Looking for Problem Scenarios with Robotic Coding: Primary School Example in Turkey

Abstract

Students can develop their creative thinking processes and problem scenarios with robotic applications. Therefore, the research objective is that robotic applications can solve students' problem scenarios. This study was conducted in Samsun/Turkey in the Ministry of Education for 10 weeks and involved 8 elementary school students.. For this study, we made two things which are the necessary configurations developed by an expert researcher, another one is robotics coding training which other field expert researchers carried out. After studying problem scenarios and robotic coding training, students were provided with the problem scenarios to bring solutions with robotic coding. In this study, it was found that although most of the students proposed different solutions to the given scenario, there were also students who proposed similar solutions. At the end of the study, students had very different approaches to the scenarios and students designed some robots as we can see.

Keywords

• Robotic coding
• problem scenarios
• scenario-based learning
• creative thinking

References

1. Al Attar, R. H. (2019). The effectiveness of using scenario-based learning strategy in developing efl eleventh graders' speaking and prospective thinking skills [Master's thesis]. The Islamic University of Gaza, Palestine.
2. Alimisis, A. D., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Constructionism and robotics in education. In D. Alimisis (Ed.), Teacher education on robotics-enhanced constructivist pedagogical methods (pp. 11–26). ASPETE: Athens.
3. Arabacıoğlu, T. (2012). Farklı iletişim ortamlarıyla yürütülen senaryo temelli öğretim programının temel bilgi teknolojileri dersi erişilerine etkisi [Yüksek lisans tezi]. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi, Aydın. http://adudspace.adu.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/handle/11607/1128
4. 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(B), 661-670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.008
5. Auerbach, J.E., Concordel, A., Kornatowski, P.M., & Floreano, D. (2019). Inquiry-based learning with robogen: An open-source software and hardware platform for robotics and artificial ıntelligence. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 12(3), 356-369.
6. Avcı, Ü. & Başaran, R. (2021). Reflections from robotic coding trainer training: teacher opinions . Research on Education and Psychology, 5(2), 223-245.
7. Bakaç, E. (2014). Senaryo tabanlı öğretim yönteminin matematik dersindeki öğrenci başarısına etkisi. Eğitim ve İnsani Bilimler Dergisi, 5(9), 3-17. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/eibd/issue/22668/242068
8. 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

9. Benitti, F.,B. V. & Spolaôr, N. (2017). How have robots supported STEM teaching? In M. Khine (Ed.), Robotics in STEM education: Redesigning the learning experience (pp. 103–129). Springer. Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R. & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020
10. Blackburn, G. (2015). Innovative eLearning: Technology shaping contemporary problem based learning: A cross-case analysis. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 12(2), 1-17. https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol12/iss2/5
11. Blanchard, S. Freiman, V. & Lirrete-Pitre, N. (2010). Strategies used by elementary schoolchildren solving robotics-based complex tasks: Innovative potential of technology. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2851-2857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.427.
12. Bütüner, R. (2019). Effect of coding and robotic coding training on students. Research Highlights in Education and Science, 24-30.
13. Cantürk Günhan, B.(2006). İlköğretim II. kademede matematik dersinde probleme dayalı öğrenmenin uygulana bilirliği üzerine bir araştırma [Yüksek lisans tezi]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir.
14. Cappelleri, D. J. & Vitoroulis, N. (2013). The robotic decathlon: Project-based learning labs and curriculum design for an introductory robotics course. IEEE Trans. Educ., 56(1), 73-81.
15. Cerrah Özsevgeç, L. & Kocadağ, Y. (2013).Senaryo tabanlı öğrenme yaklaşımının öğrencilerin kalıtım konusundaki yanılgılarının giderilmesi üzerindeki etkileri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal Of Education), 28(3), 83-96. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/hunefd/issue/7791/101908
16. Cheng, Y. W., Wang, Y., Yang,Y. F., Yang, Z. K., & Chen, N. S. (2021). Designing an authoring system of robots and IoT-based toys for EFL teaching and learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(1-2), 6-34, https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1799823
17. Chou, P. N. (2018). Skill development and knowledge acquisition cultivated by maker education: evidence from arduino-based educational robotics. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(10), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/93483
18. Erol, S., Jäger, A., Hold, P., Ott, K., & Sihn, W. (2016). Tangible Industry 4.0: A scenario-based approach to learning for the future of production. Procedia CIRP, 54, 13-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.03.162
19. Farooq, U. (2008). Supporting creativity: Investigating the role of awareness in distributed collaboration. The Pennsylvania State University. https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/8661
20. Fernandes, E. and Martins, S. (2018, November 12-14). Learning scenarios with robots for the learning of STEM. 11th Annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation ICERI2018 Proceedings, 5811-5817. https://library.iated.org/publications/ICERI2018/start/800
21. Gülmez Güngörmez, H., Akgün, A. & Duruk, Ü. (2016). Senaryo tabanlı öğrenme yoluyla öğrencilerin yansıtıcı düşünme becerilerinin geliştirilmesi. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 48,459-475. http://dx.doi.org/10.9761/JASSS3584
22. Özer Şanal, S. & Erdem, M. (2017, May 24-26). Kodlama ve robotik çalışmalarını problem çözme süreçlerine etkisi: Sesli düşünme protokol analizi. 11. Uluslararası Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Sempozyumu, 745-75. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jMffd9j7L12Tztb1BRJPUVLyC0BI1Ymx/view
23. Karasar, N. (2005). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Nobel.
24. Kabapınar, F. (2003). Kavram yanılgılarının ölçülmesinde kullanılabilecek bir ölçeğin bilgi-kavrama düzeyini ölçmeyi amaçlayan ölçekten farklılıkları. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 35, 398-417. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kuey/issue/10362/126850
25. Kim, K. N. (2009). Explorıng undergraduate students’ active learning for enhancing their critical thinking and learning in a large class [Doctoral dissertation]. The Pennsylvania State University. https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/9528
26. Komis, V., Romero, M. & Misirli, A. (2017). A scenario-based approach for designing educational robotics activities for co-creative problem solving. Proc. Int. Conf. EduRobotics, 560, 158-169. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55553-9_12
27. Lin, C., Hu, W., Adey, P., & Shen, J. (2003). The influence of case on scientific creativity. Research in Science Education, 33, 143-162. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025078600616
28. López, J. M. S., Otero, R. B., & García-Cervigón, S. D. L. (2021). Introducing robotics and block programming in elementary education. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 24(1), 95-113.
29. Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (3. Baskı). (Çev. Ed., S. Turan). Nobel.
30. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Sage.
31. O’Brien, F. A. (2004). Scenario planning-lessons for practice from teaching and learning. European Journal of Operational Research, 152, 709-722. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00068-7
32. Repenning, A., Webb, D., & Ioannidou, A. (2010). Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 265-269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734357.
33. Sinap, V. (2017). Programlama eğitiminde probleme dayalı öğrenmeye yönelik arduıno etkinliklerinin kullanılması: Bir eylem araştırması [Yüksek lisans tezi]. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Isparta.
34. Temur, D. & Turan, H. (2018). Senaryo tabanlı öğrenme yaklaşımının ilkokul üçüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin toplama ve çıkarma problemlerini çözme becerilerine etkisi. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 1(2), 72-84. https://doi.org/10.33400/kuje.451771
35. Tol, H. Y. (2018). Matematik konularının tarihsel gelişimlerinin senaryo tabanlı öğrenme yöntemi ile anlatılmasının öğrenciler üzerindeki etkileri [Yüksek lisans tezi]. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi, Konya.
36. Türnüklü, A. (2000). Eğitim bilim araştırmalarında etkin olarak kullanılabilecek nitel bir araştırma tekniği: Görüşme. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 6(4), 543-559. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/108517
37. Varnado, T. E. (2005). The effects of a technological problem solving activity on fırst™ lego™ league participants’ problem solving style and performance [Doctoral dissertation]. The Faculty of The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/27413
38. Veznedaroğlu, M. H. (2005). Senaryo temelli öğrenmenin öğretmen adaylarının öğretmenlik mesleğine yönelik tutum ve öz yeterlik algısına etkisi [Yüksek lisans tezi]. Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
39. Yaman, B. (2005). Senaryo tabanlı öğrenme yaklaşımına (STÖY) dayalı eğitimde drama yönteminin, ilköğretim beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin okuduğunu anlama başarılarına etkisi. Ç.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14( 2), 465-482. https://app.trdizin.gov.tr/publication/paper/detail/TlRrd016azU
40. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (6. Baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.