Eğitsel Robotik Uygulamalarının Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Başarı Odaklı Motivasyonları Üzerine Etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı iş birlikli öğrenme ve girişimcilikle entegre edilen eğitsel robotik uygulamalarının ortaokul öğrencilerinin başarı odaklı motivasyonları üzerine etkisini belirlemektir. Araştırmada açıklayıcı sıralı karma yöntem tasarımı kullanılmıştır. Araştırmaya bir ortaokula kayıtlı 40 altıncı sınıf öğrencisi dâhil edilmiştir. Nicel aşamada tek grup öntest- sontest deseni seçilmiştir ve nitel görüşleri derinlemesine incelemek için yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Öğrencilere sekiz hafta süre ile eğitsel robotik eğitimi verilmiştir. Bu eğitimin öncesinde ve sonrasında öğrencilere “Başarı Odaklı Motivasyon Ölçeği” uygulatılmıştır. Ölçekten elde edilen veriler “Bağımlı örneklem t-testi” ile analiz edilmiştir. Bu araştırmanın sonucunda öğrencilerin başarı odaklı motivasyonlarının istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde arttığı bulunmuştur. Öğrencilerle yapılan görüşmeler sonucunda ise öğrencilerin başarmaya karşı motivasyonlarının arttığı, başarabileceklerine dair inanç ve heveslerinin zamanla geliştiği tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Başarı
• Eğitsel robotik
• Motivasyon
• Ortaokul öğrencileri

The Effect of Educational Robotics Applications on Middle School Students’ Achievement-Oriented Motivation

Öz

This study aimed to determine the effect of educational robotics applications, integrated with collaborative learning and entrepreneurship, on middle school students’ achievement-oriented motivation. An explanatory-sequential mixed-methods design was employed in the research. The study sample included 40 sixth-grade students enrolled in a public middle school. The study opted for a single-group pretest-posttest design for the quantitative stage, while the semi-structured interviews were conducted to delve into qualitative insights. During the eight-week intervention, students received educational robotics training. The students were administered the “Achievement-Oriented Motivation Scale” before and after the training. The data obtained from the scales were analyzed using paired samples t-test. As a result of this analysis, it was found that the student’s achievement-oriented motivation increased significantly at a statistical level following the intervention. It was also observed that students gradually developed belief and enthusiasm toward overcoming challenges as a result of the applications.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Achievement
• Educational robotics
• Middle school students
• Motivation

Kaynakça

1. Adams, J., Kaczmarczyk, S., Picton, P., & Demian, P. (2010). Problem solving and creativity in engineering: conclusions of a three year project involving reusable learning objects and robots. Engineering Education, 5(2), 4-17. https://doi.org/10.11120/ened.2010.05020004
2. Almajed, A., Skinner, V., Peterson, R., & Winning, T. (2016). Collaborative learning: Students’ perspectives on how learning happens. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 10(2), 9 https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1601
3. Altin, H., & Pedaste, M. (2013). Learning approaches to applying robotics in science education. Journal of Baltic science education, 12(3), 365.http://dx.doi.org/10.33225/jbse/13.12.365
4. Antonaci, A., Dagnino, F. M., Ott, M., Bellotti, F., Berta, R., De Gloria, A., ... & Mayer, I. (2015). A gamified collaborative course in entrepreneurship: Focus on objectives and tools. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 1276-1283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.082
5. Anwar, S., Bascou, N. A., Menekse, M., & Kardgar, A. (2019). A systematic review of studies on educational robotics. J. Pre-College Eng. Educ. Res. (J-PEER), 9, 19–42. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1223
6. Arís, N., & Orcos, L. (2019). Educational robotics in the stage of secondary education: Empirical study on motivation and STEM skills. Education Sciences, 9(2), 73. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci9020073
7. Autio, O., Hietanoro, J., and Ruismäki, H. (2011). Taking part in technology education: Elements in students’ motivation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(3), 349-361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9124-6
8. Barak, M., & Goffer, N. (2002). Fostering systematic innovative thinking and problem solving: Lessons education can learn from industry. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12(3), 227-247. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020259623483

9. Batdı, V., & Talan, T. (2019). Augmented reality applications: A Meta-analysis and thematic analysis. Turkish Journal of Education, 8(4), 276-297. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.581424
10. Batson, L., & Feinberg, S. (2006). Game designs that enhance motivation and learning for teenagers. Electronic Journal for the integration of Technology in Education, 5(1), 34-43.
11. Boldureanu, G., Ionescu, A. M., Bercu, A. M., Bedrule-Grigoruță, M. V., & Boldureanu, D. (2020). Entrepreneurship education through successful entrepreneurial models in higher education institutions. Sustainability, 12(3), 1267. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031267
12. Bowen, P. W., Rose, R., & Pilkington, A. (2017). Mixed methods-theory and practice. Sequential, explanatory approach. International Journal of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods, 5(2), 10.
13. Braun, S. S., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Roeser, R. W. (2020). Effects of teachers' emotion regulation, burnout, and life satisfaction on student well-being. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 69, 101151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2020.101151
14. Cejka, E., Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2006). Kindergarten robotics: Using robotics to motivate math, science, and engineering literacy in elementary school. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(4), 711.
15. Chin, K. Y., Hong, Z. W., & Chen, Y. L. (2014). Impact of using an educational robot-based learning system on students’ motivation in elementary education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7(4), 333–345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2014.2346756
16. Chuang, Y. T. (2014). Increasing learning motivation and student engagement through the technology-supported learning environment. Creative Education, 5(23), 1969. http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=52028&#abstract
17. Costin, Y., O’Brien, M. P., & Hynes, B. (2022). Entrepreneurial education: Maker or breaker in developing students’ entrepreneurial confidence, aptitude and self-efficacy?. Industry and Higher Education, 36(3), 267-278. https://doi.org/10.1177/09504222211040662
18. Costin, Y., O'Brien, M. P., & Slattery, D. M. (2018). Using Simulation to Develop Entrepreneurial Skills and Mind-Set: An Exploratory Case Study. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 30(1), 136-145. http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/
19. Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook on mixed methods in the behavioral and social sciences (pp. 209–240). Sage.
20. Çam, E., & Kıyıcı, M. (2022). The impact of robotics assisted programming education on academic success, problem solving skills and motivation. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 5(1), 47-65. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1028825
21. Çetin, M., & Demircan, H. Ö. (2020). Empowering technology and engineering for STEM education through programming robots: A systematic literature review. Early Child Development and Care, 190(9), 1323–1335. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1534844
22. Daher, W. (2022). Students’ motivation to learn mathematics in the robotics environment. Computers in the Schools, 39(3), 230-251. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2022.2071227
23. Davies, R. S., & West, R. E. (2014). Technology integration in schools. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 841–853). Springer.
24. Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 325-346. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653137
25. Demetroulis, E. A., Theodoropoulos, A., Wallace, M., Poulopoulos, V., & Antoniou, A. (2023). Collaboration Skills in Educational Robotics: A Methodological Approach—Results from Two Case Studies in Primary Schools. Education Sciences, 13(5), 468. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13050468
26. Deveci, İ. (2019). Girişimci proje (G-FeTeMM) sürecinin fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının yaşam becerilerine yansımaları: Nitel bir araştırma [Reflections with regard to Entrepreneurial Project (E-STEM) Process on the Life Skills of Prospective Science Teachers: A Qualitative Study]. Journal of Individual Differences in Education, 1 (1), 14-29. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jide/issue/45463/570020
27. Eguchi, A., & Uribe, L. (2017). Robotics to promote STEM learning: Educational robotics unit for 4th grade science. In IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC 2017) (pp. 186–194). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISECon.2017.7910240
28. Ergin, A., & Karataş, H. (2018). Achievement-oriented motivation levels of university students. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33(4), 868-887. http://dx.doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2018036646
29. Eteokleous, N., Nisiforou, E., Christodoulou, C., Liu, L., & Gibson, D. (2018). Fostering children's creative thinking: A pioneer educational robotics curriculum. In L. Liu & D. C. Gibson (Eds.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education (pp. 89–98). Waynesville, NC.
30. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied statistics, 5(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
31. Filgona, J., Sakiyo, J., Gwany, D. M., & Okoronka, A. U. (2020). Motivation in learning. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 10(4), 16-37. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2020/v10i430273
32. Fitriani, A., Zubaidah, S., Susilo, H., & Al Muhdhar, M. H. I. (2020). The efects of integrated problem-based learning, predict, observe, explain on problem-solving skills and self-efcacy. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 85, 45–64 http://www.ejer.com.tr/
33. Georgina, D. A., & Olson, M. R. (2008). Integration of technology in higher education: A review of faculty self-perceptions. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(1), 1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.11.002
34. Gubenko, A., Kirsch, C., Smilek, J. N., Lubart, T., & Houssemand, C. (2021). Educational Robotics and Robot Creativity: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8, 178. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.662030
35. Gupta, P. K., & Mili, R. (2017). Impact of academic motivation on academic achievement: A study on high schools students. European Journal of Education Studies. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.321414
36. Hsieh, H. F., ve Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
37. Hwang, I. H., Chang, C. C., Wang, H. L., Tsai, S. J., & Chen, T. Y. (2011). Mediating effects of computer self-efficacy between learning motivation and learning achievement. In Y. Wang (Ed.), Education management, education theory and education application (Vol. 109, pp. 85–92). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24772-9_10
38. Ioannou, A., & Makridou, E. (2018). Exploring the potentials of educational robotics in the development of computational thinking: A summary of current research and practical proposal for future work. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2531–2544.
39. Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260
40. Johansen, V., & Schanke, T. (2013). Entrepreneurship education in secondary education and training. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 57(4), 357-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2012.656280
41. 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
42. Karahoca, D., Karahoca, A., & Uzunboylu, H. (2011). Robotics teaching in primary school education by project based learning for supporting science and technology courses. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 1425-1431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2011.01.025
43. Kirch, J., Eisenbart, B., & Wiesner, H. (2019). Computer supported collaborative work–Teaching transformative technology and participation. In INTED2019 Proceedings (pp. 6611–6619). IATED.
44. Lepuschitz, W., Koppensteiner, G., Leeb-Bracher, U., Hollnsteiner, K., & Merdan, M. (2018). Educational practices for improvement of entrepreneurial skills at secondary school level. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), 8(2), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v8i2.8141
45. Li, L., & Wu, D. (2019). Entrepreneurial education and students' entrepreneurial intention: does team cooperation matter? Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 9(1), 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40497-019-0157-3
46. Marsden, E., & Torgerson, C. J. (2012). Single group, pre-and post-test research designs: Some methodological concerns. Oxford Review of Education, 38(5), 583-616. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41702779
47. Martins, V., Resende, A., Mateus, V., & Costa, M. (2016). Robotics and Entrepreneurship for a Better Society. Opening Doors to Mobility. Hands-on. The Heart of Science Education, 82–90.
48. Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical background and procedures. In Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education (pp. 365–380). Springer.
49. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (MyEducationLab series). Pearson.
50. Meral, M., & Altun Yalçın, S. (2022). The investigation of middle school students’ entrepreneurial skills in terms of Entrepreneurship-Based STEM Education: A mixed method study. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen Ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 16(2), 326-353. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1133770
51. Meyer, O. A., Omdahl, M. K., & Makransky, G. (2019). Investigating the effect of pre-training when learning through immersive virtual reality and video: A media and methods experiment. Computers & Education, 140, 103603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103603
52. Mikropoulos, T. A., & Bellou, I. (2013). Educational robotics as mindtools. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 5-14.
53. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2015). Nitel veri analizi [Qualitative data analysis] (S. Akbaba-Altun & A. Ersoy, Trans.). Pegem Yayıncılık.
54. Özcan, E. (2019). Effects of problem based learning on prospective science teachers’ problem solving skills, academic achievements and attitudes (Doctoral thesis). Dokuz Eylül University. Retrieved from YÖK National Thesis Center.
55. Papadakis, S., & Kalogiannakis, M. (Eds.). (2022). STEM, robotics, mobile apps in early childhood and primary education: Technology to promote teaching and learning. Springer Nature.
56. Patiño-Escarcina, R. E., Barrios-Aranibar, D., Bernedo-Flores, L. S., Alsina, P. J., & Gonçalves, L. M. (2021). A methodological approach to the learning of robotics with edurosc-kids. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 102(2), 34. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10846-021-01400-7
57. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice.
58. Sage.Piedade, J., Dorotea, N., Pedro, A., & Matos, J. F. (2020). On teaching programming fundamentals and computational thinking with educational robotics: A didactic experience with pre-service teachers. Education Sciences, 10(9), 214. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090214
59. Polat, D., & Başarmak, U. (2023). Robotik kodlama eğitimi alan öğretmen adaylarının girişimcilik özellikleri [Entrepreneurial characteristics of pre-service teachers who received robotic]. Uluslararası Bilim ve Eğitim Dergisi, 6(3), 296-320.
60. Pozzi, M., Prattichizzo, D., & Malvezzi, M. (2021). Accessible educational resources for teaching and learning robotics. Robotics, 10(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics10010038
61. Prahani, B. K., Suprapto, N., Lestari, N. A., Jauhariyah, M. N. R., Admoko, S., & Wahyuni, S. (2018, March). The effectiveness of collaborative problem-based physics learning (CPBPL) model to improve students’ self-confidence on physics learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 997(1), 012008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/997/1/012008
62. Rani, A., Pande, A., Parish, K., & Mishra, D. (2023, July 23–28). Teachers’ perspective on robots inclusion in education: A case study in Norway. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Copenhagen, Denmark.
63. Rau, P. P. L., Gao, Q., & Wu, L.-M. (2008). Using mobile communication technology in high school education: Motivation, pressure, and learning performance. Computers & Education, 50, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.03.008
64. Razali, N. M., & Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons of shapiro-wilk, kolmogorov-smirnov, lilliefors and anderson-darling tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and analytics, 2(1), 21-33.
65. Razon, S., Turner, J., Johnson, T. E., Arsal, G., & Tenenbaum, G. (2012). Effects of a collaborative annotation method on students’ learning and learning-related motivation and affect. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 350-359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.004
66. Rogers, E., Owens, D. H., Werner, H., Freeman, C. T., Lewin, P. L., Kichhoff, S., ... & Lichtenberg, G. (2010). Norm optimal iterative learning control with application to problems in accelerator based free electron lasers and rehabilitation robotics. European Journal of Control, 16(5), 497-524. https://doi.org/10.3166/ejc.16.497-522
67. Rose, J., & Johnson, C. W. (2020). Contextualizing reliability and validity in qualitative research: Toward more rigorous and trustworthy qualitative social science in leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research, 51(4), 432–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2020.1722042
68. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
69. Sartatzemi, M., Dagdilelis, V., & Kagani, K. (2005). Teaching programming with robots: A case study on Greek secondary education. In Advances in Informatics: 10th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics, PCI 2005 (Vol. 10, pp. 502–512). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
70. Selcuk, N. A., Kucuk, S., & Sisman, B. (2024). Does really educational robotics improve secondary school students’ course motivation, achievement and attitude?. Education and Information Technologies, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12773-1
71. Semerci, Ç. (2010). Başarı odaklı motivasyon (BOM) ölçeği’nin geliştirilmesi [Development of achievement-focused motivation (BOM) scale]. E-Journal of New World Sciences Academy Education Sciences, 5(4), 2123-2133.
72. Shapiro, S.S. and Wilk, M.B. (1965) An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples). Biometrika, 52, 591-611. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591
73. Soomro, B. A., & Shah, N. (2022). Entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, need for achievement and entrepreneurial intention among commerce students in Pakistan. Education+ Training, 64(1), 107-125. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJEMSD-10-2020-0129
74. Souza, I. M. L., Andrade, W. L., Sampaio, L. M. R., & Araujo, A. L. S. O. (2018). A systematic review on the use of LEGO® robotics in education. In 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). https://doi.org/10.1109/fie.2018.8658751
75. Stein, C. (2004). Botball robotics and gender differences in middle school teams. In 2004 Annual Conference (pp. 9.262.1–9.262.10). ASEE. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--13534
76. Steinmayr, R., Weidinger, A. F., Schwinger, M., & Spinath, B. (2019). The importance of students’ motivation for their academic achievement–replicating and extending previous findings. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1730. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01730
77. Şahin, H., & Bircan, H. (2023). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin başarı odaklı motivasyonlarının demografik özelliklere göre belirlenmesi [Determining the success-oriented motivations of secondary school students according to demographic characteristics]. Turkish Research Journal of Academic Social Science, 5(2), 134–144.
78. Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48, 1273–1296. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
79. Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 207–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807302814
80. Talan, T. (2021). The effect of educational robotic applications on academic achievement: A meta-analysis study. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science (IJTES), 5(4), 512–526. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.242
81. Tella, A. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies as predictors of senior secondary school students’ chemistry achievement in Ondo State, Nigeria. Sokoto Educational Review, 17(1), 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.35386/ser.v17i1.14
82. Teppo, M., Soobard, R., & Rannikmäe, M. (2021). A study comparing intrinsic motivation and opinions on learning science (grades 6) and taking the international PISA test (grade 9). Education Sciences, 11(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010014
83. Tokiwa, Y., Nonobe, K., & Iwatsuki, M. (2009, October). Web-based tools to sustain the motivation of students in distance education. In 2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. 1–5). IEEE.
84. Tran, V. D. (2019). Does cooperative learning increase students' motivation in learning?. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(5), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n5p12
85. Valls Pou, A., Canaleta, X., & Fonseca, D. (2022). Computational thinking and educational robotics integrated into project-based learning. Sensors, 22(10), 3746. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22103746
86. Wu, X., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., & Miller, B. (2013). Enhancing motivation and engagement through collaborative discussion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 622. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0032792
87. Yang, Y., Long, Y., Sun, D., Van Aalst, J., & Cheng, S. (2020). Fostering students’ creativity via educational robotics: An investigation of teachers’ pedagogical practices based on teacher interviews. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(5), 1826–1842. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12985
88. Zhang, Y., & Zhu, Y. (2022). Effects of educational robotics on the creativity and problem-solving skills of K-12 students: A meta-analysis. Educational Studies, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2022.2107873
89. Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation intersect. In Handbook of Metacognition in Education (pp. 299–315). Routledge.