The Utilization of Educational Robotics in Saudi Schools: Potentials and Barriers from the Perspective of Saudi Teachers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The study aims to determine the barriers and potentials of educational robotics in Saudi schools based on the perceptions of Saudi school teachers. Methods: Both qualitative and quantitative research approaches were opted to assess the aim of the study. An open-ended survey has been conducted among the teachers, who use robotics in their teaching practices. Chi-square test was applied to evaluate the significance of participant’s opinion and the association between their characteristics and responses to the survey items. Thematic analysis was further used to evaluate the results qualitatively. Results: Lack of knowledge was observed regarding robotics’ application in education. Utilizing robots in education has a positive impact on students’ education in Saudi schools. Lack of skills, knowledge, teaching strategies, incentives, adequate infrastructure and policies related to the use of robotics were evaluated as some barriers. Conclusion: Saudi government engaged with the ministry of education must put more efforts to promote the use of robotics in Saudi educational system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it