Reflections from Robotic Coding Trainer Training: Teacher Opinions

Year 2021, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 223 - 245, 31.12.2021

Ümmühan Avcı , Rıza Başaran

https://doi.org/10.54535/rep.1007946

Abstract

In this study, it is aimed to examine how the teachers evaluated the robotic coding trainer training they received, the problems in the training, how they transferred the training to their lessons and their opinions on the practices. Seventeen teachers working at the Ministry of National Education in Ankara and receiving "Robotic Coding Trainer Training" participated in this research, which was designed as a qualitative case study. The data were collected by preparing a semi-structured interview form consisting of 15 questions in line with the purpose of the study. The data were analyzed by descriptive analysis method. According to the results of the research, it is seen that teachers participate in this training because it supports the education process and contributes to their personal development. It has been observed that teachers receive training to teach students, apart from peer training, which is the main purpose of trainer training. When the positive opinions of the teachers about the robotic coding education were examined, the themes of contribution to personal development, information about robotic education, acquiring programming skills, cooperation and reward emerged. Inadequate time, inadequacy of materials and application were reflected as negative opinions. With the results of this research, it is aimed to contribute to the training of trainers, one of the most important aims of which is dissemination.

Keywords

teachers, Robotic coding, Trainer training, Teachers

References

• Aksu, F. N. (2019). Bilişim teknolojileri öğretmenleri gözünden robotik kodlama ve robotik yarışmaları [Robotic coding and robotic competitions from the perpective of the information and communication technology teachers]. Unpublished master's thesis. Balıkesir University, Balıkesir.
• Bidwell, A. (2013). Tech companies work to combat computer science education gap. [Available online at: https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/12/27/tech-companies-work-to-combat-computer-science-education-gap. Retrieved on 05.09.2021.]
• Bütüner, R., & Dündar, 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]. In E. Yılmaz and S.A. Sulak (Eds), Human Society and Education in the Changing World, (pp.278-295). Konya: Palet Publishing
• Ceylan, V., & Gündoğdu, K. (2018). Bir olgubilim çalişmasi: Kodlama eğitiminde neler yaşaniyor? [A phenomonological study: what’s happening in coding education?]. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 8(2) , 1-34 . https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.340103
• Chambers, J. M., & Carbonaro, M. (2003). Designing, developing, and implementing a course on LEGO robotics for technology teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(2), 209-241.
• Çömek, A., & Avcı, B. (2016). Fen eğitiminde robotik uygulamaları hakkında öğretmen görüşleri [Teachers’ views on robotics in science education]. In A. M. Ger (Ed.), On higher education: Intenational congress on new trends in higher education (pp. 104-115). İstanbul: İstanbul Aydın University.
• Ersoy, H., Madran, R. O., & Gülbahar, Y. (2011). Programlama dilleri öğretimine bir model önerisi: Robot programlama [A model proposed for teaching programming languages: robotic programming]. Academic Informatics 11, 731-736.
• Göksoy, S., & Yılmaz, İ. (2018). Bilişim Teknolojileri öğretmenleri ve öğrencilerinin robotik ve kodlama dersine ilişkin görüşleri [The opinions of information relations teacher and their students with regard to lessons of robots and decoding]. Duzce University Journal of Social Sciences, 8(1), 178-196.
• Göncü, A., Çetin, İ., & Ercan, T. O. P. (2018). Öğretmen adaylarinin kodlama eğitimine yönelik görüşleri: Bir durum çalışması [Pre-Service Teachers’ Views Related to Computing Education: A Case Study]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 48, 85-110.
• Gültepe, A. A. (2018). Kodlama öğretimi yapan bilişim teknolojileri öğretmenleri gözüyle öğrenciler kodluyor [Make Coding Teaching by ICT Teachers Eye "Students Are Encoding"]. International Journal of Leadership Training, 2(2), 50-60.
• Kasalak, İ. (2017). Robotik kodlama etkinliklerinin ortaokul öğrencilerinin kodlamaya ilişkin özyeterlik algilarina etkisi ve etkinliklere ilişkin öğrenci yaşantilari [Effects of Robotic Coding Activities on the Effectiveness of Secondary School Students' Self-Effıcacy and Student Experience about Activities]. Unpublished master's thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara.
• MEB (2018). 2023 eğitim vizyonu [2023 education vision]. Ministry of Education. [Available online at: https://2023vizyonu.meb.gov.tr/doc/2023_EGITIM_VIZYONU.pdf. Retrieved on 08.07.2021]
• Richards, E., & Terkanian, D. (2013). Occupational employment projections to 2022. Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2013.41
• Sayın, Z., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2016). Yeni bir 21. yüzyil becerisi olarak kodlama eğitimi ve kodlamanin eğitim politikalarina etkisi [Coding Education as a new 21st Century Skill and its Effect on Educational Policies]. Academik Informatics 2016, Adnan Menderes University, Aydın
• Schina, D., Esteve-González, V., & Usart, M. (2021). An overview of teacher training programs in educational robotics: characteristics, best practices and recommendations. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 2831-2852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10377-z
• TTKB (2012). Ortaokul ve imam hatip ortaokulu bilişim teknolojileri ve yazılım dersi ( 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı [Secondary school and imam hatip secondary school information technologies and software course (5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades) curriculum]. Ankara: Ministry of Education.
• TTKB (2016). Ortaöğretim bilgisayar bilimi dersi (kur 1, kur 2) öğretim programı [Secondary education computer science course (level 1, level 2) curriculum]. Ankara: Ministry of Education. [Available online at: Retrieved on https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/2018120203611364-BILGISAYAR%20BILIMI%20DERSI%20OGRETIM%20PROGRAMI.pdf. 08.07.2021]
• TTKB (2018). Bilişim teknolojileri ve yazılım dersi öğretim programı (Ortaokul 5 ve 6. Sınıflar) [Information technologies and software curriculum (Secondary School 5th and 6th Grades)]. Ankara: Ministry of Education. [Available online at: http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/2018124103559587-Bili%C5%9Fim%20Teknolojileri%20ve%20Yaz%C4%B1l%C4%B1m%205-6.%20S%C4%B1n%C4%B1flar.pdf. Retrieved on 08.07.2021]
• Türker, P. M., & Pala, F. K. (2018). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin, öğretmenlerin ve öğrenci velilerinin kodlamaya yönelik görüşleri [Opinions of Secondary School Students, Teachers and Parents About Coding]. Elementary Education Online, 17(4), 2013-2029. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.506939
• Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences], Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.