INTEGRATING EDUCATIONAL ROBOTICS AND AGRICULTURE 4.0 AS A SOLUTION TO THE CHALLENGES OF TEACHING PHYSICAL SCIENCES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63330/armv1n10-011Keywords:
Educational Robotics, Agriculture 4.0, Physics Teaching, STEM, Theoretical Framework, Higher-Order Thinking SkillsAbstract
The teaching of Physical Sciences faces persistent challenges, notably student disengagement and a lack of contextualization, which is compounded by the critical and growing scarcity of skilled human capital demanded by the Fourth Industrial Revolution, particularly in the Agriculture 4.0 (A4.0) sector. This theoretical essay proposes and defends a Sinergetic Theoretical Framework (FTS) as a response to this dual problem, grounded in a rigorous review of literature on Educational Robotics (RE), Physics Teaching, and A4.0 technologies. The FTS intentionally links the use of RE, an active methodology that translates theoretical concepts into solvable engineering problems, with the authentic and relevant environment of A4.0. The model posits that applying Physics principles to challenges such as sensor optimization and agricultural robotic system control significantly enhances the perceived relevance of the discipline. Theoretical analysis indicates that the FTS acts as a powerful catalyst for the development of Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS), including systemic reasoning, model construction, and critical thinking, which are essential for both scientific proficiency and technological innovation. It is concluded that the FTS provides a robust conceptual roadmap for curricular modernization and for training a workforce capable of driving the sustainable and digital development of agribusiness, thus fulfilling a critical social and pedagogical function.
References
[1] DANCY, M.; HENDERSON, C. Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty. American Journal of Physics, v. 78, n. 10, p. 1056–1063, 1 out. 2010.
[2] SELLAMI, A.; AMMAR, M.; AHMAD, Z. Exploring Teachers’ Perceptions of the Barriers to Teaching STEM in High Schools in Qatar. Sustainability 2022, Vol. 14, Page 15192, v. 14, n. 22, p. 15192, 16 nov. 2022.
[3] BAPTISTA, A. D. C.; SIQUEIRA, M. R. DA P. Implementação da Mecatrônica no ensino de Física: construção de ações investigativas através dos Dispositivos Mecatrônicos Educacionais. Caderno Brasileiro de Ensino de Física, v. 35, n. 2, p. 550–572, 14 set. 2018.
[4] DOCKTOR, J. L.; MESTRE, J. P. Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, v. 10, n. 2, 16 set. 2014.
[5] THIAGARAJAH, S. P. et al. Effectiveness of an Internet of Things-based smart farming workshop model for enhancing science, technology, mathematics, and engineering awareness and seeding. IEEE Potentials, 2024.
[6] LAKSHMINARAYANAN, V.; MCBRIDE, A. C. The use of high technology in STEM education. SPIE-INT SOC OPTICAL ENGINEERING. Anais...SPIE-INT SOC OPTICAL ENGINEERING, 8 out. 2015.
[7] ZANG, S. et al. Mediation mechanisms in the hierarchical evolution of high-order thinking skills: A longitudinal study in Chinese science education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, v. 59, p. 101996, 1 mar. 2026.
[8] PEDRERA, O.; BARRUTIA, O.; DÍEZ, J. R. Unveiling Students’ Mental Models and Learning Demands: an Empirical Validation of Secondary Students’ Model Progression on Plant Nutrition. Research in Science Education, 1 out. 2025.
[9] GA, S. H. et al. Science Teachers’ Technical Difficulties in Using Physical Computing and the Internet of Things into School Science Inquiry. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, v. 17, p. 1849–1858, 2024.
[10] COSTAN, E. et al. Education 4.0 in Developing Economies: A Systematic Literature Review of Implementation Barriers and Future Research Agenda. Sustainability 2021, Vol. 13, Page 12763, v. 13, n. 22, p. 12763, 18 nov. 2021.
[11] FASCIOLO, B.; PANZA, L.; LOMBARDI, F. Exploring the Integration of Industry 4.0 Technologies in Agriculture: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Review. Sustainability 2024, Vol. 16, Page 8948, v. 16, n. 20, p. 8948, 16 out. 2024.
[12] LATINO, M. E. et al. Agriculture 4.0 as Enabler of Sustainable Agri-Food: A Proposed Taxonomy. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, v. 70, n. 10, p. 3678–3696, 1 out. 2023.
[13] LOUTA, M.; BANTI, K.; KARAMPELIA, I. Emerging Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture: The Power of Humans and the Way Ahead. IEEE Access, v. 12, p. 98492–98529, 2024.
[14] ZANG, S. et al. Formative assessment on the upward spiral patterns of students’ high-order abilities under knowledge integration instruction. Thinking Skills and Creativity, v. 58, p. 101885, 1 dez. 2025.
[15] FRANCIS, C. A. et al. Challenges in designing ecological agriculture education: A Nordic perspective on change. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, v. 16, n. 2, p. 89–95, 1 jun. 2001.
[16] HENDERSON, C.; DANCY, M. H. Impact of physics education research on the teaching of introductory quantitative physics in the United States. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, v. 5, n. 2, 11 dez. 2009.
[17] ASLAM, S. et al. Challenges in Implementing STEM Education: Insights from Novice STEM Teachers in Developing Countries. Sustainability (Switzerland), v. 15, n. 19, 1 out. 2023.
[18] HETTINGER, K.; LAZARIDES, R.; SCHIEFELE, U. Motivational climate in mathematics classrooms: teacher self-efficacy for student engagement, student- and teacher-reported emotional support and student interest. ZDM - Mathematics Education, v. 55, n. 2, p. 413–426, 1 mar. 2023.
[19] BAZELAIS, P.; LEMAY, D. J.; DOLECK, T. Examining the Link Between Prior Achievement in Secondary Education and Performance in College: Using Data from Pre-university Physics Courses. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, v. 2, n. 2, p. 114–120, dez. 2018.
[20] CAMPOS, F. M. Ardosia: Simulating Circuits and Robotic Systems in a Single Learning Platform. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, v. 16, n. 2, p. 166–177, 1 abr. 2023.
[21] KAPICI, H. O. Does inquiry-based learning work better in regular classrooms or computer-based settings? Instructional Science 2025 53:4, v. 53, n. 4, p. 705–728, 26 abr. 2025.
[22] JOVENTINO, C. F. et al. A Sim-to-real Practical Approach to Teach Robotics into K-12: A Case Study of Simulators, Educational and DIY Robotics in Competition-based Learning. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, v. 107, n. 1, p. 14, 17 jan. 2023.
[23] CHATZICHRISTOFIS, S. A. Recent Advances in Educational Robotics. Electronics 2023, Vol. 12, Page 925, v. 12, n. 4, p. 925, 12 fev. 2023.
[24] FERRARELLI, P.; IOCCHI, L. Learning Newtonian Physics through Programming Robot Experiments. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, v. 26, n. 4, p. 789–824, 18 dez. 2021.
[25] BERNSTEIN, D. et al. Teaching with robotics: creating and implementing integrated units in middle school subjects. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, v. 54, n. 2, p. 161–176, 15 mar. 2022.
[26] NGUGI, M. P.; MAINA, M. C.; BYRNE, A. P. The Impact of Robotic Activities on Secondary School Students’ Interest in Physics in Kenya. International Journal of Computer Applications Technology and Research, v. 12, p. 53–59, 8 jan. 2023.
[27] PONCE, P. et al. Use of Robotic Platforms as a Tool to Support STEM and Physical Education in Developed Countries: A Descriptive Analysis. Sensors, v. 22, n. 3, p. 1037–1037, 28 jan. 2022.
[28] SILVA, F. T. DA et al. Open Innovation in Agribusiness: Barriers and Challenges in the Transition to Agriculture 4.0. Sustainability, v. 15, n. 11, p. 8562–8562, 25 maio 2023.
[29] DA SILVEIRA, F.; LERMEN, F. H.; AMARAL, F. G. An overview of agriculture 4.0 development: Systematic review of descriptions, technologies, barriers, advantages, and disadvantages. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, v. 189, p. 106405, 1 out. 2021.
[30] EROL, M.; DEMIR, Y. Resolution of Light Transmission via Arduino-Based STEM Education Material. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia, v. 20, n. 2, p. 165–172, 4 dez. 2024.
[31] DERAKHTI, A.; SANTIBANEZ GONZALEZ, E. D. R.; MARDANI, A. Industry 4.0 and Beyond: A Review of the Literature on the Challenges and Barriers Facing the Agri-Food Supply Chain. Sustainability, v. 15, n. 6, p. 5078–5078, 13 mar. 2023.
[32] FRAGOMELI, R.; ANNUNZIATA, A.; PUNZO, G. Promoting the Transition towards Agriculture 4.0: A Systematic Literature Review on Drivers and Barriers. Sustainability (Switzerland) , v. 16, n. 6, p. 2425, 1 mar. 2024.
[33] DA SILVEIRA, F. et al. Proposal for a framework to manage the barriers that hinder the development of agriculture 4.0 in the agricultural production chain. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, v. 214, p. 108281, 1 nov. 2023.
[34] LI, Q. et al. The influence of teaching motivations on student engagement in an online learning environment in China. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, v. 38, n. 6, 2022.
[35] LOUKATOS, D.; GLYKOS, I.; ARVANITIS, K. G. Communicating the Automatic Control Principles in Smart Agriculture Education: The Interactive Water Pump Example. Robotics 2025, Vol. 14, Page 68, v. 14, n. 6, p. 68, 26 maio 2025.
[36] VALLERA, F. L.; BODZIN, A. M. Integrating STEM with AgLIT (Agricultural Literacy Through Innovative Technology): The Efficacy of a Project-Based Curriculum for Upper-Primary Students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, v. 18, n. 3, p. 419–439, 1 mar. 2020.
[37] DE CRISTOFORIS, P. et al. A Behavior-Based Approach for Educational Robotics Activities. IEEE Transactions on Education, v. 56, n. 1, p. 61–66, fev. 2013.
[38] LOTRIET, H. H.; GOUWS, P. M. Educational robotics in physics education: a systematic review. Studies in Science Education, p. 1–30, 24 jan. 2025.
[39] RETHLEFSEN, M. L. et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Systematic Reviews, v. 10, n. 1, p. 1–19, 26 jan. 2021.
[40] AMARAL, L. A.; BELICH, H. Kleinberg’s Navigation in Fractal Small-World Networks by Dynamic Rejection Sampling. Brazilian Journal of Physics 2021 51:6, v. 51, n. 6, p. 1858–1866, 9 out. 2021.
[41] BAUMEISTER, R. F.; LEARY, M. R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology, v. 1, n. 3, p. 311–320, 1 set. 1997.
[42] HEMMELGARN, H. et al. Agroforestry education for high school agriculture science: an evaluation of novel content adoption following educator professional development programs. Agroforestry Systems, v. 93, n. 5, p. 1659–1671, 15 out. 2019.
[43] KRAUS, S. et al. Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice. Review of Managerial Science, v. 16, n. 8, p. 2577–2595, 1 nov. 2022.
[44] FIORINI, P. Encouraging robotics to take root [teaching tool. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, v. 12, n. 3, p. 15, set. 2005.
[45] BOYA-LARA, C. et al. Development of a course based on BEAM robots to enhance STEM learning in electrical, electronic, and mechanical domains. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, v. 19, n. 1, p. 7, 3 dez. 2022.
[46] BRUDER, S.; WEDEWARD, K. Robotics in the classroom. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, v. 10, n. 3, p. 25–29, set. 2003.
[47] HONG, J.-C. et al. Developing physics concepts through hands-on problem solving: a perspective on a technological project design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, v. 22, n. 4, p. 473–487, 31 nov. 2012.
[48] HSIAO, H.-S. et al. Using robot-based practices to develop an activity that incorporated the 6E model to improve elementary school students’ learning performances. Interactive Learning Environments, v. 30, n. 1, p. 85–99, 2 jan. 2022.
[49] COMILLO, R. B.; MISTADES, V. M. IMPACT OF BRAIN-BASED TEACHING ON THE CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF NEWTON’S LAWS OF MOTION. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, v. 14, n. 2, p. 216–228, 1 jun. 2025.
[50] ORLANDO, S.; GAUDIOSO, E.; DE LA PAZ, F. Toward Embedding Robotics in Learning Environments With Support to Teachers: The IDEE Experience. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, v. 17, p. 874–884, 2024.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
