robotics dissertation

• College of Computing

Ph.D. in Robotics

The Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Machines (IRIM ) serves as the flagship for Tech’s robotics efforts and therefore, the research institute has an integral relationship with the program. Almost all of IRIM faculty members serve as research advisors to students pursuing the robotics degree.

The program supports Tech’s mission to provide education in disciplines related to science, technology, and interdisciplinary areas, and to recruit and educate outstanding students who will provide leadership in a world that is increasingly dependent on technology. Currently, Tech has more than 40 faculty members actively engaged in the Ph.D. robotics program.

Admission Requirements

The Georgia Tech criteria used in determining each applicant’s eligibility for consideration includes:

• A bachelor’s degree or its equivalent (prior to matriculation) from a recognized institution; graduation in the upper quarter of their class; students must show evidence of preparation in their chosen field sufficient to ensure profitable graduate study;
• GRE scores (General Test is required for all; Subject Tests in Computer Science, Math or Physics recommended but not required);
• For international applicants, satisfactory scores on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). Minimum scores are 100 (Internet-based test), 250 (computer-based) or 600 (paper-based).

Students enroll for the Robotics Ph.D. Program through one of the participating units:

• Aerospace Engineering
• Biomedical Engineering
• Electrical and Computer Engineering
• Mechanical Engineering

Students should indicate that they are applying for the Robotics Program through that unit by marking a check box. As minimum requirements, students must satisfy all of the specific admission requirements of the home unit.

The Robotics Ph.D. Program Committee will make final admission decisions in coordination with the home units.

Decisions are based on a combination of factors:

• Academic degrees and records
• Statement of purpose
• Letters of recommendation
• GRE and TOEFL test scores
• Relevant work experience

Also considered is the appropriateness of the applicant’s goals to the Robotics Ph.D. Program, their expected abilities in carrying out original research, and the faculty research interests.

Complete the online application . 

Program of Study

The main emphasis of the  Robotics Ph.D. program  is the successful completion of an original and independent research thesis. The degree requirements are designed around this goal.

Minimum Requirements

• Completion of 36 semester hours of courses with a letter grade
• Passing a comprehensive qualifying exam with written and oral components.
• Successfully conducting, documenting, and defending a piece of original research culminating in a doctoral thesis.

Ph.D. Candidacy

Prior to completing all of these requirements, Georgia Tech defines the Ph.D Candidate milestones. Admission to candidacy requires that the student:

• Complete all course requirements (except the minor);
• Achieve a satisfactory scholastic record;
• Pass the comprehensive examination;
• Submit and receive approval naming the dissertation topic and delineating the research topic.

Core Area Courses

The core areas of robotics consist of: Mechanics, Control, Perception, Artificial Intelligence, Autonomy and Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). They are used to select three foundation courses and three targeted elective courses. Visit phdrobotics.gatech.edu/program for a full list of core area courses.

Qualifying Exam

The purpose of the comprehensive exam is to assess the student’s general knowledge of the degree area and specialized knowledge of the chosen research area. The comprehensive examination provides an early assessment of the student's potential to satisfactorily complete the requirements for the doctoral degree. As such, it requires that fundamental principles be mastered and integrated so that they can be applied to solving problems relevant to robotics.

After three regular semesters (Fall or Spring) from entering the Ph.D. program the student must take the comprehensive examination at the next scheduled offering, usually during the fourth regular semester. If the comprehensive examination is failed, the student may have one additional opportunity at the next scheduled offering. The examination will be offered at least once every year.

The comprehensive exam is a written and oral examination and is administered by a faculty committee, selected by the thesis advisor in consultation with the student, and approved by the Robotics Program Committee. The committee consists of:

• Three faculty members consistent with the student's graduate coursework and research area.
• The thesis advisor as a non-voting observer.

From the Catalog:

• Dissertations & Theses
• Collections
• < Previous

Home > Dissertations > 520

Yale Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Dissertations

A Robotic Skin-Based Approach to Soft Robotics

Dylan Shah , Yale University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Follow

Date of Award

Spring 2022

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science (ENAS)

First Advisor

Kramer-Bottiglio, Rebecca

Typical robots are designed to achieve a single function in a controlled environment and lack the ability to generalize to new tasks. In their quest to build more capable robots, engineers have explored many avenues, including artificial intelligence, reconfigurable robots, and leveraging deformable materials that naturally absorb impacts and conform to objects. In this dissertation, I build upon these latter two bodies of work and introduce reconfigurable robotic skins, working toward the long-term vision of general-purpose robots. By applying the skins to different objects, new functionalities can be obtained, and this layer-based approach to robot design allows engineers to endow unused surfaces with desired actuation, sensing, and switchable structural properties. My focus on robotic skins has yielded several technical results, including skins that can be applied to the surface of different deformable bodies to create robots, morphing robots that change shape to overcome obstacles or change gaits to operate in new environments, and jamming skins that support objects from their surface. Combining these foundational ideas, I then demonstrate variable-stiffness robotic skins that can move on their own, in addition to locking into a desired shape. Finally, I have used the robotic skin concept to devise a new way to measure the shape of soft structures from their surface, using sensorized stretchable circuits. The reconfigurable robotic skins introduced herein could find application in fields such as healthcare and space exploration, serving as continuum manipulators, supportive exosuits, and smart textiles. Collectively, my work points toward new types of robots, where wide-ranging functionality is embedded in reconfigurable sheets.

Recommended Citation

Shah, Dylan, "A Robotic Skin-Based Approach to Soft Robotics" (2022). Yale Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Dissertations . 520. https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/gsas_dissertations/520

This document is currently not available here.

Since April 18, 2023

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Disciplines
• Researcher Profiles
• Author Help

Copyright, Publishing and Open Access

• Terms & Conditions
• Open Access at Yale
• Yale University Library
• Yale Law School Repository

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Dissertation Proposal

Proposal Defense and Summary

i. The proposal defense is to be completed after the passing of the Ph.D. Qualifying Exam.

ii. The proposal defense is comprised of 3 parts: a written proposal, a public oral presentation and a closed oral defense of the proposal.

iii. The student is required to submit a written research proposal and proposal summary to the supervisory committee at least 2 weeks prior to the proposal defense.

1. Written Research Proposal requirements:

a. Must follow standard format such as those suggested by NSF (see NSF Proposal Preparation Instructions), DOE, NIH, or other funding agencies as appropriate.

b. Include a budget, two-page bio-sketch, and a one-page summary.

c. Project description must be 15 pages or less and include a time table.

2. The Proposal Summary requirements:

a. Provide a succinct, one-page description of what your Ph.D. research will accomplish.

b. Your supervisory committee will have a clear understanding of your overall plan and approach after reading this one-page summary.

c. To be submitted with the written research proposal to the supervisory committee 2 weeks prior to the proposal defense. If the committee suggests changes, a revised and approved version must be submitted to the Graduate Coordinator no later than 2 weeks after the proposal defense date.

Announcement Template (must be submitted to your grad advisor at least 1 week prior to proposal date)

Phd proposal defense report, defense summary.

Integrating Optimization and Sampling for Robot Motion Planning with Applications in Healthcare

Add to collection, downloadable content.

• Affiliation: College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Computer Science
• Robots deployed in human-centric environments, such as a person's home in a home-assistance setting or inside a person's body in a surgical setting, have the potential to have a large, positive impact on human quality of life. However, for robots to operate in such environments they must be able to move efficiently while avoiding colliding with obstacles such as objects in the person's home or sensitive anatomical structures in the person's body. Robot motion planning aims to compute safe and efficient motions for robots that avoid obstacles, but home assistance and surgical robots come with unique challenges that can make this difficult. For instance, many state of the art surgical robots have computationally expensive kinematic models, i.e., it can be computationally expensive to predict their shape as they move. Some of these robots have hybrid dynamics, i.e., they consist of multiple stages that behave differently. Additionally, it can be difficult to plan motions for robots while leveraging real-world sensor data, such as point clouds. In this dissertation, we demonstrate and empirically evaluate methods for overcoming these challenges to compute high-quality and safe motions for robots in home-assistance and surgical settings. First, we present a motion planning method for a continuum, parallel surgical manipulator that accounts for its computationally expensive kinematics. We then leverage this motion planner to optimize its kinematic design chosen prior to a surgical procedure. Next, we present a motion planning method for a 3-stage lung tumor biopsy robot that accounts for its hybrid dynamics and evaluate the robot and planner in simulation and in inflated porcine lung tissue. Next, we present a motion planning method for a home-assistance robot that leverages real-world, point-cloud obstacle representations. We then expand this method to work with a type of continuum surgical manipulator, a concentric tube robot, with point-cloud anatomical representations. Finally, we present a data-driven machine learning method for more accurately estimating the shape of concentric tube robots. By effectively addressing challenges associated with home assistance and surgical robots operating in human-centric environments, we take steps toward enabling robots to have a positive impact on human quality of life.
• Robot Motion Planning
• Surgical Robotics
• Computer science
• Medical Robotics
• https://doi.org/10.17615/j14c-rw49
• Dissertation
• Alterovitz, Ron
• Amato, Nancy M
• Burgner-Kahrs, Jessica
• Duggirala, Parasara S
• Niethammer, Marc
• Doctor of Philosophy
• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Graduate School

This work has no parents.

Select type of work

Master's papers.

Deposit your masters paper, project or other capstone work. Theses will be sent to the CDR automatically via ProQuest and do not need to be deposited.

Scholarly Articles and Book Chapters

Deposit a peer-reviewed article or book chapter. If you would like to deposit a poster, presentation, conference paper or white paper, use the “Scholarly Works” deposit form.

Undergraduate Honors Theses

Deposit your senior honors thesis.

Scholarly Journal, Newsletter or Book

Deposit a complete issue of a scholarly journal, newsletter or book. If you would like to deposit an article or book chapter, use the “Scholarly Articles and Book Chapters” deposit option.

Deposit your dataset. Datasets may be associated with an article or deposited separately.

Deposit your 3D objects, audio, images or video.

Poster, Presentation, Protocol or Paper

Deposit scholarly works such as posters, presentations, research protocols, conference papers or white papers. If you would like to deposit a peer-reviewed article or book chapter, use the “Scholarly Articles and Book Chapters” deposit option.

PRIDE MONTH

Fall Term 2021 Updates

Michigan Robotics

Work together, create smart machines, serve society.

• Current Student Resources

Dissertation Committee Formation and Proposal

Dissertation committee formation.

At least one month before the thesis proposal, the student must have their Dissertation Committee approved by both the Robotics Grad Chair and Rackham.

The completed Dissertation Committee Form should be sent by email to the Robotics Grad Coordinator. If requesting a committee member outside of U-M their CV as well as a short statement describing their expertise in the dissertation topic must accompany the Dissertation Committee Form.

In collaboration with the Dissertation Chair(s), the student forms a Dissertation Committee following specific guidelines regarding the composition of the Committee. A Robotics Ph.D. student’s dissertation committee first must satisfy  Rackham’s Guidelines for Dissertation Committees . 

Robotics Institute Dissertation Committee formation rules:

• The committee must consist of four or more members; at least two of the members must be affiliated with the Robotics program.
• The Research Advisor will serve as Chair of the dissertation committee. The research advisor must be a Core Member of the Robotics Faculty. It is customary for the co-advisor (if applicable) to serve on the dissertation committee.
• One of the Committee members must be designated as “cognate member.” Cognate members must be a tenured-track faculty in a Rackham graduate program and be primarily engaged in a research area outside of the candidate’s. The cognate member may or may not be a member of the Robotics faculty.
• The Robotics Graduate Program Chair must approve the thesis committee.   

Thesis Proposal

When the student is ready to complete the Research Thesis Proposal, the student must complete the following:

• Schedule an oral presentation with the Dissertation Committee.
• Submit the written thesis proposal to the Dissertation Committee at least two weeks in advance of the oral presentation. The format (length and content) of the written document is up to the discretion of the candidate’s Chair/Committee. 

During the Thesis Proposal presentation, the student should:

• Precisely identify and describe the area of research. 
• Demonstrate an in-depth understanding of the area including mastery of the literature on the subject area. 
• Give a general description of the research problem to be addressed.
• Provide an outline of the methodology to be utilized. 

During and after the Thesis Proposal presentation, the Dissertation Committee will explore the proposed research with the student in order to provide guidance and make an evaluation of its suitability. The committee will determine if the student has or does not have an acceptable proposal. 

The Ph.D. Thesis Proposal Form must be completed and returned to the Graduate Coordinator after the Thesis Proposal.

Additionally, as noted in the graduate program manual :

Failure to have an acceptable proposal requires revising the proposal and within 12 months presenting another formal oral presentation that is deemed satisfactory by the committee.

Students entering the Ph.D. Program without a relevant Master’s degree must write and orally present the Research Thesis Proposal within 48 months of entry. Students entering with a relevant Master’s degree must present within 36 months. Insufficient research progress could potentially result in the student being placed on academic probation. 

• Open access
• Published: 10 February 2023

Trends and research foci of robotics-based STEM education: a systematic review from diverse angles based on the technology-based learning model

• Darmawansah Darmawansah   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3464-4598 1 ,
• Gwo-Jen Hwang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5155-276X 1 , 3 ,
• Mei-Rong Alice Chen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2722-0401 2 &
• Jia-Cing Liang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1134-527X 1  

International Journal of STEM Education volume  10 , Article number:  12 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

17k Accesses

18 Citations

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

Fostering students’ competence in applying interdisciplinary knowledge to solve problems has been recognized as an important and challenging issue globally. This is why STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) education has been emphasized at all levels in schools. Meanwhile, the use of robotics has played an important role in STEM learning design. The purpose of this study was to fill a gap in the current review of research on Robotics-based STEM (R-STEM) education by systematically reviewing existing research in this area. This systematic review examined the role of robotics and research trends in STEM education. A total of 39 articles published between 2012 and 2021 were analyzed. The review indicated that R-STEM education studies were mostly conducted in the United States and mainly in K-12 schools. Learner and teacher perceptions were the most popular research focus in these studies which applied robots. LEGO was the most used tool to accomplish the learning objectives. In terms of application, Technology (programming) was the predominant robotics-based STEM discipline in the R-STEM studies. Moreover, project-based learning (PBL) was the most frequently employed learning strategy in robotics-related STEM research. In addition, STEM learning and transferable skills were the most popular educational goals when applying robotics. Based on the findings, several implications and recommendations to researchers and practitioners are proposed.

Introduction

Over the past few years, implementation of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education has received a positive response from researchers and practitioners alike. According to Chesloff ( 2013 ), the winning point of STEM education is its learning process, which validates that students can use their creativity, collaborative skills, and critical thinking skills. Consequently, STEM education promotes a bridge between learning in authentic real-life scenarios (Erdoğan et al., 2016 ; Kelley & Knowles, 2016 ). This is the greatest challenge facing STEM education. The learning experience and real-life situation might be intangible in some areas due to pre- and in-conditioning such as unfamiliarity with STEM content (Moomaw, 2012 ), unstructured learning activities (Sarama & Clements, 2009), and inadequate preparation of STEM curricula (Conde et al., 2021 ).

In response to these issues, the adoption of robotics in STEM education has been encouraged as part of an innovative and methodological approach to learning (Bargagna et al., 2019 ; Ferreira et al., 2018 ; Kennedy et al., 2015 ; Köse et al., 2015 ). Similarly, recent studies have reported that the use of robots in school settings has an impact on student curiosity (Adams et al., 2011 ), arts and craftwork (Sullivan & Bers, 2016 ), and logic (Bers, 2008 ). When robots and educational robotics are considered a core part of STEM education, it offers the possibility to promote STEM disciplines such as engineering concepts or even interdisciplinary practices (Okita, 2014 ). Anwar et. al. ( 2019 ) argued that integration between robots and STEM learning is important to support STEM learners who do not immediately show interest in STEM disciplines. Learner interest can elicit the development of various skills such as computational thinking, creativity and motivation, collaboration and cooperation, problem-solving, and other higher-order thinking skills (Evripidou et al., 2020 ). To some extent, artificial intelligence (AI) has driven the use of robotics and tools, such as their application to designing instructional activities (Hwang et al., 2020 ). The potential for research on robotics in STEM education can be traced by showing the rapid increase in the number of studies over the past few years. The emphasis is on critically reviewing existing research to determine what prior research already tells us about R-STEM education, what it means, and where it can influence future research. Thus, this study aimed to fill the gap by conducting a systematic review to grasp the potential of R-STEM education.

In terms of providing the core concepts of roles and research trends of R-STEM education, this study explored beyond the scope of previous reviews by conducting content analysis to see the whole picture. To address the following questions, this study analyzed published research in the Web of Science database regarding the technology-based learning model (Lin & Hwang, 2019 ):

In terms of research characteristic and features, what were the location, sample size, duration of intervention, research methods, and research foci of the R-STEM education research?

In terms of interaction between participants and robots, what were the participants, roles of the robot, and types of robot in the R-STEM education research?

In terms of application, what were the dominant STEM disciplines, contribution to STEM disciplines, integration of robots and STEM, pedagogical interventions, and educational objectives of the R-STEM research?

• Literature review

Previous studies have investigated the role of robotics in R-STEM education from several research foci such as the specific robot users (Atman Uslu et al., 2022 ; Benitti, 2012 ; Jung & Won, 2018 ; Spolaôr & Benitti, 2017 ; van den Berghe et al., 2019 ), the potential value of R-STEM education (Çetin & Demircan, 2020 ; Conde et al., 2021 ; Zhang et al., 2021 ), and the types of robots used in learning practices (Belpaeme et al., 2018 ; Çetin & Demircan, 2020 ; Tselegkaridis & Sapounidis, 2021 ). While their findings provided a dynamic perspective on robotics, they failed to contribute to the core concept of promoting R-STEM education. Those previous reviews did not summarize the exemplary practice of employing robots in STEM education. For instance, Spolaôr and Benitti ( 2017 ) concluded that robots could be an auxiliary tool for learning but did not convey whether the purpose of using robots is essential to enhance learning outcomes. At the same time, it is important to address the use and purpose of robotics in STEM learning, the connections between theoretical pedagogy and STEM practice, and the reasons for the lack of quantitative research in the literature to measure student learning outcomes.

First, Benitti ( 2012 ) reviewed research published between 2000 and 2009. This review study aimed to determine the educational potential of using robots in schools and found that it is feasible to use most robots to support the pedagogical process of learning knowledge and skills related to science and mathematics. Five years later, Spolaôr and Benitti ( 2017 ) investigated the use of robots in higher education by employing the adopted-learning theories that were not covered in their previous review in 2012. The study’s content analysis approach synthesized 15 papers from 2002 to 2015 that used robots to support instruction based on fundamental learning theory. The main finding was that project-based learning (PBL) and experiential learning, or so-called hands-on learning, were considered to be the most used theories. Both theories were found to increase learners’ motivation and foster their skills (Behrens et al., 2010 ; Jou et al., 2010 ). However, the vast majority of discussions of the selected reviews emphasized positive outcomes while overlooking negative or mixed outcomes. Along the same lines, Jung and Won ( 2018 ) also reviewed theoretical approaches to Robotics education in 47 studies from 2006 to 2017. Their focused review of studies suggested that the employment of robots in learning should be shifted from technology to pedagogy. This review paper argued to determine student engagement in robotics education, despite disagreements among pedagogical traits. Although Jung and Won ( 2018 ) provided information of teaching approaches applied in robotics education, they did not offer critical discussion on how those approaches were formed between robots and the teaching disciplines.

On the other hand, Conde et. al. ( 2021 ) identified PBL as the most common learning approach in their study by reviewing 54 papers from 2006 to 2019. Furthermore, the studies by Çetin and Demircan ( 2020 ) and Tselegkaridis and Sapounidis ( 2021 ) focused on the types of robots used in STEM education and reviewed 23 and 17 papers, respectively. Again, these studies touted learning engagement as a positive outcome, and disregarded the different perspectives of robot use in educational settings on students’ academic performance and cognition. More recently, a meta-analysis by Zhang et. al. ( 2021 ) focused on the effects of robotics on students’ computational thinking and their attitudes toward STEM learning. In addition, a systematic review by Atman Uslu et. al. ( 2022 ) examined the use of educational robotics and robots in learning.

So far, the review study conducted by Atman Uslu et. al. ( 2022 ) could be the only study that has attempted to clarify some of the criticisms of using educational robots by reviewing the studies published from 2006 to 2019 in terms of their research issues (e.g., interventions, interactions, and perceptions), theoretical models, and the roles of robots in educational settings. However, they failed to take into account several important features of robots in education research, such as thematic subjects and educational objectives, for instance, whether robot-based learning could enhance students’ competence of constructing new knowledge, or whether robots could bring either a motivational facet or creativity to pedagogy to foster students’ learning outcomes. These are essential in investigating the trends of technology-based learning research as well as the role of technology in education as a review study is aimed to offer a comprehensive discussion which derived from various angles and dimensions. Moreover, the role of robots in STEM education was generally ignored in the previous review studies. Hence, there is still a need for a comprehensive understanding of the role of robotics in STEM education and research trends (e.g., research issues, interaction issues, and application issues) so as to provide researchers and practitioners with valuable references. That is, our study can remedy the shortcomings of previous reviews (Additional file 1 ).

The above comments demonstrate how previous scholars have understood what they call “the effectiveness of robotics in STEM education” in terms of innovative educational tools. In other words, despite their useful findings and ongoing recommendations, there has not been a thorough investigation of how robots are widely used from all angles. Furthermore, the results of existing review studies have been less than comprehensive in terms of the potential role of robotics in R-STEM education after taking into account various potential dimensions based on the technology-based model that we propose in this study.

The studies in this review were selected from the literature on the Web of Science, our sole database due to its rigorous journal research and qualified studies (e.g., Huang et al., 2022 ), discussing the adoption of R-STEM education, and the data collection procedures for this study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher et al., 2009 ) as referred to by prior studies (e.g., Chen et al., 2021a , 2021b ; García-Martínez et al., 2020 ). Considering publication quality, previous studies (Fu & Hwang, 2018 ; Martín-Páez et al., 2019 ) suggested using Boolean expressions to search Web of Science databases. The search terms for “robot” are “robot” or “robotics” or “robotics” or “Lego” (Spolaôr & Benitti, 2017 ). According to Martín-Páez et. al. ( 2019 ), expressions for STEM education include “STEM” or “STEM education” or “STEM literacy” or “STEM learning” or “STEM teaching” or “STEM competencies”. These search terms were entered into the WOS database to search only for SSCI papers due to its wide recognition as being high-quality publications in the field of educational technology. As a result, 165 papers were found in the database. The search was then restricted to 2012–2021 as suggested by Hwang and Tsai ( 2011 ). In addition, the number of papers was reduced to 131 by selecting only publications of the “article” type and those written in “English”. Subsequently, we selected the category “education and educational research” which reduced the number to 60 papers. During the coding analysis, the two coders screened out 21 papers unrelated to R-STEM education. The coding result had a Kappa coefficient of 0.8 for both coders (Cohen, 1960 ). After the screening stage, a final total of 39 articles were included in this study, as shown in Fig.  1 . Also, the selected papers are marked with an asterisk in the reference list and are listed in Appendixes 1 and 2 .

PRISMA procedure for the selection process

Theoretical model, data coding, and analysis

This study comprised content analysis using a coding scheme to provide insights into different aspects of the studies in question (Chen et al., 2021a , 2021b ; Martín-Páez et al., 2019 ). The coding scheme adopted the conceptual framework proposed by Lin and Hwang ( 2019 ), comprising “STEM environments”, “learners”, and “robots”, as shown in Fig.  2 . Three issues were identified:

In terms of research issues, five dimensions were included: “location”, “sample size”, “duration of intervention”, (Zhong & Xia, 2020 ) “research methods”, (Johnson & Christensen, 2000 ) and “research foci”. (Hynes et al., 2017 ; Spolaôr & Benitti, 2017 ).

In terms of interaction issues, three dimensions were included: “participants”, (Hwang & Tsai, 2011 ), “roles of the robot”, and “types of robot” (Taylor, 1980 ).

In terms of application, five dimensions were included, namely “dominant STEM disciplines”, “integration of robot and STEM” (Martín‐Páez et al., 2019 ), “contribution to STEM disciplines”, “pedagogical intervention”, (Spolaôr & Benitti, 2017 ) and “educational objectives” (Anwar et al., 2019 ). Table 1 shows the coding items in each dimension of the investigated issues.

Model of R-STEM education theme framework

Figure  3 shows the distribution of the publications selected from 2012 to 2021. The first two publications were found in 2012. From 2014 to 2017, the number of publications steadily increased, with two, three, four, and four publications, respectively. Moreover, R-STEM education has been increasingly discussed within the last 3 years (2018–2020) with six, three, and ten publications, respectively. The global pandemic in the early 2020s could have affected the number of papers published, with only five papers in 2021. This could be due to the fact that most robot-STEM education research is conducted in physical classroom settings.

Number of publications on R-STEM education from 2012 to 2021

Table 2 displays the journals in which the selected papers were published, the number of papers published in each journal, and the journal’s impact factor. It can be concluded that most of the papers on R-STEM education research were published in the Journal of Science Education and Technology , and the International Journal of Technology and Design Education , with six papers, respectively.

Research issues

The geographic distribution of the reviewed studies indicated that more than half of the studies were conducted in the United States (53.8%), while Turkey and China were the location of five and three studies, respectively. Taiwan, Canada, and Italy were indicated to have two studies each. One study each was conducted in Australia, Mexico, and the Netherlands. Figure  4 shows the distribution of the countries where the R-STEM education was conducted.

Locations where the studies were conducted ( N  = 39)

Sample size

Regarding sample size, there were four most common sample sizes for the selected period (2012–2021): greater than 80 people (28.21% or 11 out of 39 studies), between 41 and 60 (25.64% or 10 out of 39 studies), 1 to 20 people (23.08% or 9 out of 39), and between 21 and 40 (20.51% or 8 out of 39 studies). The size of 61 to 80 people (2.56% or 1 out of 39 studies) was the least popular sample size (see Fig.  5 ).

Sample size across the studies ( N  = 39)

Duration of intervention

Regarding the duration of the study (see Fig.  6 ), experiments were mostly conducted for less than or equal to 4 weeks (35.9% or 14 out of 39 studies). This was followed by less than or equal to 8 weeks (25.64% or 10 out of 39 studies), less than or equal to 6 months (20.51% or 8 out 39 studies), less than or equal to 12 months (10.26% or 4 out of 39 studies), while less than or equal to 1 day (7.69% or 3 out of 39 studies) was the least chosen duration.

Duration of interventions across the studies ( N  = 39)

Research methods

Figure  7 demonstrates the trends in research methods from 2012 to 2021. The use of questionnaires or surveys (35.9% or 14 out of 39 studies) and mixed methods research (35.9% or 14 out of 39 studies) outnumbered other methods such as experimental design (25.64% or 10 out of 39 studies) and system development (2.56% or 1 out of 39 studies).

Frequency of each research method used in 2012–2021

Research foci

In these studies, research foci were divided into four aspects: cognition, affective, operational skill, and learning behavior. If the study involved more than one research focus, each issue was coded under each research focus.

In terms of cognitive skills, students’ learning performance was the most frequently measured (15 out of 39 studies). Six studies found that R-STEM education brought a positive result to learning performance. Two studies did not find any significant difference, while five studies showed mixed results or found that it depends. For example, Chang and Chen ( 2020 ) revealed that robots in STEM learning improved students’ cognition such as designing, electronic components, and computer programming.

In terms of affective skills, just over half of the reviewed studies (23 out of 39, 58.97%) addressed the students’ or teachers’ perceptions of employing robots in STEM education, of which 14 studies showed positive perceptions. In contrast, nine studies found mixed results. For instance, Casey et. al. ( 2018 ) determined students’ mixed perceptions of the use of robots in learning coding and programming.

Five studies were identified regarding operational skills by investigating students’ psychomotor aspects such as construction and mechanical elements (Pérez & López, 2019 ; Sullivan & Bers, 2016 ) and building and modeling robots (McDonald & Howell, 2012 ). Three studies found positive results, while two reported mixed results.

In terms of learning behavior, five out of 39 studies measured students’ learning behavior, such as students’ engagement with robots (Ma et al., 2020 ), students’ social behavior while interacting with robots (Konijn & Hoorn, 2020 ), and learner–parent interactions with interactive robots (Phamduy et al., 2017 ). Three studies showed positive results, while two found mixed results or found that it depends (see Table 3 ).

Interaction issues

Participants.

Regarding the educational level of the participants, elementary school students (33.33% or 13 studies) were the most preferred study participants, followed by high school students (15.38% or 6 studies). The data were similar for preschool, junior high school, in-service teachers, and non-designated personnel (10.26% or 4 studies). College students, including pre-service teachers, were the least preferred study participants. Interestingly, some studies involved study participants from more than one educational level. For example, Ucgul and Cagiltay ( 2014 ) conducted experiments with elementary and middle school students, while Chapman et. al. ( 2020 ) investigated the effectiveness of robots with elementary, middle, and high school students. One study exclusively investigated gifted and talented students without reporting their levels of education (Sen et al., 2021 ). Figure  8 shows the frequency of study participants between 2012 and 2021.

Frequency of research participants in the selected period

The roles of robot

For the function of robots in STEM education, as shown in Fig.  9 , more than half of the selected articles used robots as tools (31 out of 39 studies, 79.49%) for which the robots were designed to foster students’ programming ability. For instance, Barker et. al. ( 2014 ) investigated students’ building and programming of robots in hands-on STEM activities. Seven out of 39 studies used robots as tutees (17.95%), with the aim of students and teachers learning to program. For example, Phamduy et. al. ( 2017 ) investigated a robotic fish exhibit to analyze visitors’ experience of controlling and interacting with the robot. The least frequent role was tutor (2.56%), with only one study which programmed the robot to act as tutor or teacher for students (see Fig.  9 ).

Frequency of roles of robots

Types of robot

Furthermore, in terms of the types of robots used in STEM education, the LEGO MINDSTORMS robot was the most used (35.89% or 14 out of 39 studies), while Arduino was the second most used (12.82% or 5 out of 39 studies), and iRobot Create (5.12% or 2 out of 39 studies), and NAO (5.12% or 2 out of 39 studies) ranked third equal, as shown in Fig.  10 . LEGO was used to solve STEM problem-solving tasks such as building bridges (Convertini, 2021 ), robots (Chiang et al., 2020 ), and challenge-specific game boards (Leonard et al., 2018 ). Furthermore, four out of 36 studies did not specify the robots used in their studies.

Frequency of types of robots used

Application issues

The dominant disciplines and the contribution to stem disciplines.

As shown in Table 4 , the most dominant discipline in R-STEM education research published from 2012 to 2021 was technology. Engineering, mathematics, and science were the least dominant disciplines. Programming was the most common subject for robotics contribution to the STEM disciplines (25 out of 36 studies, 64.1%), followed by engineering (12.82%), and mathematical method (12.82%). We found that interdisciplinary was discussed in the selected period, but in relatively small numbers. However, this finding is relevant to expose the use of robotics in STEM disciplines as a whole. For example, Barker et. al. ( 2014 ) studied how robotics instructional modules in geospatial and programming domains could be impacted by fidelity adherence and exposure to the modules. The dominance of STEM subjects based on robotics makes it necessary to study the way robotics and STEM are integrated into the learning process. Therefore, the forms of STEM integration are discussed in the following sub-section to report how teaching and learning of these disciplines can have learning goals in an integrated STEM environment.

Integration of robots and STEM

There are three general forms of STEM integration (see Fig.  11 ). Of these studies, robot-STEM content integration was commonly used (22 studies, 56.41%), in which robot activities had multiple STEM disciplinary learning objectives. For example, Chang and Chen ( 2020 ) employed Arduino in a robotics sailboat curriculum. This curriculum was a cross-disciplinary integration, the objectives of which were understanding sailboats and sensors (Science), the direction of motors and mechanical structures (Engineering), and control programming (Technology). The second most common form was supporting robot-STEM content integration (12 out of 39 studies, 30.76%). For instance, KIBO robots were used in the robotics activities where the mechanical elements content area was meaningfully covered in support of the main programming learning objectives (Sullivan & Bers, 2019 ). The least common form was robot-STEM context integration (5 out of 39 studies, 12.82%) which was implemented through the robot to situate the disciplinary content goals in another discipline’s practices. For example, Christensen et. al. ( 2015 ) analyzed the impact of an after-school program that offered robots as part of students’ challenges in a STEM competition environment (geoscience and programming).

The forms of robot-STEM integration

Pedagogical interventions

In terms of instructional interventions, as shown in Fig.  12 , project-based learning (PBL) was the preferred instructional theory for using robots in R-STEM education (38.46% or 15 out 39 studies), with the aim of motivating students or robot users in the STEM learning activities. For example, Pérez and López ( 2019 ) argued that using low-cost robots in the teaching process increased students’ motivation and interest in STEM areas. Problem-based learning was the second most used intervention in this dimension (17.95% or 7 out of 39 studies). It aimed to improve students’ motivation by giving them an early insight into practical Engineering and Technology. For example, Gomoll et. al. ( 2017 ) employed robots to connect students from two different areas to work collaboratively. Their study showed the importance of robotic engagement in preliminary learning activities. Edutainment (12.82% or 5 out of 39 studies) was the third most used intervention. This intervention was used to bring together students and robots and to promote learning by doing. Christensen et. al. ( 2015 ) and Phamduy et. al. ( 2017 ) were the sample studies that found the benefits of hands-on and active learning engagement; for example, robotics competitions and robotics exhibitions could help retain a positive interest in STEM activities.

The pedagogical interventions in R-STEM education

Educational objectives

As far as the educational objectives of robots are concerned (see Fig.  13 ), the majority of robots are used for learning and transfer skills (58.97% or 23 out of 39 studies) to enhance students’ construction of new knowledge. It emphasized the process of learning through inquiry, exploration, and making cognitive associations with prior knowledge. Chang and Chen’s ( 2020 ) is a sample study on how learning objectives promote students’ ability to transfer science and engineering knowledge learned through science experiments to design a robotics sailboat that could navigate automatically as a novel setting. Moreover, it also explicitly aimed to examine the hands-on learning experience with robots. For example, McDonald and Howell ( 2012 ) described how robots engaged with early year students to better understand the concepts of literacy and numeracy.

Educational objectives of R-STEM education

Creativity and motivation were found to be educational objectives in R-STEM education for seven out of 39 studies (17.94%). It was considered from either the motivational facet of social trend or creativity in pedagogy to improve students’ interest in STEM disciplines. For instance, these studies were driven by the idea that employing robots could develop students’ scientific creativity (Guven et al., 2020 ), confidence and presentation ability (Chiang et al., 2020 ), passion for college and STEM fields (Meyers et al., 2012 ), and career choice (Ayar, 2015 ).

The general benefits of educational robots and the professional development of teachers were equally found in four studies each. The first objective, the general benefits of educational robotics, was to address those studies that found a broad benefit of using robots in STEM education without highlighting the particular focus. The sample studies suggested that robotics in STEM could promote active learning and improve students’ learning experience through social interaction (Hennessy Elliott, 2020 ) and collaborative science projects (Li et al., 2016 ). The latter, teachers’ professional development, was addressed by four studies (10.25%) to utilize robots to enhance teachers’ efficacy. Studies in this category discussed how teachers could examine and identify distinctive instructional approaches with robotics work (Bernstein et al., 2022 ), design meaningful learning instruction (Ryan et al., 2017 ) and lesson materials (Kim et al., 2015 ), and develop more robust cultural responsive self-efficacy (Leonard et al., 2018 ).

This review study was conducted using content analysis from the WOS collection of research on robotics in STEM education from 2012 to 2021. The findings are discussed under the headings of each research question.

RQ 1: In terms of research, what were the location, sample size, duration of intervention, research methods, and research foci of the R-STEM education research?

About half of the studies were conducted in North America (the USA and Canada), while limited studies were found from other continents (Europe and the Asia Pacific). This trend was identified in the previous study on robotics for STEM activities (Conde et al., 2021 ). Among 39 studies, 28 (71.79%) had fewer than 80 participants, while 11 (28.21%) had more than 80 participants. The intervention’s duration across the studies was almost equally divided between less than or equal to a month (17 out of 39 studies, 43.59%) and more than a month (22 out of 39 studies, 56.41%). The rationale behind the most popular durations is that these studies were conducted in classroom experiments and as conditional learning. For example, Kim et. al. ( 2018 ) conducted their experiments in a course offered at a university where it took 3 weeks based on a robotics module.

A total of four different research methodologies were adopted in the studies, the two most popular being mixed methods (35.89%) and questionnaires or surveys (35.89%). Although mixed methods can be daunting and time-consuming to conduct (Kucuk et al., 2013 ), the analysis found that it was one of the most used methods in the published articles, regardless of year. Chang and Chen ( 2022 ) embedded a mixed-methods design in their study to qualitatively answer their second research question. The possible reason for this is that other researchers prefer to use mixed methods as their research design. Their main research question was answered quantitatively, while the second and remaining research questions were reported through qualitative analysis (Casey et al., 2018 ; Chapman et al., 2020 ; Ma et al., 2020 ; Newton et al., 2020 ; Sullivan & Bers, 2019 ). Thus, it was concluded that mixed methods could lead to the best understanding and integration of research questions (Creswell & Clark, 2013 ; Creswell et al., 2003 ).

In contrast, system development was the least used compared to other study designs, as most studies used existing robotic systems. It should be acknowledged that the most common outcome we found was to enable students to understand these concepts as they relate to STEM subjects. Despite the focus on system development, the help of robotics was identified as increasing the success of STEM learning (Benitti, 2012 ). Because limited studies focused on system development as their primary purpose (1 out of 39 studies, 2.56%), needs analyses may ask whether the mechanisms, types, and challenges of robotics are appropriate for learners. Future research will need further design and development of personalized robots to fill this part of the research gap.

About half of the studies (23 studies, 58.97%) were focused on investigating the effectiveness of robots in STEM learning, primarily by collecting students’ and teachers’ opinions. This result is more similar to Belpaeme et al. ( 2018 ) finding that users’ perceptions were common measures in studies on robotics learning. However, identifying perceptions of R-STEM education may not help us understand exactly how robots’ specific features afford STEM learning. Therefore, it is argued that researchers should move beyond such simple collective perceptions in future research. Instead, further studies may compare different robots and their features. For instance, whether robots with multiple sensors, a sensor, or without a sensor could affect students’ cognitive, metacognitive, emotional, and motivational in STEM areas (e.g., Castro et al., 2018 ). Also, there could be instructional strategies embedded in R-STEM education that can lead students to do high-order thinking, such as problem-solving with a decision (Özüorçun & Bicen, 2017 ), self-regulated and self-engagement learning (e.g., Li et al., 2016 ). Researchers may also compare the robotics-based approach with other technology-based approaches (e.g., Han et al., 2015 ; Hsiao et al., 2015 ) in supporting STEM learning.

RQ 2: In terms of interaction, what were the participants, roles of the robots, and types of robots of the R-STEM education research?

The majority of reviewed studies on R-STEM education were conducted with K-12 students (27 studies, 69.23%), including preschool, elementary school, junior, and high school students. There were limited studies that involved higher education students and teachers. This finding is similar to the previous review study (Atman Uslu et al., 2022 ), which found a wide gap among research participants between K-12 students and higher education students, including teachers. Although it is unclear why there were limited studies conducted involving teachers and higher education students, which include pre-service teachers, we are aware of the critical task of designing meaningful R-STEM learning experiences which is likely to require professional development. In this case, both pre- and in-service teachers could examine specific objectives, identify topics, test the application, and design potential instruction to align well with robots in STEM learning (Bernstein et al., 2022 ). Concurrently, these pedagogical content skills in R-STEM disciplines might not be taught in the traditional pre-service teacher education and particular teachers’ development program (Huang et al., 2022 ). Thus, it is recommended that future studies could be conducted to understand whether robots can improve STEM education for higher education students and teachers professionally.

Regarding the role of robots, most were used as learning tools (31 studies, 79.48%). These robots are designed to have the functional ability to command or program some analysis and processing (Taylor, 1980 ). For example, Leonard et. al. ( 2018 ) described how pre-service teachers are trained in robotics activities to facilitate students’ learning of computational thinking. Therefore, robots primarily provide opportunities for learners to construct knowledge and skills. Only one study (2.56%), however, was found to program robots to act as tutors or teachers for students. Designing a robot-assisted system has become common in other fields such as language learning (e.g., Hong et al., 2016 ; Iio et al., 2019 ) and special education (e.g., Özdemir & Karaman, 2017 ) where the robots instruct the learning activities for students. In contrast, R-STEM education has not looked at the robot as a tutor, but has instead focused on learning how to build robots (Konijn & Hoorn, 2020 ). It is argued that robots with features as human tutors, such as providing personalized guidance and feedback, could assist during problem-solving activities (Fournier-Viger et al., 2013 ). Thus, it is worth exploring in what teaching roles the robot will work best as a tutor in STEM education.

When it comes to types of robots, the review found that LEGO dominated robots’ employment in STEM education (15 studies, 38.46%), while the other types were limited in their use. It is considered that LEGO tasks are more often associated with STEM because learners can be more involved in the engineering or technical tasks. Most researchers prefer to use LEGO in their studies (Convertini, 2021 ). Another interesting finding is about the cost of the robots. Although robots are generally inexpensive, some products are particularly low-cost and are commonly available in some regions (Conde et al., 2021 ). Most preferred robots are still considered exclusive learning tools in developing countries and regions. In this case, only one study offered a low-cost robot (Pérez & López, 2019 ). This might be a reason why the selected studies were primarily conducted in the countries and continents where the use of advanced technologies, such as robots, is growing rapidly (see Fig.  4 ). Based on this finding, there is a need for more research on the use of low-cost robots in R-STEM instruction in the least developed areas or regions of the world. For example, Nel et. al. ( 2017 ) designed a STEM program to build and design a robot which exclusively enabling students from low-income household to participate in the R-STEM activities.

RQ 3: In terms of application, what were the dominant STEM disciplines, contribution to STEM disciplines, integration of robots and STEM, pedagogical interventions, and educational objectives of the R-STEM research?

While Technology and Engineering are the dominant disciplines, this review found several studies that directed their research to interdisciplinary issues. The essence of STEM lies in interdisciplinary issues that integrate one discipline into another to create authentic learning (Hansen, 2014 ). This means that some researchers are keen to develop students’ integrated knowledge of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (Chang & Chen, 2022 ; Luo et al., 2019 ). However, Science and Mathematics were given less weight in STEM learning activities compared to Technology and Engineering. This issue has been frequently reported as a barrier to implementing R-STEM in the interdisciplinary subject. Some reasons include difficulties in pedagogy and classroom roles, lack of curriculum integration, and a limited opportunity to embody one learning subject into others (Margot & Kettler, 2019 ). Therefore, further research is encouraged to treat these disciplines equally, so is the way of STEM learning integration.

The subject-matter results revealed that “programming” was the most common research focus in R-STEM research (25 studies). Researchers considered programming because this particular topic was frequently emphasized in their studies (Chang & Chen, 2020 , 2022 ; Newton et al., 2020 ). Similarly, programming concepts were taught through support robots for kindergarteners (Sullivan & Bers, 2019 ), girls attending summer camps (Chapman et al., 2020 ), and young learners with disabilities (Lamptey et al., 2021 ). Because programming simultaneously accompanies students’ STEM learning, we believe future research can incorporate a more dynamic and comprehensive learning focus. Robotics-based STEM education research is expected to encounter many interdisciplinary learning issues.

Researchers in the reviewed studies agreed that the robot could be integrated with STEM learning with various integration forms. Bryan et. al. ( 2015 ) argued that robots were designed to develop multiple learning goals from STEM knowledge, beginning with an initial learning context. It is parallel with our finding that robot-STEM content integration was the most common integration form (22 studies, 56.41%). In this form, studies mainly defined their primary learning goals with one or more anchor STEM disciplines (e.g., Castro et al., 2018 ; Chang & Chen, 2020 ; Luo et al., 2019 ). The learning goals provided coherence between instructional activities and assessments that explicitly focused on the connection among STEM disciplines. As a result, students can develop a deep and transferable understanding of interdisciplinary phenomena and problems through emphasizing the content across disciplines (Bryan et al., 2015 ). However, the findings on learning instruction and evaluation in this integration are inconclusive. A better understanding of the embodiment of learning contexts is needed, for instance, whether instructions are inclusive, socially relevant, and authentic in the situated context. Thus, future research is needed to identify the quality of instruction and evaluation and the specific characteristics of robot-STEM integration. This may place better provision of opportunities for understanding the form of pedagogical content knowledge to enhance practitioners’ self-efficacy and pedagogical beliefs (Chen et al., 2021a , 2021b ).

Project-based learning (PBL) was the most used instructional intervention with robots in R-STEM education (15 studies, 38.46%). Blumenfeld et al. ( 1991 ) credited PBL with the main purpose of engaging students in investigating learning models. In the case of robotics, students can create robotic artifacts (Spolaôr & Benitti, 2017 ). McDonald and Howell ( 2012 ) used robotics to develop technological skills in lower grades. Leonard et. al. ( 2016 ) used robots to engage and develop students’ computational thinking strategies in another example. In the aforementioned study, robots were used to support learning content in informal education, and both teachers and students designed robotics experiences aligned with the curriculum (Bernstein et al., 2022 ). As previously mentioned, this study is an example of how robots can cover STEM content from the learning domain to support educational goals.

The educational goal of R-STEM education was the last finding of our study. Most of the reviewed studies focused on learning and transferable skills as their goals (23 studies, 58.97%). They targeted learning because the authors investigated the effectiveness of R-STEM learning activities (Castro et al., 2018 ; Convertini, 2021 ; Konijn & Hoorn, 2020 ; Ma et al., 2020 ) and conceptual knowledge of STEM disciplines (Barak & Assal, 2018 ; Gomoll et al., 2017 ; Jaipal-Jamani & Angeli 2017 ). They targeted transferable skills because they require learners to develop individual competencies in STEM skills (Kim et al., 2018 ; McDonald & Howell, 2012 ; Sullivan & Bers, 2016 ) and to master STEM in actual competition-related skills (Chiang et al., 2020 ; Hennessy Elliott, 2020 ).

Conclusions and implications

The majority of the articles examined in this study referred to theoretical frameworks or certain applications of pedagogical theories. This finding contradicts Atman Uslu et. al. ( 2022 ), who concluded that most of the studies in this domain did not refer to pedagogical approaches. Although we claim the employment pedagogical frameworks in the examined articles exist, those articles primarily did not consider a strict instructional design when employing robots in STEM learning. Consequently, the discussions in the studies did not include how the learning–teaching process affords students’ positive perceptions. Therefore, both practitioners and researchers should consider designing learning instruction using robots in STEM education. To put an example, the practitioners may regard students’ zone of proximal development (ZPD) when employing robot in STEM tasks. Giving an appropriate scaffolding and learning contents are necessary for them to enhance their operational skills, application knowledge and emotional development. Although the integration between robots and STEM education was founded in the reviewed studies, it is worth further investigating the disciplines in which STEM activities have been conducted. This current review found that technology and engineering were the subject areas of most concern to researchers, while science and mathematics did not attract as much attention. This situation can be interpreted as an inadequate evaluation of R-STEM education. In other words, although those studies aimed at the interdisciplinary subject, most assessments and evaluations were monodisciplinary and targeted only knowledge. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out further studies in these insufficient subject areas to measure and answer the potential of robots in every STEM field and its integration. Moreover, the broadly consistent reporting of robotics generally supporting STEM content could impact practitioners only to employ robots in the mainstream STEM educational environment. Until that point, very few studies had investigated the prominence use of robots in various and large-scale multidiscipline studies (e.g., Christensen et al., 2015 ).

Another finding of the reviewed studies was the characteristic of robot-STEM integration. Researchers and practitioners must first answer why and how integrated R-STEM could be embodied in the teaching–learning process. For example, when robots are used as a learning tool to achieve STEM learning objectives, practitioners are suggested to have application knowledge. At the same time, researchers are advised to understand the pedagogical theories so that R-STEM integration can be flexibly merged into learning content. This means that the learning design should offer students’ existing knowledge of the immersive experience in dealing with robots and STEM activities that assist them in being aware of their ideas, then building their knowledge. In such a learning experience, students will understand the concept of STEM more deeply by engaging with robots. Moreover, demonstration of R-STEM learning is not only about the coherent understanding of the content knowledge. Practitioners need to apply both flexible subject-matter knowledge (e.g., central facts, concepts and procedures in the core concept of knowledge), and pedagogical content knowledge, which specific knowledge of approaches that are suitable for organizing and delivering topic-specific content, to the discipline of R-STEM education. Consequently, practitioners are required to understand the nature of robots and STEM through the content and practices, for example, taking the lead in implementing innovation through subject area instruction, developing collaboration that enriches R-STEM learning experiences for students, and being reflective practitioners by using students’ learning artifacts to inform and revise practices.

Limitations and recommendations for future research

Overall, future research could explore the great potential of using robots in education to build students’ knowledge and skills when pursuing learning objectives. It is believed that the findings from this study will provide insightful information for future research.

The articles reviewed in this study were limited to journals indexed in the WOS database and R-STEM education-related SSCI articles. However, other databases and indexes (e.g., SCOPUS, and SCI) could be considered. In addition, the number of studies analyzed was relatively small. Further research is recommended to extend the review duration to cover the publications in the coming years. The results of this review study have provided directions for the research area of STEM education and robotics. Specifically, robotics combined with STEM education activities should aim to foster the development of creativity. Future research may aim to develop skills in specific areas such as robotics STEM education combined with the humanities, but also skills in other humanities disciplines across learning activities, social/interactive skills, and general guidelines for learners at different educational levels. Educators can design career readiness activities to help learners build self-directed learning plans.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Abbreviations

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

Robotics-based STEM

Project-based learning

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the systematic review

Adams, R., Evangelou, D., English, L., De Figueiredo, A. D., Mousoulides, N., Pawley, A. L., Schiefellite, C., Stevens, R., Svinicki, M., Trenor, J. M., & Wilson, D. M. (2011). Multiple perspectives on engaging future engineers. Journal of Engineering Education, 100 (1), 48–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00004.x

Article   Google Scholar  

Anwar, S., Bascou, N. A., Menekse, M., & Kardgar, A. (2019). A systematic review of studies on educational robotics. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (j-PEER), 9 (2), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1223

Atman Uslu, N., Yavuz, G. Ö., & KoçakUsluel, Y. (2022). A systematic review study on educational robotics and robots. Interactive Learning Environments . https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2023890

*Ayar, M. C. (2015). First-hand experience with engineering design and career interest in engineering: An informal STEM education case study. Educational Sciences Theory & Practice, 15 (6), 1655–1675. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.6.0134

*Barak, M., & Assal, M. (2018). Robotics and STEM learning: Students’ achievements in assignments according to the P3 Task Taxonomy—Practice, problem solving, and projects. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28 (1), 121–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9385-9

Bargagna, S., Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Cioni, G., Dario, P., Dell’Omo, M., Di Lieto, M. C., Inguaggiato, E., Martinelli, A., Pecini, C., & Sgandurra, G. (2019). Educational robotics in down syndrome: A feasibility study. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24 (2), 315–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9366-z

*Barker, B. S., Nugent, G., & Grandgenett, N. F. (2014). Examining fidelity of program implementation in a STEM-oriented out-of-school setting. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24 (1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9245-9

Behrens, A., Atorf, L., Schwann, R., Neumann, B., Schnitzler, R., Balle, J., Herold, T., Telle, A., Noll, T. G., Hameyer, K., & Aach, T. (2010). MATLAB meets LEGO Mindstorms—A freshman introduction course into practical engineering. IEEE Transactions on Education, 53 (2), 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2009.2017272

Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B., Tanaka, F. (2018). Social robots for education: A review. Science Robotics, 3 (21), eaat5954. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954

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

*Bernstein, D., Mutch-Jones, K., Cassidy, M., & Hamner, E. (2022). Teaching with robotics: Creating and implementing integrated units in middle school subjects. Journal of Research on Technology in Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1816864

Bers, M. U. (2008). Blocks to robots learning with technology in the early childhood classroom . Teachers College Press.

Google Scholar  

Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3–4), 369–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139

Bryan, L. A., Moore, T. J., Johnson, C. C., & Roehrig, G. H. (2015). Integrated STEM education. In C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton, & T. J. Moore (Eds.), STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education (pp. 23–37). Routledge.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

*Casey, J. E., Gill, P., Pennington, L., & Mireles, S. V. (2018). Lines, roamers, and squares: Oh my! using floor robots to enhance Hispanic students’ understanding of programming. Education and Information Technologies, 23 (4), 1531–1546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9677-z

*Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Valente, M., Buselli, E., Salvini, P., & Dario, P. (2018). Can educational robotics introduce young children to robotics and how can we measure it?. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34 (6), 970–977. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12304

Çetin, M., & Demircan, H. Ö. (2020). Empowering technology and engineering for STEM education through programming robots: A systematic literature review. Early Child Development and Care, 190 (9), 1323–1335. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1534844

*Chang, C. C., & Chen, Y. (2020). Cognition, attitude, and interest in cross-disciplinary i-STEM robotics curriculum developed by thematic integration approaches of webbed and threaded models: A concurrent embedded mixed methods study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29 , 622–634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09841-9

*Chang, C. C., & Chen, Y. (2022). Using mastery learning theory to develop task-centered hands-on STEM learning of Arduino-based educational robotics: Psychomotor performance and perception by a convergent parallel mixed method. Interactive Learning Environments . https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1741400

*Chapman, A., Rodriguez, F. D., Pena, C., Hinojosa, E., Morales, L., Del Bosque, V., Tijerina, Y., & Tarawneh, C. (2020). “Nothing is impossible”: Characteristics of Hispanic females participating in an informal STEM setting. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15 , 723–737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09947-6

Chen, M. R. A., Hwang, G. J., Majumdar, R., Toyokawa, Y., & Ogata, H. (2021a). Research trends in the use of E-books in English as a foreign language (EFL) education from 2011 to 2020: A bibliometric and content analysis. Interactive Learning Environments . https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1888755

Chen, Y. L., Huang, L. F., & Wu, P. C. (2021b). Preservice preschool teachers’ self-efficacy in and need for STEM education professional development: STEM pedagogical belief as a mediator. Early Childhood Education Journal, 49 (2), 137–147.

Chesloff, J. D. (2013). STEM education must start in early childhood. Education Week, 32 (23), 27–32.

*Chiang, F. K., Liu, Y. Q., Feng, X., Zhuang, Y., & Sun, Y. (2020). Effects of the world robot Olympiad on the students who participate: A qualitative study. Interactive Learning Environments . https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1775097

*Christensen, R., Knezek, G., & Tyler-Wood, T. (2015). Alignment of hands-on STEM engagement activities with positive STEM dispositions in secondary school students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24 (6), 898–909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9572-6

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20 , 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104

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. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22354

*Convertini, J. (2021). An interdisciplinary approach to investigate preschool children’s implicit inferential reasoning in scientific activities. Research in Science Education, 51 (1), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09957-3

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2013). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

Creswell, J. W., Plano-Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Sage.

Erdoğan, N., Navruz, B., Younes, R., & Capraro, R. M. (2016). Viewing how STEM project-based learning influences students’ science achievement through the implementation lens: A latent growth modeling. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12 (8), 2139–2154. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1294a

Evripidou, S., Georgiou, K., Doitsidis, L., Amanatiadis, A. A., Zinonos, Z., & Chatzichristofis, S. A. (2020). Educational robotics: Platforms, competitions and expected learning outcomes. IEEE Access, 8 , 219534–219562. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3042555

Ferreira, N. F., Araujo, A., Couceiro, M. S., & Portugal, D. (2018). Intensive summer course in robotics–Robotcraft. Applied Computing and Informatics, 16 (1/2), 155–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aci.2018.04.005

Fournier-Viger, P., Nkambou, R., Nguifo, E. M., Mayers, A., & Faghihi, U. (2013). A multiparadigm intelligent tutoring system for robotic arm training. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 6 (4), 364–377. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2013.27

Fu, Q. K., & Hwang, G. J. (2018). Trends in mobile technology-supported collaborative learning: A systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2016. Computers & Education, 119 , 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.004

García-Martínez, I., Tadeu, P., Montenegro-Rueda, M., & Fernández-Batanero, J. M. (2020). Networking for online teacher collaboration. Interactive Learning Environments . https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1764057

*Gomoll, A., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Šabanović, S., & Francisco, M. (2016). Dragons, ladybugs, and softballs: Girls’ STEM engagement with human-centered robotics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25 (6), 899–914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9647-z

*Gomoll, A. S., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Tolar, E., Šabanovic, S., & Francisco, M. (2017). Moving apart and coming together: Discourse, engagement, and deep learning. Educational Technology and Society, 20 (4), 219–232.

*Guven, G., KozcuCakir, N., Sulun, Y., Cetin, G., & Guven, E. (2020). Arduino-assisted robotics coding applications integrated into the 5E learning model in science teaching. Journal of Research on Technology in Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1812136

Han, J., Jo, M., Hyun, E., & So, H. J. (2015). Examining young children’s perception toward augmented reality-infused dramatic play. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63 (3), 455–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9374-9

Hansen, M. (2014). Characteristics of schools successful in STEM: Evidence from two states’ longitudinal data. Journal of Educational Research, 107 (5), 374–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.823364

*Hennessy Elliott, C. (2020). “Run it through me:” Positioning, power, and learning on a high school robotics team. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 29 (4–5), 598–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2020.1770763

Hong, Z. W., Huang, Y. M., Hsu, M., & Shen, W. W. (2016). Authoring robot-assisted instructional materials for improving learning performance and motivation in EFL classrooms. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19 (1), 337–349.

Hsiao, H. S., Chang, C. S., Lin, C. Y., & Hsu, H. L. (2015). “iRobiQ”: The influence of bidirectional interaction on kindergarteners’ reading motivation, literacy, and behavior. Interactive Learning Environments, 23 (3), 269–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.745435

Huang, B., Jong, M. S. Y., Tu, Y. F., Hwang, G. J., Chai, C. S., & Jiang, M. Y. C. (2022). Trends and exemplary practices of STEM teacher professional development programs in K-12 contexts: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers & Education . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104577

Hwang, G. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning: A review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42 (4), E65–E70.

Hwang, G. J., Xie, H., Wah, B. W., & Gašević, D. (2020). Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1 , 100001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100001

Hynes, M. M., Mathis, C., Purzer, S., Rynearson, A., & Siverling, E. (2017). Systematic review of research in P-12 engineering education from 2000–2015. International Journal of Engineering Education, 33 (1), 453–462.

Iio, T., Maeda, R., Ogawa, K., Yoshikawa, Y., Ishiguro, H., Suzuki, K., Aoki, T., Maesaki, M., & Hama, M. (2019). Improvement of Japanese adults’ English speaking skills via experiences speaking to a robot. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35 (2), 228–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12325

*Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Angeli, C. (2017). Effect of robotics on elementary preservice teachers’ self-efficacy, science learning, and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26 (2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9663-z

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2000). Educational research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches . Allyn & Bacon.

Jou, M., Chuang, C. P., & Wu, Y. S. (2010). Creating interactive web-based environments to scaffold creative reasoning and meaningful learning: From physics to products. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 9 (4), 49–57.

Jung, S., & Won, E. (2018). Systematic review of research trends in robotics education for young children. Sustainability, 10 (4), 905. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040905

Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3 , 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z

Kennedy, J., Baxter, P., & Belpaeme, T. (2015). Comparing robot embodiments in a guided discovery learning interaction with children. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7 (2), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0277-4

*Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R. B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. N. (2015). Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers’ STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers and Education., 91 , 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.005

*Kim, C. M., Yuan, J., Vasconcelos, L., Shin, M., & Hill, R. B. (2018). Debugging during block-based programming. Instructional Science, 46 (5), 767–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9453-5

*Konijn, E. A., & Hoorn, J. F. (2020). Robot tutor and pupils’ educational ability: Teaching the times tables. Computers and Education, 157 , 103970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103970

Köse, H., Uluer, P., Akalın, N., Yorgancı, R., Özkul, A., & Ince, G. (2015). The effect of embodiment in sign language tutoring with assistive humanoid robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7 (4), 537–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0311-1

Kucuk, S., Aydemir, M., Yildirim, G., Arpacik, O., & Goktas, Y. (2013). Educational technology research trends in Turkey from 1990 to 2011. Computers & Education, 68 , 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.016

Lamptey, D. L., Cagliostro, E., Srikanthan, D., Hong, S., Dief, S., & Lindsay, S. (2021). Assessing the impact of an adapted robotics programme on interest in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) among children with disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 68 (1), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2019.1650902

*Leonard, J., Buss, A., Gamboa, R., Mitchell, M., Fashola, O. S., Hubert, T., & Almughyirah, S. (2016). Using robotics and game design to enhance children’s self-efficacy, STEM attitudes, and computational thinking skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25 (6), 860–876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9628-2

*Leonard, J., Mitchell, M., Barnes-Johnson, J., Unertl, A., Outka-Hill, J., Robinson, R., & Hester-Croff, C. (2018). Preparing teachers to engage rural students in computational thinking through robotics, game design, and culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 69 (4), 386–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117732317

*Li, Y., Huang, Z., Jiang, M., & Chang, T. W. (2016). The effect on pupils’ science performance and problem-solving ability through Lego: An engineering design-based modeling approach. Educational Technology and Society, 19 (3), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/jeductechsoci.19.3.14

Lin, H. C., & Hwang, G. J. (2019). Research trends of flipped classroom studies for medical courses: A review of journal publications from 2008 to 2017 based on the technology-enhanced learning model. Interactive Learning Environments, 27 (8), 1011–1027. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1467462

*Luo, W., Wei, H. R., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Huggins-Manley, A. C., & Gardner-McCune, C. (2019). Using the S-STEM survey to evaluate a middle school robotics learning environment: Validity evidence in a different context. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28 (4), 429–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09773-z

*Ma, H. L., Wang, X. H., Zhao, M., Wang, L., Wang, M. R., & Li, X. J. (2020). Impact of robotic instruction with a novel inquiry framework on primary schools students. International Journal of Engineering Education, 36 (5), 1472–1479.

Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6 (1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2

Martín-Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales-Palacios, F. J., & Vílchez-González, J. M. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education, 103 (4), 799–822. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21522

*McDonald, S., & Howell, J. (2012). Watching, creating and achieving: Creative technologies as a conduit for learning in the early years. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43 (4), 641–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01231.x

*Meyers, K., Goodrich, V. E., Brockman, J. B., & Caponigro, J. (2012). I2D2: Imagination, innovation, discovery, and design. In 2012 ASEE annual conference & exposition (pp. 25–707). https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--21464

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Prisma Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine . https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Moomaw, S. (2012). STEM Begins in the Early Years. School Science and Mathematics, 112 (2), 57–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00119.x

Nel, H., Ettershank, M., & Venter, J. (2017). AfrikaBot: Design of a robotics challenge to promote STEM in Africa. In M. Auer, D. Guralnick, & J. Uhomoibhi (Eds.), Interactive collaborative learning. ICL 2016. Advances in intelligent systems and computing. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50340-0_44

*Newton, K. J., Leonard, J., Buss, A., Wright, C. G., & Barnes-Johnson, J. (2020). Informal STEM: Learning with robotics and game design in an urban context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52 (2), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1713263

Okita, S. Y. (2014). The relative merits of transparency: Investigating situations that support the use of robotics in developing student learning adaptability across virtual and physical computing platforms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45 (5), 844–862. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12101

Özdemir, D., & Karaman, S. (2017). Investigating interactions between students with mild mental retardation and humanoid robot in terms of feedback types. Education and Science, 42 (191), 109–138. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2017.6948

Özüorçun, N. Ç., & Bicen, H. (2017). Does the inclusion of robots affect engineering students’ achievement in computer programming courses? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13 (8), 4779–4787. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00964a

*Pérez, S. E., & López, J. F. (2019). An ultra-low cost line follower robot as educational tool for teaching programming and circuit’s foundations. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 27 (2), 288–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22074

*Phamduy, P., Leou, M., Milne, C., & Porfiri, M. (2017). An interactive robotic fish exhibit for designed settings in informal science learning. IEEE Transactions on Education, 60 (4), 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2017.2695173

*Ryan, M., Gale, J., & Usselman, M. (2017). Integrating engineering into core science instruction: Translating NGSS principles into practice through iterative curriculum design. International Journal of Engineering Education., 33 (1), 321–331.

*Sen, C., Ay, Z. S., & Kiray, S. A. (2021). Computational thinking skills of gifted and talented students in integrated STEM activities based on the engineering design process: The case of robotics and 3D robot modeling. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42 , 100931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100931

Spolaôr, N., & Benitti, F. B. V. (2017). Robotics applications grounded in learning theories on tertiary education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 112 , 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.001

*Stewart, W. H., Baek, Y., Kwid, G., & Taylor, K. (2021). Exploring factors that influence computational thinking skills in elementary students’ collaborative robotics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59 (6), 1208–1239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633121992479

*Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26 (1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9304-5

*Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2019). Investigating the use of robotics to increase girls’ interest in engineering during early elementary school. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29 , 1033–1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9483-y

*Taylor, M. S. (2018). Computer programming with pre-K through first-grade students with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 52 (2), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918761120

Taylor, R. P. (1980). Introduction. In R. P. Taylor (Ed.), The computer in school: Tutor, tool, tutee (pp. 1–10). Teachers College Press.

Tselegkaridis, S., & Sapounidis, T. (2021). Simulators in educational robotics: A review. Education Sciences, 11 (1), 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010011

*Üçgül, M., & Altıok, S. (2022). You are an astroneer: The effects of robotics camps on secondary school students’ perceptions and attitudes towards STEM. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32 (3), 1679–1699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09673-7

*Ucgul, M., & Cagiltay, K. (2014). Design and development issues for educational robotics training camps. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24 (2), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9253-9

van den Berghe, R., Verhagen, J., Oudgenoeg-Paz, O., Van der Ven, S., & Leseman, P. (2019). Social robots for language learning: A review. Review of Educational Research, 89 (2), 259–295. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318821286

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

Zhong, B., & Xia, L. (2020). A systematic review on exploring the potential of educational robotics in mathematics education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18 (1), 79–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-09939-y

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratefulness to the three anonymous reviewers for providing their precious comments to refine this manuscript.

This study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan under contract numbers MOST-109-2511-H-011-002-MY3 and MOST-108-2511-H-011-005-MY3; National Science and Technology Council (TW) (NSTC 111-2410-H-031-092-MY2); Soochow University (TW) (111160605-0014). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, and/or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, 43, Sec. 4, Keelung Rd., Taipei, 106, Taiwan

Darmawansah Darmawansah, Gwo-Jen Hwang & Jia-Cing Liang

Department of English Language and Literature, Soochow University, Q114, No. 70, Linhsi Road, Shihlin District, Taipei, 111, Taiwan

Mei-Rong Alice Chen

Yuan Ze University, 135, Yuandong Road, Zhongli District, Taipei, Taiwan

Gwo-Jen Hwang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

DD, MR and GJ conceptualized the study. MR wrote the outline and DD wrote draft. DD, MR and GJ contributed to the manuscript through critical reviews. DD, MR and GJH revised the manuscript. DD, MR and GJ finalized the manuscript. DD edited the manuscript. MR and GJ monitored the project and provided adequate supervision. DD, MR and JC contributed with data collection, coding, analyses and interpretation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mei-Rong Alice Chen .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Coded papers.

Appendix 1. Summary of selected studies from the angle of research issue

Appendix 2. summary of selected studies from the angles of interaction and application, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Darmawansah, D., Hwang, GJ., Chen, MR.A. et al. Trends and research foci of robotics-based STEM education: a systematic review from diverse angles based on the technology-based learning model. IJ STEM Ed 10 , 12 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00400-3

Download citation

Received : 11 May 2022

Accepted : 13 January 2023

Published : 10 February 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00400-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• STEM education
• Interdisciplinary projects
• Twenty-first century skills

• Bibliography
• More Referencing guides Blog Automated transliteration Relevant bibliographies by topics
• Automated transliteration
• Relevant bibliographies by topics
• Referencing guides

Dissertations / Theses on the topic 'Mechatronics and Robotics'

Create a spot-on reference in apa, mla, chicago, harvard, and other styles.

Consult the top 50 dissertations / theses for your research on the topic 'Mechatronics and Robotics.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Browse dissertations / theses on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.

Rogers, Adam Gregory. "Precision mechatronics lab robot development." Texas A&M University, 2007. http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/85854.

Plante, Jean-Sébastien Ph D. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Dielectric elastomer actuators for binary robotics and mechatronics." Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2006. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/35305.

Vin, Jerry. "ROBOTIC FINGERSPELLING HAND FOR THE DEAF-BLIND." DigitalCommons@CalPoly, 2013. https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/theses/1100.

Moretti, Mariana. "Estudo dinâmico e simulação de uma plataforma de Stewart com ênfase na implementação do sistema de controle." [s.n.], 2010. http://repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/265375.

Refour, Eric Montez. "Design and Integration of a Form-Fitting General Purpose Robotic Hand Exoskeleton." Thesis, Virginia Tech, 2017. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/89647.

Frankel, Joseph George. "Development of a Haptic Backhoe Testbed." Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2004. http://hdl.handle.net/1853/4980.

Lindestam, Algot, and David Lorang. "Design and Stability of a Quadruped Robot." Thesis, KTH, Mekatronik, 2021. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-296171.

Ferreira, Tremaine Pierre. "Research and development of an intelligent AGV-based material handling system for industrial applications." Thesis, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, 2015. http://hdl.handle.net/10948/21711.

Post, Brian Karl. "Robust state estimation for the control of flexible robotic manipulators." Diss., Georgia Institute of Technology, 2013. http://hdl.handle.net/1853/52193.

Ekman, Felix, and Sofia Hansson. "Pneumatic jumping car." Thesis, KTH, Mekatronik, 2021. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-296101.

Craig, David. "Modeling and Control of a Magnetically Levitated Microrobotic System." Thesis, University of Waterloo, 2006. http://hdl.handle.net/10012/2844.

大岡, 昌博, Masahiro OHKA, 拓也 川村, Takuya KAWAMURA, 達也 板橋, Tatsuya ITAHASHI, 徹. 宮岡, Tetsu MIYAOKA, 保永 三矢, and Yasunaga MITSUYA. "ヒトの表面粗さ認識機構を模倣した触覚認識システム." 日本機械学会, 2003. http://hdl.handle.net/2237/9059.

OHKA, Masahiro, Takuya KAWAMURA, Tatsuya ITAHASHI, Jyun-ichi TAKAYANAGI, Tetsu MIYAOKA, and Yasunaga MITSUYA. "A Tactile Recognition System Mimicking Human Mechanism for Recognizing Surface Roughness." The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2005. http://hdl.handle.net/2237/9063.

Sawczuk, Michal Gabriel. "Design and control of a 3D printed, 6DoF robot arm." Thesis, KTH, Mekatronik, 2021. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-295797.

大岡, 昌博, Masahiro OHKA, 行宏 毛利, Yukihiro MOURI, 徳宏 杉浦, Tokuhiro SUGIURA, 保永 三矢, Yasunaga MITSUYA, 浩嗣 古賀, and Hiroshi KOGA. "分布圧覚ディスプレイ装置による仮想形状呈示." 日本機械学会, 2002. http://hdl.handle.net/2237/9060.

Morris, Melissa. "Robot Control for Remote Ophthalmology and Pediatric Physical Rehabilitation." FIU Digital Commons, 2017. http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/3350.

Ozkil, Gurcan Ali. "Guidelines For Building Experimental Mobile Robots With Off-the-shelf Components." Master's thesis, METU, 2008. http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12609363/index.pdf.

WALLÉN, KIESSLING ALEXANDER, and NICLAS MÄÄTTÄ. "Anthropomorphic Robot Arm." Thesis, KTH, Skolan för industriell teknik och management (ITM), 2020. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-279804.

Nilsson, Simon, and Johan Widmark. "PIPER : Robot for vertical in-pipe climbing." Thesis, KTH, Skolan för industriell teknik och management (ITM), 2019. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-264440.

Labbé, Anton, and Benjamin Ström. "Construction of a Selective Compliance Articulated Robot Arm : And evaluation of its accuracy." Thesis, KTH, Mekatronik, 2021. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-296163.

Chan, Darren Michael. "Telepresence: Design, Implementation and Study of an HMD-controlled Avatar with a Mechatronic Approach." DigitalCommons@CalPoly, 2015. https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/theses/1395.

Chiang, Shun Fan. "The development of a low-cost robotic visual tracking system : a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Engineering, Mechatronics at Massey University, Albany, New Zealand." Massey University, 2009. http://hdl.handle.net/10179/996.

ANFLO, FREDRIK. "M8 the Four-legged Robot." Thesis, KTH, Skolan för industriell teknik och management (ITM), 2020. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-279836.

大岡, 昌博, Masahiro OHKA, 拓也 川村, Takuya KAWAMURA, 徹. 宮岡, Tetsu MIYAOKA, 保永 三矢, and Yasunaga MITSUYA. "ヒトの表面粗さ弁別に及ぼす触運動速度の影響." 日本機械学会, 2000. http://hdl.handle.net/2237/9061.

Stenow, Samuel, and Simon Lindenfors. "Omnidirectional Quadruped Robot." Thesis, KTH, Mekatronik, 2021. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-296183.

Dahroug, Bassem. "Micro-Robotic Cholesteatoma Surgery : clinical requirements analysis and image-based control under constraints." Thesis, Bourgogne Franche-Comté, 2018. http://www.theses.fr/2018UBFCD016/document.

Ottosson, Joachim, and Niklas Renström. "aMAZEing robot : A method for automatic maze solving." Thesis, KTH, Skolan för industriell teknik och management (ITM), 2019. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-264491.

Tavsel, Onur Keçeci Emin Faruk. "Mechatronic design of an explosive ordnance disposal robot/." [s.l.]: [s.n.], 2005. http://library.iyte.edu.tr/tezlerengelli/master/makinamuh/T000347.pdf.

Antonsson, Tess, and Sofia Jönsson. "Pac-King : Placement of IR Sensors on Line Following Robot and Construction of a Gripper and Lift." Thesis, KTH, Skolan för industriell teknik och management (ITM), 2019. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-264510.

大岡, 昌博, Masahiro OHKA, 制. 東岡, Isamu HIGASHIOKA, 寿登 壁下, Hisanori KABESHITA, 保永 三矢, and Yasunaga MITSUYA. "光学式マイクロ三軸触覚センサの試作." 日本機械学会, 2000. http://hdl.handle.net/2237/9062.

大岡, 昌博, Masahiro OHKA, 浩嗣 古賀, Hiroshi KOGA, 徹. 宮岡, Tetsu MIYAOKA, 保永 三矢, and Yasunaga MITSUYA. "高密度ピンアレイ形触覚マウスによる格子状仮想テクスチャ呈示 (第１報,触覚マウスの試作と性能評価実験法の確立)." 日本機械学会, 2005. http://hdl.handle.net/2237/9056.

Maisser, Peter, and Peter Tenberge. "Advanced Driving Systems." Universitätsbibliothek Chemnitz, 2002. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:ch1-200201248.

Christiane, Peter-John. "Development of a minimally invasive robotic surgical manipulator." Thesis, Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2009. http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/4497.

大岡, 昌博, Masahiro OHKA, 浩嗣 古賀, Hiroshi KOGA, 徹. 宮岡, Tetsu MIYAOKA, 保永 三矢, and Yasunaga MITSUYA. "高密度ピンアレイ形触覚マウスによる格子状仮想テクスチャ呈示 (第２報,触知ピン間隔,テクスチャ密度および畝高さの検討)." 日本機械学会, 2006. http://hdl.handle.net/2237/9055.

Edgar, Alexander Montero Vera. "Virtual Commissioning of an industrialwood cutter machine : A software in the loop simulation." Thesis, Luleå tekniska universitet, Institutionen för system- och rymdteknik, 2020. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-77401.

Anderson, Ellen, and Martin Granlöf. "Get a Grip : Dynamic force adjustment in robotic gripper." Thesis, KTH, Skolan för industriell teknik och management (ITM), 2019. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-264515.

Esteveny, Laure. "Vers un actionnement sûr pour la radiologie interventionnelle robotisée." Thesis, Strasbourg, 2014. http://www.theses.fr/2014STRAD015/document.

Fouda, Khaled. "Machine d'essai de prothèse pour Transtibial et Transfemoral." Thesis, Université Paris-Saclay (ComUE), 2017. http://www.theses.fr/2017SACLV106.

Oliveira, Neto Ivo Alves de. "Desenvolvimento de uma cadeira de rodas rob?tica para transporte de portador de necessidades especiais." Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, 2013. http://repositorio.ufrn.br:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/15476.

Ekström, Sebastian. "Bärbar sensorhandske med force feedback för manövrering av en humanoid robothand - : Implementering med monterade sensorer och motorer för styrning och känsel." Thesis, Linnéuniversitetet, Institutionen för fysik och elektroteknik (IFE), 2019. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-86116.

Morris, David T. "Mechatronics for sophomore-level mechanical engineering students." Morgantown, W. Va. : [West Virginia University Libraries], 2000. http://etd.wvu.edu/templates/showETD.cfm?recnum=1525.

Vanteddu, Teja. "Grasp Stability with a Robotic Exoskelton Glove." Thesis, Virginia Tech, 2019. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/93357.

Issa, Alan, and Christos Andreanidis. "Wireless Control of a Robotic Arm." Thesis, KTH, Mekatronik, 2021. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-295847.

Yan, Xiaomo. "Modelling and control of advanced mechatronic system." Thesis, University of Manchester, 2017. https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/theses/modelling-and-control-of-advanced-mechatronic-system(5004a687-62a6-4d2c-ac23-83e7cc4598e1).html.

Williams, Adam John. "A Robotic Head Stabilization Device for Post-Trauma Transport." Thesis, Virginia Tech, 2018. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/96755.

Fouz, Moustafa. "Développement mécatronique et contrôle de l'exosquelette des membres inférieurs SOL0.1." Thesis, Université Paris-Saclay (ComUE), 2019. http://www.theses.fr/2019SACLV048.

Okyen, Michael Louis. "Biomimetic Bi-Pedal Humanoid: Design, Actuation, and Control Implementation with Focus on Robotic Legs." Thesis, Virginia Tech, 2013. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/50843.

Zedin, Thomas. "De la mécatronique de conception vers la mécatronique de construction : à la recherche d’une genèse pour la conception de la robotique sur chantier." Thesis, Paris, HESAM, 2020. http://www.theses.fr/2020HESAC003.

Worst, Siebert Christo. "Development of a low cost secondary slave manipulator for a minimally invasive robotic surgical system." Thesis, Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2012. http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/71618.

Mazursky, Alex James. "Application of Electrorheological Fluid for Conveying Realistic Haptic Feedback in Touch Interfaces." Miami University / OhioLINK, 2019. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=miami1556817760104138.

Effect of steplike high-temperature treatment on the composition and structure of the primary carbides in R6M5 high-speed steel ingots

• Published: 25 May 2011
• Volume 2011 , pages 29–32, ( 2011 )

Cite this article

• I. V. Doronin 1 ,
• Yu. A. Lukina 2 ,
• I. O. Bannykh 3 &
• P. L. Alekseev 1  

30 Accesses

3 Citations

Explore all metrics

The effect of steplike high-temperature treatment (SHTT) on the composition and structure of carbides in the ledeburite eutectic of R6M5 high-speed steel ingots is studied. It is shown that SHTT processes lead to fragmentation and a change in the composition of the primary carbides, which causes their disintegration and a decrease in the carbide size during hot deformation.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Structural and phase changes in carbides of the high-speed steel upon heat treatment

A. S. Chaus

Optimization of the Process of Carburizing and Heat Treatment of Low-Carbon Martensitic Steels

A. S. Ivanov, S. K. Greben’kov & M. V. Bogdanova

Effect of Melting Rate of Electroslag Rapid Remelting on the Microstructure and Carbides in a Hot Work Tool Steel

Chengbin Shi, Xin Zheng, … Fang Jiang

V. I. Baranchikov, A. V. Zharinov, N. D. Yudina, et. al., Progressive Cutting Tools and Regimes for Cutting Metal. Handbook (Mashinostroyenie, Moscow, 1990) [in Russian].

Google Scholar  

V. N. Andreev, “Modern Tendencies in Development of Tool Materials,” Stanki i Instrument, No. 2, 13–15 (1988).

Yu. A. Geller, Tool Steels (Metallurgiya, Moscow, 1983) [in Russian].

E. I. Malinkina and K. P. Imshennik, “Demands of Cutting Tool Industry to High-Speed Steel by the State Standard 5952-63,” in New Tool Materials Improving the Resistance of Cutting Tool (NIIMASh, Moscow, 1965), p. 28.

L. A. Poznyak and S. I. Tishayev, Yu. M. Skrynchenko, et al.,“Ways of Development of Tool Steels” in Tool and Bearing Steels (Metallurgiya, Moscow, 1973), p. 5.

V. M. Doronin and Yu. V. Vinogradov, “The Effect of Composition and Strain on Carbide Heterogeneity of High-Speed Steel” in Production of High Speed and Die Steels (Metallurgiya, Moscow, 1970), p. 14.

V. I. Zagorskii, “Effect of Regimes for Heating Ingots and the Conditions of Plastic Deformation on Quality of High-Speed Steel, Cand. Sci. (Tech) Dissertation , Moscow Institute of Steel and Alloys, Moscow, 1970.

V. M. Blinov, I. V. Doronin, A. E. Antonschenkov, et al., “Structure of Ledeburite Steels after Radial Shear Rolling,” Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk, Met., No. 2, 55–58 (2007) [Russian Metallurgy, No. 2, 45–48 (2007)].

V. M. Doronin, “Structure, Properties and Heat Treatment” in Materials Science and Heat Treatment of Steels: A Handbook (Metallurgiya, Moscow, 1983), Vol. 3 [in Russian].

L. D. Moshkevich, V. F. Smolyakov, T. I. Malinovskaya, et. al., “The Effect of Heating on Properties of R6M5 Steel” in Tool and Bearing Steels (Metallurgiya, Moscow, 1973), No. 1.

L. D. Moshkevich, N. E. Malinovskaya, A. N. Kurasov, et al., “Spheroidization Kinetics of Eutectic Carbides in High-Speed Steels,” in Tool and Bearing Steels (Metallurgiya, Moscow, 1975), No. 2.

Metals Reference Book , Ed. by C. J. Smithles (Butter-worth, London, 1976; Metallurgiya, Moscow, 1980).

D. A. Prokoshkin and E. V. Vasil’eva, “Homological Law of Diffusion and Heat-Resistant Alloying of Metals” in Physicochemical Studies of Heat-Resistant Alloys (Metallurgiya, Moscow, 1968).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Elektrostal Branch of Moscow Institute of Steel and Alloys, ul. Pervomaiskaya, 7, Elektrostal, Moscow oblast’, 144001, Russia

I. V. Doronin & P. L. Alekseev

Elektrostal Heavy Engineering Works, ul. Krasnaya, 19, Elektrostal, Moscow oblast’, 144005, Russia

Yu. A. Lukina

Baikov Institute of Metallurgy and Materials Science, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninskii pr. 49, Moscow, 119991, Russia

I. O. Bannykh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yu. A. Lukina .

Additional information

Original Russian Text © I.V. Doronin, Yu.A. Lukina, I.O. Bannykh, P.L. Alekseev, 2011, published in Metally, 2011, No. 1, pp. 35–38.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Doronin, I.V., Lukina, Y.A., Bannykh, I.O. et al. Effect of steplike high-temperature treatment on the composition and structure of the primary carbides in R6M5 high-speed steel ingots. Russ. Metall. 2011 , 29–32 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0036029511010071

Download citation

Received : 07 April 2010

Published : 25 May 2011

Issue Date : January 2011

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1134/S0036029511010071

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• RUSSIAN Metallurgy
• Tool Material
• High Speed Steel
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Search Ohio State

Mazumder awarded Fulbright U.S. Scholar Award to India