chicago Press.
Bloomberg. (2021). Engine-1’s Exxon win signals turning point for ESG investors. Accessed online on Nov 15,
2021from:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-27/engine-no-1-s-exxon-win-signals-turning-point-for-
esg-investors
Bloomberg. (2021). JP Morgan plots a derivative path into ESG finance. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-16/jpmorgan-plots-derivatives-path-into-new-era-of-esg-finance
Blumberg, F. C., Almonte, D. E., Antony, J. S., & Hashimoto, N. (2013). Serious games: What are they? What do they
do? Why should we play them? In The Oxford handbook of media psychology (pp. 334-351). Oxford University Press.
Blumenfeld, P., Kempler, T., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Motivation and Cognitive Engagement in Learning Environments.
The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences.
Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Dettori, G., Ferrari, A. & Engelhardt, K. (2016). Developing computational thinking in
compulsory education – Implications for policy and practice. EUR 28295 EN. doi:10.2791/792158
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (1996). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education. Merrill/
Prentice Hall.
Bonito, T., & Almeida, A. (2016). The Role of ICT to change misconceptions of some astronomy concepts in children of
primary school. Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2015 Conference. Science Education Research: Engaging Learn-
ers for a Sustainable Future, Part/Strand. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antonio_Almeida16/
publication/301659892_Bonito_T_Almeida_A_2016_The_Role_of_ICT_to_change_misconceptions_of_some_as-
tronomy_concepts_in_children_of_primary_school_In_O_Finlayson_R_Pinto_Co-editors_Learning_science_Conce
Boothe, D., & Clark, L. (2014). The 21st century classroom: Creating a culture of innovation in ICT. Conference Pro-
ceedings. ICT for Language Learning.
412
Bornstein, M. H., Putnick, D. L., Deater-Deckard, K., Lansford, J. E., & Bradley, R. H. (2016). Gender in low-and
middle-income countries: Reflections, limitations, directions, and implications. Monographs of the Society for Research
in Child Development, 81(1), 123–144. doi:10.1111/mono.12229 PMID:29568138
Botball. (2021). https://www.kipr.org/botball/what-is-botball
Bower, M., Craft, B., Laurillard, D., & Masterman, L. (2011). Using the Learning Designer to develop a conceptual
framework for linking learning design tools and systems. Academic Press.
Boyle, E. A., Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Gray, G., Earp, J., Ott, M., Lim, T., Ninaus, M., Ribeiro, C., & Pereira, J.
(2016). An update to the systematic literature review of empirical evidence of the impacts and outcomes of computer
games and serious games. Computers & Education, 94, 178–192. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.003
Bratitsis, T., Tatsis, K., & Amanatidou, A. (2012). Counting Sounds: An ICT Musical Approach for Teaching the Concept
of the Angle in Kindergarten. 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. 10.1109/
ICALT.2012.150
Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about concep-
tions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11. doi:10.1111/j.1949-
8594.2011.00109.x
Brennan, K. (2011). Creative computing: A design-based introduction to computational thinking. Available at https://
scratched.gse.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/curriculumguide-v20110923.pdf
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). Using artifact-based interviews to study the development of computational thinking
in interactive media design. Paper presented at annual American Educational Research Association Meeting, Vancouver,
BC, Canada.
Breuer, J., & Bente, G. (2010). Why so serious? On the relation of serious games and learning. Journal for Computer
Game Culture, 4(1), 7–24. doi:10.7557/23.6111
Briz-Ponce, L., Pereira, A., Carvalho, L., Juanes-Méndez, J. A., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2017). Learning with mobile
technologies–Students’ behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 612–620. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.027
Brosterman, N., & Togashi, K. (1997). Inventing kindergarten. HN Abrams.
Bruner, J. S. (2009). The process of education. Harvard university press. doi:10.2307/j.ctvk12qst
Buckley, P., & Doyle, E. (2014). Gamification and student motivation. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6),
1162–1175. doi:10.1080/10494820.2014.964263
Budoya, C. M., Kissaka, M., & Mtebe, J. (2019). Instructional Design Enabled Agile Method Using ADDIE Model
and Feature Driven Development Process. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and
Communication Technology, 15(1), 35–54.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). STEAM crisis or STEM surplus. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://
www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/article/stem-crisis-or-stem-surplus-yes-and-yes.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021, December 1). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/8-
point-8-million-science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem-jobs-in-may-2016.htm
Burke, L., Francis, K., & Shanahan, M. (2014). A horizon of possibilities: a definition of STEM education. In STEM
2014 Conference (pp. 12-15). Academic Press.
413
Burke, Q., & Kafai, Y. B. (2010). Programming & storytelling: opportunities for learning about coding & composition.
In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on interaction design and children. (pp. 348- 351). Barcelona: ACM.
10.1145/1810543.1810611
Bush, S. B., & Cook, K. L. (2019). Structuring STEAM inquiries: Lessons learned from practice. In M. S. Khine & S.
Areepattamannil (Eds.), STEAM Education (pp. 19–35). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-04003-1_2
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological
Review, 106(4), 676–713. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676 PMID:10560326
Bybee, R. W. (2009). The BSCS 5E instructional model and 21st century skills. BSCS, 24.
Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30.
Bybee, R. W. (2019). Using the BSCS 5E instructional model to introduce STEM disciplines. Science and Children,
56(6), 8–12. doi:10.2505/4c19_056_06_8
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS
5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. BSCS, 5, 88–98.
Byrne, B. M. (2005). Factor Analytic Models: Viewing the Structure of an Assessment Instrument From Three Perspec-
tives. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85(1), 17–32. doi:10.120715327752jpa8501_02 PMID:16083381
Caballé, S., Xhafa, F., & Barolli, L. (2010). Using mobile devices to support online collaborative learning. Mobile
Information Systems, 6(1), 27-47.
Cairns, D. (2019). Investigating the relationship between instructional practices and science achievement in an inquiry-
based learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 41(15), 2113–2135. doi:10.1080/09500693.
2019.1660927
Cai, S., Liu, E., Yang, Y., & Liang, J.-C. (2019). Tablet-based AR technology: Impacts on students’ conceptions and
approaches to learning mathematics according to their self-efficacy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1),
248–263. doi:10.1111/bjet.12718
Camilleri, V., Dingli, A., & Montebello, M. (2019). AI in Education A Practical Guide for Teachers and Young People.
Department of AI, University of Malta. http://learnml.eu/docs/AI_in_Education.pdf
Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding In-depth Semistructured Interviews:
Problems of Unitization and Intercoder Reliability and Agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475
Cappelleri, D. J., & Vitoroulis, N. (2012). The robotic decathlon: Project-based learning labs and curriculum design for
an introductory robotics course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(1), 73–81. doi:10.1109/TE.2012.2215329
Carbonaro, M., Rex, M., & Chambers, J. (2004). Using LEGO robotics in a project-based learning environment. The
Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning, 6(1), 55–70.
Carbonaro, M., Szafron, D., Cutumisu, M., & Schaeffer, J. (2010). Computer-game construction: A gender-neutral at-
tractor to computing science. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1098–1111. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.007
Carli, L. L., Alawa, L., Lee, Y., Zhao, B., & Kim, E. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: Women≠scientists.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 244–260. doi:10.1177/0361684315622645
414
Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers’ perspectives on the basic knowledge
and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century US workforce. Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2010). Sex differences in math-intensive fields. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 19(5), 275–279. doi:10.1177/0963721410383241 PMID:21152367
CFA Institute. (2021). What is ESG investing? Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://www.cfainstitute.org/en/
research/esg-investing
Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers’ development of technological, pedagogi-
cal, and content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 63–73.
Chalmers, C. (2018). Robotics and computational thinking in primary school. International Journal of Child-Computer
Interaction, 17, 93–100. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.06.005
Changela, H., Chatzitheodoridis, E., Antunes, A., Beaty, D., Bouw, K., Bridges, J., & Hallsworth, J. (2021). Mars: New
insights and unresolved questions. International Journal of Astrobiology, 20(6), 394–426. doi:10.1017/S1473550421000276
Chatzopoulos, A., Kalogiannakis, M., Papadakis, S., Papoutsidakis, M., Elza, D., & Psycharis, S. (2021). DuBot: An
open-source, low-cost robot for STEM and educational robotics. In Research Anthology on Usage and Development of
Open Source Software (pp. 329-353). IGI Global.
Cheng, Y., Sharma, S., Sharma, P., & Kulathunga, K. (2020). Role of personalization in continuous use intention of
Mobile news apps in India: Extending the UTAUT2 model. Information (Basel), 11(1), 33. doi:10.3390/info11010033
Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M., & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education
based on the theory of planned behavior. Computers & Education, 59(3), 1054–1064. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.015
Cheryan, S., Master, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2015). Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: Increasing girls’ interest in com-
puter science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 49. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00049
PMID:25717308
Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than
others? Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 1–35. doi:10.1037/bul0000052 PMID:27732018
Chiotaki, D., & Karpouzis, K. (2020). Open and cultural data games for learning. In International Conference on the
Foundations of Digital Games (pp. 1-7). 10.1145/3402942.3409621
Chi, S., Wang, Z., & Liu, X. (2021). Moderating the effects of teacher feedback on the associations among inquiry-based
science practices and students’ science-related attitudes and beliefs. International Journal of Science Education, 43(14),
1–31. doi:10.1080/09500693.2021.1968532
Christidou, V., Hatzinikita, V., & Samaras, G. (2012). The image of scientific researchers and their activity in Greek ado-
lescents’ drawings. Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England), 21(5), 626–647. doi:10.1177/0963662510383101
PMID:23823169
Chronaki A. & Kourias, S. (2012). Playing Robots: Doing Mathematics and Doing Gender. Paper for CIEAEM 64
Conference «Mathematics Education and Democracy: learning and teaching practices», Rhodes, Greece.
Cicolani, J. (2021). Beginning Robotics with Raspberry Pi and Arduino. Appress. doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-6891-9
Clapp, E., Ross, J., O’Ryan, J., & Tishman, S. (2016). Maker-Centered Learning: Empowering Young People to Shape
Their Worlds. Jossey-Bass.
415
Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review
and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122. doi:10.3102/0034654315582065 PMID:26937054
Clauhs, M., Franco, B., & Cremata, R. (2019). Mixing It Up: Sound Recording and Music Production in School Music
Programs. Music Educators Journal, 106(1), 55–63. doi:10.1177/0027432119856085
Clements, D. H., & Meredith, J. S. (1993). Research on LOGO: Effects and efficacy. Journal of Computing in Child-
hood Education, 4, 263–290.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Edu-
cational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13. doi:10.3102/0013189X032001009
Cochran-Smith, M., & Maria Villegas, A. (2015). Studying teacher preparation: The questions that drive research. Eu-
ropean Educational Research Journal, 14(5), 379–394. doi:10.1177/1474904115590211
Code.org. Anybody can learn. (2013). http://codeorg.tumblr.com/post/70175643054/stats
Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for Productive small Groups. Review of Educational Research,
64(1), 1–35. doi:10.3102/00346543064001001
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203720967
Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E. (1978). Mind in society. Mind in society the development of
higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Collins, L. (2018). The Impact of Paper Versus Digital Map Technology on Students’ Spatial Thinking Skill Acquisition.
The Journal of Geography, 117(4), 137–152. doi:10.1080/00221341.2017.1374990
Connor, A. M., Karmokar, S., & Whittington, C. (2015). From STEM to STEAM: Strategies for Enhancing Engineer-
ing & Technology Education. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 5(2), 37–47. doi:10.3991/ijep.v5i2.4458
Çorlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2014). Introducing STEM Education: Implications for Educating Our
Teachers For the Age of Innovation. Education Sciences, 39(171), 74–85.
Cowie, R., Cox, C., Martin, J. C., Batliner, A., Heylen, D., & Karpouzis, K. (2011). Issues in data labelling. In Emotion-
oriented systems (pp. 213–241). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15184-2_13
Cowie, R., Douglas-Cowie, E., Karpouzis, K., Caridakis, G., Wallace, M., & Kollias, S. (2008). Recognition of emotional
states in natural human-computer interaction. In Multimodal user interfaces (pp. 119–153). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-
3-540-78345-9_6
Create, J. S. (2021, December 1). CreateJS. https://createjs.com
Crippen, K. J., & Archambault, L. (2012). Scaffolded Inquiry-Based Instruction with Technology: A Signature Pedagogy
for STEM Education. Computers in the Schools, 29(1–2), 157–173. doi:10.1080/07380569.2012.658733
Crompton, H., Burke, D., & Gregory, K. H. (2017). The use of mobile learning in PK-12 education: A systematic review.
Comput. Educ., 110, 51–63. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.013
Crompton, H. (2015). A Historical Overview of M-Learning. Handb. Mob. Learn., 10204. Advance online publication.
doi:10.4324/9780203118764.ch1
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
D’Angelo, C., Rutstein, D., Harris, C., Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., & Haertel, G. (2014). Simulations for STEM learn-
ing: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SRI International.
416
Daher, W., & Shahbari, J. A. (2020). Design of STEM activities: Experiences and perceptions of prospective second-
ary school teachers. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(4), 112–128. doi:10.3991/ijet.
v15i04.11689
Danaher, M., Cook, J., & Coombes, P. (2013). Researching Education with Marginalised Communities. Palgrave Mac-
millan. doi:10.1057/9781137012685
Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice?
European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291–309. doi:10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399
Dave, V., Blasko, D., Holliday-Darr, K., Kremer, J. T., Edwards, R., Ford, M., Lenhardt, L., & Hido, B. (2010). Re-
enJEANeering STEM Education: Math Options Summer Camp. The Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 35–45.
doi:10.21061/jots.v36i1.a.5
Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory
and results (Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Davis, A. C., & Stroink, M. L. (2016). The Relationship between Systems Thinking and the New Ecological Paradigm.
Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 33(4), 575–586. doi:10.1002res.2371
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Man-
agement Information Systems Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi:10.2307/249008
De Clercq, L. (2014). Why are so few girls attracted to study IT? https://www.unite-it.eu/profiles/blogs/why-are-so-few-
girls-attracted-to-study-ict
de la Hera, D. D., Sigman, M., & Calero, C. I. (2018). Social interaction and conceptual change in children: Paving the
way away from misconceptions about the Earth. Retrieved from https://osf.io/djsva/download
De Michele, M. S., Demo, G. B., & Siega, S. (2008, November). A piedmont schoolnet for a k-12 mini-robots program-
ming project: Experiences in primary schools. Proc. TERECoP Workshop «Teaching with robotics, Conference SIMPAR.
de Souza, T. L., & Elisiario, L. S. (2019, October). Educational robotics teaching with Arduino and 3d print based on
stem projects. In 2019 Latin American Robotics Symposium (LARS), 2019 Brazilian Symposium on Robotics (SBR) and
2019 Workshop on Robotics in Education (WRE) (pp. 407-410). IEEE. 10.1109/LARS-SBR-WRE48964.2019.00078
Deák, C., Kumar, B., Szabó, I., Nagy, G., & Szentesi, S. (2021). Evolution of New Approaches in Pedagogy and STEM with
Inquiry-Based Learning and Post-Pandemic Scenarios. Education in Science, 11(7), 319. doi:10.3390/educsci11070319
Deb, S. (2014). Information technology, its impact on society and its future. Advances in Computers, 4(1), 25–29.
Dede, C., Mishra, P., & Voogt, J. (2013). Advancing computational thinking in 21st century learning. EDUsummIT
2013, International summit on ICT in education.
Deloitte. (2015). The fusion of business and IT. Author.
Denis, B., & Hubert, S. (2001). Collaborative learning in an educational robotics environment. Computers in Human
Behavior, 17(5-6), 465–480. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00018-8
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualiza-
tions and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. doi:10.3102/0013189X08331140
Develaki, M. (2012). Integrating Scientific Methods and Knowledge into the Teaching of Newton’s Theory of Gravita-
tion: An Instructional Sequence for Teachers’ and Students’ Nature of Science Education. Science and Education, 21(6),
853–879. doi:10.100711191-010-9243-1
417
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Sage.
Dewey, J. (1966). Experience and Education. In F. W. Garforth (Ed.), John Dewey: Selected Educational Writings.
Heinemann.
DeWitt, J., Archer, L., & Osborne, J. (2013). Nerdy, brainy and normal: Children’s and parents’ constructions of those
who are highly engaged with science. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1455–1476. doi:10.100711165-012-9315-0
Di Lieto, M. C., Inguaggiato, E., Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Cioni, G., Dell’Omo, M., Laschi, C., Pecini, C., Santerini, G.,
Sgandurra, G., & Dario, P. (2017). Educational Robotics intervention on Executive Functions in preschool children: A
pilot study. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 16–23. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.018
Dicke, A.-L., Safavian, N., & Eccles, J. S. (2019). Traditional gender role beliefs and career attainment in STEM: A
gendered story? Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1053. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01053 PMID:31139116
Dickey, M. D. (2015). K-12 teachers encounter digital games: A qualitative investigation of teachers’ perceptions of the
potential of digital games for K-12 education. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(4), 485–495. doi:10.1080/10494
820.2013.788036
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning:
Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Elsevier.
Diyode Magazine. (2021). Retrieved February 19, 2022, from https://diyodemag.com/
Doleck, T., Bazelais, P., Lemay, D. J., Saxena, A., & Basnet, R. B. (2017). Algorithmic thinking, cooperativity, creativity,
critical thinking, and problem solving: Exploring the relationship between computational thinking skills and academic
performance. Journal of Computers in Education, 4(4), 355–369. doi:10.100740692-017-0090-9
Dolgopolovas, V., & Dagienė, V. (2021). Computational thinking: Enhancing STEAM and engineering education, from
theory to practice. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 5–11. doi:10.1002/cae.22382
Domingo, M. G., & Garganté, A. B. (2016). Exploring the use of educational technology in primary education: Teach-
ers’ perception of mobile technology learning impacts and applications’ use in the classroom. Computers in Human
Behavior, 56, 21–28. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.023
Donohue, D. (2021). Applying Gagne’s nine levels of learning in the training classroom. Retrieved in 15/7/2021 from url:
https://www.firefighternation.com/firerescue/applying-gagnes-nine-levels-of-learning-in-the-training-classroom/#gref
Dori, Y. J., Mevarech, Z., & Baker, D. (2018). Cognition, metacognition and culture in STEM education. Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-66659-4
Dotong, C. I., De Castro, E. L., Dolot, J. A., & Prenda, M. T. B. (2016). Barriers for educational technology integration
in contemporary classroom environment. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. Arts and Sciences, 3(2), 13–20.
Duran, D. (2016). Learning-by-teaching. Evidence and implications as a pedagogical mechanism. Innovations in Educa-
tion and Teaching International, 54(5), 476–484. doi:10.1080/14703297.2016.1156011
Eccles, J. S. (2007). Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in physical science and engineering.
In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science?: top researchers debate the evidence (pp.
199–210). American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11546-016
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1),
109–132. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153 PMID:11752481
418
Edelson, D. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners: Design challenges and strate-
gies. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 335–354). Cambridge University Press.
Edelson, R. J., & Johnson, G. (2003). Music Makes Math Meaningful. Childhood Education, 80(2), 65–70. doi:10.108
0/00094056.2004.10521259
Eguchi, A. (2010). What is Educational Robotics? Theories behind it and practical implementation. In Society for in-
formation technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 4006-4014). Association for the Advancement
of Computing in Education (AACE).
Eguchi, A. (2014). Educational robotics for promoting 21st century skills. Journal of Automation, Mobile Robotics, and
Intelligent Systems, 5-11.
Eguchi, A. (2015). Educational Robotics as a Learning Tool for Promoting Rich Environments for Active Learning (RE-
ALs). In Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 740–767). doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8789-9.ch033
Eguchi, A. (2012). Educational robotics theories and practice: Tips for how to do it right. In B. S. Barker, G. Nugent, N.
Grandgenett, & V. I. Adamchuk (Eds.), Robots in K-12 education: A new technology for learning (pp. 1–30). IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-0182-6.ch001
Eguchi, A. (2014, July). Robotics as a learning tool for educational transformation. Proceeding of 4th International
Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics & 5th International Conference Robotics in Education.
Ehlinger, J., Plant, E. A., Hartwig, M. K., Vossen, J. J., Columb, C. J., & Brewer, L. E. (2018). Do gender differences in
perceived prototypical computer scientists and engineers contribute to gender gaps in computer science and engineering?
Sex Roles, 78(1-2), 40–51. doi:10.100711199-017-0763-x PMID:29367799
Elemers, N. (2018). Gender stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(1), 275–298. doi:10.1146/annurev-
psych-122216-011719 PMID:28961059
Elkin, M., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Programming with the KIBO Robotics Kit in preschool classrooms.
Computers in the Schools, 33(3), 169–186. doi:10.1080/07380569.2016.1216251
Elkonin, D. B. (1977). Toward the problem of stages in the mental development of the child. In M. Cole (Ed.), Soviet
developmental psychology. M.E. Sharpe.
Elliptical Orbits & Kepler’s 2nd Law. (2021, December 1). Physics: Interactive Physics Simulations. https://ophysics.
com/f6.html
Elokence.com. (n.d.). Akinator. Retrieved 1 February 2022, from https://en.akinator.com/
English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education,
3(1), 3. doi:10.118640594-016-0036-1
Ertl, B., Luttenberger, S., & Paechter, M. (2017). The impact of gender stereotypes on the self-concept of female students
in STEM subjects with an under-representation of females. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 703. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00703
PMID:28567022
Eryilmaz, S., & Deniz, G. (2021). Effect of Tinkercad on students’ computational thinking skills and perceptions: A case
of Ankara province. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 20(1), 25–38.
European Commission. (2019). She Figures 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/she-figures-2018_en
European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). (2018). Study and work in the EU: Set apart by gender.https://eige.
europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/20173992_kina26893enn_pdf.pdf
419
Everett, S. (2000). Spatial thinking strategies. Science and Children, 37(7), 36–39.
Ezell, E., & Ezell, L. (1984). On Mars: Exploration of the Red Planet, 1958-1978. NASA.
Faber, M., Unfried, A., Wiebe, E. N., Corn, J., Townsend, L. W., & Collins, T. L. (2013, June). Student attitudes toward
STEM: The development of upper elementary school and middle/high school student surveys. Proceedings of the 120th
American Society of Engineering Education Conference.
Fadel, C. (2008). 21st Century skills: How can you prepare students for the new Global Economy? Partnerships for 21st
Century Skills. https://www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/40756908.pdf
Faiella, F., & Ricciardi, M. (2015). Gamification and learning: A review of issues and research. Journal of E-Learning
and Knowledge Society, 11(3). Advance online publication. doi:10.20368/1971-8829/1072
Fakomogbon, M. A., & Bolaji, H. O. (2017). Effects of collaborative learning styles on performance of students in a
ubiquitous collaborative mobile learning environment. Contemporary Educational Technology, 8(3), 268–279.
Feldhausen, R., Weese, J. L., & Bean, N. H. (2018). Increasing Student Self-Efficacy in Computational Thinking via
STEM Outreach Programs. Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education,
302–307. 10.1145/3159450.3159593
Fendt, W. (2021, December 1). Kepler’s Second Law. Apps zur Physik. https://www.walter-fendt.de/html5/phen/kepler-
law2_en.htm
Fernández-Limón, C., Fernández-Cárdenas, J. M., & Gómez Galindo, A. A. (2018). The role of non-formal contexts
in teacher education for STEM: The case of horno3 science and technology interactive centre. Journal of Education for
Teaching, 44(1), 71–89. doi:10.1080/02607476.2018.1422623
Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5-6 year-old kindergarten children in a computer
programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education, 63, 87–97. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.016
Fidai, A., Kwon, H., Buettner, G., Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., Jarvis, C., . . . Verma, S. (2019). Internet of things
(IoT) instructional devices in STEM classrooms: Past, present and future directions. 2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education
Conference (FIE), 1–9.
First Lego League. (2021). www.firstlegoleague.org/about
FIRST. (2021). FIRST Core Values. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://www.firstinspires.org/robotics/fll/
core-values
Fisch, K., & McLeod, S. (2007). Did you know? Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMcfrLYDm2U
Flannery, L. P., & Bers, M. U. (2013). Let’s Dance the “Robot Hokey-Pokey!”: Children’s programming approaches and
achievement throughout early cognitive development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(1), 81–101.
doi:10.1080/15391523.2013.10782614
Flannery, L.-P., Kazakoff, E.-R., Bontá, P., Silverman, B., Bers, M.-U., & Resnick, M. (2013) Designing ScratchJr: sup-
port for early childhood learning through computer programming. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference
on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ’13), ACM. 10.1145/2485760.2485785
Fleck, S., Hachet, M., & Bastien, J. M. C. (2015). Marker-based augmented reality. Proceedings of the 14th International
Conference on Interaction Design and Children - IDC ’15, 21–28. 10.1145/2771839.2771842
Fleming, L. (2015). Worlds of making: Best practices for establishing a makerspace for your school. Corwin Press.
420
Foltz, L. G., Gannon, S., & Kirschmann, S. L. (2014). Factors that contribute to the persistence of minority students in
STEM Fields. Planning for Higher Education, 42(4), 1–13.
Forbes. (2021). Fintech grows greener. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathan-
ponciano/2021/08/18/fintech-grows-greener-sustainability-focused-aspiration-lands-23-billion-deal-to-go-public-via-
spac/?sh=1de26d13ad30
Fotaris, P., & Mastoras, T. (2019). Escape rooms for learning: A systematic review. In Proceedings of the European
Conference on Games Based Learning (pp. 235-243). Academic Conferences and Publishing Ltd.
Fowler, M. (2021a, December 1). Kepler’s Law. Fowler’s Physics Applets. https://galileoandeinstein.phys.virginia.edu/
more_stuff/Applets/Kepler/kepler.html
Fowler, M. (2021b, December 1). Launch To Mars. Trip to Mars. https://galileoandeinstein.phys.virginia.edu/more_stuff/

Applets/ShootMars/shootmars.html
Francis, K., Khan, S., & Davis, B. (2016). Enactivism, spatial reasoning and coding. Digital Experiences in Mathematics
Education, 2(1), 1–20. doi:10.100740751-015-0010-4
Frangou, S., Papanikolaou, K., Aravecchia, L., Montel, L., Ionita, S., Arlegui, J., & Monfalcon, S. (2008). Representative
examples of implementing educational robotics in school based on the constructivist approach. Workshop Proceedings
of Simulation, Modeling and Programming for Autonomous Robots (SIMPAR), 54-65.
Freeman, J., Dorph, R., & Chi, B. (2009). Strengthening after-school STEM staff development. University of California.
https://www.informalscience.org/sites/default/files/Strengthening_After-School_STEM_Staff_Development.pdf
Friedman, T. L. (2012). The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
From Earth to Mars. (2021, December 1). Graasp. https://graasp.eu/s/cibtbp
Frye, D., Zelazo, P. D., Brooks, P. J., & Samuels, M. C. (1996). Inference and action in early causal reasoning. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 32(1), 120–131. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.1.120
Fu, F. L., Su, R. C., & Yu, S. C. (2009). EGameFlow: A scale to measure learners’ enjoyment of e-learning games.
Furner, J., & Berman, B. (2005). Confidence in Their Ability to do Mathematics: The need to eradicate math anxiety
so our future students can successfully compete in a high-tech globally competitive world. Dimensions in Mathematics,
18(1), 28–31.
Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Harcourt Brace Jova-
novich College Publishers.
Gal’perin, P. Y. (1969). Stages in the development of mental acts. A Handbook of Contemporary Soviet Psychol., 249-273.
Galadima, A. A. (2014, September). Arduino as a learning tool. In 2014 11th International Conference on Electronics,
Computer and Computation (ICECCO) (pp. 1-4). IEEE. 10.1109/ICECCO.2014.6997577
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Collecting research data with questionnaires and interviews. Educational
research: An introduction, 227-261.
Gao, F., Li, L., & Sun, Y. (2020). A systematic review of mobile game-based learning in STEM education. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1791–1827. doi:10.100711423-020-09787-0
421
Gardner, M., & Toope, D. (2011). A social justice perspective on strengths-based approaches: Exploring educators’
perspectives and practices. Canadian Journal of Education, 34(3), 86–102.
Garland, K. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2005). Attitudes and confidence towards computers and books as learning tools: A
cross-sectional study of student cohorts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 85–91. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2004.00440.x
Geektoni. (2021). GitHub - geektoni/evolutionary-FlappyBird: Playing the (in)famous Flappy Bird game using NEAT and
Differential Evolution. GitHub. Retrieved February 2, 2022, from https://github.com/geektoni/evolutionary-FlappyBird
Geisinger, K. F. (2016). 21st Century Skills: What Are They and How Do We Assess Them? Applied Measurement in
Education, 29(4), 245–249. doi:10.1080/08957347.2016.1209207
Ge, X., Ifenthaler, D., & Spector, J. M. (2015). Moving Forward with STEAM Education Research. In X. Ge, D. If-
enthaler, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Emerging Technologies for STEAM Education: Full STEAM Ahead (pp. 383–395).
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02573-5_20
Giannakos, M., & Papavlasopoulou, S. (2020). IO1: A LearnML Pedagogical Framework Development (Intellectual
Output 1). Technical Report, Learn to Machine Learn (LearnML), Erasmus+ Project.
Glasersfeld, E. (Ed.). (2006). Radical constructivism in mathematics education (Vol. 7). Springer Science & Business
Media.
Glynn, S. M., Brickman, P., Armstrong, N., & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2011). Science motivation questionnaire II: Validation
with science majors and nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1159–1176. doi:10.1002/
tea.20442
Goodson, I. F. (2002). Teachers’ professional lives (Vol. 3). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203453988
Graasp. (2021, December 1). Graasp-A space for everything. https://graasp.eu/
Gravity and Orbits. (2021, December 1). Phet Interactive Simulations. https://phet.colrado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-
orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_en.html
Gravity Lab. (2021, December 1). National Science & Technology Medals Foundation. https://lab.nationalmedals.org/
gravity.php
Gravity Simulator. (2021, December 1). Test Tube Games. https://www.testtubegames.com/gravity.html
Green, T., Wagner, R., & Green, J. (2018). A look at robots and programmable devices for the K-12 classroom. Tech-
Trends, 62(4), 414–422. doi:10.100711528-018-0297-2
Gress, C. L., Fior, M., Hadwin, A. F., & Winne, P. H. (2010). Measurement and assessment in computer-supported col-
laborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 806–814. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.012
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher,
42(1), 38–43. doi:10.3102/0013189X12463051
Guest, G. (2013). Describing mixed methods research: An alternative to typologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research,
7(2), 141–151. doi:10.1177/1558689812461179
Gunderson, E., Ramirez, G., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). The role of parents and teachers in the development
of gender-related math attitudes. Sex Roles, 66(3-4), 153–166. doi:10.100711199-011-9996-2
GUnet. (2021, December 1). Open eclass. https://www.openeclass.org/en/
422
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Corwin press.
Guskey, T. R. (2002a). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45.
Guskey, T. R. (2002b). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381–391.
doi:10.1080/135406002100000512
Guzdial, M., Ericson, B., McKlin, T., & Engleman, S. (2012). A statewide survey on computing education pathways
and influences: factors in broadening participation in computing. In ACM International Computing Education Research
Conference Proceedings (pp. 143–150). ACM. 10.1145/2361276.2361304
Habgood, M. J., & Ainsworth, S. E. (2011). Motivating children to learn effectively: Exploring the value of intrinsic
integration in educational games. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 169–206. doi:10.1080/10508406.2010.508029
Hair, J. F. Jr, Black, W. C., Babid, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.).
Pearson.
Halkia, K. (2000). The Experiment in Physics: Commentary and Highlights on its role and importance. Educational
Approaches for the Natural Sciences, 6, 12-18.
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does Gamification Work? — A Literature Review of Empirical Studies
on Gamification. In R. Sprague (Ed.), 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (3025–3034). IEEE.
10.1109/HICSS.2014.377
Hamilton, T. J., Doai, J., Milne, A., Saisanas, V., Calilhanna, A., Hilton, C., Goldwater, M., & Cohn, R. (2018). Teaching
Mathematics with Music: A Pilot Study. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning
for Engineering (TALE). 10.1109/TALE.2018.8615262
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of Professionalism and Professional Learning. Teachers and Teaching: History and
Practice, 6(2), 151–182. doi:10.1080/713698714
Hayman, S. L. (2017). Investigating STEAM: Integrating Art and STEM to Spark Innovation. Academic Press.
Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Shanahan, M.-C. (2010). Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome
expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8),
978–1003. doi:10.1002/tea.20363
Helleve, I. (2010). Theoretical Foundations of Teachers’ Professional Development. In J. O. Lindberg & A. D. Olofsson
(Eds.), Online Learning Communities and Teacher Professional Development: Methods for Improved Education Delivery
(pp. 1–19). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-780-5.ch001
Hendriks, M., Luyten, H., Sleegers, P., & Steen, R. (2011). Teachers’ professional development: Europe in international
comparison (J. Scheerens, Ed.). Dictus Publ.
Henriksen, D. (2014). Full STEAM ahead: Creativity in excellent STEM teaching practices. The STEAM Journal, 1(2),
Article 15.
Henriksen, D. (2014). Full STEAM Ahead: Creativity in Excellent STEM Teaching Practices. Steam, 1(2), 1–9.
doi:10.5642team.20140102.15
Hermer-Vazques, L., Moffet, A., & Munkholm, P. (2001). Language, space, and the development of cognitive flexibility
in humans: The case of two spatial memory tasks. Cognition, 79(3), 263–299.
Highfield, K. (2010). Robotic toys as a catalyst for mathematical problem solving. Australian Primary Mathematics
Classroom, 15(2), 22–27.
423
Highfield, K., Mulligan, J., & Hedberg, J. (2008). Early mathematics learning through exploration with programmable
toys. Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME 32 and PME-NA XXX, 3, 169-176.
Hilbert, M. (2011, November). Digital gender divide or technologically empowered women in developing countries? A
typical case of lies, damned lies, and statistics. Women’s Studies International Forum, 34(6), 479–489. doi:10.1016/j.
wsif.2011.07.001
Holdren, J. P., Marrett, C., & Suresh, S. (2013). Federal science, technology, engineering and mathematics education
5-year strategic plan. Executive Office of the President, Committee on STEM Education National Science and Technol-
ogy Council.
Holmlund, T. D., Lesseig, K., & Slavit, D. (2018). Making sense of “STEM education” in K-12 contexts. International
Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 32–51. doi:10.118640594-018-0127-2 PMID:30631722
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects,
and an agenda for research (Vol. 500). National Academies Press.
Honma, T. (2017). Advancing Alternative Pathways to Science: Community Partnership, Do-It-Yourself (DIY)/Do-It-
Together (DIT) Collaboration, and STEM Learning “from Below.”. Transformations: The Journal of Inclusive Scholar-
ship and Pedagogy, 27(1), 41–50. doi:10.1353/tnf.2017.0004
Howland, K., Good, J., & Nicholson, K. (2009). Language-based support for computational thinking. IEEE Symposium
on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC 2009), 147–150. 10.1109/VLHCC.2009.5295278
Hsu, C. Y., Liang, J. C., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Exploring preschool teachers’ technological pedagogical content
knowledge of educational games. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(4), 461–479. doi:10.2190/EC.49.4.c
Hsu, T. C., Chang, S. C., & Hung, Y. T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based
on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004
Huang, K. T., Ball, C., Francis, J., Ratan, R., Boumis, J., & Fordham, J. (2019). Augmented versus virtual reality in
education: An exploratory study examining science knowledge retention when using augmented reality/virtual reality
mobile applications. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22(2), 105–110. doi:10.1089/cyber.2018.0150
PMID:30657334
Huang, R., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Sommer, M., Zhu, J., Stephen, A., Valle, N., Hampton, J., & Li, J. (2020). The impact of
gamification in educational settings on student learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 68(4), 1875–1901. doi:10.100711423-020-09807-z
Hur, J. W., Wang, Y., Kale, U., & Cullen, T. (2015). An exploration of pre-service teachers’ intention to use mobile de-
vices for teaching. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 7(3), 1–17. doi:10.4018/IJMBL.2015070101
Hwang, G. J., & Chang, S. C. (2021). Facilitating knowledge construction in mobile learning contexts: A bi‐directional
peer‐assessment approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(1), 337–357. doi:10.1111/bjet.13001
Hwang, G.-J., Li, K.-C., & Lai, C.-L. (2020). Trends and strategies for conducting effective STEM research and ap-
plications: A mobile and ubiquitous learning perspective. Int. J. Mobile Learning and Organisation, 14(2), 161–183.
doi:10.1504/IJMLO.2020.106166
Icon Font for jQuery-UI. (2021 December 1). Icon Font for jQuery-UI. https://mkkeck.github.io/jquery-ui-iconfont/
Ifanti, A., & Fotopoulou, V. (2013). Teachers’ Perceptions of Professionalism and Professional Development: A Case
Study in Greece. World Journal of Education, 1(1), 40–51.
424
Institute of Educational Policy. (2014). Kindergarten Curriculum (revised edition). Author.
Introduction to Computational Thinking. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zp92mp3/revision/1
Ioannou, M., & Bratitsis, T. (2017). Teaching the Notion of Speed in Kindergarten Using the Sphero SPRK Robot. 17th
IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT). 10.1109/ICALT.2017.70
Jacobs, R. V., & Kusiak, J. (2006). Got tools? Exploring children’s use of mathematics tools during problem solving.
Teaching Children Mathematics, 12(9), 470–477.
Jäggle, G., Lammer, L., Hieber, H., & Vincze, M. (2019, April). Technological literacy through outreach with educational
robotics. In International Conference on Robotics in Education (RiE) (pp. 114-125). Springer.
Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Angeli, C. (2017). Effect of Robotics on Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Self-Efficacy, Science
Learning, and Computational Thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(2), 175–192. doi:10.100710956-
016-9663-z
Jan, H. (2017). Teacher of 21st century: Characteristics and development. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences,
7(9), 50–54.
João-Monteiro, M., Cristóvão-Morgado, R., Bulas-Cruz, M., & Morgado, L. (2003). A robot in kindergarten. Proceed-
ings Eurologo’2003 – Re-inventing technology on education.
Johnson, C. C. (2012). Implementation of STEM education policy: Challenges, progress, and lessons learned. School
Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 45–55. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00110.x
Johnson, J. (2003). Children, robotics, and education. Artificial Life and Robotics, 7(1/2), 16–21. doi:10.1007/BF02480880
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-centered learning environments.
Theoretical foundations of learning environments, 89-121.
Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Learning to solve complex, scientific problems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jones, A. C., Scanlon, E., & Clough, G. (2013). Mobile learning: Two case studies of supporting inquiry learning in
informal and semiformal settings. Computers & Education, 61(1), 21–32. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.008
Joyce-Gibbons, A., Galloway, D., Mollel, A., Mgoma, S., Pima, M., & Deogratias, E. (2018). Mobile phone use in two
secondary schools in Tanzania. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1), 73–92. doi:10.100710639-017-9586-1
jQuery UI. (2021 December 1). jQuery user interface. https://jqueryui.com/
jQuery. (2021 December 1). jQuery. https://jquery.com/
Julià, C., & Antolí, J. Ò. (2019). Impact of implementing a long-term STEM-based active learning course on students’
motivation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(2), 303–327. doi:10.100710798-018-9441-8
Kafai, Y. (2016). From computational thinking to computational participation in K–12 education. Communications of
the ACM, 59(8), 26–27. doi:10.1145/2955114
Kahn, K. M., Megasari, R., Piantari, E., & Junaeti, E. (2018). AI programming by children using Snap! Block program-
ming in a developing country. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:9a82b522-6f9f-4c67-b20d-be6c53019b3b
Kaliisa, R., Palmer, E., & Miller, J. (2019). Mobile learning in higher education: A comparative analysis of developed
and developing country contexts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 546–561. doi:10.1111/bjet.12583
425
Kandlhofer, M., & Steinbauer, G. (2016). Evaluating the impact of educational robotics on pupils’ technical-and social-
skills and science related attitudes. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 679–685. doi:10.1016/j.robot.2015.09.007
Kandroudi, M., & Bratitsis, T. (2016). Διδάσκοντας προγραμματισμό σε μικρές ηλικίες με φορητές συσκευές μέσω
του παιχνιδιού Kodable και του ScratchJr: Mελέτη περίπτωσης [Teaching programming at an early age with mobile
devices through Kodable and ScratchJr: Case study]. In T.A. Mikropoulos, A Tsiara, & P. Chalki (Eds.), Proceedings
8th Panhellenic Conference «Διδακτική της Πληροφορικής» (pp 133-140). ETΠE.
Kantrowitz, A. (2019). Maker Ed in the Art Studio: Preparing Pre-Service Artist/Educators to Integrate Maker Edu-
cation into P-12 Art Studio/Classrooms. Retrieved from: https://nyc2019.fablearn.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/
FL2019_paper_109.pdf
Karim, M. E., Lemaignan, S., & Mondada, F. (2015). A review: Can robots reshape K-12 STEM education? 2015 IEEE
International Workshop on Advanced Robotics and Its Social Impacts (ARSO), 1–8. 10.1109/ARSO.2015.7428217
Karkani, E. (2017). H εκπαιδευτική ρομποτική ως αφόρμηση για τη διδασκαλία γλωσσικών μαθημάτων στην πρωτοβάθμια
εκπαίδευση [Educational robotics as an impetus for the teaching of language courses in primary education]. Proceedings
of 5th Panhellenic Conference «Ένταξη και Xρήση των TΠE στην Eκπαιδευτική Διαδικασία», 604-614.
Karpouzis, K., & Yannakakis, G. N. (2016). Emotion in Games. Springer.
Katehi, L., & ... . (2009). Engineering in K–12 Education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. The
National Academies Press.
Katz, L. G., & Chard, S. C. (1989). Engaging Children’s Minds: the project approach. Ablex.
Kaufman, K. (2014). Information Communication Technology: Challenges & Some Prospects from Pre-Service Educa-
tion to the Classroom. Mid-Atlantic Education Review, 2(1).
Kaufman, K. (2013). 21 ways to 21st century skills: Why students need them and ideas for practical implementation.
Kappa Delta Pi Record, 49(2), 78–83. doi:10.1080/00228958.2013.786594
Kavanagh, C., Sneider, C., & Bar, V. (2011). Learning about Seasons: A Guide for Teachers and Curriculum Developers.
Astronomy Education Review, 10(1). doi:10.3847/aer2010035
Kawulich, B. B. (2005, May). Participant observation as a data collection method. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/
Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2).
Kazakoff, E. R., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The effect of a classroom-based intensive robotics and programming
workshop on sequencing ability in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(4), 245e255.
Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2014). Put your robot in, Put your robot out: Sequencing through programming robots
in early childhood. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(4), 553–573. doi:10.2190/EC.50.4.f
Kazakoff, E., & Bers, M. (2012). Programming in a robotics context in the kindergarten classroom: The impact on
sequencing skills. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 21(4), 371–391.
Kazanidis, I., Palaigeorgiou, G., & Bazinas, C. (2018). Dynamic interactive number lines for fraction learning in a mixed
reality environment. South-East Europe Design Automation, Computer Engineering, Computer Networks and Social
Media Conference, SEEDA_CECNSM 2018. 10.23919/SEEDA-CECNSM.2018.8544927
Ke, F. (2016). Designing and integrating purposeful learning in game play: A systematic review. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 64(2), 219–244. doi:10.100711423-015-9418-1
426
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal
of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–11. doi:10.118640594-016-0046-z
Kelly, A. E., & Lesh, R. A. (2012). Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9781410602725
Kelly, P. (2006). What is teacher learning? A socio-cultural perspective. Oxford Review of Education, 32(4), 505–519.
doi:10.1080/03054980600884227
Kempler, T. M. (2006). Optimizing students’ motivation in inquiry-based learning environments: The role of instructional
practices [Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan]. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PhDT........95K/abstract
Keren, G., & Fridin, M. (2014). Kindergarten social assistive robot (KindSAR) for children’s geometric thinking and
metacognitive development in preschool education: A pilot study. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 400-412.
Kerkhoven, A. H., Russo, P., Land-Zandstra, A. M., Saxena, A., & Rodenburg, F. J. (2016). Gender stereotypes in sci-
ence education resources: A visual content analysis. PLoS One, 11(11), e0165037. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0165037
PMID:27851759
Kerney, A. T. (2016). Tough choices. The real reasons A-level students are steering clear of science and maths. A report
developed by A.T. Kearney in partnership with the Your Life Campaign. https://www.citywomen.co.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2016/02/YL-ATK-Tough-Choices-Research-Report-FINAL-3-02-16.pdf
Kessels, U. (2015). Bridging the gap by enhancing the fit: How stereotypes about STEM clash with stereotypes about
girls. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 7, 280–296.
Khanlari, A. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and the challenges of integrating educational robots into primary/
elementary curricula. European Journal of Engineering Education, 41(3), 320–330. doi:10.1080/03043797.2015.1056106
Khine, M., & Areepattamannil, S. (2019). Steam education. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-04003-1
Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005
Kim, H. (2011). Inquiry-based science and technology enrichment program: Green earth enhanced with inquiry and
technology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(6), 803–814. doi:10.100710956-011-9334-z
Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., & Salen, K. (2009). Moving learning games forward: Obstacles, opportunities, & openness.
The Education Arcade. http://education.mit.edu/papers/MovingLearningGamesForward_EdArcade.pdf
Koç, R. S., & Kayacan, K. (2018). The Views of Science Teachers about Engineering Design Skills. Electronic Turkish
Studies, 13(19).
Koltay, T. (2011). The media and the literacies: Media literacy, information literacy, digital literacy. Media Culture &
Society, 33(2), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443710393382
Komis, V., & Misirli, A. (2013). Étude des processus de construction d’algorithmes et de programmes par les petits
enfants à l’aide de jouets programmables [Study of the processes of construction of algorithms and programs by small
children using programmable toys]. Dans Sciences et technologies de l’information et de la communication (STIC) en
milieu éducatif: Objets et méthodes d’enseignement et d’apprentissage, de la maternelle à l’université.
Komis, B. (2004). Introduction to Educational Applications of Information and Communication Technologies. New
Technologies Publications.
427
Korosidou, E., Meditskou, E. & Bratitsis. (2013). Παραγωγή και λήψη οδηγιών κίνησης στο χώρο κατά την εκμάθηση
της Aγγλικής ως ξένης γλώσσας με το ρομπότ BeeBot. Proceedings 3rd Panhellenic Conference «Ένταξη και χρήση
των TΠE στην εκπαιδευτική διαδικασία».
Koskey, K. L., Ahmed, W., Makki, N., Garafolo, N., Kruggel, B. G., & Visco, D. P. (2018, June). Board 154: Zipping
to STEM: Integrating Engineering Design in Middle School Science. 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.
10.18260/1-2--29957
Kousloglou, M., Molohidis, A., Nikolopoulou, K., & Hatzikraniotis, E. (in press). Mobile Inquiry-based Science Learning
(m-IBSL): Employment of the Phyphox application for an experimental study of friction. Teaching Science.
Kozima, H., Michalowski, M. P., & Nakagawa, C. (2009). Keepon. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1), 3–18.
doi:10.100712369-008-0009-8
Kulshrestha, A. K., & Pandey, K. (2013). Teachers training and professional competencies. Voice of Research, 1(4), 29-33.
Kumar, N., Hammill, M., Raihan, S., & Panda, S. (2016). Strategies for Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) in South Asia. South and South-West Asia Development Papers 1601.
Kumpulainen, K., & Wray, D. (Eds.). (2002). Classroom Interaction and Social Learning. From Theory to Practice.
London: Routledge/Falmer.
Kunduracıoğlu, I. (2018). Examining the interface of Lego Mindstorms EV3 robot programming. Journal of Educational
Technology and Online Learning, 1(1), 28–46. doi:10.31681/jetol.372826
La Paglia, F., Rizzo, R., & La Barbera, D. (2011). Use of robotics kits for the enhancement of metacognitive skills of
mathematics: A possible approach. Stud Health Technol Inform, 167, 26-30.
La Paglia, F., Rizzo, R., La Barbera, D., & Cardaci, M. (2010). Using robotics construction kits as metacognitive tools:
Research in an Italian primary school. Annual Review of Cybertherapy and Telemedicine. Advanced Technologies in
the Behavioral. Social Neuroscience, 154, 110–114.
Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., & Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: A new
biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE Life Sciences Education, 9(1), 10–16. doi:10.1187/cbe.09-12-0092
PMID:20194802
Lachney, M., & Foster, E. K. (2020). Historicizing making and doing: Seymour Papert, Sherry Turkle, and epistemologi-
cal foundations of the maker movement. History and Technology, 36(1), 54–82. doi:10.1080/07341512.2020.1759302
Lai, C. (2018). Using inquiry-based strategies for enhancing students’ STEM education learning. Journal of Education
in Science, Environment and Health, 4(1), 110–117. doi:10.21891/jeseh.389740
Lamb, R. L., Annetta, L., Firestone, J., & Etopio, E. (2018). A meta-analysis with examination of moderators of student
cognition, affect, and learning outcomes while using serious educational games, serious games, and simulations. Com-
puters in Human Behavior, 80, 158–167. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.040
Lasica, I. E., Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., Katzis, K., Dimopoulos, C., & Mavrotheris, E. (2018). Designing a Teacher
Training Program on the integration of Augmented and Mixed Reality technologies within the educational process. 12th
annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference. 10.21125/inted.2018.2181
Lasica, I. E., Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., & Katzis, K. (2020a). A Teacher Professional Development Program on Teaching
STEM-Related Topics Using Augmented Reality in Secondary Education. In Emerging Technologies and Pedagogies
in the Curriculum (pp. 113–126). Springer.
428
Lasica, I. E., Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., & Katzis, K. (2020b). Augmented Reality in Lower Secondary Education:
A Teacher Professional Development Program in Cyprus and Greece. Education Sciences, 10(4), 121. doi:10.3390/
educsci10040121
Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology.
Routledge.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning:
Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614.
doi:10.3102/0034654307309921
Lawson, A. E., Banks, D. L., & Logvin, M. (2007). Self-efficacy, reasoning ability, and achievement in college biology.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 706–724. doi:10.1002/tea.20172
Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., & Werner, L. (2011). Computational thinking for
youth in practice. ACM Inroads, 2(1), 32–37. doi:10.1145/1929887.1929902
Lee, K., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). Collaboration by design: Using robotics to foster social interaction in kin-
dergarten. Computers in the Schools, 30(3), 271–281. doi:10.1080/07380569.2013.805676
Lee, U., Han, K., Cho, H., Chung, K. M., Hong, H., Lee, S. J., Noh, Y., Park, S., & Carroll, J. M. (2019). Intelligent
positive computing with mobile, wearable, and IoT devices: Literature review and research directions. Ad Hoc Networks,
83, 8–24. doi:10.1016/j.adhoc.2018.08.021
Lefkos, I., Psillos, D., Hatzikraniotis, E., & Papadopoulos, A. (2005). A proposal for the laboratory support of the
teaching of Thermal Radiation with combined use of ICT tools. Proceeding of the 3rd Panhellenic Conference on ICT
“Utilization of Information and Communication Technologies in Teaching Practice”, 114-120.
LEGO Education. (2021). LEGO WeDo-2.0. https://education.lego.com/en-us/products/lego-education-wedo-2-0-core-

set/45300#wedo-20
Lehavi, Y., & Galili, I. (2009). The status of Galileo’s law of free-fall and its implications for physics education. American
Journal of Physics, 77(5), 417–423. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3096643
Leite, W. L., & Stapleton, L. M. (2011). Detecting Growth Shape Misspecifications in Latent Growth Models: An
Evaluation of Fit Indexes. Journal of Experimental Education, 79(4), 361–381. doi:10.1080/00220973.2010.509369
Leslie, S. J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions
across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 262–265. doi:10.1126cience.1261375 PMID:25593183
Lesseig, K., Slavit, D., & Nelson, T. H. (2017). Jumping on the STEM bandwagon: How middle grades students and
teachers can benefit from STEM experiences. Middle School Journal, 48(3), 15–24. doi:10.1080/00940771.2017.1297663
Lessons | micro:bit. (2021). Retrieved February 19, 2022, from https://microbit.org/lessons/
Li, N., Willett, W., Sharlin, E., & Sousa, M. C. (2017). Visibility perception and dynamic viewsheds for topographic
maps and models. ACM Reference, 9, 39–47. doi:10.1145/3131277.3132178
Lin, C. L., & Tsai, C. Y. (2021). The Effect of a Pedagogical STEAM Model on Students’ Project Competence and Learning
Motivation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(1), 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09885-x
429
Lindberg, L., Fields, D. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2020). STEAM Maker Education: Conceal/Reveal of Personal, Artistic and
Computational Dimensions in High School Student Projects. Frontiers in Education, 5. https://www.frontiersin.org/
article/10.3389/feduc.2020.00051
Lindgren, R., Tscholl, M., Wang, S., & Johnson, E. (2016). Enhancing learning and engagement through embodied in-
teraction within a mixed reality simulation. Computers & Education, 95, 174–187. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.001
Lindh, J., & Holgersson, T. (2007). Does lego training stimulate pupils’ ability to solve logical problems? Computers &
Education, 49(4), 1097–1111. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.12.008
Liu, A., Newsom, J., Schunn, C., & Shoop, R. (2013). Students Learn Programming Faster through Robotic Simulation.
Tech Directions, 72(8), 16–19.
Liu, C. H., & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s Philosophy: Constructivism and Its Criticisms Examined. International
Education Journal, 6(3), 386–399.
Liu, C., Zowghi, D., Kearney, M., & Bano, M. (2021). Inquiry-based mobile learning in secondary school science educa-
tion: A systematic review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(1), 1–23. doi:10.1111/jcal.12505
Liu, M., Scordino, R., Geurtz, R., Navarrete, C., Ko, Y. J., & Lim, M. H. (2014). A Look at research on mobile learning
in K12 education from 2007 to present. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(4), 325–372. doi:10.108
0/15391523.2014.925681
Looi, C. K. (1998). Interactive learning environments for promoting inquiry learning. Journal of Educational Technology
Systems, 27(1), 3–22. doi:10.2190/L4Q4-8QMM-QPJ3-B5LJ
Lotz, N., Thomas, B., Fernández Cárdenas, J. M., Reynaga Peña, C., Díaz de León Lastras, A., Cortes Capetillo, A.,
González Nieto, N., Santamaría-Cid de León, D., López, F., Machado, R., & Hayhoe, S. (2019). Co-creating FabLab
La Campana: Empowering a marginalised community in the North of Mexico. In M. Evans, A. Saw, R. Cooper, & J.
Hoo Na (Eds.), IASDR 2019 The International Association of Societies of Design Research (pp. 31-50). White Rose.
Lynch, S. J., Peters-Burton, E., & Ford, M. (2015). Building STEM Opportunities for All. Educational Leadership,
72(4), 54–60.
Machine Learning for Kids. (n.d.). Retrieved 1 February 2022, from https://machinelearningforkids.co.uk
Madden, L., Beyers, J., & O’Brien, S. (2016). The importance of STEM education in the elementary grades: Learning
from pre-service and novice teachers’ perspectives. The Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics
Education, 20(5).
Mahat, J., Ayub, A. F. M., Luan, S., & Wong. (2012). An assessment of students’ mobile self-efficacy, readiness and
personal innovativeness towards mobile learning in higher education in Malaysia. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sci-
ences, 64, 284–290. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.033
Makarova, E., Aeschlimann, B., & Herzog, W. (2019). The Gender Gap in STEM Fields: The Impact of the Gender
Stereotype of Math and Science on Secondary Students’ Career Aspirations. Frontiers in Education, 4, 60. doi:10.3389/
feduc.2019.00060
Malatesta, L., Murray, J., Raouzaiou, A., Hiolle, A., Cañamero, L., & Karpouzis, K. (2009). Emotion modelling and
facial affect recognition in human-computer and human-robot interaction. IntechOpen. doi:10.5772/6648
Mann, A., Denis, V., Schleicher, A., Ekhtiari, H., Forsyth, T., Liu, E., & Chambers, N. (2020). Dream jobs? Teenag-
ers’ career aspirations and the future of work. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/dream-jobs-teenagers-career-
aspirations-and-the-future-of-work.htm
430
Marjan, L., & Mozhgan, L. (2012). Collaborative Learning: What is it? Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31,
491–495. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.092
Markelis, I., Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2009). Introduction of educational robotics in primary and secondary
education: reflections on practice and theory. In D. Alimisis, K. Papanikolaou, S. Frangou, & M. Kantonidou (Eds.),
Lessons Learnt from The TERECOP Project and new Pathways into Educational Robotics Across Europe (pp. 25–26).
Academic Press.
Martinez, J. E. (2017). The search for method in STEAM education. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-55822-6
Martin, L. M. W. (2004). An emerging research framework for studying informal learning and schools. Science Educa-
tion, 88(1), S71–S82.
Martín-Ramos, P., da Silva, M. M. L., Lopes, M. J., & Silva, M. R. (2016, November). Student2student: Arduino project-
based learning. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing
Multiculturality (pp. 79-84). 10.1145/3012430.3012500
Massó-Guijarro, B., Pérez-García, P., & Cruz-González, C. (2021). Applied Theatre as a strategy for intervention with
disadvantaged groups: A qualitative synthesis. Educational Research, 63(3), 337–356. doi:10.1080/00131881.2021.1945476
Master, A., Cheryan, S., Moscatelli, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2017). Programming experience promotes higher STEM mo-
tivation among first-grade girls. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 160, 92–106. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2017.03.013
PMID:28433822
Matsuda, N., Sekar, V. P. C., & Wall, N. (2018). Metacognitive Scaffolding Amplifies the Effect of Learning by Teaching
a Teachable Agent. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 10947, 311–323. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-93843-1_23
Mavrikakis, E., Sirigos, E., & Farantou, E. D. (2018a). Specifications for educational content (face-to-face). http://
www.iep.edu.gr/images/IEP/EPISTIMONIKI_YPIRESIA/Epist_Monades/B_Kyklos/Tee/2018/2018-03-26_prodia-
grafes_ey_mathiteias_dia_zosis.pdf
Mavrikakis, E., Sirigos, E., & Farantou, E. D. (2018b). Specifications for educational content. http://www.iep.edu.gr/
images/IEP/EPISTIMONIKI_YPIRESIA/Epist_Monades/B_Kyklos/Tee/2018/2018-03-26_prodiagrafes_ey_mathit-
eias_ex_apostaseos.pdf
Mavrotheris, E., Lasica, I. E., Pitsikalis, S., & Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M. (2018). Project EL-STEM: Enlivened labora-
tories within STEM education. INTED2018 Proceedings, 9099-9107.
Ma, W., Anderson, R., & Streith, K. (2005). Examining user acceptance of computer technology: An empirical study
of student teachers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(6), 387–395. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00145.x
McKean, R. (2017). Heritage Perth and the mixed reality makeover. Education Technology Solutions, 78, 44–46.
Mehdipour, Y., & Zerehkafi, H. (2013). Mobile learning for education: Benefits and challenges. International Journal
of Computational Engineering Research, 3(6), 93–101.
Meira, L. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: The emergence of transparency in mathematical activity. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 121–142. doi:10.2307/749895
Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M. (2019). Augmented reality in STEAM Education. In M. A. Peters & R. Heraud (Eds.), Ency-
clopedia of educational innovation (pp. 1–6). doi:10.1007/978-981-13-2262-4_128-1
Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., & Prodromou, T. (2016). Pre-servive teacher training on game-enhanced mathematics teach-
ing and learning. Technology Knowledge and Learning, 21(3), 379–399. doi:10.100710758-016-9275-y
431
Mercer, N., & Sams, C. (2006). Teaching children how to use language to solve maths problems. Language and Educa-
tion, 20(6), 507–528. doi:10.2167/le678.0
Merchie, E., Tuytens, M., Devos, G., & Vanderlinde, R. (2018). Evaluating teachers’ professional development initia-
tives: Towards an extended evaluative framework. Research Papers in Education, 33(2), 143–168. doi:10.1080/02671
522.2016.1271003
Merkouris, A., Chorianopoulos, K., & Kameas, A. (2017). Teaching programming in secondary education through em-
bodied computing platforms: Robotics and wearables. [TOCE]. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 17(2), 1–22.
Michaloudis, A., & Hatzikraniotis, E. (2017). Fostering Students’ Understanding with Web-Based Simulations in an Inquiry
Continuum Framework. Research on E-Learning and ICT in Education, 105–117. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-34127-9_8
Mikropoulos, T. A., & Bellou, I. (2013). Educational robotics as mindtools. Themes in Science and Technology Educa-
tion, 6(1), 5–14.
Mikropoulos, T. A., & Bellou, J. (2006). The Unique Features of Educational Virtual Environments. International As-
sociation for Development of the Information Society, 1, 122–128.
Milanovic, B. (2016, May 13). Why the global 1% and the Asian middle class have gained the most from globalization.
Harvard Business Review. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://hbr.org/2016/05/why-the-global-1-and-the-
asian-middle-class-have-gained-the-most-from-globalization
Miller, H. B., & Cuevas, J. A. (2017). Mobile Learning and its Effects on Academic Achievement and Student Motiva-
tion. International Journal for the Scholarship of Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(2), 91–110.
Milne, A. J., & Calilhanna, A. M. (2019). Teaching Music with Mathematics: A Pilot Study. Mathematics and Computa-
tion in Music, 383–389. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-21392-3_34
Minecraft Hour of Code. Facilitator Training 2019. (n.d.). Microsoft Educator Center. Retrieved 1 February 2022, from
https://education.microsoft.com/en-us/course/beb9828a/0
Mioduser, D., & Levy, S. T. (2010). Making sense by building sense: Kindergarten children’s construction and under-
standing of adaptive robot behaviors. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(2), 99-127.
Misirli, A., & Komis, V. (2014). Robotics and Programming Concepts in Early Childhood Education: A Conceptual
Framework for Designing Educational Scenarios. In C. Karagiannidis, P. Politis, & I. Karasavvidis (Eds.), Research on
e-Learning and ICT in Education. Springer.
Misirli, A., Komis, V., & Ravanis, K. (2019). The Construction of Spatial Awareness in Early Childhood: The Effect of
an Educational Scenario-Based Programming Environment. Rev. Sci. Math. ICT Educ., 13, 111–124.
Mohapatra, B. N., Mohapatra, R. K., Jijnyasa, J., & Shruti, Z. (2020). Easy performance based learning of arduino and
sensors through Tinkercad. International Journal of Open Information Technologies, 8(10).
Montiel, M., & Gómez, F. (2014). Music in the pedagogy of mathematics. Journal of Mathematics & Music, 8(2),
151–166. doi:10.1080/17459737.2014.936109
Moore, T. J., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Advancing the state of the art of STEM integration. Journal of STEM Education:
Innovations and Research, 15(1), 5.
Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementation and
Integration of Engineering in K-12 STEM Education. Purdue University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt6wq7bh.7
Moral Machine. (n.d.). Moral Machine. Retrieved 1 February 2022, from http://moralmachine.mit.edu
432
Moser, F., & Hannover, B. (2014). How gender fair are German schoolbooks in the twenty-first century? An analysis of
language and illustrations in schoolbooks for mathematics and German. European Journal of Psychology of Education,
29(3), 387–407. doi:10.100710212-013-0204-3
Moyer-Packenham, P. S., Shumway, J. F., Bullock, E., Tucker, S. I., Anderson-Pence, K. L., Westenskow, A., & ... .
(2015). Young children’s learning performance and efficiency when using virtual manipulative mathematics iPad apps.
Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 34(1), 41–69.
Mpiladeri, M., Palaigeorgiou, G., & Lemonidis, C. (2016). Fractangi: A Tangible Learning Environment for Learning
about Fractions with an Interactive Number Line. International Association for the Development of the Information Society.
Mugo, D. G., Njagi, K., Chemwei, B., & Motanya, J. O. (2017). The technology acceptance model (TAM) and its ap-
plication to the utilization of mobile learning technologies. British Journal of Mathematics & Computer Science, 20(4),
1–8. doi:10.9734/BJMCS/2017/29015
Murphy, J. (2021). Schooling in the post-industrial age. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://peabody.van-
derbilt.edu/docs/pdf/lpo/schooling_post_industrial_murphy.pdf
Murphy, T. (2010). Conversations on engaged pedagogies, independent thinking skills and active citizenship. Issues in
Educational Research, 20(1), 39–46. http://www.iier.org.au/iier20/murphy.pdf
Mutambara, D., & Bayaga, A. (2021, January). Determinants of Mobile Learning Acceptance for STEM Education in
Rural Areas. Computers & Education, 160, 104010. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104010
Naidoo, J. (2021). Eplroing Teaching and Learning in the 21st Century. In J. Naidoo (Ed.), Teaching and Learning in
the 21st Century Embracing the Fourth Industrial Revolution (pp. 1–12). Brill Sense. doi:10.1163/9789004460386_001
NASA. (2021, December 1). Solar System Exploration. NASA Science. https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/solar-system/our-
solar-system/overview/
Nathan, B. R., & Nilsen, L. (2009). Southwestern Pennsylvania STEM Network long range plan. Southwest Pennsylvania
Regional STEM Network.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Science and Engineering for Grades 6–12: Inves-
tigation and Design at the Center. The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/25216
National Research Council. (2010). Committee for the Workshops on Computational Thinking: Report of a workshop
on the scope and nature of computational thinking. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Available at https://
www.nap.edu/read/12840/chapter/3#13
National Research Council. (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations. Committee on science
learning: computer games, simulations, and education. In M. A. Honey & M. L. Hilton (Eds.), Board on science educa-
tion, division of behavioral and social sciences and education. The National Academies Press.
National Science Board. (2016). Science and Engineering Indicators Digest, 2016, 898.
National Science Foundation & Department of Education. (1980). Science & Engineering Education for the 1980’s and
Beyond (NSF Publication No.80-78). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Nemiro, J., Larriva, C., & Jawaharlal, M. (2017). Developing Creative Behavior in Elementary School Students with
Robotics. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(1), 70–90. doi:10.1002/jocb.87
433
Nguyen, U., & Riegle-Crumb, C. (2021). Who is a scientist? The relationship between counter-stereotypical beliefs
about scientists and the STEM major intentions of Black and Latinx male and female students. International Journal of
STEM Education, 8(28), 1–18. doi:10.118640594-021-00288-x
Nicholson, S. (2015). Peeking behind the locked door: A survey of escape room facilities. https://scottnicholson.com/
pubs/erfacwhite.pdf
Nikolas, A., Sotiriou, S., Zervas, P., & Sampson, D. (2014). The Open Discovery Space Portal: A Socially-Powered and
Open Federated Infrastructure. In D. Sampson, D. Ifenthaler, J. Spector, & P. Isaias (Eds.), Digital Systems for Open
Access to Formal and Informal Learning. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02264-2_2
Nikolopoulou, K. (2019). Motivation and mobile devices’ usage at school: Pupils’ opinions. Información Tecnológica,
3(1), 6–11. doi:10.11648/j.ajeit.20190301.12
Nikolopoulou, K., & Gialamas, V. (2016). Exploring Secondary School Pupils’ ICT Engagement: A Validation Study.
Creative Education, 7(04), 567–573. doi:10.4236/ce.2016.74059
Nikolopoulou, K., & Gialamas, V. (2017). High school pupils’ attitudes and self-efficacy of using mobile devices. Themes
in Science and Technology Education, 10(2), 53–67.
Nikolopoulou, K., Gialamas, V., & Lavidas, K. (2020). Acceptance of mobile phone by university students for their
studies: An investigation applying UTAUT2 model. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 4139–4155.
doi:10.100710639-020-10157-9
Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2018). Mobile‐Based micro‐Learning and Assessment: Impact on learning performance
and motivation of high school students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(3), 269–278. doi:10.1111/jcal.12240
NJSBA. (2011). New Jersey Sustainable Schools. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://www.njsba.org/services/
sustainability/njssp-guidebook/executive-summary/
Nordin, N., Embi, M. A., & Yunus, M. M. (2010). Mobile learning framework for lifelong learning. Procedia: Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 7, 130–138. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.10.019
Nouri, J., Cerrato-Pargman, T., & Zetali, K. (2013). Mobile inquiry-based learning: A study of collaborative scaffolding
and performance. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8005, 464–473. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39262-7_53
Novak, A. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Using Technology To Support Inquiry In Middle School Science. In L. B. Flick
& N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science. Science & Technology Education Library (Vol. 25).
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-5814-1_5
NRC (National Research Council). (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn.
National Academy Press.
Nugent, G., Barker, B., & Grandgenett, N. (2008, June). The effect of 4-H robotics and geospatial technologies on sci-
ence, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and attitudes. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 447-452).
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Impact of robotics and geospatial technology in-
terventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 391-408.
Nugent, G. C., Barker, B. S., & Grandgenett, N. (2014). The impact of educational robotics on student STEM learning,
attitudes, and workplace skills. In Robotics: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications. IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-
1-4666-4607-0.ch070
434
Numanoğlu, M., & Keser, H. (2017). Robot usage in programmıng teachıng-mbot example. Bartın University Journal
of Faculty of Education, 6(2), 497–515.
Nurtanto, M., Kholifah, N., Ahdhianto, E., Samsudin, A., & Isnantyo, F. D. (2021). A Review of Gamification Impact
on Student Behavioural and Learning Outcomes. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 15(21), 22.
doi:10.3991/ijim.v15i21.24381
OECD. (2016). Fields of education, gender, and the labour market. Education Indicators in Focus, 45. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1787/22267077
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Vol. 2). Where All Students Can Succeed. doi:10.1787/b5fd1b8f-
Olson, M., & Martiny, S. E. (2018). Does exposure to countersterotypical role models influence girls’ and women’s
gender stereotypes and career choices? A review of social psychological research. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2264.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02264 PMID:30581398
Ozkan, G., & Umdu Topsakal, U. (2021). Exploring the effectiveness of STEAM design processes on middle school
students’ creativity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(1), 95–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10798-019-09547-z
Palaigeorgiou, G., Karakostas, A., & Skenderidou, K. (2017). FingerTrips: Learning Geography through Tangible Finger
Trips into 3D Augmented Maps. Proceedings - IEEE 17th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies,
ICALT 2017, 170–172. 10.1109/ICALT.2017.118
Palaigeorgiou, G., Malandrakis, G., & Tsolopani, C. (2017). Learning with Drones: Flying Windows for Classroom
Virtual Field Trips. Proceedings - IEEE 17th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT
2017, 338–342. 10.1109/ICALT.2017.116
Palincsar, A. S., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (1999). Designing collaborative contexts: Lessons from three research programs.
In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 151–177). Erlbaum.
Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Zaranis, N. (2016). ‘Developing fundamental programming concepts and compu-
tational thinking with ScratchJr in preschool education: A case study’, Int. J. Mobile Learning and Organisation, 10(3),
187–202. doi:10.1504/IJMLO.2016.077867
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. Harvest Press.
Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). Ablex.
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36(2), 1–11.
Parker, J. R., & Becker, K. (2014). ViPER : Game That Teaches Machine Learning Concepts—A Postmortem. 2014
IEEE Games and Entertainment Media Conference (GEM), 5.
Parmigiani, D., Traverso, A., & Pennazio, V. (2015). Mobile devices as factor for the development of motivation and
concentration in the upper secondary school. The students’ and parents’ point of view. In Conference Paper (pp. 172-
179). Academic Press.
Pask, G. (1976). Conversation Theory: Applications in Education and Epistemology. Elsevier Science.
435
Pask, G. (1984). Review of conversation theory and a protologic (or protolanguage), Lp. Educational Technology Re-
search and Development, 32(1), 3–40. doi:10.1007/BF02768767
Paulette, F., & Jelte, W. (2015). Does stereotype threat influence performance of girls in stereotyped domains? A meta-
analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 25–44. PMID:25636259
Payne, B. H. (2019). An Ethics of Artificial Intelligence Curriculum for Middle School Students. MIT Media Lab. Re-
trieved 13 April 2021, from https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/ai-ethics-for-middle-school/overview/
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., &
Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review,
14, 47–61. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C.,
& Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research
Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
Peffer, M. E., Beckler, M. L., Schunn, C., Renken, M., & Revak, A. (2015). Science Classroom Inquiry (SCI) simula-
tions: A novel method to scaffold science learning. PLoS One, 10(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120638
Perignat, E., & Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2019). STEAM in practice and research: An integrative literature review. Thinking
Skills and Creativity, 31, 31–43. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2018.10.002
Perkins, D. N. & Tishman, S. (2006). Learning that matters: Towards a dispositional perspective on education and its
research needs. A report prepared for the Spencer Foundation.
Perkins, D. N., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of thinking. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 39(1), 1–21.
Perković, L., Settle, A., Hwang, S., & Jones, J. (2010). A framework for computational thinking across the curriculum.
In Proceedings of the 15th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education. ACM.
10.1145/1822090.1822126
Petri, G., von Wangenheim, C. G., & Borgatto, A. F. (2016). MEEGA+: An evolution of a model for the evaluation of
educational games. Brazilian Institute for Digital Convergence. Technical Report INCoD/GQS.3.2016.E. https://www.
researchgate.net/profile/Giani-Petri/publication/309031701_MEEGA_An_Evolution_of_a_Model_for_the_Evalua-
tion_of_Educational_Games/links/57fe4b5208ae727564015b28/MEEGA-An-Evolution-of-a-Model-for-the-Evaluation-
of-Educational-Games.pdf
Petrosino, A. J., Sherard, M. K., & Tharayil, S. A. (2020). The education philosophy, theories and models that enable
STEM policy integration. In STEM in the Technopolis: The Power of STEM Education in Regional Technology Policy
(pp. 51–63). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39851-4_3
Phillips, M. (2013). Investigating in-service teachers’ workplace TPACK development. Australian Educational Comput-
ing, 28(2).
Piaget, J. I., & Inhelder, B. (1967). The Child’s Conception of Space. The Child’s Conception of Space WW Norton.
Piatek-Jimenez, K., Cribbs, J., & Gill, N. (2018). College students’ perceptions of gender stereotypes: Making connections
to the underrepresentation of women in STEM fields. International Journal of Science Education, 40(12), 1432–1454.
doi:10.1080/09500693.2018.1482027
Pimm, D. (1995). Symbols and meanings in school mathematics. Routledge.
436
Pinker, S. (2018). Enlightenment now. Viking.
Pitsikalis, S., Lasica, I. E., & Roussos, I. (2020). Apprenticeship in Greece: Focusing on E-Learning of a Blended
Learning Approach for Training VET Teachers And Trainers. In EDULEARN20 Proceedings (pp. 2012-2018). IATED
Digital Library.
Planetary Transfer Calculator. (2021, December 1). Transfercalculator. https://transfercalculator.com/
Plaza, P., Sancristobal, E., Carro, G., Blazquez, M., García-Loro, F., Muñoz, M., & Castro, M. (2019, April). STEM and
educational robotics using scratch. In 2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 330-336).
IEEE. 10.1109/EDUCON.2019.8725028
Poll, H. (2014). Pearson student mobile device survey 2014. National Report: Students in Grades 4-12. Pearson. Retrieved
06 December 2021, from https://www.pearsoned.com/wp-content/uploads/Pearson-K12-Student-Mobile-Device-Survey-
050914-PUBLIC-Report.pdf
Polydoros, G. (2021). Teaching and learning mathematics with mobile devices. Journal of Research and Opinion, 8(7),
2978–2985. doi:10.15520/jro.v8i7.113
Ponticorvo, M., Rubinacci, F., Marocco, D., Truglio, F., & Miglino, O. (2020). Educational robotics to foster and assess
social relations in students’ groups. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 7, 78. doi:10.3389/frobt.2020.00078 PMID:33501245
Portelance, D.-J., & Bers, M.-U. (2015). Code and tell: assessing young children’s learning of computational thinking
using peer video interviews with ScratchJr. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design
and Children (IDC ’15). ACM. 10.1145/2771839.2771894
Prasongsap, B., Khaokhajorn, W., & Srisawasdi, N. (2020). Mobile learning in informal science education: A systematic
review from 2010 to 2019. ICCE 2020 - 28th International Conference on Computers in Education Proceedings, 2, 425–431.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816
Prensky, M. (2005). Computer games and learning: Digital game-based learning. In J. Raessens & J. Goldstein (Eds.),
Handbook of computer game Studies (pp. 97–122). The MIT Press.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers. (2015). A smart move : Future-proofing Australia’s workforce by growing skills in science,
technology, engineering and maths. STEM.
Prinsley, R., & Johnston, E. (2015). Transforming STEM teaching in Australian primary schools: Everybody’s business.
Australian Government. Office of the Chief Scientist. Position Paper.
Proctor, M. D., & Marks, Y. (2013). A survey of exemplar teachers’ perceptions, use, and access of computer-based games
and technology for classroom instruction. Computers & Education, 62, 171–180. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.022
Project Malmo. (n.d.). Microsoft Research. Retrieved 1 February 2022, from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/
project/project-malmo/
Project Zero. (2015). Maker-centered learning and the development of the self. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from:
http://www.pz.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Maker-Centered-Learning-and-the-Development-of-Self_AbD_Jan-2015.
pdf
Psycharis, S., Kalovrektis, K., Sakellaridi, E., Korres, K., & Mastorodimos, D. (2018). Unfolding the Curriculum:
Physical Computing, Computational Thinking and Computational Experiment in STEM’s Transdisciplinary Approach.
European Journal of Engineering Research and Science, 19-24.
437
Psycharis, S. (2018, September). Computational thinking, engineering epistemology and STEM epistemology: A primary
approach to computational pedagogy. In International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (pp. 689-698).
Springer.
Psycharis, S., Kalovrektis, K., & Xenakis, A. (2020). A Conceptual Framework for Computational Pedagogy in STEAM
education: Determinants and perspectives. Hellenic Journal of STEM Education, 1(1), 17–32.
Pugnali, A., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2017). The impact of user interface on young children’s computational thinking.
Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 16, 171–193. doi:10.28945/3768
Quick, Draw! (n.d.). Retrieved 1 February 2022, from https://quickdraw.withgoogle.com/
Rahwan, I., Cebrian, M., Obradovich, N., Bongard, J., Bonnefon, J.-F., Breazeal, C., Crandall, J. W., Christakis, N. A.,
Couzin, I. D., Jackson, M. O., Jennings, N. R., Kamar, E., Kloumann, I. M., Larochelle, H., Lazer, D., McElreath, R.,
Mislove, A., Parkes, D. C., & Pentland, A., … Wellman, M. (2019). Machine behaviour. Nature, 568(7753), 477–486.
doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1138-y
Rajić, S. (2019). Mathematics and music game in the function of child’s cognitive development, motivation and activity.
Early Child Development and Care, 191(9), 1468–1480. doi:10.1080/03004430.2019.1656620
Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., Andrade-Vargas, L., Rivera-Rogel, D., & Portuguez-Castro, M. (2021). Trends for the future
of education programs for professional development. Sustainability, 13(13), 7244. doi:10.3390u13137244
Rau, P. L. P., Gao, Q., & Wu, L. M. (2008). Using mobile communication technology in high school education: Motiva-
tion, pressure, and learning performance. Computers & Education, 50(1), 1–22. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.03.008
Ravan, S., De Groeve, T., & Mani, L. (2022). When It Strikes, Are We Ready? Lessons Identified at the 7th Planetary
Defense Conference in Preparing for a Near-Earth Object Impact Scenario. Int J Disaster Risk Sci, 13, 151–159.
doi:10.1007/s13753-021-00389-9
Redfield, S. (2019). A definition for robotics as an academic discipline. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(6), 263–264.
doi:10.103842256-019-0064-x
Rennie, L. J., & Heard, M. R. (2012). Scientists in Schools: Benefits of Working Together. 2nd International STEM in
Education Conference.
Resnick, M. (2013, May). Learn to Code, Code to Learn. EdSurge.
Resnick, M. (1996). Programmable bricks: Toys to think with. IBM Systems Journal, 35(3 & 4), •••.
Resnick, M. (2003). Playful learning and creative societies. Educator’s Update, 8(6).
Resnick, M. (2007). Sowing the seeds for a more creative society. Learning and Leading with Technology, 35(4), 18–22.
Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Designing for tinkerability. In Design, make, play (pp. 181–199). Routledge.
Resnick, M., & Silverman, B. (2005). Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids. Proceedings of the 2005
conference on Interaction design and children, (pp. 117-122). 10.1145/1109540.1109556
Rich, K. M., Binkowski, T. A., Strickland, C., & Franklin, D. (2018). Decomposition: A k-8 computational thinking
learning trajectory. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp.
124-132). 10.1145/3230977.3230979
Rifandi, R., & Rahmi, Y. L. (2019, October). STEM education to fulfil the 21st century demand: A literature review.
Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1317(1), 012208. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1317/1/012208
438
Ring, E. A., Dare, E. A., Crotty, E. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2017). The evolution of teacher conceptions of STEM education
throughout an intensive professional development experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(5), 444–467.
doi:10.1080/1046560X.2017.1356671
Robinson, M. (2005). Robotics-Driven Activities: Can They Improve Middle School Science Learning? Bulletin of Sci-
ence, Technology & Society, 25(1), 73–84. doi:10.1177/0270467604271244
Robocup. (2021). https://www.robocup.org/join_robocup
Robofest. (2021). https://www.robofest.net/index.php/about/about
Rockland, R., Bloom, D. S., Carpinelli, J., Burr-Alexander, L., Hirsch, L. S., & Kimmel, H. (2010). Advancing the “E”
in K-12 STEM education. The Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 53–64.
Rodríguez, A. I., Riaza, B. G., & Gómez, M. C. S. (2017). Collaborative learning and mobile devices: An educational
experience in Primary Education. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 664–677. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.019
Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of
K-12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1),
31–44. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00112.x
Roehring, G. H., Dare, E. A., Ring-Whalen, E., & Wieselmann, J. R. (2021). Understanding coherence and integration
in integrated STEM curriculum. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(2), 1–21.
Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative crocess. In Cognition, perceptions and language, 5th Edition. Handbook
of Child Psychology (pp. 679-744). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press.
Roldán Roa, E., Roldán Roa, E., & Chounta, I. A. (2020). Learning Music and Math, Together as One: Towards a Col-
laborative Approach for Practicing Math Skills with Music. Collaboration Technologies and Social Computing, 143–156.
doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58157-2_10
Romero, M., & Barma, S. (2015). Teaching pre-service teachers to integrate Serious Games in the primary education
curriculum. International Journal of Serious Games, 2(1). Advance online publication. doi:10.17083/ijsg.v2i1.43
Root-Bernstein, R., Allen, L., Beach, L., Bhadula, R., Fast, J., Hosey, C., Kremkow, B., Lapp, J., Lonc, K., Pawelec,
K., Podufaly, A., Russ, C., Tennant, L., Vrtis, E., & Weinlander, S. (2008). Arts foster scientific success: Avocations of
Nobel, National Academy, Royal Society, and Sigma Xi members. Journal of Psychology of Science and Technology,
1(2), 51–63. doi:10.1891/1939-7054.1.2.51
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E.
O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-
85098-1_5
Roscoe, R. D. (2014). Self-monitoring and knowledge-building in learning by teaching. Instructional Science, 42(3),
327–351. doi:10.100711251-013-9283-4
Rosicka, C. (2016). Translating STEM education research into practice. Acer.
Roussou, E., & Rangoussi, M. (2020). On the Use of Robotics for the Development of Computational Thinking in
Kindergarten: Educational Intervention and Evaluation. In M. Merdan, W. Lepuschitz, G. Koppensteiner, R. Balogh, &
D. Obdržálek (Eds.), Robotics in Education. RiE 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (Vol. 1023, pp.
33–44). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-26945-6_3
439
Royal Society. (2012). Shut down or restart: The way forward for computing in UK schools. Available at https://royal-
society.org/topics-policy/projects/computing-in-schools/report/
Rubio, M. A., Hierro, C. M., & Pablo, A. P. D. M. (2013, July). Using arduino to enhance computer programming courses
in science and engineering. In Proceedings of EDULEARN13 conference (pp. 1-3). IATED.
Russell, S., Dewey, D., & Tegmark, M. (2015). Research Priorities for Robust and Beneficial Artificial Intelligence. AI
Magazine, 36(4), 105. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v36i4.2577
Rutten, N., Van Joolingen, W. R., & Van Der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science
education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017
Sachs, J. (2015). The age of sustainable development. Columbia University Press. doi:10.7312ach17314
Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020). The gamification of learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32(1),
77–112. doi:10.100710648-019-09498-w
Sáinz, M., & Eccles, J. (2012). Self-concept of computer and math ability. Gender implications across time and within
ICT studies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 486–499. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.08.005
Sáinz, M., Pálmen, R., & García-Cuesta, S. (2012). Parental and secondary school teachers’ perceptions of ICT profession-
als, gender differences and their role in the choice of studies. Sex Roles, 66(3-4), 235–249. doi:10.100711199-011-0055-9
Salta, K., & Koulougliotis, D. (2014). Assessing motivation to learn chemistry: Adaptation and validation of Science
Motivation Questionnaire II with Greek secondary school students. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(2),
168–183.
Sampurno, P. J., Sari, Y. A., & Wijaya, A. D. (2015). Integrating STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathemat-
ics) and Disaster (STEM-D) education for building students’ disaster literacy. International Journal of Learning and
Teaching, 1(1), 73–76. doi:10.18178/ijlt.1.1.73-76
Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEM mania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.
Santos, C. M., Franco, R. A., Leon, D., Ovigli, D. B., & Donizete Colombo Jr, P. (2017). Interdisciplinarity in Educa-
tion: Overcoming Fragmentation in the Teaching-Learning Process. International Education Studies, 10(10), 71–77.
doi:10.5539/ies.v10n10p71
Sapounidis, T., & Alimisis, D. (2021, February). Educational robotics curricula: current trends and shortcomings. In
Educational Robotics International Conference (pp. 127-138). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-030-77022-8_12
Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). «Concrete» computer manipulatives in mathematics education. Child Develop-
ment Perspectives, 3(3), 145–150. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00095.x
Sarkar, S. (2012). The role of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in higher education for the 21st century.
The Science Probe, 1(1), 30–40.
Savenije, G. M., & de Bruijn, P. (2017). Historical empathy in a museum: uniting contextualisation and emotional en-
gagement. doi:10.1080/13527258.2017.1339108
Scanlon, E., Anastopoulou, S., Kerawalla, L., & Mulholland, P. (2011). How technology resources can be used to repre-
sent personal inquiry and support students’ understanding of it across contexts. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
27(6), 516–529. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00414.x
Schiffer, S., & Ferrein, A. (2018). ERIKA—Early Robotics Introduction at Kindergarten Age. Multimodal Technologies
and Interaction, 2(4), 64. doi:10.3390/mti2040064
440
Schlager, M. S., & Fusco, J. (2003). Teacher professional development, technology, and communities of practice: Are
we putting the cart before the horse? The Information Society, 19(3), 203–220. doi:10.1080/01972240309464
Schnittka, C. (2016). STEM Road Map: A Framework for Integrated STEM Education. The Journal of Educational
Research, 110(3), 317–317. doi:10.1080/00220671.2016.1253949
Schoonenboom, J., & Johnson, R. B. (2017). How to construct a mixed methods research design. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift
für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69(2), 107–131. doi:10.100711577-017-0454-1 PMID:28989188
Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., Burden, K., & Brindley, S. (2018). Mobile STEM Learning Scenarios. Uncertainty in Teacher
Education Futures, 177–203. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-8246-7_11
Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum.
Scott, B. (2001). Gordon Pask’s Conversation Theory: A Domain Independent Constructivist Model of Human Knowing.
Foundations of Science, 6(4), 343–360. doi:10.1023/A:1011667022540
Scratch. (2021). Scratch coding. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://education.lego.com/en-us/products/
lego-education-wedo-2-0-core-set/45300#wedo-20
Seidman, R. H. (2017). Tribute to Seymour Papert (1928–2016). Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(4),
447–448. doi:10.1177/0735633117710860
Seifert, T. (2015). Pedagogical applications of smartphone integration in teaching: Lecturers, pre-service teachers and
pupils’ perspectives. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 7(2), 1–16. doi:10.4018/ijmbl.2015040101
Semi-Conductor. (n.d.). Retrieved 1 February 2022, from https://semiconductor.withgoogle.com/
Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2011). Lowering the learning threshold: Multi-agent-based models learning electricity.
In Models and Modeling (pp. 141–171). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0449-7_7
Severance, C. (2015). Python for Everybody. Coursera. Retrieved from https://www.coursera.org/specializations/python
Sharma, K., Torrado, J. C., Gómez, J., & Jaccheri, L. (2021). Improving girls’ perception of computer science as a viable
career option through game playing and design: Lesson from a systematic literature review. Entertainment Computing,
36, 100387. doi:10.1016/j.entcom.2020.100387
Sharma, M., Millar, R., Smith, A., & Sefton, I. (2004). Students’ Understandings of Gravity in an Orbiting Space-Ship.
Research in Science Education, 34(3), 267.
Sherin, B. L. (2001). How students understand physics equations. Cognition and Instruction, 19(4), 479–541. doi:10.1207/
S1532690XCI1904_3
Shih, J. L., Chuang, C. W., & Hwang, G. J. (2010). An inquiry-based mobile learning approach to enhancing social sci-
ence learning effectiveness. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 50–62.
Shin, J. E. L., Levy, S. R., & London, B. (2016). Effects of role model exposure on STEM and non-STEM student en-
gagement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(7), 410–427. doi:10.1111/jasp.12371
Silicon Chip Online. (2021). Retrieved February 19, 2022, from https://www.siliconchip.com.au/
Sitsanlis, I. (2021b, December 1). Newton’s law of universal gravitation. https://seilias.gr/igi/gravityLaw.html
Sitsanlis, I. (2021c, December 1). Newton’s law of universal gravitation – problem. https://seilias.gr/igi/gravityLaw-
Problem.html
441
Sitsanlis, I. (2021d, December 1). Two-body problem. https://seilias.gr/igi/twoBodies.html
Sitsanlis, I. (2021e, December 1). Kepler’s Laws. https://seilias.gr/igi/keplerPaths.html
Sitsanlis, I. (2021f, December 1). Ellipse. https://seilias.gr/igi/ellipse.html
Sitsanlis, I. (2021g, December 1). Satellite. https://seilias .gr/igi/satellite3D.html
Sitsanlis, I. (2021h, December 1). Hohmann Transfer. https://seilias.gr/igi/hohmannTransfer.html
Sitsanlis, I. (2021i, December 1). Relative Velocity. https://seilias.gr/igi/relativeVelocity.html
Sitsanlis, I. (2021j, December 1). Solar System. https://seilias.gr/igi/planets.html
Sitsanlis, I. (2021k, December 1). Solar System and spacecraft. https://seilias.gr/igi/marsTrip3D.html
SitsanlisI. (2021a, December 1). Physics and Photography. https://www.seilias.gr
Sklar, E., Eguchi, A., & Johnson, J. (2002). RoboCupJunior: Learning with Educational Robotics. Lecture Notes in
Artificial Intelligence, 2752, 238–253. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-45135-8_18
Skoumpourdi, C. (2010). Kindergarten mathematics with ‘Pepe the Rabbit’: How kindergartners use auxiliary means
to solve problems. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(3), 149–157. doi:10.1080/135029
3X.2010.500070
Skyttner, L. (2006). General Systems Theory: Problems, Perspectives, Practice (2nd ed.). World Scientific. doi:10.1142/5871
Slavin, R. E. (1986). Cooperative learning: Engineering social psychology in the classroom. In R. S. Feldman (Ed.), The
social psychology of education: Current research and theory (pp. 153–171). Cambridge Press.
Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer Simulations to Support Science Instruction and Learning: A critical
review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337–1370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500
693.2011.605182
Smith, K. A., Douglas, T. C., & Cox, M. F. (2009). Supportive teaching and learning strategies in STEM education. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2009(117), 19–32. doi:10.1002/tl.341
Solar System Simulator. (2021, December 1). The Sky Live. https://theskylive.com/3dsolarsystem
Song, D., Loyle-Langholz, A., Higbee, J. L., & Zhou, Z. (2013). Achieving Course Objectives And Student Learning
Outcomes: Seeking Student Feedback On Their Progress. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 6(3), 289–298.
doi:10.19030/cier.v6i3.7898
SPSS, Inc. (2008). SPSS Base 17.0 user’s guide. SPSS, Inc.
Stager, G. S. (2016). Seymour Papert (1928–2016). Nature, 537(7620), 308–308. doi:10.1038/537308a PMID:27629633
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2005). Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. In R. Sawyer (Ed.), The
Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 409–426). CUP., doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816833.025
Staple, D. (2021). Learn Robotics Programming. Packt Publishing Ltd.
Steinbring, H. (2000). Interaction analysis of mathematical communication in primary teaching: The epistemological
perspective. ZDM. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 32(5), 138–148. doi:10.1007/BF02655653
STEM Education in New South Wales. (2021). Retrieved February 19, 2022, from https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-
and-learning/curriculum/key-learning-areas/stem
442
Stergiopoulou, M., Karatrantou, A., & Panagiotakopoulos, C. (2017). Educational robotics and STEM education: A
pilot study using the H&S electronic systems platform. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 560, 88–103.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-55553-9_7
Stoeckelmayr, K., Tesar, M., & Hofmann, A. (2011, September). Kindergarten children programming robots: a first
attempt. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Robotics in Education (RIE).
Stohlmann, M. S., Roehrig, G. H., & Moore, T. J. (2014). The need for STEM teacher education development. Stem
Education How to train 21st Century Teachers. Nova Publisher.
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal
of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34. doi:10.5703/1288284314653
Suárez, Á., Specht, M., Prinsen, F., Kalz, M., & Ternier, S. (2018). A review of the types of mobile activities in mobile
inquiry-based learning. Computers & Education, 118, 38–55. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.004
Subotnik, R. F., Edmiston, A. M., & Rayhack, K. M. (2007). Developing national policies in STEM talent development:
Obstacles and opportunities. Nato Security Through Science Series E Human and Societal Dynamics, 16, 28.
Sullivan, A., Strawhacker, A., & Bers, M. U. (2017). Dancing, drawing, and dramatic robots: Integrating robotics and
the arts to teach foundational STEAM concepts to young children. In Robotics in STEM Education: Redesigning the
Learning Experience. (pp. 231-260). Springer Publishing.
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2012). Gender differences in kindergarteners’ robotics and programming achievement.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.100710798-012-9210-z
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes from an 8-week robot-
ics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,
26(1), 3–20. doi:10.100710798-015-9304-5
Sullivan, A., Bers, M. U., & Mihm, C. (2017). Imagining, Playing, & Coding with KIBO: Using KIBO Robotics to
Foster Computational Thinking in Young Children. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational
Thinking Education.
Sullivan, A., Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The wheels on the bot go round and round: Robotics curriculum in
pre-kindergarten. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 12, 203–219. doi:10.28945/1887
Sullivan, F. R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understand-
ing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching, 45(3), 373–394. doi:10.1002/tea.20238
Sullivan, F. R., Sullivan, F. R., & Moriarty, M. A. (2009). Robotics and Discovery Learning: Pedagogical Beliefs, Teacher
Practice, and.... Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(1), 109–142.
Sung, Y. T., Hou, H. T., Liu, C. K., & Chang, K. E. (2010). Mobile guide system using problem-solving strategy for
museum learning: A sequential learning behavioral pattern analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(2),
106–115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00345.x
Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Liu, T.-C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning
on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education, 94, 252–275.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008
Sun, K.-T., Lin, C.-L., & Wang, S.-M. (2010). A 3D virtual reality model of the sun and the moon for e-learning at elemen-
tary schools. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(4), 689–710. doi:10.100710763-009-9181-z
443
Sutoyo, S., Azizah, U., & Allamin, S. (2019). Effectiveness of the Guided Inquiry Model Integrated with STEM to
Improve the Student Critical Thinking Skills in Chemistry Learning. International Journal of Innovative Science and
Research Technology, 4(12).
Taleb, Z., Ahmadi, A., & Musavi, M. (2015). The effect of m-learning on mathematics learning. Procedia: Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 171, 83–89. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.092
Tantu, O. (2017). Evaluating mobile apps for STEM Education with in-service teachers [Master of Science thesis].
Middle East Technical University. https://open.metu.edu.tr/handle/11511/26447
Tan-Wilson, A., & Stamp, N. (2015). College students’ views of work–life balance in STEM research careers: Address-
ing negative preconceptions. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(3), es5. doi:10.1187/cbe.14-11-0210 PMID:26163564
Tarling, I., & Ng’ambi, D. (2016). Teachers pedagogical change framework: A diagnostic tool for changing teachers’
uses of emerging technologies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(3), 554–572. doi:10.1111/bjet.12454
Tawfik, A., Law, V., Ge, X., Xing, W., & Kim, K. (2018). The effect of sustained vs. faded scaffolding on students’ argu-
mentation in ill-structured problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 436–449. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.035
Taylor, P. C. (2016). Why is a STEAM curriculum perspective crucial to the 21st century? Academic Press.
Teach computing and digital making – Raspberry Pi. (2021). Retrieved February 19, 2022, from https://www.raspber-
rypi.org/teach/
Teachable Machine. (n.d.). Retrieved 1 February 2022, from https://teachablemachine.withgoogle.com/
The Australian Curriculum. (2021). Retrieved February 19, 2022, from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/
The Planets Today. (2021, December 1). A Live View of the solar system and planetary positions today. https://www.
theplanetstoday.com
Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Dehaene, W.,
Deprez, J., De Cock, M., Hellinckx, L., Knipprath, H., Langie, G., Struyven, K., Van de Velde, D., Van Petegem, P., &
Depaepe, F. (2018). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education.
European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 2. doi:10.20897/ejsteme/85525
Thoman, D. B., Smith, J. L., Brown, E. R., Chase, J., & Lee, J. Y. K. (2013). Beyond performance: A Motivational Ex-
periences Model of Stereotype Threat. Educational Psychology Review, 25(2), 211–243. doi:10.100710648-013-9219-1
PMID:23894223
Thomas, B., & Watters, J. J. (2015). Perspectives on Australian, Indian and Malaysian Approaches to STEM Education.
International Journal of Educational Development, 45, 42–53. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.08.002
Thongsri, P., Prasongsap, B., Panjaburee, P., & Srisawasdi, N. (2020). Mobile technology facilitated physics learning
course: A systematic review from 2010 to 2019. ICCE 2020 - 28th International Conference on Computers in Education
Proceedings, 2, 438–443.
Three.js. (2021, December 1). JavaScript 3D library. https://threejs.org/
Tican, C., & Deniz, S. (2018). Pre-service teachers’ opinions about the use of 21st century learner and 21st century
teacher skills. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(1), 181–197. doi:10.12973/eu-jer.8.1.181
Tijani, B., Madu, N., Falade, T., & Dele-Ajayi, O. (2021). Teacher Training during Covid-19: A Case Study of the Virtual
STEM Project in Africa. doi:10.1109/EDUCON46332.2021.9453920
444
Tishman, S. (2001). Added value: A dispositional perspective on thinking. In A. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A
resource book for teaching thinking (3rd ed., pp. 72–75). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tobias, E. S. (2013). Toward Convergence: Adapting Music Education to Contemporary Society and Participatory
Culture. Music Educators Journal, 99(4), 29–36. doi:10.1177/0027432113483318
Tobias, S., & Weissbrod, C. (1980). Anxiety and Mathematics: An Update. Harvard Educational Review, 50(1), 63–70.
doi:10.17763/haer.50.1.xw483257j6035084
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons.
Trumper, R. (2006). Teaching future teachers basic astronomy concepts–Sun-Earth-Moon relative movements–at
a time of reform in science education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 24(1), 85–109. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02635140500485407
Tsai, F.-H., Hsiao, H.-S., Yu, K.-C., & Lin, K.-Y. (2021). Development and effectiveness evaluation of a STEM-based
game-design project for preservice primary teacher education. International Journal of Technology and Design Educa-
tion, 1–22.
Tsai, P. S., Tsai, C. C., & Hwang, G. H. (2010). Elementary school students’ attitudes and self-efficacy of using PDAs
in a ubiquitous learning context. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3). Advance online publication.
doi:10.14742/ajet.1076
Tsolakis, S., Theofanellis, T., & Voulgari, E. (2021). Fostering Computational Thinking With Arduino and Lego Mind-
storms. In Handbook of Research on Using Educational Robotics to Facilitate Student Learning (pp. 183–208). IGI
Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-6717-3.ch007
Tuomi, P., Multisilta, J., Saarikoski, P., & Suominen, J. (2018). Coding skills as a success factor for a society. Education
and Information Technologies, 23(1), 419–434. doi:10.100710639-017-9611-4
Tzagkaraki, E., Papadakis, S., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2021). Exploring the Use of Educational Robotics in primary
school and its possible place in the curricula. In Educational Robotics International Conference (pp. 216-229). Springer.
10.1007/978-3-030-77022-8_19
Üçgül, M. (2013). History and educational potential of Lego Mindstorms NXT. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi
Dergisi, 9(2), 127–137.
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. doi:10.100710798-013-9253-9
UNDP. (2017). Human Development in South Asia. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://hdr.undp.org/sites/
default/files/en_2019_hdr_press_release_-_asia-pacific_-_final.pdf
UNESCO. (2013a). Education for Sustainable Development. https://en.unesco.org/themes/education-sustainable-

development
UNESCO. (2013b). What is Education for Sustainable Development? https://en.unesco.org/themes/education-sustainable-

development/what-is-esd
UNESCO. (2014). Shaping the Future We Want. UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014).
Final Report. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002301/230171e.pdf
UNESCO. (2015). Rethinking Education. Towards a global common good? https://unesdoc.unesco.org/

images/0023/002325/232555e.pdf
445
UNESCO. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: http://data.uis.unesco.org/
UNESCO. (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives. United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization.
UNESCO. (2018). Issues and trends in Education for Sustainable Development. United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization.
Ur, P. (1997). Teacher training and teacher development: A useful dichotomy. The Language Teacher. https://jalt-
publications.org/old_tlt/files/97/oct/ur.html
Valk, J. H., Ahmed Rashid, T., & Laurent, E. (2010). Using mobile phones to improve educational outcomes: An analy-
sis of evidence from Asia. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1), 117–140.
doi:10.19173/irrodl.v11i1.794
Van Camp, A. R., Gilbert, P. N., & O’Brien, L. T. (2019). Testing the effects of a role model intervention on women’s
STEM outcomes. Social Psychology of Education, 22(3), 649–671. doi:10.100711218-019-09498-2
Van Eck, R. (2008). COTS in the classroom: A teacher’s guide to integrating commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) games.
In R. E. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (pp. 179–199). IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-808-6.ch011
Van Es, E. A. (2012). Examining the development of a teacher learning community: The case of a video club. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 28(2), 182–192. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.005
Vargianniti, I., & Karpouzis, K. (2019). Effects of game-based learning on academic performance and student interest.
In International Conference on Games and Learning Alliance (pp. 332-341). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-030-34350-7_32
Vartiainen, H., Tedre, M., & Valtonen, T. (2020). Learning machine learning with very young children: Who is teaching
whom? International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 100182. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2020.100182
Vartiainen, H., Toivonen, T., Jormanainen, I., Kahila, J., Tedre, M., & Valtonen, T. (2021). Machine learning for middle
schoolers: Learning through data-driven design. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 29, 100281.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100281
Vasquez, J. A. (2014). Developing STEM site-based teacher and administrator leadership. Exemplary STEM Programs.
Vasquez, J. A. (2015). STEM-Beyond the Acronym. Educational Leadership, 72(4), 10–15.
Vasquez, J. A., Sneider, C. I., & Comer, M. W. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3-8: Integrating science, technol-
ogy, engineering, and mathematics. Heinemann.
Vaughn, K. (2000). Music and Mathematics: Modest Support for the Oft-Claimed Relationship. Journal of Aesthetic
Education, 34(3/4), 149. doi:10.2307/3333641
Vekiri, I. (2010). Users and experts: Greek primary teachers’ views about boys, girls, ICTs and computing. Technology,
Pedagogy and Education, 22(1), 73–87. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2012.753779
Vekiri, I. (2013). Information science instruction and changes in girls’ and boy’s expectancy and value beliefs: In search
of gender-equitable pedagogical practices. Computers & Education, 64, 104–115. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.01.011
Veldkamp, A., Daemen, J., Teekens, S., Koelewijn, S., Knippels, M.-C. P. J., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2020). Escape boxes:
Bringing escape room experience into the classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1220–1239.
doi:10.1111/bjet.12935
446
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending
the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
doi:10.2307/41410412
Vermunt, J. D. (2014). Teacher learning and professional development. In Teachers’ professional development (pp.
79–95). Brill Sense. doi:10.1007/978-94-6209-536-6_6
Verner, I. M., & Revzin, L. B. (2017). Robotics in school chemistry laboratories. In Robotics in education (pp. 127–136).
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-42975-5_12
Victorian Curriculum Design & Technologies Stem-D and STEAM (Years 5 to 10). (2021). Retrieved February 19,
2022, from https://www.laptek.com.au/store/Victorian-Curriculum-Design-&-TechnologiesStem-D-and-STEAM-Years-
5-to-10-c14025473
Vidal-Silva, C., Serrano-Malebran, J., & Pereira, F. (2019). Scratch and Arduino for Effectively Developing Program-
ming and Computing-Electronic Competences in Primary School Children. In 2019 38th International Conference of
the Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC) (pp. 1-7). IEEE. 10.1109/SCCC49216.2019.8966401
Vidergor, H. E. (2021). Effects of digital escape room on gameful experience, collaboration, and motivation of elementary
school students. Computers & Education, 166, 104156. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104156
Viner, R. M., Russell, S. J., Croker, H., Packer, J., Ward, J., Stansfield, C., Mytton, O., Bonell, C., & Booy, R. (2020).
School closure and management practices during coronavirus outbreaks including COVID-19: A rapid systematic re-
view. The Lancet. Child & Adolescent Health, 4(5), 397–404. doi:10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30095-X PMID:32272089
Vinuesa, R., Azizpour, H., Leite, I., Balaam, M., Dignum, V., Domisch, S., Felländer, A., Langhans, S. D., Tegmark,
M., & Fuso Nerini, F. (2020). The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature
Communications, 11(1), 233. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-14108-y
Vishwakarma, A. (2015). Benefits and challenges of mobile learning in education. In Promoting active learning through
the integration of mobile and ubiquitous technologies (pp. 24–36). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6343-5.ch002
Vitsilaki, C., & Pitsikalis, S. (2017). Modern Curricula in Higher Education and Training supported by the technologies
of Augmented and Mixed Reality: Overview and Recognition of Research Issues. Proc. of 9th International Conference
in Open and Distance Learning (ICODL).
Voulgari, I., Zammit, M., Stouraitis, E., & Liapis, A. (2021). Learn to Machine Learn: Designing a Game Based Ap-
proach for Teaching Machine Learning to Primary and Secondary Education Students. Interaction Design and Children,
593–598. doi:10.1145/3459990.3465176
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of children, 34-41.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The problem of the environment. The Vygotsky Reader, 338-354.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wach, F.-S., Spengler, M., Gottschling, J., & Spinath, F. M. (2015). Sex differences in secondary school achievement-
The contribution of self-perceived abilities and fear of failure. Learning and Instruction, 36, 104–112. doi:10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2015.01.005
Wajngurt, C., & Sloan, P. J. (2019). Overcoming gender bias in STEM: The effect of adding the arts (STEAM). InSight:
A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 14, 13-28.
447
Wals, A. E. J., & Lenglet, F. (2016). Sustainability citizens: collaborative and disruptive social learning. In R. Horne,
J. Fien, B.B. Beza, & A. Nelson (Eds.), Sustainability Citizenship in Cities: Theory and Practice (pp. 52-66). London:
Routledge.
Wals, A. E. J. (2015). Beyond unreasonable doubt. Education and learning for socio-ecological sustainability in the
Anthropocene. Wageningen University. https://arjenwals.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/8412100972_rvb_inauguratie-
wals_oratieboekje_v02.pdf
Wan Hamzah, W., Yusoff, M., Ismail, I., & Yacob, A. (2020). The Behavioural Intentions of Secondary School Students
to Use Tablet as a Mobile Learning Device. International Association of Online Engineering. Retrieved September 21,
2021 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/217845/
Wang, C.-Y., Chen, G.-D., Chen, C.-H., Wu, C.-J., Chi, Y.-L., & Lee, J.-H. (2010). Constructing a Digital Authentic
Learning Playground by a Mixed Reality Platform and a Robot. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publica-
tion/228991052
Wang, H. H. (2012). A new era of science education: science teachers’ perceptions and class room practices of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) integration [Unpublished PhD thesis]. Minnesota University.
Wang, H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice.
Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 1(2).
Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2017). Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Current
knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 119–140.
doi:10.100710648-015-9355-x PMID:28458499
Wang, Y. S., & Wang, H. Y. (2008). Developing and validating an instrument for measuring mobile computing self-
efficacy. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 405–413. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0061 PMID:18721088
Watkins, M. W. (2000). Monte Carlo PCA for Parallel Analysis (Computer Software). Ed & Psych Associates.
Webb, M. E., Fluck, A., Magenheim, J., Malyn-Smith, J., Waters, J., Deschênes, M., & Zagami, J. (2020). Machine
learning for human learners: Opportunities, issues, tensions and threats. Educational Technology Research and Develop-
ment. doi:10.1007/s11423-020-09858-2
Wee, L. Goh, G., & Chew, C. (2011). Enabling Gravity Physics by Inquiry using Easy Java Simulation. Academic Press.
Weisgram, E. S., Dinella, L. M., & Fulcher, M. (2011). The role of masculinity/femininity, values, and occupational value
affordances in shaping young men’s and women’s occupational choices. Sex Roles, 65(3-4), 243–258. doi:10.100711199-
011-9998-0
Whalen, J. (2020). Should teachers be trained in emergency remote teaching? Lessons learned from the COVID-19
pandemic. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 189–199.
Whitehouse, McClosky, & Ketelhut. (2010). Online Pedagogy Design and Development: New Models for 21st Century
Online Teacher Professional Development. In Online Learning Communities and Teacher Professional Development:
Methods for Improved Education Delivery (pp. 247-262). New York: IGI Global.
Wichmann, A., Engler, J., & Hoppe, H. U. (2010). Sharing educational scenario designs in practitioner communities.
ICLS ’10: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, 1, 750–757.
Wiemker, M., Elumir, E., & Clare, A. (2015). Escape room games: “Can you transform an unpleasant situation into a
pleasant one?” In J. Haag, J. Weißenböck, M. W. Gruber, M. Christian, & F. Freisleben-Teutscher (Eds.), Game based
learning (pp. 55–68). St. Pölten, Austria: Fachhochschule st Pölten GmbH.
448
Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2003). Content effects in self-directed inductive learning. Learning and Instruction,
13(4), 381–402. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00013-0
Williams, P. J. (2009). Technological literacy: A multiliteracies approach for democracy. International Journal of Tech-
nology and Design Education, 19(3), 237–254. doi:10.100710798-007-9046-0
Williams, R., Park, H. W., Oh, L., & Breazeal, C. (2019). PopBots: Designing an Artificial Intelligence Curriculum for
Early Childhood Education. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 33(01), 9729–9736. https://
doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33019729
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. doi:10.1145/1118178.1118215
Winter, E., Costello, A., O’Brien, M., & Hickey, G. (2021). Teachers’ use of technology and the impact of Covid-19.
Irish Educational Studies, 40(2), 1–12. doi:10.1080/03323315.2021.1916559
Witze, A. (2018). The quest to conquer Earth’s space junk problem. Nature, 561(7721), 24–27.
Wood, S. (2003). Robotics in the classroom: A teaching tool for K-12 educators. Symposium of Growing up with Sci-
ence and Technology in the 21st Century.
World Bank. (2016). South Asia Remains World’s Fastest Growing Region, but Should Be Vigilant to Fading Tailwinds.
Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2016/04/09/south-asia-fastest-
growing-region-world-vigilant-fading-tailwinds
World Economic Forum. (2015). The Global Gender Gap Index. Accessed on Sep 7, 2017. http://reports.weforum.org/
global-gender-gap-report-2015/the-global-gender-gap-index-2015/
World Hunger. (2015). Asia Hunger facts. Accessed online on Nov 15, 2021 from: https://www.worldhunger.org/asia-
hunger-facts/
Wouters, P., Van Nimwegen, C., Van Oostendorp, H., & Van Der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive
and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 249–265. doi:10.1037/a0031311
Wu, W.-H., Wu, Y.-C. J., Chen, C.-Y., Kao, H.-Y., & Lin, C.-H. (2012). Review of trends from mobile learning studies:
A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 817–827. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.016
Xefteris, S., Palaigeorgiou, G., & Tsorbari, A. (2018). A learning environment for geography and history using mixed
reality, tangible interfaces and educational robotics. International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning,
106–117. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/George_Palaigeorgiou/publication/328417221_A_learn-
ing_environment_for_geography_and_history_using_mixed_reality_tangible_interfaces_and_educational_robotics/
links/5bcd10e8299bf17a1c661739/A-learning-environment-for-geo
Xefteris, S., Palaigeorgiou, G., & Zoumpourtikoudi, E. (2019). Educational Robotics For Creating Tangible Simula-
tions: A Mixed Reality Space For Learning The Day/night Cycle. In Interactive Mobile Communication, Technologies
and Learning. Springer.
Xefteris, S. (2019). Developing STEAM Educational Scenarios in Pedagogical Studies using Robotics: An Undergraduate
Course for Elementary School Teachers. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research.
Xefteris, S., & Palaigeorgiou, G. (2019a). Mixing Educational Robotics, Tangibles and Mixed Reality Environments for
the Interdisciplinary Learning of Geography and History. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 9(2), 82–98.
doi:10.3991/ijep.v9i2.9950
449
Xefteris, S., Palaigeorgiou, G., & Zoumpourtikoudi, H. (2019, October). Educational robotics for creating “tangible
simulations”: a mixed reality space for learning the day/night cycle. In Interactive Mobile Communication, Technologies
and Learning (pp. 971–982). Springer.
Xie, R., Saydam, S., & Dempster, A. (2022). A framework for campaign level asteroid mining pre-feasibility study. In
AIAA SCITECH 2022 Forum (p. 2583). Academic Press.
Xu, X., & Ke, F. (2016). Designing a Virtual-Reality-Based, Gamelike Math Learning Environment. American Journal
of Distance Education, 30(1), 27–38. doi:10.1080/08923647.2016.1119621
Yakman, G. (2019). STEAM-An Educational Framework to Relate Things To Each Other And Reality. K12Digest.
Yamak, H., Bulut, N., & Dündar, S. (2014). The Impact of STEM Activities on 5th Grade Students’ Scientific Process
Skills and Their Attitudes Towards Science. Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(2), 249–265.
Yang, J. M., Sung, Y. T., & Chang, K. E. (2020). Use of Meta-Analysis to Uncover the Critical Issues of Mobile Inquiry-
Based Learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(4), 715–746. doi:10.1177/0735633119879366
Yasin, A. I., Prima, E. C., & Sholihin, H. (2018). Learning Electricity Using Arduino-Android Based Game to Improve
STEM Literacy. Journal of Science Learning, 1(3), 77–94.
Yeo, M. (2021). Case Study 3, Singapore: “To Blend or Not to Blend—That Is Not the Question”—Blended Delivery
to ASEAN Teachers of English. In Language Learning with Technology (pp. 101–112). Springer.
Yeung, W. K., & Sun, D. (2019). A study of inquiry-based STEM learning supported by mobile technologies. In C. K.
Looi, J. L. Shih, L. Huang, Q. Liu, S. Liu, D. Wu, N. Zheng, Z. Zhuang, J. Guo, S. Yang, Y. Wen, C. Liao, S. Huang, L.
Lin, Y. Song, Y. Wei, Z. Liang, & M. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Global Chinese Conference on Computers
in Education (GCCCE2019) (pp. 179-183). Central China Normal University.
Yıldırım, B. (2020). A Model Proposal for Teacher Training: STEM Teacher Institutes Training Model. PAU Journal
of Education, 50(49), 70–98.
Yolcu, V., & Demirer, V. (2017). A Review on the Studies about the Use of Robotic Technologies in Education. SDU
International Journal of Educational Studies, 4(2), 127–139.
Youssef, M. H. A. (2017). The Solution of Optimal Two-Impulse Transfer between Elliptical Orbits with Plane Change.
International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 07(03), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijaa.2017.73010
Yu, K. C., Sahami, K., & Dove, J. (2017). Learning about the scale of the solar system using digital planetarium visu-
alizations. American Journal of Physics, 85(7), 550–556. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4984812
Yuliati, L., Parno, P., Hapsari, A. A., Nurhidayah, F., & Halim, L. (2018). Building Scientific Literacy and Physics
Problem Solving Skills through Inquiry-Based Learning for STEM Education. Journal of Physics: Conference Series,
1108(1). Advance online publication. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1835/1/012012
Zacharia, Z. C., Olympiou, G., & Papaevripidou, M. (2008). Effects of experimenting with physical and virtual manipu-
latives on students’ conceptual understanding in heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The
Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 1021–1035. doi:10.1002/tea.20260
Zammit, M., Voulgari, I., Liapis, A., & Yannakakis, G. (2021). The Road to AI Literacy Education: From Pedagogical
Needs to Tangible Game Design. Proceedings of the European Conference on Games Based Learning, 10.
450
Zbiek, R., Heid, M., Blume, G., & Dick, T. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education. In F. Lester (Ed.),
Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning A project of the National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics (pp. 1169–1207). Information Age Publishing.
Zero Robotics. (2021). http://zerorobotics.mit.edu/what-is-zr/
Zhai, X., Zhang, M., Li, M., & Zhang, X. (2019). Understanding the relationship between levels of mobile technology
use in high school physics classrooms and the learning outcome. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2),
750–766. doi:10.1111/bjet.12700
Zhong, X., & Liang, Y. (2016). Raspberry Pi: An effective vehicle in teaching the internet of things in computer science
and engineering. Electronics (Basel), 5(3), 56.
Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1),
12–19. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00101.x
Zylka, J., Christoph, G., Kroehne, U., Hartig, J., & Goldhammer, F. (2015). Moving beyond Cognitive Elements of ICT
Literacy: First Evidence on the Structure of ICT Engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 149–160. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2015.07.008
451
452
About the Contributors
Stefanos Xefteris got his B.Sc in Mathematics from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and his
Ph.D in biometrics with computer vision from the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering of
the National Technical University of Athens, Greece. Dr. Xefteris has worked as a researcher for the
Distributed Knowledge and Media Systems Lab of NTUA, and the Medical Physics Lab of AUTH.
Since 2017 he has been an adjunct lecturer for the Elementary Education department of the University
of Western Macedonia, teaching Educational Robotics, development of digital teaching scenarios as well
as various post-graduate courses based on the integration of ICT in education.
***
Veli Acar is currently primary school teacher in Ozel Ege Lisesi, Turkey. He earned his Bachelor’s
Degree in Primary Education from Suleyman Demirel University, and Master of Education in Learning
and Instruction from Mehmet Akif Ersoy University. He holds PhDc in Learning and Instruction from
Ege University in 2012.
Ioannis Arvanitakis holds a master’s degree in Technologies and Education, from the University of
Western Macedonia and a bachelor’s degree in Information Technology from University of Macedonia
in Thessaloniki, Greece and is currently a Ph.D candidate in the Elementary Education Department of
the University of Western Macedonia, in Florina, Greece. He is an elementary education teacher with
significant experience in organising Educational Robotics teams and a successful trainer with many
awards in Robotics contests. His research focuses in design thinking process and embodied learning
applications with ICT
Virginia Arvaniti, MSc, MBA, is a STEM instructor and coordinator at Anatolia College STEM
Center. She teaches Kindergarten and Elementary grade STEM courses and is responsible for coordinat-
ing after school STEM activities and developing STEM educational scenarios for Anatolia Elementary
and High school. Moreover, she is responsible for developing activities for Anatolia College Erasmus
projects related to STEM. Virginia holds a Physics degree from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
with a focus on Atmospheric Physics, a “Master in Business Administration” (MBA) from the American
College of Thessaloniki, an MSc in Sustainable Energy Systems from the Open University of Cyprus
(OUC) and is a PhD candidate at the University of Western Macedonia. Furthermore, she is a certified
Lego Education trainer for WeDo 2.0, EV3 and Spike (2019), and is certified as a STEM instructor from
the Aegean University of Greece (2018). She has published 6 scientific papers in the field of STEM and
participated in national and international STEM conferences and training.

Tharrenos Bratitsis is a Full Professor at the Early Childhood Education Department, University of
Western Macedonia, Greece and a director of the Creativity, Innovation and Technology in Education
(CrInTE) Laboratory. He has participated in over 250 international conferences’ scientific committees;
is a member of the reviewers’ board of 47 scientific journals (3 as an associate editor) and publishes
regularly, having over 210 scientific papers with over 1000 citations on his work. He has participated
in over 45 research funded projects, 21 as a coordinator (global or for UOWM). His research interests
include Technology Enhanced Learning, Game-based Learning, Digital Storytelling, STEAM Education,
Educational Robotics, Computer Supported Collaborative Learning and Learning Analytics.
Ioannis Brouzos holds a Doctoral Degree in Natural Sciences and has worked as a researcher and
educator for several years in Greece and in Germany. He is co-founder of Challedu- inclusion | games
|education, an NGO that focuses on research and development of game-based methods and tools for
education and inclusion. Ioannis has managed several national and European projects, facilitated more
than 600 workshops and created more than 25 games tools and activities for educational and/or inclusion
purposes. Today he is working as an educator in high school.
Asimina Brouzou has studied Architecture in NTUA (Athens) and holds a MSc in Advanced Sustain-
able Design (Edinburgh). She has been working as an educator since 2011 and as game-designer since
2014. In 2016 she co-founded Challedu- inclusion | games | education, which focuses in research and
development of game-based methods and tools for education and inclusion. The last 7 years Asimina
has conducted research in various topics especially in the field of education, she has created over 50
game-methods and tools, she has facilitated over 500 workshops with educators and target groups and
she has managed various national and European projects.
Mert Büyükdede is PhD student of Physics Education at the Faculty of Education Buca, Dokuz
Eylül University, also Physics Teacher in the Ozel Ege Lisesi, Turkey. He received his master’s degree
in physics education in 2018 from Dokuz Eylül University. His research interests are physics education,
quantum physics education, use of smartphones in physics experiments and STEM education.
Vanessa Camilleri is an academic at the Department of Artificial Intelligence, Faculty of ICT, Uni-
versity of Malta. Her expertise is in the area of Human Computer Interactions, with a specialisation in
Virtual Worlds and Serious Games. Her areas of interest include Virtual Reality applications for devel-
oping emotional intelligence values. Her previous experience in the area of education and pedagogy, as
well as educational technologies and use of games for learning have contributed to her overall academic
profile. Her main publications are in the areas of online learning and the use of innovative and emerg-
ing technologies for learning. She also has worked on a number of EU funded projects in the areas of
game-based learning. More recently she has started working on developing virtual reality experiences
for teaching and learning purposes related to various aspects of emotional intelligence.
Andri Christoforou holds a Ph.D. in Women’s Studies from the University of York. Her work is
interdisciplinary in nature and draws on theoretical concepts from feminist scholarship, sociology, and
psychology. Her current research interests include gender-based violence as well as sexism and other
forms of discrimination in education. Andri is currently teaching psychology and sociology courses at
the European University Cyprus, where she has been employed as a Research Officer for the past 14
453
years. Through her administrative position, she is representing the university in local and international
networks aiming at gender equality, diversity and inclusion in STEAM research.
Bob Eng is a wealth management advisor engaged in sustainability and ESG (environmental, social,
governance) work. He holds a doctorate in Human Development and Psychology from Harvard University
and an MBA from Columbia University.
Tomas Hartley has a significant experience as a scientific consultant in Biomedical Sciences, ISO
15189 Quality systems and Statistics via his personal site, www.medlabstats.com. His recent work revolves
around deploying Internet of Things applications with electronics boards under a STEAM framework
targetted at Highschool students.
Euripides Hatzikraniotis is a full Professor in the Department of Physics, Aristotle University

of Thessaloniki - Greece. His research interests are on Materials Science (Thermoelectric Materials
and Applications) and Science Education (Educational Technology, Lab & STEM education, Design-
Development & Evaluation of Teaching Learning Sequences). He has more than 350 publications in
peer-reviewed journals, local and international conferences with more that 1650 citations (h-index: 20).
Ilias Sitsanlis holds a bachelor’s degree in Physics from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, a mas-
ter’s degree in teaching natural sciences and currently is a Ph.D candidate in the deparment of Physics
of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. The working title of his thesis is “Design, creation and study
of network simulations for teaching modern physics”. Mr. Sitsanlis has been teaching Science for 21
years and is an advisor for Greece’s Institute of Educational Policy regarding 21st century curriculum.
Georgios Kalemis received his MS in Educational Science from the Hellenic Open University in 2019.
Kostas Karpouzis is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Communication, Media and Culture.
In his research, he’s looking for ways to make computer systems more aware of and responsive to the
way people interact with each other. He is also investigating how gamification and digital games can be
used in classroom and informal settings to assist conventional teaching and help teach social issues and
STEAM subjects to children and adults. Since 1998, he has participated in more than twenty research
projects funded by Greek and European bodies; most notably the Humaine Network of Excellence, leading
research efforts in emotion modelling and recognition, the FP6 IP CALLAS project, where he served as
Area Leader of Affective applications, the FP7 TeL Siren project (Technical Manager), which was voted
Best Learning Game in Europe for 2013 by the Games and Learning Alliance Network of Excellence,
the H2020 iRead project, which produced Navigo, the winner of the GALA Serious Games competition
for 2018 and the H2020 ECoWeB project which builds engaging and personalized mobile applications
to promote emotional wellbeing and prevent mental health problems in adolescents and young adults.
He is a member of the BoD for the gi-Cluster of Corallia, which consists of industrial and academic
members of the game and creative ecosystem in Greece, a member of the Hellenic Bioethics and Tech-
noethics committee and Chairman of the Board of the Hellenic Association of Computer Engineers. He
co-edited a book on “Emotion in Games: Theory and Practice” published by Springer in late 2016. His
Google Scholar profile is available at https://scholar.google.gr/citations?user=12olpHgAAAAJ. Besides
this, he is involved in a number of science communication activities, most notably Famelab Greece and
454
openscience.gr. He’s also an advocate for technology and CS in primary schools, participating in the
Girls Go Coding initiative and serving as an Ambassador of EU Code Week in Greece (until 2018).
He has participated as a speaker in 3 TEDx events, including TEDxAthens in 2019, while in 2016, he
authored a lesson on the TED-ed platform titled “Can machines read your emotions?”; the lesson sur-
passed 300.000 views in its first week.
Iro Koliakou is the STEM Coordinator of Anatolia College. She teaches Physics and Biology in
Anatolia College Thessaloniki, Greece and also teaches in the Masters Program Regenerative Medicine
of the Medical School of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. She is a member of the instructional staff
of the John Hopkins Center for Talented Youth Greece and has developed the online course Biomedical
Engineering and the future of Medicine. She is an ambassador for Scientix, the community for science
education in Europe and a member of Science on Stage Deutschland, developing STEM activities re-
lated to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Furthermore she is a mentor for the Greek women in
STEM association and a mentor for the Global talent mentoring program, led by the World giftedness
Center. She holds a Physics degree from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, a Master of Science from
the Biomedical Engineering Department of Imperial College London and a PhD from the Biology De-
partment of Aristotle University Thessaloniki. From 2009 she has worked in the private biotechnology
sector in laboratory quality management and research and development responsible for implementation
and internal audits of European R&D projects. She has published 15 scientific papers in international
journals and has 190 references in international literature. She has received teacher training from ESA
Robotics and Automation Lab (2018), European Molecular Biology Learning Lab (2017 & 2020), CERN
(2019) and European Schoolnet Future Learning Classroom (2019).
Anastasia Korompili is an active school teacher in Primary Education. She has also years of experi-
ence in teaching and creating educational material related to Physical Sciences, using STEM methodol-
ogy; Educational Robotics and New Technologies in education. She graduated from the Department of
Primary Education of University of Patras and she took part in Erasmus Program to study for a semester
at the Faculty of Social studies of Masaryk University in Czech Republic. She received a master’s degree
in «e-learning» after graduating from the Department of Digital Systems of University of Piraeus. She
has successfully completed the attendance of a seven-month seminar entitled “School Psychology” of
the University of Macedonia. She has also participated in seminars on educational technology tools,
as well as in conferences related to the integration of technology in education as a speaker, such as the
conference “Education Evolution” of the organization Socialinnov and the Panhellenic and International
Conference “Teachers and Education STE (A) M”, with a presentation on the performance of girls in
STEM fields, something that is the subject of her dissertation. Finally, she actively participates in edu-
cational robotics competitions as a team coach but also as a judge.
Apostolos Kostas (B.Eng., M.Sc., Ph.D.) is Member of Laboratory and Teaching Staff at the Uni-
versity of the Aegean, where he teach undergraduate and postgraduates courses. He has participated in
various national and EU-funded programs. Outcomes of his research on e-learning and Initial Teacher
Ecucation have been presented in national and international conferences and published in journals and
book chapters. He is also Director of the Lifelong Learning Centre of the University of the Aegean.
455
Spyros Kourias is an Educational Technologist (PhD) and his main research interests include the
effectiveness of Maker Movement, Robotics, Coding, IoT methodologies in the context of non-formal
education and technologically enhanced Instructional Design. He serves as Adjunct Lecturer in Con-
structionist Technologies at the Departments of Early Childhood Education and Primary Education of
the University of Thessaly and since 2006 he has successfully implemented several R&D projects re-
garding technology-enhanced learning. Dr Kourias is also one of the founding members of TALOS Lab
(talos.uth.gr) for which he is in charge as a project lead and educational technologist mentor since 2016.
Manolis Kousloglou is a science teacher in 3rd Junior High School of Kavala and PhD student in the
Department of Physics of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece (AUTH). His research interests
include Mobile Learning, Inquiry-based learning and development of students’ 21st century skills - HOTS.
Ilona-Elefteryja Lasica holds a BSc. in “Digital Systems” (2010) and an M.Sc. in “Technology
Education and Digital Systems” (Track: e-Learning) (2012) from the Department of Digital Systems
University of Piraeus, Greece. Her Ph.D. focused on Augmented Reality in Secondary Education in the
Fields of STEM and was received from the European University Cyprus. Her research interests focus
on Technology Enhanced Learning and Training, Innovation in STEM Education, Vocational Training
and Lifelong Learning. During the past ten years, Dr. Lasica has been involved in more than fifteen
EU funded research projects. Her research accomplishments include a number of articles and papers in
international conferences and academic journals. She is a Research Associate at the EduTech Digital
Innovation Hub of the University of the Aegean being involved in a number of projects concerning
digital education and training.
Dionysios M. Manesis, PhD, belongs to the teaching personnel of the department of Early Childhood
Education of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece. He has more than 17 years
teaching experience in ICT in early childhood education and applied statistics. His research interests
include the use of serious games in early childhood and primary education, the contribution of ICT and
serious games in particular, in the learning and teaching process, augmented reality, and statistical ap-
plications in education and psychology.
Maria Meletiou-Mavrotheris is a Professor at the European University Cyprus (EUC) and Director
of ICT Enhanced Education Laboratory at EUC. She has a Ph.D. in Mathematics Education (University
of Texas at Austin), an M.Sc. in Statistics (UT Austin), an M.Sc. in Engineering (UT Austin), an M.A.
in Open and Distance Learning (UK Open University). She has engaged extensively in research and
has directed and participated in several multinational, EU-funded projects focusing on the use of seri-
ous games and other ICT tools in teaching and learning at the school and higher education level, and in
vocational training. Her research has been presented in numerous publications in scholarly international
journals and books.
Anastasios Molohidis’s main research work includes the design, development, implementation and
evaluation of innovative Teaching Learning Sequences using ICT, within the framework of inquiry based
learning and the study of professional development for both pre-service and in-service science teachers.
456
Efthalia Mpalafouti is a kindergarten teacher who graduated from the department of Early Child-
hood Education of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece. She is now a MSc
candidate. Her research interests include the use of digital games in preschool education, and mobile
devices technologies in primary and secondary education.
Stavros Pitsikalis holds a Master of Science (M.Sc.) in “Technology Education and Digital Systems”
(Track: e-Learning) from the Department of Digital Systems University of Piraeus, Greece and a BSc.
in “Technology Electronic Engineering Educators” from the “School of Pedagogical and Technological
Education”. He is currently a Ph.D. Candidate at the University of the Aegean, in the field of emerg-
ing technologies, specifically Augmented Reality, in Vocational Education and Training. As far as his
professional experience is concerned, he is currently working extensively in the field of Educational and
Vocational Management, as a Scientific Counselor at the Institute of Educational Policy (IEP) and the
Head of the VET Unit, as well as the Teachers’ Training Unit. Moreover, he is a Research Associate at
the University of the Aegean, being involved in a number of projects concerning digital education and
training. In parallel, he is an Adult Educator, Vocational Trainer and Educator in Secondary Technical
Education (Electronic Engineering field). His research interests focus on a number of topics, including
Technology Enhanced Learning, Distance Learning and Training, Knowledge Management, Augmented
Reality in Distance Education, STEM, Development of Vocational Education and Training (VET), Digital
Media in Education, Open Education, ICT in Education, Instructional Design of Adult Learning Pro-
grams and Public Education Management. He has published several papers in National & International
Conferences and Journals in the field of Education and especially, ICT in Education.
Hariton Polatoglou is a Professor of Theoretical Solid State Physics and Didactics of Physics at the
School of Physics of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH) and is head of the graduate program
on “Didactics of Physics & Educational Technology”. Also is head of the 1st Experimental Lyceum
of Thessaloniki Greece. Recently his research focuses on Distance Learning, Nano-Science, STE(A)
M Education, Education on Sustainable Development and Accessibility Technologies for students with
disabilities.
Sarantos Psycharis has published many papers in prestigious journals and has established various
European-wide improved academic practices for Undergraduates, Postgraduates, and Fellow Professors
alike. He was also the Coordinator, representing the Greek Government - for the European Network
of Teacher Education Policies (ENTEP), and for two years President of the Network and Evaluator for
European Commission. He also served as a Rector –and Chancellor of HE Institute- ASPETE. Currently
he is Full Professor at the Higher Education Institute –School of Pedagogical and Technological Educa-
tion –ASPETE- in the cognitive area «Education Applications of Computational Sciences”. Studies:
Bsc in Physics (National University of Athens), PhD in Computational Physics (Glasgow University,
UK) and Msc in Information Technology(National University of Athens). Lord Kelvin award for PhD
students,1987, University of Glasgow, United Kingdom.He has published more than 120 papers in peer
reviewed journals and international conferences. From 2015-2018 he was Scientific director of the
Msc program “STEM in Education” a validated Msc program at ASPETE. Director of the research lab,
“Educational Applications of Computational Sciences and Educational Technology Laboratory” He is
President of the Hellenic Education Society of STEM, (Ε3 STEM)-www.e3stem.edu.gr and co-editor of
the Hellenic Journal of STEM Education https://www.hellenicstem.com/index.php/journal His research
457
interests include STEAM applications in Education, STEAM and Inclusive Education, Use of computing
in Education. Professor Psycharis has been involved in many European and National projects for STEM
and ICT in Education For a full CV you can visit http://education.aspete.gr/index.php/en/personnel/acc/
research-commitee/206-psycharis-sarantos.html and http://sarantospsycharis.weebly.com/.
Doris Kristina Raave is currently a PhD student and junior research fellow at the Institute of
Education at the University of Tartu. Her research focuses on the use of digital technology with and
for personalization. Her background is in teaching foreign languages. She received her MA in Foreign
Language Teaching from the University of Tartu in 2021.
Eric Roldán Roa is a PhD candidate and junior researcher fellow in the Centre for Educational
Technology, at the Institute of Education of the University of Tartu. His research topic is on pedagogi-
cal agent systems and how those systems could be meaningfully used to empower teacher practice with
artificial intelligence pedagogy. He holds a Master degree in Educational Technology (University of
Tartu, Estonia) and Bachelor degree in Music Production (Academia de Música FERMATTA, Mexico).
Erika Roldan-Roa is currently a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow in the EuroTechPostdoc Programme

at the Technische Universität München (TUM) and EPFL Lausanne. At TUM, she is working with the
Applied & Computation Topology group leaded by Ulrich Bauer. At EPFL, she is working with the
Laboratory for Topology and Neuroscience lead by Kathryn Hess-Bellwald. Project: Topological and
Geometrical Data Analysis of Random Growth Models. Until January 2020, she was Visiting Assistant
Professor and Director Outreach at The Ohio State University (OSU) in the Department of Mathematics
working with the Topology, Geometry, and Data Analysis (TDGA) research group. She got her PhD in
May 2018 at the Center for Research in Mathematics (CIMAT). Her advisors were Matthew Kahle (OSU)
and Víctor Pérez-Abreu (CIMAT). Her research interests include biomathematics, stochastic topology,
topological and geometric data analysis, extremal topological combinatorics, discrete configuration
spaces, recreational mathematics, learning analytics, and educational technology.
Evgenia Roussou is a kindergarten teacher with extensive experience in public schools of Piraeus,
Greece. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Early Childhood Education and a Master’s degree in ICTE
from the National Kapodistrian Univesity of Athens. She has also worked as an EFL teacher and holds
an RSA Diploma from the Universtiy of Cambridge. She has successfully completed creative projects in
the fields of Animation, Digital Storytelling and Documentary. She often blogs about innovative teaching
ideas and lesson design and publishes articles in journals and conferences. She was given the Award for
Excellent Educational Scenario by the Ministry of Education for her lessons on emotional intelligence.
Her research interests involve Thinking, IC Technology and Robotics in authentic educational settings.
She is currently involved in a study focusing on robotics and cognitive development of young children.
Atajan Rovshenov is Computer Science Teacher in the Ozel Ege Lisesi, Turkey. He holds a Master
of Computer Education and Instructional Technology (CEIT) from Ege University in 2020. His research
areas include computer science education, instructional technologies, and assistive technologies. https://
orcid.org/0000-0001-9189-3438.
458
Maria Teresa Sarmento Lopes is a Senior Researcher at CEiiA Centre of Engineering and Product
Development. She has a Ph.D. from the Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto FEUP since 2013,
where she developed her thesis on Service Design and Mobile Service Experiences. She is a Designer
graduated from the College of Art and Design ESAD and Post-graduated from the Glasgow School of
Art and the Portuguese Design Center. She also has an MSc in Industrial Design from ESAD / FEUP.
She has been a lecturer since 1999 as a professor and guest professor in several contexts from Design,
Creativity, Human Factors, or Marketing. After she did Post-Doctoral research at the Faculty of Economics
of Porto University, her research work focused on new methods for multidisciplinary thinking in product
and service experiences, considering the critical role of Design. She feels comfortably challenged in
involving people from different backgrounds. She is currently coordinating an area of Future Design at
CEiiA where maps trends and approaches for tomorrow. Recently, she published in the Journal of Place
Management and Development and Handbook of Research on Solving Modern Healthcare Challenges.
Amartya Sharma is a student in the Politics & Values Program at George Washington University,
Washington, DC.
Dinesh Sharma is the Director and Chief Research Officer at Steam Works Studio, an edu-tech
company in Princeton, NJ.
Elias Stouraitis holds a PhD in Historical Culture and Digital Games at Ionian University in Greece.
He also holds a BA in History and Archaeology and a Master’s Degree in Modern Greek History from
the University of Athens/Greece. He has worked as a researcher in several European and national projects
concerning history, education and games. His main research interests are History Education, Histori-
ography, Historical Culture, Design of Educational Software/Games for History and teaching/learning
history with Digital Technology. He has been awarded a grant from the Japanese Nippon Foundation
SYLFF (Sasakawa Young Leaders Fellowship Fund) and an award by Common Ground Community
‘The Learner’.
Elena Stylianou is Associate Professor in Art and Art History at the European University Cyprus
(EUC), and President of the International Association of Photography and Theory (IAPT). She holds
an EdD in Art and Art Theory from Columbia University, TeachersCollege in NY and has worked as a
postdoctoral fellow at the Institute of Education, UCL investigating the relationship between technology
and museums. Her research evolves around the study of contemporary art and photography, as well as
museums and curatorial practices. Her academic work has been published widely in book chapters and
academic journals. In addition, she has curated a number of international exhibitions of contemporary
art in Cyprus and has participated in many funded projects.
Ioannis Theocharopoulos is a physicist currently working as a Secondary Education Physics teacher,

Physics coordinator, STEAM instructor and STEAM coordinator at The European School Brussels III.
He holds an MBA from the Athens University of Economics and Business and PhD in Informatics from
the University of Piraeus.
459
Timoleon Theofanellis has worked in the field of education for 27 years as a secondary and adult
school teacher, teacher educator, curriculum designer and currently he works as Fellow Assistant of
ASPETE School of Pedagogical and Technological Education. Currently he is the Director of secondary
education on Lesvos and Limnos islands (2020-now). He has studied Physics and Computer Science
from B.Sc. to Ph.D. and has 25 publications in journals and 60 presentations in conferences (Greek and
international). Has participation in 17 books on educational issues, educational web use, and computer
science education. His current interests are in the field of educational technology and social learning.
Savvas Tsolakis received his bachelor degree in the Department of Electrical and Computer En-
gineering of the University of Thrace in 2000 and his MS in Automation In Irrigation, In Agricultural
Constructions And In The Mechanization Of Agriculture of Department of Agriculture Crop Production
and Rural Environment Of the University of Thessaly in 2016. He worked as an Electrical Engineer for
two years. Since 2004 he is a secondary school teacher on informatics. One of his interests is in edu-
cational robotics, especially Arduino system and LEGO EV3. He is preparing school teams for robotic
competitions. He is now studying Archaeology at the University of Thessaly in the Department of His-
tory, Archaeology and Social Anthropology.
Ioanna Vekiri studied as a Fulbright scholar in the U.S., where she earned an MA in Educational
Communications and Technology from New York University and a PhD in Education from the University
of Michigan. She lives in Greece where she has worked as a researcher and educator in higher education
for several years and has participated in the design and/or implementation of teacher professional devel-
opment programs. Since 2017 she been affiliated with the European University Cyprus (EUC) Distance
Learning Unit and with the Hellenic Open University in Greece. Her research focuses on the cognitive
and motivational aspects of learning with ICTs and on teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and classroom
practices. She has presented her work at international conferences and journals.
Chryssi Vitsilaki completed her Undergraduate Studies in Sociology at Trinity College, Hartford,
Ct. and received an M.A. and a Ph.D. from the Department of Sociology, of the University of Chicago,
Illinois, USA. She has been teaching at the Department of Preschool Education and Educational Design
of the University of the Aegean since 1999. She has been responsible for designing, organizing and
directing the Postgraduate program of the Department titled “Gender and New Educational and Work
Environments in the Information Society”, which is the only postgraduate program in Greece that has
implemented e-learning and blended learning techniques from 2004 until 2014 and which was awarded by
the European Commission with the “2009 Award for Quality in eLearning”. From 2014 onwards, she has
organized and directed the postgraduate program of the aforementioned Department titled “New Forms
of Education and Learning”. Her academic work focuses on gender issues and new forms of education
with the use of technology, on which she has published 10 books and more than 50 articles. In addition,
she has designed and implemented as Scientific Coordinator a great number of European and co-funded
research programs as well as intervention programs on these issues, and has been a member of national
and international committees for the evaluation of relevant projects and programs. She has held the
positions of Dean of the School of Humanities (2004-2006), Vice-Rector of Finance and Development,
and President of the Research Committee of the University of the Aegean (2006-2010), Chair of the
Department of Preschool Education and Educational Planning (2014-2018) and is presently the Rector
of the University of the Aegean (2018-2022).
460
Evagelia Voulgari received her bachelor’s degree in informatics from the University of Piraeus in
1997 and her MS in Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering of the University of Thessaly
in 2008. She worked as a senior software engineer, developing in house software, for more than six years.
She specialized in Document Management, Data Warehouse and Customer Relationship Management
systems. Since 2003 she is a secondary school teacher on informatics. One of her interests is educational
robotics and she is preparing teams for robotic competitions. She is now studying economics at the
University of Thessaly in the Department of Economics.
Iro Voulgari is a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Digital Games, University of Malta, and
teaching staff at the Department of Early Childhood Education, National and Kapodistrian University of
Athens, Greece. Her research and publications focus on game based learning, game studies, ICTs, and
digital literacy. She is teaching undergraduate and postgraduate courses on digital games, virtual worlds,
and learning technologies. She has organised several workshops and events relevant to game-based learn-
ing, game design, Information and Communication Technologies in Education, and Digital Storytelling.
Georgios K. Zacharis is Adjunct Academic Staff at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH)

& Adjunct Academic Staff at Hellenic Open University (HOU). He holds a Diploma and a Master of
Science in Physics from School of Science, Department of Physics, and a PhD from the Department of
Primary Education, both from the University of Ioannina, Greece. He has participated in European and
National projects since 2004. His main research interests are on ICT in Education, Learning Technolo-
gies, Science Eduacation and Educational Neuroscience.
Anastasios Zoupidis is an Assistant Professor in physics education at the Department of Primary

Level Education at the Democritus University of Thrace in Greece. His research interests include De-
sign, Development, Implementation and Evaluation of Innovative Teaching Learning Sequences, for
educating pupils and teachers, both in formal and informal education. These sequences are developed
in a constructivist framework, aiming at learning through and about inquiry (e.g., Control of Variables
Strategy, models, and modelling, etc.).
461
462
Index
21st century skills 2, 23, 26, 53, 84, 132-133, 135, Computational Thinking (CT) 2, 18, 25, 37, 39, 84-86,
148, 154, 157, 161, 166, 169, 171-172, 177, 88, 101-102, 104-105, 110, 115, 128, 135-137,
199, 230-231, 345, 349-350, 352-353, 357, 359, 148-149, 151, 239-242, 254-257, 267-268, 274,
361-362, 387 293-294, 358, 389, 393-394
5E Learning Model 222-224, 229-230, 234 conceptual knowledge 324, 327, 331, 340, 345
constructionism 3, 76, 83, 104, 111-112, 225, 230,
A 347, 350, 358-359
Constructivism 23, 38, 129, 132, 241, 347, 357
activity center 100, 105 control group 36, 40, 185-186, 192-193, 195, 344,
ADDIE 296, 302, 314-315, 319 348-349, 351-354
affordances 59, 110, 115, 127, 132-135, 183, 340, Conversation Theory 265, 267-269, 293-294
362, 406 course design 5, 7, 137, 224
AI education 1-6, 14-17 Creative practices 320
AI literacy 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 15, 20-21 Cybernetics 267-268, 293-294
Android Apps 361
Arduino 111, 113, 227, 231, 239-244, 247-251, 253- D
257, 259-263, 349-350, 356, 362-365, 367-368,
379-380, 387 Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) 294
Artificial Intelligence 1-3, 7-8, 14, 19-21, 86, 110, 150, digital games 8, 35, 37, 42, 52, 55, 60
155, 161, 175, 228, 397 digital literacy 2-3, 11, 15, 18, 90, 392, 404
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Literacy 21 Digital to Analog Converter 294
Arvanitakis 132 disadvantaged groups 49, 65, 320, 338, 398
Augmented Reality (AR) 57, 133, 135-136, 149, 153-
155, 161-164, 166, 169, 172, 175 E
B early childhood 15, 20, 22-23, 39, 84, 87, 90, 101-104,
109, 128-130, 148, 220, 390, 394, 406
Blockly 364, 389 Education for Sustainable Development 61-62, 66,
Bluetooth 206, 361-362, 366-368, 373-374, 377-379, 70, 82-83, 406
381, 383-386 educational games 43-44, 56-58, 60, 320, 336, 340
educational intervention 35-36, 40, 89-90, 104, 183,
C 321, 337, 349
educational robotics 22-26, 28, 35-40, 81, 85, 87-88,
C++ 228, 239, 242, 244, 249-251, 253, 257, 259- 101, 103, 109-110, 112, 116-117, 127-128, 130,
262, 287 132-136, 148-151, 219, 221, 225-227, 229-232,
Challedu 41 237, 240, 254, 256, 359, 362, 387
collaborative learning 151, 183, 195, 202, 214-216, Educational Scenario/Lesson Plan 4, 6, 15-16, 21,
218, 231, 245, 322, 337, 339-340, 347, 358-359 84-85, 88-91, 100, 142, 155, 163-164, 222, 224,
Compromise Skills 105 229, 235-236, 244-245, 256-257, 395

Index
educational workshop 321, 324, 336, 340 inquiry continuum 304-305, 312, 314, 317, 319
embodied learning 132-133, 135-136, 152 inquiry learning 132, 136, 197, 199, 215, 304
emerging technologies 153-156, 159, 161-162, 165- inquiry-based learning 54, 137, 161-162, 168, 173,
170, 172, 174-175, 196, 218, 387, 393 176-177, 179-181, 184-186, 188, 194-199, 222,
EPAL 153-154, 166, 168, 170, 175 297, 302, 304, 307, 313-315, 317
Erasmus+ 2, 17-18, 41, 62, 79, 170 interdisciplinarity 153-154, 161, 173, 267, 306
ESA 344-345, 349, 355, 360 interventions 23-24, 28, 36, 46, 89, 130, 132-138,
escape room 43, 49, 52-53, 57, 59-60 147-148, 169, 267, 344-345, 355, 357
European University Cyprus 41 IOT 155, 215, 361-363, 365, 367, 374-375, 384-387,
Evolutionary Algorithm 10, 21 389
F K
factor analysis 185, 191-192, 205, 209, 212, 218, Kostas 1, 22, 153
349-350
FemSTEAM Mysteries game 41-42, 44, 48-49, 51-53 L
floor robot 84
Fourier Analysis 276, 294 Lasica 153-154, 162-163, 172-173
Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) 155, 170, 175 learning activities 17, 43, 72, 194, 201, 212-213, 245-
free play 94, 105, 127 246, 321, 335, 340, 362
Frequency of a Note 294 learning games 42-43, 53, 57, 60
learning theories 241, 257, 346
G LEGO Education 225, 390, 405
game-based learning 2, 39, 42-44, 53, 56, 58, 60, 90, M

161, 217
Gamification 58, 323, 337-339 Machine Learning 1-2, 8, 14, 18-21, 294
gender equality 26, 41-42, 49, 52, 55, 398, 402 Make-Ing 23, 40
gender gap 22-23, 26-27, 35-36, 38, 59, 402, 406 Maker Education/Movement 406
gender stereotypes 26-27, 37-38, 41-42, 45-46, 48, Makerspace 37, 77-78, 83
55-56, 58, 60 Makey-Makey 132-133, 136-138, 140-141, 143-145,
General Systems Theory 293-294 148, 152
Gordon Pask 265, 267, 293 Marginalize Communities 340
mathematical approaches 320
H mathematical thinking 90, 109-110, 114, 117, 119-
121, 127, 274
harmonics 268, 272, 274, 276, 294-295 Max/MSP 265, 273-274, 284-285, 292, 294
high-level thinking 179, 199, 225 mediators 109-110, 117
Hohmann transfer 296-298, 300-301, 310-311, 318-319 mIBL 176-177, 181-186, 194
HP Inc 321, 337 MicroMite 361-362, 366-369, 371-374, 377-378, 389
human computer interaction 136, 306 mind-tools 109, 112-113, 117, 124, 127
MiniOpenLab 61, 69, 73, 78, 83
I Mixed Reality (MR/XR) 132, 134-136, 138, 140, 147-
152, 155, 161, 172, 174-175, 255-256
IBL 176-178, 180-182, 194-195 MMBASIC 361, 366-367, 375, 378-380, 389
ICT 20, 27, 44, 58, 90, 101, 103, 132-136, 147-149, Mobile Inquiry-Based Learning 177, 181, 197-199
152, 154, 171, 173, 176-177, 197, 216-217, 239, Mobile Learning/M-learning 24, 104, 176-178, 180-
245, 266, 271, 317, 337, 361, 389 184, 186, 195-199, 202-207, 213-218
IEK 153-154, 166, 168, 170, 175 mobile technologies 177, 180-181, 183, 198-199, 201,
IEP 173, 304, 319 213-214, 339
in plenary 90, 94, 98, 106, 188 Modular Synthesis 284, 295
463
Index
motivation 26-27, 38, 43, 47, 52-53, 59, 75, 86, 97, 135, R
142, 158-159, 169, 176-177, 181-185, 190-199,
203, 205-207, 215-216, 226, 229-231, 243, 248, Raspberry Pi 231, 361-362, 364, 366-367, 378-381,
297, 317, 322-323, 325, 327, 333, 337, 339, 346 388-389
multidisciplinary 16-17, 64, 132-133, 135, 148, 294, Raspberry Pi PICO 361-362, 366-367, 378-381
406 Reinforcement Learning 2, 5-6, 8, 14-15, 21
multimodal 37, 39, 110, 132-133, 135, 141, 148, 362 robotics 11, 13, 22-26, 28, 35-40, 63, 66, 81, 84-89,
musical instrument 152, 272, 289, 294-295 92, 100-105, 109-112, 116-117, 127-136, 141,
Musical Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI) 294 148-151, 155, 219, 221, 224-233, 237, 239-243,
MusicMath 321, 324, 329, 336-337, 341 249, 254, 256, 345, 351, 355, 357-360, 362-363,
387-388, 393-396, 405
N Role Model Pedagogy 60
role models 27, 46, 52, 58, 60
NASA 228, 297, 303, 316-317, 319, 396
Negotiation Skills 106 S
noise signal 280, 295
Non-Government Organisation (NGO) 406 scaffolding 117, 162, 183, 195, 197, 199, 248, 256,
273, 338, 395
O Schola Europaea 265
Scratch 24-25, 39, 111, 132-133, 136-138, 142-144,
Ontology 267, 269, 272-273, 277-278, 280, 282, 289, 148, 151-152, 162, 256, 364, 389, 394, 405
294-295 SDG Goals 390
oscilloscope 273, 285, 295 SDGs 66-69, 83, 390, 398-401, 404-405, 407
Overtones 295 secondary education 1-6, 8, 11-12, 14-16, 19-20, 23,
25, 38, 41, 63, 103, 154-155, 172, 201, 203, 212-
P 213, 222, 230, 256, 265, 349, 398
self-concept 55, 58, 201, 205
Palaigeorgiou 132-135, 138, 140, 142, 148-151, 256 self-efficacy 26-27, 149, 183, 185, 192-194, 197, 201-
Perceived Ease of Use 205-206, 214, 218 205, 207-209, 211-213, 215-218, 302, 323, 358
perceived usefulness 181, 201, 205-207, 209, 211- serious games 41-44, 52-54, 57-60
212, 214, 218 simulation 43, 137, 150, 231, 239-240, 243-244, 249-
perceptions 4-5, 7, 13-14, 38, 44, 46, 55, 58, 71, 82, 251, 253, 255, 259, 263, 265, 296-298, 303-314,
96, 130, 149, 171-172, 175, 196, 201, 203-209, 318-319
211-214, 218, 233, 254, 297, 344, 360 skills acquisition 84, 86
PIC microcontroller 361-362, 366, 368 smartphones 177, 180, 186-187, 189, 201, 211-212
pitch 274, 282, 294-295 SMQ II 176, 185
Pitsikalis 153-154, 160-161, 173-174 social interaction 40, 44-45, 89, 103, 111, 149, 207,
planetary and spacecraft orbits 296 209, 211-212
pre-school 23-24, 84, 86, 345 Soft Skills 40
preschool education 104, 109, 129 Software Development Kit (SDK) 295
Preschooler/Kindergartner 106 software synthesizers 265, 276
primary education 1, 4, 11-12, 58, 66, 84-85, 103, 204, sonification 269, 287, 295
214, 216, 401-402 spatial skills 109, 115
primary school 23, 29, 31, 35, 37, 39, 61, 86, 103, Spectrum Analysis 295
149, 228, 254, 256 STEAM education 41-42, 47, 53-54, 57, 73, 148,
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) 360 151-153, 155, 163-164, 166, 170, 239-241, 268,
problem-based learning 156, 162, 222, 226, 346, 357, 292, 296, 312, 359, 362, 387-389, 391-392, 394,
360, 406 397, 404, 407
procedural knowledge 320-322, 330, 340 STEAM Practices 340
project-based learning 161, 222, 226, 231, 239, 254- STEM education 56-58, 60-64, 66, 70, 78-83, 105, 149,
255, 257, 406-407 151, 154, 162, 170, 173, 176-179, 181-183, 186,
464
Index
195, 197-199, 217, 219-226, 229-233, 235-237, timbre 274, 276, 281-282, 295
240, 242, 254-256, 267, 293, 298, 316, 347-348, Tinkercad 239, 243-244, 247-251, 253-255, 257-259,
357-360, 363, 387-388, 406-407 261, 263
STEM/STEAM 44-45, 47-49, 53, 87, 407 TPD programs 153-155, 159-160, 163-168, 170
subtractive synthesis 265, 273, 276-277, 285, 295
Supervised Learning 2, 5-6, 8, 15, 21 U
Sustainable Development 2, 19, 61-62, 66-70, 72, 74,
78-79, 82-83, 175, 390-391, 398-400, 405-407 UARO 22-23, 28-29, 34-36
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 69, 398, UN 61-62, 69, 78, 82-83, 390-391, 398, 401, 404, 407
405, 407 United Nations (UN) 407
synthesizer 271-277, 279-286, 290, 295 University of the Aegean 153
T V
Tangible (or Haptic) Programming 39, 84, 111, 115, 118 Veroboard 365-368, 375, 377, 379-382, 389
teacher training 1-5, 7, 11-17, 57, 148, 172, 174, 198, Virtual Studio Technology (VST) 295
213, 233, 245 visual programming 23, 115, 265, 287, 290, 292,
teaching intervention 114, 123, 132, 241, 344, 349- 364, 389
350, 355-356 Vitsilaki 153-154, 161, 174
technology integration 159, 170-171, 205, 221, 224,
226, 229, 231, 234
Technology-Enhanced Learning 247, 339-340
465

Stefanos Xefteris (Editor) - Handbook of Research On Integrating ICTs in STEAM Education-Information Science Reference (2022)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stefanos Xefteris (Editor) - Handbook of Research On Integrating ICTs in STEAM Education-Information Science Reference (2022)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook of Research on

Integrating ICTs in STEAM

A volume in the Advances in Educational

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: eresources@igi-global.com.

Assistive Technologies for Differently Abled Students

Global Perspectives and Practices for Reform-Based Mathematics Teaching

Design and Measurement Strategies for Meaningful Learning

Cases on Practical Applications for Remote, Hybrid, and Hyflex Teaching

Affordances of Film for Literacy Instruction

701 East Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033, USA

Acar, Veli / Ozel Ege Lisesi, Turkey................................................................................................... 219

Sarmento, Teresa / Centro de Engenharia d Desenvolvimento, Portugal........................................... 61

Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 408

About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 452

Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 408

About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 452

DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING THE TEACHER TRAINING COURSES

Teacher Training Course Design: Implementing AI

Table 1. Outline of the online teacher training course design

No. Step Description Materials Time

Figure 3. Evolutionary Flappy Bird interface

A Case Study Implementation of the Teacher Training Courses

INSIGHTS FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

A machine that is capable of reproducing human functions and solve problems

The ability of the machines to make decisions

AI is integrated in a machine which can process data and make decisions

Training a machine to make decisions

Evaluation of the Courses

Challenges for the Implementation of AI and ML Education in Formal Education

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

AI for Oceans. (n.d.). Code.Org. Retrieved 1 February 2022, from https://code.org/oceans

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Educational Robotics as a Concept

Use of Educational Robotics Tools

STEM and Educational Robotics

The Benefits of using Robotics in Education

21st Century Skills

Educational Robotics, STEM and Gender Perspective

Causes of Gender gap in Technology

The UARO Platform

Figure 1. UARO platform

Research Measurement Tools

Figure 4. Robot operations

Figure 5. Evaluation of the process

Gender and Performance

“Rob the Robot” Worksheet

Figure 6. UARO- Robot constructions

“Max the Crane” Worksheet

Table 1. Mann-Whitney U Test - “Rob the Robot” worksheet

Gender N Mean rank Sum of ranks

Table 2. Statistics from activity 1

Test statistics Score

Table 3. Mann-Whitney U Test - “Max the Crane” worksheet

Gender N Mean rank Sum of ranks

Table 4. Statistics from activity 2

Test statistics Score

“Bonnie the Dog” Worksheet

“Miss Butterfly” Worksheet

Table 5. Mann-Whitney U Test - “Bonnie the Dog” worksheet

Gender N Mean rank Sum of ranks

Table 6. Statistics from activity 3

Test statistics Score

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: eresources@igi-global.com.