Developing Creativity via LEGO and AI Robotics

Abstract

The chapter reports on a longitudinal study, which investigated the impacts of robotics programs on developing creativity among elementary school students. A mixed method of pre-post CAP test and observations was used for the purpose of this study, which was carried out over 2 years. A sample of 60, 10–12 year-old female students from middle socio-economic status participated in the study. They were randomly assigned into two treatment and control groups. In the first year of the study a LEGO robotics program was administered to the treatment group while 30 participants in the control group did not receive any robotics program. In the second year, an Arduino robotics program using AI was administered to the students in the treatment group while the students in the control group did not receive any robotics intervention. The results from pre-post tests indicated that the LEGO robotics intervention was significantly effective in developing creative thinking skills of fluency, flexibility and elaboration while had no significant impact upon developing originality. However, robotics programs using AI had significant impact upon developing all creativity thinking skills of fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration. The chapter suggests implications for policymakers and educators while provides recommendations for future researchers in the field.

1. Introduction

Achieving long-term sustainability, has stimulated many countries to reach for solutions to address limitations to resources. This will require innovations and creativity in all fields. Sustainability and creativity are, hence, closely interconnected. Creativity is at the heart of sustainable development, rooted in sustainable economic, educational, social and environmental practices. In this respect, creativity includes imagination and ingenuity, while goes beyond to include new technologies, and new approaches of using existing technology. The Industrial Revolution 4.0 has opened up new avenues for creativity and innovation, which requires various fields, particularly, education to re-design its programs to meet new and changing demands. The current paper first defines creativity and its skills, and then attends to educational programs fostering creativity, including robotics and artificial intelligence, AI. The paper, then, explores the present longitudinal study, which examined the effect of LEGO robotics and AI on developing creative thinking skills among female, primary-school students, and suggests implications for future.

2. Creativity

Creativity means generating or producing something useful, original and novel [1]. Different meanings, definitions and models were linked to creativity. These variations, however, do not indicate contradiction nor confusion, but denote how creativity was discussed and elaborated in detail in various settings [1].

2.1 Creative thinking

Creative thinking has been linked with a variety of thinking patters and thinking skills. Some researchers highlighted the importance of three patterns of divergent, convergent and emergent thinking in creativity [2, 3]. According to this perspective, creativity requires divergent thinking where original and novel ideas will be produces; convergent thinking where the novel ideas will be assessed for its usefulness; and finally emergent thinking, which translate the novel and useful ideas into creative products.

Furthermore, these patterns of creative thinking require adopting a number of creative thinking skills. Fluency refers to generating a number of ideas, flexibility denotes producing different thought, and originality refers to generating unusual and novel ideas, while elaboration denotes adding details or features to the final product [4].

3. Fostering creativity in education

A proliferation of educational programs has intended to develop creative thinking skills among students. These programs foster creativity through two major approaches. In direct approach, the creative thinking skills are being introduced independent from the curriculum and then relative activities being practiced. Indirect approach refers to when creative thinking skills are being integrated in curriculum and presented in subject-related activities, without necessarily introducing the specific thinking skill. The later approach is widely used in designing educational programs.

However, these programs are either outdated in the sense that the specified and detailed instructions are either too lengthy and de motiving or lacking innovation and creativity; while demonstrating little or no connection to 21 century’s major improvement, technology. The current paper is an attempt to avoid these limitations, presenting the use of technologies in terms of LEGO robotics and Artificial Intelligence (AI). Providing such programs may well serve teachers and parents in their attempts to develop creativity. The chapter shed lights on LEGO robotics and AI robotics and related research in the field. It, then, emphasize on a research conducted in this regard, providing implications for educators and parents.

3.1 LEGO educational robotics

The educational robotics kit used in the current study is The LEGO® Education WeDo™ The kit sold by LEGO Group online and was contributed to schools by the Bahraini Ministry of Education. On the other hand, other LEGO robotics kits available in market are usually pre-built robots or are remote-control machines. Such robots are not technically considered as robots (i.e. they do not function on the basis of collecting input from the external contexts and environment). The LEGO® Education WeDo™ kit included 280 colorful bricks, a smart hub, a motor and two sensors. The sensors collect inputs and data from the outer settings, whereas the smart hub represents the robot’s brain, therefore, organizing the sensors and motors to perform through coding. The WeDo 2.0 software uses Bluetooth technology and can be run through a computer or a tablet. The LEGO® Education WeDo™ Software provides an icon-based programming setting, which is used to create coding by dragging and dropping coding Blocks into a sequence on Canvas or the computer screen. Creating LEGO robots can involve a great deal of complexity. Researchers indicated that, for example, six colorful LEGO bricks can be joint in one billion different ways [5].

3.2 AI educational robotics

Robots and artificial intelligence (AI) have enabled innovative solutions to the challenges faced by humans in all fields including education. Nowadays, AI robots are used to bring technology and humans closer together, solve problems, and transform ideas to meet changing demands. AI robots such as Arduino-assisted robots used in this study, are augmented with a variety of sensors (including vision devices, accelerometers, proximity sensors, and other environmental sensors,) that feed them with sensing data they can analyze and act upon in real-time. Arduino consists of both a physical programmable circuit board and a piece of software, that runs on computers, and is used to write and upload a simplified version of C++ code to the physical board. Arduino kit provides building block for robot builders to create connected, intelligent, and reliable robotics solutions. AI enables Arduino robots to:

• Collect information through sensors

• Analyze the collected information

• Make inferences based on their environment and overall mission

• Act accordingly to deliver the best outcome

AI-driven robots are more competent than the ones without this technology, saving human effort and time while ensuring accuracy, validity, and minor errors.

3.3 AI robot and machine learning

To better understand what AI robots are, it’s significant to understand what makes them intelligent. Artificial intelligence refers to a broad class of systems that enable machines to mimic human capabilities. To make a robot truly intelligent Machine Learning is required. Machine learning uses algorithms that enables the robots to use real-time data and contextual information acquired to make predictions and decisions [6].

4. Research on LEGO robotics and AI robotics

A growing body of research studies have examined the impact of LEGO and AI robotics in fostering creativity. Some of these research show now be highlighted.

4.1 LEGO robotics & creativity

Zviel-Girshin and Luria [7] investigated the addition of robotics education in kindergarten and elementary school as a tool for raising confidence, enhancing technological thinking, developing twenty-first century skills including creativity. A quantitative survey of 197 children of both genders and a qualitative analysis of interviews were presented. Results showed that kindergarten and elementary school children fostered creativity and felt confident in building new robots, and indicated positive attitudes towards technology, science and robotics. Male participants demonstrated more positive results compared to their female counterparts.

Coxon, Dohrman and Nadler [8] in their study of 60 students aged 6–12, examined the impact of integrating robotics in curriculum on children’s math achievement. The unit included an engineering design loop to help children create and code robots using LEGO WeDo 2.0. The mixed method analysis included pre- and post-assessment of students’ understanding of fractions and the Cognitive Abilities Test Screening Form 7 (CogAT 7). The robotics intervention program resulted in significant achievements in math (Cohen’s d = 0.72) consistent for children at multiple ability levels and those traditionally underrepresented in STEM fields (i.e. race, gender, and socioeconomic background). Also, students successfully demonstrated creative thinking skills of fluency and flexibility.

Hendrik, Ali and Nayan [9] study examined the use of Robotic Technology as a learning tool to develop students’ Figural Creativity (FC). Forty elementary school students aged 10–11 years, participated in this study. Students’ creativity skills were assessed using the Figural Creativity Test (TKF). The findings from pre-post assessment indicated 23% creativity improvement among students in K-13 Curriculum with sig. 2-tailed = .000, p < .05. students indicated development of creative thinking skills of fluency, flexibility and elaboration. They recommended that robotic technology to be applied in the educational sectors.

The effect of robotics on creativity was further investigated by Kim and Coxon [2]. A sample of 50 students aged 6–15 participated in a controlled intervention study following a First LEGO League for a period of 20 hours in 4 days. The results demonstrated significant gains in creative thinking skills, particularly flexibility and elaboration, in favor of male participants. Flexibility gains, however, were most meaningful as the two-tailed p value of less than.001 was indicated.

4.2 AI robotics & creativity

AI robotics have been the subject of many research studies in the last decade. Guven et al. [10] aimed to determine the effects of Arduino-assisted robotics coding applications on children’s robotics attitude, scientific creativity and motivation. The mixed research method was conducted with 11 (6 females and 5 males), 6th grade students in a STEM in 2018–2019 academic year. Quantitative data collection tools included scientific creativity scale, motivation scale and robotics attitude scale, while qualitative data was collected through semi-structured interviews. The results suggested that the levels of children’s creativity, attitude and motivation increased with the robotics coding activities integrated into science curriculum. In addition, students demonstrated creative thinking skills of fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration while showed solving many daily-life problems. The researchers called for implementing Arduino-assisted robotics coding applications in the teaching of 6th grade science curricula.

Kim and Lee [11] examined the impact of integrating Arduino in educational program on fostering creativity. The developed educational program was applied to 20 high school students for a period of 36 hours. The results, however, demonstrated no statistically significant change in participants’ creative problem-solving ability. Upon exploring their views on Arduino-based education, the students noted that the Arduino-based program was interesting with some accomplishment. However, they felt overwhelmed by difficulties in designing and debugging. Researchers called for reconsideration of teaching materials, teaching-learning methods, and activities before integrating AI in education.

Chou [12] investigated students’ learning performances in an Arduino-based educational robotics program. A learning setting was designed at a public elementary school in Taiwan. 30 grade five students participated in an after-school program for 16-week. They were randomly divided into two controlled and experimental groups. Children in the experimental group participated in a weekly educational AI robotics program, whereas those in the controlled group engaged in other activities like homework practice. A mixed method of observation and pre-posttest design of controlled and experimental groups was employed to assess the students’ problem-solving skills, computer programming and electrical engineering. The quantitative findings indicated that AI robotics programs significantly developed their problem-solving skills, besides fostering the electrical engineering and computer programming content knowledge. The qualitative findings from observation indicated children’s applying varieties of alternatives (flexibility), novel and original ideas (originality) in creating AI robots to solve real-life problems. In interpretation of the results, the researcher emphasized on ease of applying Arduino solutions in everyday life. She also noted the importance of providing students with support on software and hardware debugging.

On the other hand, the above studies had some limitations, which should be considered. Some studies were performed in controlled environments while students participated in an intense robotics curriculum over an abbreviated period. Furthermore, most of the mentioned studies used quantitative methods, while the selected sample were very small, and were not representative of female gender. Moreover, the mentioned studies did not examine four major creative thinking skills of fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration and in some studies the skills development was determined during observation. Employing creativity standardized tests would provide a better opportunity to compare and contrast the results from previous, current and future research studies. In an attempt to avoid these limitations, the present study investigated changes in students’ creativity prior to and after conducting robotics interventions in a classroom setting and over a course of 12 weeks and among a sample of 60 female students. The study hypothesis denoted that LEGO and AI robotics intervention positively affect developing creativity thinking skills of flexibility, fluency, elaboration and originality among students.

5. Methods

5.1 Research design & sample

A mixed method was used for the purpose of the current study. Qualitative approach included observation and interview. The researcher observed students’ designing and coding robots and conducted 30 minutes of semi-structured interviews asking students to elaborate on their robots. The quantitative method consisted of a control treatment and pre-posttest design.

The study’s random sample included 60 female students, who ranged in age from 9 to 12 (n = 60). They attended a local primary girls school in Bani Jamra and came from middle socio-economic backgrounds. The student participants were randomly allocated into controlled and treatment group. Were, mostly, from middle socio- economic status and attended a primary girls school in an inner area of Bani Jamra. They were randomly assigned into two groups of treatment and controlled group.

Furthermore, the homogeneity of variances were assessed by Levene’s test and Independent Samples t-test. The participants’ creativity was measured according to CAP [13] before performing the study. The results demonstrated that there was homogeneity of variances, as assessed by the Levene’s test for equality of variances, for creative thinking skills, p > .05. The results indicated following p values regarding over all creativity, and skills of fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration respectively (.347, .380, .105, .584, .872), which were not significant. Similarly, the results from independent samples t-test yielded no significant gains at over all creativity, fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration respectively (.680, .486, .840, .559, .779). It further indicated the equality and homogeneity of variances in terms of creative thinking skills (Table 1).

Group	test	df	Mean	SD	Levene’s test		T test
					F	p	(t)	(p)
Controlled	CAP general score	30	38.633	6.965	.899	.347	−.415	.680
Treatment	CAP general score	30	39.333	6.064
Controlled	Fluency	30	11.133	1.432	.781	.380	−.701	.486
Treatment	Fluency	30	11.366	1.129
Controlled	Flexibility	30	6.433	1.406	2.709	.105	.202	.840
Treatment	Flexibility	30	6.366	1.129
Controlled	Originality	30	2.000	1.286	.303	.584	−.588	.559
Treatment	Originality	30	2.200	1.349
Controlled	Elaboration	30	19.066	4.585	0.026	.872	−.281	0.779
Treatment	Elaboration	30	19.400	4.590

Table 1.

The results of the Levene’s test and independent samples t-test.

5.2 Procedures

The current longitudinal study was performed during two years. In the first year LEGO robotics intervention was executed for students in the treatment group, while their counterparts in the controlled group received no robotics intervention. The program was delivered on weekly session of two hours for a duration of 12 weeks. In year two of the study, the intervention included Arduino robotics program, using artificial intelligence AI technique. Similar to the year one of the study, the program was delivered to the treatment group on weekly session of two hours for a duration of 10 weeks. Students in the controlled group received no intervention. Students’ creativity was measured using Frank Williams [13] Creativity Assessment Package (CAP) prior and after the LEGO robotics and AI interventions. Furthermore, the researcher observed participants” performance during the class activities of building and coding robots. The observations followed semi-structured interviews of 30 minutes long where students elaborated on their robots. The quantitative data aimed at presenting an overall picture of the effects of robotics programs on participants’ creativity thinking skills, whereas the qualitative data sought to provide further insight into such possible effect.

5.3 Data analysis

Mixed methods were used to ensure triangulation. The study design of study included a pre and posttest design. Quantitative data were collected from students’ performance on CAP tests prior and after the robotics programs, CAP test included 12 square frames with a simple line inside each frame, which served as a stimulus. Students were required to complete as many as 12 drawings using these lines. Creative thinking skills of flexibility, fluency, elaboration and originality were measured via these drawings. The resulted data were analyzed using the t-test with repeated measure.

The qualitative data included observation of how participants’ design and cod robots through adopting creativity thinking skills of flexibility, fluency, originality and elaboration. Students’ interview transcripts were also used to inform the observation.

6. Results

The findings from both quantitative and qualitative data in two years of study yielded interesting results. The student participants achieved higher scores on creative thinking skills following the robotics interventions in the treatment group, when compared to their counterparts’ scores in the controlled group, and these changes were significantly different. The results from each intervention shall now be discussed in more details.

6.1 LEGO robotics intervention

In regard to LEGO robotics intervention (Table 2), the results from t-test with repeated measures indicated significant gains at students’ over all creativity scores in posttests compared to their scores in pretest, t(29) = 2.963, and p = .006 (p < .05). The findings were in favor of students’ performance in the treatment group. Participants’ over all creativity scores in the treatment group (M = 41.000, SD = 6.000) demonstrated a rise of an average 2.8 compared to students’ in the controlled group (M = 38.200, SD = 6.758) as presented in Table 3. This suggested that LEGO robotics programs resulted in developing overall students’ creativity. The results provided support for earlier mentioned studies [2, 7, 8, 9].

Group	test	N	Mean	SD	(t)	(p)
Controlled	CAP general score	30	38.2	6.7589	2.963	0.006
Treatment	CAP general score	30	41	6
Controlled	Fluency	30	11.1333	1.4319	2.536	0.017
Treatment	Fluency	30	11.3667	1.129
Controlled	Flexibility	30	5.4667	1.5024	2.009	0.054
Treatment	Flexibility	30	6.2	1.4479
Controlled	Originality	30	1.9333	1.2847	0.744	0.463
Treatment	Originality	30	2.1333	1.0742
Controlled	Elaboration	30	18.7333	4.5328	1.868	0.072
Treatment	Elaboration	30	20	4.6683

Table 2.

The results of the t-test with repeated measures comparing students’ posttest scores after LEGO robotics intervention on subscales of creativity in the treatment & controlled group.

Group	test	N	Mean	SD	(t)	(p)
Controlled	CAP general score	30	37.8667	9.93334	−3.439	.002
Treatment	CAP general score	30	45.2333	8.42690
Controlled	Fluency	30	10.1000	2.61758	−3.193	.003
Treatment	Fluency	30	11.5333	1.22428
Controlled	Flexibility	30	6.2667	1.99885	−2.305	.028
Treatment	Flexibility	30	7.2333	1.25075
Controlled	Originality	30	1.5667	1.73570	−1.975	.058
Treatment	Originality	30	2.1000	2.00603
Controlled	Elaboration	30	19.1000	6.01922	−3.706	.001
Treatment	Elaboration	30	24.0667	4.47162

Table 3.

The results of the t-test with repeated measures comparing students’ posttest scores after AI robotics intervention on subscales of creativity in the treatment & controlled group.

Furthermore, the t-test comparing fluency scores of students in both treatment and controlled group demonstrated significant increases at the posttest, t (29) = 2.536, and p = .017 (p < .05) favoring the participants’ scores in the treatment group. Fluency increases were the most statistically significant compared to other creativity thinking skills as the p value of .017 was demonstrated, similar to the earlier mentioned study [2]. Similarly, students’ performance on various activities and their interview subtracts supported the above findings. For instance, a group of students in the treatment group explained how their robotic fan performed numerous missions (i.e., fluency) of providing electricity to the building, water filtering, watering plants and so on and forth. In harmony with [2, 8, 9] studies, the results suggested that LEGO robotics programs resulted in developing fluency.

Moreover, in regard to flexibility subscale of creativity, students’ scores on posttest in the treatment group demonstrated significant increases, (t (29) = 2.009, and p = .054 (p < .05)) compared to their counterparts’ scores in the controlled group. Likewise, the t-test comparing elaboration posttest scores in both treatment and controlled group showed significant increase at the posttest, t (29) = 1.868, and p = .072 (p < .05) in favor of the students’ scores in the treatment group. Students’ performance on robotics tasks indicated the development of creative skills of elaboration and flexibility. For example, student participants were able to add details regarding a robotic butterfly in a polluted environment. The details included small bumps on the body, extra eye, colored spots on the wings and so on and so forth. The findings were in line with previously mentioned studies [2, 8, 9]. This suggested that LEGO robotics programs resulted in developing. Flexibility.

On the other hand, the results regarding the thinking skill of originality yielded no significant gain, t (29) = 0.744, p = .463. Nevertheless, student participants in the treatment group (M = 2.133, SD = 1.074) obtained higher scores than their peers in the controlled group (M = 1.933, SD =1.284). The findings from the conducted interviews indicated limited signs of fostering originality skill among some participants. For example, a group of students produced a smart mask, featured robotic sensors and Oregano leaves from school garden. Such novel creative product, where nature met technology achieved the first prize in Bahrain’s fair of future scientists. The findings suggested that LEGO robotics programs did not result in developing originality.

6.2 AI robotics intervention

Likewise and in regard to AI robotics intervention, the paired samples t-test comparing creativity posttest scores after the intervention in the treatment and controlled groups demonstrated significant gains at posttest, t(29) = 3.439, and p = .002 (p < .05) in favor of students’ scores in the treatment group, as presented in Table 3. Student scores after AI robotics program (M = 45.233, SD = 8.426) showed an increase of on average 6.533 points compared to their counterparts in the controlled group (M = 37.866, SD = 9.933). This suggested that AI robotics programs resulted in developing overall students’ creativity. It supported earlier research studies [10, 12].

Furthermore, the t-test comparing fluency posttest scores in both treatment and controlled group indicated significant gains at the posttest, t (29) = 3.193, and p = .003 (p < .05) in favor of the students’ scores in the treatment group. In the same way, students’ performance on various activities and their interview subtracts supported the above findings. For instance, a student explained how she build and programmed an Arduino robot to do numerous missions (i.e., fluency) of providing data regarding the soil ph, soil moisture, soil temperature, air temperature, humidity, and so on and so forth. This suggested that AI robotics programs resulted in developing fluency.

Similarly, the p values regarding other skills of creativity in terms of flexibility and elaboration indicated following gains of .028 and .001 respectively, which were statistically meaningful. The t-test comparing flexibility posttest scores in both treatment and controlled group indicated significant gains at the posttest, t(29) = 2.305, and p = .028 (p < .05) in favor of the students’ scores in the treatment group. Likewise, the t-test comparing elaboration posttest scores in both treatment and controlled group showed significant increase at the posttest, t (29) = 3.706, and p = .001 (p < .05) in favor of the students’ scores in the treatment group. Students’ Arduino robots indicated the development of creative skills of flexibility and elaboration. For example, student participants were able to create a cap, which consisted of 18 components and performed four activities using artificial intelligence, as presented in Figure 1. The findings supported the study hypothesis as AI robotics interventions resulted in developing fluency and elaboration. The findings were in line with previously mentioned studies [10, 12]. This suggested that AI robotics programs resulted in developing flexibility and elaboration.

Figure 1.

A cap developed by students consisted of 18 components doing four activities demonstrating the creativity skill of elaboration and fluency during a session with a focus on cooperative meaningful learning.

Moreover, in contrary with the results indicated in the LEGO robotics intervention, students demonstrated significant increase on the subscale of originality following the AI intervention, t (29) = 1.975, p = .058 (p < .05). The results from the qualitative method provided further support for the developed skill of originality. For instance, students in the treatment group created a smart garden where an Arduino robot was measuring ph soil, soil moisture and temperature and act accordingly to lower or higher ph soil by watering water and date or water and eggshells to prevent the growth of the unwanted cactus. Such unique and original idea at elementary levels was presented in the regional contest of challenging future science. This findings supported research studies that demonstrated the impact of AI robotics intervention on developing originality and unique ideas. A possible explanation of the developed skill, which was repeatedly mentioned by students in interviews, was their freedom to choose from variety of sensors and that developed originality. As a students stated “comparing to LEGO, Arduino robots are more real! Because of many sensors, they have. So it is much easier to think of unusual ideas.” The findings suggested that AI robotics programs resulted in developing originality. The results provided support for earlier mentioned studies [10, 12] while contradicted [11] study.

7. Discussion

The findings from the current study provided insight into the impact of LEGO robotics and robotics applying artificial intelligence AI, on students’ development of creative thinking skills. The students’ posttest scores in the treatment group who received robotics interventions (i.e. LEGO robotics or robotics programs using AI) indicated significant differences in creative thinking skills compared to students’ posttest scores in the control group who received no robotics intervention. And this differences were in favor of students in treatment groups. The findings from qualitative data of task observation and students’ interviews further supported the study’s result, as students in the treatment groups repeatedly elaborated on their fostering fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration. The findings suggested that both robotics interventions had positive impact upon developing students’ creativity.

The results were consistent to earlier research studies [2, 7, 8, 9], which indicated positive impacts of robotics intervention on developing creativity. Furthermore, the findings in the first year of the study when LEGO robotics program was executed indicated significant gains in creative thinking skills of fluency, flexibility and elaboration. However, the findings in the second year of the study when the intervention program included robotics using AI, indicated significant gains in all creative thinking skills of fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration. The results were consistent to earlier research studies [10, 12], which indicated positive impacts of AI robotics intervention on developing creativity. The reason behind this could be seen in terms of AI benefits. AI allows robots to perform activities faster and more accurately. The deep learning imbedded in AI enable robots to become smarter, enhancing their capabilities so they can perform more complex tasks. AI- powered robots are equipped with a variety of sensors (e.g. proximity, humidity and sound sensors, accelerometer and other environmental sensors), that enable them to sense data and, then analysis and act upon in real-time. These are what make them more “real” compared to LEGO robotics.

Moreover, the present longitudinal study was effective in developing a wider range of creative thinking skills in comparison with previous studies. I would like to take the view that the gains demonstrated in the current study could be due to the small sample, the length of robotics program, and the research context. The study was performed in participants’ familiar surroundings of their classroom and the robotics program was delivered by their familiar teachers compared to some studies where stranger coach and researchers delivered robotics in an unfamiliar setting of an out-of-school clubs. In view of the students’ age, a familiar classroom settings and a familiar coach might be advantageous in fostering creativity.

In addition, the study lasted for a prolonged period of 12 weeks. The aim was to ensure students’ mastering of programs without being pressurized with the amount of information and difficulties of AI coding. The lengthy time might be effective in fostering creativity.

However, the current study had some limitations. The sample consisted of female primary school students from predominantly middle socio-economic status. Performing the studies with more diverse sample including both genders, from primary and secondary levels and from diverse socio-economic status may provide better insights into the impact of LEGO and AI robotics in future research studies.

Furthermore, the classroom context of the present study did not provide a controlled laboratory setting. However, the setting was sought to be advantageous in encouraging teachers to consider incorporating LEGO and AI robotics in curricula in their classroom contexts. Moreover, the current study applied quantitative and qualitative approaches. Adopting other mixed methods of data collection, such as case study may provide further information regarding how LEGO and AI robotics enhances creativity in children.

8. Conclusions

In summary, the chapter highlighted the impact of LEGO robotics and robotics using AI in developing creative thinking skills. The current study provided useful insights into the impact of robotics on developing creative thinking skills among Bahraini students. Executing LEGO robotics interventions was effective in fostering fluency, flexibility and elaboration while AI robotics suggested developing a wider range of creative thinking skills including fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration. AI was considered advantageous in providing a realistic environment to develop creativity. As a result of the present study, policy makers and educators may consider various implications. Policy makers may consider providing training opportunities in LEGO and AI robotics as part of continual professional development programs; while fund large-scale and longitudinal studies in the field. School leaders and teachers may consider integrating LEGO and AI robotics in curricula. Worth noting that teaching AI robotics requires instructors who are well trained so the bugs in AI do not demotivate students. Likewise, manufactures may consider resolving the bugs with Arduino hardware and provide easy and applicable AI hardware for educational purposes. The present study demonstrated some attempts in enhancing sustainable development through fostering creativity. Further attempts are indeed, required to apply AI and robotics in education, and hence, foster creativity and enhance sustainable development in the near future.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Thanks

Special thanks to my students, princesses of creativity, who participated in my study.