Use of Arduino in Primary Education: A Systematic Review

Abstract

In the last two decades, technological advances have been spectacular, and their transcendence has touched all areas of society. Specifically, in the field of education, these advances have allowed projects and approaches such as computational thinking to be taken up more strongly through interdisciplinary visions such as the STEM subjects and technological devices such as Arduino. The main objective of this article is to analyse the uses of Arduino and the achievements it has attained at primary-education level. To this end, a systematic review was carried out in the SCOPUS and Web of Science databases. The methodology used was the PRISMA statement and the SALSA framework. In accordance with the exclusion criteria applied, nine scientific papers from the last seven years were obtained. The qualitative software ATLAS.ti was used to extract the results. These papers reveal that the most commonly used methodology for incorporating the Arduino board into teaching is problem based learning (PBL) in the context of STEM subjects. In addition, programming environments, such as Scratch, and other electronic components have been used, which have enabled the development of computational thinking and the acquisition of technological knowledge, among other achievements.

Full text

Citation: García-Tudela, P.A.;
Marín-Marín, J.-A. Use of Arduino in
Primary Education: A Systematic
Review. Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 134.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
educsci13020134
Academic Editor: João Piedade
Received: 3 January 2023
Revised: 20 January 2023
Accepted: 25 January 2023
Published: 28 January 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
education
sciences
Systematic Review
Use of Arduino in Primary Education: A Systematic Review
Pedro Antonio García-Tudela 1,* and José-Antonio Marín-Marín2
1Department of Didactics and School Organisation, University of Murcia, 30003 Murcia, Spain
2Department of Didactics and School Organisation, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
*Correspondence: pedroantonio.garcia4@um.es
Abstract:
In the last two decades, technological advances have been spectacular, and their tran-
scendence has touched all areas of society. Specifically, in the field of education, these advances
have allowed projects and approaches such as computational thinking to be taken up more strongly
through interdisciplinary visions such as the STEM subjects and technological devices such as Ar-
duino. The main objective of this article is to analyse the uses of Arduino and the achievements it has
attained at primary-education level. To this end, a systematic review was carried out in the SCOPUS
and Web of Science databases. The methodology used was the PRISMA statement and the SALSA
framework. In accordance with the exclusion criteria applied, nine scientific papers from the last
seven years were obtained. The qualitative software ATLAS.ti was used to extract the results. These
papers reveal that the most commonly used methodology for incorporating the Arduino board into
teaching is problem based learning (PBL) in the context of STEM subjects. In addition, programming
environments, such as Scratch, and other electronic components have been used, which have enabled
the development of computational thinking and the acquisition of technological knowledge, among
other achievements.
Keywords:
Arduino; elementary education; ATLAS.ti; computational thinking; robots; systematic
review; primary education
1. Introduction
The last 20 years have seen significant changes in the field of technology and its impact
on education systems. The expansion of the internet and the improvement of mobile
devices have provided access to information and, in turn, to the need to acquire new
skills that enable the potential of these technologies and their applicability in the world of
education to be harnessed. In this sense, certain concepts have gained momentum, which,
although not new, have emerged as a result of technological evolution and more user-
friendly programming languages. In this context, the first papers that introduce computer
science in the field of education date back to the end of the 1960s, when Seymour Papert
created the Logo programming language [
1
] and the Turtle robot [
2
] with the intention of
bringing the world of programming to students so that they could learn to program from
an early age [
3
,
4
]. When mentioning the concepts of programming and robotics, it is also
essential to allude to the concept of computational thinking, since the main purpose of
teaching how to program and use different types of robots is to foster the development of
computational-thinking skills.
Therefore, a distinction should be made between programming, which is defined
as the code or language needed to communicate with the robot or digital device, and
robotics, which includes the assembly and manipulation of the tangible resources, that is,
the robots. By combining robotics and programming from a didactic perspective, different
computational-thinking skills can be fostered, such as abstraction, algorithmic thinking,
decomposition and generalisation, among others [
2
]. At this point, it should be noted
that technological support is not always necessary to promote these skills, as they can
Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020134 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 134 2 of 13
also be developed through unplugged computational thinking, that is to say, without
technological resources.
From this vision, Papert conceived his own theory of learning influenced by Pi-
aget
[1,2,5]
, which he called constructionism. This theory focuses on active student learning
achieved by engaging students and encouraging them to draw their own conclusions
through creative experimentation and the elaboration of socially useful artefacts [6].
This initiative declined over the years until it disappeared from school curricula in
the 1990s [
7
]. The resurgence of this movement was supported by the publication of
the article “Computational thinking” written by the researcher Janette Wing [
8
] in 2006
and by the appearance of new technological devices (robots more accessible to children
and young people) and programming languages that are much more user-friendly and
accessible to inexperienced teachers. These circumstances, together with the need to
strengthen the digital competence of non-university students, have facilitated the inclusion
of computational thinking through robotics and artificial intelligence in infant, primary
and secondary school curricula [9].
In this sense, Wing defines computational thinking as “the thought processes involved
in formulating a problem and expressing its solution(s) in such a way that a computer
(human or machine) can effectively carry out” [
10
] (p. 8). This interpretation posits
computational thinking as a skill that goes beyond computer science, as it represents a
universally applicable attitude and skill set for all [
8
]. This skill can be added to every
child’s analytical ability from an early age, adopting a cross-cutting component in 21st
century school curricula [
11
]. From this perspective, the integration of computer science into
schools has two main objectives: to offer all students the possibility of accessing computer
science and to improve the learning of subjects known as STEAM (Science, Technology,
Engineering, Arts and Mathematics) [
12
] by making the contents more authentic and
relevant [
13
] and helping students with learning to break down a task into simpler ones,
formulating and testing hypotheses, exploring and investigating, relating knowledge and
coming up with original ideas or solutions. Thus, at a global level, different educational
administrations have echoed this need in an increasingly digital world and are integrating
computational thinking in their classrooms [
14
–
16
] as another competence that students
must acquire from early childhood and primary education [
17
–
23
] through to secondary
education [24–27].
From these annotated approaches, and taking into account the progressive digital-
isation of the education system, the curricular integration of technological resources is
becoming increasingly interesting for any educational institution. For this reason, numer-
ous initiatives are being developed to provide classrooms with advanced technologies
such as artificial intelligence, robotics, 3D printing, etc. However, all this technological
enrichment in educational environments must be approached in a conscious and systematic
way, for example, as indicated by the authors of [
28
], through the TPACK model [
29
], a
model in which technology is curricularly integrated taking into account the content knowl-
edge, technological knowledge and pedagogical knowledge of the teachers involved in the
technological innovation to be developed. Therefore, for these authors, it is essential to
integrate robotics and programming in the way described, in order to achieve real success
in the development of computational-thinking skills.
As previously indicated, computational thinking is also closely related to STEAM
subjects, which are approached from a pedagogy of investigation, analysis, deduction, etc.
For this reason, the authors of [28] claim that computational thinking and robotics should
be approached from the active methodology known as project-based learning [
30
]. These
authors see this methodology as an incomparable framework for the interconnection of
knowledge and skills, which benefits learning and increases motivation. Moreover, other
studies [
31
,
32
] have applied PBL to understand and improve computational thinking, and
the results show an increase in HPC, such as complex problem abstraction, algorithm
automation, and data analysis, collection and representation, while providing students
with useful skills to cope with real-life problems [
33
]. In the specific case of primary

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 134 3 of 13
education, the most commonly used technologies to develop computational thinking are
LEGO WeDo, the block programming language Scratch, the Microbit programming board
or the freely distributed Arduino board [
34
–
37
]. The focus of this work is the Arduino.
This is an open-source electronic board based on easy-to-use and low-cost hardware and
software [
38
]. These boards are able to read an input (light on a sensor, a finger on a button
or a Twitter message) and convert it into an output (turning on an LED, activating a motor
or posting something online). To do this, it uses a proprietary programming language
based on Wiring and the Arduino Software (IDE) based on Processing. In the educational
field, Arduino has had an exponential impact due to its low cost and the potential and
versatility of its design and experimentation: because it is open source and its software and
hardware are both extensible, it can be used at the same time in various operating systems
(Linux, Macintosh OSX and Windows) [39].
The bibliographic review of Arduino in the field of education, specifically at the
primary-education level, allows us to contrast the existing movement and the diversity
of uses that teachers make of it [
40
–
49
]. In a general way—that is, without any type
of filter related to the educational context (formal, non-formal and informal)—various
positive consequences have been found to result from the use of Arduino with students
at primary-education level. These include the opportunity it gives to apply and reinforce
understanding of concepts; the way it fosters interest and motivation towards design and
manufacturing activities; and the way it boosts creative spirit through autonomous data
collection and sharing with peers. Furthermore, this new approach improves students’
attention and overall performance, which is reflected in higher grades [
50
], as well as
improving attitudes towards technology among the students themselves. The result of
these experiences is high levels of satisfaction for both students and their teachers [51].
Finally, it should be noted that the greatest enthusiasm for the inclusion of these
devices and technologies in the classroom comes from the people who make the projects,
document them and make them available online by sharing information about how they
built them. In addition, the maker and DIY (do it yourself) movements have adopted
Arduino as a device to build and design their own projects [
39
]. This encourages more
and more young students to take up entrepreneurship and technology by giving them
a sense that they too can understand how software and hardware combine to produce
new technologies.
In this context, which is defined by the need to offer quality training that develops
computational thinking in students and the diversity of devices and technologies available
to help them with this, the aim of this paper is to analyse the uses and achievements of Ar-
duino in primary education. This objective is specified in the following research questions:
RQ1
: How much research has been done on the implementation of the Arduino board at
the primary-education level?
RQ2
: What are the objectives being pursued when implementing Arduino in primary education?
RQ3
: What methodologies are being used to implement Arduino for primary-education
students?
RQ4: What other resources are being used in addition to the programming board?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Method
As explained in the theoretical framework, different papers have been published on the
use of robotics or maker culture in different educational contexts; therefore, it is considered
of interest to delve into the didactic use of and the achievements reached through emerging
technological resources, such as the Arduino board.
In order to carry out an overview of this resource at compulsory-educational levels, a
systematic literature review was chosen, as this is the most highly recommended option for

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 134 4 of 13
summarising the results of works published on any topic, and one which favours a gener-
alised approach to the object of study and helps to identify future lines of research
[52,53].
As for the analysis of the results, this was carried out using ATLAS.ti 9 qualitative
data analysis software.
2.2. Research Phases
The method selected for this paper had to comply with the principles of order and
strictness, which is why the recommendations contained in the 2020 version of the PRISMA
declaration were followed. The items set out in the aforementioned declaration are of
outstanding international value in the field of theoretical research and are recommended for
the conduct of any systematic review, regardless of the nature of the discipline studied [
54
].
In a complementary manner, the SALSA framework [
55
] was also taken into account.
This framework generally establishes the four phases through which a systematic review
has to be developed, namely the planned search; the evaluation based on predefined
inclusion and exclusion criteria; the synthesis of the results found using diagrams; and
finally, the analysis of the results.
Based on the phases established by the SALSA framework, the search for papers
was carried out using two international reference databases, Scopus and WoS (Web of
Science). The descriptors and Boolean operators used in this search were: “Arduino”
AND “Elementary school” (21) OR “primary education” (7) OR “basic education” (11) OR
“Elementary education” (1). It should be noted that the descriptors “middle education”
and “elementary education” did not return any results when linked to Arduino. They were
therefore discarded.
It should also be noted that the search for descriptors was applied on the basis of the
topic, i.e., taking into account the title, abstract and keywords.
Next, to establish the selection or eligibility criteria for the scientific literature that
was to form part of the final sample, the PICOS strategy was used. This strategy has four
criteria (population, phenomenon of interest, context and study design) on the basis of
which to select the scientific papers that are fully related to the object of study. It was
chosen because it has been used in other systematic reviews dealing with the use of digital
technologies [56,57].
After applying the descriptors selected in both Scopus and WoS and eliminating the
duplicities found using the bibliographic manager Mendeley, the criteria of the PICOS
strategy were applied; some of the main reasons why certain works were excluded were
as follows:
•
Population: Only works in Spanish and English were chosen, and all those written
in Korean and Portuguese were eliminated; the time frame was limited to the last
seven years (2022–2016, both inclusive) in order to maintain the current nature of the
publications, since the works relating to primary education went up to 2018 and those
relating to secondary education went up to 2016; and, finally, the type of document was
limited to articles or book chapters, excluding conference abstracts and complete books.
Furthermore, with regard to this first criterion of the PICOS strategy, it should be noted
that no exclusion criteria were considered in relation to the country of publication or
subject area.
•
Phenomenon of interest: All works whose object of study was the explanation of
a training proposal for teachers on use of the Arduino board (and sometimes the
analysis of the same) were excluded. Works on specific didactic implementations that
research institutions or universities carry out in primary or secondary schools on an
experimental basis were also excluded.
•
Context: Only experiences developed in a formal educational context were taken into
account. Therefore, all those related to a non-formal educational context, such as
summer camps, theme weeks and extracurricular activities, were discarded.
•Study design: theoretical work was eliminated.

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 134 5 of 13
In relation to the reference frameworks on the basis of which this systematic lit-
erature review was developed, as set out above, it should be noted that the first step
in selecting the sample was to consult the report published by the European Commis-
sion/EACEA/Eurydice [
58
], which states that full-time compulsory education in all coun-
tries comprises primary and lower secondary education (ISCED 1 and 2), taking into
account that some countries also include some upper Secondary Education (ISCED 3).
Based on this information and applying the different filters mentioned above, as
shown in the flow chart generated (Figure 1), the final sample was composed of 9 papers in
primary education and 60 in the case of secondary education.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14
• Context: Only experiences developed in a formal educational context were taken into
account. Therefore, all those related to a non-formal educational context, such as
summer camps, theme weeks and extracurricular activities, were discarded.
• Study design: theoretical work was eliminated.
In relation to the reference frameworks on the basis of which this systematic literature
review was developed, as set out above, it should be noted that the first step in selecting
the sample was to consult the report published by the European Commission/EACEA/Eu-
rydice [58], which states that full-time compulsory education in all countries comprises
primary and lower secondary education (ISCED 1 and 2), taking into account that some
countries also include some upper Secondary Education (ISCED 3).
Based on this information and applying the different filters mentioned above, as
shown in the flow chart generated (Figure 1), the final sample was composed of 9 papers
in primary education and 60 in the case of secondary education.
Figure 1. Flowchart for sample selection.
3. Results
Figure 1. Flowchart for sample selection.
3. Results
The analysis of the nine papers on the use of Arduino with primary-school students
that make up the final sample has resulted in the creation of 72 codes and 139 citations.
Of the total number of codes, five are the free codes to which the rest are linked (Figure 2).
In other words, these are the categories created to analyse the use of this technological
resource. Some of these categories, specifically those of objectives and resources, have other

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 134 6 of 13
codes associated with them that act as subcategories, in order to achieve a greater level of
concreteness and to develop a more exhaustive analysis of the practices developed.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 14
The analysis of the nine papers on the use of Arduino with primary-school students
that make up the final sample has resulted in the creation of 72 codes and 139 citations.
Of the total number of codes, five are the free codes to which the rest are linked (Fig-
ure 2). In other words, these are the categories created to analyse the use of this techno-
logical resource. Some of these categories, specifically those of objectives and resources,
have other codes associated with them that act as subcategories, in order to achieve a
greater level of concreteness and to develop a more exhaustive analysis of the practices
developed.
Figure 2. Categories linked to the use of Arduino in primary education.
Arduino is an educational resource that is used in various subjects in primary edu-
cation. However, "Science" is the subject that has the strongest roots (n=5), followed by
"Technology and Engineering" (n=4). Other subjects such as "Physics" (n=1), "Music" (n=1)
and "Mathematics" (n=2) are also included.
Despite there being nine documents, the subject category comprises a total of 13 cita-
tions, as interdisciplinary projects involving several subjects are common practice.
The objectives category was divided into three subcategories: activity objectives, di-
dactic objectives and transversal objectives. In relation to the first subcategory, i.e., the
objectives of the activity, these could be defined as the challenges posed to the students.
Specifically, two types of activity objectives have been found. On the one hand, "doing
science experiments", and, on the other hand, "assembling or programming a robot or a
circuit to overcome challenges". However, the latter objective has a rootedness of nine
citations, while the former has only one linked citation.
As for the didactic objectives, these can be defined as the aims that the teacher expects
the students to achieve through the use of Arduino. In this case, nine codes have been
created, which are shown in Figure 3. However, the one with the highest rootedness is
"learning to program" (n=6), followed by "tackling science content" and "learning physical
or electrical concepts", both with three linked quotes.
Figure 2. Categories linked to the use of Arduino in primary education.
Arduino is an educational resource that is used in various subjects in primary edu-
cation. However, “Science” is the subject that has the strongest roots (n = 5), followed by
“Technology and Engineering” (n = 4). Other subjects such as “Physics” (n = 1), “Music”
(n = 1) and “Mathematics” (n = 2) are also included.
Despite there being nine documents, the subject category comprises a total of 13 cita-
tions, as interdisciplinary projects involving several subjects are common practice.
The objectives category was divided into three subcategories: activity objectives,
didactic objectives and transversal objectives. In relation to the first subcategory, i.e., the
objectives of the activity, these could be defined as the challenges posed to the students.
Specifically, two types of activity objectives have been found. On the one hand, “doing
science experiments”, and, on the other hand, “assembling or programming a robot or a
circuit to overcome challenges”. However, the latter objective has a rootedness of nine
citations, while the former has only one linked citation.
As for the didactic objectives, these can be defined as the aims that the teacher expects
the students to achieve through the use of Arduino. In this case, nine codes have been
created, which are shown in Figure 3. However, the one with the highest rootedness is
“learning to program” (n = 6), followed by “tackling science content” and “learning physical
or electrical concepts”, both with three linked quotes.
The last subcategory of objectives are the transversal ones, defined as those that seek
to enhance certain skills, which do not necessarily have to be directly related to the use
of technology. In total, seven codes have been generated, listed as follows in order of
rootedness: “develop critical thinking” (n = 4); “improve motivation towards learning”
(n = 4); “enhance creativity” (n = 3); “cooperate” (n = 2); “develop self-efficacy” (n = 2);
“enhance manipulative or technical skills” (n = 2); and, finally, “develop communicative
skills for debate” (n = 1).
In relation to the results achieved with the proposals developed using Arduino, a
semantic network has been generated in which the nine codes created have been collected
(Figure 4). The vast majority of them tend to have two linked citations; the most numerous
is “development of computational thinking”, which has three citations. There are also
other closely related codes, such as “proper circuit assembly” (n = 2) and “proper Arduino
programming” (n = 2). All the results are linked in some way to technology, except for two:
"cooperation between students" (n = 1) and “improve drawing techniques” (n = 1).
Notably, the resources category is the one with the largest number of associated
codes—specifically, 17 codes, of which one also acts as a subcategory, that of “electronic
components”, as it itself has nine codes associated with it. Figure 5below shows a semantic
network in which all the resources used in the Arduino training proposals can be seen.

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 134 7 of 13
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 14
Figure 3. Didactic objectives of the use of Arduino in primary education.
The last subcategory of objectives are the transversal ones, defined as those that seek
to enhance certain skills, which do not necessarily have to be directly related to the use of
technology. In total, seven codes have been generated, listed as follows in order of root-
edness: "develop critical thinking" (n=4); "improve motivation towards learning" (n=4);
"enhance creativity" (n=3); "cooperate" (n=2); "develop self-efficacy" (n=2); "enhance ma-
nipulative or technical skills" (n=2); and, finally, "develop communicative skills for de-
bate" (n=1).
In relation to the results achieved with the proposals developed using Arduino, a
semantic network has been generated in which the nine codes created have been collected
(Figure 4). The vast majority of them tend to have two linked citations; the most numerous
is "development of computational thinking", which has three citations. There are also
other closely related codes, such as "proper circuit assembly" (n=2) and "proper Arduino
programming" (n=2). All the results are linked in some way to technology, except for two:
"cooperation between students" (n=1) and "improve drawing techniques" (n=1).
Figure 3. Didactic objectives of the use of Arduino in primary education.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14
Figure 4. Results of the proposals implemented with Arduino.
Notably, the resources category is the one with the largest number of associated
codes—specifically, 17 codes, of which one also acts as a subcategory, that of "electronic
components", as it itself has nine codes associated with it. Figure 5 below shows a semantic
network in which all the resources used in the Arduino training proposals can be seen.
Figure 4. Results of the proposals implemented with Arduino.

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 134 8 of 13
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14
Figure 5. Resources used in the Arduino didactic proposals in primary education.
The most frequently used resource is the Arduino board (n=9), but other frequently
used complementary resources are robots (n=4) and computer software such as Scratch
(n=3) or Blockly (n=2). As for the electronic components most frequently referenced in the
papers, these are wires (n=4), LEDs (n=5) and different sensors (n=4).
Finally, it should be noted that the experiences have been developed around certain
theoretical principles and methodologies. The codes generated in this case are the follow-
ing: "Problem Based Learning" (n=4), "Constructivist and constructionist theories" (n=3),
"Gamification" (n=1), "Flow Theory" (n=1), "6E Model"(n=1) and "Experiential Learning"
(n=1).
Figure 5. Resources used in the Arduino didactic proposals in primary education.
The most frequently used resource is the Arduino board (n = 9), but other frequently
used complementary resources are robots (n = 4) and computer software such as Scratch
(n = 3)
or Blockly (n = 2). As for the electronic components most frequently referenced in
the papers, these are wires (n = 4), LEDs (n = 5) and different sensors (n = 4).
Finally, it should be noted that the experiences have been developed around certain
theoretical principles and methodologies. The codes generated in this case are the following:
“Problem Based Learning” (n = 4), “Constructivist and constructionist theories” (n = 3),
“Gamification” (n = 1), “Flow Theory” (n = 1), “6E Model” (n = 1) and “Experiential
Learning” (n = 1).

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 134 9 of 13
4. Discussion and Conclusions
As indicated in the Introduction, Arduino is a didactic resource used at various
educational levels [
59
,
60
]. However, based on the scientific literature reviewed in this work,
it could be stated that it is not a very widespread resource in the formal context of primary
education, since according to the criteria applied, there are nine works that deal with the
use of Arduino with students of this age.
Numerous studies have been discarded because they have consisted of one-off imple-
mentations in the form of workshops or extracurricular activities. However, the experiences
that have been developed in the formal educational context have been mainly linked to
STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) subjects, as the largest number
of citations are associated with these subjects.
It could be argued that it is not only STEM subjects that have been addressed indepen-
dently, but rather that some STEM projects have been developed in which all subjects have
been addressed in a globalised way. Mainly, this conclusion is reached because 13 subject
codes have been obtained and there are nine assignments, which indicates that some inter-
disciplinary projects have been carried out. This result coincides with the practices carried
out at other, higher levels, where the Arduino board is also used to enhance skills and assist
with work covered in STEM subjects, through these interdisciplinary projects [61–65].
The fact that STEM projects were presented as a way to foster computational thinking
in the papers analysed absolutely complements the finding that the most widely used
methodology was PBL. This is mainly because this methodology involves the teacher
presenting a problem so that students have to investigate, analyse and reflect in order to
find the right solution. In addition, according to [
12
], STEM projects are also based on the
pedagogy of research, analysis, deduction, etc. From these findings, it could be extracted
that in some of the cases analysed there is a total complementarity between the subjects
addressed, the objectives pursued and the methodologies selected.
Moreover, some of these initiatives are also influenced by the theories of construc-
tionism or constructivism, which also stand out for their ability to promote active student
learning. In other words, each student is the protagonist in extracting their own reflections
and conclusions from experimentation with technological resources in a creative and critical
way [
6
]. Therefore, these theories also fit perfectly with the intentions of PBL methodology
and globalised STEM projects.
More specifically, and taking into account the didactic objectives of the experiences,
the use of Arduino in primary schools is mainly aimed at promoting programming among
pupils. To this end, the most common activity seen in the projects was the assembly
or programming of a robot or circuit to overcome challenges. Taking into account the
generated codes related to the results, it should be concluded that the didactic objectives
have been achieved, since some of the achievements relate to the correct assembly of
circuits, the proper programming of Arduino, and the connection between the digital world
and reality.
Taking into account another category of objectives, the practical objectives, it should
be noted that these are also closely related to the methodologies implemented. This is
mainly because the most cited practical objective is that of overcoming challenges through
the technological resources used, and the most implemented methodology is PBL, which
involves a process of research by the students in order to overcome challenges.
In relation to the main resource, it should be noted that the board itself is not a
functional resource, but needs other complementary components for its programming. In
this review, it has been found that up to nine different electronic components are used,
among which LED lights stand out above all others. Sensors, cables, servomotors or even
an LCD screen are also commonly used. These components usually come in kits that
include the Arduino board and are used for starter projects [
62
]. Therefore, from the results
related to the resources used, it could be deduced that all practices are based on the use of
such kits for initiation, since these basic electronic components have been mainly used.

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 134 10 of 13
Other widely used complementary resources are the programming environments,
which are linked to the Arduino board and contain all the processes and tools needed to
work with Arduino. According to this SR, the two most widely used in primary schools
are Scratch and Blockly; however, according to the results of Singh et al. [
63
], of these
two digital tools, Scratch is the best for enhancing students’ soft skills, such as critical
thinking. In relation to this soft skill, it is worth noting that its development has been
the most frequently cited transversal objective in the experiences analysed. However,
none of the papers have indicated the explicit achievement of the objective, but in some
cases they have indicated the correct enhancement of computational thinking, which could
include, in addition to the basic skills (decomposition, pattern recognition, abstraction and
generalisation, and algorithmic thinking), other skills such as critical thinking, collaboration
or creativity [66].
As mentioned above, the publication of works on the use of Arduino in primary
education from a formal perspective is not a widely developed phenomenon. For this
reason, and given the exploratory nature of this study, some lines of research for the future
have been extracted from all the works that have been excluded in the sample selection
process. These are mainly complementary topics, which could enrich this field of research.
These proposed lines of research are:
•Professional training in the use of the Arduino board.
•Arduino as a resource to address diversity.
•
Use of Arduino in the non-formal educational context (theme weeks, extracurricular
activities, summer camps, etc.).
•
Analysis of university collaboration projects with schools which involve the use
of Arduino.
Two types of implications emerge from the Discussion and Conclusion section of this
manuscript: theoretical and practical. The theoretical implications include the contribution
of this manuscript to the scientific field of the Arduino board and its implementation in the
educational field, specifically at the primary-education level. In addition, future lines of
research are offered that can guide researchers towards specific aspects that have not yet
been sufficiently explored.
On the other hand, among the practical implications, the results of this study detail in
a very precise way the devices, means and instruments that have been used in the different
research on Arduino and its implementation in the initial stage of education, allowing
researchers to have a more concrete knowledge of how to approach future research in this
field. In this sense, this type of research using software such as Atlas.ti allows the unpacking
of each aspect of the nine studies reviewed, offering a clear, practical approach on how
implementation of the Arduino board is being carried out in the formal context of primary
education and detailing the most commonly used resources and components. These
aspects could provide researchers with an explanatory framework on how to guide training
proposals designed for primary-education teachers so that aspects such as methodology,
motivation, material resources or teacher training itself are not conditioning factors that
limit the acquisition of skills that promote computational thinking.
The limitations of this research include the search itself in the SCOPUS and Web
of Science databases. The incorporation of other databases, for example ERIC, could
provide more information or studies on this specific topic. Similarly, the descriptors and
Boolean operators are also a limitation of this study, since future studies could include
other keywords related to other similar boards, or even other resources or programming
environments related to computational thinking, to extract a broader perspective. In turn,
the exclusion and inclusion criteria are a variable to be taken into account when assessing
the limitations, since the establishment of one or other of the criteria can considerably
reduce the number of papers that are finally chosen for the specific study. On the other
hand, another limitation that has been found is the scarcity of research on this topic. This
prevents us from offering a much broader and more rigorous view of what is being applied
in primary schools.

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 134 11 of 13
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, J.-A.M.-M.; methodology, P.A.G.-T.; software, P.A.G.-T.;
formal analysis, P.A.G.-T.; data curation, P.A.G.-T. and J.-A.M.-M.; writing—review and editing,
P.A.G.-T. and J.-A.M.-M.; supervision, J.-A.M.-M.; funding acquisition, J.-A.M.-M. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by Unit for Quality, Teaching Innovation and Prospective of the
University of Granada within the FabLab in Education Project with code PIBD20-85.
Acknowledgments:
EducaTech XXI Research Group Education and Technology for the 21st Century
(SEJ-666) and the Department of Didactics and School Organisation of the University of Granada.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. García, J.M. La expansión del Pensamiento Computacional en Uruguay. Rev. Educ. Distancia 2020,20, 1–15. [CrossRef]
2.
Vera, M.D.M.S. El pensamiento computacional en contextos educativos: Una aproximación desde la Tecnología Educativa. Res.
Educ. Learn. Innov. Arch. 2019,23, 24–39. [CrossRef]
3.
Malraison, P.J.; Papert, S. Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Two-Year Coll. Math. J.
1981
,12, 285. [CrossRef]
4.
Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional. Programación, Robótica y Pensamiento Computacional en el Aula. Situación en
España; INTEF: Madrid, Spain, 2018; Available online: https://bit.ly/2XBOY6B (accessed on 15 December 2022).
5. Lodi, M.; Martini, S. Computational Thinking, Between Papert and Wing. Sci. Educ. 2021,30, 883–908. [CrossRef]
6.
Csizmadia, A.; Standl, B.; Waite, J. Integrating the Constructionist Learning Theory with Computational Thinking Classroom
Activities. Inform. Educ. 2019,18, 41–67. [CrossRef]
7.
Resnick, M. Reviving Papert’s Dream. Educ. Technol.
2012
,52, 42–46. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/44430058
(accessed on 15 December 2022).
8. Wing, J.M. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 2006,49, 33–35. [CrossRef]
9.
Caeli, E.N.; Yadav, A. Unplugged Approaches to Computational Thinking: A Historical Perspective. Techtrends
2019
,64, 29–36.
[CrossRef]
10.
Wing, J.M. Computational Thinking’s Influence on Research and Education for All. Ital. J. Educ. Technol.
2017
,25, 7–14. [CrossRef]
11.
Nordby, S.K.; Bjerke, A.H.; Mifsud, L. Primary Mathematics Teachers’ Understanding of Computational Thinking. KI-Künstliche
Intell. 2022,36, 35–46. [CrossRef]
12.
Marín-Marín, J.-A.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J.; Dúo-Terrón, P.; López-Belmonte, J. STEAM in education: A bibliometric analysis of
performance and co-words in Web of Science. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2021,8, 41. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13.
Coenraad, M.; Cabrera, L.; Killen, H.; Plane, J.; Ketelhut, D.J. Computational thinking integration in elementary teachers’ science
lesson plans. ACM 2022, 11–18. [CrossRef]
14.
Bocconi, S.; Chioccariello, A.; Dettori, G.; Ferrari, A.; Engelhardt, K.; Kampylis, P.; Punie, Y. Developing computational thinking
in compulsory education: Implications for policy and practice. In JRC Science for Policy Report; European Commission: Brussels,
Belgium, 2016.
15.
Bocconi, S.; Chioccariello, A.; Kampylis, P.; Dagien
˙
e, V.; Wastiau, P.; Engelhardt, K.; Earp, J.; Horvath, M.A.; Jasut
˙
e, E.;
Malagoli, C.; et al
.Reviewing Computational Thinking in Compulsory Education; Inamorato Dos Santos, A., Cachia, R., Giannoutsou,
N., Punie, Y., Eds.; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2022. [CrossRef]
16.
Lee, I.; Grover, S.; Martin, F.; Pillai, S.; Malyn-Smith, J. Computational Thinking from a Disciplinary Perspective: Integrating
Computational Thinking in K-12 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education. J. Sci. Educ. Technol.
2020
,29, 1–8.
[CrossRef]
17.
Gamito, R.; Aristizabal, P.; Basasoro, M.; León, I. El desarrollo del pensamiento computacional en educación: Valoración basada
en una experiencia con Scratch. Innoeduca. Int. J. Technol. Educ. Innov. 2022,8, 59–74. [CrossRef]
18.
García-Valcárcel-Muñoz-Repiso, A.; Caballero-González, Y.-A. Robotics to develop computational thinking in early Childhood
Education. Comunicar 2019,27, 63–72. [CrossRef]
19.
Gerosa, A.; Koleszar, V.; Tejera, G.; Gómez-Sena, L.; Carboni, A. Educational Robotics Intervention to Foster Computational
Thinking in Preschoolers: Effects of Children’s Task Engagement. Front. Psychol. 2022,13, 904761. [CrossRef]
20.
Kastner-Hauler, O.; Tengler, K.; Sabitzer, B.; Lavicza, Z. Combined Effects of Block-Based Programming and Physical Computing
on Primary Students’ Computational Thinking Skills. Front. Psychol. 2022,13, 875382. [CrossRef]
21.
Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional. Real Decreto 95/2022, de 1 de Febrero, Por el Que Se Establece la Ordenación y
Las Enseñanzas Mínimas de la Educación Infantil. Gobierno de España. 2022a. Available online: https://www.boe.es/eli/es/rd/
2022/02/01/95 (accessed on 10 December 2022).
22.
Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional. Real Decreto 157/2022, de 1 de Marzo, Por el Que Se Establecen la Ordenación
y Las Enseñanzas Mínimas de la Educación Primaria. Gobierno de España. 2022b. Available online: https://www.boe.es/eli/es/
rd/2022/03/01/157/con (accessed on 10 December 2022).

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 134 12 of 13
23.
Paucar-Curasma, R.; Villalba-Condori, K.; Arias-Chavez, D.; Le, N.-T.; Garcia-Tejada, G.; Frango-Silveira, I. Evaluation of
Computational Thinking using four educational robots with primary school students in Peru. Educ. Knowl. Soc.
2022
,23, 1–10.
[CrossRef]
24.
Bell, J.; Bell, T. Integrating Computational Thinking with a Music Education Context. Inform. Educ.
2018
,17, 151–166. [CrossRef]
25.
Fields, D.; Lui, D.; Kafai, Y.; Jayathirtha, G.; Walker, J.; Shaw, M. Communicating about computational thinking: Understanding
affordances of portfolios for assessing high school students’ computational thinking and participation practices. Comput. Sci.
Educ. 2021,31, 224–258. [CrossRef]
26.
Lee, I.; Malyn-Smith, J. Computational Thinking Integration Patterns Along the Framework Defining Computational Thinking
from a Disciplinary Perspective. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2020,29, 9–18. [CrossRef]
27.
Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional. Real Decreto 217/2022, de 29 de Marzo, Por el Que Se Establece la Ordenación
y Las Enseñanzas Mínimas de la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. Gobierno de España. 2022c. Available online: https:
//www.boe.es/eli/es/rd/2022/03/29/217/con (accessed on 10 December 2022).
28.
Pou, A.V.; Canaleta, X.; Fonseca, D. Computational Thinking and Educational Robotics Integrated into Project-Based Learning.
Sensors 2022,22, 3746. [CrossRef]
29.
Soler-Costa, R.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J.; López-Belmonte, J.; Marín-Marín, J.-A. Co-Word Analysis and Academic Performance of
the Term TPACK in Web of Science. Sustainability 2021,13, 1481. [CrossRef]
30.
Bell, S. Project-Based Learning for the 21st Century: Skills for the Future. Clear. House J. Educ. Strat. Issues Ideas
2010
,83, 39–43.
[CrossRef]
31.
Hsieh, M.-C.; Pan, H.-C.; Hsieh, S.-W.; Hsu, M.-J.; Chou, S.-W. Teaching the Concept of Computational Thinking: A STEM-Based
Program with Tangible Robots on Project-Based Learning Courses. Front. Psychol. 2022,12, 828568. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32.
Muliyati, D.; Tanmalaka, A.S.; Ambarwulan, D.; Kirana, D.; Permana, H. Train the computational thinking skill using problem-
based learning worksheet for undergraduate physics student in computational physics courses. J. Phys. Conf. Ser.
2020
,
1521, 022024. [CrossRef]
33.
Bertacchini, F.; Scuro, C.; Pantano, P.; Bilotta, E. A Project Based Learning Approach for Improving Students’ Computational
Thinking Skills. Front. Robot. AI 2022,9, 3389. [CrossRef]
34.
Chiang, F.-K.; Zhang, Y.; Zhu, D.; Shang, X.; Jiang, Z. The Influence of Online STEM Education Camps on Students’ Self-Efficacy,
Computational Thinking, and Task Value. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2022,31, 461–472. [CrossRef]
35.
Kert, S.B.; Erkoç, M.F.; Yeni, S. The effect of robotics on six graders’ academic achievement, computational thinking skills and
conceptual knowledge levels. Think. Ski. Creativity 2020,38, 100714. [CrossRef]
36.
Pan, Z.; Cheok, A.D.; Müller, W.; Chang, M. (Eds.) Transactions on Edutainment III. Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009. [CrossRef]
37.
Scaradozzi, D.; Sorbi, L.; Pedale, A.; Valzano, M.; Vergine, C. Teaching Robotics at the Primary School: An Innovative Approach.
Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015,174, 3838–3846. [CrossRef]
38.
Kang, S.-J.; Yeo, H.-W.; Yoon, J. Applying Chemistry Knowledge to Code, Construct, and Demonstrate an Arduino–Carbon
Dioxide Fountain. J. Chem. Educ. 2019,96, 313–316. [CrossRef]
39.
Lopez-Belmonte, J.; Marin-Marin, J.-A.; Soler-Costa, R.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J. Arduino Advances in Web of Science. A Scientific
Mapping of Literary Production. IEEE Access 2020,8, 128674–128682. [CrossRef]
40.
Alò, D.; Castillo, A.; Vial, P.M.; Samaniego, H. Low-cost emerging technologies as a tool to support informal environmental
education in children from vulnerable public schools of southern Chile. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2020,42, 635–655. [CrossRef]
41.
Chang, C.-C.; Chen, Y. Using mastery learning theory to develop task-centered hands-on STEM learning of Arduino-based
educational robotics: Psychomotor performance and perception by a convergent parallel mixed method. Interact. Learn. Environ.
2020,30, 1677–1692. [CrossRef]
42.
Jawaid, I.; Javed, M.Y.; Jaffery, M.H.; Akram, A.; Safder, U.; Hassan, S. Robotic system education for young children by
collaborative-project-based learning. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2019,28, 178–192. [CrossRef]
43.
Lu, C.-C.; Ma, S.-Y. Design STEAM Course to Train STEAM Literacy of Primary Students: Taking “Animal Mimicry Beast” as an
Example. J. Res. Educ. Sci. 2019,64, 85–118. [CrossRef]
44.
Morón, C.; Yedra, E.; Ferrández, D.; Saiz, P. Application of Arduino for the Teaching of Mathematics in Primary Education. In
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (ICERI2019), Seville, Spain, 11–13 November 2019;
ICERI Proceedings; Yedra, E., Ed.; IATED: Valencia, Spain, 2019; pp. 6316–6321.
45. Moya, A.A. Studying Avogadro’s Law with Arduino. Phys. Teach. 2019,57, 621–623. [CrossRef]
46. Nˇemec, R.; Voborník, P. Using Robotic Kits and 3D printers at Primary (Lower Secondary) Schools in the Czech Republic. Int. J.
Educ. Inf. Technol. 2017,11, 68–73.
47.
Prima, E.C.; Oktaviani, T.D.; Sholihin, H. STEM learning on electricity using arduino-phet based experiment to improve 8th grade
students’ STEM literacy. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2018,1013, 012030. [CrossRef]
48.
Shipepe, A.; Uwu-Khaeb, L.; De Villiers, C.; Jormanainen, I.; Sutinen, E. Co-Learning Computational and Design Thinking Using
Educational Robotics: A Case of Primary School Learners in Namibia. Sensors 2022,22, 8169. [CrossRef]
49.
Tsai, F.-H.; Hsiao, H.-S.; Yu, K.-C.; Lin, K.-Y. Development and effectiveness evaluation of a STEM-based game-design project for
preservice primary teacher education. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2021,32, 2403–2424. [CrossRef]

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 134 13 of 13
50.
Omar, H.M. Enhancing automatic control learning through Arduino-based projects. Eur. J. Eng. Educ.
2018
,43, 652–663.
[CrossRef]
51.
Martín-Ramos, P.; Lopes, M.J.; da Silva, M.M.L.; Gomes, P.E.; da Silva, P.S.P.; Domingues, J.P.; Ramos Silva, M. Reprint of ‘First
exposure to Arduino through peer-coaching: Impact on students’ attitudes towards programming’. Comput. Hum. Behav.
2018
,
80, 420–427. [CrossRef]
52.
González, I.F.; Urrútia, G.; Alonso-Coello, P. Revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis: Bases conceptuales e interpretación. Rev.
Española Cardiol. 2011,64, 688–696. [CrossRef]
53.
Vidal, M.; Oramas, J.; Borroto, R. Revisiones sistemáticas. Educ. Médica Super.
2015
,29, 198–207. Available online: https:
//bit.ly/3ANxutZ (accessed on 10 December 2022).
54.
Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.;
Brennan, S.E. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Rev. Esp. Cardiol.
2021
,74,
790–799. [CrossRef]
55.
Codina, L. No Lo Llame Análisis Bibliográfico, Llámelo Revisión Sistematizada, Y Cómo Llevarla a Cabo Con Garantías:
Systematized Reviews + SALSA Framework. 2015. Available online: http://bit.ly/2AQirjw (accessed on 10 December 2022).
56.
Fernández-Batanero, J.M.; Montenegro-Rueda, M.; Fernández-Cerero, J.; Tadeu, P. Formación del Profesorado y TIC para el
Alumnado Com Discapacidad: Una Revisión Sistemática. Rev. Bras. Educ. Espec. 2020,26, 711–732. [CrossRef]
57.
Pertegal-Vega, M.Á.; Oliva-Delgado, A.; Rodríguez-Meirinhos, A. Revisión sistemática del panorama de la investigación sobre
redes sociales: Taxonomía sobre experiencias de uso. Comunicar. Media Educ. Res. J. 2019,27, 81–91. [CrossRef]
58.
Comisión Europea/EACEA/Eurydice. Estructuras de los Sistemas Educativos Europeos 2020/21: Diagramas. Eurydice Datos y
Cifras; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020; Available online: https://bit.ly/3Cmvxpi (accessed on 10
December 2022).
59.
Juškeviˇcien
˙
e, A.; Stupurien
˙
e, G.; Jevsikova, T. Computational thinking development through physical computing activities in
STEAM education. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2021,29, 175–190. [CrossRef]
60.
Gough, P.; Bown, O.; Campbell, C.R.; Poronnik, P.; Ross, P.M. Student responses to creative coding in biomedical science education.
Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2022, 1–13. [CrossRef]
61.
Pesthy, S.G.; Hömöstrei, M. Physics—IT based international student exchange program. J. Phys. Conf. Ser.
2015
,1223, 012005.
[CrossRef]
62.
Singh, K.; Naicker, N.; Rajkoomar, M. Selection of Learning Apps to Promote Critical Thinking in Programming Students using
Fuzzy TOPSIS. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2021,12, 383–392. [CrossRef]
63.
Marzoli, I.; Rizza, N.; Saltarelli, A.; Sampaolesi, E. Arduino: From Physics to Robotics. In Makers at School, Educational Robotics
and Innovative Learning Environments. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems; Scaradozzi, D., Guasti, L., Di Stasio, M., Miotti, B.,
Monteriù, A., Blikstein, P., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 309–314. [CrossRef]
64.
Yin, Y.; Khaleghi, S.; Hadad, R.; Zhai, X. Developing effective and accessible activities to improve and assess computational
thinking and engineering learning. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2022,70, 951–988. [CrossRef]
65.
Jurado, E.; Fonseca, D.; Coderch, J.; Canaleta, X. Social STEAM Learning at an Early Age with Robotic Platforms: A Case Study in
Four Schools in Spain. Sensors 2020,20, 3698. [CrossRef]
66.
Ortiz, L.C.C.; Jiménez, M.M.V.; Puerta, J.J.M.; Posada, J.A.T.J. Educational robotics tool base don lego mindstorms and VEX
robotics using 3D software and mechatronic design. RISTI–Rev. Ibérica Sist. Tecnol. Inf. 2019,34, 1–19. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.