The Impact of Early Robotics on Kindergarten Children’s Self-Efficacy and Problem-Solving Abilities

Abstract

This study examined the impact of early robotics experiences on kindergarten children’s self-efficacy and performance across multiple domains, including building, following visual instructions, problem-solving, and object repair. Ninety-seven children (ages 4–6) were assigned to either a research group (n = 46) receiving a year-long robotics curriculum or a control group (n = 51) following the standard curriculum. A quasi-experimental pre-test–post-test design was employed. Self-efficacy was measured using dichotomous questionnaire items, and performance was assessed through hands-on age-appropriate repair tasks. Baseline comparisons showed no significant differences between groups, supporting equivalence at the start of the study. Results indicated that children who participated in the robotics program reported greater confidence in building, following visual instructions, and solving problems compared to the control group. Importantly, children in the robotics group not only reported greater confidence in their repair abilities but also outperformed peers in the post-test repair task. These findings indicate that early robotics fosters both beliefs of capability and tangible problem-solving skills in early childhood. Embedding robotics into kindergarten curricula may therefore strengthen foundational self-efficacy and support transferable skills relevant for long-term learning and well-being.

1. Introduction

Growing up, children navigate an unequal world where their family and social environments can either foster or limit their natural curiosity. To counterbalance these inequities, educational institutions have a critical responsibility to provide equitable and engaging learning opportunities from the earliest years of life. High-quality Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) plays a central role in this process, laying the foundation not only for children’s cognitive development but also for their social–emotional growth and overall well-being. Effective ECEC programs nurture persistence, problem-solving, and confidence by creating environments where curiosity and exploration are encouraged. Such experiences help children develop a sense of competence and mastery, which is strongly linked to holistic well-being encompassing physical, mental, emotional, and social dimensions.

A key psychological construct underlying this sense of competence is self-efficacy, defined as an individual’s belief in their capacity to organize and carry out actions needed to manage situations (Bandura, 1997). Emerging early in life, self-efficacy shapes how children approach challenges, cope with setbacks, and view their potential for success. Strong self-efficacy is associated with positive academic, emotional, and social outcomes, including motivation, resilience, and long-term well-being (Doménech-Betoret et al., 2017; Honicke & Broadbent, 2016; Usher & Pajares, 2008).

In today’s technology-rich society, educational robotics (ER) has emerged as a promising tool to support these developmental outcomes in ECEC. Robotics activities provide playful, hands-on opportunities for children to design, build, and troubleshoot, requiring persistence, creativity, and critical thinking. Such experiences allow children to view themselves as capable builders, fixers, and problem-solvers, reinforcing self-efficacy through mastery experiences. Importantly, ER transforms play into purposeful learning by linking STEM engagement with socio-emotional growth while simultaneously capturing children’s attention, enhancing the relevance of tasks to their everyday lives, building confidence through successful problem-solving, and fostering satisfaction in their achievements (Bers et al., 2019; Merino Armero et al., 2018; Ouyang & Xu, 2024; Tang et al., 2022; Zviel-Girshin et al., 2020, 2024).

For young children, these early experiences with robotics are more than technical exercises. They represent formative practices that cultivate beliefs such as “I can build, I can fix, I can figure things out.” Such beliefs not only enhance immediate enjoyment and engagement but also contribute to long-term adaptability, resilience, and well-being. Given the growing emphasis on STEM in early education and the importance of fostering socio-emotional strengths in childhood, ER offers a unique bridge between skill development and holistic well-being.

The present study examines the impact of an ER program on kindergarten children’s self-efficacy across multiple domains—building, following visual instructions, problem-solving, and repairing objects—as well as their ability to complete a repair task. Using a comparative control-group design, we investigated whether early robotics experiences foster both confidence and competence, and whether self-efficacy may serve as a pathway to promoting well-being in early childhood education. While some kindergarten classes incorporated robotics as a mandatory part of their curriculum, others followed the standard curriculum without robotics components, allowing us to compare the two approaches through self-reports and performance-based tasks.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Early Childhood Education, Self-Efficacy, and Well-Being

Early Childhood Education and Care is widely recognized as a critical foundation for children’s holistic development, encompassing cognitive, socio-emotional, and motivational growth. Within this context, theories of learning and development provide important insights into how young children build confidence, competence, and well-being.

Papert’s (1980) constructionism theory, rooted in constructivist principles, underscores the importance of active manipulation of objects—cognitive artefacts—in the learning process. Constructionism positions learning as a process of making and tinkering, where children construct mental representations of the world through hands-on engagement. Educational robotics is closely connected to this framework, as children actively construct understanding by building and programming robots. Research shows that children as young as four to seven years old are capable of creating and programming robotics projects, gaining practical skills while experiencing exploration and discovery (Bers et al., 2019; Cejka et al., 2006). These hands-on projects provide opportunities for children to test ideas, reflect, and apply knowledge, making robotics a powerful context for experiential learning and mastery.

From a different but complementary perspective, Bandura’s (1986) Social Cognitive Theory introduced self-efficacy as a central construct—defined as an individual’s belief in their ability to organize and implement actions to produce desired outcomes. Bandura (1997) emphasized that self-efficacy develops early in life and fundamentally shapes how children approach challenges, cope with setbacks, and perceive their potential for success. Self-efficacy represents not only a cognitive judgment of ability but also a motivational driver, influencing perseverance and resilience in the face of difficulties.

Adding to these perspectives, Ryan and Deci’s (2024) Self-Determination Theory highlights the importance of intrinsic motivation and the fulfillment of three basic psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—for optimal learning and well-being. Robotics activities naturally align with these principles: children exercise autonomy when making design choices, develop competence by mastering construction and problem-solving challenges, and experience relatedness through collaboration with peers and engaging in real-life problem solving with robots. When these needs are met, children are more likely to engage deeply, persist through setbacks, and develop positive attitudes toward learning.

Higher self-efficacy in young children has been consistently linked with greater motivation, persistence, problem-solving, and long-term well-being (Doménech-Betoret et al., 2017; Honicke & Broadbent, 2016; Usher & Pajares, 2008). Importantly, self-efficacy also predicts both behavior and well-being, shaping how individuals regulate emotions, cope with challenges, and engage with their environment (Reyhing & Perren, 2021). These findings highlight the importance of cultivating learning environments—such as those afforded by ER—that foster both confidence and competence from the earliest years of education.

2.2. Educational Robotics in Early Childhood

Educational robotics has emerged as a promising tool for introducing young children to technology and engineering while supporting broader developmental outcomes. Numerous review studies indicate that ER provides a powerful pathway for integrating technology into early childhood science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education (Anwar et al., 2019; Çetin & Demircan, 2020; Jung & Won, 2018; Tselegkaridis & Sapounidis, 2022; Zviel-Girshin et al., 2020; Zviel-Girshin & Rosenberg, 2021). Meta-analytic findings further confirm these benefits: Sapounidis et al. (2024) showed that ER positively influences knowledge, skills, and attitudes, with skills demonstrating the strongest gains, while Ouyang and Xu (2024) reported a moderate positive impact of ER on both learning performance and attitudes.

Beyond cognitive outcomes, ER is increasingly recognized as a context for creativity, collaboration, and problem-solving. Hands-on robotics projects encourage children to generate and test solutions, apply creative thinking, and engage in teamwork (Bers et al., 2019; Israel-Fishelson & Hershkovitz, 2022; Eguchi & Uribe, 2017; Noh & Lee, 2020; Zviel-Girshin & Rosenberg, 2025). Evidence also shows that ER interventions can reduce disruptive behaviors while strengthening creativity, participation, and cooperative problem-solving among young learners (Barragán-Sánchez et al., 2022).

2.3. Self-Efficacy and Robotics

The relationship between self-efficacy and robotics is a developing but increasingly important area of research. Robotics tasks provide children with opportunities for mastery, trial and error, and problem resolution—all conditions that are central to the development of self-efficacy. Bers et al. (2019) describe ER as a “coding playground,” where children not only learn programming but also build positive beliefs in their own abilities by successfully completing challenges. As children design, build, and repair robotic projects, they gain direct evidence of their competence, which reinforces their confidence in approaching future tasks.

Persistent problem-solving in ER also supports multiple dimensions of well-being. Bandura’s (1997) theory emphasizes that mastery experiences build self-efficacy; Papert’s (1980) constructionism highlights learning through making and tinkering; and Ryan and Deci’s (2024) Self-Determination Theory underscores competence, autonomy, and relatedness as core psychological needs. ER integrates all three: children feel capable when solving problems, exercise autonomy through design choices, and develop relatedness by collaborating with peers. These intertwined experiences foster intrinsic motivation, resilience, and emotional well-being.

Educational robotics provides multiple avenues through which self-efficacy can develop. These benefits directly align with the four sources of self-efficacy proposed by Bandura (1997)—mastery experiences, vicarious learning, social persuasion, and physiological and emotional states—which are actively supported in learning contexts through successful hands-on building, collaborative peer observation, positive reinforcement, and engaging in playful, low-stakes activities that maintain enjoyment and persistence even after failure. Recent studies highlight that encountering and overcoming failure during robotics activities can itself be a critical catalyst for self-efficacy development (Ford et al., 2023; Jäggle et al., 2020). Together, these features might indicate that well-designed robotics programs help to foster multiple self-efficacy sources, particularly when failure is framed as an opportunity for learning and growth.

2.4. Research Gap

Although prior research highlights the cognitive and socio-emotional benefits of ER in early childhood, important gaps remain. Much of the existing literature emphasizes computational thinking, coding, and STEM knowledge, while relatively little attention has been given to how ER fosters self-efficacy as a psychological construct during the early years. Moreover, most studies assess self-efficacy solely through self-reports or teacher ratings, without examining children’s actual task performance as a complementary indicator of learning outcomes. This study addresses a key gap in the literature by exploring whether early robotics experiences can simultaneously strengthen self-efficacy across multiple domains and translate into measurable problem-solving performance.

3. The ER Program

Developed by one of the authors, the ER program introduces robotics at a young age (4 to 7). The program was launched a decade ago in several kindergartens and first-grade classrooms and has since expanded steadily, with more educational institutions joining each year. The program’s core objective is to use collaborative, project-based learning to foster essential 21st-century competencies. Additional goals include enhancing technology and science education, integrating robotics into existing curricula, and fostering skills such as self-confidence, creativity, and leadership (Ioannou & Makridou, 2018; Rapti & Sapounidis, 2024; Sharma et al., 2019; Zviel-Girshin et al., 2020, 2024; Zviel-Girshin & Rosenberg, 2021). In addition, it aims to boost young learners’ confidence in using technology, nurture their self-belief, and foster self-efficacy and resilience in the face of challenges (Zviel-Girshin et al., 2020; Zviel-Girshin & Rosenberg, 2025). In the present study, the program was implemented exclusively in kindergartens.

Program Implementation in Kindergartens

In the 2022–2023 academic year (the year of the study), a weekly robotics lesson was integrated into the kindergarten curriculum and continued throughout the school year. Each session lasted 30–40 min, reflecting the developmental needs and attention span of young children. The program followed a mediated learning approach that blended brief teacher-led instruction with child-directed inquiry. Lessons typically began with short presentations introducing key ideas, followed by small-group activities in which children worked collaboratively on programming and design challenges. This format encouraged kindergarteners to explain their reasoning, share ideas, and anticipate outcomes.

The curriculum used the LEGO^® Education WeDo kit, chosen for its age-appropriate, hands-on design. Activities began with simple, structured models that introduced basic building and block-based programming skills. Over time, projects increased in complexity, allowing children to experiment with motion and tilt sensors, adjust robot behavior, and explore open-ended design tasks. Each group of two to four children was guided by the classroom teacher, supported by a trained instructor, ensuring that all children received individual attention and scaffolding (Figure 1). The small-group format was particularly effective for fostering curiosity, prompting children to verbalize decisions, and ensuring equitable participation.

The LEGO^® Education visual programming environment, based on drag-and-drop icons, provided immediate feedback, enabling children to learn sequencing, debugging, and other foundational computational thinking skills. The tangible nature of building and testing robots supported problem-solving, creativity, and collaboration in ways that are accessible to young learners.

Importantly, the robotics kits were also available outside of formal lessons in a dedicated classroom area. After each lesson, once the robotics specialist teacher had left, the kits remained in the classroom for ongoing exploration and play. A dedicated ‘robotics area’ within the kindergarten room provided all children with free access to the kits and computers (Figure 2). The kindergarten teacher was also able to integrate the robots into other classroom activities and to extend robotics learning opportunities for interested children throughout the week. This allowed children to revisit concepts during free play, extending learning through exploration and experimentation at their own pace. In this way, robotics became both a structured curricular component and an ongoing opportunity for play-based, inquiry-driven learning.

4. Methodology

4.1. Aims of the Study

The ER program at Emek Hefer, Israel, explores the effectiveness of educational robotics in early childhood and elementary education. This program offers young children hands-on opportunities to design, build, and problem-solve, providing a context for developing both confidence and competence in early learning. While prior research has established the cognitive and social benefits of ER, its role in shaping self-efficacy remains understudied.

In our previous work (Zviel-Girshin et al., 2020), kindergarten and elementary school children successfully mastered basic robotic construction and programming, expressed confidence in inventing new technological devices, and demonstrated positive attitudes toward learning technology and science. However, these outcomes did not directly address whether robotics experiences foster measurable gains in self-efficacy and problem-solving abilities, nor did they involve comparisons with non-robotics groups. Additionally, the kindergarten and elementary school settings differed in their educational environments and instructional approaches, limiting the ability to draw direct developmental comparisons across age groups.

The present study therefore examines whether participation in a year-long kindergarten robotics program influences children’s confidence and self-beliefs across multiple domains—building, following instructions, solving problems, and repairing objects—and whether these beliefs align with their actual performance on an age-appropriate repair task. While we use the term self-efficacy broadly in alignment with Bandura’s framework, the items in this study are best understood as confidence statements developed to capture children’s perceived ability in context rather than standardized self-efficacy scales.

Accordingly, this study addressed the following research questions (RQs):

RQ1. Does early robotics experience in kindergarten influence children’s self-efficacy in building objects?

RQ2. Does early robotics experience in kindergarten influence children’s confidence in following visual (picture-based) instructions?

RQ3. Does early robotics experience in kindergarten influence children’s self-efficacy in solving problems when things don’t work as expected?

RQ4. To what extent does early robotics experience influence both children’s self-efficacy in fixing objects and their actual ability to fix a broken object?

4.2. Research Design

This study employed a quasi-experimental, pre-test–post-test comparison group design. Random assignment was not feasible, as participating kindergartens followed either the standard curriculum or the curriculum with integrated robotics. Accordingly, children were assigned to either a research group (kindergartens with weekly robotics lessons) or a control group (kindergartens without robotics).

To establish baseline equivalence, pre-intervention assessments were conducted on children’s self-reported self-efficacy (building, following instructions, problem-solving, and fixing objects) and their actual performance on a repair task. At the end of the school year, post-intervention assessments were administered using the same structured self-efficacy interview alongside a new hands-on object repair task. The main analyses focused on post-intervention group differences to determine the impact of the robotics program on children’s self-efficacy and hands-on repair task abilities.

This design enabled a controlled comparison between children who participated in robotics activities and those who did not, providing evidence of whether early robotics experiences contribute to gains in both beliefs of capability and demonstrable problem-solving skills. The analytical framework of this study, including its chronological structure and corresponding research activities, is presented in Figure 3.

4.3. Participants and Setting

The study included 97 kindergarteners (49 boys, 48 girls) aged 4 to 6 who completed both the pre- and post-study interviews and assessments. Written parental consent and verbal child assent were obtained for all participants. Data was collected in kindergarten settings during the regular school year. The participants were drawn from multiple classrooms in four different kindergartens. The children were divided into two distinct groups based on their curriculum:

Research Robotics Group (RG) (n = 46): Children who received the traditional curriculum with a mandatory educational robotics component.

Control Group (CG) (n = 51): Children who received the traditional curriculum without any robotics component.

Instructional Supports and Bias-Mitigation Procedures

To ensure experimental integrity and reduce teacher-level variance unrelated to the condition assignment, the study employed several standardization and bias-mitigation procedures. All participating kindergartens followed a shared instructional scope-and-sequence, utilized weekly pacing guides, and relied upon common lesson materials to maintain parity in content delivery across both groups. For initial training, teachers in both the control and robotics conditions attended a brief orientation covering the year’s plan and assessment protocols.

In keeping with the program’s principle that robotics should be taught by the regular classroom teacher rather than an external expert, all participating teachers received a specially tailored workshop preparing them to deliver robotics content using the available classroom equipment. This training covered the yearly plan, use of the robotic kits, and assessment procedures, ensuring consistent implementation across kindergartens.

The research team conducted light-touch fidelity checks approximately once per month via brief kindergarten visits, specifically to verify adherence to the predetermined instructional schedule rather than to evaluate teacher performance.

Finally, to minimize any potential teacher influence on student responses, all student surveys and performance tasks were administered by trained, external research assistants following a standardized script.

4.4. Instruments, Measures and Procedures

To assess the study’s key constructs, a multi-method approach was used, combining a self-report questionnaire and hands-on performance tasks. The study was approved by the Science Supervisor at the Israel Ministry of Education. Written parental consent was obtained for all participants, and all data was anonymized to ensure confidentiality.

Pre-intervention assessment: at the beginning of the school year, all children completed a baseline assessment. This included a one-on-one, structured interview and a pre-test toy repair task. The structured interview was a child-friendly, emoji-supported survey designed to measure children’s self-perception of their abilities in building, following visual instructions, problem-solving, and repair. To ensure a developmentally appropriate format for young children, all items were dichotomous and accompanied by a smiling face for “yes” and a sad face for “no”.

Measuring self-efficacy with very young children requires additional consideration. Young children (ages 4–7) often express generally high confidence in their abilities, which can create ceiling effects and limit the sensitivity of self-report measures (Staus et al., 2021). Moreover, their metacognitive awareness is still developing, so they may find it difficult to differentiate subtle gradations of ability. Accordingly, the binary response format was selected to maximize comprehension and reliability for this age group, though it may underestimate individual variation or small changes in perceived capability.

The pre-test repair task, an “Animal-Toy Assembly” challenge, presented children with a seven-part animal figure (head, body, tail, and four legs) that had one detached leg. They were asked, “The bear is broken. Can you help put it back together, so it looks right?” while viewing a visual reference of the intact figure. An animal toy (a bear) was selected to be equally appealing to both boys and girls.

Post-intervention assessment: at the end of the school year, children completed a post-test assessment that included a new hands-on repair task and a final structured interview. The post-test repair task was a “Table Repair” challenge, where children were given a small kindergarten table with a detached leg and asked, “Oh no, the table is broken! Can you fix it to look like this?” while viewing a visual reference of the intact table.

The one-on-one, structured interviews were conducted by a familiar research assistant to assess the domains of self-efficacy as in the baseline survey: building confidence, following visual instructions, problem-solving, and repair/construction.

Scoring and reliability: for both pre- and post-test tasks, two trained judges observed and recorded whether the child successfully completed the repair. The scoring was dichotomous (successful/unsuccessful), and due to the simplicity of the tasks, judges reached 100% inter-rater agreement on all items.

The one-on-one, structured interviews were conducted by a familiar research assistant to assess the domains of self-efficacy as in the baseline survey: building confidence, following visual instructions, problem-solving, and repair/construction.

Analysis: Quantitative data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 29. Chi-square tests were used to examine baseline group equivalence and to analyze the primary research questions based on the post-intervention data.

5. Results

5.1. Pre-Intervention Group Comparison

Prior to examining the main research questions, we analyzed baseline group comparability across key measures collected at the academic year’s start. We compared groups on children’s self-reported confidence (building, following picture instructions, and fixing problems when things don’t work) and their actual performance on a hands-on repair task (reassembling a broken toy animal). These items were self-developed by the authors to reflect the program’s learning objectives and to ensure age-appropriate comprehension for kindergarten children, drawing on established frameworks of early STEM and self-efficacy assessment (Bandura, 1997).

Chi-square tests of independence were conducted on the binary questionnaire items and performance-based outcome. As shown in

Table 1. Baseline comparisons between research and control groups on pre-test survey items.

Survey Item	Research Group (n = 46)	Control Group (n = 51)	Chi-Square Test	p-Value
Confidence/enjoyment in building objects: I feel good about building things (%)	78.3	76.5	χ2(1) = 0.044	0.833
I can follow picture instructions (%)	76.1	68.6	χ2(1) = 0.670	0.413
I can solve problems when things don’t work (%)	80.4	74.5	χ2(1) = 0.484	0.487
Objective performance: Successfully reassembled toy animal (%)	71.7	74.5	χ2(1) = 0.095	0.758

, there were no statistically significant differences between the research and control groups across any pre-test measures, including self-efficacy in building, confidence in following picture instructions, problem-solving self-efficacy, and the ability to reassemble a broken toy. These results indicate that the groups were equivalent at baseline, supporting the internal validity of subsequent analyses assessing the impact of the robotics intervention.

5.2. Self-Reported Building Confidence

The first research question examined whether participation in robotics program influenced children’s self-perception of their building abilities. Children provided binary responses (yes/no) to the statement “I feel good about building objects”.

Table 2. Self-Perception of Building Abilities by Group.

Survey Item	Group	No (n, %)	Yes (n, %)	Chi-Square Test
Confidence/enjoyment in building objects: I feel good about building objects	RG	8 (17.4%)	38 (82.6%)	χ2(1) = 3.951 p = 0.047
	CG	18 (35.5%)	33 (64.7%)

displays these results.

The chi-square test for independence assessed the null hypothesis (H₀): There is no relationship between participation in the robotics program and children’s self-perception of their ability to build objects. The alternative hypothesis (H₁) posited that children’s self-perception of building ability is related to their participation in the robotics program. The Pearson chi-square test indicated a marginally statistically significant association between group membership and reported self-efficacy in building: χ²(1, n = 97) = 3.951, p = 0.047. This finding provides preliminary evidence that participation in robotics activities may positively influence children’s self-efficacy in building.

5.3. Visual (Picture-Based) Instruction Self-Efficacy

The second research question examined whether participation in robotics program influenced children’s confidence in following visual (picture-based) instructions. Children provided dichotomous responses (yes/no) to the statement “I can follow picture instructions”.

Table 3. Visual (picture-based) Self-Efficacy by Group.

Survey Item	Group	No (n, %)	Yes (n, %)	Chi-Square Test
I can follow picture instructions	RG	7 (15.2%)	39 (84.8%)	χ2(1) = 5.096 p = 0.024
	CG	18 (35.3%)	33 (64.7%)

displays these results.

The chi-square test for independence assessed the null hypothesis (H₀): There is no relationship between participation in the robotics program and children’s self-perception of their ability to follow visual (picture-based) instructions, against the alternative hypothesis (H₁): Self-efficacy in following picture instructions is related to participation in the robotics program. The Pearson chi-square test indicated a statistically significant association between group membership and reported confidence in following visual instructions: χ²(1, n = 97) = 5.096, p = 0.024. This finding suggests that participation in robotics activities may positively influence children’s self-efficacy in following picture-based instructions.

5.4. Problem-Solving Self-Efficacy

The third research question examined whether participation in a robotics program influenced children’s confidence in solving problems. Children provided dichotomous responses (yes/no) to the statement “I can solve problems when things don’t work as expected”. The findings are presented in

Table 4. Problem-Solving Self-Efficacy by Group.

Survey Item	Group	No (n, %)	Yes (n, %)	Chi-Square Test
I can solve problems when things don’t work as expected	RG	10 (21.7%)	36 (78.3%)	χ2(1) = 4.202 p = 0.040
	CG	21 (41.2%)	30 (58.8%)

.

The chi-square test for independence assessed the null hypothesis (H₀): There is no relationship between participation in the robotics program and children’s self-perception of their problem-solving abilities, against the alternative hypothesis (H₁): Problem-solving self-efficacy is related to participation in the robotics program. The Pearson chi-square test indicated a statistically significant association between group membership and reported problem-solving confidence: χ²(1, n = 97) = 4.202, p = 0.040. This finding suggests that participation in robotics activities may positively influence children’s self-efficacy in solving problems when things do not work as expected.

5.5. Self-Efficacy and Actual Performance in Repairing Objects

The last research question examined both perceived and actual abilities in object repair, assessing whether robotics experience influenced children’s confidence in fixing things as well as their demonstrated ability to do so. For self-efficacy, children responded yes or no to “If a kindergarten chair is broken I believe I can fix it”. For actual ability, children attempted to repair a broken table when prompted with “Oh no, the table is broken! Can you fix it to look like this?” while having a visual reference of the intact table nearby. The findings are presented in

Table 5. Self-Reported Fixing Ability And Actual Performance in Fixing Objects by Group.

Survey Item	Group	No (n, %)	Yes (n, %)	Chi-Square Test
If a kindergarten chair is broken I believe I can fix it	RG	6 (13.0%)	40 (87.0%)	χ2(1) = 4.633 p = 0.031
	CG	16 (31.4%)	35 (68.6%)
“Oh no, the table is broken! Can you fix it to look like this?”	RG	10 (21.7%)	36 (83.5%)	χ2(1) = 5.009 p = 0.025
	CG	22 (43.1%)	29 (56.9%)

.

The two confidence items were designed to approximate self-efficacy-related beliefs in an age-appropriate format. However, they should be interpreted as indicators of children’s perceived ability rather than as validated self-efficacy measures.

The chi-square tests for independence assessed the null hypotheses (H₀): There is no relationship between participation in the robotics program and children’s self-efficacy in fixing objects, and there is no relationship between participation and children’s actual performance in object repair. The alternative hypotheses (H₁) posited that both self-efficacy and repair performance are related to robotics participation. For self-efficacy, the Pearson chi-square test indicated a statistically significant association between group membership and children’s reported confidence in fixing a broken chair: χ²(1, n = 97) = 4.633, p = 0.031, with a higher proportion of robotics participants (87.0%) reporting confidence compared to the control group (68.6%). For actual repair performance, the Pearson chi-square test also indicated a statistically significant association: χ²(1, n = 97) = 5.009, p = 0.025, with more robotics participants (83.5%) successfully reassembling the table compared to the control group (56.9%). Together, these findings suggest that participation in robotics activities may positively influence both children’s self-efficacy in fixing objects and their actual ability to perform repair tasks.

6. Discussion

This study investigated the influence of early robotics experiences on kindergarten children’s self-efficacy in building, following visual instructions, solving problems, and fixing objects, as well as their actual ability to complete a repair task. Across all four research questions, findings consistently indicated that participation in a robotics program was positively associated with children’s confidence and, in one domain, their performance.

Children with robotics experience reported higher self-efficacy in building than their peers in the control group. Although this effect was only marginally significant, it suggests that robotics activities may foster confidence in children’s ability to create, construct, and assemble objects. This finding aligns with social cognitive theory, which emphasizes mastery experiences as a key source of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). By successfully constructing and manipulating robots, children gain evidence of their competence, which can generalize to broader building activities.

Research with older students supports this interpretation. For example, Ziaeefard et al. (2017) found that middle school students rated the “building” aspect of robotics programs as their favorite activity and advocated for robotics to begin in the early years. Similarly, Hudson et al. (2020) reported that Grade 2 and 3 students responded very positively to building and coding sessions in a robotics intervention, underscoring the motivational potential of hands-on robotics. These studies, while focused on attitudes rather than self-efficacy, highlight how early robotics experiences can create engaging, confidence-building environments that not only provide technical exposure but also shape children’s developing self-beliefs.

Robotics participation showed a positive trend toward greater confidence in following visual instructions, although this result should be interpreted with caution given the limited number of related items and marginal significance levels. This tendency likely reflects the structure of robotics tasks, which involve interpreting diagrams and sequencing steps—skills closely tied to visual–spatial reasoning. These patterns are consistent with findings by Julià and Antolí (2016), who demonstrated that robotics courses significantly improved spatial abilities in 12-year-old students, reinforcing the link between robotics participation and visual–spatial reasoning.

A further key finding was the higher problem-solving self-efficacy among robotics participants. Robotics inherently involves troubleshooting, debugging, and iterative improvement, processes that encourage learners to approach setbacks with resilience and confidence. Bernstein et al. (2022) argued that the iterative cycle of designing, testing, and refining robot functions cultivates resilience and a growth mindset, as each revision provides evidence of competence and reinforces children’s belief in their ability to overcome challenges. This willingness to embrace errors as part of the learning process supports intrinsic motivation and emotional well-being, aligning with Bandura’s (1997) emphasis on mastery experiences and Ryan and Deci’s (2024) Self-Determination Theory. Since iterative design was a central component of our ER program, these claims directly support our findings by highlighting how robotics fosters both confidence and well-being in young learners.

Our results also align with prior empirical studies showing that educational robotics is a powerful context for developing problem-solving skills. Zhang et al. (2021) found in their systematic review that early robotics interventions promoted engagement, curiosity, and basic problem-solving abilities in young children. Similarly, Ragusa and Leung (2023) reported that children aged 7–10 years who participated in an after-school robotics-based computer science program developed stronger design skills and problem-solving abilities. This pattern extends to older learners as well: Gomoll et al. (2017) showed that robot-assisted STEM activities in 7th and 8th graders fostered higher-order problem-solving and critical thinking skills. Taken together, these findings suggest that robotics interventions, whether in kindergarten or beyond, consistently provide opportunities for learners to refine problem-solving strategies and develop confidence in their ability to persist through challenges.

Perhaps most strikingly, robotics participation influenced both perceived and actual ability to repair objects. Children not only expressed greater confidence in fixing a broken chair but also successfully completed a real repair task at higher rates than peers. This demonstrates transfer from robotics activities to a tangible, everyday challenge—bridging beliefs and skills. Repeated exposure to building and debugging in robotics provides immediate feedback, encouraging children to see mistakes as part of the process and to persist until a solution is found. This reinforces both competence and confidence, suggesting that robotics contributes to practical problem-solving capacities with real-world relevance.

These results resonate with broader evidence of the educational value of robotics. A recent meta-analysis by Sapounidis et al. (2024) reported a moderate positive effect (Hedges’ g = 0.428) of educational robotics on academic outcomes compared to non-robotics groups in primary school. Our findings extend this evidence to kindergarten, demonstrating that robotics can promote self-efficacy and practical skills even in the earliest years of formal education. Together, these findings underscore the potential of ER not only to build early STEM knowledge and skills but also to cultivate confidence, adaptability, and problem-solving abilities that are foundational for lifelong learning and well-being.

7. Conclusions

This study shows that early robotics experiences can enhance kindergarten children’s self-efficacy in building, following instructions, and solving problems, while also strengthening their actual ability to repair broken objects. By engaging children in hands-on building, visual sequencing, and iterative problem-solving, robotics programs provide mastery experiences that foster both confidence and competence.

Practically, these findings underscore the value of embedding robotics in ECEC as a means of fostering STEM engagement while simultaneously cultivating resilience, adaptability, and a sense of capability in young learners. Providing such experiences in kindergarten classrooms may help lay the groundwork for sustained interest in STEM and equip children with problem-solving skills relevant well beyond robotics itself.

8. Limitations and Future Directions

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, random assignment was not feasible, as participating kindergartens were already organized to follow either the standard curriculum or the curriculum with integrated robotics. Consequently, intact classroom groups were used, which may introduce uncontrolled differences between groups, such as teacher style, peer dynamics, or children’s prior exposure to technology. Although curriculum assignment preceded the study and teachers did not self-select for research participation, residual teacher-level and classroom-context effects may remain. We mitigated these through common pacing and materials, teacher orientation, and light-touch fidelity checks, but they cannot be fully eliminated.

Second, children’s problem-solving/repair abilities were assessed through a single repair task. While this task provided a meaningful, developmentally appropriate measure of applied problem-solving, it captures only one dimension of a broader skill set.

Third, the study relied on dichotomous self-report items, which, while age-appropriate, may have simplified children’s responses and reduced sensitivity to subtle distinctions in perception. Measuring self-beliefs in early childhood presents additional challenges, as children aged 4–7 often display uniformly high confidence in their abilities, leading to potential ceiling effects in self-report instruments (Staus et al., 2021). Consequently, the binary “yes/no” format used here may have limited the detection of small variations or incremental gains in perceived capability over time. Future research would benefit from employing more fine-grained response scales or incorporating complementary observational and behavioral measures to capture self-efficacy development with greater precision.

Fourth, although the study explored constructs related to self-efficacy, the survey reflected children’s confidence or perceived ability rather than validated self-efficacy scales.

Fifth, although the robotics kits were available for free exploration outside of formal lessons, children’s self-chosen engagement with these materials was not systematically measured. Tracking voluntary use of the robotics area could provide valuable insights into children’s intrinsic motivation, persistence, and the relationship between unstructured engagement and self-efficacy or skill development. Future studies could integrate such measures to better understand how informal play complements structured instruction.

These limitations suggest caution in generalizing the findings and point to the need for future research that employs more robust methods. Future research should address these limitations by utilizing randomized designs and more nuanced assessment tools. It would be valuable to expand the range of performance-based measures and to employ scaled measures or qualitative interviews to gain richer insights into children’s developing self-efficacy. Future studies should also investigate which types of robotics activities most effectively foster specific domains of self-efficacy, providing a deeper understanding of how these programs can be optimized.