In the bibliography, there are many ways in which academics and scholars refer to the element of cooperation between two or more people. There are also many statements that refer to the terms collaboration and cooperation interchangeably without making any distinctions between the terms. In order to minimize this “ambiguity” within the terms, as Dillenbourg [15] characterized this difficulty, it is necessary to present which definitions and theories of collaboration influenced the proposed approach of this research.

When trying to investigate a descriptive definition for collaboration, a large number of definitions were revealed. Starting from Roschelle [16], collaboration was perceived “…as an exercise in convergence or construction of shared meanings”. Three years later, Roschelle and Teasley [17] expressed that collaboration is “a coordinated, synchronous activity that is the result of a continued attempt to construct and maintain a shared conception of a problem”. It is understood that between the two definitions there are similarities, but in the second definition the description is becoming more functional in practical terms. Coordination and synchronicity are elements that are important for the layer that covers the tasks undertaken by the group, and shared conception is important in order to portray the communicative and cognitive channels of the coordinated and synchronous efforts. The element of shared conception (common understanding) is encouraged within the proposed methodology, with verbal and non-verbal means of communication. It is also important to pinpoint the fact that the term “problem” occurs in the definition. The term “problem” refers to a task that is perceived by the group members as an issue for which the solution is initially unknown.

Therefore, collaboration occurs when a task presents a challenge for which a solution is initially unknown to the group members. Littleton [18] further explains collaboration in more depth by stating that it “…is the mutual engagement in coordinated effort in which group performance and/or subsequent individual performance exceeds that which any member brought to the group”. This explanation uses the term “coordination” again, while it relates collaboration to performance. The way Littleton [18] relates performance and collaboration is very important because it indirectly separates cooperation from collaboration. While cooperation’s outcome is perceived by the absolute sum of each member’s expertise (knowledge, skills, and abilities) within a project’s divided sub-tasks, collaboration in this definition performance-wise is perceived as a performance enhancer for every individual and subsequently for the outcome (product, artifact, design, etc.) and the group as a whole.

At the level of competencies, Soland et al. [19] defined collaboration as “…a communication plus additional competencies related to conflict resolution, decision making, problem solving and negotiation”. This definition relates collaboration to the individual, and attempts to lay prerequisite interpersonal and intrapersonal skills. Lench [20], in parallel to relating collaboration to skills, expressed that collaboration “…is an individual’s capacity to work with other people in a process that requires interdependence to solve a problem”. Additionally, and in the same pattern of thought, Care et al. [21] stated that “Collaboration occurs when meeting a goal requires more than one individual as able to manage alone and therefore needs to pool resources with others”.

In a sense, the definitions are trying to describe collaboration under the spectrum of three basic elements: (a) the task itself; (b) how the people should work on the task; and (c) how equipped the people are (knowledge, skills, and abilities) to collaborate.

In order for this research to start formulating a plan on how to approach the didactic methodology, there were significant words and meanings that helped towards that direction. The start of the formulation began with the word “convergence”. How can someone converge their thoughts and efforts with another? The word “convergence” is presented in Roschelle’s [16] definition of collaboration; but what are the elements that will help towards that direction? Towards this direction, the term “synchronous activity” [17] gave to our understanding a distinct description of the layer of actual work to be done in order to achieve “convergence”. This was transformed within the proposed approach to a direct instruction for “simultaneous actions” (or high synchronicity); then the immediate thought behind these terms was on how to have two or more students working together without any type of communication or cognition. The next word that had to be added to the equation on the communication element was interaction. The word “interaction” was primarily derived from Hesse et al. [14] and Crowston et al. [22]; more specifically, where it was stated that “Interaction is a minimum requirement for successful coordination”. How can student interactions be protected from their natural immaturity due to age (11–12), and additionally promote open lines of communication? According to Mercer [23], “…when teachers provided such ground rules for guiding interactions (for collaboration), student interactions featured higher quality discourse…”. This research followed this notion (ground rules), to the extent that the ground rules are reflecting genuine student concerns without explicit instructions. In parallel, the ground rules that this approach proposes also reflect the elements of conflict resolution and negotiation that Webb [24,25] recommended for training students in general interpersonal skills.

There are more elements that have an impact in creating a pedagogical approach for collaboration skills to be developed. According to Panitz T. [26], “The underlying premise of collaborative learning is based upon consensus building…”. Even though Panitz T. [26] refers to “learning” in this statement, it is well understood that when moving towards a collaborative environment, the authority within the classroom or laboratory changes drastically (Table 1.).The teacher, therefore, is responsible for creating an environment that is more student-centric. What does student-centric mean in practical terms? According to Jacobs [27], McInnerey and Roberts [28], “cooperative learning has been described as more directive and closely controlled by the teacher”. Additionally, according to Veldman and Kostons [29], “collaborative learning experiences allow delegation of decision making to students—giving students more power than in traditional whole class instruction”.

It can be understood that authority within the classroom shifts from the teacher to the students. If the authority is shifting from the teacher to the students, is this authority shifting equally to the students or are some students exercising more authority within the groups? What are the elements that can support a relatively equal distribution of authority? According to Dillenbourg [15], “…a situation is “collaborative” if peers are more or less at the same level, can perform the same actions…”. Obviously, having students of the same age following the same school curriculum is, in a sense, fulfilling the requirement of “more or less at the same level”. However, does it really fulfil that requirement? Practice shows us vividly (at least within the Greek public schooling culture) that students have different levels of knowledge (among other characteristics) even within the same classrooms, and when pairing students together, this difference is expressed in many forms. The reasons behind these knowledge differences vary, but they are present and need to be addressed within the methodology. Consequently, one of the main concerns of this research is to deliver the conditions in which students have the opportunity to construct and learn new knowledge within the groups more “evenly” and together.

However, before analyzing how the actual knowledge can be more “evenly” constructed within the groups, it is helpful to investigate what types of knowledge exist in an educational context. Bruffee K. [30] makes a very important distinction between “foundational knowledge” and “non-foundational knowledge”. According to Bruffee K. [30], “Correct spelling and grammar, mathematics procedure, history facts etc… would represent types of foundational knowledge”. Meanwhile, he defines ““non-foundational knowledge” as that which is derived through reasoning and questioning”; he then states an interesting insight, “…and then extend their critical thinking and reasoning skills and understanding of social interactions as they become more involved and take control of the learning process through collaborative activities”. According to Dooly [31], “It is our understanding that teachers interested in setting up collaborative projects are interested in working towards students’ autonomy and self-directed learning”. This distinction is important in order for the teacher to decide how to disseminate highly foundational knowledge (e.g., connection phase) when the robotics content knowledge is unknown to the students. Thus, the element of control and authority shifts towards the students when “non-foundational” knowledge is the aim of a didactic procedure, while the development of “foundational knowledge” is thought of more as a procedure that indirectly implies a more structured and teacher-centric approach. The aim behind this research approach is for the students to process the “foundational knowledge” (structured technical handbook) without handing explicit instructional guidelines for interaction. Instead, the approach aims to encourage the students to select their own ways of interacting, while following the ground rules that they already consented to. This is based on the notion that “collaborative learning compared to cooperative learning, it is a pedagogy that has at its center the assumption that people make meaning together and that the process enriches them” [29]. Additionally, “in collaborative learning approaches group interaction skills are mostly not taught explicitly” [32].

If the level of students’ knowledge is of incremental value for the creation of “symmetrical” authority within the groups, what can be practically used in order to ensure a more symmetrical construction of knowledge? Again, Dillenbourg [15] unfolds this notion and accepts that “There are no two individuals in the world with the same knowledge”. How can a methodology approach the relative knowledge of a context in a more symmetrical manner?

This methodology takes a step towards introducing initially the element of constructing the robotic artifact without any technical instructions or guidelines. Thus, in the level of context knowledge, there is an even start for all students. Provided, of course, with a simple yet powerful condition: all the students that get involved in the activity should have no previous experience with creating a robotic artifact.

This new condition can potentially provide a relative equality for all the students towards the initial task. This notion can be viewed from many angles, and it focuses on all the necessary attributes of a collaborative activity, such as interdependence, sink or swim together, among others; but it activates another factor as well. The factor that brings all students, regardless of previous grades, knowledge or even social status at the start of a project which they chose and crafted, is a very similar position. The similar position can potentially be hindered if, for example, role giving is promoted (by the teacher) within groups, even if the roles are meant to be supportive to collaboration.

This very similar position can be very interesting if viewed by the knowledge creation spectrum and analyzed through Dillenbourg’s [15] explanations on symmetries. This research views that symmetry of action can be positively correlated to the creation of symmetry of knowledge:

• Symmetry of action is the extent to which the same range of actions is allowed for each agent [33];
• Symmetry of knowledge (or skills or development) is the extent to which agents possess the same level of knowledge (or skills or development) [15];
• Symmetry of status is the extent to which agents have similar status with respect to their community [34];
• Symmetry of goals involves common group goals rather than individual goals that may conflict [15].

While the symmetries are very important in creating the supportive conditions, and are needed for the initial “meaning”, there needs to be a high level of interaction. The interactions and their quantity and quality are playing a very significant role according to Hesse et al. [14], and they are the backbone of collaboration skills. However, it should not be forgotten that meaningful interactions contribute to the creation of new knowledge as well. One of the goals during this research process is for students to eventually externalize the “internalized dialogues” that Vygotsky [35] characterized as thinking.

In addition to all that has previously been mentioned, which, in a way, sets the basis for the methodology to be formed, it should not be forgotten that the Vygotskian impact of “social interaction” is evident within the methodology. According to Vygotsky (Vygotsky via Lai) [36], “the zone of proximal development is the distance between what a student can accomplish individually and what he/she can accomplish with the help of a more capable “other””. How this methodology views the ZPD is within the same philosophy, but at the communication level. What this means is that the more capable “other” is the one that is more extroverted and open to sharing their thoughts.

The aim behind this attempt is for an extroverted and more open student to start influencing the communication patterns of a more introverted student. In this way, the interaction will hopefully create benefits for both. While the more extroverted student expresses their own thoughts, the more introverted student will hopefully mirror this externalization and start sharing their thoughts, and vice versa.

When designing a pedagogical approach for the creation of collaboration skills, it is very important to understand what collaboration skills actually are. In this effort, we have to first understand if collaboration skills are generic skills or discipline-specific. According to Evans C. [4], collaboration skills are a generic set of knowledge and skills, and are directly related to the following:

• Planning and making group decisions;
• Communicating about thinking with the group;
• Contributing resources, ideas, and efforts, and supporting group members;
• Monitoring, reflecting and adapting individual and group processes to benefit the group.

As it is easily understood, the above set of skills are independent of any discipline or knowledge context. If they are independent of any discipline, then how can an educator start teaching collaboration? This is where the actual difficulty is hidden. In order to develop these high-quality generic skills in students there needs to be some kind of knowledge context or activity. What activity would that be? To what extent does this activity energize all the above elements? Is the activity extremely narrow, or does it give space for argumentation, different perspectives, etc.? How can the teacher control or regulate his/her behavior within this process? What about the age of the students? Is the age relevant in this development? All these questions are inevitable, and in brief summarize the extensive difficulty of developing collaboration skills.

In order to further understand collaboration skills, it is necessary to put them in a more defined context. According to the National Research Council [37], “student success skills can be categorized into three competencies: cognitive, intrapersonal and interpersonal”. As previously mentioned in the collaboration theory section, collaboration does heavily depend on communication; but what kind of communication occurs without the presence of some form of cognition? Moreover, as Lench et al. [20] stated, “Collaboration requires communication because it is impossible to collaborate without some form of communication”. In addition to the above, “…it is impossible to collaborate without cognition or self-regulation [4]. Consequently, collaboration is an interpersonal competency that is heavily dependent on communication and cognition. The “without” statements above are very insightful in order to understand what should be included within the equation.

Continuing the effort to grasp even more the development of collaboration skills, it is also necessary to investigate what the relevant literature has to offer in terms of age appropriateness. We know little about how collaboration develops over time [21]. From a Piagetian point of view as Evans C. [4] describes it, children younger than the age of 7 may not be able to benefit from collaborative tasks because they lack the ability to take another’s perspective. In addition, according to Lai et al. [2], “…the extant research is insufficient for establishing a broader developmental trajectory of collaboration skills from the early into adulthood”. However, if we consider the Vygotskian point of view, there is a relative point of hope within the element of the zone of proximal development. Even though “Vygotsky does not identify particular stages at which children may be ready to collaborate” [4], it can be hypothesized that it is possible for collaboration skills to be developed within a collaborative activity that occurs within the zone of proximal development. There is a conceptual convergence of collaboration definitions described in the previous section, Vygotskian ZPD theory and collaboration skills (if taken as a generic set of skills).

If collaboration skills are generic, as stated above, then they should be (given the opportunity) developed partially in many activities of children’s lives. According to Hole [38], “the more general the skill is, the more transferable it is and vice versa”. He then defines that collaboration skills are associated with process and are considered transferrable as well. This is a great insight that brings to the investigation another important element. This is the element of the transferability of skills. Even if there is no evidence that collaboration skills are identified at particular stages, it is not a far stretch to hypothesize that young students have actually come across some sorts of group activities that were or were not within school settings. These activities may be in family settings or related to sports or neighborhood games with other children, or even online group pc games. The exposure of children to these activities varies in quantity and quality. Even if these activities are varying in quantity and quality, they do have a cumulative effect. However, recent research performed by the OECD [39] showed that “Only 8% of students throughout the globe performed at the highest level of proficiency…” [3] at collaborative problem solving skills. Consequently, there is a need for more research on the subject matter of students’ collaboration skills.

The cumulative effect can be also explained through Eraut’s [40] concept of “learning trajectories”, in which he explained that the learning of generic skills is “…seen as a continuous process that is not completed at a particular point, but rather arrested, halted or accelerated at different and during different circumstances”. Again, if the assumption of transferability is evident, then when is the appropriate age for placing the educational robotics activity? The reality within school settings shows that (without having concrete evidence) children do have some previous experiences in group activities relating to the trajectory learning concept. Additionally, “participation in group school activities, such as band, plays, sports, newspapers, and volunteer service activities, were training grounds for developing CPS skills” [3].

However, if we try to place a collaborative activity as early as between 6 and 10 years old, this may be too early for two reasons: Firstly, because the relevant experiences may be too few, so transferability-wise, there are fewer possibilities for transferability to strengthen the process. Secondly, because the relative immaturity of children, communication-wise, may limit the depth of conversations. On the other hand, if we place the collaborative activity later, after 13 years old, it may be too late, because the impact may be blurred by the transferability of distorted perceptions of different experiences in other group activities. For example, at multiple points throughout the years, it was observed that students had been taught to collaborate by dividing time of use or resources with a pc/application. In a way, this created an even time of usage or resources, but in terms of collaboration, it was at minimal level, because when a student would hand to the next student the task, the task would start from the beginning without any connection with what had been done by the previous student. Indeed, there are many more examples similar to this kind of “collaboration”.

In conclusion, placing the collaborative activity in an age where the children have some previous experience but are still young enough to shape a stronger perception of collaboration skills knowledge enhances the possibility of the skills being accelerated and hopefully attained. This work placed the research in the last grade of primary school (students aged between 11 and 12 years old).

Consequently, by connecting the dots with collaboration theory and the concept of “learning trajectories”, it is understood that the experience of creating new knowledge, under the appropriate circumstances, defines the depth and breadth of the acquired collaboration skills. To continue on the same path but from a different perspective, the students entering into a collaborative situation do have some acquired skills from their lives, as explained before. However, these skills vary in quality and quantity. How can these skills, from a teacher’s perspective, be grouped and paired in order to produce dynamics that will enhance collaboration skills? This brings the element of pairings in the students’ groups. The pairings and groupings are very challenging endeavors. Since collaboration skills are heavily dependent on communication, as explained above in this section, there is a valid concept of pairing students with different communication preferences. If hypothesizing that all students have some skills developed in terms of collaboration, as viewed by the “learning trajectories” concept, and these skills have to be communicated within a group, how can these be communicated if a student is inherently or naturally introverted? The concept of pairing followed by this methodology is the result of mixing students in groups of different levels of extroversion and introversion. Having a blended mix of communication patterns within student groups is seen as a supportive factor for the development of high levels of interaction.

Educational robotics (E.R) is an element that has attracted interest for the last two decades within the formal educational context. The main concern of educators behind E.R is to try to use it in a way that is beneficial for the students. Within the relative literature, there are roughly two main directions in which E.R is used in an educational context. The first main direction is to enhance student learning for specific subjects, such as mathematics, physics, biology, etc. The second main direction is to view E.R as a tool that enhances the development of student skills. While both directions have clear objectives, “little evidence is available across studies to reach a conclusion regarding the relative effectiveness of educational robots on students’ learning outcomes and professional skills (e.g., communication, collaboration etc.)” [9]. In addition to this, “there is a need to connect the theoretical basis of robotics usage with its implementation” [9]. If this connection is not present, it implies that solely E.R and their technological traits can determine their methodological implementation, which is very difficult to generalize, since there are many different E.R kits in the market with very different attributes.

It is useful to understand, before getting into the analysis of the step-like methodology description, what the fundamental theories behind educational robotics are. Moving from collaboration theory and a student-centered approach, it is necessary to understand if these theories are compatible with the theories expressed behind educational robotics. Educational robotics has two main theories behind it. The first theory is constructivism, and the second is constructionism. While constructivism “considers knowledge as an experience that is actively constructed through interaction with the environment” [41], constructionism expressed by Papert [42] states that “this theory shares ideas with constructivism, but expands it by providing real-world context guide to generation of new knowledge”. According to Alimisis and Kynigos [43], “constructionism as a theory supports student-centered learning…”.

It is understandable that both constructivist and constructionist theories have a student-centered element that is a point of connection with collaboration theory. However, this does not mean that because “technology itself exercises causal influence on social practice” [44], that therefore “technological determinism” is true. According to Jung and Won [13], “this kind of determinism tends to oversimplify the interaction between young children…”. In a process where collaboration skills are the main focus, the causal influence of technology itself is viewed to be supportive, but not the determining factor that influences the quantity and quality of interactions of students.

In addition, there is another element within educational robotics that is not often discussed or analyzed within the relevant literature; this is the element of culture. If cultural differences within schools are added into the equation in relation to achieving collaboration, then the endeavor at least in students of a young age becomes extremely difficult. We should remember at this point that according to Care et al. [21], “Culture influences collaboration”. How does educational robotics relate to cultural issues? According to the conclusion of Catlin D., Smith J. and Morrison K. [45], after extensive longitudinal research on the indigenous Maori Native people in New Zealand, “Educational robots support principles of equity of age, gender, ability, race, ethnicity, culture, social class, life style and political status”. Consequently, such an educational tool that supports equity on cultural issues as well has the potential, if used together with an appropriate pedagogy, to enhance collaboration and collaboration skills.

If educational robotics do deliver a supportive tool for the development of a variety of knowledge, skills, and abilities, do all the students have the opportunity to come into contact with E.R? According to Alimisis D. [12], “…the role of E.R should be seen as a tool to foster essential life skills (cognitive and personal development, team-working)…and courses should include the whole class and not only the talented in science and technology children”. The reality is that many competitions, summer camps, private entities, etc. do offer an initial contact. This does offer an initial opportunity, but can all students afford their participation in all these interesting activities? According to a recent study, Wallace M. and Poulopoulos V. [46] underpinned that “…the high cost of the equipment, the reluctance of teachers to embark on a teaching path for which they have not been trained and have no support, low social awareness, etc. are all factors that make educational robotics accessible only for a few privileged…”. Thus, there are problems (among others) that are derived from the lack of the actual tool and the lack of training of teachers in implementing such a tool into educational practice.