We apologize for a recent technical issue with our email system, which temporarily affected account activations. Accounts have now been activated. Authors may proceed with paper submissions. PhDFocusTM
CFP last date
20 December 2024
Call for Paper
January Edition
IJCA solicits high quality original research papers for the upcoming January edition of the journal. The last date of research paper submission is 20 December 2024

Submit your paper
Know more
The week's pick
Responsive image
Improved Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm with Self-Adaptive Shuffling for Fuzzy Logic PD+G Controller Optimization in Robotic Manipulators

Duc Hoang Nguyen
Random Articles
Reseach Article

Action Research Implementation in Developing an Open Source and Low Cost Robotic Platform for STEM Education

by Avraam Chatzopoulos, Michail Papoutsidakis, Michail Kalogiannakis, Sarantos Psycharis
journal cover thumbnail

International Journal of Computer Applications
Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Volume 178 - Number 24
Year of Publication: 2019
Authors: Avraam Chatzopoulos, Michail Papoutsidakis, Michail Kalogiannakis, Sarantos Psycharis
10.5120/ijca2019919039

Avraam Chatzopoulos, Michail Papoutsidakis, Michail Kalogiannakis, Sarantos Psycharis . Action Research Implementation in Developing an Open Source and Low Cost Robotic Platform for STEM Education. International Journal of Computer Applications. 178, 24 ( Jun 2019), 33-46. DOI=10.5120/ijca2019919039

@article{ 10.5120/ijca2019919039,
author = { Avraam Chatzopoulos, Michail Papoutsidakis, Michail Kalogiannakis, Sarantos Psycharis },
title = { Action Research Implementation in Developing an Open Source and Low Cost Robotic Platform for STEM Education },
journal = { International Journal of Computer Applications },
issue_date = { Jun 2019 },
volume = { 178 },
number = { 24 },
month = { Jun },
year = { 2019 },
issn = { 0975-8887 },
pages = { 33-46 },
numpages = {9},
url = { https://ijcaonline.org/archives/volume178/number24/30684-2019919039/ },
doi = { 10.5120/ijca2019919039 },
publisher = {Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA},
address = {New York, USA}
}
%0 Journal Article
%1 2024-02-07T00:51:20.354177+05:30
%A Avraam Chatzopoulos
%A Michail Papoutsidakis
%A Michail Kalogiannakis
%A Sarantos Psycharis
%T Action Research Implementation in Developing an Open Source and Low Cost Robotic Platform for STEM Education
%J International Journal of Computer Applications
%@ 0975-8887
%V 178
%N 24
%P 33-46
%D 2019
%I Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Abstract

The aim of this paper is double: (a) to record the latest theoretical considerations (literature review) in the field of STEM (acronym of Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics), Educational Robotics and the Educational Robotic Platforms used in their implementation, and (b) to validate the argumentation on the potential contribution of an Action Research implementation on STEM education with the ultimate goal of designing and developing an “open philosophy”, low-cost, hardware and software educational platform for the implementation of STEM and Educational Robotics. This paper is divided into 7 sections: Introduction, STEM Education, Educational Robotics, Problem statement, Action Research, Methodology, and Conclusion. The Introduction introduces the concept and necessity of STEM education approach. STEM Education section reviews recently published scientific literature related to STEM education (literature review) and summarize the pros and barriers of its use in education. Educational Robotics introduces the robotics as an educational tool and presents empirical evidence on its effectiveness. Educational Robot Platforms subsection presents the most popular -along with their main specs- educational robots for STEM and Educational Robotics use. Problem statement section identifies the scientific gap and composes the necessity to implement research (specifically an Action Research) on designing and developing an “open philosophy”, low-cost, hardware and software academic platform for the implementation of STEM and Educational Robotics. Action research section reviews recently published scientific literature related to action research. Research Methodology section presents research’s proposal development phases and finally, Conclusion summarizes paper’s findings.

References
  1. Jo Handelsman and M. Smith, “STEM for All,” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/02/11/stem-all. [Accessed: 06-Mar-2018].
  2. B. Obama, “Giving Every Student an Opportunity to Learn Through Computer Science For All,” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/30/weekly-address-giving-every-student-opportunity-learn-through-computer. [Accessed: 06-Mar-2018].
  3. J. J. Kuenzi, “Science , Technology , Engineering , and Mathematics ( STEM ) Education : Background , Federal Policy , and Legislative Action,” Energy, no. RL33434, pp. 1–7, 2008.
  4. Courtney Tanenbaum, “STEM 2026: A Vision for Innovation in STEM Education,” 2016.
  5. N. Salim, “S.T.E.M: President Obama’s lasting legacy of equality,” The Hill, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/283482-stem-president-obamas-lasting-legacy-of-equality. [Accessed: 06-Mar-2018].
  6. M. Hausner, P. Karypidou, M. G. Popescu, L. Bozzo, O. Mihova, and P. Mikše, “STEMART = STEM + ART : An Erasmus + STEAM project for K-12 education,” in Hellenic Conference on Innovating STEM Education, 2016.
  7. H. B. Gonzalez and J. J.Kuenzi, “Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): A Primer,” Congr. Res. Serv., no. August, pp. 1–15, 2012.
  8. Lorelle L. Espinosa, K. McGuire, and L. M. Jackson, “Minority Serving Institutions: America’s Underutilized Resource for Strengthening the STEM Workforce,” The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2019.
  9. N. R. Council, Exploring the Intersection of Science Education and 21st Century Skills: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2015.
  10. S. Psycharis, “STEAM in educations: A literature review on the role of Computational Thinking, Engineering Epistemology and Computational Science. Computational STEAM Pedagogy ( CSP ),” vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 51–72, 2018.
  11. S. Psycharis, E. Botsari, P. Mantas, and D. Loukeris, “The impact of the computational inquiry based experiment on metacognitive experiences, modelling indicators and learning performance,” Comput. Educ., vol. 72, pp. 90–99, 2014.
  12. S. Doukakis, S. Katsoulis, and I. Pylioti, “Exploring students knowledge and interesting concerning STEM field,” in Hellenic Conference on Innovating STEM Education, 2016.
  13. F. Wikipedia, “Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics,” wikipedia.org, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science,_technology,_engineering,_and_mathematics. [Accessed: 06-Mar-2018].
  14. Ioannou M and Bratitsis T, “Utilizing Sphero for a speed related STEM activity in Kindergarten,” in Hellenic Conference on Innovating STEM Education, 2016.
  15. J. A. Vasquez, M. Comer, and C. Sneider, STEM Lesson Essentials, Grades 3-8: Integrating Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, 1st editio. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2013.
  16. S. Heilig, “K-12 STEM Education,” The Institute for the promotion of teaching science and technology, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 112, 2015.
  17. J. A. Ejiwale, “Barriers to Successful Implementation of STEM Education,” J. Educ. Learn., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 63–74, 2013.
  18. N. Tsupros, R. Kohler, and J. Hallinen, “STEM Education in Southwestern Pennsylvania the missing components,” 2009.
  19. T. Saito, I. Anwari, L. Mutakinati, and Y. Kumano, “A look at relationships (Part I): Supporting theories of STEM integrated learning environment in a classroom - A historical approach,” K-12 STEM Educ., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 51–61, 2016.
  20. R. E. Yager, “STEM : A Focus for Current Science Education Reforms,” vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–4, 2015.
  21. D. Connolly, “STEM vs STEAM,” Make them Mainstream | Female STEM Education, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://makethemmainstream.com/stem-vs-steam/. [Accessed: 20-Mar-2019].
  22. A. Pietrowski, “The Differences of STEM vs. STEAM Education (and the Rise of STREAM),” EdTech, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2017/08/history-stem-vs-steam-education-and-rise-stream. [Accessed: 20-Mar-2019].
  23. M. Root-Bernstein and R. Root-Bernstein, “From STEM to STEAM to STREAM : wRiting as an Essential Component of Science Education,” PsychologyToday, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/imagine/201103/stem-steam-stream-writing-essential-component-science-education. [Accessed: 21-Mar-2019].
  24. J. Weidemann, “STEM vs STEAM: what about i-STREAM-e?,” The STEM Blog South Africa, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://thestemblogsa.co.za/2018/05/stem-vs-steam/. [Accessed: 21-Mar-2019].
  25. Z. Е. Tompieva, S. К. Azhigenova, M. А. Mayasarova, and A. S. Zhantuganova, “Development of STEM-Education in the world and Kazakhstan,” Білімді ел - Образованная страна, vol. 20, no. 57, pp. 2013–2015, 2016.
  26. Wikipedia, “Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics - Wikipedia,” wikipedia.org, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science,_technology,_engineering,_and_mathematics. [Accessed: 27-Mar-2019].
  27. G. H. Roehrig, T. J. Moore, and H. Wang, “Is Adding the E Enough?: Investigating the Impact of K-12 Engineering Standards on the Implementation of STEM Integration.,” Sch. Eng. Educ. Fac. Publ., 2012.
  28. T. Saito, Y. Gunji, and Y. Kumano, “The Problem about Technology in STEM Education : Some Findings from Action Research on the Professional Development & Integrated STEM Lessons in Informal Fields,” K-12 STEM Educ., vol. 1, no. January, pp. 85–100, 2015.
  29. D. F. Keefe and D. H. Laidlaw, “Virtual reality data visualization for team-based STEAM education: Tools, methods, and lessons learned,” Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. (including Subser. Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinformatics), vol. 8022 LNCS, no. PART 2, pp. 179–187, 2013.
  30. Bybee and W. Rodger, “Advancing STEM Education: A 2020 Vision,” Technol. Eng. Teach., vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 30–35, 2010.
  31. J. S. Morrison, “Attributes of STEM education: the students, the academy, the classroom,” TIES STEM Educ. Monogr. Ser., 2006.
  32. English Learners in STEM Subjects: Transforming Classrooms, Schools, and Lives (2018). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2018.
  33. J. Morrison and R. V Bartlett, “STEM as a Curriculum,” Education Week, 2009. [Online]. Available: papers3://publication/uuid/48C36DF6-30CA-42ED-876D-0D4214A1F890.
  34. N. R. Council, Exploring the Intersection of Science Education and 21st Century Skills: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2010.
  35. G. Chen, “The Rising Popularity of STEM: A Crossroads in Public Education or a Passing Trend?,” Public School Review, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/the-rising-popularity-of-stem-a-crossroads-in-public-education-or-a-passing-trend. [Accessed: 27-Mar-2019].
  36. D. Long, “STEM Education - STEM Research - STEM Reports,” Catapult X, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.stemreports.com. [Accessed: 28-Mar-2019].
  37. M. Tucker, “STEM: Why It Makes No Sense,” Editorial Projects in Education, 2012. [Online]. Available: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2012/06/stem_why_it_makes_no_sense.html. [Accessed: 27-Mar-2019].
  38. S. Portz, “The Challenges of STEM Education Scholarly Commons Citation,” 43rd Sp. Congr., vol. 2015, 2015.
  39. A. Chiu, C. A. Price, E. Ovrahim, and M. Ed, “Supporting elementary and middle school STEM education at the whole-school level: A review of the literature,” Museum Sci. Ind. Chicago, pp. 1–21, 2015.
  40. Lyn Haynes, “Studying Stem: what are the barriers? The Institution of Engineering and Technology Enquiries to,” The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET). p. 18, 2008.
  41. J. D. Basham, M. Israel, and K. Maynard, “An Ecological Model of STEM Education: Operationalizing STEM for All,” J. Spec. Educ. Technol., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 9–19, 2015.
  42. L. Daniela and M. D. Lytras, “Educational Robotics for Inclusive Education,” Technol. Knowl. Learn., no. 0123456789, 2018.
  43. A. Khanlari, “Effects of educational robots on learning STEM and on students’ attitude toward STEM,” 2013 IEEE 5th Int. Conf. Eng. Educ. Aligning Eng. Educ. with Ind. Needs Nation Dev. ICEED 2013, no. 1, pp. 62–66, 2014.
  44. B. Wagner, P. Hohmann, U. Gerecke, and C. Brenneke, “Technical Framework for Robot Platforms in Education,” in International Conference on Engineering Education and Research “Progress Through Partnership,” 2004, pp. 699–703.
  45. D. Alimisis, Teacher education on robotics-enhanced constructivist pedagogical methods. 2009.
  46. P. Plaza, E. Sancristobal, G. Carro, M. Castro, M. Blazquez, and A. Peixoto, “Traffic lights through multiple robotic educational tools,” IEEE Glob. Eng. Educ. Conf. EDUCON, vol. 2018-April, pp. 2015–2020, 2018.
  47. D. Alimisis, “Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges,” Themes Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 63–71, 2013.
  48. D. Bailakhs, “Evaluation of Educational Information Systems : The case of MIXATRON in mechatronic education,” 2018.
  49. D. P. Miller and I. Nourbakhsh, “Robotics for Education,” Springer Handb. Robot., pp. 2115–2134, 2016.
  50. K. Y. Chin, Z. W. Hong, and Y. L. Chen, “Impact of using an educational robot-based learning system on students’ motivation in elementary education,” IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 333–345, 2014.
  51. S. Kucuk and B. Sisman, “Behavioral patterns of elementary students and teachers in one-to-one robotics instruction,” Comput. Educ., vol. 111, pp. 31–43, 2017.
  52. A. Sullivan and M. U. Bers, “Dancing robots: integrating art, music, and robotics in Singapore’s early childhood centers,” Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 325–346, 2018.
  53. F. Mondada et al., “The e-puck , a Robot Designed for Education in Engineering,” 9th Conf. Auton. Robot Syst. Compet., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 59–65, 2006.
  54. G. B. Ronsivalle, A. Boldi, V. Gusella, C. Inama, and S. Carta, “How to Implement Educational Robotics’ Programs in Italian Schools: A Brief Guideline According to an Instructional Design Point of View,” Technol. Knowl. Learn., no. 0123456789, 2018.
  55. A. Xatzopoulos, M. Papoutsidakis, and G. Chamilothoris, “Mobile Robotic Platforms as Educational Tools in Mechatronics Engineering,” in International Scientific Conference eRA – 8, 2013, pp. 41–51.
  56. C. Chalmers, “Robotics and computational thinking in primary school,” Int. J. Child-Computer Interact., vol. 17, pp. 93–100, 2018.
  57. N. C. Zygouris, A. Striftou, A. N. Dadaliaris, G. I. Stamoulis, A. C. Xenakis, and D. Vavougios, “The use of LEGO mindstorms in elementary schools,” IEEE Glob. Eng. Educ. Conf. EDUCON, no. April, pp. 514–516, 2017.
  58. L. Armesto, P. Fuentes-Durá, and D. Perry, “Low-cost Printable Robots in Education,” J. Intell. Robot. Syst., vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 5–24, 2015.
  59. F. Arvin, J. Espinosa, B. Bird, A. West, S. Watson, and B. Lennox, “Mona: an Affordable Open-Source Mobile Robot for Education and Research,” J. Intell. Robot. Syst. Theory Appl., pp. 1–15, 2018.
  60. M. E. Karim, S. S. Lemaignan, and F. Mondada, “A review: Can robots reshape K-12 STEM education? - 2015_ehsan_CanRobotsReshapeStemEducation.pdf,” Adv. Robot. its Soc. Impacts (ARSO), 2015 IEEE Int. Work., vol. 2016-March, p. 8, 2015.
  61. C. García-Saura and J. González-Gómez, “Low cost education platform for robotics,using open-source 3D printers and open-source hardware,” Proc. ICERI2012 Conf., no. 978-84-616-0763–1, pp. 2769–2706, 2012.
  62. H. Costelha and C. Neves, “Technical database on robotics-based educational platforms for K-12 students,” 18th IEEE Int. Conf. Auton. Robot Syst. Compet. ICARSC 2018, pp. 167–172, 2018.
  63. L. Payá, F. Amorós, L. Fernández, and O. Reinoso, An educational software to develop robot mapping and localization practices using visual information, vol. 10, no. PART 1. IFAC, 2013.
  64. V. Mavrovounioti, A. Chatzopoulos, M. Papoutsidakis, and D. Piromalis, “Implementation of an 2-wheel Educational Platform for STEM Applications,” J. Multidiscip. Eng. Sci. Technol., vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 8944–8948, 2018.
  65. S. Alers and J. Hu, “AdMoVeo : A Robotic Platform,” pp. 410–421, 2009.
  66. F. Wyffels, M. Hermans, and B. Schrauwen, “Building robots as a tool to motivate students into an engineering education,” 1-st Slovak-Austrian Int. Conf. Robot. Educ., 2010.
  67. M. J. G. Trigo, P. Standen, and S. Cobb, “Why are educational robots not being used in Special Education schools despite proof that they are beneficial for their students ?,” in 12th ICDVRAT with ITAG, 2018, pp. 1–9.
  68. F. Wikipedia, “Systems Development Life Cycle,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_development_life_cycle. [Accessed: 01-Jun-2018].
  69. Alexa Joyce and M. Dzoga, Science , technology , engineering and mathematics education Overcoming challenges in Europe. 2011.
  70. E. Dare, J. Ellis, and G. Roehrig, “Driven by Beliefs: Understanding Challenges Physical Science Teachers Face When Integrating Engineering and Physics.,” J. Pre-College Eng. Educ., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 47–61, 2014.
  71. M. Fuglei, “Teachers Face 4 Key Challenges with Problem-Based Learning,” Concordia University Portland., 2017. [Online]. Available: https://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/classroom-resources/practical-issues-with-problem-based-learning/. [Accessed: 26-Mar-2018].
  72. A. Massimo, “STEM education and the curriculum: Issues, tensions and challenges,” Int. STEM, High-Level Policy Forum Evidence-based Sci. Educ. Dev. Ctries., no. May, pp. 26–27, 2015.
  73. S. Ravipati, “Biggest Challenges Facing K–12 STEM Ed PD, Accountability Systems, CS Curricula -- THE Journal,” The Journal, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://thejournal.com/articles/2017/07/13/biggest-challenges-facing-k12-stem-ed.aspx. [Accessed: 26-Mar-2018].
  74. S. Rhodes, “Challenges to STEM Education and How to Overcome Them -- College Planning & Management,” 1105 Media Inc, 2017. .
  75. S. Kemmis, R. Nixon, and R. McTaggart, The Action Research Planner. Doing Critical Participatory Action Research. Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media, 2014.
  76. S. Billett, C. Harteis, and H. Gruber, Learning Through Practice Models, Traditions, Orientations and Approaches. New York: Springer, 2010.
  77. C. A. Mertler, The Wiley Handbook of Action Research in Education. NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2019.
  78. S. Manesi and S. Betsi, “Collaborative action research projects: The role of communities of practice and mentoring in enhancing teachers’ continuing professional development,” Action Res. Educ., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 109–121, 2013.
  79. P. S. M. dos Santos and G. H. Travassos, Action Research Can Swing the Balance in Experimental Software Engineering, vol. 83. 2011.
  80. L. C. L. M. K. Morrison, “Action Researeh.” pp. 833–880.
  81. J. Villanueva, “Flipped inclusion classroom : An action research,” 21st Annu. Technol. Coll. Community Worldw. Online Conf., pp. 1–16, 2016.
  82. E. Calhoun, “Action Research for School Improvement Action Research at Work: A Teacher’s Story,” vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 18–24, 2002.
  83. W. Carr and S. Kemmis, Becoming Critical. Education, Knowledge and Action Research. Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004.
  84. Y. L. Li, “Teachers in action research: Assumptions and potentials,” Educ. Action Res., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 251–260, 2008.
  85. L. Cohen, L. Manion, and K. Morrison, Research Methods in Education, 8th ed. London, UK: Routledge, 2018.
  86. O. Zuber-Skerritt, M. Fletcher, and J. Kearney, Professional Learning in Higher Education and Communities. Towards a New Vision for Action Research, 1st ed. London, UK: Palgrave, 2015.
  87. P. Newton and D. Burgess, “Exploring Types of Educational Action Research: Implications for Research Validity,” Int. J. Qual. Methods, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 18–30, 2008.
  88. H. Lune and B. L. Berg, Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 9th ed. Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited, 2017.
  89. S. R. Klein, Action Research Methods Plain and Simple. New York: Palgrave Macmillan is, 2012.
  90. L. S. Norton, Action Research in Teaching and Learning. A practical guide to conducting pedagogical research in universities. Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2009.
  91. J. Elliott, Action Research for educational change, 1st ed. Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1991.
  92. I. M. Santos, N. Ali, and A. Hill, “Students as Co-designers of a Virtual Learning Commons: Results of a Collaborative Action Research Study,” J. Acad. Librariansh., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 8–14, 2016.
  93. C. Gibbs, B. Kooyman, K. Marks, and J. Burns, “Mapping the Roadmap: Using Action Research to Develop an Online Referencing Tool,” J. Acad. Librariansh., vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 422–428, 2015.
  94. M. Greeff and L. Coetzee, “Using action research for complex research initiatives,” ICAST 2009 - 2nd Int. Conf. Adapt. Sci. Technol., pp. 331–338, 2009.
  95. Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt, Action Research In Higher Education. FALMER/KP, 1992.
  96. M. Bassey, Doing Qualitative Research in Educational Settings: CASE STUDY RESEARCH IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS. Buckingham: Open University Press, 1999.
  97. A. Asghar, R. Ellington, E. Rice, F. Johnson, and G. M. Prime, “Supporting STEM Education in Secondary Science Contexts,” Interdiscip. J. Probl. Learn., vol. 6, no. 2, 2012.
  98. G. A. Fore, C. R. Feldhaus, B. H. Sorge, M. Agarwal, and K. Varahramyan, “Learning at the nano-level: Accounting for complexity in the internalization of secondary STEM teacher professional development,” Teach. Teach. Educ., vol. 51, pp. 101–112, 2015.
  99. S. M. A. T. Interns, “Action research projects: Engineering,” 2006.
  100. K. Magos, “The contribution of action-research to training teachers in intercultural education: A research in the field of Greek minority education,” Teach. Teach. Educ., vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 1102–1112, 2007.
  101. E. R. Okamura, “Action Research on Flipped Robotics Instruction,” in 22nd Annual Technology, Colleges and Community Worldwide Online Conference, 2018, pp. 1–10.
  102. R. R. Puentedura, “The Evolving Classroom : Action Research as Teaching Practice Four Defining Characteristics of Action Research Practical Nature Change-Oriented Part of a Cyclical Process Teachers are Active Researchers and Participants,” 2014.
  103. S. W. Remit, “Professional development for teachers – inspiring students to take science , technology , engineering and mathematics: Petroc,” no. May, 2015.
  104. T. Saito, Y. Gunji, and Y. Kumano, “The Problem about Technology in STEM Education: Some Findings from Action Research on the Professional Development & Integrated STEM Lessons in Informal Fields,” K-12 STEM Educ., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 85–100, 2015.
  105. M. Viloria, P. S. Gill, and S. Mireles, “Principal Preparation in STEM : An Action Research Project setting,” J. Eff. Sch. Proj., vol. 23, pp. 62–68, 2016.
  106. K. Lesseig, D. Slavit, and T. H. Nelson, “Jumping on the STEM bandwagon: How middle grades students and teachers can benefit from STEM experiences,” Middle Sch. J., vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 15–24, 2017.
  107. P. Michalopoulos, S. Mpania, A. Karatrantou, and C. Panagiotakopoulos, “Introducing STEM to Primary Education Students with Arduino and S4A.,” in Hellenic Conference on Innovating STEM Education, 2016.
  108. M. Wilson, “Opportunities and Factors Affecting adoption of STEM Education: The Case of Gweru Polytechnic First Year Commerce Students. I INTRODUCTION,” Int. J. Bus. Mark. Manag., vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 1–8, 2016.
  109. St. Papadakis, M. Kalogiannakis, V. Orfanakis, and N. Zaranis, “Novice Programming Environments. Scratch & App Inventor: a first comparison,”, In H. M. Fardoun and J. A. Gallud (Eds.) Proceedings of the 2014 Workshop on Interaction Design in Educational Environments., pp. 1-7, New York: ACM, 2014.
  110. St. Papadakis, M. Kalogiannakis, V. Orfanakis, and N. Zaranis, “Using Scratch and App Inventor for teaching introductory programming in Secondary Education. A case study,” International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 8(3-4), pp. 217-233. 2016.
  111. St. Papadakis, M. Kalogiannakis, V. Orfanakis, and N. Zaranis, “The Appropriateness of Scratch and App Inventor as Educational Environments for Teaching Introductory Programming in Primary and Secondary Education,” International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies (IJWLTT), 12(4), pp. 58-77. 2017
  112. N. Vidakis, A.-K. Barianos, A.-M. Trampas, St. Papadakis, M. Kalogiannakis, and K. Vassilakis, “Generating Education in-Game Data: The Case of an Ancient Theatre Serious Game,” In B. McLaren, R. Reilly, S. Zvacek, & J. Uhomoibhi (Eds), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2019), Vol 1, 36-43, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, 2-4 May, 2019, 2019.
  113. St. Papadakis, M. Kalogiannakis, “Using Gamification for Supporting an Introductory Programming Course. The Case of ClassCraft in a Secondary Education Classroom,” In A. Brooks, E. Brooks, N. Vidakis (Eds). Interactivity, Game Creation, Design, Learning, and Innovation. ArtsIT 2017, DLI 2017. Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, vol 229, (pp. 366-375), Switzerland, Cham: Springer, 2018.
  114. St. Papadakis, “The use of computer games in classroom environment,” International Journal of Teaching and Case Studies, 9(1), pp. 1-25, 2018.
  115. St. Papadakis, and M. Kalogiannakis, “Mobile educational applications for children. What educators and parents need to know,” International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation (Special Issue on Mobile Learning Applications and Strategies), 11(3), pp. 256-277, 2017.
Index Terms

Computer Science
Information Sciences

Keywords

Action Research STEM Educational Robotics Literature Review Educational Robot Platforms Open Source Low Cost.

Powered by PhDFocusTM