STEM-Based Robotics Professional Development for Physics Teachers: A Group-Level Training Evaluation in MGMP Fisika Jakarta

Authors

  • Agus Setyo Budi Department of Physics Education, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jl. Rawamangun Muka, East Jakarta 13220, Indonesia
  • Handjoko Permana Department of Physics Education, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jl. Rawamangun Muka, East Jakarta 13220, Indonesia
  • Wulandari Fitriani Department of Physics Education, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jl. Rawamangun Muka, East Jakarta 13220, Indonesia
  • Wulan Yudho Piranti Department of Physics Education, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jl. Rawamangun Muka, East Jakarta 13220, Indonesia
  • Alifa Dwi Marpuri Department of Physics Education, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jl. Rawamangun Muka, East Jakarta 13220, Indonesia
  • Nur Siffa Department of Physics Education, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jl. Rawamangun Muka, East Jakarta 13220, Indonesia
  • Mutoharoh Department of Industry ENgineering, Universitas Krisnadwipayana, Jl Raya Jatiwaringin, Kota Bekasi, Jawa Barat 13077, Indonesia
  • Nandia Primasari Department of Mathematics, Universitas Brawijaya, Jl. Veteran, Kota Malang, Jawa Timur, 65145, Indonesia
  • Dewi Muliyati Institute for Science Education and Communication, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 7, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58797/teras.0501.10

Keywords:

STEM education, educational robotics, physics education, teacher professional development, program evaluation

Abstract

The pre-training survey showed that the MGMP (an association for in-service teachers) Fisika Jakarta participants generally had some familiarity with STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) education but limited direct classroom experience with educational robotics. This article reports on a professional training program for physics teachers who registered in the MGMP Fisika Jakarta network. The program included an online course with specific STEM modules, hands-on activities with Sphero Indi robots, and discussion of how robotics could be used in physics teaching. Pre-training questionnaire responses were collected from 39 participants, while 36 participants completed the anonymous post-training questionnaire. The responses were analyzed descriptively at the group level, together with open-ended reflections on intended classroom use. Before the training, 29 of 39 teachers (74%) either had only heard about educational robotics without using it or reported no familiarity with it. After the program, responses were concentrated in the moderate to very-high categories for understanding of STEM-based learning and the use of educational robotics in physics teaching, and 31 of 36 respondents (86%) regarded the training as very beneficial. Teachers mainly planned to use robotics through project-based, problem-based, and collaborative learning activities. These teacher-generated classroom-use ideas were an immediate pedagogical output of the program. The findings indicate positive immediate responses to professional development, while further follow-up is needed to examine whether these intentions are translated into classroom practice.

References

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

Bernstein, D., Mutch-Jones, K., Cassidy, M., & Hamner, E. (2022). Teaching with robotics: Creating and implementing integrated units in middle school subjects. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1816864

Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, Article 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149

Boz, T., & Allexsaht-Snider, M. (2022). How do elementary school teachers learn coding and robotics? A case study of mediations and conflicts. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 3935–3963. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10736-4

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238

Chalmers, C. (2018). Robotics and computational thinking in primary school. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 17, 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.06.005

Darmawansah, D., Hwang, G.-J., Chen, M.-R. A., & Liang, J.-C. (2023). Trends and research foci of robotics-based STEM education: A systematic review from diverse angles based on the technology-based learning model. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00400-3

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140

El-Hamamsy, L., Chessel-Lazzarotto, F., Bruno, B., Roy, D., Cahlikova, T., Chevalier, M., Parriaux, G., Pellet, J.-P., Lanarès, J., Dehler Zufferey, J., & Mondada, F. (2021). A computer science and robotics integration model for primary school: Evaluation of a large-scale in-service K-4 teacher-training program. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 2445–2475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10355-5

Huang, B., Jong, M. S.-Y., Tu, Y.-F., Hwang, G.-J., Chai, C. S., & Jiang, M. Y.-C. (2022). Trends and exemplary practices of STEM teacher professional development programs in K-12 contexts: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers & Education, 189, Article 104577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104577

Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z

Lin, X.-F., Chiu, T. K. F., Luo, S., Wong, S. Y., Hwang, H., Hwang, S., Li, W., Liang, Z.-M., Peng, S.-Q., & Lin, W.-K. (2024). Teacher learning community for AR-integrated STEM education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 141, Article 104490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104490

Lotriet, H. H., & Gouws, P. M. (2026). Educational robotics in physics education: A systematic review. Studies in Science Education, 62(1), 107–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2025.2455334

Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers' perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2

Marsden, E., & Torgerson, C. J. (2012). Single group, pre- and post-test research designs: Some methodological concerns. Oxford Review of Education, 38(5), 583–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2012.731208

Mâţă, L., & Tzafilkou, K. (2025). Pre-service and in-service teachers' attitudes, self-efficacy and openness to educational robotics. European Journal of Education, 60(4), Article e70357. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.70357

Mesutoglu, C., & Akgündüz, D. (2026). Integrated STEM conceptualizations among teachers following a professional development program. School Science and Mathematics, 126(4), 318–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.18345

Ouyang, F., & Xu, W. (2024). The effects of educational robotics in STEM education: A multilevel meta-analysis. International Journal of STEM Education, 11(1), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00469-4

Papagiannopoulou, T., Vaiopoulou, J., & Stamovlasis, D. (2025). Teachers' readiness to implement robotics in education: Validation and measurement invariance of TRi-Robotics scale via confirmatory factor analysis and network psychometrics. Behavioral Sciences, 15(9), Article 1227. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15091227

Reher, A., Ziegler, M., Blumberg, E., El Tegani, M., Peperkorn, C., Röllke, K., Schwedler, S., Stinken-Rösner, L., Wassing, J. L., & Kirchhoff, T. (2025). Impact of digitalization-related STEM in-service teacher trainings in cooperation with out-of-school student labs on teachers' professional knowledge, self-efficacy and technology commitment. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 1656648. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1656648

Rehman, N., Huang, X., Mahmood, A., Zafeer, H. M. I., & Mohammad, N. K. (2025). Emerging trends and effective strategies in STEM teacher professional development: A systematic review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), Article 32. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04272-y

Schina, D., Esteve-González, V., & Usart, M. (2021). An overview of teacher training programs in educational robotics: Characteristics, best practices and recommendations. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 2831–2852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10377-z

Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), Article 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1

Soler, M., Corcelles-Seuba, M., & Duran, D. (2026). Reciprocal peer observation for enhancing teachers' digital competence: Insights from educational robotics implementation. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 15(1), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44322-026-00064-1

Soraya, E., & Supadi, S. (2022). The practice of learning community on teachers' development: A case of Indonesia. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 14(4), 6965–6972. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v14i4.2292

Surahman, E., & Wang, T.-H. (2023). In-service STEM teachers professional development programmes: A systematic literature review 2018–2022. Teaching and Teacher Education, 135, Article 104326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104326

Thibaut, L., Knipprath, H., Dehaene, W., & Depaepe, F. (2018). The influence of teachers' attitudes and school context on instructional practices in integrated STEM education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 190–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.014

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004

Wu, M. L., & Zhou, Y. (2025). Strengthening teachers' STEM preparedness through a technology integration online course. Education and Information Technologies, 30(12), 17191–17206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13479-8

Yang, W. (2025). A three-phase professional development approach to improving robotics pedagogical knowledge and computational thinking attitude of early childhood teachers. Computers & Education, 231, Article 105282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105282

Downloads

Published

2026-06-24

How to Cite

Budi, A. S., Permana, H., Fitriani, W., Piranti, W. Y., Marpuri, A. D., Siffa, N., … Muliyati, D. (2026). STEM-Based Robotics Professional Development for Physics Teachers: A Group-Level Training Evaluation in MGMP Fisika Jakarta. Mitra Teras: Jurnal Terapan Pengabdian Masyarakat, 5(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.58797/teras.0501.10

Issue

Vol. 5 No. 1 (2026): Mitra Teras: Jurnal Terapan Pengabdian Masyarakat, Volume 5 Issue 1, June 2026

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Agus Setyo Budi, Handjoko Permana, Wulandari Fitriani, Wulan Yudho Piranti, Alifa Dwi Marpuri, Nur Siffa, Mutoharoh, Nandia Primasari, Dewi Muliyati

Creative Commons License

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

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Authors keep the copyright of their articles. See our Copyright and License policy.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>