Robotic Coding Perceptions of Middle School Students

Abstract

This study aims to determine middle school students' perceptions of robotic coding. For this purpose, the case study design of the qualitative research method was used in the research. The research was carried out with 76 middle school students studying in a district of Kayseri province. A questionnaire consisting of nine open-ended questions was used as a data collection tool. The questions were asked to the participants in the online environment. The data were analyzed by content analysis, which is one of the qualitative data analysis types. In this direction, codes and categories related to the data were determined. The findings of the research are explained through direct quotations. The research concluded that the students associated the concept of the robot with technology, the students had never encountered a robot before, they wanted to design a robot, the concept of coding was expressed as giving commands, and they wanted to receive coding training. Based on these results, we recommended expanding robotic coding training.

Keywords

• Coding
• image
• middle school students
• robotic

References

1. Alimisis, D. (2012). Robotics in Education & Education in Robotics: Shifting Focus from Technology to Pedagogy, in David Obdrzálek (ed.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Robotics in Education, September 13-15, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 7-14.
2. Altin, H., & Pedaste, M. (2013). Learning approaches to applying robotics in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(3), 365-377.
3. Avci, E., Okusluk, F. & Yildirim, B. (2021). The Effect of STEM-based robotic coding activities on gifted students’ attitudes towards coding. Journal of Educational Theory and Practice Research, 7(2), 228-235. http://doi.org/10.38089/ekuad.2021.66
4. Banzato, M., & Tosato, P. (2017). An exploratory study of the impact of self-efficacy and learning engagement in coding learning activities in Italian middle school. International Journal on E-Learning, 16(4), 349-369.
5. Barak, M., & Assal, M. (2016). Robotics and STEM learning: Students’ achievements in assignments according to the P3 Task Taxonomy-practice, problem-solving, and projects. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(1), 121-144. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10798-016-9385-9
6. Bozkurt Polat, E., & Kabadayi, A. (2021). Perceptions of the Preschoolers on the Concept of the “Robot”. 2021. Kabadayi, A. (Ed.), In Innovations and Challenges in Early Childhood Education for Sustainable Development (37-52). Livre de Lyon.
7. Butuner, R., & Dundar, Ö. (2018). Kodlama eğitiminde robot kullanımı ve robotik kodlama eğitici eğitiminde öğretmenlerin tecrübe ve görüşlerinin alınması [Using robots in coding education and obtaining teachers' experiences and opinions in robotic coding trainer training]. Yilmaz, E. & Sulak, S. A. (Ed.), In Human Society and Education in the Changing World (278-295). Palet publications.
8. Ceylan, V. K., & Gundogdu, K. (2018). Bir Olgubilim Çalışması: Kodlama Eğitiminde Neler Yaşaniyor? [A phenomenological study: What’s happening in coding education?]. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 8(2), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.340103

9. Ching, Y. H., Yang, D., Wang, S., Baek, Y., Swanson, S., & Chittoori, B. (2019). Elementary school student development of STEM attitudes and perceived learning in a STEM integrated robotics curriculum. TechTrends, 63(5), 590-601. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00388-0
10. Cakir, S. (2019). 4. sınıf fen bilimleri dersi mikroskobik canlılar ve çevremiz ünitesinde robotik kodlama uygulamalarının öğrenme ürünlerine etkisi. [The effect of robotic coding practices on learning products on microscopic living and environment unit at 4th-grade science lesson]. (Unpublished Master Thesis), Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University, Zonguldak.
11. Cakir, R., Korkmaz, Ö., Idil, Ö., & Ugur Erdogmus, F. (2021). The effect of robotic coding education on preschoolers’ problem solving and creative thinking skills. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40, 100812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100812
12. Cetintas, E. & Avcu, Y. E. (2017). Investigating the metaphorical perceptions of high school students towards the concept of robotics. Route Educational and Social Science Journal, 4(8), 78-98.
13. Ciftci, S., & Bildiren, A. (2019). The effect of coding courses on the cognitive abilities and problem-solving skills of preschool children. Computer science education, 30(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1696169
14. Eguchi, A. (2012). Educational robotics theories and practice: Tips for how to do it right. In Robots in K-12 education: A new technology for learning (pp. 1-30). IGI Global. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-4607-0.ch011
15. Elkin, M., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Programming with the KIBO robotics kit in preschool classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 33(3), 169-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2016.1216251
16. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-hill.
17. Goksoy, S., & Yilmaz, I. (2018). Bilişim teknolojileri öğretmenleri ve öğrencilerinin robotik ve kodlama dersine ilişkin görüşleri. [The Opinions of information relations teachers and their students with regard to lessons on robots and decoding]. Journal of Duzce University Social Sciences Institute, 8(1), 178-196.
18. Guleryuz, B. G. (2019). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin ders içi robotik kodlama etkinliklerinin blok tabanlı programlamaya ilişkin öz yeterlilik algısına etkisi ve robotik kodlama hakkındaki görüşleri. [Effect of secondary school students’ self-efficacy on in course robotics coding activities of block-based programming and their opinions on robotics coding]. (Master Thesis), Bursa Uludag University, Bursa.
19. Isnaini, R., Budiyanto, C. W., & Widiastuti, I. (2020). Opportunities for using robotics in learning to support students' computational thinking ability in developing countries. Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Vocational Education, 3(1), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.20961/jomeve.v3i1.45971
20. Jamali, U. A. Y. (2019). Fostering creativity using robotics among gifted primary school students. Gifted and Talented International, 34(1-2), 71-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2020.1711545
21. Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (7th ed.). Sage Publications.
22. Jung, S. E., Lee, K., Cherniak, S., & Cho, E. (2019). Non-sequential learning in a robotics class: Insights from the engagement of a child with an autism spectrum disorder. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(1), 63-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9394-8
23. Kaloti-Hallak, F. (2014, July). The effect of robotics activities on students' learning and attitudes. In Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on International computing education research (pp. 153-154). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2632320.2632328
24. Kasalak, I., & Altun, A. (2020). Effects of robotic coding activities on the effectiveness of secondary school students' self-efficacy for coding. Elementary Education Online, 19(4), 2171-2182. http://dx.doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2020.763834
25. Kondaveeti, H. K., Kumaravelu, N. K., Vanambathina, S. D., Mathe, S. E., & Vappangi, S. (2021). A systematic literature review on prototyping with Arduino: Applications, challenges, advantages, and limitations. Computer Science Review, 40, 100364.
26. Korkmaz, O., Altun, H., Usta, E., & Ozkaya, E. (2014). The effect of activities in robotic applications on students’ perception of the nature of science and students’ metaphors related to the concept of robots. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 5(2), 44-62.
27. Kucuk, S., & Sisman, B. (2018). Pre-service teachers’ experiences in learning robotics design and programming. Informatics in Education, 17(2), 301-320. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2018.16
28. Lum, H. C. (2020). The role of consumer robots in our everyday lives. In Living with robots (pp. 141-152). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815367-3.00007-4
29. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
30. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (2015). Qualitative data analysis: A resource book challenging new methods. Jakarta (ID): UI Press.
31. Noh, J., & Lee, J. (2019). Effects of robotics programming on the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 463-484.
32. Ozer Sanal, S., & Erdem, M. (2017, May). The effect of coding and robotics studies on problem-solving processes: A think-aloud protocol analysis. Oral Presentation, 11th International Computer and Instructional Technologies Symposium, Malatya.
33. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
34. Peng, L. H., Bai, M. H., & Siswanto, I. (2020). A study of learning motivation of senior high schools by applying unity and mblock on programming languages courses. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1456(1), 1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1456/1/012037
35. Sayin, Z. & Seferoglu, S. S. (2016). Coding Education as a new 21st Century Skill and its Effect on Educational Policies. XVIII. Academic Informatics Conference (1-13). Adnan Menderes University, 3-5 February 2016, Aydın.
36. Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 3-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9304-5
37. Sumer, O. N., Gulen, B., Aydin, K., Yesiltepe, A., & Gezgin, D. M. (2019). 9. Sınıfta öğrenim gören lise öğrencilerinin robotik tutumlarının incelenmesi. [Investigation of robotics attitudes of high school students in 9th grade]. 7th International Conference on Instructional Technology and Teacher Education, 226-235, Antalya.
38. Taylor, K., & Baek, Y. (2017). Collaborative robotics, more than just working in groups. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(7), 979-1004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0735633117731382
39. Thanyaphongphat, J., Thongkoo, K., Daungcharone, K., & Areeprayolkij, W. (2020, March). A game-based learning approach on robotics visualization for loops in programming concepts. In 2020 Joint International Conference on Digital Arts, Media and Technology with ECTI Northern Section Conference on Electrical, Electronics, Computer, and Telecommunications Engineering (pp. 381-385). IEEE.
40. Timur, B., Timur, S., Guvenc, E., & Yalcinkaya-Onder, E. (2021). Primary school students’ perceptions about robotic coding. Journal of Individual Differences in Education, 3(1), 20-29. https://doi.org/10.47156/jide.953229
41. Ugur Erdogmus, F. (2021). How do elementary childhood education teachers perceive robotic education in kindergarten? A qualitative study. Participatory Educational Research, 8(2), 421-434. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.47.8.2
42. Welch, A., & Huffman, D. (2011). The effect of robotics competitions on high school students' attitudes toward science. School Science and Mathematics, 111(8), 416-424.
43. Winfield, A. F., Winkle, K., Webb, H., Lyngs, U., Jirotka, M., & Macrae, C. (2021). Robot accident investigation: a case study in responsible robotics. In Software engineering for robotics (pp. 165-187). Springer, Cham.
44. Yayla Eskici, G., Mercan, S. & Hakverdi, F. (2020). Robotik kavramına yönelik ortaokul öğrencilerinin zihinsel imajları. [Mental images of secondary school students for robotic concept]. Amasya Education Journal, 9(1), 30-64.
45. Yildirim, A. & Simsek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (10. Baskı). [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences (10th ed.)]. Ankara: Seckin Publishing.