Pre-service science teachers’ experiences with robotic intervention process

Robotic intervention process

Authors

  • Alev Doğan Gazi University
  • Gülşah Uluay Ordu University

Abstract

In the digital world, where robotics implementations are taking a place in educational processes with increasing acceleration, it is important that pre-service teachers gain competences in this field that addresses the needs of the future. From this point of view, the aim of this study is to design an activity process in which pre-service science teachers will experience robotic implementations and to determine their opinions about this process. In line with this aim, a four-week out-of-school activity process which was implemented with 46 pre-service science teachers was designed. In this process, iDea software was used, and pre-service teachers were provided to design. The data of this case study was collected through a structured interview form. According to the results, it was concluded that the awareness and curiosity levels towards robotic implementations of pre-service teachers increased and their confidence in their own competence levels increased through the experiences gained by the participants in the activity process.

References

Abbott, J. A., & Faris, S. E. (2000). Integrating technology into preservice literacy instructions a survey of elementary education students’ attitudes toward computers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 149-161.

Akgündüz, D., Aydeniz, M., Çakmakçı, G., Çavaş, B., Çorlu, M. S., Öner, T., & Özdemir, S. (2015). STEM eğitimi Türkiye raporu. İstanbul: Scala Press.

Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 63-71.

Barker, B. S., & Ansorge, J. (2007). Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. Journal of research on technology in education, 39(3), 229-243.

Barker, B. S., Nugent, G., Grandgenett, N., & Hampton, A. (2008). Examining 4-H robotics in the learning of science, engineering and technology topics and the related student attitudes. Journal of Youth Development, 2(3), 17.

Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(3), 235-245.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cummings, T. (2017). The power of educational robotics. Saint Mary's College of California.

Dori, Y. J., & Tal, R. T. (2000). Formal and informal collaborative projects: Engaging in industry with environmental awareness. Science Education, 84(1), 95-113.

Eguchi, A. (2014). Educational robotics for promoting 21st century skills. Journal of Automation Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems, 8(1), 5-11.

Eguchi, A. (2016). RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 692-699.

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.

Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155-192.

Hitchcock, G. & Hughes, D. (1995) Research and the teacher. London: Routledge.

Johnson, J. (2003). Children, robotics, and education. Artificial Life and Robotics, 7(1-2), 16-21.

Klein, A. (2009). Assessing the effect of robotics education on student attitude towards science. South Dakota State University.

Martin, F. (2001). Robotic Explorations, A Hands-on Introduction to Engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Mataric, M. J. (2004). Robotics education for all ages. In Proc. AAAI Spring Symposium on Accessible, Hands-on AI and Robotics Education.

Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Impact of robotics and geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 391-408.

Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Welch, G. (2016). Robotics camps, clubs, and competitions: Results from a US robotics project. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 686-691.

Özel, M. (2018). Robotik Biliminin Orta Okul 8. Sınıf Fen Bilimleri Dersine Entegrasyonu. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.

P21. (2019). Partnership for 21st Century Learning. http://www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21 (07.11.2019).

Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher education with preparing tomorrow's teachers to teach with technology (PT3) grants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 863-870.

Sklar, E., Eguchi, A., & Johnson, J. (2003). Scientific challenge award: RoboCupJunior— learning with educational robotics, AI Mag. 24(2), 43–46.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Verner, I. M., & Ahlgren, D. J. (2004). Robot contest as a laboratory for experiential engineering education. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC), 4(2), 2-es.

Wouters, P., Van Nimwegen, C., Van Oostendorp, H., & Van Der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 249-265.

Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.

Downloads

Published

2021-09-01