The potential of educational robotics to engage children and young people in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) has been widely reported in the literature.  The early seminal work of Seymour Papert demonstrated that robots could be used, whether physical or on the screen, to empower young children to be mathematicians; engaging with mathematics in the creative construction of something which was personally meaningful to them, disrupting traditional classroom norms (Papert, 1972).  More recent studies have focused on either the implementation of specific robotics kits and their efficacy, or larger scale interventions.  For example, Nugent et al.’s (2010) study which focused on the impact of robotics on STEM learning and attitudes within a group of 127 children.  While Nugent et al. found a positive significant difference between pre- and post-test scores, their reliance on quantitative methods highlights an important issue in large scale research studies in educational robotics and the field of technology enhanced learning more widely, namely that the process of learning is lost.  It is also this process which can go unreported in even small scale research studies.  Additionally many reported studies lack a clear description of the intervention and may not even state the underpinning pedagogical theories used.  As a result it is questionable as to what the findings presented in these studies can actually be attributed to.  Therefore to uncover and begin to understand the processes in which learners engage, the opportunities which multi-modal, qualitative research present need to be considered in medium to large scale research.

This paper considers the feasibility of qualitative research in medium to large scale, international research projects in relation to pilot data collected in year 1 of the ER4STEM (Educational Robotics for STEM) project, funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program.  This project involves both academic and commercial partners in six member states, who, over three years, will implement various educational robotics activities in a variety of subject domains with approximately 4000 children aged between seven and eighteen years of age. 

The purpose of the project is to design and implement a common framework of best practice.  While it could be accepted that educational robotics activities can be used in innovative ways to make science education and scientific careers attractive to young people, the constraints of the technology and the educational approach impact upon children’s perceptions and expectations of robots. There are several limitations of existing approaches which need to be addressed:

• Most activities engage children with single entry points such as pre-setting a robotic task and working with a given set of robotics tools.
• Current educational approaches to the use of robotics engage already interested young learners but fail to attract others.
• Focus is on technology rather than on addressing real-world societal problems. Approaches do not empower children to define problems that influence their lives and provide them with the necessary skills to solve these.

To address these problems the framework aims to exploit the multidisciplinary potential of robotics through innovative learning approaches which provide multiple entry points and a focus on real-world problems to engage and maintain the interest of young people in STEM subjects and careers, whilst fostering their creativity and curiosity. 

In this paper the methodological, practical, ethical and legal considerations and decisions that were taken in the design of the research to evaluate the framework in action are presented and discussed in relation to key findings thus far.

Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Impact of robotics and geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 391-408. Papert, S. (1972). Teaching children to be mathematicians versus teaching about mathematics. International journal of mathematical education in science and technology, 3(3), 249-262. Papert, S. (1991).Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp.1-14). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Acknowledgements: The project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 665972. We would like to thank our partners in the ER4STEM project: TU WIEN, ESI CEE, PRIA, AcrossLimits and Certicon.