International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1949-4270   |  e-ISSN: 1949-4289

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2020, Vol. 15(1) 253-274

Investigation of the Opinions of Teachers Who Received In-Service Training for Arduino-Assisted Robotic Coding Applications

Gökhan Guven & Nevin Kozcu Çakır

pp. 253 - 274   |  DOI:   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2001-03-0001.R1

Published online: March 24, 2020  |   Number of Views: 231  |  Number of Download: 709


The aim of this study is to determine the opinions of primary school teachers who received in-service training on robotic coding applications. For this purpose, descriptive study model, which is one of the qualitative research methods, was utilized. The study group of the research consisted of six primary school teachers who voluntarily gave opinions out of 30 teachers who participated in in-service robotic coding training in the first semester of 2018-2019 academic year. "Semi-structured interview form" was used as data collection tool. The data obtained from the participants were transferred to NVivo 12 program and analyzed by content analysis method and classified under certain categories. Direct quotations were included to reflect the responses of the participants in a striking manner. As a result of the research, participants stated that the in-service training period was inadequate and limited, and that a limited number of examples of robotic coding applications were covered. In addition, it was found that the participants generally did not incorporate such practices in their own classes after the training. They made various explanations about the reasons of this situation. In line with the results of this research, it is suggested that more time should be devoted to the applications related to robotic coding provided to teachers during in-service training, and that activities related to how to integrate them into classroom teaching practices should be organized.

Keywords: Robotics coding, in-service training, primary school teachers

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Guven, G. & Cakir, N.K. (2020). Investigation of the Opinions of Teachers Who Received In-Service Training for Arduino-Assisted Robotic Coding Applications . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 15(1), 253-274. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2020.236.14

Guven, G. and Cakir, N. (2020). Investigation of the Opinions of Teachers Who Received In-Service Training for Arduino-Assisted Robotic Coding Applications . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 15(1), pp. 253-274.

Chicago 16th edition
Guven, Gokhan and Nevin Kozcu Cakir (2020). "Investigation of the Opinions of Teachers Who Received In-Service Training for Arduino-Assisted Robotic Coding Applications ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 15 (1):253-274. doi:10.29329/epasr.2020.236.14.

  1. Adams Becker, S., Freeman, A., Giesinger Hall, C., Cummins, M., & Yuhnke, B. (2016). NMC/CoSN horizon report: 2016 K-12 edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alimisis, D., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Constructionism and robotics in education. D. Alimisis (Ed.), Teacher education on robotics-enhanced constructivist pedagogical methods. (pp. 11-26). ASPETE: Athens. [Google Scholar]
  3. 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. [Google Scholar]
  4. Baser, M., & Ozden, M.Y. (2015). Developing attitude scale toward computer programming. International Journal of Social Science, 6(6), 199-215. [Google Scholar]
  5. Baz, F.Ç. (2018). A Comparative Analysis of Coding Software for Children. Current Research in Education, 4(1), 36-47. [Google Scholar]
  6. Benitti, F.B.V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978-988. [Google Scholar]
  7. Berland, M., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Comparing virtual and physical robotics environments for supporting complex systems and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 628-647. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bers, M.U., & Portsmore, M. (2005). Teaching partnerships: Early childhood and engineering students teaching math and science through robotics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), 59-73. [Google Scholar]
  9. Beug, A. (2012). Teaching introductory programming concepts: A comparison of scratch and arduino. Unpublished master thesis. California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bybee, R.W. (2010). What is STEM education? Science, 329(5995), 996-996.  [Google Scholar]
  11. Cetin, I., & Toluk Ucar, Z. (2017). Bilgi işlemsel düşünme tanımı ve kapsamı. Y. Gülbahar (Ed.), Bilgi İşlemsel Düşünmeden Programlamaya, (pp.41-74). Pegem Akademi: Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cinar, S. (2017, April). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının öğretim materyali olarak robotik teknoloji kullanımı ile ilgili düşünceleri. Paper presented at the VIII. International Congress on Research on Education, Çanakkale. [Google Scholar]
  13. Costa, M.F., & Fernandes, J.F. (2005 July). Robots at school. The eurobotice project. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference Hands-on Science: Science in a Changing Education, (pp.219-221), Rethymno, Greece. [Google Scholar]
  14. Creswell, J.W. (2013). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri: Beş yaklaşıma göre nitel araştırma ve araştırma deseni (3. Baskı), M. Bütün & S.B. Demir (Çev. Ed.), Siyasal Kitabevi: Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  15. Czerkawski, B.C., & Lyman, E.W. (2015). Exploring issues about computational thinking in higher education. TechTrends, 59(2), 57-65. [Google Scholar]
  16. Demirer, V., & Sak, N. (2016). Programming education and new approaches around the world and in Turkey. Journal of Theory and Practise in Education, 12(3), 521-546. [Google Scholar]
  17. Elkin, M., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M.U. (2016). Programming with the KIBO robotics kit in preschool classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 33(3), 169-186 [Google Scholar]
  18. Flanagan, L., & Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first century principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 124-142. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gomes, A., & Mendes, A.J. (2007 September). Learning to program-difficulties and solutions. 1st International Conference on Engineering Education, University of Coimbra, Portugal. [Google Scholar]
  20. Grubbs, M. (2013). Robotics intrigue middle school students and build STEM skills. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 72(6), 12-16. [Google Scholar]
  21. Gura, M. (2012). Lego robotics: STEM sport of the mind. Learning and Leading with Technology, 40(1), 12-16.  [Google Scholar]
  22. Hacker, L. (2003). Robotics in education: ROBOLAB and robotic technology as tools for learning science and engineering. Unpublished senior thesis. Department of Child Development, Tufts University, Medford. [Google Scholar]
  23. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC horizon report: 2015 higher education edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.  [Google Scholar]
  24. Karabak, D., & Gunes, A. (2013). Curriculum proposal for first class secondary school students in the field of software development. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 2(3), 163-169. [Google Scholar]
  25. Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17-27. [Google Scholar]
  26. Khanlari, A. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and the challenges of integrating educational robots into primary/elementary curricula. European Journal of Engineering Education, 41(3), 320-330. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kim, C.M., Yuan, J., Kim, D., Doshi, P., Thai, C.N., Hill, R.B., & Melias, E. (2017). Studying the usability of an intervention to promote teachers’ use of robotics in STEM education, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(8), 1179-1212. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lau, W.W., & Yuen, A.H. (2011). Modelling programming performance: Beyond the influence of learner characteristics. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1202-1213. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ministry Education [MoNE], (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar). Milli Eğitim Yayınları: Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  30. Numanoglu, M., & Keser, H. (2017). Robot usage in programming teaching-Mbot example. Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, 6(2), 497-515. [Google Scholar]
  31. Patton, M.Q. (2014). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri, M. Bütün & S.B. Demir (Çev. Ed.), Pegem Akademi: Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  32. Petre, M., & Price, B. (2004). Using robotics to motivate ‘back door’ learning. Education and Information Technologies, 9(2), 147-158. [Google Scholar]
  33. Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand Oaks, California: Corvin. [Google Scholar]
  34. Psycharis, S., & Kallia, M. (2017). The effects of computer programming on high school students’ reasoning skills and mathematical self-efficacy and problem solving. Instructional Science, 45(5), 583-602. [Google Scholar]
  35. Reiner, M. (2009). Sensory cues, visualization and physics learning. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 343-364. [Google Scholar]
  36. Roblyer, M., & Edwards, J. (2005). Integrating educational technology into teaching (4th ed.). Upper Saddler River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar]
  37. Saglık, M.A., & Karademir, Ç.A. (2019). Evaluation of technology and design course 2018 curriculum according to teachers’ views.  Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 7(1), 302-319. [Google Scholar]
  38. Sahin, S.K. (2018). Kodlama Serüveni: Scratch ve mBlock ile Arduino [Coding Adventure: Arduino with Scratch and mBlock]. İstanbul: Abaküs Yayınevi. [Google Scholar]
  39. Strawhacker, A., & Bers, M.U. (2015). “I want my robot to look for food": Comparing kindergartner's programming comprehension using tangible, graphic, and hybrid user interfaces. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(3), 293-319. [Google Scholar]
  40. 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. [Google Scholar]
  41. Sullivan, F.R. (2017). The creative nature of robotics activity: Design and problem solving. M.S. Khine (Ed.), Robotics in STEM Education: Redesigning the Learning Experience. (pp.213-230). Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  42. Wang, Y., Li, H., Feng, Y., Jiang, Y., & Liu, Y. (2012). Assessment of programming language learning based on peer code review model: Implementation and experience report. Computers & Education, 59(2), 412–422.  [Google Scholar]
  43. Wei, C.W., Hung, I.C., Lee L., & Chen, N.S. (2011). A joyful classroom learning system with robot learning companion for children to learn mathematics multiplication. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 11-23. [Google Scholar]
  44. Williams, D.C., Ma, Y., Prejean, L., Ford, M.J., & Lai, G. (2007). Acquisition of physics content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills in a robotics summer camp. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 201-216. [Google Scholar]
  45. Yildirim, A. & Simsek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık: Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  46. Zengin, M. (2016). Opinions on the use of robotic systems in the interdisciplinary education and training of primary, secondary and high school students. Journal of Gifted Education Research, 4(2), 48-70. [Google Scholar]