ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ROBOTİK PROGRAMLAMADA AKIŞ, KAYGI VE BİLİŞSEL YÜK SEVİYELERİ

Burak ŞİŞMAN, (İstanbul Üniversitesi)
Sevda KÜÇÜK (İstanbul Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Türkiye)
Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama
5 5
Yıl: 2018 Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 108 - 124 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 15-04-2019

ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ROBOTİK PROGRAMLAMADA AKIŞ, KAYGI VE BİLİŞSEL YÜK SEVİYELERİ

Öz:
Bu çalışmanın amacı öğretmen adaylarının robotik programlama sürecindeki akış, kaygı ve bilişsel yük seviyelerinin deneyimli-deneyimsiz olma durumlarına göre karşılaştırılmasıdır. Çalışmanın örneklemini 19 öğretmen adayı (16 kadın, 3 erkek) oluşturmaktadır. Çalışma kapsamında öğretmen adayları beş robotik programlama etkinliği gerçekleştirmişlerdir. Bu etkinliklerden ikisi başlangıç düzeyi, üçü de deneyim gerektiren olarak gruplandırılmıştır. Çalışmada veri toplama aracı olarak akış yaşantısı ölçeği ve bilişsel yük ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde ise Wilcoxon işaretli sıralar testi kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre öğretmen adaylarının genel olarak robotik programlama sürecinde akış ve bilişsel yük seviyelerinin yüksek, kaygılarının ise düşük olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Deneyimli-deneyimsiz olma durumlarına göre yapılan karşılaştırmada; öğretmen adaylarının deneyimli oldukları durumlarda akış düzeylerinin anlamlı olarak yüksek, bilişsel yük seviyelerinin de düşük olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Kaygı düzeylerinin ise her iki durumda anlamlı düzeyde farklılaşmadığı belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar tartışılarak gelecekteki çalışmalara yön verici nitelikte öneriler sunulmuştur.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları Matematik

PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ FLOW, ANXIETY AND COGNITIVE LOAD LEVELS IN ROBOTICS PROGRAMMING

Öz:
The aim of this study was to compare pre-service teachers’ flow experience, anxiety and cognitive loads in the process of robotics programming, based on whether they were experienced or inexperienced. The sample of the study consisted of 19 pre-service teachers (16 females, 3 males). Within the scope of the study, pre-service teachers carried out five robotics programming activities. Two of these activities were grouped as beginner level and three as experience-requiring activities. The Flow Experience Scale and the Cognitive Load Scale were used as data collection tools in the study. Wilcoxon signed rank test was used in the analysis of the data. It was found that, in general, the flow experience and cognitive load levels of the pre-service teachers were high, and their anxiety levels were low in the process of robotics programming. It was also found that the pre-service teachers’ level of flow experience was significantly higher, and their cognitive loads were lower if they were experienced. Anxiety levels were not significantly different in the either case. The results were discussed, and suggestions were presented in order to guide future studies.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları Matematik
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Alimisis, D. (2013) . Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 63-71.
  • Arlegui, J., Pina, A., ve 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.
  • Bruder, S., ve Wedeward, K. (2003). Robotics in the classroom. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 10(3), 25-29.
  • Brünken, R, Plass, J. L., ve Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 53-61.
  • Benitti, F.B.V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978-988.
  • Capek, K. (2004). R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots). Penguin Group, New York.
  • Çakmak, E. K. (2007). Çoklu ortamlarda dar boğaz: Aşırı bilişsel yüklenme. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(2).
  • Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2011). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. John Wiley & Sons.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing flow in work and play. San Fransisco: Josey-Bass Inc. Publishers.
  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.
  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Good business. Published by the Penguin Group. Penguin Putnam Inc., 375 Hudson Street, New York, New York 100014, U.S.A.
  • Csikszentmihalyi, M., Latter, P., ve Weinkauff Duranso, C. (2017). Running Flow. Champaign: Human Kinetics.
  • Eguchi, A. (2010). What is educational robotics? Theories behind it and practical implementation. Editör D. Gibson ve B. Dodge. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 4006-4014). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  • Engeser, S., Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., ve Bischoff, J. (2005). Motivation, Flow-Erleben und Lernleistung in universitären Lernsettings 1 Dieser Beitrag wurde unter der geschäftsführenden Herausgeberschaft von Joachim C. Brunstein akzeptiert. Zeitschrift für pädagogische Psychologie, 19(3), 159-172.
  • Feldgen, M., ve Clúa, O. (2004). Games as a motivation for freshman students learn programming. Frontiers in Education, 2004. FIE 2004. 34th Annual (pp S1H/11–S1H/16 Vol. 3). IEEE.
  • Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., ve Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Freeman, S. F., Jaeger, B. K., & Brougham, J. C. (2004). Pair programming: More learning and less anxiety in a first programming course. In Proc. ASEE Ann. Conf. (pp. 8885-8893).
  • Gerecke, U., ve Wagner, B. (2007). The challenges and benefits of using robots in higher education. Intelligent Automation and Soft Computing, 13(1), 29–43.
  • Gura, M. (2011). Getting started with Lego robotics: A guide for K-12 educators. http://www.iste.org/images/excerpts/ROBOTS-excerpt.pdf adresinden 15 Ekim 2017 tarihinde alınmıştır.
  • Hadjiachilleos, S., Avraamidou, L., ve Papastavrou, S. (2013). The use of lego technologies in elementary teacher preparation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(5), 614-629.
  • Hamari, J., Shernoff, D. J., Rowe, E., Coller, B., Asbell-Clarke, J., ve Edwards, T. (2016). Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 170-179.
  • Hockstein, N. G., Gourin, C. G., Faust, R. A., ve Terris, D. J. (2007). A history of robots: from science fiction to surgical robotics. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 1(2), 113-118.
  • İşigüzel, B., ve Çam, S. (2014). The adaptation of Flow Short Scale to Turkish: A validity and reliability study. Journal of Human Sciences, 11(2), 788-801.
  • Jaipal-Jamani, K., ve Angeli, C. (2017). Effect of robotics on elementary preservice teachers’ self-efficacy, science learning, and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(2), 175-192.
  • Johnson, J. (2003). Children, robotics, and education. Artificial Life and Robotics, 7(1-2), 16-21.
  • Kay, J. S., Moss, J. G., Engelman, S., ve 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.
  • Kaya, E., Newley, A., Deniz, H., Yesilyurt, E., ve Newley, P. (2017). Introducing engineering design to a science teaching methods course through educational robotics and exploring changes in views of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of College Science Teaching, 47(2), 66-75.
  • Kılıç, E., ve Karadeniz, Ş. (2004). Hiper ortamlarda öğrencilerin bilişsel yüklenme ve kaybolma düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 10(4), 562-579.
  • Kiili, K. (2005). Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model. The Internet and higher education, 8(1), 13-24.
  • Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill RB., Doshi, P., ve Thai, CN. (2015). Robotics to promote elementary education preservice teachers' STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers & Education, 91, 14-31.
  • Kinnunen, P., ve Malmi, L. (2005). Problems in problem-based learning-experiences, analysis and lessons learned on an introductory programming course. Informatics in Education, 4(2), 193.
  • Khan, M. S. S., ve Khan, M. A. S. (2017). A Brief Survey on Robotics. International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Computing, 6(9). pp.38-45.
  • Koç, A., ve Böyük, U. (2013). Fen ve teknoloji eğitiminde teknoloji tabanlı öğrenme: Robotik uygulamaları. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 10(1), 139-155.
  • Kucuk, S., ve Sisman, B. (2017). Behavioral patterns of elementary students and teachers in one-to-one robotics instruction. Computers & Education, 111, 31-43.
  • Lahtinen, E., Ala-Mutka, K., ve Järvinen, H.-M. (2005). A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 37(3), pp 14–18.
  • Lin, C., Liu, E.Z., Kou, C., Virnes, M., Sutinen, E., ve Cheng, S-S. (2009). A case analysis of creative spiral instruction model and students’ creative problem solving performance in a Lego® robotics course. Editör Chang, M., Kuo, R., Kinshuk, Chen, G.-D., Hirose, M.. Edutainment 2009. LNCS, vol. 5670, pp. 501-505. Heidelberg: Springer.
  • Lin, C. H., Liu, E. Z. F., ve Huang, Y. Y. (2012). Exploring parents’ perceptions toward educational robots: Gender and socioeconomic difference. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), E31-E34.
  • Liu, E. Z-H., Lin, C -H., Feng, H-C., ve 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.
  • Liu, E. Z. F., Lin, C. H., ve Chang, C. S. (2010). Student satisfaction and self-efficacy in a cooperative robotics course. Social Behavior and Personality, 38(8), 1135-1146.
  • Majherová, J., ve Králík, V. (2017). Innovative Methods in Teaching Programming for Future Informatics Teachers. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 6(3), 390-400.
  • Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge university press.
  • Moneta, G. B., ve Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). The effect of perceived challenges and skills on the quality of subjective experience. Journal of personality, 64(2), 275-310.
  • Munusturlar, S., Kurnaz, B., Yavuz, G., Özcan, Ö. ve Karaş, B. (2017). Boş Zaman Davranışını Açıklamaya Işık Tutan Kuramsal Yaklaşımlar. Ulusal Spor Bilimleri Dergisi 1(1), 1-19.
  • Paas, F. G., ve Van Merriënboer, J. J. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human factors, 35(4), 737-743.
  • Paas, F., ve Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 351-372.
  • Paas, F., Renkl, A., ve Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4.
  • Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., ve Van Gerven, P. W. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 63-71.
  • Papert, S. (1971). Teaching Children Thinking. Artifical Intelligence. Cambridge : Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Rollett, W. (2000). Motivation and action in self-regulated learning. Editör M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner, Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 503-529).
  • Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Engeser, S. (2003). Die Erfassung des Flow-Erlebens [The assessment of flow experience]. Editör J. Stiensmeier-Pelster ve F. Rheinberg. Diagnostik von Motivation und Selbstkonzept (pp. 261–279). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
  • Sözbilir, M. (2014). Nedensel karşılaştırmalı araştırma yöntemi, Editör Mustafa Metin, Kuramdan uygulamaya eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri, Pegem Akademi: Ankara.
  • Sullivan, F. R., Moriarty, M. A. (2009). Robotics and discovery learning: Pedagogical beliefs, teacher practice, and technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(1), 109-142.Wang, L., ve Chen, M. (2010). The effects of game strategy and preference-matching on flow experience and programming performance in game-based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 39-52.
  • Yolcu, V., ve Demirer, V. (2017). A review on the studies about the use of robotic technologies in education. SDU International Journal of Educational Studies, 4(2), 127-139.
APA Sisman B, Kucuk S (2018). ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ROBOTİK PROGRAMLAMADA AKIŞ, KAYGI VE BİLİŞSEL YÜK SEVİYELERİ. , 108 - 124.
Chicago Sisman Burak,Kucuk Sevda ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ROBOTİK PROGRAMLAMADA AKIŞ, KAYGI VE BİLİŞSEL YÜK SEVİYELERİ. (2018): 108 - 124.
MLA Sisman Burak,Kucuk Sevda ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ROBOTİK PROGRAMLAMADA AKIŞ, KAYGI VE BİLİŞSEL YÜK SEVİYELERİ. , 2018, ss.108 - 124.
AMA Sisman B,Kucuk S ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ROBOTİK PROGRAMLAMADA AKIŞ, KAYGI VE BİLİŞSEL YÜK SEVİYELERİ. . 2018; 108 - 124.
Vancouver Sisman B,Kucuk S ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ROBOTİK PROGRAMLAMADA AKIŞ, KAYGI VE BİLİŞSEL YÜK SEVİYELERİ. . 2018; 108 - 124.
IEEE Sisman B,Kucuk S "ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ROBOTİK PROGRAMLAMADA AKIŞ, KAYGI VE BİLİŞSEL YÜK SEVİYELERİ." , ss.108 - 124, 2018.
ISNAD Sisman, Burak - Kucuk, Sevda. "ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ROBOTİK PROGRAMLAMADA AKIŞ, KAYGI VE BİLİŞSEL YÜK SEVİYELERİ". (2018), 108-124.
APA Sisman B, Kucuk S (2018). ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ROBOTİK PROGRAMLAMADA AKIŞ, KAYGI VE BİLİŞSEL YÜK SEVİYELERİ. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 8(2), 108 - 124.
Chicago Sisman Burak,Kucuk Sevda ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ROBOTİK PROGRAMLAMADA AKIŞ, KAYGI VE BİLİŞSEL YÜK SEVİYELERİ. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama 8, no.2 (2018): 108 - 124.
MLA Sisman Burak,Kucuk Sevda ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ROBOTİK PROGRAMLAMADA AKIŞ, KAYGI VE BİLİŞSEL YÜK SEVİYELERİ. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, vol.8, no.2, 2018, ss.108 - 124.
AMA Sisman B,Kucuk S ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ROBOTİK PROGRAMLAMADA AKIŞ, KAYGI VE BİLİŞSEL YÜK SEVİYELERİ. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama. 2018; 8(2): 108 - 124.
Vancouver Sisman B,Kucuk S ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ROBOTİK PROGRAMLAMADA AKIŞ, KAYGI VE BİLİŞSEL YÜK SEVİYELERİ. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama. 2018; 8(2): 108 - 124.
IEEE Sisman B,Kucuk S "ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ROBOTİK PROGRAMLAMADA AKIŞ, KAYGI VE BİLİŞSEL YÜK SEVİYELERİ." Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 8, ss.108 - 124, 2018.
ISNAD Sisman, Burak - Kucuk, Sevda. "ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ROBOTİK PROGRAMLAMADA AKIŞ, KAYGI VE BİLİŞSEL YÜK SEVİYELERİ". Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama 8/2 (2018), 108-124.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
24-04-2024 19:25

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları