Looking at the historical development of robotics, it was seen that these technologies first started to be used in the industrial field. Over time, however, the scope of use of robotics has expanded and it has begun to appear in the field of education like most emerging technologies (Hsiao, Chang, Lin & Hsu, 2015). Reports on the prevalence of robotics indicate that the robotic industry has grown rapidly and that this growth is also reflected on education (Alimisis, 2013). Research conducted in education shows that robots are used in education from pre-school to undergraduate level (Kim et al., 2015; Mazzoni & Benvenuti, 2015).

Studies conducted with robotic technologies in educational contexts have shown that these technologies can be used in mathematics (Lopez-Cuadana et al., 2017), science (Chin, Hong & Chen, 2014), reading (Hsiao et al., 2015), language learning (Mazzoni & Benvenuti, 2015), programming (Berland & Wilensky, 2015) and health education (Huang et al., 2017). Findings show robotics have positive effects on achievement (Kim et al., 2015), attitude (Hsiao et al., 2015), motivation (Chin, Hong & Chen, 2014) and engagement (Wang, Young & Jang, 2013). In addition, PISA results have shown that skills such as information and technology literacy, critical thinking, problem solving, collaboration are more developed in students of countries that have included coding and robotics education in their programs (Akpınar & Altun, 2014). Furthermore, it was also found that using robotics for learning enable students to develop their imagination, provide an entertaining learning environment, allow students to develop their own products and develop creative thinking skills (Küçük & Şişman, 2017).

In addition to such empirical findings, Horizon Reports, an ongoing research initiative investigating the technological developments that are likely have an impact on learning and teaching, show robotics are expected to be effective in K-12 and higher education levels in the following years (Becker et al., 2016). Moreover, according to 21st century standards, released by International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE, 2017), it was encouraged to integrate technology into classroom. When considered in this context, it can be seen that the use of robotic technologies in the field of education has an important role.

When research findings, Horizon reports and the ISTE standards are evaluated, it appears that robotics will be an effective tool in education in the near future. Therefore, the adoption, diffusion and acceptance of these technologies by teachers is especially important to be able to utilize their advantage in education. This is because teachers are effective change agents who are taking responsibility for the necessary change and therefore have a key role for the diffusion of any innovation in school (Fullan, 1998). Buckenmeyer (2008) states that in order to be able to achieve the expected educational transformation in classrooms, it is necessary to start with the teacher, not the technology. In this study, a descriptive review has been conducted to reveal theoretical framework, methodology, study group and findings in educational robotic studies between 2010 and 2018. According to the result of the review analysis, some suggestions and implications for practice and research have been made about the diffusion, adoption and acceptance of robotic technologies by teachers.

This study was conducted using descriptive review method (King & He, 2005). The review procedure was carried out in two steps. In the first step, the database, time interval, context and keywords were decided and the descriptive review was performed accordingly. This review was conducted based on Web of Science database. According to a preliminary review result, it was seen that robotic research in education was first introduced in the 1980s and the number of researches started to increase since 2010. Therefore, the review was limited between 2010 and 2018. In this study, it was also aimed to reach the studies that treat robotic technologies as a teaching tool in the field of education. The review was conducted employing the following query: (TS=(robot*) AND TS=(education*)) AND LANGUAGE: (English) AND DOCUMENT TYPES: (Article) Refined by: WEB OF SCIENCE CATEGORIES: ( EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH OR EDUCATION SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ) Timespan: 2010-2018. Indexes: SSCI, CPCI-SSH, BKCI-S, BKCI-SSH, ESCI. Four inclusion criteria were used in this review. These are stated as follows: 1. Publications indexed in Web of Science database, 2. Publication published between 2010-2018, 3. Publications considered in educational context, 4. Publications reporting robotics as a teaching tool not a learning subject. The inital search yielded 160 articles. Then, the number was narrowed down to 38 considering the inclusion criteria. In the second step, the articles considered appropriate for the scope of this study were analyzed in terms of theoretical framework, methodology, study group, and findings.

As a result of reviewing the educational robotic literature, it was observed that the number of articles seem to increase as of 2014. In studies, undergraduate students were mostly selected as study groups until 2014. In the following years, however, it was seen that studies were carried out with study groups selected out of preschool, primary and secondary school levels. In addition, quantitative research method appeared to be the most frequently used methodology followed by mixed method. It was also found that studies generally report positive outcomes regarding the educational use of robotics. Studies indicate that use of robotic technologies in educational context can be effective in facilitating learning and help increase in achievement and motivation. Finally, when theoretical frameworks of the studies are examined, it has been determined that studies were mostly based on learning theories and strategies such as constructivism, project based learning, problem based learning and collaborative learning. However, it is noteworthy that there are only three robotic studies based on adoption, acceptance and diffusion theories as theoretical framework. Of three studies, one was carried out with teachers. For this reason, it can be suggested to conduct more studies in which hypotheses on the diffusion, acceptance and adoption of robotics by teachers are tested using regression and structural equation models. Further information about findings of studies will be discussed during conference day in detail.

Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science & Technology Education, 6(1), 63-71. Akpınar, Y. ve Altun, Y., (2014). Bilgi Toplumu Okullarında Programlama Eğitimi Gereksinimi. İlköğretim Online, 13(1), 14. Becker, S. A., Freeman, A., Hall, C. G., Cummins, M., & Yuhnke, B. (2016). NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2016 K (pp. 1-52). The New Media Consortium. Berland, M., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Comparing virtual and physical robotics environments for supporting complex systems and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 628-647. Buckenmeyer, J. (2008). Revisiting teacher adoption of technology: Research implications and recommendations for successful full technology integration. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal, 4(6), 7-10. Chin, K. Y., Hong, Z. W., & Chen, Y. L. (2014). Impact of using an educational robot-based learning system on students’ motivation in elementary education. IEEE Transactions on learning technologies, 7(4), 333-345. Fullan, M. (1998). The meaning of educational change: A quarter of a century of Learning. Barcelona: International Handbook of Education Change. Hsiao, H. S., Chang, C. S., Lin, C. Y., & Hsu, H. L. (2015). “iRobiQ”: the influence of bidirectional interaction on kindergarteners’ reading motivation, literacy, and behavior. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(3), 269-292. Huang, Z., Lin, C., Kanai-Pak, M., Maeda, J., Kitajima, Y., Nakamura, M., ... & Ota, J. (2017). Impact of Using a Robot Patient for Nursing Skill Training in Patient Transfer. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies. ISTE (2017). ISTE Standards. Accessed from https://www.iste.org/standards, on 17.12.2017. Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R. B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. N. (2015). Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers' STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers & Education, 91, 14-31. King, W. R., & He, J. (2005). Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1), 32. Küçük, S. ve Şişman, B. (2017). Birebir Robotik Öğretiminde Öğreticilerin Deneyimleri. İlköğretim Online, 16(1), 312-325. Lopez-Caudana, E., Ponce, P., Cervera, L., Iza, S., & Mazon, N. (2017). Robotic platform for teaching maths in junior high school. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 1-12. Mazzoni, E., & Benvenuti, M. (2015). A robot-partner for preschool children learning English using socio-cognitive conflict. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 474-485. Wang, Y. H., Young, S. S., & Jang, J. S. R. (2013). Using tangible companions for enhancing learning English conversation. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 296-309.