Can Robotics Be Taught Online?: Changes in Robotics Teaching during the Pandemic

Year 2022, Volume: 35 Issue: 3, 532 - 559, 22.12.2022

Fadime Sucu , Ünal Çakıroğlu

https://doi.org/10.19171/uefad.1034509

Abstract

Along with the COVID-19 epidemic, there have been changes in the process of conducting face-to-face lessons in secondary schools in online learning environments, and in the preparation and presentation of the lessons. In this study, the changes in the online course process of robotics teaching conducted within the scope of Information Technologies course were investigated by using survey and interview methods together. Participants were 307 Robotics teachers working in private and public schools in Turkey. Interviews were conducted with 15 Robotic coding teachers, who were selected from the participants who were surveyed. Results showed that, during online robotics teaching, the most significant changes occurred in the teaching environment and the tools used compared to face-to-face robotics teaching. Results also showed that robotics course contents, technological infrastructure, in-course and extra-curricular factors affect the robotics teaching process. Finally, robotics instructors used more than one teaching method together during online teaching and there were differences in learning outcomes according to the face-to-face environment. In this context, robotics education can also be conducted online by using appropriate tools/environments in online lessons, creating applicable lesson plans in online lessons, and making use of teaching methods and techniques that will make the online lesson interactive. It is hoped that this study will contribute to online learning studies in defining online robotics teaching.

Keywords

Online learning, Information Technologies, Robotic coding, Pandemic

Can Robotics Be Taught Online?: Changes in Robotics Teaching during the Pandemic

Abstract

Along with the COVID-19 epidemic, there have been changes in the process of conducting face-to-face lessons in secondary schools in online learning environments, and in the preparation and presentation of the lessons. In this study, the changes in the online course process of robotics teaching conducted within the scope of Information Technologies course were investigated by using survey and interview methods together. Participants were 307 Robotics teachers working in private and public schools in Turkey. Interviews were conducted with 15 Robotic coding teachers, who were selected from the participants who were surveyed. Results showed that, during online robotics teaching, the most significant changes occurred in the teaching environment and the tools used compared to face-to-face robotics teaching. Results also showed that robotics course contents, technological infrastructure, in-course and extra-curricular factors affect the robotics teaching process. Finally, robotics instructors used more than one teaching method together during online teaching and there were differences in learning outcomes according to the face-to-face environment. In this context, robotics education can also be conducted online by using appropriate tools/environments in online lessons, creating applicable lesson plans in online lessons, and making use of teaching methods and techniques that will make the online lesson interactive. It is hoped that this study will contribute to online learning studies in defining online robotics teaching.

Keywords

Information Technologies, Robotic coding, Online learning, Pandemic

Robotik Çevrimiçi Öğretilir Mi?: Pandemi Sırasında Robotik Eğitim Süreçlerindeki Değişimler

Abstract

COVID-19 salgını ile birlikte ortaokullarda yüz yüze yürütülen derslerin çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarında yürütülmeye başlanması, derslerin hazırlık ve sunulma sürecinde değişiklikler meydana getirmiştir. Bilişim Teknolojileri ve Yazılımı (BTY) dersi kapsamında öğretilen Robotik kodlama, kavramsal bilgilerin yanında farklı becerileri öğretmeyi de amaçlayan çoğunlukla uygulamalı yürütülen bir ders olduğu için çevrimiçi eğitim sürecinde öğretmenler için fazla çaba gerektiren bir ders halini almıştır. Bu çalışmada, çevrimiçi ders sürecinde robotik kodlama öğretiminde meydana gelen değişimleri tarama ve mülakat yöntemleri birlikte kullanılarak ortaya konulmuştur. Çalışmada veri toplama aracı olarak anket kullanılmıştır. Türkiye’nin farklı bölgelerinde özel ve devlet okullarında görev yapmakta olan 307 robotik dersi veren öğretmenler anketi cevaplamıştır. Ayrıca, ankete katılan öğretmenler arasından belirlenen 15 öğretmen ile mülakat yapılmıştır. Sonuç olarak; çevrimiçi robotik öğretim sürecinde yüz yüze robotik öğretimine göre en belirgin değişimler öğretim ortamı ve kullanılan araçlarda meydana geldiği belirlenmiştir. Bununla birlikte robotik öğretim sürecini robotik ders içerikleri, teknolojik altyapı, ders içi ve ders dışı etmenlerin etkilediği ortaya çıkmıştır. Son olarak çevrimiçi ders sürecinde robotik öğreticilerinin birden fazla öğretim yöntemini bir arada kullandıkları ve yüz yüze ortama göre öğrenme çıktılarında farklılıklar olduğu bulunmuştur. Bu doğrultuda çevrimiçi derslerde uygun araç/ortamların kullanılması, çevrimiçi derste uygulanabilir ders planlarının oluşturulması, çevrimiçi ders sürecini aktif kılacak öğretim yöntem ve tekniklerinden faydalanılması ile robotik eğitimi çevrimiçi olarak da gerçekleştirilebilir. Bu çalışmanın, çevrimiçi robotik öğretim süreçlerinin yürütülmesinde teorik ve pratik çalışmalara katkı sağlayabileceği değerlendirilmektedir.

Keywords

Bilişim teknolojileri, Robotik kodlama, Çevrimiçi öğrenme, Pandemi

References

• Adnan, M., & Anwar, K. (2020). Online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Students' perspectives. Online Submission, 2(1), 45-51.
• Altin, H., & Pedaste, M. (2013). Learning approaches to applying robotics in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(3), 365–377.
• Amnouychokanant, V., Boonlue, S., Chuathong, S., & Thamwipat, K. (2021). Online learning using block-based programming to foster computational thinking abilities during the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16(13), 227-246.
• 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.
• Ayaz, E. (2021). İlkokul fen bilimleri dersinin pandemi dönemi uzaktan eğitimine ilişkin öğretmen ve ebeveyn görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(1), 298-342.
• Balaban, E. (2012). Dünyada ve Türkiye’de uzaktan eğitim ve bir proje önerisi. Bilgiye Erişim ve Paylaşım Projesi: Uzaktan Eğitim. Işık Üniversitesi. http://www.erdalbalaban.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/12/UE_UzaktanE%C4%9Fitim_EB.pdf. Erişim tarihi: 25.08.2021.
• Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: what is Involved and what is the role of the computer science education community?. Acm Inroads, 2(1), 48-54.
• Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988.
• 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.
• Bers, M. U., Ponte, I., Juelich, C., Viera, A., & Schenker, J. (2002). Teachers as designers: Integrating robotics in early childhood education. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2002(1), 123–145.
• Birk, A., & Simunovic, D. (2021). Robotics labs and other hands-on teaching during COVID-19: Change is here to stay?. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 28(4), 92-102.
• Birk, A., Dineva, E., Maurelli, F., & Nabor, A. (2020). A robotics course during covid-19: Lessons learned and best practices for online teaching beyond the pandemic. Robotics, 10(1), 5.
• Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April). Using artifact-based interviews to study the development of computational thinking in interactive media design. Paper presented at annual American Educational Research Association meeting, Vancouver, Canada.
• Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2015). Animations showing Lego manipulative tasks: Three potential moderators of effectiveness. Computers & Education, 85, 1–13.
• Chalmers, C. (2018). Robotics and computational thinking in primary school. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 17, 93-100.
• Chalmers, C., & Nason, R. (2017). Systems thinking approach to robotics curriculum in schools. In Robotics in STEM Education (pp. 33-57). Springer, Cham.
• Chaudhary, V., Agrawal, V., Sureka, P., & Sureka, A. (2016, December). An experience report on teaching programming and computational thinking to elementary level children using lego robotics education kit. Paper presented at the 2016 IEEE Eighth International Conference on Technology for Education, Mumbai, India.
• Chen, C. H., Yang, C. K., Huang, K., & Yao, K. C. (2020). Augmented reality and competition in robotics education: Effects on 21st century competencies, group collaboration and learning motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(6), 1052-1062.
• 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. Journal of Networks, 8(7), 1529.
• Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
• Çatlak, Ş., Tekdal, M., ve Baz, F. Ç. (2015). Scratch yazılımı ile programlama öğretiminin durumu: Bir doküman inceleme çalışması. Journal of Instructional Technologies and Teacher Education, 4(3), 13-25.
• De La Croix, J. P., & Egerstedt, M. (2014, June). Flipping the controls classroom around a MOOC. In 2014 American Control Conference (pp. 2557-2562). IEEE.
• Eguchi, A. (2016). RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 692–699.
• Eskici, G. Y., Mercan, S., ve Hakverdi, F. (2020). Robotik kavramına yönelik ortaokul öğrencilerinin zihinsel imajları. Amasya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1), 30-64.
• European Commission (2018). Coding- the 21st century skill. European Commission. https://wayback.archive-it.org/12090/20190630043709/https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/coding-21st-century-skill. Erişim tarihi: 04.06.2022.
• Felicia, A., & Sharif, S. (2014). A review on educational robotics as assistive tools for learning mathematics and science. International Journal of Computer Science Trends and Technology (IJCST), 2(2), 62-84.
• Fidan, U., ve Yalçın, Y. (2012). Robot Eğitim Seti Lego Nxt. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 12(1), 1-8.
• Kafai, Y. B. & Resnick, M. (2012). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Routledge.
• Kalelioğlu, F., ve Gülbahar, Y. (2015, Eylül). Bilgi işlemsel düşünme nedir ve nasıl öğretilir? 3. Uluslararası Öğretim Teknolojileri ve Öğretmen Eğitimi Sempozyumu’nda sunulan bildiri, Trabzon, Türkiye.
• Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2014). Put your robot in, put your robot out: Sequencing through programming robots in early childhood. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(4), 553-573.
• Kong, S. C., & Wang, Y. Q. (2019). Nurture interest-driven creators in programmable robotics education: an empirical investigation in primary school settings. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 14(1), 1-19.
• Kopcha, T. J., Mcgregor, J., Shin, S., Qian, Y., Choi, J., Hill, R., et al. (2017). Developing an integrative STEM curriculum for robotics education through educational design research. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 1(1), 31–44.
• Lee, I., Martin, F., & Apone, K. (2014). Integrating computational thinking across the K--8 curriculum. Acm Inroads, 5(4), 64-71.
• 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.
• Mcmillan, H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Researcher in education (7th ed.). Pearson.
• Miles, B. M., ve Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Sage Publication.
• Mills, K. A., Chandra, V., & Park, J. Y. (2013). The architecture of children’s use of language and tools when problem solving collaboratively with robotics. The Australian Educational Researcher, 40(3), 315-337.
• Mukherjee, M. (2020). What Coronavirus outbreak means for global higher education. http://dspace.jgu.edu.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/10739/3391/1/What%20Coronavirus%20Outbreak%20Means%20.pdf . Erişim tarihi: 28.05.2022.
• Mulenga, E. M., & Marbán, J. M. (2020). Is COVID-19 the gateway for digital learning in mathematics education?. Contemporary Educational Technology, 12(2), 269.
• Mutlu, B., Forlizzi, J., & Hodgins, J. (2006, December). A storytelling robot: Modeling and evaluation of human-like gaze behavior. Paper presented at the 2006 6th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robot, Genova, Italy.
• Nabeel, M., Latifee, H. O., Naqi, O., Aqeel, K., Arshad, M. & Khurram, M. (2017, December). Robotics education methodology for K-12 students for enhancing skill sets prior to entering university. Paper presented at the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), Macao, China.
• Numanoğlu, M., & Keser, H. (2017). Programlama öğretiminde robot kullanımı - Mbot örneği. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 497-515.
• Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books. Partnership for 21st Century Skills-P21. (2009). Framework for 21st century learning. Erişim http://www.p21.org/about-us/p21-framework
• Petre, M., & Price, B. (2004). Using robotics to motivate ‘back door’ learning. Education and Information Technologies, 9(2), 147–158.
• Sanford, J. F., & Naidu, J. T. (2016). Computational thinking concepts for grade school. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER), 9(1), 23-32.
• Sarıtepeci, M., & Durak, H. (2017). Analyzing the effect of block and robotic coding activities on computational thinking in programming education. Educational research and practice, 490-501.
• Sayın, Z., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2016). Yeni bir 21. yüzyıl becerisi olarak kodlama eğitimi ve kodlamanın eğitim politikalarına etkisi. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı 2016, 3-5 Şubat 2016. Aydın.
• Shah, U., Khan, S. H., & Reynolds, M. (2020). Insights into variation in teachers’ pedagogical relationship with ICT: A phenomenographic exploration in the Pakistani higher education context. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 29(5), 541–555.
• Sharma, S., & Bumb, A. (2021). The challenges faced in technology-driven classes during Covid-19. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (IJDET), 19(1), 66-88.
• Si, Q., & Zhong, B. (2019, August). Effects of Troubleshooting Tasks with Prompt Information on Students' Transfer Performance in Robotics Education. Paper presented at the 2019 Twelfth International Conference on Ubi-Media Computing (Ubi-Media), Bali, Indonesia.
• Simonson, M., Zvacek, S. M., & Smaldino, S. (2019). Teaching and learning at a distance: foundations of distance education (7th ed.). IAP.
• Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 3–20.
• Şişman, B., & Küçük, S. (2018). Öğretmen adaylarının robotik programlamada akış, kaygı ve bilişsel yük seviyeleri. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 8(2), 108-124.
• Tanik-Önal, N., & Önal, N. (2020). Teaching science through distance education during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 7(4), 1898-1911.
• Teo, T., & Noyes, J. (2014). Explaining the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A multi-group analysis of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(1), 51–66.
• Trust, T. (2020). The 3 biggest remote teaching concerns we need to solve now. EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-04-02-the-3-biggest-remoteteaching-concerns-we-need-to-solve-now. Erişim Tarihi: 09.09.2022.
• Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 715-728.
• Xia, L., & Zhong, B. (2018). A systematic review on teaching and learning robotics content knowledge in K-12. Computers & Education, 127, 267–282.
• Yadav, A., Gretter, S., Good, J., & McLean, T. (2017). Computational thinking in teacher education. In Rich, P.J., Hodges, C.B. (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 205-220). Springer.
• Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317–331.
• Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, H. S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1836.
• Zhong, B., & Wang, Y. (2021). Effects of roles assignment and learning styles on pair learning in robotics education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(1), 41-59.
• Zhong, B., Kang, S., & Zhan, Z. (2020). Investigating the effect of reverse engineering pedagogy in K‐12 robotics education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 1-15.
• Zinovieva, I. S., Artemchuk, V. O., Iatsyshyn, A. V., Popov, O. O., Kovach, V. O., Iatsyshyn, A. V., ... & Radchenko, O. V. (2021, March). The use of online coding platforms as additional distance tools in programming education. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1840, No. 1, p. 012029). IOP Publishing.