Students' Experiences with Robotics Coding Activities
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.5231Keywords:
Secondary education, Robotic coding, Teaching/learning strategiesAbstract
Robotic coding activities help to concretize abstract scientific concepts, develop higher-order skills such as problem-solving and critical thinking, and provide students with opportunities to observe, formulate hypotheses, design experiments, and analyze data. Therefore, this study has chosen robotic coding activities as its research area. This study aimed to determine the opinions of eighth-grade middle school students on Arduino-based robotic coding activities integrated into science topics. This study employs a case study based on a qualitative research design. This research employed criterion sampling to select participants. The study group consists of five eighth-grade students studying at a public school. Researchers preferred a 13-question semi-structured interview as a data collection tool. The interviews were conducted face-to-face and online via Zoom by the third researcher. Interview data were analyzed using content analysis. Participants were informed about the activities under the guidance of the school and their families. Participants preferred Arduino-based robotic coding activities because of their connection to daily life. Five participants indicated they wanted to learn science topics through Arduino-based robotic coding activities because it facilitated meaningful learning. Participants stated increased motivation for science topics due to Arduino activities and noted that collaborative work improved their experiences. The authors argue that family guidance requires further research. Activities should be designed considering students' differences and interests. Interactive activities within the constructivist learning paradigm are necessary for students to manage their learning processes effectively. Additionally, conflicts that arise during group work enhance students' problem-solving and critical thinking skills.
References
Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 63–71.
Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competencies for new millennium learners in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41. OECD Publishing.
Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students' computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.008
Ayar, M. C. (2015). First-hand experience with engineering design and career interest in engineering: an informal STEM education case study. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(6), 1655–1675. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.6.0134
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72(1), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00273
Barak, M., & Zadok, Y. (2009). Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology, and problem-solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 289-307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-007-9043-3
Barradas, R., Lencastre, J. A., Soares, S. P., & Valente, A. (2024). Arduino-based mobile robotics for fostering computational thinking development: an empirical study with elementary school students using problem-based learning across Europe. Robotics, 13(11), 159. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics13110159
Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51). 1–31. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n51
Bell, T., Wedege, T., & Bowers, A. (2009). The role of robotics in education: A strategy for the development of skills and knowledge in STEM education. Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation. https://doi.org/10.1109/robot.2009.5150505
Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006
Bers, M. U. (2008). Blocks to robots: Learning with technology in the early childhood classroom. Teachers College Press.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
Bransford, J., Brophy, S., & Williams, S. (2000). When computer technologies meet the learning sciences: Issues and opportunities. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 59–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00051-9
Cakir, N. K., & Guven, G. (2019). Arduino-Assisted robotic and coding applications in science teaching: Pulsimeter activity in compliance with the 5E learning model. Science Activities, 56(2), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2019.1675574
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), em1600. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/93483
Chung, C. C., & Lou, S. J. (2021). Physical computing strategy to support students’ coding literacy: an educational experiment with Arduino boards. Applied Sciences, 11(4), 1830. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041830
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design, qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (Third Edition). SAGE Publications.
Davies, R. S. (2011). Understanding technology literacy: A framework for evaluating educational technology integration. TechTrends, 55, 45–52.
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006124532
Eguchi, A. (2014). Robotics as a learning tool for educational transformation. In Proceedings of 4th International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics & 5th International Conference Robotics in Education (pp. 27–34).
Erlingsson, C., & Brysiewicz, P. (2017). A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 7(3), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2017.08.001
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. Jossey-Bass.
Gokce, H., Gokce, Z., Bektas, O., & Kırmızıgül, A. S. (2024). Robotic coding perceptions of middle school students. Journal of Education and Future, (25), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.30786/jef.1274671
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Haymana, İ., & Özalp, D. (2020). The effect of robotics and education on the creative thinking of primary school 4th graders. Istanbul Aydin University Faculty of Education Journal, 6(2), 247–274.
Hsu, Y. C., & Ching, Y. H. (2013). Mobile app design for teaching and learning: Educators’ experiences in an online graduate course. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(4), 117–139. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i4.1542
Ibáñez, M. B., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2018). Augmented reality for STEM learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 123, 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.002
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2015). Constructionist gaming: Understanding the benefits of making games for learning. Educational psychologist, 50(4), 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1124022
Kampylis, P., Law, N., Punie, Y., Bocconi, S., Brecko, B., Han, S., ... & Miyake, N. (2013). ICT-enabled innovation for learning in Europe and Asia. Exploring conditions for sustainability, scalability, and impact at the system level (No. JRC83503). Joint Research Centre.
Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R. B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. N. (2015). Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers' STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers & Education, 91, 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.005
Kim, S. Y., & Hyun, Y. S. (2020). The effect of STEAM program using Arduino on preservice science teachers' STEAM core competencies. Journal of Science Education, 44(2), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2020.44.2.183
Kirikkaya, E. B., & Basaran, B. (2019). Investigation of the effect of the integration of Arduino to electrical experiments on students' attitudes towards technology and ICT by the mixed method. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.8.1.31
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: What is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 6–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.770404
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.
Kondaveeti, H. K., Kumaravelu, N. K., Vanambathina, S. D., Mathe, S. E., & Vappangi, S. (2021). A systematic literature review on prototyping with Arduino: Applications, challenges, advantages, and limitations. Computer Science Review, 40, 100364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2021.100364
Koray, A., & Duman, F. G. (2022). Subject-oriented educational robotics applications with Arduino in science teaching: digital dynamometer activity in accordance with 5E instructional model. Science Activities, 59(4), 168-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2022.2093824
LaRocque, M., Kleiman, I., & Darling, S. M. (2011). Parental involvement: The missing link in school achievement. Preventing School Failure, 55(3), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10459880903472876
Lee, E. (2020). A Meta-analysis of the effects of Arduino-based education in Korean primary and secondary schools in engineering education. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(4), 1503–1512. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.4.1503
Lo, N. P. K. (2024). From theory to practice: Unveiling the synergistic potential of design and maker education in advancing learning. SN Computer Science, 5(4), 360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-024-02726-3
Machumu, H., Zhu, C., & Almasi, M. (2018). Students’ motivational factors and engagement strategies in constructivist-based blended learning environments. Afrika Focus, 31(1), 13–34.
Marín-Marín, J. A., García-Tudela, P. A., & Duo-Terrón, P. (2024). Computational thinking and programming with Arduino in education: A systematic review for secondary education. Heliyon. 10/ 8, 29177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29177
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. Sage Publications.
Martín-Gutiérrez, J., Mora, C. E., Añorbe-Díaz, B., & González-Marrero, A. (2017). Virtual technologies trends in education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(2), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00626a
Mellis, D. A., & Buechley, L. (2012, June). Case studies in the personal fabrication of electronic products. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (pp. 268–277). https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2317998
Merriam, S.B & Tisdel, E.J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. (Fourth edition). Jossey-Bass.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., Al Mahmud, A., & Dong, J. J. (2013). A review of the applicability of robots in education. Technology for Education and Learning, 1(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.2316/Journal.209.2013.1.209-0015
Nam, K. W., Kim, H. J., & Lee, S. (2019). Connecting plans to action: The effects of a card-coded robotics curriculum and activities on Korean kindergartners. The Asia-Pacific 28(5), 387–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00438-4
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782557
Papadakis, S., Vaiopoulou, J., Sifaki, E., Stamovlasis, D., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2021). Attitudes towards the use of educational robotics: Exploring pre-service and in-service early childhood teacher profiles. Education Sciences, 11(5), 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050204
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (Fourth Edition). Sage Publications.
Phun-Pat, Y., Chauca, C., Mayurí, M. A., & Curro-Urbano, O. (2021). Cognitive Development, Learning Strategies, and Academic Performance in the First Stage of University Education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 16(20), 35–50. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/220551/
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press.
Ragusa, G., & Leung, L. (2023). The impact of early robotics education on students’ understanding of coding, robotics design, and interest in computing careers. Sensors, 23(23), 9335, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23239335
Relkin, E., Govind, M., Tsiang, J., & Bers, M. (2020). How parents support children’s informal learning experiences with robots. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 6(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.51355/jstem.2020.87
Roblyer, M., & Edwards, J. (2005). Integrating educational technology into teaching (4th edition). Prentice-Hall.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Samperio Sanchez, N. (2017). Discovering students' preference for classroom activities and teachers' frequency of activity use. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 19(1), 51–66.
Sarı, U., Pektaş, H. M., Şen, Ö. F., & Çelik, H. (2022). Algorithmic thinking development through physical computing activities with Arduino in STEM education. Education and Information Technologies, 27(5), 6669-6689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10893-0
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Pearson.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
Soypak, B., & Eskici, M. (2023). Examining research on robotic coding applications in high secondary school mathematics and science courses: A content analysis study. Journal of Science, Mathematics, Entrepreneurship and Technology Education, 6(3), 214–229.
Steidtmann, L., Kleickmann, T., & Steffensky, M. (2023). Declining interest in science in lower secondary school classes: Quasi‐experimental and longitudinal evidence on the role of teaching and teaching quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(1), 164–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21794
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9304-5
Tosun, N., & Mihci, C. (2020). An examination of digital parenting behavior in parents with preschool children in the context of lifelong learning. Sustainability, 12(18), 7654. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187654
Touretzky, D., Gardner-McCune, C., Breazeal, C., Martin, F., & Seehorn, D. (2023). A year-long AI curriculum for middle school. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (pp. 521–527).
Vega, J., & Cañas, J. M. (2019). PyBoKids: an innovative Python-based educational framework using real and simulated Arduino robots. Electronics, 8(8), 899. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics8080899
Voogt, J., & Pareja Roblin, N. (2012). 21st-century skills. Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wellington J (2015). Educational Research: Contemporary Issues and Practical Approaches, 2nd ed. Bloomsbury.
Winne, P. H. (2006). How software technologies can improve research on learning and bolster school reform. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4101_3
Yılmaz, A. (2021). The effect of technology integration in education on prospective teachers' critical and creative thinking, multidimensional 21st-century skills, and academic achievements. Participatory Educational Research, 8(2), 163–199. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.35.8.2
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
Yuen, T., Boecking, M., Stone, J., Tiger, E. P., Gomez, A., Guillen, A., & Arreguin, A. (2014). Group tasks, activities, dynamics, and interactions in collaborative robotics projects with elementary and middle school children. Journal of STEM Education, 15(1), 39–45. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/148284/.
Zhao, Y., & Kacprzyk, J. (2020). Cost-effective educational robotics: Arduino as a tool for teaching STEM subjects. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00222-2
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Technology in Education and Science
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
