SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 12 Sayı: 2

Enhancing Students’ Perceptions of Problem-Solving Skills and STEM Attitudes with Arduino-Assisted Robotics Coding

Arduino Destekli Robotik Kodlama ile Öğrencilerin Problem Çözme Becerilerine Yönelik Algılarının ve STEM Tutumlarının Geliştirilmesi

Yaren Filiz Karasu(Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı)0000-0002-1202-2851
Burcu Şenler(Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi)0000-0002-8559-6434
Pages
251–272
Publication Date
2025-11-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This study contributes to the growing body of literature supporting the integration of robotics and coding in STEM education and provides practical insights for educators seeking to implement technology-enhanced, constructivist pedagogies in primary school classrooms.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates the impact of Arduino-assisted robotics coding activities on primary school students’ problem-solving skills and STEM attitudes.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Utilizing a one-group pretest-posttest design, the research involved 49 fourth-grade students who participated in an 8-week intervention integrating coding and robotics into science instruction through the 5E learning model.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This study contributes to the growing body of literature supporting the integration of robotics and coding in STEM education and provides practical insights for educators seeking to implement technology-enhanced, constructivist pedagogies in primary school classrooms.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Arduino · robotics coding · problem-solving skills

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of Arduino-assisted robotics coding activities on primary school students’ problem-solving skills and STEM attitudes. Utilizing a one-group pretest-posttest design, the research involved 49 fourth-grade students who participated in an 8-week intervention integrating coding and robotics into science instruction through the 5E learning model. Data were collected using a problem-solving perception scale and a STEM attitude scale, and analyzed with Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Tests due to non-normal data distribution. Results revealed a statistically significant improvement in students’ problem-solving skills and in the 21st century skills sub-dimension of STEM attitudes. However, no significant changes were found in attitudes toward mathematics, science, or engineering. The findings emphasize the effectiveness of experiential, hands-on learning activities in fostering cognitive and transversal competencies essential for 21st century learners. While the intervention enhanced problem-solving and collaboration abilities, a single short-term application was insufficient to shift disciplinary attitudes, suggesting a need for prolonged engagement. This study contributes to the growing body of literature supporting the integration of robotics and coding in STEM education and provides practical insights for educators seeking to implement technology-enhanced, constructivist pedagogies in primary school classrooms.

Özet

This study investigates the impact of Arduino-assisted robotics coding activities on primary school students’ problem-solving skills and STEM attitudes. Utilizing a one-group pretest-posttest design, the research involved 49 fourth-grade students who participated in an 8-week intervention integrating coding and robotics into science instruction through the 5E learning model. Data were collected using a problem-solving perception scale and a STEM attitude scale, and analyzed with Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Tests due to non-normal data distribution. Results revealed a statistically significant improvement in students’ problem-solving skills and in the 21st century skills sub-dimension of STEM attitudes. However, no significant changes were found in attitudes toward mathematics, science, or engineering. The findings emphasize the effectiveness of experiential, hands-on learning activities in fostering cognitive and transversal competencies essential for 21st century learners. While the intervention enhanced problem-solving and collaboration abilities, a single short-term application was insufficient to shift disciplinary attitudes, suggesting a need for prolonged engagement. This study contributes to the growing body of literature supporting the integration of robotics and coding in STEM education and provides practical insights for educators seeking to implement technology-enhanced, constructivist pedagogies in primary school classrooms.

🔖

Cite This Article

Karasu, Y. F., Şenler, B. (2025). Enhancing Students’ Perceptions of Problem-Solving Skills and STEM Attitudes with Arduino-Assisted Robotics Coding. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 2, 251–272. https://doi.org/10.21666/muefd.1717725

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (42)

  1. Akçay, A. O., Karahan, E., & Türk, S. (2019). Bilgi işlemsel düşünme becerileri odaklı okul sonrası kodlama surecinde ilkokul öğrencilerinin deneyimlerinin incelenmesi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Türk Dünyası Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi (ESTUDAM) Eğitim Dergisi, 4(2), 38-50.
  2. Bers, M. U. (2018). Coding as a playground: Programming and computational thinking in the early childhood classroom. Routledge.
  3. Bilican, K. (2019). Erken çocukluk eğitiminde STEM. In S. Unlu-Cetin (Ed.), Erken çocukluk fen eğitiminde temel konular ve güncel yaklaşımlar (pp. 1-14). Nobel Yayıncılık.
  4. Çakıcı, Y., & Özdemir, S. M. (2022). Bilgisayarsız kodlama eğitiminin ilkokul öğrencilerinin dikkatini toplama, problem çözme ve algoritmik düşünme becerileri üzerine etkisi. Uluslararası Bilim ve Eğitim Dergisi, 5(3), 235-254. https://doi.org/10.47477/ubed.1193031
  5. Çakır, R., Korkmaz, O., İdil, O., & Uğur-Erdoğmus, F. (2021). The effect of robotic coding education on preschoolers’ problem solving and creative thinking skills. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40, 100812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100812
  6. Chaudhary, R., Agrawal, A., & Sureka, A. (2016). Learning programming and computational thinking using Lego robotics: A study on elementary school students. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.09610. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1610.09610
  7. Chou, P. N. (2018). Skill development and knowledge acquisition cultivated by maker education: Evidence from Arduino-based educational robotics. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(10), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/93483
  8. Denissen, J. J. A., Zarrett, N. R., & Eccles, J. S. (2007). I like to do it, I’m able, and I know I am: Longitudinal couplings between domain specific achievement, self concept, and interest. Child Development, 78(2), 430–447.
  9. Denning, P. J., & Tedre, M. (2019). Computational thinking. MIT Press.
  10. Dökmetaş, G. (2016). Arduino eğitim kitabı. Dikeyeksen Yayıncılık
  11. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
  12. 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, 2(2), 62-84.
  13. Fernandez, G. P., & Cossio-Mercado, C. G. (2024, August). AelE: A versatile tool for teaching programming and robotics using Arduino. In 50th Latin American Conference on Informatics (L CLEI 2024), Bahía Blanca, Argentina. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CLEI64178.2024.10700288
  14. Fesakis, G., & Serafeim, K. (2009). Influence of the familiarization with “scratch” on future teachers’ opinions and attitudes about programming and ICT in education. SIGCSE Bulletin, 41, 258-262.
  15. Fokides, E., Papadakis, D., & Kourtis-Kazoullis, V. (2017). To drone or not to drone? Results of a pilot study in primary school settings. Journal of Computers in Education, 4(3), 339-353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-017-0087-4
  16. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw Hill.
  17. Friday Institute for Educational Innovation (2012). Middle and High School STEM-Student Survey. Author. García-Tudela, P. A., & Marín-Marín, J. A. (2023). Use of Arduino in primary education: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 13(2), 134.
  18. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.
  19. Gültepe, A., (2018). Kodlama öğretimi yapan bilişim teknolojileri öğretmenleri gözüyle öğrenciler kodluyor. Uluslararası Liderlik Eğitimi Dergisi (ULED), 2(2), 50-60.
  20. Güven, E. (2020). Ortaokul 5. sınıf fen öğretiminde Arduino destekli robotik kodlama etkinliklerinin kullanılması [Unpublished master's thesis]. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi
  21. Guven, G., Kozcu Cakir, N., Sulun, Y., Cetin, G., & Guven, E. (2020). Arduino-assisted robotics coding applications integrated into the 5E learning model in science teaching. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(1), 108–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1812136
  22. İnel Ekici, D., & Balım, A. G. (2013). Ortaokul öğrencileri için problem çözme becerilerine yönelik algı ölçeği: Geçerlilik ve güvenirlik çalışması. YYU Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(1), 67-86.
  23. Karahan, E. (2019). STEM eğitim yaklaşımı. In A. G. Balım (Ed.), Fen öğretiminde yenilikçi yaklaşımlar (pp. 171-185). Anı Yayıncılık.
  24. Karahan, E., & Akçay, A. O. (2021). STEM eğitimi yaklaşımı. In K. Bilican & B. Şenler (Eds.), İlkokulda fen öğretimi (pp. 291-316). Vizetek Yayıncılık.
  25. Kaya, S. Y. (2019). STEM tutum ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi ve ilkokul öğrencilerinin STEM'e yönelik tutumlarının çeşitli değişkenlere göre incelenmesi. [Unpublished master's thesis]. Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit Üniversitesi
  26. Kozcu Çakır, N., & Güven, G. (2019). Effect of 5E learning model on academic achievement and attitude towards the science course: A meta-analysis study. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 48(2), 1111-1140. https://doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.544825
  27. Meço, G., & Görgülü Arı, A. (2021). Arduino destekli STEM etkinliklerine yönelik ortaokul öğrencilerinin görüşleri. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar, 14(76), 498-507.
  28. Nugent, G., Barker, B. S., 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.
  29. Özcan, H., & Koca, E. (2018). STEM’e yönelik tutum ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Hacettepe Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 34(2), 387-401. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2018045061.
  30. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
  31. Resnick, M., et al. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.
  32. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Applied social research methods: Meta-analytic procedures for social research. SAGE Publications Ltd.
  33. Rushkoff, D. (2010). Program or be programmed: Ten commands for a digital age. OR Books.
  34. Sahin, A., Ayar, M. C., & Adiguzel, T. (2014). STEM related after-school program activities and associated outcomes on student learning. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 309-322.
  35. Sisman, B., Kucuk, S., & Yaman, Y. (2020). The effects of robotics training on children’s spatial ability and attitude toward STEM. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13, 379-389.
  36. Sullivan, F. R. (2016). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 431-455. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20238
  37. Sümbül, H., & Çolak, H. (2020). Robotik kodlama eğitim setinin tasarlanması ve oluşturulması. Bilge International Journal of Science and Technology Research, 4(2), 103-109. https://doi.org/10.30516/bilgesci.672296
  38. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
  39. Tytler, R., & Osborne, J. (2012). Student attitudes and aspirations towards science. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 597-625). Springer International.
  40. Vee, A. (2013). Understanding computer programming as a literacy. Literacy in Composition Studies, 1(2), 42-64. https://doi.org/10.21623/1.1.2.4
  41. Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st-century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299-321.
  42. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.