Okulöncesi Eğitimde Kodlama, Robotik ve Bilişimsel Düşünme: Magne-Board'un Gelişimi

Öz

STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics - Fen, Teknoloji, Mühendislik ve Matematik) eğitimi kapsamında verilen kodlama eğitimi, çocuklara bilişimsel düşünme becerileri kazandırmaktadır. Bilişimsel düşünme, bir dizi problem çözme, algoritmik düşünme, analitik düşünme ve eleştirel düşünme becerilerini içerir. Çocuklara kodlama eğitimi ER (Educational Robotics – Eğitici Robotlar) tarafından verildiğinde eğitimin içeriği daha somut ve eğlenceli hale gelir. Ek olarak, ER motor becerilerin ve el-göz koordinasyonunun geliştirilmesine yardımcı olur. Çocukları işbirliğine ve ekip çalışmasına yönlendirerek sosyal gelişimini destekler. Bu çalışmada kodlama eğitimini okul öncesi çocuklara uygun hale getiren manyetik kartlı eğitici bir kodlama robotu tasarlanmıştır. Bu platform çekici görsel tasarıma, sesli ve ışıklı uyarılara sahiptir. Ayrıca bilgisayardan bağımsızdır, kolayca taşınabilir ve kablosuz olarak çalıştırılabilir. Eğitim robotu 4-5 yaş arası 40 çocuğun kullanımına sunuldu. Çocukların robotla etkileşimi okul öncesi öğretmenleri ve akademisyenlerden oluşan toplam 10 kişi tarafından gözlemlendi. Hazırlanan eğitim robotun okul öncesi çocuklara öğretmek için yararlı bir materyal olup olmadığını değerlendirmek için açık uçlu sorular içeren bir değerlendirme formu oluşturuldu. Kullanıcılardan gelen cevap ve öneriler kayıt altına alındı ve içerik analizine göre yorumlandı. Elde edilen verilere göre geliştirilen manyetik platformlu eğitici kodlama robotunun hedef grubun pedagojik özelliklerine uygun olduğu belirlendi. Ayrıca beklenen amaç için kullanılabilecek bir eğitim materyali olduğu sonucuna ulaşıldı.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kodlama Eğitimi
• Bilişimsel Düşünme
• Eğitim Robotu

Coding, Robotics and Computational Thinking in Preschool Education: The Design of Magne-Board

Abstract

The coding education given within the scope of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education gives children computational thinking skills. Computational thinking involves a set of problem-solving, algorithmically thinking, analytical thinking and critical thinking skills. When the coding education is given to children by an ER (Educational Robotics), the content of the education becomes more tangible and fun. In addition, ER helps develop motor skills and hand-eye coordination. It supports children's social development by directing them to collaboration and teamwork. In this study, an educational coding robot with magnetic board that makes the coding education suitable for preschool children was designed. This platform has attractive visual design, audible and illuminated warnings. In addition, it is computer-independent, easily portable and can be operated wirelessly. The educational robot was introduced for use by 40 children aged 4-5 years old. The interaction of the children with the robot was observed by 10 people in total, consisting of pre-school teachers and academicians. An evaluation form containing open-ended questions has been created to evaluate whether the prepared educational robot is a useful material for teaching pre-school children. Answers and suggestions from users were recorded and interpreted according to content analysis. It was determined that the educational coding robot with magnetic platform developed according to the obtained data is suitable for the pedagogical properties of the target group. In addition, it is concluded that there is an educational material that can be used for the expected purpose.

Keywords

• Coding education
• Computational thinking
• Educational Robotics
• STEM

Kaynakça

1. R. Gelman and K. Brenneman, “Science learning pathways for young children,” Early Child. Res. Q., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 150–158, 2004.
2. B. Barron, G. Cayton-Hodges, C. Copple, L. Darling-Hammond, M. H. Levine, and L. Bofferding, “Take a giant step: A blueprint for teaching young children in a digital age,” 2011.
3. M. U. Bers, L. Flannery, E. R. Kazakoff, and A. Sullivan, “Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum,” Comput. Educ., vol. 72, pp. 145–157, 2014.
4. M. U. Bers, Blocks to Robots: Learning with Technology in the Early Childhood Classroom. New York: Teacher’s College Press, 2008.
5. N. Brosterman, Inventing kindergarten. New York: H. N. Abrams, 1997.
6. M. Resnick et al., “Digital manipulatives: New toys to think with,” Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - Proc., no. April, pp. 281–287, 1998.
7. M. E. Karim, S. Lemaignan, and F. Mondada, “A review: Can robots reshape K-12 STEM education?,” in Proceedings of IEEE Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts, ARSO, 2015, pp. 1–8.
8. K. T. H. Lee, A. Sullivan, and M. U. Bers, “Collaboration by Design: Using Robotics to Foster Social Interaction in Kindergarten,” Comput. Sch., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 271–281, 2013.

9. R. Ortega, E. M. Romera, and C. P. Monks, “The impact of group activities on social relations in an early education setting in Spain,” Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 343–361, 2009.
10. B. Schneider, P. Jermann, G. Zufferey, and P. Dillenbourg, “Benefits of a tangible interface for collaborative learning and interaction,” IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 222–232, 2011.
11. M. U. Bers, I. Ponte, K. Juelich, and J. Schenker, “Teachers as designers: Integrating robotics in early childhood education,” Inf. Technol. Child. Educ. Annu., pp. 123–145, 2002.
12. E. Cejka, C. Rogers, and M. Portsmore, “Kindergarten robotics: Using robotics to motivate math, science, and engineering literacy in elementary school,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 711–722, 2006.
13. R. Perlman, “Using Computer Technology to Provide a Creative Learning Environment for Preschool Children,” 1976.
14. A. Sullivan, E. R. Kazakoff, and M. Umashi Bers, “The Wheels on the Bot go Round and Round: Robotics Curriculum in Pre-Kindergarten,” J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Innov. Pract., vol. 12, pp. 203–219, 2013.
15. A. Sullivan and M. U. Bers, “Robotics in the early childhood classroom: learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade,” Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 3–20, 2016.
16. P. Wyeth, “How young children learn to program with sensor, action, and logic blocks,” J. Learn. Sci., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 517–550, 2008.
17. J. M. Wing, “Computational Thinking,” Commun. ACM, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 33–35, 2006.
18. V. Barr and C. Stephenson, “What is the Role What is Involved Science Education of the Computer Community?,” Acm Inroads, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 48–54, 2011.
19. I. Lee et al., “Computational thinking for youth in practice,” ACM Inroads, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 32–37, 2011.
20. S. Papert, Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books, 1980.
21. C. Kelleher and R. Pausch, “Lowering the Barriers to Programming: A Taxonomy of Programming Environments and Languages for Novice Programmers,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 83–137, 2005.
22. M. Conway, R. Paasch, R. Gossweiler, and T. Burnette, “Alice: A rapid prototyping system for building virtual environments,” Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - Proc., vol. 1994-April, pp. 295–296, 1994.
23. K. Kahn, “A Computer Game to Teach Programming Introduction to ToonTalk,” Proc. Natl. Educ. Comput. Conf., no. July 2001, pp. 127–135, 1999.
24. M. Portsmore, “ROBOLAB: Intuitive Robotic Programming Software to Support Life Long Learning,” APPLE Learn. Technol. Rev., no. Spring/Summer, pp. 26–39, 1999.
25. M. Resnick, “Sowing the Seeds for a More Creative Society,” Learn. Lead. with Technol., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 18–22, 2007.
26. T. Sapounidis and S. Demetriadis, “Touch your program with hands: Qualities in tangible programming tools for novice,” Proc. - 2011 Panhellenic Conf. Informatics, PCI 2011, pp. 363–367, 2011.
27. A. C. Smith, “Using Magnets in Physical Blocks That Behave As Programming Objects,” in Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction, 2007, pp. 147–150.
28. D. C. Dwyer, C. Ringstaff, and J. H. Sandholtz, “Changes in Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices in Technology-Rich Classrooms,” Educ. Leadersh., vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 45–52, 1991.
29. S. Jeschke, A. Kato, and L. Knipping, “The Engineers of Tomorrow Teaching Robotics to Primary School Children,” in Proceedings of SEFI Annual Conference, 2008, pp. 1–4.
30. D. Alimisis, M. Moro, and E. Menegatti, The use of robotics in introductory programming for elementary students, vol. 560. 2017.
31. H. Ishii and B. Ullmer, “Tangible bits,” pp. 234–241, 1997.
32. T. Sapounidis and S. Demetriadis, “Tangible versus graphical user interfaces for robot programming: Exploring cross-age children’s preferences,” Pers. Ubiquitous Comput., vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 1775–1786, 2013.
33. J. Barnes, S. M. Fakhrhosseini, E. Vasey, C. H. Park, and M. Jeon, “Child-Robot Theater: Engaging Elementary Students in Informal STEAM Education Using Robots,” IEEE Pervasive Comput., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 22–31, 2020.
34. J. Chu, G. Zhao, Y. Li, Z. Fu, W. Zhu, and L. Song, “Design and Implementation of Education Companion Robot for Primary Education,” in 2019 IEEE 5th International Conference on Computer and Communications Eftjho, 2019, pp. 1327–1331.
35. J. Yu and R. Roque, “A Survey of Computational Kits for Young Children,” in Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on interaction design and children, 2018, pp. 289–299.
36. A. Gültepe, “Kodlama Öğretimi Yapan Bilişim Teknolojileri Öğretmenleri Gözüyle Öğrenciler Kodluyor,” Uluslararası Liderlik Eğitimi Derg., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 50–60, 2018.