Universidad Pablo de Olavide (España)

International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation

número 23, 2025
ISSN: 2386-4303
DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021
Sección: Artículos
Recibido: 18-09-2024
Aceptado: 11-10-2024
Publicado: 26-02-2025
Páginas: 1-24

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un

análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y
Portugal
Robotics in university teacher training: A comparative
analysis of perceptions between Spain and Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván
Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad de Sevilla (España)
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1646-9247
[email protected]

Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu
Centro de Estudos em Educação e Inovação (Ci&DEI)
Escola Superior de Educação, Comunicação e Desporto
Instituto Politécnico da Guarda (Portugal)
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0698-400X
[email protected]

RESUMEN
La robótica educativa ha ganado relevancia como herramienta para mejorar la enseñanza,
especialmente en disciplinas relacionadas con la Ciencia, Tecnología, Ingeniería, Artes y
Matemáticas. Este estudio compara las percepciones de estudiantes universitarios en
España y Portugal sobre su uso, con el objetivo de identificar el impacto de la robótica
en su formación docente. Se empleó un enfoque cuantitativo y descriptivo, utilizando un
cuestionario de 42 ítems aplicado a 193 estudiantes de ambas naciones. Se analizaron las
percepciones sobre el conocimiento de la robótica, la interacción con ella y su impacto
en la motivación y aprendizaje. Los datos se procesaron con el software informático
especializado. Los estudiantes de ambos países mostraron una actitud positiva hacia la
robótica educativa. Las puntuaciones medias fueron altas en áreas como la motivación y
la disposición para implementar robótica en sus prácticas docentes, aunque se identificó
un bajo conocimiento en herramientas específicas como Arduino y Scratch. Los resultados
reflejan que la robótica educativa es vista como una herramienta efectiva para fomentar
habilidades críticas, como el pensamiento crítico y el autoaprendizaje. Sin embargo,
es necesario mejorar la formación en tecnologías específicas. La robótica educativa
es percibida como beneficiosa tanto en España como en Portugal, especialmente en
términos de motivación y metodología pedagógica. No obstante, se requiere una mayor
familiarización con las herramientas tecnológicas para maximizar su impacto educativo.
PALABRAS CLAVE
Educación Superior; robótica; STEAM; percepciones de estudiantes.

ARTÍCULOS1
Cómo citar: Román-Graván, P. & Arrifano-Tadeu, P. J. . (2025). La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones
entre España y Portugal. IJERI: International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, (23), 1-24. 10.46661/ijeri.11021
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation
N. 23, 2025 – ISSN: 2386-4303 – DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021 – [Págs. 1-24]

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván; Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu

ABSTRACT
Educational robotics has gained relevance as a tool to improve teaching, especially
in disciplines related to Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics. This
study compares the perceptions of university students in Spain and Portugal about
its use, with the aim of identifying the impact of robotics on their teacher training.
A quantitative and descriptive approach was used, using a questionnaire with 42
items and applied to 193 students from both nations. Perceptions about knowledge of
robotics, interaction with it and its impact on motivation and learning were analysed.
The data were processed with specialized computer software. Students from both
countries showed a positive attitude towards educational robotics. The average
scores were high in areas such as motivation and willingness to implement robotics
in their teaching practices, although low knowledge was identified in specific tools
such as Arduino and Scratch. The results reflect that educational robotics is seen
as an effective tool to foster critical skills, such as critical thinking and self-learning.
However, training in specific technologies needs to be improved. Educational robotics
is perceived as beneficial in both Spain and Portugal, especially in terms of motivation
and pedagogical methodology. However, greater familiarity with technological tools
is required to maximize its educational impact.
KEYWORDS
Higher Education; robotics; STEAM; students’ perceptions.

1. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, we find technology in all aspects of our lives, such as medicine, industry, household
appliances, education, etc. Interest in educational robotics has increased in recent years, and
because students are digital natives and use technology easily (Athanasiou et al., 2019; Micó-
Amigo & Bernal, 2020; Khushk, 2023). According to these authors, more and more teachers are
trying to include robotics activities in the teaching-learning processes, so many educational
centers and universities offer elective subjects and through robotics summer camps or intro-
duce educational robotics practices in their curricula (Chavarría & Saldaño Mella, 2010; Morales
Pérez et al., 2021; Hervás-Gómez et al., 2019; Román Graván et al., 2019). It appears that robots
can help students understand difficult abstract concepts about science, engineering, and tech-
nology, and transform these concepts into a real-world understanding. Robots, combined with
specific software and curriculum, offer learning opportunities, and although they are expensive
for many educational center budgets, the offers and improvements in their costs and their sim-
ple use, make it possible for students to participate in these types of practical activities.
Lytridis et al. (2020) state that in recent years there have been significant advances in robotics in
hardware, software and artificial intelligence capabilities, and these advances have allowed ro-
bots to operate more autonomously and perform tasks more effectively. Consequently, robotics
is being introduced into areas where traditionally only humans have participated, one of these
areas being education, with research being carried out on how robots can be used in the clas-
sroom to facilitate, improve, and support the learning process (Benitti, 2012; Chavarría & Saldaño
Mella, 2010; Morales Pérez et al., 2021). One of the most sought-after objectives in the educational
field today is to integrate robotics and programming into the learning environment, with the aim
of promoting the development of STEAM skills and knowledge, as well as problem-solving, crea-
tivity, critical thinking, teamwork and communication skills. This educational area uses robots
and programming platforms as teaching tools to teach theoretical and practical concepts in an
interactive and engaging way.

ARTÍCULOS2
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation
N. 23, 2025 – ISSN: 2386-4303 – DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021 – [Págs. 1-24]

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván; Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu

Relating the SDG to training in educational robotics involves identifying how the latter can con-
tribute to achieving specific goals established in the SDG. Explaining the relationship between
educational robotics and the different SDG is as follows:
a) Quality education (SDG 4): Educational robotics can transform the teaching-learning
process, making it more interactive, hands-on and stimulating for students. This can im-
prove learning outcomes and foster interest in STEAM disciplines. Robotics also teaches
critical skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity and teamwork, which are
essential for success in today’s global economy.
b) Gender equality (SDG 5): Educational robotics can be a tool to close the gender gap in
STEAM fields, encourage more girls to participate in these areas from an early age and
challenge gender stereotypes.
c) Decent work and economic growth (SDG 8): By teaching robotics, students are prepared
with technical skills that will be highly in demand in the future labor market, thus contri-
buting to economic growth and decent work.
d) Industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9): Robotics can inspire students to innovate
and develop new technologies, which can contribute to the development of resilient in-
frastructure and promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization.
e) Reducing inequalities (SDG 10): By providing equitable access to robotics education, in-
equalities can be reduced by ensuring that students from diverse socioeconomic back-
grounds and regions have equal opportunities to learn and benefit from these technolo-
gical skills.
f) Partnerships to achieve the goals (SDG 17): Educational robotics programs often require
collaboration between schools, universities, industry, and government. These partners-
hips can strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership
for Sustainable Development.
By integrating educational robotics into the curriculum and/or extracurricular activities, interest
and skills in STEAM are fostered and contribute to the achievement of the SDG, preparing stu-
dents to face global challenges with innovative, inclusive and sustainable solutions.

1.1. Robotics applied to education: educational robotics

For several years now, there has been talk about educational robotics, what it is, what it is used
for, how it is used and with whom, and in that order of ideas, there are also the first investigations
on this topic.
For Bravo & Forero (2012), today’s society is demanding that the educational system develop
new skills and competencies that allow students to respond efficiently to the changing environ-
ments of today’s world. The use of robotics in the classroom as a learning tool generates multi-
disciplinary learning environments that allow students to strengthen their learning process while
developing different skills that will allow them to face the challenges of today’s society.
The implementation of educational robotics projects in the classroom creates the best condi-
tions for knowledge appropriation, which allow students to create their own representations of
the phenomena of the world around them, facilitating the acquisition of knowledge about these
phenomena and their transfer to different areas of knowledge (Llanos-Ruíz et al., 2023; Morales
Pérez et al., 2021; Hervás-Gómez et al., 2019; Román Graván et al., 2019).
Márquez & Ruiz (2014) state that robots can be seen as a pedagogical tool widely used in the
academic training of women and men, in such a way that when the student is involved in this
type of academic processes, creativity and motivation are being encouraged, which will subse-
quently allow them to develop cognitive and manual skills.

ARTÍCULOS3
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation
N. 23, 2025 – ISSN: 2386-4303 – DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021 – [Págs. 1-24]

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván; Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu

García Hurtado et al. (2012) state that robotics in the classroom allows for enriching learning
strategies as support for the comprehensive training of students, and conclude that:
a) Robotics is a very efficient tool to be implemented in educational processes in basic, se-
condary and higher education.
b) The implemented robot is designed with all ergonomic and safety considerations to gua-
rantee the integrity of the users.
c) A mechanical system, an electrical/electronic system and proprietary software were
functionally integrated to develop a mobile robotic platform for education.
d) The developed software allows for easy and quick learning of the programming principles
and theories commonly used. The developed system allows the development of basic
skills in the student such as teamwork, systematic thinking, openness, individuality, pro-
blem identification and solution, project management, and others that are very impor-
tant in the formation of the human being.
Another reason why it is advisable to introduce educational robotics in educational centers is
because as technology and its accelerated development are changing society, its members are
required to adapt to this change. In recent years, attention has focused on educational robotics
as a platform towards STEAM fields (Milašinčić et al, 2020).
Therefore, in education, and according to Botes & Smit (2019), robotics is applied in various ways
and for multiple purposes, relating to education in two ways: robotics in education and robotics
for education.
The first approach (robotics in education) focuses on teaching about robotics as a subject in
itself. It includes learning the principles of designing, building, programming and controlling
robots. The goal is to provide students with specific knowledge and skills related to robotics,
which could include mechanics, electronics, software and control systems. It is used to prepare
students for careers in engineering, computer science, and technology fields, where they can
apply this knowledge directly. Robotics in education focuses on integrating robotics as part of
the STEAM curriculum (Shin et al., 2016), promoting technological literacy and understanding of
complex systems.
In the second approach (robotics for education), robotics is used as a pedagogical tool to fa-
cilitate learning in various areas, not just robotics or computer science. Robots act as educatio-
nal mediators to teach concepts that can range from basic mathematics to languages, social
sciences, and more. This focus is on how robotics can enhance the learning process, foster criti-
cal thinking, problem solving, creativity, and social skills such as teamwork and communication.
In robotics for education, robotics is seen as a means to a broader educational end, not neces-
sarily geared toward careers in technology, but to enrich the educational process in general.
Both approaches are complementary and valuable in the educational context. Robotics in edu-
cation delves into the technical knowledge and application of robotics, while robotics for educa-
tion uses robotics as an innovative pedagogical tool to enrich the learning experience in a wide
range of disciplines.
At the University of Seville, and during the 2016-17 academic year, we started an educational
innovation activity consisting of training in educational robotics and computational thinking for
students of the Faculty of Education Sciences (Román-Graván et al., 2017).
The general objective of this innovation was to introduce university students (future teachers
of Primary or Basic Education) to the use of different robotic kits that are being marketed in our
country and that are used in early childhood and primary education, as well as to raise aware-
ness of their importance for education at these educational levels.
The results concluded that, in general terms, the students had been very motivated and reacted very
positively to the introduction of educational robotics in their academic curriculum for this subject.

ARTÍCULOS4
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation
N. 23, 2025 – ISSN: 2386-4303 – DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021 – [Págs. 1-24]

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván; Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu

After introducing educational robotics consecutively, during the following two academic years:
2017-18 and 2018-19, also in both University Degrees (Early Childhood Education and Primary Edu-
cation). The conclusion of this study, after incorporating these two academic years into the sam-
ple, was that working with the robotic kits was also a success among students, expressing very
positive perceptions (Román Graván et al., 2019). It has been eight years since we started this
innovation, and after carrying out a research stay at the Centro de Estudos em Educação e Ino-
vação (Ci&DEI) and at the Escola Superior de Educação, Comunicação e Desporto of the Instituto
Politécnico da Guarda (Portugal), we wanted to replicate the work carried out and compare the
results obtained in Spain with those obtained in Portugal during the 2023-24 academic year, and
check whether there were significant differences in their perceptions about their level of knowled-
ge and use of educational robotics in relation to the country where the questionnaire was applied.

2. MATERIAL AND METHOD

2.1. Methodology
The research methodology has been quantitative, descriptive and correlational.
The study of the study is transversal because the data has been collected in a single moment
in time, instead of over time (longitudinal). In addition, the use of random sampling of students
from the faculties of education in Spain and Portugal tries to generalize the results to these bro-
ader populations.
Therefore, descriptive statistical calculations have been applied to obtain an overview of the
results (median, median and fashion), the calculation of the standard deviation, variance, as-
ymmetry and kurtosis: to evaluate the dispersion and deviation of the responses of the respon-
ses made, and, finally, the calculation of the correlation between the responses given by the
students of Spain and Portugal (Spearman correlation). These statistical analyses have been
carried out using SPSS Statistics analysis software.

2.2. Information collection instrument

During this study, the same information collection instrument has been used as the one used
during the first study in 2016, and which was created ad hoc to collect students’ perceptions be-
fore interacting with robotic kits.
This instrument consisted of 42 items (5 identification items and 37 items related to perceptions
about educational robotics and robotics) and the measurement scale used was Likert type,
where score 1 represented nothing suitable, nothing relevant, invalid; And the 5 was very suita-
ble, very pertinent, very valid.
The information collection instrument is in the following Internet address: https://bit.ly/robotica-
pretest, it is a Google form.
ESUROBOTIC, as the questionnaire is called, it is a registered trademark, with application code No.
M4100289, by the Spanish Patent and Brands Office (https://bit.ly/esurobotic).

2.3. Participants
To ensure the relevance and actuality of the data in our study, we have focused on the question-
naires collected during the 2023-2024 academic year. This decision guarantees that the sample is
representative of the current conditions of students in Spain and Portugal, although we are aware
that the number of students enrolled in the studies of these countries is different. Including data from
previous academic years, from 2016-2017 to 2022-2023, could have compromised the proportionali-
ty and precision of our findings, given the possibility of significant changes in the educational, social
and technological contexts that could influence the responses of the responses of the students.

ARTÍCULOS5
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation
N. 23, 2025 – ISSN: 2386-4303 – DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021 – [Págs. 1-24]

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván; Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu

The questionnaires completed were 193 students (Table 1), being the percentage of men 10.4 %
compared to 89.6 % of women. Normally, in this type of studies carried out in the field of social
sciences, it usually has a more predominant female representation.

Table 1. Gender of the participants.

Frequency Percentage

T SP PT T SP PT

Female 173 154 19 89,6 79,8 9,8

Valid Male 20 17 3 10,4 8,8 1,6

Total 193 171 22 100,0 88,6 11,4

The ages of the participants ranged between 18 and 25 or more years (Table 2).

Table 2. Age of the participants.

Frequency Percentage

T SP PT T SP PT

18 40 39 1 20,7 20,2 0,5

19 8 3 5 4,1 1,6 2,6

20 28 22 6 14,5 11,4 3,1

21 44 42 2 22,8 21,8 1,0

Valid 22 31 28 3 16,1 14,5 1,6

23 18 17 1 9,3 8,8 0,5

24 7 6 1 3,6 3,1 0,5

25 or more 17 14 3 8,8 7,3 1,6

Total 193 171 22 100,0 88,6 11,4

The universities that have participated in this study have been (table 3) the University of Seville
(Spain) and the Escola Superior de Educação, Comunicação e Desporto, Instituto Politécnico
da Guarda (Portugal).

ARTÍCULOS6
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation
N. 23, 2025 – ISSN: 2386-4303 – DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021 – [Págs. 1-24]

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván; Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu

Table 3. Participating universities.

Frequency Percentage

Escola Superior de Educação, Comunicação e Desporto, Instituto

22 11,4
Politécnico da Guarda (Portugal)
Valid
University of Seville (Spain) 171 88,6

Total 193 100,0

The degree where the participants in this study were enrolled (Table 4) have been: Bachelor’s
degree in Early Childhood Education from the University of Seville (4th course), Bachelor’s degree
in Primary Education from the University of Seville (1st course) and the Bachelor’s degree in Basic
Education by the Polytechnic Institute of Guarda, IPG (2nd course).

Table 4. Bachelor’s degree where you are enrolled.

Frequency Percentage

Bachelor’s degree in Early Childhood Education 107 55,4

Bachelor’s degree in Primary Education from the University of

64 33,2
Seville
Valid
Bachelor’s degree in Basic Education by the Polytechnic
22 11,4
Institute of Guarda, IPG

Total 193 100,0

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results obtained for the mean, median, mode, and standard deviations (Table 5 and Figure
2) from the survey conducted among students in Spain (SP) and Portugal (PT), as well as the
combined total (T), have been structured into six major blocks. Below, we present the items co-
rresponding to each block:
Dimension 1. Fundamentals and knowledge of Educational Robotics (ER):
• Item 6: Knowledge about what educational robotics is.
• Item 39: Knowledge about Arduino.
• Item 40: Knowledge about the Raspberry plate.
• Item 41: Knowledge about SCRATCH programming software.
• Item 42: Knowledge about MBLOCK programming software.
Dimension 2. Interaction and experience with the ER:
• Item 7: Interaction with experiences where re.
• Item 14: Participation in activities with educational robotics that would increase team skills.
• Item 15: Interaction with educational robotics that helps understand concepts and attitudes.

ARTÍCULOS7
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation
N. 23, 2025 – ISSN: 2386-4303 – DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021 – [Págs. 1-24]

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván; Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu

Dimension 3. Provision and attitude towards the implementation of the ER:

• Item 8: Provision to use educational robotics in teaching practice.
• Item 34: Motivation to work in subjects through ER.
Dimension 4. Motivational impact and curiosity:
• Item 9: Impact of educational robotics on the motivation to study.
• Item 10: How educational robotics would increase curiosity for study.
• Item 11: Impact on the interest in the subject after participating in robotics activities.
Dimension 5. Pedagogical and Methodological Applications:
• Item 12: Promotion of new teaching methodologies.
• Item 13: Increase in participation in classes with the use of robotics.
• Item 16: Driving self -learning.
• Item 17: Promotion of critical thinking.
• Item 18: Development of shared knowledge construction.
• Item 19: Facilitation of access to additional documentary resources.
• Item 20: Application of theoretical knowledge to practice.
• Item 21: Work in quasi-real problems.
• Item 22: Improvement in the ability to learn to learn.
• Item 23: Improvement in technological skills.
• Item 24: Personalization of the learning process.
• Item 25: Support to traditional teaching materials.
Dimension 6. Social and emotional impact:
• Item 26: Boredom experience when using robotics in class.
• Item 28: Class assistance with enthusiasm.
• Item 29: Enjoy classes with robotics.
• Item 30: Use of educational robotics in other subjects.
• Item 31: Perception of loss of time with robotics in class.
• Item 32: Attraction of attention to the subjects with the use of robotics.
• Item 33: Need to use robotics in class.
• Item 35: Improvement of opinion on the content of the subject.
• Item 36: Perception of innovation and teaching interest.
• Item 37: Opportunity to share ideas and visions.
• Item 38: Development of cognitive skills.
The following section presents a detailed report on the results obtained from the calculated
statistical measures: mean, median, mode, and standard deviation for each of the six previously
defined categories. This analysis aims to provide a clearer understanding of the results obtained.
The mean, also known as the average, is a measure of central tendency calculated by summing all
numerical values in a dataset and then dividing this sum by the total number of data points (Fre-
edman, Pisani, & Purves, 2007; Daniel & Cross, 2018). It serves as a useful indicator of the “center” of
a dataset and is highly sensitive to extreme values. The median represents the value that divides

ARTÍCULOS8
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation
N. 23, 2025 – ISSN: 2386-4303 – DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021 – [Págs. 1-24]

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván; Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu

a dataset into two equal parts when the data are arranged in ascending or descending order. In
other words, half of the data points fall below the median, while the other half fall above it. Unlike the
mean, the median is less affected by extreme values and is a more appropriate measure of central
tendency for highly skewed distributions. The mode refers to the most frequently occurring values in
a dataset. A dataset can be unimodal (one mode), bimodal (two modes), or multimodal (multiple
modes). The mode is particularly useful for identifying the most common categories or values within
a dataset. The standard deviation is a measure of dispersion or variability within a dataset. It indica-
tes how spread out the data points are relative to the mean. A low standard deviation suggests that
the data points are closely clustered around the mean, whereas a high standard deviation indicates
greater dispersion. Standard deviation is calculated as the square root of the variance, which repre-
sents the average of the squared differences between each data point and the mean.
The results of these descriptive statistical analyses are as follows:
1. Dimension 1. Fundamentals and knowledge of the ER (items 6, 39, 40, 41 and 42). The results
obtained in the average scores reflect that they are very close to the midpoint, indicating a
moderate-low level related to general knowledge about ER and specific hardware (Arduino and
Raspberry). The median predominantly has been 1, suggesting that most respondents incline a
level of basic or initial knowledge. Fashion has generally been 1, reinforcing the observation that
the most common answer is a level of knowledge under the questions answered. Regarding
the standard deviation, the resulting scores vary, but it has generally been low, indicating that
the answers are not very dispersed and tend to group together near the low average.
2. Dimension 2. Interaction and experience with ER (items 7, 14 and 15). The results obtained
in the average scores reflect high values in
​​ all groups, reflecting positive and significant
interactions with educational robotics. The results obtained after the calculation of
the medians have been 4 points for all groups and items, which indicates a generally
favorable experience. Fashion has indicated a frequent value of 4 points, indicating that
the most common response is positive. Finally, the standard deviation obtained for this
dimension has presented a moderate value, suggesting that there is some variability in
the answers, but in general, they are positive.
3. Dimension 3. Provision and attitude towards the implementation of the ER (items 8 and
34). In relation to the average scores, these have been very high, indicating a very positive
disposition towards the use of educational robotics. The average values ​​obtained from the
median have been uniformly high, over 4 points, reflecting a strong inclination towards the
active use of robotics in teaching. The average fashion result has been a consistent value
of 4 points, reaffirming a positive attitude in relation to the disposition and attitude towards
the implementation of the ER. As for the standard deviation for this dimension, it has turned
out to be relatively low, showing little variation in the high disposition towards robotics.
4. Dimension 4. Motivational impact and curiosity (items 9, 10 and 11). In relation to the average
scores for this dimension, we must comment that they have been quite high for all items,
suggesting that educational robotics has a positive impact on motivation and curiosity.
The median has remained constant in 4 points, indicating a general agreement on the
positive impact. The average fashion score has generally been 4 points for the items that
make up this dimension, confirming the uniform perception of the benefit. Finally, in terms
of the average standard deviation obtained for this dimension, it has been moderate,
indicating a certain diversity on how students perceive the impact of robotics.
5. Dimension 5. Pedagogical and Methodological Applications (Items 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22,
23, 24 and 25). The average score achieved by the items that make up this dimension has
been very high, highlighting the perception that robotics favours teaching and learning.
As for the median, it has remained mostly in 4, aligned with the high half. In relation to
fashion, the score for this dimension has turned out to be 4 points, showing a consensus in
the positive evaluation. Finally, the average standard deviation obtained has presented a
moderate variability, suggesting differences in the perception of methodological impact.

ARTÍCULOS9
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation
N. 23, 2025 – ISSN: 2386-4303 – DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021 – [Págs. 1-24]

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván; Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu

6. Dimension 6. Social and emotional impact (items 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37 and 38).
The average scores of the items corresponding to this dimension have been varied, with
some items showing low socks indicating areas of concern or disinterest. The average
score obtained from the medians has also been varied, with tendencies towards middle
or low values in
​​ some items, particularly in those that evaluate negative aspects such
as boredom. In relation to fashion, its score has been diverse, reflecting the variability in
emotional and social responses. The standard deviation has presented generally high
values in
​​ items with low socks, indicating a wide dispersion of opinions.

Table 5. Medium, medium, fashion and typical deviations obtained (shaded the highest average scores
and in italic the items that are formulated in negative).

Mean Median Mode Standard deviation

ITEMS
T SP PT T SP PT T SP PT T SP PT

6. Rate your degree of

knowledge about what is 2,36 2,37 2,32 2 2 2 3 2 3 0,975 0,963 1,086
educational robotics.

7. Assess your degree of

interaction with experiences
2,37 2,37 2,36 2 2 2 2 2 3 1,097 1,116 0,953
where you have used
educational robotics.

8. Estimate your degree

of willingness to use
educational robotics in your
3,8 3,82 3,64 4 4 4 4 4 4 1,023 1,016 1,093
teaching practice when you
graduate or are practicing
professionally.

9. Using educational
robotics, in classes where
possible, would increase
4,05 4,07 3,91 4 4 4 4 4 5 0,876 0,844 1,109
my motivation for the
monitoring and study of
these subjects.

10. Using educational

robotics would increase my
curiosity for the follow-up 4,02 4,03 3,91 4 4 4 4 4 4 0,904 0,884 1,065
and study of the subjects in
which it was used.

11. Participating in academic

activities where educational
robotics is used would 4,02 4,07 3,59 4 4 4 4 4 4 0,898 0,865 1,054
increase my interest in the
subject.

12. Interaction in the

classroom with educational
robotics experiences could 4,35 4,39 4,05 5 5 4 5 5 4 0,784 0,747 0,999
promote new teaching-
learning methodologies.

ARTÍCULOS10
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation
N. 23, 2025 – ISSN: 2386-4303 – DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021 – [Págs. 1-24]

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván; Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu

Mean Median Mode Standard deviation

ITEMS
T SP PT T SP PT T SP PT T SP PT

13. If I used educational

robotics, it would increase
3,84 3,85 3,77 4 4 4 4 4 3a 0,945 0,925 1,11
my level of participation in
the subjects that use it.

14. Participating in activities

where I interact with
educational robotics
3,9 3,9 3,91 4 4 4 4 4 4 0,955 0,95 1,019
experiences could increase
my skills related to
teamwork.

15. The interaction with

educational robotics
would allow me to interact
with other colleagues or 3,88 3,9 3,68 4 4 4 4 4 4 0,971 0,968 0,995
colleagues helping me
to understand concepts,
procedures and attitudes.

16. Using educational

robotics in classes where
possible, could favor
4,08 4,11 3,86 4 4 4 4 5 4 0,859 0,848 0,941
the development of
competence related to self-
learning.

17. The use of educational

robotics would favor my
critical thinking by asking
questions and questions
3,88 3,91 3,64 4 4 4 4 4 4 0,881 0,883 0,848
during its use that can
generate interesting
debates with teachers and
other students.

18. The use of educational

robotics would develop
the shared construction
of knowledge among all 3,9 3,91 3,77 4 4 4 4 4 4 0,924 0,926 0,922
members who participate
in this teaching-learning
process.

19. Participation in activities

where educational
robotics were used would
facilitate the expansion of
information through extra
documentary resources 3,96 3,99 3,73 4 4 4 4 4 4 0,865 0,861 0,883
and different from those
provided by the teachers of
the subjects since there is
a lot of information on the
network related to this topic.

ARTÍCULOS11
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation
N. 23, 2025 – ISSN: 2386-4303 – DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021 – [Págs. 1-24]

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván; Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu

Mean Median Mode Standard deviation

ITEMS
T SP PT T SP PT T SP PT T SP PT

20. Participation in activities

using educational robotics
would facilitate the ability 4,11 4,12 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0,838 0,828 0,926
to apply theoretical
knowledge to practice.

21. Using educational

robotics would allow me
to work on quasi-real
problems developing 4,02 4,05 3,73 4 4 4 4 4 4 0,875 0,87 0,883
aspects such as creativity
and imagination while
programming the robots.

22. Interacting with activities

where educational robotics
4,01 4,05 3,73 4 4 4 4 4 4 0,884 0,88 0,883
is used would improve my
ability to learn to learn.

23. Using educational

robotics, technological
skills related to the use 4,36 4,43 3,86 5 5 4 5 5 4 0,812 0,774 0,941
and application of ICT are
favored.

24. Experimentation with

educational robotics
supposes a personalization
of the learning process,
3,94 3,97 3,73 4 4 4 4 4 4 0,908 0,91 0,883
making it more adapted
and efficient since each
student could learn at their
own pace.

25. It would be appropriate

and pertinent to use
educational robotics to
support traditional teaching 4,18 4,21 3,95 4 4 4 5 5 4 0,874 0,862 0,95
materials in the Bachelor’s
subjects in which it could be
used.

26. I will get bored while

using educational robotics 1,93 1,78 3,05 2 1 3 1 1 3 1,092 1,009 1,09
in subject activities.

28. I will attend class with

enthusiasm when doing
4 4,05 3,59 4 4 3,5 5 5 3 0,979 0,96 1,054
activities with educational
robotics.

29. I will enjoy the classes in

which educational robotics 4,07 4,08 4 4 4 4 4 4a 4 0,916 0,91 0,976
activities are carried out.

ARTÍCULOS12
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation
N. 23, 2025 – ISSN: 2386-4303 – DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021 – [Págs. 1-24]

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván; Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu

Mean Median Mode Standard deviation

ITEMS
T SP PT T SP PT T SP PT T SP PT

30. I would like to use

educational robotics in
other subjects apart from 4,01 4,04 3,77 4 4 4 4 5 4 0,941 0,923 1,066
this one, as long as it can be
adapted.

31. Doing activities with

educational robotics in
1,58 1,49 2,27 1 1 2 1 1 2 1,008 0,935 1,279
class will be a waste of
time.

32. Educational robotics

will no longer attract my
1,77 1,67 2,55 1 1 2 1 1 2 1,096 1,04 1,224
attention to the subjects in
which it is used.

33. There will be no need to

use educational robotics in 1,65 1,57 2,23 1 1 2 1 1 1 0,968 0,894 1,307
class.

34. Using educational

robotics will motivate
4,02 4,04 3,86 4 4 4 4 4 4 0,895 0,884 0,99
me more to work on this
subject.

35. The use of educational

robotics will improve my
opinion about the content 4 4,04 3,73 4 4 4 4 4 4 0,896 0,894 0,883
of the subject (practical
vision).

36. In general, I think that

the use of educational
robotics denotes an interest
on the part of the teacher 4,11 4,15 3,86 4 4 4 5 5 4 0,9 0,879 1,037
towards the teaching of
their subject, and that it is
very innovative.

37. Working with

educational robotics will
allow me to share my
3,87 3,86 3,91 4 4 4 4 4 4 0,874 0,87 0,921
ideas, answers and visions
with my teacher and
classmates.

38. Carrying out activities

with educational robotics
will make me develop other 4,13 4,15 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 0,868 0,861 0,926
cognitive skills (analysis,
synthesis, criticism,...).

39. Do you know what

1,38 1,35 1,59 1 1 1 1 1 1 0,9 0,857 1,182
Arduino is?

ARTÍCULOS13
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation
N. 23, 2025 – ISSN: 2386-4303 – DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021 – [Págs. 1-24]

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván; Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu

Mean Median Mode Standard deviation

ITEMS
T SP PT T SP PT T SP PT T SP PT

40. Do you know the

1,3 1,28 1,45 1 1 1 1 1 1 0,786 0,761 0,963
Raspberry board?

41. Do you know the Scratch

2,16 2,13 2,36 1 1 2 1 1 1 1,493 1,495 1,497
programming software?

42. Do you know the Mblock

1,47 1,45 1,64 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,021 1,013 1,093
programming software?

Figure 2. Items with the highest mean score.

Finally, the variances, skewness, and kurtosis of the responses of students from Spain (SP) and
Portugal (PT) on ER, organized into the six key dimensions already defined above, were analyzed.
The variance analyses indicate the variability in the responses, while skewness and kurtosis pro-
vide insight into the shape of the distribution of the responses (DeCarlo, 1997; Trochim & Donne-
lly, 2006; Gravetter & Wallnau, 2016).
1. Dimension 1: Fundamentals and knowledge of ER (items 6, 39, 40, 41 and 42). The variance
obtained for these items has been moderately low, indicating a consistency in the level
of knowledge between students. The asymmetry has been found to be mostly positive,
suggesting that many students have limited knowledge with few reaching high levels.
The data obtained regarding kurtosis reflect that the responses tend not to be extremely
pointed, indicating a relatively moderate distribution without pronounced peaks.

ARTÍCULOS14
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation
N. 23, 2025 – ISSN: 2386-4303 – DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021 – [Págs. 1-24]

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván; Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu

2. Dimension 2: Interaction and experience with ER (items 7, 14 and 15). The variance obtained
for this group of items has varied, showing differences in how students have interacted
with ER. The skewness obtained for this dimension is generally positive, reflecting that
fewer students report high levels of interaction. The results for kurtosis have turned out
to be mixed, with some distributions showing higher peaks, which could indicate specific
experiences that are either very positive or very negative.
3. Dimension 3: Willingness and attitude towards the implementation of ER (items 8 and
34). The results obtained for the variance in this dimension have been relatively low,
suggesting a consistent attitude towards ER. The asymmetry presented by these items
has turned out to be negative in many cases, indicating that more students are willing
to use ER. The values related
​​ to kurtosis have turned out to be generally low, indicating a
wide distribution in attitudes without pronounced extremes.
4. Dimension 4: Motivational impact and curiosity (items 9, 10 and 11). The mean scores
relative to the variances of the items grouped in this dimension have been moderate,
reflecting different levels of motivational impact among students. The values ​​related
to asymmetry have been predominantly negative, suggesting that most students are
motivated by ER. Finally, the values ​​obtained for kurtosis have been varied, with some
responses indicating a tighter clustering around the mean.
5. Dimension 5: Pedagogical and methodological applications (items 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19,
20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25). The mean values ​​of the variance in these items have been, in
general, moderate, indicating a reasonable agreement on the pedagogical benefits of
ER. The asymmetry presented by this dimension is mixed, but some items show negative
asymmetry, suggesting that many students value these applications. Regarding the
kurtosis values of
​​ some items, these are high, indicating that there are more concentrated
responses around the mean.
6. Dimension 6: Social and emotional impact (items 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37 and
38). Regarding the results obtained from the variance, these have been relatively high in
some items of this dimension, indicating variability in how students perceive the social
impact of ER. The resulting asymmetry has turned out to be predominantly negative,
especially in items related to enthusiasm and enjoyment, indicating that most students
respond positively. Finally, the kurtosis presented has been varied, with some more pointed
distributions suggesting strong concentrated positive or negative reactions.
In Figure 3 we can observe the variances obtained, the results obtained below 0.75 indicate that
the responses do not deviate from the mean and, therefore, there is high consistency.

ARTÍCULOS15
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation
N. 23, 2025 – ISSN: 2386-4303 – DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021 – [Págs. 1-24]

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván; Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu

Figure 3. Variances obtained below 0,75 points.

Regarding the items whose correlations have been positive and negative (Spearman correlation
coefficient), these have been the following (Table 6).
In general, the results show that perceptions about the adequacy of educational robotics vary
between students from Spain and Portugal, although the magnitude of this variation is generally
moderate and, in some cases, statistically significant.
In these items, where the correlations are positive, indicating that there is a tendency for positive per-
ceptions to increase according to the country (with some items showing more favourable or positive
perceptions in Portugal). However, the strength of these correlations varies significantly between items.
Some items show statistically significant correlations, suggesting that the country of origin may
have a real effect on how students perceive the adequacy of educational robotics. For exam-
ple, items such as: Using educational robotics favours technological skills related to the use
and application of ICT, and: I will get bored while using educational robotics in class activities,
indicate a moderately strong and significant association, suggesting differences in perception
between students from the two countries.
The items that presented significant and stronger correlations tend to be related to technical as-
pects and motivation towards study, such as the development of technological skills, and the in-
fluence on students’ interest and motivation to participate in classes that use educational robotics.
These results suggest that while in some respects ER is perceived in a similar way between Spain
and Portugal, there are certain elements or contexts where the country of origin significantly
influences the perception of its suitability. This could be due to differences in educational im-

ARTÍCULOS16
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation
N. 23, 2025 – ISSN: 2386-4303 – DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021 – [Págs. 1-24]

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván; Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu

plementation, access to technological resources, or cultural differences in the assessment of

technological education.
Correlational tests were also carried out to determine whether there were significant differences
in the responses obtained by age group and by academic qualification in which the participants
were enrolled (Bachelor’s Degree in Early Childhood Education and Bachelor’s Degree in Primary
Education), with no significant differences being found.

Table 6. List of items with positive and negative correlations (items with negative wording in italics).

Coeficiente de correlación
Nº de ítem Texto del ítem Valor p
de Spearman

Participating in academic activities

11. where educational robotics is used would 0.1550 0.0314
increase my interest in the subject.

Using educational robotics, technological

23. skills related to the use and application of 0.2253 0.0016
ICT are favored.

I will get bored while using educational

26. –0.3528 0.000000485
robotics in subject activities.

I will attend class with enthusiasm when

28. 0.1516 0.0353
doing activities with educational robotics.

Doing activities with educational robotics

31. –0.2714 0.00013
in class will be a waste of time.

Educational robotics will no longer attract my

32. –0.294 0.000034
attention to the subjects in which it is used.

There will be no need to use educational

33. –0.194 0.0069
robotics in class.

4. CONCLUSIONS
We can conclude that ER is perceived in multiple facets by students, from knowledge and interac-
tion to its impact on motivation, pedagogical methodology and the social and emotional sphere.
High average scores in many areas indicate a positive perception towards ER.
Average scores higher than 4, on a 5-point Likert scale, indicate a highly positive assessment in
several of the items in the questionnaire used. Below, the conclusions are broken down for each
of the six defined dimensions. Average scores higher than 4 have not been found in all dimen-
sions in the total (T) of the questionnaires, even in Spanish students (SP) they have been found
and in Portuguese (PT) they have not reached 4 points:
Dimension 1 (items 6, 39, 40, 41, and 42) Fundamentals and knowledge of ER: There are no items
in this dimension that reach a mean higher than 4. This suggests that, although students are
familiar with ER, the level of in-depth knowledge about specific tools such as Arduino, Raspberry
Pi, Scratch, or Mblock is not very high. This highlights an opportunity to improve education in both
programming tools and related hardware.
Dimension 2 (items 7, 14, and 15) Interaction and experience with ER: This dimension also does
not present items with a mean higher than 4, indicating that, although students have interacted

ARTÍCULOS17
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation
N. 23, 2025 – ISSN: 2386-4303 – DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021 – [Págs. 1-24]

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván; Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu

with ER, the experiences have not been impactful enough to be rated extremely high. This may
point to the need to integrate more meaningful and practical experiences into the curriculum.
Dimension 3 (items 8 and 34) Willingness and attitude towards the implementation of ER: items 8
and 34 show high means, reflecting a positive willingness towards the use of ER and a motivation
to integrate it into academic work. This indicates a positive acceptance and assessment of ER as
an effective and enriching educational tool.
Dimension 4 (items 9, 10 and 11) Motivational impact and curiosity: items 9, 10 and 11 highlight
a significant impact on students’ motivation and curiosity. The high scores underline that ER is
perceived as a catalyst for increasing interest and participation in learning, suggesting that its
use in the classroom could be very beneficial in improving student engagement.
Dimension 5 (items 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25) Pedagogical and methodological
applications: some of the items belonging to this dimension, such as 12, 16, 20, 22 and 23, receive
high ratings, indicating that students perceive ER as highly beneficial for teaching and learning.
These items reflect a strong belief in the power of ER to improve self-learning skills, foster critical
thinking and personalize and enrich the educational process.
Dimension 6 (items 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37 and 38) Social and emotional impact: Items
28, 29 and 30 show that ER has a positive effect on students’ social and emotional dimension.
High scores indicate that ER activities are enjoyed and appreciated, suggesting that their inclu-
sion can make classes more engaging and emotionally rewarding.
The general conclusions related to the mean scores obtained by students in Spain and Portugal
indicate that they highly value ER, not only as a technological tool but as a means to enhance
their overall educational experience. The analysis suggests that while familiarity with specific
technological tools may need strengthening (programming languages and ​​ related hardware),
the disposition towards ER and its motivational and pedagogical impact are clear.
Educational robotics is highly valued by students in both Spain and Portugal, with mean scores
reflecting strong approval of key aspects of the educational experience. These include enhan-
cing autonomous learning, increasing motivation and curiosity, facilitating the application of
theoretical knowledge, and developing social and emotional skills. The results also suggest that
effective implementation of ER can significantly contribute to the modernisation of teaching,
making learning more engaging, personalised and efficient.
These results encourage educators and policy makers to consider ER not only as a technological
complement but as an integral component of modern pedagogical strategies that can signi-
ficantly contribute to the development of key competencies and the enrichment of students’
educational experience. This is particularly pertinent in an educational environment increasingly
focused on technology and innovation.
It is therefore important to consider ER as both an end and a technological means in teaching.
Regarding the conclusions obtained after the analysis of the medians, modes and standard de-
viations obtained, we conclude the following:
1. Dimension 1: Fundamentals and knowledge of ER: Items in this dimension (6, 39, 40, 41 and
42) show generally low medians and modes, with fundamental knowledge about robotics,
programming languages ​​and associated hardware (Arduino, Raspberry, Scratch, Mblock)
not exceeding the basic level. This suggests that there is a significant need to improve
basic education in emerging technologies such as RE, potentially by incorporating more
specific content in curricula.
2. Dimension 2: Interaction and experience with ER: Items in this dimension (7, 14 and 15) reflect
that interaction and participation in related activities appear to be moderately positive,
with medians and modes frequently reaching 4. However, variability in responses, as
indicated by the standard deviation, suggests inconsistent experiences among students.
This could imply an uneven implementation of ER in different areas or institutions.

ARTÍCULOS18
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation
N. 23, 2025 – ISSN: 2386-4303 – DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021 – [Págs. 1-24]

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván; Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu

3. Dimension 3: Willingness and attitude towards implementing ER: Items in this dimension
(8 and 34) reflecting the willingness to use it as well as the motivation to work with ER in
subjects show a high level of acceptance, with solid medians of 4. This reflects a positive
attitude towards integrating ER into teaching practice, indicating that students are willing
and motivated to include these technologies in their future learning and teaching.
4. Dimension 4: Motivational impact and curiosity: Items assessing the impact of ER on
motivation and curiosity (9, 10 and 11) also show high medians and modes of 4. Students
perceive it as a powerful motivator that increases their interest and curiosity in learning,
underlining the value of it as an educational tool to enhance student engagement.
5. Dimension 5: Pedagogical and methodological applications: This dimension, which
encompasses items (12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25) ranging from promoting
new teaching methodologies to improving technological skills and personalizing learning,
shows a consistent recognition of the pedagogical value of ER. Most items in this dimension
achieve medians of 4 or 5, indicating that ER is seen as critical to modern and effective
educational development.
6. Dimension 6: Social and emotional impact: The responses to the items in this dimension
(26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37 and 38) reflect that there are items in this dimension
with varied responses, those related to enthusiasm, enjoyment and improved perception
of course content show medians of 4, reflecting a positive perception of the social and
emotional impact of ER. This suggests that not only improves cognitive learning but also
the social and emotional experience in the classroom.
Moderate standard deviations in some blocks suggest that there is room to improve the cohe-
sion in these perceptions. Analysis of these values ​​reveals a positive perception of ER among
students in Spain and Portugal, with a high willingness and motivation to integrate this techno-
logy into the educational environment.
Differences between the responses of students in the two countries are minimal, suggesting a
uniform valuation of educational technology in the Iberian Peninsula.
Measures of central tendency and dispersion indicate concentrated and consistent responses,
reinforcing the validity of the results obtained.
In conclusion, ER is widely valued by students in both Spain and Portugal, with high scores in wi-
llingness, motivational impact, and pedagogical applications. However, there is significant room
to improve fundamental knowledge about specific technological tools and consistency in the
experience of interacting with ER. The results emphasize the need for educational strategies that
not only integrate ER effectively, but also ensure a solid basic technological education and con-
sistent, high-quality learning experiences for all students.
The analysis of variance, skewness and kurtosis shows that, in general, students have a positive
perception of ER, particularly in terms of motivation, willingness and pedagogical applications.
However, there is variability in the interaction experience and knowledge of specific ER tools, su-
ggesting the need for more uniform education and practical experiences. The responses tend to
cluster around positive means, but with variability in the intensity of these perceptions.
As a conclusion to the calculation of the correlations between the responses given by students
from Spain (SP) and Portugal (PT), we must point out that some items showed significant negative
correlations, all of which are related to negative perceptions about ER, such as boredom and the
perception of loss of time. These results must be justified by the negative wording of these items:
a) 26. I will get bored while using educational robotics in subject activities.
b) 31. Doing activities with educational robotics in class will be a waste of time.
c) 32. Educational robotics will no longer attract my attention to the subjects in which it is used.
d) 33. There will be no need to use educational robotics in class.

ARTÍCULOS19
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation
N. 23, 2025 – ISSN: 2386-4303 – DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021 – [Págs. 1-24]

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván; Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu

When items are negatively worded, a negative correlation may indicate a positive perception.
For example, a negative correlation on these items might suggest that those who rate their agre-
ement with the negative statement low (i.e., disagree that ER is boring or a waste of time) have
a positive attitude toward ER.
For these items, a negative correlation with variables such as overall satisfaction with RE or aca-
demic performance might indicate that students who agree less with these negative state-
ments have a more positive experience or find greater value in ER.
Negative wording requires careful interpretation of correlation coefficients to understand the
true meaning behind the numbers.

5. DISCUSIÓN.
We fully agree with Alimisis (2013) when he states that to achieve full inclusion of ER it is neces-
sary to work not only on technical skills, but also on problem-solving and creativity skills. The
effective integration of robotics in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics) and
STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts & Mathematics) education can also increase stu-
dents’ interest and motivation, providing richer and more engaging learning contexts.
Authors such as Benitti (2012) conclude that robotics has great educational potential in schools,
helping to improve both discipline-specific skills and general competencies such as teamwork
and problem-solving. However, he also points out challenges such as the need for adequate
training of teachers (current and in training) and curricular integration to maximize the benefits
of educational robotics.
Kandlhofer & Steinbauer (2016) found that has a significant positive impact on the development
of students’ technical and social skills. Furthermore, the use of robotics in education can improve
students’ attitudes towards science and technology, making these subjects perceived as more
accessible and attractive.
This consideration is not something new, Bers (2008) stated that technologies such as robotics
can be powerful tools for cognitive and social development in early education. This same author
highlights that robotics activities help students understand abstract concepts in a tangible way and
promote essential skills such as planning, critical thinking, and collaboration from an early age.
In their study, Hudson et al. (2020) found that robotics-based interventions significantly increase
students’ interest in STEM subjects and their future careers. This result supports the idea that RE
can be a catalyst to encourage participation and motivation in technical fields.
We also agree with Jung & Won (2018) when in their study they conclude that robotics education
positively influences young people, improving not only technical knowledge but also social and
cognitive skills. This issue has several important implications for education and student deve-
lopment: that ER not only improves technical skills, such as programming and technology ma-
nagement, but also fosters social and cognitive skills; this implies that robotics can be a holistic
educational resource that contributes to the comprehensive development of the student.
The ability of robotics to impact multiple areas of development underlines its value as an in-
terdisciplinary tool. This may encourage educators to integrate robotics into various aspects of
the curriculum, not only in science and mathematics, but also in areas that promote social and
cognitive skills Jung & Won (2018).
If robotics improves social and cognitive skills, it could also increase student motivation and en-
gagement. Students may find robotics activities more engaging and rewarding, which may lead
to greater enthusiasm for learning in general.
The implications of robotics supporting cognitive and social development suggest that it may be a
useful tool for personalized education. Educators could use robotics to tailor learning to individual stu-
dents’ needs, helping those who may need additional support in certain areas. By fostering technical

ARTÍCULOS20
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation
N. 23, 2025 – ISSN: 2386-4303 – DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021 – [Págs. 1-24]

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván; Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu

skills alongside social and cognitive skills, robotics education prepares students for the challenges of
the future workplace, which will increasingly demand more of these combined competencies.
If robotics proves effective in developing such a wide range of skills, it could be a key resource
for educational inclusion, providing equitable learning opportunities for students of diverse bac-
kgrounds and abilities.
Robotics activities increase student motivation and interest, suggesting that robotics can be an
effective tool for improving disposition and attitude towards learning (Kaloti-Hallak et al., 2015),
and for this reason it should be taught more in university training centres that have the mission
of training future teachers in a more meaningful and stimulating way.
In fact, project-based robotic applications improve students’ computational thinking skills and
their perception of basic STEM skills (Karaahmetoğlu & Korkmaz, 2019), their results indicate sig-
nificant improvements, highlighting the effectiveness of educational robotics in improving criti-
cal and technological competencies.
We even agree with Llanos-Ruiz et al. (2023), who went beyond the formal scope of training,
their study found that both students and families perceive ER very positively, this suggests that
robotics is not only well received in formal educational settings, but is also valued in non-formal
contexts, such as extracurricular activities and workshops. They recognize ER as an effective tool
to motivate students and maintain their interest, as we have previously stated and as reflected
in this study. This is especially relevant in non-formal settings, where voluntary participation un-
derlines the importance of maintaining student engagement.
Today’s university institutions must establish the appropriate conditions to foster more student-
centered learning, using innovative teaching methods, critical training, and active citizens, who
are willing to provide their knowledge for social service (Vázquez-Cano et al., 2020).
Therefore, universities must play a new role as promoters of competencies that future graduates
must manage in their academic, personal, and professional development (Fernández-Batanero
et al., 2019; Delgado-Vázquez et al., 2019).
Logically, from the Faculties of Education Sciences we have the mission of training male and female
students to be competent in computational thinking and in the management of robotic kits (Román
Graván et al, 2019), since, as they say (Master et al., 2017; Valverde-Berrocoso et al., 2015), positive
interaction with these resources will stimulate their use when these women work as teachers.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION
All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study. Material preparation, data
collection, and analysis were carried out by [Pedro Román-Graván] and [Pedro-José Arrifano-
Tadeu]. The first draft of the manuscript was written by [Pedro Román-Graván] and [Pedro-José
Arrifano-Tadeu] and all authors commented on earlier versions of the manuscript. All authors
read and approved the final manuscript.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work is funded by National Funds through the FCT - Foundation for Science and Techno-
logy, I.P., within the scope of the project Refª UIDB/05507/2020 and DOI identifier https://doi.
org/10.54499/UIDB/05507/2020.
Furthermore, we would like to thank the Centre for Studies in Education and Innovation
(CI&DEI) and the Polytechnic of Guarda for their support.
We would also like to thank the Department of Didactics and Educational Organization of the Fa-
culty of Education Sciences of the University of Seville for having made possible the participation
of Spanish students in this research.

ARTÍCULOS21
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation
N. 23, 2025 – ISSN: 2386-4303 – DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021 – [Págs. 1-24]

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván; Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu

FUNDING
This publication is part of the project PID2022-138346OB-I00, funded by MICIU/
AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by FEDER, EU.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES

Adams, S., Cummins, M.; Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall, C., Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC Horizon Report:
2017 Higher Education Edition. The New Media Consortium.
Alimisis, D. (Ed.). (2013). Robotics in Education: Research and Practices for Robotics in STEM Education. Springer.
Athanasiou L., Mikropoulos T.A. & Mavridis D. (2019). Robotics Interventions for Improving Educational
Outcomes - A Meta-analysis. In: Tsitouridou M., A. Diniz J. & Mikropoulos T. (eds). Technology and
Innovation in Learning, Teaching and Education. TECH-EDU 2018. Communications in Computer and
Information Science, 993, (pp. 91-102). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20954-4_7
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
Bers, M. U. (2008). Blocks to robots: Learning with technology in the early childhood classroom. Teachers
College Press.
Botes, R. & Smit, I. (2019). Robotics: From Zero to Hero in Six Week. In: Suleman, H., & Eds, S. G. ICT Education.
In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, (pp. 32-46). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
05813-5_3
Bravo, F.A. & Forero A. (2012). La robótica como un recurso para facilitar el aprendizaje y desarrollo de
competencias generales. Revista Teoría de la Educación. Educación y Cultura en la Sociedad de la
Información, 13(2), 120-136. https://doi.org/10.14201/eks.9002
Cook, T.D., Campbell, D.T. (1986). The causal assumptions of quasi-experimental practice. Synthese, 68,
141-180. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00413970
Chavarría, M. y Saldaño-Mella, A. (2010). La robótica educativa como una innovativa interfaz educativa
entre el alumno y una situación-problema. Didasc@lia: Didáctica y Educación, 1(2), 1-12. https://
revistas.ult.edu.cu/index.php/didascalia/article/view/11
Daniel, W. W., & Cross, C. L. (2018). Biostatistics: A Foundation for Analysis in the Health Sciences. Wiley.
DeCarlo, L. T. (1997). On the meaning and use of kurtosis. Psychological Methods, 2(3), 292-307. https://doi.
org/10.1037/1082-989X.2.3.292
Delgado-Vázquez, A., Vázquez-Cano, E., Belando-Montoro, M.B., López-Meneses, E. (2019). Bibliometric
analysis of the impact of educational research on functional diversity and digital competence: Web of
Science and Scopus. Aula Abierta, 48, 147–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.17811/rifie.48.2.2019.147-156
Fernández-Batanero, J.M., Cabero, J., López-Meneses, E. (2019). Knowledge and degree of training of
primary education teachers in relation to ICT taught to students with disabilities. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 50, 1961-1978. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12675
Freedman, D., Pisani, R., & Purves, R. (2007). Statistics. W. W. Norton & Company.
García Hurtado, N. D., Castillo García, L. F. y Escobar Jiménez, A. J. (2012). Plataforma robótica educativa
“ROBI”. Revista Colombiana de Tecnologías de Avanzada, 1(19), 140-144. https://revistas.unipamplona.
edu.co/ojs_viceinves/index.php/RCTA/article/view/163
Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2016). Statistics for the behavioral sciences. Cengage Learning.
Hervás-Gómez, C., Ruíz, C., Román-Graván, P., & Ballesteros-Regaña, C. (2019). Diseño y validación del
cuestionario sobre aceptación y uso de la robótica educativa (CAURE). En J. Gómez-Galán, M. P.
Cáceres-Reche, E. José Delgado y E. López-Meneses, Experiencias en innovación docente y aportes de
investigación sobre la praxis universitaria, (pp. 77-90). Octaedro.
Hervás-Gómez, C., Díaz Noguera, M. D., De la Calle, A. M., & Román Graván, P. (2021). El valor de la robótica
educativa en las prácticas educativas para las futuras docentes. En Innovación en la Docencia e
Investigación de las Ciencias Sociales y de la Educación (pp. 1635-1665). Dykinson.

ARTÍCULOS22
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation
N. 23, 2025 – ISSN: 2386-4303 – DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021 – [Págs. 1-24]

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván; Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu

Hudson, M.-A., Baek, Y., Ching, Y., & Rice, K. (2020). Using a multifaceted robotics-based intervention to
increase student interest in STEM subjects and careers. Journal for STEM Education Research, 3(3),
295-316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00032-0
Khushk, A.., Zhiying, L., Yi, X., & Zengtian, Z. (2023). Tecnología Innovación en la Educación STEM: Una Revisión
y Análisis. IJERI: International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, 19, 29–51. https://doi.
org/10.46661/ijeri.7883
Kandlhofer, M., & Steinbauer, G. (2016). Evaluating the impact of educational robotics on students’
technical- and social-skills and science related attitudes. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 679-
685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.09.007
Jung, S. E., & Won, E. S. (2018). Systematic review of research trends in robotics education for young
children. Sustainability, 10(4), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040905
Kaloti-Hallak, F., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2015). Students’ attitudes and motivation during robotics
activities. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 09-11-November, (pp. 102-110). https://doi.
org/10.1145/2818314.2818317
Karaahmetoğlu, K., & Korkmaz, Ö. (2019). The effect of project-based arduino educational robot
applications on students’ computational thinking skills and their perception of basic stem skill levels.
Participatory Educational Research, 6(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.19.8.6.2
Lytridis, C., Bazinas, C., Papakostas, G.A., & Kaburlasos, V. (2020). On Measuring Engagement Level During
Child-Robot Interaction in Education. In: M. Merdan, W. Lepuschitz, G. Koppensteiner, R. Balogh, & D.
Obdržálek, D. Robotics in Education, (pp. 3-13). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26945-6_1
Llanos-Ruiz, D., Ausín-Villaverde, V., & Abella García, V. (2023). Percepción de alumnos y familias sobre la
robótica educativa en la educación no formal. Education in the Knowledge Society (EKS), 24, e31351.
https://doi.org/10.14201/eks.31351
Márquez, J., & Ruiz, J. (2014). Robótica educativa aplicada a la enseñanza básica secundaria. Didáctica,
innovación y multimedia, 30, 1-12. https://raco.cat/index.php/DIM/article/view/291518
Master, A., Cheryan, S., Moscatelli, A., & Meltzoff, A.N. (2017). Programming experience promotes higher STEM
motivation among first-grade girls. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 160, 92-106. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.03.013
Micó-Amigo, E.., & Bernal, C. (2020). Investigación evaluativa de la innovación docente con simuladores
en el área de Tecnología en la Enseñanza Secundaria Obligatoria. IJERI: International Journal of
Educational Research and Innovation, 14, 134-146. https://doi.org/10.46661/ijeri.4855
Milašinčić, A., Anđelić, B., Pushkar, L. & Sović, A. (2020). Using Robots as an Educational Tool in Native
Language Lesson. In: M. Merdan, W. Lepuschitz, G. Koppensteiner, R. Balogh, D. Obdržálek (eds), Robotics
in Education. RiE 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 1023. Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26945-6_26
Morales-Pérez, G., Román-Graván, P., Valderrama-Hernández, R., y Corujo- Vélez, C. (2021). La robótica
educativa como herramienta de motivación para el aprendizaje de lengua extranjera: El uso de robots
para el aprendizaje en materia de lengua inglesa en educación primaria. En R. M’Rabet Temsamani
y C. Hervás-Gómez, Innovación en la docencia e investigación de las ciencias sociales y de la
educación, (pp. 1777-1765). Dykinson.
Román-Graván, P., Hervás-Gómez, C., y Guisado-Lizar, J. L. (2017). Experiencia de innovación educativa
con robótica en la Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación de la Universidad de Sevilla (España). En
J. Ruiz-Palmero; J. Sánchez-Rodríguez y E. Sánchez-Rivas, Innovación docente y uso de las TIC en
educación, (pp. 1-16). UMA Editorial.
Román-Graván, P., Díaz-Noguera, M. D., Hervás-Gómez, C., y Morales Pérez, G. (2019). Experiencias
innovadoras de uso de la robótica educativa en la formación inicial del maestro. En J. M. Fernández
Batanero y López Martínez, A., Nuevos horizontes en educación, (pp. 199-226). Octaedro.
Román-Graván, P., Hervás-Gómez, C., & Ballesteros-Regaña, C. (2019). Educational robotics and
computational thinking: A didactic experience of innovation at the university level. En Trends and Good
Practices in Research and Teaching: A Spanish-English Collaboration, (pp. 157-171). Octaedro.

ARTÍCULOS23
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation
N. 23, 2025 – ISSN: 2386-4303 – DOI: 10.46661/ijeri.11021 – [Págs. 1-24]

La robótica en la formación docente universitaria: un análisis comparativo de las percepciones entre España y Portugal
Pedro Román-Graván; Pedro-José Arrifano-Tadeu

Shin, J.E.L., Levy, S.R., & London, B. (2016). Effects of role model exposure on STEM and non-STEM student
engagement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2016, 46, 410-427. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12371
Trochim, W. M., & Donnelly, J. P. (2006). The Research Methods Knowledge Base. Atomic Dog.
Valverde-Berrocoso, J.; Fernández-Sánchez, M.R.; y Garrido-Arroyo, M.C. (2015). El pensamiento
computacional y las nuevas ecologías del aprendizaje. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), 46.
https://doi.org/10.6018/red/46/3
Vázquez-Cano, E., León Urrutia, M., Parra-González, M.E. y López-Meneses, E. Analysis of Interpersonal
Competences in the Use of ICT in the Spanish University Context. Sustainability 2020, 12(2), 476. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su12020476

ARTÍCULOS24