FEN BİLGİSİ ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ROBOTİK KODLAMA DENEYİMLERİ

Abstract

Teknoloji çok hızlı bir değişim içerisindedir ve bu durumun etkileri eğitim öğretimde de görülmektedir. Değişen teknolojinin eğitime yansımalarının görüldüğü noktalardan biri de eğitim öğretimde robotların kullanılmasıdır. Bu araştırma, fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının robotik kodlama deneyimlerini incelemiştir. Araştırma, ayrıca Arduino robotik seti ve mBlock kodlama programları hakkında teknik bilgilerin verilmesi ve robotik kodlama etkinliklerinin gerçekleştirilmesi süreçlerini içermektedir. Bu araştırma nitel araştırma desenlerinden fenomenolojiyi tercih etmiştir. Araştırmanın katılımcıları, İç Anadolu bölgesinde bulunan bir devlet üniversitesinde öğrenim gören üçüncü sınıf fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarıdır (n=12). Araştırma veri toplama aracı olarak yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme kullanmıştır. Araştırma geçerliğin sağlanmasına ilişkin görüşmelerin kayıt altına alınması ve araştırmacı üçlemesi gibi önlemler almıştır. Kod, kategori ve tema içerik analizi ile belirlenmiştir. Araştırmanın bulguları doğrudan alıntıları ile desteklenmiştir. Araştırma robotik kodlamanın fen bilimlerine yönelik olarak tüm sınıf seviyelerinde kullanılabilir olduğu sonucuna ulaşmıştır. Ayrıca, bu çalışma etkinliklerin öğretmen adaylarına mesleki anlamda öğrenciyi aktif kılma ve problem çözme becerisi gibi pek çok katkısı olduğu sonucuna ulaşmıştır. Bu sonuçlar doğrultusunda, robotik kodlamanın eğitimde kullanımının artırılmasına yönelik önerilerde bulunduk.

Keywords

• Robotik
• Kodlama
• mBlock
• Arduino
• Fen eğitimi

ROBOTIC CODING EXPERIENCES OF SCIENCE TEACHER CANDIDATES

Abstract

Technology is changing very rapidly and the effects of this situation are also seen in education and training. One of the points where the reflections of changing technology on education are seen is the use of robots in education and training. This study examined the robotic coding experiences of pre-service science teachers. The research also includes the processes of providing technical information about the Arduino robotic set and mBlock coding programs and performing robotic coding activities. This study preferred phenomenology as a qualitative research design. The participants of the study were third-year pre-service science teachers (n=12) studying at a state university in Central Anatolia. A semi-structured interview was used as a data collection tool. The research took measures to ensure validity such as recording the interviews and researcher triangulation. Codes, categories, and themes were determined by content analysis. The findings of the study were supported by direct quotations. The study concluded that robotic coding can be used for science at all grade levels. In addition, this study concluded that the activities have many professional contributions to pre-service teachers such as making students active and problem-solving skills. In line with these results, we made suggestions for increasing the use of robotic coding in education.

Keywords

• Robotics
• Coding
• mBlock
• Arduino
• Science education

References

1. Akkaş Baysal, E., Ocak, G., & Ocak, İ. (2020). Kodlama ve Arduino eğitimleri ile ilgili lise öğrencilerinin görüşleri. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(74), 777-796. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.625496
2. Aksu, F. N. (2019). Bilişim teknolojileri öğretmenleri gözünden robotik kodlama ve robotik yarışmaları. [Yüksek lisans tezi, Balıkesir Üniversitesi]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
3. Alimisis, D., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Constructionism and robotics in education. Teacher education on robotic-enhanced constructivist pedagogical methods. School of Pedagogical and Technological Education (ASPETE), 11-26.
4. Athanasiou, L., Topali P., & Mikropoulos T. A. (2017). The use of robotics in introductory programming for elementary students. In: Alimisis D., Moro M., Menegatti E. (eds) Educational Robotics in the Makers Era. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 560. Springer, Cham. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-55553-9_14
5. Atila, G., Şahin, D., & Salar, R. (2023). Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Temel Düzey Robotik Kodlama Eğitimi Hakkında Görüşleri. Ulusal Eğitim Akademisi Dergisi, 7(2), 124-143.
6. Bada, J. K., Laamanen, M., & Miiro, E. (2013). A Project-based Learning approach for teaching Robotics to Undergraduates. Makerere Journal of Higher Education, 5(1), 35-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/majohe.v5i1.3
7. 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
8. Bashir, A., Alhammadi, M., Awawdeh, M., & Faisal, T. (2019, March). Effectiveness of using Arduino platform for the hybrid engineering education learning model. In 2019 Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International Conferences (ASET) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.

9. Baz, F. Ç. (2018). Çocuklar için kodlama yazılımları üzerine karşılaştırmalı bir inceleme. Current Research in Education, 4(1), 36-47.
10. Bers, M. U. (2021). Coding as a playground: Programming and computational thinking in the early childhood classroom. Routledge.
11. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2016). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri (22. Baskı). Pegem Akademi.
12. Catlin, D. (2012). Maximising the effectiveness of educational robotics through the use of assessment for learning methodologies. Proceedings of 3rd International workshop teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics, Integrating Robotics in School Curriculum, (s. 2-11). Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy).
13. Cejka, E., Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2006). Kindergarten robotics: Using robotics to motivate math, science, and engineering literacy in elementary school. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(4), 711.
14. 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
15. Chebotareva, E., & Gavrilova, L. (2019, October). Educational mobile robotics project" ros-controlled balancing robot" based on Arduino and Raspberry Pi. In 2019 12th International Conference on Developments in eSystems Engineering (DeSE) (pp. 209-214). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/DeSE.2019.00047
16. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design, qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (Third Edition). California: SAGE Publications.
17. Çetin, A., ve Kahyaoğlu, M. (2018). STEM temelli etkinliklerin fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının fen, matematik, mühendislik ve teknoloji ile 21. yüzyıl becerilerine yönelik tutumlarına etkisi. Ekev Akademi Dergisi, 22(75), 15-28.
18. Doolittle, P. E. (2014). Complex constructivism: A theoretical model of complexity and cognition. International Journal of teaching and learning in higher education, 26(3), 485-498.
19. Demirer, V., & Sak, N. (2016). Programming education and new approaches around the world and in Turkey/Dünyada ve Türkiye'de programlama eğitimi ve yeni yaklaşımlar. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 12(3), 521-546.
20. Eguchi, A. (2017). Bringing robotics in classrooms. In Robotics in STEM education (pp. 3-31). Springer, Cham.
21. 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
22. Esgil, M. (2019). Kodlama etkinliklerinin öğrencilerin bilgisayara yönelik tutum ve bilişim dersine duyuşsal katılımlarına etkisi. [Yüksek lisans tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
23. Fesakis, G., & Serafeim, K. (2009). Influence of the familiarization with "Scratch" on future teachers' opinions and attitudes about programming and ICT in education. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. Paris. https://doi.org/10.1145/1595496.1562957
24. Fjukstad, B., Angelvik, N., Hauglann, M. W., Knutsen, J. S., Grønnesby, M., Gunhildrud, H., & Bongo, L. A. (2018, February). Low-Cost programmable air quality sensor kits in science education. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 227-232). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159569
25. Genç, Z., & Karakuş, S. (2011, September). Tasarımla öğrenme: Eğitsel bilgisayar oyunları tasarımında Scratch kullanımı. In 5th International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium (pp. 981-987). Fırat University, ELAZIĞ- TURKEY.
26. Gordon, M. (2008). Between constructivism and connectedness. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 322-331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108321379
27. Güven, G., & Kozcu Çakır, N. (2020). Fen eğitiminde robotik kodlama serüveni. Eğiten kitap.
28. Güven, E., & Sülün, Y. (2020). Ortaokul 5. sınıf fen öğretiminde Arduino destekli robotik kodlama etkinliklerinin kullanılması. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(2), 225-236. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.1116283
29. Hertzog, P. E., & Swart, A. J. (2016, April). Arduino-Enabling engineering students to obtain academic success in a design-based module. Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 66-73). IEEE.
30. Hurtuk, J., Chovanec, M., & Ádam, N. (2017, October). The Arduino platform connected to education process. In 2017 IEEE 21st International Conference on Intelligent Engineering Systems (INES) (pp. 000071-000076). IEEE.
31. Jawaid, I., Javed, M. Y., Jaffery, M. H., Akram, A., Safder, U., & Hassan, S. (2019). Robotic system education for young children by collaborative‐project‐based learning. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22184
32. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Eğitim araştırmaları: Nicel, nitel ve karma yaklaşımlar (Çev. Ed. Demir, S. B.). Eğiten Kitap. 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 autism spectrum disorder. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(1), 63-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9394-8
33. Kalelioglu, F., & Gülbahar, Y. (2014). The effects of teaching programming via scratch on problem solving skills: A discussion from learners' perspective. Informatics in Education, 13(1), 33-50.
34. Kan, A. Ü., & Murat, A. (2020). Examining the self-efficacy of teacher candidates’ lifelong learning key competences and educational technology standards. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 707-724. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-019-10072-8
35. Karabak, D., & Güneş, A. (2013). Ortaokul birinci sınıf öğrencileri için yazılım geliştirme alanında müfredat önerisi. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(3), 163-169.
36. Karalar, H. (2019). Ortaokul öğretmenlerinin fiziksel programlamaya yönelik algıları ve deneyimleri. Gazi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(Özel Sayı), 140-156. https://dx.doi.org/10.30855/gjes.2019.os.01.008
37. Khanlari, A., & Kiaie, F. M. (2015, July). Using robotics for STEM education in primary/elementary schools: Teachers' perceptions. In 2015 10th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE) (pp. 3-7). IEEE.
38. Kim, J. O., & Kim, J. (2018). Development and application of art based STEAM education program using educational robot. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 10(3), 46-57.
39. Kozcu Cakir, N., & Guven, G. (2019). Arduino-Assisted robotic and coding applications in science teaching: Pulsimeter activity in compliance with the 5E learning model. Science Activities, 56(2), 42-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2019.1675574
40. Kucuk, S., & Sisman, B. (2018). Pre-Service teachers' experiences in learning robotics design and programming. Informatics in Education, 17(2), 301-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2018.16
41. Kuloğlu, A. (2019). Öğretmen adaylarına göre öğretim teknolojileri ve materyal tasarım dersi. Turkish Journal of Educational Studies, 6(1), 33-44.
42. Kurt, S. (2014). Creating technology-enriched classrooms: Implementational challenges in Turkish education. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 90-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.776077
43. Lewis, C. M. (2010, March). How programming environment shapes perception, learning and goals: logo vs. scratch. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 346-350). https://doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734383
44. Liu, C. C., & Chen, I. J. (2010). Evolution of constructivism. Contemporary issues in education research, 3(4), 63-66.
45. Luciano, A. G., Fusinato, P. A., Gomes, L. C., Luciano, A., & Takai, H. (2019, August). The educational robotics and Arduino platform: constructionist learning strategies to the teaching of physics. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1286, No. 1, p. 012044). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1286/1/012044
46. Malan, D. J., & Leitner, H. H. (2007). Scratch for budding computer scientists. SIGCSE’07, 39(1): 223-227. https://doi.org/10.1145/1227504.1227388
47. Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The Scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1145/1868358.1868363
48. MEB ÖYGM, (2020). Robotik ve kodlama: Kodlama eğitimi temel düzey. https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/www/robotik-kodlama-mesleki-gelisim-programi-2-faz-kitabimiz-erisime-acildi/icerik/892 Erişim Tarihi: 24.04.2021
49. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2016). Genişletilmiş bir kaynak kitap: Nitel veri analizi (2. Baskı) (Çev. Ed: Akbaba Altun, S. ve Ersoy, A.). Pegem Akademi.
50. Numanoğlu, M., & Keser, H. (2017). Programlama öğretiminde robot kullanımı-Mbot örneği. Bartın Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 497-515. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.306198
51. Oh, M., & Lawson, F. (2020). The engineering ed project: dealing with failure and the robotic future–engaging students in multidisciplinary STEM learning. School Science Review, 101(376), 51-56.
52. Özmen, H. (2017). Kavram öğretimi. Z. Tatlı (Ed.). Kavram öğretiminde Web 2.0 içinde (s. 2-13). Pegem Akademi. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
53. Peixoto, A., Castro, M., Blazquez, M., Martin, S., Sancristobal, E., Carro, G., & Plaza, P. (2018, April). Robotics tips and tricks for inclusion and integration of students. In 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 2037-2041). IEEE.
54. Plaza, P., Sancristobal, E., Carro, G., Blazquez, M., García-Loro, F., Martin, S., ... & Castro, M. (2018, December). Arduino as an educational tool to introduce robotics. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE) (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
55. Piaget, J. (1974). To understand is to invent. Basic Books. Piedade, J. (November, 2019). Learning scenarios with robots as strategy to develop computational thinking skills in computer science teacher education. 12th annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation. 5083-5093. Spain.
56. Pisarov, J., & Mester, G. (2019, December). Programming the mbot robot in school. In Proceedings of the International Conference and Workshop Mechatronics in Practice and Education, MechEdu (pp. 45-48).
57. Pinto, A., & Escudeiro, P. (2017). The Promotion of the 21st century learning skills through the development of games using Scratch. Journal on Advances in Theoretical and Applied Informatics, 3(1), 10-15.
58. Sarıkavak, İ. (2023). Blok tabanlı kodlama eğitiminin fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının erişilerine ve kodlamaya karşı tutumlarına etkisi. [Yüksek lisans tezi, Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
59. Stevens, V., & Verschoor, J. (2017). Coding and English language teaching. TESL-EJ, 21(2), 1-15.
60. 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. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10798-015-9304-5
61. Susilawati, S., Copriady, J., Erna, M., Hasnah, H., Nisa, N.A., & Rahmatya, O. (2020). Application of constructivism–based students’ worksheet to increase students activities and learning outcomes. JTK: Jurnal Tadris Kimiya, 5(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.15575/jtk.v5i1.5607
62. Şahin, E. (2019). 6-12 yaş gruplarında robotik araç ve gereçleri kullanarak kodlama öğretiminin uygulaması ve analizi. [Yüksek lisans tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
63. Taylor, K., & Baek, Y. (2017). Collaborative robotics, more than just working in groups. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(7), 979-1004. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117731382
64. Türkoguz, S., & Sefer, F. (2019). Investigation of the effects of Arduino-supported analytical chemistry experiments on pre-service teachers' self-efficacy toward information technologies. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 12(4), 1164-1192. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.409775
65. Vandevelde, C., Saldien, J., Ciocci, M. C., & Vanderborght, B. (2013). Overview of technologies for building robots in the classroom. In International conference on robotics in education (pp. 122-130).
66. Van Manen, M. (2007). Phenomenology of practice. Phenomenology & Practice, 1(1), 11-30.
67. Yelken, T. Y. (2009). Öğretmen adaylarının portfolyoları üzerinde grup olarak yaratıcılık temelli materyal geliştirmenin etkileri. Eğitim ve Bilim, 34(153).
68. Yukselturk, E., & Altiok, S. (2016). An investigation of the effects of programming with scratch on the preservice its teachers’ self‐efficacy perceptions and attitudes towards computer programming. British Journal of Educational Technology, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12453
69. Zhang, J., & Liu, J. (2018, October). Construction of scaffolding instruction mode for mBlock for Arduino maker course based on design thinking. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Science and Application Engineering (pp. 1-6). https://doi.org/10.1145/3207677.3278031