2017 IEEE Integrated STEM Conference (ISEC)
Robotics to Promote STEM Learning:
Educational Robotics Unit for 4th Grade Science
Amy Eguchi and Lisbeth Uribe
amy_eguchi@bloomfield.edu, luribe@theschool.columbia.edu
Abstract - Educational robotics or Robotics in Education
(RiE) is the term widely used to describe the educational
use of robotics as a learning tool. Educational robotics is
an effective learning tool for promoting and encouraging
students’ STEM learning. It is rich with opportunities to
integrate not only STEM but also many other
disciplines, including literacy, social studies, dance,
music and art, while giving students the opportunity to
find ways to work together to foster collaboration skills,
express themselves using the technological tool,
problem-solve, and think critically and innovatively. It is
a learning tool that enhances students’ learning
experiences through hands-on mind-on learning. Most
importantly, educational robotics provides a fun and
exciting learning environment because of its hands-on
nature and the integration of technology. The paper
introduces an educational robotics unit that is integrated
into a 4th grade science curriculum. Included in the
paper is also an overview of the unit, the sequence of
lessons, and an examination of key instructional
strategies. In addition, it explains how the learning
standards are addressed in the unit.
Index Terms – Educational Roboitcs; Integrated STEM
Education; Learning Standards; Programming
INTRODUCTION
We are in an era with rapid technological advancement,
which requires more creativity and innovation. The recent
technological advancement has been accelerating the speed
of innovation drastically faster than ever before. “As the
speed of innovation has changed, the quantitative changes in
speed have brought about qualitative changes in innovation”
[1, p.557]. There is an urgent need for a radical and
effective educational reform to keep up with societal
changes.
Driven by current and future STEM workforce
shortages, many nations are improving upon and placing
greater emphasis on STEM education, in an effort to meet
the demand for STEM skills, innovation and creativity [2].
The United State government has highlighted the need for
advancing competencies in STEM domains and the
contextualized knowledge and skills necessary to solve
complex problems that we face every day among our youth
[3].
In a world that’s becoming increasingly complex,
where success is driven not only by what you know,
978-1-5090-5379-7/17/$31.00 (c) 2017 IEEE
but by what you can do with what you know, it’s
more important than ever for our youth to be
equipped with the knowledge and skills to solve
tough problems, gather and evaluate evidence, and
make sense of information. These are the types of
skills that students learn by studying science,
technology, engineering, and math—subjects
collectively known as STEM. [para. 2]
In 2011, President Obama urged the nation in his
statement:
The first step in winning the future is encouraging
American innovation. None of us can predict with
certainty what the next big industry will be or where
the new jobs will come from. Thirty years ago, we
couldn’t know that something called the Internet
would lead to an economic revolution. What we can
do -- what America does better than anyone else -- is
spark the creativity and imagination of our people. [4,
para 1]
In addition, reports titled “Strategy for American
Innovation (SAI) – Securing Our Economic Growth and
Prosperity” and “Federal Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM) Education: 5 Year Strategic Plan”
highlighted the need for a STEM educated workforce. It is
recognized that the need for STEM knowledge and skills
will continue to grow in the future [5]. The reports
emphasize the country’s essential need to focus on STEM
education, specifically to improve K-12 education by
enhancing students’ engagement in STEM disciplines, and
graduating every high school student ready for post-
secondary education and career [6]. We need to inspire and
prepare more students, including girls and underrepresented
groups of students, to excel in STEM field. It is evident that
the future economy will be driven primarily by innovation
largely derived from advances in science and engineering
[7]. However, evidence shows that current education
approaches are not preparing a sufficiently large enough and
well-equipped STEM workforce. For example, access to the
full range of math and science courses that students need in
order to pursue careers in STEM fields, such as Algebra I,
geometry, Algebra II, calculus, biology, chemistry, and
physics, are very limited in public schools. Although it is
reported that more Asian-Americans and white students are
likely to purse STEM than other students of color, only 81
percent of Asian-American and 71 percent of white high
186

school students attend high schools with a full range of math
and science courses [3]. Furthermore, STEM literacy is
necessary not only for those who purse career in STEM
fields but also for the general public. Our current education
system does not cultivate a culture of STEM, nor does it
foster the development of a STEM literate public [3]. All
students, no matter their race, zip code or socioeconomic
status, should be provided with the opportunity to be
college-ready with STEM fluency. “STEM 2026” report
also emphasizes the inequities in access, participation and
success in STEM subjects [8]. They report the existence of
persistent inequities between races, genders, socio-economic
groups and among students with disabilities, thereby
keeping the educational and poverty gaps wide and
preventing us from fulfilling the needs of our
technologically driven society. It is stated that effective
STEM education accessible to and inclusive of all students
is increasingly important so that our youth are equipped
with “a new set of core knowledge and skills to solve
difficult problems, gather and evaluate evidence, and make
sense of information they receive from varied print and,
increasingly, digital media” and prepared to become “a
workforce where success results not just from what one
knows, but what one is able to do with that knowledge” [8,
p.i].
Although the need is clear, studies report that students’
interest in and motivation for pursuing STEM studies has
declined in many western nations [2]. It is often indicated
that the traditional practice of science education is less
successful in engaging students and attracting their interests,
especially because it is disengaged from their everyday
experiences [9]. Although the importance of STEM
education has been in focus since 1990s, the subjects have
been taught isolated and disconnected from each other [10,
11]. “STEM Integration in K-12 Education: Status,
Prospects, and an Agenda for Research”, the report on a
two-year study by the Committee on Integrated STEM
Education, a group of experts on diverse subjects under the
auspices of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE)
and the Board on Science Education of the National
Research Council (NRC), suggests that more integrated
approaches to K-12 STEM education through
interconnected teaching of STEM subjects especially in the
context of real-world issues can make the learning of STEM
subject more relevant to students as well as teachers [12]. In
return, integrated STEM approaches can enhance students’
interests, motivation for learning, persistence and
achievement. Two decades ago, Grabinger, Dunlap, &
Duffield also emphasized the importance of learning to
think critically, to analyze and synthesize information in
order to solve interdisciplinary problems, and to work
collaboratively and productively with others in groups are
important skills for participating effectively in society, and
simply knowing some facts in a single domain and/or how
to use tools are not enough for individuals to stay effective
and competitive in increasingly complex society [13].
Students are often presented knowledge in conjunction with
187
2017 IEEE Integrated STEM Conference (ISEC)
problems and examples that are not relevant to them and
their needs and have no connection to their real life. The
problems that students are asked to solve make them
wonder, ‘Why do I need to know this?’ [14, p.7]. Because
their learning is decontextualized and they cannot make
connection between their learning and their life, student
learning becomes an exercise of memorization of the facts
transferred from their teachers. Moreover, they are not
taught to acquire skills essential for effective thinking and
reasoning [14].
INTEGRATED STEM EDUCATION
Integrated STEM approaches focus on the learning of
science, technology, engineering and mathematics happens
while students applying their knowledge and skills to real-
world situations [2]. When students are exposed to STEM
learning with integrated and interactive approaches that
enhances their communication and collaboration skills early,
they become more confident and competent in these
subjects [9]. The key to successfully enhancing students’
interests in STEM fields is providing opportunities for
students to explore their ideas and optimize best solutions
for real-world authentic problems. In the real world,
scientists and engineers solve problems with a goal of
optimizing their solution to a problem. Real-world problems
are ill defined and usually have no one right answer [9].
Integrated STEM approaches to learning focus on real-
world, contextualized, authentic problems. “Students learn
to reflect on the process they take in problem solving and
retain the knowledge and skills they gain (p.4).
Creating a successful integrated STEM learning
environment is a complex process. Teachers must have the
skills and knowledge needed to make their instruction
support students’ understanding of how to apply their
STEM knowledge to real-world situations [2]. Stohlmann,
Moore and Gillian suggest Zemelman, Daniels and Hyde’s
list of best practices for teaching mathematics and science
should guide integrated STEM educators;
1) use manipulatives and hands-on learning; 

2) cooperative learning; 

3) discussion and inquiry; 

4) questioning and conjectures; 

5) use justification of thinking; 

6) writing for reflection and problem solving; 

7) use a problem solving approach; 

8) integrate technology; 

9) teacher as a facilitator; and
10) use assessment as a part of instruction.
[15, p.29]
With integrated STEM learning, each student’s
knowledge in each discipline needs to be supported [12]
thus its focus on the learner-centered approach. Stohlmann,
Moore and Gillian also suggest educators adopt Berline and
White’s recommendations on how to approach student
knowledge:

1) build on students’ prior knowledge;
2) organize knowledge around big ideas, concepts, or
themes;
3) develop student knowledge to involve interrelationships
of concepts and processes;
4) understand that knowledge is situation or context
specific;
5) enable knowledge to be advanced through social
discourse; and
6) understand that knowledge is socially constructed over
time.
[15, p.30]
With integrated STEM education approaches, teachers
aim to combine science, technology, engineering and
mathematics into one class while making connections
between the subjects and real-world situations. Engineering
has become more accepted and viewed important in K-12
education [16]. By integrating engineering design approach,
science learning can be enhanced. Engineering design
approach with an integration of technology provide
opportunities for students to apply science and mathematical
knowledge and inquiry as well as an authentic context for
mathematical reasoning for informed decision-making
during the design process [2]. Next Generation Science
Standards highlight the importance of students engaged in
design and developing science investigations and
engineering design projects across all K-12 grade levels
[16]. By engaging in the engineering design process,
students use mathematical and scientific inquiry to design
an experiment to try out their ideas in real world situations.
Using the feedback from the experiment, students learn the
function and performance of potential design solutions
before they construct a final prototype. Students learn to
build upon their experiences to construct new STEM
knowledge through the design process [2].
EDUCATIONAL ROBOTICS AS A LEARNING TOOL
Educational robotics or Robotics in Education (RiE) is the
term widely used to describe the educational use of robotics
as a learning tool. The development of accessible robotics
tools for variety of age groups including school-age children
has accelerated the use of robotics in education [17, 18].
From the late 1990s to early 2000s, the LEGO Mindstorms
Robotics kit was almost the only kit available to young
students. Because of the development of less expensive and
effective controller boards, such as Arduino and Raspberry
Pi, more complex robotics has become available to young
students. Mataric [18] emphasizes that robotics has “the
potential to significantly impact the nature of engineering
and science education at all levels, from K-12 to graduate
school” (para 1). For school age children, most robotics
activities have mainly been part of informal education, such
as after school and summer camp programs [19-21] despite
having the potential to make formal education learning more
effective. Studies show that educational robotics benefits
student learning of STEM content knowledge, such as
188
2017 IEEE Integrated STEM Conference (ISEC)
physics, biology, geography, mathematics, science,
electronics, and mechanical engineering, and as well as of
critical academic skills, such as writing, reading, research,
creativity, collaboration, critical thinking, decision making,
problem solving, and communication skills [19, 20, 22-37].
Increasing the size of the STEM workforce requires a
trans-disciplinary approach to integrating STEM knowledge
and skills. As students integrate STEM academic concepts
(not just one of four subjects in isolation) and real-world
lessons, they will then learn to apply STEM knowledge in a
context that links school, community, work, and the global
enterprise (Tsupros, N., Kohler, R., & Hallinen, J. cited in
[38]). Educational robotics is an effective learning tool for
project-based learning where STEM, coding, computer
thinking and engineering skills as well as 21st century skills
are all integrated into one project. Robotics provides
opportunities for students to explore how technology works
in real life, with just one tool, through the act of making.
Children, even as they are learning to take their first
steps are already developing a more intimate relationship
with technology than we ever did. The relationship with
technology that they have developed, unfortunately, is
primarily based around consumption, not creation and
invention. Learning with educational robotics provides
students with opportunities to stop, question, and think
deeply about technology. When designing, constructing,
programming and documenting the development of
autonomous robots or robotics projects, students not only
learn how technology works, but they also apply the skills
and content knowledge learned in school in a meaningful
and exciting way. Robots rely on programming to start,
stop, maneuver, flash lights and respond to external stimuli
through sensors, giving students rich opportunities to learn
logical thinking skills with a tangible object that provides
instant feedback.
Educational robotics is rich with opportunities to
integrate not only STEM but also many other disciplines,
including literacy, social studies, dance, music and art,
while giving students the opportunity to find ways to work
together to foster collaboration skills, express themselves
using the technological tool, problem-solve, and think
critically and innovatively. It is a learning tool that enhances
students’ learning experience through hands-on mind-on
learning. Most importantly, educational robotics provides a
fun and exciting learning environment because of its hands-
on nature and the integration of technology. Students love
the sense of mastery and amazement that programming a
robot provides. Coding fosters students’ learning of
computational thinking skills by necessitating the
decomposition of problems and algorithm design to create
an ordered series of instructions for doing a task. The
engaging learning environment motivates students to learn
whatever skills and knowledge needed for them to
accomplish their goals in order to complete the projects of
their interest.
 2017 IEEE Integrated STEM Conference (ISEC)

4TH GRADE ROBOTICS UNIT FOR STEM After building a fan with a motor, students are provided
with 10 programming challenges, to help them master the
A private school in New York City has been teaching programming skills they will need to make real what they
robotics as part of its science curriuculum since 2004. Their have imagined for their final projects. The set of challenges
students are introduced to robotics in 2nd Grade, continue begins with a motor control without a sensor (review of the
for another short period of time in 3rd Grade, and finally, 3rd grade programming). Each subsequent lesson generally
learning to program self-created robots to use sensors to begins with an introduction to a new challenge while
either initiate or terminate movement in the 4th grade. students are seated in a circle. Laminated programming
Robotics provides students access to learning tools that icons affixed to foam board are used by the students and
inspire them to program and invent. Robotics gives students teacher to create programs illustrating new skills. After the
the opportunities to find new ways to work together, express introduction, students are given a sample program that they
themselves, problem-solve and think innovatively. create and try out on their robot fans for themselves. They
I. 4th Grade Unit Overview reflect in their engineering journal on their learning, and
then create a new and unique program that uses the newly
Educational robotics empowers students to design and build acquired skill. Their new programmed is accompanied in
robot, and write and debug programs to accomplish specific their journal by an explanation of the task done by their
goals of their own choosing. In the 4th grade, students learn robot. The sample program provides students with a starting
to integrate sensors into their programs. Working in pairs, point for solving the programming challenge (Fig. I).
students master the programming challenges that they set
for themselves. After mastery the necessary programming
skills, students work in small groups to complete a final
project. The students design and build elaborate robots with
papier-mâché costumes and moving parts made from
recycled materials. They program their robot to accomplish
the tasks that they set for themselves. Students not only
learn how technology works, but they also apply the skills
and content knowledge learned in school in a meaningful FIGURE I
and exciting way. Students gain experience with the A SAMPLE PROGRAM FOLLOWED BY A PROGRAMMING CHALLENGE
engineering design process while prototyping and that
The following list provides a set of programming skills
conform to real-world constraints. Their unique and
introduced in the unit:
completely student-created programs turn the creations into
1) The use of motors (review, challenge 1)
decision-making inventions. The 4th grade robotics unit
2) The use of a touch sensor (challenge 2)
culminates with sharing their robotic creations with their
3) Wait for motor on and off (challenge 3)
Kindergarten buddies and parents, where they demonstrate
4) Forever and conditional loops (challenge 4)
their robots and documentation of the engineering design
5) The use of an ultrasonic (distance) sensor
process.
(challenge 5, 6, 7 and 8)
II. 4th Grade Unit Sequence 6) Task split (running two programs at the same time,
challenge 9)
The 4th Grade robotics unit begins with the challenge of
7) The use of a sound sensor (challenge 10)
building moving fans. Contrary to what is common practice
in robotics curriculum, the teacher purposefully decided
When working on programming challenges, each
NOT to use instructions for building robotic cars to begin
student is required to create his/her own program solution.
the unit. Although using a robotic car is a great way to
Students work on programming challenges in pairs by
learning programming with motors and sensors, not all
sitting next to each other, each with his or her own laptop
students are attracted or interested in building a robotics car
computer (Fig. II). Working in pairs promotes collaboration
[39]. Experience has shown that beginning with robotic cars
among students. The students are required to help each other.
tends to limit students’ ideas for their own final robotic
Should someone become confused or stuck on a
creations. When they begin with unit with car models, they
programming challenge. In other words, students become a
gravitate to building similar wheel-based projects. Robotic
helper or a teacher to each other as they are themselves
cars also have a tendancy to be more enticing to boys than
learning.
girls. By using simple fan constructions of their own design,
teachers have seen a wider range of student final project
creations. Another effective way to encourage more
creativity and engagement from both boys and girls in final
project designs is making available to the students everyday
materials such as craft & recycled materials, fabrics, glue,
papier-mache, paints and various other items for building.

189

FIGURE II
PAIRS OF STUDENTS WORKING ON PROGRAMMING CHALLENGES
With learner-centered educational robotics lessons,
students are encouraged to exchange their ideas, solve
problems and develop solutions together. In a typical
educational robotics classroom, the levels of students’
programming skills may widen as lessons progress. This
situation makes it difficult for a teacher working alone to
provide help promptly to students or pairings. In order to
help manage the needs of the class, students who have
demonstrated mastery of new skills become students helpers
or teacher-aids. More advanced students are required to
help other students by providing support, the same way a
teacher most likelly provided support to them. To help
encourage students’ collaboration, a mastery chart upon
which students log their progress is displayed prominently.
Students may check off that they have achieved mastery
after showing their printed program in their engineering
journal accompanied by the written explanation and
reflection to a student or teacher who is a master of that skill.
Either the teacher or an advanced student who has already
mastered the challenge may award mastery to another
student. Once the engineering journal is signed off by a
master programmer, the student can check herself/himself
off on the mastery chart (Fig. III).
FIGURE III
PROGRAMMING CHALLENGE MASTERY CHART
To differentiate instruction, advanced students are
given opportunities to explore their own inquiry and/or
ideas about specific programming that they mastered by
creating their own challenge and developing a solution. The
strategy works well when the differences of programming
skills become so widely diverse where many students have
190
2017 IEEE Integrated STEM Conference (ISEC)
mastered certain skills while the teacher is busy helping
other students to catch up before moving on to next skill.
This type of arrangement makes it possible for the teacher to
devote extra time to students who may struggle, in order for
them to be the first to master a new skill. As they read over
the work of other students, their understanding and
confidence becomes more solid.
Once the entire class mastered all 10 challenges,
students began working on the final robotics project. First,
each student developed his or her own innovative and
creative idea for a robotics creation. The ideas are shared
and presented in class. After all the ideas have been shared,
each student decides which project is the most appealing
and do-able. Small groups of two to four students are
formed and begin working on the plan for their robot(s).
With educational robotics, students are excited to work
on solving problems of their own design. It is critical that
the creation of the robot and programs come from the
students. By doing so, students gain the authorship of their
own project, which, in return, engages them more in the
process of creation and persevering in overcoming obstacles
and solving problems. In the process of creation, students
constantly share their ideas and solutions to problems within
each group, as well as with the class as a whole. Once they
can visualize the robot action and need for sensors, they can
start working on creating sensor programs that complete a
set of tasks for their robot.
LINKING WITH THE STANDARDS
Various curriculum standards are addressed through the 4th
grade robotics unit, including Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS) – Engineering Design, Common Core
State Standards (CCSS) – Mathematics and English
Language Arts.
I. Next Generation Science Standards – Engineering Design
The 4th grade addresses NGSS Engineering Design
standards ETS1-1~3:
• 3-5-ETS1-1. Define a simple design problem reflecting
a need or a want that includes specified criteria for
success and constraints on materials, time, or cost.
• 3-5-ETS1-2. Generate and compare multiple possible
solutions to a problem based on how well each is likely
to meet the criteria and constraints of the problem.
• 3-5-ETS1-3. Plan and carry out fair tests in which
variables are controlled and failure points are
considered to identify aspects of a model or prototype
that can be improved.
Through the programming challenges and final robotics
project, students learn to define a problem, either of a
building design or programming nature, and then solve the
problem by creating a programming solution or a robotics
object. They also learn to understand and identify specific
criteria for success and constraints on materials and/or time.
Students create and generate multiple design solutions to a
problem, using trial and error approaches. As they work to

complete the programming challenges and the final robotics
project, students develop and test their programs on their
robot. Through careful observations, students examine and
identify errors and mistakes, which will be improved with
the next program or prototype. Throughout the unit, self-
reflection is emphasized. After each programming
challenge, the students write reflections in which they
identify the problems that they faced as well as how the
skills that they learned can be utilized in future projects.
They also write a plan for what they intend to work on in the
next class.
II. Common Core State Standards – English Language Arts
(CCSS – ELA)
The 4th grade robotics unit addresses CCSS – ELA:
• RI.4.1. Refer to details and examples in a text when
explaining what the text says explicitly and when
drawing inferences from the text.
• RI.4.4. Determine the meaning of general academic and
domain-specific words or phrases in a text relevant to a
grade 4 topic or subject area.
• RI.4.7. Interpret information presented visually, orally,
or quantitatively (e.g., in charts, graphs, diagrams, time
lines, animations, or interactive elements on Web
pages) and explain how the information contributes to
an understanding of the text in which it appears.
• W.4.2. Write informative/explanatory texts to examine
a topic and convey ideas and information clearly.
• SL.4.1. Engage effectively in a range of collaborative
discussions (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-led)
with diverse partners on grade 4 topics and texts,
building on others' ideas and expressing their own
clearly.
• SL.4.4. Report on a topic or text, tell a story, or recount
an experience in an organized manner, using
appropriate facts and relevant, descriptive details to
support main ideas or themes; speak clearly at an
understandable pace.
• SL.4.5. Add audio recordings and visual displays to
presentations when appropriate to enhance the
development of main ideas or themes.
Throughout the 4th grade robotics unit, students learn
domain specific English Language Arts skills suggested for
4th graders. They must read carefully by paying specific
attentions to details. When working on the programming
challenges, students learn to decompose statements to create
programs. Students learn various robotics and programming
terms including conditional loops (loops) and forever loops
(jumps), input, output, debugging, touch, ultrasonic, and
sound sensors. While working in pairs and groups, students
learn to effectively collaborate by developing
communication skills. In addition, through the preparation
for the final robotics project presentation, students learn
various presentation skills (SL.4.1, 4.4 and 4.5).
191
2017 IEEE Integrated STEM Conference (ISEC)
III. Common Core State Standards – Mathematics (CCSS –
Mathematics)
The 4th grade addresses CCSS – Mathematics:
• MP1: Make sense of problems and persevere in solving
them
• MP4: Model with mathematics
• MP5: Use appropriate tools strategically
• MP7: Look for and make sense of structure
• MP8: Look for and express regularity in repeated
reasoning
Learning with educational robotics provides students
opportunities to apply mathematical thinking skills that they
learn in mathematics (MP1, 4, 5, 7, 8). Through
programming challenges, students learn and apply problem-
solving skills to create solutions to the challenges. The
learner-centered approaches of educational robotics allow
students to take charge of their creation, which promotes
their perseverance in solving problems to achieve the goals
that they set for themselves. With the final robotics project,
students select the correct sensors (tools) and strategize their
use in the program in order to accomplish the performance
task(s) they have set for their robot.
ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING
Throughout the unit, formative assessment is conducted
with the students’ engineering journals in which students
log their programs with an accompanying explanation and
reflections about their learning. There are also periodic
quizzes (Fig. IV). Students are also asked to reflect on their
learning with robotics and answer following questions:
1. What you are most proud about when learning to
program robots? What is easy for you?
2. What is hard for you? What was challenging to
learn or do?
Fig. V shows a sample of a student’s reflection.
FIGURE IV
PROGRAMMING QUIZ

FIGURE V
STUDENT’S REFLECTION
For the summative evaluation, we look at the final
robotics project and students’ description and reflection of
the project. Students are asked to explain their project and
reflect on the challenges that they faced and how they have
overcome the challenge in a project poster (Fig. VI and VII).
FIGURES VI AND VII
STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTION AND THE ROBOT
For example, a pair of students created a Harry Potter
inspired Whomping Willow robot (Fig. 8). In their poster
description, they clearly identified the problem that they
faced and described how they solved it as follows:
One challenge that we faced was that at first when
the branches spun around, they would hit into the
side of the trunk which would cause them to break
off, and would also not be good for the motor. We
solved this by making most of the branches paper so
that when they hit the side of the trunk they would
just lightly brush the side.
192
2017 IEEE Integrated STEM Conference (ISEC)
FIGURE VIII
STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTION AND THE ROBOT
Another group created an athletic robot and described
their challenge as:
Something that the whole group struggled with is
maintaining the robot because the robot has been
broken 2 or 3 times. And that has set us back by a lot.
But we have worked very hard to get back on track.
And that is why we have a tested and working
creation.
They addressed not only their problem-solving abilities
but also skills on how to work together as a group.
Other groups show their ability to use the academic
language that they learn during the robotics unit. One group
created a catapult robot and explained:
It took lots of concentration and problem solving
when some were arguing against each other. The
robot has a very high arm. At first, we made a
prototype with a motor facing upwards, then we
tested it out with a ping pong ball that didn’t go very
far.
The other group created a vocabulary list to explain the
terms on their poster (Fig. IX).
FIGURE IX
STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTION AND THE VOCABULARY LIST

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
Educational robotics is an effective learning tool for
enhancing student learning of STEM knowledge and skills.
Student documentation while engaged in the work of
building and programming autonomous robots provides
evidence for its usefulness as a learning tool for students of
all ages. Examples of work from younger students with less
complicated solutions are easy for people who have never
encountered educational robotics lessons or projects to
understand. The 4th grade robotics unit introduced in this
paper shows how educational robotics used as a learning
tool can be utilized in a science unit and effectively
addresses the learning standards required by many states.
The students work hard to document their learning
throughout the unit in their engineering journal as well as on
the final robot project poster. However, the assessment of
the produced documents has been anecdotal. It would be
useful to develop a more systematic method to analyze
students’ work through their documentation. The
development of pre-/post-assessment of student learning of
the standards is the next step for providing reliable
assessment of the unit for the classroom teachers.
REFERENCES
1. Yamakami, T. Innovation literacy: Implications from a shift toward
dynamic multidisciplinary engineering. in 8th International
Conference on Information Science and Digital Content Technology
(ICIDT). 2012. Jeju Island, Korea: IEEE.
2. Kelley, T.R. and J.G. Knowles, A Conceptual Framework for
Integrated STEM Education. International Journal of STEM
Education, 2016. 3(11): p. 1-11.
3. U.S. Department of Education. Science, Technology, Engineering and
Math: Education for Global Leadership. 2015 [cited 2016 August 30];
Available from: http://www.ed.gov/stem.
4. The White House. Innovation. 2011 [cited 2014 October 20];
Available from:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/economy/innovation.
5. Tanenbaum, C. STEM 2026: A Vision for Innovation in STEM
Education. 2016 [cited 2016 September 19]; Available from:
http://www.air.org/resource/stem-2026.
6. National Economic Council, Council of Economic Advisers, and
Office of Science and Technology Policy, Strategy for American
Innovation – Securing Our Economic Growth and Prosperity. 2011,
The White House.
7. Committee on Highly Successful Schools or Programs for K-12 STEM
Education Board on Science, E.a.B.o.T.a.A. and Division of
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Successful K-12 STEM
Education - identifying effective approaches in Science, Technology,
engineering, and Mathematics. 2011, Washington D.C.: The National
Academies Press.
8. U.S. Department of Education and Office of Innovation and
Improvement, STEM 2026: A Vision for Innovation in STEM
Education, U.S.D.o. Education, Editor. 2016, U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement: Washington, DC. p.
63.
9. Laboy-Rush, D., Integrated STEM Education through Project-Based
Learning. 2011, learning.com. p. 1-10.
10. Wang, H.-H., et al., STEM Integration: Teacher Perceptions and
Practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research,
2011. 1(2): p. 1-13.
11. Sanders, M., STEM, STEM Education, STEMmania. The Technology
Teacher, 2009. 68(4): p. 20-26.
12. Honey, M., G. Pearson, and H. Schweingruber, eds. STEM integration
in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research.
2014, National Academies Press: Wathington, D.C.
193
2017 IEEE Integrated STEM Conference (ISEC)
13. Grabinger, S., J.C. Dunlap, and J.A. Duffield, Rich environment for
active learing, in action: problem-based learning. Research in
Learning Technology, 1997. 5(2): p. 5-17.
14. Grabinger, S. and J.C. Dunlap, Rich environments for active learning:
a definition. Research in Learning Technology, 1995. 3(2): p. 5-34.
15. Stohlmann, M., T.J. Moore, and G.H. Roehrig, Considerations for
Teaching Integrated STEM Education. Journal of Pre-College
Engineering Education Research, 2012. 2(1): p. 28-34.
16. Next Generation Science Standards. Appenrix I - Engineering Design
in the NGSS. 2013 [cited 2015 January 15]; Available from:
http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/Appendix I -
Engineering Design in NGSS - FINAL_V2.pdf.
17. Cruz-Martin, A., et al., A LEGO Mindstorms NXT approach for
teaching at Data Acquisition, Control Systems Engineering and Real-
Time Systems undergraduate courses. Computers & Education, 2012.
59: p. 974-988.
18. Mataric, M.J., Robotics Education for All Ages, in American
Association for Artificial Intelligence Spring Symposium on Accessible,
Hands-on AI and Robotics Education. 2004.
19. Benitti, F.B.V., Exploring the educational potential of robotics in
schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 2012. 58: p.
978-988.
20. Sklar, E. and A. Eguchi, RoboCupJunior - Four Years Later.
Proceedings of RoboCup-2004: Robot Soccer World Cup VIII., 2004.
21. Eguchi, A., Educational Robotics for Elementary School Classroom.
Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology and Education
(SITE), 2007: p. pp. 2542-2549.
22. Kolberg, E. and N. Orlev, Robotics Learning as a Tool for Integrating
Science-Technology Curriculum in K-12 Schools, in 31st ASEE/IEEE
Frontiers in Education Conference. 2001: Reno, NV.
23. Oppliger, D. Using FIRST LEGO League to Enhance Engineering
Education and to Increase the Pool of Future Engineering Students
(Work in Progress). in 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education
Conference. 2002. Boston, MA.
24. Sklar, E., A. Eguchi, and J. Johnson, Examining the Team Robotics
through RoboCupJunior. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of
Japan Society for Educational Technology, 2002.
25. Sklar, E., A. Eguchi, and J. Johnson, Scientific Challenge Award:
RoboCupJunior - Learning with Educational Robotics. AI Magazine,
2003. 24(2): p. 43-46.
26. Carbonaro, M., M. Rex, and J. Chambers, Using LEGO Robotics in a
Project-Based Learning Environment. Interactive Multimadia
Electronic Journal of Computer Enhanced Learning, 2004. 6(1).
27. Nourbakhsh, I.R., et al. Formal Measures of Learning in a Secondary
School Mobile Robotics Course. in 2004 IEEE International
Conference on Robotics & Automation. 2004. New Orleans, LA: IEEE
Computer Society.
28. Atmatzidou, S. and S. Demetriadis. Evaluating the role of
collaboration scripts as group guiding tools in activities of eduational
robotics. in 2012 12th IEEE International Conference on Advanced
Learning Technologies. 2012. Rome, Italy: IEEE Computer Society.
29. Miller, D.P., I.R. Nourbakhsh, and R. Sigwart, Robots for Education,
in Springer Handbook of Rootics, B. Siciliano and O. Khatib, Editors.
2008, Springer-Verlag New York, LLC: New York, NY. p. p. 1283 -
1301.
30. Alimisis, D. and C. Kynigos, Constructionism and Robotics in
Education, in Teacher Education on Robotics-Enhanced Constructivist
Pedagogical Methods, D. Alimisis, Editor. 2009, School of
Pedagogical and Technological Education: Athens, Greece.
31. Elkind, D., Forward, in Block to Robots, M.U. Bers, Editor. 2008,
Teachers College Press: New York, NY. p. xi-xiv.
32. Eguchi, A. and L. Almeida, RoboCupJunior: Promoting STEM
Education with Robotics Competition. Proceedings of the Robotics in
Education, 2013.
33. Eguchi, A., Educational Robotics for Promoting 21st Century Skills.
Journal of Automation, Mobile Robotics, & Information Systems,
2014. 8(1): p. 5-11.
34. Eguchi, A., Learning Experience Through RoboCupJunior: Promoting
STEM Education and 21st Century Skills with Robotics Competition.
Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher
Education International Conference, 2014.
 2017 IEEE Integrated STEM Conference (ISEC)

35. Eguchi, A., Learning Experience Through RoboCupJunior: Promoting

Engineering and Computational Thinking Skills thourgh Robotics
Competition. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering
Education Annual Conference, 2014.
36. Eguchi, A., Learning Experience Through RoboCupJunior: Promoting
STEM Education and 21st Century Skills with Robotics Competition.
Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology and Education
(SITE), 2014.
37. Eguchi, A., Student Learning Experience through CoSpace
Educational Robotics. Proceedings of the Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 2012.
38. Gerlach, J. STEM: Defying a Simple Definition. NSTA WebNews
Digest - NSTA Reports 2012 [cited 2014 February 10]; Available
from: http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=59305.
39. Rusk, N., et al., New pathways into robotics: Strategies for broadening
participation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2008.
17(1): p. 59–69.

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Amy Eguchi, Associate Professor, Division of Education,
Bloomfield College.

Lisbeth Uribe, Lead Science Teacher, The School at

Columbia University.

194