1910

Ortaokul Öğretmenlerinin Fiziksel Programlamaya Yönelik Algıları ve Deneyimleri

Bu çalışmada ortaokul öğretmenleri için bir profesyonel gelişim programı hazırlanmış ve onların fiziksel programlamaya yönelik algılarını ve deneyimlerini ortaya çıkarmak amaçlanmıştır. Tek durum çalışması deseninde yürütülen araştırma, yedi ortaokul öğretmeninin gönüllü katılımıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Fiziksel programlama ortamı olarak Arduino’nun kullanıldığı araştırmada, öğretmenlerinin profesyonel gelişimini sağlamaya yönelik olarak onlara on saatlik bir eğitim verilmiştir. Araştırma verileri yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme ve araştırmacının gözlemlerinin yer aldığı günlük notlar ile elde edilmiştir. İçerik analizi ile verilerin analiz edildiği araştırma sonucunda, öğretmenlerin fiziksel programlamaya yönelik algılarının olumlu olduğu, eğlenerek öğrendikleri ve yaşadıkları öğrenme deneyiminden memnun oldukları bulunmuştur. Araştırmada ayrıca öğretmenlerin değişkenler, operatörler, kontrol yapıları ve döngüler gibi programlamanın soyut kavramlarını öğrendikleri, devrelerde ya da kodlardaki hataları tespit edip düzeltebildikleri bulunmuştur. Araştırmaya katılan tüm öğretmenlerin Arduino ile fiziksel programlama becerisi kazandıkları, verilen projeleri tamamladıkları, projeleri ilk tamamlayanları kutladıkları, birbirleriyle işbirliği içerisinde oldukları, projeleri tamamlamaya bağlı olarak öz güvenlerinin geliştiği ve projelerini sosyal medya ortamlarında paylaştıkları görülmüştür. Öğretmenlerin fiziksel programlamaya yönelik deneyimleri ve duyuşsal tepkileri birlikte ele alındığında, öğretmenlerin eğlenerek öğrendikleri, etkileşimli nesneler tasarlamaktan mutlu oldukları, öğrenme sürecinde kendilerini heyecanlı ve meraklı hissettikleri, öğrenme sürecinden memnun oldukları ve benzer öğrenme etkinliklerine katılmayı istedikleri sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Araştırmada elde edilen bir diğer sonuç ise öğretmenlerin derslerinde ve TÜBİTAK tarafından desteklenen projelerde Arduino ile fiziksel programlamaya yer vermek ve ortak bir proje grubu oluşturmak istemeleri olmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Fiziksel programlamaya yönelik algı, Fiziksel programlamaya yönelik deneyim, Ortaokul öğretmenleri, Arduino, Fiziksel programlama, FeteMM

PDF

___

Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011). A cultural perspective on the structure of student interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 51–71. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.518640
Akcaoglu, M., & Koehler, M. J. (2014). Cognitive outcomes from the game-design and learning (GDL) after-school program. Computers & Education, 75, 72–81. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.003
Akpınar, Y., & Altun, A. (2014). Bilgi toplumu okullarında programlama eğitimi gereksinimi. İlköğretim Online, 13(1), 1–4.
Armoni, M., Meerbaum-Salant, O., & Ben-Ari, M. (2015). From Scratch to “Real” programming. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 14(4), 1–15. doi:10.1145/2677087
Banzi, M., & Shiloh, M. (2015). Getting started with Arduino (3rd ed.). CA: Maker Media.
Booth, T., & Stumpf, S. (2013). End-user experiences of visual and textual programming environments for Arduino. In R. D. Dittrich Y., Burnett M., Mørch A. (Ed.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS, volume 7897) (pp. 25–39). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38706-7_4
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Annual American Educational Research Association Meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1–25. doi:10.1.1.296.6602
Buccheri, G., Gürber, N. A., & Brühwiler, C. (2011). The impact of gender on interest in science topics and the choice of scientific and technical vocations. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 159–178. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.518643
Bulunuz, M., & Jarrett, O. S. (2010). Developing an Interest in Science: Background Experiences of Preservice Elementary Teachers. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 5(1), 65–84.
Chen, G., Shen, J., Barth-Cohen, L., Jiang, S., Huang, X., & Eltoukhy, M. (2017). Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers & Education, 109, 162–175. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.001
Clements, D. H., & Gullo, D. F. (1984). Effects of computer programming on young children’s cognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1051–1058. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1051
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339. doi:10.2307/249008
Denner, J., Werner, L., & Ortiz, E. (2012). Computer games created by middle school girls: Can they be used to measure understanding of computer science concepts? Computers & Education, 58(1), 240–249. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.006
Ersoy, H., Madran, R. O., & Gülbahar, Y. (2011). Programlama dilleri öğretimine bir model önerisi: Robot programlama. Akademik Bilişim’11 - XIII. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı (pp. 731–736). Malatya: İnönü Üniversitesi.
Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education, 63, 87–97. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.016
Giannakos, M. N., Jaccheri, L., & Leftheriotis, I. (2014). Happy girls engaging with technology: Assessing emotions and engagement related to programming activities. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 8523 LNCS, pp. 398–409). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07482-5_38
Green, T., Wagner, R., & Green, J. (2018). A look at robots and programmable devices for the K-12 classroom. TechTrends, 62(4), 414–422. doi:10.1007/s11528-018-0297-2
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. doi:10.3102/0013189X12463051
Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 199–237. doi:10.1080/08993408.2015.1033142
Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2016). Factors influencing computer science learning in middle school. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (pp.552–557). doi:10.1145/2839509.2844564
Gunbatar, M. S., & Karalar, H. (2018). Gender differences in middle school students’ attitudes and self-efficacy perceptions towards mBlock programming. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(4), 925–933. doi:10.12973/eu-jer.7.4.925
Gupta, N., Tejovanth, N., & Murthy, P. (2012). Learning by creating: Interactive programming for Indian high schools. In Proceedings - 2012 IEEE International Conference on Technology Enhanced Education, ICTEE 2012 (pp. 2–4). doi:10.1109/ICTEE.2012.6208643
Hagge, J. (2017). Scratching beyond the surface of literacy. Gifted Child Today, 40(3), 154–162.
Hertzog, P. E., & Swart, A. J. (2016). Arduino - Enabling engineering students to obtain academic success in a design-based module. IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON (pp.66–73). doi:10.1109/EDUCON.2016.7474533
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549–571.
ISTE. (2018). ISTE standards. Retrieved April 2, 2019, from https://www.iste.org/standards
Junior, L. A., Neto, O. T., Hernandez, M. F., Martins, P. S., Roger, L. L., & Guerra, F. A. (2013). A low-cost and simple Arduino-based educational robotics kit. Cyber Journals: Multidisciplinary Journals in Science and Technology, Journal of Selected Areas in Robotics and Control (JSRC), 3(12), 1–7.
Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2013). Computer programming goes back to school. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(1), 61–65. doi:10.1177/003172171309500111
Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: A survey of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. Science, 37(2), 83–137. doi:10.1145/1089733.1089734
Kim, S., & Lee, Y. (2017). Development and application of Arduino-based education program for high school students’. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 95(18), 4367–4375.
Krapp, A. (2002). An educational-psychological theory of interest and its relation to SDT. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), The handbook of self-determination research (pp. 405–427). Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.
Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (1992). Interset, learning, and development. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), Interest, learning, and development (pp. 3–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lee, A. (2015). Determining the effects of computer science education at the secondary level on STEM major choices in postsecondary institutions in the United States. Computers & Education, 88, 241–255. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.04.019
Ling Koh, J. H., Chai, C. S., & Tay, L. Y. (2014). TPACK-in-Action: Unpacking the contextual influences of teachers’ construction of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 78, 20–29. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.022
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012
Martín-Ramos, P., Lopes, M. J., Lima da Silva, M. M., Gomes, P. E. B., Pereira da Silva, P. S., Domingues, J. P. P., & Ramos Silva, M. (2017). First exposure to Arduino through peer-coaching: Impact on students’ attitudes towards programming. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 51–58. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.007
Martin, C., Hughes, J., & Richards, J. (2017). Learning experiences in programming: The motivating effect of a physical interface. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (pp. 162–172). Porto, Portugal: SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology Publications. doi:10.5220/0006375801620172
MEB. (2018). 2023 Eğitim Vizyonu. 20.06.2019 tarihinde https://2023vizyonu.meb.gov.tr/ adresinden alınmıştır.
Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (Moti). (2013). Learning computer science concepts with Scratch. Computer Science Education, 23(3), 239–264. doi:10.1080/08993408.2013.832022
Mozo, J. R., Quintero, H. M., & Ariza, H. M. (2017). Educational robotics : Algorithm logic learning comparison. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 12(24), 15470–15474.
Neutens, T., & Wyffels, F. (2016). Teacher professional development through a physical computing workshop. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 108–109). MÃijnster, Germany: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2978249.2978270
Park, H. S., Hiroyuki, A., & Kim, J. M. (2018). The extraction of knowledge factors of teachers for physical computing education. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, 8(1), 30–36. doi:10.18517/ijaseit.8.1.3100
Peixoto, A., Castro, M., Blazquez, M., Martin, S., Sancristobal, E., Carro, G., & Plaza, P. (2018). Robotics tips and tricks for inclusion and integration of students. In 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 2037–2041). IEEE. doi:10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363487
Post, J. E. (2016). An Arduino-based summer camp experience for high school students. In ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. New Orleans, LA.
Przybylla, M., & Romeike, R. (2014). Key Competences with Physical Computing. In KEYCIT 2014 – Key Competencies in Informatics and ICT (pp.351-361). Potsdam: Universitätsverlag
Richard, G. T. (2008). Employing physical computing in education: How teachers and students utilized physical computing to develop embodied and tangible learning objects. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, and Society, 4(3), 93–102. doi:10.18848/1832-3669/CGP/v04i03/55887
Rubio, M. A., Hierro, C. M., & Pablo, Á. P. de M. (2013). Using Arduino to enhance computer programming courses in science and engineering. In Proceedings of the EDULEARN13 (pp. 5127–5133). Retrieved March 25, 2019, from http://wdb.ugr.es/~marubio/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/arduino.pdf
Rubio, M. A., Romero-Zaliz, R., Mañoso, C., & de Madrid, A. P. (2014). Enhancing an introductory programming course with physical computing modules. In 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings (pp. 1–8). IEEE. doi:10.1109/FIE.2014.7044153
Rubio, M. A., Romero-Zaliz, R., Mañoso, C., & de Madrid, A. P. (2015). Closing the gender gap in an introductory programming course. Computers & Education, 82, 409–420. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.003
Saeli, M., Perrenet, J., Jochems, W. M. G., & Zwaneveld, B. (2011). Teaching programming in secondary school : A pedagogical content knowledge perspective. Informatics in Education, 10(1), 73–88.
Schulz, S., & Pinkwart, N. (2015). Physical computing in STEM education. In Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education on ZZZ - WiPSCE ’15 (pp. 134–135). NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2818314.2818327
Schwab, K. (2016). Dördüncü sanayi devrimi (Z. Dicleli Çev.). İstanbul: Optimist Yayın Dağıtım.
Şişman, B. (2016). Scratch ve Arduino ile çocuklar için robotik eğitimi önerisi: Eğitici deneyimleri. 6th International Conference on “Innovations in Learning For The Future” 2016: Next Generation. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi.
Trust, T. (2017). Preparing K–12 students and preservice educators for an uncertain future. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 33(3), 88–88. doi:10.1080/21532974.2017.1316152
Wilson, C., Sudal, L. A., Stephenson, C., & Stehlik, M. (2010). Running the empty: Failure to teach K-12 computer science in the digital age. NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. doi:10.1145/1118178.1118215
Yin, R. K. (2012). Application of case study research (3rd ed.). California: Sage Publication, Inc.
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (9. basım). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
Yukselturk, E., & Altiok, S. (2017). An investigation of the effects of programming with Scratch on the preservice IT teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions and attitudes towards computer programming. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(3), 789–801. doi:10.1111/bjet.12453