The Opinions of Middle School Students, High School Students, PreService Science Teachers and Science Teachers about Robotic-Assisted Practices in Teaching Renewable Energy Sources

Year 2018, Volume: 11 , 163 - 169, 01.12.2018

Sibel Acıslı

Abstract

In this research, it is aimed to determine views related
about training renewable energy source assisted by robotic education to middle
school students, high school students, candidate science teachers and science
teachers. In the study, this subject has been tried to teach by using the Lego®
Mindstorms EV3 Training Kit and the Lego® Renewable Energy Kit. In the study one
group pretest-posttest experimental design was used. The study group of study
consists of a total of eighty people including twenty middle school students,
twenty high school students, twenty preservice science teachers and twenty
science teachers. The training has been proceeded on four stages through eighty
hours. Middle school students were trained about robotics in the first stage,
high school students were trained in the second stage, preservice science
teachers were trained in the third stage and science teachers were trained in
the last stage, respectively. In the research, semi-structured interview form
has been used for defining opinions and suggestions of middle school students,
high school students, candidate science teachers and science teachers about
lego assisted training. The data obtained from the research has been analyzed
by SPSS packet program. In the light of this study, it is defined how middle
school students, high school students, candidate science teachers and science
teachers perceived this education with legos as a technique.

Keywords

Robotics, Renewable energy resources, Lego® mindstorms EV3 educatin kit, Lego® renewable energy kit, Middle school students, High school students, Teacher candidates, Science teachers

References

• Atmatzidou, S., Markelis, I., & Demetriadis, S. (2008, November). The use of LEGO Mindstorms in elementary and secondary education: game as a way of triggering learning. In International Conference of Simulation, Modeling and Programming for Autonomous Robots (SIMPAR), Venice, Italy. Chen, N. S., Quadir, B. & Teng, D. C. E. (2011). A novel approach of learning english with robot for elementary school students. In Edutainment (p. 309-316). Cüre, F. & Özdener, N. (2008). Öğretmenlerin Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri (BİT) Uygulama Başarıları ve BİT’e Yönelik Tutumları, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34, 41–53. Çukurbaşi, B., Konokman, G. Y., Güler, B. & Kartal, S. E. (2018). Developing The Acceptance Scale of LEGO Robotics Instructional Practices: Validity and Reliability Studies. Bartın Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1), 191-214. Ersoy, H., Madran, R. O. ve Gülbahar, Y. (2006). Programlama Dilleri Öğretimine Bir Model Önerisi: Robot Programlama. Akademik Bilişim’07 Konferansı, Kütahya. [Çevrim-içi: http://ab.org.tr/ab11/kitap/ersoy_madran_AB11.pdf Fidan, U. & Yalçın, Y. (2012). Robot Eğitim Seti Lego Nxt. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen Ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 12(1), 1-8. Highfield, K. (2010). Robotic toys as a catalyst for mathematical problem solving. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 15(2), 22-27. Hussain, S., Lindh, J. & Shukur, G. (2006). The effect of LEGO training on pupils' school performance in mathematics, problem solving ability and attitude: Swedish data. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9(3). Kasalak, İ. (2017). Robotik Kodlama Etkinliklerinin Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Kodlamaya İlişkin Özyeterlik Algılarına Etkisi ve Etkinliklere İlişkin Öğrenci Yaşantıları (Master's thesis, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü). Koç, Şenol, A. & Büyük, U. (2015). Robotik Destekli Fen Ve Teknoloji Laboratuvar Uygulamaları: ROBOLAB. Electronic Turkish Studies, 10(3). Kuşkaya-Mumcu, F. & Koçak-Usluel, Y. (2004). Mesleki ve Teknik Okul Öğretmenlerinin Bilgisayar Kullanımları ve Engeller, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26, 91–99. Lindh, J. & Holgersson, T. (2007). Does lego training stimulate pupils’ ability to solve logical problems?. Computers & education, 49(4), 1097-1111. Liu, E. Z. F. (2010). Early adolescents' perceptions of educational robots and learning of robotics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3). Marulcu, I. ve Sungur, K. (2012). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Mühendis ve Mühendislik Algılarının ve Yöntem Olarak Mühendislik-Dizayna Bakış Açılarının İncelenmesi. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 12(1). 13-23. Marulcu, İ. & Höbek, K. M. (2014). Teaching Alternate Energy Sources to 8th Grades Students by Engineering Design Method. Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research MAJER Issue, 9. Numanoğlu, M., & Keser, H. (2017). Programlama Öğretiminde Robot Kullanımı-Mbot Örneği. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 497-515. Özdoğru, E. (2013). The Effect of Lego Programme Based Science and Technology Education on the Students’ Academic Achievement, Science Process Skills and Their Attitudes Toward Science and Technology Course for Physical Facts Learning Field. Master's Thesis, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir. Shimada, M., Kanda, T. & Koizumi, S. (2012). How can a Social Robot facilitate children’s collaboration? Social Robotics, 98-107. Smith, M.L. (2013). A case study: Motivational attributes of 4-h participants engaged in robotics. Doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA. Sullivan, F. R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 373-394. Üçgül, M. (2013). History and Educational Potential of LEGO Mindstorms NXT, Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, Vol. 9, Issue 2, August 2013, pp.127-137.