Eğitimde Robot Kullanımını Ele Alan Çalışmaların Bibliyometrik Analizi

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 26, 853 - 877, 21.10.2025

Mehmet Kemal Aydın , Yasemin Serbest , Bedreddin Ali Akça

https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.1231728

Öz

Bu çalışmada, eğitim robotları (ER) ile ilgili Web of Science (WoS) veri tabanında 2001-2024 yılları arasında yayınlanan çalışmaların bibliyometrik analiz yöntemi ile gözden geçirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Mevcut çalışmada, şeffaflığın sağlanması için Sistematik Analiz ve Meta Analizler için Tercih Edilen Raporlama Protokolü’nün (PRISMA) temel ilkeleri kullanılmıştır. Araştırma kapsamında tanımlanan 1.998 çalışmanın 920’si dahil edilme kriterlerini karşılamış ve bu akademik çalışmalara ait bibliyometrik veriler VOSviewer 1.6 uygulaması aracığıyla analiz edilmiştir. Betimsel analiz sonucunda ER alanında en çok yayın yapan yazarlar, en iyi performans gösteren kuruluşlar, en yüksek oranda yayın yapan ülkeler, en fazla yayın çıkartan yayıncılar ve en fazla yayına sahip indeksler belirlenmiştir. Araştırmanın bulguları, ER alanında yapılan çalışmaların sayısının son yıllarda arttığını göstermiştir. Ayrıca, bibliyometrik analiz sonuçlarına dayalı olarak ER araştırmalarında en büyük etkiye sahip yazarlar, en büyük etkiye sahip çalışmalar ve araştırma trendleri belirlenmiş, bu bulgulara dayalı olarak çeşitli öneriler sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Robot , eğitim robotları , bibliyometrik analiz

Etik Beyan

Bilgilendirme Bu çalışmada insan veya hayvan deneklerinden veri toplanmamıştır. Bu nedenle çalışma, etik kurul onayı gerektiren çalışmalar kapsamında yer almadığından etik kurul onayı alınmamıştır.

Bibliometric Analysis of Studies on the Use of Robots in Education

Öz

In this study, a bibliometric analysis was conducted to review research on Educational Robots (ER) published in the Web of Science (WoS) database between 2001 and 2024. To ensure transparency, the fundamental principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol were followed. Among the 1,998 studies identified within the scope of the research, 920 met the inclusion criteria, and the bibliometric data of these academic studies were analyzed using the VOSviewer 1.6 software. Through descriptive analysis, the most prolific authors in the ER field, the top-performing institutions, the countries with the highest publication output, the leading publishers, and the most indexed sources were identified. The findings of the study indicate that the number of studies on ER has increased in recent years. Additionally, based on the bibliometric analysis results, the most influential authors, the most impactful studies, and research trends in ER were identified, and various recommendations were proposed accordingly.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Robots , educational robots , bibliometric analysis

Kaynakça

• Agatolio, F., Pluchino, P., Orso, V., Menegatti, E., & Gamberini, L. (2018). How robots impact students’ beliefs about their learning skills. Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 47-48. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173386.3177042
• Akbulut, F. (2020). Türkiye’de sağlık alanında maliyet üzerine yapılan araştırmaların bibliyometrik analizi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 11(28), 815-828.
• Bayrakcioglu, S. (2024). Türkiye’de muhasebe lisans eğitimi üzerine yapılan çalışmaların bibliyometrik analizi (2005-2020). Uluslararası İşletme, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Perspektifleri Dergisi, (1), 148-160. https://doi.org/10.29228/ijbemp.50917.
• Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978-988.
• Caccavelli, J., Pedre, S., de Cristoforis, P., Katz, A., & Bendersky, D. (2011). A new programming interface for educational robotics. Içinde D. Obdrzalek & A. Gottscheber (Ed.), research and education in robotics - EUROBOT 2011 (C. 161, ss. 68-77). Springer-Verlag Berlin. https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000307083400007.
• Cetin, M., & Demircan, H. O. (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.
• Chatzichristofis, S. A. (2023). Recent advances in educational robotics. Electronics, 12(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12040925.
• 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.
• Chookaew, S., Howimanporn, S., Pratumsuwan, P., Hutamarn, S., Sootkaneung, W., & Wongwatkit, C. (2018). Enhancing high-school students’ computational thinking with educational robotics learning. 2018 7TH Internatıonal Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI 2018), 204-208. https://doi.org/10.1109/IIAI-AAI.2018.00047.
• Di Lieto, M. C., Castro, E., Pecini, C., Inguaggiato, E., Cecchi, F., Dario, P., Cioni, G., & Sgandurra, G. (2020). Improving executive functions at school in children with special needs by educational robotics. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02813.
• Engwall, O., & Lopes, J. (2022). Interaction and collaboration in robot-assisted language learning for adults. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(5-6), 1273-1309.
• Evripidou, S., Georgiou, K., Doitsidis, L., Amanatiadis, A. A., Zinonos, Z., & Chatzichristofis, S. A. (2020). Educational robotics: Platforms, competitions and expected learning outcomes. IEEE Access, 8, 219534-219562. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3042555
• Fridin, M. (2014). Kindergarten social assistive robot: First meeting and ethical issues. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 262-272.
• Gratani, F., & Giannandrea, L. (2022). Towards 2030. Enhancing 21st century skills through educational robotics. Frontiers In Education, 7, 955285.
• Gunes, H., & Kucuk, S. (2022). A systematic review of educational robotics studies for the period 2010-2021. Review of Education, 10(3), e3381. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3381.
• Hrybiuk, O. (2019). Improvement of the educational process by the creation of centers for intellectual development and scientific and technical creativity. Içinde A. Hamrol, A. Kujawińska, & M. F. S. Barraza (Ed.), Advances in Manufacturing II (ss. 370-382). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18789-7_31.
• Huang, S. (2021). Design and development of educational robot teaching resources using artificial intelligence technology. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 16(05), Article 05. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i05.20311.
• Hutchison, A. (2024), Making artificial intelligence your friend, not your foe, in the literacy classroom. Read Teach. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2296.
• Jung, S. E., & Won, E. (2018). Systematic review of research trends in robotics education for young children. Sustainability, 10(4), 905. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040905.
• Karim, M. E., Lemaignan, S., & Mondada, F. (2015). A review: Can robots reshape K-12 STEM education? 2015 IEEE International Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts (ARSO), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1109/ARSO.2015.7428217.
• Kvesko, S. B., Kvesko, N. G., Korniyenko, A. A., & Kabanova, N. N. (2018). Educational robotics as an Innovative teaching practice using technology: Minimization of risks. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 363(1), 012004.
• Miguel Garcia, J. (2015). Educational robotics. Programming as part of a educational process. Red-Revista De Educacion a Distancia, 46. https://doi.org/10.6018/red/46/8.
• Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G., The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 6(7). http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.
• Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Impact of robotics and geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 391-408.
• Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D. Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery, 88, 105906.
• Papert, S., & Solomon, C. (1971). Twenty things to do with a computer. artificial intelligence Memo Number 248.
• Sales, D., Cuevas-Cerveró, A., & Gómez-Hernández, J. A. (2020). Perspectives on the information and digital competence of Social Sciences students and faculty before and during lockdown due to Covid-19.
• Sapounidis, T., Tselegkaridis, S., & Stamovlasis, D. (2024). Educational robotics and STEM in primary education: A review and a meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 56(4), 462-476. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2022.2160394.
• Toh, L. P. E., Causo, A., Tzuo, P.-W., Chen, I.-M., & Yeo, S. H. (2016). A review on the use of robots in education and young children. Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 148-163.
• Vavassori Benitti, F. B. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978-988.
• Wang, K., Sang, G.-Y., Huang, L.-Z., Li, S.-H., & Guo, J.-W. (2023). The effectiveness of educational robots in improving learning outcomes: a meta-analysis. Sustainability, 15(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054637.
• White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co‐citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327-355.
• Zeren, D., & Kaya, N. (2020). Dijital pazarlama: Ulusal yazının bibliyometrik analizi. Çağ Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17(1), 35-52.
• Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472.