Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of twenty-first century skills on university students’ robotic achievements

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

New approaches are frequently used to provide students with twenty-first century skills. In this direction, robots are quickly integrated in today's educational environments. However, studies in which robots are integrated into the curriculum as a pedagogical tool and examine its effect on twenty-first century skills are limited. This research examines the impact of robotics training on cooperation and flexibility, autonomous, cognitive and innovation skills which are found in the skills set of the twenty-first century. 54 university students selected by criterion sampling were recruited for these 14 weeks long explanatory sequential mixed-method study. The data were collected using the Scale of the Use of 21st Century Learner Skills, Robotics Applications Achievement Test and semi-structured interview form developed by the researchers. A paired sample t-test revealed that cooperation and flexibility, autonomous, cognitive and innovation skills were significantly improved. Moreover, linear regression analysis showed that all skills other than innovation were significant predictors of students’ robotic achievement. The results reported in this study shed new light on robotic education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data is available upon request from the corresponding author.

References

  • Afari, E., & Khine, M. S. (2017). Robotics as an Educational Tool: Impact of Lego Mindstorms. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7(6), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.6.908.

  • Agadzhanova, R. (2020). The importance of students’ autonomous learning ability. In A. T. Osvč (Ed.). Pedagogy and Psychology in the Modern World: Theoretical and Practical Aspects: Monograph içinde. Internauka Publishing House.

  • Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6, 63–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alimisis, A. D., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Constructionism and robotics in education. In A. Alimisis (Ed.) Teacher education on robotics-enhanced constructivist pedagogical method. School of Pedagogical and Technological Education

  • Andjic, B., Grujičić, R., & Markuš, M. (2015). Robotics and its effects on the educational system of Montenegro. World Journal of Education, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v5n4p52.

  • 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, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1223.

  • Arastaman, G., Öztürk Fidan, İ., & Fidan, T. (2018). Nitel araştırmada geçerlik ve güvenirlik: Kuramsal bir i̇nceleme. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(1), 37–75. https://doi.org/10.23891/efdyyu.2018.61.

  • Agapito, L. (2021). Exploring the exploits on the instructional conveyance of robotics course to the 4Cs of 21st century education. International Journal of Information Communication Technology and Education, 1(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.53378/346471.

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badeleh, A. (2021). The effects of robotics training on students’ creativity and learning in physics. Education and Information Technologies, 26(2), 1353–1365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09972-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baller, S., Dutta, S. & Lanvin, B. (2016). Global Information Technology Report. Ouranos.

  • Baghaei, N., Mitrovic, A., & Irwin, W. (2007). Supporting collaborative learning and problem-solving in a constraint-based CSCL environment for UML class diagrams. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 159–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9018-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basoeki, F., Libera, F. D., Menegatti, E., & Moro, M. (2013). Robots in education: New trends and challenges from the Japanese market. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayhan, P., & Artan, İ. (2007). Çocuk gelişimi ve eğitimi. Morpa Kültür Yayınları.

  • Blackley, S., & Howell, J. L. (2019). The next chapter in the STEM education narrative: Using robotics to support programming and coding. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v44n4.4.

  • Belmonte, J. L., Segura-Robles, A., Guerrero, A. J. M., & Parra-González, M. E. (2021). Robotics in education: A scientific mapping of the literature in web of science. Electronics, 10(3), 291. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10030291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J. L., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining Twenty-First Century Skills. In Griffin, P., Care, E., ve McGaw, B. (Eds) Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (17–66). Springer.

  • Bredenfeld, A., & Leimbach, T. (2010). The Robert Initiative. Proceedings of Simulation, Modeling, and Programming for Autonomous Robots, (pp. 558–567). Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg.

  • Brown, L., & Howard, A. M. (2014). The positive effects of verbal encouragement in mathematics education using a social robot. India Software Engineering Conference. https://doi.org/10.1109/isecon.2014.6891009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borg, S., & Al-Busaidi, S. (2012). Teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding learner autonomy. ELT Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnevale, A. P., & Smith, N. M. (2013). Workplace basics: The skills employees need and employers want. Human Resource Development International, 16(5), 491–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2013.821267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, C., Chandra, V., Hudson, S., & Hudson, P. (2012). Preservice teachers teaching technology with robotics. Paper presented to Australian Teacher Education Association (ATEA) Conference, Adelaide (Glenelg). Retrieved May, 2021 from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/52669/.

  • Cheng, Y., Sun, P., & Chen, N. (2018). The essential applications of educational robot: Requirement analysis from the perspectives of experts, researchers and instructors. Computers & Education, 126, 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chootongchai, S., Songkram, N., & Piromsopa, K. (2021). Dimensions of robotic education quality: Teachers’ perspectives as teaching assistants in Thai elementary schools. Education and Information Technologies, 26(2), 1387–1407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10041-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KarademirCoşkun, T. (2020). The effectiveness of robot training in special education: A robot training model proposal for special education. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(6), 1092–1116. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1710542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Çakir, R., Korkmaz, Ö., İdil, Ö., & Erdoğmuş, F. U. (2021). The effect of robotic coding education on preschoolers’ problem solving and creative thinking skills. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40, 100812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100812.

  • Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Çok Değişkenli İstatistik SPSS Ve LISREL Uygulamaları. Pegem Akademi.

  • Dam, L., Eriksson, R., Little, D., Miliander, J., & Trebbi, T. (1990). Towards a definition of autonomy. In T. Trebbi (Ed.), Third Nordic workshop on developing autonomous learning in the EFL classroom (pp. 102–103). University of Bergen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess adult’s orientations toward control versus autonomy in children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 642–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demetroulis, E. A., & Wallace, M. (2021). Educational Robotics as a Tool for the Development of Collaboration Skills. In S. Papadakis, & M. Kalogiannakis (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Using Educational Robotics to Facilitate Student Learning (pp. 140–163). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-6717-3.ch005.

  • Demirel, Y., & Seçkin, Z. (2008). Bilgi ve bilgi paylaşımının yenilikçilik üzerine etkileri. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17(1), 189–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhart, M. A., & Howe, K. R. (1992). Validity in educational research. In M. LeCompte, W. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education (pp. 642–680). Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eguchi, A. (2014). Educational robotics for promoting 21st century skills. Journal of Automation, Mobile Robotics & Intelligent Systems, 8(1), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.14313/jamris_1-2014/1.

  • Erdogan, N., Corlu, M. S., & Capraro, R. M. (2013). Defining innovation literacy: Do robotics programs help students develop innovation literacy skills? International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(1), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Sage Publications Ltd.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, A. S., Kraft, M. A., West, M. R., Leonard, J. A., Bish, C. E., Martin, R. G., Sheridan, M. A., Gabrieli, C. F. O., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2014). Cognitive Skills, Student Achievement Tests, and Schools. Psychological Science, 25(3), 736–744. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613516008

  • Foley, R. M. (2001). Professional development needs of secondary school principals of Collaborative-Based service delivery models. The High School Journal, 85(1), 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2001.0016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabriele, L., Marocco, D., Bertacchini, F., Pantano, P., & Bilotta, E. (2017). An educational robotics lab to investigate cognitive strategies and to foster learning in an arts and humanities course degree. International Journal of Online Engineering, 13(04), 7. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v13i04.6962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaudiello, I., & Zibetti, E. (2016). Learning Robotics, with Robotics, by Robotics: Educational Robotics. John Wiley & Sons.

  • García-Valcárcel-Muñoz-Repiso, A., & Caballero González, Y. A. (2019). Robotics to develop computational thinking in early childhood education. Comunicar, 27(59), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.3916/c59-2019-06

  • Glezou, K. V. (2021). Robotics as a Powerful Vehicle Toward Learning and Computational Thinking in Secondary Education of 21st Century. In S. Papadakis, & M. Kalogiannakis (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Using Educational Robotics to Facilitate Student Learning (pp. 1–40). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-6717-3.ch001.

  • Ginsburg-Block, M., Rohrbeck, C. A., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (2006). A meta-analytic review of social, self-concept, and behavioral outcomes of peer-assisted learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 732–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, D., & Riddell, W. C. (2003). Literacy and earnings: An investigation of the interaction of cognitive and unobserved skills in earnings generation. Labour Economics, 10(2), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0927-5371(03)00008-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, J., Halasz, G., Krawczyk, M., Leney, T., Michel, A. Pepper, D. Putkiewicz, E. &Wisniewski, J. (2009). Key Competences in Europe: Opening doors for lifelong learners across the school curriculum and teacher education. Center for Social and Economic Research.

  • Gorjup, G., & Liarokapis, M. (2020). A Low-Cost, Open-Source, robotic airship for education and research. IEEE Access, 8, 70713–70721. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2986772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodrich, M. T., & Schultz, A. C. (2007). Human-Robot Interaction: A Survey. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, 1(3), 203–275. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000005

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfried, M. A., & Plasman, J. S. (2018). From secondary to postsecondary: Charting an engineering career and technical education pathway. Journal of Engineering Education, 107(4), 531–555. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2008). The role of cognitive skills in economic development. Journal of Economic Literature, 46(3), 607–668. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.46.3.607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hein, M., & Nathan-Roberts, D. (2018). Socially interactive robots can teach young students language skills; a systematic review. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 62(1), 1083–1087. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in Language Learning. Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmquist, S. (2014). A multi-case study of student interactions with educational robots and impact on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) learning and attitudes (Unpublished Dissertations). University of South Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, W. Y., & Wu, S. (2014). A case study of collaboration with multi-robots and its effect on children’s interaction. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(4), 429–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.680968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISTE. (2016). ISTE standards: Students. Retreived from: https://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards-for-students.

  • Jang, H. (2016). Identifying 21st century stem competencies using workplace data. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(2), 284–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9593-1

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A., Bull, S., & Castellano, G. (2017). “I know that now, I’m going to learn this next” promoting self-regulated learning with a robotic tutor. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(4), 439–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0430-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A., & Castellano, G. (2018). Adaptive robotic tutors that support Self-Regulated learning: A Longer-Term investigation with primary school children. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(3), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0458-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, M. E., & McDaniel, R. R. (2014). Managing uncertainty during collaborative problem solving in elementary school teams: The role of peer influence in robotics engineering activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 490–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.896254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. Resources for Teachers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalaycı, Ş. (2008). Spss Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli Istatistik Teknikleri (3.Baskı). Asil Yayın Dağıtım.

  • Kanbul, S., & Uzunboylu, H. (2017). Importance of coding education and robotic applications for achieving 21st-Century skills in north Cyprus. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 12(01), 130. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v12i01.6097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karademir, T., Cesur, A., Büyükergene, G., Kaba, Ö., & Kesici, Y. D. E. (2018). Teknolojik ritimler: Müzik eğitiminde robotik uygulamaların kullanımı. İlköğretim Online, 717–737. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2018.419045.

  • Karademir Coşkun, T. & Yurttaş Kumlu, D. G. (2020) . Robotik ve fen öğretimi. H. Altun, S. Aydın günbatar, M.S. Günbatar (Ed). Fen Öğretiminde Teknoloji Eğilimleri içinde. Pegem Akademi.

  • Karslı, F., & Ayas, A. (2013). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının kimya konularında sahip oldukları alternatif kavramlar. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen Ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi (EFMED), 7(2), 284–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ke, W. (2007). Research of the personnel training model under modern university system. Beijing Education, 7, 13–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, B. A. (2009). Encyclopedia of giftedness, creativity, and talent. Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Khanlari, A. (2013). Effects of robotics on 21st century skills. European Scientific Journal, 9(27). https://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/download/1805/1795.

  • Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x15569530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, A. & Luff, D. (2001). Trent focus for research and development in primary health care: An introduction to qualitative analysis. Trent Focus.

  • Latip, A., Andriani, Y., Purnamasari, S. P. S., & Abdurrahman, D. (2020). Integration of educational robotic in STEM learning to promote students’ collaborative skill. Journal of Physics, 1663(1), 012052. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1663/1/012052.

  • Lee, S., Noh, H., Lee, J., Lee, K., Lee, G. G., Sagong, S., & Kim, M. (2011). On the effectiveness of Robot-Assisted language learning. ReCALL, 23(1), 25–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0958344010000273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986(30), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lonsdale, M. & Anderson, M. (2012). Preparing 21st Century learners: The case for school community collaborations. Australian Council for Educational Research.

  • Matarić M.J., & Scassellati B. (2016) Socially assistive robotics. In Siciliano B., Khatib O. (Eds). Springer Handbook of Robotics. Springer Handbooks: Springe. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32552-1_73.

  • Miles, M, B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded Sourcebook. (2nd ed). Sage.

  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis. SAGE.

  • Miller, D.P. & Nourbakhsh, I. (2016). Robotics for Education. Siciliano, B., Khatib, O. (Eds). In Springer Handbook of Robotics. Springer International Publishing.

  • Milto, E., Rogers, C. D. F., & Portsmore, M. (2002). Gender differences in confidence levels, group interactions, and feelings about competition in an introductory robotics course. Frontiers in Education Conference. https://doi.org/10.1109/fie.2002.1158224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., Mahmud, A. A., & Dong, J. (2013). A review of the applicability of robots in education. Technology for Education and Learning, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.2316/journal.209.2013.1.209-0015.

  • National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Committee on Highly Successful Science Programs for K-12 Science Education. Board on Science Education and Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press.

  • Negrini, L., & Giang, C. (2019). How do pupils perceive educational robotics as a tool to improve their 21st century skills. Journal of E-learning and Knowledge Society, 15(2), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1628.

  • Okita, S.Y., Ng-Thow-Hing,V. & Sarvadevabhatla, R. (2009). Learning together: asimo developing an interactive learning partnership with children, Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), ISBN: 978–1–4244–5081–7, 1125–1130, Toyama, Japan.

  • O’Neal, L. J., Gibson, P., & Cotten, S. R. (2017). Elementary school teachers’ beliefs about the role of technology in 21st-Century teaching and learning. Computers in the Schools, 34(3), 192–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2017.1347443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orhan Göksün, D. (2016). The relationship between pre-service teachers’ uses of 21st century learner skills and 21st century teacher skills (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü

  • Ozawa, S., Laing, S. K., Higgins, C. M., Yemeke, T. T., Park, C. C., Carlson, R., Ko, Y. G., Guterman, L. B., & Omer, S. B. (2022). Educational and economic returns to cognitive ability in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. World Development, 149, 105668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105668.

  • P21 (The Partnership for 21st Century Skills). (2009). P21 Framework Definitions. Retrieved May, 2021 from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf

  • Padmadewi, N. N., Artini, L. P., & Agustini, D. A. E. (2020). Promoting autonomous learning and 21st century skills of english education students through empowering their pedagogical skills. Proceedings of the 4th Asian Education Symposium (AES 2019). https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200513.024.

  • Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.) Constructionism. Ablex Publishing

  • Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation and methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plomin, R., & Von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(3), 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2017.104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redó, N. A., & Orcos, L. (2019). Educational robotics in the stage of secondary education: Empirical study on motivation and STEM skills. Education Sciences, 9(2), 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9020073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, M. E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (Fifth edition). Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, P. N. (2012). Abilities to learn: Cognitive abilities. Springer eBooks, 17–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_620.

  • Rodríguez J.C.R., Martín-Pulido E., Padrón V.J., Alemán J.A., García C.R., & Quesada-Arencibia A. (2017) Ciberlandia: An educational robotics program to promote stem careers in primary and secondary schools. In: Auer M., Guralnick D., Uhomoibhi J. (eds) Interactive Collaborative Learning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50337-0_42.

  • Rojas-Drummond, S., & Mercer, N. (2003). Scaffolding the development of effective collaboration and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1–2), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-0355(03)00075-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. CA Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schina, D., Esteve-González, V., & Usart, M. (2021). An overview of teacher training programs in educational robotics: Characteristics, best practices and recommendations. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 2831–2852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10377-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Screpanti L., Miotti B., & Monteriù A. (2021) Robotics in education: A smart and innovative approach to the challenges of the 21st century. In Scaradozzi D., Guasti L., Di Stasio M., Miotti B., Monteriù A., Blikstein P. (eds) Makers at School, Educational Robotics and Innovative Learning Environments. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77040-2_3.

  • Scaradozzi, D., Sorbi, L., Pedale, A., Valzano, M., & Vergine, C. (2015). Teaching robotics at the primary school: An innovative approach. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 3838–3846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiomi, M., Kanda, T., Howley, I., Hayashi, K., & Hagita, N. (2015). Can a social robot stimulate science curiosity in classrooms? International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(5), 641–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0303-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short, E. S., Swift-Spong, K., Greczek, J., Ramachandran, A., Litoiu, A., Grigore, E. C., Feil-Seifer, D., Shuster, S., Lee, J. Y., Huang, S., Levonisova, S., Litz, S., Li, J., Ragusa, G., Spruijt-Metz, D., Matarić, M. J., & Scassellati, B. (2014). How to train your DragonBot: Socially assistive robots for teaching children about nutrition through play. Robot and Human Interactive Communication. https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2014.6926371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stork, M. G. (2020). Supporting Twenty-First century competencies using robots and digital storytelling. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 4(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-019-00039-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smyrnova-Trybulska, E., Morze, N., Kommers, P., Zuziak, W., & Gladun, M. (2016). Educational robots in primary school teachers’ and students’ opinion about stem education for young learners. International Association for Development of the Information Society, 560, 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55553-9_7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sulaiman, N. D., & Shahrill, M. (2015). Engaging collaborative learning to develop students’ Skills of the 21st century. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n4p544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, A. L., & Bers, M. U. (2019). VEX robotics competitions: Gender differences in student attitudes and experiences. Journal of Information Technology Education, 18, 097–112. https://doi.org/10.28945/4193.

  • Sisman, B., Kucuk, S., & Yaman, Y. (2021). The effects of robotics training on children’s spatial ability and attitude toward STEM. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(2), 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00646-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M.C. (2005). Interviewing. In Holloway I (Ed.) In Qualitative Research in Health Care, pp. 39–55 McGraw-Hill Education.

  • Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times. John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, D.W. (2010). Qualitative interview design: a practical guide for novice researcher. The Qualitative Report, 15(3).

  • Toh, L. L., Causo, A., Tzuo, P. W., Chen, I., & Yeo, S. H. (2016). A review on the use of robots in education and young children. Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 148–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turan, S., & Aydogdu, F. (2020). Effect of coding and robotic education on pre-school children’s skills of scientific process. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 4353–4363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xia, L., & Zhong, B. (2018). A systematic review on teaching and learning robotics content knowledge in K-12. Computers and Education, 127, 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y., Lavonen J., & Tirri K. (2019) Twenty-first century competencies in the chinese science curriculum. In Liu H., Dervin F., Du X. (Eds) Nordic-Chinese Intersections within Education. Palgrave Studies on Chinese Education in a Global Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28588–3_.

  • Weng, T., Li, C., & Hsu, M. (2020). Development of robotic quiz games for Self-Regulated learning of primary school children. IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442536.3442546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Laar, E., Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Van Dijk, J. A., & De Haan, J. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitale, G., Bonarini, A., Matteucci, M., & Bascetta, L. (2016). Toward vocational robotics: An experience in Post-Secondary school education and job training through robotics. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 23(4), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1109/mra.2016.2571998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, W., Ng, D. T. K., & Gao, H. (2022). Robot programming versus block play in early childhood education: Effects on computational thinking, sequencing ability, and self-regulation. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J. (1998). A distributed representation approach to group problem solving. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(9), 801–809. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199807)49:9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, C., & Shao, H. (2007). Construction and implementation of practical teaching system in colleges and universities aiming at cultivating ınnovative practical ability. China Higher Education Research, 4, 85–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, A., Shen, H., Shen, Z., Tu, Y. & Song, J. (2019). A novel engineering education ınnovation pattern with design ıdeas and robot maker practice. MATEC Web of Conferences, 301. 110.1051/matecconf/201930100009.

  • Zviel-Girshin, R., & Rosenberg, N. (2021). How to enhance creativity and ınquiry-based science education in early childhood-robotic moon settlement project. Creative Education, 12, 2485–2504. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2021.1211186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zygouris, N. C., Striftou, A., Dadaliaris, A. N., Stamoulis, G. I., Xenakis, A. C. & Vavougios, D. (2017). The use of lego mindstorms in elementary schools. In 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), pp. 514–516. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2017.7942895.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors extend their appreciation to the Sinop University Scientific Research Projects Coordinatorship for funding this research work through the project No. EĞTF1901-18-04

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey

    Tuğra Karademir Coşkun & Ozan Filiz

Authors
  1. Tuğra Karademir Coşkun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ozan Filiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tuğra Karademir Coşkun.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Annex 1

Annex 1

Table

Table 3 ER Program with Arduino
Full size table

3

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coşkun, T.K., Filiz, O. The impact of twenty-first century skills on university students’ robotic achievements. Educ Inf Technol 28, 16255–16283 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11850-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11850-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation