The Effect of Design Thinking Based Robotic Activities on Planning Skill

Öz

This study examined the effect of robotic activities based on design thinking on the planning skills of primary school students and student experiences regarding the process. The research was carried out with 28 primary school 4th-grade students. The quantitative dimension of the research, which was modeled in the explanatory sequential mixed design, was carried out in the pre-test post-test single-group quasi-experimental model, and the qualitative dimension was carried out in the phenomenological design. Students' planning skills were measured using the four-disc version of the Tower of London Test. The students' experiences on robotic activities based on design thinking were determined by the semi-structured interview form developed within the scope of the research. An approach ranging from technology to pedagogy was tested in experimental conditions to be a model for integrating robotic activities based on design thinking into educational processes. In the analysis of quantitative data, one-way ANOVA was preferred for repeated measurements, and deductive content analysis was preferred in qualitative data analysis. The research results show that robotic activities based on design-oriented thinking significantly increase planning time, the number of problems solved within three trials, and planning skills. There was no significant effect on the number of problems solved in the first trial. No significant difference was found regarding the gender variable in all measurements related to planning skills. Qualitative findings revealed that students' perceptions of robotic activities changed, their awareness of robotics increased due to coding, they found the mechanical dimension challenging, and the overall process more fun than they thought.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Design
• robotics
• executive functions
• planning
• primary school

Tasarım Odaklı Düşünmeye Dayalı Robotik Etkinliklerin Planlama Becerisine Etkisi

Öz

Bu araştırmada tasarım odaklı düşünmeye dayalı robotik etkinliklerin ilkokul öğrencilerinin planlama becerilerine olan etkisi ve sürece ilişkin öğrenci deneyimleri incelenmiştir. Araştırma 28 ilkokul 4. Sınıf öğrencisinin katılımıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Açıklayıcı ardışık karma desende modellenen araştırmanın nicel boyutu ön test son test tek gruplu yarı deneysel modelde, nitel boyutu ise fenomoneolojik desende yürütülmüştür. Öğrencilerin planlama becerileri Londra Kulesi Testi 4 diskli dijital versiyonu kullanılarak ölçülmüştür. Öğrencilerin tasarım odaklı düşünmeye dayalı robotik etkinliklere ilişkin deneyimleri ise araştırma kapsamında geliştirilen yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu ile tespit edilmiştir. Tasarım odaklı düşünmeye dayalı robotik etkinliklerin eğitsel süreçlere entegre edilmesine model olması amacıyla teknolojiden pedagojiye uzanan bir yaklaşım deneysel koşullarda test edilmiştir. Nicel verilerin analizinde tekrarlı ölçümler için tek yönlü ANOVA, nitel verilerin analizinde ise tümden gelimsel içerik analizi tercih edilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları tasarım odaklı düşünmeye dayalı robotik etkinliklerin öğrencilerin planlamaya ayırdıkları zaman, planlama becerisi ve üç deneme içinde çözülen problem sayılarını anlamlı bir şekilde artırdığını göstermektedir. İlk denemede çözülen problem sayısında anlamlı bir etki tespit edilmemiştir. Planlama becerisine ilişkin tüm ölçümlerde cinsiyet değişkenine ilişkin anlamlı bir fark tespit edilmemiştir. Nitel bulgular öğrencilerin robotik etkinliklere ilişkin algılarının değişim gösterdiği, kodlamaya bağlı olarak robotik farkındalıklarının arttığı, mekanik boyutunu zorlayıcı, sürecin genelini ise sandıklarından daha eğlenceli buldukları tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tasarım, robotik, yönetsel fonksiyonlar, planlama, ilkokul
• tasarım
• yönetsel fonksiyon

Kaynakça

1. Kaynakça Alashwal, M. (2020). Design thinking in STEM education: A review. International Research in Higher Education, 5(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.5430/irhe.v5n1p18
2. Alimisis, D. (2012). Robotics in education and education in robotics: shifting focus from technology to pedagogy. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Robotics in Education, 9.
3. Amo, D., Fox, P., Fonseca, D., ve Poyatos, C. (2021). Systematic review on which analytics and learning methodologies are applied in primary and secondary education in the learning of robotics sensors. Sensors, 21(1), 153. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21010153
4. Angeli, C., ve Valanides, N. (2020). Developing young children’s computational thinking with educational robotics: An interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 105954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.018
5. Anwar, S., Bascou, N., Menekse, M., ve Kardgar, A. (2019). A systematic review of studies on educational robotics. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 9(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1223
6. Araújo, G. L. L. de, ve Azoni, C. A. S. (2020). Performance of executive functions in adolescents: Study of intervention with educational robotics. Revista Psicopedagogia, 37(112), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.5935/0103-8486.20200006
7. Ardito, G., Czerkawski, B., ve Scollins, L. (2020). Learning computational thinking together: effects of gender differences in collaborative middle school robotics program. TechTrends, 64(3), 373-387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00461-8
8. Arfé, B., Vardanega, T., ve Ronconi, L. (2020). The effects of coding on children’s planning and inhibition skills. Computers ve Education, 148, 103807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103807

9. Atmatzidou, S., ve Demetriadis, S. (2014). How to support students’ computational thinking skills in educational robotics activities. proceedings of 4th international workshop teaching robotics, Teaching with Robotics & 5th International Conference Robotics in Education içinde (43-50,ss.). Padova:İtalya
10. Bargagna, S., Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Cioni, G., Dario, P., Dell’Omo, M., Di Lieto, M. C., Inguaggiato, E., Martinelli, A., Pecini, C., ve Sgandurra, G. (2019). Educational robotics in down syndrome: a feasibility study. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(2), 315-323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9366-z
11. Best, J. R., ve Miller, P. H. (2010). A developmental perspective on executive function. Child development, 81(6), 1641-1660. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01499.x
12. Brainin, E., Shamir, A., ve Eden, S. (2021). Robot programming intervention for promoting spatial relations, mental rotation and visual memory of kindergarten children. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 0(0), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1858464
13. Brown, K. D., ve Schmitter-Edgecombe, M. (2020). Effects of initial planning on task execution performance of older adults: a naturalistic assessment paradigm. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 42(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2019.1680610
14. Budak, E. Ç., Geçer, A. K., ve Topal, A. D. (2021). The Effect of programming with scratch course on reflective thinking skills of students towards problem solving. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 6(1), 72-80. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/joltida/854205
15. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çoklu, Ö., ve Köklü, N. (2010). Sosyal Bilimler İçin İstatistik. (2. Baskı). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık
16. Carroll, M., Goldman, S., Britos, L., Koh, J., Royalty, A., ve Hornstein, M. (2010). Destination, ımagination and the fires within: design thinking in a middle school classroom. International Journal of Art ve Design Education, 29(1), 37-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2010.01632.x
17. Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Valente, M., Buselli, E., Salvini, P., ve Dario, P. (2018). Can educational robotics introduce young children to robotics and how can we measure it? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(6), 970-977. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12304
18. Chevalier, M., Giang, C., Piatti, A., ve Mondada, F. (2020). Fostering computational thinking through educational robotics: A model for creative computational problem solving. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00238-z
19. Chiazzese, G., Arrigo, M., Chifari, A., Lonati, V., ve Tosto, C. (2019). Educational robotics in primary school: measuring the development of computational thinking skills with the Bebras tasks. Informatics, 6(4), 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics6040043
20. Cohen, G., ve Conway, M. A. (2007). Memory in the Real World. Psychology Press.
21. Creswell, J. W., ve Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (2. bs). SAGE Publications.
22. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., ve Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. İçinde A. Tashakkori ve C. Tedlie (Ed.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social ve Behavioral Research. SAGE Publications.
23. Crisci, G., Caviola, S., Cardillo, R., ve Mammarella, I. C. (2021). Executive functions in neurodevelopmental disorders: comorbidity overlaps between attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder and specific learning disorders. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.594234
24. Çalışkan, E. (2020). The effects of robotics programming on secondary school students on problem-solving skills. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 12(4), 217-230. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v12i4.5143
25. D’Amico, A., ve Guastella, D. (2019). The Robotic Construction kit as a tool for cognitive stimulation in children and adolescents: The RE4BES protocol. Robotics, 8(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics8010008
26. Das, J. P., ve Misra, S. B. (2014). Cognitive Planning and Executive Functions: Applications in Management and Education. SAGE Publications India.
27. Davies, S. P. (2003). Initial and concurrent planning in solutions to well-structured problems. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 56(7), 1147-1164. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980245000061
28. Di Lieto, M. C., Castro, E., Pecini, C., Inguaggiato, E., Cecchi, F., Dario, P., Cioni, G., ve Sgandurra, G. (2020). Improving executive functions at school in children with special needs by educational robotics. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02813
29. Di Lieto, M. C., Inguaggiato, E., Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Cioni, G., Dell’Omo, M., Laschi, C., Pecini, C., Santerini, G., Sgandurra, G., ve Dario, P. (2017). Educational robotics intervention on executive functions in preschool children: A pilot study. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 16-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.018
30. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 135-168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
31. Dinçer, B., ve Cantürk Günhan, B. (2020). The Effects of educational robotics applications on linear equations about algebraic reasoning. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT). https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.600379
32. Doorley, S., Holcomb, S., Klebahn, P., Segovia, K., ve Utley, J. (2018). Design Thinking Bootcamp Bootleg. Hasso Plattner Institute of Design. https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/design-thinking-bootleg
33. Durak, H. Y., Yılmaz, F. G. K., ve Yılmaz, R. (2018). Robot tasarımı etkinliklerinin programlama öğretiminde kullanılmasıyla ilgili ortaokul öğrencilerinin görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Ege Eğitim Teknolojileri Dergisi. 2(2)
34. Encarnação, P., Alvarez, L., Rios, A., Maya, C., Adams, K., ve Cook, A. (2014). Using virtual robot-mediated play activities to assess cognitive skills. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 9(3), 231-241. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2013.782577
35. Friedman, S. L., Scholnick, E. K., Bender, R. H., Vandergrift, N., Spieker, S., Hirsh Pasek, K., Keating, D. P., Park, Y., ve NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2014). Planning in middle childhood: Early predictors and later outcomes. Child Development, 85(4), 1446-1460. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12221
36. Gomoll, A., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Šabanović, S., ve Francisco, M. (2016). Dragons, Ladybugs, and Softballs: Girls’ STEM engagement with human-centered robotics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 899-914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9647-z
37. Gorakhnath, I., ve Padmanabhan, J. (2020). Educational robotics through lego for enhancing critical thinking skill in science. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(19), 1303-1312. http://www.jcreview.com/?mno=104589
38. Gratani, F., Giannandrea, L., Renieri, A., ve Annessi, M. (2021). Fostering Students’ Problem-Solving Skills Through Educational Robotics in Primary School. Içinde M. Malvezzi, D. Alimisis, ve M. Moro (Ed.), Education in ve with Robotics to Foster 21st-Century Skills (ss. 3-14). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77022-8_1
39. Güven Demir, E., ve Öksüz, Y. (2021). Investigation of planning skills in children and adults with the computerized 4-disc version of the tower of London test. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 29(3), 705-719. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.790903
40. Hayes-Roth, B., ve Hayes-Roth, F. (1979). A cognitive model of planning. Cognitive Science, 3(4), 275-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(79)80010-5
41. Holm, M. E., Aunio, P., Björn, P. M., Klenberg, L., Korhonen, J., ve Hannula, M. S. (2018). Behavioral executive functions among adolescents with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(6), 578-588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219417720684
42. Jung, S. E., ve Won, E. (2018). Systematic review of research trends in robotics education for young children. Sustainability, 10(4), 905. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040905
43. Juric, L. C., Richards, M. M., Introzzi, I., Andrés, M. L., ve Urquijo, S. (2013). Development patterns of executive functions in children. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 16. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2013.44
44. Kalelioğlu, F. (2015). A new way of teaching programming skills to K-12 students. Computers in Human Behavior, 52(C), 200-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.047
45. Kay, J. S. (2003). Teaching Robotics from a Computer Science Perspective. 19th Annual Consortium for Computing Sciences in Colleges: Eastern.
46. Kazakoff, E. R., Sullivan, A., ve Bers, M. U. (2013). The effect of a classroom-based intensive robotics and programming workshop on sequencing ability in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(4), 245-255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-012-0554-5
47. Khanlari, A. (2013). Effects of robotics on 21st century skills. European Scientific Journal, 9(27), 11.
48. Kijima, R., Yang-Yoshihara, M., ve Maekawa, M. S. (2021). Using design thinking to cultivate the next generation of female STEAM thinkers. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00271-6
49. Knapp, K., ve Morton, J. B. (2017). Executive Functioning: A Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective. Içinde Executive Functions in Children’s Everyday Lives. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199980864.003.0002
50. Köstering, L., Stahl, C., Leonhart, R., Weiller, C., ve Kaller, C. P. (2014). Development of planning abilities in normal aging: Differential effects of specific cognitive demands. Developmental Psychology, 50(1), 293-303. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032467
51. Küçük, S., ve Şişman, B. (2020). Students’ attitudes towards robotics and STEM: Differences based on gender and robotics experience. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 23-24, 100167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2020.100167
52. La Paglia, F., Francomano, M. M., Riva, G., ve La Barbera, D. (2018). Educational Robotics to develop executive functions visual spatial abilities, planning and problem solving. Annual Review of CyberTherapy and Telemedicine, 16, 80-86. https://publires.unicatt.it/en/publications/educational-robotics-to-develop-executive-functions-visual-spatia-3
53. Lathifah, A., Budiyanto, C. W., ve Yuana, R. A. (2019). The contribution of robotics education in primary schools: Teaching and learning. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2194(1), 020053. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5139785
54. Lezak, M. D., Howieson, D. B., Loring, D. W., Fischer, J. S., ve Hannay, J. H. (2004). Neuropsychological Assessment. Oxford University Press.
55. Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., ve Duschl, R. A. (2019). Design and design thinking in STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2(2), 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00020-z
56. Margot, K. C., ve Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2
57. Marzocchi, G. M., Usai, M. C., ve Howard, S. J. (2020). Editorial: Training and enhancing executive function. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02031
58. Mayerová, K., Kubincová, Z., ve Veselovská, M. (2019). Creating Activities for After School Robotic Workshop with Ozobot Evo. 18th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITHET46829.2019.8937366
59. Meltzer, L. (2014). Teaching Executive Functioning Processes: Promoting Metacognition, Strategy Use, and Effort. Içinde S. Goldstein ve J. A. Naglieri (Ed.), Handbook of Executive Functioning (s. 445). Guilford Publications.
60. Menekse, M., Higashi, R., Schunn, C. D., ve Baehr, E. (2017). The Role of robotics teams’ collaboration quality on team performance in a robotics tournament: robotics teams’ collaborative behaviors and team performance. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(4), 564-584. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20178
61. Noh, J., ve Lee, J. (2020). Effects of robotics programming on the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 463-484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09708-w
62. Nourbakhsh, I. R., Hamner, E., Crowley, K., ve Wilkinson, K. (2004). Formal measures of learning in a secondary school mobile robotics course. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2004. Proceedings. ICRA ’04. 2004, 2, 1831-1836 Vol.2. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2004.1308090
63. Otterman, D. L., Koopman-Verhoeff, M. E., White, T. J., Tiemeier, H., Bolhuis, K., ve Jansen, P. W. (2019). Executive functioning and neurodevelopmental disorders in early childhood: A prospective population-based study. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 13, 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-019-0299-7
64. Öztürk, M. (2020). Öz-düzenleme ile orantısal akıl yürütme arasındaki ilişki: problem çözmeye yönelik yansıtıcı düşünmenin aracılık rolü. Eğitim ve Bilim, 45(204). https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.8480
65. Passler, M. A., Isaac, W., ve Hynd, G. W. (1985). Neuropsychological development of behavior attributed to frontal lobe functioning in children: 1, No 4. Developmental Neuropsychology, 1(4), 349-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565648509540320
66. Peretti, G., Villani, D., Marangi, M., Pellizzari, F., Bruno, S. D., Guida, I., Marchetti, A., Riva, G., Rivoltella, P. C., ve Massaro, D. (2020). Coding with me: Exploring the effect of coding intervention on preschoolers’ cognitive skills. Annual Review of Cybertherapy and Telemedicine, 153.
67. Phillips, L. H., Wynn, V. E., McPherson, S., ve Gilhooly, K. J. (2001). Mental planning and the Tower of London task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 54(2), 579-597. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755977
68. Razzouk, R., ve Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330-348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429
69. Robertson, J., Gray, S., Toye, M., ve Booth, J. (2020). The relationship between executive functions and computational thinking. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 3(4), 35-49. https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v3i4.76
70. Scaradozzi, D., Sorbi, L., Pedale, A., Valzano, M., ve Vergine, C. (2015). Teaching robotics at the primary school: an innovative approach. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 3838-3846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1122
71. Shallice, T. (1982). Specific impairments of planning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 298(1089), 199-209. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2395870
72. Shallice, T., ve Burgess, P. W. (1991). Deficits in strategy application following frontal lobe damage in man. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 114 ( Pt 2), 727-741. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/114.2.727
73. Shute, V. J., Sun, C., ve Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j_edurev.2017.09.003
74. Socratous, C., ve Ioannou, A. (2019). Using Educational Robotics as Tools for Metacognition: An Empirical Study in Elementary STEM Education. Immersive Learning Research Network Conference. https://doi.org/10.3217/978-3-85125-657-4-11
75. Sullivan, A., ve Bers, M. U. (2013). Gender differences in kindergarteners’ robotics and programming achievement. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 691-702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9210-z
76. Sullivan, A., ve Bers, M. U. (2016). Girls, boys, and bots: gender differences in young children’s performance on robotics and programming tasks. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 15, 145-165. https://doi.org/10.28945/3547
77. Tatlısu, M. (2020). Eğitsel robotik uygulamalarda probleme dayalı öğrenmenin ilkokul öğrencilerinin problem çözme becerilerine etkisi [Yüksek Lisans, Uludağ Üniversitesi]. http://acikerisim.uludag.edu.tr/jspui/handle/11452/15201
78. Taylor, K., ve Baek, Y. (2019). Grouping matters in computational robotic activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 99-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.010
79. Tekindal, M., ve Uğuz Arsu, Ş. (2020). Nitel araştırma yöntemi olarak fenomenolojik yaklaşımın kapsamı ve sürecine yönelik bir derleme. Ufkun Ötesi Bilim Dergisi, 20 (1), 153-182.
80. Toll, S. W. M., Van der Ven, S. H. G., Kroesbergen, E. H., ve Van Luit, J. E. H. (2011). Executive functions as predictors of math learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(6), 521-532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410387302
81. Tonbuloglu, B., ve Tonbuloglu, I. (2019). The effect of unplugged coding activities on computational thinking skills of middle school students. Informatics in Education, 18(2), 403-426. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=truevedb=ericveAN=EJ1233542velang=trvesite=eds-liveveauthtype=uid,cookie,IP
82. Tunstall, J. (1999). Improving the utility of the tower of london, a neuropsychological test of planning [Yüksek lisans, Griffith Üniversitesi]. https://doi.org/10.25904/1912/866
83. Van Gompel, K. (2019). Cultivating 21st century skills: An exploratory case study of design thinking as a pedagogical strategy for elementary classrooms [Doktora, Pepperdine Üniversitesi]. 22582555. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/cultivating-21st-century-skills-exploratory-case/docview/2275957805/se-2?accountid=35366
84. Voigt, C., Unterfrauner, E., Aslan, T., ve Hofer, M. (2019). Design thinking with children: the role of empathy, creativity and self-efficacy. Proceedings of FabLearn 2019, 144-147. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311890.3311912
85. Will, E., Fidler, D., ve Daunhauer, L. (2014). Executive function and planning in early development in down syndrome. International Review of Research in Developmental Disabilities, 47. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800278-0.00003-8
86. Witherspoon, E. B., Schunn, C. D., Higashi, R. M., ve Baehr, E. C. (2016). Gender, interest, and prior experience shape opportunities to learn programming in robotics competitions. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0052-1
87. Zelazo, P., Carter, A., Reznick, J., ve Frye, D. (1997). Early development of executive function: a problem-solving framework. Review of General Psychology, 1, 198-226. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.1.2.198