The impact of robotics assisted programming education on academic success, problem solving skills and motivation

Abstract

Because of their traditional programming structures that have user-hostile interfaces and complicated syntax, programming languages education doesn’t catch students’ attention and most of them find programming difficult and consider it as a job that only professionals can do. In order to minimalize the difficulty and drawback and help students acquire programming skills, programming education must be supported with visual and tangible tools. In this study, effect of robotics assisted programming education on students’ academic success, problem solving skills and motivation was analyzed. In the study, in which quasi-experimental design with pretest-posttest control group, one of the quantitative methods of research was used and the study was carried out on 50 students split into experimental and control groups. Robotics assisted ROBOTC programming education with LEGO® Mindstorms EV3 was carried out with the students of experimental group and for the control group basic C programming education was given. As a result of the data obtained within the scope of the study that lasted for 8 weeks, it was found that academic success, problem solving skills and motivation of students who received robotics assisted programming education were higher than who received robotics unassisted programming education.

Keywords

• Robotics
• Programming Education
• LEGO® Mindstorms
• Problem Solving Skills
• Academic Success
• Motivation

References

1. Acar, S. (2009). The effects of ARCS motivation strategies on learners academic succeses, permanances of learning, motivations and attitudes in web supported performance based learning (Publication No. 234402). [Doctoral dissertation, Gazi University].YÖK Thesis Center Database.
2. Alimisis, D., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Constructionism and robotics in education. Teacher education on robotic-enhanced constructivist pedagogical methods, 11-26. http://roboesl.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/chapter_1.pdf
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(1), 70-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9709-x
4. Atmatzidou, S., Markelis, I., & Demetriadis, S. (2008). 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. http://www.dei.unipd.it/~emg/downloads/SIMPAR08WorkshopProceedings/TeachingWithRobotics/atmatzidou_et_al.pdf
5. Avcı, B., & Şahin, F. (2019). The effect of LEGO Mindstorm projects on problem solving skills and scientific creativity of teacher. Journal of Human Sciences, 16(1), 216-230. https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v16i1.5658
6. Barak, M., & Zadok, Y. (2009). Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology and problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 289-307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-007-9043-3
7. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782481
8. Becker, B. A. (2016). An effective approach to enhancing compiler error messages. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education(ss. 126-131). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844584

9. Beisser, S. R. (2005). An examination of gender differences in elementary constructionist classrooms using Lego/Logo instruction. Computers in the Schools, 22(3-4), 7-19. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J025v22n03_02
10. Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978-988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006
11. Bosse, Y., & Gerosa, M. A. (2017). Why is programming so difficult to learn? Patterns of Difficulties Related to Programming Learning Mid-Stage. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 41(6), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3011286.3011301
12. Buckler, A. (2015). An exploratory study of student and teacher perceptions on student motivation and the teacher-student relationship (Publication No. 3708723) [Doctoral dissertation, Regent University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
13. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (10. Ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
14. Castledine, A. R., & Chalmers, C. (2011). LEGO Robotics: An authentic problem solving tool?. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(3). https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/1661
15. Cavas, B., Kesercioglu, T., Holbrook, J., Rannikmae, M., Ozdogru, E., & Gokler, F. (2012). The effects of robotics club on the students’ performance on science process & scientific creativity skills and perceptions on robots, human and society. In Proceedings of 3rd International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics Integrating Robotics in School Curriculum (ss. 40-50). http://www.terecop.eu/TRTWR2012/trtwr2012_submission_06.pdf
16. Cayir, E. (2010). Assignment the effect of learning environment supported by lego-logo on science process skill and self concept (Publication No. 265835). [Master’s Thesis, Sakarya University].YÖK Thesis Center Database.
17. Chaudhary, V., Agrawal, V., Sureka, P., & Sureka, A. (2016). An experience report on teaching programming and computational thinking to elementary level children using LEGO robotics education kit. In 2016 IEEE Eighth International Conference on Technology for Education (T4E) (ss. 38-41). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/T4E.2016.016
18. Çukurbaşı, B. (2016). Examine the effect of the problem based learning activities supported via flipped classroom and lego-logo practices on the high school students' success and their motivation (Publication No. 448207). [Doctoral dissertation, Sakarya University].YÖK Thesis Center Database.
19. Çukurbaşı, B., & Kıyıcı, M. (2017). An Investigation of the Effects of Problem-Based Learning Activities Supported via Flipped Classroom and LEGO®-LOGO Practices on the Success and Motivation of High School Students. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2017.01.013
20. Danahy, E., Wang, E., Brockman, J., Carberry, A., Shapiro, B. & Rogers, C. B. (2013). LEGO®-based Robotics in Higher Education: 15 Years of Student Creativity. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 11, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.5772/58249
21. de Raadt, M. (2008). Teaching programming strategies explicitly to novice programmers [Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Queensland]. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11038092.pdf
22. Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Carpenter, D. (2014). Enhancing syntax error messages appears ineffectual. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation & technology in computer science education (ss. 273-278). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2591708.2591748
23. Dönmez, F. (2007). Determining the science process skill levels of technical high school students (Publication No. 177990). [Master’s Thesis, Balıkesir University].YÖK Thesis Center Database.
24. Düzgün, Z. (2011). The relationship between the problem solving skills and the thinking styles of science and technology teachers use (Publication No. 298640). [Master’s Thesis, Marmara University].YÖK Thesis Center Database.
25. Eguchi, A. (2014). Educational Robotics Theories and Practice: Tips for how to do it Right. In Robotics: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 193-223). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-0182-6.CH001
26. Fisler, K., Krishnamurthi, S., & Siegmund, J. (2016). Modernizing plan-composition studies. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (ss. 211-216). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844556
27. Gabrielle, D. (2003). The effects of technology-mediated instructional strategies on motivation, performance, and self-directed learning. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (ss. 2568-2575). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). http://gabrielleconsulting.com/docs/gabrielleaect.pdf
28. Gandy, E. A., Bradley, S., Arnold-Brookes, D., & Allen, N. R. (2010). The use of lego mindstorms nxt robots in the teaching of introductory java programming to undergraduate students. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 9(1), 2-9. https://doi.org/10.11120/ital.2010.09010002
29. Garcia, M. A., & Patterson-McNeill, H. (2002). Learn how to develop software using the toy LEGO Mindstorms. In 32nd Annual Frontiers in Education (Vol. 3, pp. S4D-S4D). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2002.1158730
30. Ginat, D., & Shmalo, R. (2013). Constructive use of errors in teaching CS1. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (ss. 353-358). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445300
31. Heppner, P. P., & Petersen, C. H. (1982). The development and implications of a personal problem-solving inventory. Journal of counseling psychology, 29(1), 66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.29.1.66
32. Heppner, P.P. (1988). Problem Solving Inventory (PSI): Research Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Puncky_Heppner/publication/232588800_Applications_of_the_Problem_Solving_Inventory/links/57732ae108ae2b93e1a7d2d3.pdf
33. Huang, D. W., Diefes-Dux, H., Imbrie, P. K., Daku, B., & Kallimani, J. G. (2004). Learning motivation evaluation for a computer-based instructional tutorial using ARCS model of motivational design. In 34th Annual Frontiers in Education, 2004. FIE 2004. (ss. T1E-30). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2004.1408466
34. Huang, W., Huang, W., Diefes‐Dux, H., & Imbrie, P. K. (2006). A preliminary validation of Attention, Relevance, Confidence and Satisfaction model‐based Instructional Material Motivational Survey in a computer‐based tutorial setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 243-259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00582.x
35. Huett, J. B. (2006). The effects of ARCS-based confidence strategies on learner confidence and performance in distance education. University of North Texas. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc5268/m1/2/
36. Jenkins, T. (2001, June). The motivation of students of programming. In Proceedings of the 6th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 53-56). https://doi.org/10.1145/377435.377472
37. Kardaş, N., Anagün, Ş. S., & Yalçınoğlu, P. (2014). Adaptation of Problem Solving Inventory for the Elemantart School Students: Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 13(51), 182-194. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.35695
38. Kaya, S. (2019). Investigation of the relationship between resilience and problem solving skill levels of elite basketball players fighting in different leagues (Publication No. 544287). [Master’s Thesis, Balıkesir University].YÖK Thesis Center Database.
39. Keller, J. M. (1993). Manual for the instructional materials motivational survey (IMMS). Unpublished manuscript, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
40. Keller, J. M. (2006). Development of two measures of learner motivation. Unpublished manuscript in progress. Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
41. Korkmaz, O. (2016). The effect of LEGO Mindstorms Ev3 based design activities on students’ attitudes towards learning computer programming, self-efficacy beliefs and levels of academic achievement. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(4), 994–1007. http://doi.org/10.22364/bjmc.2016.4.4.24
42. Kuloğlu, A., & Arı, Ü. (2014). Examinatıon of science and technology teacher candidates’ problem solving skills in terms of some variables. Kilis 7 Aralık University Journal of Social Sciences, 4(8), 94-109. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/717405
43. Kunduracıoğlu, İ. (2018). Examining the interface of lego mindstorms ev3 robot programming. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 1(1), 28-46. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.372826
44. Lawhead, P. B., Duncan, M. E., Bland, C. G., Goldweber, M., Schep, M., Barnes, D. J., & Hollingsworth, R. G. (2002). A road map for teaching introductory programming using LEGO© mindstorms robots. In Acm sigcse bulletin (Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 191-201). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/960568.783002
45. Lin, C. H., Liu, E. Z. F., & Huang, Y. Y. (2012). Exploring parents' perceptions towards educational robots: Gender and socio‐economic differences. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), E31-E34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01258.x
46. Lin, C. H., Liu, E. Z. F., Kou, C. H., Virnes, M., Sutinen, E., & Cheng, S. S. (2009). A case analysis of creative spiral instruction model and students’ creative problem solving performance in a LEGO® robotics course. In International Conference on Technologies for E-Learning and Digital Entertainment (ss. 501-505). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03364-3_61
47. Lindh, J., & Holgersson, T. (2007). Does lego training stimulate pupils’ ability to solve logical problems?. Computers & education, 49(4), 1097-1111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.12.008
48. Lykke, M., Coto, M., Mora, S., Vandel, N., & Jantzen, C. (2014). Motivating programming students by problem based learning and LEGO robots. In 2014 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 544-555). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2014.6826146
49. Martínez Ortiz, A. (2015). Examining Students' Proportional Reasoning Strategy Levels as Evidence of the Impact of an Integrated LEGO Robotics and Mathematics Learning Experience. Journal of Technology Education, 26(2), 46-69. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v26n2/pdf/martinez.pdf
50. McWhorter, W. I. (2008). The effectiveness of using LEGO® Mindstorms® robotics activities to influence self-regulated learning in a university introductory computer programming course [Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas]. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc6077/
51. McWhorter, W. I., & O'Connor, B. C. (2009). Do LEGO® Mindstorms® motivate students in CS1?. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 438-442). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1508865.1509019
52. Mioduser, D., Levy, S. T., & Talis, V. (2009). Episodes to scripts to rules: Concrete-abstractions in kindergarten children’s explanations of a robot’s behavior. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(1), 15-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-007-9040-6
53. Muller, O. (2005). Pattern oriented instruction and the enhancement of analogical reasoning. In Proceedings of the first international workshop on Computing education research (ss. 57-67). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1089786.1089792
54. Nourbakhsh, I. R., Crowley, K., Bhave, A., Hamner, E., Hsiu, T., Perez-Bergquist, A., Richards, S. & Wilkinson, K. (2005). The robotic autonomy mobile robotics course: Robot design, curriculum design and educational assessment. Autonomous Robots, 18(1), 103-127. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AURO.0000047303.20624.02
55. Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., ve Adamchuk, V. (2009). The use of digital manipulatives in k-12: robotics, GPS/GIS and programming. In 2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (ss. 1-6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2009.5350828
56. 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 pyhsical facts learning field (Publication No. 342333). [Master’s Thesis, Dokuz Eylül University].YÖK Thesis Center Database.
57. Piteira, M., & Haddad, S. R. (2011). Innovate in your program computer class: an approach based on a serious game. In Proceedings of the 2011 Workshop on Open Source and Design of Communication (pp. 49-54). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2016716.2016730
58. Reich-Stiebert, N., Eyssel, F., & Hohnemann, C. (2019). Involve the user! Changing attitudes toward robots by user participation in a robot prototyping process. Computers in Human Behavior, 91, 290-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.041
59. Resinovic, B. (2015). The use of Nao, a humanoid robot, in teaching computer programming. In The Proceedings of International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution and Perspectives—ISSEP (p. 63). http://issep15.fri.uni-lj.si/files/issep2015-proceedings.pdf
60. Resnick, M. (1993). Behavior construction kits. Communications of the ACM, 36(7), 64-71. https://doi.org/10.1145/159544.159593
61. Resnick, M., Martin, F., Sargent, R., & Silverman, B. (1996). Programmable bricks: Toys to think with. IBM Systems journal, 35(3.4), 443-452. https://doi.org/10.1147/sj.353.0443
62. Robins, A., Haden, P., & Garner, S. (2006). Problem distributions in a CS1 course. In Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education-Volume 52(ss. 165-173). Australian Computer Society, Inc.. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/1151869.1151891
63. Sáez-López, J. M., Sevillano-García, M. L., & Vazquez-Cano, E. (2019). The effect of programming on primary school students’ mathematical and scientific understanding: educational use of mBot. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(6), 1405-1425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09648-5
64. Sajaniemi, J., & Kuittinen, M. (2005). An experiment on using roles of variables in teaching introductory programming. Computer Science Education, 15(1), 59-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993400500056563
65. Saleiro, M., Carmo, B., Rodrigues, J. M., & du Buf, J. H. (2013). A low-cost classroom-oriented educational robotics system. In International Conference on social robotics (pp. 74-83). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_8
66. Sartori, T., Burlin, L., Casonato, G., Costantini, M., Cozzarolo, A. Marcato, O., Matteazzi, M., Scardanzan, C., Vecchia, S., Vettor, V. & Zamperini, A. (2012). Ingenium: an exploratory research on learning processes specific to robotic labs. In Proceedings of 3rd International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics Integrating Robotics in School Curriculum Riva del Garda. Trento, Italy. http://www.terecop.eu/TRTWR2012/trtwr2012_submission_12.pdf
67. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Viveros, B. S. (2020). A meta-analysis of teaching and learning computer programming: Effective instructional approaches and conditions. Computers in Human Behavior, 106349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106349
68. Schulte, C., & Bennedsen, J. (2006). What do teachers teach in introductory programming?. In Proceedings of the second international workshop on Computing education research (ss. 17-28). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1151588.1151593
69. Strawhacker, A., & Bers, M. U. (2015). “I want my robot to look for food”: Comparing Kindergartner’s programming comprehension using tangible, graphic, and hybrid user interfaces. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(3), 293-319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9287-7
70. Sullivan, A. A., Bers, M. U., & Mihm, C. (2017). Imagining, playing, and coding with KIBO: using robotics to foster computational thinking in young children. Siu-cheung KONG The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 110. https://ase.tufts.edu/devtech/publications/Sullivan_Bers_Mihm_KIBOHongKong%20.pdf
71. Şabanoviç, A., & Yannier, S. (2003). Robotlar: Sosyal etkileşimli makineler. TÜBİTAK Bilim Teknik Dergisi. https://www.academia.edu/download/42760973/sosyaletki.pdf
72. Şahin, N., Şahin, N. H., ve Heppner, P. P. (1993). The psychometric properties of the Problem Solving Inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 17, 4, 379-396. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01177661
73. Whitebread, D., Neale, D., Jensen, H., Liu, C., Solis, S. L., Hopkins, E., ... & Zosh, J. (2017). The role of play in children's development: a review of the evidence. LEGO Fonden. https://cms.learningthroughplay.com/media/esriqz2x/role-of-play-in-childrens-development-review_web.pdf
74. Yadagiri, R. G., Krishnamoorthy, S. P., & Kapila, V. (2015, June). A blocks-based visual environment to teach robot-programming to K-12 students. In 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 26-17). https://doi.org/10.18260/p.23358
75. Yıldız, Ş., & Beşoluk, Ş. (2019). The Investigation of the Effect of Problem Based Teaching Approach on Students' Problem Solving Skills and Academic Achievements in Science Course. Journal of Individual Differences in Education, 1(1), 50-68. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jide/issue/45463/569081
76. Yukselturk, E., & Altiok, S. (2017). An investigation of the effects of programming with Scratch on the preservice IT teachers’ self‐efficacy perceptions and attitudes towards computer programming. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(3), 789-801. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12453