1. The teaching goal of robot education is unscientific. The goal division of robot teaching in primary school, junior high school and senior high school is not clear and reasonable enough, which leads to the low discrimination and weak characteristics of related teaching materials. The core concept of robot education is to cultivate students' innovative thinking and scientific quality, which coincides with the concept of maker education advocated at present. However, in the survey and interview, it is found that most teachers still adopt the task-driven and practical teaching method of information technology courses, and the teaching content is relatively random, lacking scientific planning and teaching design, which can not meet all the requirements that focus on maker education today. Therefore, our robot education needs to absorb the theory of maker education, adopt more diverse and effective teaching methods and carry out robot education at a higher level.

2. Lack of scientific planning and teaching design. At present, the quality of "teaching materials" for robot teaching is not high, and most of them appear in the form of "product manual" or "user guide", lacking the participation and guidance of curriculum and education experts.

3. Educational robot products are lack of specifications. At present, the brands of educational robots are very complex, and most of them are self-contained, incompatible and low in openness. On the other hand, there are few cost-effective educational robot products suitable for different classes.

4. Teaching methods can't meet the current requirements of cultivating innovative talents. Because robot teaching has not officially entered the classroom, the national and local governments have not formulated corresponding curriculum standards, and the teaching content is relatively random. More information technology teachers are teaching robots in schools, and the traditional teaching methods of information technology courses are basically applied to teaching methods.

Such as task-driven, combining teaching with practice. In the teacher-student relationship, the teacher is still the main body, and the students follow the teacher. In the teaching of maker education, teachers guide students to create and share themselves by setting scenes and asking questions, and the relationship between teachers and students is equal in the teaching process.

5. Teaching evaluation is not comprehensive enough. Most schools carry out robot teaching in order to participate in various robot competitions and win various awards. Otherwise, they can't make a job with schools that invest a lot of money to buy robot equipment, and they can't intuitively reflect their teaching results.

6. Robot teaching lacks the cultivation of students' creativity. Because most of the teachers engaged in robot education are information technology teachers, most of them have not received relevant professional training. Most of them require manufacturers' engineers to focus on the venue and rules of the year and how to improve the competition results every year. Teachers' theoretical knowledge and practical ability have not been comprehensively improved, and most teachers lack the cultivation of students' creativity in robot teaching, which does not meet the requirements of maker education advocated by us today.

7. The administrative department of education has not paid enough attention to it and lacks research from the perspective of education. At present, the development of robot education in primary and secondary schools is promoted by educational robot enterprises to some extent. Although the contribution made by enterprises in the initial stage should be affirmed, with the gradual deepening and popularization of robot education, educational administrative departments and teaching and research institutions in Asia need to give full attention, coordination and guidance.