ROBOESL-2ndpaper

DOI: 10.4018/IJSEUS.2018010102
International Journal of Smart Education and Urban Society
Volume 9 • Issue 1 • January-March 2018

Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

13
Robotics-Based Learning Interventions and
Experiences From our Implementations
in the RobESL Framework
Tassos Karampinis, 56th Junior High School of Athens, Athens, Greece
ABSTRACT
In this article, the author presents Robotics-based learning interventions and the experiences at 56th
Junior High School of Athens within the RoboESL Erasmus project; as well as a teaching approach
using Educational Robotics. The RoboESL project aims to exploiting the potential of robotics for
developing extra-curricular constructivist learning activities in schools that will help children at risk
of failure or Early School Leaving (ESL) practice and develop their creativity skills, raise self-esteem,
motivate their interest in schooling, and finally encourage them towards staying at school. During the
implementation, students worked in a constructionist learning environment and were engaged in team
activities. The author runs the project for two consecutive school years using EV3 Lego Mindstorms
and participated in dissemination events organizing workshops where the students participated in the
program taught elementary school pupils.
Keywords
Creativity, Educational Robotics, EV3 Lego Mindstorms, Problem Based Learning, RoboESL
INTRODUCTION
In this report we will present our up to now twelve months participation in the RoboESL project.
The goals of this project are to exploit the potential of robotics for developing extra-curricular
constructivist learning activities in schools that will help children at risk of failure or Early School
Leaving (ESL) to practice and develop their creativity skills, raise their self-esteem, motivate their
interest in schooling, and finally encourage them to stay at school, as stated in the program’s official
site (Robotics-based learning interventions for preventing school failure and Early School Leaving,
2015). To go a bit further, we are trying to find ways to help not only students that meet programs’
criteria but also students who like to get involved with robots and finally we want all of our students
to have a firsthand robotic experience in our school.
Robotics have motivational effect and excite students about science. The process of developing
robotic solutions provides a rich and meaningful context for engaging students in Computational
Thinking practices and Computer Science content, including work-related 21st century skills.
Robotics scenarios can also be used to contextualize other Science, Technology Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) concepts (Flot, Higashi, McKenna, Shoop & Witherspoon, 2016). In addition
to that, according to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development the next production
revolution (NPR) entails a confluence of technologies ranging from a variety of digital technologies
(e.g. 3D printing, advanced robotics, etc.) These technologies will have far-reaching consequences for

14
productivity, skills, income distribution, well-being and the environment, as said by the Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development (2016).
Educational Robotics is a growing field with the potential to significantly impact the nature of
science and technology education at all levels (Alimisis, 2013). There is lot of robotic toolkits that
have been created and could be bought and used in schools. But robots are just a tool, not the solution
for everything. As Resnic said (2007) today’s students should have educational approaches that help
them being creative, because success is based not only on what you know or how much you know,
but on your ability to think and act creatively. According to United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization Education (UNESCO, 2015) students must have a solid foundation of
knowledge, develop creative and critical thinking and collaborative skills, and build curiosity. Demo,
Moro, Pina, and Arlegui (2012) state that appropriate learning methodologies such as Constructivism/
Constructionism can strongly contribute to the development of these skills. RoboESL project
supports contemporary pedagogical theories in its implementation. Following the above reasoning
we participate implementing exemplary and concrete scenarios using constructivist/ constructionist
theories and learning models to support our innovative school projects.
We ran this project twice. The first time was during the last trimester of the 2015-16 school
year (1st implementation). The team participated consisted of 10 students of 2nd
grade, separated into
3 groups. The implementation of this intervention took place, after the appropriate arrangements,
during school hours. The second time was the first four months of the 2016-17 school year (2nd
implementation). The team consisted of 11 students of 3rd
grade separated into 4 groups.
CHOICES AND PEDAGOGICAL FRAMEWORK
Framework - Ages - Selection
The age of the students of Junior High Schools in Greece is, normally, between 13-15. In our school
we have students older than 15 because some of them failed to pass their classes (low performance
in lessons, absences etc).
The ten students who participated in our first implementation of this program (school year: 2015-
16) attended the 2nd
grade -because we had in mind that some of them could participate in the next
year’s RoboESL project, as really happened. Their ages were from 14 to 16 years old. That means
that some of them failed to pass their classes once or twice. Students chosen to participate in the
program met the conditions of the program and wanted to take part in this. The students, all boys,
formed three teams of 3 and 4 members.
The eleven students who participated in our second implementation of this program (school year:
2016-17) attended the 3rd
grade. Their ages were from 15 to 16 years old. That means that some of
them failed to pass their classes once. The students formed four teams. Two teams out of four consist
of students who had participated in our 1st
implementation (6 boys), one “team”/pair consists of two
boys who meet the programs’ conditions and the last team is composed by 3 girls, that are very good
students but not very comfortable with technology. We made the necessary arrangements to be able
to make our interventions during school hours.
Hardware/ Software: EV3 Lego Mindstorms
Introducing robotics in schools becomes popular nowadays and there is a growing variety of
commercial edutainment robots available in the market, as noted by Basoeki, Dalla Libera, Menegatti,
and Moro, (2013). We wanted to use a friendly, suitable for the age of our students, reconfigurable,
versatile robotic construction kits. For this reason, we decided to use EV3 Lego Mindstorms kits
because, in our opinion, it is a complete set that allows students to create any shape they want
practicing with mechanical design. For our projects EV3 was used as a versatile wheeled vehicle (a

15
“tripod”, three wheeled tangible object) utilizing, when needed, sensors to navigate on our mock-ups
accomplishing the tasks discussed.
To program our EV3 robots we used the Lego Mindstorms EV3 Software, developed and
distributed by the Lego Group. For anyone getting started with Lego Mindstorms, the EV3 Software
provides a great introduction to programming but there are also different choices, ex. use a text-based
programming language, such as RobotC, that better reflects the dominant style of programming in
the computer industry as mentioned on the Lego Engineering page (2016). For our implementation
we opted for EV3 Programmer, a flowchart language for developing robotic applications. The
programming structure simulates a flowchart design structure almost icon by icon. It’s free to download
and install. Pay attention to the fact that some software blocks are missing in the typical installation
and they have to be installed manually by the user (Karampinis and Zixnali, 2016)
Theories and Learning Models: Constructivism and Problem Based Learning
The general theoretical framework proposed by the program is based on the principal of constructivism
and constructionism through problem based scenarios. The term Problem Based Learning (PrBL)
does not refer to a specific and concrete education method or educational strategy. It can have
different meanings, alternative steps to comply with depending on the learning models followed,
the pedagogical theories which support them, the skills of the teacher and the framework in which it
would be implemented. All the parameters influence both the educational objectives and the quality
of the results.
The role of the teacher in this PrBL is like in any other constructivist experience. S/he acts as
a manager, organizer and facilitator of learning for students. S/he is not the authority who dominate
the students and take control of the classroom and the learning process, of the knowledge transfer to
students. The general description of the expected roles for teachers in our RoboESL project is that they
don’t transfer ready knowledge to students but rather act as organizers, coordinators and facilitators
of learning for students. S/he organizes the learning environment, raises the questions / problems to
be solved through a worksheet, offers hardware and software necessary for students’ work, discreetly
helps where and when necessary. S/he provides feedback without revealing solutions, probes students
through key questions to overcome emerging problems and difficulties, encourages students to work
with creativity, imagination and independence and finally organizes the evaluation of the activity in
collaboration with students.
The general description of the expected roles for students in our RoboESL project is that they
discuss the problem in their group and after that they devise an action plan to solve it. They work
in groups following the worksheet and the discrete feedback they receive from the teacher. Students
may extend their work to variants suggested by the teacher or devised by the students themselves.
First, they find solutions making trial and error experimentations. The final solutions of the groups
are presented in the class, discussed and evaluated with their peers/ co-students, reflecting on their
work with critical mind.
Problem based learning, as a general model, was developed in medical education in the mid-
1950’s and since that time it has been refined and implemented not only in medical schools but in
business schools, schools of education, architecture, law, engineering and high schools as stated by
Wilson (1998). There are different approaches about the steps and procedures proposed in a problem
based learning model (Trilianos, 1998b; Joyce and Weil, 2000; Papanikolaou, Fraggou and Alimisis,
2007). In our implementation we followed, more or less, the six steps of Eggen & Kauchak (2001)
model of learning. In Figure 1 the steps are presented as flow of activities (that could be analyzed
in even more simpler activities).
Problem Based learning, as its name implies, uses a problem which serves as focal point for
student efforts. The problem understanding is crucial, as is students’ engagement. That’s why the
teacher is trying to establish the problem in such a way that the students will adopt it as their own. The
problems must have meaning for students for them to involve actively solving them. The problems

16
must be authentic. That means that the cognitive demands are consistent with the cognitive demands
in the environment for which we are preparing the learner, as noted by Honebein (1993). We do not
want the learner to study science -memorizing a text on science or executing scientific procedures as
dictated- but rather to engage in scientific discourse and problem solving (Bereiter, 1994).
Figure 1. The six steps of Problem Based Learning (PrBL) model according to Eggen & Kauchak which had been used as base
in our implementation. Flow of activities (2nd level).

17
In step 1 we present the problem and have an open discussion with the students, helping them to
acquire the background knowledge needed for the problem and to understand its complexity. In this
step we try to be clear in terms of goals and motivate the students to fully participate in the following
activities. The students divide into teams and take the scenario, in the form of a special worksheet that
has been designed as a reference and supporting tool. Students are encouraged to discuss the given
scenario inside their teams, forming a general methodology for dealing with the problem introduced
by the scenario.
In step 2 the teams represent the problem they have to face in order to select the appropriate path
to solve it. They draw their mockup fields and/ or have embodied experiences moving physically
around and then program their robots to do the same. Their bodies reenact the movements their
tribots (robots on three wheels) should make. The use of embodiment in education is based on the
key assumption that the body functions as a constituent of the mind rather than a passive perceiver
and actor serving the mind as stated by Leitan and Chaffey (2014). Students gain a personal, direct,
experience with the problem. Teacher, if necessary, help them making key questions.
In step 3 the groups select their strategies. We use heuristics strategies like means-end analysis
and drawing analogies encouraging them to think about alternate solutions. When we use mean-end
analysis we identify our ultimate goal and then work backwards in substeps. When we use drawing
analogies we try to activate background knowledge providing a concrete frame of reference to think
from.
After that step, in step 4, the teams try out their strategies, the quality of their thinking. Very
often step 3 and 4 are in a loop. Supportive questions may help teams think about choices and improve
their strategies.
In step 5 the teams present their outcome in plenary. They judge the validity of their solutions;
other teams and teachers discuss the level of precision required to have a better solution. Selecting
the strategy, carrying it out and evaluating the results may be repeated so that the teams come up with
a more precise solution. The important consideration here is that all strategies are not equally good.
Constructivism doesn’t mean that all “constructions” are equal, simply because they are personal
experiences. Knowledge is socially negotiated, ideas are discussed and understanding enriched.
In step 6, students are helped to think about their activities and strategies, aiming to become more
systematic and analytical problem solvers and more aware of their thinking as problem solvers. An
important goal is to develop skills of self-regulation and to become independent. Teachers should
support the learners reflect on the strategies for learning as well as what was learned.
Learning through problem is based on two conceptual and theoretical foundations (Karampinis and
Zixnali, 2016); on the work of philosopher John Dewey, who emphasized the importance of learning
through experience (Dewey, 1910), (Dewey, 1916) and on the social cultural learning theory - based
on the Lev Vygotsky project (1997), a cognitive view of learning emphasizes on participation of
learners with activities that make sense for them (Koliadi, 2007). Technology itself, even if it is very
attractive, cannot positively influence pupils, as mentioned by Karampinis (2010a) in the ‘Evaluation
and critical analysis of Greek Language teachers training results in ICT use and exploitation in the
educational teaching process in the Attica region’.
IMPLEMENTATIONS
The 56th Junior High School of Athens participated in RoboESL program for two consecutive school
years with students from different grades.
1st
Implementation
Before we started the first implementation in our school we set up the physical environment, to
create an environment where students could work pleasantly and comfortably, and made sure all the
participants students get to know the Lego parts. For this reason, before our implementation, our
students a) separated the core sets in their boxes b) labeled the most significant robots parts c) made

18
the necessary class/ environment arrangements (each desk has a shelve for Lego kits and a drawer for
students’ notes, pencils, pens, etc.) d) created mockup fields from different materials.
When everything was ready we began. We made the necessary arrangements to be able to make
our intervention during school hours. The implementation took place in three consecutive days, four
school hours each day (Karampinis and Zixnali, 2016).
In our first day teachers and students discussed about the project, students got familiar with EV3
hardware and software and made their first program, but had no time to check it. The second day was
a fruitful day. Students tried out their programs and saw the results. They very much liked it. At the
end of the 3rd day they were a bit tired. Teams hadn’t completed all programs we had planned to do
but they came the next days and after school hours to finish them.
2nd Implementation
In our second implementation we already had some experience introducing this kind of intervention.
We made it in two phases. The first took two days, one day per week in two consecutive weeks of 5
school hours each. We wanted to avoid the tiredness of our students we had suffered during our 1st
implementation. The second phase was implemented after about two months. Students knew their
second scenario and had the possibility to access it through the e-learning environment.
In our first day we discussed about the RoboESL program and filled the appropriate forms. The
participating students constructed their tribots, got familiar with the EV3 programming language and
started their ‘Let’s play and dance’ scenario. They made their first programs and, in the next meeting
(7 days later) they completed the given worksheet of the scenario. They learnt about their next scenario
and made the appropriate changes to their tribots to meet the needs of “the sunflower” scenario.
The second phase completed in two days, having five days distance, of 2 45 minutes periods each,
during school hours. The first day we revised what was done in the previous phase and discussed our
new scenario “the sunflower”. Their tribots were ready from the previous phase. The students made
their warm up following the steps of our worksheet. Before they began their programs, they have
been asked to reenact their tribots’ behavior, which helped them understand the parameters of their
problems. They made three different versions using light sensors. In the last meeting they solved
similar problems using ultrasonic sensors, more easily this time.
Representative Example - Let’s Play and Dance
The Let’s play and dance scenario is the first we made during our second implementation of the
RoboESL program. According to our model described above the learning sequence was as follows:
Identify the Problem
Students are introduced to their scenario. We discussed about it, triggering their interest and trying
to engage them in it. Our scenario was that they would construct robots which would enter a stage,
made by the teams, following a black guide line. At the end of this line the robots would perform a
small choreography while playing a tune (random or not). Dancing and playing a tune are organized
as concurrent actions. Teams can prepare complicated or less complicated scenarios where to make
the robot dance. The execution of the scenario has many goals that teams could achieve following
a stepwise approach. Students were divided into teams and start discussing what they had to do. At
first, they began constructing their robots, putting the appropriate sensors for the scenarios of our
second implementation. They had guidelines to follow, if they wanted to, but were free to design their
robots as they wanted. The only limitations were to put the appropriate sensors and their artifacts
to be tribots (in order for the robots to be agile, going forward, backward, sideways and around).
Students were also introduced to the e-learning environment for the project. We introduced Moodle
e-learning to our program because we wanted to create a place for gathering all information relative
to our program, accessed from the net, where our students could participate in forums increasing
their learning experiences. In this environment we put the RoboESL scenarios as well additional
resources, worksheets and informative presentations (see Figure 2 and Figure 3).

19
Representation of the Problem
After the construction of their tribots students made their mock ups. Each team made its own. During
this step we asked them questions to help them better construct their mockups. “What kind of sheet
would be better to use as base? The grey or the white?”, “What color strip would be better to choose
taking into consideration that our robot must understand the end of the leading line?” “Does the width
of your guide line influence your programs especially in curves?”, “Having in mind the position of
the color sensor of your robots, would it be on stage when following the guide line or would it be off
stage?” Some of them put their tribot and “made” the movements their vehicles had to do by hand.
Apart from that, we loaded in an NXT Lego Mindstorms the programs we had made the previous
school year concerning the “follow the black line” and use them in one of their mock ups -one with
curves and narrow width of the guide line. 3 out of 4 times the tribot didn’t manage to reach the
end of the guide line. We did that to help them improve their mock ups but also to serve as food for
thought for their strategies.
Selecting a Strategy
Teams made their algorithms and tested them out. During the scenario students made different
programs. We helped them by giving support when needed, encouraging them to be more reflective,
asking questions (e.g. ‘’What is this problem like?’’) trying to make them remember things they had
already done, place their tasks in a larger context and urging them to think and predict the result of
their strategy before trying it out.
Figure 2. Screenshot from our e-learning platform (http://e-mathisi.mysch.gr/course/view.php?id=90)

20
Carrying out the Strategy
Teams tried out or reality-test their programs. Teams saw the results of their programs and make the
necessary changes to improve them. We asked scaffolding and supportive questions. “How could the
robot’s movements be more smooth?”, “How could the robots movements be synchronized with the
music?”, “How could we understand which branch of switch the robot follows during the execution
of the program in the mock up?”, “What blocks should be introduced to understand the flow?” etc.
Evaluating the Results
Teams presented their solutions, observed the outcome and discussed the validity of their solutions. If
the results didn’t meet their goals, we discussed it and gave them feedback. They made new predictions
and changes in their programs until they were satisfied by the final results. During the last three steps
teams made lots of calibrations, changing parameters, exploiting the experimental, practical and
explorative characteristics of EV3 hands-on robotic activities. After the completion of the scenario,
a member of each team uploaded their final program in our e-learning lesson.
Analyzing Problem Solving
This step is the most important in long term transversal competences, helping them think more critically
and reflect upon their actions. We asked questions like “What did we learn about the problem solved
during our scenario?”, “How important was the work in team and the discussions with the teachers and
the members of other teams?” Had our problems only one solution or more than one?” etc. Students
noticed that the problems usually have more than one solution and some of them are more accurate,
the collaboration helped them when they “got stuck” and problem solving is something that can be
pursued systematically. All these are inestimable observations and important results for our approach.
Documentation and Dissemination
We made a report, a presentation and a video for our first implementation, filled the appropriate
program forms, presented our experiences in the meeting in Riga and participated at RoboESL
Conference and exhibitions in Athens.
The dissemination activity was also intense and significant. We participated in Athens Science
Festival exhibition (Gazi - 10/04/2016, just after the end of our first implementation). Our participation
in Athens Science Festival was a great incentive for our students that showed and explained the
programs they had made to visitors of the festival. Our students showed their programs in the
RoboESL exhibition (Gazi - 26/11/2016). Apart from our official team of 10 pupils we run two other
teams consisting of: a) 12 students during ICT – Computer Science lessons and b) 5 students after
school hours. Finally, we organized tree workshops in our Computer Science lab where 31 pupils
and 4 teachers of our neighboring elementary school had their first contact with robotic activities.
The workshops ran during the European Code Week (17-23/10/2016). Teaching in these workshops
were three of the students that participated in our 1st implementation and the scenario practiced,
after the familiarization time needed, was the movement of a tribot on a straight line. On a line
where 4 stations including the ones at the beginning and the end of the line. The distance between
two successive stations was constant. The tribots ran at a constant speed, without using sensors, went
forward stopping for a while at the stations until the last one. When they reached the end of the line,
they waited a bit longer and then they came back in reverse way towards the starting station. The
entire process repeated three times. The elementary pupils and their teachers liked it.
During the second implementation we completed our program obligations (forms,
implementation), we made a report, presentations and videos about our implementations. We created
an experimental e-class as a supportive space and made a first step to create a Robo community
in our school. Moodle environment can potentially support any learning approach (Karampinis,
2010b). The platform was tested by our participating students. The presentation of objectives, aims,

21
repository of our scenario, additional ancillary activities, ability to support asynchronous discussions
were some of the e- course possibilities. On this e-class students uploaded their programs after their
completion. We participated in Athens Science Festival exhibition (Gazi - 01/04/2016, just after the
end of our second implementation). Additionally, some of the students participated in our RoboESL
Figure 3. Programs from “Let’s play and dance”. Follow the black line, stop when white and then... random dance from our
“yellow” and “black” teams.

22
implementations taught 24 1st grade students from our school. We discussed and made arrangements
with the neighboring scouts to hold workshops to cubs’ scouts during this school year. The director
of the neighboring elementary school agreed to repeat the workshops we held the next school year
and the next years to come.
RESULTS - DISCUSSION
In this paper we summarize the experience acquired in the framework of the RoboESL program.
RoboESL allowed us to use constructivist methodological approaches more freely during the
implementation of scenarios, helping us and providing us with worksheets, the appropriate education
for the teachers and materials. Fifteen students participated in two school years. Six of them in both
1st and 2nd implementation. The twelve male students met the programs requirements, while the
three women were very good students but not very comfortable with technology. Our students enjoyed
the applied activities focused on the practical and explorative characteristics of educational robotics
hands-on activities. The programming concepts acquired meaning for our students as a result of the
direct and comprehensible feedback they got when implementing their algorithms. The communication,
cooperation and collaboration gradually grew better among them throughout the activities. The girls
had difficulties in grasping concepts of practical areas. They spent about four hours to construct their
tribots but did well in the programming part, as did the six students that had prior experience from
their last year’s participation in the program. The male students without previous robotic experience
finished quickly their tribot but encountered some problems in the programming part. The suitable
time for this kind of interventions is between 3-4 school hours, having enough time to accomplish the
given scenarios and present them to the plenary without students getting bored or tired. All students
were motivated and wanted to participate again to similar classes. Some of them are still working with
the robots. They disseminate the project to other students, both their age and younger -elementary
school and boys’ scouts, by teaching them some of the project scenarios and present, each time in an
improved way, their programs to festivals.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work has been funded with support from the European Commission under the Erasmus+ project
RoboESL (Robotics-based learning interventions for preventing school failure and Early School
Leaving). Project code: 2015-1-IT02-KA201-015141.

23
REFERENCES
Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. In: Themes in Science &
Technology Education, 6(1), 63-71.
Basoeki, F., Dalla Libera, F., Menegatti, E., & Moro, M. (2013). Robots in education: New trends and challenges
from the Japanese market Retrieved from https://goo.gl/f4jVjt
Bereiter, C. (1994). Implications of Postmodernism for science, or, science as progressive discourse. Retrieved
from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15326985ep2901_1
Demo, G. B., Moro, M., Pina, A., & Arlegui, A. (2012). In and out of the school activities implementing IBSE
and constructionist learning methodologies by means of robotics. In B. S. Barker, G. Nugent, N. Grandgenett,
& V. Adamchuk (Eds.), Robots in K-12 education: A new technology for learning (pp. 66–92). Hershey, PA:
IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-0182-6.ch004
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Retrieved from http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Dewey/Dewey_1910a/
Dewey_1910_toc.html
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Retrieved from http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/digital-text-projects/
john-dewey-democracy-and-education/
Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2001). Strategies for teachers: teaching content and thinking skills. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Flot, J., Higashi, R., McKenna, J., Shoop, R., & Witherspoon, E. (2016). Using Model Eliciting Activities to
Engage Students in Computational Thinking Practices. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/cs2n/research/
Using+Model+Eliciting+Activities+to+Engage+Students+in+CTP+FINAL.pdf
Honebein, P. (1993). Seven Goals for the Design of Constructivist Learning Environments. Retrieved from http://
studentcenteredlearning.pbworks.com/f/DesignConstructivistHonebein.pdf
Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2000). Models of teaching. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Karampinis, A. (2010). Evaluation and critical analysis of Philologists training results in ICT use and exploit
the educational teaching process in the Attica schools. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/secret/
bKEFNYWIU9QuhB
Karampinis, A. (2010). Employment of a Moodle environment in school education. Retrieved from http://dione.
lib.unipi.gr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/unipi/3814/Karampinis.pdf?sequence=2
Karampinis, T., & Zixnali, M. (2016). RoboESL project at 56th Junior High School of Athens. Activities
and experiences from our 1st implementation. Retrieved from http://roboesl.eu/conference/wp-content/
uploads/2017/03/Karampinis.pdf
Koliadi, E. (2007 c). Theories of learning and educational practice. Athens: Greek Letters.
Lego Engineering. (2016). Nine alternative programming languages for Lego Mindstorms Retrieved from http://
www.legoengineering.com/alternative-programming-languages/
Leitan, D. N., & Chaffey, L. (2014). Embodied Cognition and its applications: A brief review Retrieved from
http://sensoria.swinburne.edu.au/index.php/sensoria/article/download/384/340
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). Enabling the Next Production Revolution: the
Future of Manufacturing and Services (Interim Report). Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/mcm/documents/
Enabling-the-next-production-revolution-the-future-of-manufacturing-and-services-interim-report.pdf
Papanilolaou, K., Fraggou, S., & Alimisis, D. (2007). Developing a design framework and application activities
planned robotic construction: the TERECoP work. Retrieved from http://hermes.di.uoa.gr/frangou/papers/
papers_PFA-Syros2007.pdf
Resnic, M. (2007). Sowing the Seeds for a More Creative Society http://web.media.mit.edu/~mres/papers/
Learning-Leading-final.pdf

24
Robotics-based learning interventions for preventing school failure and Early School Leaving. (2015). About.
Retrieved from http://roboesl.eu/?page_id=11
Trilianos, T. (1998). Methodology of modern teaching. Athens: Trilianos.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Education. (2015). 2030 Declaration. Retrieved
from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002456/245656E.pdf
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Athens: Gutenberg.
Wilson, B. (1998). Constructivist Learning Environments. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.

ROBOESL-2ndpaper

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (10)

Similaire à ROBOESL-2ndpaper

Similaire à ROBOESL-2ndpaper (20)

Plus de 56ο Γυμνάσιο Αθήνας

Plus de 56ο Γυμνάσιο Αθήνας (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

ROBOESL-2ndpaper