research topics for stem students 2022

• Our Program Divisions
• Our Three Academies
• Government Affairs
• Statement on Diversity and Inclusion
• Our Study Process
• Conflict of Interest Policies and Procedures
• Project Comments and Information
• Read Our Expert Reports and Published Proceedings
• Explore PNAS, the Flagship Scientific Journal of NAS
• Access Transportation Research Board Publications
• Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Economic Recovery
• Fellowships and Grants
• Publications by Division
• Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
• Division on Earth and Life Studies
• Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
• Gulf Research Program
• Health and Medicine Division
• Policy and Global Affairs Division
• Transportation Research Board
• National Academy of Sciences
• National Academy of Engineering
• National Academy of Medicine
• Publications by Topic
• Agriculture
• Behavioral and Social Sciences
• Biography and Autobiography
• Biology and Life Sciences
• Computers and Information Technology
• Conflict and Security Issues
• Earth Sciences
• Energy and Energy Conservation
• Engineering and Technology
• Environment and Environmental Studies
• Food and Nutrition
• Health and Medicine
• Industry and Labor
• Math, Chemistry, and Physics
• Policy for Science and Technology
• Space and Aeronautics
• Surveys and Statistics
• Transportation and Infrastructure
• Searchable Collections
• New Releases

VIEW LARGER COVER

Undergraduate Research Experiences for STEM Students

Successes, challenges, and opportunities.

Undergraduate research has a rich history, and many practicing researchers point to undergraduate research experiences (UREs) as crucial to their own career success. There are many ongoing efforts to improve undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education that focus on increasing the active engagement of students and decreasing traditional lecture-based teaching, and UREs have been proposed as a solution to these efforts and may be a key strategy for broadening participation in STEM. In light of the proposals questions have been asked about what is known about student participation in UREs, best practices in UREs design, and evidence of beneficial outcomes from UREs.

Undergraduate Research Experiences for STEM Students provides a comprehensive overview of and insights about the current and rapidly evolving types of UREs, in an effort to improve understanding of the complexity of UREs in terms of their content, their surrounding context, the diversity of the student participants, and the opportunities for learning provided by a research experience. This study analyzes UREs by considering them as part of a learning system that is shaped by forces related to national policy, institutional leadership, and departmental culture, as well as by the interactions among faculty, other mentors, and students. The report provides a set of questions to be considered by those implementing UREs as well as an agenda for future research that can help answer questions about how UREs work and which aspects of the experiences are most powerful.

RESOURCES AT A GLANCE

• Press Release
• Report Brief
• Education — Higher Education
• Education — Math and Science Education
• Education — Policy, Reviews and Evaluations

Suggested Citation

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Undergraduate Research Experiences for STEM Students: Successes, Challenges, and Opportunities . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24622. Import this citation to: Bibtex EndNote Reference Manager

Publication Info

• Paperback:  978-0-309-45280-9
• Ebook:  978-0-309-45283-0

What is skim?

The Chapter Skim search tool presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter. You may select key terms to highlight them within pages of each chapter.

Copyright Information

The National Academies Press (NAP) has partnered with Copyright Clearance Center's Marketplace service to offer you a variety of options for reusing NAP content. Through Marketplace, you may request permission to reprint NAP content in another publication, course pack, secure website, or other media. Marketplace allows you to instantly obtain permission, pay related fees, and print a license directly from the NAP website. The complete terms and conditions of your reuse license can be found in the license agreement that will be made available to you during the online order process. To request permission through Marketplace you are required to create an account by filling out a simple online form. The following list describes license reuses offered by the NAP through Marketplace:

• Republish text, tables, figures, or images in print
• Post on a secure Intranet/Extranet website
• Use in a PowerPoint Presentation
• Distribute via CD-ROM

Click here to obtain permission for the above reuses. If you have questions or comments concerning the Marketplace service, please contact:

Marketplace Support International +1.978.646.2600 US Toll Free +1.855.239.3415 E-mail: [email protected] marketplace.copyright.com

To request permission to distribute a PDF, please contact our Customer Service Department at [email protected] .

What is a prepublication?

An uncorrected copy, or prepublication, is an uncorrected proof of the book. We publish prepublications to facilitate timely access to the committee's findings.

What happens when I pre-order?

The final version of this book has not been published yet. You can pre-order a copy of the book and we will send it to you when it becomes available. We will not charge you for the book until it ships. Pricing for a pre-ordered book is estimated and subject to change. All backorders will be released at the final established price. As a courtesy, if the price increases by more than $3.00 we will notify you. If the price decreases, we will simply charge the lower price. Applicable discounts will be extended.

Downloading and Using eBooks from NAP

What is an ebook.

An ebook is one of two file formats that are intended to be used with e-reader devices and apps such as Amazon Kindle or Apple iBooks.

Why is an eBook better than a PDF?

A PDF is a digital representation of the print book, so while it can be loaded into most e-reader programs, it doesn't allow for resizable text or advanced, interactive functionality. The eBook is optimized for e-reader devices and apps, which means that it offers a much better digital reading experience than a PDF, including resizable text and interactive features (when available).

Where do I get eBook files?

eBook files are now available for a large number of reports on the NAP.edu website. If an eBook is available, you'll see the option to purchase it on the book page.

View more FAQ's about Ebooks

Types of Publications

Consensus Study Report: Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

EDITORIAL article

Editorial: future of stem education: multiple perspectives from researchers.

• 1 National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
• 2 Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR, China

Editorial on the Research Topic Future of STEM education: Multiple perspectives from researchers

In recent times, STEM has become a buzz word in the educational milieu. Standing for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, STEM has attracted attention from stakeholders in the educational ecosystem and even politicians. They recognize that with the rapid pace at which science and technology are developing and impacting on society, there is a need for students, who constitute the future workforce, to be proficient in STEM. While science and mathematics have traditionally been part of the subject offerings in schools, technology and engineering are not yet mainstream subjects in most schools. The importance of STEM has spawned research efforts to better understand the situation through evidence-based research.

In the context of the foregoing, this articles collection focused on getting multiple perspectives from STEM education researchers on the future of STEM education. The rationale was that by getting researchers to articulate views from the lens of their experiences, we can get the benefit of diverse perspectives that can inform the current debate on STEM education. A flexible interpretation of the theme was adopted.

The articles collection attracted 17 submissions but only seven were accepted after Editorial scrutiny, peer review, and revisions. Representing the efforts of 25 authors (including a Nobel Laureate in Physics) from 14 institutions in five countries, it truly presents multiple perspectives.

We present below a snapshot of the various papers featured in this articles collection.

Achieving multidimensional educational goals through standard-oriented teaching. An application to STEM education

In this study by Schiepe-Tiska et al. , a view is advanced that while the emphasis on national educational standards has traditionally been on cognitive outcomes, there is also a need to focus on non-cognitive outcomes. In support of their stance, they propose a view that curricula that place emphasis on cognitive and non-cognitive standards have the potential to better tune teachers' perceptions to the multifarious challenges involved in promoting STEM education outcomes among students. To this extent, the authors suggest that changes need to be enacted at the levels of policy, teacher education, and classroom. These merit consideration from stakeholders.

The co-development of science, math, and language interest among Spanish and Finnish secondary school students

The study by Sainz et al. is cross national in nature. Such studies in STEM education are rather sparse in the educational literature, and there is a need for more of such work as it can present valuable country perspectives. The authors' insertion of language in the STEM education debate is noteworthy as this is not often explored; language is, after all, a key vehicle for learning. The findings, based on a 3-year longitudinal study involving secondary students, offer useful pointers on co-development of students' interest in the three disciplines of interest.

Development of interdisciplinary STEM impact measures of student attitudes and reasoning

STEM, by virtue of the four disciplines within it, is interdisciplinary in nature. While the impact measures of individual disciplines within the STEM continuum are available, that from an interdisciplinary viewpoint presents challenges. In this study, Mayes and Rittschof address the challenges of developing impact measures of students' attitudes and reasoning in STEM education. Psychometric indices are presented to show the efficacy of these measures. The findings would be useful to researchers who contemplate working on interventions related to interdisciplinary STEM education.

Inclusive instructional practices: Course design, implementation, and discourse

In this study by Salehi et al. , useful perspectives on course design, implementation and discourse are presented as part of inclusive instructional practices that aim to promote good learning outcomes among students of different backgrounds. They draw upon findings from the fields of cognitive psychology, social psychology, and discipline-based education research to advance useful pointers that can help to promote equity in STEM education.

Potential factors to enhance students' STEM college learning and career orientation

An important aim behind promotion of STEM education is to interest the younger generation in STEM-oriented careers and innovations in STEM fields. Rivera and Li used a survey on high school students to explore potential factors that can enhance STEM college learning and careers. Six predictor variables were found to account for variations in STEM learning and career inclinations: (a) involvement of parents; (b) engagement in STEM activities; (c) academic experience; (d) pedagogy; (e) technology/facilities; and (f) self-esteem. The overall findings suggest possible directions for educational practice.

The future of embodied design for mathematics teaching and learning

The field of embodied cognition has triggered interest in exploring teaching and learning of STEM from design and analysis perspectives. In this study, Abrahamson et al. advance some insightful perspectives for improving teaching and learning of a STEM subject, mathematics, via innovative learning environments that leverage interactive technologies.

Developing pre-service teachers conceptualization of STEM and STEM pedagogical practices

From a pre-service teacher education perspective, much needs to be done to promote integrated STEM. Pursuant to this, Berisha and Vula worked with trainee teachers in mathematics and chemistry to explore collaborative practices in STEM through workshops. It was found that a conductive environment was fostered, in the process enhancing these teachers' conceptualization of STEM. Key attributes in this regard were the collaboration between university faculty to deliver the workshops, synergistic interactions between participants in the two disciplines, and meaningful professional development to better prepare these teachers before deployment in schools.

It is our hope that these articles collection would be useful not only for STEM education researchers but also for others in the educational fraternity. We also express optimism that the articles, which have been carefully curated for this Research Topic, would promote further research in STEM education as well as generate talking points among practitioners.

Author contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.

Acknowledgments

We are very thankful to all the authors for their hard work, and the reviewers for their useful feedback on the submissions. Also, we place on record our gratitude and appreciation to Frontiers in Education for the invitation to work on this articles collection. The support given by the team in the Frontiers Editorial Office has been wonderful and is gratefully appreciated.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Keywords: STEM education, science, mathematics, engineering, technology

Citation: Subramaniam R and Mok IAC (2023) Editorial: Future of STEM education: Multiple perspectives from researchers. Front. Educ. 7:1077225. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.1077225

Received: 22 October 2022; Accepted: 31 October 2022; Published: 01 February 2023.

Edited and reviewed by: André Bresges , University of Cologne, Germany

Copyright © 2023 Subramaniam and Mok. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications

• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

STEM Education & Workforce

Most americans think u.s. k-12 stem education isn’t above average, but test results paint a mixed picture.

Just 28% of U.S. adults say America is the best in the world or above average in K-12 STEM education compared with other wealthy nations.

Which U.S. Workers Are More Exposed to AI on Their Jobs?

In 2022, 19% of American workers were in jobs that are the most exposed to artificial intelligence, in which the most important activities may be either replaced or assisted by AI. Women, Asian, college-educated and higher-paid workers have more exposure to AI, but workers in the most exposed industries are more likely to say AI will help more than hurt them personally.

Hispanic Americans’ Trust in and Engagement With Science

Increasing representation in science is seen as important for attracting more Hispanic people to science.

Black Americans’ Views of and Engagement With Science

Black Americans hold multifaceted views when it comes to trust in medical research scientists: Majorities hold largely positive views of their competence, but express concern about the potential for misconduct.

6 facts about America’s STEM workforce and those training for it

Black and Hispanic workers remain underrepresented in STEM jobs compared with their share of the U.S. workforce.

STEM Jobs See Uneven Progress in Increasing Gender, Racial and Ethnic Diversity

The higher education pipeline suggests a long path is ahead for increasing diversity, especially in fields like computing and engineering.

The share of immigrant workers in high-skill jobs is rising in the U.S.

The shift has been most notable in jobs that prioritize analytical skills, such as science and math, or fundamental skills, such as writing.

Women Make Gains in the Workplace Amid a Rising Demand for Skilled Workers

The gender wage gap narrows as women move into high-skill jobs and acquire more education. Women are now in the majority in jobs that draw most heavily on either social or fundamental skills.

It’s Pi Day – and there’s some good news for math teachers

March 14 is that special time of year people pay homage to the mathematical constant pi (π). A majority of U.S. adults enjoyed math classes in grades K-12, and most who liked them say the subject matter was the main reason.

Half of Americans think young people don’t pursue STEM because it is too hard

When Americans are asked why more students don’t pursue a degree in science, technology, engineering or math (STEM), they are most likely to point to the difficulty of these subjects, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. About half of adults (52%) say the main reason young people don’t pursue STEM degrees is they think these subjects are too hard.

REFINE YOUR SELECTION

• Cary Funk (9)
• Brian Kennedy (4)
• Drew DeSilver (4)
• Kim Parker (2)
• Mark Strauss (2)
• Meg Hefferon (2)
• Monica Anderson (2)
• Rakesh Kochhar (2)
• Richard Fry (2)
• Sara Kehaulani Goo (2)
• Aaron Smith (1)
• Andrea Caumont (1)
• George Gao (1)
• Jesse Bennett (1)
• Mark Hugo Lopez (1)
• Pew Research Center Staff (1)
• Tom Rosentiel (1)

Research Teams

• Science (26)
• Internet and Technology (17)
• Social Trends (15)
• Politics (6)
• Data Labs (5)
• Global Migration and Demography (5)
• Journalism (5)
• Methods (5)
• Pew Research Center (5)
• Race and Ethnicity (5)
• Religion (5)

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

• 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

22k Accesses

28 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

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NSF awards $38M to strengthen research infrastructure, build partnerships and improve STEM workforce development

The U.S. National Science Foundation has awarded researchers in Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island roughly $38 million through the  Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research  (EPSCoR), which promotes the development of research competitiveness among 28 targeted states and territories, called jurisdictions. The awards, facilitated by the NSF  EPSCoR Collaborations for Optimizing Research Ecosystems Research Infrastructure Improvement  (E-CORE RII) program and NSF  EPSCoR Research Incubators for STEM Excellence Research Infrastructure Improvement  (E-RISE RII) program, aim to enhance research facilities, form new networks, support workforce development and accelerate economic growth in parts of the U.S. that have historically received less funding for scientific research.  "The NSF EPSCoR program is critical to ensure that we are creating opportunities and investing in innovation in every part of the United States," said NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan. "These new E-CORE RII and E-RISE RII awards will positively impact our nation by advancing the breadth of STEM research, research infrastructure and workforce development while catalyzing opportunities for research and education in EPSCoR jurisdictions and beyond." The E-CORE RII opportunity aids in building capacity in targeted research infrastructure cores within a jurisdiction's research ecosystems. Capacity building may include developing, enhancing and sustaining research administration, facilities, workforce development, partnerships, community engagement and economic development. 

The E-RISE RII opportunity supports research teams and products in a scientific area linked to jurisdictional science and technology plans. It seeks innovative proposals for sustainable networks to enhance STEM research capacity in a selected research area that has the potential for sustainable socioeconomic impact within the jurisdiction. E-RISE RII projects aim to build research competitiveness, develop a skilled workforce, promote diversity and inclusion and integrate research efforts.

E-CORE RII and E-RISE RII were established in response to the 2022  Study of the Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research , the  Envisioning the Future of NSF EPSCoR  report and the "CHIPS and Science Act of 2022." This round of awards will catalyze economic growth by propelling laboratory research to scalable commercial products and bringing together expertise from multiple institutions to unravel complex scientific challenges. The awards will strengthen workforce development through educational initiatives that will help economically disadvantaged students and promote diversity, inclusion and accessibility by cultivating scientists and researchers from different backgrounds with various experiences and points of view. 

The awardees and a summary of each project are listed below:  

E-CORE RII: Research Infrastructure Optimization for New Mexico Led by The University of New Mexico, this project aims to connect New Mexico's emerging research institutions (ERIs) with the broader state research ecosystem consisting of national laboratories, high-tech industries and established research universities. By strengthening New Mexico's research infrastructure, the project will foster innovation, which will lead to economic growth in critical sectors and create high-value employment opportunities for graduates from ERIs. The project will also provide the state legislature with insights on economic and workforce trends to enable strategic investments in key areas and foster a culture of inclusion and diversity, thereby broadening participation in the scientific enterprise across individuals, institutions and sectors.

Collaborating institutions (subawardees): Central New Mexico Community College, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Navajo Technical University and New Mexico State University. E-CORE RII: Rhode Island Inclusive Network for Excellence in Science and Technology The University of Rhode Island is leading this project to enable the state of Rhode Island and the Narragansett Indian Tribe and its citizens to develop and maintain a sustainable, broadly inclusive and competitive research ecosystem that supports use-inspired science and technology and workforce development. The project will sustainably develop capacity, programming, platforms and partnerships that serve and benefit institutions of higher education across Rhode Island by institutionalizing research infrastructure support programs and implementing innovative programs that lead to increased collaborations across the state's institutions. These platforms and systems will lead to an inclusive network for scientific opportunities with low barriers to entry, an increased number of students from minoritized and tribal backgrounds that flourish in STEM, and the creation of new initiatives that align with the strategic diversity, equity, inclusion, justice and access plans of the collaborating institutions. 

Collaborating institutions (subawardees): Brown University, Rhode Island College, Rhode Island School of Design and Roger Williams University. E-CORE RII: Mississippi Research Alliance The vision of this project, led by Mississippi State University, is to be a transformative force in the Mississippi research and innovation ecosystem. The project will forge strategic partnerships that harness and enhance existing human and physical assets and coordinate new investments to position Mississippi as a national front-runner in science and technology. The project will strengthen strategic governance, improve sustainable access to instrumentation and foster cross-institutional collaborations, thereby boosting cutting-edge research carried out by interdisciplinary teams and resulting in exponential gains to Mississippi's knowledge-based economy. The project's integrated approach will create a research and development ecosystem that builds strategic alliances among research and emerging research institutions, state agencies and public and private organizations to positively impact education, workforce development and the broader societal understanding of scientific endeavors.

Collaborating institutions (subawardees): The University of Southern Mississippi, The University of Mississippi and Mississippi Valley State University. E-RISE RII: Maine Algal Research Infrastructure and Accelerator The Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences leads this project to build the Maine Algal Research Infrastructure and Accelerator which will serve as a nucleus for algae-based innovation in Maine and catalyze economic growth and workforce development. This state-of-the-art research infrastructure will be used to streamline exploration of algae's commercial potential -- from individual cell-level analysis to product optimization and eventual scaling. The project will lead to the discovery of novel approaches to harness algae as efficient biofactories for synthesizing new high-value products relevant to the "Maine Innovation Economy Action Plan," while aligning strategic collaborations, including with local farmers and algal companies, to create an accelerated network to enhance the agricultural, aquaculture and pharmaceutical potential of algae in Maine.

Collaborating institutions (subawardees): Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory, University of New England, Colby College, Maine Center for Entrepreneurs and Gulf of Maine Ventures. E-RISE RII: Cracking the Developmental Blueprint of Life: Omics, Computational Science, and Artificial Intelligence This project, led by the University of Puerto Rico-Rio Piedras, will position Puerto Rico as a thriving hub for innovation and economic growth in the life science and biotech/molecular sectors. Faculty from seven institutions will come together to unravel the complexities of developmental biology by examining the evolutionary and developmental framework of butterfly divergence. The project will delve into the fundamental science of evolution and adaptation, seeking to decipher the molecular intricacies that govern cellular processes and organismal development. The novelty of the project lies in the single cell-genomic resolution around which all other molecular information will be integrated using cutting-edge computational and AI approaches. Also included in the project will be workforce development initiatives that integrate STEM education and interventions to cultivate skills for both academic and non-academic careers, in part by generating important resources for the broader scientific community and through outreach activities tailored to K-12 teachers and students. 

Collaborating institutions (subawardees): Centro Comprensivo de Cancer de la Universidad de Puerto Rico.

Research areas