International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT)

ISSN: 2249-8958 (Online), Volume-11 Issue-6, August 2022

Exploring the benefits of Educational Robots in

STEM Learning: A Systematic Review
Peter Ngugi Mwangi, Christopher Maina Muriithi, Peace Byrne Agufana

Abstract: The research interest in the use robotics for education This also agrees with the findings by Bers et al., [5] who
purposes has increased greatly in the last few years. However, no concluded that educational robots can help develop literacy in
much consideration has been made to the benefits that the robots STEM and also in computational thinking with the aim of
have in delivering content in STEM education. Educational promoting critical thinking in various disciplines and also
robots have been used to support learning of STEM subjects but in
improve innovations. Robotics have also become a great tool
the informal learning environment at different levels of
education. This review assesses benefits of use of educational for purposes of application in education and also an
robots in teaching of these subjects to learners’ attitude towards interesting subject for learners of all ages [6] Educational
the subjects and problem solving skills. In this research 25 papers robotic activities involve use of physical robots for
were selected for the purpose of review through a process of educational purposes. There are a few examples of
search and review. The papers selected were analyzed based on educational robots like LEGO Mindstorms and other robot
similarity in their findings and mainly on the benefits educational designs whose main purpose is to support teaching process.
robot activities towards teaching and learning of STEM subjects. The said activities have been developed for learners ranging
The review reveals that robotic activities employed in education
from elementary level to graduate level. The developed
play an important role in enhancing STEM interest and also
promoting problem solving skills. These benefits are greater to activities include robot design process, robot programming,
primary school learners than primary school learners and are application of robots for educational purposes. This some
realized greatly when the duration of experiment is not extended cases involve the use of robotics kits where learners learn how
for longer durations. From the review it was noted that the robots to build various robot designs and also programming the built
have a greater impact in boys than in girls. The robots being robots for some specific tasks [7]. The activities may be
multidisciplinary in nature can be utilized in teaching various developed for interventional measures to some concepts, to be
subjects at different levels of education. The conclusions of this done after the formal learning process, in form of voluntary
review will be useful as reference for future research in this field
classes, or an entire course in robotics. According to Danahy
of study.
Keywords: The Review Reveals That Robotic Activities
et al., [8], the basis for use of robots for educational purpose is
Employed in Education Play an Important Role in Enhancing vast, but the most outstanding approach in education has been
Stem constructionist approach. Robotics facilitate learning of
STEM concepts and also due to its interdisciplinary nature it
I. INTRODUCTION also supports the interdisciplinary nature of STEM which in
turn encourages team work in students [9]. Similarly, the use
According to Karim et al. [1] education robots can be of robots for learning purposes engages students in the
learning of science, technology, engineering, and
described as the robot platforms, robotic kits and mathematics. This has a great potential in promoting formal
programmable robots which can be employed in education. classroom teaching and learning [10]- [11]. Bers et al., [5]
The education robot support teachers and students in the highlighted the outstanding reason for the increasing
teaching learning process to develop problem solving skills application of robots in education is that they expose learners
and also can be used in teaching content and improve to modern technology and as such the effects of exposure can
practical expertise in the curricular fields [2]. Many be assessed. Luckin et al., [12] observed the use teaching tools
researchers agree that the learners’ attitudes towards STEM that are innovative has led to transformation of education
subjects affect the interest in fields that are related to STEM through improvement of the learners’ classroom learning
[3]. Nourbakhsh et al., [4] indicates that where educational experience. Use of robots in education is considered to be
robots have been used to aid in teaching, there has been great useful in hands-on general learning and also support teaching
impact that has led to growth in innovation and development and learning of topics in Science, Technology, Engineering,
of learners’ talents. and Mathematics [13]. In many of the studies done, the use of
the robots in education has been in informal learning
Manuscript received on 09 June 2022 | Revised Manuscript
received on 13 June 2022 | Manuscript Accepted on 15 August
processes inside and outside school environment. In the
2022 | Manuscript published on 30 August 2022. current study, the main focus will be on benefits of application
* Correspondence Author of robots in STEM subject learning.
Peter Ngugi Mwangi*, PhD (Pursuing), Department of Electrical and
Electronics, Murang’a University of Technology, Kenya. II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Christopher Maina Muriithi, Professional Engineer and Associate
Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering, Dean School of Kitchenham [14] defined a systematic review is a method
Engineering and Technology, Murang’a University of Technology, Kenya.
Peace Byrne Agufana, Senior Lecturer, Founding Dean School of
which is used to identify, evaluate, and interpret all available
Education, Murang’a University of Technology (MUT), Kenya. research applicable to a specific research question, topic area,
or phenomenon of interest.
© The Authors. Published by Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering and
Sciences Publication (BEIESP). This is an open access article under the
CC-BY-NC-ND license [Link]

Published By:
Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijeat.F36460811622 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI: 10.35940/ijeat.F3646.0811622 and Sciences Publication (BEIESP)
Journal Website: [Link] 5 © Copyright: All rights reserved.
 Exploring the benefits of Educational Robots in STEM Learning : A Systematic Review

The search strategy in a systematic is very important as way of educational robots for purposes of teaching STEM subjects;
identifying papers reviewed and also obtaining the actual (d) the studies must have been carried between 2012 and
outcome of the review [15]. In this study, literature search was 2021. The search process began with 1523 articles after which
done first, followed by selection of literature using eligibility the four criteria were employed. A gradual procedure of
criteria and finally literature coding was done. selection yielded to 25 research studies which were then
considered in this study. Studies involving higher levels of
2.1 Literature Search
learning were excluded in this study.
This review collected wide range of studies for purposes of
inclusion from “Web of Science”, “ERIC”, “IEEE”, “Science 2.3 The Coding of Literature
Direct”, “Springer Link”, among others. It also considered The 25 studies selected for this study were listed and data
nearly 10 years of proceedings from “ICET”, “AECT”, and related to the studies encoded. This would enhance analysis of
other proceedings as guided by the scope of the literature the results of the papers for purposes of capturing the key
search. The papers considered for this study were those benefits of utilization of educational robots in STEM
published from 1st January, 2012 to 31st December, 2021. The education. The subject matter of the coding of the papers
method of retrieving included combination subject words and included the author of the article, publication year,
free words. The particular keywords comprised of experiment duration, the academic level, the sample size, the
“educational robots”, “teaching robotics”, “secondary gender of subject and the outcome variables. This is well
school”, “STEM attitude”, and “Impact of robotics”. illustrated in Table 1. The duration of experiment was divided
into 4 categories: Not indicated, above one year, above 2
2.2 Eligibility Criteria
months and up to one year, 2 months and below. The outcome
The search was narrowed down to ensure that only the studies variables included STEM attitudes and Problem solving
meeting the set down criteria were selected. The criteria to be skills.
met included: (a) The study must be on educational robots; (b)
the study must not be a systematic review; (c) the study on

Figure 1. Selection procedure

Published By:
Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijeat.F36460811622 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI: 10.35940/ijeat.F3646.0811622 and Sciences Publication (BEIESP)
Journal Website: [Link] 6 © Copyright: All rights reserved.
 International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT)
ISSN: 2249-8958 (Online), Volume-11 Issue-6, August 2022

Table 1: Original Studies in STEM subjects in Schools

Participan Gender Duration Outcome variables
Author (year) Grade level
ts (yes/no)
Atmatzidou & Demetriadis
75 yes Secondary school level 11 weeks Problem solving
(2016)
Angeli & Valanides (2019) 13 yes primary school level 1 week Problem solving
Bers et al.(2014) 53 no Primary School level 20 hours Problem solving
Ching et al. (2019) 14 no Primary School level 8 weeks STEM attitudes
Nugent et al. (2014) 2409 Yes Secondary school level 8 years STEM attitudes
Sa´ez-Lopez et al. (2019) 93 no Primary School level 2 months STEM attitudes
Leonard et al. (2016) 20 no Secondary school level 3 years STEM attitudes
Barak & Assal (2018) 32 no Secondary school level 2 weeks STEM attitudes
Shih et al. (2013) 53 no Primary School level 3 months STEM attitudes
Gaudiello & Zibetti (2016) 25 no Primary School level 8 weeks STEM attitudes
Jackson et al. (2019)
278 no Secondary school level 1 year STEM attitudes
Berland & Wilensky (2015) 44 no Secondary school level 2 weeks Problem solving
Merino-Armero et al. (2018) 27 yes Primary School level 1 weeks Problem solving
Noh & Lee (2019)
155 yes Primary School level 11 weeks Problem solving
Ioannou & Angeli (2016)
127 no Primary School level 16 weeks Problem solving
Constantinou & Ioannou (2018) 16 no Secondary school level 3 months Problem solving
Atmatzidou & Demetriadis
35 no Secondary school level 11 weeks Problem solving
(2014)
Plaza et al.(2018) 8 Yes Primary School level 4 months STEM attittudes
Eteokleous & Ktoridou (2014). 21 yes Primary School level 2 months Problem solving
Leonard [Link].(2016) 101 no Secondary school level 3 years STEM attitudes
La Paglia et al. (2017) 60 yes Secondary school level 10 weeks Problem solving
Padayachee et al.(2015) 40 No Primary School level Not indicated Problem solving
Master et. al. (2017) 96 Yes Primary School level Not indicated STEM attitudes
Sahin et. al.(2014) 146 No Primary School level Not indicated STEM attitudes
Kucuk, S., and Sisman, B.
240 Yes Secondary school level 1 year STEM attitudes
(2020).

III. FINDINGS
This study reviewed 25 studies which were conducted
between 2012 and 2021. It was noted that majority of these
studies were not conducted in a formal learning set up but
rather in informal settings which included competitions and
vacation camps. This review concentrated on articles with
similar characteristics and outcomes. A summary of the
outcomes of the 25 papers reviewed is highlighted in table 1.
3.1 The types of robot used
In this review, it was noted that most of the articles utilized
LEGO Mindstorms robot designs. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 show
examples of the LEGO Mindstorms robot design used.

Figure 3.2 Robot arm design([Link])

3.2 The effects of using education robots on learning

process.
The outcome of this study was categorized into problem
solving and STEM attitudes for purposes of assessing how the
use of robotics in education influenced the learning process as
shown on Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.1 Lego Mindstorms car design ([Link])

Published By:
Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijeat.F36460811622 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI: 10.35940/ijeat.F3646.0811622 and Sciences Publication (BEIESP)
Journal Website: [Link] 7 © Copyright: All rights reserved.
 Exploring the benefits of Educational Robots in STEM Learning : A Systematic Review

Figure 3.3 Study output variables

Out of the 25 papers reviewed 13 of them had STEM attitude orientation outcomes while 12 had an orientation towards problem
solving. From the findings of papers reviewed, it was clear that there was a remarkable difference in the way the use of robots in
STEM education affected problem solving and STEM attitudes. The findings clearly indicated that educational robot use in
learning STEM subjects had a greater impact in problem solving than on STEM attitudes.
3.3 The impact of using educational robots to male and female learners.
Most of the studies reviewed did not concentrate on the effects of the education robots on gender. Only 40% of the studies
considered how the use of robots in STEM education affected the attitudes and problem-solving skills of the learners of
different genders as shown in figure 3.4.

Gender
40%

Yes
60%

No

0 5 10 15 20

Figure 3.4 Gender consideration of the study)

For this review only ten articles investigated the effects of use of robots to problem solving skills and STEM attitudes while
paying attention to different genders. Further scrutiny of the papers revealed that educational robots have a greater effect on the
problem solving in the male students than in female ones. The findings of the reviewed papers did not reveal any considerable
difference in terms of the attitudes towards STEM after the exposure to educational robots. This is in line with the findings of the
previous researchers who had similar observations.
3.4 The impact of the robots to various learners’ education levels.
The review investigated how educational robots influenced learning to learners at various education levels. The levels of were
grouped into two main categories: primary school and secondary school. The study analyzed the outcome of
14 primary and 11 secondary school levels as shown in Figure 3.5.

Published By:
Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijeat.F36460811622 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI: 10.35940/ijeat.F3646.0811622 and Sciences Publication (BEIESP)
Journal Website: [Link] 8 © Copyright: All rights reserved.
 International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT)
ISSN: 2249-8958 (Online), Volume-11 Issue-6, August 2022

Figure 3.5 Educational levels

From the reviews the educational robots had a greater effect on learners at primary school level as compared to Secondary
school learners. Zhou et al. [16] concluded that the educational robots had positive and considerable impact at each of the
learning levels, but has the greatest effect in primary school level. This agrees with the findings of this review in that learners at
primary school levels gained significantly in both problem solving and STEM attitudes. It can therefore be concluded that the
use of robots in learning at Primary school level would be very effective and that the level is a very crucial stage for learners to
improve problem solving abilities and develop the right attitudes towards STEM subjects.
3.5 The effect of Educational Robots to learning when used in varying durations.
In this review experiment durations of the literature being reviewed were divided into four different groups. These included; no
duration indicated, above one year, above 2 months but less or equal to one year, 2 Months and below for analysis as shown in
figure 3.6.

Experiment duration
12%

Not indicated
12%

Above 1 year
40%

Above 2 months upto 1 year

36%

2 months and below

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Figure 3.6 Experimental periods

From the literature reviewed the impact of educational robots
utilized at different durations was different. This is a clear IV. DISCUSSION
indication that the effects of use of educational robots for This study analyzed 25 articles on how the use of robots in
learning purposes had a certain correspondence with the education would be beneficial to STEM education to learners
duration of experiment. The impact diminishes with the at various education levels. The findings reveal that the use of
increase of the duration of experiment with the greatest educational robots for learning purposes has different effects
impact being less than 2 months. There was a gradual based on gender, duration of experiment, the grade levels of
weakening of the impact of the education robots on the learners and on the learning process. From the literature, it
learning of STEM subjects. It can therefore be concluded that was found out that impact of Educational Robots decreased
too long experiment duration reduces impact of educational with duration, and as such on the impact of the robots could be
robots. This may be as a result of learners becoming familiar said to have moderate positive influence on learners’
to the robots, losing the initial freshness among other reasons. development of skills and can improve their skills growth.

Published By:
Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijeat.F36460811622 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI: 10.35940/ijeat.F3646.0811622 and Sciences Publication (BEIESP)
Journal Website: [Link] 9 © Copyright: All rights reserved.
 Exploring the benefits of Educational Robots in STEM Learning : A Systematic Review

Similarly, the robots can improve STEM attitudes but their ii) The educational robots are beneficial to learners’ in that
role can be improved in order to improve their impact on they assist in making complex and non-realistic science
secondary level learners especially on STEM attitudes. concepts easier and clearer. This is similarly alluded to by
Eguchi [23] and Touretsky [24].
4.1 Improving the performance of use of Robots in
iii) The robots could improve the learners’ interest towards
advancing Attitudes towards STEM subjects
STEM subjects and could motivate them to pursue STEM
From the findings of this study, the use of robots in education related careers. According to the review the robots have a
has an average impact to problem solving skills to learners greater effect on learners’ interest in primary school
and has no significant effect on improvement of students’ levels. It was also noted that with some improvement they
attitudes towards STEM subjects. This is in line with other could also be helpful at higher levels of learning and may
researchers’ findings and which calls for further consideration lead to interest in STEM related careers. The studies
on how robot use can be employed to improve the attitude. reveal a great future of educational robots in teaching and
DeWitt et al. [17] concluded that the interest and the attitudes learning STEM subjects.
of learners towards STEM subjects decrease as age increases.
A few measures could be taken to fully utilize the educational RECOMMENDATIONS
robots’ potential in improving the teaching and learning The main objective of this study was explore the benefits that
process. The first measure could include setting up courses the use of robotics in education have on students learning
that are practical in nature to help student advance their STEM subjects. The study reviewed articles published
operational ability. Secondly more attention could be paid to between 2012 and 2021 and concluded that the use of robots
integrate robot activities to the actual STEM curriculum to refined the learners’ problem solving skills and attitudes
strengthen learners learning capability and also make the towards STEM subjects. In order to get more accurate
STEM subjects more appealing thereby improving STEM results, more papers may be reviewed. In most of the studies
attitudes reviewed, it was noted that surveys on students was carried
4.2 Strengthening educational robotic programs in order out right away after the exposure to educational robotics like a
to have long term impact. workshop or any other organized educational programme.
The findings of this study revealed that the impact of the Longitudinal studies could be carried out rather the short term
robots on learners’ learning experience declines with increase ones in an effort to follow up future decisions of the learners,
of the experiment duration. The programmes utilizing like careers undertaken, which would facilitate researchers to
educational robots should be strengthened and where need be evaluate long term effects of exposure to educational robotics.
incorporated to the STEM syllabus so that use of the robots It would also be more beneficial to use variety of robotic
can have long term impact. The strengthening can be achieved designs and programming languages to compare their impact
by using robotic technology together with other technologies with that of LEGO Mindstorms. Finally, more studies can be
like artificial intelligence, 3D design and printing, Solar carried out in secondary school levels to evaluate the effect of
technology, voice recognition among others. The integration educational robotic activities in the curriculum
incorporation of the additional technologies can reinforce and the possible impact on students’ career path.
learners understanding of the STEM concepts and hence
improve their attitudes towards the subjects. The integration REFERENCES
has the potential of introducing more openings for the future 1. Karim, M. E., Lemaignan, S., & Mondada, F. (2015, June). A review:
utilization of robots for educational purposes [18]. Can robots reshape K-12 STEM education? In 2015 IEEE international
workshop on Advanced robotics and its social impacts (ARSO) (pp.
Wu, M., et al. [19] indicated that the incorporation of artificial 1-8). IEEE. [CrossRef]
intelligence to education has a greater chance changing the 2. Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., Al Mahmud, A., & Dong, J. J.
future trend of Education and is therefore an important source (2013). A review of the applicability of robots in education. Journal of
Technology in Education and Learning, 1(209-0015), 13. [CrossRef]
of motivation in education and further research. According to 3. Bonvillian, W. B. (2002). Science at a crossroads. Technology in
Khanlari [20] robotics and other technologies are considered society, 24(1-2), 27-39. [CrossRef]
to influence learners positively and have capability of 4. Nourbakhsh, I. R. (2015). Robot futures. Mit Press.
5. Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014).
improving earners long term learning skills. Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early
childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145-157.
V. CONCLUSION [CrossRef]
6. Kopcha, T. J., McGregor, J., Shin, S., Qian, Y., Choi, J., Hill, R., ... &
From the findings of the article review, the following Choi, I. (2017). Developing an integrative STEM curriculum for
conclusions can be drawn; robotics education through educational design research. Journal of
Formative Design in Learning, 1(1), 31-44. [CrossRef]
i) Educational robots have a significant impact on teaching 7. Jung, S. E., & Won, E. S. (2018). Systematic review of research trends
and learning of STEM subjects. This is supported by the in robotics education for young children. Sustainability, 10(4), 905.
[CrossRef]
findings of authors like Okita [21] who concluded the 8. Danahy, E., Wang, E., Brockman, J., Carberry, A., Shapiro, B., &
robots improved the learners’ logical thinking and skills in Rogers, C. B. (2014). Lego-based robotics in higher education: 15 years
problem solving. Afari, E., & Khine, M. S. [22] had of student creativity. International Journal of Advanced Robotic
similar observations in that they indicated that the use of Systems, 11(2), 27. [CrossRef]
robotics in Science education will improve learner’s
problem solving and programming skills.

Published By:
Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijeat.F36460811622 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI: 10.35940/ijeat.F3646.0811622 and Sciences Publication (BEIESP)
Journal Website: [Link] 10 © Copyright: All rights reserved.
 International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT)
ISSN: 2249-8958 (Online), Volume-11 Issue-6, August 2022

9. Yuen, T., Boecking, M., Stone, J., Tiger, E. P., Gomez, A., Guillen, A., include Power Systems Analysis, Artificial Intelligence Applications and
& Arreguin, A. (2014). Group tasks, activities, dynamics, and Renewable Energy Technologies.
interactions in collaborative robotics projects with elementary and Recent publications:
middle school children. Journal of STEM Education, 15(1). 1. R.A. Soumana, M.J. Saulo, C.M. Muriithi, New control strategy for
10. Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R. B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. N. (2015). multifunctional grid-connected photovoltaic systems, Results in
Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers' STEM Engineering (2022), doi: [Link]
engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers & Education, 91, 2. Rebeccah Kyomugisha, Christopher Maina Muriithi, George Nyauma
14-31. [CrossRef] Nyakoe, "Performance of Various Voltage Stability Indices in a Stochastic
11. Kucuk, S., & Sisman, B. (2017). Behavioral patterns of elementary Multiobjective Optimal Power Flow Using Mayfly Algorithm", Journal of
students and teachers in one-to-one robotics instruction. Computers & Electrical and Computer Engineering, vol. 2022, Article
Education, 111, 31-43. [CrossRef] ID 7456333, 22 pages, 2022. [Link]
12. Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). 3. E. O. Apiyo, C. M. Muriithi, and L. M. Ngoo, “Impact of Energy
Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Management on a Solar Photovoltaic Microgrid,” International Journal of
13. Gomoll, A., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Šabanović, S., & Francisco, M. Engineering and Advanced Technology, vol. 11, no. 5. Blue Eyes
(2016). Dragons, ladybugs, and softballs: Girls’ STEM engagement Intelligence Engineering and Sciences Engineering and Sciences Publication
with human-centered robotics. Journal of Science Education and - BEIESP, pp. 65–73, Jun. 30, 2022. doi: 10.35940/ijeat.e3542.0611522.
Technology, 25(6), 899-914. [CrossRef]
14. Kitchenham, B., Brereton, O. P., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., & Peace Byrne Agufana, (Ph.D.) holds a PhD in
Linkman, S. (2009). Systematic literature reviews in software Educational Communication and Technology from Moi
engineering–a systematic literature review. Information and software University, Kenya. Currently, he is a Senior Lecturer,
technology, 51(1), 7-15. [CrossRef] and the founding Dean School of Education at Murang’a
15. Borrego, M., Foster, M. J., & Froyd, J. E. (2014). Systematic literature University of Technology (MUT). He has served as an
reviews in engineering education and other developing interdisciplinary Assistant Commission Secretary, Programme
fields. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(1), 45-76. [CrossRef] Accreditation, at the Commission for University
16. Zhou, J., Chen, X., Chang, U., Lu, J. T., Leung, C. C. Y., Chen, Y., ... & Education, Kenya. He has also served as an Assistant Director Quality
Wang, Z. (2019). A soft-robotic approach to anthropomorphic robotic Assurance & Standards, in the Ministry of Education, Kenya. Under the
hand dexterity. IEEE Access, 7, 101483-101495. [CrossRef] Teachers Service Commission, he served as a Lecturer. He is a Peer
17. DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Archer, L., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. Reviewer for Education academic programmes with the Commission for
(2013). Young children's aspirations in science: The unequivocal, the University Education, Kenya. He has taken part in many peace education
uncertain and the unthinkable. International Journal of Science initiatives in Kenya, and also been a trainer of volunteer teachers. He has
Education, 35(6), 1037-1063. [CrossRef] participated in many local and international conferences.
18. Wu, Q., Lin, C. M., Fang, W., Chao, F., Yang, L., Shang, C., & Zhou, C.
(2018). Self-organizing brain emotional learning controller network for
intelligent control system of mobile robots. IEEE Access, 6,
59096-59108. [CrossRef]
19. Wu, M., Kozanoglu, D. C., Min, C., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Unraveling the
capabilities that enable digital transformation: A data-driven
methodology and the case of artificial intelligence. Advanced
Engineering Informatics, 50, 101368. [CrossRef]
20. Khanlari, A. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and the
challenges of integrating educational robots into primary/elementary
curricula. European Journal of Engineering Education, 41(3),
320-330. [CrossRef]
21. 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. [CrossRef]
22. Afari, E., & Khine, M. S. (2017). Robotics as an educational tool:
impact of lego mindstorms. International Journal of Information and
Education Technology, 7(6), 437-442. [CrossRef]
23. Eguchi, A. (2014). Educational robotics for promoting 21st century
skills. Journal of Automation Mobile Robotics and Intelligent
Systems, 8(1), 5-11. [CrossRef]
24. Touretzky, D. S. (2013). Robotics for computer scientists: what’s the
big idea?. Computer Science Education, 23(4), 349-367. [CrossRef]

AUTHORS PROFILE
Peter Ngugi Mwangi, received his [Link] in
Electrical and Electronics Engineering in 2005 from
Moi University, [Link]. in Electronics and
Instrumentation from Kenyatta University in 2016. He
is currently pursuing PhD in Technology Education
(Electrical and Electronics) at Murang’a University of
Technology. His current research interest includes Electronics and
Instrumentation, Educational robotics, and Artificial intelligence. Mr.
Mwangi is a member of the institution of Engineering Technologists and
Technicians (IET) Kenya.

Christopher Maina Muriithi, received his BSc and

MSc in Electrical Power Engineering from Moscow
Power Engineering Institute (National University) in
2001 and 2003 respectively. He has a PhD in Electrical
Engineering from Jomo Kenyatta University of
Agriculture and Technology (2012). He is a
Professional Engineer and an Associate Professor of
Electrical Engineering and the Dean, School of Engineering and
Technology, Murang’a University of Technology. His research interests
Published By:
Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijeat.F36460811622 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI: 10.35940/ijeat.F3646.0811622 and Sciences Publication (BEIESP)
Journal Website: [Link] 11 © Copyright: All rights reserved.