Cultivating Computational Thinking Skills via Educational Robotics Activities in a Blended Learning Environment Nafsika Pappa University of West Attica, Ag. Spyridonos Str., Egaleo Postal Code 12243, Athens, Greece Abstract There is a significant trend in the integration of Educational Robotics at all educational levels, and along with this, the promotion of Computational Thinking is one of the related learning outcomes of this integration. At the same time, the transfer of face-to-face learning to online or Blended Learning context due to the COVID-19 pandemic has led to the development of several technological tools, such as Educational Robotic simulators and online collaborating environments, to support this transfer. In this field, this PhD research aims to design a framework in which students collaborate in a Blended Learning context while solving Educational Robotic activities to cultivate Computational Thinking skills. Keywords Computational Thinking, Educational Robotics, Blended Learning, Robotics Simulators, Secondary Education1 1. Introduction This PhD research aims to design a framework for promoting CT skills through collaborative ER in a Although Computational Thinking (CT) appeared in the Blended Learning (BL) environment. research spotlight as a concept related to Computer Science, it quickly established its presence within main 2. Theoretical Framework life skills such as reading, writing, and arithmetic [1]. In the last few years, CT has been considered a key concept The framework to be developed is determined by the in education, and many countries worldwide have three factors (CT, ER, and BL) and their interrelations. revised curricula to integrate it across several Therefore, 2.1.1 discusses Cultivating Computational educational contexts [2]. Thinking through ER, 2.2 addresses Blended Learning Due to CT’s problem-solving approach, CT and ER, and 2.3 highlights the emergence and use of ER cultivation was soon related to Educational Robotics, simulators. leading to strong research interest in CT promotion through ER activities [3, 4, 5]. Several 2.1. Cultivating Computational Thinking frameworks/models have been proposed in the literature through ER to promote CT skills by combining CT with various A recent review of CT in European compulsory learning outcomes. Most of them are inspired by Piaget’s education [2] highlighted visual programming constructivism theory and Papert’s constructionism environments and ER as the main trends for cultivating theory of the additional pedagogical value of interaction CT. Since the term CT appeared in the literature, with a real object when constructing knowledge [6]. programming has been an appropriate vehicle for CT Until the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the cultivation. Several CT assessment tools are based on strongest point of this link was ER's experiential and programming concepts or activities to evaluate students’ hands-on learning nature. When transferring the CT skills [8, 9]. Although programming is part of an ER activities online, the main advantage was lost, leading to project, when referring to CT cultivation through ER in the need to rediscover the frame of CT and ER. Several this research, CT is mainly related to ER concepts and solutions were available instead of physical robots, such not only programming concepts. Several frameworks as ER simulators or online collaborative environments and methodologies to promote CT through ER have been [7]. Various ER technologies and good practices have proposed in the literature. CPG+ [3] and CCPS [5] emerged from the research conducted during the models shed light on the design of ER environments for pandemic period, which can serve to cultivate CT in a cultivating CT. Apart from the type and orchestration of mixed learning context involving face-to-face and online the activities, they suggest that ER environments where ER activities. activities are supervised and implemented in sufficient Proceedings of the Doctoral Consortium of the 19th European Conference 0009-0001-3930-420X (N. Pappa) on Technology Enhanced Learning, 16th September 2024, Krems, Austria © 2025 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). npappa@uniwa.com (N. Pappa) CEUR ceur-ws.org Workshop ISSN 1613-0073 Proceedings time lead to more effective CT cultivation. In addition, provide is considered a great advantage during students’ when working in such environments, students benefit learning process [16]. Recent reviews describe a variety from more guidance [3] and teachers’ delayed feedback of ER simulators in the form of a) desktop environments, [10]. Still, the clarification of classroom orchestration b) mobile applications, and cloud- based platforms remains a major research priority [6]. [17,18], highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. Students work in the simulated environment to cultivate 2.2. Blended Learning and ER CT through realistic missions they must complete [9,12]. Within these missions, students are confronted with The literature shows ongoing research interest in BL, situations they may encounter in the real world and and its benefits have been widely reported. BL make decisions about robot responses based on sensor environments are considered effective when they and motor parameters. The approaches regarding the integrate benefits from mixed environments (face-to- order of the activities (simulated or with physical robots) face and online) [24, 25]. Regardless of the subject, a BL differ. There are proposals for engaging students first should incorporate flexibility and interaction, facilitate with the simulators and then with the physical robot, learning processes, and create an effective learning and others that start with the physical robot to increase climate [24]. Various models, such as flipped, flex, self- students' motivation [14]. Most research conducted over blend, and rotation, have been proposed [26], and the last four years investigating using ER simulators in several important challenges have been documented blended learning environments [19,20] involves mainly regarding learners’ self–regulation and technology university students. competencies [25,26]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Given the above, a research gap emerges regarding several studies on CT and ER in BL environments start the ER blended learning framework for CT cultivation in appearing, mainly in higher education. secondary education. In addition, the changes in the Regarding the transfer of ER in the BL context, curricula of Information and Communication although there are few studies for formal education, Technology subject (ICT) and Robotics classes methodologies [27] that involve a phase/step in which worldwide highlight the need for helping teachers the student does not have physical contact with the organise their courses to address the CT's new cognitive robots are proposed [5, 28]. This characteristic could goals. Finally, the variety of ER, CT, and BL technologies promote the design of online activities where students used during the COVID-19 pandemic and the experience continue working without noticing the absence of the gained need to be evaluated towards extending CT physical robot. Regarding methodology, the flipped cultivation through ER beyond the classroom classroom [7], using instructional videos for every unit environment. or challenge, has been proposed in several studies [7,12]. The appropriate combination of them should be Νo models are proposed that include stages considered a new means for enhancing the pedagogical implemented remotely, individually, or collaboratively goals of the related fields. This is the expected among secondary students. contribution of the research in the domain of TEL. To address the research gap on the lack of secondary students’ experience with ER in effective BL environments, one of this research’s expected results 3. Goal and research questions will be the evidence-based heuristics about students' The objective of this PhD research is to design a current practices on working with ER in different framework where secondary school students cultivate modalities. CT skills through ER activities in a BL context using ER simulators (Figure 1). The main question addressing the 2.3. ER Simulators aim of the research is: The use of Robotic Simulators is gaining more ground, and due to their flexibility [11,12], they have been used by a larger population in recent years. In addition, the cost of purchasing and maintaining the robotics kits and the increased time required for implementation [11,12,13] are some of the educators’ challenges eliminated using simulators. Many studies agree that using physical robots over simulators enhances students’ engagement [14,15], but regarding the expected learning outcomes, there does not seem to be a significant difference between them [15]. Moreover, the direct feedback that simulators Figure 1. Thesis diagram overviewing the context, the research question, learning objectives, contributions and evaluation RQ: How to design, implement, and evaluate a RQ1: How to combine ER activities in ER environments framework for integrating ER in BL context (physical face-to-face in the classroom and remotely? robots and simulators) where students cultivate CT RQ2: How can CT skills be cultivated when shifting skills? from hands-on activities with physical robots to the ER simulation environment, and what modifications occur The main question is divided into three sub- during this shift? questions: RQ3: How does collaboration orchestration affect CT cultivation in both modalities? 4. Methodology and the exploratory study's feedback will help conceptualise two pilot studies with students working The methodology chosen is Design-Based Research on ER activities with ER simulators face-to-face and (DBR) [29]. This methodological approach best fits the online. PhD objectives of solving real-world educational Both qualitative and quantitative data will be problems through researchers' and practitioners' collected and analysed (to explore students' practices collaboration. The DBR research process involves four and needs). This phase will result in the initial version design phases, from identifying the problem to of a framework accommodating teachers’ and students’ validating the generated principles and artefacts, and it needs. is applied iteratively (see Figure 2). In the third phase, the initial version of the Several exploratory studies will be implemented framework designed will be implemented (first based on the DBR approach. The participants will iteration) with secondary school students attending ER include pre-service and in- service teachers, who are courses as part of the formal curriculum (RQ2). Data that expected to inform design explorations. Students will will be collected include student deliverables, analytics also be involved in informing implementation from the ER simulator, student perceptions through explorations. Exploratory studies will use a mixed- questionnaires, and audio/ video recordings from method design [20] incorporating quantitative and student interaction and collaboration (RQ3). After data qualitative data collection and analysis, aiming at a analysis and further refinements, a second comprehensive approach. implementation (second iteration) will be carried out. Following the typical four phases of a DBR, the first In the fourth phase, based on the second iteration, phase includes conducting a systematic literature review the framework will be reconceptualised and evaluated to explore the research context around ER, CT, and BL. by in-service teachers, and conclusions will be drawn. The review's primary focus is related to RQ1, including existing practices, available technologies (e.g., ER 5. Current Progress simulators and online communication platforms), and pedagogical approaches in educational contexts [21]. The research is still in its first phase. The Systematic Furthermore, the first phase includes an exploratory Literature Review [23] of “ER Simulators, Trends, study with practitioners to explore their practices, Methods Applied and Learning Outcomes” is due to attitudes, and challenges while designing ER activities conclude soon. Currently, 72 articles from the ERIC and with ER simulators for cultivating CT skills, as well as SCOPUS databases are being analysed. their needs. Educators, working in pairs or triads, will At the same time, an ER activity with two different co- design ER activities in two different ER simulators. simulators is designed to trigger the educators' They will then reflect on their design experience and the interaction and co-design a framework for using ER critical points analysed in the literature review. Both activities in various simulators in the BL context. qualitative and quantitative data will be analysed. Furthermore, the questionnaire provided at the end of The data from the exploratory study will be analysed the activity is currently finalised. during the second phase. The literature review findings Figure 2. DBR methodology followed. Acknowledgements [9] Román-González, M., Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2019). Combining assessment tools for a The author would like to thank her supervisors, K. comprehensive evaluation of computational Papanikolaou, G. Fesakis, and K. Sgouropoulou, for their thinking interventions. Computational thinking valuable guidance and support. education, 79-98. [10] Chevalier, M., Giang, C., El-Hamamsy, L., Bonnet, References E., Papaspyros, V., Pellet, J. P., ... & Mondada, F. (2022). The role of feedback and guidance as [1] Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational Thinking. Vol. intervention methods to foster computational 49(Communications of the ACM), 33–35. thinking in educational robotics learning activities [2] Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Kampylis, P., for primary school. Computers & Education, Dagiené, V., Wastiau, P., Engelhardt, K., Earp, J., 104431. Horvath, M.A., Jasutė, E., Malagoli, C., [11] Kerimbayev, N., Nurym, N., Akramova, A., & Masiulionytė-Dagienė, V. and Stupurienė, G., Abdykarimova, S. (2023). Educational robotics: Reviewing Computational Thinking in Development of computational thinking in Compulsory Education, Inamorato dos Santos, A., collaborative online learning. Education and Cachia, R., Giannoutsou, N. and Punie, Y. editor(s), Information Technologies, Publications Office of the European Union, doi:10.1007/s10639-023- 11806-5 Luxembourg, 2022, ISBN 978-92- 76-47208-7, [12] Witherspoon, E. B., Higashi, R. M., Schunn, C. D., https://doi:10.2760/126955 Baehr, E. C., & Shoop, R. (2017). Developing [3] Atmatzidou, S., Demetriadis, S., & Nika, P. (2018). computational thinking through a virtual robotics How does the degree of guidance support programming curriculum. ACM Transactions on students’ metacognitive and problem-solving Computing Education (TOCE), 18(1), 1-20. skills in educational robotics? Journal of Science [13] Stein, G., & Ledeczi, A. (2021). Enabling Education and Technology, 27(1), 70-85. collaborative distance robotics education for [4] Chiazzese, G., Arrigo, M., Chifari, A., Lonati, V., & novice programmers. Paper presented at the Tosto, C. (2019). Educational Robotics in Primary Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Visual School: Measuring the Development of Languages and Human-Centric Computing, Computational Thinking Skills with the Bebras VL/HCC, 2010-October Tasks. Informatics, 6. doi: 10.1109/VL/HCC51201.2021.9576314 https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics6040043 [14] Kurniawan, O., Lee, N. T. S., Datta, S., [5] Chevalier, M., Giang, C., Piatti, A. et al. Fostering Sockalingam, N., & Leong, P. K. (2018, December). computational thinking through educational Effectiveness of physical robot versus robot robotics: a model for creative computational simulator in teaching introductory programming. problem-solving. IJ STEM Ed 7, 39 (2020). In 2018 IEEE International Conference on https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00238-z Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for [6] Ioannou, A., & Makridou, E. (2018). Exploring the Engineering (TALE) (pp. 486-493). IEEE. potentials of educational robotics in the [15] Bermúdez, A., Casado, R., Fernández, G., Guijarro, development of computational thinking: A M., & Olivas, P. (2019). Drone challenge: A summary of current research and practical platform for promoting programming and robotics proposal for future work. Education and skills in K-12 education. International Journal of Information Technologies, 23(6), 2531-2544. Advanced Robotic Systems, 16(1) [7] Gomes, A. S. A., Da Silva, J. F., & Teixeira, L. R. D. doi:10.1177/1729881418820425 L. (2020, November). Educational robotics in times [16] Joventino, C. F., Silva, R. A. A., Pereira, J. H. M., of pandemic: challenges and possibilities. In 2020 Yabarrena, J. M. S. C., & de Oliveira, A. S. (2023). A Latin American Robotics Symposium (LARS), 2020 sim-to-real practical approach to teach robotics Brazilian Symposium on Robotics (SBR), and 2020 into K-12: A case study of simulators, educational Workshop on Robotics in Education (WRE) (pp. 1- and DIY robotics in competition-based 5). learning. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic [8] Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April). New Systems: Theory and Applications, 107(1) frameworks for studying and assessing the doi:10.1007/s10846-022-01790-2 development of computational thinking. In [17] Tselegkaridis, S., & Sapounidis, T. (2021). Proceedings of the 2012 annual American Simulators in educational robotics: A review. Educational Research Association meeting, Education Sciences, 11(1), 1-12. Vancouver, Canada (Vol. 1, p. 25). doi:10.3390/educsci11010011 [18] Camargo, C., Gonçalves, J., Conde, M. Á., active learning outcomes. Educational Rodríguez-Sedano, F. J., Costa, P., & García- psychologist, 49(4), 219-243. Peñalvo, F. J. (2021). Systematic literature review of realistic simulators applied in an educational robotics context. Sensors, 21(12) doi:10.3390/s21124031 [19] Cañas, J. M., Martín-Martín, D., Arias, P., Vega, J., Roldán-Álvarez, D., García-Pérez, L., & Fernández- Conde, J. (2020). Open- source drone programming course for distance engineering education. Electronics, 9(12), 2163. [20] Tupac-Yupanqui, M., Vidal-Silva, C., Pavesi- Farriol, L., Ortiz, A. S., Cardenas- Cobo, J., & Pereira, F. (2022). Exploiting Arduino features to develop programming competencies. IEEE Access, 10, 20602-20615. [21] Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson. [22] Baumgartner, Eric & Bell, Philip & Brophy, Sean & Hoadley, Christopher & Hsi, Sherry & Joseph, Diana & Orrill, Chandra & Puntambekar, Sadhana & Sandoval, William & Tabak, Iris. (2003). Design- Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry. Educational Researcher. 32. 5-8, 35. 10.3102/0013189X032001005. [23] Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele, UK, Keele University, 33(2004), 1-26. [24] Boelens, R., De Wever, B., & Voet, M. (2017). Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 1. [25] Rasheed, R. A., Kamsin, A., & Abdullah, N. (2020). Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 144, 103701. [26] Bizami, N. A., Tasir, Z., & Kew, S. N. (2023). Innovative pedagogical principles and technological tools capabilities for immersive blended learning: a systematic literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 28(2), 1373-1425. [27] Lin, C. J., & Mubarok, H. (2024). Promoting young learners’ computational thinking with AI-based robots and the ICAP model in blended learning contexts. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-15. [28] Lin, C. J., & Mubarok, H. (2024). Promoting young learners’ computational thinking with AI- based robots and the ICAP model in blended learning contexts. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-15. [29] Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to