ROBOTİK DESTEKLİ FEN VE TEKNOLOJİ LABORATUVAR UYGULAMALARI: ROBOLAB

Introduction In today’s world, where we couldn’t catch up with the speed of knowledge and was determined a different human power profile, the primary goal of education is not to present information to the individual, is to provide learning the ways of obtaining useful information for the individual (Hazır & Türkmen, 2008). Therefore, it is necessary to develop skills of the students so-called scientific process skills for development of scientific thought, being able to implement the scientific process and learning the ways of obtaining scientific knowledge (Bağcı-Kılıç, 2006). The basis of science education also constitutes this scientific process skills allowing individuals to conduct research and inquiry (Myers, Washburn & Dyer, 2004). However, the investigations shows that students have low levels of science process skills (Aydoğdu, 2006; Çakar, 2008), even well below the desired level (at least 50% success) (Hazır & Türkmen, 2008). Most students, who are succesful in designing experiments and determination of variable, presenting data in a table, can not be very successful in graphing, can be making comments and also have difficulties in critical thinking and establishing cause-effect relationships (Şahin-Pekmez, Can & Çoban, 2008). Thus it is seen that there is a need for alternative methods and techniques to gain enough scientific process skills to students. In teaching the scientific process skills to students, affective characteristics of students are also very important. One of this affective characteristics is motivation. Many studies have been showing that students' motivation plays an important role the development of science process skills (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996; Wolters & Rosenthal, 2000; Tuan, Chin & Shieh, 2005). Especially, in Science and Technology lessons to improve students' science process skills, the preparation of teachers motivating environment, the encouragement and guidance to students, etc.. are required. This situation is becoming more important in the laboratory. Because students form groups in the laboratory, interact based on cooperation, develop the ability to think scientifically according to environment. (Gürkan & Gökçe, 1999). However, studies indicate that are not given the necessary importance to the science lab, not used effectively and existing laboratories are insufficient in terms of technological equipment (Gürdal, 1991; Yalın, 2001; Ergin, Şahin-Pekmez & Erdal, 2005). Also it is considered that used in today’s laboratories the traditional tools away from technology limit students, of technology used, prevent performing experiments with the researching and inquiring approach and create very time-consuming. Therefore, the use of technological tools are becoming more and more important in the laboratory (Ng & Yeung, 2002). However, when we examine science and technology education in the world, we are faced with a new applied technological field. Provided the integration with various disciplines “Robotic” called this technological innovation has become an indispensable part of science and technology of the educational process, especially in science and engineering education in the world (Cameron, 2005). The studies examined; it is seen that robotics more widely use especially in laboratory applications in science and technology education (Koç & Böyük, 2013). Because robotic technology prevent the loss of time by providing great convenience in observations and data collection in the laboratory applications and present the opportunity to students for performing experiments with the researching and inquiring approach according to the nature of the scientific method. In this respect, the using of robotic in today's science laboratories have gained more importance. When examined the studies on the use of robotics in education in the world, robotic is seen as a leading factor in the education and it is clear that much importance is given to the robot technology. Indeed, in this regard many graduates theses and dissertations have been prepared (Gibbon, 2007; Teixeira 2006; Baptista, 2009; Ribeiro, 2006; Cameron, 2005), projects have been developed (Costa & Fernandes, 2005; Cameron, 2005; Hacker, 2003). Also in Turkey when examined the study of robotics, it is seen that the use of robotics in education is quite a few. The use of robotics in education in Turkey is consisted mostly done in private school projects and organized the club activities and the applications of robot technology is not yet in advanced. The lack of necessary educational and technical equipment is the biggest reason for the lack of sufficiently achieved robotic applications. Furthermore the costly design of the robots bring along with some problems. However, when considered the students will gain experience in designing the robot, these robots’ uniqueness will be understood once again (Yang, Zhao, Wu & Wang, 2008). Purpose and Significance of the Study The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of experiments supported by robotic in the 7th grade Science and Technology lesson “Force and Motion” unit on students’ scientific process skills and motivation towards Science and Technology lesson. This research carries a unique value for our country to be the first. Because a study is not seen in that used science laboratory applications supported by robotic and examined its effect on scientific process skills and motivation towards the Science and Technology lesson. Therefore, it is expected that the study will provide important contributions to science and technology education. The main problem of this research is “What is the effect of experiments supported by robotic in the 7th grade Science and Technology lesson ‘Force and Motion’ unit on students’ scientific process skills and motivation towards Science and Technology lesson?”. The sub-problems of the study are as follows: 1. Before the experimental process the students’ of the control and the experimental group; - Is there a significant difference between the scientific process skills?- Is there a significant difference between motivation towards Science and Technology lesson? 2. Before and after the experimental process the students’ of the control group; - Is there a significant difference between the scientific process skills? - Is there a significant difference between motivation towards Science and Technology lesson? 3. Before and after the experimental process the students’ of the experimental group; - Is there a significant difference between the scientific process skills? - Is there a significant difference between motivation towards Science and Technology lesson? 4. After the experimental process the students’ of the control and the experimental group; - Is there a significant difference between the scientific process skills? - Is there a significant difference between motivation towards Science and Technology lesson? Methodology In carrying out this research, described by Creswell (2006) as collecting together the qualitative and quantitative data and analyzing in a research process, mixed method was used. In the research quantitative methods are more dominant, qualitative method is intended to support the quantitative data. Pre-test and post-test control group quasi-experimental design was applied. According to the pre-test and post-test control group quasi-experimental design, data collection instruments were administered twice at the beginning and end of the study including both the experimental group and the control group. According to the pre-test and post-test results obtained from the application sub-problems of the research were evaluated. The research’s study group constitute 7th grade students (N=40) at an elementary school in Kocasinan District of Kayseri Province in the town of Yemliha. From the study group, an experimental (N=20) and a control (N=20) group including two groups were randomly chosen. The school and students for application were selected by convenience sampling. This sampling way gives the research speed and practicality (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2013). In this study, “Scientific Process Skills Test” and “Motivation Scale Towards Science and Technology Lesson” as quantitative data collection instruments and “Student Activity Diaries” as qualitative data collection instrument were used. “Science Process Skills Test” was developed by James R. Okey and his friends. The Turkish translation and adaptation was made by Özkan, Aşkar and Geban (Yavuz, 1998). The original test consisting of 36 items, was tailored to the 7th grade by reducing 25items and applying to 336 students and the reliability of the test was calculated as 0.81 by Aydoğdu (2006). For the study group of this research the reliability coefficient of the test is α=0.88. “Motivation Scale Towards Science and Technology Lesson” was developed by Tuan, Chen and Shieh (2005) and was a scale applied on 1407 people. The reliability coefficient was α=0,89 in the original. For the study group of this research the reliability coefficient of the scale is α=0.96. Another data collection tool used in the study was “Student Activity Diaries”. Students kept activity diaries expressing their thoughts and feelings after each activity performed. During the applications of the research, firstly robotic and Lego Mindstorms NXT robotic education sets was introduced to the experimental group with presentations and videos and shown various robot designs. For the application “Force and Motion” unit was selected because of the excess of the experimental activity used quite scientific methods. Also in line with the studies carried out abroad, it was determined that the experimental activities under this unit were in compliance with the robotic (Baptista, 2009). Accordingly, prepared five experimental activities related to “Force and Motion” unit were performed the scope of “Science and Technology Laboratory Applications Supported by Robotic: ROBOLAB”. In the control group, the same activities were also implemented at the same time as in the curriculum. Activities were continued for eight weeks. For each activity “Robodeney Worksheets” was prepared for using to evaluate the activity throughout the process. In addition, the students kept activities diaries to express their feelings and thoughts about all the activities performed. At the end of the experimental process the other data was collected applying the final test. The quantitative data obtained from the application were evaluated with the SPSS 17.00 package program at the 0.05 significance level and were supported with the qualitative data obtained from student activity diaries. The qualitative data obtained from student activity diaries were analyzed using descriptive analysis and in the analysis of quantitative data non-parametric tests were preferred. Indeed, when the number of participants in groups is small (usually is less than 30) should be used nonparametric tests (Sümbüloğlu & Sümbüloğlu, 2007). Findings and Interpretation Before implementation of the research according to pre-test results; between the experimental and control group students’ scientific process skills pre-test scores (U=197.50; p>0.05) and motivation towards Science and Technology lesson pre-test scores (U=187.50; p> 0.05) was not found statistically a difference at the 0.05 significance level. So it was said that the experimental and control group students’ who participated in the research scientific process skills and motivation towards Science and Technology lesson were equivalent before applying. Thus it was seen that at the beginning of the application conditions were equal for all students. According to the findings obtained after the application; between the control group students’ scientific process skills pre-test and post-test scores (z=1.38*; p>0.05) and motivation towards Science and Technology lesson pre-test and post-test scores (z=1.52*;p>0.05) statistically a significance difference was not found. Therefore, applying traditional laboratory activities with the control group students had not a significance effect on students' science process skills and motivation Science and Technology lesson. There was obtained statistically a difference at the 0.05 significance level between the experimental group students’ scientific process skills pre and post-test scores (z=3.93*; p<0.05) and motivation towards Science and Technology lesson pre-test and post-test scores (z=3.92*; p<0.05) Hence, it was emerged that performing laboratory applicatons supported by robotic (robolab) under “Force and Motion” unit with the experimental group students improved the students’ scientific process skills and made the difference on their motivation towards Science and Technology lesson. In addition, statistically a significant difference was detected between the experimental and control group students’ who participated in the research scientific process skills post-test scores (U=71.50; p<0.05) and motivation towards Science and Technology lesson post-test scores (U=65.00; p<0.05). This exchange also supported with the qualitative findings obtained from the student activity diaries. According to the qualitative data obtained from the student activity diaries; it could be said that they were very satisfied with the activities and fully internalized applying study. In the applications they were occured that the students lived a trail experience in their life and so their motivation towards Science and Technology lesson much increased according to their everyday thoughts and feelings they expressed in the activity diaries. Conclusion and Discussion In this study, the effects of experiments supported by robotic in the 7th grade Science and Technology lesson “Force and Motion” unit on students’ scientific process skills and motivation towards Science and Technology lesson were examined As a result, it was concluded that the laboratory activities supported by robotic was more effective than traditional laboratory activities in developing the students’ scientific process skills and motivation towards Science and Technology lesson. For this reason could be said that students performed scientific research process with technology support in the laboratory activities supported by robotic by doing-living and more motivated towards Science and Technology lesson through the experimental activities with the robots they designed. When the literature reviewed; in the studies on robotics and science process skills has been similar results (Goldman, Eguchi & Sklar, 2004; Costa & Fernandes, 2005; Sullivan, 2008; Çayır, 2010; Çavaş et al, 2012; Dattera, Zecca, Laudisa & Castiglioni, 2013). But Williams, Ma, Prejean, Ford and Lai (2007) have obtained a different result from all these results that in their research robotics failed to develop students’ scientific process skills. The researchers explaned this situation that students could not focus enough to use the scientific method because of the experienced difficulties in the design of the robot. And when considering the effect of robotic on the students’ motivation towards Science and Technology lesson, the many studies in the literature have confirmed the results of this study (Cameron, 2005; Ribeiro, 2006; Barker & Ansorge, 2007; Silva, 2008; Wei, Hung, Lee & Chen, 2011).Suggestions In this research which examined the effects of experimental activities supported by robotic on students’ scientific process skills and motivation towards Science and Technology lesson, according to obtained the data and the results; it is recommended to apply Science and Technology laboratory applications supported by robotic in different class, unit or issues for increasing students' motivation towards Science and Technology lesson in a positive way and ensuring a beter quality of science education by improving their scientific process skills. No longer in the world it is known that using technological tools are becoming more and more common. In order to adapt to this change, in elementary schools of our country, science and technology laboratories should be supported by technological tools such as Lego Mindstorms robotic education set used in robotic applications. If these tools providing great convenience in data acquisition and drawing graphic become widely available, the use of laboratory in science education can be made more attractive. In addition, in order to raise awareness about robotics various courses and seminars should be organized for students and teachers, research projects should be developed. Because every study to be done and every project to be developed in this issue has a special importance for the future of science education supported by robot technology.