Investigation of Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Learning Experiences on Educational Robotics Applications

Year 2022, Volume: 10 Issue: 19, 50 - 72, 23.04.2022

Akça Okan Yüksel

https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.1012635

Cited By: 4

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the learning experiences of pre-service science teachers on educational robotic applications. Within the scope of this study, both block-based coding and robotic coding activities were carried out. In this study, case study, one of the qualitative research designs, was used. The research was carried out within the scope of Technology and Project Design course in Gazi University Department of Science Education. The research group of the study consists of pre-service science teachers of the Department of Science Education (n=46). A structured interview form was developed by the researchers to collect pre-service teachers' views on the activity. In order to analyze the data obtained from the interviews, descriptive content analysis was made and categories related to student thoughts were created. To ensure the reliability of the categories, 2 field experts analyzed the codes separately and Krippendorff’s alpha is used for the reliability of the analyzes. It was calculated as .81. It is seen that the majority of pre-service teachers have not participated in a robotic coding course or such an activity before. So, it is found that such a course creates significant positive contributions to them.

Keywords

Educational robotics applications, science education, STEM, coding

References

• Aksu, F. N. (2019). Bilişim teknolojileri öğretmenleri gözünden robotik kodlama ve robotik yarışmaları [Robotic coding and robotic competitions from the perspective of the information and communication technology teachers]. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Balıkesir.
• Alimisis, D., Frangou, S. & Papanikolaou, K. (2009, July). A constructivist methodology for teacher training in educational robotics: The TERECoP course in Greece through trainees' eyes. 2009 Ninth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, (pp. 24-28). IEEE.
• Altin, H., & Pedaste, M. (2013). Learning approaches to applying robotics in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(3), 365.
• Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 661-670.
• Barker, B. S. & Ansorge, J. (2007) Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 229-243.
• Beer, R. D., Chiel, H.]., & Drushel, R. F. (1999). Using robotics to teach science and engineering. Communications of the ACM, 42(6), 85-92.
• Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978-988.
• Cansız-Aktaş, M. (2014). Nitel veri toplama araçları [Qualitative data collection tools]. In Kuramdan uygulamaya eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods in education from theory to practice]. (337-371, pp). Ankara: Pegem.
• Catlin, D., & Blamires, M. (2010). The principles of educational robotic applications (ERA): A framework for understanding and developing educational robots and their activities. The 12th EuroLogo Conference. Retrieved from https://repository.canterbury.ac.uk/item/86q3v/the-principles-of-educational-robotic-applications-era-a-framework-for-understanding-and-developing-educational-robots-and-their-activities.
• Chambers, J.M., Carbonaro, M., & Murray, H. (2008). Developing conceptual understanding of mechanical advantage through the use of Lego robotic technology. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 387–401.
• Chevalier, M., Riedo, F., & Mondada, F. (2016). Pedagogical uses of thymio II: How do teachers perceive educational robots in formal education? IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 23(2), 16–23.
• Chevalier, M., Giang, C., Piatti, A., & Mondada, F. (2020). Fostering computational thinking through educational robotics: A model for creative computational problem solving. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1-18.
• Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011). The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(1), 1-9.
• Curto, B., & Moreno, V. (2016). Robotics in education. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 81(1), 3.
• Öztürk, F. & Özdemir, D. (2020). The effect of STEM education approach in science teaching: Photosynthesis experiment example. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 8(16), 821-841. DOI: 10.18009/jcer.698445
• Çetinkaya, M. & Taş, E. (2018). Etkinlik temelli web materyalinin 6. sınıf “vücudumuzda sistemler” ünitesindeki kavram yanılgılarının giderilmesine etkisi. International e-Journal of Educational Studies (IEJES), 2 (4), 92-113.
• 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), 2853-2875.
• Çömek, A., & Avcı, B. (2016). Fen Eğitiminde robotik uygulamaları hakkında öğretmen görüşleri [Teachers’ views on robotics in science education]. Yükseköğrenim Üzerine, 2016,104-115.
• De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6-28.
• Deneyap (2021). Deneyap Türkiye [Deneyap Turkey]. Retrieved from https://www.deneyapturkiye.org/Kurumsal-DENEYAP-TURKIYE-13.html
• Eguchi, A. (2014, July). Robotics as a learning tool for educational transformation. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics & 5th International Conference Robotics in Education. Padova, Italy, 27–34.
• Eguchi, A. (2016). RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 692-699.
• Erdoğan, Ö., Kurt, M., & Toy, M. (2020). Robotik uygulamaların fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bazı 21. yüzyıl becerileri üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi [Investigation of the effect of robotic applications on some 21st century skills of science teachers’ candidates]. Avrasya Sosyal ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(4), 117-137.
• Erten, E. (2019). Kodlama ve robotik öğretimi üzerine bir durum çalışması [A case study on coding and robotic teaching]. (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Balıkesir Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Balıkesir.
• Fagin, B., & Merkle, L. (2003). Measuring the effectiveness of robots in teaching computer science. Acm Sigcse Bulletin, 35(1), 307-311.
• Foss, A., Wilcoxen, C. & Rasmus, J. (2019). The academic and behavioral implications of robotics in the classroom: An elementary case study. Technology & Innovation, 20(3), 321-332.
• Giang, C., Chevalier, M., Negrini, L., Peleg, R., Bonnet, E., Piatti, A., & Mondada, F. (2019). Exploring escape games as a teaching tool in educational robotics. Educational Robotics in the Context of the Maker Movement, 946, 95.
• Giannakopoulos, N. (2009, September). Experiences from WRO 2009 competition and verifications about the robotics incorporation in the school. Paper presented at the Lessons Learnt from the TERECoP Project and New Pathways into Educational Robotics across Europe, Athens, Greece.
• Hadjiachilleos, S., Avraamidou, L., & Papastavrou, S. (2013). The use of lego technologies in elementary teacher preparation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(5), 614-629.
• Hashim, R., Mustapha, W. N. & Rahman, A.L.A. (2004). Overview of the Generic Office Environment (GOE) in public administration. Journal of Administrative Science (JAS), 1(1), 74-95.
• Jung, S. E., & Won, E. S. (2018). Systematic review of research trends in robotics education for young children. Sustainability, 10(4), 905.
• Karahoca, D., Karahoca, A., & Uzunboylu, H. (2011). Robotics teaching in primary school education by project-based learning for supporting science and technology courses. World Conference on Information Technology (WCIT2010), 3, 1425-1431.
• Kasalak, İ., & Altun, A. (2020). Effects of robotic coding activities on the effectiveness of secondary school students' self-efficacy for coding. Ilkogretim Online, 19(4), 2171-2182.
• Kidd, J., Kaipa, K., Sacks, S., & Almeida, L. M. (2020, April). Introducing coding into teacher education: an interdisciplinary robotics experience for education and engineering students. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1319-1326). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
• Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human communication research, 30(3), 411-433.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. California: Sage. Nouri, J., Zhang, L., Mannila, L., & Norén, E. (2020). Development of computational thinking, digital competence and 21st century skills when learning programming in K-9. Education Inquiry, 11(1), 1-17.
• Ospennikova, E., Ershov, M., & Iljin, I. (2015). Educational robotics as an inovative educational technology. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 214, 18-26.
• Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
• Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Leijen, Ä., & Sarapuu, T. (2012). Improving students’ inquiry skills through reflection and self-regulation scaffolds. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 9 (1-2), 81-95.
• Robinson, M. (2005). Robotics-driven activities: Can they improve middle school science learning? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 25(1), 73-84.
• Stein, C. (2004, June). Botball robotics and gender differences in middle school teams. In 2004 Annual Conference (pp. 9-262). Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, ASEE.
• Sullivan, F. R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding. Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 373-394.
• Sullivan, F. S., & Moriarty, M. A. (2009). Robotics and discovery learning: Pedagogical Beliefs, teacher practice, and technology integration. Technology and Teacher Education, 17(1), 109-142.
• Şimşek, K. (2019). Fen bilimleri dersi madde ve ısı ünitesinde robotik kodlama uygulamalarının 6. Sınıf öğrencilerinin akademik başarı ve bilimsel süreç becerileri üzerine etkisinin incelenmesi [Investigation of the effects of robotic coding application on science achievement and scientific process skills of 6th grade students in science course matter and heat unit]. (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Sartatzemi, M., Dagdilelis, V., & Kagani, K. (2005). Teaching programming with robots: A case study on Greek secondary education. Advances in Informatics, Proceedings, 3746, 502-512.
• Siper-Kabadayı, G. (2019). Robotik uygulamalarının okul öncesi çocukların yaratıcı düşünme becerileri üzerine etkisi [The effects of robotic activities on pre-school children's creative thinking skills]. (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Talan, T. (2020). Eğitsel robotik uygulamaları üzerine yapılan çalışmaların incelenmesi [Investigation of the studies on educational robotic applications]. Yaşadıkça Eğitim, 34(2), 503-522.
• Teknofest (2021). Teknofest havacılık, uzay ve teknoloji festivali [Teknofest aviation, space and technology festival]. Retrieved from https://www.teknofest.org/hakkimizda.php
• Walker, E., & Burleson, W. (2012, June). User-centered design of a teachable robot. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 243-249). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
• Wong, G. K., Cheung, H. Y., Ching, E. C., & Huen, J. M. (2015, December). School perceptions of coding education in K-12: A large scale quantitative study to inform innovative practices. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE) (pp. 5-10). IEEE.
• Yin, R. K. (2003). Designing case studies. Qualitative Research Methods, 5, 359-386.
• Yecan, E., Özçınar, H., & Tanyeri, T. (2017). Bilişim teknolojileri öğretmenlerinin görsel programlama öğretimi deneyimleri [ICT teachers’ visual programming teaching experiences]. İlköğretim Online, 16(1), 377-393.