Effect of robotics technology in science education on scientific creativity and attitude development
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36681/Keywords:
Robotics technology, science education, scientific creativity, scientific attitudeAbstract
In this research, the effect of experimental applications by using robotics technology in Science and Technology course the “Force and Motion” unit on the level of scientific creativity and scientific attitude of students was investigated. This research was designed according to the quasi-experimental method pre-test post-test design with a control group. In the research that was carried out with the 7th grade students (N=40) studying at a secondary school in Kayseri Province, Turkey. “Scientific Creativity Test” and “Scientific Attitude Scale” were used as data collection tools. At the end of implementation which lasted eight weeks, the quantitative data obtained were evaluated at 0.05 meaningfulness level through SPSS package software. “Mann Whitney U-Test” and “Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test” were applied as analysis techniques. As a result of the research, while a meaningful difference was found between scientific creativity and scientific attitude pre-test post-test points of the students in the experimental group which robotics technology was used, no difference was found in the control group. Thus, it was found out that robotics developed scientific creativity and scientific attitude level of the students who joined the research by affecting it positively. Therefore, it is recommended that robotics-assisted science laboratory activities should also be planned and implemented in different classes, units or subjects to provide a science teaching with a better quality that supports and improves scientific creativity and scientific attitudes of students.
Downloads
References
Alacapınar, F.G. (2013). Grade level and creativity. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 50, 247-266.
Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science & Technology Education, 6(1), 63-71.
Aristawati, F. A., Budiyanto, C. & Yuana, R.A (2018). Adopting educational robotics to enhance undergraduate students’ self-efficacy levels of computational thinking. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 15(Special), 42-50.
Avcı, B. (2017). The effect of Lego Mindstorm robotics projects on technological pedagogical content knowledge, problem solving skills and scientific creativity of teacher candidates. Master Thesis, Marmara University, Istanbul.
Aydeniz, M. (2017). Our education system and vision for the 21st century: A STEM-oriented economic roadmap for Turkey as moving toward 2045 goals. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Ayverdi, L., Asker, E., Özaydın, S., & Sarıtaş, T. (2012). Determination of the relationship between elementary students’ scientific creativity and academic in science and technology courses. Elementary Education Online, 11(3), 646-659.
Baek, J., & Yoon, M. (2016). The influence of robot-based learning on elementary school students’ creativity. International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, 11(12), 45-56.
Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978-988.
Botelho, S.S.C., Braz, L.G., & Rodrigues, R. N. (2012). “Exploring creativity and sociability with an accessible educational robotic kit”. 3rd International Conference on Robotics in Education.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016). Experimental designs (5th edition). Ankara: Pegem academy.
Chao, J. (2012). The influences of LEGO Mindstorms NXT on creativity of Aboriginal students in Taiwan-A case study of an energy, robotics and creativity course. 2nd International Conference on Future Computers in Education, Lecture Notes in Information Technology, 23-24, 148-152.
Çavaş, B., Kesercioğlu, T., Holbrook, J., Rannikmae, M., Özdoğru, E., & Gökler, F. (2012). The Effects of robotics club on the students’ performance on science process & scientific creativity skills and perceptions on robots, human and society. 3rd International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Trento, Italy, April 20, 40-50.
Çepni, S. (2019). The reflections of science and technology concepts on educational programs (chapter-1). In S. Çepni (Ed.), Science and technology teaching from theory to practice (14th edition). Ankara: Pegem academy.
Çepni, S., & Ayvacı, H. Ş. (2019a). Laboratory supported science and technology teaching (chapter-7). In S. Çepni (Ed.), Science and technology teaching from theory to practice (14th edition). Ankara: Pegem academy.
Çepni, S., & Ayvacı, H. Ş. (2019b). Laboratory supported science teaching approaches (chapter-8). In S. Çepni (Ed.), Science and technology teaching from theory to practice (14th edition). Ankara: Pegem academy.
Danahy, E., Wang, E., Brockman, J., Carberry, A., Shapiro, C., & Rogers, C. B. (2014). Lego-based robotics in higher education: 15 years of student creativity. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 11(27), 1-15.
Demir, S., Böyük, U., & Koç, A. (2011). Views of science and technology teachers on laboratory conditions and use of laboratory with their tendencies to follow technological innovations. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 7(2), 66-79.
Duran, M. (2008). The impact on students' attitudes toward science-based approach to learning science process skills in science teaching. Master thesis, Muğla University.
Eguchi, A. (2010). What is educational robotics? Theories behind it and practical implementation. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (eds.). Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 4006-4014.
Eraslan-Güney, M. (2015). Using robots in teaching renewable energy sources. Master Thesis, Erciyes University, Kayseri.
Ergin, Ö., Pekmez, E. Ş., & Erdal, S. Ö. (2012). Science education through the experiment from theory to application (2nd edition). İzmir: Dinosaur bookstore.
Feyzioğlu, B., Demirdağ, B., Ateş, A., Çobanoğlu, İ., & Altun, E. (2011a). Chemistry teachers’ perceptions on laboratory applications: İzmir sample. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(2), 1005-1029.
Feyzioğlu, B., Demirdağ, B., Ateş, A., Çobanoğlu, İ., Altun, E., & Akyıldız, M. (2011b). Students’ views on laboratory applications: İzmir sample. Elementary Education Online, 10(3), 1208-1226.
Gauntlett, D. (2014). ‘The LEGO System as a tool for thinking, creativity, and changing the world’. In Mark J. P. Wolf, ed. LEGO Studies: Examining the building blocks of a transmedial phenomenon. New York: Routledge. http://davidgauntlett.com/complete-list-of-publications/
Güneş, M. H., Şener, N., Germi, N. T., & Can, N. (2013). Teacher and Student Assessments Regarding to Use of Science and Technology Laboratory. Journal of Ziya Gökalp Education Faculty, 20, 1-11.
Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389-403.
Kadayıfçı, H. (2008). Teaching model based on creative thinking for students to understand the concepts related to the separation of the mass and its effect on scientific creativity. PhD thesis, Gazi University, Ankara.
Kırkan, B. (2018). Investigation of gifted secondary school students’ opinions and behaviors related to their creative, reflective and problem-solving skills in a project-based robotics course. Master Thesis, Başkent University, Ankara.
Koç, A. (2019). The comparison of STEM implementations with robotic-assisted and simple materials in preschool and basic science education. PhD Thesis, Erciyes University, Kayseri.
Koç, A., & Böyük, U. (2013). Technology-based learning in science and technology education: Robotic applications. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 10(1), 139-155.
Koç-Şenol, A. (2012). Science and technology laboratory applications supported by robotic: RoboLab. Master Thesis, Erciyes University, Kayseri.
Koç-Şenol, A., & Büyük, U. (2015). Science and technology laboratory applications supported by robotic: RoboLab. Journal of Turkish Studies, 10(3), 213-236.
Küçüköner, Y. (2010). The relationship of using laboratory tools and equipments in eight grade science and technology courses with outputs aimed by Ministry of Education, and analysis of teacher views towards these tools and equipments (Bingöl sample). Master Thesis, Erzincan University, Erzincan.
Li, Y., Huang, Z., Jiang, M., & Chang, T. W. (2016). The effect on pupils' science performance and problem-solving ability through Lego: An engineering design-based modeling approach. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 143-156.
Lin, C. H., Liu, E. Z. F., & Huang, Y. Y. (2012). Exploring parents’ perceptions toward educational robots: Gender and socioeconomic difference. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), 31-34.
Lin, C. H., Liu, E. Z. F., Kou, C. H., Virnes, M., Sutinen, E., & Cheng, S. S. (2009). A case analysis of creative spiral instruction model and students’ creative problem solving performance in a LEGO robotics course. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5670, 501-505.
Liu, E. Z. F., Lin, C. H., & Chang, C. S. (2010). Student satisfaction and self-efficacy in a cooperative robotics course. Social Behavior and Personality, 38(8), 1135-1146.
Loxley, P., Dawes, L., Nicholls, L. & Dore, B. (2016). Teaching primary science: Promoting enjoyment and developing understanding (2nd edition). (H. Türkmen, M. Sağlam & E. Şahin-Pekmez, Trans. Eds.). Ankara: Nobel Academy publishing.
McDonald, S., & Howell, J. (2012). Watching, creating and achieving: Creative technologies as a conduit for learning in the early years. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 641–651.
Menekse, M., Higashi, R., Schunn, C.D., & Baehr, E. (2017). The role of robotics teams collaboration quality on team performance in a robotics tournament. The Journal of Engineering Education, 106(4), 564–584.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook qualitative data analysis. London: Sage publication.
MNE. (2017). Turkish science curriculum. The Board of Education and Discipline, Ankara.
Nemiro, J., Larriva, C., & Jawaharlal, M. (2017). Developing creative behavior in elementary school students with robotics. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(1), 70–90.
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.
OECD. (2016). Innovating education and educating for innovation: The power of digital technologies and skills. Paris: OECD publishing.
Okkesim-Akkoç, B., Koç, A., Yıldırım, T., & Büyük, U. (2019). The effect of robotic applications on scientific process skills and attitude towards the science course. In U. Büyük (Ed.), Science education research: New approaches and technological applications (p.38-60), Ankara: IKSAD.
Piotrowski, M., & Kressly, R. (2009). A cooperative classroom robotics challenge-the benefits and execution of a cooperative classroom robotics challenge. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 15-19.
Riberio, A. F. (2009). New ways to learn science with enjoyment: Robotics as a challenge. Costa, M. F. [et al.], ed. lit. – “Science for all, quest for excellence: Proceedings of the International Conference on Hands-on Science (HSCI), 6, Ahmedabad, India.
Russell, C. B., & Weaver, G. (2011). A comparative study of traditional, inquiry-based, and research-based laboratory curricula: Impacts on understanding of the nature of science. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(1), 57-67.
Sak, U., & Ayas M. B. (2013). Creative scientific ability test (C-SAT): A new measure of scientific creativity. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 55(3), 315-328.
Siper-Kabadayı, G. (2019). The effects of robotic activities on pre-school children's creative thinking skills. Master Thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara.
Skluzacek, J. M. (2017). Lego Mindstorms EV3 robotics instructor guide. Department of Youth Development, University of Wisconsin, USA.
Stencel, J. (1995). A string teacher. The American Biology Teacher, 57(1), 42–45.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51(7), 677-688.
Sullivan, F. R. (2011). Serious and playful inquiry: Epistemological aspects of collaborative creativity. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (1), 55–65.
Sümbüloğlu, K., & Sümbüloğlu, V. (2019). Biostatistics (17th edition). Ankara: Hatiboğlu publishing.
Terry, B. S., Briggs, B. N., & Rivale, S. (2011). Work in progress: Gender impacts of relevant robotics curricula on high school students’ engineering attitudes and interest. 41th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 12 - 15, Rapid City, SD.
Ülger, K. (2014). The investigation of the students’ creative thinking development. Education and Science, 39(175), 275-284.
Welch, A., & Huffman, D. (2011). The effect of robotics competitions on high school students’ attitudes toward science. School Science and Mathematics, 111(8), 416–424.
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences (9th edition). Ankara: Seçkin
Downloads
Issue
Section
Published
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.