Robot tasarımı etkinliklerinin programlama öğretiminde kullanılmasıyla ilgili ortokul öğrencilerinin görüşlerinin incelenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı robot etkinlikleri ile gerçekleştirilen programlama öğretim sürecinde ortaokul öğrencilerinin bu sürece dair görüşlerini incelemektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda 2017–2018 eğitim-öğretim yılında bir ortaokulda öğrenim görmekte olan 55 tane 6. ve 7. sınıf öğrencisi ile 10 hafta süren bir uygulama gerçekleştirilmiştir. Nitel yöntemle desenlenen bu araştırmada, araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu veri toplama aracı olarak kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda öğrencilerin robotik ile programlama eğitiminde gerçekleştirilen etkinlikleri genel olarak bilgisayar kullanım becerilerini geliştiren, programlama kavramlarının öğrenilmesini sağlayan ve zorlayıcı ama eğlenceli bir süreç olarak gördükleri anlaşılmaktadır. Ayrıca robotik ile programlama eğitiminde gerçekleştirilen etkinliklerin, öğrenciler arası işbirlikli çalışmaları desteklediği görülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Robotik; programlama; ortaokul öğrencileri; K12

References

1. Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 63-71.
2. 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(1), 70-85.
3. Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK Robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(2), 1-20.
4. Buckleitner, W. (2007). Why Scratch is significant. Children’s Technology Review, 15(6), 17.
5. Durak, H. (2016). Üstün yetenekli öğrencilere yazılım geliştirme süreçlerinin öğretilmesine yönelik bir öğretim programının tasarlanması ve geliştirilmesi. Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
6. Eguchi, A. (2010). What is educational robotics? Theories behind it and practical implementation. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 4006-4014). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
7. Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education, 63, 87-97.
8. Hill, C. (2015). Programming environments for children: creating a language that grows with you. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.

9. Jenkins, T. (2002, August). On the difficulty of learning to program. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences (Vol. 4, No. 2002, pp. 53-58).
10. Kalelioğlu, F. (2015). A new way of teaching programming skills to K-12 students: Code. org. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 200-210.
11. Koorsse, M., Cilliers, C., & Calitz, A. (2015). Programming assistance tools to support the learning of IT programming in South African secondary schools. Computers & Education, 82, 162-178.
12. Mikropoulos, T. A., & Bellou, I. (2013). Educational robotics as mindtools. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 5-14.
13. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
14. Ospennikova, E., Ershov, M., & Iljin, I. (2015). Educational robotics as an inovative educational technology. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 214, 18-26.
15. Popat, S., & Starkey, L. (2019). Learning to code or coding to learn? A systematic review. Computers & Education, 128, 365-376.
16. Rogers, C. B., Wendell, K., & Foster, J. (2010). A review of the NAE report, engineering in K-12 education. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2), 179-181
17. Sarıtepeci, M., & Durak, H. (2017). Analyzing the Eff ect of Block and Robotic Coding Activities on Computational Thinking in Programming Education. In, I. Koleva & G. Duman (Eds.). Educational Research and Practice, (Chapter 49, pp. 490-501). St. Kliment Ohridski University Press.
18. Shin, S., & Park, P. (2014). A Study on the Effect affecting Problem Solving Ability of Primary Students through the Scratch Programming. http://onlinepresent.org/proceedings/vol59_2014/27.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir.
19. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
20. Yen, C.-Z., Wu, P.-H., & Lin, C.-F. (2012). Analysis of expert's and novice's thinking process. Engaging Learners through Emerging Technologies, Communication in Computer and Information Science, 302, 122-134.
21. Yıldız Durak, H., & Güyer, T. (2018). Design and Development of an Instructional Program for Teaching Programming Processes to Gifted Students Using Scratch. In Curriculum Development for Gifted Education Programs (pp. 61-99). IGI Global.
22. Yildiz Durak, H. (2018a). Digital story design activities used for teaching programming effect on learning of programming concepts, programming self‐efficacy, and participation and analysis of student experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12281
23. Yildiz Durak, H. (2018b). Flipped learning readiness in teaching programming in middle schools: Modelling its relation to various variables. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.
24. Yildiz Durak, H. (2018c). The Effects of Using Different Tools in Programming Teaching of Secondary School Students on Engagement, Computational Thinking and Reflective Thinking Skills for Problem Solving. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1-17.