Middle School Students' Opinions About Basic Level Robotics Coding Education

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 124 - 143, 27.10.2023

Gülşah Atila , Dilara Şahin , Rıza Salar

https://doi.org/10.32960/uead.1264523

Cited By: 1

Öz

This study, it was aimed to reveal middle school students' views on basic-level robotic coding education and how they establish a relationship between robotic coding and science education. The study group of the research, in which qualitative research methodology was employed, consisted of 28 middle school students. The 28 students in the study group responded to a questionnaire consisting of eight open-ended items to determine their opinions after receiving basic robotic coding training. The data obtained were analyzed by descriptive analysis method. According to the results of the research, the students stated that they learned especially electronic concepts and electronic circuit elements, they had difficulties in creating electronic circuits and then writing code during the training, they had fun during the training, and it could be useful to use it in science courses. Based on the results of the study, it can be said that students will be satisfied with the integration of robotic coding into science courses, but their experience in circuit building and coding should be increased beforehand.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Science education, coding, robotics

Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Temel Düzey Robotik Kodlama Eğitimi Hakkında Görüşleri

Öz

Bu araştırmada, ortaokul öğrencilerinin temel düzey robotik kodlama eğitimi hakkındaki görüşlerini ve öğrencilerin robotik kodlama ile fen eğitimi arasında nasıl bir ilişki kurduklarını açığa çıkarmak amaçlanmıştır. Nitel araştırma metodolojisinin işe koşulduğu araştırmanın çalışma grubunu 28 ortaokul öğrencisi oluşturmaktadır. Çalışma grubundaki 28 öğrenci temel robotik kodlama eğitimi aldıktan sonra görüşlerini belirlemek için sekiz açık uçlu maddeden oluşan bir ankete cevap vermişlerdir. Elde edilen veriler betimsel analiz yöntemi ile analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre öğrenciler; özellikle elektronik kavramları ve elektronik devre elemanlarını öğrendiklerini, eğitim sürecinde elektronik devreyi oluşturmada ve akabinde kod yazımında zorluklar yaşadığını, eğitim süreci boyunca eğlendiklerini, fen bilimleri derslerinde kullanılmasının faydalı olabileceğini ifade etmişlerdir. Araştırmanın sonuçlarına dayanarak robotik kodlamanın fen bilimleri derslerine entegre edilmesinden öğrencilerin memnuniyet duyacağı ancak öncesinde devre kurma ve kodlama ile ilgili tecrübelerinin artırılması gerektiği söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Fen eğitimi, kodlama, robotik

Kaynakça

• Akman Selçuk, N. (2019). Eğitsel robotik uygulamalarının ortaokul öğrencilerinin ders motivasyonları, robotik tutumları ve başarıları açısından incelenmesi (Yayın Numarası: 557781) [Doktora tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi]. YÖK Tez Merkezi.
• Akşan, S. (2020). mBlock & Scratch: Robotik kodlama (2. Baskı). Unikod yayıncılık, İstanbul.
• Alimisis, D., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Constructionism and robotics in education. Teacher education on robotic-enhanced constructivist pedagogical methods, 11-26.
• Altin, H., & Pedaste, M. (2013). Learning approaches to applying robotics in science education. Journal of baltic science education, 12(3), 365.
• Anwar, S., Bascou, N. A., Menekse, M., & Kardgar, A. (2019). A systematic review of studies on educational robotics. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 9(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1223
• Arslan, S., & Çelik, Y. (2022). Primary school teachers' and students' views about robotic coding course. African Educational Research Journal, 10(2), 178-189. https://doi.org/10.30918/AERJ.102.22.018
• Ayas, A., Karamustafaoğlu, S., Sevim, S., & Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2002). Academicians’ and students’ views of general chemistry laboratory applications. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 23, 50-56.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.4314/majohe.v5i1.3
• Bal, H. (2015). Fen eğitiminde teknoloji kullanımı değerlendirme raporu. Yenilik ve Eğitim Teknolojileri Genel Müdürlüğü. Ankara.
• 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
• Bers, M. U., & Portsmore, M. (2005). Teaching partnerships: Early childhood and engineering students teaching math and science through robotics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 59-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-005-2734-1
• Boya-Lara, C., Saavedra, D., Fehrenbach, A., & Marquez-Araque, A. (2022). Development of a course based on BEAM robots to enhance STEM learning in electrical, electronic, and mechanical domains. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00311-9
• Butuner, R. (2019). Effect of coding and robotic coding training on students. Research Highlights in Education and Science, 24, 30.
• Carvalho, P. S., & Hahn, M. (2016). A simple experimental setup for teaching additive colors with Arduino. The Physics Teacher, 54(4), 244-245. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4944370
• Catlin, D. (2012). Maximizing the effectiveness of educational robots through the use of assessment for learning methodologies. In A Paper Presented at the TRTW Conference, Riva La Garda, Italy.
• Cetin, I., & Toluk Ucar, Z. (2017). Bilgi işlemsel düşünme tanımı ve kapsamı. Y. Gülbahar (Ed.), Bilgi İşlemsel Düşünmeden Programlamaya, (pp.41-74). Pegem Akademi: Ankara.
• Chung, C. C., Cartwright, C., & Cole, M. (2014). Assessing the impact of an autonomous robotics competition for STEM education. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 15(2).
• Costa, M. F., & Fernandes, J. F. (2005). Robots at school. The eurobotice project. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference Hands-on Science: Science in a changing Education (pp. 219-221).
• Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (Second edition). London: Sage.
• Çakır, S. (2019). 4. sınıf fen bilimleri dersi “Mikroskobik Canlılar ve Çevremiz” ünitesinde robotik kodlama uygulamalarının öğrenme ürünlerine etkisi. (Yayın Numarası: 595468) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit Üniversitesi]. YÖK Tez Merkezi.
• Eguchi, A. (2014). Educational robotics for promoting 21st century skills. Journal of Automation, Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems, 5-11.
• Eguchi, A., & Uribe, L. (2017, March). Robotics to promote STEM learning: Educational robotics unit for 4th grade science. In 2017 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC) (pp. 186-194). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISECon.2017.7910240
• Esgil, M. (2019). Kodlama etkinliklerinin öğrencilerin bilgisayara yönelik tutum ve bilişim dersine duyuşsal katılımları üzerine etkisi (Yayın Numarası: 557781) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi]. YÖK Tez Merkezi.
• 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). https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159569
• Ghaleb, N. M., Almalki, H., & Aly, A. (2020). Project-based learning of robotics for engineering education improvement. Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev, 10, 4395-4424.
• Gökçe, H. (2021). Fen bilimleri dersine yönelik arduino temelli robotik kodlama etkinliklerinin gelişitirilmesi ve değerlendirilmesi (Yayın No:701653) [Doktora tezi, Erciyes Üniversitesi], YÖK Tez Merkezi.
• Guven, G., & Kozcu Cakir, N. (2020). Investigation of the opinions of teachers who received in-service training for arduino-assisted robotic coding applications. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 15(1), 253-274.
• Guven, G., Kozcu Cakir, N., Sulun, Y., Cetin, G., & Guven, E. (2022). Arduino-assisted robotics coding applications integrated into the 5E learning model in science teaching. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(1), 108-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1812136
• Hacker, L. (2003). Robotics in education: ROBOLAB and robotic technology as tools for learning science and engineering. Unpublished Senior Thesis, Department of Child Development, Tufts University.
• Harvey, L. (2003). Student feedback. Quality in higher education, 9(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320308164
• Herger, L. M., & Bodarky, M. (2015, March). Engaging students with open source technologies and Arduino. In 2015 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (pp. 27-32). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISECon.2015.7119938
• Hertzog, P. E., & Swart, A. J. (2016, April). Arduino—Enabling engineering students to obtain academic success in a design-based module. In 2016 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 66-73). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2016.7474533
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1109/INES.2017.8118531
• Junior, L. A., Neto, O. T., Hernandez, M. F., Martins, P. S., Roger, L. L., & Guerra, F. A. (2013). A low-cost and simple arduino-based educational robotics kit. Cyber Journals: Multidisciplinary Journals in Science and Technology, Journal of Selected Areas in Robotics and Control (JSRC), December edition, 3(12), 1-7
• Kadarismanr, N., Kuswanto, H., & Purwanto, A. (2022, December). Arduino tinkercad simulator training for applied physics MGMP vocational teachers in the special region of Yogyakarta. In 9th International Conference on Education Research, and Innovation (ICERI 2021) (pp. 358-363). Atlantis Press.
• Kazimoglu, C., Kiernan, M., Bacon, L., & Mackinnon, L. (2012). A serious game for developing computational thinking and learning introductory computer programming. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1991-1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.938
• Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R. B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. N. (2015). Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers' STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers & Education, 91, 14-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.005
• Koç Şenol, A. (2012). Robotik destekli bilim ve teknoloji laboratuvar uygulamaları: ROBOLAB. (Yayın Numarası: 323455) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Erciyes Üniversitesi]. YÖK Tez Merkezi.
• Koç, A., & Büyük, U. (2013). Fen ve teknoloji eğitiminde teknoloji tabanlı öğrenme: Robotik uygulamaları. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 10(1), 139-155.
• 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
• Kucuk, S., & Sisman, B. (2017). Behavioral patterns of elementary students and teachers in one-to-one robotics instruction. Computers & Education, 111, 31-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.002 Kumbhar, H. (2016, August). Wireless sensor network using Xbee on Arduino Platform: An experimental study. In 2016 International Conference on Computing Communication Control and automation (ICCUBEA) (pp. 1-5). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCUBEA.2016.7860081
• Lee, E. (2020). A meta-analysis of the effects of arduino-based education in Korean primary and secondary schools in engineering education. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(4), 1503-1512.
• Lu, C. C., & Ma, S. Y. (2019). Design STEAM course to train STEAM literacy of primary students: Taking "animal mimicry beast" as an example. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 64(3), 85-118.
• 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 Lykke, M., Coto, M., Mora, S., Vandel, N., & Jantzen, C. (2014, April). 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
• McRoberts, M. (2013). Beginning Arduino, 2nd Edition. Apress, New York.
• Melchior, A., Cohen, F., Cutter, T., Leavitt, T., & Manchester, N. H. (2005). More than robots: An evaluation of the first robotics competition participant and institutional impacts. Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University.
• Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., Mahmud, A. A., & Dong, J. J. (2013). A review of the applicability of robots in education. Technology for Education and Learning, 1(1), 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.2316/Journal.209.2013.1.209-0015
• Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils' views of the role and value of the science curriculum: a focus-group study. International journal of science education, 23(5), 441-467. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010006518
• Pajankar, A. (2018). Arduino made simple: With ınteractive projects. BPB Publications.
• Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms--Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
• Pekdag, B. (2005). Information and communications technologies in science education. Journal of Balıkesir University Institute of Science and Technology, 7(2), 86-94.
• Prensky, M. R. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Corwin press.
• Sahin, S.K. (2018). Kodlama serüveni: Scratch ve mBlock ile Arduino [Coding Adventure: Arduino with Scratch and mBlock]. İstanbul: Abaküs Yayınevi.
• Salar, R. (2021). Awareness and self-efficacy of pre-service science teachers about STEM education: A qualitative study. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 20(2).
• Sapounidis, T., & Alimisis, D. (2020). Educational robotics for STEM: A review of technologies and some educational considerations. In Science and mathematics education for 21st century citizens: Challenges and ways forward (No. September, 2020, pp. 167-190). Hauppauge, NY, USA: Nova Science Publishers.
• Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple Case Study Analysis THE GUILFORD PRESS New York London.
• Şimşek, F. (2019). FeTeMM etkinliklerinin öğrencilerin fen tutum, ilgi, bilimsel süreç becerileri üzerine etkisi ve öğrenci görüşleri. Türk Bilgisayar ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 10(3), 654-679.
• Şimşek, H., & Yıldırım, A. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık, 432, 113-118.
• Şimşek, K. (2019). Fen bilimleri dersi madde ve ısı ünitesinde robotik kodlama uygulamalarının 6. sınıf öğrencilerinin akademik başarı ve bilimsel süreç becerileri üzerine etkisinin incelenmesi (Yayın Numarası: 608796) [Doktora tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi]. YÖK Tez Merkezi.
• Şişman, B. (2016). İlk ve orta öğretimde öğretimsel amaçlı teknoloji kullanımı. Eğitim teknolojileri okumaları, 299-314.
• Tas, Ş. (2011). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin kaynaştırma eğitiminde eğitim teknolojileri kullanım durumları. (Yayın Numarası: 291192) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Ege Üniversitesi]. YÖK Tez Merkezi.
• Uyanık, G. (2017). İlkokul öğrencilerinin fen bilimleri dersine yönelik tutumları ile akademik başarıları arasındaki ilişki. TÜBAV Bilim Dergisi, 10(1), 86-93.
• Wang, C. (2020, June). Do Open-ended Design Projects Motivate First-year Engineering Students?. In 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--34473
• Yalcin, S. A., Kahraman, S., & Yilmaz, Z. A. (2020). Development and validation of robotic coding attitude scale. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 8(4), 342-352.
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin yayıncılık.
• Zhang, J., & Liu, J. (2018, October). Construction of scaffolding ınstruction 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
• Zhong, B., & Li, T. (2020). Can pair learning improve students’ troubleshooting performance in robotics education?. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(1), 220-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119829191