Exploring the Use of Educational Robotics in Non-formal Learning Environments: A Systematic Mapping

  • Carlos E. Ribeiro UENP
  • Daniela de F. G. Trindade UENP
  • Rodrigo H. C. Palácios UFPR
  • Eduardo Todt UTFPR


This paper presents a systematic mapping study on the application of educational robotics in non-formal educational settings such as science clubs, museums, libraries, extracurricular activities, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The aim of this study is to explore the potential and challenges of educational robotics in these settings, specifically in relation to teaching and learning in Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) domains. A methodological approach was employed, involving the selection of papers based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Our findings indicate that educational robotics not only fosters computational thinking, problemsolving, creativity, and collaborative skills but also enhances student motivation and self-efficacy. Furthermore, we identify various challenges associated with the implementation of educational robotics in non-formal settings. These insights may serve as a foundation for future research and pedagogical practices in the field.


Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1):63–71.

Barker, B. S. and Ansorge, J. (2007). Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. Journal of research on technology in education, 39(3):229–243.

Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3):978–988.

Bers, M. (2008). Blocks to Robots: Learning with Technology in the Early Childhood Classroom. Teachers College Press.

Chambers, J. M. and Carbonaro, M. (2003). Designing, developing, and implementing a course on lego robotics for technology teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(2):209–241.

Cápay, M., Lovászová, G., and Michaličková, V. (2015). Learning activities suitable for an ict-oriented children’s summer camp. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180:510–516. The 6th International Conference Edu World 2014 “Education Facing Contemporary World Issues”, 7th 9th November 2014.

Demertzi, E., Voukelatos, N., Papagerasimou, Y., and Drigas, A. S. (2018). Online learning facilities to support coding and robotics courses for youth. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), 8(3):pp. 69–80.

Eguchi, A. (2016). Robocupjunior for promoting stem education, 21st century skills, and technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75:692–699.

Highfield, K. (2010). Robotic toys as a catalyst for mathematical problem solving. Australian primary mathematics classroom, 15(2):22–27.

Hussain, S., Lindh, J., and Shukur, G. (2006). The effect of lego training on pupils’ school performance in mathematics, problem solving ability and attitude: Swedish data. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9(3):182–194.

Kazimoglu, C., Kiernan, M., Bacon, L., and MacKinnon, L. (2012). Learning programming at the computational thinking level via digital game-play. Procedia Computer Science, 9:522–531. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science, ICCS 2012.

Kitchenham, B., Charters, S., et al. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering version 2.3. Engineering, 45(4ve):1051.

Lanz, M., Pieters, R., and Ghabcheloo, R. (2019). Learning environment for robotics education and industry-academia collaboration. Procedia Manufacturing, 31:79–84. Research. Experience. Education. 9th Conference on Learning Factories 2019 (CLF 2019), Braunschweig, Germany.

Lee, P.-t. and Low, C.-w. (2020). Implementing a computational thinking curriculum with robotic coding activities through non-formal learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Thinking Education, pages 150–151. The Education University of Hong Kong Hong Kong, China.

Liu, E. Z. F., Lin, C. H., and Chang, C. S. (2010). Student satisfaction and self-efficacy in a cooperative robotics course. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 38(8):1135–1146.

Martin, F. (1996). Kids learning engineering science using lego and the programmable brick. Proc of AERA, 96.

Nourbakhsh, I. R., Crowley, K., Bhave, A., Hamner, E., Hsiu, T., Perez-Bergquist, A., Richards, S., and Wilkinson, K. (2005). The robotic autonomy mobile robotics course: Robot design, curriculum design and educational assessment. Autonomous Robots, 18:103–127.

Nugent, G., Barker, B., Toland, M., Grandgenett, N., Hampton, A., and Adamchuk, V. (2009). Measuring the impact of robotics and geospatial technologies on youth science, technology, engineering and mathematics attitudes. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning, pages 3331–3340. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books, Inc., USA.

Petre, M. and Price, B. (2004). Using robotics to motivate ‘back door’learning. Education and information technologies, 9:147–158.

Pienimäki, M., Kinnula, M., and Iivari, N. (2021). Finding fun in non-formal technology education. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 29:100283.

Pittí, K., Curto, B., Moreno, V., and Rodríguez, M. J. (2013). Resources and features of robotics learning environments (rles) in spain and latin america. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Technological Ecosystem for Enhancing Multiculturality, TEEM ’13, page 315–322, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.

Resnick, M., Martin, F., Berg, R., Borovoy, R., Colella, V., Kramer, K., and Silverman, B. (1998). Digital manipulatives: new toys to think with. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 281–287.

Riedo, F., Rétornaz, P., Bergeron, L., Nyffeler, N., and Mondada, F. (2012). A two years informal learning experience using the thymio robot. In Advances in Autonomous Mini Robots: Proceedings of the 6-th AMiRE Symposium, pages 37–48. Springer.

Scaradozzi, D., Sorbi, L., Pedale, A., Valzano, M., and Vergine, C. (2015). Teaching robotics at the primary school: an innovative approach. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174:3838–3846.

Toh, L. P. E., Causo, A., Tzuo, P.-W., Chen, I.-M., and Yeo, S. H. (2016). A review on the use of robots in education and young children. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(2):148–163.

Tuomi, P., Multisilta, J., Saarikoski, P., and Suominen, J. (2018). Coding skills as a success factor for a society. Education and Information Technologies.

UNESCO (2012). International standard classification of education: Isced 2011. Comparative Social Research, 30.

Viegas D’Abreu, J. V. and Villalba Condori, K. O. (2017). Educación y robótica educativa. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), 17(54).

Williams, D. C., Ma, Y., Prejean, L., Ford, M. J., and Lai, G. (2007). Acquisition of physics content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills in a robotics summer camp. Journal of research on Technology in Education, 40(2):201–216.

Yiannoutsou, N., Nikitopoulou, S., Kynigos, C., Gueorguiev, I., and Fernandez, J. A. (2017). Activity plan template: A mediating tool for supporting learning design with robotics. In Merdan, M., Lepuschitz, W., Koppensteiner, G., and Balogh, R., editors, Robotics in Education, pages 3–13, Cham. Springer International Publishing.
RIBEIRO, Carlos E.; TRINDADE, Daniela de F. G.; PALÁCIOS, Rodrigo H. C.; TODT, Eduardo. Exploring the Use of Educational Robotics in Non-formal Learning Environments: A Systematic Mapping. In: WORKSHOP DE INFORMÁTICA NA ESCOLA (WIE), 29. , 2023, Passo Fundo/RS. Anais [...]. Porto Alegre: Sociedade Brasileira de Computação, 2023 . p. 1112-1124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5753/wie.2023.235277.