SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İlköğretim Online / 2026 / Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1

Birebir Robotik Öğretiminde Öğreticilerin Deneyimleri

Sevda Küçük
Burak Şişman
Pages
0–0
Publication Date
2016-01-01
🏛️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)

Bu çalışmadan elde edilen sonuçlar, robotik öğretim süreçlerinin tasarımında uygulayıcılara yön gösterici olabilir.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Bu çalışmanın amacı ilkokul öğrencileriyle gerçekleştirilen birebir robotik öğretiminde öğreticilerin deneyimlerini ortaya çıkarmaktır.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Çalışma durum çalışması olup yapılandırılmış görüşme formu aracılığıyla 27 öğreticiden veri toplanmıştır.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Bu çalışmadan elde edilen sonuçlar, robotik öğretim süreçlerinin tasarımında uygulayıcılara yön gösterici olabilir.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı ilkokul öğrencileriyle gerçekleştirilen birebir robotik öğretiminde öğreticilerin deneyimlerini ortaya çıkarmaktır. Çalışma durum çalışması olup yapılandırılmış görüşme formu aracılığıyla 27 öğreticiden veri toplanmıştır. Çalışmadan elde edilen verilere göre; robotik öğretim sürecinde öğretici-öğrenci etkileşimleri, rehberlik, robotlarla birlikte oynama ve sorular sorma şeklinde gerçekleşmiştir. Öğreticiler sonuca ulaşma çabasının, robotların hareket etmesinin, pekiştireç ve kısa molaların meşguliyet ve motivasyon üzerinde olumlu etkileri olduğunu belirtmişlerdir. Ayrıca senaryonun kısa, öğrenci özelliklerine uygun, ilgi çekici ve gerçek yaşama dönük olması gerektiği sıklıkla vurgulanmıştır. Öğreticiler robotik öğretim sürecinin öğrencilerin hayal güçlerinin gelişmesini sağladığını, oyun ve eğlence ortamı sunduğunu, öğrencilerin kendi ürünlerini geliştirmesine olanak tanıdığını belirtmişlerdir. Sonuç olarak, robotik öğretiminin öğrenciler açısından eğlenceli ve verimli geçtiği, bu süreçte yaratıcı düşünme sarmal öğretim modelinin kullanılmasının uygun ve etkili bir yöntem olduğu, oyunlaştırma stratejilerinin kullanılmasının öğrencilerin dikkat ve motivasyonlarının yüksek düzeyde olmasını sağlayarak süreci eğlenceli hale getirdiği ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu çalışmadan elde edilen sonuçlar, robotik öğretim süreçlerinin tasarımında uygulayıcılara yön gösterici olabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Küçük, S., Şişman, B. (2016). Birebir Robotik Öğretiminde Öğreticilerin Deneyimleri. İlköğretim Online, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1, 0–0. https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2017.12092

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (44)

  1. Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science & Technology Education, 6(1), 63-71. http://edumotiva.eu/edumotiva/images/files/119-329-1-PB.pdf
  2. Alimisis, D., Arlegui, J., Fava, N., Frangou, S., Ionita, S., Menegatti, E., Monfalcon,S., Moro, M., Papanikolaou, K., & Pina, A. (2010). Introducing robotics to teachers and schools: Experiences from the terecop project. Retrieved 5 May 2016, from http://hermes.di.uoa.gr/frangou/papers/eurologo%202010.pdf
  3. Arlegui, J., Pina, A., & Moro, M. (2013). A PBL approach using virtual and real robots (with BYOB and LEGO NXT) to teaching learning key competences and standard curricula in primary level. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Technological Ecosystem for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp.323-328). New York, NY, USA: ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/2536536.2536585.
  4. 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. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ768878.pdf
  5. Beisser, S. R. (2005). An examination of gender differences in elementary constructionist classrooms using Lego/Logo instruction. Computers in the Schools, 22(3/4), 7-19.
  6. Benitti, F.B.V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978-988.
  7. Bruciati, A.P.(2004). Robotics technologies for K-8 educators: A semiotic approach for instructional design. Education Faculty Publications. Paper 56.http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/ced_fac/56
  8. Çayır, E. (2010). Lego-Logo ile desteklenmiş öğrenme ortamının bilimsel süreç becerisi ve benlik algısı üzerine etkisinin belirlenmesi. (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Sakarya Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Sakarya.
  9. Cheng, C-C., Huang, P-L., & Huang, K-H. (2013). Cooperative learning in Lego robotics projects: Exploring the impacts of group formation on interaction and achievement. Journal of Networks, 8(7), 1529-1535. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.402.1651&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  11. Demo, G.B., Moro, M., Pina, A., & Arlegui, J. (2012). In and out of the school activities ımplementing IBSE and constructionist learning methodologies by robotics. Retrieved 7 June 2016 from http://www.di.unito.it/~barbara/MicRobot/Pubbl11/Sent-To-BBradley/DemoMoroPinaArleguiK24August.pdf
  12. 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 2010 (pp. 4006-4014). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  13. Gerecke, U., & Wagner, B.(2007). The challenges and benefits of using robots in higher education.
  14. Intelligent Automation and Soft Computing, 13(1), 29–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10798587.2007.10642948
  15. Goh, H., & Ali, M.B. (2014). Robotics as a tool to stem learning. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 2(10), 66-78. http://www.ijier.net/index.php/ijier/article/viewFile/298/274
  16. Gura, M. (2011). Getting started with Lego robotics: A guide for K-12 educators. Retrieved 15 Oct. 2015, from http://www.iste.org/images/excerpts/ROBOTS-excerpt.pdf
  17. Hannafin, M. J., & Hooper, S. R. (1993). Learning principles. In M. Fleming & W. H. Levie (Eds.), Instructional message design: Principles from the behavioral and cognitive sciences (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
  18. Hussain, S., Lindh, J., & Shukur, G. (2006). The effect of LEGO training on pupils’ school performance in mathematics, problem solving ability and attitude: Swedish data. Educational Technology & Society, 9(3), 182-194. http://www.ifets.info/journals/9_3/16.pdf
  19. Kapa, E. (1999). Problem solving, planning ability and sharing processes with LOGO. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15, 73–84.
  20. Kapp, K.M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education: Pfeiffer.
  21. Kay, J. S., Moss, J. G., Engelman, S., & McKlin, T. (2014). Sneaking in through the back door: Introducing K-12 teachers to robot programming. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 499-504). New York, NY, USA: ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538972.
  22. Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill RB., Doshi, P., & Thai, CN. (2015). Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers' STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers & Education, 91, 14-31. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.005
  23. Lin, C., Liu, E.Z., Kou, C., 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. In: Chang, M., Kuo, R., Kinshuk, Chen, G.-D., Hirose, M. (eds.) Edutainment 2009. LNCS, vol. 5670, pp. 501-505. Springer, Heidelberg.
  24. 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), E31-E34. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01258.x/pdf
  25. Liu, E. Z-H., Lin, C-H., Feng, H-C., & Hou, H-T. (2013). An analysis of teacher-student interaction patterns in a robotics course for kindergarten children: A pilot study. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), 9-18. http://www.tojet.net/articles/v12i1/1212.pdf
  26. 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.
  27. Mitnik, R., Nussbaum, M., & Soto, A. (2008). An autonomous educational mobile robot mediator. Autonomous Robots, 25(4), 367–382. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10514-008-9101-z
  28. Nugent, G., Barker, B., & Grandgenett, N. (2008). The effect of 4-H robotics and geospatial technologies on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and attitudes. In J. Luca, & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications (pp. 447–452). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  29. Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. (2009). The use of digital manipulatives in k-12: robotics, GPS/GIS and programming. In Frontiers in education conference, 2009. FIE ’09. 39th IEEE (pp. 1–6, 18–21). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5350828
  30. Oliver, D., & Roos, J. (2003). Dealing with the unexpected: Critical incidents in the LEGO Mindstorms team. Human Relations, 56(9), 1057-1082. http://hum.sagepub.com/content/56/9/1057.full.pdf+html
  31. Papert, S. (1971). Teaching Children Thinking. Artifical Intelligence. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  32. Perritt, D. C. (2010). Including professional practice in professional development while improving middle school teaching in math. National Teacher Education Journal, 3(3), 73-76.
  33. Pimlott-Wilson, H. (2012). Visualising children's participation in research: Lego Duplo, rainbows and clouds and moodboards. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 15(2), 135-148. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13645579.2012.649410
  34. Pittí, K., Curto, B., Moreno, V., & Rodríguez, M. J. (2013). Resources and features of robotics learning environments (RLEs) in Spain and Latin America. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Technological Ecosystem for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 315-322). New York, NY, USA: ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/2536536.2536584.
  35. Resnick, M. (2007). Sowing the seeds for a more creative society. Learning & Leading with Technology, 35(4), 18-22. http://web.media.mit.edu/~mres/papers/Learning-Leading.pdf
  36. Seixas, L.R., Gomes, A.S., Filho, I.J.M. (2016). Effectiveness of gamification in the engagement of students. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 48–63. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.021
  37. Simões, J., Redondo, R.D., & Vilas, A.F.(2013). A social gamification framework for a K-6 learning platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(2), 345–353. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.007
  38. Simonson, M. R., & Thompson, A. (1997). Educational computing foundations (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
  39. Somyürek, S. (2015). An effective educational tool: construction kits for fun and meaningful learning. Int J Technol Des Educ, 25, 25–41. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10798-015-9310-7
  40. Tuovinen, J.E.(2000). Optimizing student cognitive load in computer education. In Proceedings of the on Australasian Computing Education Conference. December 2000, SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education. Melbourne, Australia. pp. 235-241. New York: ACM Press.
  41. Williams, D., Ma, Y., Prejean, L., Lai, G., & Ford, M. (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. http://www.legolab.daimi.au.dk/Danish.dir/JanneFLL/EJ826076.pdf
  42. Yin, R. K. (2009). Doing case study research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  43. Papert, S. (1971). Teaching Children Thinking. Artifical Intelligence. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  44. Seixas, L.R., Gomes, A.S., Filho, I.J.M. (2016). Effectiveness of gamification in the engagement of students. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 48–63. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.021