Column "Field experiences"

The "scientist game" for learning the scientific method at primary school


This learning experience differs from conventional approaches to educational robotics in that, instead of programming a robot, children have to discover how the robot has been programmed, which they do by making hypotheses, designing experiments and evaluating their effectiveness.


scientific method; learning; game; Field experience column; Educational Technology; Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL)

Full Text:

PDF (Italiano)



Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers and Education, 58(3), 978-988. doi:10.1016/j.compedu. 2011.10.006

Braitenberg, V. (1984). I veicoli pensanti. Saggio di psicologia sintetica. Milano, IT: Garzanti.

Bredenfeld, A., Hofmann, A., & Steinbauer, G. (2010). Robotics in Education Initiatives in Europe: Status, Shortcomings and Open Questions. In Proceedings of SIMPAR 2010 Workshops, International Conference on Simmulation, Modeling and Programming for Autonomous Robots (pp. 568–574).

Gopnik, A. (2012). Scientific Thinking in Young Children: Theoretical Advances, Empirical Research, and Policy Implications. Science, 337(6102), 1623- 1627. doi:10.1126/science.1223416

Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge, MA, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1988). The child is a theoretician, not an inductivist. Mind & Language, 3(3), 183-196.

Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (2000). Developmental origins of scientific thinking. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1(1), 113-129. doi:10.1207/s15327647jcd01 01n_11

Levy, S. T., & Mioduser, D. (2008). Does it “want” or “was it programmed to...”? Kindergarten children’s explanations of an autonomous robot’s adaptive functioning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(4), 337-359. doi:10.1007/s10798.007.9032–6

Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining Inquiry. The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34-37. Retrieved from kubaskod/SEC_406_506/documents/Defi ningInquiry.pdf

Mioduser, D., Levy, S. T., & Talis, V. (2007). Episodes to scripts to rules: concreteabstractions in kindergarten children’s explanations of a robot’s behavior. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(1), 15-36. Retrieved from

Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., Mahmud, A. Al, & Dong, J.-J. (2013). A review of the applicability of robots in education. Technology for Education and Learning, 1. doi:10.2316/Journal.209.2013.1.209-0015

Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Walberg- Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. EUR22845. Retrieved from sciencesociety/ document_library/pdf_06 /reportrocard- on-science-education_ en.pdf

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. London, UK: Oxford University Press.

Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2009). The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry setting: A comparison to guided inquiry setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1137-1160. doi: 10.1002/tea.20310

Siegel, M. (1997). Knowing Children. Experiments in Conversation and Cognition. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Sullivan, F. R. (2008). Robotics and Science Literacy : Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 373-394. doi:10.1002/tea.20238

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2016 TD Tecnologie Didattiche

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Italian Journal of Educational Technology (IJET) | ISSN (print) 2532-4632 | ISSN (online) 2532-7720