The Effect of STEM-Based Robotic Coding Education on Primary School Students’ Decision-Making Skills

Abstract

This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of STEM-based robotic coding education for primary schoolers in terms of their decision-making skills. Mixed method was preferred in the research. Pretest-posttest control group designs were used in the quantitative phase, and the case study was used in the qualitative phase of the research. The study sample consisted of 65 third graders. Pre-testing of experimental and control group students was performed using the decision-making skill scale. STEM-based robotic coding training was given to the experimental group for 6 weeks. Afterwards, the decision-making skill scale was applied as a post-test to both the experimental and control group. Quantitative data were analyzed with the paired and independent samples t-test. A statistically significant increase was observed in the experimental group students’ decision-making skills in favor of the post-test. There was no significant difference between the pre-and post-test scores of the control group students. An interview with 15 experimental group students was conducted in order to collect qualitative data, and the interview results were analyzed using the content analysis technique. According to the qualitative findings, robotic coding education positively affected the students’ decision-making, problem-solving, and willingness to share ideas. Suggestions were made based on the results.

Keywords

• decision-making
• robotic coding
• STEM

References

1. Adair, J. (2000). Karar verme ve problem çözme [Decision-making and problem-solving] (N.Kalaycı, Trans.). Pegem Yayınları.
2. Arslan, S., and Çelik, Y. (2022). Primary school teachers’ and students’ views about robotic coding course. African Educational Research Journal, 10(2), 178-189. https://doi.org/10.30918/AERJ.102.22.018
3. Atmatzidou, S., Demetriadis, S., & Nika, P. (2018). How does the degree of guidance support students’ metacognitive and problem solving skills in educational robotics?. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27, 70-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9709-x
4. Agostini, A., Torras, C., & Wörgötter, F. (2017). Efficient interactive decision-making framework for robotic applications. Artificial Intelligence, 247, 187-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2015.04.004
5. Alqahtani, M. M., Hall, J. A., Leventhal, M., & Argila, A. N. (2022). Programming in mathematics classrooms: Changes in pre-service teachers’ intentions to integrate robots in teaching. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 8(1), 70–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-021-00096-6
6. Altun-Yalcin, S. A., Kahraman, S., & Yilmaz, Z. A. (2020). Development and validation of Robotic coding attitude scale. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 8(4), 342-352. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.v8i4.924
7. Anwar, S., Bascou, N. A., Menekse, M., & Kardgar, A. (2019). A systematic review of studies on educational robotics. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 9(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1223
8. Atman Uslu, N., Yavuz, G. Ö., & KoçakUsluel, Y. (2022). A systematic review study on educational robotics and robots. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2023890

9. Bers, M. U., González-González, C., and Armas–Torres, M. B. (2019). Coding as a Playground: Promoting positive learning experiences in childhood classrooms. Computer and Education,138, 130–145. https://doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.013
10. Bozanoğlu, İ. (2005). The effect of a group guidance program based on cognitive-behavioral approach on motivation, self-esteem, achievement and test anxiety levels. Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 38(1), 17-42. https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000000110
11. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Yayınları.
12. Çakır, Z., & Altun Yalçın, S. A. (2021). The Investigation of the effect of Montessori Approach-based STEM activities on the problem-solving skills of pre-service preschool teachers. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 14(2), 93-119. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.824773
13. Çakır, Z., & Altun Yalçın, S. (2022). The effect of Montessori approach-based stem education on pre-service preschool teachers’ self-directed learning, E-International Journal of Educational Research, 13(2), 142-162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.1038793
14. Çalışkan, E. (2020). The effects of robotics programming on secondary school students’ problem-solving skills. World Journal on Educational Technology. Current Issues, 12(4), 217-230. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v12i4.5143
15. Çınar, S. (2020). Fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarına yönelik eğitsel robotik destekli STEM kursu [Educational Robotics Supported STEM Course for Prospective Science Teachers]. Electronic Turkish Studies, 15(7). https://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.43574
16. Demirbaş Nemli, B. (2018). İlkokul dördüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin bilişsel karar verme becerilerinin geliştirilmesine yönelik bir model uygulaması [A model application for the development of cognitive decision-making skills of primary school fourth grade students], [Unpublished doctoral thesis], Marmara University, İstanbul.
17. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11 Filippov, S. A., Ten, N. G., & Fradkov, A. L. (2017). Teaching robotics in secondary school: examples and outcomes. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 50(1), 12167-12172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.2147
18. Garon, N., & Moore, C. (2004). Complex decision-making in early childhood. Brain and Cognition, 55, 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00272-0
19. George D., & Mallery P. (2010). SPSS for Windows Step by Step. A Simple Study Guide and Reference (10 th Ed.). GEN.
20. Guven, G., Kozcu Cakir, N., Sulun, Y., Cetin, G., & Guven, E. (2022). Arduino-assisted robotics coding applications integrated into the 5E learning model in science teaching. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(1), 108-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1812136
21. Hsieh, H. F., ve Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
22. Hwang, J., & Taylor, J. C. (2016). Stemming on STEM: A STEM education framework for students with disabilities. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 19(1), 39-49. https://10.14448/jsesd.09.0003
23. Kandlhofer, M., & Steinbauer, G. (2016). Evaluating the impact of educational robotics on pupils’ technical-and social-skills and science related attitudes. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 679-685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.09.007
24. Karahan, E., Bozan, M. A., Akçay, A. O., & Akçay, İ. M. (2023). An investigation of primary school students’ critical thinking dispositions and decision-making skills. International Journal of Educational Research Review, 8(2), 137-150. https://doi.org/10.24331/ijere.1205285
25. Kaygısız, G. M., Üzümcü, Ö., & Melike Uçar, F. (2020). The case of prospective teachers’ integration of coding-robotics practices into science teaching with STEM approach. Elementary Education Online, 19(3), 1200-1213. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2020.728020
26. Meral, M., & Yalçın, S. A. (2022). The investigation of middle school students’ entrepreneurial skills in terms of Entrepreneurship-Based STEM Education: A mixed method study. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 16(2), 326-353. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1133770
27. Meral, M., Yalçın, S. A., Çakır, Z., & Samur, E. (2022). Fen Bilimleri Öğretmenlerinin Mühendislik Tasarım Uygulamalarına Yönelik Görüşleri [The Opinions of Science Teachers towards the Engineering Design-Based Applications]. Journal of Innovative Research in Social Studies, 5(2), 138-154. https://doi.org/10.47503/jirss.1202372
28. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2015). Nitel veri analizi [Qualitative data analysis] (S. Akbaba-Altun, & A. Ersoy, Trans. Ed.). Pegem Yayıncılık.
29. Noh, J., & Lee, J. (2020). Effects of robotics programming on the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students. Educational technology research and development, 68, 463-484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09708-w
30. Patiño-Escarcina, R. E., Barrios-Aranibar, D., Bernedo-Flores, L. S., Alsina, P. J., & Gonçalves, L. M. (2021). A methodological approach to the learning of robotics with edurosc-kids. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 102(2), 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11030395
31. Patton, M.Q. (2014). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. Sage; Thousand Oaks, CA.
32. Pleasants, J., Clough, M. P., Olson, J. K., & Miller, G. (2019). Fundamental issues regarding the nature of technology: implications for STEM education. Science & Education, 28, 561-597. https:// doi:10.1007/s11191-019-00056-y
33. Realyvásquez-Vargas, A., Maldonado-Macías, A. A., Arredondo-Soto, K. C., Baez-Lopez, Y., Carrillo-Gutiérrez, T., & Hernández-Escobedo, G. (2020). The impact of environmental factors on academic performance of university students taking online classes during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Mexico. Sustainability, 12(21), 9194. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219194
34. Rogers, E., Owens, D. H., Werner, H., Freeman, C. T., Lewin, P. L., Kichhoff, S., ... & Lichtenberg, G. (2010). Norm optimal iterative learning control with application to problems in accelerator based free electron lasers and rehabilitation robotics. European Journal of Control, 16(5), 497-524. https://doi.org/10.3166/ejc.16.497-522
35. Seckin-Kapucu, M. (2023). Studies on robotic coding education in science education: A systematic literature review. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 9(1), 74-84. https://doi.org/10.55549/jeseh.1239093
36. Sickel, A. J. (2023). Fostering integrated STEM and entrepreneurial mindsets through design thinking. In G.
37. Yavuz & Y. Koçak Usluel (Eds.), Enhancing Entrepreneurial Mindsets Through STEM Education (pp. 267-292). Springer International Publishing.
38. Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in science education, 48, 12731296.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
39. Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., ... & Depaepe, F. (2018). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/85525
40. Tiryaki, A., & Adigüzel, S. (2021). The effect of STEM-based robotic applications on the creativity and attitude of students. Journal of science learning, 4(3), 288-297. https:// 10.17509/jsl.v4i3.29683
41. Topsakal, İ., Yalçın, S. A., & Çakır, Z. (2022). The effect of problem-based STEM education on the students’ critical thinking tendencies and their perceptions for problem solving skills. Science Education International, 33(2), 136-145. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v33.i2.1
42. Tramonti, M., Dochshanov, A. M., & Zhumabayeva, A. S. (2023). Design thinking as an auxiliary tool for educational robotics classes. Applied Sciences, 13(2), 858. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13020858 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12050305
43. Tselegkaridis, S., & Sapounidis, T. (2022). Exploring the features of educational robotics and STEM research in primary education: A systematic literature review. Education Sciences, 12(5), 305. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci12050305
44. Vanlommel, K., Van Gasse, R., Vanhoof, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2018). Teachers’ high-stakes decision making. How teaching approaches affect rational and intuitive data collection. Teaching and teacher education, 71, 108-119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.011
45. Vourletsis, I., & Politis, P. (2023, January). Developing computational thinking practices in primary education: Outcomes from a school-year instructional intervention. In Technology and Innovation in Learning, Teaching and Education: Third International Conference (TECH-EDU 2022), Lisbon, Portugal.
46. Yang, F. C. O., Lai, H. M., & Wang, Y. W. (2023). Effect of augmented reality-based virtual educational robotics on programming students’ enjoyment of learning, computational thinking skills, and academic achievement. Computers & Education, 195, 104721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104721
47. Yurtseven, R., Akkas Baysal, Ö., Emine, Ü., & Ocak, G. (2021). Analysis of the relationship between decision making skills and problem solving skills of primary school students. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 8(3), 2117-2130. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1308060
48. Zhong, B., & Xia, L. (2020). A systematic review on exploring the potential of educational robotics in mathematics education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18, 79-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-09939-y
49. Zhang, Y., & Zhu, Y. (2022). Effects of educational robotics on the creativity and problem-solving skills of K-12 students: a meta-analysis. Educational Studies, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2022.2107873