Robotics Coding Training and Scientific Reasoning: Views of Academicians and Pre-Service Teachers

Abstract

This study investigates the opinions of academics and pre-service teachers in Primary School Education and Science Education who received robotics coding training regarding their scientific reasoning and problem-solving skills. It explores how different types of reasoning—inductive, deductive, and abductive—are used in robotics coding applications and identifies related technological challenges. Adopting a qualitative case study design, data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 5 academics and 13 pre-service teachers and analyzed via content analysis. Findings indicate that robotics coding training enhances analytical thinking, problem-solving, creativity, and digital literacy while improving scientific process skills such as observation, hypothesis formulation, and drawing conclusions. Participants also reported difficulties such as sensor errors and hardware incompatibilities but emphasized that these experiences strengthened their analytical and solution-oriented thinking. Overall, robotics coding training contributes substantially to the professional development of educators by integrating scientific reasoning with hands-on technological practice.

Keywords

• Robotic coding
• scientific reasoning
• problem solving
• STEM education
• teacher training.

References

1. Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 63–71.
2. 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, 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.008
3. 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
4. Bers, M. U., Seddighin, S., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Ready for robotics: Bringing together the T and E of STEM in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 21, 355–377.
5. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Nitel araştırmada geçerliliği belirleme. Teoriden Pratiğe, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
6. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
7. Eguchi, A. (2014). Educational robotics for promoting 21st century skills. Journal of Automation, Mobile Robotics & Intelligent Systems, 8(1), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.14313/JAMRIS_1-2014/1
8. Greca, I. M., García-Terceño, E. M., Fridberg, M., Cronquist, B., & Redfors, A. (2020). Robotics and early-years STEM education: The bot STEM framework and activities. European Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/7948

9. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Kuram ve gerçeklik: Bilim felsefesine giriş. Babil Kitapevi Yayınevi
10. Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Angeli, C. (2017). Effect of robotics on elementary preservice teachers' self-efficacy, science learning, and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9663-z
11. Kandlhofer, M., & Steinbauer, G. (2016). Evaluating the impact of educational robotics on pupils' technical-and social-skills and science related attitudes. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 679–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.09.007
12. Khanlari, A., & Kiaie, F. M. (2018). Using robotics for STEM education in primary/elementary schools: Teachers' perceptions. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCSE.2015.7250208
13. Kopcha, T. J., McGregor, J., Shin, S., Qian, Y., Choi, J., Hill, R., Mativo, J., & Choi, I. (2017). Developing an integrative STEM curriculum for robotics education through educational design research. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 1(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-017-0005-1
14. 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
15. Schen, M. S. (2007). Scientific reasoning skills development in the introductory biology courses for undergraduates (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University). OhioLINK Electronic Theses & Dissertations Center.
16. Schurz, G. Patterns of abduction. Synthese 164, 201–234 (2008).https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9223-4 Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
17. Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2019). Investigating the use of robotics to increase girls' interest in engineering during early elementary school. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(5), 1033–1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9483-y
18. Tunalı, Ö., & Aktürkoğlu, B. (2022). Sosyal bilimler eğitiminin bilimsel aklın varlığının önemi üzerine: Düşünme deneyleri. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15(40),133-165.
19. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
20. Zimmerman, C. (2005). The development of scientific reasoning: What psychologists contribute to an understanding of elementary science learning. Paper commissioned by the National Academies of Science (National Research Council’s Board of Science Education, Consensus Study on Learning Science, Kindergarten through Eighth