Investigation of the relationships between the attitudes of secondary school students towards robotic activities and the levels of self-regulation, metacognitive awareness

Abstract

This study examines secondary school students' attitudes towards robotics, self-regulation skills, and meta-cognition awareness. The research was conducted in the correlational research model, one of the general survey models. The research sample comprised 68 secondary school students who attended a robotic course for two terms. The research data were collected using online data collection tools consisting of two parts. The first part is demographic questions, and the second contains attitudes towards robotics, self-regulation skills, and meta-cognition awareness Scale items. Descriptive statistics, ANOVA, T-Test, and Pearson Correlation analyses were used to analyze the data. While there was no significant difference between students' attitudes towards robotic activities, self-regulation skills, and metacognitive skills according to their education level of mother and father, a statistically significant difference was found between self-regulation skills and grade level. The self-regulation scores of fifth and sixth grade students are significantly higher than those of seventh grade students. Finally, a high positive correlation was found between students' attitudes towards robotic activities and their self-regulation and metacognitive skills.

Keywords

• Educational Robotics
• Self-Regulation
• Metacognition

References

1. Abassi, M., & Dargahi, S. (2014). Role of procrastination, self-regulation and metacognition in predicting students' academic motivation. Education Strategies in Medical Sciences, 7(5), 273-278.
2. Abdelrahman, R. M. (2020). Metacognitive awareness and academic motivation and their impact on academic achievement of Ajman University students. Heliyon, 6(9), e04192.
3. Adigüzel, A., & Orhan, A. (2017). The relation between English learning students' levels of self-regulation and metacognitive skills and their English academic achievements. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(9), 115-125.
4. Ağır, Ahmet & Ağır Sert Meral (2021). Evde Eğitim ve Öğretim İçin Teknoloji Kullanımı: Teori Uygulamalar ve Geleceğe Bakış Utku Köse (Ed). Acil uzaktan öğretim sürecinde kendi eğitiminden sorumlu bireyler: öz düzenleme yeterliliğinin önemi (pp.97-124). Pegem Akademi.
5. Ainley, M. & Patrick, L. (2006). Measuring self-regulated learning processes through tracking patterns of student interaction with achievement activities. Education Psychology Review, 18, 267–286.
6. Akçam, S. (2012). İlköğretim 6, 7 ve 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin bilişüstü farkındalık düzeylerinin incelenmesi (Doctoral dissertation, DEÜ Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü).
7. Akın, A. (2012). Psikoloji ve eğitimde kullanılan güncel ölçme araçları. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
8. Alanoğlu, M., & Doğan, B. (2021). Öğretmen gözünden covid-19 süreci: öğrencilerin bağımsız araştırma & öz-düzenleme becerilerine ilişkin bir durum çalışması. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 39, 1-13.

9. Albano, G., & Sabena, C. (2020). E-learning for fostering the growth of students responsible for their own learning: Didactic organization and theoretical reflections.
10. Aldan Karademir, Ç. , Deveci, Ö. & Çaylı, B. (2018). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin öz-düzenlemeleri ve akademik öz-yeterliklerinin incelenmesi. e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 5(3), 14-29. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.446793
11. Allee-Herndon, K. A., & Roberts, S. K. (2019). Poverty, self-regulation and executive function, and learning in K-2 classrooms: A systematic literature review of current empirical research. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 33(3), 345-362.
12. Anwar, S., Bascou, N. A., Menekse, M., & Kardgar, A. (2019). A systematic review of studies on educational robotics. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 9(2), 2.
13. 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.
14. Azevedo, R., Johnson, A., Chauncey, A., & Burkett, C. (2010). Self-regulated learning with MetaTutor: Advancing the science of learning with MetaCognitive tools. In New science of learning (pp. 225-247). Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5716-0
15. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175.
16. Baysal, A., & Özgenel, M. (2019). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin bağlanma stilleri & öz-düzenleme düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Eğitimde Kuram & Uygulama, 15(2), 142-152.
17. 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.
18. Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Self-regulation: An introductory overview. Handbook of self-regulation, 1-9.
19. Boğar, Y. (2020). Improvement of students’ scientific epistemological beliefs
20. and metacognitive awareness through argumentation-based inquiry teaching. Osmangazi Journal of
21. Educational Research, 7(2), 122-144.
22. Bronson, M. (2000). Self-regulation in early childhood: Nature and nurture. New York,
23. Cascallar, E., Boekaerts, M., & Costigan, T. (2006). Assessment in the evaluation of self-regulation as a process. Educational Psychology Review, 18(3), 297-306.
24. Çetin, B. (2017). Metacognition and self-regulated learning in predicting university students' academic achievement in Turkey. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(4), 132-138.
25. Cheng, C. C., Huang, P. L., & Huang, K. H. (2013). Cooperative learning in lego robotics projects: exploring the impacts of group formation on interaction and achievement. J. Networks, 8(7), 1529-1535.
26. Dede, N., Keskin, A., Öztürk, E., & Gülcan Keskin, M. (2021). Covid-19 süreci ile başlayan uzaktan eğitimde ortaokul öğrencilerinin öz düzenleme ve derse katılım ilişkisinin incelenmesi. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gokalp Education Faculty, (39). http://dx.doi.org/10.14582/DUZGEF.2021.171
27. Demetriou, A., Kazali, E., Kazi, S., & Spanoudis, G. (2020). Cognition and cognizance in preschool predict school achievement in primary School. Cognitive Development, 54, 100872.
28. Dinçer, B., & Çilek, G. (2022). The Analysis of the Relation Between Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies and Critical Thinking Attitude of Pre-Service Classroom Teachers. International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(2).
29. Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational psychology review, 20(4), 391-409.
30. Ellis, A. K., Bond, J. B., & Denton, D. W. (2012). An analytical literature review of the effects of metacognitive teaching strategies in primary and secondary student populations. Asia Pacific Journal of Educational Development (APJED), 1(1), 9-23.
31. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
32. Flavell, J. H., Speer, J. R., Green, F. L., August, D. L., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1981). The development of comprehension monitoring and knowledge about communication. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1-65.
33. Fonteijn, H. (2015). Making students responsible for their learning–Empowering learners to build shared mental models. In Transformative perspectives and processes in higher education (pp. 97-116). Springer, Cham.
34. Hall, N. C., & Goetz, T. (2013). Emotion, motivation, and self-regulation: A handbook for teachers. Emerald Group Publishing.
35. Jørgensen, H. (2000). Student learning in higher instrumental education: Who is responsible? British Journal of Music Education, 17(1), 67-77.
36. Kaplan, A. (2008). Clarifying metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: What’s the purpose? Educational psychology review, 20(4), 477-484.
37. Karademir, Ç. A., Deveci, Ö., & Çaylı, B. (2018). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin öz-düzenlemeleri & akademik öz-yeterliklerinin incelenmesi. e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 5(3), 14-29.
38. Karakelle, S., & Saraç, S. (2007). Çocuklar için üst bilişsel farkındalık ölçeği (ÜBFÖ-Ç) A & B formları: Geçerlik & güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 10(20), 87-103.
39. Karakelle, S., & Saraç, S. (2010). Üst biliş hakkında bir gözden geçirme: Üstbiliş çalışmaları mı yoksa üst bilişsel yaklaşım mı? Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 13(26), 45-60.
40. Karataş, H. (2021). 21. Yy. Becerilerinden robotik & kodlama eğitiminin Türkiye & dünyadaki yeri. 21. Yüzyılda Eğitim & Toplum Eğitim Bilimleri & Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 10(30), 693-729. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/egitimvetoplum/issue/68196/1059967
41. Kavuk, E., & Demirtaş, H. (2021). COVID-19 pandemisi sürecinde öğretmenlerin uzaktan eğitimde yaşadığı zorluklar. E-Uluslararası Pedandragoji Dergisi, 1(1), 55-73.
42. Kaya, D. (2019). Yyedinci sınıf öğrencilerinin matematik başarılarının yordanması: motivasyon, öz-düzenleyici öğrenme stratejileri ve üst bilişsel farkındalığın rolü . Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 38 (1), 1-18. Retrieved from
43. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/omuefd/issue/46119/389698
44. Kazu, İ. Y., & Simge Yavuz, F. (2021). Öz düzenleme becerileri üzerine yapılmış lisansüstü çalışmaların bibliyografik olarak incelenmesi. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi. 11(3), 1471-1483
45. Kontostavlou, E. Z., & Drigas, A. (2021). How Metacognition Supports Giftedness in Leadership: A Review of Contemporary Literature. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning, 14(2).
46. Kramarski, B., & Gutman, M. (2006). How can self‐regulated learning be supported in mathematical E‐learning environments? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(1), 24-33.
47. Kucuk, S., & Sisman, B. (2020). Students’ attitudes towards robotics and STEM: Differences based on gender and robotics experience. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 23, 100167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2020.100167.
48. Kurtuluş, A. & Öztürk, B. (2017). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin üstbilişsel farkındalık düzeyi ile matematik öz yeterlik algısının matematik başarısına etkisi. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31, 762-778. http://doi.org/10.14582/DUZGEF.1840
49. Lai, E. R. (2011). Metacognition: A literature review. Always learning: Pearson research report, 24, 1-40.
50. Larkin, S. (2009). Metacognition in young children. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203873373
51. Master, A., Cheryan, S., Moscatelli, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2017). Programming experience promotes higher STEM motivation among first-grade girls. Journal of experimental child psychology, 160, 92-106.
52. Meece, J. L., & Painter, J. (2012). Gender, Self-Regulation, and Motivation. In Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning (pp. 339-367). Routledge.
53. Milto, E., Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2002, November). Gender differences in confidence levels, group interactions, and feelings about competition in an introductory robotics course. In 32nd annual frontiers in education (Vol. 2, pp. F4C-F4C). IEEE.
54. Negretti, R. (2012). Metacognition in student academic writing: A longitudinal study of metacognitive awareness and its relation to task perception, self-regulation, and evaluation of performance. Written Communication, 29(2), 142-179.
55. Norman, E., Pfuhl, G., Sæle, R. G., Svartdal, F., Låg, T., & Dahl, T. I. (2019). Metacognition in Psychology. Review of General Psychology, 23(4), 403–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268019883821
56. Önür, Z. & Kozikoğlu, İ. (2019). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin 21. yüzyıl öğrenme becerileri. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 9(3), 627-648.
57. OECD (2019). OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 Conceptual learning framework. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and learning/learning/skills/Skills_for_2030_concept_note.pdf
58. Oz, E. & Sen, H.S. (2018). Self-regulated learning questionnaire: reliability and validity study. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 13(4), 108-123. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2018.178.6
59. Özçakmak, H., Köroglu, M., Korkmaz, C., & Bolat, Y. (2021). The effect of metacognitive awareness on academic success. African Educational Research Journal, 9(2), 434-448.
60. Özsoy, G. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between metacognition and mathematics achievement. Asia pacific education review, 12(2), 227-235.
61. Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. Basic Books, Inc.
62. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Retrieved from https://web.media.mit.edu/~calla/web_comunidad/Reading-En/situating_constructionism.pdf
63. Peleg, R., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2017). Learning robotics in a science museum theatre play: Investigation of learning outcomes, contexts and experiences. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(6), 561-581.
64. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in
65. learning and achievement, Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544–555
66. Pintrich, P.R. & De Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components
67. of classroom academic performance, Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40
68. Reich-Stiebert, N., & Eyssel, F. (2016, November). Robots in the classroom: What teachers think about teaching and learning with education robots. In International conference on social robotics (pp. 671-680). Springer, Cham.
69. Rhodes, M. G. (2019). Metacognition. Teaching of Psychology, 46(2), 168-175.
70. Sarıgöz, E. (2019). Predicting Students Problem-Solving Skills Through Home and Parent Related Factors, School Types, and Affective Variables (Doctoral dissertation, Bilkent Universitesi (Turkey)).
71. Sawhney, N., & Bansal, S. (2015). Metacognitive awareness of undergraduate students in relation to their academic achievement. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3(1), 107-114.
72. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.
73. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational psychology review, 7(4), 351-371.
74. Şener Büyüköztürk, Özcan E. Akgün, Şirin Karadeniz, Funda Demirel ve Ebru Kılıç Çakmak, Bilimsel
75. araştırma yöntemleri, Ankara: Pegem Akademi, 2008, 185-187
76. Şişman, B., & Küçük, S. (2018). Ortaokul öğrencilerine yönelik türkçe robotik tutum ölçeğinin geçerlik & güvenirlik çalışması. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 19(1), 284-299.
77. Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Miller, L. A., & Murphy, C. (2002). Measures of children’s knowledge and regulation of cognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(1), 51-79.
78. Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2019). Vex robotics competitions: Gender differences in student attitudes and experiences. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 18, 97-112. https://doi.org/10.28945/4193
79. Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics Boston, MA: Pearson.
80. Taghizadeh, M., & Gholamy Saleh Abady, A. (2016). The effects of metacognitive strategy training on the listening comprehension and self-regulation of EFL learners. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 4(16), 37-54.
81. Theobald, M. (2021). Self-regulated learning training programs enhance university students’ academic performance, self-regulated learning strategies, and motivation: A meta-analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 66, 101976.
82. Türkben, T. (2022). Öz Düzenleme Stratejisi Gelişimi Öğretiminin Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Üstbilişsel Yazma Farkındalıklarına Etkisi. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11(2), 555-571.
83. Uykan, E., & Akkaynak, M. (2019). Ebeveyn tutumları ile çocukların öz düzenlemeleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Akademik Tarih ve Düşünce Dergisi, 6(3), 1620-1644.
84. Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications. Guilford Publications.
85. Ward, R. T., & Butler, D. L. (2019). An investigation of metacognitive awareness and academic performance in college freshmen. Education, 139(3), 120-126.
86. Winne, P. H., & Azevedo, R. (2014). Metacognition. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 63–87). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.006
87. Young, A., & Fry, J. D. (2008). Metacognitive awareness and academic achievement in college students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1-10.
88. Zeidner, M., Boekaerts, M., & Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Self-regulation: Directions and challenges for future research. In Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 749-768). Academic Press.
89. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into
90. Practice,4(2). 64-70
91. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
92. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2013). Reflections on theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (pp. 282-301). Routledge
93. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives. Routledge.
94. Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self-regulated learners: Beyond achievement to self-efficacy. American Psychological Association.
95. Zimmerman, B.J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning.
96. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329-339