DEVELOPMENT OF ROBOTICS BASED ACTIVITIES IN TEACHING SCIENCE

Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter, the researcher introduces the research problem, provides

background information on the topic, discusses the research context, and outlines the

structure of the study. This section establishes the study's relevance and creates a

framework for understanding the following research. It will also define the scope of the

study, highlight the gaps in existing literature, and explain the rationale of the study.

Background of the Study

The poor motivation that a discipline carried out strictly in the traditional format

might generate among pupils is evident given the advancements in technology and the

significant influence that these technologies have been exerting on the everyday lives of

young people of school age. Teachers are therefore constantly searching for resources

to motivate pupils, with various forms for instructing and fostering learning. This is

especially true for those associated with technical and undergraduate computer

technology courses. The application of cutting-edge technologies, such as

programming microcontrollers and rudimentary robotics, has shown to be one of the

instruments that works well in this respect. To characterize the background of robotics,
it should be first noted that incorporating robotics into the classroom, particularly when

teaching science, is a useful way to improve student engagement and encourage

creativity, critical thinking, teamwork, and problem-solving abilities. Robotics-based

learning activities help students learn more effectively and passionately by bridging the

gap between theoretical knowledge and real-world applications (Jung & Won, 2018).

Teachers can change the way they teach by introducing robotics into the classroom.

This will inspire students and give them practical experiences that will help them

comprehend scientific ideas more deeply (Barker et al., 2008). Studies show that the

inclusion of robotics in science classes improves students' academic performance,

motivation, and attitudes toward STEM fields (Sutrisno et al., 2021).

One common school problem is a lack of motivation in students due to traditional

methods and oftentimes, robotics is only an elective to special science curriculum

classes, this issue is the premise why DepEd encouraged the teaching of robotics for all

students across various curriculums (DepED, 2024). It was found that students show

strong motivation and success in learning science concepts through tasks involving

robotic kits, in addition to improving their comprehension of science concepts (Kaygisiz

et al., 2020). Additionally, robotics-based instruction closes knowledge gaps, improves

problem-solving techniques, and inspires students to take on abstract scientific

concepts (Verner & Ahlgren, 2004). Although there is no denying the advantages of

robotics in education, there are still issues that need to be resolved, including a lack of

research, potential biases in evaluations, and insufficient support for teachers

(Ntemngwa & Oliver, 2018). To maximize the benefits of robotics-based science

education activities, research must be done to address these constraints (Friedrichsen

et al., 2010). Teachers can design dynamic learning environments that prepare students

for future careers in technology-driven fields by identifying best practices for integrating

robotics (Jaipal-Jamani, 2023).

Focusing on junior high school settings, robotics integration is essential to

improving student engagement and addressing the issue of traditional teaching

methods being monotonous. According to Mubin et al. (2019), robotics-based activities

are useful instruments for piquing students' interest and encouraging active learning in

science classes. Teachers can change their perspectives and methods by incorporating

robotics into the classroom, which will motivate students more and give them

meaningful learning experiences (Sutrisno et al., 2021). Students' creativity, teamwork,

and critical thinking are encouraged in addition to their problem-solving abilities through

these activities (Kwantongon et al., 2022; Verner & Ahlgren, 2019). In addition, robotics-

based activities in science education support abstract concept comprehension,

encourage active learning, and close the gap between theoretical knowledge and

practical applications (Stone & Farkhatdinov, 2019).

The Department of Education (DepEd) has demonstrated its commitment to

improving education in the Philippines through several initiatives, especially by

promoting robotics. DepEd Memorandum No. 176, s., for example. 2016 offers

incentives, like prizes for competing, to entice students to learn about and participate in

robotics activities. This memorandum is an important step in encouraging junior high

school students to become more interested in and proficient with technology by adding

more robotics subjects to their curricula (DepEd, 2024). Furthermore, Section 302 of

DepEd Memorandum UM-REF. No. Comprehensive implementation guidelines for

robotics programs at elementary, junior high, and senior high school levels will be

provided in 2022. This memorandum is in line with international trends in education,

which incorporate Industry 4.0 technologies to boost economies and give students skills

that will make them globally competitive (DepEd, 2022). These programs are essential

for tackling issues in education and getting students ready for the technological

environments of the future.

The way engineering and science are taught at all educational levels has been

profoundly impacted by the use of robotics in the classroom because it provides a

methodical approach to instruction and fosters creativity (Mubin et al., 2019). Students

can better understand the science underlying robot designs, program robot parts, and

discuss science concepts by working hands-on with robot kits. This encourages

students to think creatively and actively about science and this finding is also applicable

to use of robotics on other subjects as well (Mubin et al., 2019). These activities range

in complexity and depth to meet the needs of learners at various educational levels,

from elementary school to higher education (Mubin et al., 2019). Furthermore, the

creation of robotics-based activities promotes cooperation, sharing, and compassion

among students in addition to improving science learning, particularly when done in

group settings (Mubin et al., 2019).

According to Sullivan and Mariarty (2019), As teachers gain more experience

with robotics, their perceptions and practice about learning and integration of robotic

concepts into teaching may evolve. According to the studies of Kopcha et al. (2019)

found that one of the effective ways of teaching science concepts to students is to
integrate robotics into instruction or teachers who intend to integrate robotics and by

this, their perception and practice may evolve due to the experience with robotics.

The effects of integrating robotics into science education at different grade levels

have been studied recently. Previous studies have looked into how elementary and

junior high schools might employ robotic kits as constructionist tools to teach science to

pupils through practical programming exercises.

Students' problem-solving skills have improved and their engagement with

meaningful learning has grown because to robotics activities (Kaloti-Hallak et al., 2019).

Students who were learning robotics and computer science concepts showed a strong

drive to succeed in addition to their accomplishments.

As stated by Conde et al. (2021). When kids are able to apply their critical

thinking, creativity, and teamwork abilities, they study science. This demonstrates the

validity of the scientific education method. Closing the learning gap between students'

experiences and real-world learning in authentic settings is one of the biggest issues

facing science education. Science subject is difficult because of its unfamiliarity and

unstructured learning practices. Therefore, fostering a bridge to genuine real-life

circumstances is one of the objectives of science education.

This research study would deepen the understanding of the students in science

through the use of developed robotics-based activities and these can be suitable for

learners in Junior High School especially those in Science, Technology, and

Engineering (STE) classes. The activities may vary in depth depending on the level of

the learners and may include basic to advanced programming, and the use of robots for
demonstration of science concepts. The activities will involve the utilization of robotics

kits that include microcontrollers and sensors to aid learners in understanding the

concepts in science.

Literature Review

Improving Student Engagement and Motivation

Robotics activities in science classes have become popular because they get

students more engaged and motivated. Bravo et al. (2021) point out that these robot

tasks make students curious and help them be creative. Students find these activities

motivating, and they learn a lot from them too (Bravo et al. 2021).

Experts view educational robotics as a useful teaching tool. Teachers need to

prepare well to create and use robot-based lessons (Dorotea et al., 2021; Piedade,

2021). Bravo (2021) posited that robot activities can help kids learn science skills.

These also include watching, guessing, and looking at complex information.

Coşkunserçe (2021) also studied how teacher-led robot lessons affect students. He

found they boost motivation, make kids happy, and improve science abilities.

Zhang et al. (2021) and Zhang (2023) conducted systematic reviews that show

educational robots boost students' computational thinking, STEM attitudes, and

engagement. These studies highlight how robotics can enhance learning experiences.

Recent work by Darmawansah et al. (2023) and Orhani (2023) points out the rising

popularity of robotics activities. Their research also demonstrates that these activities

have a positive influence on student motivation in science classes.

 The research also looks at how robots affect grades and skill growth. Talan

(2021) did a big study that shows robots in class help students do better. Al-Nawaiseh

(2024) found that robot teachers made students way better at engineering math than

normal classes did.

There is more and more proof that using robots to teach science is beneficial.

These robot activities don't just make kids more into learning and motivated. They also

help students get better grades and learn important skills they'll need to do well in

science, tech, engineering, and math-related jobs.

Enhancing Critical Thinking, Teamwork, and Problem-Solving

Experts see educational robotics as a useful way to build critical thinking and

teamwork (Bravo et al., 2021). Zhang et al. (2021) found that these activities boost

creativity and teamwork. Students get to work on hard problems together, which is

crucial for science and tech jobs. These hands-on projects give learners a chance to

use their critical thinking in novel ways. They learn to think outside the box and figure

out problems as a team. It's not just about building robots - it's about building skills that'll

help them in the future.

Zhang (2023) and Darmawansah et al. (2023) stress how important it is for

teachers to incorporate robotics activities in class. These activities help students think

critically. Orhani (2023) also points out that mixing robotics with other subjects in school

is another useful tactic. This combination helps students solve problems and think more.

Teachers need to plan their methodology well to incorporate robotics in class.

 Research shows robotics activities help students develop important people skills

and self-awareness in robotics classes (Talan, 2021). These skills are key for long-term

success. Teachers use hands-on robot projects to boost problem-solving, teamwork,

and critical thinking. This prepares kids for future STEM challenges.

Impact on Academic Achievement and Learning Experiences

Robotics has been shown to have a positive impact on student's academic

performance and learning experiences. Jaipal-Jamani (2023) discovered that robotics

improves students' academic performance. Akram et al. (2022) found that hands-on

programming tasks with robotic kits help students better understand computer science

concepts. Furthermore, Barker et al. (2019) proposed that robotics-based learning

activities enhance learning outcomes by offering real-world and experiential learning

opportunities.

Furthermore, Talan (2021) conducted a meta-analysis study on the impact of

educational robotic applications on academic achievement, emphasizing the importance

of experimental research into such applications. Belpaeme et al. (2018) also discussed

the use of social robots in education, emphasizing the need for controlled experimental

trials to assess the impact on learners' progress.

Integration of Robotics in Curriculum and Teaching Strategies

Integrating robotics into the curriculum has been shown to improve teaching

strategies and better prepare students for technologically driven careers. Ntemngwa

and Oliver (2019) emphasized the benefits of incorporating robotics into teaching

methods and its role in preparing students for future technological careers (Talan,

2021). Furthermore, Mubin et al. (2019) conducted a study on technology integration,

providing valuable insights for policymakers seeking to improve educational quality

through technology incorporation (Belpaeme et al., 2018).

Furthermore, Alsoliman (2018) investigated Saudi teachers' attitudes toward

using educational robotics in schools, revealing both the potential benefits and

challenges of incorporating robotics into teaching practices. Kopcha et al. (2017)

proposed developing an integrative STEM curriculum to increase the inclusion of

robotics in elementary education, emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive

curriculum design approach.

Advantages and Evidence of Technology Integration in Education

The use of technology in education is widely recognized for improving students'

learning outcomes and engagement. Stone and Farkhatdinov (2019) and Verner and

Ahlgren (2019) study the benefits of incorporating technology, particularly in areas such

as robotics, which improve problem-solving skills, cognitive abilities, and student

interest in STEM subjects. This is consistent with Musti-Rao's (2016) findings, which
emphasize the importance of systematically preparing teachers to incorporate

technology into their instruction in order to improve learning outcomes.

Silva (2024) emphasizes the importance of technology integration in generating

practical knowledge for addressing specific educational challenges and improving

overall learning experiences. Garba et al. (2013) emphasize the importance of

incorporating technology not only into the curriculum, but also into pedagogical

practices in order to effectively improve teacher education and student achievement.

Furthermore, Chen et al. (2019) identify prior knowledge of technology

incorporation, high TPCK scores, and supportive school policies as important predictors

of successful technology integration in the curriculum. This emphasizes the importance

of professional development and support systems for educators seeking to effectively

integrate technology into their teaching practices.

Challenges and Limitations

Recent research has identified several challenges and limitations associated with

technology integration in education. Sutrisno et al. (2021) highlight the limited scope of

investigations and potential biases in evaluating student performance, arguing for more

comprehensive and unbiased assessment methods. Friedrichsen et al. (2019)

emphasize the lack of teacher support and preparation, emphasizing the importance of

professional development initiatives to provide educators with the skills needed for

effective technology integration. Hew and Brush (2019) discuss the limitations of current
technology integration practices and advocate for more effective strategies to overcome

barriers in educational settings.

Synthesis of Related Literatures

Improving the student engagement and motivation is clearly important. It has

been determined by Talan (2021) and Al-Nawaiseh (2024) that in order to achieve

better student engagement and motivation, curriculum must be iintegrated and

developed. This is relatively important to the fact that Robotics Science is still a new

thing which can enhance the engagement and motivation of learners. Inclusion of

robotics in the science curriculum shall integrate learner engagement and motivation.

Through inclusion of the Robotics in the Science curriculum, it is expected that

critical thinking, teamwork and problem solving are to be developed. As can be

determined by Zhang, et al. (2021), Bravo, et al. (2021), and Orhani (2023) has

indicated that robotics can help enhance the critical thinking, teamwork and problem

solving skills. It is due to the fact that robotics concept require these three (3) essential

skills that may improve the learning experience and outcomes from the learners.

In relation to the study, the literature simply proves that inclusion of robotics

curriculum may improve the performance and achievement of the learners. Robotics

Education has demonstrated an improvement in academic performance among

students. It improves students' critical thinking abilities and fosters a deeper

comprehension of STEM concepts by involving them in hands-on, problem-solving

activities. Concepts from science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and robotics

are directly applied. These subjects are taught to students in a real-world setting, which
makes learning more interesting and effective. Students must analyze information,

devise inventive solutions, and break down complex problems into smaller steps in

order to construct and program robots.

Including robotics in the curriculum can have a significant impact on student

learning and engagement. Advanced mechanics normally lines up with STEM subjects.

Mechanical technology can be incorporated into different subjects also. For project-

based learning, robotics projects are excellent options. To solve real-world problems,

students can design, build, and program robots together. Through robotics projects,

encourage students to identify issues, devise solutions, and test their concepts.

Teachers can create engaging and effective learning experiences for their students by

carefully planning and implementing robotics education.

The integration of technology into the classroom has numerous advantages for

both students and teachers. Student interest and motivation can be increased by using

interactive tools, multimedia content, and gamification. Students learn essential digital

skills for the 21st century through technology integration. Innovation empowers

educators to give shifted opportunities for growth to assorted students. Technology

facilitates blended and online learning by providing teachers and students with flexibility.

While mechanical technology schooling offers colossal potential, it likewise

accompanies a few difficulties and impediments. Advanced mechanics units and

programming can be costly, making it challenging for schools with restricted spending

plans to carry out powerful projects. For robotics education, adequate technological

infrastructure—including dependable internet connectivity—is necessary, but it might

not be available everywhere. To teach robotics and programming effectively, many

teachers lack the necessary training and experience. Educators as of now have weighty

responsibilities, and integrating mechanical technology training can time-consume.

Inequalities in educational opportunities may arise because students from

disadvantaged backgrounds may have restricted access to robotics and technology

resources. Due to the hands-on and project-based nature of robotics, it can be

challenging to develop effective assessments to measure student learning.

Theoretical Framework

The integration of robotics into science education to foster sustainable teaching

practices is underpinned by a theoretical framework that draws from multiple theories

and perspectives. The opinions of educators regarding the teaching of STEM and

robotics in preschool settings are critical in determining the direction of educational

practices (Fridberg et al., 2022). The study highlights the significance of comprehending

educators' perspectives on robotics integration to improve STEM learning outcomes

(Fridberg et al., 2022).

The development of technology into learning strategies and methodologies has

raised as a critical area of focus in response to the ongoing advancements in modernity.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), a model proposed by Punya

Mishra and Matthew J. Koehler in 2021, includes comprehensive knowledge concerning

the interactions among technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge domains.

This framework expands on Lee Shulman’s prior development of Pedagogical Content

Knowledge (PCK) and integrates technological content knowledge providing a more

comprehensive view of the current pedagogy and andragogy processes.

 TPACK framework proves useful in the contemporary paradigm of learning and

teaching as technology is abundant and capable of altering traditional teaching

practices. As a framework that focuses on elaborate relationships between CK, PK, and

TK, TPACK allows for the development of proper strategies when integrating technology

into instruction. The framework stresses that, essentially, the teachers must understand

the opportunities that technology can present to support enhancing the instruction and

the subjects and, consequently, the performance of the learners.

Utilizing the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge Framework

(TPACK) as a framework for teaching mathematical problem solving is one well-known

approach. Rodgers (2018) says that the TPACK Framework is a technology integration

framework that helps people figure out three kinds of knowledge that teachers need to

combine in order for educational technology integration to work. It gives a guide to

figuring out how to coordinate advances proficiently in study hall educating.

According to Kurt (2019), TPACK has been a powerful principle for nearly a

decade. Viable execution of innovation requires affirmation of instructional method and

innovation. This only demonstrates the effectiveness of the TPACK framework when

applied to education. This strategic thinking, according to Niess (2011), includes

knowing when, where, and how to use domain-specific knowledge and strategies to

direct students' learning with the right information and communication technologies.

When this framework is properly implemented and utilized, it has been effective

in improving teachers' and students' learning and teaching, as Alhababi (2017) points

out. Teachers can significantly improve education's future by utilizing technology. As a

result, TPACK has given teachers a comprehensive understanding of how to use

modern technology to maximize learning.

Technology also develops over time. In light of this ongoing circumstance, it is

necessary to determine whether the TPACK framework can still be utilized in the current

timeline. The purpose of the study is to determine how well TPACK functions as a

teaching strategy for problem-solving in online learning environments.

Another theory that is anchored to the study is the constructivist learning theory.

Constructivist Learning Theory is also known as Constructivism. This theory suggests

that experiences and interactions with the world help people actively construct their own

knowledge and understanding. Learners build their own mental representations and

incorporate new information into their existing knowledge structures (schemas), rather

than passively receiving information. People who learn do not need to be filled with

knowledge. Through investigation, experimentation, and problem-solving, they actively

participate in the learning process. Learners construct new understanding by building on

their prior knowledge. Students' prior knowledge should be activated and expanded

upon by teachers. Learning ought to be meaningful to students and relevant to their

lives. Problem-based learning and real-world experiences can improve comprehension.

The study’s conceptual framework is illustrated in Figure 1. As the conceptual

framework aims to show the concepts involved in the study, the researcher has

determined the concepts specifically using the INPUT-PROCESS-OUTPUT Research

Model. As the research model presents, the researcher identifies the three (3) distinct

variables of the study.

 The INPUT variable of the study involves the qualitative and quantitative data

from the respondents as to what extent do robotics-based activities improve students'

comprehension of particular scientific concepts. It also includes the robotics in science

curricula affect students' motivation and level of engagement. It even includes the

approaches which work best for incorporating robotics into science curricula at various

grade levels.

For the PROCESS variable, it involves the data gathering procedure for both

qualitative and quantitative data. It also includes the quantitative data and qualitative

data analysis used by the researcher.

As for the OUTPUT variable,it involves intervention plan and recommendation for

the improvement of the curriculum for robotics subject.

Figure 1

Conceptual Framework of the Study

PROCESS:
INPUT:
Data Gathering for Both
Qualitative and Quantitative Quantitative and Qualitative
Data using:
- Extent of Improvement of - Survey Questionnaire for OUTPUT:
Comprehension Quantitative Intervention and
- Motivation and - In-Depth Interview for Improvement for Robotics
Engagement on the Qualitative Science Curriculum
Inclusion of Robotics in
Science Curriculum
- Approaches that Work Best Data Analysis using
for Robotics Curriculum Statistical Tools and
Thematic Analysis
Research Problems

This research aims to determine how well robotics integration can improve science

and related STEM learning outcomes in classroom environments. Through the use of

robotics in the classroom, educators hope to foster a deeper understanding of difficult

concepts, raise students' interest in STEM subjects, and enhance their attitudes toward

STEM subjects and computational thinking abilities. Additionally, the research seeks to

explore the various ways that robotics can create more engaging learning environments

by promoting hands-on learning and making abstract ideas more concrete. Finally, the

study will consider the perspectives of educators to identify best practices and address

the challenges faced in implementing robotics-based activities.

1. To what extent do robotics-based activities improve students' comprehension of

particular scientific concepts?

2. How does the inclusion of robotics in science curricula affect students' motivation

and level of engagement?

3. Which approaches work best for incorporating robotics into science curricula at

various grade levels?

Hypotheses

Ho1: The inclusion of robotics-based activities in science curricula will

significantly improve students' comprehension of particular scientific concepts, increase

their motivation and level of engagement, and lead to more effective learning outcomes

across various grade levels.

Significance of the Study

Incorporating robotics into science education allows academic institutions to

enhance teaching strategies, boost student engagement, and improve learning

outcomes in STEM subjects. By introducing robotics into the curriculum, institutions can

better prepare students for future careers in technology-driven fields and create a more

skilled workforce. This study provides valuable insights for policymakers, demonstrating

how effective technology integration can raise the caliber and relevance of education.

For academic researchers, the study offers evidence on how robotics affects students'

problem-solving, cognition, and attitudes toward STEM, contributing to the growing body

of data supporting technology's classroom benefits. Importantly, the study holds

significance for students by potentially yielding better learning outcomes and

experiences, strengthening their computational thinking abilities, improving

comprehension of complex scientific concepts, and increasing their interest in STEM,

thus preparing them for future academic and professional endeavors.

Limitations

Although robotics-based activities support STEM learning, one potential

weakness could be the narrow scope of the investigation. As noted by Jaipal-Jamani

(2023), not all areas of STEM or science were thoroughly explored by the researchers.

This constraint may affect the findings' generalizability and the thorough comprehension

of robotics' integration into a range of STEM fields. Furthermore, as Barker et al. (2008)

highlighted, students may overestimate or underestimate their performance during the

intervention, which means the claimed improvements in student learning from robotics
activities may not be accurate. This disparity can lead to bias or inaccurate evaluation of

the real effect of robotics-based learning activities on academic performance.

Additionally, the study might not have taken a comprehensive approach to

integrating technology into education. Hew and Brush (2006) underlined the significance

of understanding earlier attempts at technology integration to better guide present

practices. If historical perspectives and knowledge gaps in technology integration are

overlooked, the breadth of insights obtained from the study on robotics-based science

education activities may be restricted. Furthermore, as suggested by Ntemngwa and

Oliver (2018), teachers may need expert technology support to successfully implement

integrated STEM with robotics in the classroom. Inadequate support or training for

teachers can hinder the overall integration of technology into science education and

make it more difficult to implement robotics-based activities effectively.

Delimitations

The research theme indicates that a crucial delineation in science education

could be the emphasis on particular learning domains. The study's narrow focus on

technology integration within specific learning domains may limit its ability to offer a

thorough analysis of the wider consequences of integrating robotics in various

educational settings. As noted by Jung and Won, the study may also be limited by the

age range or educational attainment of the participants engaged in robotics-based

activities. If the study primarily focuses on young children or a particular age group, its

findings may not be directly app licable to other educational levels, thereby restricting

the generalizability of the results. Additionally, as Fonseca et al. discuss, the study's
boundaries may result from the specific pedagogical approaches or analytical

techniques used when teaching robotics. By concentrating on particular interventions or

techniques, the study may overlook other approaches that could also enhance students'

understanding of robotics concepts. Furthermore, as Cano suggests, the study's

limitations might stem from the geographic setting or cultural elements influencing the

application of robotics in science education. If the study is confined to a specific region

or cultural context, its findings may not be broadly applicable, limiting the research's

relevance to diverse educational settings.

Definition of Terms

Active Engagement is the refers to the level of involvement and participation

students demonstrate during the learning process. Instead of passively receiving

information, it occurs when students actively participate, interact with the material, and

construct their own understanding.

Hands-on activities are learning opportunities that involve the direct handling of

materials or objects. They make learning more interesting and effective by encouraging

active participation and exploration.

Robotics-based activities are educational endeavors that employ robots to

involve students in practical learning experiences associated with scientific principles

(Jaipal-Jamani, 2023). The purpose of these activities is to improve students'

comprehension of scientific principles by using real-world robotics applications.

Operationally, this study explores robotics-based activities in teaching science.

 Robotics Integration in

Science refers to the methodical study of the natural world through observation,

experimentation, and analysis to comprehend the underlying principles governing

various phenomena. Within the framework of this investigation, science education

centers on imparting scientific knowledge via dynamic and captivating techniques, like

activities involving robotics, according to Friedrichsen et al. (2010). Operationally, this

study will include all scientific fields taught at schools within its scope.

Technology integration refers to the use of technological resources and tools in

educational settings (Akram et al., 2022). Technology integration in science education

seeks to use instruments such as robotics to increase the effectiveness, interactivity,

and engagement of science instruction. Operationally, this study will explore technology

integration in specific learning areas, which is Science and its related fields in STEM.

Summary

As technology becomes increasingly ingrained in students' lives, teachers must

find effective teaching resources. Robotics-based learning activities have shown

significant potential in enhancing students' capacity for meaningful learning and

problem-solving. Research by Kopcha et al. (2019) and Sullivan and Mariarty (2019)

indicates that incorporating robotics into science education can improve student

motivation and achievement in science and computer science by changing teachers'

practices and perceptions.

 The purpose of this research is to determine how well robotics integration

contributes to STEM learning objectives, deepens students' comprehension of

challenging concepts, and enhances students' interest in and attitudes toward STEM

fields. It aims to identify best practices for integrating robotics into diverse educational

contexts, provide recommendations for teacher training and professional development,

and offer evidence-based insights through systematic reviews and experimental studies.

The study is significant as it can improve teaching methods, learning outcomes, and

future career preparation in technology-driven fields, benefiting academic institutions,

policymakers, researchers, and students alike.

References

Akram, H., Abdelrady, A., Al-Adwan, A., & Ramzan, M. (2022). Teachers’ perceptions

of technology integration in teaching-learning practices: a systematic review.

Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.920317

Barker, B., Nugent, G., Grandgenett, N., & Hampton, A. (2008). Examining 4-h robotics

in the learning of science, engineering and technology topics and the related

student attitudes. Journal of Youth Development, 2(3), 17-Jun.

https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2008.329

Conde, M. Á., Rodríguez-Sedano, F. J., Fernández-Llamas, C., Gonçalves, J., Lima, J.,

& García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2021). Fostering STEAM through challenge-based

learning, robotics, and physical devices: A systematic mapping literature

review. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 46–65.

DepEd (2024). Robot Education - DepEd. Robotics in K-12 Education.

https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/04-RoboticsinK-

12Education_MelvinMatulac.pdf

DepEd (2024). DM_S2016_176.PDF - DepEd. deped.gov.ph.

https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/DM_s2016_176.pdf

DepEd (2022). Republic of the Philippines Schools Division Office - Makati City

Department of Education. Deped Makati City.

 https://depedmakati.ph/index.php/2022/11/11/um-ref-no-302-s-2022-operational-

guidelines-in-diffusing-robotics-program-class-in-the-school/

Friedrichsen, P., Driel, J., & Abell, S. (2010). Taking a closer look at science teaching

orientations. Science Education, 95(2), 358-376.

https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20428

Hew, K. and Brush, T. (2006). Integrating technology into k-12 teaching and learning:

current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational

Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5

Jaipal-Jamani, K. (2023). Preservice teachers’ science learning and self-efficacy to

teach with robotics-based activities: investigating a scaffolded and a self-guided

approach. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.979709

Jaipal-Jamani, K. (2023). Preservice teachers’ science learning and self-efficacy to

teach with robotics-based activities: investigating a scaffolded and a self-guided

approach. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.979709

Kaloti-Hallak, F., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2019). The effect of robotics activities on

learning the engineering design process. Informatics in Education 18(1), 105-

129.

Kopcha, T. J., McGregor, J., Shin, S., Qian, Y., Choi, J., Hill, R., Mativo, J., & Choi, I.

(2019). Developing an integrative STEM curriculum for robotics education

 through educational design research. Journal of Formative Design in Learning,

1(1), 31–44

Kwantongon, J., Suamuang, W., & Kamata, K. (2022). A teaching demonstration set of

a 5-dof robotic arm controlled by plc. International Journal of Information and

Education Technology, 12(12), 1458-1462.

https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2022.12.12.1772

Mubin, O., Stevens, C., Shahid, S., Mahmud, A., & Dong, J. (2019). 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

Ntemngwa, C. and Oliver, J. (2018). The implementation of integrated science

technology, engineering and mathematics (stem) instruction using robotics in the

middle school science classroom. International Journal of Education in

Mathematics Science and Technology, 12-40.

https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.380617

Sullivan, F., & Moriarty, M. (2019). Robotics and discover learning: Pedagogical beliefs,

teacher practice, and technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher

Education, 17, 109–142.

Stone, A. and Farkhatdinov, I. (2019). Robotics education for children at secondary

school level and above., 576-585. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64107-2_47

Sutrisno, S., Winahyo, A., Dardiri, A., Ismail, A., & Harun, M. (2021). The perception

level of thinking models in general and vocational education. Studies of Applied

Economics, 39(10). https://doi.org/10.25115/eea.v39i10.5563

Verner, I. and Ahlgren, D. (2019). Robot contest as a laboratory for experiential

engineering education. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, 4(2), 2.

https://doi.org/10.1145/1071620.1071622

Akram, H., Abdelrady, A., Al-Adwan, A., & Ramzan, M. (2022). Teachers’ perceptions of

technology integration in teaching-learning practices: a systematic review.

Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.920317

Barker, B., Nugent, G., Grandgenett, N., & Hampton, A. (2019). Examining 4-h robotics

in the learning of science, engineering and technology topics and the related

student attitudes. Journal of Youth Development, 2(3), 17-Jun.

https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2008.329

Friedrichsen, P., Driel, J., & Abell, S. (2019). Taking a closer look at science teaching

orientations. Science Education, 95(2), 358-376.

https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20428

Hew, K. and Brush, T. (2019). Integrating technology into k-12 teaching and learning:

current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational

Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5
Jaipal-Jamani, K. (2023). Preservice teachers’ science learning and self-efficacy to

teach with robotics-based activities: investigating a scaffolded and a self-guided

approach. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.979709

Kwantongon, J., Suamuang, W., & Kamata, K. (2022). A teaching demonstration set of

a 5-dof robotic arm controlled by plc. International Journal of Information and

Education Technology, 12(12), 1458-1462.

https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2022.12.12.1772

Mubin, O., Stevens, C., Shahid, S., Mahmud, A., & Dong, J. (2019). 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

Ntemngwa, C. and Oliver, J. (2019). The implementation of integrated science

technology, engineering and mathematics (stem) instruction using robotics in the

middle school science classroom. International Journal of Education in

Mathematics Science and Technology, 12-40.

https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.380617

Stone, A. and Farkhatdinov, I. (2019). Robotics education for children at secondary

school level and above., 576-585. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64107-2_47

Sutrisno, S., Winahyo, A., Dardiri, A., Ismail, A., & Harun, M. (2021). The perception

level of thinking models in general and vocational education. Studies of Applied

Economics, 39(10). https://doi.org/10.25115/eea.v39i10.5563

Verner, I. and Ahlgren, D. (2019). Robot contest as a laboratory for experiential

engineering education. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, 4(2), 2.

https://doi.org/10.1145/1071620.1071622

Fridberg, M., Redfors, A., Greca, I., & Terceño, E. (2022). Spanish and swedish

teachers’ perspective of teaching stem and robotics in preschool – results from

the botstem project. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,

33(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09717-y

Jung, S. and Won, E. (2020). Systematic review of research trends in robotics

education for young children. Sustainability, 10(4), 905.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040905

Kaygisiz, G., Üzümcü, Ö., & Uçar, F. (2020). The case of prospective teachers’

integration of coding-robotics practices into science teaching with stem approach.

İlköğretim Online, 1200-1213. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2020.728020

Merino, P., Sancristobal, E., Carro, G., García-Loro, F., Blázquez, M., & Castro, M.

(2020). European robotics week to introduce robotics and promote engineering.

Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 26(5), 1068-1080.

https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.21966

You, H., Chacko, S., & Kapila, V. Teaching science with technology: scientific and

engineering practices of middle school science teachers engaged in a robot-

integrated professional development program (fundamental)..

https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--33353
Bravo, F., Hurtado, J., & González, E. (2021). Using robots with storytelling and drama

activities in science education. Education Sciences, 11(7), 329.

https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11070329

Darmawansah, D., Hwang, G., Chen, M., & Liang, J. (2023). Trends and research foci

of robotics-based stem education: a systematic review from diverse angles

based on the technology-based learning model. International Journal of Stem

Education, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00400-3

Orhani, S. (2023). Mbot robot as part of project-based learning in stem. Cadernos De

Educação Tecnologia E Sociedade, 16(4), 862-872.

https://doi.org/10.14571/brajets.v16.n4.862-872

Talan, T. (2021). The effect of educational robotic applications on academic

achievement: a meta-analysis study. International Journal of Technology in

Education and Science, 5(4), 512-526. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.242

Zhang, X. (2023). Engaging young students in effective robotics education: an

embodied learning-based computer programming approach. Journal of

Educational Computing Research, 62(2), 532-558.

https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231213548

Zhang, Y., Luo, R., Zhu, Y., & Yin, Y. (2021). Educational robots improve k-12 students’

computational thinking and stem attitudes: systematic review. Journal of

Educational Computing Research, 59(7), 1450-1481.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633121994070
Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B., & Tanaka, F. (2018).

Social robots for education: a review. Science Robotics, 3(21).

https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954

Talan, T. (2021). The effect of educational robotic applications on academic

achievement: a meta-analysis study. International Journal of Technology in

Education and Science, 5(4), 512-526. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.242

Alsoliman, B. (2018). The utilization of educational robotics in saudi schools: potentials

and barriers from the perspective of saudi teachers. International Education

Studies, 11(10), 105. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v11n10p105

Kopcha, T., McGregor, J., Shin, S., Qian, Y., Choi, J., Hill, R., … & Choi, I. (2017).

Developing an integrative stem curriculum for robotics education through

educational design research. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 1(1), 31-

44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-017-0005-1

Chen, H., Liao, L., Chang, Y., Hung, C., & Chang, L. (2019). Factors influencing

technology integration in the curriculum for taiwanese health profession

educators: a mixed-methods study. International Journal of Environmental

Research and Public Health, 16(14), 2602.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142602

Garba, S., Singh, T., & Yusuf, N. (2013). Integrating technology in teacher education

curriculum and pedagogical practices: the effects of web-based technology

 resources on pre-service teachers’ achievement in teacher education training..

https://doi.org/10.2991/icista.2013.14

Silva, J. (2024). Academic path linked to research and extension: the experience of the

remote experimentation laboratory (rexlab) of the federal university of santa

catarina. Revista De Gestão Social E Ambiental, 18(9), e06369.

https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v18n9-063