Empirical research on robot-assisted educational innovations

Abstract

The technological development of the 21st century
entails the methodological renewal of public education and higher
education, and the application of educational innovations. As
a result of this modernisation, educational robots have also
entered the educational field, offering many new possibilities in
the areas of curriculum development, motivation of students,
interest arousal and soft skills development. Tutor robots are
also being used successfully in education in Hungary, mainly in
the field of programming education. In our questionnaire survey
we explored the characteristics of robot-supported educational
innovations. The paper presents the main results of the research.

Full text

Empirical research on robot-assisted educational
innovations
Enik˝
o Nagy
Antal Bejczy Center for Intelligent Robotics,
John von Neumann Faculty
Institute of Cyberphysical Systems
Obuda University
Budapest, Hungary
nagy.eniko@nik.uni-obuda.hu
Ildik´
o Holik
Kalman Kando Faculty of Electrical Engineering
Trefort ´
Agoston Centre of Engineering Education
Obuda University
Budapest, Hungary
ildiko.holik@tmpk.uni-obuda.hu
Abstract—The technological development of the 21st century
entails the methodological renewal of public education and higher
education, and the application of educational innovations. As
a result of this modernisation, educational robots have also
entered the educational field, offering many new possibilities in
the areas of curriculum development, motivation of students,
interest arousal and soft skills development. Tutor robots are
also being used successfully in education in Hungary, mainly in
the field of programming education. In our questionnaire survey
we explored the characteristics of robot-supported educational
innovations. The paper presents the main results of the research.
Index Terms—methodological innovation, robots, survey
I. INTRODUCTION
Today’s technological advances are leading to methodolog-
ical innovation in both of public and higher education [1,2].
The widespread diffusion of infocommunication tools, the
development of artificial intelligence and robotics are also
influencing new educational innovations [3,4]. In education,
robotic tutors are also emerging, offering new opportunities
for curriculum development, motivation of learners, and skills
and competences development [5]. The practical use of robots
develops students’ logical thinking, problem solving, spatial
and temporal orientation, observation, memory and attention
[6]. Teaching robots play a role in stimulating interest, de-
veloping students’ creativity, digital competences and social
skills [7-9].
Robots are most commonly used in the teaching of computer
science, including programming, but they can also be used as
teaching assistants in almost all areas of education [10-12].
The use of robots as educational innovations gives students
new experiences in lessons/workshops [13], making learning
more experiential [14].
II. THE USE OF EDUCATIONAL ROBOTS IN HUNGARY
As in international educational practice, educational robots
have also appeared in pedagogical practice in Hungary, and
their use is becoming increasingly popular [15,16].
In the current version of the Hungarian National Curricu-
lum, published in 2020, robotics is mentioned as one of the
main subjects of the Digital Culture subject, starting from the
3-4th class of primary school. The overarching goal and the
learning outcomes related to the development areas include, in
classes 3-4, that by the end of the educational phase, pupils:
•”evaluates the movement of the real or simulated pro-
grammable device, modifying the code sequence in case
of error until the desired result is achieved. He/she
formulates and discusses his/her experiences with his/her
peers;
•designs and executes a sequence of codes, stories, story
sequences by floor robots or other devices according to
given conditions;
•applies some given algorithms in activities and games and
modifies them in some simple cases. In classes 5-8, by
the end of the educational phase, the learner:
•control movements in simulated or real environments;
•collect data using sensors;
•have experience of event control;
•have knowledge of spatial information technology and 3D
visualisation.” [17]
At lower primary level, the subject of robotics and coding
fundamentals is characterised by a problem-centred approach,
which means that students have to identify the problem and
then find an appropriate solution or adapt solution algorithms
developed for other problems to the problem. This process
does not necessarily require a computer. Students will learn
the sequence of elementary steps, the bounded order of the
steps, and how to generate identical output data for identical
input data. Instruction is in a playful form, i.e. students act
out the different algorithms [18].
In upper primary education, robots are mainly used in pro-
gramming education. Block programming can be implemented
in a variety of ways, such as using a robot, building mobile
applications, using a microcontroller, or running a desktop
development environment specifically designed for block pro-
gramming [19], depending on the school’s capabilities. Block
programming develops algorithmic thinking in a playful way.
In the education of young children, more and more institu-
tions are using so-called ”floor robots” that walk on the floor
or on a table, i.e. they follow a predefined sequence of steps
Hydramis Palace Beach Resort, Crete
blic education and higher
b c educat o a d g
cational innovations. As
cational innovations. As
learning outcomlearning outcom
l34th
l34th
Hotel in Georgioupolis Chania
a
tional robots have also
ational robots have also
classeclasse
Address: Dramia, Apokoronas, 73007 Chania, Crete, Greece
m
an
y
new
p
ossibilities i
n
many new possibilities in
•
•
”
eva
l
uates t
h
e movement o
f
t
h
e
r
”evaluates the movement of the r
INES 2022 • 26th IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Engineering Systems • August 12-15, 2022 • Crete, Greece
978-1-6654-9209-6/22/$31.00 @2022 IEEE
000091
2022 IEEE 26th International Conference on Intelligent Engineering Systems (INES) | 978-1-6654-9209-6/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/INES56734.2022.9922652
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Obuda. Downloaded on March 19,2023 at 00:16:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

(e.g. Bee Bot, Blue Bot, Ozobot, Edison, mBot) [20].
The use of Micro:bit is also becoming more widespread in
Hungary, its low price and the hundreds of accessories that
have been developed since its launch make it an excellent tool
for developing students’ creativity [16].
The most popular tools for teaching programming are
LEGO robots, which teach students programming in a playful
way. They have a significant motivational power and contribute
to the development of creativity, algorithmic thinking and
engineering skills [21].
Humanoid teaching robots are also becoming increasingly
popular in education, not only for teaching programming,
but also as teaching assistants, e.g. for demonstrating and
illustrating the learning material.
Among the humanoid teaching robots, Alpha 1, for example,
is used by the police in accident prevention training and to
teach basic traffic rules.
Pepper, a talking, humanoid, customer-service robot that
rolls on 120 cm wheels and can be used as a teaching assistant,
is a good teaching tool. The robot has built-in face recognition
and face tracking. It also has a depth sensor and a distance
sensor. It is also equipped with several sensors that detect
touch. You can program how it reacts when the sensors are
touched, what movements it makes, what it says.
Nao is a 58 cm tall, bipedal humanoid robot that can speak
and understand live speech. It has applications in customer
service and marketing, and has also been used in education.
It helps in learning programming, foreign language teaching
and research at university level [10].
The use of robots also offers excellent opportunities in
higher education, as robots provide an excellent basis for
teaching engineering concepts, enable students to learn en-
gineering concepts, motivate students, develop their creativity
and problem-solving skills, and make teamwork and design
processes more efficient.
The mission of our university’s Robotics Centre is to reform
and modernise the university’s robotics education, providing
opportunities for students interested in robotics research. Stu-
dents can learn how robots work and build their own robots.
However, the use of robots in schools in Hungary is hampered
by a number of factors, such as the high cost of the devices,
the lack of specific IT knowledge required to use them, and
the low number of hours of teaching [20].
III. AIM,SAMPLE AND HYPOTHESES OF THE RESEARCH
In the spring of 2022, an online survey was conducted
among educators to investigate the applicability of robots in
education. The aim of the research was to explore in which
areas of education robots are used and with what effectiveness.
The questionnaire was tested with engineering students
at our university and sent to Hungarian public education
and vocational training institutions and published on a social
networking site. A total of 411 teachers completed our ques-
tionnaire, which included both open and closed questions.
Sample characteristics: 62.3% of respondents were female,
37.7% male (N=408).
We assumed that a higher proportion of young, mainly
early career teachers would fill in the questionnaire, as it is a
modern educational innovation, whereas more than half of the
respondents are over 50 years old. They belong to Generation
X and Baby Boom, according to Prensky [22]. On the other
hand, they are educating Generation Y, Z or alpha, learners
who, as ’digital natives’, can easily navigate the digital world.
Fig. 1. Distribution of respondents by age (N=410)
In line with their age, respondents have considerable teach-
ing experience: 63.3 % have been teaching for more than 20
years.
Fig. 2. Distribution of respondents by educational experience (N=409)
Most of them, 44.5%, teach at upper primary school level.
18.3% are involved in lower primary education and 18.1%
in general secondary education (N=411). The remaining re-
spondents work in vocational education, higher education and
other education fields. Most of them, 39.7%, teach(ed) realistic
subject(s) (N=406).
22.8% teach in the capital, 20.1% in the county, 35.5% in
towns and 21.6% in villages (N=408).
20.2% of respondents are heads of institutions, 12.9% are
deputy heads of institutions, 16.8% are staff members who also
have a managerial role in some area (e.g. head of a working
group) and 50.1% are non-managerial staff (N=411).
41.6% of respondents use robots in education, 37.2% do not
use robots but would like to, and 21.3% do not use robots in
education and would not like to (N=409).
Educational robots are predominantly used by women
(54.7% women, 45.3% men; based on Chi-square test on the
data, p=0.033). The highest proportion of those using robots
teach in upper primary schools (47.9%, p=0.014).
E. Nagy and I. Holik • Empirical Research on Robot-assisted Educational Innovations
000092
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Obuda. Downloaded on March 19,2023 at 00:16:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Following the analysis of the literature, the following hy-
potheses were formulated:
H1: Teachers using robots primarily use educational robots
for teaching programming.
H2: The main barrier to the use of robots in education is
the lack of material resources.
H3: The majority of responding teachers are open to edu-
cational innovations.
IV. RESULTS OF RESEARCH
In the following, the potential applications of educational
robots are explored based on the responses of teachers who
have used robots.
18.1% of the responding teachers have been using robots
for less than a year, 34.5% for 1-2 years, 26.3% for 3-4 years,
21.1% for more than 5 years, and they have already gained
considerable experience with educational robots (N=171).
The majority of teachers using robots in classrooms are
female (64%, p=0.020) and the majority of teachers using
robots in workshops are male (53.7%, p=0.020).
70.6% of them use robots in the context of IT and/or
digital culture subjects. In addition to real subjects (maths,
physics, geography), some use robots in humanities (Hungar-
ian language and literature, history), foreign languages and
development activities (N=163).
92.6% of respondents use the school’s robots. In addition,
5.8% indicated that they work with the student’s robot in
lessons/activities and 14.1% also use their own robot (N=173,
teachers could indicate more than one answer).
When analysing the purposes of using educational robots,
we found that the responding teachers mainly use educational
robots for teaching programming (82.66%). This confirms our
hypothesis 1.
Motivation and talent management were also identified as
prominent objectives, with 69.94% and 67.63% of respondents
respectively identifying these areas as objectives. Rewarding,
catching up and monitoring and evaluation, on the other hand,
take a back seat (Table I, respondents could tick more than
one response)
TABLE I
AIMS OF THE USE OF EDUCATIONAL ROBOTS
For what purpose do you use teaching robots?
Persons % (N=173)
Teaching programming 143 82,66
Motivation 121 69,94
Talent management 117 67,63
Processing course material 91 52,60
Rewarding 64 36,99
Catching up 41 23,70
Monitoring and assessment 20 11,56
Other 8 4,62
Respondents indicated which robots they use in education.
For this question, they could choose more than one answer
from a list of 31 items. The diversity of tools is shown in
Table II (Only those robots selected by at least one respondent
are marked).
The table shows that LEGO robots are the main tool used
by the responding teachers. The micro:bit and the Bee-bot are
also used by many teachers in their teaching. The robots used
in education can be grouped as follows: 182 respondents use
some kind of LEGO robot, 112 floor robots, 69 teachers use
micro:bits and 21 humanoid robots.
TABLE II
TYPES OF ROBOTS USED IN EDUCATION
What kind of educational robots do you use in your work?
Persons % (N=173)
Alpha 1 9 5,20
Alphamini (UBTech) 1 0,58
ArTeC 13 7,51
Bee-bot 58 33,53
Blip 5 2,89
Blue-Bot 33 19,08
Code & Go robot mouse 6 3,47
code a Pillar 1 0,58
EaRLfloor robot 4 2,31
EDBOT 10 5,78
Edison 13 7,51
JIMU Robots (UBTech) 3 1,73
LEGO Boots 6 3,47
LEGO Education SPIKE 44 25,43
LEGO Mindstorms 93 53,76
LEGO Education WeDo 39 22,54
micro:bit 69 39,88
Nao 1 0,58
Ozobotok 8 4,62
Ukit (UBTech) 1 0,58
Other 21 12,14
Literature sources emphasise and research supports [6, 8-10]
that teaching robots develop a range of hard and soft skills.
According to the respondents, the use of educational robots
develops mostly the digital competences of students. The
development of mathematical, thinking and creativity skills
is also significant. In Hungary, the use of robots in foreign
language teaching is not yet widespread, as the responses
reflect.
The main reason for using educational robots is that it offers
the opportunity to develop students’ thinking (mean 3.74 on a
4-point scale). Another important reason is that it offers a sense
of achievement and challenge (mean 3.71 for both statements).
The strongest correlation is between interest and motivation
(Spearman correlation on the data, r=0.73, p=0.000).
Respondents were less likely to emphasise the diversity,
modernity and efficiency of innovation, but all statements had
high average scores, indicating that respondents agreed with
all statements (Table IV)
According to the responding teachers, the main barrier to
the use of educational robots is the lack of financial resources
(Table V, average 3.23 on a 4-point scale), which confirmed
our hypothesis 2.
Lack of adequate quality teaching aids (average 3.23) and
teachers’ lack of understanding of robot programming (average
2.46) are also problems. The standard deviation for the barriers
was significantly higher than for the reasons for adoption. A
correlation analysis on the data revealed a strong correlation
INES 2022 • 26th IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Engineering Systems • August 12-15, 2022 • Crete, Greece
000093
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Obuda. Downloaded on March 19,2023 at 00:16:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

TABLE III
COMPETENCE DEVELOPMENT WITH TEACHING ROBOTS
Which competences you have found to be
improved by the use of educational robots?
Average standard N
deviation
Digital competences 2,93 0,28 173
(e.g. use of ICT tools)
Mathematical, thinking 2,91 0,33 173
competences
(e.g. problem solving)
Creativity, creative work, 2,82 0,44 172
self-expression and
cultural awareness competences
(e.g. expressing emotions
through creative work)
Social competences 2,79 0,47 173
(e.g. cooperation)
Learning competences 2,76 0,44 172
(e.g. independent learning)
Employ-ability, innovation and 2,51 0,60 169
entrepreneurship competences
(e.g. decision-making)
Personal competences 2,42 0,58 171
(e.g. openness, self-awareness)
Communication competences 2,31 0,59 170
in the mother tongue
(e.g. articulating ideas)
Foreign language communication 2,22 0,67 168
competences (e.g. communicating
in a foreign language)
(Rating on a 3-point scale: 1=not at all improving, 2=slightly
improving, 3=somewhat improving)
TABLE IV
REASONS FOR USING TEACHING ROBOTS
I like using a tutor robot because...
Average standard N
deviation
it is possible to develop 3,74 0,54 173
students’ thinking
offers a sense of achievement 3,71 0,53 172
challenging 3,71 0,49 172
offers methodological innovation 3,70 0,58 169
provides scope for 3,70 0,63 171
experimental learning
stimulates students’ interest more 3,69 0,57 173
provides an opportunity 3,66 0,58 172
to develop pupils’ creativity
motivates students 3,63 0,57 170
making teaching and 3,61 0,68 173
learning an experience
students can be taught to cooperate 3,61 0,63 171
varied 3,49 0,73 171
making teaching and 3,47 0,70 170
learning more effective
so I can be more creative 3,44 0,80 171
modern 3,32 0,86 172
(Rating on a 4-point scale: 1=not at all, 2=somewhat,
3=mostly, 4=to a large extent)
between the lack of financial resources and the lack of teaching
tools (Spearman correlation, r=0.78, p=0.000).
In addition to the provision of adequate infrastructure, we
consider it necessary to train teachers in the use of robots.
TABLE V
BARRIERS TO THE USE OF EDUCATIONAL ROBOTS
Why NOT use robots in education?
Average standard N
deviation
Lack of adequate financial resources 3,23 1,03 335
Lack of quality teaching aids 3,17 1,02 333
They do not know how to program robots 2,46 1,23 336
Do not know how to use robots 2,28 1,18 335
in lessons and activities
The curriculum is too large 2,27 1,10 328
No time 2,09 1,07 328
Students are not prepared to use robots 1,95 1,08 332
The nature of the subject taught 1,95 1,10 335
does not allow the use of robots
No interest in robots 1,58 0,91 329
The school administration does 1,56 0,90 329
not support the use of teaching robots
I would not be able to discipline students 1,48 0,86 331
if I used educational robots
(Rating on a 4-point scale: 1=not at all typical, 2=mostly not typical,)
3=mostly typical, 4=very typical)
The analysis of the survey data shows that respondents
are open to educational innovation: they are keen to try new
methods (on a 4-point scale, the average is 3.48) and like
modern tools (average: 3.44) (Table VI).
TABLE VI
EVALUATION OF TEACHING METHODS
To what extent do you agree with
the following statements about teaching methods?
Average standard N
deviation
I like to try new methods 3,48 0,79 402
I like modern tools 3,44 0,82 401
I combine several methods 3,30 0,85 403
I use the possibilities of 3,17 0,92 405
differentiation in the classroom
I do not attach much 1,35 0,76 409
importance to methods
(Rating on a 4-point scale: 1=not at all, 2=to a less extent,
3=to a large extent, 4=to a full extent)
The findings on openness to educational innovations are
supported by the data referred to earlier: almost half of
respondents (41.6%) use robots in education, while 37.2% do
not use them but would like to (N=409).
Also indicative of the openness of respondents is that 59.7%
could envisage humanoid educational robots as teaching assis-
tants to teachers in the future (N=407). With the above data,
we confirmed our hypothesis 3.
V. C ONCLUSION
The 4th Industrial Revolution, with its enormous techno-
logical progress, has also led to the spread of educational
E. Nagy and I. Holik • Empirical Research on Robot-assisted Educational Innovations
000094
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Obuda. Downloaded on March 19,2023 at 00:16:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

innovations. Methodological innovation in education requires
not only the modernisation of infrastructure but also the
openness and methodological training of teachers.
Our online survey explored the potential, reasons and bar-
riers to the use of robots in education. In analysing the data
from the survey, we found that teachers who use robots mainly
use educational robots for teaching programming. The main
barrier to the use of robots in education is the lack of material
resources. The majority of responding teachers are open to
educational innovations.
In the future, we plan to broaden the scope of the research to
investigate the potential of robots in schools in an international
context.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Buda, Pedag´
ogusok a digit´
alis korban.: Trendvizsg´
alat egy nagy v´
aros
iskol´
aiban, Gondolat Kiad´
o, Budapest, 2020.
[2] M. Nevendra and P. Singh, Software Defect Prediction using Deep
Learning, Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 2021. vol. 18, no. 10, pp.173-
189. DOI: 10.12700/APH.18.10.2021.10.9
[3] Gy. Moln´
ar, Z. Sz˝
uts, K. Bir´
o, Use of Augmented Reality in Learning,
Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 2018. vol. 15, no. 5, pp.209-222.
[4] K. Nagy, B. Orosz, Z. Sz˝
uts, Z. Balogh, M. Magdin; S. Koprda; R.
Pint´
er, Gy. Moln´
ar, Responses to the Challenges of Fast Digital Con-
version,in the Light of International Research Results - A Comparative
Look at Virtual Spaces, Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 2021. vol. 18, no.
1, pp.175-192.
[5] J. M´
odn´
eTak
´
acs, M. Pog´
atsnik, T. Kers´
anszki, Improving Soft Skills
and Motivation with Gamification in Engineering Education. In: M. E.
Auer, H. Hortsch, M. Oliver; T. K¨
ohler, (eds.), Mobility for Smart Cities
and Regional Development - Challenges for Higher Education : Proceed-
ings of the 24th International Conference on Interactive Collaborative
Learning, Cham, Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp. 823-834.
[6] Zs. Bal ´
azs, ´
Igy seg´
ıthetne a magyar oktat´
ason egy cuki robotrovar.
2018. https://qubit.hu/2018/04/24/igy-segithetne-a-magyar-oktatason-
egy-cuki-robotrovar [06.13.2020.]
[7] I. D. Sanda, Szoci´
alis k´
eszs´
egfejleszt´
es leend˝
om
´
ern¨
ok¨
oknek. ´
Obudai
Egyetem, Budapest, 2019.
[8] LY. Li, CW. Chang and GD.Chen, Researches on Using Robots in Edu-
cation, Learning by Playing. Game-based Education System Design and
Development, 4th International Conference on E-Learning and Games,
Edutainment 2009, Banff, Canada, August 9-11, 2009. Proceedings,
pp.479-482, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-03364-
3-57
[9] N. Reich-Stiebert and F. Eyssel, Learning with Educational Com-
panion Robots? Toward Attitudes on Education Robots, Predictors
of Attitudes, and Application Potentials for Education Robots. In-
ternational Journal of Social Robotics, 2015, vol. 7, pp.875–888.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0308-9
[10] E. Nagy, Robotok az oktat´
asi-nevel´
esi folyamatokban. K´
epz´
es ´
es gyako-
rlat: Training and Practice, 2020, vol. 18 no. 3-4, pp.176-186.
[11] C. M. Huang and B. Mutlu, Learning-based modeling of multimodal
behaviors for humanlike robots. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2014, pp.57–64.
[12] T. Belpaeme, J. Kennedy, A.Ramachandran, B. Scassellati and
F. Tanaka, Social robots for education: A review. Science
Robotics, 2018, vol. 3, no. 21, DOI: 10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954,
https://robotics.sciencemag.org/content/3/21/eaat5954
[13] E. Gogh, R. Racsko, A. Kovari, Experience of Self-Efficacy
Learning among Vocational Secondary School Students, Acta
Polytechnica Hungarica, 2021. vol. 18, no. 1, pp.101-119.
DOI:10.12700/APH.18.1.2021.1.7
[14] K. Mez˝
o and E. Szab´
on´
e Burik, A robotokkal t¨
ort´
en˝
o oktat´
as az
´
elm´
enypedag´
ogia aspektus´
ab´
ol. Mesters´
eges Intelligencia, 2021, vol. 2,
pp. 19-32.
[15] P. Bern´
at and L. Zsak´
o, Programoz´
as tan´
ıt´
asi m´
odszerek - strat´
egia a
kezdetekre. In: P. Szl´
avi and L. Zsak´
o (eds.) InfoDidact2019, Zam´
ardi:
Webdidaktika Alap´
ıtv´
any, 2019, pp.49-57.
[16] R. Kiss, Robotika a k¨
ozoktat´
asban. Gradus, 2015, vol. 2, pp.81–93.
[17] 110/2012. (VI. 4.) Korm. rendelet a Nemzeti alap-
tanterv kiad´
as´
ar´
ol, bevezet´
es´
er˝
ol ´
es alkalmaz´
as´
ar´
ol.
https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=a1200110.kor
[18] Kerettanterv az ´
altal´
anos iskola 1-4. ´
evfolyam´
ara.
(Framework curriculum for primary grades 1-4)
https://www.oktatas.hu/kozneveles/kerettantervek/2020 nat
[19] Kerettanterv az ´
altal´
anos iskola 5-8. ´
evfolyam´
ara.
(Framework curriculum for primary grades 5-8)
https://www.oktatas.hu/kozneveles/kerettantervek/2020 nat
[20] P. Feh´
er, “H´
usz ´
ev m´
ulva” - A digit´
alis oktat´
as helyzete, eszk¨
ozei,
trendjei vil´
agszerte. Gyermeknevel´
es, 2020, vol. 8, no. 2, pp.350-372.
[21] D. Solymos, LEGO robotok felhaszn´
al´
asi lehet˝
os´
egei az oktat´
asban. In:
P. Szl´
avi and L. Zsak´
o (eds.), InfoDidact2019. Zam´
ardi: Webdidaktikai
Alap´
ıtv´
any, 2019, pp.265-275.
[22] M Prensky, Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part 1. On The Horizon,
2001. 9, pp.3-6. DOI: 10.1108/10748120110424816 J. Clerk Maxwell,
A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 3rd ed., vol. 2. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1892, pp.68–73.
INES 2022 • 26th IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Engineering Systems • August 12-15, 2022 • Crete, Greece
000095
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Obuda. Downloaded on March 19,2023 at 00:16:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

E. Nagy and I. Holik • Empirical Research on Robot-assisted Educational Innovations
000096
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Obuda. Downloaded on March 19,2023 at 00:16:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.