Does really educational robotics improve secondary school students’ course motivation, achievement and attitude?-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Does really educational robotics improve secondary school students’ course motivation, achievement and attitude?

Published:2024-05-31 Issue: Volume: Page:
ISSN:1360-2357
Container-title:Education and Information Technologies
language:en
Short-container-title:Educ Inf Technol

Author:

Selcuk Nuray Akman^ORCID,Kucuk Sevda^ORCID,Sisman Burak^ORCID

Abstract

AbstractThis study examines the impact of educational robotics applications in Information Technologies and Software courses on the motivation, attitude towards robotics, and academic achievement of 6th-grade secondary school students. The research employed pre-experimental method encompassing 112 students. Students got training in robotics using the Arduino education kit over the course of eight weeks consisted of programming and electronic concepts. Findings indicate that while students' motivation levels were moderate both before and after the implementation, there was a relative decrease in course motivation scores after the implementation. Students exhibited positive attitudes towards robotics and achieved a good level of success. Additionally, a significant effect of motivation on attitudes towards robotics was observed. Gender was found to have no effects on motivation, attitude, or achievement. It was determined that students held positive attitudes towards robotics and developed favorable views of their robotics skills. The implications are discussed in terms of theoretical insights, practices and directions for further research.

Funder

Ataturk University

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Link

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10639-024-12773-1.pdf

Reference125 articles.

1. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc., ABET. (2015). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Retrieved from https://www.abet.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/E001-16-17-EAC-Criteria-10-20-15.pdf. Accessed 11.08.2023.

2. Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism : What’s the difference ? 1–11.

3. Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education,6(1), 63–71.

4. Alimisis, A. D., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Constructionism and robotics in education. Teacher Education on Robotics-Enhanced Costructivist Pedagogical Methods, 11–26.

5. American Association of University Women & Greenberg Lake the Analysis Group. (1994). Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America: Executive Summary: A Nationwide Poll that Assesses Self-esteem, Educational Experiences, Interest in Math and Science, and Career Aspirations of Girls and Boys Ages 9–15. https://www.aauwbakersfield.com/uploads/9/6/2/5/96257912/shortchanging_girls_shortchanging_america.pdf/. Accessed 20 Oct 2018.