Investigation of Pre-service Teachers' Experiences on Robotic Coding Education: A Case Study

Öz

This study aims to examine the experiences, opinions, and professional development contributions of pre-service teachers from various disciplines regarding the "Introduction to Robotic Coding Implementations in Education" course. A qualitative case study design was employed to gain an in-depth understanding of the instructional process. The study group for observations consisted of 51 pre-service teachers enrolled in eight different departments at a state university in Turkey. Data were collected comprehensively through semi-structured interviews with 21 participants selected via maximum variation sampling, alongside classroom observations and document analysis. The collected data were analyzed using the content analysis method. The findings indicate that while the course positively contributes to cognitive skills such as problem-solving, creativity, and algorithmic thinking, as well as social skills like collaboration, participants also encountered technical challenges related to circuit assembly and syntax errors. Furthermore, the study revealed significant departmental differences, highlighting that pedagogical integration of robotics varies broadly across disciplines. Ultimately, the study concludes that robotic coding education fosters interdisciplinary connections and enhances Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Improvements regarding scaffolding strategies and hardware material support are recommended to reduce learners' cognitive load.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Robotic coding
• Teacher education
• TPACK
• Computational thinking.

Etik Beyan

Ethical permission for this study was obtained from Mersin University Educational Sciences Ethics Committee (12. 11.2024 /2917530-1-28)

Öğretmen Adaylarının Robotik Kodlama Eğitimine Yönelik Deneyimlerinin İncelenmesi: Bir Durum Çalışması

Öz

Bu çalışma, farklı disiplinlerden öğretmen adaylarının “Eğitimde Robotik Kodlama Uygulamalarına Giriş” dersine ilişkin deneyimlerini, görüşlerini ve mesleki gelişimlerine katkılarını incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmada, öğretim sürecine ilişkin derinlemesine bir anlayış elde etmek amacıyla nitel durum çalışması deseni kullanılmıştır. Gözlem sürecine ilişkin çalışma grubunu, Türkiye’de bir devlet üniversitesinde sekiz farklı bölümde öğrenim gören 51 öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Veriler, maksimum çeşitlilik örneklemesi yoluyla seçilen 21 katılımcı ile gerçekleştirilen yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmelerin yanı sıra sınıf içi gözlemler ve doküman incelemeleri aracılığıyla kapsamlı bir şekilde toplanmıştır. Elde edilen veriler içerik analizi yöntemiyle analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, dersin problem çözme, yaratıcılık ve algoritmik düşünme gibi bilişsel becerilerin yanı sıra iş birliği gibi sosyal becerilere olumlu katkılar sağladığını göstermektedir. Diğer taraftan çalışma bulgularında katılımcıların devre kurulumları ve sözdizimi hataları gibi teknik zorluklarla da karşılaştıkları ortaya çıkmıştır. Ayrıca çalışma, robotik kodlamanın pedagojik entegrasyonunun çeşitli bölümler arasında farklılık gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Sonuç olarak, robotik kodlama eğitiminin disiplinler arası bağlantıları desteklediği ve Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgisi (TPAB) gelişimini güçlendirdiği belirlenmiştir. Öğrenenlerin bilişsel yükünü azaltmak amacıyla yapı iskelesi (scaffolding) stratejilerinin geliştirilmesi ve donanımsal materyal desteğinin artırılması önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Robotik kodlama
• Öğretmen eğitimi
• TPAB
• Bilgi-işlemsel düşünme

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma için etik izin Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Etik Kurulu'ndan alınmıştır (12.11.2024/2917530-1-28).

Kaynakça

1. Abuşoğlu, C. (2019). Kodlama eğitimi ve yaratıcı düşünme becerileri. Eğitim Teknolojileri Dergisi, 3(1), 25-35.
2. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
3. Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145-157.
4. Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Marín, V. I., & Händel, M. (2021). Emergency remote teaching in higher education: Mapping the first global online semester. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00282-x.
5. Bower, M., & Falkner, K. (2015). Computational thinking, the notional machine, pre-service teachers, and research opportunities. Proceedings of the 17th Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE 2015) (s. 37-46).
6. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press.
7. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35.
8. Casey, C., Pennington, R., & Mireles, C. (2021). Robotics in Education: Preparing Teachers for the 21st Century Classroom. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 1507–1520.

9. Chen, Y. C., & Jang, S. J. (2010). A model of technological pedagogical content knowledge for preservice teachers. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Education, 17(2), 131-144.
10. Costa Junior, A. O., Guedes, E. B., Lima e Silva, J. P. F., & Rivera, J. A. (2024). Developing computational thinking in middle school with an educational robotics resource. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 110, 49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-024-02082-7.
11. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
12. Çetin, İ., & Şahin, F. (2021). Collaborative learning environments in robotic coding education: Effects on creativity and teamwork. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(12), 67-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-10029-9.
13. Demir, Ö., & Öztürk, E. (2022). Öğretmen adaylarının robotik kodlama öğretimine yönelik görüşleri ve deneyimleri: Bir eylem araştırması. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 12(1), 15-38. https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.1056789.
14. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
15. Eguchi, A. (2014). Robotics as a Learning Tool for Educational Transformation. Journal of Robotics, 2014, 1–13.
16. Ergin, K., & Ercan, T. (2022). Evaluating the impact of robotics-based learning environments on student engagement. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(4), 723-740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10056-9.
17. Felicia, P., & Sharif, M. (2014). Serious Games for Serious Topics. Springer.
18. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
19. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43.
20. Hsu, C.-Y., & Tsai, M.-J. (2024). Predicting robotics pedagogical content knowledge: The role of computational and design thinking dispositions via teaching beliefs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(5), 939–961. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241236882.
21. İnce, H. (2018). Kodlama eğitiminin öğrencilerin takım çalışması becerilerine etkisi. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 17(4), 1079-1103.
22. Kalelioğlu, F. (2015). A New Way of Teaching Programming Skills to K-12 Students: Code.org. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 200–210.
23. Karim, M. E., Lemaignan, S. & Mondada, F. (2015). A review: Can robots reshape K-12 STEM education? International workshop on advanced robotics and its social impacts (ARSO), 1-8.
24. Kerimbayev, N., Nurym, N., Akramova, A., & Abdykarimova, S. (2023). Educational robotics: Development of computational thinking in collaborative online learning. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11806-5.
25. Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2022). Computer science education and K-12 students’ computational thinking: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Research, 114, 102008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.102008.
26. Liu, Z., Gearty, Z., Richard, E., Orrill, C. H., & Kayumova, S. (2024). Bringing computational thinking into classrooms: A systematic review on supporting teachers in integrating computational thinking into K-12 classrooms. International Journal of STEM Education, 11, 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00510-6.
27. Looi, C. K., Chen, W., & Zhang, B. H. (2011). Developing pre-service teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in an online learning environment. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1023-1035.
28. Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırmada desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (S. Turan, Çev.). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
29. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. New York: Sage Publications, Inc.
30. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
31. Mouza, C., Codding, D., & Pollock, L. (2022). Investigating the impact of research-based professional development on teacher learning and classroom practice in computer science education. Computers & Education, 186, 104530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104530.
32. Niess, M. L. (2011). Investigating TPACK: Knowledge growth in teaching with technology. Journal of educational computing research, 44(3), 299-317.
33. OECD. (2021). Social and Emotional Skills: Well-being, connectedness and success. OECD Publishing.
34. Qu, J. R., & Fok, P. K. (2022). Cultivating students’ computational thinking through student–robot interactions in robotics education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32, 1983–2002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09677-3.
35. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J., Silverman, B., & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60-67. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779.
36. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
37. Stewart, W. H., Baek, Y., Kwid, G., & Taylor, K. (2021). Exploring factors that influence computational thinking skills in elementary students’ collaborative robotics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(6), 1208–1239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633121992479.
38. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
39. Su, J., & Yang, W. (2023). A systematic review of integrating computational thinking in early childhood education. Computers and Education Open, 4, 100122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100122.
40. UNESCO. (2019). Open educational resources: The way forward. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org
41. Uzun, E., Yakın, İ., & Gök, A. (2023). Elektronik Programlama ve Nesnelerin İnterneti: Lise. TÜBİTAK.
42. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
43. Yadav, A., Stephenson, C., & Hong, H. (2017). Computational thinking for teacher education. Communications of the ACM, 60(4), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998200.
44. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (9th ed.). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
45. Yılmaz, A., & Kaya, B. (2023). Öğretmen adaylarının robotik kodlama sürecinde karşılaştıkları zorluklar ve çözüm önerileri. Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 45(3), 125-140.
46. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publications.
47. Zeng, Y., Jong, M. S. Y., & others. (2023). Teaching programming and computational thinking in early childhood education: A case study of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1252718. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1252718.