Some aspects of the use of educational robotics in international and Hungarian contexts

Abstract

The technological progress of the 21st century lead to the renewal of educational methods. The methodological repertoire of education is nowadays enriched by teaching robots, which offer new opportunities in the field of the development of soft skills. The robots play a role in motivating students, stimulating their interest, developing their creativity, social skills and digital literacy. Their use can contribute to developing students' problem-solving skills and algorithmic thinking. Teaching robots can be used as teaching assistants, teaching assistants in almost all disciplines, but they can also be used specifically for teaching programming. There are several initiatives in national and international educational practice that demonstrate the potential and impact of educational robots.

Full text

Some aspects of the use of educational robotics in
international and Hungarian contexts
Enikő Nagy
Óbuda University
John von Neumann Faculty
Institute of Cyberphysical Systems
Budapest, Hungary
nagy.eniko@nik.uni-obuda.hu
Ildikó Holik
Óbuda University
Kálmán Kandó Faculty of Electrical Engineering
Trefort Ágoston Centre of Engineering Education
Budapest, Hungary
ildiko.holik@tmpk.uni-obuda.hu
Abstract — The technological progress of the 21st century
lead to the renewal of educational methods. The methodological
repertoire of education is nowadays enriched by teaching
robots, which offer new opportunities in the field of the
development of soft skills. The robots play a role in motivating
students, stimulating their interest, developing their creativity,
social skills and digital literacy. Their use can contribute to
developing students' problem-solving skills and algorithmic
thinking. Teaching robots can be used as teaching assistants,
teaching assistants in almost all disciplines, but they can also be
used specifically for teaching programming. There are several
initiatives in national and international educational practice
that demonstrate the potential and impact of educational robots.
Keywords—Methodological innovation, robots, education
I. INTRODUCTION
The technological progress of the 21st century, the
widespread use of infocommunication tools [1], the
knowledge of artificial intelligence and robotics lead to the
renewal of educational methods [2,3]. The methodological
repertoire of education is nowadays enriched by teaching
robots, which offer new opportunities in the field of
motivation and the development of soft skills. There is a
growing need to integrate robotisation knowledge into the
curricula of schools and higher education institutions [4].
The practical use of robots can offer an alternative
methodological solution for designing, building and
programming student creations. It develops logical thinking,
spatial and temporal orientation, observation skills, memory
and attention [5].
Tutor robots play a role in motivating students, stimulating
their interest, developing their social skills [6], creativity and
digital literacy. Their use can contribute to developing
students' problem-solving skills and algorithmic thinking.
Tutor robots provide a space for experimental learning,
with a wide range of tasks based on experiential learning
activities. Experiential learning situations facilitate the shared
experience of knowledge acquisition, the development of an
activation level for learning, the immersion in joint work, and
can induce the so-called flow state, the experience of which
can significantly increase the effectiveness of learning and
accelerate the development of skills and abilities [7].
Teaching robots can be used as teaching assistants,
teaching assistants in almost all disciplines, but they can also
be used specifically for teaching programming. By
programming robots, students learn the most basic steps of
simple programs, gain knowledge about the benefits of
computing and learn about the importance of data protection.
Block programming contributes to expanding the knowledge
needs of the modern age. Through graphical user interfaces,
they learn in an enjoyable and playful way how robots work,
the methodology, theory and practice of coding [8].
II. THE EVOLUTION OF ROBOTICS
Automation has long been a concern for people, as
practicality, efficiency, utility and economy are the
fundamental drivers of human existence. The substitution of
machines for regular, routine activities dates back to ancient
times, although this is far from being the beginning of the
development of robotics.
The industrial revolution, the development of steam
engines, the advent of electricity, Tesla's radio control, can be
considered the first era of robotics. After the technological
inventions of the 20th century, transistors, microchips and
computers, programmable robots were built, with brain
functions developed through electronic control.
The development of programming has led to the
development of artificial intelligence (AI) and significant
progress has been made in this area. Notable examples include
Honda's human-like robot Asimo and IBM's Watson
supercomputer, which is now used to diagnose diseases.
The science and technology of robots has evolved,
combining electronics, mechanics and informatics. Today,
robots are being used in an increasing number of fields:
industry (manufacturing, defence, disaster relief), agriculture,
health, science, households, entertainment, education.
Regardless of the field in which robots are used as
technical tools, they require a strong technological
knowledge. The branch of computer science related to robot
development is called robotics or robot engineering.
Developments in the physical construction of robots can be
considered the hardware side. Artificial intelligence, designed
to improve the robots by providing them with more advanced
software functions, is the software side of robotics. There are
now perfect solutions for developing robots that can be used
to develop individual, customised robots with increased
precision and high speed. Software can help the robot to learn
its own movements using various measuring instruments and
improve its own performance, allowing it to be further
developed. For example, by using neural networks to detect
faulty modules, the reality of deep learning becomes obvious
[27].
Developments in robots are now limitless. Anyone
involved in robotics development is familiar with major
modern software technologies and frameworks. There are
many technologies. Python, C/C++, C#, Node.js, Vue.js, PHP,
ICCC 2022 • IEEE 10th Jubilee International Conference on Computational Cybernetics and Cyber-Medical Systems • July 6-9, 2022 • Reykjavík, Iceland
978-1-6654-8177-9/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE
000173
2022 IEEE 10th Jubilee International Conference on Computational Cybernetics and Cyber-Medical Systems (ICCC 2022) | 978-1-6654-8177-9/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ICCC202255925.2022.9922898
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Obuda. Downloaded on March 19,2023 at 00:07:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

MySQL, MQTT, TCP/IP, UDP, etc. are the most common
frameworks in use today. In hardware development, we can
talk about electronic, mechanical improvements. In this field,
data acquisition work using various microcontrollers and
sensors is typical. Development work is carried out in various
laboratories equipped with high-performance computing
devices, computers, transmitters, receivers and generators [8].
In education, students are given tasks that are defined by
the problems that can be solved with such robots (e.g.,
entering an area, following a path, getting out of a maze).
Some types of robots used in education are prefabricated
and cannot be modified. In this case, the learner can work on
a narrow range of problems, with most of the attention focused
on programming.
Other types of robots can be built from available
components according to the problem at hand. In this case, a
wider range of robotics problems can be addressed in the
classroom and programming can be complemented to a
significant extent by robot and path building.
Educational robots can be real or simulated. Real robots
can be hand-held and interact with real-world objects, so their
operation is more visual and motivational. The disadvantage
is that only a few people can use them at a time, and they can
be difficult to modify the programme and the course.
Simulated robots exist only in virtual space. The advantage
is that they can be used by everyone at the same time, the
course and the programme can be changed quickly and tested
immediately. Their programming language is automatic and
procedural - in a similar way to turtle programming languages.
The state of sensors can typically be queried by branching,
event handling is possible, but the use of variables and data
structures is not typical for simulated robots [9].
III. INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE
At the level of international studies, there are many
published results that show the relevance of the role of robots
in education. Beyond this, the question is how and how
effectively we can rely on robots in education.
In the August 2018 issue of Science Robotics, members of
a Belgian-English-American-Japanese research team report
on the results of an international study. They conducted a
study among several hundred people in the context of social
and educational robots. They sought to validate the hypothesis
that robots can be used as teachers and tutors in education and
achieve similar cognitive and affective effects as educational
outcomes as human-actor teaching.
Tests have compared the robot with an alternative, such as
an on-screen avatar or a human instructor, but some have also
compared it with other behavioural versions of the same robot.
The results showed a positive picture of the contribution of
social robots to learning, and an average picture in terms of
affective and cognitive outcomes for effectiveness when
comparing human-teacher and robot-teacher cases. In
addition, positive affective outcomes did not translate into
positive cognitive outcomes, or vice versa. One study found
that introducing a robot improved affective outcomes while
not necessarily leading to significant cognitive gains [10].
They also looked at the technical challenges, seeking
answers to the question of how robot behaviour affects
learning outcomes. Overall, two aspects were identified as
outputs, namely that the introduction of innovative robotic
technologies in education involves both technical challenges
and changes in educational practice.
In terms of technical challenges, building continuous
interaction between social robots and learners requires the
seamless integration of several processes in AI and robotics.
This will require significant advances in development areas
such as speech recognition and visual social signal processing
before the robot can be deployed in a social context. For robots
to be autonomous, we need to make continuous decisions
about which steps to take to build learning. Choosing the right
plan of action is a big task and therefore becomes more
difficult during the pedagogical activity, because the robot
needs to understand the learner's abilities and development. In
addition, generating verbal and non-verbal output remains a
challenge, an example being the coordinated timing of verbal
and non-verbal actions. So "peer interaction requires the
smooth functioning of a wide range of cognitive mechanisms.
The construction of artificial social interaction requires an
artificial counterpart of these cognitive mechanisms and their
interfaces, and therefore artificial social interaction is perhaps
one of the most formidable challenges of artificial intelligence
and robotics. Introducing educational robots into the school
curriculum also poses a logistical challenge, because
producing content for robots is not trivial, it requires
customised materials, which are likely to be resource intensive
to produce." - write the authors in a paper in Science Robotics
[11].
At the moment, the value of a robot lies in the fact that they
can develop very specific skills, such as maths or handwriting,
and it is unlikely that robots can fulfil the many roles of
teachers, such as educator-caregiver. For the time being,
robots are mainly used in primary school settings. Although
some studies have shown the effectiveness of teaching
adolescents and adults, it is questionable whether approaches
that work well for younger children can be transferred to the
education of older learners.
In terms of changing educational practice, robots have the
potential to become part of the educational infrastructure, in
the same way as paper, digital whiteboards or computer
tablets. In addition to the functional dimension, robots also
offer a unique personal and social dimension. A social robot
has the potential to provide learners with an individualised,
personalised learning experience, but this is not yet achievable
in the current resource-constrained educational environment.
However, if it were a given, robots could free up valuable time
for human teachers, allowing the teacher to focus on providing
a comprehensive, empathetic and effective educational
experience.
Thus, robots hold great promise if only because the effect
sizes on cognitive outcomes are almost identical to those of
human tutors This is noteworthy because the aforementioned
international research collected results from several countries
and showed many teaching-application correlations with
different types of robots. Although the use of robots in
educational settings is limited by technical and logistical
constraints, the benefits of physical embodiment could elevate
robots above competing learning technologies, and the
classrooms of the future will likely include robots to assist
human teachers.
Another approach to the use of robots in education is to
consider which disciplines or areas of education, what
E. Nagy and I. Holik • Some Aspects of the Use of Educational Robotics in International, Hungarian Contexts
000174
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Obuda. Downloaded on March 19,2023 at 00:07:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

knowledge can be taught and how robots can be used to teach
it.
Seymour Papert pioneered the use of robots in education
in the 1960s to support teaching and learning, from secondary
school through undergraduate to postgraduate education. He
developed the programming language Logo and his robots
Turtle [12]. Papert's pedagogical innovation is to support the
individual creativity of the learner and not to guide all students
through the same learning process, because in the latter case
motivation, creativity and interest are quickly lost [13]. He has
proposed a different approach to classroom learning from the
traditional one, which he calls "constructionism", as opposed
to the traditional style of "instructionalism". In this approach,
students can learn from designing and assembling their own
robots. Because robots capture the imagination of many young
people, in addition to being a useful tool for teaching
mathematics, computer science and physics, the use of robots
is not limited to traditional engineering courses, but can also
play an effective role in a variety of art and science courses.
The use of robotics is also referred to as the "robot revolution"
by non-technical educators [14].
The following example shows the successful use of
teaching robots. Finland was one of the first countries to open
up to robotics, and it is now part of the mainstream education
curriculum to ensure that primary school pupils not only have
a basic understanding of the technology, but are also able to
use it. A prominent role is given to the teaching of experiential
programming and robotics [12]. In Tampere primary schools
in southern Finland, four robots are used in the classroom,
mainly in foreign language teaching. Three of the four robots
have an owl-like appearance, while the fourth machine is
Elias, an interactive humanoid robot paired with a mobile app
that speaks 23 languages and understands students' requests
and encourages them in their learning. At school, he speaks
English, Finnish and German with the children. It recognises
where students are in their studies and adapts its questions to
their level. Indicates to the teacher what learning problems the
student may have [15].
The role of robots in programming education has also been
investigated with development applications of cognitive
robotics. The importance of cognitive robotics in education is
demonstrated by a study carried out by the Automation and
Informatics Department of the ICDT Research and
Development Institute in Romania, which aimed to teach
different programming languages using robots and their
software architectures. Students developed cognitive robotics
applications in different projects, including the NAO social
robot. Their results, published in 2020, support the idea that
cognitive robotics will play an important role in the future by
focusing on the development of intelligent capabilities [26].
However, there are also reservations about the use of
educational robots. In 2014, researchers at the German
University of Bielefeld first focused on attitudes towards
educational robots, and then on the applicability of
educational robots. The German participants showed rather
neutral attitudes towards educational robots and were rather
reluctant to learn with robots. It is possible that the participants
in the study had no concept of educational robots, as social
robots were not yet widespread in the German context and
some of the participants had completed their studies and were
less engaged with the topic. Therefore, one of the lessons
learned from the research was that future research should
consider data from a wider range of participants who are
actually and currently confronted with the situation of
learning, teaching and helping in the classroom with robots
during their higher education (e.g. primary school students,
teachers and parents). In addition, future research should
provide a more detailed description of the features and
functions of educational robots, possibly including opinions
on existing educational robots. Another finding was that
demographic characteristics (gender, age and education) and
indicators of technology engagement predicted attitudes
towards educational robots and intentions to interact. These
points are extremely important in light of the fact that robots
will increasingly enter the education sector in the near future.
It should be noted that the results of this research could help
to design educational robots according to the expectations of
potential users. The implication is that educational robots
could be introduced into the school environment primarily in
STEM-related subjects before extending their use to more
social and arts subjects. In addition, the results of this study
suggest that educational robots could be used as teaching
assistants. Therefore, educational robots in the German
context should be used to support the teaching process rather
than to act autonomously. More generally, it would be
important to conduct further empirical research on how
culture and individual characteristics influence attitudes
towards robots [16].
IV. GOOD PRACTICES IN HUNGARY
In Hungarian pedagogical practice, there are already
several examples of how robots can be used in education. [7,
9, 17, 18] Experience shows that the use of robots in schools
can be aimed at linking STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics) fields in addition to teaching
coding and programming [19, 20].
The 2020 version of the Hungarian National Curriculum
[21] lists robotics as one of the main topics of the Digital
Culture subject, starting from the 3-4th grade of primary
school. The overarching goal and the learning outcomes
related to the development areas in grades 3-4 include that by
the end of the educational phase, pupils:
- "evaluates the movement of the real or simulated
programmable 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" [21].
At lower secondary level, the approach to robotics and
coding fundamentals is problem-oriented: it focuses on how
to identify a problem, find a solution to the problem, and adapt
algorithms developed for other problems to the problem,
adapting the algorithm to minor changes in the problem. This
ICCC 2022 • IEEE 10th Jubilee International Conference on Computational Cybernetics and Cyber-Medical Systems • July 6-9, 2022 • Reykjavík, Iceland
000175
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Obuda. Downloaded on March 19,2023 at 00:07:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

topic does not necessarily require a computer and IT
environment, at least at its basic stage. Problems and
algorithms for solving problems should be collected from the
children's lives in order to identify the features of the
algorithm that can be taught at this age, such as the succession
of elementary steps, the fixed order of steps, the order of the
algorithm output given the same input data. Different
situations and play situations must be provided for children to
play and experience these algorithms. This could be playing
everyday, often repetitive activities, discussing their steps,
skipping or substituting steps in funny situations and judging
the outcome of the algorithm on this basis. It is worthwhile
looking for algorithms in different subjects and activities, once
children are aware of the nature of an algorithm not by
definition but by experience. Algorithms can be found in the
curricula of each primary school subject and are worth
observing with pupils. For example, in mathematics, the
algorithm for solving a text problem, the algorithm for solving
an open sentence by trial and error, the algorithm for
performing a writing operation are all algorithms [22].
At upper secondary level, the use of robots contributes to
learning algorithms and programming. It promotes the
development of skills that are essential for problem solving
with digital tools, creativity and logical thinking. This is
achieved through block programming, which provides a
playful but well-developed tool for algorithmic thinking.
Block programming can be implemented in a variety of ways
depending on the school's facilities, for example by using a
robot, building mobile applications, using a microcontroller,
or running a desktop development environment specifically
designed for block programming [23].
More and more schools are using robots that walk on the
floor or on a table and follow a predefined sequence of steps,
so-called "floor robots" (e.g. Bee Bot, Blue Bot, Ozobot,
Edison, mBot).
The Bee-Bot (Fig. 1), or robot bee, has become a great
favourite with young schoolchildren and kindergarteners. This
little bee-shaped device can be programmed using the buttons
on its back. Students try out different pathways to recognise
letters and words, link sentences and parts of text, and find
sequences [24]. It can be used from an early age to develop
cooperative skills, logical and algorithmic thinking, and
observational skills. It is not a recent invention, having been
presented at the BETT educational technology exhibition in
2006.
Fig. 1. Example of a Bee-Bot family (https://iskolaellato.hu/Bee-Bot-
robotmehecske)
The humanoid teaching robot, Alpha 1 (Fig. 2), is used by
the police in accident prevention training sessions to teach
basic traffic rules.
Fig. 2. Ubtech Alpha1 Ebot (https://www.muzix.hu/ubtech-alpha-1-ebot-
edukacios-celu-szabadon-programozhato-hangvezerelheto-humanoid-
robot)
For years, the Thymio robot (Fig. 3), has been available
not only for schools but also for private use. It can be used to
develop skills such as creativity and problem solving. It is an
ideal tool for experiential education, aiming at learning the
basics of coding and robotics.
Fig. 3. Thymio educational robot (https://www.robot-advance.com/EN/art-
thymio-1194.htm)
Cubetto (Fig. 4) transforms coding into a hands-on, age-
appropriate experience that does not require screen presence.
Through playful learning, it increases engagement and
enhances learning even in preschool children. Coding with
Cubetto is done with blocks, which means children can use it
without reading knowledge and without language barriers.
Fig. 4. Montessori Cubetto robot
(https://www.generationrobots.com/en/403930-cubetto-primo-toys.html)
Clementoni: the Mio robot (Fig. 5) provides an
experiential learning opportunity for 6-8 year olds to learn the
basics of programming and gain technical skills. It is excellent
for developing creativity and algorithmic thinking.
E. Nagy and I. Holik • Some Aspects of the Use of Educational Robotics in International, Hungarian Contexts
000176
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Obuda. Downloaded on March 19,2023 at 00:07:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Fig. 5. Example of Clementoni robots, the Mio educational robot
(https://www.clementoni.com/fi/78541-mio-the-robot/)
Pepper (Fig. 6) is a talking, humanoid, customer-service
robot that rolls on 120 cm wheels, but can also be used as a
teaching assistant. It has built-in face recognition and face
tracking. The robot is also equipped with a depth sensor and a
distance sensor, as well as several sensors that detect touch.
You can program how it reacts when these sensors are
touched, what movements it makes, what it says, even in
Hungarian [25].
Fig. 6. Pepper, the humanoid robot
(https://www.softbankrobotics.com/emea/en/pepper)
Pepper's "little brother" is the 58 cm tall, bipedal Nao. It is
a talking humanoid robot, able to understand live speech. It is
used in customer service, marketing and education. „Using
Nao (Fig. 7), students can deepen programming languages to
an advanced level, providing the robot with a simple and fun
way to learn. The robot manages to attract the attention of
developers because it has an impressive computing power and
is a suitable environment for software development”. [26] So,
it helps in learning programming and research at university
level.
Fig. 7. Nao robot as the teaching assistant
(https://www.softbankrobotics.com/emea/en/nao)
Educational robots can also play a significant role in
teaching programming. For example, Lego robots (Fig. 8),
teach students programming in a playful way. Their creative
potential is a powerful motivator. They contribute to the
development of algorithmic thinking and engineering skills.
Fig. 8. Lego Inventor robot (https://www.lego.com/hu-hu/product/robot-
inventor-51515)
Micro:bit (Fig. 9) was launched in the UK in 2015 and is
now used worldwide, including in Hungary. Its affordable
price and the hundreds of accessories developed since its
launch make it an excellent tool for developing students'
creativity.
Fig. 9. The Micro:bit panel for educational foundation
(https://microbit.org/)
However, the use of robots in schools is hampered by a
number of factors, such as the high cost of the devices, the
lack of specific IT skills required to use them, and the low
number of lessons. [19]
The use of robots also offers excellent opportunities in
higher education. 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. Students can learn how robots work and
build their own robots.
The robots provide an excellent basis for teaching
engineering concepts, which can be used to teach a variety of
subjects, practicals, lab activities and projects. The use of
robots not only enables students to learn engineering concepts,
but also motivates them and develops their creativity and
problem-solving skills, making teamwork and the design
process more effective.
V. CONCLUSION
We are now in a new era of education, which includes the
effective use of technological innovations. One of the tools for
methodological innovation could be the use of teaching robots
as teaching tools. Teaching robots can be used to develop a
range of competences, such as logical and algorithmic
thinking, creativity, collaboration, abstraction skills and
problem solving. They offer an excellent opportunity to
motivate and activate students, to stimulate their interest and,
ICCC 2022 • IEEE 10th Jubilee International Conference on Computational Cybernetics and Cyber-Medical Systems • July 6-9, 2022 • Reykjavík, Iceland
000177
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Obuda. Downloaded on March 19,2023 at 00:07:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

last but not least, to boost their self-confidence. By
investigating the latter, which is closely linked to the support
of self-efficacy and self-directed learning with robots, new
questions can be raised in the context of collaborative learning
[28].
There are several initiatives in national and international
educational practice that demonstrate the potential and impact
of educational robots.
In Hungary, the development of algorithmic thinking and
robotics will be included in the new National Curriculum and
in the framework curricula of the Digital Culture subject to be
introduced in 2020. However, educational robots can be used
not only in these lessons, but also in foreign language, reading,
science and mathematics. In higher education, educational
robots can also be used in many areas, for example in the
training of engineers.
In the light of the above, the question arises whether
teaching robots can replace teachers. We believe not, as the
human qualities, emotions, abilities and skills of teachers
cannot be coded, so robots cannot replace teachers. However,
in those areas that can be algorithmed, they can help teachers.
This leaves more time for teachers to plan and organise
lessons and to pay more attention to their students.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Buda, Pedagógusok a digitális korban.: Trendvizsgálat egy nagy
város iskoláiban, Gondolat Kiadó, Budapest, 2020.
[2] Gy. Molnár, Z. Szűts, K. Biró, Use of Augmented Reality in Learning,
Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 2018. vol. 15, no. 5, pp.209-222.
[3] K. Nagy, B. Orosz, Z. Szűts, Z. Balogh, M. Magdin; S. Koprda; R.
Pintér, Gy. Molnár, Responses to the Challenges of Fast Digital
Conversion,in the Light of International Research Results - A
Comparative Look at Virtual Spaces, Acta Polytechnica Hungarica,
2021. vol. 18, no. 1, pp.175-192.
[4] Á. Kozák, Robotizáció: Remények és Félelmek, HVG, Budapest,
2018.
https://hvg.hu/tudomany/20180924_Robotizacio_remenyek_es_felel
mek [06.13.2020.]
[5] Zs. Balázs, Így segíthetne a magyar oktatáson egy cuki robotrovar.
2018. https://qubit.hu/2018/04/24/igy-segithetne-a-magyar-oktatason-
egy-cuki-robotrovar [06.13.2020.]
[6] I. D. Sanda, Szociális készségfejlesztés leendő mérnököknek. Óbudai
Egyetem, Budapest, 2019.
[7] A. Pásztor, E. Török and R. Pap-Szigeti, Innovatív informatikai
eszközök és módszerek a programozás oktatásban, Gradus, 2014, vol.
1, no. 1, pp.22-27.
[8] E. Nagy, Robotok az oktatási-nevelési folyamatokban. Képzés és
gyakorlat: Training and Practice, 2020, vol. 18 no. 3-4, pp.176-186.
[9] P. Bernát and L. Zsakó, Programozás tanítási módszerek - stratégia a
kezdetekre. In: P. Szlávi and L. Zsakó (eds.) InfoDidact2019, Zamárdi:
Webdidaktika Alapítvány, 2019, pp.49-57.
[10] 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.
[11] 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
[12] K. Mező and E. Szabóné Burik, A robotokkal történő oktatás az
élménypedagógia aspektusából. Mesterséges Intelligencia, 2021, vol.
2, pp. 19-32.
[13] G. S. Stager, Seymour Papert (1928-2016) Father of educational
computing. Nature 2016, 537, 308 https://doi.org/10.1038/537308a
[14] LY. Li, CW. Chang and GD.Chen, Researches on Using Robots in
Education, 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
[15] Elias Robot homapage, eliasrobot.com [03.11.2022]
[16] N. Reich-Stiebert and F. Eyssel, Learning with Educational Companion
Robots? Toward Attitudes on Education Robots, Predictors of
Attitudes, and Application Potentials for Education Robots.
International Journal of Social Robotics, 2015, vol. 7, pp.875–888.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0308-9
[17] R. Kiss, Robotika a közoktatásban. Gradus, 2015, vol. 2, pp.81–93.
[18] D. Solymos, LEGO robotok felhasználási lehetőségei az oktatásban.
In: P. Szlávi and L. Zsakó (eds.), InfoDidact2019. Zamárdi:
Webdidaktikai Alapítvány, 2019, pp.265-275.
[19] P. Fehér, “Húsz év múlva” - A digitális oktatás helyzete, eszközei,
trendjei világszerte. Gyermeknevelés, 2020, vol. 8, no. 2, pp.350-372.
[20] T. Kersánszki and L. Nádai, The Position of STEM Higher Education
Courses in the Labor Market. International Journal of Engineering
Pedagogy, 2020, vol. 10, no. 5, pp.62-76.
[21] 110/2012. (VI. 4.) Korm. rendelet a Nemzeti alaptanterv kiadásáról,
bevezetéséről és alkalmazásáról.
https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=a1200110.kor
[22] Kerettanterv az általános iskola 1-4. évfolyamára. (Framework
curriculum for primary grades 1-4)
https://www.oktatas.hu/kozneveles/kerettantervek/2020_nat
[23] Kerettanterv az általános iskola 5-8. évfolyamára. (Framework
curriculum for primary grades 5-8)
https://www.oktatas.hu/kozneveles/kerettantervek/2020_nat
[24] T. Majzik, Oktatási robotokkal támogatott magyarórák. Magiszter,
2020, vol. 1, pp.51-58.
[25] Pepper Robot homepage, pepperrobot.hu [05.11.2022]
[26] R. Demeter, A. Kovari, J. Katona, I. Heldal, C. Costescu, A. Rosan, ,
S. Thill, T. Stefanut, Cognitive robotics software development aspects
based on experiments of future software engineers, 2020 11th IEEE
International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications
(CogInfoCom),pp.000459-000464,doi:
10.1109/CogInfoCom50765.2020.9237849.
[27] 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
[28] 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
.
E. Nagy and I. Holik • Some Aspects of the Use of Educational Robotics in International, Hungarian Contexts
000178
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Obuda. Downloaded on March 19,2023 at 00:07:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.