Does the Inclusion of Robots Affect Engineering Students’ Achievement in Computer Programming Courses?
 
More details
Hide details
1
Computer Education & Instructional Technology, Near East University, Nicosia, Cyprus
2
Distance Learning Center, Near East University, Nicosia, Cyprus
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Nilcan Çiftçi Özüorçun   

Computer Education & Instructional Technology, Near East University, Nicosia, Cyprus
Online publish date: 2017-07-31
Publish date: 2017-07-31
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2017;13(8):4779–4787
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Applied courses are difficult to teach to undergraduate engineering students in classical classrooms. To facilitate students’ understanding and capture their motivation, technology should be incorporated into classrooms. In the Engineering Faculty, there are courses that are difficult to learn in a classical classroom and laboratory sessions; the programming algorithm course is one such class. Educational robots are required for teaching and learning programming algorithm logic. The Lego Mindstorms EV3 robots represent excellent technology to teach programming algorithm course subjects. The important point about the programming algorithms course is that it enables understanding of the logic of programming, as it enhances students’ understanding of what it means when they are coding. This paper investigates how engineering faculty students’ achievements are affected by robotics technology when learning computer programming algorithm logics. It analyses a usable solution with the Lego Mindstorms EV3 robot in the engineering classrooms for the introduction to computer programming course. The statistical results showed, Lego robot usage has raised student achievement in the introduction to computer programming course.
 
REFERENCES (13)
1.
Bers, M., Ponte, I., Juelich, K., Viera, A., & Schenker, J. (2002). Teach designers: Integrating robotics in early childhood education information technology in childhood education. AACE, 1, 123–145.
 
2.
Bers, M.U., & Portsmore, M. (2005). Teaching partnerships: Early childhood and Enginnering students teaching Maths and Science though robotics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1).
 
3.
Eliasz, A. W. (2009). Progress in robotics, chapter 25, College Station, Texas, 214-223.
 
4.
Gura, M. (2011). Getting started with robotics: A guide for K–12 educators, chapter 1, 1-17 International Society for Technology in Education.
 
5.
Han, K. S., & Wook, J. J. (2009). Introduction for freshmen to embedded systems using Lego Mindstorms. IEEE Transactions on Education, 52(1), 99–108.
 
6.
Kaloti-Hallak, F., & Armoni, M. (2015). The effectiveness of robotics competitions on students’ learning of computer science. Olympiads in Informatics, 9, 89–112.
 
7.
Lauwers, T., Nourbakhsh, I., & Hamner, I. (2009). CS bots: Design and deployment of a robot designed for the CS1 Classroom. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 428–432.
 
8.
Lego Mindstorms. (2011). Home. Retrieved from http://mindstorms.lego.com.
 
9.
Miller D.P., Nourbakshs, I. R., & Siegwart, R. (2008). Robots for education. In Handbook of Robotics. Springer, 1283-1301. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
 
10.
Shamlian, S. V., Killfoile, K., Kellogg, R., & Duvallet, F. (2006). Fun with robots: A student-taught undergraduate robotics course. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 369–374.
 
11.
Sprankle, M., & Hubbard, J. (2012). Problem solving and programming concepts. Boston: Prentice Hall.
 
12.
Uzunboylu, H., & Karagözlü, D. (2015). Flipped classroom: A review of recent literature. World Journal on Educational Technology, 7(2), 142–147.
 
13.
Vollstedt, A. M. (2005) Using robotics to increase student knowledge and interest in Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths. A master thesis of Science in Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno.
 
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215