Open Access Peer-reviewed Research Article

Exploring kindergarten teachers’ views on STEAM education and educational robotics: Dilemmas, possibilities, limitations

Main Article Content

Paraskevi Efstratiou Foti corresponding author


This paper will refer to STEAM education, focusing first on clarifying the STEAM acronym and then on the principles on which this methodology is based. Suggested pedagogical practices that can be adopted to integrate STEAM education in the educational program will be presented, followed by a reference to the interdisciplinary approach of educational robotics and its introduction in kindergarten. The research part of this paper will include a survey conducted in kindergartens of Primary Education in the Third District of Athens. The research aimed to explore perceptions, possibilities, and limitations expressed by preschool teachers regarding STEAM methodology and the introduction of Educational Robotics in kindergarten. This research highlighted the need to implement innovative approaches and ensure teacher training, which should be strengthened and upgraded by incorporating STEAM pedagogy and new practices for teaching and learning.

STEAM, educational robotics, kindergarten teachers’ perceptions

Article Details

How to Cite
Foti, P. (2021). Exploring kindergarten teachers’ views on STEAM education and educational robotics: Dilemmas, possibilities, limitations. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 1(2), 82-95.


  1. Ampartzaki, M., Kalogiannakis, M., & Papadakis, S. (2021). Deepening Our Knowledge about Sustainability Education in the Early Years: Lessons from a Water Project. Education Sciences, 11(6), 251.
  2. Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B. & Wong, B. (2010). ’Doing’ Science versus ’being’ a scientist: Examining 10/11-year-old schoolchildren’s constructions of science through the lens of identity. Science Education, 94(4), 617-639.
  3. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM Education: A 2020 Vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35
  4. Chatzopoulos, A., Kalogiannakis, M., Papadakis, S., Papoutsidakis, M., Elza, D., & Psycharis, S. (2021). DuBot: An Open-Source, Low-Cost Robot for STEM and Educational Robotics. In Handbook of Research on Using Educational Robotics to Facilitate Student Learning (pp. 441-465). IGI Global.
  5. Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education. London and New York: Routledge. Dewey, J. (1990). The School and the Curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  6. Dimitropoulos, E, G. (2001). Towards a Systemic Dynamic Model of Scientific Research Methodology (3rd ed.), ed. 3.
  7. Dorouka, P., Papadakis, S., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2021). Nanotechnology and mobile learning: perspectives and opportunities in young children’s education. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 13(3), 237-252.
  8. Foti, Paraskevi. (2020) Research in Distance Learning in Greek Kindergarten Schools during the Pandemic of Covid-19: Possibilities, dilemmas, limitations. European Journal of Open Education and E-learning Studies, (5)1, 19-40.
  9. Foti, P., Rellia, M. (2020) ST(R)E(A)M and Educational Robotics. Grigoris Publications, Athens, Greece.
  10. Foti, P. (2021). The ST(R)E(A)M Methodology in Kindergarten: A Teaching Proposal for Exploratory and Discovery Learning. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 2(1), 1-6.
  11. Foti, P. (2021). DigComp and DigComp Edu in Greek School. Digital competencies framework in Greek Kindergarten. European Journal of Education Studies, (8),6, 1-17
  12. Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  13. Karakose, T., Yirci, R., & Papadakis, S. (2021). Exploring the Interrelationship between COVID-19 Phobia, Work-Family Conflict, Family-Work Conflict, and Life Satisfaction among School Administrators for Advancing Sustainable Management. Sustainability, 13(15), 8654.
  14. Katz L. G. (2010). STEM in the early years. SEED papers.
  15. Kermani, H., & Aldemir, J. (2015). Preparing children for success: integrating science, math, and technology in early childhood classroom. Early Child Development and Care, 185(9), 1504-1527.
  16. Li, J., & Khlar, D. (2006). The Psychology of Scientific Thinking: Implications for Science Teaching and Learning.
  17. Mantzicopoulos, P., Samarapungavan, A. & Patrick, H. (2009). We learn how to predict and be a scientist: Early science experiences and kindergarten children’s social meanings about science. Cognition and Instruction, 27(4), 312-369.
  18. Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry, The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34-37 Morrison, J., & Bartlett, R. (2009). STEM as curriculum. Education Week, 23, 28-31.
  19. National Research Council. (2009). Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. Washington: National Academies Press.
  20. National Science Foundation. (2012, September 27). Babies are born scientists [Press release].
  21. OCDE (2006): PISA 2006. Marco de la Evaluaci´on. Conocimientos y habilidades en Ciencias, Matem´aticas y Lectura. Madrid, Santillana.
  22. Papadakis, S. (2020). Evaluating a Teaching Intervention for Teaching STEM and Programming Concepts Through the Creation of aWeather-Forecast App for Smart Mobile Devices. In Handbook of Research on Tools for Teaching Computational Thinking in P-12 Education (pp. 31-53). IGI Global.
  23. Papadakis, S. (2021). Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research (AMLER): Mobile learning as an educational reform. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 1(1), 1-4.
  24. Papadakis, S., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of a game-based learning approach in modifying students’ behavioural outcomes and competence, in an introductory programming course. A case study in Greece. International Journal of Teaching and Case Studies, 10(3), 235-250.
  25. Papadakis, S., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2020a). Learning computational thinking development in young children with Bee-Bot educational robotics. In Handbook of research on tools for teaching computational thinking in P-12 education (pp. 289-309). IGI Global.
  26. Papadakis, S., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2020b). Exploring Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes About the Usage of Educational Robotics in Preschool Education. In Handbook of Research on Tools for Teaching Computational Thinking in P-12 Education (pp. 339-355). IGI Global.
  27. Papadakis, S., Vaiopoulou, J., Sifaki, E., Stamovlasis, D., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2021). Attitudes towards the Use of Educational Robotics: Exploring Pre-Service and In-Service Early Childhood Teacher Profiles. Education Sciences, 11(5), 204.
  28. Papadakis, S., Vaiopoulou, J., Sifaki, E., Stamovlasis, D., Kalogiannakis, M., & Vassilakis, K. (2021). Factors That Hinder in-Service Teachers from Incorporating Educational Robotics into Their Daily or Future Teaching Practice. In CSEDU (2) (pp. 55-63).
  29. Paraskevopoulos I. (1999). Questionnaire of interpersonal and intrapersonal adjustment. Hellenic Letters, Athens.
  30. Pedaste, M., M¨aeots, M., Siiman, L.A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia Z. C. & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015) Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47-61.
  31. Petousi, V., & Sifaki, E. (2020). Contextualizing harm in the framework of research misconduct. Findings from discourse analysis of scientific publications, International Journal of Sustainable Development, 23(3/4), 149-174, DOI: 10.1504/IJSD.2020.10037655
  32. Poultsakis, S., Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Psycharis, S. (2021). The management of Digital Learning Objects of Natural Sciences and Digital Experiment Simulation Tools by teachers. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 1(2), 58-71.
  33. Psycharis, S. (2016). The impact of computational experiment and formative assessment in inquirybased teaching and learning approach in STEM education. Journal of Science Education and Technology 25 (2), 316-326.
  34. Quigley, C. F., & Herro, D. (2016). ”Finding the joy in the unknown”: implementation of STEAM teaching practices in middle school science and math classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(3), 410-426.
  35. Savery, J. R. (2006) Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1 (1).
  36. Sharapan, H. (2012). From STEM to STEAM: How early childhood educators can apply Fred Rogers’ approach. Young Children, 67(1), 36.
  37. Souza, I. M., Andrade, W. L., Sampaio, L. M., & Araujo, A. L. S. O. (2018, October). A Systematic Review on the use of LEGO® Robotics in Education. In 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1-9).
  38. Tzagkaraki, E., Papadakis, S., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2021). Exploring the Use of Educational Robotics in primary school and its possible place in the curricula. In Educational Robotics International Conference (pp. 216-229). Springer, Cham.
  39. Vaiopoulou, J., Papadakis, S., Sifaki, E., Stamovlasis, D., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2021). Parents’ Perceptions of Educational Apps Use for Kindergarten Children: Development and Validation of a New Instrument (PEAU-p) and Exploration of Parents’ Profiles. Behavioral Sciences, 11(6), 82.
  40. Vidakis, N., Barianos, A. K., Trampas, A. M., Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Vassilakis, K. (2019). in-Game Raw Data Collection and Visualization in the Context of the ”ThimelEdu” Educational Game. In International Conference on Computer Supported Education (pp. 629-646). Springer, Cham.