PEDAGOGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF EDUCATIONAL ROBOTS IN PRE SCHOOL TEACHING

Year 2023, Volume: 12 Issue: 1, 25 - 41, 31.03.2023

Muhammed Murat Gümüş , Osman Kayhan , Özgen Korkmaz , Halis Altun , Nihat Yılmaz

https://doi.org/10.55020/iojpe.1177237

Abstract

This study aims to create a rubric based on the pedagogical properties of educational robots for pre-school students and determine the compliance level with educational robot sets. In this sense, the study is considered a first and significant step toward selecting robots based on pedagogical-driven factors. For this aim, a mixed-method research design was employed. A qualitative method was used to create the rubric items, and the rubric development was also supported through a quantitative process by including expert opinions and ensuring content validity. Furthermore, a descriptive survey model, one of the quantitative designs, was used to examine the suitability of educational robots for the pre-school education level. As an outcome of this study, a rubric of four dimensions with 28 items related to the pedagogical features of educational robots in pre-school was created. Furthermore, widely used educational robots at the pre-school level, such as Kidoboto, Lego Wedo, Mbot, Lego Spike, Lego Ev3, and Matatalab, were evaluated by experts using the created rubric.

Keywords

Educational robots, 21st-century skills, rubric, pre-school student.

References

• ATC21S (2010). Assessment and teaching of 21st-century skills. Retrieved April 17, 2022, from https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en_us/about/citizenship/socioeconomic/docs/ATC21S_Exec_Summary.pdf
• Atman Uslu, N., Öztüre Yavuz, G., & Koçak Usluel, Y. (2022). A systematic review study on educational robotics and robots. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2023890
• Bravo, F. A., González, A. M., & González, E. (2017). A review of intuitive robot programming environments for educational purposes. In 2017 IEEE 3rd Colombian Conference on Automatic Control (CCAC) (p. 1-6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CCAC.2017.8276396
• Çetin, M., & Çetin, G. (2021). A Critical Outlook on MoNE Early Childhood Education Curriculum in terms of 21st-century Skills. Journal of Education for Life, 35(1), 235-255. https://doi.org/10.33308/26674874.2021351258
• Creswell, J. W. (2017). 30 essential skills for qualitative researchers. Anı Publishing.
• Simsar, H. D. A., & Yalçın, V. (2021). Examining 21st-century skills of 3-6 years old children in terms of some variables. e-Kafkas Journal of Education Research, 8, 281-303. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.941467
• Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study, Computers & Education, 63, 87-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.016
• ISTE (2019). The ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education) National Educational Technology Standards (NETS-S) and Performance Indicators for Students. Retrieved April 17, 2022, from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students
• Kalemkuş, F., & Bulut Özek, M. (2021). Research Trends of the 21th Century Skills: 2000-2020 (January). MANAS Journal of Social Studies, 10(2), 878-900. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.774848
• Katz, L. G. (2010). STEM in the early years. SEED (STEM in early education and development) Conference, Cedar Falls, IOWA. Retrieved from http://ecrp.illinois.edu/beyond/seed/katz.html
• Kaya, M., Korkmaz, Ö., & Çakır, R. (2020 The effect of gamified robotics activities on the problem solving and the computational thinking skills of the secondary school students. Ege Journal of Education, 21(1), 54-70. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.588512
• Khodabandelou, R., & Alhoqani, K. (2022). The effects of WeDo 2.0 robot workshop on Omani grade 5 students’ acquisition of the computational thinking concepts and acceptance of the robot technology. Education 3-13, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2022.2041685
• Kocaçil, S. (2020). Programmable educational toy robot design and its use in pre-school [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Afyon Kocatepe University.
• Korkmaz, Ö. (2018). The effect of scratch-and lego mindstorms Ev3-Based programming activities on academic achievement, problem-solving skills and logical-mathematical thinking skills of students. MOJES: Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(3), 73-88.
• Korkmaz, Ö., Acar, B., Çakır, R., Erdoğmuş, F. U., & Çakır, E. (2019). Educational robot sets with science and technology course basic Machinery of the secondary school 7th class students’ stem skill Levels and the effect of the lesson attitudes. Educational technology theory and practice, 9(2), 372-391. https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.518215
• Marzano, G., & Zorzi, S. (2022). Autism and creativity: a social robotics application. In society. integration. education. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 685-696). https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2022vol1.6825
• McAllister Ed D, D. A., & Glidden, J. L. (2022). Learning Robotics Concepts with Lego Spike Essential: Data Collection 2021 with Pre-service Teachers. https://doi.org/10.47646/cmd.2020.180
• Memiş, T. (2020). Özel yeteneklilerin eğitiminde lego ev3 robotlarla tam sayılarda işlemlere yönelik bir etkinlik çalışması [An activity development study for integer operations with lego ev3 robots in the education of special talents]. Journal of Children and Civilization, 5(10). http://dx.doi.org/10.47646/CMD.2020.180
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman A. M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
• Ministry of National Education (2013). Pre-school curriculum. Ankara. Retrieved April 17, 2022, from https://tegm.MONE.gov.tr/dosya/okuloncesi/ooproram.pdf
• Negrini, L., & Giang, C. (2019). How do pupils perceive educational robotics as a tool to improve their 21st-century skills?. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 15(2), 77-87. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1628
• O’Brien, B. (2020). How to choose the right type of robot for your classroom. Meet Edison. Retrieved April 18, 2022, from https://meetedison.com/how-to-choose-the-right-robot-for-your-classroom/
• P21 (2019). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved April 17, 2022, from https://static.battelleforkids.org/documents/p21/P21EarlyChildhoodFramework.pdf
• Paucar-Curasma, R., Villalba-Condori, K., Arias-Chavez, D., Le, N. T., Garcia-Tejada, G., & Frango-Silveira, I. (2022). Evaluation of Computational Thinking using four educational robots with primary school students in Peru. Education in the Knowledge Society, 23. https://doi.org/10.14201/eks.26161
• Pei, Z., & Nie, Y. (2018). Educational robots: Classification, characteristics, application areas and problems. In 2018 Seventh International Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology (EITT) (pp. 57-62). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/eitt.2018.00020
• Polat, Ö., & Bardak, M. (2019). STEM approach in early childhood. International Journal of Social Science Research, 8(2), 18-41.
• Sáez-López, J. M., Sevillano-García, M. L., & Vazquez-Cano, E. (2019). The effect of programming on primary school students’ mathematical and scientific understanding: educational use of mBot. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(6), 1405-1425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09648-5
• Schina, D., Esteve-González, V., & Usart, M. (2021). An overview of teacher training programs in educational robotics: characteristics, best practices and recommendations. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 2831-2852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10377-z
• Serholt, S. (2018). Breakdowns in children’s interactions with a robotic tutor: A longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 250-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.030
• Tang, A. L., Tung, V. W. S., & Cheng, T. O. (2020). Dual roles of educational robotics in management education: Pedagogical means and learning outcomes. Education and Information Technologies, 25(2), 1271-1283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10015-3
• Tuğluk, M. N. & Özkan, B. (2019) Analysis of MoNE 2013 pre-school education program in terms of 21st-century skills. Journal of Primary Education, 1(4), 29-38.
• Tweedale, J. W. (2022). Using Lego EV3 to explore robotic concepts in a laboratory. International Journal of Advanced Intelligence Paradigms, 21(3-4), 330-347. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijaip.2022.10046237
• 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. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v10n4p83
• Veselovská, M., & Mayerová, K. (2017, April). LEGO WeDo curriculum for lower secondary school. In International Conference on Robotics and Education RiE 2017 (pp. 53-64). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62875-2_5
• Xia, L., & Zhong, B. (2018). A systematic review on teaching and learning robotics content knowledge in K-12. Computers & Education, 127, 267-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.007
• Yang, W., Ng, D. T. K., & Gao, H. (2022). Robot programming versus block play in early childhood education: Effects on computational thinking, sequencing ability, and self‐regulation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(6), 1817-1841. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13215
• Yıldırım, R., & Ortak, Ş. (2021). Determining the level of using 21st-century learning and innovation skills of secondary school students. Turkish Studies-Education Sciences, 16(6), 2683-2701. https://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.51668