The Effect of Robotic Programming on Coding Attitude and Computational Thinking Skills toward Self-Efficacy Perception

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine the effect of coding instruction performed with the Lego Mindstorms EV3 robotic set on students' attitudes towards coding and their perceptions of computational thinking skills self-efficacy. Single group experimental research design was used in the research. The study group of the research consisted of 30 sixth grade students who studied at a secondary school in the 2019-2020 academic year. These students selected the Information Technologies and Software lesson within the context of Support and Training Course. The research was carried out with robotic coding activities for 7 weeks, two lessons per week. In order to collect the research data, the Attitude Scale for Coding Education and the The Self-Efficacy Perception Scale for Computational Thinking Skill were applied as pretest and posttest. According to the findings of the research, after teaching programming with robotic coding activities, there was a significant increase in students' positive attitudes towards coding and a decrease in their negative attitudes, but this decrease was not found to be statistically significant. In addition, it was found that there was a statistically significant change between pre-post and post-study in all sub-dimensions of students' computing thinking skills self-efficacy perceptions.

Keywords

• Robotics
• Coding Education
• Computational Thinking Skills
• Coding Attitude
• Self Efficacy

References

1. Akbıyık, N. (2019). Arduino ile mikrodenetleyici uygulamalarının öğrencilerin programlama eğitimine karşı öz-yeterlikleri ve problem çözme becerisi üzerine etkileri [The effects of using arduino microcontroller in programming education on high school student’s self-efficacy and problem solving skills]. International Congress on Human Computer Interaction (pp. 99-105). Nevşehir, Türkiye.
2. Aksu, F. N. (2019). Bilişim teknolojileri öğretmenleri gözünden robotik kodlama ve robotik yarışmaları [Robotic coding and robotic competitions from the perpective of the information and communication technology teachers]. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Balıkesir.
3. Alrubaye, H. (2017). Comparison of visual programming and hybrid programming environments in transferring programming skills. Unpublished masters thesis. Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York.
4. Arslan, A. (2006). Bilgisayar destekli eğitim yapmaya ilişkin tutum ölçeği [The attitude scale toward making computer supported education]. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 24-33.
5. Arslan, K., & Tanel, Z. (2021). Analyzing the effects of Arduino applications on students’ opinions, attitude and self-efficacy in programming class. Education and Information Technologies, 26(1), 1143-1163
6. Aşkar, P., & Umay, A. (2001). İlköğretim matematik öğretmenliği öğrencilerinin bilgisayarla ilgili öz-yeterlik algısı [Perceived computer self-efficacy of the students in the elementary mathematics teaching programme]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(21).
7. 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.
8. Avcı, B., & Şahin, F. (2019). The effect of Lego Mindstorm projects on problem solving skills and scientific creativity of teacher candidate. Journal of Human Sciences, 16(1), 216-230.

9. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
10. Başer, M. (2013). Attitude, gender and achievement in computer programming. MiddleEast Journal of Scientific Research, 14(2), 248-255.
11. Baz, F. Ç. (2018). Çocuklar için kodlama yazılımları üzerine karşılaştırmalı bir inceleme [A comparative analysis of coding software for children]. Current Research in Education, 4(1), 36–47.
12. Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978-988.
13. Bodle, E. (2019). The effectiveness of using robotics for career technology education in a middle school STE(A)M course. Oregon State University.
14. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods] (12. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
15. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35.
16. Chalmers, C. (2018). Robotics and computational thinking in primary school. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 17(2018), 93-100. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.06.005.
17. Chaudhary, V., Agrawal, V., & Sureka, A. (2016). An experimental study on the learning outcome of teaching elementary level children using Lego Mindstorms EV3 robotics education kit. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.09610.
18. Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1997). Reseacrh methods in education (4th ed.). Routledge: London and New York.
19. Creswell, J W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson
20. Curzon, P., Peckham, J., Taylor, H., Settle, A., & Roberts, E. (2009). Computational thinking (CT). In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 41). doi: 10.1145/1595496.1562941.
21. Çınar, M. (2019). Nesneye yönelik ve robot programlamanın öğrenci başarısına, soyutlamaya, problem çözmeye ve motivasyona etkilerinin incelenmesi [An examination of the effects of object-oriented and robotics programming on student achievement, abstraction, problem solving and motivation]. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
22. Çukurbaşı, B., & Kıyıcı, M. (2017). Success and motivations of high school students by flipped classroom and lego-logo practices. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(1). doi: 10.15345/iojes.2017.01.013
23. Demir, Ö., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2017). Yeni kavramlar, farklı kullanımlar: Bilgi-işlemsel düşünmeyle ilgili bir değerlendirme [New concepts, different uses: An assessment of computational thinking]. H. F. Odabaşı, B. Akkoyunlu & A. İşman (Ed). Eğitim teknolojileri okumaları [Educational technology readings] 2017, (41. Bölüm, ss. 801-830). TOJET ve Sakarya Üniversitesi, Adapazarı.
24. Dinçer, A. (2018). 6. Sınıf öğrencilerine Scratch ve Kodu Game lab programlama dillerinin öğretiminde öğrencilerin tutum, öz yeterlilik ve akademik başarılarının karşılaştırılması [The comparison of 6th grade students' in terms of attitudes ,self-efficacy and academic achievement on teaching of scratch and kodu game lab 'programming languages]. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İzmir.
25. Durak, H. Y., Yilmaz, F. G. K., & Yilmaz, R. (2019). Computational thinking, programming self-efficacy, problem solving and experiences in the programming process conducted with robotic activities. Contemporary Educational Technology, 10(2), 173-197.
26. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1996). How to design and evaluate research in education (3th ed ). Mc Graw Hill Higher Education. New York: ABD.
27. Garner, S. (2003). Learning resources and tools to aid novices learn programming. In Informing Science & Information Technology Education Joint Conference (INSITE), 213-222, Finland.
28. Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research competencies for analysis and application (6th Edition). Ohio: Merrill an imprint of Prentice Hall.
29. Gomes, A., & Mendes, A. J. (2007). Learning to program-difficulties and solutions. In International Conference on Engineering Education–ICEE, Portugal.
30. Gömleksiz, M. (1993). Kubaşık öğrenme yöntemi ile geleneksel yöntemin demokratik tutumlar ve erişiye etkisi [Effect of the cooperative learning method and the traditional method on democratic attitudes and access]. Yayımlanmamış doktara tezi. Çukurova Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana.
31. Gunbatar, M. S., & Karalar, H. (2018). Gender differences in middle school students' attitudes and self-efficacy perceptions towards mblock programming. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(4), 925-933.
32. Gülbahar, Y., Kert, S. B., & Kalelioğlu, F. (2019). Bilgi işlemsel düşünme becerisine yönelik öz yeterlik algısı ölçeği: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [The self-efficacy perception scale for computational thinking skill: validity and reliability study]. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 1–29. doi: 10.16949/turkbilmat.385097
33. Gültekin, K. (2006). Çokluortamın bilgisayar programlama başarısı üzerine etkisi [The effects of multimedia on computer programming achievement]. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
34. Hu, Y., Chen, C. H., & Su, C. Y. (2020). Exploring the effectiveness and moderators of block-based visual programming on student learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 0(0), 1-27.
35. ISTE & CSTA (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for k-12 education. [Available online at: http://csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/ CompThinkingFlyer.pdf. Retrieved on 05.12.2019.]
36. Jun, S. (2018). Effects of sw training using robot based on card coding on learning motivation and attitude. Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education, 22(4), 447-455.
37. The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2015). CT Leadership toolkit. [Available online at: http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/ctleadershipt-toolkit.pdf?sfvrsn=4, Retrieved on 03.12.2019.]
38. Kalelioǧlu, F., & Gülbahar, Y. (2014). The effects of teaching programming via Scratch on problem solving skills: A discussion from learners’ perspective. Informatics in Education, 13(1), 33–50.
39. Karaman, U., & Büyükalan Filiz, S. (2019). Kodlama eğitimine yönelik tutum ölçeği’nin (KEYTÖ) geliştirilmesi [Development of the attitude acale for coding education (ASCE)]. Gelecek Vizyonlar Dergisi, 3(2), 36–47. doi: 10.29345/futvis.80
40. Kasalak, İ. (2017). Robotik kodlama etkinliklerinin ortaokul öğrencilerinin kodlamaya ilişkin öz-yeterlik algılarına etkisi ve etkinliklere ilişkin öğrenci yaşantıları [Effects of robotic coding activities on the effectiveness of secondary school students' self-efficacy and student experience about activities]. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
41. Kert, S. B., Erkoç, M. F., & Yeni, S. (2020). The effect of robotics on six graders’ academic achievement, computational thinking skills and conceptual knowledge levels. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38, 100714
42. Kırkan, B. (2018). Üstün yetenekli ortaokul öğrencilerinin proje tabanlı temel robotik eğitim süreçlerindeki yaratıcı, yansıtıcı düşünme ve problem çözme becerilerine ilişkin davranışlarının ve görüşlerinin incelenmesi [Investigation of gifted secondary school students’s opinions and behaviors related to their creative, reflective and problem solving skills in a project based robotics course]. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Başkent Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
43. Koç-Şenol, A. (2012). Robotik destekli fen ve teknoloji laboratuvar uygulamaları: Robolab [Science and technology laboratory applications supported by robotic: ROBOLAB]. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Erciyes Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Kayseri.
44. Korkmaz, Ö. (2016). The effect of Lego Mindstorms Ev3 based design activities on students’ attitudes towards learning computer programming, self-efficacy beliefs and levels of academic achievement. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(4), 647– 660. doi: 10.22364/bjmc.2016.4.4.24
45. Korkmaz, Ö., & Altun, H. (2013). Engineering and CEIT student’s attitude towards learning computer programming. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies International Journal of Social Science, 6(2), 1169-1185.
46. Kök, A. B. (2019). Beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin grup çalışması ile robotik kodlama deneyimlerinin incelenmesi [Examination of fifth grade students robotic coding experience with group work]. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Afyonkarahisar.
47. Lee, Y. (2019). An analysis of the influence of block-type programming language-based artificial intelligence education on the learner's attitude in artificial intelligence. Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education, 23(2), 189-196.
48. Lee, B. Y., Liew, L. H., Bin Mohd Anas Khan, M. Y., & Narawi, A. (2020, February). The effectiveness of using mbot to increase the interest and basic knowledge in programming and robotic among children of age 13. In Proceedings of the 2020 The 6th International Conference on E-Business and Applications (pp. 105-110). Lego (2013). Legominstrom yapım klavuzları [Legomindstrom building instructions]. [Available online at: https://www.lego.com/tr-tr/service/buildinginstructions, Retrieved on 19.11.2019.]
49. Lego (2019). Lego Mindstorms EV3. [Available online at: https://www.lego.com/tr-tr/product/legomindstorms-ev3-31313, Retrieved on 18.11.2019.]
50. Liu, E. Z-H., Lin, C-H., Feng, H-C., & Hou, H-T. (2013). An analysis of teacher-student interaction patterns in a robotics course for kindergarten children: A pilot study. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), 9-18. Mannila, L., Peltomäki, M., & Salakoski, T. (2006). What about a simple language? Analyzing the difficulties in learning to program. Computer Science Education, 16(3), 211-227.
51. Martín-Ramos, P., Lopes, M. J., Lima da Silva, M. M., Gomes, P. E. B., Pereira da Silva, P. S., Domingues, J. P. P., & Ramos Silva, M. (2017). First exposure to Arduino through peer-coaching: Impact on students’ attitudes towards programming. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 51–58. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.007
52. Mello, J. A. (1993). Improving individual member accountability in small work group settings. Journal of Management Education, 17, 253–259.
53. Merkouris, A., Chorianopoulos, K., & Kameas, A. (2017). Teaching programming in secondary education through embodied computing platforms: Robotics and wearables. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 17(2). doi: 10.1145/3025013
54. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) (2017). Ortaokul ve İmam Hatip Ortaokulu Bilişim Teknolojileri ve Yazılım Dersi (5. ve 6 Sınıflar) öğretim programı [Information Technologies and Software Curricum of the Middle School and Imam Hatip Secondary School Information Technologies and Software Course (5th and 6th grades)]. MEB, Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara.
55. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) (2019). 2023 Eğitim vizyonu [2023 Vision Document]. [Available online at: http://2023vizyonu.meb.gov.tr/, Retrieved on 01.12.2019.]
56. Miller, A. K. (1989). Enhanching early chilhood mainstreaming through cooperative learning: A brief literature review. Child Study Journal, 19(4), 285-291.
57. Mosley, P., Ardito, G., & Scollins, L. (2016). Robotic cooperative learning promotes student STEM interest. American Journal of Engineering Education, 7(2), 117-128.
58. Muñoz-Repiso, A. G. V., & González, Y. A. C. (2019). Robótica para desarrollar el pensamiento computacional en Educación Infantil. Comunicar: Revista científica iberoamericana de comunicación y educación, 59, 63-72.
59. Noh, J., & Lee, J. (2019). Effects of robotics programming on the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 463-484.
60. Özer, F. (2019). Kodlama eğitiminde robot kullanımının ortaokul öğrencilerinin erişi, motivasyon ve problem çözme becerilerine etkisi [Effect of using robotics in teaching coding on achievement, motivation and problem solving skills of middle school students]. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
61. Pinasa, S., & Srisook, L. (2019, October). STEM education project-Based and robotic learning activities impacting on creativity and attitude of grade 11 students in Khon Kaen Wittayayon School. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1340, No. 1, p. 012038). IOP Publishing.
62. Reich-Stiebert, N., Eyssel, F., & Hohnemann, C. (2018). Involve the user! Changing attitudes toward robots by user participation in a robot prototyping process. Computers in Human Behavior, 91(2019), 290–296. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.041
63. Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 21(1), 137–172. doi: 10.1076/csed.13.2.137.14200
64. Seraj, M. (2020, June). Impacts of block-based programming on young learners' programming skills and attitudes in the context of smart environments. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 569-570).
65. Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (Complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591-611.
66. Shim, J., Kwon, D., & Lee, W. (2017). The effects of a robot game environment on computer programming education for elementary school students. IEEE Transactions on Education, 60(2), 164–172. doi: 10.1109/TE.2016.2622227
67. Suárez-Gómez, A. D., & Pérez-Holguín, W. J. (2020). Physical visualization of math concepts using LEGO Mindstorms. JOTSE: Journal of Technology and Science Education, 10(1), 72-86.
68. Sümbül, A. M. (1995). İşbirliğine dayalı öğretim yönteminde kullanılan değerlendirme biçiminin öğrencilerin erişi ve tutumlarına etkisi [The Effects of students achievement and attitudes of used assessment in the units of national history course the use of cooperative learning in the second grade of middle school]. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
69. Şimşek, E. (2018). Programlama öğretiminde robotik ve scratch uygulamalarının öğrencilerin bilgi işlemsel düşünme becerileri ve akademik başarılarına etkisi [The effect of robotics and scratch applications on computational thinking skills and academic achievement in programming instruction]. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Samsun.
70. Taylor, K., & Baek, Y. (2018). Grouping matters in computational robotic activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 93(2019), 99–105. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.010 Usengül, L., & Bahçeci, F. (2020). The effect of lego wedo 2.0 education on academic achievement and attitudes and computational thinking skills of learners toward science. World Journal of Education, 10(4), 83-93.
71. Üzümcü, Ö., & Bay, E. (2018). Eğitimde yeni 21 . Yüzyıl becerisi : bilgi işlemsel düşünme [A new 21st century skill in education: Computational thinking]. Uluslararası Türk Kültür Coğrafyasında Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(2), 1-16.
72. Valk, L. (2010). The lego mindstorms EV3 discovery book: A beginner's guide to building and programming robots. San Francisco: No Starch Press.
73. Vatansever, Ö. (2018). Scratch ile programlama öğretiminin ortaokul 5. ve 6. sinif öğrencilerinin problem çözme becerisi üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi [Examining the effects of using scratch programming on 5th and 6th graders’ problem solving skills]. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Uludağ Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Bursa.
74. Yıldırım, E. (2017). Scratch programlama dili eğitimine yönelik bir mobil uygulamanın geliştirilmesi [Development of a mobile application oriented for scratch programming education]. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Çanakkale.
75. Yilmaz-Ince, E., & Koc, M. (2021). The consequences of robotics programming education on computational thinking skills: an intervention of the young engineer's workshop (yew). Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 191-208.