Robotic Coding Attitudes and Opinions of Pre-service Teachers about Robotic
Coding Applications with Tinkercad
Department of Computer Sciences, Muş, Turkey
*Corresponding Author: Güleryüz, Department of Computer Sciences,
October 14, 2022; Published: November 30, 2022
Technological innovations that we have come across in recent years affect every aspect of our lives. It is possible to see the effects of technology in almost every field and every age group. Innovative technologies, which are becoming more important and integrated into our lives day by day, appear with technological developments in the field of coding and robotics. It is predicted that the technological developments experienced in line with the researches will continue on coding and robotics. The aim of this study is to investigate the attitudes and opinions of Pre-Service Teachersabout robotic coding applications made with Tinkercad. 33 science Pre-Service Teachers participated in the 6-week study. In this study, mixed research method was used. For the analysis of quantitative data, robotic coding attitude scale was applied to teacher candidates. The study was carried out in the form of pretest-posttest. Analyzes were made by applying the t test for dependent samples. In the analysis of qualitative data, semi-structured interview questions were applied. According to the findings of the study, it is seen that there is a positive significant difference in robotic coding attitudes of teacher candidates. Tinkercad and robotic coding trainings were given and 5 applications related to robotic coding were made within the scope of these trainings. As a result of these practices, pre-service teachers stated that their problem solving and high-level thinking skills improved. They stated that robotics and coding gave the pre-service teachers self-confidence and that the pre-service teachers who received robotic coding training had different skills and imagination. When the answers given in this direction are evaluated, it is seen that the robotic teaching of the teachers creates positive attitudes and opinions on the teacher candidates, and very effective and successful results are obtained.
Keywords: Robotic Coding; Tinkercad; Robotic Coding Attitude
- Altun Yalcin S., et al. “Development and validation of Robotic Coding Attitude Scale”. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (IJEMST)4 (2020): 342-352.
- Aras B. “Robotic Applications Graduation Project”. Istanbul University, Computer Engineering Department, Istanbul (2009).
- Balay R. “Globalization, Information Society and Education”. Journal of Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences 2 (2004).
- Büyüköztürk Ş., et al. “Conners öğretmen dereceleme ölçeği-yenilenmiş kısa: Türkiye uyarlama çalışması”. Eğitim ve Bilim, 38.167 (2013).
- Çavaş B. The Effect of Robot Applications in Primary Education on Students' Scientific Process Skills and Creativity, Dokuz Eylül University, Ongoing Scientific Research Project (2009).
- Eguchi A. “Educational Robotics For Promoting 21st Century Skills” (2014).
- Erten E. “Kodlama ve robotik öğretimi üzerine bir durum çalışması”. (Master's thesis, Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü) (2019).
- Datteri E. “Predicting the long-term effects of human-robot interaction: A reflection on responsibility in medical robotics”. Science and Engineering Ethics1 (2013): 139-160.
- Güleryüz. “The effect of 3D printer and robotic coding applications on 21st century learner skills of prospective teachers, STEM awareness and STEM teacher self-efficacy”. Doctorate Thesis, Atatürk University, Institute of Educational Sciences. Erzurum.
- Güleryüz H and Dilber R. “STEM activities made with robotic coding; the effect on awareness of Pre-Service Teachersregarding its use in science lessons”. İnternational Journal of Engineering Technologies and Management11 (2021): 79–96.
- Güleryüz H and Dilber R. “The impact of robotics coding and 3d printıng STEM actıvıty on 21st century learner skills of teacher candidates”. International Journal of Engineering 4 (2022): 1–18.
- Güleryüz H., et al. “Opinions of Pre-Service Teacherson coding education in STEM applications Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen University”. Journal of Social Sciences1 (2020): 71–83.
- Güleryüz. “The effect of robotic coding (Mblock - Arduino) activities on students’ self-efficacy and attitudes”. Acta Scientific Computer Sciences8 (2022), 02–09.
- Gültepe AA. “Students are coding through the eyes of information technology teachers who teach coding”. International Journal of Leadership Training2 (2018): 50-60.
- Kanbul S and ve Uzunboylu H. “Importance of Coding Education and Robotik Applications for Achieving 21st-Century Skills in North Cyprus”. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning1 (2017).
- Koç A and Big U. “Technology Based Learning in Science and Technology Education: Robotic Applications”. Turkish Journal of Science Education Year1 (2013).
- Korucu A T and Taşdöndüren T. “Ortaokul öğrencilerinin blok temelli programlamaya ilişkin öz-yeterlik algılarının ve robotiğe yönelik tutumlarının incelenmesi”. Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 1 (2019): 44-58.
- Sayın Z and Seferoğlu SS. “Yeni bir 21. yüzyıl becerisi olarak kodlama eğitimi ve kodlamanın eğitim politikalarına etkisi”. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı5 (2016).
- Settle A., et al. “Three views on motivation and programming”. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation ve technology in computer science education (2014): 321-322.
- Şenol a K and Büyük U. “Robotik destekli fen ve teknoloji laboratuvar uygulamaları: Robolab”. Electronic Turkish Studies3 (2015): 170-201.
- Şenol Ş and Demirer V. “Information Technologies and Software in Systematics from Coding Education to Robot Technology Course Teaching Program Example and Teachers' Views”. 26th International Educational Sciences Congress, Analya (2017).
- Sisman B and Kucuk, S. “Pre-Service Teachers' Experiences in Learning Robotics Design and Programming”. Informatics in Education2 (2018): 301-320.
- Welch A and Huffman D. “The effect of robotics competitions on high school students' attitudes toward science”. School Science and Mathematics8 (2011): 416-424.